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.
Debbie, I’ve reached a limit.
When I said ‘interpretations are unbiased’, I suspect you knew what i meant. You just chose to ignore it, They’re not doing a Paul Cameron. they’re not twisting truth.
you’re correct– we can’t both be right. but most of the AXIS crap you refer to on your site is DEFINITELY not correct. and i don’t think you really care, because you’re ON A MISSION.
I have to agree with David: ‘ 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?’
DT wrote:I am sorry that so many gays just can’t seem to get past their anger and victim mentality. Granted, bad things have happened. ”
Here’s one of the bad things that happened: a couple of years ago, two teenage boys in Iran were EXECUTED by hanging. Oh well, brown, Fag, and not Christian. Tell me how much you weep for them.
Yes Debbie, I am angry. and i don’t have a victim mentality. I stopped being a victim a long time ago– in fact, i just flat out refuse to be your victim, or the victim of any AXIS butthead out there. Here is something i wrote earlier, that you never responded to, except for this crap about my victim mentality.
“I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your beliefs OR your prejudices, whichever they actually happen to be. Only you know. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.
I am furious that people just like your beloved Jerry earn their livings by making my life, and the lives of people like me as difficult and unpleasant as they possibly can. Including thinking that they are doing a GOOD thing by doing so, by attacking me, by ‘disappearing’ my marriage”.
Maybe we’ve got a bit of the victim about us because you good Christians have been making us victims for 2000 years.
i’ll tell you what the gay agenda is: one word.
ENOUGH
Now that I have that off my chest….
Hello, Dan.
Others have said what they had to say already about this site, and your welcome to it. You had a question: “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?”
Actually, it is neither. Change may be possible, deopending on what you mean by change– and what you mean by possible. Jones and Yarmouth ‘proved’ that change is possible. Possible means 15% of their small sample. Change means ‘ambiguous’, ‘complicated’ and a few other words. As Bill Clinton said, ‘it all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
The most egregious issues are 1) the lies, distortions, and half truths of the ex-anti gay industry. 2) there willingness to make sure that the prejudice against gay people continues to exist and prosper.
In otherwords, a socio-conservative-political answer to what you have indicated is for you a spiritual quesiton.
Thanks for the comments, and especially to Emily K to the link to College Jay’s article. I didn’t see that until now and I find that I agree 100% with Jay. Who knew I was a “Side B?”
Having gone through the Living Waters program several years ago, I have come to terms with the fact that I will be attracted to men the rest of my life, and for me, it’s irrelevant to the way I live my life, or a sign that I’m more “broken” or “wounded” than anyone else. We’re all broken and wounded to a certain degree, and I guess in the years since I have gone through that program “changing” (i.e. removal of all homosexual desires) has really become a non-starter for me and I don’t feel any duress over finding men sexually desirable. Like Jay, I just try to keep it on a level that means I “keep it in my pants.”
I tend to agree that ministries do an injustice to their charges when they hold up the view that heterosexuality is the highest goal, or the surefire sign that “all is well” with one’s soul. That’s absolute hogwash in my way of thinking.
I do agree wholeheartedly that much of what Exodus does is damaging and that they need to have a serious wake up call if they want to maintain credibility in the public arena. Incidentally, I don’t believe that no one ever changes–some people indeed will, but as long as “change” is held up as the highest good, it’s very damaging.
For me, I view this as Jay does–and I’ll look forward to checking in with his blog.
Thanks for keeping a lively debate going on subjects very dear to my heart.
Jones and Yarhouse. And I think it ended up closer to 11%, and as you say, the meaning change was not what one would necessarily expect. No one went from one end of the scale to the other, and the study was for 3 years (though exodus paid them $25,000/yr for a couple more years, so we may see something later). As we will illustrate soon, the motivation for those participants to show positive results was quite strong, which for me at least is another reason to be skeptical of even that small number.
The one thing that is becoming rather clear is that if and when some sort of change happens, it is not something one can cause on demand or through therapy — it just happens, particularly with women. There is more data on that coming up so I will hold off until we have something to reference. Suffice to say, if one was expecting to use J&Y to show evidence of purposeful, meaningful change in sexual orientation, it was quite a flop.
From the information so far, Dan, you seem to fit in fine. You have a POV which differs from mine or some others here, but it is about your life and you don’t force me to fit your mold, and I don’t force you into mine. That leaves open the door for sharing and debate, and basically regular life. It’s the obsession with being heterosexual that really seems unhealthy to me. Glad to have you here.
You might check in with Jay at his blog, you two seem to have a lot in common. He’s a smart guy. You might also enjoy another lively thread concerning Wendy Gritter. She leads an ex-gay ministry in Canada, which is a member of Exodus but is worlds ahead of them in “getting it.” We disagree on some scriptural issues as you might imagine, but otherwise she is a class act compared to the rest.
We’re definitely on the same page there and I couldn’t agree with you more.
Thanks for the welcome, and I look forward to keeping up with the blog, though I suspect I’ll be more of a lurker than a regular poster. I’ve said more than I normally would already!
Emily said:
Emily, you got to the core of the whole gay, ex-gay debate when you said one does something because they are “being honest.” It’s being honest with oneself, with G-d, with others that is the important issue.
I would move the arguement one step further in saying it is also having the freedom to be honest that is also necessary. So far,
I have not seen any ex-gay movement that relies on freedom nor on honesty. It is all about submission under false pretenses and assumptions and misunderstandings, misuses, and misinterpretations of sacred texts. The mere term “ex-gay” gives the impression one is basing their life on a negative foundation instead of a positive one. If someone were to call a person an “ex-football player,” there’d be an urge to say “awwww” to that person as if he were in some ways a failure (as opposed to saying “retired football player). When someone says “my ex and I blah blah blah” there is a sense of failure somewhere hidden in that expression … “ex.” I remember a comedian who once said he didn’t call his former wife his “ex” wife, just “the woman who didn’t live up to my expectations.” The joke being both terms mean the same thing.
Emily, I see that in your quote you mention “personal choice,” so I see you did mention the necessity for freedom.
Randy Thomas on why gay marriage should be prohibited for future ex-gays:
From this morning’s post from Devlin who asked me to post this for him, here’s the anwer . . .
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?
Answer: The Pulpit ; )
DT: “Are gay journalists writing about this stuff?”
As a queer journalist, and a reader of all things in the LGBTQ journalism world, I can say to you, Debbie, YES, gay journalists are writing about “this stuff.” I assume by “this stuff” you mean HIV/AIDS, comprehensive sex education, and the need for sexual ethics that take into account the spread of STIs. And yes, gay journalists are writing about the need to challenge the ex-gay movement because it causes the perpetuation of the shame that often leads men to have unprotected sex (because using a condom means admitting to the act) and perpetuates the same stigma that causes gay men to not reveal to sexual partners that they are HIV+ because they are ashamed of that status and of being gay. Your methods, your ideals, and your commitment to the twisting of religious beliefs is, simply put, disgusting, Debbie. And your twisted use of statistics is worse than what I’ve seen come out of the AFA and FRC because you claim to not be a homo-hater, Debbie.
My wish for you is an epiphany – one bigger than taking down the Christmas tree on January 6th.
Debbie — explain yourself. No, really. You are a falsehood on top of a contradiction.
I think Boo will love that last sentence. Right up her alley. /13yo boy snigger.
No, she’s just every other fundamentalist postmodernist who thinks that her particular religious interpretations are unassailable while statements of objective fact can be reduced to points of view. Sometimes she calls herself Paul Cameron, she showed up here once calling herself Christine, but it’s always the same act.
I love you soooooo much. Pay no attention to the knife clumsily concealed in my other hand, and if you dare call attention to it, I shall shriek a mighty shriek of victimization.
No, she’s just every other fundamentalist postmodernist who thinks that her particular religious interpretations are unassailable while statements of objective fact can be reduced to points of view.
Boo– that really sums it up perfectly. thank you.
I complain of 2000 years of victimization, and she says i have a victim mentality.
Ben, that last sentence really speaks to my heart as a Jew as well as a gay. But Jews have at least had some flack taken off them post-1945. We gays, we are still in trouble.
I think Debbie’s “leper” comment pretty much shows her POV of gays. I’m glad that most of us don’t share her pathological symtoms of perception.
I think it would be more accurate to say that people who are gay are not lepers at all, but are constantly having to toss off leperous diseased thinking about gayness itself that gets projected onto us. In that, Debbie and her kind, who think leperous thoughts about gays and gay sex, are indeed leperous in thought. So in answer to your question Debbie, “will we be the lepers then”? I would say, you already are.
I think it’s productive to remember that people who believe falsehoods, cannot respond whey you say “prove it” for that is where they know, and we know, they cannot deliver and are wholly uncredible. This is why Debbie cannot answer some questions here as she knows she is not at all credible. This goes for everyone who “believes” gay sex is a sin. They can’t prove it. This means, they are unsure, which means, it may be false, which means, it could possibly be, a bold face lie, which means, this entire fight is useless. It’s a house built on the sand of belief, not the rock of knowledge, trite at best.
In this it might be wise to simply dismiss them and their errors as useless fodor and move on to more enlightened pathways, thereby collapsing the conflict. When one party walks away and puts their energy elsewhere, the fight is over. But one must be careful, you may just like to fight.
Don’t worry. We gays are only 60 years behind we jews!