the band of lost souls

yeah it does hurt to know you lost interest in me, kind of like someone punching me in the face. And it also does pain me to walk past you, pretending we never met and never stayed up all night talking, which feels like a knife through my chest every time. But what truly hurt most, so bad that I can’t even find the words to explain it, is that you left without a single word. And I keep waiting for a sign or something from you, but I should accept that sometimes, no message is also a message.
She was the sun
shining upon
the tomb of your hopes, and dreams so frail.
He was the moon
painting you
with it’s glow so vulnerable and pale.
She was the wind, carrying in
all the troubles and fears you’ve for years tried to forget.
He was the fire, restless and wild
and you were like a moth to that flame.
—  Ville Valo - Funeral of Hearts
A Response to Larry Tomczak's Response to Ellen's Response to Larry's Article on How She's Helping Turn Children Gay

Mr. Tomczak’s original letter will appear in bold, while my response will not.

Dear Ellen,

Yesterday morning, I awoke to discover you spoke to me directly on your nationally syndicated, award-winning talk show. I was stunned and humbled because I believe you are such an incredibly gifted comedian with a God-given gift to entertain and make people feel genuinely valued. You also have a megawatt smile that simply makes people feel happy.

I love that you’re obviously trying to butter her up with compliments before you systematically explain why she’s “oh so wrong” about literally everything she believes in.

You concluded your remarks to me and the audience by saying, “The only way I’m trying to influence people is to be more kind and compassionate with one another.” That’s one of my goals as well, and in that same spirit, can I appeal to you to consider some thoughts although we share different worldviews?

Yes, you can, because unlike some people, she’s a reasonable person, and I’m sure she can see more than just her side of an argument.

Contrary to what many may think having heard some quotes from my article, I approach you not as an angry, mean-spirited “fundamentalist” but rather in a spirit of humility as a would-be friend. I’d love to chat with you one day over a cup of coffee.

But you do come as a fundamentalist, because that’s exactly what you are. You’re not trying to befriend her. You’re being dishonest in that. You simply don’t like her. It’s okay to not like someone, but don’t lie about it.

You once said, “Stay true to yourself. Never follow someone else’s path unless you’re in the woods and you’re lost and you see a path.” Years ago I really was lost, playing in a band ironically called “The Lost Souls,” but I found a path of redemption in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Forty-five years later I continue to follow Him and His revolutionary teachings. What I share with you is out of a commitment to be a faithful servant who upholds those teachings.

Her quote had nothing to do with you finding Jesus. You just had to shoehorn that in there didn’t ya?

You were raised Christian Scientist and maybe you saw similar blemishes that I did and still do in the Christian church. I admit we’ve unfortunately fallen far short in our testimony due to divorce, hypocrisy, scandals and uncharitable attitudes in our ranks.

Yeah, she probably did see problems in the church, mostly because there are, as you acknowledge. So good on you for that, I guess.

In the area of sexuality, we’re all broken and have temptations and struggles to overcome. I sincerely want to help people by being authentic and a part of a generation not imposing but rather proposing a better way that really does lead to peace, freedom, stability and long-term happiness.

But you are imposing. You and people of your ilk impose your way of life on others every day, whether it’s voting for congressmen who try to impose your way of life on others for you or actively participating in the legislative process or picketing funerals.

Also, I’m sure it’s better, considering that around half of “God-ordained” marriages end in divorce, and Christians have one of, if not the highest divorce rates in the nation.

To give you a glimpse into my life, awhile back my friend John wrestled with his sexual identity until he found the path to wholeness and healing in Christ. We walked the journey together as he battled the ravages of AIDS. I listened, encouraged and reassured him along with his precious daughter prior to his premature death. Later, I was able to take care of his memorial service in a way that I trust inspired all of his former gay friends who attended to reflect on his life and theirs.

So John got AIDS, stopped having sex, and turned to religion. That for sure means he “prayed the gay away” doesn’t it?

Ellen, hasn’t the time arrived for everyone involved in this dialogue on gay-related issues to lower our voices and approach one another with respect and civility though we have our differences? I know there’s a lot of shouting and accusation and name calling on all sides of the gay debate, but how about you and I model something positive?

You already fucked that up by accusing her of trying to turn young girls into lesbians.

Let me put you to the test. Even though you’ll probably disagree passionately on what I say, can you grant me the freedom to be forthright with you and faithful to biblical teaching for which I’ll one day give an account?

Okay, here goes…

You said, “I don’t have an agenda!” If I was sitting across from you right now, you might give me a fist bump along with a wink and a nod in telling me that was just a joke.

She probably wouldn’t actually, because it’s not a joke. Gay people don’t have some secret “agenda” where their goal is to turn tons of people gay. It’s tiring to deal with that accusation and it’s patently false. It’s not like we have a quota to meet.

Where I cited you “celebrating your lesbianism” you said, “I don’t know what it means to celebrate my lesbianism!” Then you quickly added, “I guess I do” and “I’m gay!”

You forgot the celebratory party popper in there. There’s no “celebrating lesbianism”. There aren’t coming out parties or “Happy Lesbian Day!” celebrations. In fact, quite the opposite; when some kids come out as a member of the LGBT community, their parents may flat out reject it and kick them out of the house to live on the street or disown them. “Celebrating lesbianism”, indeed.

Remember the premise of my article was that Hollywood has a definite gay agenda and you’re aligned with it. In 1997 you were on the cover of Time magazine declaring “Yes I’m Gay” after declaring it on your sitcom. You’re an outspoken representative for the Human Rights Campaign “Coming Out Project” and member of the advocacy group PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

Again, there is no “gay agenda”. The term is made up by people like you who claim that homosexuality is evil and should be reviled by society just because a book says so. And of course she would be a member of those groups; she actually accepts and loves herself for who she is and wants to help other people do the same.

In the quote you shared on TV I want to reassure you that I never thought or implied that you were trying to purposefully influence young girls into lesbianism. Instead, my point was that, as an out and proud lesbian woman - probably the best known and most-loved in the world - you wield tremendous influence over these girls, and your influence is decidedly pro-lesbian. Wouldn’t you agree?

Your exact quote was that “’Ellen DeGeneres’ celebrates her lesbianism and ‘marriage’ in between appearances of guests like Taylor Swift to attract young girls.” In addition, at the top of your list, you said that Hollywood was “promoting homosexuality.” This can be interpreted to imply the all of the people on the list are trying to turn kids gay. If you did not intend it that way, then you should have been more specific instead of leaving the reader to interpret your ambiguous writing.

Also, when you say you “don’t have an agenda,” I understand you are a committed vegan who promotes the lifestyle on your website and encourages adopting turkeys rather then (sic) eating them at Thanksgiving; you stand strongly for animal rights by having the Humane Society leaders on your show along with once being PETA’s “Woman of the Year;” plus, you promote and raise funds for Transcendental Meditation.

This article was about none of those things. You were specifically talking about a “gay agenda”, which doesn’t exist.

Also, there’s that word again: “promote”. Am I to take away from your previous explanation that she is not trying to influence people to try Transcendental Meditation? Or is she? Because I’m pretty sure that’s the purpose of promoting something.

I don’t begrudge you these involvements indicative of your personal agenda, I only appeal that you shoot straight, okay?

I honestly don’t know if your wording is an inadvertent joke here, an intentional joke, or neither.

Secondly, you said that “Larry is watching a lot of gay TV” because I cited a partial list of television programming with gay characters. Truth be known, I don’t watch much TV at all, let alone gay TV, but you sure don’t need to search very far to understand what I called this “avalanche” today.

But it’s not an “avalanche”. It’s an accurate representation of a population. 1.6% of the population of the United States identify as gay or lesbian, and that doesn’t take into account any other non-heterosexual orientations. 1.6% may sound like a small number of people, but when the number of people in the United States is around 320,061,700, that means that there are over 5 million gay and lesbian people in the US. That’s hardly a small number.

Regarding my suggestion that responsible parents take advantage of wholesome classic shows to supplement their TV viewing, you got some laughs by mocking this idea and then jokingly portrayed Lucy and Ethel as possible lesbians.

She pointed out how ridiculous the idea is. You’re telling these parents to isolate their kids from the culture around them. This never works. Children are always exposed to things parents don’t want them to, whether they like it or not.

Being 56 years old, childless and with your third “partner,” you may not understand the awesome responsibility it is to shape impressionable and vulnerable children. I’ve done it with children and grandchildren plus helped parents for over 42 years with this most challenging task.

And now you’ve moved on to attacking her way of life. You bring up her age, which certainly has nothing to do with her TV segment or your assertion that she has a “gay agenda”. You mock her for not having children by implying that she doesn’t understand what an “awesome responsibility” it is to have a kid, and saying that you know better than her because you’ve had kids. This is clearly an attempt to make readers think that you have a moral high ground because she doesn’t have the “experience” of raising a child and therefore doesn’t know that what she says and does can influence people.

Plus, you call Portia her “partner”, complete with quotation marks around it. Portia is her wife. Not partner. Not girlfriend. Wife. I know this might blow your mind. And what business of yours is it if Portia is her third wife or not? Besides, Ellen has only been married once: to Portia.

You once said, “I don’t need a baby growing inside me for nine months. If I’m going to feel nauseous and achy when I wake up, I want to achieve that state the old-fashioned way-getting drunk the night before!”

Ellen, those of us raising children and grandchildren make lots of responsible choices to ensure the little ones entrusted to our care become productive, healthy individuals. In that spirit of kindness and compassion you advocate, give us the space we need here.

So, essentially, what you’re saying is “You don’t have kids, so back off”? That really doesn’t make sense. I understand that you might not want her telling you how to raise your children, and rightfully so, but she’s not doing that.

Finally, and this will probably be your biggest test with what I share, you obviously disagreed with the fact that I referred to your “marriage” in quotation marks. I am not trying to be offensive, yet appeal that you recognize truth can offend sensibilities of those choosing to reject it.

Because it is a legal marriage. What your god does or doesn’t say about it is irrelevant.

Ellen, a nation rises or falls on marriage. If we dismantle this pillar of society, as it has existed for over 5000 years of Western civilization and redefine it to accommodate other arrangements such as yours (or those advocating for polyamorous, polygamous or other configurations) what will be the consequences for this sacred institution and the future of our nation?

Marriage has beenredefined, several times. Even since 1900, it has gone from being an institution in which only men could own property to one in which women can own property as well. In 1967, marriage was again “redefined” to include couples that had different skin colors. Don’t say that marriage is the same as it has always been, because it hasn’t, and it is that sort of historical revisionism that confuses and misleads people.

The true Christian Church must stand as a “sign of contradiction” amidst ever-changing cultural trends. With kindness and courage we must remain faithful to the truth, whether it is popular or not. We must honor a higher law than man, just as Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed in his classic, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and is magnificently portrayed in the film “Selma.”

This is the same “Christian church” that opposed civil rights for black people in the 60’s, right? Or are you referring to another one of the approximately 41,000 denominations of Christianity that interpret the Bible differently?

Christians have flip flopped on positions for years. In the 1860’s God was totally cool with owning slaves. After it became illegal, God was staunchly against it. God was against women owning property until it became the law that women were allowed to own property.  Christians decried the civil rights movement until it became clear that the law was on the side of activists in favor of civil rights, then suddenly God said black people and white people marrying was totally okay. Don’t say that the church has always stayed the same. It’s dishonest.

In his song “Mercy,” Bono stated that love is “charity and brings with it a clarity.” So let me close by submitting to you with charity and clarity that marriage is and throughout history has always been the union of a man and a woman, regardless of what the courts say and regardless of how much you and Portia feel affection for each other. Here are just five of many reasons why gay “marriage” is morally wrong and cannot be called a righteous, authentic marital union.

“Here, Ellen. Let me give you a list of why you’re wrong and you’ll burn in Hell.”

This should be good.

1. It violates the clear and unambiguous moral teaching of the Scriptures, which serve as the basis for our Judeo Christian laws and foundations as a nation.

The United States was not founded as a Christian nation. Period. The Treaty of Tripoli, Thomas Jefferson, and several other founding fathers all say it. Stop the historical revisionism.

Not everyone follows “Judeo-Christian laws”. Deal with it.

2. It is contradictory to the self-evident truths of “Mother Nature” or “Nature’s God” (as our Founding Fathers expressed it) wherein men and women are designed and function differently, complement and complete each other, and through the wonder of marital union are able to procreate to perpetuate the human race.

“God” is never mentioned in the founding documents of America. Besides, if “Mother Nature” intended for animals to reproduce with a male and a female, what about the asexual organisms? What about all the examples of observed homosexuality in animals in nature?

Marriage is not designed for procreation. That would be heterosexual sex that you’re thinking of, which, surprise, you don’t have to be married to have.

3. It is contrary to the explicit teaching of every major world religion, which upholds the integrity of marriage and family.

“Everyone else says it’s wrong!” So, suddenly consensus means that that consensus is right? Sounds like you’ll have to go back on global warming, evolution, and the age of the Earth, if consensus is an indicator of truth.

4. It is an injustice and unequivocally harmful arrangement wherein our most precious entrustment, our children, are denied the love and nurture of a father and a mother who complement each other in a healthy family.

Why aren’t you talking about the “avalanche” of single-parent home television programs then? Why aren’t you so vehemently against divorce or deadbeat dads? Why aren’t you trying to make either of those illegal?

Besides, it isn’t “unequivocally harmful” to have two parents of the same sex; studies have been done and shown that no harm is done when same-sex parents raise a child.

5. It redefines and devalues the sacred institution of marriage exclusively between a man and a woman, opens the floodgates for other arrangements and legitimizes a lifestyle replete with dangerous, at-risk sexual behavior such as HIV/AIDS and over 30 STDs that are endangering lives, jeopardizing healthcare and impacting our economy.

You don’t have to be gay to get AIDS, HIV, or any STDs. You know what “lifestyle” fosters those? Unsafe sex practices (which aren’t even a lifestyle). In addition, lesbians are least likely to contract HIV or AIDS, so where does that leave this argument?

Legal marriage (read as: the kind of marriage LGBT activists are fighting for) is not sacred; it’s a legal contract between two individuals. There’s nothing about any god or gods in the legal definition of marriage, so please stop calling legal marriage sacred.

6. There are multiple times in the Hebrew-Christian Bible where homosexual behavior is explicitly prohibited as dishonoring to God and natural order plus destructive to those involved with them. Scripture throughout forbids us to be sexually involved with:




Another spouse




Again, not everyone follows Judeo-Christian laws. Not everyone who follows any Judeo-Christian laws even interpret the laws the same way. I don’t think you understand that.

I know that the verses about having sex with one’s parents, children, siblings, animals, deceased, and the same sex are all in Leviticus, a book out of which people pick and choose which laws they want to follow anyway, but what is the verse about “another spouse”? Do you mean multiple spouses, or another person’s spouse? I’m beginning to think that you’re being intentionally ambiguous, and that’s not okay, because this one can mean whatever the reader wants it to. You need to stop being ambiguous and clarify your writing before publishing it, so that differences in interpretation don’t exist.

Ellen, thank you for opening up this door of communication and for hearing my perspective. Thank you also for demonstrating the kindness and compassion in this interchange that you try to bring to millions through your influence today.

With warm regards,

Larry Tomczak

I’m sure your regards are the warmest, Larry. Pretty much all you accomplished was some backtracking from your original purpose to tell people about Hollywood influencing children to become gay (or maybe it wasn’t), in conjunction with talking down to Ellen while saying you come as a friend. Your writing is, I feel, intentionally ambiguous, mostly due to the fact that “promote” means “to encourage something to grow”. That would mean that Hollywood would be encouraging the “gay agenda” to grow, which would surely mean people joining in the “gay agenda”. So either you have a very different definition of “promote”, or you just don’t know what it means.

In your section on why legal same-sex marriage is morally wrong, you gave 6 reasons why it’s wrong, as opposed to the 5 you said you would give. Or maybe you did only give 5, but failed to conclude the section of your letter where the reasons were given. I honestly can’t tell. Again, ambiguity. Anyway, the 6 reasons are as follows:

  1. The Bible says it’s wrong
  2. The Judeo-Christian God designed men and women
  3. Religions teach that it’s wrong
  4. A mother and father are needed in all children’s lives
  5. Gays get STDs (just like the rest of the population)
  6. The Bible says it’s wrong

So you can see that 4 of your 6 reasons were “Because my religion says so”, another reason was false, and reason number 5 is true of all people who practice unsafe sex. These are not reasons why same-sex marriage is unambiguously wrong, but why you don’t like it.

Regardless, I’m sure that you won’t read this response, but I will still post it online for the world to see, in order to demonstrate to people that you are wrong, Larry. Conservative Christians have lost this one, like they lost the women’s suffrage movement and the civil rights movement of the 60’s. No doubt you and others like you will try to retroactively revise your position once same-sex marriage becomes law.

With warm regards,

Joe Lippard