Ex-Gay Watch

(Note: The relevant texts to this episode can be found here (adb/pdf)), and/or you can view the whole thing here.)

With that, we begin.

Dr. David Kyle Foster is the producer and co-host of a show called “Pure Passion.”:

David founded Mastering Life Ministries in 1987 and has been its director ever since. He is also the producer and host of “Pure Passion” – a televised outreach designed to equip the church to redemptively minister to those who are trapped in sexual sin and brokenness. … The goal of the program is to tell the world of God’s grace and love through Jesus Christ and His power to set anyone free from any sin or bondage.

Foster has a series of articles on homosexuality, rife with all the stale yet vicious antigay talking points:

Kyle Foster, 2008: The reality [of homosexuality] is a dramatically reduced life expectancy and the likelihood of contracting hepatitis, AIDS, or one of a host of diseases and infections, as a result of the unnatural perversity of homosexual activity.

Suicide among homosexuals is epidemic, not because society disapproves, as many would have you believe, but because these dear people feel trapped and condemned into a lifestyle and orientation that they know is out of whack.
–
And the faithfully monogamous gay couple myth – not even close. Such relationships are statistically nonexistent in the gay community.

On December 21st, 2009, the host of the show was Jayson Graves, a board member of Exodus International:

Welcome to Pure Passion. I’m Jayson Graves, and I’m your host for today’s program.

Today we have a man who has lived with the HIV virus for almost 30 years. His name is Jonathan Hunter, and since 1985 he’s been the director of a ministry to those with the AIDS virus, called “Embracing Life.”

After overdosing on drugs, he also had an after-death experience which utterly changed his life.

In my opinion, this episode exploited Jonathan Hunter’s near-death experience (NDE) in an attempt to convince their audience that there is now eye-witness testimony—proving once and for all—that Jesus Christ Himself is anti-gay.
Read more…

The Advocate is a well-known magazine that caters to the Queer community. It runs serious articles that inform readers of issues facing gays, and lighter fair for when you’ve read enough about Uganda’s legislative genocide for one day. One such piece is entitled “The Advocate’s 15 ‘Gayest’ Cities.” Randy Thomas, who is no longer “gay-identified” but for some reason still reads this prominent gay publication, has taken issue with the piece. Mike Albo, billed in the piece as an “intrepid amateur sociologist,” gives us his findings, with certain points emphasized by Randy Thomas:

Intrepid amateur sociologist Mike Albo searches for America’s 15 gayest burgs—based on a finely tuned (if totally arbitrary) calculus.

Long ago, gay people settled in our nation’s largest cities. There they spruced up all the property, created every art and fashion movement, and taught entire populations how to dance. They created gayborhoods like WeHo, Chelsea, South Beach—and pretty much queered all of San Francisco until even Laundromats had rainbow flag decals in their windows. About 10 years ago everyone else moved back into these nicely gentrified metropolises, and the lavender diaspora began. Now a slew of secondary cities are becoming gay epicenters.

This admittedly subjective search reveals spots that are much more pink than you might think. Determined by a completely unscientific but accurate statistical equation, these gayest cities may surprise you.

Of course, these are obviously cultural stereotypes, and Randy objects.

I hate math but it doesn’t take a mathematician to see that this “arbitrary calculus” has some highly questionable variables.

Is the criteria above for such a “lavender diaspora” truly what The Advocate thinks being a gay epicenter is about?  By the criteria above it appears they are saying that being gay is about political power/redefining marriage, gay activist data contextualizing the census, anonymous sex/online dating, gay bar culture and people who like to watch Brokeback Mountain or Birdcage.

You’d think that far right political activists wrote this article as a cultural meme to reinforce simplistic, and a couple of campy, stereotypes.

Mr. Albo includes zero criterion about gay centered or pro-gay churches/religious centers, no gay support groups, no attempt to study attitudes of the not gay neighbors … what about people who are in homosexual relationships but don’t identify as gay? … or with gay culture?

And lest anyone think he was reading The Advocate for anything other than investigative reporting:

Not that I affirm any of that or would presume to know what makes a “gayborhood … lavender diaspora.”

Apparently Randy’s obsession with being able to declare himself “free” of anything that might label him “gay” (or “gay-identified,” to put it in his terms) has limited his ability to understand satire. This article is a clear example of defensive humor, in which a cultural or ethnic minority forms a joke based on stereotypes used against them in order to diminish the stereotypes’ power. This is commonly seen in Jewish humor, among others. But no joke is too silly to be over-analyzed.

Plus, what good does it do to try and quantify the “gayest” cities? Regardless of the answer to that and even with the obvious satire the article could have been more thoughtful in trying to make its case.

Granted, Mr. Albo does say it is subjective and not scientific.  He obviously meant to deliver this article with a sense of humor.  He seriously doesn’t think the only creative dancing people in the world identify as gay … right?

The resulting list makes for an odd mix of cities that brings serious doubt about the accuracy of the results being truly reflective of the title of the article.  It also makes the purpose of publishing such an article suspect.

It “makes the purpose of publishing such an article suspect?” I suspect that the purpose of publishing the article was to make the predominantly gay readers of the magazine chuckle.

So, Randy Thomas and indeed all of Exodus can relax. Gays are no less committed to finding pro-gay places of worship, getting to know their gay neighbors, and entering into long-term loving relationships.

Re: “New Jersey State Senator and NAACP’s Bond Support Genderless Marriage While Rejecting Ex-Gay Rights” [12-9-09]

“…major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate,” said Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). “No scientific evidence has found a ‘gay gene.’ No DNA or medical test can determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration…”

“Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.”

Try it like this:

Human sexuality is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.
—
Apparently you’re not human until you say so in public.

Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.

Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.

Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:

MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.

COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.

MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”

This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?

COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.

MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.

COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.

“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”

That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.
Read more…

Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International:

Freedom of speech which expresses a difference of opinion on morality and spirituality is not a crime.

The following is a case of one of the hackneyed headless monsters that the anti-gay industry loves to trot out, especially in regard to hate crime legislation that includes protections for minorities on the basis of sexual-orientation and gender identity.

In an article on the EI blog called “Canadian Decision Protects Freedom of Speech For Religious Views,” Mr. Thomas links to another article titling “Alberta judge rules anti-gay letter not hate speech, overturns ruling”:

A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has ruled an anti-gay letter written by a former Alberta pastor in 2002 was not a hate crime and is allowed under freedom of speech.

Justice E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta [Canada] Human Rights Commission that the letter by Stephen Boissoin that was published in the Red Deer Advocate broke provincial law.

Mr. Thomas then had this to say:

The step backwards came when freedom of speech was taken away by the oppressive will of the government through the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Alberta Human Rights Commission:

Discrimination re: publications, notices
3 (1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that:

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt…

The reasoning goes; since it happened in Canada, it will can happen here. Except for the fact that Canada does not have the First Amendment which protects religious hate-speech from interference by the U.S. government. (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?)

Despite the absence of this protection in Canada, their judicial system sided in favor of Mr. Boissoin. Ergo, even their system worked in favor of free-speech.

One of the things Mr. Thomas, et al, neglects to mention, is that Egale Canada (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) refused to take up the case against Reverend Boissoin:

We believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

I concur. The suppression of hate-speech does not solve the root of the problem—the climate that allows for hate-speech to flourish.

But let’s take a look at the example Mr. Thomas chooses to defend free-speech with on a moral level.

Here is the full text of Stephen Boissoin’s letter to the Red Deer Advocate that Mr. Thomas describes as  ”provocative”:
Read more…

For about the past year, Exodus V.P. Randy Thomas has been slowly transitioning from using the term “ex-gay” to describe himself to the term “post-gay.” He has since taken over the Exodus Blog, and the term “ex-gay” is rarely found. Articles having to do with ex-gay issues are now tagged “post-gay,” and the term has replaced “ex-gay” to describe people who are trying to go from gay to straight – or, at least, less gay. In a recent post on the Exodus blog, Randy takes pride in having adopted a term for himself that is, according to the Huffington Post, “avant-garde.” That’s quite a change from “conservative,” a term used to describe ideology labeled “ex-gay.” But Randy’s “post-gay” and the Huffington Post’s “post-gay” are not the same.

Peter Ould has been using “post-gay” to define his sexual identity for much longer than Randy, and the term as used by them can be defined with the  following:

I think the main problem with ex-gay is that it is an ontological statement. It presents, intentionally or not, the one who calls himself as ex-gay as one who’s sexual orientation has changed from gay to straight. He/she is claiming to have gone from one state of being (gay) to another (straight). And while that is the case for many who are ex-gay, for others it isn’t so clear. For some their sexual desires move more towards those of the opposite sex but not to a point where they are exclusively heterosexual in their attractions.

…

The alternative is “post-gay”. Post-gay isn’t an ontological statement, it’s a vectorial statement. For those uninitiated in the deeper arcane magicks of mathematics, a vector is simply a description of a direction and magnitude. It describes a movement, not a position (which is ontology). Post-gay then is less about being straight or gay and rather about a choice of a journey.

Perhaps a personal example to clarify. I’m post-gay because I chose to leave “gay” behind. I chose to no longer accept “gay” as an explanation of who I was and instead to begin a journey away from it. I chose to do so because I was convinced from the Scriptures that “gay” wasn’t a suitable way to describe myself, that it wasn’t a valid way for a Christian to establish identity.

The term “post-gay” isnt’ new. And it wasn’t created by Christians who were unsuccessful at changing their sexual orientation from gay to straight. It stems from Queer Theory. About.com’s “gay life” portal defines post-gay as:

Term used to describe same-gender-loving individuals that do not identify or associate with mainstream gay culture.

A brief Google search returns mostly results that use the term in this context. The only one that clearly stands out is a result that leads to the Exodus Blog.

Performance artist and gay activist Peterson Toscano has written about the adoption of “post-gay,” referencing Glen Retief, a professor at Susquehanna University:

What ["post-gay"] means is that sexual orientation is no longer seen as important to psychological self-definition, because the equality and legitimacy of same-sex and opposite-sex intimacies, physical and emotional, have become so taken for granted that sexual orientation is not even worth noticing anymore.

The key point is here is that until you let go of heterosexism (not just homophobia), you can try as hard as you like to be “post-gay” but you won’t succeed.  Let’s say, for example, same-sex attraction is a temptation to sin, whereas an opposite-sex attraction is not a temptation to sin when it occurs in the context of heterosexual marriage.  From this it follows there is no way same-sex desire can be equally valuable to a human being as opposite-sex desire.  Let’s be real here: one can be channeled into God’s form of expression, while the other cannot; one may help you fulfil God’s will, the other will never do so, at least not in the same straightforward way.

To sum that up a bit, “post-gay” was coined to refer to an ideology that sees each sexual orientation – homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, and asexual – as being equally valid forms of human expression, and therefor not worth segregating with labels. But Randy, Peter, and Exodus couple the term with an ideology in which same-sex attraction is inferior to opposite-sex attraction, falling short of their Christian Biblical ideal – and in doing so they obliterate that inherent equality.

Rather than “vectoral,” the term “post-gay” is indeed “ontological,” because it describes a nature of being: a way of being in which sexual orientation no longer exists in the context of a hierarchy, as it does with Exodus. Ex-gays – or, at least, people who no longer wish to be considered same-sex attracted – might find “post-gay” appealing because it is used by people who consider “gay” a term that suffocates their human identity. People like Randy don’t want the term “gay” applied to them, and in fact loudly proclaim they are no longer “gay-identified,” but can’t go without using a label because openly identifying as “not gay anymore” (however you choose to express it in words) is too important to their “journey in Christ.”

PFOX stands for ‘Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays’–despite the fact that the organization is not run by ex-gays, and repeatedly and openly expresses a vituperative disdain for all things gay.

One of their more outlandish claims is that there are twice as many “ex-gays” as there are gays. In census terms, that’s about 18 million ex-gays.

You can read about their latest escapade below (For recent coverage, see Google):

Shareholders ask Walt Disney to Include Ex-Gays in Company’s Non-Discrimination Policies:

“It is about time Disney treated ex-gays with the respect they deserve,” said Bobbie Strobhar, the stockholder who submitted the shareholder resolution. “Former homosexuals are true models of courage who have been vilified by gay activists.”

Dr. Michael Brown weighs in on the matter via Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink, to assert that ex-gays are some of the most discriminated against in America:

Disney Stockholders Mull Resolution to Protect Ex-Gays
–
“If you’re going to have these discrimination laws in policies, then by all means include these as a special class of people,” Brown said.

I think it’s worth noting that Brown refers to those who identify as formerly-gay as “these.”

That succinct little bit of bluster is in light of an email in which he steers readers to an article—written by NARTH’s Prof. Robert Gagnon—that Brown describes as “exposing the very real dangers of the [then] proposed “Employment Non-Discrimination Act””–>

Gagnon’s article on the evils of ENDA is dated Oct. 23, 2007.

<–Brown’s Coalition of Conscience email (no longer in service), is dated 10-25-07, two days later.

The screen cap of the cached email above would seem to concur with those dates.

Here’s a snippet of Gagnon’s article that Brown links to:

Don’t ENDAnger Your Liberties in the Workplace

The bill will virtually codify you as a bigot so far as the federal government is concerned if you oppose homosexual practice on moral grounds.
–
If you are not convinced that this will be the outcome, try including “pedosexuality” (i.e. pedophilia), a sexual orientation toward children, under the rubric “sexual orientation” [emp mine]

Given that Mr. Brown is still a fan of Robert “pedosexuality” Gagnon, yet supports the inclusion of “ex-homosexuals” in anti-discrimination policies, are we then to assume he also supports ex-pedophiles being included in anti-discrimination policy?
–
Further, and on a much lighter note, if Disney’s “ex-gay” employees are afforded non-discrimination protections, will they then hold ex-gay days?

The celebration of Gay days at Disney is traditionally marked by the wearing of red.

So what’s the color of ex-red?

The New York Times published an article detailing experiences of middle school-age children (roughly ages 11-14) who were open about their sexuality. Chris Stump of Exodus Youth responded with this article. In the Times article, we learn that while some might not experience their gradeschool years free of conflict concerning their sexuality, they are much more likely to be accepted or simply left alone about their orientation. These kids date, have boyfriends and girlfriends, and can talk openly about their crushes – no matter their gender – with their friends and peers. One 13-year-old who came out did so because when he realized he was attracted to other boys, he did not want to go through a period of miserable isolation. He chose instead to be sexually honest and open about his attractions. In response, several of his girl friends told him they were bisexual.

Stump, of course, has concerns:

Instead of celebrating the earlier embrace of a gay identity, we need to be cautious and concerned. Embracing an identity based on feelings as an 11-13 year old child, whose brain is still developing and hormones are raging, is jumping the gun.

But the point of the article isn’t that kids are solidifying their “identity” at an early age – it’s that they can be honest about their attractions at the onset of puberty, when their exclusively heterosexual peers are experiencing the same “raging hormones” and often confusing feelings. But rather than pretend they too are exclusively opposite-sex-attracted, they can talk about their same same-sex-attractions as if they too were normal. And for the most part, they have been able to find an ever-growing, accepting environment.

Stump also expressed annoyance at the author’s mention of “sexual fluidity.”

Another thing that stuck out to me was when the author mentioned fluidity in sexuality. So many in the secular world agree with the idea that sexuality is a fluid thing. But how is it so hard to embrace the idea of people moving from a homosexual identity to a post-homosexual identity? That’s just another “expression” of sexuality being fluid. But, yet, it is scorned and ridiculed for being absurd.

The difference between someone’s naturally experienced sexual fluidity and “embracing a post-homosexual identity” is that one happens with ease in some individuals as a natural part of the human experience, while the other is a “journey in Christ” that consists of years, even decades, of fruitless efforts to deny or change one’s sexual attractions. The ex-gay “struggle” with same sex attractions is often stated as simply a part of the “journey.” One must also remember that sexual fluidity is a two-way street. One’s sexual flexibility can bend in either direction – which means that one could “switch” from mostly same sex to mostly opposite sex attractions, and also back again. But most of those who seek out ex-gay treatment are same-sex attracted individuals who want to actively change their homosexuality by adhering to specific religious principals, and sometimes engage in harmful “reparative therapy.” Sexual fluidity may occur in some human beings, but it is also not something that can be taught or adopted. If your sexuality isn’t fluid, it simply isn’t fluid.

The Times article highlights a hopeful time in queer history where children going through puberty can be honest about their attractions to any of their peers, not just the ones they are “supposed” to be attracted to. And while the middle school years can still be chaotic and filled with prepubescent torture, at least the burden on gay youth to keep closeted seems to be lessening. It’s one more adolescent struggle that kids can go through together rather than miserably thinking they are the only ones. And in light of the Kevin Jennings stories circulating, including one on the Exodus blog that is highly critical, Exodus Youth should realize that providing a safe environment for teens to be able to talk about their same-sex attractions with their peers will help prevent situations like the one Jennings faced so many years ago from happening.

President Barack Obama issued a statement in celebration of the month of June being LGBT Pride Month:

“LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities.”

Exodus International head Alan Chambers released his own statement, at first praising gays and then scolding them.

“…does the fact that these leaders identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender have anything to do with the fact that they are talented? Of course not. Their achievements and contributions are entirely unrelated to any label they may embrace.”

Absolutely right. This is a wonderful statement about equality: members of the queer community are just like those of the straight community; save for the fact that they might happen to defy gender norms or have romantic attractions to someone of the same sex. Chambers then expresses sympathy toward schoolchildren who are bullied with anti-gay epithets – many of whom aren’t even gay. He recounts how he wished he could have stood up for a girl from his school days named Andrea who was bullied for her weight and looks. But then the article takes a different turn.

I wonder, though, are we not playing playground politics once more by elevating the status of LBGT individuals above those of the equally valuable Andreas of the world?

Andrea goes from being a tragic example of all victims of school bullying to a martyr at the hands of “too much” focus on anti-gay bullying. Apparently any attention paid to anti-gay bullying is attention taken away from every other kind of bullying – as if stopping any kind of harassment doesn’t benefit every single student.

Chambers also trots out his own tired and out-dated “ex-gay” testimony, a testimony that applies to nobody but him:

I chose to leave gay life more than 18 years ago because the self-indulgent, empty pursuits I encountered there are certainly not worth commemorating.

It’s all well and good that Chambers left a lifestyle that was empty and unfulfilling. But gay pride isn’t about celebrating any “lifestyle,” it’s about celebrating the fact that one can be honest about who they are without having to internalize the shame heaped upon them by socially and religiously conservative people. Chambers also seems to forget that being gay today, especially in my generation (the “Millenial Generation”), is very different from being gay 20 years ago. While promiscuity may have been a celebrated trait in certain gay circles in the 70′s and 80′s, the onset of AIDS – as well as the growing acceptance of those who love someone of the same sex by the general public – has eased the process of coming out and reduced the need for gays to express their newfound sexual freedom with an explosion of encounters in local “gayborhood” bars. The gay people of my generation are coming out in their teens, and like our straight counterparts, court and date others their own age, and pursue marriage – or at least, mutually agreed-upon lifelong commitment – as a definite possibility or an ultimate goal in their lives. Young gays meet in “safe spaces,” community centers, and churches rather than bars or clubs.

The most confusing part of Chambers’ article is that while he acknowledges that being gay has no effect on whether or not someone is successful in life in the first part, in the second part he establishes a false dichotomy that says his fulfilling life as a father and a ministry leader could only have happened after he became “ex-gay.”

It’s the life I live now as a fulfilled husband, father and ministry leader that causes me to look back and celebrate what God has done in and through me.

He completely misses the point that what we’re celebrating is the fact that we can be both gay and valuable members of society. Being gay is not the confining lifestyle Chambers experienced for only a single year in his life. People like me don’t have (as he puts it) “an all-consuming gay identity” that prevents us from being anything but somebody who has a different sexual orientation. The point is that being same-sex attracted is so natural for us that it needn’t interfere with our ambitions and aspirations. Just like for me, being Jewish doesn’t mean I’m not also an American or an artist. All of these identities blend with one another to make me a complete human being. Chambers might not have been able to move past the fact that he was attracted to men and live a productive life, but he absolutely does not speak for the rest of us.

 The term “ex-gay” is probably the most common one used to describe people who enter into reparative therapy. One can call themselves “ex-gay” even if they have not shaken their sexual attraction to the same sex. After years of public scrutiny, groups like Exodus International can no longer declare outright that their single mission is changing one’s sexual orientation from completely homosexual to completely heterosexual. Even their leaders declare publicly that they “still struggle” and must pray daily to have the strength to “deny that which comes naturally” to them.

Recently, it seems the term “post-gay” has started to become more popular. Peter Ould and and Exodus V.P. Randy Thomas have adopted it. Rather than declaring one’s self “ex-gay,” as if nothing about them is “gay” anymore, “post-gay” supposedly acknowledges the fact that same sex attraction remains despite abstinence and prayer – the important thing being that one does not continue to identify as “gay,” but as “Christian” instead. It becomes about the “journey in Christ” rather than actually changing that core attraction. In fact, it is now apparently misleading to even refer to Exodus as an organization that “seeks to rid gay men of same sex attraction.”

It seems that these different labels can be confusing. Someone can be considered to be on the path to righteousness so long as they aren’t calling themselves “gay” out right, but at the same time, that person can still be as homosexually-attracted at the core of their being as they were before they entered into a ministry.

What do you think about labels in the “ex-gay” movement?