Why ‘Day of Truth’ Fails All Students
Today, April 17th, is the 13th annual “Day of Silence.” For those unaware, the “Day of Silence” is one day out of the school year when participating students choose to remain silent all day as a protest of the silence that many students must keep in order to avoid being harassed by anti-gay bullies at school. Special attention is paid to the Queer sector of the student body, as such bullying makes it difficult for students seeking to be sexually honest to come out. But their straight classmates could just as easily be victims. Even though this event originates from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), there is no central entity that demands exactly how the DOS plays out at various schools. Students can choose to interact in class while being silent during their own social time between and after classes and during lunch. In fact, this may be an even greater sacrifice for students than simply not participating during class time. But contrary to statements repeated by anti-gay activists, participating students aren’t forced to keep from contributing to their classes.
Since 2004, the “Day of Truth” has been a conservative Christian response to GLSEN’s “Day of Silence.” DOT is sponsored by Alliance Defense Fund and “ex-gay” organization Exodus International, and encourages students opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds to start conversations with people about those views. They are also encouraged to refer gay students to Exodus, where they can find “hope” and “change.” Quite the contrary to DOS, DOT potentially causes disruption by telling students to engage in debates that can get ugly due to high tension and passions about those issues.
The messages promoted by the two “Days” are obvious. The former calls for an end to anti-gay bullying (not a specific promotion of homosexual acceptance as opponents believe), while the latter tells gay students to “change” so that they won’t be bullied, blaming the victims for their own oppression. And, as a result, the DOS serves all students – all potential targets of anti-gay bullying – and the DOT serves only those with aligning political intentions.
The DOS is not affiliated with any religion or political party, and anybody of any sexual orientation is welcome to participate. The DOT, on the other hand, only speaks to a very specific crowd: the conservative Christian crowd. A Jewish or Atheist student may ask, “How are you so certain you have the truth on your side?” DOT’s website tells participants to answer, “Jesus Christ said, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” As a whole, this is a useless response. With the exception of private schools that associate with this creed, already a portion of the student body is lost to DOT students.
But even if DOT were a secular concept, it would still fail the entire student body. This is because while the two “Days” may seem diametrically opposed, they both are in fact pointing in slightly different directions. DOS targets all students, faculty, and administrators – gay and straight – by calling on them to become aware of the anti-gay bullying that still goes on in schools. DOT however, is focused on reaching out to the “gay-identified” peers of its participants. The anti-gay supporters of DOT don’t understand that anti-gay bullying doesn’t just happen to those who are gay. It happens to anyone who seems different, including straight kids.
Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover and Eric Mohat both killed themselves after enduring relentless anti-gay bullying at their schools. Neither one of the boys identified as gay. Pointing those two students in the direction of Exodus International would have done absolutely nothing to help them overcome or avoid anti-gay bullying – these children weren’t gay.
So, now what?
If the people being bullied with anti-gay epithets like “faggot” aren’t actually gay, how can an ex-gay program help them? And how would ingraining the message that “gay = sinful and unacceptable” soften the attitudes of those doing the bullying? If anything, it would only encourage them to viciously root out those who seem to fit that “unacceptable” mold, whether they are gay or actually straight. DOT’s website makes clear how they want to end the presence of the “gay identity” in schools. But do they want to end the presence of bullying based on the “gay identity?” DOT doesn’t give an answer – yet another example of the deafening silence from an anti-gay organization that claims to “love” gays.
LOL. I did indeed breathe.
sometimes, i just like to be clear.
I gave up long ago on getting Ben to be brief, but man, that’s absurd, lol.
Ben, well worth the read. If you have your own blog, please tell me you’re posting this there, and give me an idea on how to find it.
Bravo Ben. Very well said and thought.
Excellent, Ben! I really enjoyed reading this.
I particularly liked your explanation of ex-gay as meaning “still-homo-but-trying-to-be-hetero-and-it-isn’t-working”, which I think almost deserves to be immortalized.
I say “almost”, because I’m sure that the time will come when the term “ex-gay” itself will mean little to the man or woman in the street and will elicit merely a puzzled frown. It will be meaningful only to students of the history of ideas, who will regard the idea of making your sexual orientation change as an eccentric and fascinating oddity of bygone ages, along with things like Creation Science, the Bible Code and Joanna Southcott’s box.
Thank you all for what you had to say– even David.
Brevity is the soul of wit only when one is being witty. But witty was only a very small part of it. (Chambersexual. Calling Bitter, Party of 1! love it.) i also had a lot to say, and deconstructing the whole proposition of DOT to expose the assumptions and lies takes some time and effort.
I was sorry that I didn’t hear anything from Shawn, because I wrote it mainly for him. He went and did the right thing by withdrawing his endorsement, but I still want him to examine his assumptions. Becuase therein lies the problem.
But I also do this writing for my compatriots. I want people to read this stuff, save it, spread it around, use it. (Give me credit if you publish it). I know i am never going to reach someone irretrievably poisoned by hate or fear or those items disguised as religious belief. But I can reach people who are at least open to re-thinking, like Shawn. Ando our side needs to have a clear understanding in order to stand up and be counted. I think most people are pretty decent, and far more reaosnable on this subject than they are given credit for.
Jason, I always admire whenever you write. You’ve clarified my thinking any number of times. I don’t have my own blog, but I have considered it. Is there a ‘blogging for dummies’ book?
Hi Ben,
I did read your comments. Thanks for the insight. I’m not sure if you know this or not (because some of your comments seemed to imply you didn’t) but up until 8 years ago, I was an active gay man.
I can’t refute your experiences, so I’m not going to. Though, you can’t refute mine regardless how you feel about them. I am under the conviction (not assumption) that change is possible – for those who want it. I am one who wants it.
For me, I believe that in seeking a right relationship with GOD I can’t “have my cake and eat it too” … there’s too much of a compromise there. So, for me I do what JESUS asks of me – to take up my cross and follow HIM.
And my convictions are not old-tales that I just swallowed, rather my convictions have come after many years of personal research from both sides of the argument. In the end (between GOD and I), I came to the conclusion that I couldn’t really justify my actions / gay life with the rest of HIS Word anymore.
This is my experience. It is different than yours. I do not force change on to others, and I never will. Each person has to make the choice in the end. When all is said and done, GOD has the final say anyways.
I pray, everyday, that if my convictions are wrong, then for HIM to show me – so far HE hasn’t. So I stay the course and strive to be obedient.
Shawn– thank you for writing. I’m glad you read what I wrote in the spirit in which it was written. Most of the time I was far less pissed than I might sound. there is anger there, but exposition and logic were of greater concern.
You mentioned that you are ex-gay, so I knew that. I would never try to refute your experiences– they are yours, not mine– but there is a difference between one’s experience and one’s interpretation of it.
I can absolutely respect your decision to make your choices yourself based upon your own experiences and beliefs. But that is not what a lot of your co-religionists are saying, which is, “I believe this, and you must believe it too. If you don’t, I’ll hurt you and tell a lot of lies about you.”
that’s what DOT is about, not Shawn’s personal transformation.
But that makes me ask this question: what exactly is your personal transformation? It sounds to me like you stopped acting a gay man 8 years ago, but your basic nature hasn’t changed. It appears that you are not heterosexual. It also sounds like you have decided that your calling from G is to be literally ex-gay, which is same-sex oriented, not gay acting, not heterosexual. It sounds like an odd calling, but I’m sure G has his reasons. I don’t presume to question it.
But that leads me to this observation. Peterson Toscano is someone I admire, though I don’t know him. The simple humility of Peterson stands as a direct refutation to this nonsense that religion has the slightest expertise in this matter, and that their interpretation of these ancient texts is both accurate and relevant– assumptions, not facts, which I do not share.
He spent 20 years of his life testing this religious solution, only to find it as empty as the promise of an immediate and surprising ability, not to mention the desire, to play a harp for eternity. (As Mark Twain commented, if that isn’t hell, he wouldn’t know what is).
Peterson made the same claim as you– this is what G was calling him to do. But he never changed anything except his mind on this subject. He finally had enough. 20 years in pursuit of a will-o-the-wisp, gone.
One way to look at it was that Peterson was completely clueless. It had nothing to do with G, and everything to do with Peterson’s social conditioning and self image. G couldn’t have cared less. The failure would be completely Peterson’s.
But that is not your framework, so let’s ask the question differently. Another way to look at it is that Peterson did not have sufficient faith in G, that change would happened someday if only Peterson believed hard enough, trusted enough, knew his calling enough. again, The failure was completely Peterson’s, not G’s.
But this begs the final question. G, for his own reasons, sent Peterson a burden to be born, his calling, his plan. I have often heard it said by pious people that G sends us only the burdens we can bear.
If G only sends us the burdens we can bear, we can only assume that if Peterson had been a weaker person, he would now be heterosexual.
I’m not insisting that you and Peterson are identical. neither you nor G have confided in me. But this is hwat i meant when I wrote that there is a difference between one’s experience and one’s interpretation of it.
Hi Ben,
My intention was not to take over this thread, though it appears I have – for that I am sorry.
Ben, I am willing to converse via email if you like – 611ministries@gmail.com.
In answer your questions, I want to first thank you for understanding where I am coming from. You asked about my transformation … simply put, I began seeking after GOD’S identity rather than my own. What I mean is, for so long I was seeking to be “straight” – that was my overall goal. Instead what I was getting was more heartache and confusion. I didn’t understand why GOD wasn’t making me straight – I had the faith but I didn’t have the results.
Long story short, for me, it wasn’t until I began seeking the LORD’S heart and healing that I actually began to understand my struggle and journey. My journey wasn’t about becoming straight, it was about becoming GOD’S son … it wasn’t about finding my own wholeness, but about finding GOD’S wholeness.
This brings up a huge religious debate and such, but I get the feeling that this isn’t the place for that conversation – unless you think otherwise.
I will say this about what scripture says … I have studied much about these debates and have talked (on both sides) to many Bible scholars. After taking many classes and doing Greek research, I have come to solid convictions that what the Bible says is in fact true. I am not saying that I am superior to anyone else, just stating that I have studied this – just as I am sure Pete has too.
Speaking of which, I don’t know Pete other than we are facebook friends. I can’t speak for his story or why things didn’t work out – so to say. I don’t know his relationship with the LORD …. but I would certainly like to get to know him on a more personal level.
As for the label “ex-gay” … I hate it. I do not label myself, and I try not to use it – though sometimes I need to in order to get my points across
I have since gotten married and I have two great kids. Am I a heterosexual …. not unless straight men lust after guys every once in awhile. Am I gay …. not unless gay men can willingly make love to a woman (which maybe some can, but I couldn’t do it before). So what am I ….. I am a son of GOD. My identity is not wrapped up in my past, present, or future. It is solely wrapped up in GOD.
This, my friend, is where my transformation begins and continues to be.
Shawn; thank you for responding. I understand– probably the clearst I have ever had in the course of these discussions. And an honest one, as well.
If it works for you, believe me, it works for me as well, because I believe you are sincere in understanding the point I was trying to make. It’s your solution, not someone elses.
And back to the thread, DOT is just the opposite.
Shawn,
You may not like the label ex-gay, but what you are describing is Exodus ex-gay down to the last syllable. It is easy to claim not to seek to become straight after such an idea falls under severe scrutiny and support for the possibility is dismally thin. Exodus, too, has migrated from this claim on the exterior, but just as you bring up sexual relations with a woman as a proof, they continue to use opposite-sex marriage and a family as the ultimate goal/evidence internally.
The truth is, of course there are many, many gay men who have been able to make love to women for years. This is not an indication of being straight, but a function of an intense desire to be so for any number of often discussed reasons. It is also, I might add, a formula which leads to so many broken marriages. Marriage to someone of the opposite sex when one is aware of being gay is simply disastrous and unfair. And while you are free to take your life on whatever course you feel best, this will not be a platform for you to make claims which not only have no support, but the striving for which has left so many damaged and faithless (or worse).
Nothing you have said is unfamiliar to most people here. We have seen the cycle, watched the deterioration. However, it has been and continues to be the policy of XGW to recognize the individual’s right to their own convictions and understanding of, in this case, the Christian Bible. If you believe God does not want you to have sex with other men, and you have come to that conclusion through your own study, then don’t have sex with men. But believers of good conscience take different views on this and one simply can’t make it an absolute.
However, when you get into claims of change, there will be little flexibility here at this point. This is where my own conscience as the editor of this blog comes in. I will not, with the evidence at hand, allow claims of change to be stated as though they a) happen in any but the rarest of instances, an b) happen as the result of the efforts or intentions of the individual. The subject is much more complex, but those are basic facts which can be extrapolated from the current data. Could I say tomorrow that I had changed, and probably provide “evidence” of it? Sure, I learned how to do such things earlier in life — basically to stay alive.
But this is not a place to either proselytize or claim divine healing. Most here are on the other side of all that, and to let your comments go unchallenged would be to injure them even more. This is not a therapy group, though some people derive some help from seeing the facts discussed in a relatively safe environment. It is a place to monitor the actions of ex-gay groups and challenge the veracity of their claims. You are welcome to participate in the same way that others do, which includes providing support for claims of fact when stated in a way that requires others to evaluate new information.
And I do not mean to be harsh, but this is not an invitation to continue with point/counter point. We have gone far enough off topic.
Dave,
I fully understand and respect what you said. That is why I started out my last comment the way I did. I was only answering questions directed at me. I did not mean any more than that – especially to bring harm to anyone. If I have, I am sorry.
Thank you for inviting me to continue to participate here.
Shawn
Hi Shawn,
I am wondering, if you had not had all the negative programming growing up, about how bad it was to be born gay, and instead had a positive accepting upbringing, do you think you would have not felt so bad and would have not put yourself through the “exgay” model, potentially having a fulfilling life living your primal template of being homosexual?
Are you gay or bisexual when looking at your developmental years say up to age 20? And if bisexual, is your attraction equal sexually towards men and women? Where does that percentage fall naturally if applicable?
I know you don’t like the label, but it does seem you are living an exgay lifestyle. I like your openness and candor, I wish more in your camp were so resilient and info helpful.
To Ben in Oakland: thank you for saying what I was thinking – you can call it what you want, but DOT is really “Day of Mere Opinion”- and/or DOL -Day of Lies.
I still never cease to marvel at the fact that ANYONE would support DOT- Theist or non! (Idon’t care of someone is atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Jewish, Muslim, or Christian)that would intelligently support the right of ANYONE to bully-in THIS nation. (or frankly in ANY nation!)
1) it interferes with the victim’s right to life, liberty AND the pursuit of HAPPINESS!
2)it is simply NOT the truth that is being expressed-
3)seems to me if Jesus was THAT concerned about it, He would have said something About -”it”- HE DIDN’T
4) I find it odd that ANYONE could suport bullying with an ounce of common sense-
5) As for the free speech argument, I agree, even Mr. Phelps has the right to express his opinon- BUT, he does not have the right to cause emotional, or physical harm, just as no one has the right to free speech when they yell fire on a crowded theater when there is no fire. I wish one Christian could tell me logically, and Scripturally why bullying is OK- Still have not heard or read a reasonable, or intelligent reponse to that!
I am 56 years old, and I grew up in those Beaver Cleaver days- at least where I grew up, people got along better and respected one another’s beliefs without having to agree with them. We live all together in my town, RC, Protestanst of several stripes, Greek and Russian Orthodox and Jewish, and yes, even atheist- the atheist family in our town were some of the most upstanding, kind people I knew, and it would have put many so-called Christians to shame. Still does, how sad!
Bullying was not tolerated in our public schools for ANY reason,. So I have to ask myself, why is it that these days, many (not all) “Christians” have lost that love and gentle demeanor. Why is that? God has not changed, Jesus ‘s teachings have not changed, so why do I see so much hate (not free speech, hate) from so many people calling themselves Christians? Isn’ using the name of God to justify hate of any kind a manner of taking God’s Name in vain? Why with all the LARGER issues, are some of these people so obssessed with what I do or don’t do in my sex life? Too much time on their hands? Easier to judge than actually work out one’s salvation in fear and trembling? Or is it just that bullying begets bullies- and the current generation are filledwith undisciplined bullies from past days? Hmmm, I wonder….
Peace to all here!
Hugs
Bill
Hey all,
I just wanted to say thanks for the information about Beyond Ex-Gay and such. Someone sent me a letter with information that offered some good insight into things … though the envelope didn’t have a return address on it, nor was there a message inside telling me who it was from.
So – cause I don’t know who sent it – I just wanted to say thanks (seriously).
Shawn