Gay activist and author Wayne Besen debates Talbert W. Swan II, editor of the exgay book “Closing the Closet: Testimonies of Deliverance from Homosexuality.” (Previous XGW coverage.)
The interview will be broadcast tonight at 10 p.m. EDT (7 p.m. PDT) on the Al Rantel Show on KABC, Los Angeles. Streaming Internet radio feed available here.
It bothered me that Wayne repeatedly accused Swan of “working to pass laws that allow people to be fired from their jobs for being gay.” [paraphrased] I’m not sure this is an appropriate to be using a political argument with Swan. Had the guest been from Focus, TVC, FRC or CWFA then by all means open fire with that Mr. Besen.
The most difficult argument Swan retreats to goes:
-I have a handful of testimonials saying some people can “change” if they want to, allowing for existence of both ex-gays and ex-ex-gays
-God says homosexual behavior is wrong, ergo people should feel the need to change
-Change is possible through Jesus Christ
It’s hard to rationally argue with this but only a percentage of people in this country believe it. I didn’t catch all the broadcast nor have I read Swan’s book. If there are further facts I may not be aware of then by all means lets discuss.
I’m not sure there was enough point of contention between Besen’s [political] and Swan’s [theological] positions. Perhaps the discussion would be better served by the addition of some gay-affirming clergy who could argue from a theological standpoint that homosexuality is not a sin would provide more points of contention.
(ps. Wayne if you see this, you rock, come to LA and speak sometime)
Unfortunately the debate became more argumentative than informative. Pastor Swan maintained from the start that: “anybody can experience change or transformation from any kind of behavior and I believe homosexuality is that, it is a behavior…” He is correct that behavior can be modified. The point was not raised, however, that orientation must not be confused with behavior. Heterosexual individuals may in certain circumstances engage in genital homosexual acts e.g. in a single-sex social environment like a prison, the navy, or a boarding school. Similarly homosexual individuals, under certain kinds of pressure, may marry and have children.
When Besen insisted that gay people “are born that way,” Swan countered correctly that there is “no evidence to prove it’s genetic.” However, what experts all agree to is that the imprinting occurs so early and is so deep that it’s as if one was born with it. Numerous possibilities have been discussed and the jury is still out on this debate. But the psychological evidence unambiguously indicates that orientation is fixed at a very early age and is immutable. The most that the so-called “ex-gay” movement has demonstrated is temporary modification of behavior in a handful of cases, sustained by substantial social rewards. They have produced no evidence that anyone’s orientation can be changed and there are plenty of gay Christians around who can testify to the damage which the futile quest for “healing” through such groups has caused them.
Most sadly, however, Swan opened his argument by erroneously claiming he represents “those of us who oppose [homosexuality] and espouse a biblical doctrine.” The two are hardly mutually exclusive. One would have to living on the good ship lollipop to be unaware that there are increasing numbers of renowned and respected Bible scholars and theologians who vehemently disagree with Pastor Swan’s stand. The fact that this debate remains at the forefront of every main-line denomination — even threatening to split the Church as no other issue has since slavery — stands as undeniable testimony that many who hold to a very high view Scripture believe Christian hostility towards homosexual relationships rests on an interpretation of the Bible which is in many respects open to question.
-Alex
Co-moderator, ExExGayMinistry
Thanks for the link, but quite frankly, nobody learns anything from a debate such as this and it isn’t worth the time to listen to it. This “debate” tactic is about as dumb as biologists agreeing to debate creationists. The fact is that these little escapades basically draw people who want to have their preconceived notions preserved, and they are preserved from various rhetorical devices. The people on the various extremes don’t even speak the same language. Nor are they open to interpretation of evidence as posited by the other side. The idea that anyone learns anything from a debate like this is ludicrous in the extreme.
I recognize that I am being harsh. Intentionally so.
Raj I agree you’ve nailed down the essence of talk radio but people do exist who have not yet formed opinions on all issues. Until the last month or so I had never thought much about stem cell research and even today I do not feel strongly one way or the other, thus I am willing to consider new arguments. It’s only sensible to assume there still exist people who have not reached their final position on the ex-gay issue, particularly given the general lack of coverage and discussion in the mainstream media.
Raj, while I can appreciate your point, I think debates on this, as well as other topics, can be extremely beneficial. However, a debate requires a moderator who is willing and able to do his or her job. It is the moderator’s responsibility to set boundaries for the debate and ensure both parties are given opportunity to fairly present their side without being constantly interrupted — which did not happen last night. By skirting their responsibilities, the moderator creates a free-for-all shouting contest where the only rule becomes who can holler the loudest and the longest — which is unfair to both the debaters and the audience.
-Alex
Co-Moderator, ExExGayMinistry