Gay writer Keith Boykin says that he has been receiving considerable criticism via e-mail in response to an old article criticizing exgay activist Donnie McClurkin.
Among the critics: another ex-gay activist, Darryl L. Foster.
Participants in Boykin’s discussion forum are discussing Foster’s mail — and his web site.
After going to DL’s website, I can’t say that I like the guy very much. What I despise is his persistent depiction of homosexuals as being inferior, or defectively incomplete people who “should” change if they want to be “happy,” or if they want to go to heaven. He seems to rail away at the very essence of self determination.
That said, I don’t necessarily think all forms of re-orientation therapy are harmful and ineffective. However, the forms of therapy that start from the premise that being homosexual is a defective/disordered state of being tend to do more damage than good. And, re-orientation therapies rooted in religion tend do the most harm, in my opinion.
Believe it or not, I have a friend who is an atheist psychologist (of the cognitive tradition) who does both gay affirming and reorientation therapy, depending on what the patient desires. He sees homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally neutral, and equivalent pathways. He started off only doing gay affirming therapy, but throughout the years of his clinical practice he has found ample evidence that some homosexuals are able to change their orientations to varying degrees. He has even done follow ups of several of his patients, and has found that they are quite happy with the results. However, given this, he is very careful about the professionals he associates with, as he realizes that if people were to associate him in any way with groups like Exodus, his career would most likely be over.
My point is that it pays to look at these issues with a sharp eye–the mainstream tends to think of re-orientation therapies as being religiously rooted and shame based, as is the case with those therapies espoused by people like DL Foster, or even Exodus.
But this is not always the case.
NC,
I don’t really believe that this psychologist really changed the sexual orienation of his patients. The most likely result is that those that did managed to ‘change’ were inherently bisexual to various degrees and that managed to concentrate more on their attraction to women.
That being said, I believe that there are still quite a few ethical implications involved with reorientation therapy. It’s important to understand the reasons why those patients wish to change their sexual orienation before going through such therapy and explain the implications involved, like it is already done with transgendered individuals who wish to go through gender reassignment.
“I don’t really believe that this psychologist really changed the sexual orienation of his patients. The most likely result is that those that did managed to ‘change’ were inherently bisexual to various degrees and that managed to concentrate more on their attraction to women”
I agree with you that those with bisexual potential are helped the most through re-orientation therapy. But I disagree with your assertion that no change occurs and that therapy only helps a person repress his gay side, while concentrating on his straight side. Semantics aside, there are issues with your assertion. After all, if, after therapy, a “bisexual” (as you so define them) is able to increase his heterosexual side, but decrease his homosexual side, it would appear that some “internal” change did appear. Otherwise how would this be possible? Also, the fact that my friend’s patients were able to live happily with their opposite sex partners seems to indicate that repression is out of the question (repression usually leads to adverse mental effects).
Second, I know individuals IN the gay community, both men and women, who admit that their sexual orientations have subtly changed over time, naturally. The change usually isn’t from gay to straight, but from gay to bi. And, the catalyst for such change was changing life experiences and self perception. What’s amazing is that these are people who were happy being openly gay, and they made no conscious choice to change. So it seems pretty clear to me that SOME degree of inner change is possible for certain people. And, it seems to make sense that if such change can occur naturally, than this change can potentially be brought about through some form of therapy. But this is only a hypothesis, and more research needs to be done in this area.
Regardless not everyone can change, this only occurs in some individuals, and not everyone SHOULD change, as it is pretty clear from the Shidlo/Shroeder studies that some people are harmed (but it is not clear what type of therapy they underwent and what the negative factors were that harmed them).
Thanks for this opportunity to shed some light on Keith Boykin’s dramactic mischaracterization of the email I sent to him after the death of Sakia Gunn two years ago. The link to Boykin’s website forum includes a quote from my email which is indicative of the tone of the email. It can hardly be construed as “hateful”.
In a commentary he wrote on May 13, 2003 (She Didnt have to Die) Boykin stated: “And those religious leaders who say they care about kids while they teach hatred of homosexuals should know the consequences of their hypocrisy.”
My email to him called for specific proof as to what religious leaders had told these two men to go out and murder a fifteen year old lesbian. Neither of the murderers even went to church, let alone received advice from a “religious leader”. As it occured in the now debunked Matthew Shepard case, when white homosexual groups blatantly accused profamily groups of being complicit defendants of murder, so Boykin tries to make the same argument. If you are going to accuse someone of murder, then be prepared to answer specifically, not generally.
Instead of answering the email in coherent, mature way, Boykin resorted to typical and cowardly name calling. His response in part was that “people like me frightened him.” What a wimp, I thought. He could not respond because what he wrote was an angry lie. I dont blame him for being angry, but I do blame him for lying.
As a further act of cowardice, he made a forum post intended to ridicule my website and work. Again, an act of cowardice intstead of responding to my challenge.
Simularly, Regan DuCasse makes erroneous assertions in her numerous posts.
She and others who have viewed my website have made severe judgement calls on it and me without merit. However, that is to be expected from people who would not give credit to someone they perceive as their enemy. Since XGW is attempting to provide “credible” documentation of the work of the overcoming community, let the record accurately reflect these woefully inept and untrue accusations.
I would challenge Regan to provide concrete evidence to back up your accusations.
YOU SAY: “I’m concerned with why it’s anyone’s business to change gay people…”
From my website:”Witness is here to help parents, pastors, professionals and especially men and women seeking victory over their unwanted same sex attractions.”
Why is it so hard for you to accept that not all gay people want to remain gay and that if that is the case, then why shouldnt they be able to explore options for change? The operative word being UNWANTED. Either choice extends to all people or none at all. Gays have to choice to be gay, they should also have to choice to change. Its that simple.
YOU SAY: “And it’s the conditioning to mistreat gay people that swells their profits.”
Please provide your proof that I am profiting (I assume you mean financially) from the ministry I do.
YOU SAY: “The ex gay advocates are not trying to vilify mistreatment of gay people-and Foster is an example.”
First, define “mistreatment” and then provide specific instances where I have mistreated gays. If you mean “mistreatment” of gays my passionate support of banning gay marriage and opposition to so called hate crimes laws, then I am guilty as charged. I respect civil liberties (housing, jobs,privacy) of gay citizens as long as those civil liberties do not become special rights, which in my view homosexual marriage is a prime example.
Unless you –like Boykin– are too immature to respond to the challenge, then let the record reflect that also.
If you mean “mistreatment” of gays my passionate support of banning gay marriage and opposition to so called hate crimes laws, then I am guilty as charged. I respect civil liberties (housing, jobs,privacy) of gay citizens as long as those civil liberties do not become special rights, which in my view homosexual marriage is a prime example.
Perhaps, Mr. Foster, we can describe “mistreatment” of gays as the refusal of some relions to refuse to treat gay and lesbian people with the same level of respect as all other human beings.
Let me make an analogy. You, Mr. Foster, belong to a group of religions widely known as “Christian,” because they share a common theological precept, that a man named Jesus, from Nazareth in what is now Israel, was both human and divine, and is the risen Son of God.
There is another, smaller, group of religions known as “Judaism” that, while sharing the Old Testament with Christianity, refutes the belief that Jesus was either the Messiah or divine.
It is relatively easy to change one’s religious beliefs, yet you would be roundly, and deservedly, criticized were you to focus your religious mission on getting Jews to change. If you built a website where people complained of the nastiness and the miserliness of the “Jewish lifestyle,” and how unhappy they were with their unwanted “Jewishness,” but were finally fulfilled when they found Christ, you would likely be seen as an Anti-Semite. If you went on to join forces with other “Christians” to fight against the inclusion of Jews in laws banning anti-religious discrimination, you would be considered the worst form of Anti-Semite.
Well, Mr. Foster, there are millions of us, gay and straight, who believe that being gay is a rare, but totally normal, variation of the human condition. As a variation, it has no inherent “morality,” although gay people can act in immoral (e.g., selfish, wanton and dangerous) and moral (helpful, productive) ways.
But you and those who have chosen your version of the “Christian lifestyle” have apparently decided such belief systems are not worthy of your respect. You seem to refuse to live in a world where the belief gays and lesbians are normal humans and don’t need change is given the credence it deserves. And being treated as a normal human, Mr. Foster, includes the right to build families with those we love, and have those families recognized by the government. That is all marriage is.
Mr. Foster,
I agree that marriage is a “special right”. I remember the old “equal rights not special rights” signs and posters and we sure could use them now. Because after all, treating gay people EXACTLY like straight people is giving them the same special rights that have been given to straights.
Persons like yourself have set up special rights for heterosexuals and enshrined them as “marriage”. You argue that it’s ok to denight them to gay people because, after all, we can get some of these rights by spending thousands of dollars on attorneys. And even if there are some that are completely denighed (no matter what we spend or what hoops we jump through) to gay people, well that’s ok because straights are better, you see.
After all we all know that “all men are created equal” really means all HETEROSEXUAL men. And when Jesus said “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” he really meant “deny gay people the treatment you give yourself” (I know it may not sound like it, but just have faith). And when Jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself” he really meant unless he’s gay (I know it says the opposite but just trust the church on that, ok).
And when Jesus said in the 25th chapter of Matthew that you absolutely will NOT get into heaven if you didn’t visit the sick and the orphans, what he really meant was that you need to change the constitution to make sure that gay people CAN’T visit the sick or adopt orphans (cuz that way he has an excuse to keep them nasty sinners out of heaven).
It’s really very simple to be a Christian today… you simply read the words of Jesus Christ and do the opposite.
After all, Jesus may not ever have said it, but he really believed that heterosexuals are SPECIAL and that’s why they get special rights.
“It matters that there is motive to change gay people at all. I’m concerned with why it’s anyone’s business to change gay people. In the previous post, the standpoint is that being gay or gay people are defective and inferior to heterosexuals.”
I’m assuming by previous post you are referring to was my post. Well…I’m not going to respond to it beyond this…because it should be clear to anyone who takes the time to read the post that your characterization of my views is completely wrong.
Hey, whatever. Foster’s making money off his “ex-gay” silliness. Money really does make the world go ’round. Nobody would have paid Foster anything except for his “ex-gay” silliness.
This is all about, and only about, money.
“My email to him called for specific proof as to what religious leaders had told these two men to go out and murder a fifteen year old lesbian. Neither of the murderers even went to church, let alone received advice from a “religious leader”. As it occured in the now debunked Matthew Shepard case, when white homosexual groups blatantly accused profamily groups of being complicit defendants of murder, so Boykin tries to make the same argument. If you are going to accuse someone of murder, then be prepared to answer specifically, not generally.
“Instead of answering the email in coherent, mature way, Boykin resorted to typical and cowardly name calling. His response in part was that “people like me frightened him.” What a wimp, I thought. He could not respond because what he wrote was an angry lie. I dont blame him for being angry, but I do blame him for lying.”
*************************
The above is a quote from a post by Regan DuCasse.
It is not necessary for anti-gay persons to tell people to go out and bash and kill for that to occur. The statements by anti-gay persons cause that to happen without specifically directing people to do it.
Back about 1976, Anita Bryant, who was well known for her anti-gay statements, was in Minneapolis. She spoke firmly against gays and specifically stated that she was against violence. Yet, the the building where the Metropolitan Community Church met(a church with a gay congregation) was vandalized immediately following her visit. After she visited other cities promulgating the same message, gay persons were bashed and the bashers explicitely stated that they had been inspired by Anita Bryant, even though she always stated that she opposed violence.
It is not necessary for anti-gay persons to call for violence to cause violence to occur; it will inevitably occur following statements which reinforce negative attitudes towards gay persons. People making such statements are fully aware of that and therefore must accept responsibility for the enivatable results of their actions.
It is not necessary for anti-gay persons to tell people to go out and bash and kill for that to occur. The statements by anti-gay persons cause that to happen without specifically directing people to do it.
It is not necessary for anti-gay persons to call for violence to cause violence to occur; it will inevitably occur following statements which reinforce negative attitudes towards gay persons. People making such statements are fully aware of that and therefore must accept responsibility for the enivatable results of their actions.
Interesting remarks indeed. However, if this were true, then I should have been bashed and vandalized and murdered a hundred times over, especially after reading the “negative attitudes” that have been reinforced over and over on this and countless other homosexual sites towards exgays. So it appears you are only making it applicable to homosexuals, while allowing the same to make evil, vicious and patently false statements about exgays. I suggest you start your cleanup campaign with XGW and its main transgressor, Wayne Besen.
Secondly as I suspected, not one person accusing me has any evidence to present to back up their accusations. So far only irrelevant anecdotes have been offered as answers to my challenges. Spouting and gushing inconsistent accusations without proof says a lot about your character.
Unfortunatelty, it points to the lesser desired negatives aspects.
A prime example is Regan DuCasse who states emphatically that she has no sympathy for a murdered elderly woman in Chicago, who after sharing her faith with a Latino gay man, he brutally ended her life. She even repeated it for effect! What a specious, cold and evil thing to say. Yet, only one individual on this site mildly reprimanded her. Those statements lead me to believe Regan would have stabbed the old woman herself if she were the recipient of a gospel message. Evil, plain and simple.
Using your definition of “reinforcement of negative attitudes” as constitution of complicity in murder, vandalism and violence, Boykin as well as the flame throwers residing here have much to repent for.
I rest my case.
It should be evident that both Nicholas Gutierrez (the murderer) and Mary Stachowicz (the murdered woman) in the Chicago case mentioned by Regan were victims of the RCCI’s (Roman Catholic Church, Inc’s) homophobia.
The RCCI’s homophobia is not going to subside any time soon, given that the RCCI is becoming ever more conservative in its competition against conservative evangelical Protestants and conservative Muslims for adherents among the lower classes in the third world.
1. XGW is not a “homosexual site.”
2. Neither Wayne Besen nor Keith Boykin are affiliated with XGW.
3. The views of commenters (especially Regan) generally do not represent the views of XGW.
4. In my opinion, hate speech does not cause hate violence. But I believe that a few people who practice hate speech, both gay-tolerant and antigay, do intend to incite other individuals to commit violence. Others, like the national spokespersons for Exodus, simply don’t care what their hate speech incites, and they make little to restrain others from committing violence. In fact, for reasons that remain inexplicable to me, they oppose efforts to reduce antigay violence in schools and communities.
5. Personally, I’m willing to offer moral support to those who oppose hate-crime laws that mete out enhanced sentences based upon the victim’s gender, religion, or ethnicity. I seriously question the moral and spiritual integrity of those who support such special rights (or turn a blind eye to them) except when the protected categories include sexual orientation.
From all I can tell, and I did investigate this at another site, there is very little money in the exgay business. This may have changed with FOTF’s involvement. But it appears that some small sum goes into national Exodus office now, an amount bigger than before. It is still not a huge amount of money.
It is my firm opinion that most people who do exgay work are not in it for the money. The reasons they do it strike me as primarily religious. If they can eke out a living this way, I really have no room or reason to criticize them. I do, however, have very strong beliefs that most in the exgay world are totally non-political. To the extent that they are utterly oblivious to the damage those who use the exgays for gain, I am constantly bewildered by all this.
It is almost as if we are looking at two distinct groups. One is the right wing looney rhetoric that emerges from Exodus national. The other is the calm, serious mission of most of the local ministries. How these two totally different facets can remain part of the same movement is something that I really can not comprehend.
Like Regan, I am a Pagan. To me the exgays strike me as participating in a form of sympathetic magic. That is like causes like like things to happen. Always wanted to write that sentence. Their concept seems to be that if they act like straight people they can compele or coerce the divine into accepting them as straight people. Which is pretty much along the lines of most low magic. If we act in way X, we compel the divine to do whatever.
So, to me the exgay path is a form of spirituality. Not a particularly elevated one. Not especially spiritual. But it is one that suits the needs and personalities of those involved. Which the teaching concerning the Continuity of the World, or Karma, tells me is what those who participate are capable of understanding. My own feeling is that exgay is a place where people learn. And to my mind the central spiritual lesson here is that exgays can learn to break free from a rigid authoritarian system filled with do’s and don’t’s or continue in such a worldview.
And the evidence seems to be most who enter onto the exgay path eventually break free from the notion that they live in a world where one slight wrong step leads to destruction. Instead those who leave the exgay world open themselves up to the endless possibilities of the Apparent World.
Long ago one of my spiritual teachers taught that Christianity is an attempt to have religion without having ethics. Which seems like an accurate description of most of the Christianity we see in the US. There are those groups MikeA refers to who actually manage to be both Christian and ethical. But these people are few and far between. Sadly. Sadly few and far between.
Personally, I’m willing to offer moral support to those who oppose hate-crime laws that mete out enhanced sentences based upon the victim’s gender, religion, or ethnicity.
Hate-crime laws do not “mete out enhanced sentences based upon the victim’s gender, religion or ethnicity.” They mete out enhanced sentences based on the motivation of the perpetrator in committing the crime. That is, a crime would be a hate crime if the perpetrator’s motive in committing the crime was based on bias against the victim’s actual or perceived race, religion, gender, or in some areas sexual orientation. The “or perceived” part is particularly important, because it makes it clear that the issue isn’t just the victim’s actual race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. For example, there have been cases in which the perpetrator of a crime attacked a male couple to be gay because he perceived them to be gay, but they weren’t.
I’m not trying to suggest that I approve of hate crimes legislation–I’ve read all the arguments pro and con, and there’s no need to rehash them here–but if a jurisdiction has hate crimes legislation, it should include sexual orientation.