Ex-Gay Watch

Offhand, the only people that I see singling out groups for special treatment seem to be those, like Exodus and its partners, who continue to:

– exclude sexual orientation from existing anti-bullying policies and programs, thereby singling out gay students for denial of the protection already offered to others;

– oppose safe places for gay students and their friends to gather, while supporting them for other groups

– oppose the equal protection of same-sex-attracted persons under existing laws that punish violent crimes which target entire demographic sectors of the population

Exodus already grants special treatment to heterosexual persons. It already singles out same-sex-attracted persons for the denial of equal opportunity and freedom of association.

I would like to be able to believe that Chambers is effecting a major change of policy, but this statement looks like a whitewash to me.

Perhaps this is just my GenX cynicism showing, but this seems to me to be a carefully crafted statement against the inclusion of LGBT people in hate crime legislation. The entire second paragraph seems to serve no other purpose in the statement.

…or do I owe someone an apology? =)

@Allyson

Allan Chambers is against hate crime laws in general, but the only effort I see from them is to exclude GLBT from the mix. But yes, I would agree with you about the second paragraph, and I doubt they would deny it.

The point of hate crimes laws is that it is an identifiable group being terrorized/victimized…. and we all know they hate the notion that we’re a group of people, not a fringe “identity.”

I wonder how this relates to the recent suicide of a 14 year-old in Wales, who attributed it to the vicious anti-gay bullying he had received in the few weeks since he had come out? I didn’t see this mentioned on any American sites, but his last words were a text message to his parents not to blame themselves, but to blame the bullies…. he laid down in front of a train.

This statement says something. It says “we oppose tracking hate crimes against gay people”.

That’s really it.

This isn’t an anti-bullying statement; it’s an anti-gay statement cleverly crafted.

What is it about Alan Chambers that he finds himself incapable of simply saying “I oppose bullying”? Why must he then use this to make a political statement against the lives of gay people?

I honestly don’t get it. Does he have any compassion left? Is he nothing but a political animal at this point? Does he really think God was kidding when he talked about how to treat others?

I’ve never in my life met anyone who was incapable of showing even the smallest of mercies to those who were “their enemy”. But Alan can’t – not without a slap added to it.

I really don’t know how he sleeps at night.

If I’m not mistaken, Michael Bussee had a lot to do with that statement. Perhaps he can shed some light? Michael?

I agree, especially after reading it a couple of times, that the second paragraph should not be there at all. It’s not like the first paragraph is a cry for hate crime laws which must be countered in the second, so it’s really out of place unless the second paragraph is actually the main thrust of the statement.

I read this more than a few times over. I’m not seeing anything supportive, just something fairly bland about ‘all’.
It’s not specific enough. Michael Bussee probably wanted a statment made, but he didn’t have any hand in the content of it.
Or context.
As so often happens when ex gays say something, they give with one hand and take away with the other, which leaves nothing.

Chambers might as well have said nothing at all. His political activity has reached farther than this statment on a website would.

The President has assured his constituents that he will veto the bill.

So what’s the point in Chambers being so bothered.?
Is he smelling bad PR in his pen?

Two steps forward, one step back.

The second paragraph is obviously politically-motivated and undermines what would otherwise be an okay statement. Instead of simply opposing violence against gays, Exodus appears to be sympathetic to those who are ‘unequally’ prosecuted by hate crimes laws (or “thought crimes” as Exodus refers). It even uses the politically-loaded term “special treatment”.

Even so, the more I read the first paragraph the more I have to wonder about how narrowly Exodus interprets their statement’s definitions:

- “bullying”: I can’t help but think that a gay teen who is unwillingly forced into an Exodus ministry would feel “bullied”. While I’m sure most of these parents feel they are acting out of love and discipline, forcing anyone into experimental therapy or religious indoctrination would seem to have the same affect as bullying.
- “name calling”: From personal experience, believing ex-gay theories about being emotionally stunted, lacking masculinity, not being ‘sexually whole’, etc. is just as harmful as being called a deviant, sissy, pervert, etc.
- “acts of aggression”: Again, while I’m sure Exodus would describe their beliefs differently, I can’t think of a more aggressive threat than the fundamentalist/evangelical doctrine of eternal damnation — especially in regards to same-sex attractions.
- “we must, instead, affirm behavior that validates the personal worth and dignity God bestows upon every human being”: This sounds great, but I wouldn’t describe my ex-gay experience as being about empowerment or dignity.

Admittedly, my ex-gay experience clouds my interpretation of Exodus’ statement. I think I understand that Exodus is trying to say. I do believe they should be commended for making an effort and, hopefully, leading other conservative Christian organizations into making similar statements.

Ironically, I can’t help but read this as a pro-bullying statement and a call to authorities not to acknowledge bullying against gay kids or stop the bullying from occurring. Alan Chambers must have read Orwell’s “1984″ as a how-to tutorial, rather than a cautionary tale.

David Roberts said:

“If I’m not mistaken, Michael Bussee had a lot to do with that statement. Perhaps he can shed some light? Michael?”

Let me explain…Prompted by the attempt on my life and the murder of my best friend — simply because we were gay — I have been bugging Alan, pleading with him to issue an official statement against homophobia, anti-gay hatred, bullying and violence. To his credit, and for whatever his reasons might be, he did it — leaving out the word “homophobia” which he already denounced on his personal blog at Alanchambers.org.

I did not “have a lot to do” with the actual statement. I didn’t have much to do with it at all. Alan sent the first paragraph to me as a possible guiding policy for EXODUS — and I told him that I was grateful to him for taking such a step. I knew the wording was not what I would have preferred, but it seems a step in the right direction. Now, at least, we have it on record and can hold them accountable for living up to it. I have both doubts and hope.
Alan did not send me the second paragraph and did not mention that he intended to include one. I was not aware of the second paragraph at all until it was posted. I have the same reservations and objections to the second paragraph as others have.

My mistake. I saw Alan’s “thank you” to you on the email and your addy on the CC and thought it had been a collaborative effort. I knew that you had been after him for something along these lines for months.

Alan clarifies in his blog. Apparently he was thanking you for pushing him to get it done

The priorities at Exodus continue to confound me.

If you’re being bullied just say the magic words: “Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, doesn’t approve it”, and everything is fine again baby.

Essentialy, a statement that begins with a calculated insult; and goes downhill from there.

I’m not even going to bother deconstructing the two paragraphs whose only connection is an anti-gay political stance. It’s not a statement against bullying or violence but, rather, a PR-driven response to the fact that Exodus has singled out and campaigned against the inclusion of sexual orientation within current hate-crime/anti-discrimination laws.

Not that Exodus do that because they are anti-gay — oh no, see… da-dah… we have this Position Statement.

(And sorry Michael B: as much as we’d hope it was the case, I don’t think you’ve really prompted Exodus to make this statement at this time.)

The fact that Alan completely neglected to send the full statement to Michael B. shows how insincere both Exodus and Alan Chambers are about anti-gay behaviour.

And now… attempt to get him to define “bullying, name-calling and acts of aggression” as it relates to gay men and women. That you’ll not get, because Exodus fully intend to leave all their anti-gay behavioural options open. This vacuous position statement will not cause them to alter their behaviour or their claims by even a skerrick.

I can’t wait for their position statement against racism. It will begin:

“Exodus International affirms that the negro and the oriental …”

For now, I choose to think of it as a glass half full.

I really want to think it’s something grand and beautiful, but…..the first and second sentences even bother me a great deal.

We affirm that Jesus loves gay people. So, even if we ourselves don’t love them, well, we love Jesus, and so, by default, that counts. Wha???? Oh yeah, and since Jesus loves gay people, no one should be bullied for any reason. Again…what the heck? The more I read it, the more it doesn’t really say anything at all.

My paraphrase of Alan’s statement:

Bullies, STOP! That’s not nice.

He takes no responsibility for his leadership role, for contributing to public policy, where systemic problems must be addressed at the systems level. He takes no responsibility for advising school administrators or law enforcers that being perceived to be gay increases the risk of bullying and violence. He takes no responsibility for using his experience and his expertise to get to the bottom of root causes and more effective solutions.

Quite a bit different from his approach to gay marriage, where he takes all kinds of responsibility for affecting systemic change which, if successful, would endure for years.

David: “Pushing Alan to get it done” is kind of an understatement. It has been a year of persistent prodding — and the wording of the statement is far from perfect. But, in light of the attack on my life, the murder of my best friend and the daily acts of bullying and violence that take place everyday on streets and campuses across this country, I felt EXODUS had a moral obligation to at least say that hatred, bullying and violence against gays was wrong — to at least have that on record and to be able to call them on it if they violate their own policy. Believe me, I am not naive. I understand the anger and skepticism. I will take a (cautiously hopeful) wait-and-see attitude.

I still think it’s a postive step and I am personally grateful to Alan for doing it. Now… How will this translate into behavior? Will they clearly denounce hateful folks like Cameron, Berger, Schoenewolf, etc., for violating the spirit and intent of the first paragraph? Will they cut off associations with groups like NARTH who have not spoken out against Cameron’s “abhorrent solutions” and who still use Cameron’s “research?” Will they drop their efforts to strip gays of hard-won legal protections? Will they become more honest about what they can and cannot deliever in terms of “change”? Time will tell.

I’m sorry, I’m reading the second paragraph and I guess I don’t see the problem. Every individual deserves equal protection seems pretty obvious to me, and every offender equal punishment also. Is the objection that he didn’t use the words “orientation” or “GLBT”? Is it because he left open the interpretation that such policies should apply to ex-gays as well as gays? I mean, what’s the problem exactly?

Kendall,

Sorry if my objections weren’t laid out more clearly.

My objection lies primarily in the buzz words “rather than singling out some for special treatment”. Just like “family values” and “sanctity” and “truth in love”, this term does not mean what it appears on the surface. Just as “I oppose special rights” really means “I want special rights for myself and I oppose equality” so too does “I oppose special treatment” really mean “I oppose stopping anti-gay bullies”.

Those who are familiar with PFOX’s efforts to weaken bullying rules and with Alan’s opposition to hate crimes legislation recognize those words. These are the words used to say that protecting gay kids from being beaten is “pushing the homosexual agenda”.

Whenever gay groups – or more frequently just plain old parent groups – try to start anti-bullying programs they know that the most effective way to do so is to look where the problems are and say “don’t pick on kids because of their race or religion or orientation” or whatever it is that is being targeted.

But as soon as they say “orientation”, the anti-gay groups trot out this argument that we should just say “all bullying is bad” and don’t specify anyone. Because in their distorted world, anything that isn’t absolutely hateful to gay people is an advancement of an agenda. It’s “normalizing homosexuality”.

And because “let them pick on gay kids” and “let’s support intolerance” are not particulary winning arguments, they pull up this bs about “special treatment”. Sometimes it’s paired up with “they’re protecting gays but not ex-gays” or “they’re protecting gays but not Christians” – both of which are baldfaced lies.

It goes hand in hand with the claim that hate crimes legislation makes gays more important than “former homosexual” – again a baldfaced lie.

Those who claim this know without a doubt that the same hate crimes legislation that protects gays protects them as well. If they were beaten up for being “no longer homosexual” the exact same wording would apply to him. Those who claim otherwise are simply lying for political advantage.

So when I see this crap about “special treatment” I know what it means. It’s just jargon for “don’t protect gay kids”.

Timothy,

I think all kids need to be protected–the ones who identify as gay or lesbian and the ones that don’t. There are a lot more fat kids being ridiculed out there than there are gay ones. It’s all wrong and we would work with any pro-gay organization to help stop it. What to use as punishment is where I think agendas begin (i.e. Diversity Trainings). Protecting kids is needed and a common goal.

Constitutional lawyer Jack Balkin said it better than me:

Protecting homosexuals from discrimination is understood as a sign of increased social status mirrored in new legal protections. Because status competition is zero-sum, this increase in status necessarily occurs at the expense of heterosexuals. From the perspective of the older baseline of social meanings, it appears that homosexuals are being given something new that is being taken away from heterosexuals. They are being given increased honor, respect, and esteem, hence “special treatment.” At the risk of trivializing the phenomenon, it is somewhat like an older brother who resents the new toy purchased for his younger sibling. Or more accurately, it is as if the toy were taken from the older brother and given to the younger. Every change in the semiotic status quo, no matter how unfair the previous baseline of social meanings, may be seen as sending the message of favoritism and special treatment. Any departure from a baseline that views homosexuality as deviant and immoral will be viewed by some members of the dominant status group eager to retain their status as a movement toward treating homosexuality as normal and morally appropriate.

Here’s some examples of opposition to tolerance from catholics and baptists (you have to cut and paste the link)

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20157

And a WND article about special treatment

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55852

She also cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center that already is lobbying for special treatment in the school system.

And here’s ex-gay Dennis Jernigan on hate crimes

This legislation seeks to bestow special treatment upon a very small portion of our society. If this bill passes, Congress is telling me that I and countless others who have discovered they don’t have to be homosexual are of less value now than when we were living as homosexuals.

And also the Traditional Values Coallition talking about special treatment for Matthew Shepard

Thus, hate crimes legislation makes crimes into political footballs, further polarizing America on the basis of group and identity politics.” Troy believes that special interest groups want to be proclaimed as victims so they can have special laws, special handouts, and special treatment. Consider the highly publicized murder of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard.

I will close with the Christian Institute which tells us that homophobic bullying doesn’t really happen anyway.

Even though the number of schoolchildren who are bullied for actually being homosexual must be very small indeed, the main point is this: all bullying is wrong and should be dealt with in the same way no matter who the victim is. It is grossly unprofessional for a teacher to ignore the bullying of any pupil. This is a straightforward matter of what constitutes professional conduct. Good teachers stop bullies.

It is also a straightforward matter of common sense that no-one will stop bullying by promoting homosexuality or by forcing teachers to respect what they believe to be morally wrong.

Gee, why does that sound familiar?

Since no one is picking on gay kids, and we can’t support evil homosexuality, we’ll just say “all bullying is bad – but don’t tell kids to be tolerant of gay kids – that would be wrong”. We’ll just look the other way when that sissy boy lays down in front of a train. We’ll fight to keep that tomboy from starting a GSA. We’ll tell the bleeding kid that he’s should be “more normal” if he doesn’t want to get beat up.

And we’ll call our position “moral”.

Alan,

I truly wish you shared my goal.

Because any teacher will tell you that the kids getting beaten are far too frequently gay kids. You know this, Alan. If you step back from the agenda you can admit it to yourself.

What harm is there in saying “don’t pick on kids with a different sexual orientation”?

You have become too political, Alan. You’re losing your ability to show compassion. You are becoming heartless. You are too concerned that there is some agenda about protecting kids in danger that you are willing to leave them in danger.

That is not Christlike. It’s nasty politics.

I agree with you “special treatment” is a buzzword with many negative connotations. I can’t say I trust Mr. Chambers (though I certainly do more than Nicolosi lately) in his motives or in his wordings. I think in some ways though hate crimes laws can BECOME “special treatment” when we look at discrimination as mono-directional (which is part of the reason I’m personally ideologically opposed to HCLs even though I’d benefit from them in more than one category).

This is a pretty basic example, and not really apt to what I mean, but I remember when I was considerably younger being interested in ageism and discrimination against youths particularly with all the stereotypes and different treatment for the young based solely on age rather than ability (an example, I used to wonder why getting a learners permit had an age limit at all, I used to feel that the test to get a learner’s permit and a parent willing to teach a child should be sufficient).

So one day out of idle curiosity and with my own biases fully intact I decided to look at the definition the dictionary gave to ageism expecting something on the lines of “discrimination based on chronological age rather than ability.” Instead the definition was something like “Discrimination based on age, especially against the elderly.”

I only use this example because I do not think it is likely that many people are bullied (as in this case) or discriminated against because they are heterosexual (although I didn’t meet anyone willing to identify as ex-gay in high school). I DO think though that throughout this thread simply because of the (quite accurate I’d say) perception (it may be true, but it’s still a perception) that it should include specific language condemning violence and bullying against GLBT students I get the sense that people don’t see the need to protect the occasional heterosexual student (or other category) that might fall under this law.

When I was in college I heard several black students say that they don’t believe blacks can be racist. Their perception was that because whites have held the power and political offices that lead to the ability to discriminate blacks are incapable of judging people on the basis of their skin color. Yet I myself have witnessed (though never been a victim of) blacks expressing racist sentiments towards whites that they’re all “privileged” and “spoiled” and “ignorant” and “racist.”

And then there was an extraordinary case that happened about 4 years ago. I was in one of my University’s computer labs, you had to sign in to use it and you’d be assigned a computer. A black girl was assigned to a computer about 3 down from me. The person working the desk, who happened to be a white male came over about 10 minutes later and said something to the effect of “excuse me, miss? I’m not sure if you know this, but you’re at the wrong computer, I assigned you to computer” x “over there” and he pointed to a computer about 15 feet away. The black girl apparently was having a bad day because she exploded, saying “don’t take that TONE with me, I’ll move in a few minutes” so he went back to his desk and she went back to whatever she was doing. About 5 minutes later the boss of the computer lab walks over to her and politely asks her if she had a problem and she says “No, I do NOT have a problem, but you better tell that JERK he has to watch his attitude and treat me with some RESPECT.” I do not doubt that racism DOES exist because I have witnessed that too. However, I can also report that this (and a few other less amazing examples) have shown me that sometimes people see racism where I certainly perceived none.

All of this (and I know I rambled a bit, I’m sorry for that) to me makes the point that generic language is best because gay or straight, black or white (or any other condition or quality) it’s not OK to discriminate, and I think at least in some ways using more specific language could lead people to continue the impression that discrimination against majorities is acceptable. I mean, for myself, I remember in High school one group that was constantly badmouthed was “rednecks” and southerners.

I grew up in Michigan but on my mother’s side my family is very much southern and I really dislike the impression some people have that it’s ok to characterize people from the south as ignorant hicks.

We’re not talking “special treatment.” queers don’t become superior or “above” heteros because of hate crime or discrimination laws. We become something closer to equal.

What’s particularly hypocritical about all this “special treatment” rhetoric is that one category already covered by hate crime laws is religion. All the religious groups blathering that gays want “special treatment” or “special status” apparently don’t mind that they themselves already enjoy the exact same legal protection we are seeking.

Alan himself was the target of cruel and persistent anti-gay bullying and hatred as a kid. I choose to believe him that he thinks it’s wrong and must stop. I think it is unfair to accuse him of believing “that protecting gay kids from being beaten is “pushing the homosexual agenda”. He knows personally how it feels — and he knows that many who come to EXODUS have felt that pain as well.

Alan knows that I disagree with him strongly on the morality of homosexuality, the need for “change”, EXODUS’s involvement in politics, etc. He knows that we disagree on Hate Crime legislation. There are major differences — but why on Earth would he want other gay kids to go through the same torment and abuse that both he and I — and countless others — have experienced? He may be a lot of things, but a heartless, purely political monster who wants to see gay kids abused? I simply don’t believe it. Can you give any support to your assertion that Alan wants gay kids to be abused?

Emily – “We’re not talking “special treatment.” queers don’t become superior or “above” heteros because of hate crime or discrimination laws. We become something closer to equal.”

This is my point though. laws against discrimination DON’T just protect gays. They also protect straights. Why verbally single out one group and not another? I think for example that if Chamber’s statement used the words “sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, as well as race, hadicap, and other condition or quality real or perceived” that would be an “acceptable” statement that people would have problems with because it DOESN’T single out gays when the purpose of anti-discrimination laws as I understand it is to protect against discrimination whether by majorities against minorities or the reverse.

Alan’s statement is vaguely worded — as is much of what Exodus says — so as to mean different things to different people.

To those who are unaware of Exodus’ opposition to antiharassment programs — the media, in particular — the statement reads as a routine statement of the obvious: bullying is bad.

To antigay political activists, it is a sweeping rejection of countless existing anti-bullying and antiviolence programs, which name specific demographics such as race and sexual orientation to ensure that no demographic group is treated as though it doesn’t really count — or even exist.

Exodus’s statement may or may not be an improvement over a vague status quo. It should not have been difficult, however, for Exodus to go beyond stating what it is against, and to state what it favors: What specific models or examples of antibullying, antiviolence and antiharassment programming does Exodus support?

Unfortunately, cursing the darkness is so much easier, especially for political activists, than lighting a candle.

I agree with you absolutely Mike. I think exodus very well could have been more specific in it’s condemnation. But instead of what they haven’t said lets look at what they do say and let’s hold them to that (even if tepid) standard. I mean, if you’re going to criticize people for what they don’t say then I’m pretty sure a lot of groups haven’t said a lot of things (though I’m not going to get into examples or specifics even though that was a vague statement on my part).

I mean, geez, a couple years ago when I started reading your site you made reasoned, specific criticisms of what the ex-gay movement said and did. You targeted their more ridiculous statements and rightly ripped them to shreds. I admired you for your watchdog role. But now you’re criticizing them because they didn’t go far enough?

I agree they didn’t, but I think your failure to recognize a positive development is shortsighted and criticizing them because you don’t think they were specific on a general position statement to be somewhat petty.

I think it is unfair to accuse him of believing “that protecting gay kids from being beaten is “pushing the homosexual agenda”.

In Alan’s words from above: “What to use as punishment is where I think agendas begin (i.e. Diversity Trainings).”

Alan believes Diversity Training is “where agendas begin”. So, yeah, I think IT IS fair to say that.

Educators agree that the bullying programs that work are those which target the victims, and address the problem. And those are diversity training programs.

But Alan is SO opposed to diversity training – because it says that gay kids are equal – that he’s willing to accept the alternative even though he’s experienced the alternative.

His politics require that schools either say that homosexuality is inferior and bad or say nothing at all. And if a kid gets beaten up or kills himself, that’s a price he’s willing to pay.

I would LOVE to be wrong on this. I would love to have Alan agree that affirmation, tolerance, and diversity are acceptable if it saves kids from torment.

Filtering Service is not respondingBsecure Internet Protection Services v.4.5Filtering Service is not responding!There was no response from the Filtering Service. Please retry your request. Also, please make sure Bsecure Internet Protection Service is not blocked by your firewall. If you continue to get this error, please reboot your computer.

OK, fair enough. Llet’s see if he says it. But to put words in his mouth or assume evil intent is still really unfair. For example, if he were opposed to presenting abortion in school (as an alternative to teen pregnancy), would it be fair to say that he didn’t care if a pregnant girl who had one was beaten to death by anti-abortion students? Hardly.

Disagreeing on what methods we might use is NOT the same thing as insisting that Alan believes that “if a kid gets beaten up or kills himself, that’s a price he’s willing to pay.” Just because he doesn’t agree with our approach to an issue, doesn’t mean he could care less if a kid dies. So, let’s ask him: Alan, is that the price you are wiling to pay?

The school district where my kid goes to school has a zero-tolerance policy for bullying and very strict consequences. They specifically point out that bullying on the basis of race, religion, handicap, sex, sexual orientation, etc are all prohibited, as well as bullying for any other reason. They specifically go into the issue of sexual harrassment. They have had seminars on the behavior of teen and pre-teen girls, as well as computer related harrassment. The district is strict, and I don’t see any parents objecting to the idea that their kid might expect to feel safe at school.

It is hard to imagine just how much Alan Chambers has sold his soul to the political Religious Right . As a parent who would want to protect his child and other children from what he went through as a kid, you would think he would be in favor of anti-bullying efforts of all kinds. He is no longer in school. He isn’t going to be the one getting beat up, continually harrassed, living in fear and wondering if it would be smarter to just drop out. So, it no longer matters. No empathy, no care, just have to satisfy my political masters… Alan, do yourself and you soul a favor; just quit Exodus, get a real job, and live a productive life where you actually help others. You would be better for it.

I can see how it might seem petty not to applaud Exodus, but I’ve personally seen Randy Thomas of Exodus exploit and distort my applause before. Specifically, he has used gay moderates and indies like me to generalize about how the majority of gay people are opposed to the equal-rights agenda(s) of the major gay rights groups, simply because we might occasionally give credit to Exodus for taking small steps toward the elementary forms of compassion that the rest of society takes for granted.

My concern with this issue isn’t limited to sexual orientation, by the way.

As a co-founder of Men Can Stop Rape, I know that it’s essential for schools to be very specific in singling out potential perpetrators — not just everybody, but young men — to educate men about respect for women, and to use language and social contexts that the men will understand.

Issuing broad, vague statements that “rape is wrong” is worse than useless — it encourages date-rapists to think of their violence as something other than violence.

They specifically point out that bullying on the basis of race, religion, handicap, sex, sexual orientation, etc are all prohibited, as well as bullying for any other reason.

Putting myself back in school for a moment, I have to say that it was obvious back then that bullying was wrong and no one taught otherwise. It was still done. And hearing the general “it’s wrong to bully” was not particularly helpful because one could always absorb the pervasive message that being gay was not just wrong, it was horrible. So in some sense, it was hard not to feel that it was secretly OK to be bullied for that (and for the bully, that it was OK to beat me up).

Specifying categories of those who are most susceptible to being bullied, along with the general anti-bullying statement, enables the child to feel certain that “no, it’s not OK to bully others even if I am gay.” That would have been an incredible help to me and boost to my own self esteem. And since not having heard it certainly didn’t prevent me from being gay even now, I don’t think there is much agenda there to worry about – it’s just human decency.

I have to be honest, carefully avoiding that with which you disagree in a statement about something so obviously wrong truly does smack of agenda. I’m not going to speak to intent, but that is the end result. I mean come on, do you really think it’s going to affect how many kids are gay if you admit that such people (kids) exist and that it’s not OK to beat them up?

Mike – “not just everybody, but young men — to educate men about respect for women, and to use language and social contexts that the men will understand.”

And that kind of profiling allows the perception that it’s “ok” or somehow less serious when a female teacher rapes a males student (even if it is consensual sex minors cannot consent, therefore it is rape). I respect women. Violence against women is wrong and more voices need to be heard on that. But ALL rape of children is wrong (But consensual sexual activity between minors is not wrong, a distinction that many on the Christian right are unable to make as they fall into “sex is bad” mindsets).

Rape against girls in particular though is violent and I’m NOT downplaying it in the least. I do think there was particularly in the 70s a cultural bias against female rape victims, but I think that’s faded and replaced with a “good for you” attitude of male rape victims (by females. Of course there is still a stigma for male victims by males due in part to the efforts of the religious right).

Let me put it this way. I think I understand Alan’s head. 30 years ago, I was Alan. We are(were) two, married, Christian men who struggle with gay feelings, wish we didn’t have them, sincerely love our wives and kids, really believe in commitment and “til death do us part”. We really believe in miracles. We think (thought) that God’s love (and our love and service to Him) will (would) somehow result in heterosexuality.

We sincerely love our fellow men and women. We feel called to service. We get a “vision” and we are sure that God has made His will and intent clear. There is freedom if we go this way. Any other way will result in everlasting peril. We have a responsinility to rescue those we love from Hell — to lead an exodus…

We love people, but our vision clouds our sight sometimes — and our zeal leads us into some dark valleys. We seek and love the light, but sometimes we are really just stumbling around in the dark — holding on to that hope. We don’t hate others and we certainly don’t like to see them in pain. That kills us inside, because as leaders of the “Ex-gay” movement we are called to help. We feel responsable — and in some ways we are..

Michael, you have a loving heart. And a generous one.

Michael, ever since I read about you in “Anything But Straight” (I know i mention that book a lot but it really had a tremendous positive effect on me) your story has often come to mind. I can’t express how important it is to have your perspective on these things. However EXODUS today wants to deny your involvement, you were one of its key founders (and defectors) and your involvement with the former ex gay movement is very important- where someone like me cannot fathom how a man like Chambers can head a program like EXODUS – a program that seems to survive on lies and deception – you can provide insight that can help us see the humanity behind it. It feels good to see a bridge of sorts on this topic.

I find it interesting that ex-gay-identified people like Alan Chambers, Mike Ensley and Randy Thomas are constantly complaining about unequal treatment, and yet many, if not most, turn around and do everything they can to undermine equal rights for gay people: like the ability to marry, have kids, adopt, have cheap legal protections for their life partners? Its one thing to disagree with someone, its another thing entirely to prevent them from having the ability to live their lives with the same benefits as others do.

When Alan opposes diversity training, he obviously doesn’t understand that education is the best way to teach kids not to bully others. Please tell me how to stop the bullying Alan without teaching kids that everyone is worthy of respect, which is what diversity training is about? Your agenda, Alan, is clearly getting in the way of what comes out of your mouth!

Ex-gay-identified people have the right to speak their message and convert people as much as they want, but they don’t have the right to distort the truth. Any client seeking change needs to be made aware of the Truth regarding Reparative Therapy, and that doesn’t just involve Mike Ensley’s, Chad Thompson’s, Randy Thomas’s and Alan Chambers’ positive experiences with it – it also involves the message of thousands of Ex-Ex Gay people as well and the harm they and their families have received at the hands of Reparative Therapy!

Whew

Jay

With all due respect Michael, you can only assume what Alan thinks is how you, in a similar situation, thought. That kind of comparison can only take you so far into the mind of another. You cautioned (rightly) about putting words in his mouth, we also can’t put thoughts in his head. I think the only way we mere mortals can gauge anyone is by what they say and do.

For Alan Chambers: re believability factor:

“Actions speak louder than words.”

Words, to Alan, are cheap.

Overlooking the sheer disingenuous wording behind the Exodus position statement on bullying, will Alan Chambers happily share a stage with notorious anti-gay bigots?

Yes, he will. Read, in particular, the words of Boone. (sorry, FRC links go a bit loopy here try: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH06J04&f=WX06I07)

Wellington Boone has been using this abusive language for years — and only 2 weeks before (at yet another FRC/FOTF/et al sponsored publicity stunt) had used “faggots” and “sissies” as recommended terms of abuse.

All in the past? Well, let’s actually test how Exodus behaves under Alan’s leadership; to this very day.

As is well established (too much history, just google) there is a particularly nasty anti-gay individual in Seattle: Ken Hutcherson.

When Hutcherson isn’t organising anti-gay campaigns in Seattle, he’s travelling to Eastern Europe to stir up dreadful anti-gay bigotry. And he does this in the company of Scott Lively — author of the infamous “Pink Swastika” that slandered gay men for the rise of the Nazis and, ultimately, the holocaust.

So… who does one imagine Alan invites to his own press conferences? Ken Hutcherson. Oh, and it’s that “all people deserve equality (‘cept you)” spin again.

And who’s featured speakers at this years Exodus Freedom Conference : Alan Chambers and… Ken Hutcherson.

Still not enough? OK — recall Wellington Boone, above, the one who advocates using “faggots” and the one who abuses gay men and women to Alan’s very face and without so much as a peep out of Alan.

What’s Wellington Boone up to these days? Apparently, in coalition with Exodus at yet another publicity stunt targeted at young people.

Look, Alan Chambers is welcome to whatever fantasies he has about himself, and he’s welcome to live however he wants.

But Alan Chambers is not to be trusted when it comes to the lives of gay men and women. Bad publicity is the only thing that gets the attention of Alan Chambers, and a man shall be known by the company he chooses to keep.

A “grain of salt”? Not enough — Alan’s dishonesty needs Lot’s wife.

As we say here, that man could lie under six feet of concrete.

What I was trying to say when my comment came out looking like and ad for BSafe Online was that my biggest issue with Diversity Training is that isn’t about understanding diversity it is about indoctrinating students with only one belief: homosexuality is good. It punishes kids who think, “I like my homosexual friend and respect his/her right to be gay, but I believe homosexuality is a sin.”

Ridding the schools of anti-gay bullying is one thing, forcing kids to believe that homosexuality is good is quite another. I am not opposed to teaching kids to treat their gay neighbor like they would like to be treated. I am opposed to teaching a kid that in order to follow the Golden Rule that they have to change what they believe.

From what I have seen of Diversity Training it is most about forced conformity not about teaching kids how to respectufully live out their beliefs.

Bullies need to have consequences and that encourage reform, to be sure. But, when that reform gets into indoctrination the line must be drawn.

Let’s try another set of circumstances. If a Muslim student bullies a Jewish student the Muslim student should be punished. However, that Muslim student does not need to be forced to believe that Judaism is right. It’s not a perfect example, but hopefully my intent comes across.

I think A LOT more time, energy and effort need to go into this and I would love to see a collaborative effort on the part of both sides.

Good morning Alan. I like that idea… Hey, how about the two of us sit down together real soon and put some time, energy and effort into that collaborative effort? I will call you today to see if we can set something up. At the risk of sounding really sappy, I do believe that love can build a bridge. (Hey, someone should write a song about that…)

Alan -

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but teaching kids to devalue or disrespect gay people is what caused bullying in the first place. You have a right to your beliefs, but so does everyone else who doesn’t believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Kids need to be taught the facts – and that includes the fact that gay people are not suffering from a disease and that many of them go on to lead very happy, fulfilling and spiritual lives. This has nothing to do with politics, unlike your message, and everything to do with teaching kids respect.

Dwelling on punishment is like focusing on the symptoms and not the cause!

As a young gay kid I grew up in a very conservative school that taught that homosexuality was wrong – that taught me to hide my feelings and to withdraw into myself so that no one found out about me. It also showed me the dark side of Christianity, where messages about homosexuality, although spoken with good and loving intentions, were used by many to rationalize their bigotry and prejudices!

Jayhuck – I question whether believing homosexuality is wrong is what leads to anti-gay bullying. People truly operating from a belief system that holds the Golden Rule to be true would not harm or harass someone with whom they disagree. In my opinion, Christians who believe the Golden Rule may need help in applying it but I do not think bullying relates to ideological disagreement, especially in the school setting. Research on bullying I have seen leads to a more pragmatic hypothesis: bullies bully because they can get away with it. Where there is no social payoff for aggression, much bullying can be eliminated.

Jayhuck,

I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I haven’t committed a hate crime nor do I bully people. And, imagine this, I have a lot of gay friends.

I don’t have a statistic so I will be conservative in my estimation, but let’s say that 50% of the people believe homosexuality to be immoral and the other %50 that it is moral. Teaching students that homosexuality is moral and good is disrespecting the diversity of the other 50%.

My post did not dwell on punishment. There is education needed and reform, but not at the expense of teaching a kid something that isn’t the schools place to teach them. Morality starts at home.

Warren et al:

I agree to a point – there are obviously other things that are going on with people who physically and mentally abuse gay kids and adults, but to suggest that religious beliefs don’t play into this is to ignore reality.

I would definitely call myself a Christian, but let’s be honest – the history of Christianity and religion in general is filled with people who used religious beliefs to justify intolerance and abuse. Its not such a stretch to see how the message that is spred by very conservative Christians and other conservatives – that homosexuality is wrong – can be used as a means of rationalizing bigotry. I realize I may be going beyond bullying here and entering into the general topic of abuse of gay people.

That said, I don’t believe its right to teach people that they must change their beliefs. But schools are not a place to force your particular religious views onto others, and the ex-gay movement is primarily a religious one – one that is funded and promoted by very powerful conservative Christians. The belief that homosexuality is wrong is primarily a religious one. Diversity training isn’t about religion but that you must learn to value and respect those different from yourself.

I’m sorry Alan – I’m glad you haven’t commited any abuses against gay people, but I’ve been witness to many so-called Christians use their beliefs to justify abusing gay people. And Warren, you may question it, but there is no proof right now that all the bullying that goes on in schools is not somehow connected to a person’s religious views! – That said, again, I don’t support “thought” police, or in silencing those who disagree with me – but there is a time and place for things in PUBLIC schools.

I find it interesting that people who aspire to the Golden Rule – that means treat others as you would be treated, right? – in schools are the same ones who hand out pamphelets showing two guys kissing and saying homosexuality is a sin, or say that its an abomination, or create an opposition to the day of silence which is about preventing abuse towards gay people – is this really the way they want to be treated?

Alan -

I’m not saying you have to teach kids that homosexuality is good and moral, I’m just saying don’t force your particular relgious views on them. Teach them the facts: that homosexuality is not a disease and that we must respect everyone.