The exgay movement’s small publicity coup in an Asian newspaper appears to be part of a growing effort by the religious right to "prevent" homosexuality and gay rights — not by strengthening the movement’s weak and sometimes scandal-plagued treatment programs, but by disseminating biased information.
While Asia may serve as one battleground for U.S. fundamentalists, another conflict is being launched much closer to home: U.S. public schools.
The front page of the Exodus newsletter for December 2004 (not available online) boasts that Focus on the Family is leading Exodus in a new direction in 2005.
Exodus president Alan Chambers says Focus will guide Exodus to "build strong grassroots coalitions in strategic cities that will force the public school system" to stop promoting "secular humanism and devaluing moral truth" and instead to "promote the truth about homosexuality." The goal is political "prevention" of homosexuality — not care and treatment.
An inside article by Scott Davis, director of Exodus Youth, details the agenda:
Create "a unique conference to train pastors, parents, educators, and students how to practically extend the transforming love of God to young people struggling with same-sex attractions." The Focus/Exodus conference will "equip and mobilize local communities to reform the public school system’s handling of homosexuality and hold school leaders accountable."
"This one-day conference will train pastors, ministry leaders, parents, educators, students, former homosexuals, and concerned citizens to effectively speak to the issues of homosexuality from a public policy, psychological, educational and redemptive perspective directly benefiting the public school system. Conference participants will be trained to:
- Speak the truth publicly about homosexuality in a compassionate, Christ-like manner.
- Mobilize Christian student groups to be a force for reconciliation, dialog, and truth within the public school system.
- Promote healthy school policy based on family values through involvement with PTA’s [sic], school boards, teacher’s [sic] union, and student groups.
- Educate the local church and combat the heresy of pro-gay theology.
- Rescue questioning students from pro-gay groups and provide them with hope and help for change.
- Encourage true dialog and healthy discussion within PTA’s, teacher organizations, and student bodies.
"It is past time for Christians both within Exodus and the larger church body to stand up for the lives of questioning students. These precious students have been lied to through a vast misinformation campaign, indoctrinated with the myths that homosexuality is inborn, unchangeable, and as moral and healthy as heterosexuality.
"We hear from many desperate students who long to overcome their unwanted same-sex attractions, but have been told that their only choice is to accept a gay identity. They often respond in deep sorrow and depression to these lies that their sexuality is fated and they have no right or hope of change.
"For students with unwanted same-sex attractions, the truth that they have the right and hope of sexual self-determination is a true lifeline. They do not have to adopt a gay identity! Exodus and the church can help them pursue healing and change. Students have the right to be taught the truth rather than politically correct lies, especially on a matter as important as sexual identity and self-determination.
"The Exodus Training Conference will equip the church to bring this hopeful message into the public school system, combating pro-gay misinformation with a legitimate alternative for questioning students. Please support this vital new training through your giving to Exodus and prayers for us."
It chills me to the bone when I hear groups like Exodus are targeting children. It is bad enough they seek to target vulnerable adults, but I can’t imagine the damage they will do if they start evangelising to kids. My experiences at school were hard enough as a gay teenager without having the additional problems of the false promise of a cure dangled in my face.
I presume that they will have printed material to hand out. Does anybody have any copies of it, or is it predominantly reprints from website articles?
It is both sobering and sickening to imagine the damage that these bigots could do to children–all in the name of boosting their own sense of self-worth and self-satisfaction.
Can’t every reasonable person see that the promise to “rescue questioning students from pro-gay groups” is itself a statement of bigotry and hate? Isn’t it OBVIOUS to anyone with eyes to see with that charging homosexuality with being immoral and unhealthy is an act of ignorance and prejudice? Shouldn’t the very use of the phrase “the heresy of pro-gay theology” cause all gay Christians in the world to rise up together and destroy these purveyors of pain and suffering?
In Kansas City we have an organization called Passages, which supports gay, lesbian, and questioning youth. They are probably already aware of this campaign, but I will contact them just to make sure. I hope that all such youth groups are aware of this menace, and that they will receive our full support in countering lies with encouragement and hope.
Talk about recruiting children….
Seriously, though. who among us *didn’t* have a false hope of cure dangled before them? This will make things so moch worse for the innocent spouses and children that have to deal with what these charlatans ply. (note, I do not view the duped gay spouse as guilty, the ex-gays who lie about certainty of cure are the guilty ones, responsible for what happens)
The only possible positive that I see coming out of this is that many kids will have an alternative to the oft-heard message that homosexuality is immutable and that the only healthy path to take is towards same-sex sexual relationships. Frankly, I think that is the message that most kids receive, through the media and society generally, and sometimes through overzealous pro-gay teachers and programmes.
The topic of the mutability of homosexuality is almost never represented with anything approaching impartiality.
Robert Spitzer, in a widely criticized 2003 study, found 200 highly motivated “ex-gays” who claimed to have changed their sexual *behavior*. Few, if any, claim to have changed their attraction to persons of the same sex. There have been no studies to date which can demonstrate the overall success rates of so-called “conversion therapy.”
It should come as no surprise that there are those who identify themselves as homosexual who can change their behavior with effort and motivation. Keep in mind that modes of sexuality operate in a continuum between gay and straight. It is likely that those whose orientation lie somewhere in the middle of that continuum may be able to change their behavior with fewer internal conflicts than those who are more exclusively gay. Spitzer neglected to characterize his subjects on any sort of gay/straight scale.
Many in the APA, including some gay-affirmative therapists, support the right of gay men and women to seek *non-coercive* therapies if they want to try to change their sexual behaviors for religious, moral or other reasons. Because the few successes occur only when the participant is highly motivated, it should never be used in any sort of compulsive environment. Parents, for example, should not be advized to insist their gay kids undergo “conversion therapy” as a condition for college, privileges, etc. And the availability of “conversion therapy” must never be an excuse to deny gays safe haven in schools and the community as Exodus does.
These therapies cannot be taken to be a “cure” because homosexuality is not a mental illness. In no way should the purported ability of *some* to change their behavior be taken as a sign that *everyone* should do so as their only morally-correct recourse.
Actually I have never seen or heard of a teacher encouraging students to have relationships heterosexual or homosexual. About the most the pro-gay side will do is simply say that is ok to have a relationship and ok not to.
Well stated, Jim.
The problem is though, that at the same time the hypocrites at Exodus/FOTF are trying to gain access to schools for themselves with their message of coercive “change,” they are also actively trying to deny access to those who bring affirmative messages on homosexuality.
I still like confronting those folks with two questions.
1. Just why do heterosexuals demand to be the ones to control gay people’s entire lives?
2. Who are heterosexuals to deny it when homosexuals say it’s not a choice?
Let’s just say-it’s offensive when whites do it to blacks, Christians to Jews and men to women.
So regardless of whether or not it’s a choice or immutable, no human being has the right to dominion over another.
It’s in the Constitution and hardwired into human beings from birth.
Hi Nathan. You said, “The only possible positive that I see coming out of this is that many kids will have an alternative to the oft-heard message that homosexuality is immutable and that the only healthy path to take is towards same-sex sexual relationships. Frankly, I think that is the message that most kids receive, through the media and society generally, and sometimes through overzealous pro-gay teachers and programmes.”
I was thinking the other night how completely opposite this was from my experience. Im 25, so not too far out of school, and I stayed completely in the closet for my entire schooling (and did my best to try not to be gay). While I heard from a few people how being gay was ok, most of the messages I heard at school, in church, on tv, etc. were either nothing (they didnt talk about gays as if I were the only gay person around) or negativity. Whenever I saw a gay person on tv on a talk show, etc. there was always another person on there talking agains the gay person stating how immoral or terrible homosexuality was.
I think Exodus and other groups say that the pro-gay message is much more prevalent than it is. I personally did not have the luxury of hearing such a pro-gay message while I was growing up, and I feel like my experience is pretty typical.
Where are these “overzealous pro-gay teachers and programmes”? Kansas City has one small, struggling program trying to support gay/lesbian/questioning youth, and 2,000 churches where hatred for gays is taught like a Bible lesson. Let’s see…1 versus 2,000…doesn’t sound like the overzealous have much of a chance.
And why is it bad for kids to hear that “homosexuality is immutable” if that’s the truth? Are you saying that kids should be lied to because that will make them feel better? What useful purpose does that serve in the end?
TA,
I’m 25 also, but grew up in Australia, which is probably a little different from the US. I didn’t hear much at school, but practically everything on TV was a propaganda-like message portraying anyone who questioned someone’s choices as bigotted and cruel*. The stuff I read in health info sheets always gave the impression that I had no choice but to accept my feelings and do whatever I could to satisfy them (ie. get a boyfriend). If I had read even one statement that said, “some people with same-sex attractions choose to remain celibate”, I might have been happy with that. My church never breached the subject, but I was later shocked to find so many churches with myopic and hateful attitudes against people with same-sex attractions.
*eg. the film “Philadelphia” is almost a textbook example of propaganda. No moderate voice is heard. The hero of the piece is seen in a position to receive only sympathy, while the villains (whose private lives and motivations are not explored) are vicious in their vilification of him.
“And why is it bad for kids to hear that “homosexuality is immutable” if that’s the truth? Are you saying that kids should be lied to because that will make them feel better? What useful purpose does that serve in the end?”
It depends what we mean by immutable. I agree that it is probably true that the direction of physical sexual attractions is unlikely to change much once puberty comes to an end. This is usually not the statement that is given. It is more common to hear something like, “I realised when I tried to change but couldn’t that this was the real me. God has made me this way. I am Gay. All those people who who I thought were friends didn’t really love me. In facted that hated what I really am, etc. etc.”
I bring this up, not to single out or argue with Nathan, because I agree with much of what he says, but because he has raised this point and I’ve wondered about it: what is the story behind the equation celibacy = happiness? Why would celibacy be promoted as a “cure” for those with same-sex attractions? And is it practical or realistic to try to teach kids to be celibate?
wayne,
I only think it should be been seen as an option, a choice. As far as I’m concerned, it is currently my most reasonable choice given my views on same-sex sexual relationships. I do not see it as a “cure”, in any way. Nor do I see it as something that will, in itself, make me happy. Perhaps, in the future, I may pursue a sexual relationship with someone of the other sex, if it seems appropriate.
Is it practical to teach it to kids? It probably depends on the kid. Some people ask this question when talking about sex education and abstinence. They argue that kids are just too sexually fired up and won’t be able to do it.
If I had to rank these choices in terms of moral “goodness”, I would rank them like this:
worst = going out and having sex indiscriminately with persons of the same sex.
better = going out and having sex with one person of the same sex whom you love.
best = celibacy, or finding a person of the opposite sex who you can satisfy sexually.
Nathan,
Once you describe “Philadelphia,” one of the few movies to show real, human gay characters, as “propaganda,” I think we see a lot more about where you are coming from. Exactly how does this film qualify as “propaganda”? Because it shows gay people who are not monsters (but there are gay people who are not monsters)? Because Tom Hanks’ character has a loving and supporting family (even though there are gay people with loving and supporting families)?
Let’s face it, the movie is unflinching in both its portrayl of the physical destruction of HIV, and the risk of indiscriminate sex, both to the doer and his/her partner, as that is the way that Hanks’ character gets the disease. But neither his status as a gay man, nor as HIV+, in any way affects his ability to do his job well, and that is the point of the film.
It is interesting to me that the “religious right” movement fights any and all positive or real portrayls of gay people – IMHO it is because they know the single most effective weapon against the coordinated anti-gay campaign of the “pro-family” movement is the existence of gay people who are “normal” regular people, with the same problems and issues as anyone else.
Poll after poll shows that people who know and love gay friends, relatives, co-workers and neighbors, are far more apt to reject the simple stereotypes that “pro-family” movement. Those who know and love us understand that we are individuals, and are as varied in our lives as any other group of people.
It seems like the “religious right” is asking society, including our schools, to not present ANY arguments that contradict their “beliefs.” If that is the case, it is completely inappropriate -if the children of the “religious right” reject their parents’ belief that gay people are immoral and a threat to society or the institution of marriage, and do so based on their own interactions and understanding of gay people, then perhaps it is time the “religious right” acknowledged the weaknesses of its own beliefs, and stopped demanding they be protected by the government.
CPT_Doom,
Sorry this post is coming late. It seems to me that you’re insinuating that my description of the film as propaganda demonstrates that I am coming from the Religious Right. I can assure you that I have no such pretentions.
If you want, let’s have people from every possible side of this debate barking at eachother at every public school assembly.
I stand by my characterisation of Philadelphia. It is an old film from a time before HIV became 10 times as horrific and indiscriminating an epidemic among people in the third world. It portrays the main character in a pitiable position only, while his detractors are uniformly vicious and cruel. Not surprisingly, it is revealed in the last scenes that the source for the vilifier’s evil is none other than the Bible. Who’s producing the “simple stereotypes”?
I don’t need to be told that there are gay people who are not monsters, or who have loving and supportive families. But I would like to be told that there are people who disagree with some of Tom Hanks’ choices, but are not prepared to stand by while he is sacked.
“Her self image wasn’t born, it was MADE.”
I’m glad you agree. I also have a Malaysian friend who had similar surgery. Interestingly, the process is not available in Australia – she had it done while on holiday in her home country, where it is far more common. I think, for many in her situation, it has less to do with teasing and more to do with an ideal image portrayed in Western advertising and hollywood.
“There is NO reason to change.”
I wish you would admit that some people have their reasons. Whether faith, family, or just feeling uncomfortable with it, people don’t all want to come around to the happy state of mind where some of these things are compromised so they can be proud of their sexuality. I know you will say it is not a compromise, but that is your opinion. I do agree that unqualified promises of change are dangerous.