Ex-Gay Watch

Conservative David Horowitz strikes back against Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America:

Render Unto Caesar
By David Horowitz
FrontPage magazine

Last week, Horowitz criticized the religious right over its harassment of Republican National Committee chairman Marc Racicot.

In Knight’s reply to that column, Horowitz now finds instances of:

• intolerance
• anti-Semitism
• strawman argumentation
• a “systematic confusion of ethnic, gender, or sexual groups with leftwing political agendas.”

Horowitz’s belief about the exgay movement:

The conversion movements have been miserable failures. They have recruited a highly motivated and extreme minority among homosexuals — people so unhappy with their condition that they are desperate to change it — and the results are pathetic. Only a tiny minority of what is itself a tiny minority of people willing to go through the conversion process achieve a well-adjusted heterosexual result.

It is factually accurate that exgays constitute a small segment of the gay population, and that the movement’s self-defined successes are even fewer. Whether Horowitz believes people should enter an exgay program is unclear; it may depend on whether exgay programs become more honest about success rates.

Horowitz’s conclusion is, it seems to me, inescapable for conservatives:

A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause. Would Robert Knight like the government to investigate every American to determine whether they are homosexual or not and then compel those who are to undergo conversion therapy — or else? This is a prescription for a totalitarian state. No (philosophical, small-government) conservative should want any part of it.

I wish to thank an anonymous Ex-Gay Watch reader for pointing out this article.

Janet is a regular participant on the Ex Gay Discussion Board, where a number of ex-gay ministry leaders discuss the war against homosexuality.

When on a particular occasion she misstated the views of gays (as she often does), I initiated a discussion with her via e-mail.

This is a transcript of that discussion.

Robert P. George, board member for the Family Research Council, says Rick Santorum Is Right in the National Review.

George starts with a lie — the myth that sodomy is a non-marital sexual act — and proceeds into strawman arguments against the critics of sodomy laws.

Under prevailing law, the marriage relationship enjoys constitutional protection;…

This is false. In several states, sodomy laws do not exempt married couples. And crimes committed by married couples enjoy no special constitutional protections — nor should they. Crimes are crimes regardless of who commits them.

…Not only sodomy, but also fornication, adultery (e.g., spouse swapping, “swinging”), polygamy, group sex, prostitution, adult brother-sister or parent-child incest, and (depending on one’s views about the rights of animals and their capacity to consent) bestiality (would be) protected as specifications of the constitutional right of privacy.

This is false, too. Adultery, for example, is the violation of a legally binding contract voluntarily entered into by married partners. Parent-child incest and bestiality are non-consensual and harmful. And so on.

The remainder of George’s analysis is built upon the faulty assumption that all sex must be either proscribed or constitutionally “protected.” In fact, the question before the Supreme Court is no more about a “constitutional right to sodomy” than a “constitutional right to smoke at home” (if one believes sodomy is bad) or a “constitutional right to drink Pepsi at home” (if one believes sodomy is, independent of other factors, morally neutral).

The case before the Court involves questions of:

1. privacy,
2. unreasonable search and seizure
3. unequal enforcement of sodomy laws, and
4. inequality in states where heterosexual sodomy is legal while homosexual sodomy is not.

These questions are analyzed from a libertarian (philosophical conservative or small-government) perspective at the Independent Gay Forum.

George concludes, in part:

What sexual liberationists, “gay” or “straight,” wish to abolish is the legal concept of marriage as a “one-flesh union” made possible by the sexual complementarity of a husband and wife whose physical union is the biological basis of the comprehensive sharing of life that marriage is meant to be.

This is a strawman argument and an effort to change the topic away from sodomy. Neither libertarians nor libertines seek to abolish other people’s concepts of marriage. Different couples from different religious traditions have always married for different reasons. George does not respect this freedom of choice. And George’s concept of marriage discriminates against Christian heterosexual couples who cannot or will not conceive or raise children.

From the Straits Times, Singapore:

The ex-transsexual has thrown the dresses – together with a few skeletons – out of his closet. Religion, he says, was his saviour.

It was a relief to me that, if this individual found it necessary to reverse course, he was able to do so before surgery.

‘Well, I’m really not in any physical relationship with anyone,” he says. “Chastity is a word we all hate. But I see it as being responsible to myself. I have made a choice and whether I find women or men attractive is irrelevant.”

I wish more ex-gay ministries would accept responsibility in a manner such as this (and I realize that some do). Shotgun exgay marriages do not seem like a good idea to me — certainly they are worse for the institution of marriage than gay marriages.

The next turning point came in 1991 when he met Mr Synclair Rogers, an American pastor who came out of transsexualism to become a husband and a father. The latter also started a ministry called Choices In Singapore to help people with sexual issues.

Here we have someone (the reporter?) imagining “isms” again, as if transsexuality were a political party.

Apart from that, I know nothing about ex-transsexual ministries, and I need to research them further before offering any constructive observations or criticism of them.

“But as the title suggests, the book is about freedom of choice. We’re free to choose, and we can choose to be free from whatever constrains us.

“And if that means an alternative lifestyle for some people, then power to them,” says the author, who also gives talks on sexuality in secondary schools here.

Without knowing more about the author or the ministries, this sounds to me like a mature and responsible position for an ex-movement activist to adopt. The speaker avoids presumption about what’s best for others, and (within the confines of the article) espouses free choice without attached agendas of discrimination and criminal prosecution.

Pastor D.L. Foster of witnessfortheworld.org wrote last week:

Your ideology is truly modern, but over 2,000 years ago Christ said “render to Caesar things that are Caesar’s and unto God things that be God’s.”

Actually the basic philosophy of this blog — rational reflection on spirituality, sexuality, and individual rights — dates to the Renaissance. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is modern, dating mostly to World War II with certain strands dating to the late 1800s.

Christians are not excluded from the political process, rather encouraged to get involved.

I totally agree.

You have false assumptions that just because LWO speaks to things of a political nature it taints their ministry message. Not so.

Pastor Foster originally criticized LWO’s conflicting messages, not me. Foster complained that the angry and punitive political message of LWO organizers, reflected periodically on this blog, is at odds with the alternate LWO message that ex-gays offer nothing more than an option to change. When you get right down to it, I hear Foster opposing LWO’s political message, which favors discrimination against gays and special rights for heterosexuals.

Your feeling that it is discriminatory is subjective to your experiences.

And Foster’s feeling that what homosexuals do (whatever that is) is harmful to society is also subjective.

However, the subjective belief that ex-gay public policy is discriminatory comes not from gay activists, but from ex-gays themselves. Exodus executive director Alan Chambers has explicitly testified numerous times in favor of the right to discriminate. In this respect, among others, Exodus practices moral relativism.

For the record, I do not support denying gays and lesbians, etc jobs, housing, or other basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but the line in the sand is drawn for special rights — for anyone.

Then Pastor Foster may share the libertarian sentiments of the Independent Gay Forum. Many of the forum’s authors oppose anti-hate-crime and antidiscrimination laws across the board.

I do not have a lack of people who seek me out for Godly counsel. Actually, I could use a little help. Are you available?

I offered many years ago to Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, and others to help Exodus moderate its political agenda to be less intolerant, and to help Exodus focus its ministry on helping ex-gays and confused non-gays without harming gays. But Exodus declined. Instead, Exodus joined the religious right and declared war against those whom it claims to minister to.

I had been naive about the intentions of Exodus leadership. And besides, my friends at Soulforce would have probably picketed my house if I had helped Exodus.

But if Foster’s invitation is genuine and not sarcastic, then I appreciate the gesture.

Hopefully, the gay community will make sure that NAMBLA rites do not find refuge in their organizations, because they are certainly not trying to join Promise Keepers.

NAMBLA may not be trying to join PromiseKeepers, but neither are the heterosexual pedophile groups. And actually, I know of gay groups that have sought to participate in PromiseKeepers.

I agree with Dale’s comment to Pastor Foster, that tolerance must be extended to gays and to non-Christians, if ex-gays are to receive it in return.

An Ex-Gay Watch reader found this item on Yahoo’s exgaydiscussionboard group. Someone there had asked whether an ex-gay should “minister” to gays at a gay pride festival. The response:

I would say that an ex-gay better be fully equipped
with armor… he/she better be really grounded in who he/she is
before taking on such a task… One would be walking in on their
turf… they are going to be at the peak of their “belief” are in the
depth of their sin if you will…. and it would take some really
strong people to address them at a parade! I would also worry about
the temptation of such an event… some folks just beginning their
recovery… ummmm that would be tough…

I frequently encounter this attitude among ex-gay friends and ex-gay political activists.

Where to begin with the observations?

1. The speaker is still experiencing strong same-gender sexual attractions but misinforming the public about having left homosexuality.
2. The speaker is projecting his own fears and hostilities onto his audience, assuming the worst about their reaction. I have spent years observing ex-gay ministers at tables in Washington’s Dupont Circle and the city’s gay pride festival. Apart from the few troublemakers likely to emerge on any controversial issue, the audience response has overwhelmingly been to ignore or politely engage the minister.
3. The speaker is projecting his own superstitions onto the audience, accusing them of being at the “peak of their ‘belief’” and “depth of their sin.” Sexuality is not a religion or ideology. Nor is equality under the law. The speaker’s condescension toward “sinners” has no legitimate place in any faith, Christian or otherwise. And it is hypocritical, given the speaker’s own ongoing sexual attractions.

Unfortunately, it’s common for ex-gays to draw Satan into any discussion, transferring responsibility for their own decisionmaking, their own spiritual journey, from themselves to Satan.

Satan makes sin attractive… sin is fun! It is the consequence of
sin that is so painful… I think that if Satan could get me to a gay
parade then he would put before my face the most attractive guys
in “my type” category that one could find! Even though I think I am
very healthy… a firefighter does not jump into a blaze to see if it
is hot…..

The speaker projects Satan onto his audience, instead of accepting responsibility for his own thoughts. The speaker also declines to take charge of his own behavioral choices — assuming, for example, that if he meets an attractive stranger, he has no choice but to strip off his clothes and have sex.

The speaker needs to develop some maturity, but it does not appear that he is encouraged to do so by the particular ex-gay ministers that he has selected as peers at the exgaydiscussionboard. Instead, he is encouraged to blame gays, and Satan, for having to confront and make difficult choices in life. Instead of confronting these choices, he is encouraged to support legislation denying gays equality under the law, as a means of removing the choices one must confront as an adult. In the view of these particular minister-activists, liberty sucks. Life would be so much better if every potential sin under the sun were illegal and punishable by Big Government.

One thing that could be done is that a group could “Prayer Walk” the
parade route before the event takes place… praying for floats to
break down… for guys/gals to not find anyone at the event that
appeals to them… that is would rain on their event… that the Holy
Spirit use this time to convict folks of their sins…. that fussing
and bickering take place among the leadership and participants of the
event…. that pictures taken for the media would not turn out…
that cameras and other media equipment would break down… I have
been taught to get very creative and very specific in my prayer
life!

Here is yet another example of why gays become so impatient and annoyed at ex-gay activists. Ex-gays frequently pray, in public, for bad things to happen to gays. They become resentful when things don’t go badly, and blame the media. They pray for God to somehow tell other people how terrible they are, but they do not accept criticism in return.

To be fair, they do pray sometimes for God to make bad things happen to themselves, too — if God decides they are doing something “bad.” Again, this is an abdication of responsibility for one’s own behavioral decisions. Better to do something that might be harmful to others and wait to see if God punishes them, than to act responsibly in the first place.

I would have to look up specific scriptures, but didn’t even Jesus
avoid certain places and certain people in his journey??

Jesus of Nazareth avoided religious hypocrites, specifically those who condescended toward “sinners” and projected their own ill will onto God and humankind.

Nick at morons.org defends Rep. Mark Foley’s right to privacy, which seems to have been violated by both the Christian Coalition and Florida Democrats in a column by Bob Norman of the New Times of Broward-Palm Beach.

A supporter of Ex-Gay Watch writes:

Foley’s life points to the complexities of privacy. Despite being at least
somewhat cautious about revealing himself, he’s out of the closet regardless of denials — a telling reflection of the pressures and risks faced by glbt servicepeople under DADT. It shows the vulnerability of single folk to innuendo and rumor regardless of orientation. Foley’s run in public service is not unlike sticking with an employer for more than a decade: You can hide simple facts from the folks you work with for only so long, no matter how little the facts have to do with the job.

In the end, it’s often impossible to hide the simple facts forever. Contrary to Senator Santorum’s musings, though, government gains nothing by legislating, probing and
prosecuting the intimate details of its constituents.

From today’s Orlando Sentinel:

U.S. Senate candidate and Florida GOP congressman Mark Foley blames unnamed Democrats for circulating a rumor in the media that he is gay. Foley’s legislative record has earned high ratings from gay-rights groups, and negative ratings from the religious right.

Nevertheless, seeing House and Senate seats at risk, the normally antigay U.S. House majority leader Tom DeLay and Rep. Tom Feeney are jumping to Foley’s defense.

Foley says:

“I will not be entertaining questions about my personal life,” Foley said. “I think I am entitled to a personal life, and that is my statement. People may not agree with that . . . I think a majority do.”

I agree that Foley’s private life is not the public’s business — assuming, of course, there is a right to privacy. Hmmm.

(I’ve commented frequently since Apr. 19 on GOP Sen. Rick Santorum’s opposition to a right to privacy, Exodus’ out-of-context use of Santorum’s remarks, and Exodus’
silence on the right to privacy.

For a more accessible and comprehensive look at the right to privacy and the GOP, visit the Independent Gay Forum.)

Thoughts of blogger Bob Griffith on PFOX and Ex-Gay Lobby Days. Thoughtful reading — respectful of the right to lobby, stating that some gay activists engage in “mind-bending justifications,” but disagreeing with PFOX’s use of flawed reasoning to take away others’ civil rights.

Regina Griggs, executive director of PFOX, approvingly shares confused strawman arguments, racial stereotypes, and conspiracy theories about those she claims to minister to.

Read about it in her Wednesday night entry on Yahoo’s exgaydiscussionboard. The message archives are open to the public — no membership required.