The ex-gay “Love Won Out” conference in Birmingham went underway Friday, the final one led by Focus on the Family before they relinquish control to Exodus International amid financial troubles.
Truth Wins Out’s Wayne Besen organized a protest of the conference and spoke at the University of Alabama, Birmhingham on Thursday. This has prompted Exodus V.P. Randy Thomas to call for prayer:
I (Randy) won’t personally be at this particular event but having been to about 20 of them, every single one had some sort of protest and every single time the LWO team responds lovingly. Would you add praying for Wayne and his friends to your prayers for the conference? We’d greatly appreciate it.
There is a promo video, a Twitter account, and a Facebook group for the conference.
LWO’s website says that they have no intention to “cure” gays:
Are you here to “cure” gays?
Absolutely not. The only time you’ll ever hear the word “cure” used in relation to our event is by those who oppose Love Won Out. They also like to claim we want to “fix” or “convert” gays and lesbians and that we believe people can “pray away the gay.” Such glib characterizations ignore the complex series of factors that can lead to same-sex attractions; they also mischaracterize our mission. We exist to help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome. It is not easy, but it is possible, as evidenced by the thousands of men and women who have walked this difficult road successfully.
However, official statements of purpose give another impression.
Focus on the Family is concerned about the message that’s being silenced to our youth today. We want them to know that individuals don’t have to be gay. That’s why we’ve developed a one-day conference for those who have a heart for youth and are concerned about the growing tragedy of homosexuality.
Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that homosexuality is preventable and treatable, a message routinely silenced today. We want people to know that individuals don’t have to be gay.
Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that change is possible for those who experience same-sex attractions — a message routinely silenced today. We want people to know that individuals don’t have to be gay and that a homosexual identity is something that can be overcome.
Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out ministry exhorts and equips the church to respond in a Christ-like way to the issue of homosexuality. And to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, we offer the Gospel hope that these desires can be overcome. By offering conferences, education, counseling and research, the Love Won Out team strives to uphold God’s design for sexuality in a way that transforms lives.
Before, Exodus could always defer to Focus on the Family with complaints, but now that they will be running the show, we’ll see if anything changes. Perhaps there will be an attempt to transform LWO from an ex-gay conference into a “Christian on a post-gay journey” conference.
I think we need to take a new approach to these anti-gay conferences. Showing up to protest and express our anger isn’t helping anyone.
What if, instead, we showed up to express our love to the innocent gay and lesbian people that Exodus and Focus are trying to harm? No protest signs, but signs telling the gay and lesbian participants that we love and accept them and they are beautiful just as they are. No angry shouting into megaphones, but a choir singing a song of acceptance and non-judgment. At the end of the day, they could emerge from their venue to find not an angry mob, but a candlelight vigil to express concern for their well being after their day of being subjected to bigotry.
And we need to back that expression of love up with support: if a young gay person wants to escape their bigoted family on the spot, we need to have ready for them a place to stay and social services to help them put themself on their feet, get an education if necessary, and find a job to support themself in freedom from bigotry, surrounded by new gay friends.
actually Tom, I was under the impression that most of the signs carried by protesters went along the lines of “you are loved”, “God loves you” and “we accept you for who you are.” The pictures shown on TWO’s site demonstrate this and this holds true for past protests.
I like your second idea about support. Unfortunately I have no idea how one would begin to go about this.
What’s being painted here is not the whole picture. I get where you all are coming from, and I bear you no animosity. But take a look at this statement from Wayne Besen in a media account of the LWO conference in Birmingham:
Wayne doesn’t specify what “this” is, but it’s logical to infer he means the overall message of the conference. So, take any of the four evolving versions that Emily gives from FOTF above. Wayne says he personally can testify “that” doesn’t work. But I can personally testify it does.
I attended an Exodus-led conference years ago, with my husband. I’ve heard Fryrear, Haley, Dallas and others speak here and there. Have talked to them face-to-face. Know their testimonies. They know mine. The message does not inherently do harm, and many besides me can counter Besen’s angst.
My Christian ex-gay therapist came out of that same change culture. Today, my husband, who attended some counseling sessions with me when I was battling severe depression, as well as some when I was seeking help for SSA, has no use for any of those therapists except one. Guess which. Harm? Far from it. A saved marriage and a wounded soul healed.
Why, oh why would any of you deny others the freedom they seek in Christ? If real harm is being done, I will be right there beside you (have been, in fact) speaking out against it. The one-size-fits all message Besen preaches is out-moded, simplistic and mean-spirited. He ought not to be cast as a spokesman for XGW.
I know there are fair-minded people here who understand that change is not a euphemism for harm.
Debbie said:
True. We do not think “change” is a euphemism for “harm.” But this is mostly because we have no idea what “change” is even supposed to mean in the first place.
The very existence of the need for FOTF to evolve the message of LWO from “homosexuality is preventable and treatable” to “gospel-centric message of being one in Christ” shows that at one point, LWO carried a much stronger message of sexual orientation shift. But ex-gays have been quietly whispering among themselves for years that the true “change” isn’t gay to straight – it’s the “journey” to “holiness” (that is, no more same-sex sexual activity, simply ‘tempations’ that must be dealt with).
Under Focus on the Family’s leadership, Love Won Out has not offered freedom in Christ.
It has offered freedom from inconvenient facts; freedom from the experiences and values of real gay people; freedom from knowledge of the failures and wrongdoing of the ex-gay movement; freedom from having to recognize the religious freedom of other people; and freedom from any consideration of fairness or justice.
“Freedom in Christ” is achieved through affirmation of freedom and love for everyone, not just the people within your little echo chamber. “Freedom in Christ” is achieved by listening to and supporting one’s neighbors — not preaching at, insulting, shunning, and undermining them.
Love Won Out cannot offer anything approximating “Freedom in Christ” until
— LWO allows on-site free speech for all the LGBT people, their parents, and doctors who are being lied-about and slandered by LWO speakers,
— LWO stops lying about the Bible and falsely presenting discredited Freudian myths as if they have any Biblical or reputable scientific basis
— LWO condemns acts of violence, discrimination, and prosecution which collectively destroy freedom of belief, expression, and religion for LGBT persons and their families.
I don’t want to whip the poor, bedraggled change horse here. Emily and many of us know that the word is all over the map in its appropriation by those with differing ideologies. I hope we can get beyond the need to push either extreme of full orientation shift or no shift at all. There is a much more meaningful place to get to, from a Christian perspective. That LWO realizes this in their evolving mission statement is not a bad thing. Shouldn’t we all want that acknowledgment from them? How about giving them some credit for it rather than dredging up the past?
And Mike, let’s just let both sides continue to present their views in the marketplace of ideas and see what happens. Free speech for all exists, does it not? LWO and Exodus are entitled to call it as they see it, same as TWO is. I don’t think your protests are going to win any points for your side. But you are entitled to them.
O.K. Then why don’t LWO state their objectives more candidly and explicitly? Let’s see:
They ought to add, to prevent misunderstanding, something along the following lines:
“Overcoming those desires” doesn’t necessarily mean that you won’t have same-sex attractions any more; in fact, that’s a most unlikely outcome. What we mean is simply that we’ll help you to resist acting on those attractions. It certainly doesn’t mean that you’ll become heterosexual; that also is a most unlikely outcome. But you might – just might possibly – experience a partial shift of orientation in the heterosexual direction. If you’re hoping to become heterosexual “like everyone else”, the overwhelming probability is that you’ll be disappointed.
William, some Christian ex-gay folks might be similarly motivated to help pro-gay organizations rewrite their mission statements to be more reflective of their worldview. But why go there? As I said before, let the free market of ideas operate as it was meant to.
The more that disgruntled gays push against LOW, Exodus et al, the more they are likely to stick to their guns, whether or not you like what they say or do. “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Two ideologies pushing against one another with some middle ground but a lot more that’s antithetical on the farther-out frontiers. It’s not going to change. The best we can do is treat each other with civility and agree to disagree. Life goes on.
There is no convincing evidence that anyone can change their sexual orientation.
LWO and Exodus have pushed change to mean change of sexual orientation. As people become better informed, that lie is hard to maintain.
Debbie, on the one hand wants to discourage challenges to the ex-gays from Besen and others, then offers comments about the “free market place of ideas.” Ex-gay claims don’t stand up well in the free market place of ideas, because there is no evidence that people can chang their sexual orientation.
All LWO and Exodus can honestly offer is support for celibacy. Their long track record of enticing and encourage gay people to enter into heterosexual marriages and have kids has been a horrible tragedy with the ramifications still playing out.
Debbie, by all means “let the free market of ideas operate as it was meant to,” but it would operate far more smoothly and expeditiously if the ideas were stated clearly, instead of being cloaked in misleading or ambiguous language. Why does the concession that “change” doesn’t mean what the ordinary man or woman in the street would take it to mean have to be more or less dragged out of the ex-gay side?
To say, for example, as Alan Chambers does, “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality; it’s holiness” seems to me about as meaningless as “The opposite of left-handedness isn’t right-handedness; it’s cheerfulness.” Nevertheless, if it really has some profound meaning that is inaccessible to a dunderhead like me, then why not be straightforward and upfront about it at the very start, instead of saying it later when the flimsiness of the evidence for “change”, in the sense that most people would assume it to have, becomes all too apparent? Then we might see candid adverts such as:
GAY? UNHAPPY?
THE OPPOSITE OF HOMOSEXUALITY ISN’T HETEROSEXUALITY, SO FORGET ABOUT IT. IT’S HOLINESS!
http://www.exodus.to
GAY? UNHAPPY?
FANCY A PARTIAL SHIFT IN YOUR ORIENTATION?
IT’S NOT TOTALLY INCONCEIVABLE!
http://www.lovewonout.com
DISSATISFIED WITH YOUR SAME-SEX ATTRACTIONS?
WE CAN HELP YOU TO RESIST THEM AND SHOW YOU HOW TO PUT THEM ON THE BACK BURNER!
http://www.lovewonout.com
Debbie Thurman and LWO oppose the open marketplace of ideas — this is why LWO and Exodus are closed to debate, closed to the facts, strictly policed to prevent inconvenient questions and politically incorrect answers.
I challenge LWO and Exodus to open their doors to a true marketplace of ideas.
I am not constrained by any political correctness — real or perceived — of LWO or Exodus. I speak for myself. And I am not the least bit surprised or put off by the reactions here of those who think the “opposite of homosexuality is holiness” statement is full of it. We’ve got a long way to go to bring total intellectual honesty to this debate.
Those of us who work in ministry to folks who are conflicted about their sexuality — realizing that they have sought us out for help — are only as effective as we are real. Because of the complexities and the gray areas with no clear answers (now or ever, perhaps) related to same-sex attraction, I advocate for a more gentle, commonsense approach that moves away from old hardline, pious platitudes everyone hates. And I have had to grow in this regard, too. But those who seek to follow Christ have to be ready to honestly examine all the Scriptures and doctrines that form the basis of what they believe.
Is there room in the gay-affirming world for people who admit they don’t have all the answers, but whose faith and life journeys have brought them to a place of such significant transformation that they no longer identify as gay? If so, what do we call them? And can we ever cease from requiring them to pass some arbitrary litmus test to prove they are who they say they are? Is this a fair question?
Debbie,
You ponder whether “people… who no longer identify as gay” can exist “in the gay-affirming world”.
You need not wonder. There are people in “the gay-affirming world” who have at one point identified as gay and now find that they better understand themselves as bisexual or perhaps even heterosexual.
There are those who, for reasons unknown and unlinked to reorientation efforts, experience shifts in their attractions. This seems to happen to women more frequently, but I think that it has occured in men as well.
And the gay community welcomes them without hesitation. Joyfully and delightedly we see them not only as friends, but as participants in our community.
And though you might imagine that we view them as a “threat”, we do not. We see people as, well, people and we don’t feel compulsion to dictate which romantic, emotional, or sexual feelings are acceptable and which are to face social rejection.
However, what we do not find welcome are those who find it necessary to demean gay people in order to raise their own self worth. When their “faith and life journeys have brought them to a place of such significant transformation” that they find themselves compelled to speak of others in terms of “empty” or “seeking confirmation for their sinful lifestyle” or “broken” or any of the other self-congratulatory terms that ex-gays so frequently use, then no, there is no room for that.
Nor are ex-gays looking for room. One overriding principle of the ex-gay movement, as I’m sure you agree, is that ex-gays must at all times avoid being in “the lifestyle” and avoid “places of temptation” and be separate from those who “have worldly convictions”. The ex-gay movement is not looking for entry into the “gay-affirming world”, rather they are engaged in political efforts to make the world less gay-affirming. It’s less threatening to them that way.
As Alan Chambers said, “Had same-sex marriage been legal in 1990, I am certain that I would have tested that option.” So, fearing his own strength, he works tirelessly to deny others their own right to self-determination.
And no, there’s no room for that.
Were ex-gays to say, “For me, my faith does not allow me to engage in sex,” few gay folk would have problems with such a conviction. Most have gay friends who have, for various reasons, chosen not to be sexual. But that is not what ex-gays say.
Rather, they say, “Mr. Senator, I am here to testify that gay people should be denied civil rights because I’m living proof that no one has to be homosexual.” Of course, they never explain that this means nothing at all other than “I don’t have sex. Much. Unless I fall. And then I feel really really guilty.”
When ex-gays are content to be ex-gay and cease being anti-gay, I’ll be the first in line to welcome them to the gay-affirming world. But for as long as their efforts include taking away my civil rights and freedoms then, no, there is no place in the gay-affirming world for anti-gay activists.
There IS a place for gays who want to embark on the specific faith journey that LWO advocates – it’s called “Side B.” You can see them at gaychristian.net. Or hop on over to Jay Holloman (College Jay)’s blog, and you’ll see a man who not only has embraced both sides of the community while remaining faithfully Side B, but has in fact been reproached, ignored, or worse by your friend Randy Thomas of Exodus. Why? Aren’t they on the same journey? Or is Jay’s ability to balance his personal journey with true co-existence threatening somehow?
I am the one who brought the protest together in birmingham, and they did help. Read:
http://www.examiner.com/x-17183-Birmingham-Gay-Community-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Inside-and-outside-the-exgay-conference
Hey Joe (and hey Emily! Thanks for the shout-out!) I actually had two good friends (both in their early twenties) go to the conference. I can only speak for them, not the other people that the author of that article wrote about. I do know, though, that these are not guys who doubt that they could be fully happy, functional people in a same-sex relationship. They simply have made the decision to not be in such relationships for their faith. One is even fairly politically liberal, and supports gay marriage.
I think it’s important to remember that there is a lot of diversity, even amongst Side B and ex-gay people. I will admit that those two friends and I have had some pretty heated arguments about, say, psychological theories and semantics. At the same time, they are also open-minded and fair. Neither of them have excluded me or ignored me because I identify as gay, and they also have gay friends and family themselves. I would imagine many of the people who attended the conference do.
Like it or not, Exodus and LWO are going to have to change parts of their messages. They simply won’t be able to get by with saying that actively gay people are miserable or unhealthy because Christians are becoming increasingly aware of gay people who are healthy in their lives. Some gay Christians, like myself, will still choose to be celibate regardless of the fact that we know it’s not a horrible fate to be actively gay. I think this current generation of Side B/ex-gay guys are, however, going to have a better idea about how to go about this journey in an open-minded way, and it would be helpful for those on the other side to recognize that we aren’t all sad, repressed people either simply because we’ve made certain choices concerning our faith and sexuality.
Jay,
If I am reading you right, then this paragraph probably is about you and people who are like you (I wrote the article).
“That conflict will disappear when one accepts that God created them just as they are, that God loves them just as they are, and that God desires for them the same purposeful life that he desires for others, and that that life may or may not include a long term relationship, just as not all heterosexuals find (or desire) a successful partnership in life.”
For you, it seems the conflict has already left. Notice I mentioned that finding a succesful partnership is not for everyone. Jesus made that clear, it seems to me.
But let me tell you, beling celibate can come to a sudden end when one unexpectedly falls in love. But that is just part of this fabulous journey we are all on.
It may not have come across in my article, but those who know me know that I am a Christian (of the liberal type). If a Christian, any Christian, chooses celebacy, that is his or her personal decision for whatever reason, and I am all for that.
However, I know that some “celibate” gay Christians enjoy masterbatory fantasies, and that sort of negates the faith aspect of it…or not. Depends on how one looks at it, I guess.
Well, I don’t know that it’s the same thing. There are many heterosexual people who don’t marry, for one reason or another, but they don’t think that heterosexual relationships are wrong. Likewise, I’m sure there are many celibate homosexuals who are no-less gay affirming. Although I love my actively gay friends, and would never want to doubt their faith in Christ (though I would, of course, debate with them about their theology), I do think that sexual relationships between persons of the same sex are wrong. That’s why I am celibate. It’s not quite the same as someone who just ends up single because they didn’t meet the right guy.
Debbie Thurman said:
That’s just the point, there is no acknowledgement. Anyone can hone statements for PR purposes, but it takes character to acknowledge when one has been wrong, and to ask forgiveness. Just as with Exodus, the changes are made in stealth — a statement changes, a blog disappears, and a new line replaces the old. Focus has quietly distanced themselves in the past from Paul Cameron as well, but never said a word about it. What about those who read Cameron’s bogus statistics and took them seriously because James Dobson was behind them? Sure, they can now legitimately say they do not endorse him or carry his material, but that only helps them.
This kind of deceptiveness is taken even further when they then mock legitimate claims as being only in the minds of their critics. Focus did this on the LWO site (quote above). Exodus has also done this, as you can see in this recent official blog post by Julie Neils. Not only is it sarcastic and cynical, it is factually incorrect. It denies as fantasy many of the most egregious trespasses Exodus has committed. Remember Love In Action (Refuge)? Oh no, that never existed says Neils. And there isn’t room to list the number of times they have claimed that one can change from gay to straight. Oh, figment of the imagination says this ex-FOTF PR person.
And let’s not imagine for one moment that a change of promotional materials necessarily indicates a change in attitude or operation. Again, not coming clean about past wrongs allows them to avoid being held accountable in the present as well.
We should also understand that, while we may admire the efforts of others, XGW is not a bridge building instrument. We are watchdogs who attempt to keep these groups honest. Ideally such efforts would not be needed, but sadly they are – very much so. If that is distasteful, look to Exodus, FOTF, et al, and complain to them.
Concerning other matters, I echo Timothy’s comment above. I don’t think I could say it any better myself.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments from Timothy, Jay, David, Emily and Joe. I’ve conversed with you all either recently or in the past, except, I think, for Joe. (Hi, Joe).
I’ve some additional thoughts. Timothy, I think Jay speaks well to the other side of what troubles you. Like him, I have some gay Christian friends and acquaintances. I respect them. Even like them. They know I will never get in their faces about our differences, but that I do not support their theology. And let me be clear that I am likewise not in lock-step with what many here see as the PR facade of Exodus or LWO.
If you read my blog, you will see that I speak (I’m sure I do it imperfectly at times) from a heart of love for Christ, but I am not afraid of telling it like it is, even when that might put me at odds with the “party line” of the ex-gay movement or even evangelicalism. And I am appalled at the hypocritical tactics and acerbic sarcasm some of my fellow conservatives or evangelicals employ whenever addressing gay issues.
As to how the best-known faces of ex-gaydom ought to be representing themselves or their organizations, I do believe some real self-examination and gut-check honesty are in order. I cannot make them do or say anything, of course. I also respect these folks because I can relate to parts of their journey, and I know it has been far from easy. They/we also smart sometimes from the insensitive pot shots that come from the PR banner carriers for the gay side. So intellectual and spiritual honesty are sometimes lacking on both sides.
And yes, as David points out, I also am aware that XGW is not meant to be one of the several bridge-building efforts out there. Your mission is of a different nature. But I do appreciate that you all are willing to bring our differences to the table at times and openly discuss some of the tough stuff without resorting to demonizing. Thanks for that.
There is no excuse for pulpit-banging harangues that attempt to force-feed a “you must change or else” sermon, whether the targets of such missiles are struggling with homosexuality as sin or are quite content in their gayness. It’s an absurd tactic. I have called out those who continue to hold up the “many thousands” out there … somewhere as living proof that “change is possible.” Saw that again just today already from a person who claims to have been a PR professional in the past. I have asked where those certain figures come from and just what they are supposed to mean, but I never get an answer either.
Of course, change (along a spectrum) is possible, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that it’s a very hard road with no guarantees. Am I going to be encouraging to those who are on that road? You bet! I am privileged to be discipling a small group of women SSA travelers each week. It’s an adventure in faith and patience. I get where Alan Chambers is going with his holiness statement. Drawing near to God, the author and perfecter of our faith, can only lead to some kind of transformation. But it is no guarantee of the kind of happiness we humanly hope for. It is nevertheless worth it, from my perspective as a “former.” That journey has helped me clean up other stuff in my life, as well.
I had an interesting and friendly little debate/discussion with Cal Thomas some years back, not long after his and Ed Dobson’s book, “Blinded by Right” came out. He ended up being the first person to open my eyes to the futility and ungodliness of politically battling for God’s kingdom on earth. And while Cal and I both continue to speak out for what we believe, even when it touches the political spectrum, I think in our hearts we understand how much better it is to pray and work to help usher in the Kingdom from a spiritual vantage point. Man easily deceives himself into thinking he is in charge. Not so.
Sorry for the length of my comment here.
I have seen that some in Exodus and LWO/FOTF maintain an uncomfortable tension in speaking with a “bold mouth and a compassionate heart,” as Melissa Fryrear describes it. I understand that love in that context means offering the whole truth. But it must be done in a responsible way.
And if I may wax Christian for a moment, I would love to see all our prayer efforts focused on positive rather than negative motives. If one truly seeks to know Christ and the body of Christ (the Church) is coming alongside to facilitate that growth in those disciples, we can easily trust the results to God. We don’t have to bear the responsibility for the results, just for our own faithfulness.
FWIW, the last two paragraphs of my comment ended up appearing out of order. Probably doesn’t matter that much. Better get another cup of coffee. 🙂
“Drawing near to God, the author and perfecter of our faith, can only lead to some kind of transformation. But it is no guarantee of the kind of happiness we humanly hope for. It is nevertheless worth it, from my perspective as a “former.” That journey has helped me clean up other stuff in my life, as well. ”
So what has allan chambers been transformed to, since he admits he’s still a big ‘mo.
And how far away from god do you see Gene robinson, the united Church of christ, the episcopal church, and so on?
Hi Debbie,
We have exchanged before and I can’t really articulate anything better than Michael or Timothy or Emily in particular.
Their assertions are true, and that’s what I’ve tried to explain before that the issue isn’t differing ideologies. Being gay isn’t an ideology. But how ONE ideology has restrained self reliance, confused expectations and demanded that civil government hedge the outcome.
And all this exclusively is directed at gays and lesbians whether they choose to belong to the faith community that informs that ideology.
There is little escape from the demands that Christians in particular make on gay lives, nor is there any concern of to what degree or the mental, financial or physical sacrifices these demands require.
Especially when all about you on average, don’t have to put in that kind of work.
They don’t.
Heterosexuals aren’t required, on condition of being so self reliant and considered free and responsible, to be so religious.
People of faith reconcile themselves with all kinds of things considered sins in everyday life, that are actually are vital to health and human progress.
Homosexuality is the ONE sticking factor where an inordinate amount of time, money and political focus is on it.
Seems to me, Debbie, that your dissatisfaction with a fulfilling same sex adult sexual relationship gave a great deal of impetus to your not wanting to be involved in one.
I can understand that. I know plenty of straight women who feel the same way about men, and who swear off of men for a while.
But that’s just the thing.
Relationship fatigue can happen to anyone. But ONLY with gay people is orientation to blame.
It might be considered a good thing to do to turn to a life of faith, if not a therapist for answers.
But the point is the exploitation of relationship fatigue, and fear and ignorance of homosexuality and the outcomes of this exploitation.
I find ex gays exceptionally dishonest when they say that their motive is compassionate, then engage in political action against gay people.
I find ex gays who have no active animus against gay people, exceptionally weak in defending their personal decisions as acceptable as if gays and lesbians are not paying a very heavy price for such decisions.
It comes out, from my observation, as essentially very self serving.
Indeed, ex gays do say that they are put upon and are threatened or denigrated by gay people as if being ex gay isn’t doing any harm.
Or even worse, as if being ex gay doesn’t have a serious veil of deception.
Being ex sexual, for example, is more accurate, than being ex gay for a lot of you.
But that distinction ISN’T always made, is it?
And even if it is: the fundamental and common expectation out there that gay men and women SHOULD live in lifelong abstinence on condition of being accepted is not only unreasonable, those expectations are MEAN, unhealthy and unfair.
I’ve told you over and over again that ex gays do terrible damage to the credibility of gay people. And over and over again, you assert YOUR personal experience. Which is like de facto denial or lacking in intellectual honesty.
You and every other ex gay I’ve spoken to.
So the point is: it doesn’t matter that you and perhaps many other EX SEXUALS might not have any active hostility towards gay people, you’re inevitably a horribly weak or ineffectual supporter of gay people by de fault. You don’t help gay people’s political access and protection whatsoever.
You’re no help at all. You’re a contradiction in the terms most gay people need.
And I have as yet to meet an ex gay person that truly understands how worthless or actively damaging they are to what gay people REALLY need. Even the pro gay ex sexual people.
Really. Are there ANY that can truly EVER say with honesty they might be HURTING gay people and maybe they should be VERY clear that they haven’t changed orientation, so much as religious ideology and for the politically active ex gays to stop exploiting the fatigue that comes with being gay?
Because frankly, why SHOULD a gay person go through all that religious discipline to have rights other people have just waking up in the morning without a prayer on their lips?
Does it not occur to you that the relationship fatigue you’ve had, is a fatigue gay people (and some of us heteros) have for a relationship with Christ?
All the responsibilities of being in the club, without all the privileges?
Ever think that some people have been beat up so much with the cross they see nothing good in accepting Christ either?
Tell you what Debbie. Gay people are not encouraged to be good at their relationships. And I can understand why it would be harder to find satisfaction for that reason. Us straight black women go through A LOT of the same thing. We’re in a minority. There aren’t as many compatible choices around. And blacks and gays have been a marginalized and disenfranchised minority, we suffer from more pathologies within our respective groups.
But I’ll be damned, if I let the dominant consciousness that fomented those problems off the hook for it.
I’ll be damned if straight women have to compete with lesbians for a suitable husband (or vice versa for straight men), another conceit from the faith community.
And I’ll be damned, if I’ll let the consciousness that says gay people can change or should, have a shred of ammunition to fuel that irrational expectation.
I’ll be damned, and frankly, I think you might be too.
Regan: I was going to comment on this, but you did an excellent job. but I will say a few things.
Interesting word, ideology, and one I’ve used before in communication with DT. but as I always say, subtext is everything.
from wikipedia: “An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a ‘received consciousness’ or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.”
So far so good. “Gay is good” and “gay is bad” are both ideological by this definition. but as I always say, subtext is everything. The use of the word is supposed to reduce the whole thing to a difference of opinion, but doesn’t address the subtext.. And since we gay people apparently don’t have THE direct line to god, our opinion is wrong. Sort of the “civil unions” equivalent in this argument– it’s good enough for the likes of us, but it is simply our ideological opinion, and as such, doesn’t really matter.
DT exists in a world where the ideology, as defined above, is “gay is bad and you need to change it.” Love the sinner, hate the sin, and so on. And since god is on your side, anything you say or do is quite ok. Not necessarily DT personally, though I’ve detected whiffs of it here and there. but the whole anti-ex-gay industry.
But there is in fact a difference in our two ideologies, and it is in fact not merely a difference of opinion. On the one hand, DT and her cohorts believe, without question, and possibly even sincerely, that they might possibly understand something that might theoretically be, in a vague, general, sort of a way, about homosexuality, as least as far as it was understood by desert tribes 2000 years ago and 8000 miles away, in a book that some people think has divine authority, in one or another of its legion of versions. They certainly knew the value of pi (3), women (none), shrimp (don’t), bacon (don’t), and animal sacrifice to appease a vengeful god (doesn’t work). Why wouldn’t they know something about this?
And of course, we would understand it as clearly as they stated it. (Hint: they didn’t). This book that has gone through 2000-2600 years of translation, interpretation, redaction, editing, misunderstanding, political meddling, confusion, retranslation, reinterpretation and– dare we say it?– MISUSE.
On the other hand, we have an ideology based upon experience. It my 59 years, I have yet to see one thing inherently negative or life-compromising about being gay– not one– except for the negative consequences of the extra-ordinary attention that religious and social conservatives pay to what make my dick hard. I have known no gay people personally who believe that their lives are somehow worse for being gay, or who blame being gay for the difficulties and unhappiness in their lives.
with one exception– the class of gay people who hate themselves so much that they would willingly put themselves in the hands of homophobic churches and the ex-gay industry. They even blame their poor relationship with god on it. These are, without exception, the only ones I have ever seen.
Do you think there is a connection?
Of course there is. when someone tells you that you are dirty, sick, unclean, and especially, sinful and in need to salvation (which they offer, of course, and in the case of the ex-gay industry, at a price) it is the biggest mistake in the world to assume that 1) it’s true, and 2) that they are telling you for your benefit, and not for their own. The concept of sin, especially YOUR sin, becomes the expression of their will and their way of seeing the world, and if it is making you unhappy, or interfering with your life, then that is probably a good test of its truth value. Likewise, you pay the price with happiness in your life, while they reap the benefits– or, validation–and the “glory”.
Hey, I saved a soul today. Are you running with me, Jesus?
What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality? Somehow, this subject, so all-fired important to a portion of his followers, escaped his notice. Or perhaps it was left out of one of those many translations and interpretations and editions of the bible. Or maybe he just didn’t think it was particularly important, running around in the desert with all those guys, as he was. After all, there are only 7 passages in the entire bible that may possibly have something to do with what possibly might be homosexuality, and well over 250 telling heterosexuals what they will burn in hell forever for. He was quite specific about adultery and divorce for virtuous heterosexuals, but I haven’t yet seen the family values crowd start any political campaigns against offenders. You can bet it is fine with them for any adulterer to get married and divorced as often as they can afford it, as long as they ask for forgiveness of their sins just prior to committing them again.
Jesus had nothing, not one word, to say about homosexuality, as understood in either his own day or in ours. He did say, and clearly, “Feed the poor.”
So here is my question to all good Christians: how many children died of hunger in Darfur, in Iraq, in Zimbabwe, in Congo, in Bangladesh while you spent your resources “fixing” people with whom there is nothing wrong except that they’ve bought what you are trying to sell them for your own reasons, still unclear? How many children are suffering from horrible diseases because they have no medical care, in the favelas of Rio or the slums of Mexico City to the jungles of sub-Saharan Africa, because your money and energy is used to attack me and my family and my friends.
You don’t even have the shabby excuse of a benefit to you or your family, let alone your religion. What’s truly sad is that it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference to you in either case, because ultimately, you don’t care about us or them.
and given that these children are dying, given that there are wars all over the world, given the environmental disasters we may be facing as a species, given the poverty, hate, fear, starvation, illiteracy,given the on-andon-and-on-and-on that you do not give a distended belly about, given your founder’s very words, how is it that you have managed to appoint oyurselves the guardians of other people’s morality?
You bring up some good and passionate points, Regan, but I’m not comfortable with this last statement.
Hey, Regan. So, how do you REALLY feel? Got the picture. You speak as if you know the gay struggle from the inside out. But I guess you’re an empathetic sort. OK.
I missed where I (or other ex-, post- or whatever-gays) am somehow required or expected to go out and actively fight politically for gay people. Is it OK if I just don’t hinder the process? We do both get to speak our piece, of course. It’s a free country, and here lots freer than most everywhere else. I am thinking specifically about Uganda. And other places, of course.
Interesting how I merely opened my mouth a few weeks ago in another forum, suggesting that folks who were upset about Uganda’s push to exterminate (quite literally, in some instances) their “gay problem” could, in fact, be doing something. Then I gave some suggestions. And lo and behold, a movement was born, and there sat little ol’ me at the tip of the spear. I mentioned that little fact to you in our last forum conversation, but you ignored it. Whatever.
That I am of no help and not what is needed (did I get that right?) would be amusing news to the SSA (they are not all gay-identified) women in my weekly group.
I just don’t know what else to say, Regan. I surely didn’t come here to start a war of words. Crazy world, isn’t it? Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Though I would have expressed it differently, I do certainly think of that. It saddens me. Especially since Christ’s shoulder is the very one all who are “weary and heavy-laden” are meant to lean on while he bears one end of the burden with us. Did Christ cause that “relationship fatigue” some may feel in regards to him? Most assuredly not. I am not big enough to cause it, either.
Hey, Ben. Um, thanks … I think.
I can answer one of your questions: Last night I got to watch as Freedom Ministry — that would be the one that also has groups for SSA men and women — presented a sizable check to Vernon Brewer, director of World Help — that would be the Vernon Brewer who works with African AIDS orphans and who I brought into the Uganda anti-homosexuality bill loop. The check was for our combined donation for a deep-bore well that will be dug in Guatemala and dedicated in March. One of my group members will be with the team ministering to that village. Sixty percent or more of the children in Guatemala have no clean water to drink. It’s a major issue around the world.
If any of you are interested in giving or knowing more, the Web site is CauseLife.org.
It was gratifying beyond words to be able to do that. In fact, we were giddy with joy. I am part of a very giving church. There are lots more like it.
Hi Debbie, I appreciate your response. Perhaps because you DID, you’re easier to target.
To be honest with you, I’ve had too many straight people repeat BACK to me, exactly what the ex gay movement foments.
I resent it.
As for you opening your mouth about Uganda and starting a movement?
Well, what DID the Ugandans assert all along? What has always been their expectations?
And who got there first and now comes the damage control.
Good luck. I got no faith in it.
Uganda is a long way from Maine. A long way from CA a long way from what can be accomplished here in America, if anything.
Jesus is INTANGIBLE. And a good many Christians are patently resistant to the most fundamental directive he gave.
Perhaps it was hard not to personalize my statement because it was directed at you. But not altogether just you. But even if what I’d said was fairly more generalized, you do address this as if you’re the one, the only experience we’re talking about.
But when the issue IS about political action, credit will be taken for what looks humanitarian, and credit abandoned when there is a serious fu*k up somewhere.
The Uganda issue is an example of the exploitation of a stereotypical expectation of gay people, also supported by the ex gay movement.
Now that the wildfire PREDICTABLY got started, I don’t think anyone can put it out. Not anyone without a lot of casualties in the meantime.
Don’t count your results before they are all in, that’s what I’d advise on Uganda.
The general public doesn’t know about Uganda, and likely doesn’t much care. Gay folks get upbraided regularly as if wrongful to focus on marriage equality as ‘more pressing issues are at hand” as if to say gay people are selfish or not suffering from the same problems. Or even moreso for lack of equal protections.
Gay people’s problems are NOT a priority much. Let alone in a far away place.
You know the prevailing belief is that if gay people don’t want to have problems, they don’t have to be gay.
Right?
Or Jesus will comfort all those problems. Talk to Jesus and NOT the people right in your face you know cause them.
I’ve seen WAY too much abuses BY religious belief to have THAT much faith it will be dispensed properly, fairly and honestly, Debbie, how can anyone know the difference when bad intentions have kind faces?
Betrayal is just a back turn away, and from whom, it’s almost impossible to know.
Ask all those gay Ugandans. They NEVER had the luxury of making a choice for Jesus before or since their civil rights were at risk.
Please.
Do not make less of the negative effect of what you believe has actually had on real lives, including yours and more of the positive effect you can really have after the damage is done.
That is why I seem hard on you. I don’t see enough difference in you and the people who have done so much damage before I even started talking to you.
If you ARE different, even so. Give me time, not platitudes ESPECIALLY about Jesus.
Then you’ll seriously set me off. And I’m REALLY wanting to be kind to you. There is enough ugliness in the world and I don’t want to add more.
Debbie,
Did you read the article here lower down the web page about Rick Warren and what he said, and how it was extrapolated?
Or the Africans that have responded there, what they know about the Ugandan Parliament and American interference with their culture and laws?
There is a great deal there that has nothing to do with what Americans think. They’ve already had their beliefs, understanding of their civil law AND are quite supportive of getting gay people punished and in ways they feel are rightful.
You yourself have used the word ‘lifestyle’ to describe your orientation.
The bell, I fear, cannot be unrung in Uganda. The issue was settled, well before Rick Warren got there. And the Ugandans found enough to validate what they want to do.
Retraction or redirection of energies towards what is more humanitarian towards gay people can be ignored.
The goal, is to make gay people disappear, or live in fear of ever appearing. Even appearing to be real human beings.
Invoking Jesus and God won’t help much, it tends to offend those who want to take what to do about gay people literally.
Even Jesus couldn’t petition for HIS life, remember?
He’s God. We’re not. He came to die … for us. To have held onto his life would have meant eternal death for us all. Now we have a choice.
Yes, the Uganda situation is a tough one. Don’t know if the international community can have much net impact. It does look rather bleak. But I do believe in the power of prayer. And that God may be moving through all of it in His way, which may not be too favorable to Uganda. They may end up being shamed and reaping what they sow.
I reread your post and want to address a few points you made.
“I missed that ex or post gay people are required or are expected to go out and politically fight for gay people.”
No, you’re not. In fact, that’s my point, you COULDN’T. It would be a weak contradiction. You can’t fight for what you have personally rejected for yourself.
I have never said and wouldn’t, that you have an obligation that way.
But you know damn well just the opposite happens with the majority of ex gays, and frankly, I think it’s evil, considering the stakes.
“That I am of no help and not what is needed would be amusing to my SSA (who don’t all identify as gay) women in my weekly group.”
I’m sure it would be.
But it’s not so fucking amusing to those SSA young girls and women that have preachers and teachers and parents in their faces dictating to them they have to change and should. It’s not so amusing to a teenager that gets approached by the likes of Exodus and other ex gays and their parents closing ranks on them and threatening them with some kind of abandonment for the validation and aggrandizement of the ex gay commercial machine.
It’s not about YOU. Another symptom distinct in ex gays.
You will take credit and pat yourselves on the back for attracting more souls to your ranks, but when a serious screw up happens in other ways, directly or indirectly, none of you will take the weight.
I wasn’t talking about your weekly group, I was talking about the lesbians who don’t want it and are faced with unpredictable consequences if they don’t go along to get along the way you do.
THAT’S who you don’t help.
And it’s the gay folks who have yet to fully realize their potential that have to deal with the consequences.
As for not being a hinderance?
You really think you’re not one? Guess again.
For every example you give of gay people accomplishing ex sexuality, you represent a hinderence to gay people’s cred that they can’t and shouldn’t be expected to live JUST as you’re doing.
See?
As long as you set the example the opposition to gay lives expect in the first place, you will ALWAYS be a hinderance and do damage. It’s a de facto betrayal.
Deal with the truth of that. Just accept that. Don’t try to make this about having a personal choice respected when in the greater sphere it ISN’T a personal choice for many. It’s the terms of living free and in self reliance and WITHOUT religious discipline as a condition of it.
Expect no applause, perhaps not even respect.
The consequences of betraying your own, even in Jesus’s name.
Thanks, Regan. You’ve just validated it all for me. This is exactly what I am promised in this world. No surprises. It seems you have some accepting to do, as well.
Debbie Thurman said
When I read this, my draw dropped. As religious people, are we to allow religion become a “market” where we “sell” our message? If Exodus and the like are truly out to save souls and convert gays into straights, then there shouldn’t be a fee.
But if we take this concept of “free market,” remember that in most countries with a “free” market, the market really isn’t free. If you make a claim, you have to back it up. If I am selling a vacuum cleaner and say it can clean your carpet and save you thousands of dollars off your electric bill, I need to back that statement up. I need to prove it with real statistics. Otherwise, I could be liable for falsifying my product. While I have “freedom of speech” to say whatever I want about my product, I still have to follow laws and guidelines in order to solicit my product to potential customers.
So too in religion do we need to back up our claims. One has the freedom to say “Jesus can save you from homosexuality” but they need to back up their claims. And since that person is acting as a spokesperson for Christ, they need to be sure of their claims.
All I have ever seen come out of Exodus and the like are homosexuals parading around as heterosexuals. All I have seen is on the surface there is change. But in religion, surface counts for very little. Religion is about chaning the inside not the outside. And if one really reads Christ’s message, one sees very quickly that outwards appearances account for nothing to him.
Christ’s message was about changing one’s heart not their sexual orientation. He regarded marriage as temporary and saw no need to marry himself. he preferred his followers not to marry, and the majority of his apostles abandoned their wives to spread his message after his death and resurrection.
I have always believed that if Christ came back today, Christians, the same ones who claim to follow him, would nail him to a cross faster than the Romans could, because he would piss off almost every preacher and TV evangelist and pope and bishop with his message.
I can’t be gentle about this Debbie.
What frustrates and pisses me off, is that to a one, it’s like ex gays behave as if they’ve accomplished something that’s worthy of praise and as if it isn’t at the expense of gay people and their most fundamental rights and protections.
Even those who aren’t especially hostile or working politically directly against gay people, still betray them profoundly.
And it’s that particular way of being in denial of that, or upset that praise and respect isn’t coming, is seriously vexing.
It’s as if you need validation so badly, you don’t care about who it betrays and hurts in the long run.
So your endeavors, while I would agree, should be respected as a free choice, we know it isn’t for a lot of vulnerable people.
So it’s not free, it costs. A lot.
And if it’s easier and more comfortable for you to go about your business feeling better for and about yourself, then go on about it.
Just go on.
Just don’t think for a second no one else suffers because of YOUR need to relieve your own.
That’s all I’m trying to say.
Wrong. Just wrong, and I won’t mince words here, either, Regan.
Damn right. And it ought to. It cost Jesus Christ everything to open the door of life and freedom for us all. I will continue to offer him freely to anyone who comes to me, seeking. It’s a tough road to walk. So what?
And since today happens to be Veteran’s Day — and yesterday was the Marine Corps birthday — let me also remind you it cost a whole lot of men and even some women (yes, many veterans of color and also some gay ones) everything to uphold your right, as an American (I presume you are one), to come here or to any blog and spew your angry rant de jour. I took an oath many years ago to defend the Constitution — with my very life, if necessary — that gives you and others that right of free speech. And yes, that includes the right of all minorities, including GLBTs, to also serve, whether flaunting gayness or being free not to.
Were I not to offer the same freedom I have graciously received from my Savior to others languishing in desperation who seek it, I would be selfish and a traitor to my Lord. And I will not do or be that.
It’s time — past time — for you to get off your ridiculous and dated soapbox and realize that folks like you, Regan, are inadvertently betraying the very ones you claim and seek to uphold by pigeonholing them and giving them excuses to see themselves as helpless victims, set upon by all ex-gays. Nonsense!
No one has perfected anger and the religion of “victimology” as well as the GLBT community. Do gays have justifiable reasons to be angry? You bet. Are many of them running through the halls with their hair on fire instead of growing the real backbone they need? Yep.
When will you all learn that you have a friend in me who is not afraid to stand up to the whiny, ranty, unChristian, right-leaning bullies who don’t get you like I do? You can’t or won’t trust me. Fine. That’s your problem. Get over yourselves.
Regan does not speak for the entire XGW community. I know that. But you all are surely more than willing to let her take over, it seems.
Instead of “watching” ex-gays continually, looking for some faux pas to justify your existence and self-righteous indignation or hang your pain on, how about catching more of us doing good? Or just let us be and build your own positive platform.
And you wonder why YOU get stereotyped.
I don’t usually spend a lot of time bantering back and forth with people whose opinions are not going to change but I know a lot of that goes on, on forums of this type. On my own blog I finally had to refuse accepting comments from certain individuals who would argue the same hateful and homophobic points again and again.
But I do keep up with the comments once I have left one of my own. My purpose in leaving a comment the other day was to let people know that the teens in the Birmingham conference had been told that God loves them as they are and that they can be themselves and have a fulfilling life.
But after following the comments for the past few days, I feel I have to respond.
Whether they admit it or not, Debbie and others who claim they have overcome same sex attraction and are now involved in an opposite sex relationship, are nothing more than bisexual individuals who have made a choice to pursue what is more acceptable according to their faith.
There is no change.
Everyone has the choice of whether to act on their sexual attractions, for some those attractions are only toward members of the same sex, for others, they view members of both sexes as potential partners.
If they choose to avoid sex altogether, that might be a change, but it’s just a change of behavior, not a change of orientation.
Doing that is fine. But when they carry it further, trying to influence others in ways that make a person, especially a teen, deny who they are, then harm is being done.
The same clinical psychologist that I interviewed for the story told me that after listening to Melissa Fryrear, that she looked like she was about to have a “low-grade breakdown all day long,” and that she lacked self esteem and was looking for approval.
Is that what we want for our teens? To lead them into a life of self denial and never ending conflict? Think of the harm done when one of these teens feels that they must find a person of the opposite sex to marry, and does so, and produces children. I know, I did that (personal note, my children are grown and fine). Because of the expectations of society (and to some extent, religion) I married. But such marriages don’t last, at least not for a gay person (maybe they can for a bisexual person) because in the end, we learn that in order to be true to God, we must be true to ourselves.
I guess my points are:
1. Ex-gay mministries are a sham. Regardless of what they say or how they say it, they do claim to be able to change one’s sexual orientation. They claim you can pray away the gay. Bull.
2. Ex-gay ministries do harm. A. They harm young people. I met two this past weekend in Birmingham who had been through the process, and were screwed up because of what the ministry told and did to them. B. They harm other gays, because they fight against equality. C. They do harm because they are directing energy and resources away from the true problems of poverty, environment and way that plague our country and the world.
Joe, please get informed before running your face. Or not. I may stop here to care from time to time (I am a cock-eyed optimist who dares to hope there may be some enlightenment coming here), but I have work to do, so I am pressing on. I care little about the false drivel you may spread about me. You really don’t know me a whit.
How sad that you and so many others just cannot get over believing fervently that the evil ex-gays are out to get you. It’s actually embarrassing to be accorded so much power in your eyes. There ought to be a new diagnosis in the DSM for this. But then, paranoia is already there.
This is the saddest one of all. Please, please do something to make me believe you don’t really believe this hyperbolic nonsense. Sad, sad.
Debbie,
Exodus has accused me (and all homosexuals) of being “agents of wickedness”(Andy Comisky 2008). They have said that “Satan” is using us to “further his agenda” (Alan Chambers 2005).
This is not paranoia. It’s demonization by a so called Christian movement. But you are right, the “evil ex-gays” are out to get us.
Their leaders are failures. “If an attractive man and an attractive woman enter a room, it is the man I will look at first” (Alan Medinger 1993). I could go on with more examples, but you already know who they are.
I am more informed than you might imagine, but I don’t have to defend my credentials on here. What I said about you was based on what you have written on this blog.
Exodus has an annual budget of over one million dollars and spends a quarter of that on its Exodus Youth program. That is money thrown away.
Why not spend that money, if it must be spent on gays, on empowering gay youth and contributing toward their self-steem rather than beating them down and recommending they enter ex-gay residential programs that demand they abandon their own family members who may be gay friendly. They try to change people by changing their underwear from Calvin Klein to Fruit of the Loom and requiring them to drink Gatorade and call each other dude.
A yellow wall is not blue, I don’t care who says it is.
I stand by what I said. Christianists who put fighting the evils of homosexuality at the top of the agenda are not following the teachings of Christ, who focused on addressing poverty, not changing the unchangeable.
Satan can and does use any of us to further his agenda, if we are not careful. I believe he is using the Church most of all these days. Yeah, that one makes we weep.
No, but those are complementary colors. Being gay, you should know that. 🙂
We are not so far from being cut from the same cloth, Joe. Look at one color, close your eyes and reopen them. You’ll see the other.
Anyone who elects, because of his or her belief about sin and out of obedience to God, to forgo homosexual behavior or seek counsel in doing so, is merely the flip side of your same coin. I elect to give you the freedom to be who you are, and to do what you feel you have to in helping others like you with their self-acceptance. How can I prevent that? Just let me likewise be who I am and help those who need my kind of help. You can be heads and I’ll be tails. Doesn’t matter to me.
Faux Pas? Justify your existence? Way to build a bridge, Debbie. You have no idea what you are talking about there, no idea at all.
Regan, again, passionate discussion is one thing, but please watch the language. Do you really want to be the reason that someone is unable to read XGW because the site is snagged by a web filter somewhere? We aren’t here just for the choir.
I sense that, as with you and Throckmorton, you and Debbie might have brought the remnants of prior troubled personal exchange into the discussion here. If you have unresolved issues with each other, please deal with those off site. If this is not the case, then please – both of you – stop the personal attacks.
This also seems like a good time to remind everyone that this is not a Christian site, a Mormon site, or any other [insert faith here] site. We deal with Christian issues because they are almost always inseparable from or main topic of interest, the ex-gay industry (and to a lesser degree, Mormonism and Judaism). So where these issues of faith intersect our topics, they will be discussed.
If one’s personal beliefs must be explained to some extent to bring context to the discussion, that is fine. However, please do not present these in such a way that the audience is expected to take them as granted. That kind of discussion, along with any kind of proselytizing, is for another blog at another place and time.
Debbie, I don’t flatter myself, nor try to speak for ALL of the ex gay community.
I have ears, I have eyes, I know how I have been treated by said community and I know what mistakes are being made.
I am a serious observer, and there are other analogies that can be made.
Such as why anorexia is a problem among women especially and why it exists.
What happened when a young Jewish Russian immigrant angrily said he hated being Jew. I know from where that comes from.
Or the flawlessly beautiful Japanese friend of mine who wanted to alter her eyes.
Or why black people straighten their hair.
Girl, please.
All of these are examples of people who will endure physical pain, mental abuse and great monetary expense to CONFORM to an unnatural and unrealistic standard that is UNNECESSARY and impossible to conform to.
And you WOULD invoke this veteran’s holiday as I am the daughter of a black WW2 vet who had to endure the outrage of JIM CROW, and worked towards civil rights protections for everyone.
I have gay vet friends who are enduring much the same in fighting for rights for others they do not fully have at home.
And it’s ME who, in the work of crime scene photography with the police, and just everyday in advocacy for gay youth, who sees the abandoned and homeless children thrown from their Xtian homes because they won’t or can’t meet the standard of doing exactly what you are doing.
Yes, those young people are betrayed by those gays and lesbians such as yourself who the parents can point to as an example of the “thousands who have left the slavery of homosexuality and found holiness in Christ.”
Homophobes as well as just the misinformed have YOU to point to as an example of why gay people don’t require any ‘special rights’.
They point to YOU, as an example.
I know better than to smudge the dignity I see gay folks live in everyday.
This isn’t about victim hood and claiming it, but rather acknowledging the root of certain beliefs that do no good, compromise honesty and the credibility of those whose lives are the most affected by those beliefs.
You threw back exactly what I expected you to: the NEGATIVE consequences of what you do and tried to make that negative about me. Tried to hold me responsible for what happens to gay people who don’t accept Christ, but you put me down for not accepting your actions unconditionally.
There is a difference between accepting what you do, and having any respect for it. I don’t have any choice in accepting it or not, you’re going to do it.
And don’t get upset because I’m not IMPRESSED by you and what you do. There is a difference there too.
And your true colors about ‘disgruntled gays’ and giving orders about what gay people should really be doing with their lives is an example of an easy put down of people you give up.
Stereotypes will be created, no matter what gay people do. You’d like to think you’re just the flip side of the same coin. Doing what you want as if one side gets TREATED and RESPECTED the same.
Well they don’t. And don’t pretend there is no difference. You know there is, you know why.
My friends here don’t need to engage me to speak for them. This is a very, intelligent and loving crown. I DEFER to their experience and came here to LEARN from them.
I just offer an opinion, NOT INSTRUCTIONS.
I just offer support and acceptance, NOT more of the same religious dictation that got us all here in the first place.
When I was very ignorant and seeking information and didn’t know much about ex gays to begin with.
I got terse, snobbish non answers from Dr. Throckmorton and still do.
And every other ex gay I ever tried to talk to.
Chad Thompson was friendlier, but naive and clueless.
Otherwise there has been a serious breakdown of civility coming from ex gays, and I see why.
When you’re busted, you can’t handle it.
When someone doesn’t get impressed by you, you can’t handle it.
And when you’re told exactly what your activity does, you can’t handle that either.
You like to THINK of yourself as a friend. But we’ve all known someone that THINKS they are being helpful and want to help, but in the end, they really aren’t much help at all in the bigger consequence of their motives.
What would I have looked like when my young friend, raised to hate being Jewish, had been encouraged by me to abandon his Jewish heritage to become a Christian, where he’d be more accepted?
I couldn’t do that?
Why?
Because Jews are already a minority under siege. There are less of them, and if they disappear, no one will know who they really were.
Gay people are still wrestling to assert THEIR identity and place among humanity. There are fewer, much fewer already. I wouldn’t want to for there to be even less, and for people to have less understanding and knowledge of who gay people really are.
That gay people are more visible, children coming out, people having to deal with this community for the formidable allies they SHOULD be is encouraging.
Christians are more and more strongly pushing at gay people almost exclusively.
The ranks of Christians and the adherents have no such fear of ever losing their place or identity in the world.
THAT is the bigger point that’s the most important.
Your cheap and easy shot at trying to accuse me of worse damage was stupid.
You want respect, don’t condescend and speak for ME.
Fair enough. The message of the Gospel, as I understand it, can be summed up in these words:
Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life. For God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that through him the world might be saved.</strong
Sorry about the incompetent formatting of my previous post.
Hi David, point taken.
And no, this isn’t about a prior problem with Debbie and Throckmorton.
I certainly didn’t have one.
Especially anything personal against either one of them.
But there is an all of a piece theme to the defensiveness of some ex gays that can’t be helped, the hit dog will holler.
Regan, you do shout loudly and angrily, and that is no crown to be worn that I am aware of. So be it. Nothing has changed here in the past year. Sound and fury. Water off a duck’s back.
That’s a tough go. This tells me something I didn’t know about you, Regan. I’ll take that as my useful nugget. Of course, I have nothing personal against you. And I forgive you.
And Dave, the whole bridge-building thing seems to mean different things to different people. For me, Christ is the true bridge. Always has been. But the side that must be accessed by the unbeliever or the closed-minded person may as well not exist. That applies to folks on both sides.
Please, go back to third-person ex-gay bashing now. The law of diminishing returns is in effect here.
Debbie, using the ‘you’re angry now and sound so angry and get loud’ and that crack about wearing it like a crown was cheap and condescending. Something you’re not above, apparently.
There are some kinds of angry that’s good. It gets me through the kind of things I have to see, and what I do about it. I do a lot more than pray. I get dirty and have to do some serious mental and emotional heavy lifting to handle it and to be effective. And I LISTEN to the gay folks. I have been entrusted with some amazing gay teenagers, I don’t think you can be trusted with.
Why should they be? In that, I have a great deal of responsibility. What you’re witnessing is ‘mama bear’. That’s their nickname for me. Not anger, but protectiveness.
I have tried to listen to those who share your ideals. I REALLY tried to be fair. You and your fellows had your chance and if I’m not buying, oh well.
I did nothing to be forgiven for. Arrogant of you to assume it.
If you think I’m wrong about you, you’re the one that has to prove I misjudged you. If you’re not trusted unconditionally:
What made you think you should or deserve to be?
Did the ex gay folks tell you that declaring your ex sexual self would get you universal acceptance?
NOBODY has that.
Ex gay folks don’t accept me, and I can live with that.
Debbie,
The ex-gay movement has made a name for itself through it’s work to deny equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans. Alan Chambers bemoaned the Supreme Court’s decriminalization of sodomy. An Exodus Board Member went to Uganda to participate in a hateful anti-gay symposium that was the lead up to the currently proposed death penalty for gay people in Uganda. Exodus officials said they were “proud” of him.
Exodus and the ex-gay movement attack gay people every day and actively support others who are doing the same. If not for this history and the ongoing actions of Exodus and the ex-gay movement, gay people wouldn’t even bother with ex-gay folks.
What part of “love thy neighbor” is involved in criminalizing gay people, denying them equal rights in our society and lending support to efforts to impose the death penalty on gay people in Uganda?
I believe that any religion or religious group (doesn’t matter the faith) that isn’t focused on treating neighbors as they would wish to be treated as being corrupt organizations that should be viewed with great suspicion.
Ex-gay bashing? It’s not bashing someone who claims to no longer be gay that is being “bashed” but rather the methods that ex-gay institutions (such as Exodus) use and the institutions themselves.
That anyone would use religion as a means to single out a group and attempt to destroy them is what is at issue here. And Christianity has had a long history of doing just that. Not that Christianity is a religion of elimination, but that there are people who are already on the warpath and use Christianity as a means to their ends.
For some of us who are Christian and write on this blog, we question the motives of Exodus and the like. We comment on what they are doing. We see the distructive force that these ex-gay cooperations do all in the name of God and are appauled.
I remember as a child learning the song “Jesus love me, this I know, for the Church (raised Catholic, we used “Church” not “Bible”) tells me so.” Then I’m told as an adult that because I’m gay Jesus doesn’t love me anymore, or he would love me better if I was straight. That I’m a defective being. That my parents are to blame. That I am not masculine enough. That if I just play baseball I will not be attracted to men. That I can’t marry the one I love … I have to marry a woman or I’ll burn in hell.
So if it seems that I, or others, seem to “bash” the ex-gay movement, maybe we have a few reasons for doing so.
Debbie Thurman said:
What are you talking about here? I assume you mean Warren Throckmorton’s forum but he didn’t understand this comment any more than I did. Are you actually claiming to have started the opposition work to this bill? You make a lot of claims for yourself, but that’s a bit rich.
Do you understand how this makes you look, Debbie? These people are not some project for you, which you can make nice to and then drop when the “returns diminish.” But even when you are trying to say you care (in the worst example of such I think I’ve ever heard), you couple it with sophomoric insults (running your face???) and a claim that, while you “care,” you have more important things to be doing. Good Lord God Almighty! How on earth could anyone resist such a loving example of a person touched by God?
I know why Regan and some others say what they say, and react the way they do, what is your excuse? I challenge you to read over what you have said here from the other person’s perspective. If you want to be in ministry, and you claim that is what you are doing, then you don’t have the luxury of smart-alec retorts and back-handed insults. Nor should your patience be rice-paper thin. I suggest you detach from the Internet for a few months and deal with your own issues before making the lives of those to whom you “minister” that much worse.
There is a word for your display here — hypocrisy. It’s ugly and we have all been there. You are there now.
Debbie Thurman and Randy Thomas have been been battling against the human-rights campaign in Uganda since March. Even now, at Warren Throckmorton’s blog, she defends the “Christian” spirit behind the Uganda legislation and she seems to be opposed only to the death penalty — if that.
The human-rights campaign has been driven, in the U.S. and globally, by secular human-rights and equality activists. The new Christian-community effort by Andrew Marin and Warren Throckmorton is invaluable, but it’s a very late start.
Mike, one day you will have to give an account for that blatant and evil lie. What drives you to such divisiveness is beyond me. And Dave knows full well it is a lie. He can step up here and do the right thing. Will he? I came into this discussion because I actually believed something fruitful might come of it. Dave, you had me believing that. Was I dead wrong? Mike’s comment is beyond the pale, even for him.
And Dave, the comment I made about my role in the Uganda anti-homosexuality bill protest, or however we wish to refer to it, was speaking to the events that led up to Warren Throckmorton creating his Facebook group and folks beginning to find concrete ways to speak out. I did research and provided the first contacts for response to the bill. And a lot more besides. It’s on the record at Warrren’s blog. But it doesn’t matter. All anyone seems to want to do here is bite the hand that attempts to reach out. So, I am a hypocrite now. That’s sweet. Thanks.
I will take my lumps where they are merited. I’ve humbled myself before, and will likely have to do so again. It’s called life. In the heat of battle (debate), we all say things that would have been better left unsaid. Please forgive me if I caused unmerited pain with any of my words. Realize that there is a kind of sorrow we are all meant to know, one of convicting insight in our spirits. God will have to judge which is which here. But this is the point in the discussion where we are called to look beyond that, to rise to our “better angels,” to the extent that we have them.
My prayers upon awaking this morning were for you, Dave, and Regan, specifically, above all others. They were Spirit-directed. I truly bear you no ill-will. I am called to walk in a way that brings honor and glory to God. My words will not always be dripping with honey as I defend my faith and His truth. The word of truth is a two-edged sword, or as the author of Hebrews puts it, a scalpel surgically dividing good from bad. That’s the tough part. Compassion bids me to forgive and seek reconciliation after the conflict. That’s the love part. You are free to believe that or reject it. Your choice.
Grace, mercy and peace to you.
Debbie,
When it was announced that a Wanted ad had appeared in The Monitor (not the first time this has happened, by the way), you spoke in vague terms of washing your hands of Uganda and focusing on issues at home. Whatever your intent, the manner in which you expressed it was all too typically ambiguous, given your and Randy’s other vague statements.
Much of your discussion here at XGW has also danced around any concrete position.
Please state unambiguously your exact position on every element of the Uganda legislation. What punishments do you oppose, what punishments do you support, and to what extent do you acknowledge that U.S. ex-gay activists helped launch this campaign.
And stop portraying yourself as a victim here. Your self-pity is shameful. The real victims here are the Ugandan people — and the “Christians” who will be judged by God for their hatred and violence against fellow men.
OK, Mike. Since you asked, here is precisely what I said in that comment:
Folks can read the comment here, if they want to.
As you, and those who I hope can read better than you do, can see, I said my heart was heavy because of the Fort Hood slaughter, and on that day, it precluded my speaking out on Uganda. As it should have.
The next day (yesterday), I came back to resume that campaign, to do what I have been doing for the past several weeks.
But let’s not stop there, Mike. Let’s keep going, as you have more questions and still seem to be reading-challenged.
1. I am opposed to the bill, period. I do not support criminalization of homosexual behavior. Just as you do (I presume), I decry any predatory sexual activity, against minors or anyone, straight or gay. Let Uganda address that with fair laws.
2. I do not support Martin Ssempa, Stephen Langa or any religious or government leader in Uganda who backs this bill. They do not represent the Church or the tenets of Christianity. I don’t have the time to take you to the various places where I have publicly spoken out against this, to include on my own blog. Even GayUganda knows where I stand. How come you don’t?
3. Let me reiterate, since you seem to need things repeated, Mike. I am opposed to ALL of the bill. Period.
Any more questions?
And, I am no victim, Mike. Not here or anywhere. I am hated, but I am not a victim because of it. Never.
Debbie,
This will be short.
Herein lies the problem. Gays only struggle because they (we) are continually told that we are “less than” and “wrong” and “have made a bad choice” and “must change.”
And those charges come from “Christians”, chief among them the ex-gay groups.
Without the (inaccurately applied) Bible based prejudices (against what is a natural condition) from which the social prejudices arose, there would be no problem.
I struggled, and no one ever told me that. I inherently knew it would not work for me. Yes, there is plenty of ex-gay self-righteousness out there. There is also the gay variety. It’s no respecter of sides.
Fine, Debbie. Only you can know what you knew. But this brings us to the nub or crux of the matter.
Do you feel obliged to tell everyone else who is gay, or who thinks that they may be gay, that it won’t “work” for them either? If so, why?
What about those for whom it clearly is “working”? Do you feel obliged to tell them that it shouldn’t be “working” for them? If they are happy as they are, do you think that it is your right or duty to try to persuade them that they shouldn’t be happy?
No.
No.
No.
Clear enough? I have said this multiple times, in multiple places.
Thank you for clarifying those points, Debbie.
You’re quite welcome.
Debbie,
Of course, as you pointed out, I don’t know you. But your “inherent” knowledge came from somewhere. That is, from the way you saw homosexuality viewed by society, or from the “societal norm” of man and woman that you saw around you with no out and happy (perhaps married) gay couples. So, you inherently knew it would not work for you to be “different.”
Things might have been different if you had had positive gay role models. Fortunately for today’s youth, there is plenty of gay culture and positive role models for them to absorb. No need to change. Their inherent orientation is something they can be happy with.
Just a guess, since I don’t know you.
It came from the law God had written on my heart, to put it in biblical terms you may or may not relate to. I broke that law, suffered the associated pain of my rebellion, and was reconciled again to both God and my husband.
I don’t think so. But I honestly can’t say how it might have been for me had I been born 30 years later or had I been confronted with a strong, mutual, same-sex attraction in my younger years. I was as vulnerable as the next person. Given how I feel about my life and who I am today, I know I made the right choice for me. And God has affirmed that over and over. I did become a “new creature,” and old longings vanished.
I know others will find today’s cultural acceptance of homosexuality just the ticket for them. God bless ’em. They are free to live as they choose. It may not all be a bed of roses down the road for them, or they may remain gay and happy.
You also ought to know that I am very upfront with the women in my group about this. They are there by choice. They know they are free to walk out the door and never come back. They can choose the life they want to live. I will still love them and pray for them. I meet them in the middle, just as Christ meets us all. I just require honesty of them.
The gay-affirmed folks I know and love also know what I believe. I can’t condemn them and I will never seek to force any kind of change on them. It is between them and God.
Debbie:
Speaking from one Christian to another, the only law we live under is the law of love: “This is my commandment that you love one another that your joy may be full.” The Christian is no longer under the law of Moses.
By your words, you are saying a gay person is breaking God’s law. Which law are you referring to? You are saying that a gay person rebels against God. How? You also seem to imply that reconciliation is applied to being married to someone of the opposite sex. When Jesus and John the Baptist said, “Do penance (repent) for the Kingdom of God is at hand” were they telling the people to get married to someone of the opposite sex? Your understanding of Christ’s message bewilders me.
Debbie Thurman said:
Which is why your comments were so disappointing.
I’m aware of some of your activity on his blog, but to claim that you were “at the tip of the spear” and that through your efforts “a movement was born” really seems a stretch. The current effort started early in March and several of us have had our ear to the ground for new developments since — including Warren. His recollection, and my own observations, indicate that he did what he did for reasons other than your prompting or input. That is not, however, meant to denigrate anything you have done on this issue.
Your interpretation of scripture is very harsh, but this is not the time or place to deal with that. Suffice to say that if people react negatively to someone because they are acting like a son-of-a-gun, it would be unwise to attribute that response to rebellion against God. More often it is rebellion against the son-of-a-gun.
I’m glad you clarified your opposition to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda. Even at this late date, it would be good to hear such a clear statement from Exodus, FOTF, et al. Has Focus made any comment at all yet?
Debbie, I understand completely why someone wouldn’t WANT to be gay. Considering what is at stake, who would?
I understand the struggle with being gay, BUT there are other things society requires of the different that are impossible and take great pains to either conform to, or relinquish to.
Those of us who dissent with you recognize what you’ve done. Why don’t you?
The major difference between abandoning being gay and other matters of conformity is the religious root of non acceptance, and the general belief that homosexuality CAN and SHOULD be repressed for the gain of spiritual and social acceptance.
The other matters of conformity don’t require that discipline, but those who attempt or even accomplish it are DEEPLY diminished in other way they don’t recognize.
And society continues to demand and expect that discipline from the rest, who can’t or don’t choose it.
And in all of this: where really is the choice?
Do you really think you wouldn’t have been so dissatisfied with being gay, were there no such demands on you and everyone else like you?
Struggle is a fact of life. Being TAUGHT to hate oneself and what you are, look like and so on is something that most people do have to deal with.
But it’s coming out on the other side of successful acceptance and learning the sort of coping skills that make one stronger, not capitulation into the mental and physical burdens of societal and political pressure and calling it something else, like ‘holiness’ or courage.
I’ve known blacks, particularly from living through Jim Crow and horrendous personal setbacks because of the rest of their brethren being caught in such a socio/political burden.
Some blacks have been damaged more from it than others, and sought out spiritual relief, constant validation and reassurance.
But the difference here is spiritual relief for gay people bears a requirement that’s not necessary nor something that improves being homosexual OR heterosexual.
If a black person, struggling with racial identity, gave into the repressive nature of Jim Crow, validating those who created the system, they would be losing the most important part of themselves in the process.
There is no amount of religious discipline, absorption or having an opposite sex relationship that will give you back what really matters.
Where you began and how you were made is who you really are. You would have known that WITHOUT religion, without any kind of teaching you that’s who you are, or were.
You gave it up. You relinquished. You call it healed, coming out on the other side of the struggle.
But if you really, truly were so comforted and so much happier now and consider it earned and well done…
You wouldn’t care what we thought, you wouldn’t come around here and you’d get on with your life without the need to constantly ARGUE the point of who you think you are now.
Perhaps it’s not so much you’re not accepted by gay people, but that THEY recognize that you’re not needed, and you’re more of a nuisance.
Those gay people that have come to their own terms, and found a healthy return on investing in their spiritual health without giving up on their identity are the healthier and better and BRAVER for it.
Struggle builds character. Capitulating to what causes the struggle in the first place, doesn’t.
You’re not really who YOU think you are, and it’s gay people who recognize that more than a straight person would.
You traded one thing for another, but you didn’t trade UP.
When you choose another family to adopt you, why come around to the family you’ve decisively shown YOU don’t want anymore?
What a sublime question, Regan. Thanks for asking it.
First, let me say this has been an interesting week. I consider it a privilege to be having this conversation with you all. I am well aware that in coming here, I am in “your house,” and I don’t take that lightly.
To some of you, I have entered as an uninvited invader. Others have accorded me the courtesy we might give a distant relative who happens to drop by for a visit. Others really don’t care one way or the other. Thank you. All of you, because I have grown and learned from it, as it should be. Even misunderstandings are only temporary and ought not be taken as permanent and divisive. Where we can agree to disagree, we should. (Maybe we can call that bridge-building, Dave.)
Just once more, I seek your indulgence as I address Regan’s legitimate question. Perhaps we can wrap up the “visit” today, but if it is worth continuing, fine. I won’t overstay my welcome, I hope. 🙂
Regan, I may choose to associate with one family over the other, as you do, but that doesn’t mean I believe this one is any less important. Rarely does an adopted child get to consciously decide to leave one family and live with another. Rather, it is almost always the original family (we’ll call them extended cross-generational family as the mother is frequently young and unwed) that relinquishes the child. How often does that child grow up, feeling some invisible attachment to the lost family, so much so that he or she seeks them out in hopes for some kind of reconciliation? Interesting, isn’t it?
In God’s scheme of things, we all can be adopted family, and siblings of or fellow heirs with Christ himself to the Father’s kingdom, if we allow that adoption to take place. He already chooses us (John 3:16), but we also have a choice. And while God then urges His children to “come apart” from the world we formerly lived in, He most assuredly does not mean for us to forget its occupants, who are fellow potential siblings and people with all manner of hurts and needs and amazing gifts. Even many within our family are needy, and we typically have sibling rivalries and differences of opinion that temporarily divide us. But love is the glue that is meant to hold it all together. It “covers a multitude of sins.”
I am not permitted by God to look down on my fellow man just because we may live in different families. When I do that, I am in blatant disobedience, and will be disciplined for it. It happens, I am sorry to say. The toughest thing about the Christian life it that it is so daily, to quote a friend of mine. We say it is a “dying to self” and an unselfish embracing of something much bigger than us. That dying happens by degrees. Thankfully, we are not “kicked out of the house” while we are growing up.
So, I guess to finish my answer to you, Regan, I want to know my potential family, as well as the one whose home I hang my hat in. I want to care about them, to hear their viewpoints, to let them know they are worthy children of God, whether or not they accept that or me. There does come a time when we all must realize the futility of going back when we are continually rejected. But hope is an awesome and powerful thing. The world would be pretty bleak and meaningless without it. And I happen to believe prayer also is the great equalizer. It’s the one thing we can continue doing long after we are rejected.
I know many here do not share my Christian worldview. That’s OK. Please know it is never my intention to force-feed it to anyone. How pointless would that be? Still, I hope some of you at least may care to know who and what I represent as we have to share this world together.
If you want to get a clearer picture of what I believe and specifically how it relates to homosexuality, feel free to read this. If not, fine. I seek to be an open book.
I hope that adequately answers your question, Regan. By the way, I could never begin to know what it’s like to walk in your shoes, as a black woman. Being an ex-gay woman, I guess I have a couple “strikes” against me as well, but nothing like what you’ve had to endure. We are complex, multifaceted beings. That’s what makes us such a rich tapestry. Bless you.
Hey, Dave. I have no hard feelings toward you or what we’ve shared here. I do regret the misunderstanding over my part in the Uganda thing. Perhaps I could have chosen my words a bit more carefully there.
I was not trying to steal anyone’s thunder, least of all Warren’s as I respect him a lot, and I know how much he blogged about the March conference, which was an event and a topic distinct from the bill itself, even though the two are related. And I know that others were covering that and making noise about the bill, too.
When I used the “tip of the spear” analogy, I meant I was sharing it with others, not that I was “the” point, certainly. However, I do recollect pretty clearly the days immediately leading up to Warren launching the Facebook group and the protest gathering a full head of steam through that. And I assure you I did play a role as a catalyst. I just gave a little push and others started doing their part and the train took off. No big deal to me who gets any credit. I don’t need any. Thanks for your help, too.
As for my “harsh” view of Scripture, yes, I think it best we don’t go there right now. Sin is not a pretty, sugary topic. Since we have a basic disagreement on homosexuality as sin, it would be fruitless.
And I have given up being concerned about the inconsistent measure of rebuke here, i.e., allowing Mike off scot-free with his off-base characterization of me while censuring Regan for something that did not offend me … or allowing another male to make a crass reference to his anatomy. It’s your show to run as you see fit, and I don’t believe you’re sexist or callous. I had forgotten Augustine’s (I think) prayer seeking forgiveness for the need to “vindicate myself.” That’s not a need. Gets us into trouble. God vindicates where necessary.
Peace to you.
Debbi, Con’t
Einstein said that the serious problems of the day can’t be solved by the consciousness that created them.
Gay people didn’t create the animus, myth and distrust around their lives. Straight people have done that and gay people have yet to live it down.
It’s the straight consciousness that wants to indoctrinate and remake gay people into THEIR image.
You’ve accomplished that. You’re proud of doing so, and there is no amount of covering it up with it being a level of spiritual awakening and discipline that will disguise the pig it really is.
You are RIGHT where straight people want you, not God.
You’re doing the work that straight people have wanted all along: to see that gay people disappear and not trouble them ever.
And as I’ve said all along, it doesn’t matter that you aren’t active out there fighting for gay rights. It would be too weird if you did. A contradiction in terms.
It doesn’t matter that you’re not actively fighting AGAINST gay equality, that would be weird too.
You’re NOT the other side of the same coin, as you’ve said before.
You represent a detriment to gay people who have to struggle with what you validate for ANTI GAY people.
Who just LOVE a docile, non confrontational ex gay person as an example that gay people CAN be brought to such a level.
And the ones who aren’t :well, you said it (the angry gay person who expresses their feelings are oh so stereotypical and such whiners!)
Go on and argue your point for the cause of living the way YOU want to.
But I say again: don’t come around here behaving as if it doesn’t come at a very high price. Especially for gay children.
When you got nailed with that fact you went off on a tear about what God and Jesus want for you.
These are INTANGIBLES.
This is about what YOU wanted for yourself, and rejecting feeling any storm of consciousness for it.
Straight people need YOU more than gay people do.
Gay folks know more about straight people than the other way around. And you’re not educating straight people in the way most necessary for the needs of gay people and honesty and expectations. This is where you’re not helping.
And if you think your weekly women’s group would be amused by that, then laugh it up and feel quite cozy as your back is wide open to the straight folks you’re entertaining.
Be careful that you don’t see “fellow potential siblings” (a phrase which bothers me for reasons I can’t quite articulate at the moment) as “projects.” And while I honestly don’t mean this in a bad way, I would suggest you try talking to people with a little less “christianese.” I share your faith and yet, after this thread, even I find myself wanting a Mormon or a Buddhist to chime in for some fresh air 😉
Perhaps it is time to end Sunday school for now.
Regan said:
Not telling other people what God wants for them works both ways.
David, I actually hate that I got roped into that. As you can see, I don’t make theological or religious arguments I regret that I brought THAT in.
But I still stand by what I said that she’s right where the straight folks want her.
BTW, I went off on my Japanese friend when she told me about the surgery she was considering. I was in tears, we both were.
The pressure she was under was tremendous. She was a gorgeous girl.
I can’t tell you the outrage I felt that ANYONE could make her feel that way!
When my young friend told me he hated being Jewish, I had a similar reaction. He’d been raised in the Soviet Union and he and I went together connecting him to richness and courage of the culture he was from.
And being that I’m a dancer, I have known first hand, the damage that anorexia does, especially to young women.
I see this issue as all of the same and I am disturbed at any support for the disappearance of gay people. The diminishing of their numbers and false hope given to so many that’s painted as something BETTER and desirable.
Straight people have deflected their lack of moral superiority to that of God and Jesus having it, yet the results would still be the same.
Gay people are already a rare and compelling part of our human family, we might as well cut off a limb or blind ourselves.
Humanity won’t learn if there aren’t enough gay people to teach and reach them.
No thanks to MOST faith communities including ex gays, they’d rather that people go on ignorant and fearful as always.
It’s not necessarily BETTER to be straight, it’s simply DIFFERENT and more accepted.
And not necessarily accepted for good reasons.
Straight people don’t really have to consider what they are, or LOVE it. That would be like loving breathing.
Another less known, but equally compelling group are people who are asexual. This is another aspect of sexuality I’m studying with considerable interest.
Would straight people expect asexuals to be discriminated against because THEY don’t want to procreate? Would they force them into religious disciplines to have sex and bear children to prove themselves worthy members of the human family?
Would they harsh or ridicule someone who was asexual if they didn’t have relationships or romances to discuss and share?
I think not.
And I wouldn’t respect any religious community that told an asexual person they were bad, worthless to the support of humanity because they didn’t and couldn’t care less about having sex.
Perhaps this doesn’t seem to disturb the same dynamics that gay people do, but this is part of how little is honestly understood about sexual orientation and how our society and cultures at large care to.
We are witness to what people will endure to fit in, and what is demanded for them to.
Debbie DOES seem to have that docile quality that won’t challenge the status quo of straight people, but definitely compromises that of gay people.
If she was talking about being at the end of the spear, I think she was really on the blunt end.
“I know many here do not share my Christian worldview.”
I wonder how many Rightists realize that they exclude themselves from true Christianity by making such presumptuous statements.
Real Christians do not present themselves as spokespersons for God, nor do they falsely claim that their fallen and sinful worldview is Christian.
Yeah, I’m all for that. The natives are restless and can never seem to fill their hungry tummies with us Christians. Too light, I guess. 🙂
Actually I was hoping that Mike (Airhart) could answer me something first – unless this is too off topic?
Mike, you said:
I was wondering, what is “true Christianity” and how would you define a “healthy-unfallen” Christian worldview?
-Shawn
Wow. Maybe it’s time to implement a commenting policy?
I’m saddened by the way negative posts (like Debbie’s) are just going on and on, no matter how well – and thoughtfully – they’re answered (by commenters like Regan).
As for the comment re. Alan Medinger, I would say it’s more along the lines of “self-deception” than “failure.” The sad thing is, so many people have gone on that same ride. (And hey, I used to be a supporter of that particular ministry and actually like Alan as a person – just no longer agree with his views, and those of Exodus, as they’ve become so tied to theocratic right-wing politics and overt hatred – cf. Uganda.)
As for the negative comments… lashing out at people isn’t winning you any friends, let alone doing anything other than reinforcing what others here (including this blog’s owners) are saying.
Hi, Shawn,
I would be happy to discuss core values of the Gospels, and the extreme depravity and apostasy of the ex-Christian, un-American Right, but I’m not sure how much tolerance XGW has left for that, at least on this page. Perhaps XGW could either point to a page where that discussion would be appropriate, or we could take that discussion private.
Best,
Mike
I’ll post an open thread in a few so you can go on with that topic if you like.
Sure Mike. I wasn’t trying to start anything, just asking some questions. But, yeah, I would love a conversation. Here’s my email address … 611ministries at gmail dot com
-Shawn
(Better late than never, I guess.)
Debbie,
You’ve got to do more than simply make self-loving claims about yourself before the claims become true. I do think you are genuinely embarrased and conflicted (but not outraged, as such) by the firestorm that is engulfing a minority in Uganda in God’s name. But you’ve got a history of making outrageously angry statements about gay people that is as long as your arm. And they do damage people.
I’m going to give you a very pointed example. Long before you’d even bothered with Uganda the two of us had personal friendship from that bedraggled nation. The situation has become steadily worse over the past 5 years — driven largely by evangelical Christians with direct connections to evangelical Americans. Pentecostal features heavily, but it’s across the board (as anyone familiar with the dehumanising bile from Orombi will be well aware).
More than a year ago in an exchange with a colleague they passed on some hideous writings that had been passed onto them by an noxious anti-gay person in Uganda. I was already familiar with the opinion peices, and I want to highlight only a snippet of the words that helped fuel their anti-gay attitudes.
Words from someone who claimed to have changed their sexual orientation. Words from someone who works in Christian ministry and who claims to be able to guide gay people back to the correct path. Someone long connected to and defender of a large wealthy American church long ruled over by a man infamous for making the same sort of inflammatory statements about gay people.
Do the words sound familiar?
Why do you think an anti-gay person in Uganda was inspired by this American writer?
What do you imagine can happen when words like those about a despised minority are believed in a corrupted and brutalised society?
I have to agree with you on one point at least:
Debbie — the harvest is in, and what bitter bread it makes.
@ grantdale – I hear you. I used to be a member of a church that strongly supports “Third Wave”/Transformations-type theology – and some pastors in Uganda who adhere to that way of thinking.
The way lots of these groups have infiltrated other countries (not just uganda) is downright scary. And what they bring to those countries is fear, an increase in superstition (albeit presented in a “Christian” veneer) and an absolutist solution for all members of society.
None of that is right, nor (as far as I can tell) is there any biblical warrant for it.
Mike: I’ve often noted this whenever I hear a christian explain to me about our “sinful, fallen and broken” world.
If the world is so sinful, fallen, and broken, how do you know that anything you believe, anything you have to say, is true in any sense of the word, especially when you make comments aobut your “Christian worldview”, as if there is only one.
Debbie siad “They have said that “Satan” is using us to “further his agenda”
Satan can and does use any of us to further his agenda, if we are not careful. I believe he is using the Church most of all these days. Yeah, that one makes we weep.
I need only look at what many so-called Christians are doing and have always done to gay people, or anyone else they get their hands on, to know thus us true.
As Mark Twain put it (besides ‘nothing needs minding so much as other people’s business’)
“Man is kind enough when he’s not excited by religion, but once the holy holies have got a grip on him he’s capable of almost anything. When a disciple from the wildcat religious asylum comes marching forth, get under the bed. It doesn’t matter whether he’s a Christian, Hindu, Jew, or Muslim. If he’s made up his mind that you need reforming, he will do it with anything handy — an ax, eight hundred years of witch burning or, if necessary, he’ll blow you up.
Grantdale, could you just clarify for us whether or not you believe there are any corrupt or predatory or deviant individuals who also happen to be gay? Any at all? Could you also explain why Matt Foreman, as he was leaving his post at the NGLTF last year, said that AIDS is a “gay disease”? I would never go that far, of course. Is he a traitor to the cause? Apparently, he had realized that numbers don’t lie. That’s my explanation. But I’d like to hear yours.
And if there are any such unsavory individuals in gaydom, is it a hate crime, in your view, to speak of them or censure their behavior? And if we cannot speak of them, then does that also mean we must stop speaking about straight sexual deviants? Do you have any statistics, by the way, to compare the relative numbers of straight deviants with gay ones? That would be useful information to have, wouldn’t it?
And while you’re at it, could you explain this statement you made above: “Long before you’d even bothered with Uganda the two of us had personal friendship from that bedraggled nation.” Huh?
I am flattered, by the way, that you could think anyone in Uganda with any influence at all may have ever read any of my writings from the whole two-three years or so I have even been addressing the topic. Me? That’s rich.
Sorry Debbie, but you do not get to reject your child even if it does have red-hair.
Gross self-denial may perhaps help your self-esteem, and be something you require to deal with life, but you are nothing if not predictable at such times. Those are your words, as you’ve now clearly stated. A brief few from what you’ve said. They are inflammatory, filtered through your cracked logic and intended to create moral panic. To what end? Where do imagine moral panic will take the mob?
They could just as well been the words from those pushing the anti-gay abuse in Uganda. For good reason. Pretend all you like — but your words were repeated by an appalling anti-gay activist in Uganda. What’s rich is your self-centred response to being told.
Note that in spite of the fact I have drawn that directly to your attention, you go and do the EXACT same thing in reply.
What would be your purpose for asking if there is any GLBT person who is corrupt or predatory or deviant or unsavoury?
The answer you want to that rhetorical question is all too obvious, because it’s what you do. You want to discover such individuals, and then use them to create fear and loathing about everyone else in a minority community. You may as well be channelling your mentor, the abusive Jerry Falwell. There is a word for that type of behaviour, and a word for what happens when the fear and loathing becomes common currency.
It’s also precisely what is going on in Uganda today.
Perhaps less obvious is our response: yes, there are. For a start — there are people like you in the GLBT community, if one was to believe what you’ve said about your own history. Your testimony is that of a corrupt, predatory, deviant and unsavoury individual. So the short answer is yes, people like you exist. As do others.
Your claimed testimony is also a polar opposite to ourselves; now or in the past. Perhaps you need to see yourself as basically good but corrupted by others, but we need not pander to that insecurity. Only in a World of ignorance could someone listen to you and draw parallels about us, and act accordingly. Such a World exists, in places.
We then come to the next clear example from your few words.
Matt Foreman was speaking to an audience of gay people. Not to an audience of heterosexual church-goers who wanted their prejudices confirmed — a role you have adopted — but an audience of gay people and allies looking to the future.
Those words you are misrepresenting could just as well have been “AIDS is a disease that effects us.” They were contained within the statement he was actually making: a denunciation of the thoroughly inadequate and untargeted response to the impact of HIV/AIDS on black Americans. Foreman called it as racism. And we cannot disagree.
Over the years I’ve heard priests, pastors and clerics make the same statement to their flock: “AIDS is a disease that effects us.” I’ve walked past a masjid in Java and seen a poster “Muslims can get AIDS too”, as if that were a necessary thing to plainly state. Well over two decades ago the first broad efforts to combat HIV in Australia began with the grim warning that AIDS will show no fear nor favour.
Should I have walked away from those occasions and concluded “Wow, the Methodists are causing AIDS and they even admit it. We should do something about them.”? No.
Matt Foreman said nothing like your brutal accusation “Have we forgotten where AIDS originates?”. Your disturbingly inaccurate words are intended to inflame a straight audience rather than protect a gay one. Your words weren’t a call to examine and eradicate a prejudice, but finger-pointing to further a different prejudice.
Somewhat ironically (not your forte, I realise) but if it hasn’t yet become apparent to you that we — when we can — are more than willing to address any of the unsavoury individuals in this World, and call them on their behaviour, and not regard it as a hate crime… then you probably also think none of the above has anything to do with you.
Stop making excuses for your behaviour Debbie, or deflecting it onto others. This is serious.
We can only suggest that you temper your aggression until you realise how serious.
ps: I’m not going to bother explaining what friendship means, or in fact say anything more on the particular matter. I will not knowingly endanger people, nor break promises. Those are basic responsibilities in life that no adult should ever need reminding of.
After reading the full text in question, indeed authored by Debbie Thurman (and not long ago it seems), I would have to agree with what grantdale has said so well. I was nauseated with what I found there, defense of James Hartline and all. I can’t for the life of me imagine anyone wanting to walk a bridge to where you are now, Debbie. If out of the abundance of the heart the mouth truly speaks, your heart is a dark and hateful place.
Debbie, Ugandans could be understood for seeing your stand against this bill as hypocritical and confusing — and sadly you are not the only one causing such puzzlement. Soundly renouncing your previous stand and asking for forgiveness is again the only way for you to have any moral authority to now contest their heinous attempts to destroy nearly a million lives.
I have no idea what hate crimes law has to do with this (unless you plan on physically assaulting someone). You are free to say what you want, but we are also free to take it seriously as an indication of what you truly think, of the kind of person you are. Tragically, at least some in Uganda appear to have also taken you seriously, and the consequences of that should weight heavily on the heart of anyone with a conscience.
allow me to once again share what Debbie believes:
Proudly flaunting a deviant, destructive lifestyle and trying hard to dissociate themselves from the AIDS holocaust, activist gays and lesbians are waging their own brand of terrorism against the Church of Jesus Christ, the capitulation of which would be their crowning achievement.
Have we forgotten where AIDS originates? … AIDS cases soar to the stratosphere in the gay ghettoes, those urban areas where most homosexuals congregate and where gay bathhouses still operate with impunity. These are also the enclaves where intravenous drug use abounds.
One of the fast growing [HIV positive] demographics is now males, ages 13 to 24 … points to the likelihood of older HIV-infected men having more sex with teenaged boys.
Whether or not “deviants” exist in any community is moot. We all know “deviants” exist everywhere, no matter where they are.
But when you paint an entire community with a broad stroke such as this, it truly is the definition of hate. hate speech – NOT “hate crime” – but still hate. I can’t understand any other reason to want to “prove” that an entire group of innocent people, or that most of them, are deviants. Which is obviously what Debbie is looking for when she asks for “statistics to compare the relative numbers of straight deviants with gay ones.” But then, she already knows the answer: anyone who is gay, is already a deviant.
And since most of the people who post here are Christian (I am not, I’m Jewish), or are at least religious to some degree, I find it hard to believe that all of us are trying to “wage a war” against “the church.” (well, ok, as a Jew I can still be accused of that I guess. But I’ve really learned not to care.)
I’ve tried to feel compassion for you, or for your perspective, but at this point I simply have to walk away because I don’t know that I can. David was right, your heart is dark.
But you’ll always have Randy Thomas to make you feel better – you can pat each-other on the back and enclose yourselves into a bubble that will keep the progressing world out, forever and ever, amen.
Emily K:
It is sad that there are Christians who constantly feel their church is under attack, but then I think it gives them a sense of purpose. Christ spoke of peace and for us to love our neighbor and to treat others the same exact way we want to be treated, but there are many Christians who ask the question, “What’s the fun in that?” As many Christians there are trying to tear down the dividing walls, there are twice as many building new ones.
For your people, Emily, (and some of mine as I have Jews in my ancestory), the game was “Get the Jesus Killers” in Europe for the majority of its history since Christianity came on board. Native Americans and Blacks enjoyed the hatred spread on the New Continent. Now it is the LGBT’s turn to be the hated group, and once our turn has passed another group will be the target.
If we Christians, all Christians, especially those in authority, really listened to the message of our founder, whom we believe to be both God and Man, we would be more concerned with what Christ was concerned with, and not singling out a group to persecute them. But again, most Christians see the world as one of good versus evil, and they will stop at nothing to see that the enemy, aka anyone not Christian (or Christian according to their criteria), eliminated either by conversion or deprevation or elimination.
As I said before, if Christ came back today those on-fire Christians would nail him to a cross faster than the Romans could.
Grantdale,
Thank you for pointing out Debbie Thurman’s previous hateful diatribe against gay people. When I first started reading it, I thought it was written by Lively. It was amongst the most vile things that I have read from one of these ex-gays.
In an earlier exchange in this comments section with Mike Airhart, Debbie seemed all over the place, and didn’t make much sense. I now feel that I have a very good understanding of Debbie. She is no better than the other hatemongers, and her very words are being used to encourage adoption of the death penalty for gay people in Uganda. Perhaps her description of herself as the “tip of the spear” was applicable the Ugandan situation. Reminds me of the spear that was shoved into Jesus on the cross.
Emily, I do not. I paint a part of it with the brush it merits. You, likewise, paint a part of conservative Christianity with the brush it merits. What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander. We’ve got darkness, hypocrisy and hate in both camps. Hear that or be deaf to it. It’s not my responsibility to make anyone hear.
Dave, you are a hypocrite who hands out phony olive branches. Your brand of Christianity is as the whited sepulcher. I am very sad for you, and others who look to you.
Grantdale, you are very confusing and make no sense at all. Somebody in Uganda has quoted my words? Who, pray tell? Can you understand how a person can be opposed to certain behaviors yet uphold human rights? You would invalidate everything I have said or done on behalf of Ugandan gays (and many other compassionate words I have written and spoken) because I believe homosexual behavior is sin? Who made you God? And the CDC has kept statistics for years on the rates of MSM-transmitted HIV, the facts that cannot be ignored. Everyone who has ever pointed out the uncomfortable truths is not to blame for what Uganda seeks to do. Sorry.
Alan, the Church has always been under attack. But Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It’s not my Church. It’s Christ’s.
I will not cease to be an apologist for the faith. Anyone who does not understand his own proclivity for sin is deceived. None of us has a fully pure heart. I know what is in me. Do any of you?
One day, you each will have occasion to remember this discussion. It is now over, for my part.
But Debbie, God will take care of that. Christ told us what to do, and he never mentioned denying a group of people their right to life, or to deny a group of people their freedom. If God doesn’t do it, who do your type of Christianity think you are to go beyond God?
Debbie Thurman said:
As much as you continually try to portray this false dichotomy, there are more than two “camps” here. There are many different points of view, and thankfully yours is not the view of the entire Church. But it’s nice to know that, in yours, doing wrong is ok as long as you think others are doing so.
I’ve been commenting, then posting for XGW since about 2004. In that time, I can’t remember a single instance when grantdale gave false information or showed deception. They may push the bounds of civility from time to time, but they do not lie. Quite the opposite, they frustrate many with their uncanny accuracy. If they say that your writings were used in Uganda, believe it. Speaking of things for which one will be held accountable one day…
My original appreciation for your speaking out against the bill in Uganda was genuine. There are very few people with whom I will not carry on a civil conversation, and my faith does not allow me to hate someone (though I must work hard on that at times). However, your response to my appreciation does seem hypocritical, as do (now) your protests against the bill in Uganda.
When one speaks out of both sides of ones mouth, the message is canceled out. I think this may be what Regan was getting at by saying you were of no help. When confronted honestly about this, you have rationalized and countered with “goose and gander” tripe.
I again suggest you step back and decide what kind of person you want to be.
Thanks for articulating what I struggle to, David.
I don’t appreciate Debbie behaving as if the ‘two sides’ she keeps talking about have an even chance of being considered fairly or rightly.
Gay people are at the worst disadvantage by lesser numbers alone.
And the chronic libel that they threaten people even by being discussed.
Debbie is unfair in her own assessment of how ANYONE can possibly respond to that without being angry, or expressing hurt.
I have been at TownHall
http://www.townhall.com up until a month ago, but for over a year.
The latest article by Matt Barber is called “The Gay Jihad” he claims there are threats from ‘homosexual activists’ on his colleagues compare to the attack on Ft. Hood.
I have participated in the comment threads for over a year.
And the few gay people and allies like me are spoken to like children. Debbie has also expressed such sentiment as if gay people have responded like children to what are libel and slander and incredible ironies and threats to their access to full self reliance.
When adults are not treated like adults, regardless of what they do, even by people who never met them, and don’t want to, it’s an impossible indictment and impossible to fight or argue against.
This is typical of abusive relationships. And I wouldn’t be exaggerating if I called the gay/straight conflict exactly that. With gay people in the unfortunately weaker position, and the dominant culture knowing that.
Debbie and just about every ex gay I ever spoke to doesn’t seem to know how weak they are, and docile.
And unusually needful of WAY too much validation that they are otherwise.
They might unburden themselves to God and Jesus, but burden gay people in other ways they obviously won’t admit to.
And I really HATE that.
Debbie,
You still cannot see yourself in all this.
We don’t mind that David has now given the link to some of your writings, but we’d left them out for one particular reason. This was less about informing others, and more about holding a mirror up to yourself. Uncomfortable as that may be.
Whatever you may do, or at least try to do, at this point in time; we had hoped to see some contrition from you. We chose those quotes because they covered three topics:
I would like you to now consider what are the three driving themes behind the abuse in Uganda. What are the three core reasons behind that legislation? Now read above, again.
Of course you didn’t invent that sort of behaviour towards gay people. You’ve inherited and/or adopted the attitudes. But you did chose to go beyond holding an opinion, and have a history of launching into tirades against all gay men and women.
You know Debbie, if I seriously thought any group of people were attacking me personally and my society more broadly, were the cause of a hideous disease they appear to be deliberately spreading, and were a direct threat to children: I do have to pause and wonder how I would react. What would I demand be done to them, I wonder. What sympathy would I have for human rights if I thought a group had ceased to have any right to them?
Honestly, I don’t know. I’ve never been in such a place, about any group.
I do know I have a visceral response when I see injustice, and a tendency to treat people as individuals… but I also know I’m only human. What sort of abuse could I condone if I were to be surrounded by a different society, and imagined that we were facing a serious threat? I honestly don’t know, and not for want of asking myself.
Does that give you any indication that we do in fact think of such matters? I suspect what you term as a ‘pure heart’ is more a matter of religious conformity than the way we see it, but we need no lectures from you on self reflection.
So I’ll ask you: do you understand that a person cannot be holding up human rights if what they are actively opposing is, in fact, a human right? It’s a contradiction in terms, and all too easily rationalised away. (You do recognise a person’s intimate family life as a core human right, do you? Do you always act as if it is?).
In watching the efforts made by Warren Throckmorton over the past months, it has been unavoidable but notice a recurrent attitude from some on his blog (as but one example of where it’s occurring). The question keeps getting asked about what compromise could be made; as if this were simply a question about the harshness and form of punishment, and about who should organise the sanctions against homosexuality.
It’s not.
Debbie I cannot invalidate what you’ve said and done in recent weeks. But I suspect that others will read the words that we quoted, now knowing they are in fact yours, and now knowing what you have said and done in the past, and find your hypocrisy, rationalisation and defensiveness to be invalidation enough. (That, btw, is why we didn’t directly link to those pieces of yours). The question we always had for you is ultimately whether you know why the situation in Uganda exists in the first place.
There is no need to incite fear, be the cause of hate, heap abuse on, gaol or execute people like me. Gay people — including me — are not waging war on society, deliberately spreading disease nor destroying the lives of children. I’m not a threat.
Yet if I go to Uganda, or out my door, I can be treated as if I am. Not just misunderstanding or antipathy or inequity, but to the point of malice and violence.
Am I to blame for that, even partly or indirectly?
Are you?
ps: your incredulity about whether someone has read what you deliberately published online is an outstanding piece of performance, even for little ol’ you. Good grief.
I didn’t want to get into this, but… @ Debbie: some of us are trying very, very hard not to say something unkind to a fellow Christian. If you see yourself as being “persecuted,” perhaps you’re inciting it?
Et tu, Brutus.
I really doubt Debbie’s homosexual “past” when she uses the word “lifestyle” because someone who is same sex attracted will never use that word, as lifestyles are never exclusive to homosexuals. And, by associating homosexuality to AIDS, then claiming MSMs transmit HIV according to CDC (when some MSMs are heterosexuals, and lesbians are at the lowest risk group), I believe we can safely say that Debbie was never a honest lesbian.
Also, now thanks to GrantDale, it is confirmed that she is just one of those people making claims of homo-cure just to get some mileage in their sorry bigoted lives. God Bless Debbie.
I’m not sure what you mean by “honest” lesbian (open?), but generally I tend to take people at their word on something like that unless there is significant reason to doubt it (and there are a few). Referring to “the lifestyle” and similar ex-gay speak can’t really be the litmus test, something to which many ex-ex-gays could attest.
Apologies. The whole statement by me was supposed to mean that Debbie is either lying about her supposed past as a lesbian, or she had never been a lesbian at all. The basis is contained in her views of homosexuality, and her extreme views on that “threat”. Come to think of it, just as we noticed that “change” by Exodus / ex-gay groups have no definite meaning, so do “lifestyle”. Even the word “homosexual” has no consistent definition by the ex-gays. It is just twisted around by certain groups to justify that homosexuality is a sin.
Hmmm…Just a thought. I mentioned TownHall recently, and because I’m somewhat stubborn, I decided to stick around there after quite a long time despite, serious abuse. Maybe that was the pebble in the shoe?
I mean I was outright called vicious names, my profession and how I went about it was derided, the ridicule was constant no matter what I said, even if I agree on some points, and eventually I my real name was used and I was accused of committing acts that were against my professional oath (a crime) and accused of saying things I didn’t to rationalize the whole business.
All that for being honest and letting the group know that I had my facts straight, in part because of participating in law enforcement.
I realized that I had a thicker skin than those who joined the mob. I know what is required of me, and although I might be brutally frank, being characterized a hysterical, angry and so on…is almost laughable in comparison to the opposition.
There is, after all, far more urgency for gays and lesbians and more justification for losing patience with the debate style we’re confronted with.
When I compare comment threads here and PHB and even Joe. My. God. and BTB, there is a great deal more civility and bravery than I have witnessed there at Townhall. I toughed it all out for over a year. They don’t visit here or the other threads, even though I directed them that way.
I’m back at work now after a year off for medical reasons. I simply don’t have the time to comment so much at TH.
But nothing has changed.
I’ve read articles in WaPo, NYTimes and several women’s magazines that I subscribe to regarding the violence, illiteracy and poverty of females in America and globally.
Child brides are still a problem in Third World countries as is the sex trafficking especially of young girls. In America this traffick is especially troubling because you would think there would be more resources or parents held accountable for this outrage. Not so.
Yet, the preoccupation, in particular with gay men, is at the exclusion of what I know happens to sexual victims, male or female. Talk about homosexuality, they’ll invoke NAMBLA, but can’t name ONE of the many thousands of equivalent hetero male groups who have put themselves online actually attacking little girls. Some of whom are their own daughters.
The latest famous person (other than Mackenzie Phillips) to talk about it is Tyler Perry.
He was abused by both a man and a woman.
Women abusers still fall under the radar, but when I try to direct the conversation about the real criminal statistics, incarceration and my ability to know this information from firsthand experience and databases, I was accused of doing something criminal myself, instead of any of those people ASKING me where they could get more information, help the problem or what my concerns were.
I have never seen anyone so PATHOLOGICALLY invested in damaging gays, that there can be no allied front to address and change the problem of sexual abuse.
Or anything else that hurts both gay AND straight people.
This IS very much like the pathological paranoia of black sexuality SO GREAT, that a casual encounter between a black man and the assumed target of his lust, would result in a street death sentence of that black male.
Even black little boys got put in jail.
There isn’t a thing different about the pathologies of preoccupation with gay male sexuality, the target is different, that’s all. And their response is Jim Crow like laws, same as against blacks.
I consider ALL of these people, ex gays, anti gay straight people and some Christians, the weakest link to combating society’s greater problems. They keep the paranoia fires burning and the expectations unrealistic about gay lives.
Yet, to hear THEM tell it, they are strong, they are such soldiers, they are SO good at what their Lord tells them to do.
There is nothing worse than a person who thinks of themselves as very good and good at what they do, while in reality, they completely fu*k up everything.
Even honesty is impossible and the first casualty.
The most vital thing: cooperation, and allied front, is completely impossible and for ridiculous reasons.
Debbie IS very weak, and although not everyone who seeks counsel in faith would be, it’s no surprise that someone would need that communion to at least FEEL stronger, more in control and less vulnerable.
But she is absolutely worthless up against the viciousness and commitment to lies and deceit and stereotyping that gay people are up against.
She doesn’t care to be an advocate, so what?
She wouldn’t be an effective one, for obvious reasons.
It saddened me that I couldn’t engage the people at TownHall, for example, in joining those brave gay men and women in the uniforms of peace officers everywhere in combating the terrible crimes out there.
Know what they said?
That it didn’t matter, those officers were doing it for sinister reasons, and I was abetting evil out there for supporting them!
What can you do with people this insane? They are exhausting. Our friend Swampfox can attest.
I tried. I just had no idea people would be THAT irrational.
I really didn’t.
I had a sweet little aunt that had been damaged by religious people and she wasn’t interested in participating in the civil rights movement. She didn’t have the strength, and she admitted that.
But she didn’t tear down and criticize those advocates out there, nor put down any loss of patience or stoic responses to whatever pain.
And I consider that more than fair. She’d paid her dues.
I know I’m going on about this, but I wanted to get it said.
Bishop Jackson is now angry that the gay folks are making the Catholic Charities withhold help from the needy. His spin on this is breathtaking, but the last line of his article is most telling.
“If you want our help, you have to accept in on our terms.”
So, doing justice for someone is conditional? There’s a caveat on kindness and caring?
I’m glad I wasn’t taught that. I hadn’t always known what to expect if I advocate for gay folks. It’s been interesting and it has been very difficult and sometimes threatening and painful.
But I’m doing it, not for anything in return, on no condition.
But I HAVE gotten something in return…
And I’ve wondered if those spectacular epiphanies I’ve experienced are part of what you get when you truly love those who don’t have it in the world.
Perhaps my amazing friends, so studied in faith here can tell me?
Thanks for letting me vent.
Off to work.
Greetings, again. OK, this really is my closing, and I think you’ll want to hear it. If I just walk away now, I deserve to be “shot in the back” (please, not literally).
I have — unpleasant as it is — gone back and read a good number of these comments again, mine and others’. It was a painfully useful exercise. It’s sometimes hard to keep a straight train of thought or to really hear what’s being said in these kinds of discussions. Too easy to talk past each other. And far too easy to let old wounds surface and carry away sanity. I’ve been guilty of that.
First, as regards that older commentary of mine I’d honestly forgotten about, but needed to be reminded of: Grantdale, if you say someone from Uganda actually quoted that back to you (a very troubling thing to me), then I will have to take a hit for that. That means I do have some culpability. I have to be responsible for every word I have written, like it or not. That piece ought to have been removed before now — it will be ASAP. That is not the tone with which I write these days, and I have learned lots more since then. It was wrong of me to get defensive instead of pausing and looking at the bigger picture. I do wish you had been less cryptic in the way you approached that, though. And I’d also like to know who in Uganda may have used that as any kind of justification so I can be in contact with them and ameliorate that, for what it’s worth.
And Mike, would you do me the kindness of realizing that the way you characterized me in your statement regarding my views on Uganda (implying that I really supported the bill, etc.) was, indeed, incorrect? It seems as if you cobbled together a perspective without having all the facts.
Dave, forgive me for going off on you. It had felt to me as if I’d been in some way almost lured here and then ambushed. But that was a knee-jerk reaction on my part. Sorry.
I am well aware that my opposition to the bill in Uganda just looks like some kind of political posturing (for lack of a better term) to some folks here. I assure you I am genuinely appalled at Uganda’s push for this bill, and I did not feel when I learned of it that I could keep silent. It seems my help is neither appreciated nor wanted by some. But I will lend it nevertheless as it’s the right thing to do.
If I refuse to drag myself out into the light and allow God to examine me, woe is me. He uses tools we don’t always recognize at first for that very thing. Hurts good. I can’t change my core beliefs, but I can certainly be willing in the future to refuse to take offense so readily and speak with more kindness. The test for me is what I do with this. I intend to take it to heart and be the better for it.
By the way, Regan, psychologically speaking, I don’t think there remains much of anything deep within me needing special validation, but I’ll stay open to the possibility. Not that I haven’t had to deal with my share of junk in life. I’ll let God work on that one. Happy to be a work in progress ’till I die.