Exodus VP Randy Thomas Almost Gets It
In Exodus VP Randy Thomas’ latest attempt to define the happenstance of being attracted to the same sex with a single cultural “worldview,” he almost figures it out. He almost realizes that what pushes us to become LGBTQ rather than just L, G, B, T, and Q is our daily task of facing discrimination and opposition – including opposition from people like him who are members of groups like Exodus International. In his blog post about the hypothetical “Gay Legacy,” Randy ponders the discrimination and hardships faced today by gay senior citizens and recounts his own encounter with a young gay activist who had been picketing a Love Won Out conference:
He angrily went on to tell me how oppressed he and his boyfriend were (in Massachusetts), and how he had been beat up during his school years for being “different.” He had tried everything (at eighteen) to get rid of his feelings and now he was happy and embraced both his being “gay” and Christianity. He shared about how his coming to peace with his sexuality inspired him to organize the gsa (gay straight alliance) in his school.
I thought it remarkable that, aside from his wanting to get rid of his homosexuality in his early teens, he was repeating the exact same messaging I was saying before he was even born.
Well, Randy, it’s not difficult to deduce that discrimination against LGBTQ persons, despite remarkable growth of acceptance in my generation, is still rampant. This young man is not repeating “messaging.” He is describing his struggle to live honestly, without fear. There is nothing “remarkable” about seeing person after person recall the same kind of struggles with their family, church, and community.
When Randy decided to become a Christian, he rejected his homosexuality completely in favor of a path of sexual celibacy and self-deception, joining a group that actively seeks to limit LGBTQ equal rights and keep the bullying of LGBTQ youth socially acceptable. This young man reached a much more honest conclusion than Randy did, by deciding to be sexually true to himself and channeling his struggle for acceptance into positive outreach to other gay youth.
What many XGW readers may themselves marvel at is Randy’s admission here:
Public policy battles will always be flash-points of non-compromise but I am personally encouraged that today’s broader culture is much safer for those with same sex attractions than the reality of what some of our Senior citizens went through. It’s not perfect and I am not dismissing that true hatred (on both sides) flares up. Even so, it is a far different reality for that 18 year old as compared to the Seniors mentioned in the article.
Does this provide evidence of an ex-gay acceptance of the reality of substantial LGBTQ existence? In my personal opinion, it is a way for the ex-gay camp to spin a losing cultural battle into an avenue of evangelizing their propaganda. Just like ex-gay proponents are quickly restyling their message in reaction to undeniable proof that homosexuality is not caused by alterable nurturing factors such as an “overbearing mother,” a more visible LGBTQ community coming out at a much younger age means a bigger more vulnerable target for Exodus and their ilk. Fortunately, we are growing up knowing better.
I was not aware that you were still going to post, for you had said in the other forum that you had realized we couldn’t be convinced and were done with it or something to that effect. I apologize if I misunderstood you. My evaluation of fundamentalists is a psychology person’s interpretation of what cognitively takes place in the minds of fundamentalists – I am not saying they are consciously aware of it, but being a former fundamentalist and talking to many others, that is the conclusion I came to. If you think it’s unfair, I’m open to hear your side of it and I will happily adjust my view if I am mistaken.
I wanted to answer your questions, but first let me say that I gave a lengthy response in the previous thread we were talking on to the issue of whether or not someone could change and explained my reasons. You did not even attempt to make a response to what I said, but I will assume that was an unintended oversight on your part so here goes:
It is not possible through empirical methods to establish this with one hundred percent certainty because it is an absolute universal statement. Let’s take the statement “Change is possible” for that is easier to test. As I wrote before there is no credible scientific study that I have read to date that suggest that a statistically significant change in one’s orientation can take place. I do not doubt the experience of change that some people have claimed. All I said in the other post was that I believe it may be possible if the person was actually BI sexual that they just swung to the end of the pendulum that was more in line with their values. Nothing wrong with that, they are entitled to make that choice. If organizations like Exodus and the like are so convinced of change they should have absolutely NO misgivings about releasing their recidivism rates or to allow psychologists to evaluate people before and after therapy. So I would say then that at this point I don’t believe that one’s orientation can change.
If by ex-gay you mean a person who once identified themselves as part of the homosexual community and culture and now does not, or no longer lives congruent with their orientation, then certainly there are many who are “ex-gays.” If you mean that a person who once experienced a homosexual orientation can eliminate it as is the claim of many of the ex-gay organizations, then no.
First, at no time did I eliminate the possibility of the Bible saying that. Based on my own independent research I concluded that there is a high probability that when it is referring to homosexual behavior that it is referring to group orgies and sacramental sex to the pagan gods of Canaan (and subsequently Rome). That is where I personally believe the strongest evidence lies. If you can offer better evidence that takes into account the background, culture, and linguistics of the period, then I will most certainly change my mind. I have no dog in this race. I am interested in building a worldview that is as close to reality as possible. Second, anyone who argues that something is true because some scholar said it or because they feel like it’s true is committing serious inductive fallacies of reasoning so, for the record, I have made no such claim on this website or on any other site where I may be part of a discussion on this topic. The argument from design that you make is probably your strongest point, but unfortunately there is biological variation of sexual behavior in over 1500 species throughout nature, all of which are God’s creation, so it is my opinion that it’s best to say that God designed men and women to procreate together, but in no way does acceptance of that proposition imply that same sex relations are unwarranted, unless you want to defend the idea that sex is ONLY for the purpose of procreation. And I know of no conservative who holds that position.
I have never accused people who claim to have changed of lying, and I don’t believe anyone else has either. There is no conspiracy being implied here. However there are abundant examples of ex-gays who then reverted back to being gay and did say they were lying to themselves the whole time. Lying to ourselves is easy to do and it happens all the time. This is why one of my personal goals in life is to be the type of person who holds informed positions that rely on information from ALL places and not just from my own tradition or my own personal study of the Bible (since my interpretation could very well be way off, no matter how certain I am of it or how “clear” it seems to me). I’m not perfect, but I strive toward objectivity and always hold out the possibility that I could be proven wrong. This is a healthy mindset and it’s lack was what I was alluding to in my previous post that is wrong with fundamentalists (in my own experience at least).
Christians who believe that change is possible because of an objection examination of evidence from all sources are not morons. And Christians who believe change is possible because they believe that’s what the Bible says, to the exclusion of what anyone else says are not morons either. The latter are just ignorant because they refuse to be humble enough to examine all the evidence fairly, pridefully assuming that they cannot err in their interpretation (or, maybe more simply, it’s what they want to believe).
I hope I have thoroughly answered your questions to your satisfaction.
A.C. Thomas
That’s going too far, Boo.
This is also out of bounds, Debbie, and frankly a bit ironic.
I had to walk away and take a break after reading that as well, or I would have had to ban myself at some point.
Yet Besen & White do not use the law to impose their religious beliefs on others. Their political views in general I may have problems with, I certainly do with Besen’s, but that to me is a fundamental difference.
Something you ironically deny to us, which is why you are not finding a very receptive audience here to your schtick – including those of a more conservative bent like myself.
Nope, it was directed just at you and not the Almighty. Besides, God has no need for you or I to defend Him and I find this comment of yours to be disingenuous at best.
Well, this certainly is pathetic: belittling those you are supposedly trying to reach. If you had paid any attention to those of us who come from religious families and/or have faith ourselves you would know how wrong you are here. Why else do you think many of us have struggled so long? Just because you disagree with how we have reconciled our faith and our sexuality is no need to dismiss the whole thing. Oh and btw, where exactly have YOU admitted that you may be wrong about all of this? Even Rabbi Gamaliel reportedly wasn’t so presumptious to think his own understanding of God was supreme above all, or have you forgotten about the lil’ episode in Acts 5:34-40?
One guy here says he disagrees with me politically. I’m not sure why. What I stand for is that everyone has equal rights, as well as freedom of speech. I think that ex-gay ministry is consumer fraud that has hurt many people. Groups that perform such quackery should be taken to task – especially when they mix it with politics. I think that people are much happier when they come out and live honestly and openly. I hardly see what there is to disagree with. I’m not sure why some find it controversial to say such simple truths. You know what – it is okay to say that ex-gay ministry is morally and ethically wrong and hurts people. No apologies – I’ve seen enough harm.
Debbie, when you say that you are not about sexual engineering – you are not telling the truth. Furthermore, anyone who goes to a person like you is not going to recieve healing – they are just compounding the pain. Shame on you – particularly for your association with Falwell – a bigot and a man who called gay people “perverts”. Sorry, Debbie, but you have no credibility. The best thing you could do is step down and let a person not tied to Falwell carry out your iffy mission.
Wayne, not everybody agrees with leftist politics. This means the iraq war, free trade, welfare, deregulation… not everyone agrees with leftist policies regarding this.
David, I specifically ask on the site for feedback, and it can be from anybody. So, thank you. I am certainly open to re-examining any element for accuracy or validity. Let’s separate the real objections from the invalid ones.
The “shortened lifespan” reference can go. Fine. I presume you have no argument with the CDC’s report stating that 50 percent or more of the new cases of HIV infections in the U.S. are among sexually active gay males. Or that Matt Foreman is on record as saying that AIDS is a “gay disease.”
References to Matthew Shepard repeated here were not on the Web site but in a linked article (I believe). I will re-examine that. It is a matter of record that ABC News debunked the widely held view that Shepard’s murder was a hate crime. It was a robbery gone bad. There were other fishy elements surrounding that crime that the media kept a lid on, frankly. They have been neither proved nor disproved, so speculation on sketchy evidence is out of order. You are right.
David, please tell me what other disturbing content you see at the site. I am open to considering your concerns. No sweat. As I see it, we’re still in test-flight mode.
As for credentials, I can tell you that I have done reams of research over the past 15 or so years, resulting in two books with another in the hopper. Any of them could have been a doctoral dissertation. In fact, I have been published more than many people with “credentials.” Since counseling (it is more discipleship as I do it) is arguably more art than science, I don’t see how having another degree would help. My “on-the-job” experience exceeds that of many clinically practicing MAs. What you call “arrogance” is my legitimate rejection of what the mental health field has become today, along with its major guild organizations (both APAs). So I don’t see a problem in this area since I cannot legally proffer myself as a clinician.
As for my testiness, well, no one apparently thought I was being treated uncivilly earlier today but me. I have my limits, the same as all of you. What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander.
Well, I was staying out, but DT’s last post got to me. I don’t doubt the current CDC statistics on AIDS, though I would wonder how those statistics break down for partnered men and men who are out of the closet and not living on the downlow.
Again, Debbie, my ‘you’ is a generic one. Only you know how much of it is relevant to you, though it certainly is to some of those sources on your website.
I want to scream at the young gay men who are getting infected, just like I want to scream at young women who get pregnant. but there is nothing in being a gay man that predisposes you to get AIDS, just like there is nothing in being a hetero girl that pre-disposes you to getting pregnant. And I want options for both that help them be responsible– sex education, marriage, family, and for ALL gay people– an end to the prejudice.
Debbie, this is where the Christian right is so wrong–
You would rather that young men die of a fatal disease that is fairly easily prevented, rather than give them non-judgmental, factual information about how they can behave responsibly and/or protect themselves. After all, for many fundamentalist Christians– Uncle Jerry in particular– they are just fags receiving the ‘just penalty for their error.’ If they didn’t persist in their sin, they wouldn’t have the problem. I remember his smug jowled face on TV, smugly announcing the AIDS was G’s judgment on homosexuality– as if he knew anything about it at all, as if that made any sense and was not a slander on G.
(As an aside, when my late partner was dying of AIDS, his fundamentalist sister claimed it was G’s judgment. Since I knew that she was no virgin when she married, and that her daughter had shacked up with a series of unsuitable men, my only response was “If G were passing out diseases as a judgment for sin, you AND your daughter would be first in line at the VD clinic.” But I digress).
You’re not responsible, or so it would seem. Except…
You would rather that young men die of a highly preventable fatal disease, rather than affirm that marriage and monogamy are positive values for gay people, and ought to be encouraged for them. But instead, as has been noted here, everything ex-gay stands in complete opposition to a positive, healthy identity and (forgive me, Lord) lifestyle. The people you see may well be sexually broken, as you put it, but not in the way you think. As I said in an earlier post, the problem is not homosexuality. The problem is self-hatred and how that is manifested in their lives. But you get bonus points here. Because you do everything in your power to degrade and destroy and prevent gay people from having normal, healthy lives and normal, healthy relationships, you then get to disparage those gay people (usually gay men) who express their sexuality in unhealthy ways and for not having normal lives and healthy relationships, all the while completely denying the existence or the relevance of those who do. It’s a win-win situation– for you.
The problem seems to be simply one of integrity– and most of what passes for integrity in the ex-gay world would be laughed out of court by some fairly slow cub scouts. For me at least, integrity involves being willing to look at myself and ask myself whether I am being 100% truthful, 100% honest, 100% kind, etc, etc etc etc., because that is how I want to be, and that is how I want to be seen by others. I don’t claim to be perfect, but integrity for me involves always striving, as I think Emerson said, “Be whom you would seem to be.”
So many ex-gays fail in integrity on three counts. First, they fail on the basis of integrity in their religion. I have always heard that the message of Christianity is love one another, judge not lest ye be judged, JC died so that sins could be forgiven, and so forth. nowhere have I ever heard that the central message pf Christianity was “Tell insane lies about gay people to advance a socio-political agenda” or “G hates fags” or “Make money and fame by disparaging in others what you cannot manage in yourself”. As Alan chambers admits, every day is a struggle. as Jones and Yarmouth admit, change is ‘incomplete’, ambiguous, ‘complicated’. No integrity there.
They fail in intellectual integrity as well. The studies they quote do not say what they claim. They cannot be classified as knowledge in that they are not necessarily true– a survey of bar patrons in Ontario says nothing about gay men in general.
Any more than Paul Cameron’s claims about gay men dying young, culled from obituaries, has anything to do with reality. Worse, Cameron’s ‘research’ is an intent to deceive and manipulate. Black men also die younger than gay men, and frequently from violence. Yet no one is making a living denouncing black men. As has been documented by BoxTurtle many times, studies and statistics are cherry-picked more cleanly than a Bible in order to prove what depraved, sick, and horrible gay people are.
That is the problem with their intellectual integrity. They are disparaging a whole group of people based upon faulty premises, illogic, and wishful thinking. Do you notice that people on this website, or Box Turtle, are absolutely scrupulous about data and interpretations? For myself, if I were going to do that, I would want to make sure that everything I said would be 100% true about 100% of the time.
Finally, they fail integrity (imho) on a sexual level as well. I’m a really big fag because I always have been since the age of 3. To me, to pretend interest in women would be the height of dishonesty.
As we learn in elementary logic, one’s conclusions have no more truth value than do one’s premises.
Debbie — it is not our job to help you edit your falsehoods. You have a record as long as your arm and none of us have the time or inclination.
Instead, it is your responsibility to be 1) properly informed and 2) not promote fear, ignorance and hatred.
I presume you have no argument with the CDC’s report stating that 50 percent or more of the new cases of HIV infections in the U.S. are among sexually active gay males. Or that Matt Foreman is on record as saying that AIDS is a “gay disease.”
Indeed, it is. Just as colds and flues are. The objection is the use you put that sort of statement to. It is also a “heterosexual” disease. An “Asian” disease”. Etc. You should know that the great majority of gay men are not and never will be HIV+. A monogamous gay couple, like us or any other monogamous couple, cannot infect each other regardless of whatever behaviours we engage in. Lesbians are at even lower risk than straight women. Somehow I doubt you’ll mention any of these facts, because that is not why you want to raise the subject of HIV/AIDS in the first place. Your purpose is scare-mongering.
Clue: I dare you to also state in a newspaper that “50 percent or more of the new cases of HIV infections in the U.S. are among sexually active black people”. Also a fact, but would you publically dare use it to promote racism and hatred? Would you use it to try terrify young black people into life-long celibacy? Would a newspaper dare print such swill? I doubt it.
People might want to read, again, the whole of Matt Foreman’s comments as they happen to intersect with both those issues. His point was about the inherent racism underlying both the statistics and EVERYONE’s response to them.
It is a matter of record that ABC News debunked the widely held view that Shepard’s murder was a hate crime.
No, it was not. That claim was made by Kristen Price (the girlfriend of one of the murderers) in 2004. It completely contradicts what she said under oath at the trial, and it completely contradicts what she said in an earlier ABC interview in 1998. The retired Police Chief involved in the case openly criticised report. It was ABC 20/20 that was debunked, not the circumstances of the murder.
we’re still in test-flight mode
The clincher.
That being the case, stay out of the cockpit until you’ve got your license.
Your disdain of professional knowledge is very worrying. As you admit, you have self-published those books: neither of which were about sexuality per se. A quick check showed them to be absent from University libraries, or at best shoved into the “narrative” section that is of little interest to the profession or to researchers.
I’m sorry but self-promotion does not count as a qualification (let alone peer-review).
We all have “experience” of the World as flat. It isn’t.
I was going to respond before going to bed but grantdale have done that better than I could, certainly at this hour. Let me concur with them on how important it is to research these things before you put them up as truth. It’s nice that you will accept feedback, but that really isn’t an excuse for not researching yourself. Five minutes of investigation could have shown you that lifespan study is bogus.
Let me also ad that AIDS in Africa (and Asia I believe) is a heterosexual disease. I’ve seen that line from Foreman misquoted so many times I can’t remember. Randy Thomas did not long ago, in his usual passive-aggressive way. Curious, these same people wouldn’t have given a second thought to anything else the man says, but that one line is suddenly gospel to them.
I would add, in addition to what grantdale and David Roberts have said, that it’s very difficult to track those closet cases that have AIDS. People who are sexually educated (mind you I didn’t say experienced, I said educated) are less likely to contract a disease. People who are closeted or choose to remain willfully ignorant are more likely to “play the odds” and end up losing. Closeted Black and Latino men on the “down low” are the ones most responsible for giving AIDS to their girlfriends, who act as “beards” to cover their sexual orientation. But if you asked these men in a poll, they are “straight,” not “gay” or “bisexual.” Oftentimes protection is not used because doing so would be admitting one’s action by providing “evidence” of a sort. Not leaving a “trail” means it never happened in their minds. And this is how HIV is spread. Not by being gay, but by being ignorant. And at times, just stupid.
In addition, sexual acts involving men (including heterosexual acts) are just plain more at risk for transmission of STDs like HIV. This is just a part of sexual biology. I’m not going to get gory about it and explain in graphic detail. But the fact is, women who only have relations with other women are in the lowest risk-bracket for HIV. There has never been a recorded case of HIV transfer between women who only have sex with women. This is the same CDC that essential says (statistically) that AIDS is a gay disease, mind you. And yet, ex-gay and anti-gay groups will continue to ignore this fact and condemn gay women.
Well I’m short on time to read all the posts here, so please excuse me if I copy anyone. Emily, with regard to your ‘self deception’ comment, I would also add that these groups and individuals are also the perfected artists at discrimination of self. They have a constant battle between the inner religious sexual discriminator, and the natural authentic self, therefore living in constant unhealable conflict. Though I feel for their self imposed pain, their’s is a lost cause, because integrated humans will in the end always outdo those in conflict.
I was born into a Catholic family but have not been religious for years. I am constantly amazed at how narrow and focused this sort of hatred of self and others can be, and I wondered, what kind of God breeds such angst?
So I looked up the 10 commandments in Wiki, and I was simply astonished at what was supposed to be original docs. The supposed “God” speaking throughout the lines, sounded no more healed than an out of control three year old throwing a temper tantrum. I thought hmm, now it makes sense.
If my take offends some of you, I suggest you take an unbiased look for yourself. It is the very energy we are battling in this cultural war. It’s called control and anger.
Ciao
This is long. It needs to be. There’s only one of me addressing a conglomerate.
Ben, I likewise have to comment on this:
“I want to scream at the young gay men who are getting infected, just like I want to scream at young women who get pregnant. but there is nothing in being a gay man that predisposes you to get AIDS, just like there is nothing in being a hetero girl that pre-disposes you to getting pregnant. And I want options for both that help them be responsible– sex education, marriage, family, and for ALL gay people– an end to the prejudice.”
Emily brought up the point no one else wanted to and that is the mechanics of gay male sex providing a perfect incubation environment for HIV and other STDs. That annuls your first presupposition. As for the second, I believe having ovaries and a uterus takes care of the pregnancy risk question. I already knew about female HIV defense factors, which is why I try to be careful not to make it sound as if I also am implicating lesbians (bisexual women can be an exception) when I speak of AIDS statistics. It is very difficult to get reliable reporting. I have written about the African-American problem, also. It is what it is and not a racist slur to provide known statistics. Also, In Africa, the problem may have been greatly exacerbated by some poor health care practices and some possible population control skullduggery.
Here is some more information that you may or may not have heard about HIV research in Africa. This was reported by Chuck Colson, of Prison Fellowship fame (a man who has seen the worst of the worst in the many prisons he has worked in, by the way):
“In his book ‘Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits,’ Steven Mosher tells readers about the work of researchers David Gisselquist and Stephen Potterat. … Gisselquist and Potterat put the heterosexual transmission assumption to the test and found it wanting. Their peer-reviewed analysis of 22 studies found that instead of 90 percent of African AIDS cases being the result of sexual transmission, as was assumed, the real number was 25 to 35 percent. By way of comparison, the U.S. percentage is well over 50.
According to the researchers, the evidence suggested a ‘large majority of HIV infections in non-promiscuous adults.’ Far from being the victims of their own promiscuity, half of all African AIDS victims were involved in monogamous relationships.
So, if promiscuity is not driving the epidemic in Africa, what is? Substandard medical care—specifically, dirty needles. Almost uniquely, in Africa the more “health care” a person receives, the greater her chances of being infected.
That is because the sanitary conditions we take for granted do not exist in poor African countries. There, syringes and surgical instruments are often re-used without proper sterilization. The needles used to administer vaccine can also transmit AIDS.
It is not only vaccination. The World Health Organization has acknowledged that needles used to administer contraceptives like Depo-Provera are often re-used. Their likely connection to the spread of HIV was tacitly confirmed by their replacement in 2002 by needles that could be used only once.
While it is impossible to know how many women were infected this way, it is clear that population-control efforts, inadvertently maybe, contributed to the spread of the virus in Africa.” (end quote)
Ben, you also say, “You would rather that young men die of a fatal disease that is fairly easily prevented, rather than give them non-judgmental, factual information about how they can behave responsibly and/or protect themselves.” That is a generalized “you” and not me. As I see it, it is the gay community that has the responsibility to educate its own, just as heterosexuals need to address the problem of teen STDs and pregnancy. Are you saying that with all the comprehensive sex education programs out there, young gay men are not getting it? Duh. Neither are heterosexuals. We’ve created a sexually charged cultural climate that has only worsened the problem all around. Wouldn’t it make sense to close down any remaining gay bathhouses in operation if this is so great a concern?
You all accuse me of not doing my homework, but I say physician heal thyself. I’m seeing hypocrisy here.
Ben, I agree that monogamy in gay relationships would greatly improve the HIV/STD problem, but you can’t force monogamy by legalizing gay marriage. Look at the pitiful state of heterosexual marriage. It seems to me that philandering is still a problematic cultural phenomenon in the gay community. Add the Afro-American and Hispanic sexual practices, as a few of you have pointed out, to the mix, and it gets even worse. Gays can’t seem to make themselves monogamous any more than heterosexuals can. And what of the ghetto phenomenon of “bug-chasing”? That’s just sick, to whatever extent it is occurring.
Grantdale, I do my best to be “1) properly informed and 2) not promote fear, ignorance and hatred.” This is a highly complex and touchy topic with many points of disagreement. Fine. We don’t disengage because it’s too hard. How hard was it for Jesus to allow himself to be nailed to a cross? So many of you refuse to acknowledge that there is a needy population out there that is seeking help to leave homosexuality and to find God’s peace. I have a compassionate outreach to them, but you insist on making it one of hate, fear and lies. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s just baloney.
As for the Matthew Shepard case, I suspect we may never know all the facts. You may accept him as a gay martyr if you wish, Perhaps he is. I have pretty carefully read the last two NCAVP (2005, 2006) reports on violent crimes that are deemed or suspected to be hate crimes, most of them directed at gays. They have not reported on such crimes going the other way to my knowledge. But they do acknowledge that gay “pick-up” incidents can lead to violence and the particular role that transgenderism plays in that. If you read the narratives about each alleged incident, you find some of them are very sketchy. Some are also gay domestic violence. So there are problems within the gay community that seriously need addressing. School bullying incidents are way down as the younger generations are becoming more accepting of homosexuality, according to Ritch Savin-Williams who wrote “The New Gay Teenager.”
I reject the disdain expressed over a new Web site being in “test-flight mode.” How on earth are we to get feedback that may point out potential problems or sticking points unless we run it up the flagpole? Not everything you folks see as a problem is, in fact, a problem. You just don’t like some things. That’s life.
I also do not “disdain” professional knowledge, for heaven’s sake. That would be the height of arrogance and stupidity. Did you not get the point I was making? I disdain a system (that applies to academia in many quarters and to the mental health realm) that has become politicized and activist instead of serving the common good of it constituents and clients.
David Michael, this stuff isn’t helping anybody. Just give it a rest:
“I would also add that these groups and individuals are also the perfected artists at discrimination of self. They have a constant battle between the inner religious sexual discriminator, and the natural authentic self, therefore living in constant unhealable conflict. Though I feel for their self imposed pain, their’s is a lost cause, because integrated humans will in the end always outdo those in conflict.”
And your professional mental health credentials are exactly what?
Debbie, what point exactly do you want to make about AIDS? Do you believe it is a uniquely gay disease? After all, you say: “The mechanics of gay male sex providing a perfect incubation environment for HIV and other STDs.” So in your mind does that make the disease a sign of God’s judgment on homosexuality?
Why are you asking such a ridiculous and baiting question, Nick? A fact is a fact. What it means is open to interpretation. Did I not quote an extensive passage about AIDS in Africa, which is obviously not homosexual in nature? You want me to have a Falwell moment? It ain’t gonna happen.
Why does Ms. Thurman refuse to answer simple questions?
What is ridiculous and baiting about the question? It is you who are making a case that homosexual sex is inherently more prone to HIV infection than heterosexual sex. Is that not the point of your Africa quotation?
My question is: So what’s your point? Are you saying that AIDS is evidence of something inherently wrong in gay sex? If so, then say it. If not, then explain what you are trying to say.
You raise the issue. All I’m asking is that you explain why.
Debbie: I did acknowledge a generic you at the beginning.
You wrote: I see it, it is the gay community that has the responsibility to educate its own, just as heterosexuals need to address the problem of teen STDs and pregnancy. Are you saying that with all the comprehensive sex education programs out there, young gay men are not getting it?
Personally, I think it is the responsibility of the society to educate its own– all of its children. Not just the gay community. It is an indication that you may not believe that young gay men are a part of the general society. It is clear evidence that a homophobic society does not think so. However, In the ’80′s, it was the gay community that made the effort to get information out– over the objections of Uncle Jerry, Jesse helms, and the whole anti-gay industry. but comprehensive sex education programs in the majority world do not address gay male sexuality at all. Abstinence programs–even worse– tell young men to wait until they are married– to a woman. They are not getting the same encouragement in their schools and communities that straight kids are getting. Nor do they see the same future for themselves.
When I was a boy in the ’60′s, homosexuality was not talked about AT ALL. there was no guidance. In the ’70′s and ’80′s, though I wanted and had a relationship, there was no guidance, no support. I had to learn it all by myself. I never dreamed that actual marriage would someday be an option. I might have conducted myself quite a bit differently– the way I have for the last twenty years as I came into my maturity. (ahem).
Programs in the gay community require that those young men be plugged into the community. And if they are not out and accepted, they are not plugged in. I think that is one of the reasons why the HIV infection rate is so high among young gay men rather than older. A kid that is just learning who he is and having to go through the coming out process– something straight kids NEVER have to do but should– is not going to go down to the local gay community center and ask a complete stranger about safe sex. He is going to act as furtively as I did when I was that age. and being young and stupid, he might fall for the all of the lines first cute young thing that comes his way and promises true love– until next week. How much better would it be if the parents– and society– of a young gay man gave him the same kind of information and support that they give to young straight men. My own mother, when I was 21, told me how awful and lonely and diseased my life would be as a gay man– long before AIDS. She was of course speaking from ignorance and fear.
You wrote: “Ben, I agree that monogamy in gay relationships would greatly improve the HIV/STD problem, but you can’t force monogamy by legalizing gay marriage. Look at the pitiful state of heterosexual marriage. It seems to me that philandering is still a problematic cultural phenomenon in the gay community. Add the Afro-American and Hispanic sexual practices, as a few of you have pointed out, to the mix, and it gets even worse. Gays can’t seem to make themselves monogamous any more than heterosexuals can. ”
thank you for acknowledging my point, but you sort of got the opposite of what I was saying. I agree, you cannot force monogamy by legalizing gay marriage– any more than you can in straight marriage. I don’t expect gay men to be any more perfect than straight men and their 25% (more or less) infidelity rate.
What I do believe, though, is that the silence is deafening. young gay men have to find out about sex, love, and romance from the worse possible place– their equally ignorant peers. If marriage were not a positive value in hetero communities, I think you would see a much high HIV rate. and of course, the whole down low phenomenon is a perfect illustration of the problem.
“I have these real desires and attractions, but everyone is telling me I am evil and sick and need to be married to a woman. So I;I’ll marry one and have sex on the side. But since I’m not really gay, I don’t have to learn anything about it. honey, sorry you and the kids are infected.’
We are all of us responsible for our behavior and the consequences thereof. I absolutely agree. but the anti-gay industry has made a point of discouraging healthy and wholesome behavior, especially with its insistence that no such thing exists for gay people– BY DEFINITION. The society in general, and the ex-and-anti-gay industry in particular, must acknoedleg its half of the responsibility here.
Ms. Debbie, I believe we have swayed enough far off from this topic. This post is not about you and is never about you. Perhaps you can continue your musings at the other post that is precisely about you and your believes and upcoming ministry. This is the least you can do.
Mike: “Why does Ms. Thurman refuse to answer simple questions?”
She doesn’t. She already did answer. Read. Same applies to you, Nick.
Now to speak to Ben, who is an adult. Ben, you said, “Personally, I think it is the responsibility of the society to educate its own– all of its children. Not just the gay community. It is an indication that you may not believe that young gay men are a part of the general society.”
No, it is an indication that I am sensible enough to know these young men will not listen to folks like me. I believe they will listen to a coalition of their gay elders.
“but comprehensive sex education programs in the majority world do not address gay male sexuality at all. Abstinence programs–even worse– tell young men to wait until they are married– to a woman. They are not getting the same encouragement in their schools and communities that straight kids are getting.”
So how do you propose it be handled? What are you doing to help? This sounds like a gay educational lobbyist mission. Are gay journalists writing about this stuff? Perhaps if enough gay politicians and others came out en masse, it could touch off a movement. I understand the problem. But somebody should be focusing on solutions, not whining about how Christians are making life miserable for gays. That’s just not totally honest and won’t help the situation. Own the problem and do something.
There are not enough compassionate people in the world to erase the social stigma of homosexuality. I’m afraid that’s just a fact we can’t change, at least not in the short-term. If that’s the reason so many are remaining closeted, they are going to stay stuck. All the surveys I am seeing indicate that acceptance of gays is on the rise. So what is everybody waiting for? I think I should bow out here and let you all discuss this seriously. I’m just looking it as more of an outsider.
This might be a topic to add to our forum at The Formers. Who knows what might come of it? It is very serious issue.
This thread is becoming too difficult to follow, and the responses are snowballing with misinformation which must be addressed before more is offered up. And as Yuki said, this thread isn’t even on topic, I’m not sure how all of us ended up discussing this stuff here, when there is a thread devoted to it.
I’ll reply at the moment to the only semi on-topic comment I got from Debbie.
Your position may be tenable if your site was about scrapbooking but it is completely absurd to think you do not need to throughly vet statements of fact on a site that purports to inform and assist people on such serious matters. This is especially true in this age when research can be done so much more easily. Really, there is no excuse at all for having not done this. If you can not concede this point I honestly don’t think I can take you seriously.
One request Debbie, if you learn to use the “blockquote” feature above the comment box, your comments will be much easier to read. Just highlight the section that is a quote, and then click the “bquote” button, you will then see how it will look in the live preview above. That last long comment was very difficult to read for me. Thanks.
If a gay person proposed sex education for gay kids– and by that, i mean a gay inclusive education for ALL kids– the right wing owuld be screaming about us trying to recruit children. “THEY’RE TRYING TO TEACH KINDERGARTNERS ANAL SEX’ I’m sure would be the headline.
This has to come from the other side. Gay community centers and gay health organizations are doing what they can, despite opposition. butthey can only do so much.
As i said, the hetero world must start taking responsibility for its share of the difficulties in the gay world. You propose a better solution than most, because at least it is intended as a solution, no matter how impractical.
Debbie,
I think your web sight main page pretty much sums up your position, that gay people are broken and not hailing God’s word. That seemingly makes you that ambassador of your Christian God’s will, that is to make a way to fix God’s broken homosexual children.
This is just reinventing the wheel. You are promoting what has already been done by many in the ExGay community. You’re stance is nothing new. That stance is making gays wrong. And when you do that, you alienate, as you are seeing here on this web sight.
Why are you being seen as the “enemy” here by so many? Why are you “broke”? Because you choose to set yourself up that way, by saying the things you do on your web main page, when there are many gay Christians who do not feel broken or fouling God’s word in any way. You are making sweeping statements in the name of your “God” against gay people, and that is perceived as an attack, of which you will get counter attacked.
If you truly want to be a new light in the darkness, you might consider including in your “therapy” many angles. You could keep the current one, and then also include a faction that believes the opposite, that they are gay, and ok, and need to reduce the fear brought about by religious teachings or any other number of attackful events that hurt. Or simply get off the sweeping statement wagon, and publish a section on your web page that states your beliefs are your own personal ones, free of religion and not intended to effect an entire world of gays through religious persecution. Or just take the religion out of it completely and help people reduce fear on every level regarding sexual imbalances. I think you may have a need to be “special” to God and that can be very seductive.
If common sense can be a guide for just one moment, I think it palatable to agree that there is no back story to the verses in the Bible as to why the comments were made about homosexuality. Therefore they are flimsy at best. I personally believe they referred to pedophilia, however, many just take blatant unjustified statements as fact, because it’s “Gods” word. This is dangerous territory when common sense is cast out the window. We have countless stats on happy healthy homos, yet your religion takes and puts them in the category of murderers and thieves. Sounds like a witch hunt to me by homo haters. And these ExGay themes that tout the same rhetoric are no better. You may take a few bisexuals and get em to act on their straightness, but you still, through supposed passionate loving arms, would have gays cut off at the waist and live confused nonsexual non married lives.
Now if you think your “ministry” is something new and better than sliced bread, heads up, it is not. If you want to make a difference, your challenge will be to include through acceptance, all sexually active humans, not excluding some through control anger and judgmental religious tactics. Until that happens, until you stop making gay people wrong in the eyes of your “God”, until you do your homework about back storying the Bible’s take on homosexuality, until you add common sense to your recipe, until you include through loving comments instead of fear based alienating comments, you will fail a large faction of the human race. And they will despise you. And this is their right, as you are spreading separation, fear and control where it should not be. You are in essence, hurting some of your God’s children.
The bottom line? The Bible is very controversial and somewhat accurate, at best. I believe the Bible is 70 to 80 percent erroneous. What I find daunting in these quests for bridging the gap in these conversations that try at best to tarnish, is the consistent addressing of effects, like aids, or celibacy, or gay sex, while totally skirting the cause, the authenticity of the Biblical text and the lines about homosexuality itself. Are they realistic, do they make sense, where did they come from, who said them, what is the person(s) background, who selected them for the Bible and why? These are all questions we ask anyone on todays subjects, who talks publicly about anything, They better have backup or they are tossed. Yet checks and balances are totally lacking in this sexual hammer called the Bible. Do we need to talk about Bushenomics for you to get it? Yeh, the elephant in the room, can you deal with it?
So if you want to go on tinkering around this main issue, fine. Just know, it’s a losing game as common sense is emerging with a violent thrust slapping down erroneous ritualistic biblical fodor. And yes, gays in America will win the this sexual cultural war. Why? Because, thank all of creation, we are not the Middle East. Regarding you becoming a leper; If you don’t change your thinking, you may feel that way now or very soon as you are fast becoming an outcast to mainstream realists.
However on a positive note; if you continue on your current path while watching your radar, with a few minor tweaks you could just possibly make a financial killing in Iran.
Over at TWO, Debbie Thurman is now using the Lord’s name in vain.
How pathetic — the Ten Commandments apparently don’t apply to her.
So anyway…
Fantastic thread btw, and I only skimmed through it, so if this point has already been made, then I apologize.
Screw it, no I don’t, it’s worth making again…
I was quite unaware that the “culture war” over same-gender attracted Americans began well before it became illegal to imprison us for having relationships.
Fascinating…utterly fascinating.
That’s a bit specious Mike, “Oh, Lord” isn’t exactly a biggie. I know you want to name drop TWO when possible, but come on
Seriously, I say “oh Lord” all the time.
Specious, yes, but is Debbie serious about the Bible or not?
I am serious about the Bible but I don’t think I have any problem with that, nor do I especially think God does. Let’s not get absurd, there is plenty about what Debbie has said and what her website espouses with which to take issue. I just don’t think it really helps much to jump up and down about “Oh, Lord.”
And saying hey, over at my place she taking the Lord’s name in vein, well I think we all know what we expected to see. A bit sensationalist
On the other hand, I’m overwhelmed at this late hour with the mass of misinformation she has dropped here.
It’s the same adversarial posture, with lots of slanted and twisted “facts” to show how bad gays are. It may make Debbie feel more secure, but if she wants to appeal to gays, she better be more honest. There are too few Wendy Gritters and too many Debbie Thurmans.
In looking at ex-gay ministries as a whole, and centering on Debbie’s in particular, as a Christian, I have to discern as to whether or not the message is true to the Gospel. What is interesting to me is that the ex-gay ministries BEGIN with homosexuality as if it is the cause and root of all the “evils” one has in their life. “I drank because I was gay.” “I did drugs because I was gay,” etc. The cure then becomes ridding oneself of their gayness to become whole which is totally against what the Christian message is about.
In Christianity, it is Christ who makes us whole, not what we do or not do. Our works are a response to that wholeness NOT the cause of it. Our works allow the Divine to enhance our lives and allow us to live a life as Christ would want us to.
Our salvation is not dependent on our sexuality; it is dependent on our openness to God and to others. The ex-gay movements, at least from what I have seen and read, base their sole message on “liberation from homosexuality equals salvation.” If this is the message Christ wished to send, then 90% of the Four Canonized Gospels would have devoted themselves to this theme alone. Something that crucial would certainly not have alluded Christ or the early Church!
So if Debbie feels she is in a lion’s den, or wonders if people like her will be the “new lepors” of the 21st century, maybe she needs to close the lion dens she and others like her have created in the wonderful world of ex-gay ministries. As far as becoming a lepor, it was Mother Teresa who said that in order to help the poor one must become poor. So perhaps, by becoming a “lepor” maybe she could truly be one who can help the rest of us “lepors.”
Well said, Alan.
OK now for some lighter fare
Question of the day …..
Several gay people were beat’n to a pulp last week, where in the world did it happen?
(if you get this right you are amazingly bright)
Devlin… where in the World did it not happen?
Hard pressed to see the humour. Enlighten me.
(Sorry for being as thick as two planks laid side by side)
Debbie Thurman said:
If philandering is still a cultural phenomenon in the gay community, perhaps it is precisely because marriage is not an option for the vast majority of gays in the world. It is difficult for two people of the same sex to maintain a healthy, normal, monogomous relationship when living in homophobic societies. The constant pressures from family and friends to “settle down” and marry (to someone of the opposite sex), the company picnics where one has to leave the love of his/her life at home and take a friend of the opposite sex so no one knows the truth of one’s sexuality, the inability to live together as a true couple in a house they buy together because the neighbors might get suspicious and one could not be safe even in their own neighborhood.
And despite all those things, most gay friends I know have had longer monogomous relationships than my straight friends.
If you read the Jewish Scriptures, you’ll realize that “philandering” is NOT a 21st century gay phenomenum. Read the lives of some of the early Church’s saints (and sinners) and the truth can be said about them as well (St. Augustine in particular). It is part of human history and has taken on a variety of forms. But it mainly depends on one’s perspective, especially their view on women.
Marriage, of course, does not solve any problems for anyone – gay or straight. The rings each other exchanges do not possess magical powers to make one faithful to the other. But Christian marriage is a sacrament, an outward sign of an inward spiritual receiving of God’s grace. Therefore, when two Christians join together in matrimony, they receive a special grace from God in order to become as one. It is the individual who must rely on God and the grace given by God to remain faithful to his/her partner. God’s grace comes with a guarantee, but the human recipiants do not. We, as humans, can accept or reject the grace.
It is that grace, on a lower scale, that allows my partner to accept the fact that I snore, and allows me to accept the fact that he is going to wake me up at 3 in the morning to tell me to stop snorring. On a larger scale, it allows both of us to endure the times when we have to be apart because of immigration laws (binational couples can’t marry by the government yet in either country we are from). The grace I received reminds me when some eye candy walks by that there is a man who loves me a million miles away, and that I love him. And while a cute postre (dessert) walks by, I am reminded that I have an entire well-balanced meal always there for me, complete with love, understanding, compassion, companionship, and God’s grace.
Last week, Devlin? I thought it was a few days ago?
I think most here are in agreement that this thread has become way too long and too complex, as David says. When two groups of people with vastly differing world views are attempting to dialogue, it ultimately just becomes a vicious circle and little of value is accomplished. We’re just venting. I think David also made that point somewhere along the way, perhaps in the other thread.
Having been a journalist and worked in the publishing world for some time, I well understand the necessity to fact-check and make every attempt to vet information before sending it on its way for public consumption. Objections have been raised here as to factual accuracy at The Formers, particularly with regard to “research” cited, most of which is in the form of articles linked to that are already published and whose content for which I am not responsible, except for the one or two articles of my own.
I must respond that there is little meaningful consensus anywhere about so complex a subject as homosexuality and the prospects of change. I could spend a lifetime “vetting” information and still be no closer to being sure what is totally accurate other than what I know to be true through my own experience. So I will continue to do my best to call it as I see it. That will put me at odds with most of you folks here, no matter what. We have to live with that. Where there is a consensus on a “fact” having been debunked, I will make the necessary correction.
I plan to write a summary of my experience in these discussions in The Formers forum. Some of what I have to say may surprise you.
Two quick questions Debbie:
1) did Warren Throckmorton give you permision to link his articles on your site?
2) did he give permission knowing what else was being promoted on your site?
I mention this because Warren has an “unfortunate” habit of appearing in places he later repudiates. Like, PFOX and NARTH. You might want to email him because he’s got awfully shy about such matters in the past 2 years.
Just a suggestion.
You also lost me at the mention “Steven Mosher”. Quoting that fraud from PRI — a person who was booted from his Stanford PhD for an ethics violation — puts you in the same category as people who quote Paul Cameron. Oh, you already did that too.
What was that about your “15 years” of study? I’m not even going to bother with your stupid mythology of “bug chasing” — that sort of absurd freakishness you care to raise is not us, and it is not the vast majority of gay (or straight) people. Or EVEN lesbians, ’cause we know how weird and freaky they are.
I also am well aware (having just checked your verbage) that you are directly quoting Mosher from various anti-abortion sites — but Gisselquist et al would be horrified with your spin on their work. Their hypothsis about inadequate medical contamination control in Africa (and what part that plays in rapid HIV spread) does not alter the issues about heterosexual transmission. Sexually transmitted, it’s still 90%.
Mosher wants to claim heterosexual transmission is not a problem because he is opposed to ANY sexual health measures that include condoms. Or birth control of an form. He is dead wrong – and I mean DEAD wrong in this case. The lies he spreads kill people.
As for your “mechanics of gay sex” causing AIDS … stupid. Stupid. Dangerously stupid.
Frankly, the two of us could be consultants to Lego as regards the mechanics …
… and guess what? Nada.
How do you explain that?
All that aside — and a point we included but nobody seems to have picked up on…
In your NARTH article, claiming the profession needed to accomodate ex-gays you made some very telling points.
You declared me to be “delusional”.
You questioned if it was “ethical” for therapists to aid that “delusion”
Apart from being wrong, what suddenly happened to your inclusiveness??? You claim ex-gays need “treatment”, you also claim the rest of us are delusional and it would be unethical to help us along that pathway.
Debbie — explain yourself. No, really. You are a falsehood on top of a contradiction.
(ps: neither of us two have ever seen a therapist. For any reason. All else aside, I doubt anyone would declare us “delusional”. What are your qualifactions to make that assessment? Why did you make such a statement about me? Have you ever considered that the proof you are the delusional is … because you think I am delusional?)
I think Boo will love that last sentence. Right up her alley. /13yo boy snigger.
I plan to write a summary of my experience in these discussions in The Formers forum. Some of what I have to say may surprise you.
I doubt it.
Sigh… looks like we’re about to all about to be misquoted as in “When I speak with my homosexual friends”… again.
(ooh, ooh, I can’t see. Oh. Oh-oooh. Fine. It’s OK now, my eyes just rolled a little too far back for a moment there. Hope that never happens again.)
“most of which is in the form of articles linked to that are already published and whose content for which I am not responsible, except for the one or two articles of my own. ”
sorry, Debbie. this one you do not get to say. If you are going to claim to speak for truth, then it is imperative that what you say IS true.
“most of which is in the form of articles linked to that are already published and whose content for which I am not responsible, except for the one or two articles of my own. ”
sorry, Debbie. this one you do not get to say. If you are going to claim to speak for truth, then it is imperative that what you say IS true.
On of the things I really admire about XGW, BTB, and thought theater is their in insistence on thoroughly researching the truth, something that is consistently absent from the AXIS (Anti-eX-gay Industry Stuff) material. Interpretations tend to be unbiased, and corrections are always forthcoming.
For example, in describing the threat of Gay marriage, one AXIS organization made this statement (more or less, I can’t find it again). The threat of gay marriage to religious freedom in spades:
“A Christian adoption service an Massachusetts was forced to close its doors because it would not allow homosexual couples to adopt.”
Actually, the whole thing could be in italics and bold. It was Catholic Social Services, but since the comment was directed towards super-fundamentalists, they really didn’t want to mention The Whore of Babylon (G, I love that description!). They weren’t forced to close their doors, their contract was not renewed because they refused to comply with state laws that had NOTHING to do with freedom of religion OR marriage– CSS is not the Church.
And in fact, they had allowed a 137 (or possibly 37, it doesn’t matter) same-sex couples to adopt…wait for it… SPECIAL NEEDS KIDS WHOM THE HETERO MAJORITY DID NOT WANT. Way to go, CSS. you sure are able to put the needs of the children first, which is why your contract wasn’t renewed, because the BEST INTERESTS of the children is the governing state law in the matter.
This occurred 4 years after the Massachusetts decisions, and had nothing at all to do with marriage. Likewise, the state allowed CSS to not participate in adoption BECAUSE they could exercise their freedom of religion.
In short, nearly every word of the complaint was a lie, distortion, half-truth.
So yes, Debbie, you are quite responsible for every word that appears are your website if you are going to claim you speak G’s truth.
This is quite funny. But it would not be so funny when it is ““Nurse, what’s the condition of our patient?” “She’s a HE, a transgender!”"HAHAHAHAHA” for 15 minutes. The patient dies.
In that condition, I wonder how Ms. Debbie Thurman react, or how would her “ministry” offer any “help”.
I’m sorry Debbie, but that really is a royal cop out. Most of what we are discussing can be determined true or false as a matter of record. By your intentional carelessness, you are just including yourself as part of the problem. Even if you want to take this into faith, the Bible holds rigorous study in high esteem, and I doubt you would debate that God is all about Truth.
I become more irritated, and I believe justifiably so, each time you try to justify placing on your site rabidly false information, information about which there is no serious debate. And trying to shift the blame on those who wrote the articles, good grief. Have you no responsibility to vet that to which you refer before you do so?
What you are experiencing here is not persecution or vilification, it’s just simple (but passionate) concern and disapproval over yet another person placing false information on the web about things which can be very damaging to those who come across it. Add to that some disgust over things that have been uncovered that you wrote and which are both wrong, bigoted and hurtful.
You seem to console yourself that people here are just rejecting God, well it’s obviously not the case — certainly not for me and a few others on this thread who are devout believers. But consider that you may actually be the cause of some rejecting Him, as you display lies as truth. It’s what I told you in the beginning, you can’t act badly and then blame animosity toward God as the reason for a negative response. Ironically, isn’t what you are doing closer to the meaning of the verse you used in the first thread to explain this rejection?
No one can seriously claim that you have not been given a fair shake here — certainly I and the other writers have done our best to even the field a bit. And I admit, it can be daunting to respond to so many people. But even when I singled out some simple, core issues, you responded defensively. You have a long way to go before you can claim you are any different than the bulk of the ex-gay movement, and that’s just a fact gleaned from your own words.
As someone who has checked in with ex-gay watch from time to time, as an “ex-gay” myself, I’d like to jump in and ask about two things that were stimulated by reading the fascinating dialog in this thread:
Is the most egregious issue that critics have of the ex-gay movement the fact that people say that change is possible, or is it the very existence of an ex-gay movement?
There’s a lot of strong statements said in this thread about the unlikely possibility that individuals can change their sexual orientation. Is that public enemy No. 1, as it were? What would be the response if ex-gay ministries said something like, “Though we make no promises that anyone will ever dramatically change their sexual orientation, we acknowledge that there are those in the Church, and in the wider society as a whole, who desire to not live out their homosexual desires and we are here to help them with that goal.”
I guess as someone checking in with this incredibly active blog from time to time, I’m genuinely curious what critics of ex-gay movements would say. I just finished reading Anything But Straight by Wayne Besen and I think he made some very compelling arguments. It’s no surprise to me that John Paulk still has a desire to be with guys, as Besen clearly demonstrated. As someone who has been through an ex-gay program, and still finds himself attracted to plenty of guys, Paulk’s rather public fall was no surprise.
I don’t think I’ll ever live a day where I’m not attracted to other men, and I’m OK with that, and choosing to live a celibate lifestyle. I don’t personally like Exodus’s focus on “change,” because I don’t think it’s highly likely for most people, nor do I view it as very important at all. As for me, I am attracted to woman at times too, so for me change anyway would only have ever meant becoming solely attracted to women. And that hasn’t happened, and I don’t think it ever will.
For the critics of the ex-gay movement, how would you view someone with my views?
I suppose this is a bit off topic, but it stems from some of the comments in this thread already, namely the discussion between Debbie Thurman and A C Thomas (Debbie’s list of five things) in which the likelihood/possibility of change was discussed.
Ben says, “On of the things I really admire about XGW, BTB, and thought theater is their in insistence on thoroughly researching the truth, something that is consistently absent from the AXIS (Anti-eX-gay Industry Stuff) material. Interpretations tend to be unbiased, and corrections are always forthcoming.”
Interpretations are unbiased. Really? The very nature of the word says otherwise. All interpretations are biased. We are both saying we have a corner on the truth as we can only see it through our respective lenses. We can’t both be right. Sounds like a conundrum to me, one that has been there since the beginning of time.
You are not just trafficking in news articles at XGW. There is plenty of opinion expressed here. And I happen to disagree with a lot of it, the same as you do with mine. People can fall off high horses. That applies to all of us.
I have said I have no problem with correcting anything that needs correcting at TF, so you can’t suggest XGW or other gay sites are the only entities that do that. In fact I have just sent some FAQ changes to my webmaster. Next, I turn my attention to articles. We’ll see what’s truly problematic.
David, you said, “Most of what we are discussing can be determined true or false as a matter of record.” No, it cannot be. Much of what we have discussed is a matter of opinion or interpreted data. It has ranged from Scriptural interpretation to scientific (or unscientific) studies to whether or not change is possible and really happens for very real people (I submit I am actual flesh and blood and not just a keyboard). I challenge you to PROVE I have not experienced genuine change. You cannot. I challenge you to PROVE I (that’s Debbie Thurman and not someone else) am doing harm in helping others who have sought help. You can’t, yet you declare you are opposed to what I am specifically doing.
Am I missing something? What is it that prevents you from allowing that there are some legitimate methods of help for people seeking change? I don’t violently disagree that there are also some bad ones. Why can’t you likewise concede there are some valid ones? Suppose it was the power of prayer above all that allowed me and others to change. How are you going to stop people from praying? How are you going to stop God from intervening with your short arms? This is about spiritual transformation, first and foremost. You could eliminate all the therapy and all the ex-gay ministries and people would still change, just like they have since the beginning of time. You can’t stop it, and that’s what drives you all nuts, isn’t it? You insist on believing all the disgruntled people but refuse to believe those who are not. And how is your disparaging of all attempts to change also not hurting people? Vulnerable people fall into both camps.
I am sorry that so many gays just can’t seem to get past their anger and victim mentality. Granted, bad things have happened. But you can’t stay there. It clouds your rationale. There are positive ways of moving forward. Kirk and Madsen gave you all a strategy to win the culture war. Be careful that you don’t overreach with it. You might want to go back and read the whole book.
If you start with a faulty premise, you will get more off-base as you go. I always try to look for the grain of truth in criticisms of me and I am not afraid to admit I am wrong and adjust some of my thinking or actions accordingly. The written record here will demonstrate that. Is anyone here big enough to do that? To disagree after all is said and done is not a cop-out. It is just a disagreement, based on honest convictions.
It doesn’t drive me nuts that there are gay people in the world. I can accept their conviction that they are going to remain that way, even though I think they are sometimes doing harm to vulnerable people and maybe even to themselves. It is my duty to do well the task that God has given me. I know you don’t like me. It’s okay. Plenty of other people do. I don’t have a neurotic need to be liked or to be right all the time. I can’t say the same about everybody here.
I have nothing more to say. Shadowbox away.
Thanks for dropping in, Dan. I think there are probably at least two ways to answer this. For myself, and probably a majority of the regulars on this site, a personal decision to live as you do for the reasons you do is just that, a personal decision and not up for review by others. You may have seen us refer to Jay a couple of times and he has even been invited to post a couple of times, he has similar views and what I would call a realistic outlook on “change” as well. That’s not really an issue for most.
However, it becomes more problematic when you ask the same people if they take issue with an organization which not only supports those who have this view, but perpetuates things in society which might cause homosexuals to take such a view out of desperation or a desire to be “normal” and acceptable to God. I would say less would be willing to find that acceptable, though obviously they have a right to exist.
The main reason for XGW is to point out the fallacies, inaccuracies, in some cases flat out lies, surrounding these groups and their all to often pseudo-scientific rhetoric. We want to make sure that, before making such a decision, the facts are available. There is no doubt in my mind that without the work of XGW and other like-minded groups, Exodus, Stephen Bennett, Love in Action and a host of others would be able to get away with much more dishonesty.
I’m not saying that you won’t run into people who even deny the right of some of these groups to exist, but most seem to agree that educating the public along with possibly more stringent regulation on who can and should be playing therapist is the best way to go.
One additional bit; when you speak of people in society who don’t want to live what I would call “sexually honest” lives, what if their issues truly stem from self-hatred, absorbing the negative opinion of many around them? This certainly happens a lot which many of us can testify to. Do they need an organization that will always see this as conviction from sin? Will anyone at Exodus truly try to discern between that and a genuine, personal interpretation of scripture?
Last, I think most or all here would agree that it is unacceptable for ex-gay groups to lobby for laws that make our lives harder to live. It’s a fundamental contradiction for anyone calling themselves a ministry, and doubly so for anyone who claims to want to “help” GLBTs. Exodus still does this stuff, though it’s more muted than before. Exodus President Alan Chambers still retains membership in highly partisan political organizations and his VP, Randy Thomas still shows off pictures of himself with powerful Republicans such as Karl Rove. There is a lot behind the curtain at Exodus which has nothing to do with what you mentioned.
I guess we do not need to… She has just PROVEN that SHE is NOT a LESBIAN, just a phase in her life… so now she embraced her true heterosexual identity….
Gosh! This is driving me crazy. Okay, I am going to open a ex-straight ministry for wannabe former homosexuals… anybody wants change… everyone wants change since the beginning of time, right? Yeah, it is as easy as asking apples to change into oranges….
Good. I have specifically told her to continue her rantings at the original post about her. David Roberts had advised her to use the BQuote. She could not even understand, or rather not even noticing this two. That just shows just how much imput she is getting from here, and how much output she attempts to impose.
And how many times she says she is going to end her commentary on this site? I forgot how many times.
I was just about to spend a great deal of time responding to your last comment Debbie, but why bother? You aren’t listening and you seem proud of that. You have a bag of bad data, offensive clichés and what you see as a mandate from God. What else do you need if you want to add t the mediocre ex-gay landscape?
Like I said, too many Debbie Thurmans, not enough Wendy Gritters.
Dan in Michigan, you are what we would call a “side B” gay, someone who realizes they have same sex attractions and accepts that but chooses not to act on them for religious reasons. This is perfectly acceptable because you are being honest. Nobody is forcing anybody to have sex or hook up with same sex people they are attracted to, and only those ignorant of the wonder of personal choice would assume that there’s only one way to live happily.
Please see this article written by celibate gay Christian Jay Holloman, whom we fully welcome on this site with friendly open arms. Naturally people will disagree on the nature of same sex attraction or the moral issues surrounding those attractions. But people who are sexually honest with themselves are what the gay community needs, because it allows us all to live our lives the way they want to without passing judgment on one another: gays will not resent so-called ex-gays because they will not be belittling the gay community by proclaiming what amounts to sexual denial, and ex-gays will understand how gay people could healthfully fully embrace their sexual attractions.
I might add, Dan, that many of the people I know who share your particular views want nothing to do with Exodus. I think they are getting this point finally, so on the outside they have toned down the “change is possible” rhetoric, but on the inside it’s alive and well. I strongly suggest GayChristian.net for people who feel as you do. As Emily mentioned, the Side B community there is a great place to exchange ideas and support, and they have annual gatherings which I understand are a blast.
It doesn’t drive me nuts that there are ex-gays in the world. I can accept their convictions that they are going to remain that way, even though I think they are often times doing harm to vulnerable people and maybe even themselves.
Yet you are the one who talks of being a leper, you are the one who gets angry when people point out that what you said is flawed, you are the one who got upset at me directly for saying that may ex-gays are treated with distrust. You had to make sure I knew you didn’t see yourself as some vicious predator, sowing distrust and harm. This says to me that you may be afraid that you are not doing the task that God has given you. You became threatened when I implied you would be judged by your works, not your ex-gayness. You feel the need to defend that which you do and make sure it is not seen wrong or maybe a better word is “evil”.
You have demonstrated that you do need to be right, you do need to be liked, maybe not by the people here, but by someone. You beamed at the idea that I accepted change was possible, it validated you, made you feel special, me someone who talks of ex-gays being distrusted actually thinks you may provide a service. Even though you may have forgotten this is where it all started. It started with me telling you how people feel, how people perceive the works of professional ex-gays, and you demanding proof that the way they feel the way they perceive was the truth, but perceptions and feelings are very far from fact. I didn’t feel the need to prove such preying was going on, because even if it never happened that is the way people feel.
Sadly, because for me I had no reason to think you guilty of anything, it turned out you do commit acts that foster such feelings and perceptions, others have lain bare the works you do. Even here in your “I don’t hate gays” pledge you sow suffering, what do you think “Hurt themselves and vulnerable others” tells a person in questioning?
There is a place for ex-gay support, people get confused, I have a friend who after one sexual encounter with the same sex, thought he was gay, he was ready to come out of the closet. Fortunately I was there with a big mouth and a lot of incite into sexuality. He came to terms with his same sex encounter, he came to terms with enjoying it, he even came to terms with God over it. I don’t imagine he is the only one, somewhere I once read that 4% of all heterosexuals males say their first sexual experience was with a male. If even a tenth of those where as confused as my friend was that would 13 million males, world wide(note this number was very sloppy math assuming 10% homosexuality rate using a quick Google search on world population, these numbers are not meant reflect actual scientific research), who may be thinking they are gay, who may need someone to set them on the right path, hopefully in an honest way. I’ll give you a huge cookie here and will admit if homosexuality is seen as less icky more of these people may very well not run away from that first sexual encounter and may find themselves deep in a world that isn’t theirs, who need a road map out. Still these are not the people the ex-gay industry targets, least not from my personal experience.
So yes there is a place for people who thought they where gay and discovered there where not, though I don’t think calling it ex-gay sets people on the right path, matter of fact when I encounter such people they tend to simply call themselves heterosexual. There is also a path for people who decide that celibacy is preferred to any sexuality and there is a path for that, but once again ex-gay is not the right word for that either, I think a much simpler term is celibate. I think the issue here is the idea of ex-gay, what it means, and the fact that it is presented as a cure for something that is not an illness and the instance that gay is an illness.
(Feel free to delete this if need be. I’ve realized this is off topic and maybe shouldn’t be argued here any longer, but I just felt the need to respond.)
That has to be the most anti-Christian remark for the year 2008.
How did God give you this task? How do you know God gave you this task? Don’t say “by the fruits of my labor” because that will lose you points. Did the Evangelicals elect you their pope and fail to mention it to the rest of the Christian community? Are you the Baptist embassador to the gay community? On whose authority?
You’re two seconds shy from singing “Nobody loves me. Everbody hates me. I’m going to eat some worms.” Public debate has nothing to do with liking someone or not. Argument is a means for truth to surface. I could agree with a lot of people on a lot of issues and not like a single person who utters them. That does not make the truth less potent. It does not make the argument futile. We are not contributing to this blog to make friends. We come from different religious backgrounds, hold different religious, theological, and philosophical convictions that at times are in harmony and at times at odds.
If you wish to expose your beliefs and convictions to others, be prepare to be challenged even amongst your own crowd. And don’t expect an “amen” after every statement you make.
If only every ex-gay minister could say that and mean it. But it should be added “I have nothing more MEANINGFUL to say.”