Melissa Fryrear Is a Stupid Idiot

The following is from the article posted below. It deserves its own response -- directly to her. I'll send it today and see whether I get a reply:


Dear Ms. Fryrear:

I learned about you, and read the following comments you made, on the web site theconservativevoice.com:

...But Focus on the Family's Melissa Fryrear, a former lesbian, said the CD's use of the word "love" is deceptive. "'Love' is one of the Trojan horses for the acceptance of homosexuality," Fryrear, a gender issues analyst, said in an e-mail to Baptist Press. "Gay activists are trying to find an argument that carries emotional weight: 'love,' after all, sounds good to everyone.

"The problem, though, is their definition of 'love' is carefully camouflaged to mean more than Cupid ever meant it to mean. Their definition is meant to mean the acceptance and the celebration of homosexuality."

First of all, I reject anyone who cites herself as a "former" lesbian. It either demonstrates you weren't really a lesbian to begin with (What did you do? Kiss your roommate in college? Hate wearing dresses growing up? Masturbate a lot and grow disturbed that -- gulp -- you're a woman yourself?) or is in denial and deep sublimation now. Doesn't the phrase "know thyself" have a Biblical basis?

Aside from that, your analysis is deeply flawed and intellectually disingenuous.

You criticizes the use of the word "love," saying gay activists are using it as a blatant device to give their relationships more emotional weight.

All right, gender studies genius -- what word should two people (in this case, of the same sex) use when they have feelings for one another? I like you? I feel you? I screw you? You're a former lesbian -- you should know the answer to this queer-y. What did you say to all those chicks you -- presumably -- had the hots for?

See, in our society, when two people are attracted to each other, they describe the sensation as being "in love." It is our most simple expression of those feelings. Sociologists will tell you the behavior occurs whether the two people are of the same sex or not. Yes -- you're right -- the words do carry an emotional weight. THAT'S THE POINT.

So, instead of using the word in a deceptive manner, as you charge, the HRC is instead invoking the common usage. No two-cent analysis or mixed metaphors from you (Trojan horse? Do you actually know what you're referring to?) can undermine that.

Are you trying to deny people the prerogative to label their own feelings? That's not only intellectually dishonest, it's ridiculous. Anyone can decode the manipulation behind your statement. And since it is so easily exposed -- it really isn't successful propaganda at all, now is it?

Furthermore, your divining rod about what determines "love" is CUPID? I suggest you re-examine the ancient story upon which you place so much importance. You might learn some things -- the least of which is that there really isn't a boy going around poking us with arrows to make us fall in love with each other. Do you really need to be reminded that true academics labels stories such as these as myths and legends?

I suggest you get your head out of your gender studies textbooks (if you, in fact, really are a trained gender studies analyst -- I'd like to know your credentials) and repeat courses in introductory anthropology, sociology, history and philosophy. Your flawed analysis is an embarrassment to your organization, your misguided cause and yourself.

And, while you're at it, could you dress a little more girly when you're at the office?