Dublin Core
Title
"The Last Word from Ronning," December 10, 1991
Subject
Ronning's final word on the GALA controversy.
Description
Ronning thanks his supporters and rebukes his detractors--in detail.
Creator
John Ronning
Source
The Grizzly
Publisher
Ursinus College
Date
December 10, 1991
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Dear Editor,
To those who expressed appreciation for my November 12th letter, particularly those gutsy enough to do so in print: thank you for your support.
To those who told me to mind my own business: I point out (again) that I was solicited by GALA in a letter to faculty which stated, among other things, their intention to combat "homophobia" (GALA has their own private definition for the word, but those who invented the term knew that phobia is used in compound words to indicate irrational fear; thus "homophobia" would have the ring of "mental disorder"--precisely the message they wanted to convey). My letter was a response to their announced intention to attack my value system. If GALA is going to peddle their perversion in public then they shouldn't whine about persecution when someone who doesn't go along with it point out what's really being sold.
To those who said I should offer "proof" that homosexuals really do the things that I listed: I refer you to GALA's November 19th letter, under point 4): "Not all gay people engage in the activies he listed." They denied something I didn't say (that all gays do all the things I listed) because they can't deny what I did say (that such things are characteristic of gay culture). The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (to which Joyce Lionarons so helpfully referred me in her letter) describes the gay lifestyle as a "markedly hedonistic lifestyle, which includes drug usage, frequent change of sexual partners, and a restless search for new diversions and gratifications." I simply detailed some typical "gratifications" gays pursure, and asked if that's what Michael Cyr meant when he said he wanted some recruits to whom he could show (by demonstration, I presume) the wonderful and exciting features of gay culture (he has yet to answer). I left out anal intercourse and oral-genital sex because I'm sure that's not news to anybody. To those interested in further documentation I'll gladly provide it.
To those who accused me of hatred, rage, and venom: there is a difference between disgust of certain acts, and hatred of people who do them. If that were not the case, then I can charge you who expressed disgust at my views with hatred towards me. What justifies your hatred but not that of others?
To those who expressed the opinion that our society is now more tolerant than in the past, and that this represents progress: I point to the personal attacks agaisnt me expressed in the last two issues of this paper, with all their vilification and hysteria, as proof that our society has merely changed the thing of which it is intolerant. In another age the words "vile" and "criminal" would be used without controversy to describe homosexual acts (which were in fact, and still are in half the states, criminal felonies or misdemeanors for which homosexuals could be locked up for the rest of their unnatural lives). In the present, Dr. Hess uses the word "vile" to describe my exposure of those acts, and Lionarons says my opinions are ignorance, which is nearly "criminal." Is that progress, or the evidence of a sick society?
To those who quoted Scripture or otherwise referred to the teachings of Jesus in order to advise me about how I should behave or think: I suggest you read the whole book. You'll find that the same One who said "Judge not, that you be not judged" (aren't you judging me, Dr. Hess?) also said "Stop judging by mere appreances, and make a righteous judgment." Context indicates that the standard of righteousness he was referring to was the Law of Moses, which repeatedly describes homosexual acts with the word "abomination." (Moses' first Book also has the record of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the men of Sodom used the "judge not" line against Lot when he objected to their demand to hand over this guests so that they could practice their deviant homosexual gratifications on them.) Those who want a hero for tolerance won't find one in Jesus. And who did Paul have in mind when he siad "it is disgusting even to mention the things they do in secret?"
To Dr. Kelley, who insisted that gay culture is exciting, I suppose driving down the street at 140 mph or robbing a bank would be exciting too. The question is whether such behavior should be encouraged as a particular "orientation" or wanred against as a moral perversion that harms the individual and society. Your detection of a "troubling, logical lapse" in my letter seems to be due to an assumption on your part that by "normal, healthy" I mean those who are merely not homosexual. That is not what I meant. In my opinion, heterosexuals who do not find homosexual acts disgusting have a real problem, just as you no doubt think people who don't find my opinions disgusting have a problem. Our disagreement is not over logic, but values. You also misrepresented me by saying that I said it was cruel "to allow peers to help one another." I said it was cruel to hand a student over to a group that was going to hurt, not help him or her. Again you disagree; but if you have to twist my words then you are confessing that your argument is weak.
To Kathy Gretzenburg: thank you for showing by your use of analogy that the charge of "hatred and bigotry" against me is as silly as charging George Bush with bigotry for pointing out in his campaign that Michael Dukakis regularly let convicted 1st degree murderers out of prison for unsupervised weekend furloughs--like Willie Horton who decided to go to Maryland and rape and sodomize a young woman and torture her fiance. Thank you also for agreeing that gay acts are "lewd and disgusting."
To the GALA Executive Committee: I nominate you for "hypocrites of the year" award for preaching "tolerance" in your diatribe against "fundamentalist right wing kooks," "closed minded bigots," "ludicrous self delusion," "old fashioned ignorance," "these fundamentalist right wingers," "misinformed bigots," "this lunatic," and "closed minded, bigoted, extremist, fanatical, narrow, prejudiced, intolerant zealots." This should also get you the ad hominem and name calling awards and these others:
The "pseudo-science award" for classifying as "kooks" the tens of millions who disagree with your claim that "sexual preference is not a matter of choice." Is that the politically correct way to prove a point? It's interesting that in 1970, only 9% of homosexuals believed they were "born that way." I guess that means 91% of homosexuals at that time were "right wing fundamentalist kooks?" From your long list of cures that don't work you omit that one that has been working for 2,000 years. As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth, "That is what some of you were [i.e. homosexuals, adulterers, crooks, and tohers whom he said would not inherit the kingdom of God.] But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." That it is difficult to get out of the gay lifestyle is granted (the same is true of crack cocaine addiction). All the more reason not to get into it.
The "straw man award" for attacking positions I never took. I didn't say all gays do the things I listed--but what I did say is true and much more could be added. Neither did I saw [sic] that perversions are confined strictly to homosexuals--but it is a fact that they are far more characteristic of the gay community (which has cute names for them like "fisting" and "golden showers," I left out "rimming" in my first letter; placing the tongue in the anus), and heterosexuals who engage in them did not form a campus group and solicit my support (or they would have heard from me too). Nor did I say that STD's and unhealthy practices are confined to gays--but again, such things are rampant int he gay community to a much greater extent (as is well known in the medical community). If it is "ludicrous self delusion" to suggest that men should stay away from gay culture like the plague, then why is it that the Red Cross will take my blood but not yours? Even before AIDS, some health officials advocated exclusion of homosexual men as blood donors because of the prevlance of Hepatitis A and B (and now C) in gays. Way back in 1980, the homosexual newspaper The Sentinel said that the "risk of contracting disease among gay persons is approimately ten times that of persons in the general populaiton."
The "change in the subject award" for asking my position on other issues. Adoption of this strategy is an admission that you can't win the debate. But since you asked; on divorce: it's one of the greatest tragedies that can befall a family, as those who have been affected by it can tell you. On birth control; I'll give you a hint--in three years of marriage I've had two children, and we hope God gives us ten more (and we'll raise them to think just like us!). On pre-marital sex; I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel Flickinger's letter printed November 19th. On inter-racial marriage; my opinion is the same as my opinion of non-inter-racial marriage. On working women--what's the question?
To Joyce Lionarons: you make a list of charges agianst me almost as long as GALA's (I'll give you 1st runner up in name calling), which altogether only amount to a mere assertion that what I said was not true. Not one fact, reference, etc, to back up any of your assertions, not one reference to my letter to illustrate what in the world you are ranting about (eg, what are my "tacit assumptions" that you mentioned; and why does the listing of typical gay behavior constitute "pornographic fantasy?"). You do provide some condescending advice where I can go to get educated out of my "little less than criminal" "ignorance" (i.e., indoctrinated in political correctness). It turns out the source you mentioned confirms much of what I said in my letter (I cited only one example above), even though it comes from the perspective of GALA and can hardly be considered an objective work (for example; readers may be surprised to find out that, according to this Encyclopedia, the only reason most of us don't practice anal intercourse is not because it is repulsive, unnatural, or extremely unhealthy, but because we have happened to have found more pleasurable things to do). You shield yourself against the extensive evidence contradictory to your beliefs by saying that virtually all "reputable" research in all relevant fields agrees with you; evidently the criterion by which research is judged "reputable" is whether it agrees with you! That would be arrogant even for experts in those fields; you are an expert in none of them (I never claimed to be but I can read and think independently). I'll let you share the "pseudo-science award" with the GALA executive committee.
I knew that my letter would be about as popular in some circles as sunshine in a bats' cave. I would prefer to carry on discussion in the more moderate tone of Andrew Economopoulos' excellent letter (which will likely be ignored or dismissed with a contemptuous sniff by the P.C. crowd). I tried to craft a letter that would not only state my position but also put GALA and their allies into their unthinking, cliche spouting mode in which they would condemn themselves far better (and more believably) than I could do by myself, thereby letting everyone see what GALA is really all about. Mike Evans' letter of November 26 describes how my strategy succeeded, and I must say, far beyond what I expected.
Moses described two world views as "the way of life, and the way of death." I hope that readers of The Grizzly can now tell more easily which is which.
Sincerely,
John Ronning
_____________
Correction:
The second sentence in the fourth paragraph of Mike Evans' letter to the editor in the November 19 issue was printed incorretly. It should have read: "In their zeal to discredit Ronning's perceived message, his detractors stumble through their efforts without understanding or improving upon the devices of his letter." We apologize for the error.
To those who expressed appreciation for my November 12th letter, particularly those gutsy enough to do so in print: thank you for your support.
To those who told me to mind my own business: I point out (again) that I was solicited by GALA in a letter to faculty which stated, among other things, their intention to combat "homophobia" (GALA has their own private definition for the word, but those who invented the term knew that phobia is used in compound words to indicate irrational fear; thus "homophobia" would have the ring of "mental disorder"--precisely the message they wanted to convey). My letter was a response to their announced intention to attack my value system. If GALA is going to peddle their perversion in public then they shouldn't whine about persecution when someone who doesn't go along with it point out what's really being sold.
To those who said I should offer "proof" that homosexuals really do the things that I listed: I refer you to GALA's November 19th letter, under point 4): "Not all gay people engage in the activies he listed." They denied something I didn't say (that all gays do all the things I listed) because they can't deny what I did say (that such things are characteristic of gay culture). The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality (to which Joyce Lionarons so helpfully referred me in her letter) describes the gay lifestyle as a "markedly hedonistic lifestyle, which includes drug usage, frequent change of sexual partners, and a restless search for new diversions and gratifications." I simply detailed some typical "gratifications" gays pursure, and asked if that's what Michael Cyr meant when he said he wanted some recruits to whom he could show (by demonstration, I presume) the wonderful and exciting features of gay culture (he has yet to answer). I left out anal intercourse and oral-genital sex because I'm sure that's not news to anybody. To those interested in further documentation I'll gladly provide it.
To those who accused me of hatred, rage, and venom: there is a difference between disgust of certain acts, and hatred of people who do them. If that were not the case, then I can charge you who expressed disgust at my views with hatred towards me. What justifies your hatred but not that of others?
To those who expressed the opinion that our society is now more tolerant than in the past, and that this represents progress: I point to the personal attacks agaisnt me expressed in the last two issues of this paper, with all their vilification and hysteria, as proof that our society has merely changed the thing of which it is intolerant. In another age the words "vile" and "criminal" would be used without controversy to describe homosexual acts (which were in fact, and still are in half the states, criminal felonies or misdemeanors for which homosexuals could be locked up for the rest of their unnatural lives). In the present, Dr. Hess uses the word "vile" to describe my exposure of those acts, and Lionarons says my opinions are ignorance, which is nearly "criminal." Is that progress, or the evidence of a sick society?
To those who quoted Scripture or otherwise referred to the teachings of Jesus in order to advise me about how I should behave or think: I suggest you read the whole book. You'll find that the same One who said "Judge not, that you be not judged" (aren't you judging me, Dr. Hess?) also said "Stop judging by mere appreances, and make a righteous judgment." Context indicates that the standard of righteousness he was referring to was the Law of Moses, which repeatedly describes homosexual acts with the word "abomination." (Moses' first Book also has the record of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the men of Sodom used the "judge not" line against Lot when he objected to their demand to hand over this guests so that they could practice their deviant homosexual gratifications on them.) Those who want a hero for tolerance won't find one in Jesus. And who did Paul have in mind when he siad "it is disgusting even to mention the things they do in secret?"
To Dr. Kelley, who insisted that gay culture is exciting, I suppose driving down the street at 140 mph or robbing a bank would be exciting too. The question is whether such behavior should be encouraged as a particular "orientation" or wanred against as a moral perversion that harms the individual and society. Your detection of a "troubling, logical lapse" in my letter seems to be due to an assumption on your part that by "normal, healthy" I mean those who are merely not homosexual. That is not what I meant. In my opinion, heterosexuals who do not find homosexual acts disgusting have a real problem, just as you no doubt think people who don't find my opinions disgusting have a problem. Our disagreement is not over logic, but values. You also misrepresented me by saying that I said it was cruel "to allow peers to help one another." I said it was cruel to hand a student over to a group that was going to hurt, not help him or her. Again you disagree; but if you have to twist my words then you are confessing that your argument is weak.
To Kathy Gretzenburg: thank you for showing by your use of analogy that the charge of "hatred and bigotry" against me is as silly as charging George Bush with bigotry for pointing out in his campaign that Michael Dukakis regularly let convicted 1st degree murderers out of prison for unsupervised weekend furloughs--like Willie Horton who decided to go to Maryland and rape and sodomize a young woman and torture her fiance. Thank you also for agreeing that gay acts are "lewd and disgusting."
To the GALA Executive Committee: I nominate you for "hypocrites of the year" award for preaching "tolerance" in your diatribe against "fundamentalist right wing kooks," "closed minded bigots," "ludicrous self delusion," "old fashioned ignorance," "these fundamentalist right wingers," "misinformed bigots," "this lunatic," and "closed minded, bigoted, extremist, fanatical, narrow, prejudiced, intolerant zealots." This should also get you the ad hominem and name calling awards and these others:
The "pseudo-science award" for classifying as "kooks" the tens of millions who disagree with your claim that "sexual preference is not a matter of choice." Is that the politically correct way to prove a point? It's interesting that in 1970, only 9% of homosexuals believed they were "born that way." I guess that means 91% of homosexuals at that time were "right wing fundamentalist kooks?" From your long list of cures that don't work you omit that one that has been working for 2,000 years. As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth, "That is what some of you were [i.e. homosexuals, adulterers, crooks, and tohers whom he said would not inherit the kingdom of God.] But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." That it is difficult to get out of the gay lifestyle is granted (the same is true of crack cocaine addiction). All the more reason not to get into it.
The "straw man award" for attacking positions I never took. I didn't say all gays do the things I listed--but what I did say is true and much more could be added. Neither did I saw [sic] that perversions are confined strictly to homosexuals--but it is a fact that they are far more characteristic of the gay community (which has cute names for them like "fisting" and "golden showers," I left out "rimming" in my first letter; placing the tongue in the anus), and heterosexuals who engage in them did not form a campus group and solicit my support (or they would have heard from me too). Nor did I say that STD's and unhealthy practices are confined to gays--but again, such things are rampant int he gay community to a much greater extent (as is well known in the medical community). If it is "ludicrous self delusion" to suggest that men should stay away from gay culture like the plague, then why is it that the Red Cross will take my blood but not yours? Even before AIDS, some health officials advocated exclusion of homosexual men as blood donors because of the prevlance of Hepatitis A and B (and now C) in gays. Way back in 1980, the homosexual newspaper The Sentinel said that the "risk of contracting disease among gay persons is approimately ten times that of persons in the general populaiton."
The "change in the subject award" for asking my position on other issues. Adoption of this strategy is an admission that you can't win the debate. But since you asked; on divorce: it's one of the greatest tragedies that can befall a family, as those who have been affected by it can tell you. On birth control; I'll give you a hint--in three years of marriage I've had two children, and we hope God gives us ten more (and we'll raise them to think just like us!). On pre-marital sex; I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel Flickinger's letter printed November 19th. On inter-racial marriage; my opinion is the same as my opinion of non-inter-racial marriage. On working women--what's the question?
To Joyce Lionarons: you make a list of charges agianst me almost as long as GALA's (I'll give you 1st runner up in name calling), which altogether only amount to a mere assertion that what I said was not true. Not one fact, reference, etc, to back up any of your assertions, not one reference to my letter to illustrate what in the world you are ranting about (eg, what are my "tacit assumptions" that you mentioned; and why does the listing of typical gay behavior constitute "pornographic fantasy?"). You do provide some condescending advice where I can go to get educated out of my "little less than criminal" "ignorance" (i.e., indoctrinated in political correctness). It turns out the source you mentioned confirms much of what I said in my letter (I cited only one example above), even though it comes from the perspective of GALA and can hardly be considered an objective work (for example; readers may be surprised to find out that, according to this Encyclopedia, the only reason most of us don't practice anal intercourse is not because it is repulsive, unnatural, or extremely unhealthy, but because we have happened to have found more pleasurable things to do). You shield yourself against the extensive evidence contradictory to your beliefs by saying that virtually all "reputable" research in all relevant fields agrees with you; evidently the criterion by which research is judged "reputable" is whether it agrees with you! That would be arrogant even for experts in those fields; you are an expert in none of them (I never claimed to be but I can read and think independently). I'll let you share the "pseudo-science award" with the GALA executive committee.
I knew that my letter would be about as popular in some circles as sunshine in a bats' cave. I would prefer to carry on discussion in the more moderate tone of Andrew Economopoulos' excellent letter (which will likely be ignored or dismissed with a contemptuous sniff by the P.C. crowd). I tried to craft a letter that would not only state my position but also put GALA and their allies into their unthinking, cliche spouting mode in which they would condemn themselves far better (and more believably) than I could do by myself, thereby letting everyone see what GALA is really all about. Mike Evans' letter of November 26 describes how my strategy succeeded, and I must say, far beyond what I expected.
Moses described two world views as "the way of life, and the way of death." I hope that readers of The Grizzly can now tell more easily which is which.
Sincerely,
John Ronning
_____________
Correction:
The second sentence in the fourth paragraph of Mike Evans' letter to the editor in the November 19 issue was printed incorretly. It should have read: "In their zeal to discredit Ronning's perceived message, his detractors stumble through their efforts without understanding or improving upon the devices of his letter." We apologize for the error.