Ex-Gay Watch

Kendall, as I said some posts ago, arguing with you really serves no purpose, so I think it’s time to close this discussion, at least for my part.

But I will say in parting that, as one who was a teenager in Texas during the civil rights era, I have personally witnessed the enormous benefits our society has gained from anti-discrimination laws. It’s not a question of belief. It’s a question of reality.

As you said, there’s no point in arguing, we’re just going to go in circles because we both believe in our positions very strongly.

Marcus’s point.
Randy Thomas bringing up the HRC and their hiring practices in comparison to the most likely type of employer to discriminate is another way he does dish red herring.
RT would deign to try and work in a pro gay activist organization. He wouldn’t deign to work in a place where a gay person would likely be working. What’s he going to do, ask first?

Exodus knows, as do many politicians, how many people in this country identify as being Christian and how much influence that has on ANTI GAY policies. But I would have to wonder if any of these so called Christian employers would also fire or discriminate against the divorced, adulterers and unmarried people who are living together or having pre/nonmarital sex or non procreative sex.

See, what would happen then, is that a potential Christian employer would have to ask and nose into ALL their employee’s sex lives and how they have sex if they are to be CONSISTENT with the Biblical teaching on sex.
Or anything else for that matter, like mentruating women and mixing fabrics and seafood consumption.
The slippery slope isn’t in how a Christian employer would be forced to hire gay people or not fire them, but if the law were applied equally regarding the employer’s religious convictions, they’d have to show that they would fire or not hire any OTHER people for the aforementioned in which there are Biblical objections.

It’s all about how the chili hits the cheese and knowing when someone is SELECTIVELY using religion in their business practices.
BTW, how many banks and lending institutions have Christian CEO’s?
You know, that usury thing.

Thanks for working on the paragraphs, Regan — getting better

Nick C. I think you have done an awesome job presenting your point. It is also very good to get some much needed and thoughtful dialogue going on here. I disagree with the libertarian party just as strongly as I disagree with most aspects of the republican party (especially Reagan’s economic policies and the republican party practically worshipping the man) which I finally left after being a strong republican for over 20 years.

To me anti-discrimination laws are often stepping stones that discipline society’s and help provide an environment that help us all gain a more equal footing in pursuit of our dreams and goals. When employers know that it bigotry in the workplace (just as sexual harassment) is not acceptable the environment becomes a safer space for employees. Laws tend to create safe places for minorities. I have experienced this in action in my own life and in various places of employement after coming out due to laws that do not tolerate workplace bigotry based on sexual orientation. Eventually even religious bodies do not even tolerate it because it becomes a shameful thing to be a bigot. Anti-discrimination laws, especially when strengthened and supported by potent education can be a powerful force to affect positive change in society changing the tide to where homophobic bigotry is a rare as opposed to a common occurence. The workplace must be a safe place in society.

So it is clear that I disagree with Kendall but I am very glad that he is posting on here as we need a plethora of different points of view. If we all agreed on everything don’t you think preaching to the choir would be a little boring after a while? LOL

What I found confusing about Randy’s comments was that he says he was discriminated against but then says when he went to a supervisor, the supervisor ended the discrimination right then.

Randy doesn’t seem to understand that he basically got lucky. If the upper supervisor had not been so nice or understanding, she could have fired him on the spot or the discrimination could have continued, and he’d have no recourse.

So, basically what he’s saying is that because he was fortunate enough to have an understanding boss, we should just assume everyone will and not offer any protections.

Fortunate indeed. Come to think of it, were fortune 500 companies fortunate enough to have non-discrimination clauses for sexual orientation back in 1990?

I’d like to thank the people involved in this debate. I side with the libertarian position here–nobody is probably going to convince me that it isn’t wrong to try to compel an employer to employ you. Coercion or aggression is never justified except in self-defense.

Why do so many “ex-gay” guys sound so damn gay?

“Sound gay”?

David,

I cannot speak for PatrickP, but I too have been struck by how stereotypically gay many ex-gays seem to be. When you see them on TV or hear them on the radio, they come accross as effeminate or set off the gaydar buzzer in some other way (I wish I had a better way to say that right now).

It also seems to be a common part of their story that they were teased as kids for being gay before they even understood what that meant (examples: Randy, Alan Chambers, Mike Ensley). I often wonder if some of these guys ever had a “closet” phase, or whether it was so obvious to everyone they ran into growing up that they were gay. Their inability to “pass” might also have seriously influenced their decision to enter the ex-gay movement.

There is also this dissonance that really strikes you when you hear Randy say in the above clip that he is no longer gay. It is the same dissonance that you hear when Alan Chambers proclaims himself 100% heterosexual.

I realize that depending on sterotypes isn’t really fair, but sometimes it is very difficult to completely dismiss the stereotype. I am not bringing this up to make fun of ex-gays. I just think that it is one of those large pink elephants in the room that people often try to politely ignore.

NPR reported this morning on a study in a labor journal that documented gay men making 23% less than married heterosexual men, and 9% less than unmarried but partnered heterosexual men. The researcher mentioned that gay men seem to be most disadvantaged in traditionally male dominated fields such as blue collar and managerial positions. Interestingly, lesbians were not found in this study to be disadvantaged compared with their heterosexual counterparts.

The researcher also mentioned that he looked into this area because of a lack of labor research on gays and lesbians. So much for Randy’s blithe suggestions that gays aren’t discriminated against.

John, I think you are correct in some ways. I have always argued that the main existence of the exgay movement is gender related. People seem less bothered by the sex aspect and more by the gender issues–how masculine a male is or how feminine a female is. Notice how on Christian videos and cable shows, homosexual males are often presented in drag.

I saw Stephen Bennett on the 700 Club, and he kept apologizing about how effeminate he is, but he stressed that he was straight. He seemed to constantly be concerned by how masculine he is. We have seen this over and over again with various exgay people (Paulk was someone who would also mention how he would be more masculine now–didn’t he say that gaining weight was something that would help be perceived as more masculine?).

There should be minimum standards of conduct in the work place as it pertains to the expression of prejudice – that is what anti-discrimination legislation is for. We know that people will not treat everyone in a civil manner – so we have to make sure that they do. Not everyone plays nice or fair, so things like ENDA are designed to level the playing field. That is it – no “special” or “privileged” class like Randy Thomas states. People like Randy are being disingenuous and dishonest when they say that legislations creates a “protected” class. My question is – why is there a perception that certain group of people needs protection? ‘Cause they often need it? What about women, African-Americans, persons with disabilities? Are they a “special” class of people because the government has removed the power of wealthy, white, able-bodied, male chauvinists to flagrantly discriminate against them? I find that people who are most opposed to equality and equity legislation are those who are the biggest abusers of power [insert favoured group(s) here]. Legislation like this is not about coercion or aggression. It is about making sure that if an employee is terminated, it is because they do not meet industry expectations – and not the biases of their employer. It is about their employment performance, plain and simple.

This whole discourse about protecting a persons “religious” rights is a red herring, and I call on Randy Thomas to acknowledge that it is simply a diversionary tactic. If anyone is demanding “special” treatment from the government it is Exodus and its Right wing allies – they want the government to enshrine their beliefs and morals as law. Who gave them that right; Isn’t THAT privilege?

I side with the libertarian position here–nobody is probably going to convince me that it isn’t wrong to try to compel an employer to employ you. Coercion or aggression is never justified except in self-defense.

“Coercion”? “Aggression”? Good god. So being prevented from discriminating against people based on the color of their skin is having the government act “aggressive” towards you, now? You’re trying to say that mandating that employment choices be facially neutral is “coercing” an employer to hire somebody specifically? That’s ridiculous.

“Coercion”? “Aggression”? Good god. So being prevented from discriminating against people based on the color of their skin is having the government act “aggressive” towards you, now? You’re trying to say that mandating that employment choices be facially neutral is “coercing” an employer to hire somebody specifically? That’s ridiculous.

Essentially? Yes, that’s exactly right. The fact of the matter is legislation of this nature does not exist without a club, that is, if you do not follow the law you ultimately will be fined, and potentially sent to jail. Legislation is by it’s very nature generally coercive, especially when you are trying to prevent (or in some cases promote) a particular action from taking place.

While I have some libertarian leanings, I suspect the only place a pure version of that ideology would work is in the laboratory of the mind. Certainly, if it ever did work, we have moved beyond any possibility of returning to such in this world unless we are willing also to revisit many of the evils we have eliminated.

Paulk was someone who would also mention how he would be more masculine now–didn’t he say that gaining weight was something that would help be perceived as more masculine?

IIRC, he said that gaining weight was a way of subconsciously detaching from issues of sexuality in general, by becoming, as he put it, unattractive and therefore unavailable. I find a certain logic to that actually, and certainly don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility. In fact, a female friend of mine did essentially the same thing though didn’t realize it until later in life.

I suspect that there is no such thing as a workable “pure” philosophy except in the laboratory of the mind. With that said, society has transitioned very well to generally being less likely to discriminate against minorities whether racial or sexual without such laws. The fact that protective laws are being passed with some regularity at various levels from cities to companies to state governments as well as the federal level (for at least some groups) is to me an indication that our society is already recognizing the value both economically and practically in judging people by the “content of their character” rather than the color of their skin (as Dr. King said) without the need to force people to act with threat of consequences if they don’t.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act carried with it some very tangible consequences, as did the laws and amendments that followed. Do you suppose that might have something to do with that transition?

without the need to force people toa act with threat of consequences if they don’t.

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say there is a threat of consequences if they violate the rights of another. But then what is the purpose of most of our laws in the first place, if not to provide consequences for acts which either infringe on the inalienable rights of citizens or are deemed unacceptable by our society (the latter always yielding to the former)? This is nothing new.

This feels a bit like learning to speak Latin; interesting but not very useful in real life. If all people could be depended upon to do the right thing in all circumstances, well utopia is even less realistic than a pure libertarian society.

David – It’s conceivable that the CRA of 1964 had a significant impact on normalizing to a great degree race relations. What it did is enshrine the idea that the federal government itself cannot discriminate on the basis of race or other characteristic. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but I do think that non governmental agencies, companies and businesses should have that ability if they choose.

Also, you mentioned:

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say there is a threat of consequences if they violate the rights of another.

And I honestly wonder exactly what right you think ENDA is protecting. There is no right to employment, there is no right against being offended, there is no right not to be fired (unless ENDA creates one of course) so could you tell me what right is so important in your view that we need ENDA to protect it? I think that the right at issue is an employer’s right to determine who is and is not on their payroll.

I think that the right at issue is an employer’s right to determine who is and is not on their payroll.

Really? I wonder how far you will get with your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in 2007 if all employers took that view. Or to put it another way, no one says you have to offer your house for rent, but if you should decide to then you must offer it regardless of, for instance, the color of the prospective renter’s skin.

Feel free to continue if others want to engage you on this — I lose interest quickly in these kinds of debates. Unless one is living on an island or in the old west, I don’t see how we can escape occasionally being required to do what I would hope we can agree is the right thing, or at the very least the fair thing.

If we start to travel back, unwinding these protections along the way, who will be the one to say stop, this is where we should be?

I think that it is fair to say that most employers today are out to earn a profit. Firing qualified people on the basis of an innate characteristic is bad for business. Look at how the military has dismissed dozens (hundreds?) of translators simply because they happen to be gay. I’m not saying that eliminating protections for workers would not lead to some people to be fired for non-performance issues, I’m sure some employers are that stupid.

But I’m not going to compromise my principles and help them to see the benefit of keeping employees they may not agree with on a personal level (at least until they can invent a “legitimate” reason to fire them). If they want to hurt their business by losing qualified people then I’m sure there are plenty of people that will want them.

Look at how the military has dismissed dozens (hundreds?) of translators simply because they happen to be gay.

You mean how they’re still doing it even though it’s bad for them? Yeah, that really helps your position that the free market fairy will fix everything.

Randy claims to be drunk and on drugs until he sobered up in 1992. He could not possibly have worked for a Fortune 500 Corporation AND nearly faced being fired for being gay. He claims he was out and proud then; OUT, PROUD indicates a person who is comfortable with their sexuality and not abusing drugs and alcohol. I am a purist when it comes to the terms OUT, PROUD.
He has a testimony that I have used against other lies he has recently and publicly told RIGHT HERE
He states, “As the teenage years moved on the pain grew. At the age of 16 I started drinking and had my first homosexual experience. Finally I was making my own decisions. I was dating men at 18 and going out to the bars all the time. As I spent more time in my “escapes” my home life and sober life got neurotic. This was the time when the Adversary tried so hard to kill me, when I subconsciously wanted to die.”

Randy Thomas was never out and proud- he was a drug addict/drunk and started having frequent RANDOM homosexual sex he calls “escapes” — a euphemism that clearly connotes his disdain for homo-sex, before he dealt with the pain his absent/abusive family caused him, I find nothing remotely related to being really OUT and PROUD in his testimony.
He is using Bishop Harry Jackson and the anti-gay, anti-ENDA, anti-HRC and anti-gay civil rights RELIGIONIST lobby to make a name for himself and Exodus. How tragically flawed that makes his Christian testimony look, and to boot, his integrity and credibility are diminished.

What I view as disgusting in this whole media scam is his claim to know what it’s like to be out and proud– when it’s obvious from his personal testimony, that he never WAS. Doesn’t that make his claim FALSE?
Oh and it’s a lot like his constant use of the claim to have been gay-bashed in other public testimony to stand against the Hate Crimes Bill and look like it makes him a better victim. Like either incident can be worn as some sort of ID badge that grants him the right to diminish what WE who are still engrossed in the fight seeking true civil rights are doing.
His whole “I know what it was like, I experienced it, I was once gay and victimized, therefore I have a right to say don’t pass these terrible laws, don’t create a special class of people” his BS-attitude and anti-gay rhetoric is really deplorable!!! Yet seems to be supported by the folks at EXODUS.
It is part and parcel of the sentiment “I am gay or ex-gay, how could I possibly be homophobic?”
Same song and same dance different costume.

If Randy felt protected within his “Fortune 500″ company back in the 1990s, he has organizations like HRC to thank for it. If Focus on the Family had had their way he would have been punished for being “out and proud” in the workplace.

And for someone as intelligent as I think he is, it seems a bit disingenuous for him to imply that his justice experience will be duplicated for every gay person in non-progressive companies and communities.

I thought Exodus was suppose to offer people “freedom from homosexuality” through the power of Jesus Christ? What does speaking out against public polices have to do with that? Is Exodus schizophrenic?