What the thief or thieves had gotten away with were early versions of some books a friend had asked me to review: Three Buddhist manuscripts.

The mental image of the thieves – for some reason I always pictured three hardened criminals, but in sort of a Bowery Boys style – excitedly ripping open their sudden, ill-gotten bounty only to find page upon closely printed page on the futility of desire kept me giggling for days.

Every now and then I still wonder if one of the Bowery Boys actually picked up the manuscripts and started reading, and if he was at all changed as a result.

I bring it up because an intriguing press release made its way to my in-box today.

PFOX, or “Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays” has won a case in the District of Columbia’s Superior Court. PFOX sued the National Education Association for “failing to protect ex-gays” in its anti-discrimination policies.

The ruling is that “former homosexuals” must be treated as a sexual orientation under the District’s non-discrimination laws.

In other words, ex-gays are now in the same protected category as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, at least in the District.

While I certainly don’t think any group should be singled out for discrimination, the language PFOX is using about the case is a little maddening.

Their case, essentially, is that suppressing your natural sexual orientation is in itself an orientation.

If a straight man becomes a monk and takes a vow of celibacy, does he become a new orientation called ex-straight?

Regina Griggs, the executive director of PFOX, claimed, in regard to the case, that “the ex-gay community is the most bullied and maligned group in America, yet they are not protected by sexual orientation non-discrimination laws,”

(I would link you to PFOX’s statistics to back up that statement, but for some reason I couldn’t find that page on their website.)

PFOX is now demanding that the NEA add a member from the Ex-Gay Educators Caucus to its Sexual Orientation Committee. Greg Quinlan, one of the directors of PFOX, expanded on the idea by saying “All sexual orientation laws and programs nationwide should now provide true diversity and equality by including former homosexuals.”

Isn’t that kind of like demanding that every swim team includes at least one housecat?

The language PFOX uses about themselves tests my tolerance limits as well.

Sure, there are basic dishonest rhetorical techniques such as taking totally unsupported, broad assumptions as facts, as in the section heading “Why do gays hate ex-gays so much?”

But what really got me was how much language they’ve taken directly from the LGBT community and tried to turn on its head:

“Former homosexuals are the last invisible minority group in America.  The ex-gay movement ensures the safety and inclusion of former homosexuals in all realms of society, and supports the ex-gay community’s equal access to all public venues.  Ex-gays and their supporters should not have to be closeted for fear of other’s negative reactions or disapproval.  They do not think something is wrong with them because they decided to fulfill their heterosexual potential.”

Or:

“Why would anyone choose to leave homosexuality when there is so much discrimination against the ex-gay community?”

Or this:

“Many ex-gays are afraid to come out of the closet because of the harassment they will receive.  The tactics of gay activists are to go after anyone who comes out publicly as ex-gay, force them back into the closet, and then claim that ex-gays don’t exist because there aren’t any out in public.”

I know: It’s hard to read those without whacking yourself in the head with a breadboard. I should have put in a warning.

An exact reversal, of course, doesn’t quite work. As even PFOX’s own site can’t help but acknowledge at points, someone who is gay, bi, lesbian, or trangender is dealing with an innate orientation. Someone who is ex-gay has made a conscious decision to try to suppress unwanted feelings.

But the failings in logic are for another time. I don’t need any fish out of that particular barrel right now.

And I certainly don’t mean to suggest that any group should be singled out for discrimination. If members of PFOX have been bullied or harassed, that’s terrible. It shouldn’t happen.

(That said, reading PFOX’s own site suggests to me that they don’t quite get what discrimination is. Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing worth protecting, but it doesn’t mean that you get to say whatever you want and then nobody ever takes issue with it.)

What interests me about the PFOX site – and what made me think about my thieves and their possible Buddhist conversion – is that they’ve appropriated enough of our language to paint themselves into a corner.

In using our language to demand tolerance, they’ve made the key tactical error of coming out in support of tolerance.

Language like this shows up throughout:

“Gay activists cannot claim sympathy as victims when they victimize their own.  We should all be tolerant of each other regardless of our sexual orientation.”

In addition to acknowledging that people in the ex-gay movement are people who are, um, gay, their stolen language says, over and over, that no one can know someone else’s heart and mind, and that’s why we have to respect and accept a wide range of human variation and experience.

Like my doorstep thieves, I can’t help but wonder if they’ll actually start reading what they’ve stolen and accidentally learn something.