Gays are too wealthy and successful to be discriminated against, according to Randy Thomas’ January 14th blog post.
I think everyone deserves the same basic set of civil rights across the board. However, many gay activists proclaim that they deserve special civil rights protections for just about any legislative battle that they pitch. The Civil Rights act of 1964 lays out three criteria for protected class status: [emphasis mine]
1. Immutable Characteristics
2. Proven widespread pattern of discrimination
3. Economic DisenfranchisementHomosexuality is far from proven immutable. There isn’t a proven widespread pattern of discrimination for those who identify as gay either. But the point of this post and [the statistics presented in the post] are proof that not only do those who identify as gay compete for good salaries very well… they get them. The gay identified community is the most prosperous, median salary wise, community in the country.
Believe what you will about what the gay identified community deserves or needs but the truth is that using “civil rights” language is disingenuous in that they do not meet the criteria set forth in The Civil Rights Act. It is not I saying this but the act itself. [emphasis mine]
Another XGW writer and I read through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and could find no such explicit criteria spelled out. However, we wanted to be absolutely certain so we decided to consult a professional concerning Randy’s conclusions on the fine points of Constitutional law. We asked Robert Crook, an attorney based in California (and Senior Associate at his law firm), to provide his opinion as to the legal conclusions set forth in the post. Here is what we were told:
The current version of the Act is found at 42 USCS § 2000e et seq.
Randy is incorrect when he says that the Act “lays out three criteria for protected class status. Quoting from a portion of the Act at 42 USCS §2000e-2:
“Unlawful employment practices
(a) Employer practices. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;”
There is no mention of the three “criteria” that Randy states. The “religion” prong, for example, would not fit into any of the criteria if Randy was correct.So where does this “criteria” come from? As you know, as individuals we are protected by the U.S. and State Constitutions, a number of state and federal statutes (including the Voting Rights Act set forth at 42 USCS §1973), and case law interpreting this body of law. “Immutable Characteristics,” “Proven widespread pattern of discrimination,” and “Economic Disenfranchisement” are terms that are used in the large body of case law that analyzes a variety of statutes and codes. They are not specific to any one statute.
Here is the bottom line: There is no Amendment to the Constitution, no case, and no statute that limits civil rights protection to Randy’s three criteria. Civil rights legislation is drafted to be applied broadly in favor of protection, not in limiting it. If Randy’s criteria were true, it would strip away virtually everyone’s civil rights protections.
Mr. Crook also had something to say about Randy’s use of statistics:
Randy is quoting “statistics” from two or more sources, and making conclusions, without citing how the data was obtained. This is flawed methodology. Statistics are only as reliable as the methodology in obtaining the data.
“. . . according to this article using statistics from Rivendell Media and Absolut . . .”
– Randy does not cite what methodology was used in this study, and where the study was taking place. I believe Absolut makes vodka. I imagine that any statistics would be gathered with the intent of selling liquor rather than providing a reputable cross-section of the U.S. population.
“. . . according to US census data . . .”
The census never inquired about sexual orientation, although some have tried to extrapolate data from the most recent census to determine the number of gay households.
Randy also ignores the fact that untold numbers of GLBT persons remain in the closet, petrified of the consequences they might face should they come out – consequences that legally include workplace termination.
In 1998, the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies issued a joint study entitled “Income Inflation: The Myth of Affluence Among Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Americans,” which was later published in the May 2000 issue of Demography. The study found that gays come from all walks of life, including low economic status, and that discrimination they face on the basis of their orientation has affected this population’s earning power. In addition, the NGLTF’s article on the study presents us with a familiar situation:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia cited misused market research statistics on gay and lesbian people when he wrote that “high disposable income” gave gay people “disproportionate political power,” and that Colorado voters should be permitted to rein in that power by banning anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay and bisexual residents.
Randy, too, misuses market research in an attempt to “reign in the power” gays allegedly have. He also fails to mention that such criteria would automatically disqualify others – people of faith for instance – from civil rights protections.
Let’s take an example with which I am familiar, the Jewish people. According to the National Jewish Population Survey (2000-2001), we have been quite successful as a people in this country and our income is above the median. We are also statistically counted among the more educated Americans. But according to Randy’s logic, any hateful actions taken against us Jews are really just society’s way of keeping us “in check”- we’re too wealthy to really feel it when the “K word” is hurled at us, or when swastikas are spray painted on our family gravestones.
Never mind the fact that there are impoverished Jews – and gays – who don’t have money to make them feel better when they’re put down. In addition, while a case could be made for immutable characteristics in certain Jewish populations, Christian sects most certainly lack this trait. And again, if we follow his argument, Christians like Randy should also be stripped of their protected status as well.
While researching the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Randy’s explicit criteria, the only other document I could find that supported Randy’s view was a pundit piece put out by the Liberty Council’s National Liberty Journal. The piece is entitled, “Homosexual Behavior Should Not Be Accorded Special Protection” by Mathew D. Staver [1]. Is it a coincidence that both Randy and Staver use the same argument to push the same viewpoint on the same topic? Probably not, considering the latter gave this glowing endorsement of the organization in which Randy serves as vice president:
Exodus [International] provides an indisputable voice of reason backed by a chorus of voices whose changed lives. As Exodus celebrates its 30th year of the freedom Conference, its hand of compassion is needed now more ever [sic] before.
For good measure, I looked up “civil rights” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress
The only qualification someone needs to be afforded civil rights protection is to be a United States citizen. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not give new rights to anyone per se. Instead it addressed through law the serious inequities experienced by certain minorities which prevented them from freely and fairly experiencing those rights which our Constitution recognizes as “self evident” and a gift from our Creator.
As someone who, in his own words, does not identify as a homosexual, Randy does not need to be concerned about being denied employment, or being the victim of hate by the non-gay community, or being denied recognition and rights associated with marrying his long-term partner.
The bottom line is that his use of the act is merely a Red Herring. Exodus is no longer primarily a religious organization ministering to those who want help; they are a political powerhouse backed by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family who actively lobby to deny the GLBT population equal standing as citizens. It is in Randy’s best interest to further that cause whenever he can, even if it means distorting the language and intent of the United States Constitution.
[1] We should note that Mathew D. Staver is the same Liberty Counsel attorney who threatend XGW with legal action on behalf of Exodus in 2006.
Wow. Sounds like what Hitler said about the Jews.
Exactly. The exgay mafia keep misinforming the public at large that the GLBT community is seeking some higher status above the average citizen. We are not. We are only asking that our rights as citizen be on the SAME LEVEL as everyone else. We don’t want more rights than others, we just want THE SAME. We wanted to be treated equally under the law.
But remember, Exodus and the like treat this as a war and we as the GLBT are the enemy. When you are at war, you must convince the public at large that your enemy is the big, bad boogie man waiting under your bed, waiting for you to turn the lights off and be off guard! They are infintile in their mentality and infinitile in their theology. So it is no wonder that anyone from this sewer of a system spews out things that reak of the devil himself.
What a bunch of narths!
All the money in the world can’t get your same-sex partner from overseas into this country as a legal resident alien.
All the money in the world can’t get you past an ignorant or bigoted nurse or hospital administrator while your partner lies in intensive care.
All the money in the world can’t buy you spousal testimonial privilege, elective share in estates, succession privileges in rent-regulated or public housing, ERISA protections of pensions and other spousal beneifts, etc.
And so on…
What, no hat tip to me for pointing this out in the last thread comments? 😉
Oh wait, I linked to his follow-up post.
More seriously, if you look at Randy’s follow-up post, he does state that he was incorrect when he said that the Civil Rights Act laid out the criteria. However, he goes on to say that the 3 criteria had been laid out in case law.
If you look at his sources in that post, though, he quoted from Liberty U and a lawyer from the CWFA. None of them are case law, just the opinions of a conservative group/University and a paid conservative lawyer whose job is to fight against gay rights. Hardly unbiased.
My other issues with Randy’s take, which I posted on his blog, were that there are several federally protected groups that do not meet his 3 criteria. Religion and familial status being two big ones.
There are several others including age, marital status, veteran status, etc. that get some level of federal and/or state and local protections that also don’t fit cleanly into his criteria.
As a separate issue, they also don’t stand up when you consider that it’s not just the minority group that gets protection. White men get the same protection from the Civil Rights act and subsequent laws as black women, even though they very obviously can’t prove the latter 2 criteria he listed.
The problem is, his criteria don’t hold up no matter how you look at them. They seem to be a list (constructed by either him or someone else) that were created when they were trying to find a case against gay civil rights. So, they were working backwards and didn’t realize how many ways the theory failed.
Thank you, Emily, for an excellent and well-thought-out article. I am deeply grieved over Randy’s words, whom I sense is a Christian brother, as best I can tell from his writings.
What if Jesus were to re-write Randy’s words? What if the first point was ‘let us continue to bless those that insult us’? What if the second point was ‘let us find ways to carry the social, spiritual, and economic burden of the LGBT an extra mile more than allowed by law’? What if the third point was ‘how shall we resign our case in court, and give our legal opponents even more than what they ask’?
Or, when Jesus spoke in Matthew 5:38-41, was He giving not principles for living, but only foolish rhetoric that should be ignored?
I hope that the many readers of this blog – of any faith or non-faith – will understand that many Christians have requested salvation from Jesus, but do not wish to endorse conformity to His life-principles or teachings.
I hope that the Christian readers of this blog will continue to pray for Randy and Alan of Exodus, that such leaders will be transformed to His image and live according to His words.
Our battle is not against ‘Exodus’, but is against the spiritual powers of evil that continue to lure all Christians away from conforming their lives and their words to the life-principles of the Christ [Ephesians 6:12]. We share a common enemy. Randy is wounded. Let us lift him up in prayer, please.
So, does being gay make you rich or does being rich make you gay? Just to be on the safe side, those who want to remain straight should send me all their money immediately!
Seriously. I’m a member of two groups whom people think are wealthy beyond discrimination – Jews and gays.
And yet, I’m living below the poverty line right now. A side-effect of being an artist. Where’s my gay-given affluence??
It was an ugly and specious argument that Randy used, and he needed calling out on it, so thanks, Emily.
Well said, Emily.
Why, oh why is EXODUS involved in politics? This was never the intent of the founders, several of whom have expressed their complete dismay that EXODUS has lost sight of its original vision — to communicate God’s unconditional love to GLBT people.
It makes my heart sick. SHAME on EXODUS.
And you were there, Michael. You helped. So you should definitely know.
Emily:
I wish I did know. We made it policy and practice to avoid ANY political stance or entanglement — rather like Alcoholics Anonymous.
Anita Bryant, John Briggs, Lou Sheldon and others all tried to get us to take a political position. We steadfastly refused. We were an outreach ministry, not a political movement.
I left in 1979 and EXODUS was still non-political at that point. I honestly have no idea what happened after that — or why. I think it’s a huge mistake.
Early EXODUS leaders (Robbi Kenney, Ed Hurst and I) have already expressed our disapproval of EXODUS’s disturbing detour. I am am pretty sure that other early EXODUS leaders (Jim Kaspar, Gary Cooper, Greg Swanton, Greg Reid and others) would feel the same. The name is the same, but it’s not the EXODUS we had in mind.
Michael,
You are right. I don’t know what Exodus has to gain by denying gays like me equal rights. How does this help them “heal” “broken” souls with unwanted SSA’s? How does putting down another help raise yourself up? “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Law.” -Rabbi Hillel the Elder. I believe Jesus said the same thing. These are all questions for Alan Chambers. He is actively lobbying in Washington. He seeks to deny us, only because he feels he must “deny what comes naturally to him.”
Randy Thomas’ premise–that economically successful groups do not need civil rights protections–is wrong-headed to begin with. But even if he WAS right on that point, he’s wrong on his facts about gays having higher salaries.
Thomas backs his claim with marketing study focused specifically on consumers of gay media. Following his own link to the Rivendell Media/Absolut study that he cites, I found this description of the survey sample:
The survey was co-produced by Rivendell Media, and sponsored by Absolut. Survey participants were solicited through over 75 widely distributed internet and print publications. These media partners contributed their survey participants into Community Marketing’s own proprietary survey panel developed since 1994, which includes respondents from many other leading event and media companies such as Advocate Magazine, OUT Magazine, Instinct Magazine, Curve Magazine, Gay.com, PlanetOut.com, and GayWired.com.
I work in magazine publishing, so I’m very familiar with studies of media audiences. It’s a simple fact that consumers of magazines and online media have much higher education and income levels than the population at large. The only way the Rivendell study would be helpful as a comparison between gays and heterosexuals would be to compare this sample with a sample drawn from straight consumers of similar media, such as GQ, Esquire, Men’s Vogue, and so on.
Yet Randy cites this survey of a particularly well-educated, affluent subset of the gay population, compares that to general economic statistics, and then concludes that gays are richer than other Americans.
Studies that follow a true representative sample of the population find very different results. It was just a few months ago that the University of New Hampshire Whittemore School of Business and Economics released a study documenting that “gay men working in management and traditional blue-collar, male-dominated jobs make less than straight men because they are discriminated against by their employers.”
Specific findings of this study included that “gay men who live together earn 23% less than married men, and 9% less than unmarried heterosexual men who live with a woman.”
The study did find that lesbians earn more than heterosexual women. The authors suggested that may have to do with the fact that fewer lesbians have children.
But for gay men, there is clear evidence of economic harm resulting from discrimination.
This study was widely reported last October. In fact, I remember commenting on it right here on ex-gaywatch. In looking up the information today, I found mention of a 2003 University of Texas study that reached the same conclusions. There was even a 2006 study by the Centre for Economic Performance in Britain that found almost identical results across the Atlantic.
I find it hard to believe that Randy Thomas, who obviously follows media stories on gay topics, would have missed this much-discussed story that flatly contradicts his claims.
NickC, thank you so much for your first-hand knowledge and input. Randy might crank out b.s. about how the NGLTF study is “biased,” but he can’t deny the pure facts that you have laid down.
I have also read a few studies that say that gay men and lesbians actually earn less than the average heterosexual.
There are a few other studies that make Randy’s claim, but they seem to be based on surveys of gays and lesbians in known gay neighbourhoods in major urban centres – suburban and rural gays are much harder to track down and left out of the picture altogether.
More money or less, it’s a spurious argument.
I have been saying this for years. They are kapos!
Sorry, Caryn. Exodus is the enemy. Their backers want to make me (and you) a felon based on status. Some of them wish to have us executed, based on their perversion of biblical law. Exodus exists so they can do this with a seared conscience.
They are just as culpable.
We may debate how a Christian should face an enemy; but they clearly are the enemy.
Michael, I’ll be talking about this issue briefly in my next article, which should be online at 5am tomorrow. A few years ago several Exodus-affiliated ministries in Europe gave up membership over precisely this issue.
In the end, through all the rhetoric about “special rights,” etc, I contend that there is one overriding reason for this push to prevent any recognition of gays as a protected class: Randy, Exodus, et al, simply can’t allow sexual orientation to be codified into federal statutes as real and fixed, even as a byproduct of worthwhile legislation.
It took me a while to realize this, but as it becomes more likely that such protections will be established soon, the voices of opposition are becoming more shrill, even accusing us of having this purpose in mind all along.
Yet instead of showing some legitimate understanding as one who most certainly must understand the very real discrimination we face (and yes, even after Will and Grace if you can imagine that), Randy takes every opportunity to deny it, instead implying that he is the keeper of gay secrets, telling it like it is.
This as though hanging out in some bars in the 80s when he was too young to have any business being there gives him monumental insight into gay life in 2008.
The lie that GLBT persons are richer than others is nothing more than a ploy to arouse class-envy based hatred. Like the lies perpetuated against another group in WWII it is particularly effective when the group being appealed to perceives itself as poor, or being held back economically. It plays to the worst angels of our nature: envy and hatred.
Quite below what I would expect from an avowed christian to be using as a tactic.
I smell bad fruit.
I got it now– the perfect definition of NARTH.
NARTH is……………..BAD FRUIT!!
Thanks, sharon.
Rich or poor… Does that justify discrimination? As has been pointed out, Mr. R. Thomas is exhibiting desperation to rationalize his logic. I would not think the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ever meant to justify such bigotry.
It makes me wonder if Mr. Thomas can sleep at nights? Does he read this blog? I would seriously be interested in reading a response from him.
Sexual orientation civil rights laws that have been passed at state and local levels don’t just protect people on the basis of the person’s actual sexual orientation, but also on the person’s percieved sexual orientation.
Mr. Thomas claims to no longer be gay. Whether he is still gay or not is immaterial to this particular post.
Mr. Thomas lives in the South and travels frequently to very conservative areas for church visits, conferences, media opportunities, etc. His speech and physical mannerisms in my opinion are stereotypically gay. I cannot believe that he isn’t percieved as gay and treated as such on a regular basis. In fact, I suspect that he suffers more anti-gay bias in his life than I do in mine.
What a strange, sad guy to take up this strange cause of fighting against equal rights and equal protections for all citizens. It really is pathetic.
His hero is Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Says so on his blog.
It’s unfortunate that Randy Thomas hates the actual values of Martin Luther King Jr.: equal opportunity, social harmony, respect for human dignity.
Instead, Mr. Thomas plays rhetorical tricks to transfer audiences’ envy and contempt for Jews to same-sex-attracted persons. He transfers blame for the abuse he suffered as a child from his relatives to gay people. To this day, he resents perceived shortcomings in his father and stepfather. He claims to believe in redemption but he has forgiven no one in his life. He carries grudges for years — decades, even. I seriously question whether he has forgotten what it means to be born again — or whether his salvation experience ever really took hold.
Mr. Thomas honors idols and superficial, partisan slogans — not true Christian values.
Anti-gay groups continually make claims about the outsize wealth of gay people, but never back the claims up with citations. The reason is that the claims are apparently not true. Here’s an article called “The myth of gay affluence.”
Here’s another article by the same name (PDF file). [moderator note: some nudity]
Am I being too harsh toward Randy?
I acknowledge that a personal sense of betrayal sneaks into my writing about him, from time to time.
Yeah, one really should not try to judge another’s salvation experience. Suffice it to say he has a problem with being truthful. What God wants to make of that is between Randy and God.
Yeah, that’s a bit harsh, particularly the last part. But also, how would you know that he has not forgiven anyone? Seems unlikely. I think both you and Randy have issues which stem from your personal history with each other.
In general though, I find it hard to reconcile his attitude and actions with what he claims as his purpose. I have to remind myself on occasion that Exodus is actually supposed to be a ministry.
Randy also seems incredibly and completely narcissistic. When Jay (blogger College Jay, extremely sincere young man) said quite respectfully in a comment on Randy’s blog that he thought he was dodging a question (and he was), Randy replied “Thanks Jay you using the word “dodging” is offensive to me.”
Huh? Anyone who follows Jay at all knows immediately that he is offensive to no one. He is a sincere, thoughtful guy. Randy should be honored that he stops by his blog at all. Randy just seems to drip with contempt for anyone who is the least bit comfortable with being gay.
Mike Airhart wrote:
I think that questioning his salvation was probably a bit harsh, but calling him on his promotion of anti-gay bigotry, as well as his general nasty and condescending attitude towards those who don’t tow his ex-gay line seems perfectly appropriate to me.
Cowboy said:
While human beings have the capacity to discriminate on the basis of many levels, our laws should not. Either we are a nation whose laws reflect the protection of all its citizens with a guarantee of rights to all its citizens, thereby being a just nation, or we are a dictatorship in which the many dictate for the few.
What other group of people have to endure what the GLBT community has to endure? Those who are openly gay and have a descent or exceeding salary tend to utilize a lot of their money toward organizations that support the GLBT community. And these organizations not only help for us to gain rights we should already enjoy, but to help us in not losing those same rights once they’ve been granted to us.
What other group has it that if in one state their relationship is fully acknowledged, but if they just go beyond their home-state border (within the same country – USA) they can be denied hospital access if their partner is injured. They can be harrassed and assulted and not be protected under the law.
What other group can walk into one church and be fully accepted, and two blocks down from that same church be thrown out of another church (maybe even of the same denomination!) and be told they are the most evil thing God created? What other group has to call a church before hand and ask if they are an accepting church, and to what degree?
What other group has cooperations offer more rights and benefits to them than their own government? (And, in some cases, these cooperations are the only source for GLBT rights depending on the state the GLBT person is in.)
What other group has to monitor elections to make sure no Propositions sneak in to take away the few rights they have been granted, NOT guaranteed?
What other group can have the rug pulled from under them at any time by their state government, their city government, the cooperation they work at, their church? What other group has to worry that one day everything is fine, the next day everything is taken away?
I would never question Randy’s salvation because that is between God and him. But as an Orthodox Christian I will boldy claim that his theology and doctrines and ideas are heretical and go against the teachings of Christ, at least the ones stated in this blog, and that the message of the Gospel is totally void in his message.
i don’t mean to drive this off course, but since Randy has deleted my last comment to the thread on his blog about which this post was written, I will place it here for the record:
I agree that my last comments about Mr. Thomas were greatly exaggerated, but I stand by my intended point that Thomas has stubbornly refused to forgive many family members and friends; instead, he has pitied himself and scapegoated others.
Also, his abuse of his blog’s commenters and his repeated deletion of blogs suggests to me that Thomas is horrifically insecure — often incapable of accepting constructive criticism from the people who are most trustworthy, while at the same time entrusting his own reputation and integrity (or what’s left of it) to graceless, authoritarian and worldly entities.
But this personal stuff is somewhat beside the point.
Emily has diplomatically and factually shown that Thomas and his religious-rightist echo chamber parroted and repurposed anti-Semitic memes.
Thomas also lied about what he knew or should have known (from the several recent studies cited above) to be the economic disadvantages of being openly gay.
that’s as big a compliment as i could ever ask of someone here. 😀 😀 😀
So says Randy Thomas. The truth is that if anything is disingenuous it is this kind of argument. Forbidding discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation confers no special civil rights on anyone, and it would be completely unnecessary in a perfect world.
Unfortunately, since we don’t live in a perfect world, a number of people – although, by the grace of God, an ever diminishing number – say: “These are normal rights for ‘normal’ people. They don’t apply to homosexuals, do they?” Legislation forbidding discrimination simply gives the full backing of the law to the response: “Oh yes, they do.”
It should also be pointed out that anti-discrimination legislation provides equal protection for heterosexual people.
Recently in England a woman who had been working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub, where she had to endure harassment and eventually lost her job because she was heterosexual, took her case to an Industrial Tribunal and won. Quite right, too.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7171418.stm
“By this shall all men know that you are my disciples — that you have love one for another”. John 13:35
In the light of these words of Jesus, I think it is legit to at least wonder about another person’s relationship with God when love is not evident in word or deed.
If passing for straight means going through years and years of separate and intense training, prayer and expense…and even then you aren’t CHANGED, you are simply NOT YOURSELF, then it IS an immutable characteristic.
Mutability means that it’s an intergral and fused part of one’s identity and identity on the levels of the human condition usually are.
And considering that homosexuality, like heterosexuality transcends and has been indigenous to ALL humankind’s cultures and ethncities….saying it’s not immutable is patently STUPID. Let alone inaccurate.
What’s at issue here is the response to homosexuality. It is inappropriate, as far as civil rights AND status as a citizen are concerned to ARGUE what is immutable and what is not as a matter of civil freedom and protections and access.
Even marriage is not predicated on one’s human condition, but a narrow definition of status.
And familial, marriage and minimum age status at that.
No human being should be subject to the kinds of brainwashing, isolation and other forms of emotional and mental disciplines to affect heterosexuality as a condition of full citizenship.
It’s simply UNNECESSARY, and not even then, as we speak on the mutability of religious belief and the freedom to practice it as an individual may choose, not in what way it’s selectively imposed on a distinct minority of the entire world.
Considering that there is a bloody history with Christianity and our country was founded specifically so that religions COULDN’T gain political and social power, it bears asserting that some Christians can’t be trusted with civil law and this is but one example of why.
Religious teaching and laws are particularly harsh on those who don’t tow narrow GENDER related lines. And that’s why this group requires protection from religion induced civil injustice.
And it’s true, we’re not talking about rights and freedoms above and beyond what citizens already have.
But the SAME laws, standards and equal access.
What part of equal isn’t understood, even by religious people and THEIR mutable situation?
Mike Airhart said:
For what it’s worth, I think XGW’s writing in general is strongest when you guys stick to reporting and analysis of actions and words, and weakest when speculating about the inner workings of exgay and antigay hearts. At least, the latter is where you guys tend to lose me as a reader, where I usually shift from nodding along in agreement and “amen”-ing to furrowing my brow and thinking “Well, that’s a little over-the-top.”
Of course, I do realize I’m not the target audience here, so, like I said, “for what it’s worth.” 🙂
dm
dm, as an ex-gay, do you think we queers should be afforded equal rights?
On the contrary, DM, we count both gays and ex-gays among our valued readers and contributors here.
However, do note that Mike’s remarks were not in an XGW article, but in the comments. In general we aim for the kind of reporting and analysis you described – of which I think Emily’s article is a very good example.
DM, an ex gay is free to express themselves, however-you must have noticed and I have too, that there are some not so veiled insults aimed at gay people that come from ex gays.
Very often, what you say is actually the other way around. I am not a gay person, and another contributor here, Pam Ferguson isn’t either.
She was married to a gay man. My experience is simply being a person who has experienced race hatred, misogyny and I suppose disdain for being too probing a soul with my questions and statements.
Trust is a very important thing DM. And it’s EXTREMELY difficult for my to get someone ex gay to be honest. We hear a lot of generalizations, inferences and stereotypes, but there is little offered as to what the motive was to journey into straight life.
And since we’re not helped very much to think otherwise, annoyance at drawing our own conclusions isn’t right or fair.
The longest interaction I had with anyone ex gay, was with a young man named Chad Thompson, and even he sounded like he’d bought EVERY stereotype he’d ever heard about what makes a person gay and why he took his path.
There is little of the individual in such testimony and a LOT of what ex gay programming is ALL about.
So, it’s very much like, when you’ve heard ONE ex gay, you’ve heard them all.
And the more virulent of them are even more difficult to take seriously because they seem to be so pathologically in need of attention.
The same loop is being played and every opportunity and eventually the assertion regarding a previous stereotypical life seems suspect.
I know many, many gay folks on an individual level. In every way. Professionally, or sharing similar interests or having mutual friends. The relationships are warm, sometimes more intense at different times than others, but definitely open.
Ex gays tend to keep people at a distance in some ways. And ESPECIALLY people who ARE gay. Maybe it’s in part because there is teaching that gay people are full of cooties and shouldn’t be friends or dealt with UNLESS for reasons of changing them.
Or most likely it’s because gay people can see behind the veil, and I can understand if a professed ex gay doesn’t want such detection to be possible.
Straight people who believe the ex gay’s industry’s message are invested in not probing the same way, as a gay person might.
Say so, seems to be enough for the ex gay industry to get away with what they do.
But let’s be real, DM….they don’t want anyone investigating them to thoroughly or inquiring and demanding accuracy and efficacy from them. They aren’t or haven’t been required to provide much by way of proof. Not only that their outreach works, but that it’s even necessary.
They are exceedingly unnecessary. And will lie, pervert or destroy any evidence that contradicts their claims.
The trot out the same spokes people with the SAME story to tell and for a FEE.
I’ve seen much healthier, forthright and unconditional outreach from non denominational churches, PFLAG, campus GSA’s and the like.
So I can vet this ex gay business and understand it very well.
I used to try very hard to reach out to ex gays, I called up Living Waters here in my area and inquired, even for edification I wanted to know what their methods and results were.
I was completely shut out. Unless you’re a participant, you’re not wanted.
And even on this site, Dr. Throckmorton has chosen to ignore me. I wrote him prior to coming here and tried for THREE YEARS for him to help me understand better.
He refused.
And still does.
So, DM…the ball has always been snatched away by the ex gay industry, so the ball is always in their court.
They are insincere to those of us who don’t need their attention or who are too experienced to be so deluded by their assertions.
And the political actions by so many of them, as well as demanding access to young people in schools, just shows that CHOICE isn’t a part of their agenda.
They don’t want young gay people or their straight peers to EVER have the chance or choice to reject their information or not be affected by it indirectly if not directly.
When any group uses fear, ignorance or apathy to gain power and favor, it’s a dangerous and untrustworthy path.
Definitely immoral.
And the larger question remains, what’s it TO THEM, if a kid is gay or not?
It’s not fatal, disabling, or harmful to others. To WHAT and WHY does being gay have anything to do with being compatible to everything ELSE In life that ISN”T Christian?
Emily,
The short answer is “Yes, but Randy Thomas would say the same, no?” I’d need a little time to work out a somewhat more detailed response.
****************
Dave,
I wasn’t trying to imply that exgay readers and commenters are unwelcome here. I *know* the opposite is true! I was just trying to express my awareness that I probably perceive and react to things differently from the majority of XGW readers and commenters, “your mileage may vary,” etc. It was an attempt to be politely and humbly deferential, not an attempt to be snarky or accusatory.
I do recognize XGW’s aim, and I consider it to be one of your biggest strengths. I should make it clearer that I see what I described above as a spectrum, not an all-or-nothing thing. So, for example, I enjoyed Emily’s article a great deal and felt it was quite strong, but the last paragraph started to lose me a bit, because I felt we were drifting into speculation about Randy’s character and motives.
I could go into more detail, but I’ve started to feel obnoxiously nitpicky enough as it is. This is just something I’ve personally been wrestling with a lot lately in trying to write about LWO and related issues myself so it’s very much at the forefront of my mind.
dm
Hi again, DM.
I didn’t take your last comment as snarky at all. I just wanted to reassure you that we count you in, and that your comments are as welcome as anyone else’s. 🙂
Would any rich gays like to share their ABUNDANT SURPLUS WEALTH with me? ha ha. Oh wait were all ordinary folks here.
Just throwing that out there for Randy Thomas. 🙂
Maybe he can share some money with a poor gay college graduate like me!
Mike G.
I think what bothers me most about that argument is that he actually had the desire to make it. It seems so odd that one so adversarial toward gays would work in a ministry dealing exclusively with them. Or maybe it is just gays who are not “struggling” that he doesn’t get along with. As much as I disagree with him on these issues, I don’t get that from Alan Chambers. Heck, I don’t even get that from observing Richard Cohen.
I may sound naive in just reaching this point, but I’m beginning to suspect that Randy is in Exodus for Randy, and not for those they claim to help. I think it is necessary for him to maintain his “ex-gayness.” In addition, he seems to really get a power trip from talking about flying here, or staying in a hotel there, or attending meetings over here, etc. It reminds me of someone who is immature wanting desparately to play grown-up roles.
I apologize for the armchair psychology, but I find Randy a very perplexing subject. Mostly though, I am disturbed by his anger.
Speaking of “drifting into speculation” — I see “ex-gays” doing that all of the time with their judgements and assessments of why gays didn’t change and they did.
We all speculate. Especially in such a nebulous plane as the understanding of human sexuality and the etiology of it. Pulling politics into the water as Exodus has done has only muddied the already clouded waters. Randy Thomas has bought into that plan vis a vis’ his employment with them; hence, he has thrown down the gauntlet for speculation.
And guess what…these trips and hotel stays aren’t free. In many cases they aren’t cheap, especially if arranged on relatively short notice or to generally expensive locales (like Boston or DC). I wonder who pays for all this. Exodus? Focus on the Famiy? Political Action Committees?
A charitable organization (Exodus) should not be spending money on political junkets. It would be in Exodus’ best interest to be the sure that the money being spent on Randy’s political activities is coming from some other source.
DM, I asked you something.
Would you mind answering me please or even addressing what I said?
I can think of lots of reasons for him to be angry. All speculation, of course, as I don’t know the man, and don’t wish to.
He’s angry for giving up who he is for he whom he clearly appears not to be. He’s angry because he wants not to be gay but here he is hanging around with a bunch of fags anyway. He’s angry because he’s hanging around iwth a bunch of fags and he’s not enjoying himself. He’s angry because he appears to be lying for a living and that doesn’t seem quite right to him. He’s angry because he is hanging around a bunch of fundamentalist Christians, and they’re no fun to be around. He’s angry because 30 pieces of silver is all Mrs. Dobson is paying him, and isn’t paying him enough. He’s angry because no man will date him because he’s ‘not gay’, and no woman will date him because they can see what they’re getting.
Any or all of these could be true. but it’s not hard to imagine even more.
We wouldn’t need to speculate if Randy Thomas would converse with people, speak plainly, answer questions, and preserve his past writings so that others may link to his historical work.
He does not converse, he dictates.
He does not speak plainly, he parrots political correctness.
He does not answer questions; he deletes them, rewords them, evades them.
He does not preserve his past writings; he deletes blogs several times per year, relocates pages, moves content off-limits, and occasionally blocks incoming traffic.
Randy is frankly incapable of having an honest exchange with anyone, in my experience. Just like with this silly set of “rules” about discrimination, he embarrasses himself every single time he opens his mouth.
That’s why he HAS to erase all his past comments and blogs. It’s a recurring pattern I’ve observed with him over the years. I cannot even begin to count the number of discussion boards he’s created and erased, blogs he’s created and erased or speeches he’s given that he’s had to retract.
I actually do like the guy, having known him for many years, but he is not the most informed person on the planet. Nor is he able to interact with people who don’t view him as some kind of “expert” on being gay. His personal vanity overwhelms his ability to be taken seriously.
Bingo, I see this as well Steve. This would also explain an observation by another party, who said Randy changes considerably when he is in a room full of aspiring ex-gays. That would make him the expert, the wise person in the room who made it through that awful sin and has stories to tell about it.
And who wants to leave evidence of exchanges around where one has had to resort to bullying or just plain nonsense to “win” and take the risk of having those same people see you, not as a wise ex-gay, but a cranky, immature pundit.
He also loves to be the “only gay” in a room full of straight Christians who need an “expert” to tell them how to think. To his credit, he always tells them to embrace their gay neighbors and to not be hateful or to reject their friendship.
But in his position at Exodus, he comes out with silly, uninformed political positions because he forgets he really isn’t an expert on anything.
Steve, Michael and Dave…that’s what I mean. There’s this pathological need for attention. Being the only one in the room, the only one who will validate what those people want to hear.
And not quite being authentic, one way or the other.
Pam and I are not with our husbands any more for different reasons. Talk about broken relationally.
Being heterosexual isn’t all it’s cracked up to be by the ex gay industry. Neither is celibacy…it sucks when you haven’t really had a choice. Any one can have sex for the sake of having sex. That’s not hard.
It’s having a love relationship that matters, with someone that loves you back that’s harder and means something.
So changing from someone that has sex for sex, to someone that has sex for love, can and should be done by a person. Gay or not.
But I think the most important thing here is that finding love is so, so personal. One size DOES’NT fit all.
One can be counseled, but ultimately it’s a surprise to any of us when we realize we’re in love.
I think Steve and Jim are one of the most wonderful couples I know. Who have overcome adversity and are talented guys.
Those of us who have really, REALLY loved someone will recognize it in others.
So it’s unfair for the ex gay industry to judge gay people in the negative regarding the strength and validation being a gay couple CAN give you.
It IS the same as heterosexual couples.
The important thing is being ones self in any relationship. Period.
That’s how you KNOW you’re with the right person.
And I think that speaking as a person with a wealth of gay friends from all over the world, from all walks of life….being ex gay isn’t defined to clearly.
It seems more about who you want to get along with more, rather than who you are.
I just thought of something. I think I mentioned Chad Thompson before. I’ve had long talks with him. And he really didn’t seem to understand how it goes with attraction. The rules of it and what a person really feels when the real thing happens.
I listened to him regarding his expectation of finding a woman and what it’ll mean to be with her.
I kept thinking how naive and uniformed he was, despite all the work he’s done in support of changing homosexual attraction.
I live with two gay men now. We are close friends. One is black, shy, from a church going family in TX. The other is from Riverside, CA…he’s white, charming and artistic as well.
They are both attractive, unaffected. They have the same birthday.
Now, many times when I’m with either of them, we are mistaken for a couple.
I can imagine that a gay man, working his ex gay instructions could have that woman best friend. Who loves him unconditionally, is exceedingly comfortable with him and it could feel like the right situation if you’re a gay man in need of proving to yourself and the community watching you that you’re no longer gay.
And although it’s been a dry spell for me, I’d rather die than come onto or think for a second that no matter how many fine gay men I have in my life, it would be right to play folks like that because of my own needs or assumption of theirs for me.
I’m sure that many ex gays are encouraged and believe they’ve arrived if they have that willing straight spouse or at least opposite sex spouse who is ex gay as well that has become the best friend and confidante.
Whether they know of the former orientation or not.
There IS something sacred and special about having the gay friend who can anticipate all your needs, but doesn’t and won’t sleep with you ‘just to see’ or ‘just to please those who want it to happen’.
There are tremendous insights to be had from the opposite sex, but without all the sexual tension and temptation. It’s a needed education and breather. I have all the benefits of a man in the house, but none of the will he or won’t he speculation.
The honesty between us all is profound and the trust deeper than I had with my own husband.
I think the ex gay industry exploiting such relationships is disgusting and it’s unfair and often, as what happens in platonic heterosexual relationships, having sex destroys the friendship.
Even the squeamish straight women that I know that understand I have close relationships with lesbians can’t fathom how well I get along and how to navigate a really easy situation that’s all about being a woman and orientation doesn’t matter.
Women ARE different in how they emote, communicate and support each other. Sometimes I’ve been the only straight woman in several situations and I get tested on my sensitivity and get asked some interesting questions.
I know it’s about establishing trust.
But it’s being established because I”m not there to judge, control or admonish the lesbian women I’m privileged to hang out with. But if they want to be sure about me, I understand why we are communicating that way.
I’ve seen gay people betrayed as profoundly as my white in laws betrayed me…and a prejudice they didn’t know they had.
So, again I reiterate the issue of honesty and why we have to be authentic to each other. I do not, absolutely do not go around and pretend that I know more about being gay because of my experience, nor to I perpetrate anything other than I have a lot of love in me for all kinds of people.
What the ex gay industry demands is COMPLETE trust and control of a gay life. A real loving friend wouldn’t do that.
A real loving friend would EARN itrust and be trustworthy in return, and that’s really hard to do with someone who says they are ex gay.
As hot as one of my roomies is, his trust is precious to me. And I’m not desperate, nor would I be so undignified as to make ANY man think that I was.
This is why who we sleep with cannot be dictated by the irrational terms put forth by the ex gay industry. Gay folks, and straight folks together aren’t even wired that way.
I see a greater purpose in gay folks being authentic to their identity, we all need to be educated about who our best friends can be, without them having to BE us or sleep with us.
Fair?
Regan: Well said! Authentic friendships are worth gold! yes!
Mike Airhart wrote:
I would throw back the question, has Randy ever been harsh towards us? As for the personal being I am, I find it hard to not be harsh against him for his comments regarding transgenders. He and Mike Ensley are of the same kind, both talks a lot about transgenders, but do not really understand what transgenderism is, and totaly refuse to be educated and understand its subsets cross dressers, transvestites and transsexuals.
And when someone like me tries to talk to them, they seem to think they as ex-gays knows more about transgenders than transgenders themselves. In any case, back to the topic, IF he is reading this… Randy, I am a poor transsexual female that is currently supported by my husband and can hardly get a job to survive here, along with hundreds of thousands of us sisters in Asia… Can you call upon Exodus Asia Pacific to fight for our civil rights then?….
Another thing, by the criteria that Randy presented:
In a logical frame of mind in comparison to gays, should ex-gays be denied civil rights then? Is Randy for it too?
@Yuki
Nice observation.
Does anyone else notice that when Exodus wants straights to be afraid of gays, they say gays are wealthy and powerful but when they want gays to be afraid of homosexuality, they say gays can’t hold a job or have enough power to handle their own life? They could at least pick a stereotype and stick with it.
Ephilei said:
What I want to know is, why are they not going after this alleged lifestyle with full force (the drug addicted lifestyle, casual sex, etc) for the heterosexual community? Shouldn’t there be an Exodus for heteros as well? After all, this lifestyle they are depicting knows no sexual orientation. Maybe they could call it “Exit-Us” so its sounds like Exodus but not quite.
Amazing.
Regan:
Regan, I was working through the comments in order, trying to finish thinking through Emily’s question before getting to yours. I have since ended up taking care of a sick husband and trying to help a severely depressed friend get through the weekend. So I appreciate your patience, especially given the length and broad scope of your statements. I have responded below. I am going away for much of this week, and I do not think I will have internet access. So if you reply to me, please do not get upset if you don’t hear anything for several days.
Your initial comment to me seems to be little more than a laundry list of things you dislike about exgays. I’m not sure what 95% of it has to do with my original comment or with me at all. I was neither defending Randy Thomas nor attacking XGW–I was just saying that I think analysis is more persuasive than speculation. So I do not see how your litany of what you consider to be the personal faults of exgays as well as the faults of what you call the “exgay industry” is relevant.
Regan, how am I supposed to respond to this? Why would I even bother trying? I am stunned by the sheer number of insulting assumptions, overgeneralizations, and stereotypes in your comment. According to you, we exgays are dishonest, suckers for every stereotype, programmed to lose all our individuality, “pathologically in need of attention”, distant, and afraid of being “detected” by others, especially gay people. You know, I consider myself exgay, and I just don’t feel that’s an accurate picture of me. At all. Honestly, your comments make me feel the same way I felt back in the day as a young dyke when I heard homophobic bigots spouting off antigay stereotypes that had nothing to do with the reality of my life or who I was.
The same goes for your comments about the “exgay industry”–I don’t know what any of them have to do with me. I am in favor of better tracking and study of outcomes of exgay ministry and reparative therapy, but since I don’t actually DO exgay ministry or reparative therapy, there’s not much I can do about it. I have openly and repeatedly expressed my skepticism about the efficacy of certain exgay teachings and methods. Beyond voting straight Democratic tickets at election time, I am not involved in politics at all, and I am not an advocate of exgay presentations in public schools. (For me this is a religious path, and I believe that appropriate church-state separation means that therefore it does not belong in a public school curriculum. I do not know of any good non-religious reasons to pursue an celibate/exgay path.)
So I guess my question is: Why are you dumping all this on me? And why exactly should I be expected to reply at all? I don’t mind being called to account for my own beliefs, words, and deeds. But as far as I can tell, virtually nothing of what you say in your comment has anything to do with me or what I have said in this thread or anywhere else. It’s like you are talking to yourself, but demanding that I listen and respond anyway. What is up with that?
*************
To respond to your two questions (they are the only two questions I could find in your comment, so I assume they are the ones you are apparently angry at me for not answering yet) :
Well, again, I’m really not sure why I’m being expected to answer for someone else’s beliefs or actions, because I’m not pushing for exgay material/presentations in the schools. But my guess is that they probably believe that the kids will be better off in a number of ways if they pursue reorientation rather than “identifying as gay.” I think they also might believe that kids are being pressured or misled into thinking that they must be gay. In any case, I think you’d probably be better off asking the people who actually advocate what you are objecting to.
I don’t really understand this question at all–I don’t even think it’s a coherent sentence. And I don’t understand what “compatibility” has to do with anything. It would be helpful if you rephrased this question in a way that is easier to comprehend (I apologize for being dense), and I will do my best to respond when I get back.
******
Regan, If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry. I have had an awful weekend and am completely exhausted in every way, and am having a really hard time interpreting your unique communication style. But since you already seem to be pre-judging me as a Bad Exgay who is going to ignore you, it seemed unwise to make you wait another week for a reply.
dm
Emily K:
Ughhh…I usually try to avoid talking about this stuff. I think I can do the most good trying to encourage conservative Christians to think more sanely about exgay issues, without getting into politics. I’ve found that once they know my political views, I sometimes have a harder time getting them to take me seriously as a fellow Christian who really does believe that homosexual sex is a sin, who has anything to say worth listening to about homosexuality or the exgay experience. Either they think I’m tragically confused and still brainwashed by sodomite ideology, or they think I’m some sort of HRC plant, pretending to be a sincere believer to lead the innocent astray. Yeah, that’s right, I’m really some heathen gay activist who went through four years of exgay hell, two years of exgay purgatory, got married, and started breeding just so I could pose as a Christian! (grrrrrrrr…)
But, anyhow, in the interest of openness, here’s what I think:
I think sodomy laws were a bad idea and am glad that we’re done with them. I do not understand the view that “Okay, so it would be evil to enforce sodomy laws, but we should still keep them on the books.” I think that people should be protected against discrimination due to sexual orientation in employment and housing. (I would support some exemptions on the employment front for religious organizations.) I think sexual orientation should be treated like race and religion when it comes to hate crimes laws. (I would prefer it if there were no enhanced penalties for hate-based violent crimes at all, but if assaulting someone based on their race gets you extra time, so should assaulting someone based on their sexual orientation. I have no reservations about the other aspects of hate crimes laws.) I think LGB people should be able to serve openly in the military. I think there should be legalized adoption for same-sex couples, but I also think there should be religious exemptions for adoption service providers.
The civil unions vs. marriage question is harder for me. I definitely support a robust package of protections and privileges for committed same-sex couples–at this time, I don’t see why any particular legal privilege associated with marriage shouldn’t be extended to same-sex partnerships as well. But honestly, whether I think we should go beyond that to “full marriage equality” or whatever is a question I have never been able to solidly make up my mind on since my conversion in ’98. I have gone back and forth innumerable times on it, and currently I would neither actively support nor actively oppose it. I could muse aloud about all the considerations which keep pulling me in different directions , but that would make this comment more than three times as long as it is. I will say though that I am truly ashamed of how hysterical some Christians and conservatives have gotten over the issue.
Hope this helps. Like I said to Regan above, I may be without web access for a few days, so further replies may have to wait if there are any follow-up questions or remarks.
dm
Randy Thomas admits on his blog that he has romantic, emotional, sexual (even “lustful”) atttractions to both men and women. When I assked if if that wouldn’t meet the standard definition of a bisexual, he relied:
Yes, “…that would definitely be the current secular definition.” It made me wonder, is there a sacred defintion of bisexual? Or is EXODUS continuing its decpetive practice of redefining words to suit their pleasure?
For what it is worth, disputed mutability has never struck me as someone who followed lock step with Chambers, Thomas, Exodus or Focus on the Family on the ex-gay line. She seems far more like collegejay. They both seem to be trying to reconcile their religious views with their sexuality without trying to impose their beliefs on others. I think that dm’s response to Emily K was a pretty good example of that.
Pinning Randy Thomas down on ANYTHING is like trying to grab smoke. What Randy wants is to be loved and admired. So, he lashes out at “the gays” when he has an audience that wants to hear the bad stuff about “the gay lifestyle” which he knows nothing about since he hasn’t experienced it in 20 years.
And when he’s in a more public forum, he’s suddenly dripping with love and acceptance for us all so that the Christians will see him as this paragon of long suffering humility and compassion.
He equivocates when he is faced with someone who calls him on all the slippery, meaningless positions he takes — and he covers his tracks by erasing his past, as Michael Airhart has pointed out.
He’s gay, he’s straight, he bi, he’s an ex-gay, he’s not an ex-gay, he’s “called to celibacy,” then he’s dating someone, then he’s not dating someone.
Randy misunderstands Paul’s admonition to be “all things to all people.”
I’m not saying Randy a bad person or even insincere. I’m saying that Randy is a very confused, needy “attention whore” who lusts for admiration and the spotlight.
Since I’m in show business, and therefore an attention whore myself, I can see all the signs. The problem is that Randy has no discernible talent. Therefore, his only recourse is to be a politician and culture warrior.
But because being a culture warrior and politician is against his religious beliefs, he hides it all under the mantle of “ministry” where you can pretty much say anything or do anything, because you can blame it all on God.
More than anthing else, even more than my objection to EXODUS’s poilitics is their blatant dishonesty — dodging questions, redefining words, making up new words to suit their purpose — a verbal game of smoke and mirrors that is not “Christian”. Why can’t they let their “yes” be yes and their “no” be no?
Last year, Alan Chambers promised to clear this mess up. He wanted to do away with the term “ex-gay” and “see to it that it is never used again” because it was “more negative than anything” and “didn’t really explain what the change process was all about.”
So now Alan calls himself “former homosexual” instead (how is that an improvement?) — and Randy still calls himself “ex-gay” on his blog — even though he admits lusting after both sexes and admits he meets what he calls the “secular definiton” of bisexual.
As John Boswell pointed out so well: “Words are fundamental to Christianity. They are a basic means of expressing faith, and, as I pointed out, this is peculiarly characteristic of the Christian religion. You will now be able to see, if you think about it, that words can conceal as much as they reveal. In the Christian moral tradition, great difficulty has been occasioned by inattention to words and their precise meanings.”
Put it another way; As humpty dumpty said in Alice: “Words mean what I say they mean. nothing more. and nothing less.”
Usually, when people cannot say what they mean, when yes doesn’t mean yes and no doesn’t mean no, that means that there is an agenda beneath it, which may or may not be acknowledged.
Randy Thomas says he is ex-gay, but admits that he is attracted to both men and women. Since his agenda–whatever it is, religious, monetary, political, psycho or all of them– is what really is running the show, none of the words– gay, ex-gay, bi, straight, chaste, pure, sinful, not sinful– actually have the slightest bit of meaning that can be shared and understood by people who do not share his agenda.
On another thread in this blog, Michael brown practically insists that he really likes gay people and has nothing against us, just wants sodomy laws, DADT, and the closet, for a start. I am coming to the conclusion that it is perhaps possible that he really doesn’t see the inconsistency.
Thanks dm, that answers my question. I understand your ambivalence about the “marriage issue,” because for many that is tied into religion so sstrongly, but i appreciate your view on secular law – which, yes, should INDEED remain secular and separate.
Randy is like a spoiled child who never grew up. he censors the comments in his blog more zealously than the media of Soviet Russia, which is ironic, considering his current blog says something like “add your voice” in the comments area (but give that a week, he’ll probably move his blog again which purges his entries of the past). He thinks he “knows” about the “gay lifestyle” today because he “lived it” 20 years ago – and let me tell you, not even every gay man 20 years ago was cruising the bathhouses with nothing but lube in their back pockets. He thinks he knows what it’s like to be a young LGBT person today, yet justifies removal of support groups like Gay-Straight Alliances in schools that provide a safe place for discussion. As for the “labels,” he even calls himself straight at one point! usually that’s one that “ex-gays” avoid like the plague:
Well, good for you, Randy. Kudos for becoming “straight.” At least for that blog post, anyway. And yes, out of curiosity, what is the “sacred definition” for “bisexual?”
It’s funny, b/c this is precisely what makes Scripture study in Judaism so vibrant: the meanings of words. As a result, many interpretations have come about for what might be a two-word sentence in the Hebrew. In Genesis in particular, there are UNCOUNTABLE double-meanings and puns used to drive the point of the literature across (oy vey, the puns! Is it sacreligious to groan during Torah study??). Fortunately, Judaism has a built-in method of engaging this with the religion: the Talmud and Mishnah. For Fundamentalist Christianity, every word must mean “exactly this” or “exactly that” so a literal definition can be taken hold of, but ultimately, this is what causes tension and breaks to arise. And since the ex-gay movement is so deeply rooted in Fundamentalist Christianity, it will inherit the exact same problems.
BTW, I kid Randy. He knows I love him.
🙂
We have a little unspoken agreement. I get to call him an attention whore and he gets to attack my home and family.
Isn’t it great when friends get along?
Economist M. V. Lee Badgett has published research refuting the argument that gays are economically privileged. Check out her books on amazon.com – she has a new book out on sexual orientation discrimination (2007). See her public testimony from 2005 about sexual orientation discrimination for an overview.
https://nh.glad.org/LeeBadgettSB427Testimony.pdf
It’s kinda sick that Randy says MLK is his hero, considering that MLK worked with Bayard Rustin ( a homosexual who was out to King) and expressed concern for LGBT welfare before his passing.
His late widow, Coretta Scott King mentioned many times something to the effect of their being “room at the table of brotherhood for our gay and lesbian siblings.”
Of course, opponents of gay rights will basically call Coretta confused or (worse) a liar.
Ironic that those who fight to preserve the sanctity and purity of heterosexual marriage seem to have no problem trashing a black man’s widow and calling her a liar about her own husband. Who would’ve known his mind better than his own wife?
I made a comment on his blog about how ironic that is. But he only responded snarkily. He seems to enjoy ignoring the fact that MLK would NOT have lobbied against people’s freedoms, especially the freedom for two adults to love one another.
To understand Randy’s admiration of MLK, you have to see how Randy perceives himself.
MLK stood up against oppressors for a persecuted minority. Randy, against all logic, sees himself as part of a persecuted minority.
Pointing out that he’s actually part of the oppressors will not sit well with him. He needs to think that he’s a martyr for Christ, fighting against the evil doers and sympathizers with sin who are vastly stronger and vastly more numerous.
Or so I’m guessing.
There’s also this from the website that originated the Marketing Data that Randy used:
“”The Gay Consumer Index™ and Lesbian Consumer Index™ provide valuable guidance regarding the perceptions and opinions of ‘out’ lesbian and gay consumers; those who can be reached by marketers through gay and lesbian media channels. This unique, community-based methodology polls LGBT consumers who can be reached using print publications, direct mail and internet media,” said Tom Roth, President of Community Marketing. “It should be kept in mind, however, that the study’s findings profile those who read lesbian and gay publications and websites. These results should not necessarily be extrapolated to the entire gay and lesbian population, which we feel is impossible to do with surveys due to social, employment and political pressures,” added Roth.”
Gay Consumer Index Website