Zach Speaks Out: Leave the Guy Alone
Sixteen-year-old Zach’s run-of-the-mill online diary drew unintended global attention several weeks ago when his parents sent him off to several weeks of antigay group counseling at a facility with marginal credentials. Former patients and officials say the facility injures some people emotionally while hindering emotional and spiritual development.
The young man’s diary included excerpts of the exgay facility’s regimen. The facility’s rules include strict gender-specific rules of conduct that recall 1950s family TV shows; constant supervision; rules against exposure to any media other than preapproved religious-right sources; and restrictions on what teen clients could talk about with their own parents.
Having emerged from the exgay program, Zach now offers an obvious statement: There’s more to life than homosexuality — as if anyone believed differently — and he understandably wants to resume living a normal life, free of strangers’ demands and expectations.
Zach is certainly entitled to return to private life. Some important questions are thus likely to remain unanswered:
1) Zach speaks of not wanting to talk or hear about “the past situation.” What is the past situation?
2) Zach says “Love In Action has been misrepresented and what I have posted in my blogs has been taken out of perspective and context.” Who, specifically, misrepresented LIA, and how? What context was overlooked?
3) Zach says “I refuse to deal with people who are only focused on their one-sided (biased) agendas.” Whose agendas, what do those agendas consist of?
Only Zach can answer the first two questions, and he’s not obligated to do so — though it is generally more polite to explain one’s accusations to the accused and to seek reconciliation.
Regarding the third question: Let’s take a look at the people who rode the media bandwagon:
a) Zach’s antigay father appeared on CBN television, publicly exposing the identity of his son and declaring to Pat Robertson that by requiring his son to enter fulltime exgay counseling, he was giving his son the “choice” not to die (as all or most homosexuals supposedly do) by age 40.
b) Love In Action, Warren Throckmorton, and Exodus International benefited from substantial and largely favorable international mass-media attention that overlooked prejudices and discriminatory political activities among exgay movement leaders.
c) Bloggers, blog readers, and Memphis-area tolerance advocates generated much of the initial media attention. Many of these critics of LIA opposed the facility’s lack of credentials; its biased form of counseling; its sex, gender and religious stereotyping; and its allegedly high failure and emotional-injury rate. Some of these critics also maintained that parent-mandated attendance at such a facility constitutes a form of emotional abuse. And some went even further, demanding that exgay programs generally be shut down.
LIA’s own Gerard Wellman (Google search) became a man-of-the-moment on CNN, asserting that change is solely about behavior, not same-gender sexual or romantic attractions. True enough. But Wellman avoided discussing the lifelong celibacy that awaits him as an former homosexual whose de-labeled sexual attractions remain fixed squarely on fellow men. Wellman also avoided discussing the stereotypes and labels — “So-and-So the homosexual” — that LIA deploys against individuals if they are unwilling to practice both celibacy and a politically biased reinterpretation of the Gospels.
Stark should indeed be left alone — by both gay-equality and exgay advocates. Should he make public statements on exgay issues in the future — especially if he should lash out against either gays or exgays — then polite public reaction is to be expected.
Raj:
Re: It should be suggested to him, that, if he wants to be left alone, he not post his plaints on the internet. For everyone to read and for political wackos to make use of.
Sure can’t argue with the simple and pure logic of that statement. Unfortunately the internet gave a massive megaphone to a kid who probably didn’t realize what would come of it. After all, Myspace is more about connecting with friends rather than a massive platform to broadcast to the world.
But yes, it is on the thing that is called the “World Wide Web” for a reason.
And besides, how many kids that age ever fully understand the repurcussions of everything they do?
I’m sure he learned some powerfull lessons out of all of this. I just hope they’re valuable ones as well, and not destructive.
RE: James at August 3, 2005 07:24 AM
If he truly does want to move on he may want to consider shutting down his blog. I said this yesterday, but I’m saying it again because the comments seem to be more and more cannibalizing and hurt and angry as they realize he probably isn’t going to reply to them again.
But at the end of the day; what we know, is only what he has told us; for all we know, if one has to be overly optimistic; maybe him and his father have decided to take the issue ‘in house’ rather than it being one of a family airing their dirty laundry like a Jerry Springer show.
Yes, I know I am being delusional optimistic, but at the same time, one doesn’t know what is happening or who is actually maintaining the blog.
One thing that is interesting – where is his mother in all this – typical Christian misogyny and women hating? ‘keep her in either in the kitchen or in the bedroom with her legs open to satisfy her man’ (yes, deliberately put in quotations).
I’m glad to see that despite what many of you have forgotten about what it’s like to be a teenager going through a traumatic time, you haven’t forgotten how to bicker in semi-anonymity like the teens on Zach’s MySpace. Aren’t there slightly more interesting topics to discuss?
Jim Burroway at August 3, 2005 09:19 PM
After all, Myspace is more about connecting with friends rather than a massive platform to broadcast to the world.
I had never heard of Myspace before, but, if he wants to connect he should (a) be more discrete and (b) consider using a chat room, like those on AOL or gay.com. Chat rooms do not leave permanent records. (They can be logged, but hardly anyone does.)
Alex at August 4, 2005 04:41 AM
I’m glad to see that despite what many of you have forgotten about what it’s like to be a teenager going through a traumatic time, you haven’t forgotten how to bicker in semi-anonymity like the teens on Zach’s MySpace.
I suspect that most of us were teens once. I haven’t forgotten about it. The kid should be counseled to shut the f__k up, develop as he wishes, and when he is an adult and doesn’t need financial support from his parents any more, leave. It really is not rocket science.
RE: raj at August 4, 2005 06:10 AM
I had never heard of Myspace before, but, if he wants to connect he should (a) be more discrete and (b) consider using a chat room, like those on AOL or gay.com. Chat rooms do not leave permanent records. (They can be logged, but hardly anyone does.)
I have heard of it, but personally, I prefer using blogspot – more control over what I can post and what application – its built up a fan base of loyal supporters, but to be completely honest, its nothing more than webring (remember those years ago?)
Also, he should NEVER have used he real name or photo; me, I don’t use my real photo – apart from protecting the net from my fugliness, the last thing I want is someone noticing me at work; no one knows about my blog except a few friends; its enough anonymity but enough public exposure; its about balancing the two.
I suspect that most of us were teens once. I haven’t forgotten about it. The kid should be counseled to shut the f__k up, develop as he wishes, and when he is an adult and doesn’t need financial support from his parents any more, leave. It really is not rocket science.
I have a feeling it would be a couple of his friends who pushed him into coming out to his parents; almost a certaintity; having chatted to guys like Zach online (in that sort of position with conservative parents); come out to yourself, embrace and accept yourself, maybe tell a few friends, but apart from that, lay low, stick to studying and school work, then once you’re old enough to move out, then drop contact with the parents.
Some ‘gays’ seem to go through this, ‘gotta tell the parents’ phase; there is no NEED to tell parents if you’re gay; keep them on a need to know basis, feed them enough information to keep them happy – how school is going, friends whom you hang out with etc. etc. its all about keeping your cards close to your chest.
kaiwai at August 4, 2005 06:32 AM
I don’t do blogging, except to comment on them, like I do here. I’ve never understood the allure of on-line diary journals. A few years ago, when the boston gay.com chat room was interesting, I posted some pics of myself on the internet, but largely because I got bored responding to requests that I send the pics to the people in the chat room. (My login on gay.com is LilHunkBos, so you might get the drift)
If Zach’s family had not gone public, it is unlikely that anyone would have found out. There is something very strange about this. Yes, I have a conspiritorial mind, but it’s very odd when a father goes on broadcast TV to denounce his son. There are obviously issues of which we are unaware that are pushing this issue.
Regarding
Some ‘gays’ seem to go through this, ‘gotta tell the parents’ phase; there is no NEED to tell parents..
Very correct. I would not have told my parents except that my current partner ordered me to. I was 30 at the time, had been running around for some 10 years. The reason was, we were buying a house together, and he wanted me to make clear to my parents that, if I were to die, he would own the house. I did that, and got the point across. There are some practical reasons for coming out. Actually, when we bought our current house, I made sure that it was “joint tenants with right of survivorship.” so that there would be no miunderstanding. The lawyer who handled the closing (this was in 1983) was surprised, but I knew what I was doing.
The ironic thing is that my younger brother (by 3 years) had figured out what was going on a decade earlier (early 1970s) and had outed me to my parents, and, you know, neither he nor my parents gave a tinker’s damn. I was (and still am) his older brother and he was proud of me. And so was my father. The other ironic thing is that my parents have come to love my partner more than they do me (I’m kind of kidding here). Life is weird. I’m seriously not kidding about that. But, I am really pleased that they accept him as part of the family.
There is very little family on my partners side. He was an immigrant from Germany in the 1950s, and was out and gay when he was a teenager. There’s a distant aunt, but that’s all, and that’s why I don’t talk about that side of ourfamily very much.
Boo said, “True, I probably worded it too broadly. “Secular” would have been a much better term to use. Josh was implying that terrorism and mass murder are always inspired by religion and I was trying to point out that that simply isn’t true. “Atheistic philosophies” was only intended to mean philosophies that have been espoused by people who happen to have been atheists, and/or had an explicitly secular purpose, not necessarily philosophies born out of atheism itself, sorry. That said, with the exception of liberation theology, Communism has always been hostile to religion, and many religious people were institutionalized in the former Soviet Union. ”
Yeah, I realize what you meant, my aim was to clarify what others may or may not get out of what you posted.
I disagree that Communism has always been hostile to religion. Wikipedia explains the Soviet Union’s policy towards religion thus:
“Since coming to power in 1917, the Soviet regime has failed to develop and apply a consistent and lasting policy toward nationalities and religions. Official policies and practices have not only varied with time but also have differed in their application from one nationality to another and from one religion to another. Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, the questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked. Not surprisingly, therefore, the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.”
(the link for this is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union . I apologize for being so inept when it comes to code)