The Rev. Allen Brill spent a week in June contrasting family values with the political goals of the religious-right organizations.
He also examined how politically non-rightist people of faith fall short in marketing their message.
Well worth a read.
In an interview with Christianity Today, Exodus spokesman and ministry manager Randy Thomas warns that the Supreme Court ruling against sodomy laws will shape public policy.
“This ruling gives validity to the gay community,” Thomas said. In addition to potentially redefining the family, it further solidifies their position as a political and social force.”
Earlier this month, Mr. Thomas told XGW:
… Sodomy as a criminal statute was going too far.
In my response to Mr. Thomas, I noted that he had in fact flip-flopped.
And now, in warning Christianity Today of the consequences of the ruling, he flip-flops again.
If Mr. Thomas or his organization oppose the criminalization of sodomy, then perhaps he should provide this critical bit of information to Christianity Today.
Stephen Bennett, who heads the ex-gay ministry named after him, was scheduled to preach and market music to gays in Provincetown, Mass., last weekend.
A reporter for the Cape Cod Times interviewed both Bennett and former ex-gays living in P’town.
Bennett claims to remain close to his former gay lover and gay friends, but unfortunately they are not interviewed.
Bennett blames his father for his homosexuality, but says they have reconciled. Again, Bennett’s assertions are not confirmed through an interview of the father.
Exodus board chairman Mike Haley’s day job is the management of antigay activism at Focus on the Family.
In Focus’ CitizenLink newsletter, Haley’s operation warns that gay equal rights will mean the end of civilization.
The article consists of resentful complaints about the equal rights being achieved by same-sex-attracted individuals, but one section in particular is worth noting for Focus’ unusual recognition of a non-Christian:
Nationally syndicated talk-show host Dennis Prager, who approaches the issue from both a Jewish and a conservative perspective, said by embracing homosexuality our nation is teetering on the precipice of an abyss. Worse still, the vast majority of people don’t even realize it. …
He believes the battle involves a leftist cultural elite that is waging war for what it considers to be its “rights” — sexual freedom, abortion and homosexuality — though these bear no relationship to true Bible-defined rights. …
These secular values have now gained sway over society, far more than Judeo-Christian values, Prager said. Why? A large number of Christians and Jews do not understand their own Bible, he believes. In fact, he adds, some are even embarrassed by it.
“The five books of Moses, specifically known as the Torah, spell out the basic principles under which a civilization can prosper and can fail,” Prager said. “The blurring of the distinction between male and female, and the blurring of the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality, if it indeed succeeds, will spell the end of this civilization.”
In the course of this excerpt, I perceive:
Is Mr. Haley’s day operation espousing the true spirit of Christianity, or a science-lite civilization subjected to a rule of terror?
XGW reader David B. points out ex-gay minister Matthew C. Manning.
Mr. Manning’s web site states that he has miraculously received and maintained an HIV-negative diagnosis after suffering from full-blown AIDS. A story at CBN goes further, asserting that Mr. Manning was cured through prayer alone — even though Manning declined to provide documentation from his military doctors or an independent review of his complete medical records.
Mr. Manning’s testimony is primarily one of low self-esteem driving him to participate in casual and impersonal sexual activity. He inaccurately describes this as a homosexual lifestyle.
To his credit, Manning’s web site does not seem to espouse discrimination. His association with Pat Robertson, however, exposes him to considerable public skepticism.
Addendum: Matthew C. Manning’s ministry is discussed in greater detail here.
Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas earns a one-thumb-up approval rating for accurately describing — albeit momentarily — the Michigan university class, “How to Be Gay.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Thomas demonstrates some persistent ignorance about gay opinions regarding the origins of same-sex attraction. And he concludes by contradicting his earlier, accurate understanding of the course.
The core difference is Exodus believes that sexual orientation is determined by environment. Gay ideology assumes, without any scientific backing, that the environment is a manifestation of an innate orientation. Many people who identify as having moved beyond homosexuality realized that what under girded their previous pro-gay convictions was an actual system of beliefs and expectations the gay community places on it’s own. There is tremendous pressure to uphold gay orthodoxy and especially to not resist it’s precepts.
There is, of course, no single “gay ideology” or “gay orthodoxy” regarding the origins of sexual attraction, or anything else. Nor do those who identify as post-gay or ex-gay reflect any single belief about the reasons they previously identified as gay or same-sex-attracted. Mr. Thomas is employing a strawman argument about correctness, applying it overbroadly among gays, and then countering the argument with a rival form of correctness.
However Mr. Thomas might be obtaining his misunderstandings of gay people and their beliefs, he concludes by garbling the message of the Michigan class.
Yet as the existence of this Michigan class proves, homosexuality can be learned. Therefore the Exodus assertion that homosexuality can be re-directed and even prevented if a person asserts their inalienable right to self-determination is given further credibility.
The class seeks to “prove” nothing and at no point does it appear to discuss whether “homosexuality can be learned.” Rather, the class considers that there are a variety of identities that may be learned through different processes of initiation in wildly different gay-male cultural niches.
Mr. Thomas tries very hard to believe that gay perspectives are diametrically opposed to his.
I believe Mr. Thomas would benefit from an awareness that perspectives on the origins of both sexual attraction and various gay “identities” are diverse and worthy of open discourse, without oversimplification or distortion.
A Human Rights Campaign study found that most Fortune 500 companies have policies opposing discrimination against same-sex-attracted workers. And a rising number of top companies reportedly offer some limited benefits to the families of gay workers or advertise to gay audiences.
That upsets Exodus chairman Mike Haley. Speaking on behalf of Focus on the Family, he says:
“The gay issue is one that’s not going away,” Haley said.
“We see it in the media, we see it in the military, we see it all throughout every walk of life. When you see major organizations and companies throughout our country endorsing this, what child who’s struggling with
gender-identity formation isn’t going to see homosexuality as a potential positive option? That scares me.”
Haley admits being scared at the thought of gay people being treated fairly — and the impact that fair treatment has upon impressionable children. Unless same-sex-attracted adults are harassed, discriminated against, overtaxed, underemployed, and underinsured, then — according to the Exodus chairman — same-sex-attracted children won’t be scared straight.
Do Haley’s views represent those of Exodus International? And if not, then why does Exodus permit him to voice such contempt and resentment?
Haley runs the homosexuality and gender issues department at Focus on the Family. As it happens, this department has a long history of pooh-poohing the problems of sexual harassment, underpaid wives in two-income households, and the ongoing epidemic of rape in America.
But the department does find time to quote Robert Knight, of Concerned Women for America, in opposition to the fair treatment of same-sex-attracted persons in the workplace.
“There are epidemics raging among homosexuals, and yet (companies are) promoting the very behavior that’s taking people’s lives,” Knight said.
Focus on the Family applauds five companies that are noted by HRC for discrimination against gay workers and their families: Aramark Corp., Domino’s Pizza, ExxonMobil Corp., Meijer stores, and National Gypsum. Haley’s department recommends that concerned “Christians” read and act upon Concerned Women for America’s document, “11 Ways You Can Fight the Homosexual Agenda,” by Peter J. LaBarbera.
In the Aug. 26 Exodus media spotlights report, Randy Thomas frets that the Fab Five on the hit TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are making straight guys into their own gay images. He sounds concerned that the five may have felt shunned by Christian churches or that their creative gifts somehow led them to be gay:
Unfortunately, the men on this show may have and are indirectly told by a few that there is no place for them and their gifts in the Body of Christ. They may have been labeled “strange” or sissy and only given one route for their gfitings to come forward. No wonder they want to take the word queer and transform that detestable word into something chic.
He may wish the guys felt more welcome in church, but calling the word queer “detestable” is a curious example to set.
Thomas gives no indication of having watched an episode. If he had, he probably would have separated the hype from the substance of the show.
The hype focuses on orientation, flippant humor, and occasonal exploitation of real-life foibles of the straight guys.
The substance includes men who have volunteered for makeovers by guys who are experts in their fields. In every case, there has also been a specific external goal as well, like being a better person for their wife or family, making a lifetime commitment, taking a new career step, or doing something special for a loved one.
Thomas says:
The Lord liberates the world to bear His Image as unique individuals whereas the product of Queer eye is consumer based and discarded at the end of the day.
A closer examination of the show reveals that the Fab Five makes over its subjects based on what the straight guy wants for himself, what makes him unique, not preconceived notions about straight guys or vain attempts to make straight guys look gay.
It strikes me as a Psalm 139 approach — recognizing that every person is fearfully and wonderfully made, a unique gift in the lives of their loved ones, the Fab Five uses its expertise to bring the subjects’ gifts to the fore.
Along the way, the show is entertaining and informative. It challenges guys be better husbands, sons, and boyfriends. It’s not shy about indulging in kitschy orientation-based humor along the way, but in the end the show makes human connections, reveals uniqueness, and dissolves more stereotypes than it perpetuates.
– Steve B.
p.s. And I know I’m not the only style-impaired gay guy who would welcome a makeover!
I’ve been very busy doing technical work for the IGF site and, for this blog, researching the facts behind Exodus’ all-too-frequent misstatements and political diatribes.
That hasn’t left me with much time to recognize venues where one’s opposition to homosexual behavior does not necessarily require one to become an intolerant ideologue.
Sed Contra, linked from the left navigation menu, is one such venue. David Morrison is opposed to homosexual behavior, but his approach is simultaneously contemplative, prayerful, rational, non-ideological, and — I believe — realistic for those same-sex-attracted Christian folks who choose celibacy.
He’s no gay rights hero by any means. I disagree with his views on homosexuality, but I respect his approach.
Mike Haley, chairman of the board of Exodus International and a spokesman for Focus on the Family, fumed at CBS Aug. 21 for “The Amazing Race,” a show that had the gall to include among its contestants a gay couple that considers itself married for life.
Haley wrote:
“Why can’t they say they’re married?” a CBS spokeswoman said when conservative activists protested the show’s premiere. “What’s the difference?”
The difference, of course, is that they aren’t really married. At least not in any sense that any U.S. court or state recognizes. Despite Vermont’s civil-unions law, despite some outside-the-mainstream churches that perform “commitment ceremonies” for gay and lesbian couples, the fact is that honest-to-goodness marriage remains reserved for one man and one woman in this country.
Haley’s comment demonstrated considerable disrespect for church-based definitions of marriage and a contempt for gay monogamy.
Haley’s resentment toward gay couples quickly turned to outright distortions of history:
You’ve heard, no doubt, that 10 percent of the population is gay or lesbian, right? A fabrication born when a study by sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was misquoted. In fact, in a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, a challenge to the state’s sodomy law, a coalition of 31 pro-gay groups admitted that “the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States,” the National Health and Social Life Survey, “found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”
Some gay activists have been quoting percentages in the vicinity of 3 percent for years. Does Haley actually listen to activists before criticizing them?
So why do gay activists continue to quote the larger number? Ask one of them, Bruce Voeller….
A colleague points out to me that Voeller died in 1994. Haley’s suggestion that we ask Voeller is, well, morbidly curious.
Ask one of them, Bruce Voeller, who wrote in his book, “Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale”: “After years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, that concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become generally accepted as ‘fact.’ … As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling it made it so.”
Another colleague points out that Voeller wrote no such book. There is a seven-page article of that title in an anthology published by the Kinsey Institute — “Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation” — but no book.
It would appear, at best, that Haley did not actually read the article that he quoted. And in fact a misquote is just what it was. In the above excerpt, Haley removes parentheses and part of two sentences.
Here is what Voeller originally said:
“In any case, after years of our educating those who inform the public and
make its laws, the concept that 10% of the population is gay has become a
generally accepted “fact.” While some reminding always seems necessary, the 10%
figure is regularly utilized by scholars, by the press and in government
statistics. As with so many pieces of knowledge (and myth), repeated telling made it
so — incredible as the notion was to the world when the Kinsey group first put
forth its data or decades later when the Gay Movement pressed that data into
public consciousness.”
My colleague reports that, as the author repeatedly made clear in his article, Voeller himself accepted the 10 percent figure as accurate, but that it was repeated insistence of the fact by gays that made the media accept it as a fact.
Haley proceeded further into his tangle of strawman arguments:
Will repeated telling it make gay “marriage” so? That’s the activists’ hope.
Haley’s remark diminishes the value of religious same-gender marriages, selectively consigning religious values and covenants to a disrespected second-class status behind civil marriage.
How so? Gay religious marriages exist, whether Haley likes it or not. They have existed for decades — in some faith traditions, for centuries — regardless of what Haley wants people to say. Haley hopes that civil authorities will continue to favor some faith traditions over others indefinitely.
Moving on from his misquotion of Voeller, Haley expresses bitterness that gay people are achieving more social and religious respect than, say, polygamists. After all, if gay couples can live long, committed, monogamous lives, honor the religion of their choice, and live relatively free of discrimination in jobs and housing, then where’s the pressure to join Haley’s ideological pressure groups?
From his disappointment at the sight of gay couples surviving in America without Focus on the Family, Haley meanders into a character attack against the star of Bravo’s “Boy Meets Boy.”
There has been no mention of the lack of monogamy so prevalent in the gay culture. No mention of the devastating physical consequences that so often accompany such promiscuity. There have only been lots of good-looking, smiling men embracing the fun and frolic of the gay lifestyle.
This, of course, is a bald misrepresentation of the show, which depicts a man selecting — through the course of televised dating and relating — one other man to be his mate. Aside from the TV cameras, this is a rather ordinary thing among many gay men. Haley seems to be upset that so it was so ridiculously easy for Bravo to find gay men who are not “promiscuous.”
Haley’s closing quote ironically describes his own reaction to gay social equality, demographics, and media coverage:
“Yet another half-truth crafted to promote a political agenda.”
Haley was speaking on behalf of Focus on the Family. Nevertheless, it is surprising that Exodus permits its chairman to publicly get his facts so wrong, and to express a public mood of unhappiness and resentment euphemistically described as “ministry.”
Recent Comments