This month, my job changed, my salary rose, my office moved… but ex-gay activists remain as committed to conflict, resentment, and tired old refrains as ever. I must admit: Covering their pessimism, their isolationism, their lack of faith in themselves and God is unrelentingly depressing.
There’s gotta be a way to encourage positive thinking, promote constructive engagement, maybe even evoke just a trace of independent accountability in the movement. Thoughts?
I think the sooner you realize that “ex-gay” activists are only in this to make a buck will be exactly when you can dismiss them and prepare to fight their message.
“Ex-gay” activists aren’t there to save anyone. They’re here to parade the very few success stories they have in front of potential patrons.
People like Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, John Paulk, Steven Bennett, Mike Haley, Michael Johnston and D.L. Foster don’t give a flying fig about your soul or anyone elses. They thrive on division because that scares the uninformed into giving money to their cause.
Personally, I believe that these people don’t believe what they’re saying, they know its all hogwash but if they repeat it enough those donations keep rolling in from scared fundy parents or unstable gay people.
Its a shell game.
Well I took your advice and read Wayne Besen’s new book last week and loved it. Now I suggest to you, go re-read the last chapter. I LOVE the idea of getting news-magazines to send boys into Exodus groups undercover with hidden cameras and airing footage of the leaders hitting on them. I’d be first in line to put on a wire.
Here’s an off-the-wall idea: Let’s invite the ex-gays to join us.
On the surface at least, we’re both calling for a greater acceptance of our chosen lifestyles. So let’s make a truce. They claim not to hate us, and they ask us not to hate them. It sounds like a good deal to me.
Let’s not forget: As of many years ago, our side has become both more numerous and more widely accepted than theirs, so we’ve got very little to lose by reaching out instead of condemning.
And here’s where we call their bluff…
Wherever they go, we will be with them, and we’ll be very, very friendly to every single one of these lonely, affection-starved “ex-“gays. We’ll invite them to Pride events, take them out to the gay neighborhoods, get them involved in the cultural, social, and charity events of the gay community. We’ll blur the lines between “us” and “them” so much that I’d bet many of the would-be converts–the people at the lower echelons of the movement–would just say “Hmm… I guess gay people aren’t that bad anyway. And now that I’ve got all these gay friends, what’s the big deal? I might as well come out.”
By this point, the would-be ex-gay has met gay teachers and social workers and insurance agents and who-knows-what else. He’s even met gay priests and ministers, who have helped him to reconcile his faith and his sexuality.
By embracing the ex-gays rather than forsaking them, we’ll prove that all the bad stuff they say about us is false. You can be gay and a good person at the same time. Heck, you can even be gay and Christian. I’ve seen ex-gay propaganda, and it positively demonizes the gay community. The best way to fight back is to present all the best things the community has to offer, and for us to be there, ready to take back anyone who is ready to come in from the cold.
You catch more flies with honey, is all I’m sayin’…
I would gladly welcome ex-gays into my circle of friends. I find their message is challenging when it is well considered and well thought-out. It is when they start stating that it is God’s Will that I be “healed” of my homosexuality that I get annoyed. The last time I checked, God was Sovereign, and throughout the Bible is shown to change His Will depending on the circumstances at the time. I am not here to convert them, likewise I would appreciate if they didn’t set about converting me. Christians are the first to use the platitude “No one cares how much you know, they only want to know how you care”, and I hand that to them as an olive branch in this “culture war”. I don’t want to know what they have learned out of being an ex-gay. I have read the books, attended the seminars and prayed the prayers and nothing changed. They may have had a different experience, but I would love it if they would stop trying to add me to their list of “successes” or “failures” and treat me as a person they could befriend.
I am open to having ex-gays as friends, in the same way that I am open to having practising Christians as friends, however, it seems inevitable that they will grow uncomfortable around me, as I have a personal perspective on their lifestyle, but they have little or no personal perspective on mine. Since leaving the church and living life as an out gay man, Christian friends have come and gone, some admitting that they only befriended me so they could get me back to church. But gay friends have remained, even when I was a practising Christian.
I welcome them as friends. But I won’t be going out of my way to find them.
Yeah… what he said!
(Dalai Banana)
Having been a Pentecostal minister, I have a sharp insight into their perspective, but I sense there is little reciprocal insight on their part into what constitutes my life and values. I’m happy to befriend any, but I refuse to become anyone’s “project”.
What many of you fail, perhaps rather ignorantly to realize is that former homosexuals are just that. We have been to the clubs, bars, parades, etc, etc. Its all old news. Done all the things you do now, been all the places you go now, repeated all the cliches you repeat now, felt the way you feel now and discovered it was based on a complete lie about identity. For your part you have either not discovered that truth or have rejected it. Yet, this TRUTH now governs who we are, how we live and what we will say. Because you do not believe what we do, you feel threatened. And rightly so. We are here to destroy the works of the devil. I think that is a frightening concept to those who hold on to the LIE. When a lie is challenged it loses its power. No one is born gay, so therefore no one should have to live under that lie unless they WANT to.
Furthermore, you have everything to lose, if you lose your soul. For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul…? It is a pronounced and utter lie that God created or approves of homosexual relations. I am committed to fighting that with all the passion I can muster up. Truth is worth defending.
I have my hands full dealing with people who DO NOT want to be homosexual and are searching for options. Its reprehensible for you to cut off their choice to seek out what they feel will be satisfying to them. It’s unconstitutional to deny people choice. And many people want a choice in dealing with their homosexuality. You offer nothing but false affirmation. Been down that road before and here’s a tip: ITS A DEAD END.
Repentance from your sin is the only thing that will bring you the healing you need but are too afraid to pursue. Repent now, before its too late.
In a word DL, you’re full of crap.
You are a profit monger plain and simple. You prey on the fears of confused, wounded people or you prey on the fears of hurt and confused parents of gay kids.
For what? FOR MONEY. You take trips across the country on the backs of the frightened to spread a message of division that will hopefully bring in more funds.
You may be fooling the people who send checks to your groups and you might even be fooling yourself into thinking you’re doing God’s work but you’re not fooling anyone who reads your rhetoric.
I for one refuse to be used as a tool to line your pockets.
Where’s your proof of that FALSE accusation?
The proof can be found on any “Christian” ex-gay website. I read many of them to keep tabs on you people.
Tell ya what Darryl, I’ll post what I make a year doing honest work and you can post exactly how much your “non-profits” are paying you to be a spokesmodel.
How much does it cost to send you to conferences in DC? How much do you pull down to go interfere and testify in states you don’t live in?
How much does your group pull in in donations a year? Care to take that bet?
Sure, not a problem at all. Will you apologize when you learn the truth? Here’s my information:
2003 DC exgay lobby trip:
approximately $250 including airfare, lodging and food. Paid from my own pocket.
2004 speaker at black traditional rally in Atlanta
$0
2004 DC exgay lobby trip:
approximately $275. Lodging and airfare by anonymous donor. Other expenses paid out of my pocket
GA Senate hearing 2004. I have never testified in any state other than Georgia where I reside.
$0
Donations for exgay ministry in 2004. $0 Verified through guidestar.org
I’ll be waiting on your figures and your apology. Thats if you are an honest person. Also,,can you provide links to the “Christian exgay websites” you allege to have found all this incriminating information?
I’m not apologizing. You didn’t post your yearly pay. I make an honest 60 grand a year (not bragging, I think I’m underpaid).
What does your “non-profit” make a year? What do they pay you to be a spokesperson?
I can start with PFOX if you’d like. Regina Griggs manages to insert herself into unwinnable situations to play the poor wounded “Christian”.
Oh woah is me, the NEA won’t let us put up a booth, they’re oppressing our message, please send money to help fight the “homosexual agenda”.
ITS TRANSPARENT DARRYL!!! Its a publicity stunt designed to get exposure and drive up donations. You honestly think alot of people can’t see this?
Back to the matter at hand. What could I expect to make a year if I were going to “find Jesus” and take my medicine show on the road for a “non-profit”?
I just have to say that there is no such thing as an ex-gay just gays in denial. Can you possibly tell me that you have absolutely zero inclinations towards other men. Because I know that no matter how much you pray or wish god could take away these feelings they will never go away, because he made you gay just as he made straights, bisexuals, trangenders, blacks, jews, arabs, orientals and native americans. Why because god values diversity and individuality. If he didn’t than he would have create all the same, but that would be boring. I tell you something jesus said “By their fruits ye shall know them,” What are the fruits of your industry destroyed lives and families. You also know how I know that you are a quack, people like you and orginizations like you can’t even back up your treatments with scientific proof that it works, you want to know why because if you did it would show that the treatments don’t work and are in fact dangerous. But of course people like yourselves don’t even believe in science, you choose to believe in an ancient fable about a man who supposedly came down and atoned for mans sins and died on the cross and was resurrected in three days am I right?
Here’s another one for you Darryl.
Stephen Bennett is going to invade P-town in a few weeks. He’ll come back with a story of redemption about some unnamed drag queen who took his goody bag and fell to her knees weeping and begging Stevo to pray with her. There won’t be any pictures and we’ll never hear from this drag queen in public but Steve assures us it really happened.
But to make this trip to P-town a good one, please consider donating MONEY to SBM so they can spread the word (and skim a little off the top to pay their office staff, who by the way will get a raise next year if donations to the “non-profit” are up).
MONEY MONEY MONEY Darryl.
Where do you get this insane idea that people dont need money to accomplish their goals? Your objections are problematic because no organization can operate without finances. To condemn SBM or PFOX would be to condemn HRC and NGLTF. Is that what you are doing?
No one pays for ads or rent conference facilities with prayer. DO YOU? You are living in a fairytale if you think that religious groups do not need money to accomplish their mission. Just like any other organization. TV air time, radio time, bill boards all cost money. So why is it that you are so bent out of shape on such a fundamental American concept?
My salary is paid by the church I pastor not exgay organization. My salary is to perform the nine sacredotal duties each pastor must perform per IRS requirements. But thats not your business, no more than your personal salary is mine. Apples and oranges. You need to do more research and stop making wild-eyed accusations. If you dont like it that people are getting money to further their causes why dont you get into the game? Your only other option is to keep whining.
I just have to say that there is no such thing as an ex-gay just gays in denial. Can you possibly tell me that you have absolutely zero inclinations towards other men.
>>>You wouldnt believe even it if I did. But dont feel bad, neither would a llama at the zoo. So whats your point? Be specific. Furthermore, Jesus said “If any man would follow me, he must deny himself, take up him cross and follow me. I’m denying with JOY that I am gay so that I can follow Jesus.
Because I know that no matter how much you pray or wish god could take away these feelings they will never go away, because he made you gay just as he made straights, bisexuals, trangenders, blacks, jews, arabs, orientals and native americans. Why because god values diversity and individuality.
>>Which god? the one you believe in or the one I believe in. Sin creates diversity. Plain and simple.
I tell you something jesus said “By their fruits ye shall know them,” What are the fruits of your industry destroyed lives and families.
>>Your confusion and ignorance is showing. First you quote Jesus as proof of your point, then you ridicule his coming as a fable. Make up your mind.
You also know how I know that you are a quack, people like you and orginizations like you can’t even back up your treatments with scientific proof that it works, you want to know why because if you did it would show that the treatments don’t work and are in fact dangerous. But of course people like yourselves don’t even believe in science, you choose to believe in an ancient fable about a man who supposedly came down and atoned for mans sins and died on the cross and was resurrected in three days am I right?
>>>???The rantings of a fool are difficult to respond.
You’re either delibrately missing the point or your uninformed about scare tactics and I’m definately not going to let you change the subject.
Non-profits do need funds to operate, however a good non-profit doesn’t need to resort to scare tactics to drive up donations.
For Regina Griggs to pull publicity stunts knowing full well what the outcome will be is a donation mongering.
Regina Griggs knows full well that the NEA will reject her bid for a display booth at their convention but does it anyway so she can play repressed, put out press releases and confirm for the 20% of the country that would bother writing a check to her group that they’re oppressed.
Non-profits cannot make a profit as an organization but the staff sure can.
Generally the board (which usually consists of friends and the spokesperson themselves) can vote for pay raises. Employees of non-profits can make any amount.
WOW Darryl, I just posted about donation mongering publicity stunts by Regina Griggs and your name is all over a brand new press release.
Care to explain this little snippet?
“Ex-gays related personal stories of the hate and discrimination they experienced because they left homosexuality. They urged Congress to support a resolution calling for tolerance for ex- gays. “The resolution says that Congress condemns hate against ex-gays and affirms its commitment to a society that respects all people, including former homosexuals,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX executive director. “Now who could be opposed to that?” Apparently, Sen. Allen is. In a meeting with Rev. Darryl Foster, an African-American ex-gay, Allen’s office did not want to sign on to the resolution. “Allen’s office said that acknowledging ex- gays through the resolution would amount to ‘favoritism’ and the Senator would not do that, said Foster.”
Why are you inserting yourselves into the debate on hate crimes laws?
You are already covered under current hate crimes laws based on religion. Why is Regina Griggs telling a complete lie when she says “PFOX calls upon Senators Kennedy and Allen to stop playing favorites by protecting homosexuals while ignoring ex-gays. “This divides families, is discriminatory and hurts our communities,” said Griggs. “Sen. Allen should now sponsor the PFOX ex-gay resolution. He has sponsored or supported other resolutions in the past. Why not this one?”
That is a lie and you know it. Hate crimes laws cover SEXUAL ORIENTATION which means gay, straight, bisexual.
Since “ex-gays” call themselves straight now, they’re covered under the current law.
Why are “Christians” like yourself lying in press releases?
More publicity stunts for attention and donations?
Scott you have to realize that these people have no values whatsoever. And you also must realize that these people are VERY UNHAPPY otherwise why else would they seek to make everyone else just as miserable like themselves. And for you reverend are you saying that blacks are children of the devil because saying that sin creates diversity is exactly what you are saying. You are just like all other preachers just a snake oil salesman. Read that snake oil because you don’t offer true salvation just the imitation of such. I on the other hand don’t offer anything to people who listen to me, heck I could be just as wrong as you are, no one knows what is real. Most of what people believe is really fiction the only truth is in facts and evidence, and since your movement can’t provide any you have lost all credibility with all proffesional orginizations, such as the A.P.A., A.M.A, American college of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and various others. The fact that there have been many ex-ex-gays who have come out and told the world that your all a bunch of quacks just convinces us more that homosexuality is fixed and unchangeable. You want to know something I have never been happier since I came out as a gay man. And I don’t need your conditional love, because I have friends who love me for who I am as a gay man. And tell me if you feel so much against us why did you come to an ex-ex-gay site. Trying to convince us that we are lost and you have the cure, sorry but only the weak answer your call. Please go back to your ministry and wallow in your own self-pity trying to force others to become just as you are, a self-loathing homosexual. I for one refuse to go down that path. And f.y.i I follow Jesus of Nazareth the free-thinking, liberal, human rights activist. Not Lucifer the closed-minded, conservative, human rights abuser, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
D.L., did you just call that poster a fool and ignorant?
On to other things. My biggest (and maybe even only) problem with ex-gays is similar to the problems reported by this site- namely their distortion of fact and truth and spreading of lies.
When I read Op-Eds all over Exodus’s site and other areas that talk about statistics about gay households and about the promiscutiy of gays, all without a cited source. Or, if a source has been cited, the author has used no scientific standards to conduct his studies, I am alarmed.
How can someone that is telling me I am going to hell for being gay come out and overlook these fellow ex-gays and their lies?
Here is a recent Lie on Exodus’ site by Tony Perkins:
“The evidence suggests that children living with married parents have the best chance of becoming happy, healthy, responsible, morally upright citizens. Compared with children raised in other family structures, they are the least likely to be abused and they have better emotional health and engage in fewer risky behaviors, including substance abuse, delinquency and premarital sex. Also, children with married parents fare better economically and experience greater educational success.”
Oddly enough, he doesn’t cite any studies. It would be nice to back up such a strong statement. But, the problem is that the author compares 2 parents of the opposite sex to those that are not. So, he includes single parents, no parents, and many others. What is funny is that the miniscule literature on gay households shows that 2 parent gay households are just about as capable as 2 parent straight households at raising children (go here for a scientific study or two- https://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html). But, instead of noting this point, Tony attempts to completely ignore that and present the opposite as fact by including any family structure other than 2 opposite sex parents into one group.
Sounds like a pretty big lie to me. Why would anyone condemning gays to hell for sinning condemn or even condone (in the case of DL since these tactics are pretty common among ex-gays) this type of sin?
Jason Kuznicki,
I wish you wouldn’t put people into baskets like that.
“He’s even met gay priests and ministers, who have helped him to reconcile his faith and his sexuality.”
For your information, I used to believe these gay priests and ministers, but since changed my mind. So I know all the interpretations, all the understandings, all the generalisations. I not longer accept them.
“You can be gay and a good person at the same time.”
Well that would depend on your value-loaded definition of “good”. I would say it’s impossible for anyone (gay or straight) to be totally good.
“Heck, you can even be gay and Christian.”
Absolutely. I’m living proof. I believe I was a Christian before I changed my mind about this issue, when I identified as “gay”, and I am Christian now.
Maybe you shouldn’t jump so easily to the conclusion that we’ve all been living in a cave. There are “monogamous”, happy people in same-sex sexual relationships. I’ve met plenty of friendly lesbians who would rather play football than participate in a raunchy parade. My former colleague, a lesbian, was a wonderful person, and we got on well.
I still think the sex is inappropriate.
Then don’t participate in it. Very simple.
Wow, I am amazed at the negative tone of the thread. Yes, having the religious rights condemn you because a search of a 6,000 year old religious text confirms their own prejudice is not right or fair but that does not give us the right to be quite so negative. Perhaps Jesus was on to something when he realized an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth although based in scripture was not a good idea. Strange how a man who didn’t lead an army or even write a single line created a religion that coverted the mighty Roman Empire and lasts to this day. People have different ideas about what it means to be Christ like. People have different ideas about religion and it’s role in society and in our lives. Those are the real issues. Not homosexuality, Christianity, or ex-gays.
Perhaps even some of us who do not believe in Christ need to be more Christ like. With humbleness he spread his message in a hostile world.
Mike, as someone who spent the last twelve years of his life working in social services, with people the hardest hit and most hurt by life’s indignities (AIDS, Mental Illness, Abuse, Neglect, rape, etc.) I can empathize with your feelings.
No, you can’t solve the problem of Ex-Gays and their lies and falsehoods. Some of them do it out of spite, some out of repression, some I’m convinced do it because they really, really, really believe they are right and Human Nature being what it is, can’t see all the reasons they aren’t, no matter how often and how loudly it’s pointed out.
None of that ever changes what it is that you’ve done, here in this space, to those people who’ve read. The adage has become trite and overused, but it is still quite true: people do read your site, see the truth of the matter, and some honestly and truly, who wouldn’t otherwise have found support, or who would be many more years away from finding it, are better by your efforts here.
I’ve an article coming out the end of the month in a fairly popular young gay men’s magazine. The subject is the Ex-Gay movement and the testimonies quotes in the magazine are ones I found thanks to your site. Thats tens of thousands of young people who are going to read real testimonies, from real people who went through the real bullshit of the Ex-Gays sell and will have the truth about how silly the whole thing is. They’ll have that information in no small part thanks to your site. (And hopefully the editors will include a link to your page as it was on the list I sent over.)
If you feel as though you need to stop, then by all means do so. Don’t put forth the effort if you don’t have it in you anymore. Just know and understand that your page has had an impact. It’s helped a lot of people, even you don’t personally happen to know their names.
Give yourself a pat on the back for that. You have my respect and appreciation for you’ve done here.
Amen to that Jason. Today’s Christians definitely could learn a lot from Christ sometimes. The early church was known for their humbleness and generosity.
The only thing I take issue with this:
“Perhaps Jesus was on to something when he realized an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth although based in scripture was not a good idea.”
I think it was more about the way it was being abused, outside of its original context. Christ called people to something more demanding – to lay down their lives for others, not to construct pernickity laws that allow the “righteous” to lord it over the “sinners”.
Darryl,
You’ve frequently hinted that you do not, in fact, know what gays do with their time. If you know us so well, then please tell us about ourselves. But may I suggest you avoid Ben’s mistakes?
Ben at Scattered Words recently indicated he too does not have a clue what most gay people think or do. He assumes — no, insists repeatedly — that “homosexuality” (unlike heterosexuality) is “predominantly” about sex.
As it happens, Ben is aware that he may be addicted to sex. But he does not go very far in accepting personal responsibility for his choice of behaviors. Like some other gay, ex-gay and straight people that I have encountered, Ben speaks less as a person in charge of his own choices and actions, more as someone who prefers to avoid responsibility by blaming outside influences and, perhaps, the excessive freedom in America to do as he chooses.
Because his few gay acquaintances, whom he meets in bars and bathhouses, also happen to be barflies and bathhouse clients, Ben insults gay men as a class by insisting there can be little else in the lives of most gay men besides sex.
An alert and perceptive Ben would have noticed and acknowledged that most gay Washingtonians spend their free time in cafes chatting with friends, or reading a good book in Dupont Circle, or grabbing a bite to eat at WrapWorks or Zorba’s, or shopping, or bicycling or hiking in the Adventuring club, or sitting home watching TV, perhaps hitting a bar or dance floor from time to time, or (in some cases) attending AA or SA meetings.
But if Ben acknowledged that, then he would have to acknowledge that he has more choices at hand than his mentors — Randy Thomas, among others — seem willing to allow.
Ben tells himself that homosexuals and ex-gays have few options besides lust, promiscuity, and abstinence. Therefore, Ben gives himself little choice but to abstain from healthy friendships and activities, then binge in potentially unsafe sex with strangers. Ben has made clear that he narrowly knows the lifestyle of the unattached man with multiple unknown sex partners quite well. Despite numerous opportunities to do so, he has not expressed any awareness of the lives of broad range of gay men or lesbians who do not conform to his narrow range of experience.
Even when people like Ben, Stephen Bennett or Randy Thomas read broad-minded perspectives like this one on gay male sexuality — ranging from abstinence to monogamy to multiple frequent partners — they ignore the prudes and rant against the lewds. They make conscious choices to deny the existence of a broad range of gay people — and to sermonize and demonize against one segment.
Thankfully, some ex-gays know us well. Specifically, they know that some heterosexual and homosexuals have multiple sex partners and some do not. They acknowledge that homosexual men are not qualitatively different from heterosexual men: They go to work, read books, do the laundry, fix the car, watch TV, go to movies, attend church or synagogue, and yes, like heterosexual men, homosexual men have sex — but again, not necessarily according to your kinky stereotypes.
Darryl, your unhappiness, anger, and pessimism toward gays create a public impression about your own lack of self-confidence and faith. You may not like it, but I’m confident that many gay people are praying for you. Not for you to become “homosexual” again, but for you to move beyond your anger, your stereotypes, your negativism, your lack of confidence in God and in His children — whether they are straight or gay, “liberal” or “conservative.”
Thanks for your well-written comments for Darryl, Mike. And for Ex-Gay Watch. I always feel confident refering my ex-gay friends here to begin to understand the other side of the story. Re: Ben: Reading his exhibitionist but heart-felt blog makes me sad – it’s the stuff I would have written along the way if there had been blogging in the 1980s. I have no doubt whatsoever that he will come to accept himself as a gay man, and thus begin to move toward healthier expressions of sexuality. The way he’s taking on the war in his soul tells me he will ultimately embrace truth. And he’ll be a convincing voice for LGBT causes.
I think Jason Kuznicki’s idea was great: what Christians offer is a safe, insular community that is extremely open to its members. It may be conditional on strict, Old Testament restrictions but, for an isolated or depressed gay person it must be hugely attractive.
The best thing to reduce the influence of the ex-gay movement is, then, to offer something better than this: a community of open, friendly and confident gay and gay-friendly people that won’t judge a person, regardless of his beliefs, and are compatible with the person as he or she is, not as they would want them to be. By being as open and friendly as possible to ex-gays is not only a genuinly nice and fun thing to do, it would also starve Exodus and it’s ilk of the one thing that allows them to prosper: a ready supply of isolated, insecure and frightened gay people.
I think the Reverand’s instant and hostile dismissiveness to Jason’s idea is telling about just how potentially successful it could be. Perhaps we could canvas ex-gay meetings with invitations to BBQs or gay discussion groups in the same way Exodus does. However, instead of trying to ‘convert’ them we simply offer them an open environment to be themselves, without discussing ex-gays or why they are trying to convert.
It appears that this “Ben” fellow that MikeA keeps linking to needs to get out more, if the poster (whose bona fides I still have no reason to believe) believes that straight people are all so prim and proper. Seen just in the media in the last two days:
From the Houston Chronicle:
>Radio’s Jon Matthews pleads guilty to indecency
>RICHMOND — Former radio talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty today to a charge of indecency with a child in a plea agreement with prosecutors.
Matthews, 59, who resigned from his position at KSEV-AM 700 last year, was to go to trial June 28 but decided to accept the agreement after rejecting it last week, said Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey.
(snip)
>He was indicted Nov. 11 on a charge alleging that he had exposed himself to an 11-year-old girl at his home on Oct. 9. He was arrested two days later and released on $10,000 bail.
The conservative talk show host resigned from his position at KSEV-AM 700, where he had a program on weekday mornings, and also stopped writing a column for the weekly Fort Bend Star.
>The conservative talk show host resigned from his position at KSEV-AM 700, where he had a program on weekday mornings, and also stopped writing a column for the weekly Fort Bend Star.
https://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2638931
From the Chicago Sun-Times
>Ex-wife says Ryan pushed sex clubs
>Actress Jeri Ryan accused ex-husband Jack Ryan of insisting she go to “explicit sex clubs” in New York, New Orleans and Paris during their marriage — including “a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling.”
>Jack Ryan wanted her to have sex with him while others watched, the star of “Boston Public” alleged.
>The Republican U.S. Senate candidate dismissed his ex-wife’s allegations as “ridiculous accusations” and “smut” that she was dishing out without concern about how it would make their young son “feel about his parents or himself.”
>Those were the key revelations in documents from a 2000 and 2001 child custody battle that a judge ordered unsealed Monday
https://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ryan22.html
Regarding the Ryan case, frankly, if Mr. Ryan really gave a tinker’s damn about their “young son,” he would not have pressured his wife into engaging in such–uh–perverted activities.
I mean, come on, get real. Ryan’s case is only the latest of a long line of a bunch of conservative/Republican “family value” hetero creeps who were caught with their pants down. Gingrich getting fellated by a woman not his wife. Dan Burton of Indiana–fathered a child out of wedlock. Henry “homewrecker” Hyde–whose “youthful indiscretion” at the age of 39 wrecked someone else’s marriage. Helen Chenowyth–a conservative christian nutcase, who also wrecked someone else’s marriage. Adulterer Bob Dole. Oh, and Robert Livingston–who was supposed to take over as House speaker when Gingrich stepped down: the details of his indiscretions still haven’t been publicizied. And, I might remind you, Ronald Reagan (the late, la/or-un/lamented saint among conservatives) was an adulterer.
Moreover, although I cannot speak to attendance at bathhouses, from what I have read the vast majority of men who are arrested for having sex in public restrooms with other men are men who are married with children. In other words, straight men, to all outward appearances. As I said, I don’t know about bathhouses, but I would be surprised if that was not also the case particularly in regards attendance during or at the end of a work day–a quickie same-sex encounter. (From my experience in chatting with people in internet chat rooms, this is largely borne out.) If this “Ben” character wants to whine, he should investigate before whining. Frankly, he reminds me of a typical conservative whiner. In the comments to his post, he was whining about starting a “straight pride parade”: actually, if the poster was for real, and if he/she/or it had any balls, he would try to do so. (Re “balls,” pardon my “french,” but I am tired of crap from whining pseudo-conservative couch potatoes who bitch and moan about gay pride parades (“why are there no straight pride parades”), the Black Entertainment Television network (“why is there no white entertainment network”), but who are too lazy to get off their lazy asses to start such. They should be encouraged to get up and stand for their values. Their failure to do so suggests that they have no values.
Re MikeA’s “Even when people like Ben, Stephen Bennett or Randy Thomas read broad-minded perspectives like this one on gay male sexuality — ranging from abstinence to monogamy to multiple frequent partners — they ignore the prudes and rant against the lewds.”
Your link doesn’t work, so I don’t know what you were trying to refer to. Nonetheless, I am going to put in a word in favor of promiscuity. Your reference to “rant against the lewds” suggests that you look unfavorably toward I quite frankly am tired of reading crap like defensive comments from gay people regarding promiscuity.
If you don’t want to be promiscuous, don’t be.
As far as I’m concerned, promicuity can have its uses. Particularly among gay people. Quite frankly, if I had not been what hetero wackos consider promiscuous when I was in my mid- to late-20s (in the late 1970s) I would not have met my partner. And he, if he had not been promiscuous, would not have met me. And we have been together for almost 26 years (our anniversary is 2 Sept). And we will be getting married (there are some benefits to being Massachusetts residents) within the next week or so.
So, Mike, discard the “lewd” crap. The homo-wackers are going to wack you whether or not there are any “lewds.” They will manufacture the “lewds.”
BTW, although we were promiscuous before we met, and tricked out a bit for a short period after we met, we have been monogamous for well over 20 years. Domesticity can do that for one. Given my observations of more than a few heteros, we have been monogamous for a lot longer than they have been.
So, Mike, give this “lewds” bit a rest. And stop essentially apologizing for the fact that gay people might just be a bit more honest about their “infidelities” than straight people probably are. Some of us actually do monitor AOL and gay.com chat rooms and see what goes on there.
BTW, if you have any influence with the funders at IndeGayForum.com, you might mentione to them that Steve Miller’s Culturewatch really is an embarrassment. Unless, of course, the funders are people like the Coors family. His latest screed concerning the O’Rourke article is merely the latest in a long line of stupid comments.
Raj,
I’m sorry the link to Dalai Banana’s blog entry didn’t work initially. I’ve fixed it. If you had been able to read the linked article, I think you would have seen that I was agreeing with your suggestion that gay people not apologize for the (safe) sexual activities of some.
Dalai salutes everyone, from gay abstinents to those who choose multiple sex partners. My mention of “prudes” and “lewds” was a caricature of how I would expect antigay ideologues to react to Dalai’s salute.
However, I won’t hesitate to speak pejoratively of people who choose unsafe activities or who whine about being addicted to sex, blame external factors, and doing nothing to stop the addiction.
Raj, I agree about CultureWatch. This guy seems to be too obsessed with scoring points and using tired buzzwords. “Multiculti left” is his favorite. He becomes more and more absurd. I think the nadir was when he said that he “knew” gay “liberals” would defend Kerry if Sam “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Nunn was his VP choice. That’s bullshit. If Kerry did that you would see Nader get millions of new votes this November.
I have great respect and admiration for Jonathan Rauch, some respect for Dale Carpenter, and other writers at that site. Miller is generally an embarrassment and I’ve had to write letters two or three times or my head would have exploded. The one that really pissed me off was when he said that “nothing” Reagan could have done would have pleased gays. How DARE he speak for all gays. How dare he speak for the dead. He is the worst example of the smugness and victimization complex of some gay Republicans. He justifies his GOP-fellating by parrotting “gays aren’t satisfied” and “Democrats are worse” over and over.
By the way raj, here’s what Jack Ryan had to say about gay benefits and about the FMA. Isn’t it nice that he’s so worried about that sexual behavior?
From jackryan2004.com
“I believe that we are all equal before God and should be before the law. Homosexuals deserve the same constitutional protections, safeguards, and human dignity as every American, but they should not be entitled to special rights based on their sexual behavior.
The breakdown of the family over the past 35 years is one of the root causes of some of our society’s most intractable social problems-criminal activity, illegitimacy, and the cyclical nature of poverty.”
https://www.jackryan2004.com/issues/issueslist.asp?p=330
Mike A. | June 23, 2004 12:53 PM
Thanks for clarifying. I know how difficult it sometimes can be to express sarcasm in text. Maybe the web needs to generate a new emoticon.
I clicked onto the Dalai Banana post that you linked to, and posted a comment.
I wouldn’t suggest for a minute that you not write pejoratively of people whom you believe choose unsafe activities, etc. Unlike this “Ben” character, whom you chose to link to, you do not apparently (I use that word because have not exhaustively examined your posts or comments) stereotype these people as being gay. And on the NYTimes gay pride board, several gay people have railed against promiscuity, tricking out among couples, and so forth, to the consternation of others. So you are not alone among gay people in your opinion.
BTW, it is clear beyond peradventure that this “Ben” character is a whiner. In addition to the fact that I doubt “his” bona fides, to the extent that “he” has anything to do with reality, he’s old enough to stop bitching and moaning. As far as I’m concerned, his blog is nothing more than (i) a vanity blog in which he/she/or it whines, and (ii) a vehicle for “others” to use to post homophobic horse manure. I put “others” in quotation marks because, as far as anyone knows, it may be the proprietor of the website itself who is doing the posting.
Your “Ben” character needs to get something, un, straight. Life is tough. Bitching about how difficult one’s life is–which this Ben character seems disposed to do–is easy. Actually doing something to correct that is tough. Like more than a few characters I have seen over the years on the web, this “Ben” character is a lazy one. Big deal.
James | June 23, 2004 02:54 PM
I don’t know what is motivating Steve Miller. I agree with you that his posts at IndeGayForum’s CultureWatch have become more idiotic as time has gone one. And predictable. In virtually all of his posts in which he wacks a “gay left” position (correctly so, assuming his statement of facts to be correct (a highly dubious assumption, I might add)) he merely wacks the “gay left” position. On the other hand, when he wacks a Republican or conservative position (recently they have become one in the same), he not only wacks that position, but finds some reason to wack a statement from a “gay left” organization that he finds useful to wack in the same post. Big deal. Miller suffers from the same myopia as all ideologues: that there are only two sides, and it is best to build up the side that I favor by wacking the side that I don’t. Miller is about as silly as Andrew Sullivan.
On other aspects of the site, I have found some substantial utility (I’ll put it that way) in many of the articles there from the 1990s. The articles concerning the ex-gays are interesting. The site was nice when they had a message board, but they chose to abandon that in favor of posting crap from Miller. Their choice, but on wonders who paid the bill for that.
Re Rauch and Carpenter, Rauch is OK. I saw Rauch pushing his book on CSPAN. It was at the American “Enterprise” Institute, which, in the last decade or two had morphed itself into a far right-wing organization that, among other things, engages in rhetorical fag bashing. I saw a part of Rauch’s program. I guess it was part of sucking up to the right wingnuts, but he actually gave John Lott, their resident gun nut and noted liar, the time of day. I lost a lot of respect for Rauch when I saw that. But he was pushing a book.
I don’t have much respect for Carpenter. A couple of years ago Carpenter published an article entitled “What is a gay republican to do.” For a reason I cannot fathom, that article, unlike more than a few Carpenter articles, is not reproduced on IndeGayForum. It is, however, available over the internet. The article wasn’t much more than him whining. As should be clear, I’m not much for whiners.
I also don’t have any respect for John Corvino, some of whose articles are reproduced on IndeGayForum.
As I said, some articles on IndeGayForum can be useful. I use “useful” for a reason.
Who is John Corvino exactly?
IndeGay Forum also has some very old articles (one) from Carolyn Lochhead, who, in the increasingly useless SF Chronicle, has recently written some of the most pessimistic and pointlessly fatalistic articles I have ever seen. She actually said that the same-sex marriage fight has been more violent and full of turmoil than “the woman’s suffragette or black civil rights movement.” What the FUCK??? Where did she pull that out of? As soon as I read that, I assumed that she was trying to inflame women and blacks, and I still believe that is the case.
I have a great deal of respect for Rauch. I also admire the work of the man (is that Rauch?) who works for Cato, who have been very critical of Bush in the past few years. Rauch has also written stories on the topic of gun rights, which is a big no-no in many gay publications but which needs to be discussed. There are also some good articles from Steve Swayne, Jennifer Vanasco (even if she writes in press release-speak) and Paul Varnell. I tend to hate articles the most when they start to rant and rave about evil liberal academia. I wonder how many of them would have been lying dead outside their dorm if not for the great pains that these “liberals” took to teach tolerance, respect, and dignity.
As you said, the articles from the 90’s are far better than most of their recent output.
Okay, you are right. There are very few Christians who really know how to love. The U.S. church as a whole is a messy messy place where all sorts of materialism, pride and fear has dominated for many years now. Homophobia is high, stereotyping is the norm. As a Christian who believes that there is healing for pain, all I can do is try to love one person at a time and try to listen.
Raj — I don’t think you’re 100% wrong about Ben over at Scattered Words. But I don’t think you give him enough credit either. He may whine sometimes, but he’s clearly taken responsibility for some of his life as well. His site may be a vanity blog and/or a vehicle for homophobic manure. But it probably also serves as a place for introspection. I see introspection as an important part of correcting one’s life.
I don’t think it helps to demonize him.
Ben seems to have little problem demonizing all gays, and perpetuating tired stereotypes about gays. He also does not seem to have any knowledge of the fact that there are other people in the world. It’s embarrassing, frankly, to see someone go on and on about their mental and physical anguish because they went to a gay bar. I’ve known straight Christians who went to gay bars. They were not traumatized. They were not physically ill.
Then again, they weren’t shilling for raging bigots like Alab Chambers.
“Ben seems to have little problem demonizing all gays”
True. I still don’t think it’s helpful, but true.
BTW, I wasn’t agreeing w/Raj that his blog is a vanity blog or a vehicle for homophobia — just admitting these as possibilities.
Promiscuity seriously sucks in a heterosexual context, because of all kinds of emotional, physical, social, and power differences between men and women. I get the impression that a lot of the reasons promiscuity is subjectively often so awful in a straight context don’t transfer all that well, subjectively anyway, to a gay context. Not that there’s no downside, but, there’s not the same dynamic of sexual pressure from men, women who go along with more than they want to be accomodating, and women getting the brunt of all the “slut” judgments.
As for the IndeGayForum, I haven’t followed most of them enough to have an opinion, but Jonathan Rauch is my hero.