Recently, I stumbled upon an online column in The Daily Journal titled "'Lifestyle' of homosexuals can be changed" (TDJ, 05/08/03).

Like every single one of the "ex-gay" pieces I have read, be it an article, book or letter to the editor, this one was laden with pure hatred, ignorance and disgust.

Even those written by people who believe the rhetoric of "love the sinner, hate the sin" don't realize that their 'love' and desire to 'save' are just a different product of the same hate.

The column starts off by talking about the recent U.S. Supreme Court case on a Texas law that criminalizes certain sexual acts between same-sex couples.

The author ridicules the notion that by holding consenting same-sex adult couples accountable to the goings-on in the privacy of their bedroom and not consenting opposite-sex adult couples, the law is discriminatory.

He feels that because fourteen states and the military still hold these archaic sodomy laws in the books that it is ridiculous that "people might have a problem with the state entering the bedrooms of consenting adults in the middle of the night and arresting them."That statement to me spells two things: invasion of privacy and police state.

This article comes a little after Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Sanctorum made statements comparing homosexuality to adultery, incest, bigamy and whatever else he thought would make people cringe, statements that the author referred to in his column.

The author then goes to celebrate the "good news" that was somehow delivered to him, and he thought it was his duty to spread to the world: this "lifestyle" is mutable. Here we go again.

This sort of bigoted, hetero-sexist viewpoint of everything non-straight (and nontraditionally gendered, for that matter) being mutable and thus disposable is far too common, disillusioned and harmful.

In fact, they're so common people organize "ex-gay" conferences left and right. A recent one held late April in the Detroit area was called "Love Won Out Conference." All too often the "ex-gay" movement is financially and otherwise backed by faith-based organizations, particularly those that are Christian-based as was the case with this conference, affectionately dubbed the "Love 'Wrung Out' Conference" by protesters.

Appropriately so, the vast amount of opposition and protesting against this conference came from LBGT-friendly, faith-based organizations such as the American Friends Service Committee, Soulforce Inc., the Metropolitan Community Church of Detroit and other LBGT-supportive interfaith religious denominations.

These organizations rightfully understand that it is the responsibility of religious groups and people to rid their worship communities of the harmful effects of homophobia, bi-phobia and trans-phobia.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, the type of psychologically intrusive practices that groups such as the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) conduct are unscientific and dangerous: "The potential risks of "reparative" or "conversion" therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior."

Gee, I wonder why suicide is ten times more likely in LBGT or questioning teens than in their straight traditionally gendered counterparts.

Here is the funny part though. The whole premise of the "ex-gay" movement, which began in the 1970s, lies in the belief that being lesbian, bi, gay or transgendered is a mutable quality and thus should not be protected by legislation.

Say for a second that one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity is changeable. For some it is, for others it is not.

With that same logic shouldn't all legal protection also be rejected from people with disabilities (after all, they too can be "cured"), citizens of other countries, gender (news flash people, gender is a very mutable quality), and in fact, religion?

Religion is an affiliation, a set of beliefs and nonbeliefs. People's beliefs can and do change all the time. It is not at all uncommon for people to switch religions or not be religious at all.

But I don't see any movement that seeks to criminalize or "cure" Christians. Basically, if it is not illegal to be or participate in Christian acts (e.g. praying), then it should not be illegal to identify as a lesbian and participate in lesbian acts.

Now, I know someone out there saw my prayer example and is dying to write me an e-mail about how prayer is not allowed in public schools and whatnot. Well, don't bother - here's my reply to that.

The difference between being able to pray in a church or in the privacy of your home versus praying in a public school is that the second infringes on the rights of other religions and nonreligious people.

Furthermore, take another look at what the U.S. Supreme Court case is about: consensual same-sex adult intercourse within the privacy of those who wish to be around it. It is not about being able to have sex in front of non-consenting people.

The arguments behind whether or not LBGT people deserve to be treated equally and fairly in the eyes of the law and society as a whole need to move away from this nature vs. nurture stance. Why are we so hung up on whether people are born a certain way or another? Who cares?

All people deserve the same rights as everyone else, not just those who are like everyone else.

TJ Jourian is an LBGT Concerns intern. Reach her at jouriant@msu.edu.