Two days ago I posted a comment to a post by straight white male Alan Chambers on the Exodus Live Out Loud blog where he accuses gay rights groups of “hijacking” the civil rights movement. My response consisted of a simply stated quote from Coretta Scott King which disagreed with Chambers’ viewpoint. Two days later my comment has yet to be approved and posted by Exodus moderators. So while it appears Exodus runs advertisements asking people to “Question Homosexuality” once again Exodus itself refuses to be questioned.
Q
David, why bother commenting there? I’ve all but given up interacting on those kinds of sites. The only one I will discuss on is Warren Throckmorton’s, because his is not as mean-spirited as the others.
I’ve left what I thought were polite and reasoned comments on DL Foster’s site, Stacy Harp’s site, Randy Thomas’s, etc.–and had what I consider to be less than reasonable responses.
I take that back–on Disputed Mutability, Scattered Words, Gay and Christian–I have been able to interact. Perhaps the difference is the individuals, perhaps the difference is their closeness to certain political organizations, perhaps the days I left comments the bloggers in question were having a bad day. I don’t know. But I do know that it’s not worth my energy to interact in those places anymore.
I’ll do it face-to-face and with my family, since there seems to be some modicum of respect that an interpersonal interaction requires; online, however, that respect is dwindling.
Here, even when I disagree with the points of view in question (and there are times when I do), I know that I’ll get a respectful response to the substance of my post.
There seems to be a common thread at many of these ex-gay and ex-gay support sites. Their claim is that these websites exist so that the “truth” can be told. Yet that truth is often revisionist.
Exodus, in contravention of its own written history, now claims Frank Worthen as the sole founder. Its apologists (Throckmorten for instance) know this is untruthful but appear to do nothing to correct the falsehood.
DL Foster, carried on a pretty heated discussion with me over whether Zach Stark even existed, then simply deleted the thread when Joe Stark admitted that his son had indeed been enrolled in Love In Action.
It doesn’t take long to realize that any impartial look at this issue reveals the majority of the exgay movement is totally preoccupied with supressing any information or testimony that is at odds with its desired outcome.
Obviously Alan Chambers doesn’t know how to think for himself. He instead just echoes the rhetoric that has been stated by religious $$$ leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I wish that these people would learn to think critically but most Christians of this sort do not know how to question their own viewpoints and think objectively. It’s pretty pathetic when you think about it and Alan Chambers takes the cake when it comes to the pathetic.
I too have left well reasoned questions and comments on the Exodus Blog as well as Randy Thomas’ blog with no response.
Anything that makes them think outside their box is unwelcome and will be ignored or the subject of your question will be changed.
They want back slapping comments, not dialogue.
My experience at “Family Scholars” Blog and what Dan says here suggest this is typical of the way anti-gay religious conservatives operate forums ostensibly hosting honest debate. There’s no sincere one for one exchange of questions and answers, its a veneer of honest debate hiding a dictatorship. As CK says they frequently won’t respond to the substance of a post and won’t even allow it to be displayed if it is well reasoned and too directly contradicts the anti-gay official policy.
Compared to LGBTs they’ve got all that money, and all those voices and they still can’t compete in a fair argument – blogs like these are essentially one big ongoing lie. Its a great challenge for me to keep my intense dislike of such anti-gay religious people from colouring my views of all religious people but I’ll do my best.
I would love the opportunity to have an actual honest debate with these people, but they only display least relevant bits of what opponents say as props for their speech making.
I got the same treatment from Exodus. I also posted about it, and one of my commenters added that it happened to him as well.
For the record, and I know some of you guys have not had the same experience- I have engaged Randy Thomas in civil discussion on his blog, mine, and via email. He has not censored any of my posts, but he has moderated some of them for a few days.
I strongly disagree with many of his views, but I have enjoyed my interaction with him.
CK- I have not found the same from Scattered Words. He specifically asked me to stop commenting there, and then temporarily banned me from the site, even though my posts were never mean-spirited.
The Exodus blog won’t accept my Typekey login – which I guess means I’m banned? I think I only posted there once, and my comments are always polite. Re: Scattered Words – although Ben never banned me, he was consistently sarcastic in response to my well-intentioned and ever-so-polite remarks.
I think it’s interesting we’ve all had different experiences. As I said, somewhat jokingly, it’s possible that the bloggers in question were having a bad day, or a comment touched a nerve somehow. Since– Randy Thomas said to me in private correspondence (and says on his blog)–hese are personal websites, they are under no obligation to be “fair” or give all sides a hearing.
Neither does the Exodus blog, although it does seem that, given their claims about interacting with the gay community with love and respect, they’d have a reason to.
And, since there is nothing along the lines of “Bridges Across the Divide” anymore, we’re left with fragments of conversations hosted on multiple blogs/sites, with moderators of different beliefs and quality. It would be nice to have a location where both sides could meet in a moderated environment…
But then again, I’m not sure what that would accomplish anymore.
I think it is funny how Chambers actually devalues the civil rights’ experience. The whole not using the same facilities argument is problematic because civil rights is much more than that. This is from Cornell: “A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class.” Is the civil rights’ movement the same for gays as it is for African Americans? No, not completely.
However, anytime you restrict full participation with society, you are limiting civil rights. The fact that these boards restict some speech, although I think they are allowed to, shows the treatment of homosexuals in our society. Chambers seems to have forgotten that homosexuals were killed and imprisoned in our country at points. He would have been himself at one time even though he “repented.” People were fired and the stigma went with them from place to place. Are things better? Sure, but gays are still not “American”. They do not have a place at the table. I cannot serve in the military, get married, give blood, adopt children freely. There are moves all over to restrict my ability to teach, and some even want me to be restricted from housing and employment. So, is there a civil rights’ issue? Yes. Let me point out that if Chambers, for some reason, ever wanted to “become gay” again, he would lose big time. I am sure his job would no longer be there.
Actually, whatever became of Bridges-Across? I’d love to know the story behind its abandonment.
Maybe that’s better left for a dedicated blog post rather than an answer here, but I’d still like to know. 🙂 (Methinks it wasn’t the pro-gay side that decided to leave, but that’s just an assumption on my part.)
The Bridges Across private forums still exist, they’re still active, and people from either the gay-tolerant or antigay/exgay side can still sign up to join them.
As for the public web site — I think BA’s highest priority should always have been to keep the public site current with an active outreach to both sides. For whatever reason, that has not happened.
If Chambers tried to impress straight folks with that comment about separate public facilities and what gay people DIDN’T share in civil rights history-he blew it.
If a light enough to pass black person, left their black community and went on to support anti black and segregationist policies, what would Chambers think of that ex black person?
I doubt he’d have the **lls to even answer that little toughie.
Of course, he went for the minutae of a civil rights discussion and not the bigger and deeper meaning at it’s foundation.
This is why I think it’s true about those who are ex gay or support it having a very small range of ability to critically think or logically think.
They repeat what they’ve been told and they all sound alike to the point of me wondering where the REAL Alan Chambers or Foster or Melissa Fryear really are.
Anyway, the civil rights standard and how gays and lesbians fit in, is appropriate.
The casual, horrifically brutal murders that can occur, the lack of investigation or enforcement when it came to crimes against gay folks. The lack of sympathy for gay pain and isolation.
The constant omitting or silencing of gay reality or expression.
The lack of tolerance for progress in that expression and justice.
Reverend John Lawson put it best when he said this: “Blacks, segregated from equality had their own families and the church to support and protect them, gays and lesbians often have neither”.
In that, gays and lesbians have less than blacks did in society in so many ways.
And pretending that isolation and threat isn’t real and unworthy of addressing is cruel.
Regan, I thought when I saw the topic–what would Regan say 🙂 Glad to see your response!
Also, Exodus knows better. Sometimes groups will say that homosexuality should not be lumped together with civil rights because homosexuality is behavior and action. The problem with that logic is that one does not need to present any type of action to be discriminated against. Exodus knows that orientation is different than behavior. If one can be discriminated against just because of who they are, the state has a reason to be involved.
Question Pottery Barn.
Let me correct my post…the second on this thread. Love In Action claims Worthen is its sole founder. Exodus has sought to excise from its history all but those who still fly the ex-gay flag.
Or, as I’ve seen it bottled into a nice catch-phrase, “There are plenty of ex-gays, but not one ex-black.”
Which, actually, isn’t particularly true.
…sorry, I couldn’t resist.
But seriously, there were plenty of ex-blacks (and ex-whites as well), as highlighted by James Weldon Johnson’s novel The Autobiography of an Ex-Coloured Man (full text available on-line here).
Some might claim passers aren’t truly “ex-blacks”. After all, their skin color didn’t really change, they just acted as though they were white. I have yet to see the difference between this and being ex-gay.
Christopher, LOL!
Seriously, it really irritates me to see these groups use phrases like “Question homosexuality.” It’s a cynical quasi-rebellious pose, with as much heart behind it as a soda ad that shows “extreme” athletes. And when you get down to it, they allow far less intellectual and personal freedom than a soda company ever thought of, too.
Regan:
MOST eloquently written, as usual!
-SharonB
Alan Chambers and his echo chamber confuse the anecdotal economic position of one person with freedom for all persons. He argues that because his lunch partner was driving an expensive car that therefore he had no legitimate position to claim that gay people are treated a second class citizens.
Chambers, et al, are so eager to find excuses to further encode discriminate against gay people that he resorts to class envy. Other than the obvious fact that one has nothing to do with the other, there are two major flaws with Chambers position:
1. Not all gay people are affluent. Most are not. In fact, the reports relating to gay economic status are conflicting, some saying that gays have greater spending power with others claiming that gay men make less that hetero men on average.
2. Simply because a person has more money does not justify inequality before law. I’m certain that there are very few heterosexuals who would give up custody rights, marriage rights, inheritance rights, health care, hospital visitation, the rights and benefits that come with serving in the military, adoption rights, and the thousands of other differences that gay people are subjected to by laws put in place to disadvantage gays, just for a few extra dollars.
Further, Chambers and his buddies claim that you can’t compare “whites only” water fountains to “heterosexuals only” marriage.
Well, in one way he’s right. When blacks were restricted from drinking from “whites only” water fountains, they were generally given “colored” drinking fountains of their own. Chambers seeks not only to disallow gays from participating in “heteros only” marriage, but he seeks to do away with gay civil unions and domestic partnerships as well.
Even the bigoted racists were not so cruel.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at March 21, 2006 04:21 PM
Very well said!
David
Bottom Line:
At the end of the day. Same sex ia still a sin even if it is legalized in ssm, special rights etc. Can’t change that fact!
The fact Ex-gays exist who are free of same sex behavior blows the pro-gay position equating homosexuality equal to immutable traits of race/color [cannot change those] out the window!
As Joe said SS is still a sin at the end of the day.
People are free to believe any number of things are sinful, but the government’s role is not to judge things based on a religious group’s conception of sin. The special rights arguement works only if “special” rights are granted. Allowing same-sex marriage is an extension of a current institution; anti-discrimination laws protect heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
While people can alter behavior, the capacity to change orientation seems quite limited. For example, a left-handed person may learn to primarily use their right hand, but this behavior change will not alter their biological predisposition towards being left-handed. I also do not see why sexuality even has to be immutable in order to extend civil protections. Religion is supposedly a chosen system of behavior and belief, yet religious institutions receive protection and believers cannot be discriminated against because of their faith.
sue at March 31, 2006 09:04 AM
The fact Ex-gays exist who are free of same sex behavior blows the pro-gay position equating homosexuality equal to immutable traits of race/color [cannot change those] out the window!
Its also a fact that gays exist who are free of “same sex behavior” though that is more commonly referred to as “not getting any.”
As Irrational Entity noted above, its not quite as simple as you’d suggest. Its about what people feel, and what arouses them sexually, and to this end, its a lot more like religious beliefs than race.
The Afghan courts and the radical muslims saw the Abdul Rahman case very similarly. All he needed to do, in reality, was just to say he was a Muslim to avoid prosecution. But there was some reason that he was unwilling to do that.
It is very important for the anti-gay lobby to believe that gay orientations are changable (or don’t exist at all), so that you can make the kind of claim you’re making here. But you’re hurting people by misrepresenting what gay-change ministries are and do.
I find it very telling that the far-right Xian groups spend a great deal on advertising that people can change, and very little on actually helping them do so.
Joe said:
At the end of the day. Same sex ia still a sin even if it is legalized in ssm, special rights etc. Can’t change that fact!
Joe, your tone here, especially that last line, seems to indicate a certain gleeful pleasure in making that statement and that would concern me. Some believe it’s a sin, others don’t. More importantly, in a civil, secular society we have to allow for people of other faiths and those with no faith at all. Problems arise when one tries to enforce one’s own beliefs on everyone else, especially through force of law. Otherwise you are free to believe as you see fit.
David
Sue,
You contrast orientation with race, which you call immutable. Oddly, a closer look at both race and orientation suggest that they have much in common.
Though it may not be very popular to say, there was a point in history in which ex-blacks existed. These were people with mixed African and European heritage who were light enough skinned to “pass”. Though they had been raised in black households and would have been considered as black, they made an effort to change vocal and conversational patterns, manners of dress and appearance, and other behavioral traits so that they would appear white.
The following commonalities are worth noting:
1. Just as some black people have reidentified themselves as white, so too have some gay people reidentified themselves as ex-gay.
2. Just as the observable changes in black people who “pass” were mostly cultural or behavioral, so too are most of the reported changes in ex-gay solely behavioral and are not changes in attraction. (Only a tiny number of ex-gay leaders claim to no longer be attracted to the same sex).
3. Just as the motivation to pass as white was based on economic, cultural, social, religious and political actions on the part of people who sought to oppress blacks, so too are the motivations to become ex-gay based on the ecomonic, cultural, social, religious, and political actions on the part of people who seek to oppress gays.
4. Just as marriage law was used as a tool of oppression against those who were black (including those who could pass – see an interesting example at http://backintyme.com/essay040915.htm) so too is marriage law used against gay people including, I suspect, those who are ex-gay (I think it highly likely that a challenge would be made to a will of a weathly woman leaving a forture to her ex-gay husband).
5. In conclusion, just as the existence of ex-blacks does not in any way refute the immutability of the racial classification of the vast majority of black people, so too does the existence of some people who identify as ex-gay not in any way refute the immutability of the orientation of the vast majority of gay people.
Sue — OK, the mug shot is a cheap shot…But here is proof that “blacks can change”. Immutable? Apparently not!
You are also welcome to provide any evidence of anyone who once had, and now longer has, same sex attractions.If someone was to put a gun to your head I’m sure you too could “behave lesbian”… but it wouldn’t make you one, would it now?
I have to admit, that seems in poor taste grantdale – especially for you 🙁
David
Is it just me or does Michael Jackson now look like Joan Crawford?
Yes David — we know, VERY poor taste. Downright revolting comparison, actually, and of course utterly absurd.If it’s any help where it came from, the original comparison was sent through by a Koorie friend — shortly after that mugshot was published — in an email we couldn’t possibly publish in a family publication such as this. We’d been having a looong exchange about skin-lightening creams, hair straightening etc that are still widely flogged — his own mother remembers “passing” in job interviews in the 1950’s, just as he does today (but over his being gay, not Koorie). Urgh. Some things never change.We’re actually working on a “nice” one involving Edmund Hillary that’ll probably be more to your taste 🙂 But it’s also just as absurd.