NAACP Appreciates PFOX Participation, Invites Them Back
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) sent out a mailing today titled “NAACP Rocks,” referencing a 2006 letter of appreciation from the organization to PFOX. According to the attached copy, PFOX held an exhibit at the NAACP annual convention that year. It is not yet known if they participated in 2007 or if they will be there this year, but the email suggests they plan on participating in 2009.
The PFOX exhibit displayed useful information on unwanted same-sex attractions and tolerance for the ex-gay community. We distributed many brochures, flyers, stickers, and buttons. The attendees were enthusiastic about our booth and our ex-gay volunteers staffing the booth were well received. Many people remarked at how glad they were to see us and took extra handouts to distribute at their church back home. Gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign have exhibited at the NAACP for many years, but PFOX was the first and only ex-gay booth there.
We would like to exhibit there next year. Please make a love offering at http://www.pfox.org/donate.htm or send a gift to the address below so we can pay the exhibit booth fee.
Thanks and see you at the NAACP convention next year!
Here are examples of the brochures PFOX might have circulated.
According to the NAACP contract for exhibit space (as of this year), PFOX could secure a presence for as little as $500. The rules to exhibit seem pretty lax, though one would hope that groups which seek to curtail the rights of others would be antithetical to the goals of the NAACP. Ironically, PFOX considers themselves a civil rights group, protecting the rights of ex-gays, and referring to them as a separate and distinct orientation. This enables them to use verbiage lifted from organizations working for GLBT rights, the very rights that PFOX seeks to negate. That bit of sad logic is an apt testament to the anger and bitterness so common to PFOX.
It is not known why there was a two year delay before this was announced. XGW has no record of the information being public before now, and we haven’t yet received a reply to our query from the NAACP. The letter has a boiler-plate structure to it and could be the standard sent out to all participants.
It is a pleasure for me to express appreciation to you for having been an exhibitor during our 97′ Annual Convention Commerce and Industry Show in Washington, D.C., July 15 - 18, 2006.
It is a pleasure for me to express appreciation to you for having been an exhibitor during our 97′ Annual Convention Commerce and Industry Show in Washington, D.C., July 15 - 18, 2006. We value your support and participation as the NAACP works to assure full rights and equal opportunities for all of our citizens. Cooperatively addressing shared concerns contributed significantly to the effective implementation of our vital
programs.The success of our 97′ Annual Convention was due in large measure to the support provided by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays + Gays. We were gratified by the enthusiasm and avid participation of our delegates, members and friends from across the nation who expressed many favorable comments about our convention. The additional audiences we reached through our web cast are also aware of your involvement as a contributor to our historic 97thAnnual Convention.
One still must wonder if an organization with antisemitic or racist overtones would be approved to exhibit, much less receive a letter of thanks for doing so. Perhaps they were confused by the “and Gays” that PFOX tacked onto their name some years ago. It has been suggested that this was done at the advice of civil rights attorney and longtime PFOX Vice President Estella Salvatierra to enable greater access to groups which would not wish to be part of anti-gay efforts, but who might see “Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays” as more neutral. But again, a simple Google search (or even a scan of their website) would reveal the more accurate and odious nature of PFOX, so this is indeed puzzling, even disappointing news.
The letter is signed by Bruce S. Gordon, President and CEO. Gordon resigned in March 2007 after expressing frustration with the job.
The NAACP says they welcome comments. If you reach them, please be civil and share any responses below. They may honestly be unaware of the nature of PFOX and their goals.
No word yet on whether PFOX representatives managed to generate any “attacks” during this event.
—
NAACP National Headquarters
Mailing Address: 4805 Mt. Hope Drive, Baltimore MD 21215
Toll Free: (877) NAACP-98
Local: (410) 580-5777
Filed under: Exgay Activists, PFOX
I would be surprised if they generate any “gays”, since they believe there is no such thing and believe gays can and should change, but not the same standard is applied to straights who want out of OSAD “Opposite Sex Attraction Disorder”. Hardly a true “friend” to “gays”.
I do wonder whether there seriously would be another possible fabricated attack. That way everyone would ask them, “Is there a split in your organization?”. Perhaps then NAACP would start to notice the PFOX’s intolerace towards the gay and ex-ex-gay community.
Good point. Shouldn’t it be PFOXGI?
Parents and friends of Ex Gays and the Gay Identified
I think PFOX is fine. Pursuing Fantasies Of X-Gayness.
I can’t say I have appreciated some of the ways PFOX has been administrated. There are things I disagree with in their approach. However, you state in this post:
“The rules to exhibit seem pretty lax, though one would hope that groups which seek to curtail the rights of others would be antithetical to the goals of the NAACP.” Then you encourage people to contact NAACP to, I presume not allow PFOX to exhibit
So, if I am reading you right you would like to curtail the rights of PFOX from exhibiting at NAACP?
How does that make sense? How is that not hypocritical?
We live in a world of diverse opinion, do we just censure everyone we disagree with? I might not like the way PFOX is run, but I don’t desire to curtail their rights to exhibit anymore than I would want to curtail HRC from exhibiting–even though I disagree with certain aspects of their group as well.
We live in a world of diverse opinion, do we just censure everyone we disagree with?
You’re right. They should let white supremacist groups exhibit there too if they want. So long as they don’t advocate violence, that is. If they advocate discrimination against racial minorities, that shouldn’t be a reason to censor their views at the NAACP convention, as long as they don’t advocate violence. They shouldn’t censor anyone just because they disagree with them.
Wow, Karen, such harsh words
Your assumption is incorrect. My reason for contacting the NAACP is, as I suggested, to find out if they are fully aware of the nature of PFOX and their actual mission. If they are and were when they allowed them to exhibit, then that says something about the NAACP that readers should know. If they were not, then how they respond is also of interest.
The NAACP has a long history of fighting for civil rights. They have made statements supporting gay rights as civil rights, and backed ENDA. So would you not consider it hypocritical of them to allow an anti-gay rights organization to exhibit at their own convention?
As for PFOX having a right to exhibit, I’m not aware of any such right. They can and do employ various media to communicate their views, and we do the same in order to allow people to use their own judgment. But there is nothing that says someone must invite PFOX or anyone else into their living room to spread their views. That would convey a certain degree of agreement with such views and again, people should know if that is indeed the case.
The principle is analogous to the KKK asking to exhibit — do you think the NAACP should have an obligation to allow that? Only the Government can practice First Amendment censorship, that is a Red Herring in this instance. But I am curious about how you twice worded your thoughts about PFOX:
This sounds like you agree with their basic mission, but have some issues with the way, oh say, the office is run. Are you basically in agreement with PFOX? And likewise, what are the “certain aspects” about the HRC with which you disagree? You are quite vague about where you stand. Is there a reason for that?
Trying to have it both ways, so to speak? PFOX is not a violent organization. As far as I know, they are not attacking anyone or any organization. I have heard them defend themselves against attacks, and defend those who are being personally criticized. Certainly consistent with NAACP principles, yes? You keep throwing out organizations like KKK and white supremacists — groups which do advocate adverse discrimination. PFOX is not in that business. And surely you don’t think the scientific case is closed for the permanence of same sex attraction. Because it certainly is not. So PFOX does have a role to play and people to represent.
Where have we said PFOX was physically violent? The KKK “defends itself against attacks and those who are being personally criticized” as well, what does this have to do with anything?
If indeed a person could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, then what kind of civil rights are they defending, those of a straight person? They work against gay rights under the guise of fighting for the rights of ex-gays — it’s a sham at the very least, using people with their own issues to fuel the entire thing.
There message is “see, gays can change so they don’t deserve rights.” That’s hardly in line with the stance of the NAACP. At their core, PFOX works against the rights of gays. I think a full accounting of how PFOX works using their own words and actions would be a good future post.. Until then, you can review our archives.
Hi David,
Thanks for your clarification. Yes, it would be interesting either way what the NAACP thinks of the ex-gay concept.
I am not really familiar with all the details of what the NAACP gets involved with, but I imagine they probably have exhibitors in which some of their adherents agree and some don’t. For example, some of their membership may have traditional views on homosexuality and some may have progressive views. I imagine some are very supportive of ex-gay ministry and some are supportive of HRC.
The mission of the NAACP is: “to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.”
You will find ex-gay affiliated folk who are just as active against racial discrimination as those who are gay affirming. So why can’t both be part of the organization?
Is PFOX as an organization actively involved in lobbying against gay rights? They may have certain opinions, but aren’t they an information/public awareness group? If they are not actively involved in the political process of denying gays rights to housing, employment etc, then what would be the conflict with NAACP?
To be equally fair, does HRC support political legislation that might curtail the rights of people of faith from freely speaking their beliefs on homosexuality? I am very concerned that my voice as an “ex-gay” is being more and more censored. Why does my voice not have equal access in sexuality curriculum training in the schools? If HRC would want to curtail my rights as an ex-gay, should they be allowed at the NAACP exhibit? (To be clear I do not see “ex-gay” as a “class” to be protected in the way that PFOX does; I am arguing on the basis of my basic humanity. As Voltaire said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”)
On some issues we have to agree to disagree and learn to live on the same planet together. So how do we do that?
(PS, I am very offended and alarmed that because of my beliefs on homosexuality some would place me in the same category as a group as despicable as the KKK).
I guess that is something we will find out, however it seems rather conflicting to both be for and against discrimination at the same time. Would you accept a booth espousing Pagan beliefs in your church?
Again, just because we all live on the same planet, in what way does this affect which views we find valid and acceptable and which we don’t? Would the NAACP be denying PFOX’s ability to live on this planet if they were not to invite them to exhibit as part of their organization?
We at XGW have made the statement many times that we respect anyone’s right to live their life as they see fit — celibate, trying to be straight, whatever. But PFOX uses those who make the decision to attempt such a life as a way to undermine the rights of gays and lesbians. We believe this is wrong and will continue to say so.
It is not discrimination if others determine one position over the other as valid, and wish to align themselves with it. But the two views are diametrically opposed, so giving them both equal weight serves a purpose other than the truth.
No one here has done that, it was an analogy using another more easily understood position at odds with the mission of the NAACP. Only you know what your beliefs are and how close they may come to such a group. Whatever they may be, your reasons for holding them do not give you a walk from the assessment of public opinion. You may be offended if that becomes the case, but take courage in the understanding that plenty of others have suffered far worse for who they are, not just what they believe.
I have to ask, do you really know much about PFOX? What little I have heard about you leads me to believe you must not be fully aware of how they work. As I said in my comment above, we should prepare a detailed profile of them for future reference.
How is it a “right” to exhibit at any organization’s convention? By the same token, would the NAACP then have to let a white supremacist group exhibit, in order to avoid curtailing their rights?
If HRC wanted to exhibit at the next “Love Won Out” conference, would they have a “right” to exhibit there?
Sure, HRC and PFOX both have the same right to promote their points of view. But that doesn’t translate to a right to do so in a particular venue or on a particular platform. By that logic, a gay rights organization would have to allow anti-gay organizations to exhibit at their conferences — imagine Focus on the Family at Creating Change, or Westboro Baptist Church at a GLAAD conference.
And not only that, but offer the anti-gay groups the venue and platform that the gay organization has paid for; essentially requiring them to support with their own dollars the very people that oppose their missions.
PFOX does not have a “right” to exhibit at the NAACP convention. If they exhibit at the convention, they do so at the pleasure of the hosting organization. If the NAACP decides it would be better for PFOX not to have spot in their exhibit hall, PFOX’s “right” would not be “curtailed.” After all, no one is stopping PFOX from having its own conference, hosting its own website to promote its message, or exhibiting at any other conference that will have them.
They would have all the same rights they had before. The NAACP doesn’t owe them an exhibit spot, any more than PFOX would owe me the chance to post on their website or exhibit at their events.
It is not a question of a right to free speech. Period. Let’s at least get that much straight. No pun intended.
I think an interesting example of PFOX’s disingenuity can be found in their brochure on bullying. Towards the beginning, they offer the usual lip service about how all kids should be protected from bullying:
But then they go into a section explaining why calling kids “queer” or “gay” is a bad thing:
That’s right, the real reason that it’s wrong to call kids “gay” or “queer” is that they might actually start belinging they are gay. The fact that it’s usually mean-spirited and meant to tear someone else down is apparently incidental.
They then go on to talk about how ex-gays are ridiculed and called things like “homophobic,” “fake,” and “pretender.” I’m inclined to leave those words out of the school, myself. But I do have to wonder why a group that started their argument by saying that anti-bullying should apply to all and shouldn’t mention specific groups as needing protecting would then turn around and, you know, mention a specific group they feel needs protection from bullying.
Of course, it makes sense if you consider that when PFOX says, “specific groups don’t need to be mentioned,” they’re literally talking about specific groups that they don’t want mentioned: namely the non-straight ones.
Karen, nobody’s telling you to shut up. And despite fears to the contrary, there is no way this country is going to keep “people of faith” from talking about how “sinful” and “wrong” homosexuality is. HRC, in my experience with membership of their organization, has put a focus primarily on clawing their way towards equality, not cutting down local fundamentalist pulpits. The difference between “ex-gay” groups and gay groups is that gay groups are trying to make a difference by gaining equality for themselves. Ex-gay groups are trying to make a difference by preventing and prohibiting the equality of others.
Ex-gay groups are not taught in schools because those who seek ex-gay therapy do so out of an internalized feeling that something is “wrong” with them or “incongruent” with the rest of the world. Sexual health education does not promote any one form of morality; at least that’s not how it worked at MY schools (and synagogue!). We were given the cold facts about behavior, risk factors, disease, treating your partner fairly, and healthy relationships. Everything was morally “neutral.” It was not the job of the course to teach a moral stance on sexuality outside of not hurting yourself or your partner(s). For example: mast******** was described as an act that some people engaged in. Some think it is “wrong,” some think it is “right.” The school didn’t say it was either. For a school to say “here’s an option for gays who want to change” implies saying that homosexuality is “wrong.” Why would someone want to change if there’s nothing “wrong” or “right” about it? That’s their religious community’s job to communicate, not a public school.
And beyond that, sexual education is based on scientific resources from respected medical organizations - none of which declare nor recommend gays try to go straight.
The difference is legitimate URGENCY, not just opinions.
Karen K, since you are the voice of dissent here, and it seems in some way defending PFOX as someone with a differing point of view.
PFOX and other organizations with it’s similar goals foster an archaic and detrimental situation that makes furthering education and truth on gay lives impossible.
And the legitimacy in the urgency of who deserves more consideration is the simple fact that PFOX isn’t floating ANYTHING NEW or IMPROVED.
They maintain a belief and understanding of homosexuality that is ancient and as far as socio/political concerns go, allow the public to believe that discrimination is legitimate as long as they believe being homosexuality is changeable.
Mores the point, if a person is living as a heterosexual, assuming that identity and not receiving any social barriers for living as such, there is NO URGENCY in their demands to be recognized.
However, the agenda is indeed political, and the forceful visibility of so called ex gays (whose actual orientation and to what degree cannot possibly be measured) confuses, not educates.
Young gay people are vulnerable to such a cause of confusion and distrust. Alliances with a venerated instiution like the NAACP dilutes the powerful legitimacy that GAY PEOPLE have to not speak for themselves.
PFOX, Exodus and all the rest can be accused of hijacking and controlling all the information. And maintaining the belief that one cannot be discriminated against if one changes their orientation.
So therefore, such discrimination is the fault of the gay person, so no laws are required to protect them.
Tactic of persuasion #1: say that a majority of people believe the same way. It’s difficult for gay people to fight this, because of their status as PERPETUAL minority.
Tactic of persuasion #2: posit that there is a wealth of information available and provide the sources. The sort of research on gay lives that hasn’t come from very narrow and constrained sources is very recent. Without an expansion on the visibility of gay people and availability of gay people into situations they’ve traditionally been isolated from, there can’t be any other information from that source and no new information created.
Tactic of persuasion #3: virtually all information coming from the opposition to gay equality has been in the negative or conjectured that deprivation or degradation will occur. That society will have no positive changes and the majority’s traditional institutions will be destroyed or diminished with the participation of gay people.
All these tactics are used in the same way BY KKK, Nazis, segregationists and miosgynists.
Be insulted all you want at the analogy. But there IS no damage or disminishment to straight people, or whites or men or Christians from the equality of blacks, Jews, women and gay people.
But the damage to THEIR lives IS legitimate and so is the urgency in demanding the ability to communicate for themselves who they are and their intentions which PFOX distorts and legitimates prejudice.
There is no equal time for, nor should there be equal time demanded for defamation, distortion, lies and libel.
Those who have in opposition to gay equality forget that, and the consequences of when they ARE allowed that defamation.
Someone DOES suffer in the end, and it’s NOT anyone FROM Exodus, PFOX, or the clients of the ADF.
Hi David,
I guess I would like to see more evidence that PFOX is actively working to put into place discriminatory practices against gays and in what manner. I am not saying they aren’t per se. I admit I have a superficial knowledge of them and need to do more in-depth research to really make an informed opinion. But, if PFOX simply has a traditional view of homosexuality and is seeking to advocate for ministry for those with unwanted same-sex attraction and parents who might benefit from their resources, I do not see that as discrimination. I would be interested to see your detailed profile on them, if you end up creating it. I also plan to research it more myself. I have been doing that with different groups on the Right and hope to formulate some of my thoughts about it all on my blog in the next few months.
Do you want to see any ex-gay affilitated group or individual censored from exhibiting at NAACP or is it that you have particular issues with PFOX?
You write: “Would you accept a booth espousing Pagan beliefs in your church?” Someone else also eluded to the idea of “sacred space” too. I do believe it is appropriate to have “sacred space” in which we do censor. I wouldn’t expect Beyond Ex-gay to host an Exodus booth at their conferences and vice versa.
I don’t see this situation as the same because ex-gays can be just as active against racial discrimination as gay affirming folk. So I don’t see them as opposed to the mission of NAACP. Particularly if PFOX is there to provide resources to families and doesn’t exist to lobby for discrimination against gays in housing, employment etc. I don’t believe that having a different moral view on homosexuality in of itself constitutes discrimination.
Jarred–I think you make a good point. I have also had concerns with that argument.
Emily–You write: “The difference between “ex-gay” groups and gay groups is that gay groups are trying to make a difference by gaining equality for themselves. Ex-gay groups are trying to make a difference by preventing and prohibiting the equality of others.”
That is a huge and erroneous generalization. Kind of like saying all gays march half-naked in gay pride parades. The ex-gay group I help out with has taken no action against preventing or prohibiting equality. In fact, we state in our mission that we are not for or against gay political causes.
Your one-sidedness on the issue of what should be taught in school reminds of how people on the Religious Right talk about it. It sounds like liberal fundamentalism to me. I think there are ways of presenting different views without sermonizing. High schoolers should hear all the views instead of being indoctrinated in one perspective. You are moralizing just as much about what you think is right or wrong–only from the Left.
I think that needs to be isolated. PFOX has a proven track record of intentional dishonesty.
Karen, I have gotten into this so many times with ex gays and those who support them.
PFOX, Exodus’s not supporting discrimination or violence DOESN’T matter!!
The commitment to discrimination has been going on for TOO long, and the voice of gay people not long and strong ENOUGH for the public at large not to be extremely confused and still hostile!
What PFOX supports isn’t NEW. It’s precisely what’s already BEEN used to discriminate, already a huge part of what is asserted to the general public ESPECIALLY by religious people who have tremendous influence and KNOW IT.
However gently and compassionately they PUT IT, doesn’t matter, It’s USELESS and does MORE HARM to gay people in general.
What part of WORTHLESS for the needs of gay people don’t you understand? This isn’t FOR gay people, but for PFOX’s own cause. Which doesnt HAVE to be discrimination, but maintaining what already IS enough prejudice and distrust of gay people.
PFOX represents a TRADITIONALLY held view, not a new one. They are literally NOT invested in doing anything thats innovative or functional for understanding or honesty.
The deep fear and mistrust of homosexuals is because so few gay people get to speak for themselves or are not believed even then.
People keep arguing with gay people that it’s a choice, no matter how many times they are told it isn’t. So PFOX is making THAT difficult.
What this is equivalent to, Karen….is not allowing those who are most affected by that misrepresentation to FINALLY have the floor. In the time frame between PFOX’s assertions and those of gay folks, gay folks have had virtually NO time to speak their piece, live integrated so THAT truth can be confirmed.
Exodus, PFOX and the like are ALWAYS hogging the floor, taking over and imposing ALREADY retread information.
It’s rude, it causes more problems than it solves and they don’t understand the meaning of giving someone ELSE who deserves it the opportunity to be known and defined on THEIR terms and not PFOX’s old terms.
So yeah….it’s not about shutting up just to shut up. It’s about shutting up because it’s someone else’s turn, so let them have it!
I think you should reconsider your repeated use of the word “censored” in this case. No one is censoring or even attempting to censor PFOX. I could just as easily say you are censoring Pagan thought by not allowing it to be taught, “sacred space” or not (I don’t agree with your using that term to avoid the analogy, btw). From the beginning you have tried to make this the issue and yet, even though you say you understood my clarification, you continue to respond as if that were the case.
That said, as I stated in my last comment, the issue here is not anyone’s sincere belief about the rightness or wrongness of gay relationships. It is when organizations seek to marginalize gays, through misinformation or support of initiatives which negatively impact the rights of others, that we object. We respond by reporting their actions for others to use in their own contemplation of the issues. While Exodus and many of their ministries lobby against our rights as well, PFOX is particularly bitter and just plain mean about it.
So, if the NAACP doesn’t know what PFOX is like, they should. And if they do, we should know that this does not bother them. This is information that we believe people should have.
I’m happy as time permits to respond to germane questions, but you’ve asked a number of things to which I have already made clear my response. And your language seems biased toward the idea that PFOX is being censored, something which is just silly. If I may be blunt, PFOX has a big, ugly mouth. They aren’t going to stop talking, but others may stop listening and that is not censorship.
On the other hand, you would do well to find out more about them. If you want neutral ground, ask Warren Throckmorton. He is certainly sympathetic to your beliefs and yet he worked with PFOX at one time. I have to believe he knows what they are like from an even better perspective than ours.
And finally, I find it rather disingenuous that you complain so strongly here of censorship, yet you advocated against even private dialog in your open letter to conservative pastors to be visited by Soulforce during their American Family Outing.
There you justify your position by calling the meetings “strategic visits intended to change church doctrine on homosexuality.” Just what do you think PFOX wanted to accomplish with all those flyers, buttons and stickers at their booth? What happened to “We live in a world of diverse opinion, do we just censure everyone we disagree with?”
David,
I am really not trying to be antagonistic. Although, its hard to know tone through e-mail type format. Perhaps I am not expressing myself very well. I understand that you said: “My reason for contacting the NAACP is, as I suggested, to find out if they are fully aware of the nature of PFOX and their actual mission. If they are and were when they allowed them to exhibit, then that says something about the NAACP.”
What I am responding to is your statement: “it seems rather conflicting to both be for and against discrimination at the same time”–indicating that if the NAACP allows PFOX they are supporting discrimination. Am I misunderstanding you?
I was looking for clarity of specific accounts of PFOX lobbying for discrimination. I don’t disbelieve you. Like I said, I need to do more research on that. When I do, I may be just as concerned about PFOX being there as well.
Maybe I am daft, but what I still do not feel like I have a clear answer on whether you would have made this same inquiry to NAACP if it was any ex-gay affiliated ministry. I am trying to understand if you feel that a traditional belief on homosexuality, by itself, constitutes discrimination. Just having the belief itself. Or, is it more the way an ex-gay ministry presents itself? I don’t like the way some ex-gay affiliated groups act either. I do think some are discriminatory. But I don’t see them as all the same.
Also, I don’t see what is so disingenous about my open letter to the pastors. As I said in my previous response to you, I do believe there is a time for “sacred space.” I am not at all objecting to the notion of that. I was agreeing with your statement:
“Sure, HRC and PFOX both have the same right to promote their points of view. But that doesn’t translate to a right to do so in a particular venue or on a particular platform. By that logic, a gay rights organization would have to allow anti-gay organizations to exhibit at their conferences — imagine Focus on the Family at Creating Change, or Westboro Baptist Church at a GLAAD conference.”
So, I agree with you on that. My views regarding Soulforce is exactly this point.
My question did not have to do with whether or not we can never reserve certain space for those who share our ideology. My question was whether any ex-gay affiliated group would be deemed a contradiction of NAACP’s mission or if it was specific to PFOX and other groups that specifically speak out on legislative type matters. As I said, I may very well agree with you about PFOX. My question is not about them, but any ex-gay affiliated group by virtue of simply being ex-gay.
(For the record, I am not opposed to dialogue, as I state clearly on my blog post, with Soulforce or anyone else. It was the venue–a house of worship that was of primary concern for me. In my view a church is a very sacred, personal space. I have not objected to their Equality Ride even though its basically the same thing because college campuses are a place for town hall type talks and various types of dialogue).
I’ve answered this at least twice Karen. And you are now attributing quotes from other commenters to me, and then responding to them. I feel like you aren’t really listening, as you don’t even realize what I did or didn’t say. I don’t agree with your “sacred space” idea, it seems hypocritical, a way to have your cake and eat it too. Who is the arbiter of “sacred space?” Is the Exodus Freedom Conference sacred space, or can pro-gay groups come and talk there? How about Love Won Out, sacred or no?
We will find out what the NAACP thinks when they respond — I can’t speak for them. But I do think you need to brush up on just what PFOX is before you start speaking about them much more.
I happened to be one of their token ex-gays back in 2006 sitting everyday at this very convention ‘gently’ talking to people about my views on being an ex-gay. PFOX is all about the ex-gay or return to a ‘normal’ expression of sexuality as defined by a biological woman and man, and the only aspect I saw of supporting gays is that they come back to the light someday. If you subscibed to the ex-gay yahoo group, you would definately see that it is an ex-gay group and desire ‘rights’ to be ex-gay. Richard Cohen is (or at least was) on the board. They tout financially supporting the changing a transexual woman back into a man through reversal surgery and people changing from gay to straight.
Anyways, the point of me writing is that this conference was the tool that brought me into the light so to speak, and started the process of reversing everything I believed about being ex-gay and now embracing being me, gay and all. It was the last day of the conference and the event was almost done. Two very attractive girls approached me very angerly that the ex-gay thing is false and a load of crap. So I told my ‘testimony’ of how I ‘changed.’ They seemed satisfied and believed, and as they started to leave, the most attractive girl turns around and say, so do you think I’m hot? I knew if I said yes, it would cause problems, and if I said no, it would be a lie. I said no. She walked away, turned around, and asked again. It was at that moment, I turned red and answered yes. And that was the end of anything ex-gay for me.
And as far as those letters go, I am pretty sure they gave one to every exhibitor… but I may be wrong, you’d have to ask Regina or Estelle.
LOL, well they have yet to answer a single email requesting fact verification, information or anything else. I was once able to get through to Estella (briefly) on the phone once. That’s not an experience I wish to repeat anytime soon. So I don’t think asking about that letter would accomplish much, but as I said in the post, I believe it’s probably a form letter. It does point to the fact that PFOX exhibited in 2006, however. PFOX just used it as a tool to solicit funds, which might be the reason they waited so long. Estella might have found it and thought it was a good opportunity to take in donations. Just speculation, but it makes more sense than anything else I know of.
So Holly, you were at the NAACP convention in DC that we are discussing?
PS: Also, the Yahoo group you mentioned, I’ve heard from people who actually went to PFOX for help and they couldn’t get approved to get on that thing. I have no expectation that we would be able to access it. They are quite a paranoid bunch.
David,
I want to apologize, I just re-read through your comments more slowly. I am not sure why it wasn’t computing before. But, I see now where you answered my question. You wrote:
“The issue here is not anyone’s sincere belief about the rightness or wrongness of gay relationships. It is when organizations seek to marginalize gays, through misinformation or support of initiatives which negatively impact the rights of others, that we object.”
So, your answer is “no”–a belief about homosexuality as wrong does not, in of itself, constitute discrimination.
Sorry about that. It didn’t sink in the first time I read it. I think perhaps because part of me wonders what different people would consider marginalization or misinformation. If I have a certain belief and keep it to myself that is one thing. But, what if I talk about my beliefs? Some would likely see any statement about homosexuality being wrong as an act of marginalization. I know some have called church doctrine on the issue “spiritual violence.”
This is probably not the appropriate thread to get into it, but it ties into a lot of what I have been wrestling with. I have been doing a lot of soul searching on things like the hate crimes bill and the culture war on the issue and trying to figure out where I fit and how I should respond. On the one hand I do not want to see GLBT people discriminated against and on the other hand in some places in the world expressing a traditional belief on homosexuality could get a person fired from a job because of anti-discrimination laws etc.
Also, I apologize for misattributing Terrence’s comment to you regarding the idea of different groups reserving their space for those who share ideology. I was trying to read through the comments during a short break at work. Bad idea.
Though I still don’t see how my idea of sacred space is different from your concept that NAACP it might not want to have certain groups there. You write: “So would you not consider it hypocritical of them to allow an anti-gay rights organization to exhibit at their own convention?”
We all tend to want to have sacred space where we can group together with those that share our values and mission. You ask a good question though about who is the arbiter of such sacred space? What is sacred space and what is “public square.” Some of it would certainly be related to whose space it is. In this case, it is the NAACP’s event and they can do what they want. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what they want in this case with PFOX.
Anyway, enough said. Again, I apologize for not listening more carefully.
Actually, what I said was this:
I gave you the example of mast******** being mentioned in sex ed courses. But when it is mentioned, it is not mentioned in the context of being moral or immoral behavior. Saying that people engage in the act (and people DO engage in the act) is not saying it is right or wrong. It is mentioned that people do it, and the act is described, so that people know what mast******** IS (because believe it or not, not every middle-schooler knows), so that those who DO engage in it know what it is they are doing, and how it exists in the realm of psycho-sexual behavior.
In the same context, homosexuality is not taught to be an immoral or moral behavior in a school sex-ed course. It is taught as a form of sexuality that some people possess. Teaching that homosexuals exist - and they DO exist - is not the same as saying “homosexuality is right.”
I also said the following:
I suppose moral implications can be assumed, but mistakenly so, in that I think it’s an ethical duty to teach prepubescents and pubescent adolescents accurate and thorough sexual education. Some think it is “immoral” to educate students on sexuality - as if it’s supposed to be some “dirty little secret” that people “just don’t talk about.” But I don’t see sexuality as being inherently moral or immoral. The effects of sexual behavior upon the self and others is where morality comes in. I believe the dispensing sexual knowledge falls under ethical considerations. As for one-sidedness, well; we learned about all kinds of birth control and contraceptives - things some people believe encourage “immoral” sex - but there was taught that there was only ONE sure decision a person could make where a safe and healthy outcome was absolutely guaranteed: Abstinence.
Schools don’t tell students what kind of sexual behavior is moral or immoral. They describe behaviors and then describe potential consequences, medical and social, of those behaviors. It is not the school’s duty to tell a student whether or not to change their private sexual behavior. That is the student’s own decision to make.
And, for your information, I’m center-left, not leftist.
Karen,
Apology not needed but accepted — I just didn’t feel you were really listening to me so I had less reason to keep going with the discussion. While I don’t begrudge anyone their personal beliefs, there is no guarantee that this or that belief will not be looked on with some degree of social stigma or even disgust in the future. One would hope that is the case with those who might still hold a “traditional Biblical view” of slavery, jurisprudence or any number of other things.
In a democracy, we all have a right to our own views, correct or incorrect. But as I learned years ago, your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. Translating what is essentially religious dogma held by a segment of several faiths into civil restrictions is intolerable in a free society. Yet a majority of conservative Christian organizations are attempting to do just that.
Alan Chambers, President of Exodus worked against a law in his own city to prevent housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And in the scheme of things, Alan is quite moderate. They continue to fight against Bias Crime laws, shamelessly distorting their purpose and effect, when they themselves benefit from exactly the same laws by virtue of their beliefs. People see this hypocrisy and they don’t always like it, so you may want to consider what your statement of a “traditional view” of homosexuality means to others — it reminds them of the actions that so often go with the words. And this is not a generalization Karen, it’s a fact that is reinforced daily.
So you will have to pardon me if I am too tired to quibble about “sacred spaces” and how I have to get along with someone who considers me a deviant by virtue of who I am. Or who applies the most stringent, unrealistic demands on my life while ignoring the logs in their own eyes.
What I am saying is, you are talking to the wrong group — get your own house in order.
I should add, the booth was next to the lactaid booth, ford (I think), and a home loan booth. There were booths from all branches. So it wasn’t that the NAACP so much checked out the messages, just whoever was willing to pay for space to advertise their product. We were advertising cures for gays.
I don’t think we raised any money through it, it was more to get the message out that gays ‘can’ change and get the word out about the organization. This was also during the time of the big montgomery school board fight of including ex-gay material into the school curriculm or no gay material at all that they were apart of.
One other thought, I remember they really wanted me to write up my ex-gay testimony in a secular, non-christian style. It seemed like wanted to dechristianize the movement. But I remember asking my exodus leader (now the chairman of exodus) if one could change outside of Christianity… And she said one can’t and can only through Christ. I couldn’t figure out how to dechristianize my message because of it for PFOX. I was such a tool. But I find it funny that this has been mentioned 2 years later.
[…] comments at the Ex-Gay Watch blog, self-styled moderate ex-gay advocate Karen Keen defends a special “right” of ex-gays who oppose civil rights to appear at the conventions of organizations that support civil rights for […]
David,
I can understand where you are coming from. If I saw sexual orientation the same way as race, I would feel the same way.
I guess I had hoped that “nice ex-gays” could somehow co-exist with those in the gay community. And, I think in some cases this does occur. But, for those who truly see sexual orientation like race, the mere idea that homosexuality is sin–in of itself–becomes a hurtful idea. It would be as hurtful as saying a black person is sinful just because they are black or a woman is sinful just because she is a woman (which some male chauvenists in church history have essentially argued).
Even though I see your point, I simply come from a completely different worldview on what exactly sexual orientation is. I don’t see it as the same as race or gender. I think homosexuality as an identity has been socially constructed (some queer theorists would agree with that). The reason I think GLBT people should not be discriminated against is not because I see being gay as a separate category like race, but because of my beliefs about human decency and treating all people with fairness and understanding as much as possible.
Anyway, you have given me some things to think about and I will probably write more on some of my reflections on these ideas and what they mean on my blog in the coming months.
Take care, Karen
How interesting that Karen “knows so little” about PFOX yet is so willing to defend them and carry their water for them.
More interesting still that she is so unfamiliar with them but yet so well versed in their talking points and their terminology (ie. “unwanted same-sex attraction”)
I also think it’s interesting that she seems to be more concerned that a person might be fired for discriminating against a gay person than she is that a gay person might be fired for simply being gay.
A few questions for Karen. You clearly feel that protecting religious freedom and expression is very important. Do you then support the inclusion of religion as a protected class in hate crimes legislation and ENDA legislation? If so then why do you not have the same “concern” that protecting religious people from attacks from gays and others while not protecting gays from attacks from religious people? All too often a religious objection to homosexuality is loudly stated in the arrest records of those who perpetrate violence against gay people. That should be of great concern to you and every other religious person.
Also, do you believe that religion is a choice? Do you believe that people can and have changed religions? Do you believe that people who believe that religion is dangerous to individuals and society should be allowed to set up booths at say the Southern Baptist Convention or at other religious conventions to make their case? Is it OK for people who believe that religion, and it’s adherents, are dangerous to society to support and lobby for laws that would limit the rights of religious people for the betterment of society (if you don’t think PFOX does this then you really should do more research on them before you stick your neck out to defend them so strongly)?
If not, why not?
By the way I am a religious person. In fact I am doubly religious since I am a Buddhist Christian, so my questions do not come from an anti-Christian or anti-religion bias or point of view.
Oh, please. Since when has PFOX ever focused on racial discrimination? Um, let me guess… never?
Your statement is tortured logic. It’s like saying that some AAA members can be just as active against legislation which supports racial profiling, so that would justify the presence of an AAA booth at the NAACP convention. Well, perhaps some AAA members are against racial profiling, but that’s not the reason for AAA’s existence at all, nor is it a fundamental tenet of what their services entail. The same goes with PFOX. Raising serious questions about their participation should not come as a surprise.
Honestly, Karen, defending PFOX’s participation at the NAACP convention only makes you look silly, especially when the readers of this blog are far more familiar with PFOX’s aims and claims than you are.
Christopher–if you take the time to read my comments through the whole discussion you would know that my primary concern is about ex-gays in general. I am not necessarily for PFOX being at NAACP. I have to learn more about that particular organization in more detail to make a firm judgment on that. My concern is where the logic of the argument goes—that any ex-gay group, not just PFOX would be deemed inappropriate. When many ex-gays are in fact against racial discrimination.
Religion is already a protected class in bias (hate) crime laws. Religion is certainly a choice, therefore even if one were to have such a “world view” as Karen has stated (where orientation is changeable), it would be illogical to suggest that sexual orientation not be protected on that basis. Also, a certain world view does not give one the right to discriminate. Plenty of people have the world view that African Americans or Jews are inferior and should defer to the rest of the population (a rather traditional view up to the last century). That view was (and still is by some) defended with Scripture. While those people are free to believe as they do, the rest of us are not obliged to share or even respect their “world view.” We must only respect their right to have it.
TampaZeke, you write:
“I also think it’s interesting that she seems to be more concerned that a person might be fired for discriminating against a gay person than she is that a gay person might be fired for simply being gay.”
Actually, I said someone being fired for expressing their belief about homosexuality (do you see the expression of the belief itself as discrimination?) I am actually concerned about both. I am concerned about someone being fired for expressing their conscience on homosexuality, and I am concerned about a person being fired just because they are gay. Yet, in some circumstances the rights of gays and the rights of people of faith seem to directly collide. I don’t know the answer to this dilemma. Its something I am still trying to sort out.
As for whether religion is a choice–for some people it is. For me, I could no more change my faith than I could force myself commit suicide. I believe the Spirit of Christ now lives inside me and is a part of me. The Spirit cannot be removed. My faith is who I am, much much more so than my sexuality. So for me religion is not a choice. In fact, it so defines who I am that I chose that over a lesbian identity despite how compelling same-sex attraction is.
Bingo.
1. Religion is a choice. It is a daily, even a moment by moment choice we make. Every encounter we have we decide whether to follow our leader (Christ, for us Christians) or we decide to do our own thing. It’s not so much that we are “Christians” but that we are “Christians in the making.”
2. Being a Christian does not blurr or blot out who and what we are. When we become Christian, we don’t stop being human, we don’t loose our identity as citizens of the nation where we were born, we don’t change skin color, and we don’t change our sexual orientation.
3. Saying becoming Christian will somehow stop us from being gay is like what my grandma thought would happen once she married my grandpa. She swore he would never snore once she married him. Once she married him, he snored twice as loud FOR 50 YEARS of their married life. She swore it went up an octave each night of their married life. SHE was the one who changed, not HIM. She learned to tolerate and accept his snoring and the fact that he is a snorer. That snoring was a part of him. In fact, when he died, the thing she missed the most was the silence at night - the absence of his snoring!
We don’t have to give up our sexual identity in order to be Christian.
Karen K, I say again, I’ve gone through this SO many times with ex-gays this makes you ALL look disingenuous, insincere and strikingly selfish.
It absolutely doesn’t matter that you don’t support discrimination and don’t condone any mistreatment or abuse of gay people.
You don’t have to. You do a great deal of damage just asserting you’re ex gay.
You give oxygen to a raging fire that’s been burning for centuries. You give comfort to those who use change as validation that gay people bring whatever misfortune on themselves or don’t have to be gay at all.
With people like you around, whatever a gay person has to say is a symptom of their brokenness, not credible evidence that changing is ill advised.
You poison the well of knowledge that gay people have to offer, then run away when challenged on what you’re doing.
You are absolutely WORTHLESS, if not dangerous to the credibility vital to gay young people to be left alone, to be understood and accepted as gay without intervention.
And most of all, someone pointing it out to you seems to always be met with hurt feelings and wonderment at the range of responses from impatience to hostility.
You help NOTHING, you serve nothing but people already expectant and demanding that gay people change.
And a person who can’t accept their own orientation, cannot credibly defend it in someone else.
Alan, your spirituality may be a “choice” that you can switch around, but its not for me. Certainly there are practices I engage in on a daily basis to live in congruence with who I am. But those are an outflow of who I am in Christ. Scripture says that he chose his followers before the foundations of the earth. Its not just that I follow him, it is that Christ’s Spirit is now in me, and there is a oneness. My faith is who I am, not just something I do.
Scripture also says that Christians are “exiles” on the earth. That is, the Christian’s citizenship is in the Kingdom of God. That identification/allegience is above any other earthly citizenship of a particular country. I am an American citizen but that is entirely secondary to my primary citizenship.
I am not sure why you are bringing up the idea that being a Christian would cease to make a person gay. No one has made that claim on this thread. I still have same-sex attractions, but they are exactly that–feelings. My romantic and sexual feelings are not an identity. They are something I experience.
Christ calls us to give up our very self to take on the identity we find him. For the Christian, that identity must take priority over any other.
I realize some seek to combine a gay identity with a Christian one. I really wanted to be able to do that. But speaking for myself, I found theywere not compatible after many years of wanting to reconcile them. And I cannot deny or suppress my truest self–which is my identity in Christ.
Regan, you write: “It absolutely doesn’t matter that you don’t support discrimination and don’t condone any mistreatment or abuse of gay people. You don’t have to. You do a great deal of damage just asserting you’re ex gay.” (bold added)
I appreciate your straightforward and clear statement here. That is a very revealing and provocative statement.
I wonder how many others on ExGay Watch and in the gay community at large agree with that.
Karen, how would you qualify the others in xgw or the gay community at large?
The entire purpose of the thread, this website and those who used to subscribe to being ex gay pretty much says it all.
Not in the same words that I use, but knowing how much ex gays hate to hear what I say, it seems that a kick in the head or a nuclear bomb going off couldn’t sway you from wanting to believe so badly that you’re who you want to be.
Not my problem, that’s yours. Being hinkty about needing more than MY lil ol opinion is funny, because the whole point of ex gay watch wouldn’t exist in the first place.
By implying ex-gay, there are far reaching ramifications behind it. Isn’t the ex-gay label just another identity that has been picked up? But wait, calling youself ex-gay is only a descriptor, not your identity. That’s precisely like when I say I’m gay, it’s not my identity, its just easier to say than I have a homosexual orientation… Much softer on the ears. Gay kinda of cuts it short. My fundamental identity is still in Christ. However, I think the right and these organizations really pushes the idea that once one accepts being gay, it becomes this emcompassing identity that ‘ensnares’ you into this engulfing lifestyle. But really, what’s so ‘ex’ about ex-gay? Ex implies that you’re not something or that’s its been cut off. But again as you learn in Exodus school, it’s really a ’stuggle’ and renamed SSA, which now can be fixed.
God didn’t create sexuality as a just a feeling, one that you can rename or relabel. Sexuality gets at the core of human nature and the desire for intimacy with one person and the desire for community with others and God and helps determine how you see and interact with the world. So to label my sexuality as just a feeling, cuts it a little short. I would doubt ’straight’ people would also classify their sexuality as a mere feeling. How you express it, is a choice, but the mere condition of it is not.
Some of us have been able to reconcile our relationship with Christ and our sexuality, and don’t need people running around saying I’m ‘ex’ gay, when in reality they have just renamed their beliefs and play on semantics. Why not call yourself a heterosexual? And like I said, just being ex-gay has implications that hurts people. Just the other day, I was talking to a friend that I haven’t seen in years. She said that when she came out, she was met with criticism from people because they had heard me back in my ex-gay days and imposed those ideas on her. Guess what, it deeply hurt her… This isn’t the first time I heard how my beliefs on being ex-gay hurt other people, or caused people to act in a certain way. And it hurt me, cause people used the things I believed and said and turned them back on me. To think of the people who have brought this into their churches and schools because of me, kills me. These are reasons I’ve hear from fellow ‘ex-gays’ in the middle or after suicide attempts because people keep pushing these unnatural, unrealistic, imposed ideas on them that they hear from ‘changed testimonys,’ which are merely a play on semantics if one got truthful.
I reconciled my sexuality and Jesus through my own deep soul searching and through some amazing people who gave me grace and the freedom to pursue Christ before I was told about exgaywatch or gaychristian network. I only stick around because I now know what its like to go from the oppressor to the oppressed… and I only brought that upon myself. What I believed was ‘Gods work’ I have realized was the devils.
I don’t think I would be so against exodus if it just became an organization that was very upfront and truthful about its beliefs, and called things as they are. If they called themselves a support organization for those who believe homosexual activity is wrong, want to pursue Christ, and want to live celibately, then ok. But to run around, and imply a change or a journey that is merely a play on words backed by junk science, impose it on others, then I take issue.
I too have an identity in Christ, so to imply one can’t and be still be gay, and generalize that on everyone has massive effects… Especially when the bible says all who belive and out of love does the will of God-taking care and loving on those around them in need.
But I was in your shoes, so I understand where you come from. And I would have never been able to ever take serious the other side or let it sit in my brain without an instant dismissal.
Yes, revealing and provocative is right. So? Anyone that knows me, also knows that I am very no nonsense about telling it like I see it.
You chose not to be gay, but to embrace your Christianity, says a lot about you too.
So what if you did? You went to the side that has a great deal of power and influence in this country and is demanding more especially in gay lives. It’s been a challenge to Christian and conservative authority for gay people to gain what little visibility and opportunity they do have.
You represent regression to a worse time, Karen. You represent a person who, regardless of believing in your free will to be Christian, it’s not easy to be gay in our society, it’s not easy to be gay at all.
And you’re joined and made an already powerful entity, even moreso.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not gay, I don’t have close relatives that are. I do know what people on the fence, or those outright hostile to gay people say. They believe gay people can change and it’s extremely difficult for them to think otherwise.
You’re well intentioned, yes. But as far as gay people who don’t want to constantly be confronted with expectations of changing, you’re a detriment.
And I’ve never been gay, so I’m less qualified to speak about BEING gay. But that’s just it. You’re a more useful person for those against gay people, than I would be.
But if I knew for a second I was doing more harm than good, and someone said so, I’d back up and find another way of defending gay people than hairshirting all over how I’m SO NOT GAY ANYMORE.
It seems to me that ex gays like to think themselves brave and strong for ‘leaving homosexuality’ and disciplining themselves into being Christian and heterosexual.
Well, how much choice is there NOT to be?
Actually, the opposite is true.
Supposed and assumed heterosexuals are not challenged, neither are Christians.
The true test of bravery goes to gay people who find their way through with that identity intact, because so many are taking it away from them.
I don’t flatter ex gays, Karen. Life is tough, isn’t it? And so am I. Deal with it.
Could you please show me scientific proof that Spirituality is an immutable trait like race or sex? Show me documented proof that forcing a person to change their spirituality causes harm? I can probably find a few programs that through counseling and deep personal journey that may help you get over your undesirable spiritual alignment (USA for short).
I can offer the testimony of several people who have successfully left their USA lifestyle behind and are now leading happy productive lives. Some are even married to people who would have been “Spiritual adversaries” and are quite happy. I think the block of testimony and successes I can dredge up show us definitely that we can rid you of USA. This also offers proof that we should not grant any special rights, in areas such as marriage, employment or housing to people with USA and that to do so will hurt the traditions which are the very bedrock of our society.
—
That is the type of things people have to see from PFOX, Exodus and their champions day to day. How would you feel if you picked up the news paper and saw a full page ad talking about ridding you of your Undesirable Spiritual Alignment? How would you feel if they wouldn’t even let you call yourself Christan or spiritual, and forced you to reduce it to an acronym that was degrading and demeaning like my USA(Undesirable Spiritual Alignment)? How would you feel if instead of offering dialog all channels of communication where halted with “Well that is my belief!” How would you feel if every successful “Spiritual re-alignment” was was paraded before congressmen every time there was the discussion of religious freedom? I think you’d begin to feel that all those “champions” of “Successful Spiritual Alignment” where enemies who at the end of the day where only going to hurt you, that anyone who spoke out for “Successful Spiritual Alignment” was actually just supporting an agenda that only hurt you.
Earlier you posted that you dread people would put you in the same class as the KKK or skinheads because of what you believe. Well maybe that means it is time to analyze what you really believe vs what you say about that belief and what people do with that belief.
There is a huge difference between holding the belief that some people may change their sexuality and when/if that happens for an individual both sides should respect that change in designation and saying everyone can and should change.
Actually, I disagree with Regan’s statement. It is not the existence of ex-gays that is threatening. Only someone insecure in their sexuality would find an ex-gay threatening. It is the ex-gay movement that can be threatening, when they make blanket statements about LGTBQ persons, when they attempt to apply the horrible experiences they had as a gay person to the gay community as a whole, and when they say “because ex-gays exist, gays don’t need to.” How dare they. THAT is what is threatening. Regular ol’ celibate ex-gay folks are very much non-threatening. More often I see ex-gays who are threatened by gays, and straights who are threatened by gays - as if the gender of the person we love has anything to do with the gender of the person THEY love.
I would have to agree with Emily here. Certainly a threat is what organizations like PFOX wish for ex-gays to be. They even reverse it and state it outright, that gays don’t want to admit that ex-gays exist or some such nonsense. They are the ones using people like Holly for their own interests, and that is pretty disgusting.
For those who simply decide from their own convictions that to act upon their same-sex attractions would be wrong, a sin, or whatever, I don’t have any issue with them at all. Everyone must have that kind of freedom, which is exactly why I don’t expect someone with those feelings to limit my freedom to live otherwise.
Not don’t get me wrong, I was all about it and volunteered to do it.. Cause I was doing God’s work. I was misleading and bought into my own bs, and that’s my own fault. Personally, I have no desire to stand on either side, let people live according as they are convicted by God. God is the final judge… Just don’t push one way that’s extemely misleading, oppressive, and not telling the whole truth.
Now, if only we were the same religion.
But then you say that ppl should hear all sides, and i would too like that. That way we learn about differing views. I think Regan has it right on though, the ‘differing’ view is so widespread theres really no need to present the same view at school, aka urgency. Sure, i guess it would make sense to eventually introduce it alongside the equality fighters but similar to creationism, definately not in the ’sexuality training department’ but more so on humanities or theology area. Pseudoscience is not science, and unless you want to teach mysticism, astrology, among others as science too, it would be wise to keep it out of the ’science-based sexual curriculum training’ classroom.
But don’t despair, Falwell’s Liberty University(among others) might be very welcoming to teach your sexuality curriculum(which i assume is the same or similar to the ’sexually active gays die younger’ science).
Regan said:
I still FAIL to see how being a choice makes it wrong. I choose to do things all the time, none of which are remotely immoral.
I guess, for me, it depends on the situation.
I believe a muslim cannot ramble on and on, all day about or to his Jewish worker of how he is condemned, deceived and evil. But if he wants to express his views around and towards the Jew, with the fervor but without the amount, then i dont see a problem with it. Without the amount BECAUSE it might actually cut back or really distract the employer from doing their job.
If a racist white tells his fellow black co-worker how disgusting, and less than he naturally is, i am all for that. NO, i am not saying that being gay is immutable, i dont see something being a choice or being natural an intrinsic basis of where to define morality from.
Is being honest really that much of a problem? If you want to base it on ‘hurt feelings’ or ‘distress’ then i would argue that ’suppressing the fervent belief’ is also detrimental. And maybe Randy Thomas wasnt that far off the mark, maybe we should include being fat, ugly, -to some degree ’special’-, in the list of ‘discrimination’.
The only plus part of the anti-discrimination laws would be to discourage any physical harm and we could all live in a safer world.
Wait… i thought you were straight. I mean, that IS what ex-gay is supposed to mean right? And i am SO not talking about what you were meant to be through christ or what you ‘really’ are. Does ‘compelling same-sex attraction’=your gay(homosexual orientation)? Or do you believe that theres is no such thing as orientation? Then you said “My romantic and sexual feelings are not an identity. They are something I experience.” Umm, by that standard then no1 is really homosexually oriented(gay). Just because you do NOT want to be identified with X does not necessarily exempt you from being defined by that X. Why exactly is saying, “im gay” make you less of a christian? THere are enough gay christians at the Gay Christian Network(GCN) that accept they have that orientation yet do no act upon it and live celibate lives, some, i think, might even be ‘heterosexually’ married(which, imo, would only be fair to the spouse if she knew and did not see that as an obstacle).
I believe its the package that comes with it. The assumption that because x can change then X can also change. In a society that still largely condemns it, who WOULDNT want to change? Sad part is, change, as in becoming straight is best described as an indefinite struggle or a change in wordplay. This dishonesty would be the basis of setting ppl up for failure, and ultimately emotional damage which is, essentially what i believe they are trying to ‘fix’. I would also agree with Emily.
Liked your reverse analogy there Kith.
Hi Emily!
Actually, I’m glad you said something. I think the definition of threat is important. As far as there are different ex gays with different goals and what those ex gays specifically do would have to define threat.
Those who are extremely active, speak for the entire of all gays and lesbians in general in the negative, and align themselves with political allies, one could call a threat.
Those ex gays with no such ambitions, who typically live quietly as heterosexuals without mention of their former lives might be co