Gryboski Responds to Article Controversy
By Connect Mason Reporter Rachael Dickson
A article published in Broadside’s April 28 issue, “Homosexuality is a Mental Illness,” written by opinion columnist Michael Gryboski, has sparked protest from many on campus, particularly the Pride Alliance. A “sit-out” protest has been planned for Monday, May 5, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., at the North Plaza, popularly referred to as “The Free Speech Zone.”
- Read the official Pride Alliance statement regarding this article.
- Check out Broadside's response to this controversy.
“Due to the recent Broadside article 'Homosexuality is a Mental Illness' and past articles written by Grybowski such as, but not limited to, 'Malcolm X: A Disservice to the Movement' and 'Cultural Isolationism, From Kindergarten to College,' it is time to have students raise their collective voices and hold the Broadside accountable,” a recent e-mail sent out on the Pride Alliance listserve said. “These following articles and many other “opinion” articles, are racist, homophobic, anti-Muslim and overall propagating patriarchal white-supremacy oppression.”
The e-mail later went on to say, “We as a collective want the Broadside to be more respectful and accountable for the articles that they publish.”
Gryboski responded to these concerns in an e-mail interview. EDITOR'S NOTE: This interview has been published, not to showcase the opinions of the Connect Mason staff, but to nurture discussion of this controversial issue.
“How long have you been writing for Broadside?”
“I began writing for the paper back in my first semester, Fall 2005 semester.”
“What topics do you generally write about?”
“It’s really hard to generalize my topics. As any SJP member can attest to, I have written many articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I have also written two articles on the abortion debate, one article relating to the Sudan and genocide (a second one hopefully to be printed this coming Monday), as well as articles on student organizations and political organizations.”
“The general focus is writing works defending my beliefs or critically analyzing others'. I am a Christian who takes the Bible as the literal word of God, which I guess makes me an extremist. Nevertheless, knowing how the typical preacher at the North Entrance of the Johnson Center is treated for using the Bible as evidence, I do my utmost to use sources that mainstream society and even my ideological foes will agree are authoritative.”
“Why did you write the article about homosexuality? Did you expect the backlash that has occurred?”
“As aforementioned, I write on many topics, but I try to make them center around my moral beliefs, that, although based in my Christian beliefs, I strive to defend them with non-likeminded sources. For the sake of making articles timely, I initially chose homosexuality in response to Pride Week.”
“I expected some backlash, especially with the title. This is not the first time I have written about the claims of the Pride Alliance and their allies. Last year I wrote a work under a less inflammatory title, 'A Question of Accuracy,' which covered the topics of homosexuality as paraphilia, the 'gay gene' theory, and the blatantly inaccurate generalization of their opposition. Little to no response.”
“I've noticed a number of conversations between you and others on Facebook on the topic - what have these centered on? Have you been leaving comments on people's walls trying to start a conversation with them on the article?”
“Engagement is my public policy. If I have erred, I want to know it. So I talk both during the writing of the article and afterwards with people who I know disagree with my thesis. For my article, I used an abnormal psychology textbook, the statements of APA members, and other pro-gay organizations. In other words, I never used sources that my intellectual adversaries would deny the authority of.”
“If they had genuine evidence that contradicted my own, such as the vote tally for the 1973 decision, the quotes from the psychologists, the application of various psychological phenomena, I wanted to hear it. I even offered in some cases to help write their rebuttal should they show telling proof that what I had written was factually untrue.”
“What do you personally think of homosexuals?”
“They are sinners, but, of course, so are heterosexuals. There is really nothing distinguishable between homosexuals and heterosexuals outside of sexual preference. People may add attributes, but I refuse to. I do not hate anyone, it is against my religious convictions. As Scripture says, 'who are you to judge your neighbor?' (James 4:12b, NIV). If any would actually read the words I have written, they will not find a single instance in which I resorted to personal attacks.”
“Not being allowed to judge a fellow human being does not mean one cannot speak out against an ideology, a worldview, a school of thought, or even a way of life. As Scripture also says, 'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.' (Ephesians 6:12) Even on a secular level, what is a University supposed to do? A good one will challenge your beliefs. That is what we are supposed to have happen, simple yet profound intellectual discourse. My article was a challenge to some peoples' beliefs; if they cannot stand that, then they oppose the very nature of the University, all universities in fact.”
“The general reaction of both the Pride Alliance and sympathetic parties has mirrored that of a spoiled child who is being tasked to do chores. Rather than comply, they throw a massive tantrum, screaming and shouting names and directing their rage at any target they want because their parent, in this case the University Administration, refuses to discipline them. Consider the plans to protest the Broadside by holding a sit-in at the office, a place I myself go to on average five or six times per academic year. They are directing their rage at hard-working people who actually side with them and vehemently oppose my position on the matter. Such is the puerile action desired, as they have apparently forgotten the past editions of the Broadside when Pride Week was glorified or when favorable coverage was given to their events and positions.”
“As a student senator, do you think you can represent students well when you consider a large minority of the student body to be mentally ill?”
“The reference to 'large minority' recalls for me yet more propaganda one finds in organizations like Pride Alliance: numbers. There is the classic 10 percent of America is homosexual claim, which has been refuted almost as many times as it has printed. Recently to prop up the same-sex adoption effort a statistic was widely circulated that several million adopted children live in same-sex homes, a stat that was grossly exaggerated. Exposing the many numerical inaccuracies of various homosexual advocacy groups could be an entire article unto itself.”
“That trivial point noted, however large the number, the answer is yes. The purpose of Student Government is to represent student interests, that's student, as in academics, parking, dining, etc. Sexual orientation, one way or the other, plays very little if any role in that office. Like any man-made institute Student Government is composed of people who hold distinct views in various issues. One former senator I met early on in my career there believed Republicans were 'flat-earthers.' That being said, I still considered him to be competent to represent the interests of all Mason students, even Republicans. With that in mind, I believe I can accurately represent the interests of the entire student body.”
“Have your articles ever prompted such an outcry in the past?”
“My articles on the Middle East are the usual lightning rods, especially one in which I denounced Palestinian nationalism's legitimacy by quoting Arab leaders through the decades. A rebuttal to that was published in November of 2006, which up until this edition was the last rebuttal I had had printed against my work.”
Did you expect the backlash that has come from the Black Student Alliance in regard to some of your recent articles?
“On the one hand I was surprised, since surveys have shown the African-American community to be mostly morally conservative, so I expected solidarity instead. On the other hand it makes sense, given two items. One, homosexual advocates consider themselves to be the ideological heirs of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. To them, they are the continuation of that struggle. Two, there is the wing of African American politics that thrives on the victim culture, as seen with the call for reparations, affirmative action and racial quotas. This wing corresponds to the victim culture mentality found in nearly all the politics of homosexual advocacy groups. This link politically means that if one opposes anything related to homosexuality, apparently one also opposes anything related to African-Americans. It is a stupid reasoning, but it is there and we deal with it often.”
“Some people are labeling your articles as "hate speech" that is badly researched. What would you say in response to these allegations?”
“Prove it.”















Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God
You seem to have a penchant for writing taboo and inflammatory “articles.” Do you enjoy getting a rise out of others? Do you enjoy insulting and degrading people and making them feel like lesser human beings?
As a member of the “Church” community, do you not understand that the true intention behind your words is to inflict and provoke harm against others? Do you understand that by deceiving your readers into thinking you came to these conclusions based on a scientific analysis you are being dishonest and hypocritical?
Framing a moral and spiritual argument in scientific terminology not only makes for hopelessly confused pseudoscience, it also betrays the integrity of your Christian foundations as valid beliefs within and of themselves. If you intend on gay bashing because it goes against your religious beliefs, just say so.
The most important thing I think you should acknowledge is that you are not living up to your Christian ideals when you publically proclaim opinions that denigrate, stigmatize, and ostracize groups who already have a history of persecution and marginalization. The mission of Pride not to convert others to homosexuality but to help its members cope with the discrimination and harassment they receive on a daily basis and to help them live peacefully among those who take pleasure in spreading messages of hate.
My Beliefs
After reading this young man's article and responses to the backlash I find myself at a crux. I first and foremost applaud free speech as long as it doesn't come at the expense of people and their rights as human beings. It would be rather oxymoronic to allow the freedom of one while "shackling" another.
Being a Black, Christian, Gay, Male (Not any specific order chosen) I have to share what I believe and how it pertains to the arguments of the author.
What it comes down to is his belief in the Bible being the infallible word of God. There is no need to attempt to refute any arguments of his from this point on. When you believe in something as fervidly as religion, nothing short of your "God" themselves descending and telling you the "truth" will keep you from believing it.
I believe the bible is an interesting narrative, fable, something akin to what we tell our children growing up to instill moral fiber into them. There are threads of truth, but they are typically bolstered by fanciful glitter to make them more believable. I can be a Christian and believe that because I am.
As for the classification of homosexuality as a sin because of the bible is no different than the DSM-IV classifying it as a disorder. The bible, pieced together by "MEN", specifically the "MEN" at the Council of Nicaea is nothing but man's attempts to find understanding and validation. Men come up with these systems of judgment based on what they feel is morally correct or what they have been told is morally correct. If we want to preach doctrine then let all of the books be included, let all of the thoughts be included, not just those of an outdated secular oligarchy bent on devising their own view of religious doctrine.
If I so chose to, I could go out and gather people in academia to start a movement to have religious eccentrism/fundamentalism added to the doctrine of mental disorders. Some of the ideas and behaviors describes in fervid religious belief are the same ones seen in Personality Disorders. From the APA “Personality disorders are defined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as "an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it". [1] These patterns, as noted, are inflexible and pervasive across many situations, due in large part to the fact that such behavior is ego-syntonic (i.e., the patterns are consistent with the ego integrity of the individual), and therefore, perceived to be appropriate by that individual. The onset of these patterns of behavior can typically be traced back to the beginning of adulthood, and, in rare instances, early adolescence. [1]”
If I, as a gay male, believe in what I believe in and it is outside of societal norms then I have a personality disorder since its definition hinges on being outside of the culture's expectations. Religious extremism is in the minority as well and can be viewed using the same set of criteria that the APA uses to describe disorders. If I so choose, I could say it is a form of OCD, “Obsessive compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), or anankastic personality disorder, is a personality disorder that is characterized by a general psychological inflexibility, rigid conformity to rules and procedures, perfectionism, moral code, and/or excessive orderliness.” By this definition, you would fit right in.
In the end, I choose not to label you as a sinner or someone with mental disorder, it doesn't fit my view of Christianity as being accepting and all deserving of God's Grace, also, we all have the right to speak. Just be careful you are not speaking to hurt and remember we don’t all have to believe in the same “GOD” to make it to the same afterlife. Just my beliefs…
Peace
Just so we can have some "context"
Here's some statements from another essay about homosexuality from the author:
"But there is more to this than striking down laws and editing psychological mandates. This is a lifestyle that is being written about. Behaviors and lifestyles, if destructive or self-destructive enough, should and are monitored and/or restricted by the government. Consider smoking. There are numerous harmful side effects to that practice, and the act of lighting a cigarette and smoking is heavily regulated and restricted. In many places it’s in fact outlawed. This even though smoking tends to be a willing voluntary action and often done in private. Many people feel heavily connected to smoking, and it is very hard to quit the practice. Opposition to smoking is widely accepted and no one uses labels like ‘fume-o-phobic.’
Of the lifestyles now protected by law in North America, few are as self-destructive and destructive as the homosexual act. This was not first appreciated until the AIDS epidemic. Although it is almost certain that the act of homosexuality did not bring this virus into existence, the spread of the pestilence is another story altogether..."
So... homosexuality should be restricted by the government?
He builds on that theme:
"This is the lifestyle that we as Americans and indeed as a human race have to accept or else be deemed homophobic. That is the most disturbing thing about these and plenty of other numbers found for both lesbians and male homosexuals: no one is doing anything to stem off the destruction. Indeed, knee-jerk tendencies seem to be the theme of the day."
It closes with this lovely sentiment:
"But persecution [of homosexuals] does not imply justification [of homosexuality]. In the 1950s, the Western Allies removed their military zones from West Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany was formed. The political party that came to power in this new democracy was the Christian Democratic Union. One of their first actions was to outlaw the National Socialist German Democratic Workers Party, a.k.a. the NAZI Party. This outlawing could be argued by some to be a form of persecution, but would anyone with a decent morality say that the persecuted group in question was justified? I would hope not. But that is exactly the reasoning found in many efforts to proselytize individuals by the movement I described in this work."
Outlawing homosexuality is akin to outlawing Nazism - it may be persecution, buy it's justified.
Here's the essay
http://www.cross-nation.com/daplbeyondsodom.html
Also, there's a reason no one is bothering to direct you to a library where you can read all about psychology: it is pointless. You do not care about evidence, you care about forcing evidence to fit a worldview.
Wow, what arrogance. You
Wow, what arrogance. You have provided NOTHING on the terms of scientific evidence, and people have pointed that out to you time and time again. Get over yourself, please.
“Prove it.” Talk to any
“Prove it.”
Talk to any psychology, sociology, or anthropology professor on campus they'll show you stacks of research to disprove your claims.