Dan Gonzales wrote last week:
The Dec. 2 broadcast of Focus On The Family Radio features the testimony of an ex-lesbian at a Love Won Out conference. The ex-lesbian oddly enough, admits to working for a legislative division of FOTF, which clearly goes against Dobson’s claims Love Won Out is just trying to spread love/healing to gays and does not have political motives. (Kind of like how Exodus newsletters are entirely political in nature and not actually written for exgays to read.)
The most damning and contradictory evidence is when the ex-lesbian claims homosexuality is a combination of genetics and life-experience. She makes this very clear. This contradicts Dobson’s claims that homosexuality is not genetic.
Once again, as Wayne Besen points out in his book, exgay organizations can’t even put out a consistent standpoint on the causes of homosexuality.
Here’s a link to the broadcast (scroll down to Dec. 2).
In the cited article, Dobson says, “Additionally, if homosexuality were genetic “it would gradually disappear from the gene pool because they don’t reproduce as often. And so, over 5,000 years, it would go away”.
I really cannot believe this argument. I have heard it before, and it does nothing more than show an abysmal knowledge of science or genetics.
There are many genetic disorders that kill children in infancy every time the trait is inherited, but the disorder still exists. Would Dobson claim that sickle (sp?) cell anemia is also not genetic?
I listened to the broadcast. The woman is telling the story of her life. She is an adult and made a conscious choice about how she wants to live. No one held a gun to her head. What is wrong with that?
As far as the fact that the woman who speaks also works in the legislative department doesn’t seem relevant to her testimony itself. The tertimony is about her personal life. I do not think her position is of such power that it should inavlidate her personal story. The testimony is about personal issues not political issues. Focus on the Family is not making a secret of its political agenda. There is no suprise here.
Is there something wrong with this woman making a personal choice about her own life and sharing why she made her decisions with others? HER feelings are as important to her as YOUR feelings are to you. I don’t see why what she says is wrong.
As far as the whole genetics vs. environemnt issue, we simply don’t know enough about what motivates and causes human behavior. Its no suprise that people express contradictory views.
Hi joe,
There is definitely nothing wrong with a person sharing her personal story to others. If she desired to leave homosexuality, and was one of the very few people that were truly successful, that is great for her.
Where the problem begins is when she then uses her personal experience to claim that all gays can and/or should also change. Just because she was able to doesnt mean others can (or should have to also for that matter). The problem continues when she fights against the rights of gays. It continues further when lots of the people sharing their personal struggles spread false truths about homosexuality (calling it a disease, and addiction, etc., and then often going back to false statistics showing how damaging homosexuality is).
There is also a problem when many people sharing their story of freedom from homosexuality are actually exaggerating their success and the successes of others and ignoring the majority of cases in which change is unsuccessful and often damaging.
As for homosexuality being genetic- I agree, science hasn’t come up with a real explanation for homosexuality and its causes. Then again, many of the ex-gay groups (most even?) claim to know what the cause of homosexuality is, even though they know the research isn’t there.
Then, when Dobson claims it isn’t genetic using a horribly misunderstood explanation of genetics (one a person of his education should realize is false), I feel that he is being intentionally dishonest to prove his own point.
TA,
Thanks for the reply. What I hear you saying is that you disagree with her, which is your right. What you are talking about something this personal and charged, people are bound to have widely divergent points fo view.
I can help but feel that the intensity of the objection to the woman’s testimony expressed on this web site is out of proportion which what she actually says. There also seems to be very little empathy for her personal story, which is mostly what she talks about.
All people want the opportunity to express themselves and to live according to their beliefs. In that way both sides here seem to be the same.
I do hear what you are saying.
And Joe, it is perfectly relevant to point out by whom this woman is employed, because it goes to her credibility. She is more likely to exaggerate her own success because it is in line with her employer’s mission.
As for the genetic thing – have these people NEVER heard of a recessive gene? Hemophilia, Sickle Cell, and Tay-Sachs, to name but a few, all should have died out according to Dobson’s reasoning. Yet all are carried onto future generations through the recessive genes of the siblings of those who have the conditions.
Hi Joe,
I don’t necessarily disagree with her story itself. There are some ex-gay blogs that I read and have no problem with. One blogger, Nick, at https://christmyking.blogspot.com/ is one such example.
Nick obviously believes that gay sexual relationships are sinful, and he is upfront about that. I disagree, but I respect his view and his struggle to leave homosexuality, if that is what he feels is best for his life.
However, in addition to telling his story, he is also very open about where he is in his struggle. He also does a pretty good job of not projecting his struggles on to others or of not spreading horribly exaggerated statistics about the lifestyles of gays in general. Another group, http://www.bridges-across.org, has a following of gays, ex-gays, straight, and celibate gays that are committed to being open and honest about this issue as well.
If all ex-gays worked like this, I wouldnt have a problem with them. However, many ex-gays are very politically active working to make sure that gays do not get rights (anything from discrimination protection to civil unions to adoptions to marriage). This is where my large disagreement comes.
Like I said, it is fine for her to share her story, but when her life is committed to ensure that I dont have rights, and her employer is committed to spreading false lies about me personally (you see, I have been in one committed relationship my entire life, I have never used drugs, slept around, abused alcohol, molested kids; I am Christian, love God, etc. etc.) by her saying that all gays are this or that, I have huge issues.
If she were just telling her story, I’d have no problem. But, her personal career seems to work toward restricting my rights and to continue to spread false stereotypes of gays (judging from her employer), and this is where my problem lies.
TA,
This seems to be a case of two wrongs not making a right.
What I hear is that you are critical of ex-gays (people who believe homosexual feelings are not compatible with religious or personal beliefs) who align themselves with right-wing Christian groups with a political agenda. In other words. it’s wrong to use a personal story of struggle to advance a political agenda.
That’s fine. But it seems equally unwise to attack the personal testimony of an individual because of the organization he or she works for. She isn’t hiding her affiliation. Her biases are open to everyone (just as the biases of this web site are in public view). The testimony deserves to be judged on its own merits. I don’t recall the woman making any statements of a political nature in her testimony itself.
We have the right to disagree about politics (heck it’s the nature of politics). But when a person shares their feelings and their perceived truth ABOUT THEMSELVES, we should put politics aside and respect each others personal histories. We are all human and have experienced pain and suffering. It is wrong to disparage this woman’s testimony based on who she works for, just as it would be wrong to disparage the choices you’ve made that you describe here.
Why expect Dobson to understand genetics when he doesn’t understand or acknowledge evolution?
Why shouldn’t the ex-gay working for FOTF be subject to the same degree of skepticism as one would give a politician telling war stories or the woman telling Natl Enquirer that she slept with celebrity X? Or, for that matter, a preacher trying to break into syndicated radio? All have tangible benefits from massaging their life story to fit an expected script. Some may be telling the truth, some may be exaggerating.
Joe:
Let’s be clear: the true objective of Focus on the Family is to criminalize homosexual identity by re-instating criminal penalties for homosexual behavior (most easily by backing Supreme Court Appointees who will overturn Lawrence and working to pass sodomy bans).
Radio programs, which feature personal testimonies “proving” that change from a homosexual identity is possible, provide Focus on the Family’s objective of criminalizing homosexual identity with a patina of *reasonability.*
If the voting public believes that homosexuals ought to change, and CAN change, then Focus believes they will support re-criminalization efforts in the courts and legislatures. Then, if homosexuals do not avail themselves of the possible change (that these radio programs attempt to “prove”), then it is *reasonable* that homosexuals have only themselves to blame if they continue with their criminal homosexual behavior and suffer the *lawful* consequences.
How cynical of Focus to feature the testimony of an employee who is actively employed in the re-criminalization effort. Not exactly my idea of credibility.
Joe,
I agree. To be clear, I have not personally disparaged her personal testimony here, or her right to share it. I believe my criticism has been on point about her political affiliations. I support her personal testimony, but I don’t agree with the tactic many ex-gay groups use, which is to project their experiences on to all gays.
If you read my postings on this board and others, if people believe being gay is not right for them, and their path away from that is what they think will be best for them, I am supportive of that. I always have been. My negative comments have been about the political agendas of some people, not about their personal paths. That being said, I agree that we should view the political agenda behind anyone’s personal testimony that is heavily involved with and paid by political groups. This is true for both gay and straights.
What I find interesting is that from most of my personal experiences and what I have read, there are millions of happy gays out there. But, most of the political right and the speaker herself in this instance have been very open that they think being gay and being happy and/or successful are mutually exclusive. I have a problem with that.
TA,
There is a majority of people who accept a gay identity and are happy with it.
There is a minority of people who find there homosexual feelings problematic.
To be honest, I belong to the secod group.
When a person discusses their personal feelings in this matter, the focus should be on their unique, inner reality, not casting aspersions on the lives of people who make a different decision.
I think this is true for both groups. But this is just my opinion, I am probably again in the minority!!
Joe,
“When a person discusses their personal feelings in this matter, the focus should be on their unique, inner reality, not casting aspersions on the lives of people who make a different decision.
I think this is true for both groups. But this is just my opinion, I am probably again in the minority!!”
I agree. Thanks for your responses.