The PTA has turned down a request from PFOX to exhibit at its annual show, while approving a request from PFLAG.
Now, why exactly would PFOX want to appear at a K12 Education trade show to begin with? To help all those little ex-gay elemementary school kids escape persecution from people trying to force them to be gay? Probably not. Maybe their purpose was to remind teachers that it’s okay to tolerate discrimination against gay students, because, after all, gay students “choose” to be different. Yep, that could be it.
So it’s OK for PFLAG to go but not PFOX? How so?
Your claim that PFOX are trying “to remind teachers that it’s okay to tolerate discrimination against gay students” is really a low shot. What evidence do you have for this? Surely if the conference has a theme of “diversity” then all aspects of the gay experience should be encountered?
Peter, I thought that would be obvious. Persecution of gay kids (and kids perceived to be gay) is a significant problem in schools. Persecution of ex-gay kids? Not a problem.
Right, but how are PFOX preventing the victimisation of self-identifying gays by having a stand suggesting another approach to the ontological debate? Have you ever asked anybody in PFOX whether they support or decry such bullying? What about peeps like Chad Thompson – like me he’s an ex-gay who’s also totally opposed to bullying of kids for sexuality reasons?
You need to back down from your automatic assumption that those opposed to some aspects of your perspective always reject every part of it.
Maybe if Regina Griggs was out for something other than a fundraising headline, the PTA would accomodate her.
Once again, that’s just your polemic isn’t it? You can’t actually objectively demonstrate that she’s only doing it for that purpose. Do you see where your problem lies? Your only complaint is against your assumption of the motives behind the actions of PFOX, assumptions that you can’t demonstrate in actual evidence. That’s not the way to critise constructively.
Peter, I’m genuinely puzzled about what your point is. No, we can’t demonstrate what PFOX’ real motives are. Can you? Anti-gay bullying is a significant problem in schools, and PFLAG has long made that a major focus of their work. If PFOX has also done that, I was unaware of it; if so, I might retract (or at least amend) my suspicions.
It’s worth remembering that in the current cultural climate of America, PFOX has no shortage of platforms from which to promote its message–and that it enjoys significant support.
Additionally, its message is aimed primarily at persuading *adult* gays to change their lifestyle. I’m not clear on how exhibiting at a K12 education conference serves that end.
You do know where I’m coming from. I’m criticising your rejection, simply on the basis of polemic, of the right of PFOX to have a stand at this meeting. Would you change your mind if Chad Thompson wanted a stand? If that’s so, then your issue is simply on the subject of being “anti-bullying” which is NOT what PFLAG is primarily known for. Bottom line is that PFLAG is a pro-homosexual activity advocacy group. As part of that it may make statements and take action on the issue of bullying of self-indentified (and assumed) gays, but that is secondary byproduct of it’s over-arching purpose. Now, I have no problem with a PFLAG anti-bullying stand, I think it’s a great idea and bullying of those who are (or assumed to be) homosexual in schools is a vastly ignored cruelty. But inviting PFLAG and refusing PFOX is a political statement of acceptibility that betrays the “diversity” tag put on the conference.
All that PFOX are asking for is equal space to PFLAG in making their contribution to the issue of K-12 responses to homosexuality. A denial of that opportunity seems to demonstrate to some of us that the “diversity” that the PTA is trying to promote isn’t real diversity, because it rejects a number of (liberal) perspectives.
Peter, you’re simply wrong to imply that PFLAG isn’t well-known for its anti-bullying work; within the education world they’re known for substantial contributions to anti-bullying (I work in education, so I’m pretty up-to-date on this).
Furthermore, no one is sending a “pro-homosexual activity” message to grade school kids–nor should they.
PFLAG’s message to K12 teachers is that bullying of gay kids (and kids who are assumed to be gay, even kids who are just “different”) is a problem, and that teachers can do something about it.
No one at PFLAG concerns themselves with whether those bullied kids end up being gay, ex-gay or straight. So, again, where does PFOX stand on all of this?
Regina Griggs has been long known for publicity stunts. Lawsuits that will go nowhere but get her name in the headlines.
Delibrately obscuring the point of hate crimes laws on capitol hill (again to grab headlines).
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39076
Regina knows full well that hate crimes laws protect ALL sexual orientations but she needed to make a point on the hill (and drive up donations and headlines).
If she wants to take out her frustrations with her openly gay son somewhere, she should really take it up with him and leave the rest of us alone.
Peter, first of all, not all aspects of gay life should be presented at a PTA show. If that were true, S&M booths would be allowed too. That is not appropriate any more than PFOX. For one, PFOX is a religious based group (and therefore their position should not be promoted as a school event). PFLAG is not religious. It also does not advocate a pro-homosexual activity stand. I have been to a few PFLAG meetings, and all it promoted was discussion. It is a place where parents meet other parents who are dealing with children who are gay. It promotes undestanding and safety, but that is about it. It is a much mre appropriate group for PTA than PFOX.
Peter O wrote:
“Bottom line is that PFLAG is a pro-homosexual activity advocacy group. ”
I have to take exception to this statement, because I think PFLAG has made it quite clear over the years that their goal is to improve the lives of their children by working towards inclusion, nondiscrimination, and a policy of support regardless of sexuality. They are not at all concerned with “homosexual activity” pro or otherwise (I’m not even sure what you mean by “homosexual activity” to tell the truth. Their history of sticking to that singular goal says volumes about their commitment to the goals of the PTA’s convention regarding tolerance.
Having read the linked article, it seems clear to me that PFLAG’s involvement is quite narrow and defined. That is, their involvement is not simply about the inclusion of LGBT subjects but rather ways of addressing the issue of LGBT students. PFOX’s efforts seem to be more about promoting and advocating the inclusion of their literature into whatever ways the schools address LGBT issues. Notice the big gulf that exists between those subjects; PFLAG is not participating in the convention to promote itself. PFOX does seem to be doing that. And that may be the reason that PFOX’s proposal was rejected.
Rather than demonize PFLAG or the PTA for the decisions that were made, PFOX should be responsible enough to look at what they are trying to accomplish and ask if it actually fits the goals of people who truly care about diversity, tolerance and inclusion. Trying to be divisive is the last act one should make in the pursuit of inclusion.
Speaking of PFOX, there was quite an interesting drama years back when they jettisoned Anthony Falzarano (anyone remember him?).
Here’s a link to some of the history of PFOX.
https://www.wiredstrategies.com/exgay.htm
The ludicrous claim that PFLAG is a “pro-homosexual activity advocacy group” is the kind of hysterical ex-gay propaganda that gives ex-gays a bad name–and deservedly so.
Maybe Peter O can explain something to me. Ex-gays are ostensibly straight. Or maybe neutered. I don’t know. But they’re not gay. How many straight–or neutered–kids are discriminated against because they are straight or neutered?? Simple question, asking for a simple answer.
It strikes me that, if an ex-gay person is discriminated against, it would be because he or she is perceived as being gay. I’m not sure, but I would suspect that PFLAG would also lobby against that kind of discrimination as well. I certainly would.
So what, other than opposing equal protection for people who are perceived to be gay, does PFOX stand for? As far as I can tell, it is just a money-raising operation for somebody.
I hope that PFOX realizes that, if they get rid of PFLAG–and gays–and people who might be perceived to be gay–their money-raising will plummet. Down the tubes. Gays are their current “bogeyman”. If there were no gays, they’d have to invent a new bogeyman.
Scott, any idea why they rejected Falzarano? That link gave little indication.
Oh my gosh, I know this seems offtopic, but I just watched a 1988 slasher called Hide and Go Shriek. The killer was a gay man (in makeup of course) who was killing people because his lover was trying to straight (ex-gay). I have never seen a plot point like that. It was funny though.
Speaking of PFOX, there was quite an interesting drama years back when they jettisoned Anthony Falzarano (anyone remember him?).
I certainly do. I was referring to him a couple of days ago here, but I couldn’t remember his last name.
Has he moved on to a new gig?
It’s interesting that some of the 1990s “ex-gay” people have shown their true “colors.” Paulk. Falzanaro. And their operations have been taken over by ostensibly straight people. At some point this gets to be silly. Gay people are the current bogeyman that some people are using to shake down the rubes.
Raj,
Ex-gay is more a statement of ontological intent rather than ontology. For some, ex-gay is a description of their rejection of “gay” as an identification and identity, for others (like myself) it indicates a level (in my case significant) from predominantly homosexual attraction to heterosexual. For some it represents a complete lack of homosexual attraction.
The problem is that we like to make the whole thing bi-polar, gay or straight, that many of us approach the debate from the perspective that “gay” is a given as an opposite to “straight”. When the approach is made from there then being less than 100% “straight” is seen as still “some part gay”. What I’ve discovered is that when I dropped the self-identification of “gay”, when it no longer became the locus around which my sexual identification hinged, I actually freed myself to engage heterosexually in a way that didn’t happen when I was exclusively homosexual in my attractions and also self-identifying as “gay”.
One of the greatest surprises to me was transiting from not being able to think about hetero sex (just disgusting!!!) to half a decade later having a hard problem keeping my hands off my girlfriend because I fancied her so much.
Bottom line is that my experience, and that of others (regardless of which way they have transited) is that sexuality is not a static experience. My biggest gripe with the gay caucus is not it’s existence (because I understand that, I’ve been there) but rather that it denies my existence, because a large part of gay qualification rests in this non-transitory bi-polar paradigm that currently exists.
“Bottom line is that PFLAG is a pro-homosexual activity advocacy group.”
I also take exception to this point. Peter, you have asked Joe to bring up exact evidence about Regina Griggs’ and PFLAG’s motives, and I would like to ask you to provide similar evidence that PFLAG is a pro-homosexual activity group rather than a group promoting acceptance to gay people in general.
My experience of PFLAG is a support group that looks to provide support for friends and families of gays. Whether these gay people are participating in “homosexual activity” doesn’t seem to be the issue.
Further, to say they are pro-gay activity would require you to show proof that they are actually encouraging gay sex, not just lobbying for inclusion and acceptance of gay people themselves.
Cornering a pro-gay group to one that is pro-gay sex really is dishonest imo. Stripping down an entire group to the sexual behaviors of some of its members’ friends and families is really diminishing the entire group and individuals in the group, and I for some reason expect more individual honesty from anyone that prides himself or herself as being a Christian.
Peter O says:
“Ex-gay is more a statement of ontological intent rather than ontology. For some, ex-gay is a description of their rejection of “gay” as an identification and identity, for others (like myself) it indicates a level (in my case significant) from predominantly homosexual attraction to heterosexual. For some it represents a complete lack of homosexual attraction.”
Oy! This sounds alot like you’re saying that “ex-gay” means whatever a person wants it to mean. That’s stacking the deck, and in a most dishonest way. If we can’t pin ex-gays down on exactly what they mean by “ex-gay” there is no way to critically examine the claims made about the successes of ex-gay ministries. Anything can be considered as a success, as long as the person making the claim can find a way to justify using the term.
I’m not sure why they rejected Anthony F. He did have some pretty harsh words for “religious” leaders towards the end.
Seeing as PFOX is basically a tenticle of the FRC which is a tenticle of James Dobson, my educated guess is Anthony wanted to focus on actually ministering to people rather than get involved in the political world and they canned him.
When the FRC (a lobbying group) sets up PFOX, their intentions are already suspect.
Dobson dumped Ken Connor at the FRC when he wasn’t anti-gay enough.
TA,
From https://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=188
“PFLAG promotes the health and well-being of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons, their families and friends through: support, to cope with an adverse society; education, to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy, to end discrimination and to secure equal civil rights. Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays provides opportunity for dialogue about sexual orientation and gender identity, and acts to create a society that is healthy and respectful of human diversity.”
To Anon,
It’s not stacking the deck, or at least it’s only stacking the deck in the same way one might also argue “Since you aren’t 100% hetero your attempt at being ex-gay is a failure”.
Hi Peter,
You did exactly what I asked you not to do. You accused P-Flag of being “pro-homosexual activity.” However, the quote you provide says nothing about this. In fact, it talks about identity and orientation, a far cry from activity.
Again, if you are going to accuse PFLAG of being pro-gay activity, I would ask you to prove that, not to prove that PFLAG is pro-gay. There is a huge distinction there.
If they are talking about orientation and identity, it seems a big stretch to accuse them of promoting gay sex (activity), and I am not sure why are ok with making such a leap.
“It’s not stacking the deck, or at least it’s only stacking the deck in the same way one might also argue “Since you aren’t 100% hetero your attempt at being ex-gay is a failure”.”
This is a strawman, since this is not an actual argument that those critical of ex-gay ministries actually make. Rather, the argument is that there is no basis for determining whether a person claiming to be ex-gay is acutally applying any quantifiable way of determining change. Since a homosexual is a person who is attracted to persons of the same sex or gender, it is logical to assume, in the absence of any other guideline by ex-gays themselves, that those who claim to no longer be homosexual no longer have those attractions by which homosexuals are defined. That failure to apply a quantifiable standard lies solely on the shoulders of the ex-gay ministries, and your prevarification on what ex-gay means feeds directly into that failure.
Robis says: “Since a homosexual is a person who is attracted to persons of the same sex or gender, it is logical to assume, in the absence of any other guideline by ex-gays themselves, that those who claim to no longer be homosexual no longer have those attractions by which homosexuals are defined”
I believe the solution to this conundrum lies in the concept of bisexuality. A homosexual by definition is exclusively attracted to the same sex. A bisexual is attracted to both sexes, either equally or to differing degrees.
So, it is possible that these ex-gay “success stories” discover (or develop, depending on how you look at it) their bisexual potential, in turn becoming bisexual.
However, given this, the problem of labeling still remains. Most ex-gays who claim to be “heterosexual” most likely aren’t, given that the definition is “exclusive attraction to the opposite sex,” and many ex-gays admit that same sex attractions remain (to differing degrees, of course).
Peter O., I understand what you mean when you say: “For some, ex-gay is a description of their rejection of “gay” as an identification and identity, for others (like myself) it indicates a level (in my case significant) from predominantly homosexual attraction to heterosexual. For some it represents a complete lack of homosexual attraction.”
So then a celibate man with significant same sex attractions who rejects living as an openly gay man would be an “ex-gay.” But so would the those who actually experience some change in orientation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to see “gay” as more of a political identity that has attached to it certain connotations, both philosophical and political. That is, you probably see that there are “same sex attracted people,” and then there are “gay people.”
The problem though, is that most people don’t make this distinction. There is a confusion of terms. “Gay” can easily be who a person “truly is” as easily as it can be a mere, chosen “political identity,” depending on one’s perspective (essentialist or constructivist).
Back to the PFOX business: easy, because PFOX is a religious organization, it wouldn’t seem appropriate to promote it in the PUBLIC schools, given the seperation between church and state.
Perhaps the “ex-gay” perspective can be presented without the moralistic and religious underpinnings. This would seem to be the best compromise. More on that later.
Phallus Maximus
As has been discussed here several times, it is not at all clear that PFOX is a group at all. Rather it seems to consist of Regina Griggs and her psychologist friend. It is not an organization that appears to have members. That has chapters. That have meetings. It seems to be just a specialized front for various right wing crazies. Had PFOX ever shown any independance from the lunatic fringe in the US maybe things might be different. But they remain firmly in that orbit.
Dalea,
I wouldn’t even call Richard Cohen a “psychologist.” That would be a disgrace to those who actually do real psychology and who are interested in making people feel better, as opposed to wanting to sell a few books.
“New-age-wacko-wierdo” is more like it.
Of course if you haven’t noticed I’m being facetious.
But I agree, PFOX seems to be more of a name than a substance.
P.M., I don’t know what “new-age-wacko-wierdo” means.
Some of my all-time favorite, most therapeutic friends have been new-age weirdos.
Facts might help clarify; otherwise, you’re making Cohen sound like someone I want to know. And somehow, I don’t think that was the intent of your name-calling.
Well Mike, the “new-age” part crept in there somehow. I guess he comes across as a bit of a cult leader who isn’t very scientifically, or psychologically informed.
Perhaps “new-age” was a bit of a misnomer.
If you doubt that PFLAG is an activist organization, read this.
Thanks Warren, that link really proves the point.
Thanks. Warren.
Yawn.
Go back to your consulting for Magellan.
Warren why don’t you go back to the hole you crawled out from, no one here believes the lies you spread. Remember where liars go after they die. But there is still hope for you, if you repent and publicly recant all the lies you have told and only tell the truth from now on god might forgive you. Sorry about judging you but it is the same thing you guys do to us.
Raj, Scott, Adam,
Do you have something factual to say?
Warren,
1. Do you have a working link? Please try again.
2. Why do you object to an organization (PFLAG) whose purpose and activities are explicitly directed at stopping violence, preventing suicide, and confronting stereotypes?
3. I still welcome a response from you to a list of questions that I had asked a little while back. And I would also welcome a reversal from PFOX of its opposition to antibullying programs. That opposition, and its support for antigay discrimination, seems to be costing PFOX considerable legitimacy in its claim to be a tolerant, Christian, or school-friendly organization.
Adam sez:
Warren why don’t you go back to the hole you crawled out from, no one here believes the lies you spread. Remember where liars go after they die. But there is still hope for you, if you repent and publicly recant all the lies you have told and only tell the truth from now on god might forgive you. Sorry about judging you but it is the same thing you guys do to us.
Wow Adam, you are the epitome of intellectual discourse. (Sarcasm)
Mike, clearly rationality goes out the window on some manners.
Mike A. at May 26, 2005 06:00 PM
Sorry, Mike, I had believed that I had said something factual. What I said was an expression of a total rejection of what Throckmorton posts. (BTW, Throckmorton’s link doesn’t work) You might not have liked the way that I said it, but that was what I said. Throckmorton seems to have made a career out of bashing equal rights for gay people. I’ll be more explicit in the future.
Regarding Throckmorton’s apparent complaint (the link doesn’t work, so it’s impossible to determine exactly what he was referring to), one must recognize that, of course PFLAG is an advocacy organization. Somebody would have to be a moron to believe that PFLAG does not advocate. Off course they do. They also provide other services–services to parents and friends of gays and lesbians who might feel a need to come to terms with the fact that their child or friend is lesbian or gay. But they also advocate for equal rights for gay people. Apparently, the latter is what Throckmorton objects to. Why, he objects to it, I don’t know. I could speculate–I really could–but I’d probably be banned again if I did.
I don’t mind speculation if each speculative item is shown to logically follow from actual, linked statements by an individual.
Of course, a more constructive approach would be for pro-exgay and religious-right activists to be more communicative and more straightforward in their language.
Mike, it might be nice, but you know as well as I do that the pro-equal-rights-for-gays and anti-equal-rights-for-gays lobbies are talking at cross purposes. They use the same words, but they understand the words to have different meanings. You should have known that from Bridges-Across.
Same words, different languages.
To bring the point back to the PTA: The national PTA group wishes to oppose bullying. They solicited a group that has made a reputation and has experience and knowledge on that subject, PFLAG.
PFOX, for unfathomable reasons, opposes laws restricting bullying.
As W would say, it don’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the PTA wasn’t really looking for the “I support bullying” position. Yeah, I know it’s technically the “I oppose laws that restrict bullying” position, but for some reason I doubt that bullying gay kids is much frowned on by Regina (It’s not bullying, ya know, it’s just expressing disapproval).
This isn’t even a gay or ex-gay issue. And those who try to make it so lose creditibity (hint, hint Warren).
… they lose credibility…(blush)
I checked out PFOX. It seems to be a skeleton with no meat. I recall the Church of England closed down its “conversion” therapy program when, after decades of effort, it admitted that what it was trying to do was impossible. No amount of intellectual introspection, repentance or prayerful reflection can change one’s orientation they discovered.