Stephen Bennett’s blog entry for May 1 is titled Learning to Respectfully Agree to Disagree: Something Impossible for Most Homosexuals?.
Bennett’s essay is a model of exgay tolerance — up to a point.
Bennett effectively balances some examples of gay and antigay intolerance that he says he has encountered during his life. (I’m relieved to note that Bennett addresses the topic more seriously than the XGW commenters who berate him for his hairstyle.)
And Bennett says he’s not out to force anyone to change:
No one can force anyone to change – for they can’t. That’s not my job to change people from gay to straight, not my job to “judge” as so many say (that’s old now…drop it) — and it never will be. That’s God’s job.
My job is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and show how much love God had for us, that He gave His only begotten Son to die on the cross of Calvary for our sin. And by the way, we are ALL sinners…
You’re gay and want to stay that way? Go for it. It’s your life. You’ve got a free will — a free will God gave you.
I won’t push my Christianity on you or society, as long as you don’t push your homosexuality on me or society either. Deal??
But a search of XGW finds numerous occasions when Bennett or his ministry assistants have stereotyped or verbally harassed gay-tolerant individuals.
And Bennett’s demand that gay people not “push your homosexuality” on society is suspect: He fails to clarify exactly which of the following ordinary aspects of gay life he feels are forced upon society:
- holding hands in public
- celebrating unions within inclusive churches
- taking one’s children to school
- obtaining insurance benefits equal to those of heterosexual partners
- receiving an inheritance from one’s partner, free of expensive legal contracts and lawsuits from antigay relatives
- decision-making power when a loved one is medically incapacitated
- obtaining employment, housing, and government services without risk of discrimination
- living with and loving one’s partner without risk of imprisonment under intrusive, privacy-wrecking, and biased antisex laws
- expressing one’s non-rightist or non-Christian religious and
political perspectives in public and in the media without interference or disruption
None of these facets of gay life requires individuals such as Bennett to accept or approve of homosexuality. But they do require the same toleration and noninterference that all other “sinners” enjoy.
Without some specifics on what constitutes “pushing” one’s homosexuality on society, Bennett’s words of tolerance become just that — empty words.
Bennett presents himself as a moderate:
how can two groups of people, with diametrically opposed world views and opinions – who deeply are divided and disagree – learn to become respectful toward one another without resulting to childish name calling and hateful tactics? (I am talking here folks about BOTH sides…)
But then he asks a leading question that betrays his bias:
So why the double standard among some homosexuals?? Why a different set of rules??
The question will seem ludicrous to gay readers — gay moderates, gay conservatives, and gay libertarians in particular — given Bennett’s own work with the American Family Association to promote discrimination and undermine freedom of speech.
Bennett concludes:
I’ve lived in a glass house, so I’ve learned NOT to throw stones. It time for EVERYONE on BOTH SIDES to stop throwing the stones.
Let’s learn to better ourselves as human beings and not act like wild animals in a jungle. Let’s try to respect one another, while maintaining our different beliefs, should we choose.
We can learn a lot from each other you know. And in the end, I’m sure we’ll all find out that we’re not that much different at all.
We all just want the same thing: to be loved, to give love… and to be accepted.
I applaud these sentiments, but — pardon the tired cliche — the road to hell is paved with good intentions. More than mere intent is required for these sentiments to become reality.
One’s actions must match one’s words, and in the case of Bennett, the two do not match just yet.
Bennett’s essay is followed by several bigoted retorts by one of his most notorious online aides, Janet Hensley — a.k.a. “saltnlight.” Hensley launched a prolonged tirade of stereotypes against gay moderates and conservatives right here at Ex-Gay Watch last year, until she was banned. Apparently she’s still flinging her misguided assumptions and insults at the online community. Yet Bennett continues to host her verbal venom, and he declines to correct any aspect of her intolerant and embarrassing behavior.
I do not wish to minimize the value of efforts by exgay activists to reach out and build bridges. And I applaud Bennett’s gesture. Nevertheless, as I discovered in another online venture from 1997 to 2001, bridges that are built on proverbial shifting sands — mere words — do not stand very strong.
If Bennett is a man who keeps his word, then his actions will change to become consistent with his words. If his support for discrimination, opposition to free speech, and persistent hosting of a bigoted aide do not change, then his gestures — indeed, his moral integrity — are subject to skepticism among conscientious observers.
Bennett says he’s preaching the gospel of Jesus — but Jesus was a man of deeds and self-sacrifice, not mere words.
This is slightly off topic, but maybe one way to bridge the gap is to start using the word gay instead of homosexual. Bennett knows that the gay community in general prefers to use the term gay, but he and other conservatives continue to always use the word homosexual. If we are trying so hard to be tolerant, why not start with something simple like referring to a person’s orientation in the way they would like to be referred to.
I really have a hard time reconciling a comment like “I won’t push my Christianity on you or society” given Bennet’s actions in the past. He personally has taken “outreach” groups to predominantly gay areas to try and win converts, which seems like he’s pushing his Christianity on others (imagine if a group of gay people went to a church to try to convince its congregation to “convert” to being gay). He has also worked with those who use the “change” concept to restrict the rights of those of us who see nothing wrong with being gay, which seems a lot like pushing his Christianity on society.
Nevertheless I do think there is a way for both gays and “ex-gays” to live in mutual respect, but those who are “ex-gay” must stop trying to generalize their experiences to the overall gay and lesbian population – both their negative experiences with same-sex relationships and their alleged “change”. On the flip side, I believe many here at XGW have expressed comfort with the idea that there will always be people who have same-sex attractions who, for religious reasons, remain celibate or concentrate on the opposite-sex attractions they may have. They certainly have that right, they just can’t expect me to do the same.
I find this stuff about Bennett somewhat amusing. He’s an entertainer. He’s just an entertainer. I’ve never heard him sing, so I don’t know how good a singer he is. Apparently, though, he’s insufficiently secure in his talent as a singer that he believes he has to bash gay people along the way as part of his entertainment gig. I’m not sure what bashing gay people has to do with his singing, though. Maybe he would like to explain.
Bennett’s claim of being “ex-gay,” his maligning of gay people and his claim of miraculous “recovery” reminds me in many ways of what used to be featured on network TV in the US: the “disease of the week show.” Or when something like one of those syndicated shows about the entertainment industry (Entertainment Tonight comes to mind) in which they would feature virtually unknown actresses who would discuss how they overcame their various health problems. In the general scheme of things, who cares? Who are they trying to kid? They’re just trying to advertize themselves.
And so is Bennett.
For a reason that I’ve never understood, conservative Christians seem to like to wallow in stories like that. And they apparently want to do so, so badly that they seem to actually believe the stories. I noticed it when I was a kid in the mid-1960s when we (once) went to a conservative Baptist church, which completely turned me off to conservative christian churches. I noticed it a few years ago when Jimmy Swaggart got up and shed his crocodile tears after he had been caught diddling with a woman who was not his wife. (I’m not going to denigrate the woman by calling her a hooker–at least she was an honest worker, but he was not.) I could go on and on and on and on. I know that conservative christianity is all about “death and resurrection” and redemption (and here in Germany, tomorrow is a holiday called Christi Himmelfahrtstag–something like Christ’s ascension day), but at some point this gets rather silly. Wail and wail. That’s what Bennett is doing. Come on, give me a break.
If Bennett is a singer, he should get up and sing. Why should anyone care what his take is on political matters?
I’ll put it a different way. Conservative christians (and I know I’m generalizing, but bear with me) complain up and down about the political stances spouted by what they consider some of the lefties out of Hollywood. But then they pay attention to some political silliness from a singer like Bennett who comes from who-knows-where. It strikes me that there is more than a bit of hypocrisy there. But I’ve long known that more than a few conservative Christians were hypocrits.
To end, I wasn’t criticizing Bennett’s hair style on the other thread. I was laughing at it. From what I’ve read, to women “big hair” is a sign of virility. And he in his picture had “big hair.” But with little style.
Also, I’m sure that more than a few of the people at Bridges meant well, but it became evident to me early on that there really isn’t going to be a bridge. The two sides there were using the same words, but they weren’t speaking the same language. In other words, the words were the same, but the understandings of what the words meant was radically different.
TA at May 4, 2005 09:22 AM
Two points. And I’m going to be terse–so forgive me–because it’s getting late here in Germany.
First, there is no “gay community.” We’ve been round and round about that on the NYTimes gay rights board, and I don’t particularly want to spend a lot of time here expanding on it. There is no “gay community.” There are a number of communities that include gay people, and there are a number of people who engage in homosexual acts–but who do not identify themselves as being gay or even homosexual (I’m referring now primarily to people on the “down low” but you might be surprised at what you turn up if you do a “google” search for “Matt Glavin” formerly of the Southeastern Legal Foundation). But there is no “gay community.”
Second, I’ve argued–mostly on the NYTimes gay rights board–that there is a difference between “homosexual” and “gay.” “Homosexual” is a description of one’s sexual activity and yearnings, just as “bisexual” and “heterosexual” are. On the other hand, “gay”–like “straight”–is a pronouncement as to how one wants to carry out one’s life (roughly speaking)–a political pronouncement. For at least some portion of one’s life.
(As a somewhat humorous note, German had a perfect description of this. “Lebensgefahrte” was the term that they used to use for “life companion.” It was one of their “compound words”, Leben” meaning “life” and Gefahrte” meaning “companion.” Then they changed it to “Lebensabschnittsgefahrte”–“abschnitt” means “part of.” Companion for part of one’s life.)
I’ve posted here and elsewhere that I’ve known people who have gone from apparently straight to apparently gay, from apparently gay to apparently straight, and from apparently straight to apparently gay to apparently straight to apparently gay again. I really was not kidding. The last craziness was exemplified by my first boyfriend–in college in the early 1970s. And the “apparently straight to apparently gay” is illustrated by, for example, our current insurance agent–he’s married and apparently happy.
Homosexual? Bisexual? Heterosexual? I don’t care. I really don’t care what they do in bed. It’s amusing that “they” apparently seem to though. Maybe Mr. Bennett needs to improve his singing voice. Instead of his hair.
I liked Steve’s post! (I didn’t dig any deeper on his blog than the one post Mike linked to, so I can’t judge beyond that)
I think Steve has said some unfortunate things in the past (generalizing his own gay experience as the norm, an occasional air of self-righteousness, etc), but he seems to be moving in the right direction so I’m inclined to take his words here at face value. At any rate, it’s obvious that he’s happy with his life as it is. Who would argue with that?
In general, I find that actual ex-gays are very nice people. It’s the Rabid Right Brotherhood (Dobson, Sheldon, Perkins, et al) who use ex-gays as tools to bash gay people and block progress on gay civil rights that I have issue with.
Actually this isn’t going to be terse.
Going back to the original post.
Holding hands in public? Oh, jeez, this is silly. What is Mr. Bennett going to have done to my same sex spouse and I when we hold hands in public? Have us tasered?
We aren’t going to have sex in the road (to channel the Beatles) but I do believe that we would get a little uppity if an opposite sex couple tried to have sex in the road in our neighborhood. Or a same-sex couple, for that matter.
Spouse just woke up from his nap, so I’ll have to cut it short.
Bennett’s a nut.
raj…you are the abnormal nut!
I know that gay lifetsyle is harsh and uninviting however.. I also know that liat religion can be a prescription for painful life experince. But can you beat someone with down with your crutch. When do people begin honor the facts over fiction? Can you PROVE that GOd would send his son to die in such a brutal way for the sins of man and yet leave the world a sinful place. I think it’s arrogant and to claim to understand the will of god and base that understanding on the books of men who died. Nature holds all the clues we need to know about God’s plan if we only look to nature GOd’s system of dealing with life. TOO perfect a system to perfect to happen by chance. Why would the church allow 3 quarters of europeans to die of the plague. If they are so in tune with GOd When the people asked the church why they were dying the church said it was because they sinned
(something we all do) and yet if the church wasn’t so afraid of masturbation and ROman Baths they would have recommended the people bath regurlarly and they would have beat the Black Plague. But the church who claims to have their ear to God instaed told the people to beat themselves. Was that’s Divine advice? Why would God leave out chinese people and native americans from the BIBLE . Does God not care about the chinese and native american ? Not even enough to mention them? they certainly werent affected by the plague in the same way.
PS why are there gay animals if it isn’t natural.
I dont mean to be offensive i just think these questions should be answered for those of us that would not acccept fanciful answers from our doctors architects and scientists.
For the moment, I’ve banned both Raj and “Anonymous” for namecalling.
“Anonymous” has also called himself “Sam,” “dot” and “ex-gay” in various comments at XGW. If his e-mail addresses are legit, he may be contacted at: dc_790@yahoo.com or irishs@comcast.net.
I’ll reconsider the bans later, but at this particular moment I don’t have any time or patience to allow for namecalling.
Sorry….
To echo an observation already clearly made: I wonder what Bennett considers “pushing” homosexuality.
A gay couple holding hands is no more “pushing” their agenda than is a Christian wearing a cross as jewelry. Let’s not ban (or discourage) either of these.
“I won’t push my Christianity on you or society, as long as you don’t push your homosexuality on me or society either. Deal??”
And as the coyote said to the rabbit “I won’t push my diet on you as long as you don’t push your diet on me”.
It may sound fair, but still the rabbit ends up dead.
For the moment, I’ve banned both Raj and “Anonymous” for namecalling.
As you wish. There is a strange dynamic going on between the so-called, self-described, political “ex-gays” and the webmaster here, that I’ve been trying to figure out, but haven’t been able to (figure out, that is). What I’ve tried to tell you–gently–is that there are “ex-gays,” etc. who exist who don’t get up on a pedestal to proclaim their ex-gay-ness. They just do it.
And nobody cared whether they did what they did. They just did it. And they didn’t make a big deal about it. And they certainly didn’t seem to want to make a profit about it.
Raj brings up an interesting point. How many truly “ex-gay” folks are there?
We all like to criticize the ex-gay groups for exaggerating their claims of success. Wayne Besen makes a pretty convincing argument that while the ex-gay ministries like to claim thousands or tens of thousands of ex-gays, the only ones we ever really hear from are paid employees of the ex-gay groups.
So, Raj and others, do you agree with this? Or do you think there are a lot (or a few?) actual ex-gays out there that we never hear from? If so, why do you think this… do you know them personally? And finally, keep in mind that I would define an “actual ex-gay” as one who really was homosexual and then truly became heterosexual, rather than someone who was bi or learned to suppress their feelings, etc.
I don’t have a big problem with Bennett. I don’t know if he is exgay or not. However, he does not want tolerance if he is actively persuing legislation. He is sort of saying the other side should respect him for being respectful, but the other side is not trying to legislate against his civil rights.
It is really hard to actually know if someone is exgay or not. Is it determined by behavior or thoughts? Are people being honest with themselves or others around them? I know that I will never be “exgay.” I went to therapy and I learned that I could not change. I changed my religion, but I could not change my attractions. It is the best thing I ever did. However, I had a friend who was in the same therapy for 13 years. He told people that he was straight, got married, had two beautiful daughters. He lied to everyone around himself and said he no longer had thoughts–that he was heavily attracted to women. He was a “successful” exgay story. He killed himself because after 13 years he could not control his attraction and knew he was living a lie. The two daughters lost a father because he could not admit he was gay. Maybe some people change, but sometimes people will fake their orientation for social reasons.
Timothy says:
“It is really hard to actually know if someone is exgay or not.”
Ummm, with Bennett the question is whether or no he was ever gay to begin with. None of his stories about being gay check out. His friends and associates from what he calls his gay years are never found. No one who knew him then has ever been located. Conclusion: Bennett was never gay. So if he was never gay, how can he be exgay?
Dalea,
It wasn’t me that said it. It was Aaron.
But I don’t disagree with either of you.