Stephen Bennett has reacted to the Washington Post article with a press release claiming that it is a “hatchet job.” He says:
Bennett no longer struggles with homosexuality whatsoever and is completely heterosexual – the way he was born.
The Washington Post released a one-sided article on Tuesday saying “people who are ‘homosexual’ CANNOT CHANGE.”
“This article is nothing but a ‘hatchet job,’ one-sided and is simply an OUTRIGHT lie,” said Stephen.
Bennett then goes on to say:
Bennett ended, “No one is born ‘gay’ and COMPLETE change is COMPLETELY possible.”
Stephen Bennett is a gadfly and professional ex-gay and anti-gay activist. Interestingly, his release itemizes broadcasts he’s been on and the first mentioned is the O’Reilly Factor. He doesn’t mention that Bill O’Reilly told him “You’re a religious fanatic, with all due respect.”
Although it’s tempting to ignore him out of hand, he is a frequent representative of Concerned Women for America and American Family Association. So, I’ll address a few of his claims.
First, Bennett makes the “no one is born gay” claim along with claiming that he was born completely heterosexual. Although I’m not willing to state definitively that gay people are born gay, the preponderance of the scientific evidence suggests that biological factors influence (if not control) the determination of sexual orientation. As the Post article explained, many scientists state that sexual orientation is determined (or at least the contributing factors thereto) before birth.
Basically, Bennett is making a claim that has not been substantiated, to my knowledge, by anyone and which is refuted by an ever-increasing mountain of evidence. The most Bennett, or any other ex-gay activist, could claim would be that it has not yet been proven that people are born gay nor has it been proven that the are not.
Second, the Washington Post article did not say “people who are homosexual cannot change”. The Post reported interviews with ex-gay advocates as well as ex-gays and ex-ex-gays but did not make any such claim.
Bennett is simply lying.
Third, Bennett says that he no longer struggles with homosexuality whatsoever. For all anyone else knows, this may be true. However, he seems to be the only one out there making this claim (though I may have missed some). The last testimony I recall claiming complete heterosexuality was John Paulk, whose ministry ended in disgrace.
When Bennett claims that COMPLETE change is COMPLETELY possible, he is saying that conversion from homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation (complete change) is possible for every gay person (completely possible). To Exodus’ credit, this is not a statement that even they will make. Nor does any other ex-gay ministry of which I’m aware.
Which leaves me with the conclusion that Stephen Bennett is COMPLETELY dishonest.
Closet cases also freak out and overreact when their heterosexual identity is threatened.
Good assessment – I agree. I ran across Bennett’s web site a couple of years ago. I had to wonder just who he was trying to convince of his “completely” heterosexual status. He’s quite obsessed with that, and as you noted he doesn’t let the facts (or lack of them) interfere with his conclusions. If not for his apparent easy access to the media, I would be tempted to dismiss him entirely.
Has anyone ever researched people such as this to find out if they really ever lived as gay men or women as they say? I think that would be essential to know.
Chad over at lovinghomosexuals.com said on my show that he is totally hetrosexual now. No homosexual feelings what-so-ever. Chad claims to have had strong same sex attractions but never acted out on them.
Bill O’Reilly ripped Stephen Bennett apart in that interview. I am frankly shocked that he or CWA, or anyone on their side of the debate would be proud to claim that interview, Bill made Stephen’s point of view look silly.
Cole- if he said that, his story may be changing some. I listened to one of the interviews on his website, and his claim that he had diminished attraction to males and was growing in his attractions to females. THat seems like an interesting change of story to me.
I’m going to be mean:
Bennett ended, “No one is born ‘gay’…
I’m not sure when anyone has taken the word of a singer for much of anything. Particularly a singer who has an ax to grind and a gig to have.
By coincidence I just listened to Chad in that interview on inqueery.com last night. He had no problem at all playing fast and loose with the facts. He stated with certainty things for which there simply isn’t a solid answer at the moment – same ole story. He also misrepresented what he was going to speak on, claiming he wasn’t going to preach but just give his own personal story. He spent relatively little time on himself and went directly into an ex-gay sermonette. To be honest, he sounded like he didn’t know what he was talking about – one dimensional.
That’s my point exactly Raj. This guy’s entire schtick is about having been gay and now he’s not. That’s like someone saying they (and pardon the comparison to a handicap) were born with no arms but now they miraculously have a new set. To make the claim meaningful at all, we have to have some proof they were actually born with no arms. Has anyone ever checked on Bennett to find out if he really slept around with the guys like he says? It seems to me he would want to show off a few pictures of himself at a pride event or with a bf or something.
Anyone here remember Mike Warnke? The “Christian comedian” who claimed to be a leader in the Church of Satan before he converted to Christ? That is, until Cornerstone magazine exposed his entire testimony as a fraud, and also found plenty of financial mismanagement and sexual immorality to go around. To this day, Warnke has still never admitted his testimony was a lie.
This is purely my suspicion, but I think we may discover another “Mike Warnke” situation with Stephen Bennett. There’s just too much about his story that doesn’t add up. Unfortunately, since Cornerstone is run by Jesus People USA, an organization that sadly supports Exodus’ work, they’ll never investigate Bennett. But someone should. It’s just too bizarre that he seemingly came out of nowhere with this fabulous testimony–from P-town, no less–yet no one from his past has spoken out, and it seems that no one can find anyone he was involved with. At least John Paulk had a history that was verified by several people, and he was all too eager to point that out. But Bennett? Just silence.
If I went on the ex-gay bandwagon, trust me… there’d be plenty of guys who could verify that I went out with them, dated them, slept with them… whatever. And I’m not someone who hangs out in West Hollywood–it’s not my scene. But I have an easily verifiable history all the same.
It’s this combination of overstated claims about “change” and the lack (so far) of a verifiable gay life that makes me believe that Bennett’s testimony is nothing more than a wild fantasy, much like his insistence that gays can change “completely” to heterosexuality–a claim that even ex-gay leaders aren’t foolish enough to make.
I’d really like him to prove me wrong about his life in P-town. Until that happens, I don’t buy it.
Reasonable,I did ask Bennett (not as grantdale) and never did get an answer. It was in response to a “challange” from Bennett that anyone could ask him anything. He claims to have slept with “over 100 people” and lived in P-Town — so I thought it would be reasonably easy for him to give names, places, dates etc. Even just ONE. It appears this is information he has not given to anyone, ever.To be honest, I’ve concluded he is LYING. He was never gay. He’s a fake. The story is fabricated.A lurking S.B. is of course welcome to correct that assessment.
I frankly don’t care whether or not he was ever gay, although that’s an interesting question. What I was getting at whas what qualifies him to opine on issues of biology? He’s nothing more than a singer and a preacher, for Gawd’s sake.
BTW, there was a minor controversy a few years ago as to whether John Paulk’s wife was actually ever a lesbian, since there apparently was never any evidence of her having engaged in lesbian activity, but that pretty much went away when he did.
Well, in the interview with me Chad stated he was completly heterosexual. No more attraction to guys. I was suprised to hear it. I didn’t record that show, but I am sure Chad would be happy to answer questions on this.
While I do not know, or really care, if Bennett was really gay–one thing has always struck me as odd. He claims with glee that he had so many lovers, but many are dead from AIDS. While that may be true, it doesn’t ring true for me for some reason. I can’t put my finger on it.
I have to disagree with it being unimportant that Bennet was or was not ever gay.The whole tawdry side-show act is built on
Well, lets start at that beginning shall we…
Cole:
“Chad over at lovinghomosexuals.com said on my show that he is totally heterosexual now. No homosexual feelings what-so-ever.”
So the count is up to TWO… maybe (I guess it depends on the day and the show).
ReasonAble:
“That’s like someone saying they (and pardon the comparison to a handicap) were born with no arms but now they miraculously have a new set.”
You raise a good point and one that I was actually thinking about on the way in to work.
The premise that God will take a homosexual and make him heterosexual is actually not a behavior or “sin” issue. There is no argument that you can change behavior, just as I could choose to stop behaving like a human and begin to behave like a dog. I could bark and crawl around on all fours.
What is at question is a change in orientation. Or as the ex-gays like to say, in “feelings” (desire, attraction, affection). To change this attribute is not a conversion but rather a variation on faith healing. For some reason, this hadn’t occurred to me until today.
Just as faith healing relies on God to miraculously change a blind eye or change a deaf ear, this “change” is a physical one, a change to the physical factors that make a person of the same sex more desirable than one of the opposite.
Some ex-gays claim it’s all attitude or conditioning. The honest ones recognize that one’s orientation is deeper than choosing to “not sin”.
I’m going to go way out on a limb here (and I know that I’m inviting ridicule) but I don’t disbelieve faith healing. There have been some interesting studies about the effects of faith and belief. Furthermore, I grew up in a church that practiced faith healing and I’ve seen some things that couldn’t be explained outside that context.
Perhaps it’s divine intervention by the deity; perhaps it’s that our mind is more powerful than our body. I have no desire to debate the existence/intent of God. But it certainly appears to be, in some instances, demonstrable fact.
However, I don’t know of any claims that “God healed me of my homosexuality” (though, again, there could be some). I’ve heard plenty of stories about healing of all sorts of things from blind eyes, lame legs, and cancer to physical addictions. But not from being gay (and believe me, there have been MILLIONS of people trying to pray away the gay).
This suggests to me that (depending on how you view faith healing) it may be that God views a blind eye as a flaw to be healed but that sexual orientation is by divine plan.
Hi ColeWake,Hmm, 6am on a Sunday, very foul. I hope you don’t do that show live.Chad is the one who can answer it, but I’ve noticed to be careful with exgay tesitimonies that say something like “I have absolutely no desire to have sex with another man.”This may be true. I have absolutely no desire to ever work again is as equally true, and as equally misleading if I was originally asked if I was still in the paid workforce.A committed exgay will not want to have same sex again — but that says nothing about their sexual attractions nor does it predict their future behaviour.
grantdale,
yup, it is a live show. But I take a nap in the afternoon. Don’t feel bad for me, feel bad for the people I interview who have to call in from the West Coast. The good news is that hopefully starting this week the show will be archived for streaming, so all you people who enjoy sleep can enjoy it. I am still working on plans for an upcoming ex-gay issues show.
grantdale
“A committed exgay will not want to have same sex again — but that says nothing about their sexual attractions nor does it predict their future behaviour.”
EXCELLENT CATCH. You’re right. There is a big difference between “I have no desire towards men” and “I have no desire to have sex with men”.
The second has nothing to do with desire, per se, but rather an intention as to how to address the desire.
Again, it is playing with words, something the ex-gay movement loves to do. It is using a different definition of “desire” (meaning intentional goal rather than innate drive) knowing that the audience misunderstands them. It’s just another form of lying.
I really get a laugh when ever a serious researcher asks someone claiming to be ex-gay to take a test which provides An Objective Criteria for Sexual Orientation.
This is the same test described in the NYTimes article (now archived): Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited which was discussed on this Jon Rowe post.
They stumble and mumble and otherwise always come up with some excuse not to take the test.
One of our enterprising interviewers should challenge anyone who claims they no longer have desires for males to take this test and see what the say.
Cole and others- from Chad Thompson’s interview with City View magazine (here https://www.dmcityview.com/archives/june/06-16-05/cover.shtml). Note that this was from just June 2005:
“He [Chad] acknowledges that his attraction to women now is still not as strong as it was to men when he was in high school, but he has had girlfriends. Although he’s single at the moment, he has aspirations of marriage, and, although he’s still “struggling,” he says he has no fear of feeling again like he did that night before his 10th birthday.”
So, he speaks of still struggling (which is normally meant to mean stuggling with gay attractions) and some attraction to females that are less than his former attractions to males. This is certainly not “completely heterosexual.”
The night before his 10th birthday???I remember that one too — was the new bike going to appear then or at Christmas 7 months off?It makes me wonder. Has there been a distorted perception of the recall and labelling it as homosexuality, when simple hero-worshipping of older males would have been the most obvious answer. 10???
BTW Timothydo you mind if I pass on your speil about what “do not bear false witness” means? It’s about the clearest summary I’ve seen for that particular American religious tradition.(Don’t worry — it’s not for publication. I’d just like to refer to it when the moments arise. And they do, for some bizarre reason…)
Regarding Stephen Bennett’s past.
I’ve been asking that question for years now on this site as well as any other discussion site that mentions his name.
His “testimony” seems very rehersed and far to clinical to be for real to me. The way he refers to a community that he “left” for Jesus seems stilted and phony.
Regardless of how he feels about homosexual sex, I’m sure he left some gay friends behind. For him to refer to the gay community the way he does just seems unbelievable to me.
100+ partners and a few dead of AIDS should be able to produce a few names. If he doesn’t want to name the living then name the dead. Obituaries, timelines, anything.
He just doesn’t pass the smell test in my opinion.
grantdale,
I’m flattered.
Please feel free to pass it on as you wish
(Of course if it ever becomes as popular as that stupid Footprints in the Sand that showed up on driftwood wall hangings in the 70’s, I will want rights – at least to pick out the driftwood)
Timothy,
I’d like to add my compliments on your “witness” message. It was very beautifully put.
But if it ever shows up on a poster with a kitty or a sunset on the beach, I will disavow all admiration for it.
Now back to the topic…
It’s not just that it sounds fake or rehearsed, but that it sounds like the ranting of someone with a serious psychological condition — borderline personality disorder with megalomania or something.
I used to live in a town in central virginia where one of my neighbors was battling some weird demons like this.
She would leave these strange letters on our doors that sound an awful lot like that “press release” including the odd capitalizations. And feeling attacked for the wrong reasons.
Whatever he is — straight, gay, who knows — he’s certainly a nut.
As for the point about being 10 and looking up to older boys. Personally, I’ve always felt this was the transition period for me, when I discovered that I didn’t want to BE those boys on t.v. or in gym class, but wanted to sleep with them. I don’t see how that wouldn’t be the very type of behavior that a 10 y.o. who is awakening to his sexual identity is going through.
As for the point about being 10 and looking up to older boys
Just to let you know, when I was 10, I had to look up to older boys. Because they were bigger than I was.
The proposition was preposterous.
Let’s get something str8. Bennett’s pulling a gig. I haven’t heard him sing, but his “ex-gay” silliness suggests to me that he isn’t a very good singer, so he believes he needs to have an extra “arrow” (ex-gayness) in his singing “quiver”
Have any others here actually seen Stephen Bennett and heard his testimony in person? I posted my impressions of him here about a year and a half ago after attending a Sunday morning event in Pennsylvania. I came away convinced that he was both a big liar (esp. re: his use of ‘statistics’) and a very gay man. Stereotypically so, perhaps (and yes I realize not all queeny men are gay), but my gaydar is usually pretty accurate. It would make sense for SB to be a straight imposter, though, since his extreme claims would make his ‘fall’ a disaster for CWA and other financial backers.
I see that Chad T’s name has come up. I talked with him for an hour on the phone.
As someone seriously wanting to give him the floor and speak I got these impressions.
1. He parroted exactly the same things that Satinover and Nicolosi are known to say about distant fathers.
(meaning he found an ex gay ministry very young and he’s suggestable to whatever list of what made him gay they offered.)
2. He has quite a speaking schedule in religious or ex gay venues.
(he has a distinct need for an audience and attention.) Not that there is anything wrong with that. But isn’t there a huge percentage of people in that movement who are ministers who double as entertainers?)
3. Yes, Chad insists that he’s not homosexual, but is now a heterosexual.
Okay, he’s never been in either type relationship to test which way he swings. At age twenty six, I didn’t get the impression he was mature or experienced enough in this regard.
That is to say: he’s avoiding one and may not be giving off the right pheromones to attract women.
Especially a woman (or several) in his age bracket.
4. I don’t want to be unkind but the red flag alarm that went off told me:
Chad is a conversion-bot.
There didn’t seem to be a real Chad talking to me, but a young man who was repetitive and of the ex gay rhetorical message.
And frankly, it creeped me out.
raj, you can hear him sing for free online. If you want. I really wouldn’t recommend it, unless you are into audio torture…
Really, it’s beyond awful…
click here…but remember you were warned
And you’re invited to “snap along” midway through if you’d like 😉
AnnikaI tried all that. Failed miserably.Then I worked out my problem (well, one of them…). A solution was rapidly on it’s way.
Annika at August 20, 2005 03:12 PM
raj, you can hear him sing for free online. If you want. I really wouldn’t recommend it, unless you are into audio torture…
Really, it’s beyond awful…
Yes. As I figured, he’s merely playing the “ex-gay” thing as a gig.