Allan Johnson wrote to Ex-Gay Watch with an update to the original post that appeared on this page. I have deleted the earlier comments, simply because they were based on older information.
Allan Johnson is working on a documentary series entitled "Thirty Days" with Morgan Spurlock, the producer/writer/star of "Super Size Me," which is currently nominated for an Oscar. The project also includes R.J. Cutler, who won an Oscar for his documentary, "The War Room."
For one segment of the documentary, Johnson seeks pairs of brothers — one brother gay, the other antigay. The intent is to move the antigay brother into a living situation with a homosexual roommate for 30 days.
Earlier, the documentary had sought an antigay father and gay son. At the time, Johnson said, "We have no specific expectations in reference to the homophobia of the father, nor do we intend to disrespect or discredit the views of him. We simply wish to explore whether any common ground can be discovered and see whether or not it can’t lead to a changed relationship betwen the father and his homosexual son. The father’s act would be an attempt on his part to reach out to his son despite his own personal beliefs."
The same underlying goal applies to the pair of brothers.
While a press release about "30 Days" was copied here last autumn at a reality-TV site, the intent is not a "reality TV" approach but rather a documentary by award-winning producers.
Persons who know of brothers divided in both belief and identity regarding sexual orientation, who might be interested in participating, may contact Johnson at (310) 202-1272 ext. 160 or via e-mail.
Still, I find the phrase “anti-gay” is more likely to be used by people favor gay rights and not by social conservatives to describe themselves. The choice of words seems to imply favoritism of the gay participant.
Of course there is a slew of alternates such as “holds a biblical view of sexuality.”
“Antigay” was my own rephrasing of Johnson’s “homophobic.” Both adjectives are slanted in different ways, but only slightly, whereas various alternatives are slanted to an extreme. I know of no concise, neutral adjectives.
Regarding “antigay”: Perhaps unfairly, I labeled XGW commenter Nathan antigay a while back. But I meant it simply in the sense that Nathan disapproves of homosexual conduct, not in the sense that Nathan might be considered a discriminatory bigot.
“Homophobic” implies opposition to fairness and equality rooted a certain degree of irrational thinking or emotion.
While those adjectives are imprecise, “Biblical view of morality” is worse — it is self-serving and it trivializes the Bible. At an opposite extreme, “bigot” is just an inflammatory fight-starter — unless one makes the effort, each time the word is used, to cite the dictionary definition and explain exactly how an individual fits the definition.
Irrespective of the issue of “anti-gay,” “homophobe,” or whatever, why not just let the producers of the proposed documentary, and whoever agree to appear in it, determine who is appropriate? A disagreement here over whether the term should be “anti-gay,” “homophobe,” or whatever might discourage people from suggesing participants who the producers might find interesting.
well, lets abandon this conflict of “anti-gay” or “biblical supporter” for a minute and look at the bare facts. the policies advocated by these conservative groups, such as concerned women of america, repent america, and etc go against the founding thought process of this nation that ALL men are created equal. its simply not “American” to say, “well, we might be created equal but some are more equal than others.” EVERYONE, regardless, is at the same par. i dont care how much to try to validate it, these conservative groups are essentially trying to bar homosexuals from society, ie… marrriage, adoption,etc , all of which are FUNDAMENTAL american, even human rights. Given these bare facts, you try choosing a name… personally i think, bigot works just fine.
“these conservative groups are essentially trying to bar homosexuals from society, ie… marrriage, adoption,etc , all of which are FUNDAMENTAL american, even human rights”
It’s one of the unusual things about society, that everyone has the right to have children. (I have talked to people who have jokingly suggested that governments should put contraceptive in the public water supply, and only grant child licenses to people who can prove they will be responsible parents!)
However, as I understand it, we don’t even now let anyone adopt (it’s quite a difficult process). Nor do we let just any two people get married. If you are prepared to throw both of these open as fundamental human rights, then you would have a good argument here. Among the more questionable things that would have to be included: marriages of siblings, marriages of children to parents, marriages to animals, adoption to prison inmates and to mentally ill convicted felons. Right now, you are barring most of these people from society. In my opinion, same-sex unions and adoptions are not as questionable as these.
Just to let y’all know, none of the bloviations in the last two posts have anything to do with providing the producers of the proposed documentary with possible participants. Unless I’m mistaken, providing possible participants was the point of the post.
That is correct, raj — thanks.
Nathan, the adoption alternatives you bring up is fallacious. The Supreme Court has stated that convicts have curtailed some universal rights–rights to bear arms, vote, etc.
But the marriage alternatives are much different. THe question regarding gay marriage refers to responsible parties. Animals cannot be responsible; children cannot be responsible; siblings already have responsabilities regarding the other siblings. There is a very good reason why homosexuals should be married–to allow one person to make responsible choices for another person (that is why polygamy is not legal–who would be in charge of the rights and responsabilities). I have been in a relationship for 12 years, but in some states, even with a will, family members can take away our personal possessions if there is a death. That is not fair.
“in some states, even with a will, family members can take away our personal possessions if there is a death”
Yeah, that is a bit unfair. I only really opposed your statement that marriage and adoption are fundamental human rights. I realise the issue of responsibilities complicates matters, but it remains that a sibling does not have this right with another sibling. I also know that it’s difficult for many people to get an adoption.
I mentioned before that I would support a broad civil relationships bill granting tax cuts and other legal benefits like inheritances for committed relationships of a variety of different natures. Why should they have to involve sex? Why can’t flatmates, for example, qualify? I don’t get benefits from a committed living situation with a same-sex friend with whom I am not involved sexually. There is not really much of an option for this situation with an other-sex friend either, since marriage is today assumed to be largely based on romantic and/or sexual interest.
BTW, I always thought that convicts could still vote – I’m sure you’re right but it seems a bit wrong to me.
In the US, wither convicts can vote or not is up to the states. In some states you loose the right to vote during jail time and in others during jail time and for a period after. In my state you loose the right to hold elected office for ten years after the conviction as well as the right to vote while you are in jail.
As for adoption, some states have laws against homosexuals adopting, but most states do not. For most states in the U.S. being gay is something of a non-issue legally in terms of adoption.
As for civil unions for non-sexual relationships, well it has nothing to do with sex. You are not expecting to live with your flat mate for a lifetime nor would you really have that kind of emotional relationship with him. If you do have that kind of emotional relationship with a flat mate where you would want him to inherit your stuff and where you would want visitation rights in a hospital then you have got yourself a platonic relationship and it too deserves all the rights and respect of marriage.
By denying marriage they are basically holding heterosexual relationships up as some supreme example and I really don’t see that somehow a heterosexual relationship no matter how unromantic, non-sexual, abusive or otherwise unhealthy is always superior to an homosexual one just because the participants have differing sexual anatomy.