Back on August 14, 2013 Homosexual Alvin McEwen wrote an attack against Donald A. McClurkin Jr. titled "Donnie McClurkin Not Being Truthful About Anti-Gay Comments" (Video), and this is my response to his misrepresentation.
Alvin's article is published on the liberal-left Huffington Post's website.
My goal here is to point out that Mr. Alvin McEwen himself is guilty of the very thing that he falsely accuses Donald A. McClurkin Jr. of, and the evidence is in the very article that he has written against McClurkin.
Alvin starts his attack by saying:
"In 2007 I was a part of a contingent that protested against an Obama fundraising concert featuring gospel singer and "ex-gay" Donnie McClurkin in Columbia, S.C. That was the event where McClurkin said the following:
-Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have been touched by the same feelings, when I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe when I love everybody. ... Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community, because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality.-
It's sad how people tend to forget that McClurkin made those comments at the concert itself, before a huge host of supporters who gave him a standing ovation. It's relatively easy to make bold statements in front of supporters."
So Alvin admits that he was among those who sought to spot a Black man from singing because he refused to accept being misrepresented by homosexual activists. As we proceed you will see just how foolish and hypercritical Alvin is being.
Also, please notice that when Alvin refers to McClurkin as "ex-gay" he does so with quotation marks, indicating that he does not believe he has overcome homosexuality. In Alvin's world, no one can overcome it. A sad butt foolish perspective.
Additionally, you should note that when McClurkin claims that he does not speak against homosexuals, he is being honest. But this claim would seem like a lie to anyone who thinks that any form of disagreement with homosexuality and any comment to that affect, is in fact speaking against homosexuals. But that is a matter of perspective. You see, to those of us who choose to think rationally and logically, it is possible to denounce the practice while loving the practitioner.
Alvin goes on to say:
"McClurkin never specifically addressed us protestors or our concerns, which had nothing to do with his claim of being an "ex-gay" and everything to do with comments he made connecting homosexuality with pedophilia and child molestation. He was being very disingenuous then, just as he is being now when faced with new controversy over other anti-gay comments he made."
Please note carefully that Alvin is accusing McClurkin of connecting homosexuality with pedophilia and child molestation in the video that Alvin includes with his article. The video is footage of the Church of God in Christ Youth Conference 2009 where McClurkin was speaking. I want you to watch the entire posted video that Alvin used and tell me were McClurkin makes that connection. You will notice that he does not.
"On Saturday McClurkin was disinvited from a D.C. concert commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom because of the "potential controversy" his participation would cause.
Now, while McClurkin has been quick to play the victim and claim that he has never spoken derogatorily about the gay community, the video below contradicts his claim. It is footage of McClurkin at the Church of God in Christ Youth Conference 2009. At the 6:17 mark he begins harping on "feminine men."
Why did Alvin leave out McClurkin's admonition to the crowd not to applaud as if his statement was a bash? Because that truthful addition would be counter to Alvin's goal to slander McClurkin in his article.
"Then, at the 8:23 mark, he begins talking about how he was molested when he was 8 years old. It's an awful story, which he proceeds to make worse by linking pedophilia with homosexuality."
How does he make the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality in his comment? What part of his statement in that section of the video makes that connection? If it does not, is Alvin not lying on him, and misrepresenting his comments?
"Through it all McClurkin seems to be implying that the existence of gay men is the result of a lack of good parents and an abundance of evil predators. That sounds pretty derogatory to me."
Of course it would "seem to imply that to Alvin". But that is not a McClurkin problem, that is an Alvin McEwen problem. Alvin's bias and dishonesty is the issue. I find it interesting that Alvin as a homosexual can so easily misrepresent someone as much as homosexuals complain about being mistreated and misrepresented by others.
"Don't get me wrong: My heart goes out to him. What happened to him as a child is an awful thing, but homosexuality is not determined by pedophilia."
Oh really? If a man forces a boy to have sex with him, that has nothing to do with homosexuality? How foolish is Alvin and how dumb does he think people are? Because control and power obsessions may be involved in such abuse, does not exclude the homosexual connection. He can play that con on someone who is blind enough to believe it, but not on me.
"Gay men are not the products of child molestation. It's an ugly thing to imply otherwise, and for him to now claim that he has not spoken derogatorily about gay people when there is hard evidence to the contrary is highly dishonest. One could even say McClurkin is lying."
Amazing, you falsely accuse McClurkin of lying while actually lying about the known fact that many men become homosexual as a result of being sexually abused by men. It may be an ugly thing to imply, but it is a true fact. And if Alvin were honest or interested in being honest he would know this and say it.
"And it's because of the comments that McClurkin made at the COGIC Youth Conference 2009 that he recently found himself disinvited from the concert marking the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington."
No, the truth is that McClurkin was uninvited by the Black Mayor of Washington DC Vincent Gary because of around 12 radical homosexual activists protesting. The question that should be asked is why did the Black mayor of DC feel that a few homosexual activists in his city were more important than the many Black pastors in DC who vouched for McClurkin and who even offered to pay for the cost of the event if McClurkin was allowed to perform? And why did Alvin not include this bit of information in his article? Naturally because again, is would not serve his agenda to smear McClurkin.
"My opinion is that he should have never been invited in the first place. The March on Washington was coordinated and successfully engineered by an openly gay black man, Bayard Rustin. Rustin was an integral part of the civil rights movement. However, he never received his due while he lived. He had to stay in the background because of ignorance and homophobia from both the black community and the white community."
I disagree; it was not due to ignorance or "homophobia". Is Alvin saying that Bayard Rustin's commitment to that Civil Rights movement was due to his homosexuality? That his Homosexuality was not and could not be separated from his Blackness? If so, he is seriously confused and dishonest. If Bryard felt that way, the he is the one who betrayed his own convictions by not making that a condition for his evolvement. But he did not say "I will help put this march together if you all acknowledge my homosexuality" so why is Alvin making it a requirement for Black men today?
Homosexuality is a sexual preference and not an ethnic condition, so his homosexuality, while identified with his blackness as a thing despised, and therefore a common experience; it is a factual negative and immoral practice and therefore not worthy of special public acknowledgement.
The Civil Rights movement was not "the immoral rights movement", nor "the homosexual recognition and celebration movement", and so why should a Black man's evolvement in a Martin Luther king event be predicated on his view of homosexuality?
Alvin continued by asking this question:
"Does it make sense to honor the 50th anniversary of a march whose coordinator was shoved in the background because of homophobia by inviting a performer who is perpetuating homophobia in the present day?"
Then he answers it by saying: "Absolutely not."
But Alvin will have to answer my arguments above. The late Mr. Bryard did not coordinate the march under the condition that his homosexuality be acknowledged and celebrated. He did so as an acknowledged Black man who was fighting for his Civil Rights as a Black man. Homosexuality was not the issue or the topic of the event, so why is Alvin trying to make it the central aspect of the movement now? So the honest answer to the better phrased question "does it make sense to honor the 50th anniversary of the march whose homosexual coordinator was a Black man who was forced to the background because of his homosexual preference, by inviting someone who has publically acknowledged his deliverance from homosexuality, is Absolutely YES! Since the label of "homophobe" is not only and illogical misnomer as it is generally used today, but it is falsely applied to people who disagree or do not approve of homosexuality. Disapproval is not fear.
Alvin thin says:
"Everyone should remember this incident, because it illustrates what LGBT African Americans have to deal with in our own community and churches."
No, they should remember because it is a great example of how some homosexuals use lies and misinformation by twisting the facts to further their agenda. What Alvin is doing here is an example of such deception.
Alvin then says:
"We are constantly put down by wannabe "pastors," "prophets," "bishops," and "anointed ones,""
That is true, but that does not justify Alvin's doing the same to McClurkin and others. There are many pastors and Christian leaders who properly addressed the homosexual issues. He cannot say all Christian leaders were abusive to homosexuals, and he apparently refuse to even acknowledge that there were and are many Christians who while not agreeing with nor celebrating homosexuality, did not and do not abuse homosexuals. The question is why is Alvin being so bias?
Notice what he then says about McClurkin:
"or, in the case of McClurkin, gospel singers who seem to think that the ability to carry a good tune gives them carte blanche to speak about subjects they obviously know nothing about, without a thought to who might be hurt by their words."
Notice how foolishly his mental state has him communicating.
Where has Donald A. McClurkin Jr. ever said that his ability to sing gave him the right to speak about homosexuality? And on what does he logically base his accusation that McClurkin knows "nothing" about homosexuality and the homosexual experience of rejection? Alvin's own words discredit him.
He concludes by saying:
"McClurkin should forget talking about how God "delivered" him from homosexuality so that he can pray that God delivers him from ignorance."
Alvin's abusive words against Donald A. McClurkin's personal testimony about his deliverance from homosexuality should be clear evidence to anyone reading them, that he is not interested in being tolerant, unbiased or unbigoted. But he is a great example of the limits to which homosexual Activists will go to in order to deceive the public and discredit their opposition.