"Ex-Gays" | Gay Marriage | New Jersey | News

Angry 'Ex-Gay' Nurse Rages 'Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right' at NJ Marriage Equality Hearing: VIDEO


Here's another intense video from what I would call an extremely damaged gay man and human being at yesterday's marriage equality hearing in New Jersey.


Greg Quinlan from Roxbury:

"Homosexuality is not a civil right. Civil rights are based on innateness, whether or not you were born that way. To date, there is zero evidence that anyone is born a homosexual. Zero. In fact it's homosexual researchers and scientists that are proving that homosexuality is not innate and has no biological ideology. Homosexuality is not immutable. People do change. People have a right of self-determination. They can choose to change from being gay to straight. Why can't they choose to change from being straight to ga?

"People do it all the time. There are many ex-gays. Anne Heche, to name one. Sinead O'Connor. And myself. I left the homosexual lifestyle almost 20 years ago. Lived as a homosexual activist for 10 years of my life. I'm a registered nurse. I watched 100 of my friends and acquaintances die of AIDS before I stopped counting. I've seen lots of things but homosexuality does not deserve to be codified or recognized as marriage in any state."

Quinlan is the president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX). He also demanded an apology from the bill's sponsors for calling people of faith 'bigots':

“I want to talk first of all about something I heard from the very beginning by people of this Legislature that we are bigots as people of faith, because we do not hold that homosexual marriage should be codified. That somehow we are bigots and we are ideologues because we are people of faith. I want to address that hate. Everyone in this room who is a person of faith deserves an apology from one of the sponsors of this bill for calling us bigots.”

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. im sure kiwi "gets" this guy too. he gets what he means by being gay is a choice a la cynthia nixon.

    Posted by: Pahima | Feb 3, 2012 11:52:29 AM

  2. Now it's my turn, and ready or not, _______, here it goes.
    You are a sad and pathetic man. You're a homosexual and you don't want to be. But there is nothing you can do to change it. Not all your prayers to your god, not all the analysis you can buy in all the years you've got left to live. You may very well know a heterosexual life if you want it desperately enough - if you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate - but you will always be a homosexual as well. Always. Until the day you die.

    Oh, friend. Thanks for the nifty party and the super gift.


    *elegant curtsy*

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 3, 2012 11:55:37 AM

  3. a few things....

    we have the sad ex-gay who's angry and hateful that other men and women are enjoying a freedom and authenticity of life that he will never know. ever. that's why he's so angry.

    in reality, it's the exact same mentality as JasonRick's hatred toward ...well.... we all know. ;-)

    it's a reactionary anger that someone else has the courage and strength to enjoy something that they don't have the courage and strength to be able to enjoy.

    ex-gays who don't want gays to enjoy being gay.
    insecure homosexuals who are angry that Out gays have more enjoyable lives. sure, they throw around "sleaze" and join the bigots in saying "you guys are all stereotypical queens and you're promiscuous and you're sex obsessed"

    Mary, please. It's nobody else's fault that you can't get laid. it's nobody else's fault that you can't find love. sitting there with your balls in the closet complaining about Other Gays Having Sex isn't going to make your life better. but keep wasting it, like this ex-gay dunce.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 3, 2012 12:01:43 PM

  4. "im sure kiwi "gets" this guy too. he gets what he means by being gay is a choice a la cynthia nixon."

    Expecting Kiwi to be intellectually consistent is about as hopeless as expecting cruising-free bathrooms at GOProud-attended CPAC.

    Posted by: Nat | Feb 3, 2012 12:01:56 PM

  5. Who cares about this guy- who is the hottie on the far left?

    Posted by: brent | Feb 3, 2012 12:02:38 PM

  6. So has it been proven that "we" are born hetrosexual? Is there a straight gene? If so, where is it? Where is the scientific evidence to prove it? ....What? Oh, no evidence you were born straight? You just always remember bringing that way?? Did someone recruit you to heterosexuality? .... Oh man, where is your logic??

    Posted by: Rick | Feb 3, 2012 12:09:41 PM

  7. It may have been practical and politically necessary but the fight for sexual equality should never have been based on a claim of biological or inate sexuality which basically is a feeble "We can't help being gay please treat us equally for that reason" argument. The right to have full access to all the privileges and responsibilities of civil society should be available to all regardless of the reasons why you choose a partner or sexual life. Consenting adult sexuality is the civil right - Hetero or Homo is just the technical terminology.

    Posted by: Den | Feb 3, 2012 12:11:20 PM

  8. hey Plebes With Obsessions With Me, Ms. Nixon is a bisexual woman who made an empowered statement about how she, with her attractions to both genders, still "CHOOSES" a gay identity - despite the world of anti-gay prejudice around her.

    this ex-gay is insisting that being gay is a NEGATIVE choice - a choice people should not make. he's approaching it from a place of anti-gay bias. there's a distinction.

    only the most intellectually feeble folks can't see that. you show who you are.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 3, 2012 12:14:56 PM

  9. I'd make a comment about needless KIWI-bashing, but his comment just above defends enough.

    Posted by: TJ | Feb 3, 2012 12:34:06 PM

  10. http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2012/02/03/the-sweater-that-got-away/

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 3, 2012 12:48:43 PM

  11. "Ms. Nixon is a bisexual woman who made an empowered statement about how she, with her attractions to both genders, still "CHOOSES" a gay identity - despite the world of anti-gay prejudice around her."

    I'd say that, on the contrary, she surrendered some of her potential empowerment by "choosing" first a HETERO identity (when it was the identity that would give her the most social respect in her situation) and then a gay identity, BECAUSE OF the anti-bisexual prejudice that she perceived to be around her.

    She has chosen the straight and then the gay identities for similar reasons to the choice that most gay people have made at some point to "choose" a straight identity to present to the public.

    I know gay people who still choose a gay identity with their close friends and a straight identity with their family and co-workers.
    "Choosing" an identity that you are not because of prejudice against what you really are is not empowering.

    Posted by: GregV | Feb 3, 2012 12:49:11 PM

  12. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Mr. Quinlan. Perhaps if yours hadn't been so polluted by exercising your civil right to choose your religion, you'd be a much happier man. Remind me to never seek treatment at a hospital where you work. I'd be afraid of your "science," which might include praying away the broken bones and blood-letting.

    Posted by: TJ | Feb 3, 2012 12:50:59 PM

  13. some do indeed argue that bisexuals should choose "a straight life" because they're "capable" of having one (or at least what looks like one to the eyes of Greater Society). Ms. Nixon, who has clarified her statement for less-discerning minds more than enough, has not done that. she's chosen a gay identity, and a gay relationship, despite the fact that she *could* (for argument's sake) have waited for "another man" to come along that she was attracted and connected to.

    Quinlan? he's saying people shouldn't be gay. there's a complete distinction.

    gay couples marrying won't do anything to him other than remind him of all the joys he'll never know. that's why he's angry.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 3, 2012 12:58:31 PM

  14. "Civil rights are based on innateness, whether or not you were born that way." Fine. No one is born of any particular religion. People change their religion all the time. This is such a silly argument if you think that religion should be a protected class.

    Posted by: Alan | Feb 3, 2012 1:02:00 PM

  15. Greg Quinlan's statements that civil rights are based on "innateness" is just ridiculous.
    Mr. Loving did not have to prove that he was "innately" attracted" to black women in order to win the right to be free to choose her as his spouse just as other ciotizens may choose their spouses.
    Like Mrs. Loving's race, my spouse's gender is likewise innate. If everyone in the world were bisexual then yes, it would be possible to choose a white person or a female but the government has no business looking at those characteristics to decide whether someone deserves the same rights that everyone else has.
    His argument could easily be turned against him to suggest that he has no right to choose his own religion or to express his opinion freely or to be a nurse or to choose what kind of sweater he wears today, because none of that is "innate."
    And where is the disconnect when he talks about the right to self-determination but wants the government to dictate the personal choices of the individual?

    And his role models for changing orientations are:
    exhibit a: Anne Heche, who around the time she claimed to be gay, also claimed to be an alien from the planet Celestia and subsequently wrote a book about her insanity called "Call Me Crazy."

    and exhibit b: Sinead O'Connor, who has said that she did not "switch," but, rather has always been a bisexual who leans about 3/4 toward men and 1/4 toward women, and said she once falsely said she was gay "only to make someone feel better."

    I think this Quinlan guy is trying to tell himself that he's something he's not and lashes out at others to make HIMSELF feel better. But being untrue to yourself and attacking others' rights will never achieve that.
    Maybe if he's sad, he doesn't want anyone else to be happy. Someday if he ever finds happiness in life, he may very well apologize and feel embarrassed for the spectacle he made of himself.

    Posted by: GregV | Feb 3, 2012 1:09:35 PM

  16. scientific evidence hasn't stopped millions of nutbags from denying Evolution and choosing, instead, to tout Creationism.

    these are the same people who say "it's a choice!" as if that instantly explain why people "shouldn't" be gay, despite the fact that they can't give any legit reasons for it other than "i think my religion says it's wrong"

    we need to be aware of this reality, folks.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 3, 2012 1:12:36 PM

  17. and GregV, your last post was dead-on perfect. that's exactly what this is.

    you know the phrase "i don't what I haven't got?" - in this guy's case, and in the case of so-called "ex-gays" it's more like "I don't want others to have what i've been convinced to deny myself"

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Feb 3, 2012 1:13:59 PM

  18. Little KIWI - sorry, my comments for yesterday won't post either here or following your last elsewhere. Don't know why. You'll have to eat crow later.

    Posted by: uffda | Feb 3, 2012 1:14:13 PM

  19. Sir, you are angry and mean.

    The fact is that religious belief is not immutable. Homosexuality is immutable.
    You are living your life having learned to
    hate who you are. No wonder you consider yourself to be straight --you hate your
    gay self.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Feb 3, 2012 1:17:23 PM

  20. OH God, one of those damaged (by the Catholic Church) Irish types. They are nastier than any other people on earth.
    Greg, since you want to talk science,
    the fact is that until the virus that causes polio was discovered, there was ZERO evidence that polio was caused by a pathogen. People like you would likely have believed that satanic eminations were the cause of polio. And see how stupid such people were who believed that at the time! One day when there is ample evidence that homosexuality IS immutable, you will look be seen as one of those implacable dolts of history.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Feb 3, 2012 1:21:58 PM

  21. his miss clairol liquicolor seeped in too deep

    Posted by: al | Feb 3, 2012 1:23:22 PM

  22. This guy is coming from a dark and angry and vicious place. Courtesy of the Roman Catholic perverted Church.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Feb 3, 2012 1:24:40 PM

  23. I think it is wrong for ex gays to equate being gay with being promiscuous. Every gay man or woman can choose to be safe and responsible about sexuality, LIKE to marry ones partner and honor that commitment..... or at least have enough self esteem to practice safe sex. And we do not have to be more perfect than the straits. Also I strongly feel that a few people who really are "bi" can choose. For most of us there is no choice about who we are attracted to.

    Posted by: Tom in long beach | Feb 3, 2012 1:37:09 PM

  24. Is there no way to "lock in" a name on this site? The "Rick" who posted above is not me, the "famous" Rick (LOL). I am sure he was not impersonating me to mislead people--he probably just chose the name without knowing about me....but it can be confusing to people.

    On the topic at hand, again, the solution is to get away from the "Is it a choice?" question and change the male culture to the point that choice is a GOOD thing....in sexuality and everything else.

    I personally believe that men and women were not meant by nature to be each other's soulmates--they are just too differently wired to ever really understand each other--which is why most male-female relationships are not successful, sexual attractions aside.

    Doing away with any stigmas on any kind of sexual expression would free all the men who would prefer to find their soulmates among other men to do so, whether there is sexual involvement or not.....but there probably would be in the vast majority of cases, given the well-established fact that a degree, at least, of bisexuality is the norm.....

    And that would do away once and for all with the whole "gay"/"straight" false dichotomy that is ultimately so limiting and counter-productive.

    But as long as we are in this "choice/not choice" discussion that assumes that heterosexual coupling is superior (when it is, in fact, just the opposite), we cannot get there.

    Nor can we ever get to the point where male-male relationships are generally successful......the reason for the kind of sleaze Jason refers to is that so few gay men have a truly male identity that is critical to having successful male relationships.

    All these issues are related--it is a big cultural mess that needs a complete overhaul rather than the tinkering that is taking place....and gay men, themselves, are just as big a part of the problem as the homophobic society at-large.

    Posted by: Rick | Feb 3, 2012 1:43:50 PM

  25. What is "biological ideology"? The "researchers and scientists" he is talking about are biological ideologists?

    Posted by: simon | Feb 3, 2012 1:52:30 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment


« «NJ Teen Makes Heartbreaking Plea to Lawmakers to Let Her Gay Dads Marry, 'Be Equal': VIDEO« «