We’ve all seen this quote from Love Won Out Birmingham:
“I never met a person who aspired to be homosexually challenged,” the gender issues expert noted at one point. “Sexual trauma is a huge piece of the puzzle. Having talked with hundreds of homosexuals, I have never met one that had not been sexually violated in his or her life.” (*)
From Love Won Out Boston:
“In our experience in talking with women, hundreds of women overcoming lesbianism, and drawing from the experience of Exodus member ministries, again, a strong disproportionate number of women with same-gender issues have been sexually violated or abused in addition to other issues in their lives,” she answered. “We have seen it so often that it is not something that we can so easily dismiss.(*)
You’re right Melissa, I’m not just going to easily dismiss it when you so clearly just make stuff up and then can’t even stick to it.
It would be easy to ignore phoney political hacks such as Fryrear if Focus was not so influential politically. That organization is responsible for much of the homophobic backlash in the present day US. When her mistruths are read by people who don’t know any better, it is accepted as truth and drums up more ill feelings towards gay people. I find her antics to be an unforgiveable betrayal of the gay and lesbian community and certainly a mockery of people who are truly religious and do not buy into the cult mentality of fundamentalism. The issue of sexual abuse has affected society as a whole and is not exclusive to the gay community. There is also no credible evidence of it being a causative factor in determining sexual orientation. Fryrear is missing a big opportunity to heal the straight community if she is focusing her efforts on only the gay community. She may also want to study spousal and child abuse amongst the fundamentalist christian community. Now there is something that can keep her busy and her nose out of the affairs of the gay community for a very long time.
And unfortunately, she enjoys a certain amount of credibility among Evangelicals and is cited as an expert by Focus because, after all, “she was one of them!”
Tim, I like the way you think. It would be very nice to see these groups delve into abuse within their own audience, or simply share messages about how *anyone*, straight, gay, or bi, can recover from sexual abuse and break the cycle. But that would actually be pro-family, and risks alienating contributors besides. Besides, I wouldn’t wish this kind of false “helpfulness” onto most straight people, if this is what they do for gay people.
While its clear the Focus Melissa Fryrears of the world are making up many of the supposed cases of sexually abused GLBTs it may be possible that they truly are seeing a lot of gays who have been sexually abused. As some may have pointed out this might not be because abuse causes same sex attractions but that people who are abused seek help and just coincidentally happen to be gay and wrongly convinced one caused the other. If Focus and LWO didn’t specifically target gays they would likely see a lot of heterosexuals who’ve been sexually abused as well. If those heterosexuals had been taught as children opposite sex attractions are bad I’d bet a lot of them would seek psychological help to eliminate opposite sex attractions and would also believe the abuse caused their opposite sex attractions.
Fryrear sees what she wants to see. Like Chambers she is incapable of making a difference between actual facts and her own propaganda. Chambers saw (according to Concerned Women for America website) “thousands of protestors” outside LWO Conference in Boston. A bit like how he probabaly saw “hudreds of thousands of ex-gays” inside the church.
I am all for exposing these inconsistencies and outright lies of LWO. The sad thing is that LWO exists only because of its political value for FOF in its war against gays.
Randi brings up a good point, which I believe was raised elsewhere. If someone really were interested in a study that might bear some real serious benefit (hint: Dr. Throckmorton), I think a lot of clinicians might be iterested to learn why so many people with a history of CSA are drawn to the ex-gay movement.
Its pretty well established that heterosexual females sexually molested as children by men sometimes become promiscuous. Perhaps some of the promiscuity claimed by exgays is true as well and caused by sexual abuse rather than the same sex attraction itself. Whether gay or straight the victim responds with promiscuity because they learned at a young age that this is how you relate to and/or appease those around you.
Most of the people I know (primarily heterosexual) had distant or abusive fathers. That is the “nurturing” nature of many western men. Heterosexuals may just quietly accept that while “exgays” who have been told and may want to believe there is a cause to the attraction that brings them social rejection jump to the conclusion that their distant father caused them to be gay. Life is full of conflict with people and if one is looking for a cause of desires any interpersonal conflict may erroneously seem to be it, especially when exodus encourages drawing a particular conclusion.
I have said this before, as a bi woman who was never sexually abused, but has had the death of her father “blamed” for her non-straight sexual identity, and feel the need to again:
It exploits and hurts a survivor all over again to use the worst parts of her childhood in order to explain away and pathologize the best parts of her adulthood.
As I said in an earlier post, Fryrear is missing a tremendous opportunity to extend her christian love when she is ignoring the impact of sexual abuse on the straight community in addition to abuse within the fundamentalist christian community. She is in effect, encouraging christians to hide from and ignore their own issues and focus attention on the lives of gays and lesbians. She may want to also address the negative effects of fundamentalist christianity on the lives of the followers of Focus on the Family. For instance, why in the world would people give their hard-earned cash to the organization when they have mouths to feed and homes to pay for. PS. I am not being sarcastic at all with this post, I’m serious.
The way to put this question to rest is to study the sexual orientation of sexual abuse victims who have not been self selected into Exodus. It would be interesting to take another look at the study of foster parent sexual abuse of children which Cameron used to create the distortion that gays are child molestors. Of all those children who were the victims of same sex sexual molestation what percentage of them turned out gay? I think I know the answer to this one already…
Once again, all I can find in these studies is the simple fact that Evangelical Christians are much more likely to use their children as sexual outlets than normal people. The evidence Fryer comes up with clearly shows this. Since most exgays come from an EC background, the fact that they report sexual abuse really says more about the EC than about gay people. Maybe Gay people could picket megachurches, offering refuge to those who are being victimized! Great way to get at the root of the problem. As Fryer’s evidence shows, the kids are getting molestated at a far greater rate among EC’s than anywhere else.
I’m going to be sarcastic here.
Point one. How many people who turned out to be heterosexual in their adult lives were molested when they were children? When are these evangelical idiots going to run studies on that issue? Never Any idiot knows that, if you are going to run a “study” you have to have a control group, and in Fryrear’s case the control group would be the number of heteros reporting having been sexually molested. Although, quite frankly, since any such reports would be self-reporting, the “self-reporting” problem should be obvious.
Point two, and a personal point. I was not sexually molested as a child, yet I turned out to be gay. I have recently begun to wonder what was wrong with me, that so many other people who turned out to be gay claim to have been sexually molested, but I was not. I feel almost deprived.
/sarcasm
Dalea at November 6, 2005 12:44 AM
Once again, all I can find in these studies is the simple fact that Evangelical Christians are much more likely to use their children as sexual outlets than normal people.
I’m not sure that I would limit it to ECs or “sexual outlets.” Apparently more than a few people want to live out their fantasizes through their children. I’ve noted that through several decades of parents urging their children on in Little League, Pop Warner football, youth hockey, and so forth. The parents aren’t interesting in just letting their kids have fun. There is something strange going on here. My father did in the 1960s–he wanted us to have fun, without being overly intrusive. I sincerely do not know what has happened since then.
Some parents even here in the Boston area have become overly intrusive–so much so that one father murdered the father of another boy involved in a hockey game a few years ago. The a@@hole did not understand that he did not only ruin the other kid’s life, but he also ruined his own kid’s life, since the perp is going to jail for life. The issue has become problemmatic, since many kid’s games refuse to allow any attendence by anyone other than the players. These nuts should be careful what they wish for, since it might backfire on them.
Raj, I’ve found that you admit to any part of your childhood being less than idyllic, some of these people will use it. I’ve already talked about my father’s death being “blamed”. Friends have been told it had to do with their being deaf, or having divorced parents, or in one case, having leukemia as a kid! I’ve never heard of the death of a pet being blamed, but I’m sure it might be.
I do think the idea that unresolved issues from childhood sexual abuse may lead gay people who have them into ex-gay ministries is an intriguing one that should be followed somehow.
Jayelle, I agree. Have you seen this post of Petersons?
How Sexual Abuse Made Me Ex-Gay
I have always treated these people from Focus on the Family, American Family Association, and Traditional Values COalition with some respect because much is based on their religious beliefs, but some are getting really scary, and people listen to them. On Agape Press the other day, Randy Sharp, who works for the American Family Association, writes that Walgreens is supporting the gay games because people will get AIDS at the games and then go to Walgreens to buy drugs. This is fanaticism at its worst and makes me sick. This is beyond religious belief. THe article is here: https://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/212005gst.asp
Aaron, the groups you have listed have long past crossed the line of religious belief vs fanaticism. The garbage that shows up on sites like Agape, Lifesite, TVC and World Net Daily is so full of lies and rhetoric it is obvious that they are trying to scare and play on the emotions of vulnerable people. Personally, I don’t think that any of these organization deserve anything but contempt for lying and stealing money from innocent people in order to line their own pockets and have lavish “lifestyles”. It is way, way beyond religion, it is now politics.
This has nothing to do with the topic of the post, but I just thought I’d point out this link where NARTH calls lesbians the “window dressing” of the gay community. These guys are weeeeiiiiirrddd!!!
https://www.narth.com/docs/drphil2.html
Jayelle
Re: “It exploits and hurts a survivor all over again to use the worst parts of her childhood in order to explain away and pathologize the best parts of her adulthood.”
That was very beautifully put.
Not to be off topic and I’m hoping that Mike might bring the article in for analysis.
Warren Throckmorton posted an article in WorldNetDaily today on the coming out of Sheryl Swoopes and her comment that she wasn’t born gay.
I’d be very interested to know what you all make of it, but here’s my take and it’s typical of conversion supporters to leave important mitigating facts from the discussion.
Criminal activity in sports doesn’t do nearly as much damage to an athletic career as being gay.
1. Sports-as male centric macho terrain, is intensely prejudiced against gay players. The intimacy of the locker is a place where the paranoia of gay members of a team is most acute.
Every single gay male player, whether it was football, baseball or basketball…didn’t do so until their sports careers were over.
2. For a player to reach a certain standard and pinnacle of their career, they have to affect the trappings of heterosexuality. This is about the comfort zone, for themselves, their public and their team mates.
It’s only recently that in some sports, lesbians have come out. Tennis and golf, for example: these are not TEAM sports in the same sense as basketball. There is a zone of individuality and privacy there.
However, earlier on, coming out (or being outed) while still on the professional circuit has cost gay pros money, endorsements, or their career altogether.
3. Women’s sports in particular carries less of the investment and dollars and cache of equivalent men’s sports. However, women’s basketball has a lesbian following and that also tends to play a part in finding one’s level.
Indeed, Swoopes has signed a lucrative deal with a lesbian cruise line.
Not say….a mainstream one like Holland America.
4. There is extreme and unreasonable expectation and pressure to conform to the heterosexual standard. To date the opposite sex, to validate that orientation further by marrying and bearing children. Despite the original and dominant homosexual orientation.
It’s a reality that black people who are gay deal with even more pressure, especially those in high profile sports or entertainment.
For Throckmorton to crow about Swoopes singular experience and comment that she wasn’t born gay, and her SS relationship is a product of another process of events is the gospel on conversion, he needs another think and it’s long overdue.
His process is backwards.
And no, those of us who don’t accept his idea of conversion wouldn’t criticize Swoopes if she’d started out gay and went straight.
We understand and acknowlege the mitigating factors of one’s socio/economic position and family background, comfort and safety.
It’s a matter of when it was safe to come out, not that a person comes out at all and appears to be converting their orientation.
There’s some evidence that women’s sexuality in general is more fluid than men’s. I’d file this in the “who cares?” department. Even assuming this did represent some kind of “change” in orientation, note that she didn’t need to go to intense therapy and have a tail of woe about an abusive childhood and not bonding with mom/dad/take-your-pick or whatever. She just fell for a chick.
As a bisexual it is clear to me that one can be born with both attractions and experience a sense of choice over which one to focus on. From what I’ve read women have a greater tendency to bisexuality. Its easy to see how a bisexual could erroneously assume they’ve chosen to have certain feelings exist when what they’ve really chosen is which gender they prefer at a given time. Once again, Throckmorton places high value on the few self reports that support his opinion while ignoring the vast majority of self reports that do not.
Further to my previous comment, Throckmorton has to know he’s presenting a wildly unbalanced view of the facts such as they are. How does that guy sleep at night? Is he deluded the point of mental illness, unbelievably callous towards gay people, or is it just war (against us) to him? For someone like him to claim he stands against moral relativity is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
RandiTo be fair (us, hah!) on Warren,He doesn’t, as best we can gauge, know any gay COUPLES. Gay individuals tend to drift away from him, because the environment he promotes is harmful to them. He does talk with ex-gays, even collaborating with the deceitful Chad Thompson. Let’s not even talk about Robert Knight, NARTH, PFOX, et al. That much is his expertise.And IF Warren was to say, openly, that there was nothing wrong with homosexual people … Grove City College would be reviewing his tenure very quickly.Warren promotes these views because he agrees with them. And if he did not, he would be fired. Warren also deals with (exclusively) anti-homosexual homosexuals. The rest of us confuse and upset him.As for bisexuals…. well, they are beyond comprehension — except that they provide “proof that homosexuals can change”
Grantdale, what you say makes sense to me. It is understandable but still wrong to use religion and self interest to justify unprovoked disseminations of what one knows to be distortions. Would I behave differently if I was in Throckmorton’s shoes? Perhaps not, but I think sometimes it is reasonable and well advised to ignore the rules of fairness when one’s opponent has repeatedly done so first – until they demonstrate a willingness to adhere to them again.
Likely you’ve heard of game theory and the prisoners gambit, etc. It says play nice as long as others play nice with you. When they treat you badly first, you treat them badly. When they return to the rules you do too. Although it would normally be wrong to do so, in this case I think it is fair, wise, and reasonable to publicly state
a person (Throckmoton) knowingly making this distortion is evil at least at this point in time.
I’m like most people, I cannot be perfect and I want him and Grove City College to know I and GLBTs like me hate them for such actions and that is as understandable and expected as it is unfortunate. Its a situation all good people should wish to rememdy and it should be clear and clearly stated the main barrier to minimizing bad and maximizing good is rigid adherence to religious doctrine.
Randi,
“but I think sometimes it is reasonable and well advised to ignore the rules of fairness when one’s opponent has repeatedly done so first – until they demonstrate a willingness to adhere to them again.”
That’s a perfect formula for escalating hostility.
Furthermore, I play fair because
a) it’s the right thing to do (and yes there is such a thing).
b) reasonable people listen to those who are principled.
c) if I stop being principled in my arguments, how will I know that I’m right? How will I know when I’ve turned into the same kind of person that I criticize?
d) I’m not a “win at all costs, think only of me” kind of person.
“…I want him and Grove City College to know I and GLBTs like me hate them …”
Just for the record, I don’t hate Warren, Grove City College, or really much of anyone else. And from what I read from most of those here, they don’t seem hate either.
Hate is blinding, it leaves you unable to find points in common. It also leaves you unable to see when you are wrong. I think one of the problems with the RR is that they are so busy “hating the sin” that they can’t see their own cruelty, bigotry, and downright meanness. Hate has blinded them. It ain’t any better in the opposite direction.
Hate creates situations of impasse. When your opponent is “evil” or you hate him, you have defined yourself into a position where no compromise is possible. There isn’t room for the existance of both of you, so the only solution is jihad. Not only is that a morally indefensible position, but in our case it’s impracticle.
Hate is controlling. It turns your power over to the object of the hate. You can’t go about your life because your emotions are controlled externally.
I’ve seen people so motivated by hate (for example at an ex) that they do bizarre things and invite all sorts of drama into their own life, all to try to punish or hurt someone else.
The best (both emotionally and intellectually) solution to this stuff is to continue to point out the errors, inaccuracies, and downright lies told by the ex-gay movement. That’s what we’ve been doing here.
And I think we can claim some progress. Some of the ex-gay “leaders” seem to have moderated some of their language and positions. Perhaps in time they might even get to the point where they only exagerate, spin, stretch the truth, and spin.
Or, best of all, perhaps some day we can all just tell the truth and agree to disagree about “sin” or biblical interpretations, or whatever other motivations may drive the ex-gay movement.
Timothy, I’ve looked at a number of posts you’ve made such as above and I sometimes think you’re absolutely right and at others think maybe not so much. Regardless, point well made as I’ve seen you do well many times before. Yes I probably go to far by calling Mr. Throckmorton evil, I’ll back track a bit and say his statments regarding the Swoopes willfully either malicious or almost pathologically indifferent.
Its important to control my hatred and I do my best, but I want to make sure the anti-gays know what they call love makes some of us very angry. I think the non-violent demonstration of that anger at the Boston LWO protests has also given the liars pause to reconsider if their actions really are loving.
I’m not sure how I can agree to disagree on sin and biblical interpretations when people like this try to control gay lives that don’t directly affect theirs’ – and they don’t agree that the overriding principle in determining morality is fairness. It seems to me one must encourage the entire planet to recognize fairness best come before religion. No doubt I’ll be back and forth in my mind on what you’ve said for some time.
Its clear to me I prefer a more strident approach than most at Ex-Gay Watch. If any prefer to critize me or comment directly you can email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net Thank you Ex-Gay Watch for giving me a more public voice.
Randi,
Re: “I’ve looked at a number of posts you’ve made such as above and I sometimes think you’re absolutely right and at others think maybe not so much. Regardless, point well made… “
I find myself agreeing with pretty close to everything Timothy posts in this forum, and including what he said so beautifully above (November 8, 2005 03:52 PM) but I think you (Randi) are really onto something here.
Being fair and trying to stay above the tactics used against us is awful hard work. There are times when I wonder whether its worth it myself.
One way in which I try to keep myself in check is to remember that I am not going to be able to convince Focus, Exodus, etc that they are wrong. But if I comport myself as the reasonable person I think I am, maybe I can convince some of the people these groups are trying to reach, and in doing so, push Focus, Exodus, etc, (and Throckmorton) further into the alienating extreme.
I think dialing down the tactics is a different matter from dialing down the anger. It’s all about what you do with the energy. I have no problem with channeling the anger into forceful and constructive action.
Yes Jim. Maybe what I’m struggling to say is that
while we must do our best to take the high road in general that it may not be in our best interests to be angels. Or is it? I’m not so sure now, now I’m going to find it hard to sleep…
My own take is that gay protest is sometimes about the opponent. And more usually it is about making gay people feel better about themselves. The criteria I use is will this make gays feel better? If so, who cares about fairness and high roads? Most of the ACT-UP efforts were successful in that regard. And many of them did move our opponents to behave better. The threat that hangs over the Roman Catholic Church, left over from ACT-UP, leads I suspect to a better treatment of gay people from that church. Not great treatment, not ideal treatment, just better than it used to be.
I’ve had trouble figuring out the fascination here has been with Throckmorton, and my trouble continues with this “press release” I found on his web site:
https://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=165
It’s announcing a publication of a supposedly “peer-reviewed article” that was apparently authored at least in part by him. The interesting thing is that the publisher will be…The Journal of Psychology and Christianity…. This strikes me as an admission that his version of psychological counselling is really religious counselling and has nothing to do with science. As I’ve been saying all along.
I might be interested in the credentials are of the “peers” who supposedly “reviewed” the work, but it really isn’t worth the time asking. The Journal of Psychology and Christianity? Maybe there will be forthcoming a “Journal of Creationism/ID” or even a “Journal of the Four Corners of the Earth”–all peer-reviewed of course.
I’ll turn it around a bit. I wonder what Throckmorton’s fascination is with gay people that he spends so much time on such a small fraction of the population, when so many other people are in need of psychological counselling. I might wonder if he is a latent homosexual, but I won’t go there. Actually, I guess I have.
My fascination is that there but for the grace of the god of fairness go I. And I see his distortions in articles on the internet frequently. Seeing as you brought it up Raj I think he is a repressed homosexual. He repeats this “most people have had a same sex attraction” line like he finds it comforting. When I first asked about him having a same sex attraction he was flippant and it struck me that he doth protest too much. Next time I asked him if he was vicariously suppressing his same sex attraction though exgays as I had once suppressed my same sex attraction using anger at gays. He sent that email to the complaint department at my ISP, I guess it struck a nerve. He’s not married, is he…? I wonder if he had a distant father…
Randi – I can’t seem to link to your blog. Is the link provided by clicking your name correct?
Randi:
Re: “it may not be in our best interests to be angels.”
Ah, but Archangels Michael and Rafael were two fierce dudes! 😉
Dalea:
Re: “The threat that hangs over the Roman Catholic Church, left over from ACT-UP, leads I suspect to a better treatment of gay people from that church. Not great treatment, not ideal treatment, just better than it used to be.”
I, of course, don’t see it that way. Surprised? 😉
From my perspective as an erstwhile Catholic, things have clearly gotten worse, and unfortunately ACT-UP has become quite a postor boy in the backlash. I would agree however that their actions have made gays feel better, no doubt about that.
In the mid-90’s the US Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter to parents of gays called “Always our children” which, while flawed in many ways, encouraged patience and dialogue instead of anger and shunning. The title of the letter referred to the advice that parents should always show love for all of their children because they are “always our children,” and it explicitely condemned coercion or disowning. While the letter upheld Catholic teachings that homosexual activity was wrong, it nevertheless was seen as quite a breakthrough within the parameters of Catholic teaching. A half-empty/half-full glass, if you will. Enough so, at least, that conservatives were livid.
There is no way on God’s green earth a letter like that could be issued today. No way, no how.
The only thing gay Catholics can look for today is a dwindling number of local priests and parishes who are willing to welcome gays in their churches. That number, in my experience, is dwindling rapidly.
Here’s one to ponder guys, and I would love your opinion.
In Oklahoma and Texas, transgenders have had their marriages invalidated if wills of their former spouses were contested.
The judges contending that regardless of the completion of gender reassignment, the trannie was still and always their former gender, and since no SS marriages are legal, their marriage wasn’t either.
So, here’s my take.
I know, I know, don’t give DL Foster oxygen, but this is germane.
He’s crowing about the TX amendment banning same gender marriage.
How about this:
FORMER homosexuals, are still and always homosexuals, no matter how many heterosexual affectations they acquire.
And since it’s illegal for gays to marry, than homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry ANYBODY, therefore Foster’s marriage is a sham.
He’s still a homosexual and always will be. Marriage is after all, ONLY for real and legit, always have been heterosexual, so he has no standing to be all this happy about the amendment then, right?
Just a thought.
What’s good for Texas, and the laws that people can’t change is concerned, there ya go.
Rick – Send me your email address and I will forward you a swack of emails containing my best work. Mine is randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
As well if you didn’t see it before here is a link to an article I recently had published on religioustolerance.org and mensnewsdaily.com:
https://religioustolerance.org/vis_essay.htm
I had to put my brain in a vice to come up with that one. Mensnewsdaily is notoriously anti-gay and I first thought I was having a psychotic episode when I accidentally found it on their homepage. Religioustolerance is an excellent unbiased (in my opinion) commentator on “homosexual” issues. Regan said the emails were “outstanding” which is the ultimate in praise.
I don’t have anything on a blog. I originally attempted to set one up to post on Throckmorton’s site. When it asked for a URL I made one up. That allowed me to post but I haven’t figured out how to put my stuff on a blog yet. This microsoft
personal computer/internet stuff is a barrier for me even though I’m a former computer expert on the OpenVMS operating system.
Speaking of EGW links that don’t work when one clicks the posters name:
Regan Ducasse I tried to click on your name and it didn’t work either. Do you have a blog or collection of writings?
Jim – I’d agree with your assessment that the Catholic church is more antigay now than it had been in the 90’s. But I think this is due to the scandal surrounding priests molesting children. It may be that Act Up’s actions did soften the church up, I don’t know even though I am also an erstwhile Catholic.
“The criteria I use is will this make gays feel better? If so, who cares about fairness and high roads?”
Please tell me you don’t believe this!! Let me offer a few other opinions (not mine) and you tell me if it’s valid:
The criteria I use is will this make good Bibl-believing Christians feel better? If so, who cares about fairness and high roads.
The criteria I use is will this make Republicans feel better? If so, who cares about fairness and high roads?
The criteria I use is will this make straight white men feel better? If so, who cares about fairness and high roads?
BTW, folks, sorry if I seem lately to be responding harshly to other postings. Please don’t take it as a personal attack. I just want us to live up to what we expect in others.
Hmmmm, my observation was that the RC treats us better ‘politically’, in public debates, than it used to. The leaders now speak with respect to gay people in public, they acknowlege we exist, have lives and interests. This is a far cry from 40 years ago when the RC refused to speak with us. So, that has changed.
For gays within the church, undoubtably things are worse. But so it appears to be the case for women, propeace, liberals and others. It looks like the right wing loons are in control.
There have always been Catholics in my life. I grew up near and lived in Chicago for many years. My thoughts on the RC are these. The laity and believers are usually a very nice group of people who seriously try to live out their faith in a kind and loving manner. The Religious I have known and worked with invariably were people doing an amazing job. They were also overworked, stressed to the max and continued on doing their very best. A very worthwhile group.
The hierarchy of the church continues to set new records in douchetude. How the wonderful Catholic people and their admirable Religious continue to be lead by these sleazy careerists, I can never fathom. And I always wonder when the uprising will happen. The Catholic people truly deserve leaders worthy of them.
Timothy says: BTW, folks, sorry if I seem lately to be responding harshly to other postings. Please don’t take it as a personal attack. I just want us to live up to what we expect in others.
Since our opponents would be only too happy to have us hauled off to end up as bars of soap, I am not sure what this means.
An example of what I think is a good protest came some time ago in Topeka. This was in response to Fred Phelps. Some lg folks decided to figure out when Fred would not be out protesting. They discovered that Sunday was the day. So, the lg’s sponsered a “Day in the Park Without Fred”. They gave out balloons and ice cream to those who showed up. Won many friends for us. And made a good point.
There are lots of ways to protest. One I can remember involved a group of elderly lesbians. They charged the building, in their walkers. The police were thrown off kilter. They had been expecting a gay riot. Instead they got sweet little old ladies. Finally, the police forced the focus of the protest to come out and speak to us.
I think you need to lighten up Timothy.
Bahahaha,Yaa, shure. Oh-kay for you to say Dalea. But Timothy’s a highly strung California person on his hurried way to absail in roller blades wearing a thong, or something. Time waits for no man out there…(sorry if that image gave everyone, including Timothy, the cold shivers)Anyway, this was really a rely to Randi:Yep, more than familar with game theory. It is used a great deal leading into negotiating sessions.But it collapses (not quite, but at least logically and at the moment) when there is disagreement over valuation. It works cleanly if, for example, we are talking about a game of cards or $, but when discussing many issues — such as sexuality — the value propositions are often vastly misaligned.There are people who are utterly convinced I am going to hell in a handbasket, and want to save me from myself.Rather than game theory, a judicious use of “Piss Off!” and further avoidance is often the best approach. If they continue to pester you, game theory cames back into play…
BTW: Timothy was also doing that activity with both his personal trainer and his personal therapist.
I didn’t find Timothy’s remarks unduly harsh, certainly no more so than my own. In fact he clearly puts Fairness First (which is far more than I can say for all the religious fundamentalists I’ve communicated with) so I have no problem with his remarks whatsoever.
Grantdale, point taken on game theory. I generally don’t like rigid adherence to rules. Every situation has to be evaluated seperately and a unique approach applied and derived from the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It is human nature to get out of touch with reality to some degree. It behooves all of us to be invite criticism upon ourselves even though it may seem harsh and be painful. I personally think a bit of name calling is okay given the repetitive distortions and lies of ommission of Throckmorton, Exodus, “Focus on the Family”, et al. The Catholic church called GLBTs evil first,
personally I want to say, no you are the evil ones and here is why…
Agree Randi. Timothy seems more than fair. For a Republican. Or an American. /snort.Personally I don’t like using the word evil. It suits the horrific regime in Germany 1933-45, or the Inquisition. Or the Great Leap Forward. Or Stalin. Or Pol Pot. Or Magabe.A quirk, perhaps, but I reserve evil for those capable of distorting the very reality of a society for the worse (of all, or a minority). Everyone else is just plain stupid, aggressive… and in power. And therefore dangerous.On that, remind me again when the next U.S. Presdential elections are?2008 — can’t wait!
Next presidential elections are in 2008. But Congressional elections will be in 2006. That’s the next big battle.
Dalea
There’s a huge difference between your two examples of a peaceful gathering in a park and little old ladies in walkers, versus ACT-UP throwing rotten fish into a church during services. As you pointed out, your two examples appeared to be quite effective.
I’m not convinced ACT-UP has had all the impact that they’re credited with. I concede that their greatest impact has been to galvanize the gay community. But that’s a secondary effect of their acts, not the primary. And the other secondary effect is that they’re a great fundraiser and galvanizer for our opponents as well. As for primary effects, I’m not aware of any actions that lead to a specific outcome, although I’m sure there are a few. But on balance, I don’t think they’ve been that effective in concrete terms.
I think Timothy’s doing just fine.
Jim says: I’m not convinced ACT-UP has had all the impact that they’re credited with. I concede that their greatest impact has been to galvanize the gay community. But that’s a secondary effect of their acts, not the primary. And the other secondary effect is that they’re a great fundraiser and galvanizer for our opponents as well. As for primary effects, I’m not aware of any actions that lead to a specific outcome, although I’m sure there are a few. But on balance, I don’t think they’ve been that effective in concrete terms.
The direct effects ACTUP had were these, as best I can recall.
Getting medical care to individual gay men. Prior to ACTUP, gay men were simply not part of the public health care system. Public hospitals would not treat them. The pressure forced the system to extend care. The large system now in place that treats and supports people with AIDS and other diseases came about because of ACTU.
Getting public services, such as housing and food stamps to PWA’s. ACTUP forced the government to change its rules on eligibility for medicaid. In the early years it took 24 months from diagnosis to get housing, food stamps, medical support. Thanks to ACTU pressure this became immediately available.
Through direct ACTUP demonstrations, the FDA finally opened the drug review process. People with a medical condition could finally get experimental drugs. Instead of the years of limited trials, new promising treatments became immediately available.
Laws protecting the disabled were extended to PWA’s all over the country. Conservative Christians fought tooth and nail against this. But this was another ACTUP achievement.
Where do you get the information that lets you conclude ACTUP did not accomplish much?
I’m not so sure that ACT-UP accomplished all they claim they did. All great and lasting change has been propelled by empathy of some sort. In the examples you cited, the sad thing is that the breakthroughs didn’t come — despite the demonstrations — until a sweet blond-headed blue-eyed white heterosexual middle-class teenager from Kokomo named Ryan White became the postorboy for “innocent” AIDS victims. In the eyes of America, we weren’t “innocent”. But they understood Ryan White.
Jim, I don’t know about that, seems like an awful lot of result out of the story of one boy…
Jim,
I think it was a combination. ACT-UP was loud, belligerent and demanding. They were also desperate and dying, and those are both powerful motivators and sympathy inducers. In the midst of their over-the-top drama, there was also a message of “yeah, this is craziness, but so is denying me drugs that might possibly save my life”.
I think the changing of the FDA’s rules has been fairly credited to ACT-UP’s efforts.
As far as funding, I think that was the result of a lot of raised visibility of which ACT-UP was a strong part. They weren’t alone.
I recall some straight white “innocent victim” woman who spoke at the Republican Convention and became briefly the “acceptable” face of AIDS. Then she said that she was no more “innocent” than gay people and soon was pushed aside.
I think that most Americans wanted to care and do something about AIDS. But at the same time there was still a strong social disapproval of gay folk. Remember at that time very few gay people were out to middle America. There were no GSAs, GLAAD was in its infancy, most newspapers wouldn’t use the word “gay”, and we were basically invisible on TV and the movies. The public wanted to help but needed a face they could like without hesitation and found that in Ryan White.
To the credit of most legislators, they didn’t distinguish between “innocent victims” and those horrible gays who deserve what they got (that particular bit of nastyness was left to the preachers).
On a side note, President Reagan has been harshly criticized for being anti-gay and not funding AIDS. A review of the facts show that there was funding fairly early on, though not nearly as much as history would show was necessary. For at least a few years he requested greater AIDS funding than the Democrat controlled Congress approved. This is not to suggest he was a champion or that his lack of adequate effort is morally defensible – simply that he wasn’t anti-gay as has been suggested (the docudrama “The Reagans” just simply lied on the subject).
Timothy at November 11, 2005 03:57 PM
Pretty much on point. One nit–ACT-UP was not a gay group. Most of its members may have been gay, but it was an AIDS action group. And that included straight people with HIV/AIDS.
It has recently been reported that the largest growing group of people with HIV/AIDS in the US is black women, who acquire the virus from their husbands and boyfriends who are probably on the “down low.” A sad situation.
Raj,
I suspect that the truth is that black women are not infected disproportionately by their gay lovers who are deceiving them.
Black women are infected for the same reasons they have the highest rate of out of wedlock births with STRAIGHT black men.
Promiscuous, unprotected sex. Period.
Very little was said about Magic Johnson’s life as a ‘ho (and that’s how HE was infected), and the culture around sports related promiscuity.
To blame ‘down low’ activity, is to cast blame on GAY men all over again.
This makes gay men chronically suspect as liars, deceptive, and out to make heterosexuals their victims.
The conceit of heterosexuals has no boundaries.
While committed to saying that what gays need, is heterosexual sex and heterosexuals to cure homosexuality, whatever negative social consequences that conceit results in, gays will be made to take the blame for that.
If gay to straight marriages fail, it’s because the gay person wasn’t honest about their orientation.
And if the gay person wasn’t honest about their orientation it’s because they are liars, not gay persons fearful of the wrath of heterosexuals for being open about their orientation.
Heterosexuals control the culture of blame as well as deceit around homosexual life, and yet will not take responsibility for it.
The ease at which straight black women believe the bullshit about the down low, speaks to how badly they don’t want to see the truth for what it is.
Jim says:All great and lasting change has been propelled by empathy of some sort.
Proof?
What move you to make this statement? AFAICT, most lasting change has been brought about by an intransigant movement. One willing to do virtually anything to achieve its means. Where do you get this idea, and what proof do you have?
“The conceit of heterosexuals has no boundaries.
While committed to saying that what gays need, is heterosexual sex and heterosexuals to cure homosexuality, whatever negative social consequences that conceit results in, gays will be made to take the blame for that.
If gay to straight marriages fail, it’s because the gay person wasn’t honest about their orientation.
And if the gay person wasn’t honest about their orientation it’s because they are liars, not gay persons fearful of the wrath of heterosexuals for being open about their orientation.
Heterosexuals control the culture of blame as well as deceit around homosexual life, and yet will not take responsibility for it.”
Regan DuCasse, you’re my superhero. Another thing the exgays blame gays for, when in reality heterosexuals are responsible, is any mental illness GLBTs like me experience. They cause it with their stressful social rejection of us and then try to claim its a feature of homosexuality. First nations women in Canada suffer domestic abuse at three and 1/2 times the rate of any other race. “FOTF”, throckmorton, and exodus wouldn’t say that’s due to a mental deficiency caused by being native to North America, but they take the analogous situation with gays and say same sex domestic abuse is caused by being gay. The common factor is not a problem inherent to either group, but a dominant cultures’ rejection and isolation of the minority groups. The white heterosexual culture destroyed the pre-existing functional native culture and oppresses current development of functional minority, gay, and first nations cultures.
Heterosexuals are similarly responsible for much, if not most, promiscuous anonymous gay sex. By creating a fear of being openly gay, society makes it difficult for friendships between gays to exist and develop into stable monogamous relationships. Instead the social rejection advocated by religious conservatives forces fulfillment of gay male sex drives through anonymous sexual encounters so no anti-gay heterosexual in that person’s day to day life is aware he is gay. If a gay person is a social outcast for having one sexual partner he is encouraged to discard all restraint because he is an outcast either way.
Given that the repetitive lying (primarily through ommission) by “FOTF”, Throckmorton, Exodus, etc. is widely accepted as truth by a more sincere religious and secular public I want to express my hatred of these exgay politicians in a non-violent way. I want my non-violent hatred of “FOTF”, throckmorton, and exodus to be a reality check for those that believe this group’s lie of “compassion”. My guess is that ACT-UP’s throwing rotten fish into churches during mass did act as a reality check for the large group of sincere people erroneously believing the Catholic hierarchy was doing the right thing.
Jim says all great and lasting change has been propelled by empathy of some sort. That’s half true. Just as much great and lasting change has been propelled by force and dominance. Ancient Rome invaded its neighbors and sometimes enhanced the standard of living in areas it seized control of with violence. Thats the pendulum swing between conservatism and liberalism, femininity and masculinity, male patriarchy and equality.
I’ve read a lot of the archives on Exgay watch and the fraudulent exgay operation has made one blatent exageration/lie/lie-of-ommission after another. I think its time to acknowledge the reality that that is tantamount to a declaration of intellectual warfare on gays. Time for us to express some (non-violent) shock and outrage to draw this to the attention of the sincere but mislead majority who believe the lie of “compassion” by “Focus on the Family”, Throckmorton, Exodus, etc. I believe the Boston “Love Won Out” protests did that to GLBT benefit. I would think it would be a fairly easy job for the Human Rights Campaign, or National Gay and Lesbian Task force to take some of the more egregious examples of exgay lies detailed on Exgay watch and make some 30 second TV spots and print ads that would powerfully demonstrate the malicious hypocrisy of the leaders of those claiming to “love the sinner, but hate the sin”. I intend to use examples from Exgay watch to myself propose some possible 30 second TV ads and newspaper ads to HRC and NGLTF. I’m excited by how much ammo there is available on Exgay watch to fight the lies. I’m surprised relatively little use seems to have been made of it by the gay organizations with the money. The liars may have more money, but its clear truth isn’t on their side and we can win the intellectual battle with far less simply because we are right – if we get these examples of lies out to the general public.