Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson Includes Gay Porn With Court Filing
An anonymous reader writes "Jack Thompson has done it again, now by making available gay porn for unlimited viewing on public records. Judge Jordan wrote on an issued order: 'The attached exhibit, which includes several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult males, was filed electronically in the docket in this case, without prior permission from the court... To the extent that the other attorney's alleged conduct is in any way relevant... there was no need for Mr. Thompson to file these graphic images in the public record. A simple reference to the website and its alleged links would have sufficed...'" I'm usually not a fan of giving Thompson continued free publicity, but some of the things he does are just too outlandish not to share.
Were they from your private stash?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
It's filling my mind with disgusting images!
s/filling/filing
My blog
This man is a nuisance to the public!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
So you made it a story on /.?
Here's to you, Mister Hide It in Plain View Guy!
You keep thinking he couldn't get any wackier and do anything more outlandish than subpoena the President, and then he goes and does this.
How will you top this, Mr. Thompson? Are you gonna shoot the Pope?
Next, he'll link to here, to prove that gamers and people in the IT world are HOMOPHOBIC and must be stopped. It's all part of his larger plan. Seriously.
SQL programmer goes to a bar. Walks up to two tables and says 'Excuse me, may I join you?'.
The sad part really is... when doing this he honestly believes that he is discrediting Norm Kent rather then himself.
He is over estimating how 'horrified' people are by homosexuality, believing that by bringing these images to the courts attention that he is somehow unmasking the horrors of Mr Kent's orientation.
...if the queue for viewing of these publics records gets big, that the files have been slashdotted?
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
I don't want to know... I don't want to know...
Someone should help him by posting a link to goatse so he can submit that...
Throw him in the slammer. That'll learn him gay porn first hand!
I think he works for the game industry. He is their token 'all those violence/sex in games' critics are nuts poster child. Who is going to take these bullshit moralistic bible-bashers seriously when they are siding with Jack.
This guy should be inside a strait jacket or at least get some serious counseling. He used to be funny, but now I pity him. :(
Just be grateful he's spending long hours, night after night protecting us from the gays. Maybe he should move to Iran I hear they don't have gay people there.
...I know that you're desperate, but bribing the judge with your home videos will almost certainly NOT work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Can the judge order the stuff stricken from anything publically viewable? I imagine he can.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Wheres the images?
(after reading article)
EWWWWW!! I dont wanna know!!
who the hell is Jack Thompson? I mean in every major city there are nuts who spend all their free time suing people. Why is this guy any different?
This article is useless without pictures.
is that covered under fair use or did Jack just infringe on someones copyright? More possibly, Jack Thompson IS the copyright holder for the images in question.
THL phish sticks
Seriously! Besides being a nuisance to the entire game industry including the gamers themselves, he goes and he does stuff like this. Wasn't he on trial just a few months ago for being in contempt of court? He's a nuisance to the entire legal system of the United States; all he does is create more troubles and headaches for everyone, and makes himself look like a complete asshole in the process. Worse, he gives people who don't want to blame thinks such as poverty or psychological issues a way to use the legal system to blame other, mostly unrelated activities, such as gaming. They really need to disbar Thompson. This has gotten rather ludicrous.
I like gay porn as much as the next guy but... WAIT! WHAT AM I SAYING??
Let me be clear.
I am not gay.
I never have been gay.
Lord help me.
L.C.
"The guy is mentally ill, is not in any way a policymaker and the only reason why he keeps getting attention here and from the gam3r media is that they think it's amusing to kick around a mentally incompetent person."
No, the reason he gets attention is because he's trying to infringe on our rights and has enough power to be dangerous.
If he was some nut screaming on a street corner, we'd ignore him, but he shows up on MSNBC, so he needs to be rebutted.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
..... Who may still be in the closet.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Is it my imagination has Thompson shifted his strategy to include basic internet troll techniques?
-Before jumping right to the anal...
Wouldn't making porn available to the public constitute some kind of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor"? It would be a *very* fitting end for Mr Thompson...
Maybe the judge thinks the guy is being a pain in the ass with his latest publicity?
Fist post!
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
He's gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
The more this guy gets insane in his claims and suits, the more it becomes obvious, even for people who know neither law nor games, that his claims are simply and plainly stupid. And, well, who wants to have the same opinion as a known idiot?
Give this guy enough rope to hang himself and his agenda.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Slashdot trolls tried this YEARS ago with goatse.cx; can't you be a little bit more original?
What's next, is he going to call Rick Astley as a witness?
I got a copy of his court filing. Here it is.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
He is obsessed with gay sex.
Against it or for it - you know that when he's obsessed - he's a Homo.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=jack+thompson
Yes, even bigots and bible-thumpers hate Jack Thompson.
when you are filing complaints about someone making pornagraphy available to anyone of any age, please avoid also making pornagraphy available to anyone of any age. Also, when someone asks you about it, try to avoid using the words "midnight run" to describe it.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Umm, I'm almost afraid to ask, but how does male genital to male genital sex work?
Maybe, just maybe (though I think he's really just completely lost it) he might be trying to see just how much he can get away with before they actually do dis-bar him. (I think that's the term)
Think of the book he could write afterwards about all the crap he did, and how much the system kept him in place? I'll bet there's even more stuff that we haven't even heard about (and plenty I'm sure we don't want to hear about.
Either way, I just wish the media would stop covering him (that'll make him stop more then anything).
Jack Thompson's "moral crusade" against video games, obscenity, rap and well anything morally devient is due wholely to his own immoral desires. Jack cannot control his porn cravings and his lust for violence. So he goes on a holy crusade to eliminate the corruption of the world as a cover. In reality he is fighting his own internal demons.
Jack Thompson feels that by cleaning the world, his internal struggle will diminish and he will become a normal and productive human in the near future. The fool crusade he runs is selfish and in no way there to benefit humanity as a whole.
There is possibly quite a bit more 100 million video game systems out there. Yet if video games turned people violent, then there's be at least 1-20 million murders a year related to video games, providing that is 1-20% conversion rate. yet the fact is that quite possibly 0.00004% video gamers turn criminally violent.
There are over 17,000,000 registered gun users in the USA alone, yet we dont have murder numbers that even come close to that. 99.99901% of gun crime is done by Illegaly obtained fire arms. I've known many gamers who play violent games and own real guns. Yet somehow they have failed to kill anyone.
Jack plays a numbers game formatted to his own crusade. He wants to win for once, since pretty much every other crusade he has taken up failed in some way.
Jack needs a psychiatrist to help him, not an end to the worlds deviance. Any lawyer who sends his photo ID with batman pasted over it, has some sort of mental ailment that needs professional help.
To JAck, I hope you get well. Just dont bring down the rest of the world because of your war with your inner demons. Just fight youw own internal battle and let us govern ourselves.
Can't
stop
laughing!
He's like the Andy Kaufman of the US legal system.
Someday REM will sing a song about him.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Thanks to this I think I blew my funny fuse...
Maybe he needs to rename his porn stash to something other than "importantevidence001289.JPG".
Until the man is disbarred from coast to coast, let's continue to feed the fire.
...I can't believe this guy is running for president!
Lots of people try lots of things. It doesn't mean that they should be taken seriously. It's a fact that the only people that still take Jack Thompson seriously have no influence to do anything. Jack Thompson is not a realistic threat. Foaming at the mouth about Jack Thompson is just spinning wheels focusing on nonsense while our rights are taken away behind a different curtain.
The sooner we ignore Jack Thompson as we should, the sooner we can focus on real threats to our freedoms.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Who is this guy, anyway? I've never heard of him, as I'm from Europe. What's so special about him, apart from apparently being a complete jackass.
Sound like just another of those "God hates fags! (and about everybody else)" idiots.
Cheers, your friendly neighbourhood homo.
I'd be the last to defend this wacko in general, and I can't read his pea brain to fathom his motives, but when dealing with images from websites that are to be used as some sort of evidence in a lawsuit or other court filing, it may be that simply providing a URL to the images has its potential pitfalls. Websites and links, especially for pr0n, come and go, and it would be pretty frustrating to provide the URLs, then to find that by the time someone gets around to viewing them, there's nothing but a 404 or some abandoned domain holding page there. Sure, maybe there's a cache of it on Google or Wayback or somewhere, but maybe there isn't. Then you have to try to see if there is a cache of the page sitting on some other server somewhere, and it gets more complicated.
Personally, if I had a legal case that depended on some image or text on a website, I'd rely not on an image, transcript, or URL reference, but would want to take a screenshot of a browser displaying the page in question, as well as the date and time stamp. That would seem to be of far more evidentiary value in the event that the site gets nuked in an attempt to cover someone's ass.
(And yes, I realize that last sentence left y'all wide open to make some humorous gay pr0n reference....have at it.)
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
That makes Jack Thompson a criminal, right? That is to say, unnecessarily (from any legal standpoint) publishing gay pornography in public records?
And legal or not, does that not also make Jack Thompson exactly the kind of person he is attacking?
There is a word for that, and the word is: hypocrisy.
is the difference between helping your attorney Jack off with gay porn, and helping your attorney jack off with gay porn.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
You know, I wrote out a well crafted reply exposing why you're wrong, but I left out an important point that I was eager to share.
You're a fucking idiot. Your reasoning on this matter is moronic, and calling my post absolute bullshit only reinforces how much of an imbecile you are.
There, now just combine the two posts.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Its probably just photos of him and his friends from his private collection
We had this guy at a client site who used to forward all the pornographic spam he received to the Help Desk.
That issue solved itself: a severely repressed Christian woman spent a day on the desk, received one of his Emails, and crossed the hall to Human Resources.
Just wondering.
-S
Norm Kent's comment got me the most:
I'm not the one in trouble....sweetie.
*shudder*
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Boycott all Jack Thompson articles.
Why is it that you only hear about JT on tech and gaming related sources? It's because in the real world he's inconsequential, but for those catering to a gaming audience, he's a good source of outrage to be milked at any opportunity.
These stories have no importance or consequence. Boycott all Jack Thompson stories. Start now.
after trying to sue the florida bar for trying to disbar him, this should finally put him over the edge.
This man is dishonest. He is the most unethical person I have ever seen.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I don't think I'd want to see him in one of her black dresses . . . :)
hawkk
You mean all I have to do is submit digital images as evidence in a court proceeding, and copyright no longer applies to the images? Hmm... why don't those sued by the RIAA submit all of their MP3's as evidence, thus making them publicly available as part of the court record?
I really think that the Internet will erode much of the complexity the English language has, but doesn't need to be understood in the coming decades.
"...and then I waggled me wig!"
"You waggled your what?"
"Me wig!"
"Oh!"
PICS OR STFU!
Can we turn the tables on him and sue him for making these inappropriate images available to minors?
A simple reference would have sufficed? What if the judge didn't believe him and told him to WHIP IT OUT? Everyone here knows websites GO DOWN ALL THE TIME. His evidence could literally disappear, MAKING IT REALLY HARD to make his case. We should just let JACK OFF. Seriously, pursuing this is just an ABUSE OF THE PENAL SYSTEM. To suggest that we should be COMING IN THE BACKDOOR in an attempt to STICK IT TO HIM suggests that there is a GIANT GAPING HOLE THAT NEEDS TO BE PLUGGED in our legal system.
Think about it... It absolutely would not make any difference. If he is disbarred he would just find someone else that wants the spotlight and they will work together. I guarantee you there would be no shortage of lawyers willing to do this.
From the GP article now that it is back online:
Via e-mail, Thompson told GamePolitics:
I'm not the one in trouble. The judge found a certain lawyer's material obscene. I absolutely love it. This is the best thing to happen to me in a long, long time. Check my [case] filings, sweetie.
Yep, he thinks that the "National Gay News" author is the one in trouble, and the judge found said site-runner/author's linked porn obscene!
More proof on how extremely delusional JT is, and how he needs a real psychiatric evaluation.
Check my [case] filings, sweetie.
Given the subject of his complaint, it would not be surprising if that comment towards Dennis(GP's site owner) was intentional. We have always known Jack to be a bigot, while hiding behind claims of being a politically correct person.
I particularly like this argument from Thompson (found on page 3, point 5) "Recently an Assistant U.S. Attorney, licensed by The Florida Bar, traveled to Michigan to have sex with what he thought was a five-year-old girl. He was able to make that "hook-up" through the Internet, the same Internet through which obscene material is made available to pedophiles. Any person with a brain, lawyer or not, knows that obscene images made available through the same Internet are not only making such encounters more frequent but also more desired." He provides another source later to show the connection between pornography and sexual crimes, but his argument here seems to be this: One pedophile used the Internet to "hook-up" with children. The Internet also has obscenity on it. Therefore, obscenity causes these "hook-ups" to happen more often and be more desired. In philosophy, we call this kind of argument a "bad" argument. Less formally, we might say that it sucks.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
emphasis mine
I was trying to figure out if this was going to trigger my [salacious|sacrilege] engine, but Judge Jordan seems to need [a|an] [biology|English] lesson. I believe we either someone is not what they appear to be or we have a case of poor English skills.
The quote should've been "which includes several graphic images of sodomy between adult males".
Technically, given definitions in modern dictionaries, two males cannot have sex. I know billy boy clinton would back me up on that, but it is true and he was right. He didn't have sex with an intern in the Oval Office given their statements. He sodomized an intern in the Oval Office.
Of course, I have no idea what kind of case this is, but the attorney putting forward this kind of material is attempting to shock or outrage the jury or judge. Sounds like a standard legal ploy to me.
As an aside, is anyone shocked by this stuff any longer? And would it have the same tone if it were two females? And can two females, given the (christian biblical) origin of the word commit sodomy if they are enjoying cunnilingus?
C.E.I applaud your attempted misreading of your quoted citation:
...
:0)>
Quoting "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" (Adams, et al.):
"Whereas difficulties of objectively evaluating
psychoanalytic hypotheses are well-documented, these ap-
proaches would predict that sexual arousal is an intrinsic re-
sponse to homosexual stimuli, whereas Barlow's (1986) theory
would predict that sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli by ho-
mophobic individuals is a function of anxiety. These competing
notions can and should be evaluated by future research."
Basically the summary (which this is not) makes it clear that the study is inconclusive for several reasons.
Incidentally (and I'm guessing this is where you're coming from) being a "homosexual offender" (1 Corinthians 6:9) means doing something sexual to someone of the same sex. If you refuse to follow the stimulus then no "sin" is committed (YMMV). Just as if you're tempted to steal but don't you are not a thief, etc..
The you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument is quite an intriguing one (I hate bananas!). It's logically flawed, of course, but is a "stronger" argument for those lacking any factual basis than a simple ad-hominem attack as it's hard to refute against a weak minded opposition.
Of course the reason you hate theists is because you realise the truth about your relationship with god but don't want to admit it.
Narrator: In A.D. 2007, prison was beginning.
....
;)
Jack: What happen ?
Guard: Somebody set up us the bunk.
Guard: We get cell
Jack: What !
Guard: Main cell turn on.
Jack: It's you !!
Kent: How are you gentlemen !!
Kent: All your butt are belong to us.
Kent: You are on the way to anal destruction.
Jack : What you say !!
Kent: You have no chance to survive make your lube.
Kent: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Guard: Jack !! Jack: Take off every pants
Jack: You know what you doing
Jack: Move butt
Jack: For great justice.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Thompson is a modern-day Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. I love the fact that this one insane, eccentric individual can be a persistent thorn in the side of the video game industry. He reminds me of Mathias Rust, the guy who landed his plane in Red Square.
But then, I'm also inspired by the fact that super-lawyer David Boies, who represented hanging chadster Al Gore, Enron CFO Fastow, and of course SCO, was defeated in court by a self-represented gardener. After burning through 13,000 billable hours.
Ride on, gentle knight!
Okay, I'll agree with the mods that the parent was a rather transparent troll and should probably be modded as such.
That last sentence does have some sort of filthy charm to it, though, to give credit where due...can't say I didn't chuckle, just a little bit. The addition of "rotten" really did the trick, if I had to put my finger on it.
[ ] tits
[ ] gtfo
Once again, Jack Thompson should get a life and get lost.
It is an established fact that Bin Laden hates us because he is jealous of our freedom fries, primetime talent shows and PATRIOT act.
And I applaud your ability to spin even the most minor quibble by the authors into a denial of the finding.
The section I quoted was from the précis of the full article. A summary if the findings, in other words. That summary states clearly that homophobic men were observed to respond to gay sex where non-homophobic men did not.
It is an observation, where Barlow's paper suggests that anxiety causes the response is a hypothesis.
If you choose to believe a large collection of random homophobes simultaneously produced boners at a gay stag movie because they were scared, when an equal number of non-homophobes did not, then I'll not argue, but that still lives us with an obvious conclusion.
Homophobes are either queer or wimps.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Whoops, that should be "Barlow's paper which suggests that anxiety..."
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
In other words the "You smelt it you dealt it" argument...
Good post.
I think due to the (admittedly decreasing) social stigmata associated with homosexuality there is a societal benefit in a denial.
This is particularly the case in certain religiously fundamentalist nations, though this is not entirely the case.
There is a certain case for heterosexual arousal in response to homosexual activities as a survival response; in the words of Team America:
"Sometimes dicks fuck assholes too".
In other words, the arousal response can be explained in the sense of using sex as a dominance device as seen with lower mammals such as dogs. Aligning yourself with a dominant alpha can provide benefits.
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
There is no "you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument", there is simply an observable correlation and that correlation is sufficiently compelling to some people. The whole concept of "you are one" is flawed as well. Sexual orientation is fluid and nailing down what exactly is homosexuality is not useful except when making it sufficiently narrow so as to enable persecution. When was the last time someone described himself as homosexual just to give himself the benefit of the doubt?
Homosexuality is defined by the attraction, not by the action taken because of it and the notion of sin is irrelevant. Defining homosexuality by conduct only serves to lessen the population of homosexuals and make it more easy to hate them. One's heterosexuality is assumed, after all, not defined by engagement in heterosexual activity. Defining homosexuality differently is hypocritical.
> Incidentally (and I'm guessing this is where you're coming from) being a "homosexual
...
:0)>
> offender" (1 Corinthians 6:9) means doing something sexual to someone of the same sex. If
> you refuse to follow the stimulus then no "sin" is committed (YMMV). Just as if you're
> tempted to steal but don't you are not a thief, etc..
It is not really relevant, as the accusation of being homosexual in this context refers to being attracted to your own gender.
> The you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument is quite an intriguing one (I hate bananas!).
If you really emotionally hate bananas, rather than just disliking the taste of them, I'd believe some interesting psychological artifact must lie behind. Could it be that they a vaguely phallic, and thus remind you of sides of your own sexuality that makes you uncomfortable?
> It's logically flawed, of course, but is a "stronger" argument for those lacking any
> factual basis than a simple ad-hominem attack as it's hard to refute against a weak
> minded opposition.
In general yes, like many generalizations, but for a specific case, no.
I came independently to the conclusion in my youth because a (at the time) common "rational" argument for suppressing homosexual practice was that if everyone were allowed to practice homosexual sex, there would be no children, and the human race would go extinct. That argument makes only sense for someone who is attracted to his or her own gender.
> Of course the reason you hate theists is because you realise the truth about your
> relationship with god but don't want to admit it.
I believe people who hate theist have some deep emotional problems, typically dating back to their childhood, growing up in a suppressive theist environment. Atheism is, by nature, not something the "believers" tend to feel strong about. There really isn't anything there to feel strong about. All the fanatical atheists I have meet have been reformed theists. Their hate is part of their liberation process. Similar to how the most fanatical anti-smokers and anti-drinking people are former addicts.
...a film from the Fifties in which this guy spends all of an hour belittling the porn industry and its perceived effects on minors, while at the same time showing samples which most red-blooded males would spooge all over the ceiling over. As I'm sure, many have.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Phoenix Wright: OBJECTION!
What most atheist (like me) hate, is not the theist themselves. It is their tendency :
1) to try to impose their law/will onto other by perverting the law and secularity of the state/school (see dover school and many more example from many countries)
2) to accuse the atheist of being the cause of the moral dilution/ lack of moral of the modern society
3) to contend that THEIR religion is the source of moral and atheist by definition cannot be a moral person
4) their hypocrisy at rejecting science, but using the fruit of thereof (rejecting evolution, using antibiotics to save their lives)
and so on and so no. In other word it is not the theist themselves which are hated, but the hypocrisy of some of them.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Homosexuality is defined by the attraction, not by the action taken because of it and the notion of sin is irrelevant.
I completely disagree. If your definition were correct, then I think more than half of the population would qualify as homosexual.
Man A: Suppose there is a man in college who fools around with his college roommate. Later, he goes on to get married and has children and leads a normal and happy life as a married man including sex with his wife and the normal consumption of straight (meaning, containing females) pornography.
Is he gay? No, because people do not perceive him as gay.
Man B: Suppose there is another man who has been married for thirty years but has always sought anonymous and clandestine sex from other men.
Is he gay? No, because people do not perceive him as gay.
Man C: Suppose there is another man who is partnered with another man and has a cat named "Stonewall" and drives a pink hyundai and lives in the "gay ghetto" and works as a gay activist and instead of speaking regular English speaks English that is laced with chiffon.
Is he gay? Do bears shit in the woods?
And that is the definition of homosexuality: you're gay if people perceive you as gay. Usually that assumes that you admit to it, but in cruel cases it happens even if you don't admit to it or even if you deny it. I had sex with Man A and Man B (above), so those two men are not hypothetical. Neither is Man C, but he's far to faggy to be my type. Hence, no sex.
What about Man D? Man D is partnered with another man for a decade, is an adoptive parent, lives in the conservative suburbs, hates the "gay pride" parade, despises "liberal" politics, and really loves man-on-man action. Is he gay? That depends on whom you ask. It's an open question in the so-called "gay community" whether or not a person who does not ascribe to "gay culture" is truly gay. Man D is myself.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I think you may be forgetting that physical response and psychological/emotional response can be totally divorced from eachother.
:)
For instance, many women who are rape survivors report having experienced physical arousal symptoms while being raped. For many of them this causes some considerable self-doubt and horrible feelings of guilt.
If we apply your "Homophobes are either queer or wimps" mentality to rape victims (the analogy being physical response to sexual stimuli) I think you can see the absurdity that arises. It makes "she was asking for it" seem urbane.
More likely, homophobes posess psychological attributes that make them abhor homosexuality. The fact that their bodies respond to that stimulus makes it even worse for them. As with the example of physical symptoms of arousal in female rape victims, being betrayed by your own body can cause severe psychological tension. I am not a psychologist, but where a woman might respond with guilt and self-doubt, a male might respond with violence.
Something that also is worth noting. Pop psychology states that males are heavily skewed toward visual stimulus when it comes to sexuality, while females are much less so. I wonder how female homophobes would react to the same visual experiment. Come to think of it, are there any female homophobes?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I think it's fairly easy to understand the link between religion and fervent homophobes who are gay themselves. Hypocrites? Not really.
(a) Impressionable child taught about parent's religion. At that time he's probably more worried about his mild desire for his neighbours Xbox, and other "temptation" easily overcome. than whether he prefers Johnny or Jenny and quite happy to accept that Gays are "sinners" or whatever other bollocks his parents / church will tell him.
(b) Child accepts religion and believes in God and happily does little "sinful"
(c) Child becomes young adult and hits puberty and, God shits on him from above. He's been good, he went to church, he thought good thoughts, but God has made him a homosexual. These are strong emotions, feelings and drives. This aint "Should I steal or not"
(d) Result : Adult is, through no choice of his own, everything he's been taught since Childhood to despise. He despises himself and others like him.
Some might reject the religion. Some might twist what the religion really says. But there'll be a few that twist themselves instead.
It'd be no different to a pig, if it were Jewish, believing itself to be unclean because of a few thousand year old misunderstanding about the difference between saying something is "unholy" and saying it's "unhygienic". Replace much of those part of the old testament that say things are "Unholy" with "Unhygienic" and it partly makes sense. Albeit its still lacking and flawed compared with science. This is the problem of writing things in stone.
No surprise here if he goes after that, he has just as good of an understanding of it as he does video games.