Washington state was subjected a little puff piece on the ex-gay movement from KOMO TV news website.
The ex-gay ministry, Groundswell, is quoted as saying
“Our message is that change is possible for anyone who wants out of homosexuality.”
We’ve discussed, ad nauseum, what that sentence means in English so I won’t go into it here.
The piece quoted Groundswell at length and the only rebuttal was clearly by people unfamiliar with Christian teaching or language.
This, once again, shows a real need on the part of our community for a strong vocal advocate that speaks “conservative Christian” and can be available to counter the lies told by the ex-gay advocates.
This, once again, shows a real need on the part of our community for a strong vocal advocate that speaks “conservative Christian” and can be available to counter the lies told by the ex-gay advocates.
Uhhhm, my own experience is that this is a waste of time and energy. ‘Conservative Christians’ have no interest in gay people beyond lurid stories and rabid right wing politics. IMHO&E, including many years at a site devoted to this sort of dialog, talking to them is futile. Instead, I would regard it as healthier and more effective to support gay political efforts and cultural activities. These reach out to those who are interested in learning about us. Most people who do meet us, get to know us and live around gay people, come to like them. I find it better to concentrate on those who are open, not those who never will. And the further problem I have with this approach is that at the un named site, those who are following your approach end up enabling the cC’s.
I think gay people are much better advised to put energy and effort into working with liberal and mainline churches, non Christian groups, political movements, charitable undertakings and so forth. Talking with conservative Christians simply enables and empowers them. Far far better to ignore them and counter their ravings with facts and science. Including Biblical translation evidence. But not to be sucked into this endless stupid ‘dialog’.
I don’t think you’re being fair to the critics. They make some very pointed and intelligent remarks, especially this:
“It’s as though you can be loved, but you have to change,” said Dan Borroff, founder of Faith Media Democracy in Seattle. “That’s not a message that I feel most kids can deal with very easily.”
I wish the article had had more balance, but the people who did rebut these ex-gay talking points did a decent job of it.
Sure, change is possible.
The point isn’t that change is possible.
The point is that THIS kind of change isn’t necessary and costs too much.
One’s humanity and identity (which isn’t for sale), cannot be demanded…there is no compensation enough for the loss of identity.
Particularly an identity forced or coerced away.
Change…is not for homosexuals to do and never was.
Change is for heterosexuals. It’s THEIR duty to change their ATTITUDE about gay identity.
Attitude or identity…?
The alteration of the former doesn’t carry nearly as much discipline to do…and the results are already proven much more fruitful and agreeable.
So for gay people to demand this change from heterosexuals bears far more legitimacy and always did.