PFOX is back, this time speaking in defense of Surgeon General nominee Dr. James Holsinger. According to the group’s press release, “Gay rights groups are attacking Dr. James Hoslinger’s [sic] nomination because his church is inclusive of ex-gays and he supports the right to self-determination regarding one’s sexual attraction.”
Alan Chambers has joined PFOX on the bandwagon as well. Although Chambers declared himself neutral on the subject of Holsinger’s nomination (PFOX also stopped short of endorsing him), he, too, resorted to playing the “victim card,” declaring, “As a society, we should not disqualify an individual simply because of his belief that those conflicted by their same-sex attraction can and should be helped.”
There was a time, not long ago, when politically conservative individuals would have denounced anyone who played the victim card for using emotionally manipulative tactics in place of rational debate. Those days, apparently, are long gone – not that it comes as a particular surprise to most when a member of the religious right seeks to bypass rational debate.
In this case, however, the victim card isn’t even well played.
Opposition to Dr. Holsinger’s nomination has nothing to do with a desire on the part of any group to “deny the right of any individual to seek support in resolving unwanted same-sex attractions,” as PFOX spokesperson Regina Griggs claims in their press release. Of far greater concern is the question of whether Dr. Holsinger would respect the right of LGBT individuals to self-determination in spite of his personal beliefs. Given his selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence the policies of the United Methodist Church against inclusion of gays and lesbians, that is a very legitimate concern.
Although PFOX and Exodus both play the victim card as a standard tactic in their political lobbying, they have yet to provide any evidence that the rights of ex-gays to pursue reorientation and a heterosexual lifestyle are in any danger of being infringed upon – at least in any way that the general public would define the right to self-determination.
Given their history of playing games with the meanings of other seemingly straightforward terms (“change,” “totally heterosexual,” etc.), however, it may well be that they are doing the same here. Perhaps, in ex-gay-speak, the “right to self-determination” that they seek to protect is the “right” of political ex-gays to live in a country that denies even the most basic legal protections to LGBT individuals. Under that definition one can see how Chambers and Griggs might indeed see themselves as victims.
Hat tip: Good As You
When that “conflict” is intentionally caused by an indoctrinated “faith,” then it isn’t the GLBT community which needs to be called into question here – it is the groups and their disingenuous and often deliberately misleading rhetoric which needs better scrutiny. The use of the deliberately misleading term “ex-gay,” along with the scandalous and extremely un”christian” claim of unsubstantiated numbers of people “helped” should be evidence enough to send these roaches back under their rocks.
But no, instead they still peddle their insincerely-held “beliefs” in the cynical attempt to fleece the public by preying on the most basic insecurities they can identify in the human spirit – and then seek profit from the venture.
I have never known any gay organization to “deny the right of any individual to seek support in resolving unwanted same-sex attractions,” – but I have certainly known these circus tent “churches” have tried desperately to plant the notion that those “attractions” must be “unwanted” into the minds of innocent people. Worse, their cynical “beliefs” repeatedly contend that the religious bribe of everlasting life cannot be offered unless those feelings be sacrificed.
So let’s cut to the quick in dealing with these charlatans, shall we? These are not organizations which have ever believed in individual freedom – if they did, they would never oppose any civil right proposal governing basic life experiences. Instead they see the pain and suffering they cause others as an opportunity to “heal” them, starting and the perpetuating an enslavement to dictated doctrine which only they can interpret and change.
While I know this site is far more polite than I am about such matters, I am all for starting collections to form traveling circuses advocating relief for gays trapped in indoctrination by “religious” organizations who attempt to crush the individual right to choose religious belief and their own individual relationship to God. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot purchase billboards offering a way out of the pain and suffering of fear-based evangelical posturing and the tyranny of arrogance perpetuated by the heterosupremacist operations.
These are not “christian” nor “christian” organizations. They are compulsive, deliberate, intentional liars who have never accepted responsibility for perpetuating pain and suffering upon anyone.
Projection. They missed their calling, they should have opened up a movieplex.
I am confused. Alan Chambers says (depending on the time of day) that “hundreds of thousands” of people have changed. Seems like so-called “ex-gays” have ample access to ministries and therapy. So, what exactly are they complaining about?
This is from todays American Psychiatric Association newsletter:
Kevin, you are right–I don’t know any gay person or group who has stopped another person from going the exgay route. I am sure that some may try to talk out a friend for fear that the friend may be harmed, but I think most gay people respect the freedom to self-determine. I know that I had a religious friend who had a very difficult time being gay, and I told him about alternatives like Exodus, but I also told him that some people are hurt by exgay therapy. He went the exgay route for awhile, and I supported him, but he realized it was not helping him.
The problem with the doctor is not simply that he has said controversial things in the past. The problem is that he is 99% out of the loop with other medical professionals. The Surgeon General needs to be respected as a leader in the field. He is not.
Wayne, I’m glad to see you post here. I post fairly frequently at your blog and read it all the time. “Anything But Straight” is one of my favorite books of all time. But enough off-topic stuff:
I love the spin used by the ex-gay industries – it’s practically brilliant: “his church is inclusive of ex-gays.” It’s a great way to say “exclusive of gays” but without that nasty un-Christian word “exclusive.” As if ex-gays need societal affirmation. I mean, as long as they’re not GAY anymore, what the $%*& is the problem?? Since when do people who are heterosexual – or at least IDENTIFY and ACT as such – have a problem fitting into society and affirming themselves? This all goes back to the “change” debate. Everybody who is trying to get out of homosexuality is labeled “ex-gay” – but not everyone has transitioned completely to heterosexuality yet. But if everyone is called “ex-gay” that means they’re no longer labeled as gay – everyone at least SEEMS like they’re straight. The ex-gay identity, while it may not be intrinsically heterosexual in orientation and thought, still has the VENEER of heterosexuality – and in the end, when you want to fit in and avoid trouble, veneer is all you need. How many people have you heard of being murdered for acting too “ex-gay?”
I mean, as long as they’re not GAY anymore, what the $%*& is the problem?? Since when do people who are heterosexual – or at least IDENTIFY and ACT as such – have a problem fitting into society and affirming themselves?
I think they do have difficulty finding acceptance in churches. Often times they have physical appearances or mannerisms that could be considered stereotypically effiminate (sorry to stereotype but that is based on what i’ve seen).
And often times ex-gays are about as welcomed and trusted as ex-murderers. And tell an conservative evangelical that you are struggling with same-sex attractions and see how quickly they lock up the kids.
Homophobes just don’t like same-sex attracted folks all that much more than they like gay ones. The sad irony is that groups like Exodus want them to.
Is it then necessary to provide understanding and protection for ex gays? I think that the problems stem from a single root – same-sex attraction. Whether you’re trying to get over it or have embraced it, the fact that you’re attracted to the same sex is what brings out the hate. If people were accepting of same sex attractions to begin with – in ex gays and gays alike – people in both of these groups would be relieved of abuse.
The understanding needs to be established to protect everyone from the tyranny of those who created and planted the “unwanted” notion in the first place.
Emily, you are spot on.
It is the perception of “faggot” or “dyke” that brings out the hatred. It doesn’t matter if the person is some life-long hetero without the slightest inclination towards the same sex, if a phobe thinks they are gay then the abuse comes.
Efforts to stop abuse based on perceived orientation would go a long way towards eliminating any abuse there is out there towards ex-gays.
Unfortunately, the political agenda of the national ex-gay leadership is heavily invested in anti-gay activism. There is a need to oppose the “normalization of homosexuality” and saying “don’t pick on gay people, they are just like you” is the worst thing they can imagine.
Their entire political agenda (and much of their religious one) is based on the firmly held belief that gay people are NOT just like them. They are different. They are better. They deserve more. And saying that homosexuality is normal or in any way acceptable is an affront to their choice.
They made the very difficult decision to “walk away from homosexuality” and to struggle and struggle and therefore they deserve to be rewarded. And they are NOT willing to wait for their reward in Heaven – they want it now and they want it codified in law.
You know…this business with PFOX and Exodus really shows you that their roll nowadays is simply to provide rhetorical support for anti-gay policies. Saying Holsinger is being persecuted for his support of ex-gay therapy is about as dishonest as that padded bibliography at the end of The Pathophysiology Of Male Homosexuality.
Holsinger’s major problem (so far) is that paper. It is startling in its brazenly transparent manipulation of the science of its day, and even more so in its crafted facade. Jim Burroway detailed the paper’s brazenly padded bibliography, with its cites to papers Holsinger not only did not reference in his own, but are completely irrelevant to it. You have to just about assume that the paper was never meant to be read by anyone who works in the field, or who might actually stoop to fact checking it, but only by the churchmen he presented it to.
There’s just no mistaking that for what it is. It’s sickeningly close to Paul Cameron citing a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, as if he were citing an actual peer reviewed article. It was that kind of mendacity that got Cameron booted from the APA, and what we’re seeing now is that Holsinger is either every bit as willing as Cameron to screw the science in the direction he wants it to go, or he’s grossly incompetent at reading and digesting a research paper, let alone writing one.
That is simply not going to fly at the confirmation hearing. So here comes PFOX with a charge that is a half step away from accusing Holsinger’s critics outright of persecuting him for his religious beliefs. But while his support for Ex-Gay therapy against all the current thinking in the medical profession is suggestive, this paper is positively damning for a completely separate and much more serious reason: his trustworthiness.
Burroway put it best: “If he’s willing to commit an act of false witness on behalf of the church — in the service of his God — what assurances can we have that he will act differently on behalf of the nation?” But PFOX and Exodus can drag the conversation into an argument about secular liberal persecution of Christians, the questions of the man’s trustworthiness will reliably vanish in the noise. I guess if you’re willing to make the climate hostile for one group of Americans, you might as well make everyone hate each other while you’re at it.
And once again we see Exodus and PFOX playing the roll of foil for the political right. Whatever they’re stated purpose for existing is nowadays, they reliably snap to attention when needed to provide rhetorical cover for anti-gay policies. I reckon when Holsinger’s confirmation hearings begin, we’ll see if James Dobson is getting his money’s worth.
Being a conservative Republican, a Christian, and a homosexual, I am often very torn on these issues.
On one hand, I applaud the efforts of fellow conservatives to try and deal with this country in the best way they can (note that I’m being very PC here so I don’t offend anyone).
But on the other hand, I often feel hurt and/or betrayed by the same conservatives I support, more than often over this very type of issue.
Nonetheless, I feel I have to drop my two-cents into this conversation. It just seems that so many of the comments listed here are very anti-Christian. At least, the tone comes across to me that way. I just want to let you know that there *are* Christians out there – and I don’t mean “wishy-washy” Christians – who are gay and do not believe it to be wrong.
Personally, I come from a background involving the “circus tent churches” as Kevin so put it. And frankly, I take offense to any such comments made against any particular branch of Christianity – or any religion for that matter.
To me, it is sad that, regardless of whatever political position a gay person takes, there seems to be no one going to bat for us. Some of them say they do, but turn around and kick us to the wayside when a better offer comes along to further their political careers.
Personally, I tend to weigh the good and the bad together. There are no political candidates for any office which I am personally 100% happy with. So I try and go for the people who line up with most of my political priorities.
In the case of Dr. Holsinger, I cannot judge a man for his personal beliefs. I can only judge based off the quality of work he does. It is my hope that any man or woman of office will do their work with the best interests of the nation, because there seems to be a lot of them out there right now who aren’t.
Kevin said:
I think you are overusing the scare quotes a bit 😉 . Can you be more specific about who your target is here? Otherwise, as Frank demonstrates, there is a lot of collateral damage.
Frank said:
What exactly is it about Holsinger which lines up with your political priorities? And are we so short on people with medical expertise that we can’t find an appointee for Surgeon General that would be less objectionable to a large segment of the country, and still be a conservative? C. Everett Koop, SG during the Reagan administration, was enlightened compared to Holsinger.
Wow. I may not necessarily judge an appointee on their religious beliefs, but I certainly would factor in their beliefs about, for example, discrimination. What if he held the personal belief that African Americans were mentally inferior? These are indicators we have to use when deciding if they “will do their work with the best interests of the nation.”
To be honest, I’m not sure how anyone can look at this and still entertain the idea that Holsinger’s “quality of work” is satisfactory as the nation’s chief doctor.
Personally, I come from a background involving the “circus tent churches” as Kevin so put it. And frankly, I take offense to any such comments made against any particular branch of Christianity – or any religion for that matter.
What we have seen repeatedly from the cabal of right-wing anti-gay “religious” groups is little reference to denominational affilation – instead they present themselves as the self-appointed representatives of ALL Christianity. They have no issue denying more liberal congregations recognition of being “christian” and they have no problem broadcasting that belief vociferously. As a christian who disagrees with that notion, I would hope you would be more offended at the idea that one interpretation was being broadcasted repeatedly as THE “christian” position when it is clearly not the position you hold as a christian. Instead, you are torn over their beliefs, but offended by others who call them on it by using their own rhetoric.
I don’t assign the Christian religion to them – they self-identify solely as that, as if it is a monolithic entity in which they alone hold the key to appropriate interpretation.
I take offense that any group of people can make ME their sacrificial lamb on behalf of an entire religion and then expect me to treat them with respect and reverence while they practice deception. Is it really that difficult to question the “christian” nature of people who behave in such a deliberate and manipulative manner, or are the churches of the Right the only ones entitled to offend the beliefs of others and manufacture falsehoods to propagate their claims?
That “background” you come from – was it one of self-determined individual choice, or of indoctrination? After all, isn’t PFOX acting all indignant here over the concept of self-determination, particularly over what they claim are “unwanted” same-sex feelings of attraction? Well, just where did those “unwanted” feelings come from? And how were they determined to be “unwanted?”
It is obvious that PFOX desires those feelings to be unwanted – in fact, they are associated with groups whose industry is to cajole, remind, pressure, discriminate, and punish those who dare consider their same-sex attractions OTHER than “unwanted.” The religious organizations on the Right TEACH that these feelings should be “unwanted.” So they don’t believe in self-determination – they believe in self-intimidation.
Transfer this idea over to the notion of someone being indoctrinated in a denomination as a child. No choice. No discussion of self-determination. Was the child born a Southern Baptist? A Catholic? Was the child born knowing that same-sex attractions were abhorrent to God?
Then the child becomes an adult and is entitled to self-determination in which religious faith he/she believes is the best journey into eternity. But the indoctrinated church might condemn him/her for leaving the flock, for believing something else. They may remind them they’ll be going to hell, sacrifice eternal life, bully them by saying the Church will never recognize their children, their marriage. They ostracize them from their family, their friends, and everything else they’ve known and loved. Is that a supportive environment for respecting the right of self-determination?
These same “religious’ organizations have little history in respecting the right of self-determination in choosing an individual’s faith belief. Their own faith belief does not accept self-determination as anything other than following THEIR way or condemnation. And it ain’t just being condemned to hell – they prefer creating as much of that hell on Earth as they can.
The point is these people do not come from a religious foundation of self-determination. They come from a belief system which relies on strict adherence to dictated interpretations, forced indoctrination of their children, open and manipulative recruiting practices, and advocate earthly punishment for those whose self-determination deviates from that doctrine.
In Holsinger’s case, he has a track record which clearly indicates his viewpoint within his chosen denomination – and clearly advocates a certain adherence to dictated doctrine in order to be a member of, or hold a position, within that denomination. His religious viewpoint advocates that those who do not choose HIS selected path should be punished or denied the right to worship according to their conscience within his church.
Kevin, I can’t say that I fully agree with what you’re saying, but you are entitled to your beliefs.
Most of Christianity has their doctrines, and many of the denominations’ doctrines line up with each other.
Self-appointed representatives of Christianity have just as much right to speak on behalf of all Christians as Al Gore has to speak on behalf of all scientists. That is to say, they have no right to do this at all.
As with Holisnger (trying to keep on topic here), I reserve my judgment until I have a chance to see all the facts. And honestly, if most of how he operates is acceptable to me, then I will personally have no problem with him in office.
David Roberts – I agree with what you said about beliefs, and wish to amend my statement. I try not to judge based off of what a person believes as far as religion goes. But as for his character, his political beliefs and his societal beliefs – well, that’s open season!
Unfortunately, being a conservative means having to put up with a lot of this kind of bull-hoggery from political pundits. I know there are a lot of conservatives out there who are a bit more accepting of homosexuals, and I try my personal best to push for them. But regardless if a political candidate (democrat or republican) is gay friendly, if the majority of their political and societal beliefs don’t align with my own, then I don’t push.
Frank,
Please check out Jim Burroway’s analysis of Holsinger’s letter. If it is indicative of his methodology, then it is a very negative mark against his character and his willingness to deliberately deceive and smear in order to further a political agenda.
It was a long time ago and others say glowing things about him, but Holsinger has yet to disavow his “conclusions” or his extremely irresponsible methodology.
Oh and by the way, I am also both Christian and Republican.
I’m not sure why you frame this as only a conservative problem, but I’m getting a distinctly partisan vibe from your comments. This has nothing to do with conservative vs liberal, it has everything to do with whether we will accept as US Surgeon General someone who has a record of abusing the trust placed in him by way of his credentials to deceptively smear citizens who are gay. For me, there is something particularly repugnant about a physician who would do that.
Republican, Democrat, Green or whatever, if we accept this nominee we are at fault. I encourage you to try to be less concerned about which party nominated him, and focus on who he is and what he has done.
Kevin –
AMEN!!! It will be such a wonderful day when conservative Christians stop speaking for ALL Christians. There are millions of Christians who don’t tow the Evangelical line – In fact, if I’m right, only 17% of people in this country align themselves with Evangelicals.
There are millions of Christians out there who need to stand up and be counted – and we need to hold the media accountable when they try to pit Christians against gay people, because that is not what is going on – the only people who seem to have a real problem with homosexuality, and who seem to cause most of the problems surrounding gay people’s search for equal rights are those who call themselves conservative Evangelical Christians.
Supporting reference please 😉
I have to apologize – my percentage was a little low, but not on purpose – here is more info from Wikipedia:
“The 2004 survey of Religion and politics in the United States [2] identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3%; while Catholics are 22% and Mainline Protestants make up 16%. This is the fourth survey undertaken by Dr. Green to measure political attitudes and religion in the United States. In the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the figures for these same groups are 28.6% (Evangelical), 24.5% (Catholics), and 13.9% (Mainline Protestant.) The latter figures are based on a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York. [5]”
And I suppose it is worth noting that some Evangelical-identified individuals are progressive and support gay rights 🙂
If you need more David, just let me know 😉
Emily –
Thank you 🙂 No one, that I know of, has been murdered for being ex-gay-identified, but many, many people have died for being gay. This is why I’m tired of ex-gay people constantly playing the victim card to further their own agenda.
J