At that point I related a PRIVATE incident.  Bear in mind, it was in what I viewed as a safe environment for discussion (the health department). It was something that I was uncomfortable talking about, but felt it had relevance to the discussion. I disclosed an event from my childhood, which happened in the same venue as a 'gays against violence' conference on the MSU campus.  It was something I told them, (the director and other employee)  that I had never even  related to my parents in all this time. This discussion of this incident led to a pedophilia reference. (identical to the quote further down in this writing)

Never, would I have imagined that I would have to publicly refer to it as now, for purposes of context in defending my reputation.

The reporter had called me and wanted clarification of my remarks, took a few comments and was told that I didn't remember all of what was said, because I did not feel like relating to a newspaper reporter a sensitive childhood incident that happened at the university.  However, I did advise him that this was merely 'muckraking', based on 'political correctness', and a story was being made because someone was being too sensitive, and frankly my opinions have been made known prior on such things.  I assume the sensitivity that started this as an issue was coming from the one other person in the room, or a key hole spy from behind the closed door.  Either way, this was hardly ( in my view) a worthwhile expense of time.

My comments before?  the entire article is at http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/2010/09/intolerance-of-intolerance-challenged-in-tc/

"In fact this argument fits in well with Sarah and some others..  You  are born this way, just like blacks, are born black, women are born  women, etc..  I have heard it before; "you like chocolate or you  don't..  You like the same sex ..or you don't..  Its all natural.."

Is it?  Really?  What  about pedophiles? What about bestiality?  What  about compulsive violent acts?  What the heck if you are wired that way  right?  Why are those not acceptable?  At what point is any behavior deemed destructive?

"Born that way" is not a valid argument, unless you want to open the  doors to all manner of hideous offenses against humanity.  A sexual  preference is just that..  a preference.  Which means it is controllable  and by default a personal choice.  And in a lifetime that is full of  all manner of choices, it is one that has a lobby for it to attain  special rights and privilege."

In fact, the way in which the reporter inserted my use of the word 'perversion' is an ellipsis away from being contextually accurate (yes, I acknowledge my own use of ellipses is often wrong) as it places two completely different comments together in a way that seems to challenge my ability to be consistent.  One point in the article I am quoted as saying:

"Homosexuality is a perversion ... but I don't care what people do in their own bedroom"

"As for ME?  I could care less what they do behind closed doors.  But  keep it there.  And if they bring it out inappropriately, then they will  pay the consequence.  Hell, aren't these the same people who have  brought us sensitivity training, and seminars, and large scale employee  training that has paralyzed workplaces across the country by creating an  environment where saying a seemingly innocuous thing could result with  oneself  in a former employer's parking lot, with a box of personal  belongings?

Nope, don't care.. THEY must live with the consequence of their choices. I can no more tell someone they cannot be gay, than they can tell me I must accept that they are."

If one looks at how we naturally propagate our species, then homosexuality is a perversion. It is also a decision, in my view and not natural if propagation is desired.

Then in the article, mentioning my Twitter reference without mentioning what it said, or when, is a little misleading.

MichiganTaxes Jason Gillman
Butt sex in Military is ok now.. Yay..  #SOTU Sorry.. just don't want to know. thank you

Multiple contextual 'errors' exist in this article, and mislead the readers at a number of levels. The problem is not that I feel I must defend myself, but that as I warned the reporter, he was taking something that might have been 'upsetting' to one person and potentially bringing the emotional battle to many more in the gay community.  I believe I told him it goes beyond 'transparency' and as I had expected, it was presented in a way that is contextually flawed and more damaging to their cause.

I feel bad that this is an issue, not for my own sake, but for those who truly believe they have been aggrieved because of the presentation.

I told him as I will repeat here, that my attitude toward gays and homosexuality does not have me using the commission seat as a soap box against the homosexual community.  Frankly my 'agenda' if there is one, is to provide a policy setting so that statutory services can be handled most efficiently, at as little cost to the community, and to keep government OUT OF people's personal affairs to whatever extent possible.

Communicating has been my thing.  I will continue to write HERE and elsewhere on all matter of issues, and will not allow a belligerent view of my opinions to sway me from presenting the truth as I see it.  This issue has reached a level of discussion that seems to beg more titillation than might be expected from a number of drunk driving arrest news articles, or bylines about who lost their puppy this week.

But if the article was intended to present my opinions as intolerant or inconsistent, or perhaps even threatening to any in the community, then it has been done in a manner that is worse than the issue it uses.  While there are citizen, news, and political entities calling for unity and collaboration to solve all manner of social issues, this type of article has but one result:

To divide our community.