I would like to clear up one aspect of my post.

Brandon Bell says here:
http://nithska.blogspot.com/2009/09/crossed-flash-affair.html
…that I used a “familiar tactic” when I said, “men can love men, women can love women, even men can love little boys[*] if that’s where their emotions and desires lead.” But the quoted email was a private communication between Bart and me, not a blog post. I wasn’t employing rhetorical tricks trying to convert the undecided or to rile the faithful.

In other words, I wasn’t using “tactics”. If I had wanted to, I certainly wouldn’t have chosen that one.

In the original email, Bart said that this wasn’t about marriage, but about being able to choose whom you love. My point was that you can’t necessarily choose whom you love. That’s true regardless of whether you’re straight, gay, or even otherwise inclined.

I should be sensitive to the fact that GLBTs often feel under attack. I thought my disclaimer was sufficient to let Bart know that I was not “stat[ing] directly or imply[ing] that m/m love is tantamount to raping kids” (a reaction from an OA member blog), but apparently it wasn’t, and I apologize to the GLBT community for making you feel that way.

Similarly, Bell says, “Here we see the casual listing of homosexual relationships with polyamory. Becuase we all know the Gay sleep around.” Again, this isn’t a tactic. I was talking about “different sexual relationships”; I can think of at least one well-known polyamorous figure in science fiction, one whom I respect: I don’t think it impugns homosexuals or him to mention the two arrangements together. Perhaps if any GLBT people think it does, they could explain to me why. (Again, that’s not rhetoric: I simply don’t know why you’d feel that way.)

I’m not saying these things to argue, but because I don’t want people whom I respect to think that I equate them with child rapists.

Thank you.

I am also on the FFO staff, and have been there since the beginning. I disagree with the decision made regarding the ad and the interpretation of LGBTQ issues. In fact, I have long been a supporter of LGBTQ issues; I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, after all! But I have very strong respect of Jake as a person and as our editor, and I would like to make the point that we have never rejected a story based on any gender, religious, ethnic, or LGBTQ issues. And I’m proud of the diversity of backgrounds represented on our staff. And like Jake said, send us any and all stories.

With much respect,
Sabrina West
FFO Staff

I understand why people are now reluctant to submit, but I urge everyone to take another look at the quality of the work we publish.

I’m tempted to go on a rant here about how deeply rooted in BS the ‘position’ offered is, but won’t for three reasons: I’m just plain tired right now, the audience here is already well aware of the flaws I’d point out and (hoping this isn’t true) the folks who espouse such views rarely, if ever, look into anything that might disabuse them of their ill-founded beliefs.

So, I do the only effective thing I can and remove myself from involvement.

You’re one of the very few who has shown a modicum of actual tolerance — mutual respect despite fundamental differences — and I appreciate it.

He’s free to hold that editorial opinion, and I’m free to avoid him and all his works, and advise my friends of his opinion too.