Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International was recently quoted by Salon.com saying, “lifelong homosexual relationships are not possible.” Ex-Gay Watch’s own Timothy provided analysis in his own previous post but I felt the need to pen a letter to Chambers himself.
Alan,
This letter is in regards to your statement at the (February 2006) Conservative Political Action Conference, “lifelong homosexual relationships are not possible.”
Your organization, Exodus International, relies almost entirely on personal testimonies to provide substantiation of your claims changing one’s sexuality is possible. In your very own print-ad published by Exodus titled “I Questioned Homosexuality” you are quoted, “I am living proof that change is possible.”
Reaching gay and lesbian Americans is the stated goal of Exodus. Nationwide there are tens of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans who are now married in Massachusetts or have signed up for other various domestic partner registries in other states. You have essentially said gay people are liars and those in domestic partnerships are merely shams.
When I shared an evening with ex-gay Chad Thompson we engaged in civil debate and respected the testimonies and experiences of the other. Civil debate ceases to exist when either side says the personal experiences of the other is a lie.
Your statement is shameful and it saddens my heart. You have just insulted countless gay and lesbian Americans and said their first hand testimonies mean nothing. Since your case rests entirely on taking ex-gays at their word, I really have no idea why gay people should bother to return the favor. If you care not to listen to gay and lesbian Americans, then I highly doubt they will care to listen to you. What you just said undermined the only reason gay people should believe change is possible. I’m not sure who your organization is ministering to now, but it certainly doesn’t look like gay and lesbian Americans.
Daniel Gonzales
Ex-Gay Watch
Permission to copy, reprint, repost and rebroadcast this letter in whole is granted to all provided attribution is given to it’s author, “Daniel Gonzales of ExGayWatch.com.”
Here is the letter I sent Alan:
Alan, I have never questioned your commitment to your wife. While I have been through exgay therapy and failed (years before I came out), I do not question that you changed some how. I can’t speak for you. So I am asking you to not speak for me. The fact that you are tied to the Republican Party and Exodus is dangerous. You make Exodus seem like a lobby organization instead of a legitimate place to help people. Now I see that you have stated that gays cannot have lifelong relationships at CPAC.
How wrong you are. I am in my 13th year with my loving spouse, Eric. We are both males. I met him when I was 24, and he is the most loving, dedicated person I have ever met. Yes, our relationship is monogamous, and we have never wanted to go outside it. Those who know us know how loving we are. Both sides of the family see us as a loving, whole unit. Eric has been through my cancer (no, I don’t have AIDS) and the death of my sister. He has been there while I got my college degree and a stable teaching job. Our relationship is stronger than all the heterosexual couples around us, who for various reasons eventually get divorces. The funny thing is that almost all the gay and lesbian couples we know have been together in monogamous relationships for a long time (one male couple is almost together 30 years now–they met as teenagers). You misrepresent our relationships for political gain, and to me that is dishonest, unfair, and cruel. I don’t question your relationship, so why should you misrepresent mine and thousands, millions of others? My relationship will be lifelong–of that I have no doubt. No, I did not have the experience of the barnight and going from person to person that you express. I have never been to a White Party or a bathhouse. Most people I know have not. We live fairly average, committed lives. If you are truly a man for Jesus, you will apologize to us in front of your CPAC friends for misrepresenting our lives. You will quit trying to destroy those of us who have great, honest, unconditional relationships. You will help those who want help and leave us alone. One more thing, I was a minister at one time, and I can tell you that my life and the lives of those around me are much better off and healthier since I came out many years ago. Exgay therapy nearly destroyed me. It was dangerous and unhealthy. A friend who supposedly succeeded from the same therapy got married and had two beautiful daughters. Thirteen years later after numerous therapies that ended up even scarring him (by the way, he went to religious therapy too), he got in trouble for picking up a police officer in a park (me–a gay person out since 21 have never ever even tried or desired someone from a park). He eventually could not turn away from his gay attractions and left a widow and two mourning daughters when he committed suicide. Exgay therapy promised false hope for him. He fell apart. I am glad I did not continue in that direction. Please be honest and realize many gay people live happy, healthy lives.
Aaron Race
Daniel… Daniel… Daniel…Alan Chambers doesn’t know gay people. He knows gay people who hate being gay, and who behave appalingly. But he CANNOT hang around with people like us. That freaks him out. He also has no interest in presenting “the gay lifetsyle” in any positive light. If he so much as attempted to, James Dobson would fire him.We’ve — grantdale — have only been together 14 years. While that is longer than the Chambers, it is also nothing on the 49 years my parents have been happily married. We’ve always said, and they have always been proud and respected, that we do model our commitment on their own.Lifelong? I hope so. He hopes so. But it’s a bit like a very Australian beer ad, for a (rather unpleasant) Queensland brew: an young guy approaches an old geezer in a pub:
I do take strength in the fact that by the time we prove Alan Chambers to be an ignoramous, or a liar, nobody will care who Alan Chambers or Exodus is.
Aaron said:
Please be honest and realize many gay people live happy, healthy lives.
I don’t think he can – he has too much tied to the idea that they can’t. To admit what must certainly be obvious would invalidate not only his work but much on which his life is based.
We see this pattern in many “ex-gay” testimonies. The person led an unhealthy, dangerous life – not because they were gay but because they made some very poor choices in life (as many people do, including who knows how many that are heterosexual). Then it seems they can’t face that they made these poor choices on their own so they blame it on “the gay”, something they can point to as the villain, and then they proceed to try to remove that from their lives. That struggle or mission to validate this whole mess becomes the substitute for the negative behavior and they are quite literally dependant on it for their existence – mentally and financially. And of course, the choir to whom they preach validates their own misconceptions about gays vicariously through them.
There simply is no pathology to homosexuality – you see the same range of behaviors and history behind gay people as you do straight. Concentrating on the negative behavior of some individuals in one group, while ignoring the same in the other is just dishonest. If I’m not mistaken, this is why XGW exists, to hold this kind of deception up to the light of truth.
David
I can hardly wait to go the the Beverly Hills courthouse St. Valentine’s Day Marriage Equality demonstration on Tues.
I have been a speaker at rallies, a meeting facilitator and marriage equality advocate for years now.
The activities of Chambers enrages me too!
He doesn’t know who I know and doesn’t have the **lls to come to marriage equal. meetings,PFLAG or church and temple socials that involve full inclusion of gay people, gay couples and parents.
He can’t be bothered with Pop Luck and COLAGE picnics and Models of Pride Conferences.
That’s the world I live in.
He’s blind to gay monogamy, parents and healthy, sober integrated social situations.
He missed out when he was gay, so he’s willing to indict gay people altogether, no matter WHAT they do of merit.
Well, he’s a sad man alright.
And you’re right, Dan.
He’s a political lobbyist, using false witness to get a witness.
This is why I absolutely cannot stomach him and DL Foster and their political mission.
Their buzz words and talking points are untrue and harmful, religious motive be damned for what it really is.
Once government pressure is invoked into gay life, their mission as strictly benevolent and faith based is flushed down the toilet.
So According to Chambers its possible for a promiscuous gay to change to monogamy with someone he’s not attracted to, but not possible for that person to change to monogamy with someone he is attracted to. Somehow that seems just a little counterintuitive and WRONG. That is one of the most malicious lies of the anti-gays. It doesn’t make sense to anyone willing to think about it and Chambers and his ilk aren’t willing to think about their blind obedience to oppressing GLBTs.
Its a far smaller and more likely change for a promiscuous gay men to become a monogamous gay than it is for him to become a monogamous heterosexual. If Exodus honestly wanted to minimize promiscuity they’d be encouraging any mis-behaving gays to also consider the shortest and easiest route to monogamy – a relationship with the person they are attracted to most.
This rigid religious dogma motivating the anti-gays causes the shame that makes religious people sneak around in parks looking for anonymous sex. Lies like Chamber’s, that lifelong gay relationships are not possible, is the equivalent of society shooting itself in the foot. It encourages rather than limiting promiscuity. Not many gays are going to be attracted to the idea of changing orientation, for most only a lifelong same sex relationship is a realistic and worthwhile goal. If society makes gays outcasts for that, the social approval barrier prohibiting gay relationships must be crossed by necessisty and some will inevitably feel that once an outsider one is no more an outsider by being promiscuous. Unrealistic sexual boundaries in many ways are equivalent to there being no sexual boundaries whatsoever. If society wants to prevent destructive forms of sexual expression it must allow a realistic outlet for sexual desires. Women are not a realistic sexual outlet for many, if not most gays. Celibacy is not a realistic sexual outlet for many, if not most priests – they are human and making all sex a crime lessens the inhibition against that sex which truly is a crime.
These are wonderful letters. Thanks both of you for writing. One other thought I had was that perhaps some of us should write to any (Exodus-affiliated) ex-gay groups we are in contact with (or know of) and alert them to this statement and ask what their positions are on it? I don’t know how many of the Exodus groups are having a problem with Exodus’ political activites, but I can imagine it’s more than one. I think they need to be alerted to the kinds of statements their leaders are making; and see how it affects those people that they are in contact with everyday.
Let’s face it. Alan probably hasn’t had much contact with a healthy and happy gay couple. He probably doesn’t even associate with gays much (I know that most ex-gays can’t, for fear of the slippery slope of getting back into “the [dreaded] lifestyle”). However, the individual ministries that meet with people on a daily basis are directly affected by the things that Alan says. Maybe we need to make sure they know what is being said in their names? Not in an offensive way, and not in an attacking way, but we are not the ones who will ultimately be able to have any effect on Alan. It’s his colleagues and the affiliated ex-gay ministries who actually deal with real people that might be able to make a difference in stopping this kind of harmful rhetoric.
There was a similar thread on Perspectives Motionless recently; I attempted to argue that, based on my personal experience, the argument from personal experience by the New Oxford Review writer did not encompass all of gay male experience.
Rev. Foster challenged me to provide the ‘science’ to verify that my experience was valid. Odd how he felt no need to make the same request of the NOR journalist.
The point is well made that these people have a great deal invested in the theory of inherent gay male dysfunctionality. Similar to how _some_ straight people find ‘normal-acting’ gay men and lesbians far more threatening than those who fulfill their internalized stereotypes.
I love how it’s these same people who are blustering about how “Brokeback Mountain” (say) is “propaganda.” Project much?
When I was doing HIV work in the mid-1980s in Chicago, I learned that the term “promiscuous” was a charged and value-laden term: a “promiscuous” person is someone who is having more sex than you, was said, as a way to remove the use of that term from civil discourse. To posit married/partnered gays against those of us who do not embrace such a lifestyle by labeling our behavior as “promiscuous” promotes the message that the only “good” gays are the ones who are married and not sleeping around. This is a huge mistake and represents the incorporation of heterosexist values into the argument for full human rights and social equality.
Since 50% or more of hetero marriages end in divorce, and, since gay relationships – along with many non-gay relationships – have always been experienced in a variety of configurations (twosomes, threesomes, not-easily-defined families, lifelong close friends who love each other but are not sexual with each other, etc.), why do we not encourage loving adult relationships in all of their beautiful forms?
It appears that because gay people want to be accepted so badly by the larger society, many same-sex couples take the hetero route of getting a partner, adopting or making babies, etc., as a way to skirt these issues of identity. Frankly, I think much of larger American and Western culture’s sense and expression of “acceptable” families is lacking. I think that gays/queers have historically opted for families of creation and that these are loving, supportive, and truly familial. We have many more options available to us that are more functional and immediate, so the emphasis on marriage rights seems to me to be misplaced, and especially since so many of us are still facing homophobic violence in our daily lives. Same-sex marriages will likely do little to support GLBT/queer culture, since the couples will persist in trying to fit in, rather than to change the larger culture. This is a perfect example of why the assimilation argument has won over the core work of cultural change. Just because there are now thousands of same-sex couples does not mean that we have changed the vast majority of attitudes around people being gay. It only means that now, the GLBT community’s energies are almost exclusively focused on either HIV or marriage rights. Forget that we have homeless, hungry, or ‘discarded’ GLBT people – marriage rights for all is the cry of the day. It is a pity that the larger GLBT community could not have embraced a different strategy in our work toward full social equity that would have included the huge numbers of gays/queers who have recognized that marriage is an institution that has not served families very well for a very long time and that there are much better alternatives that do, indeed, promote social stability, growth, and true inclusiveness.
James, I personally do not have a problem with people having any sort of arrangement or relationships as long as they are safe. That is not the point. I think the problem is that Alan assumes or presents the idea that all gays are the same. They aren’t. Alan knows that talking about how gays are promiscuous will turn a lot of people off–some are and some aren’t. It is not necessarily an innateness. That is what offends me. I am a very strong libertarian. Personally, I don’t even think government should be in the marriage business at all, but as long as they are, it is unequal and unfair to many. I think the objections are that Alan paints everyone with the same brush for political gain.
Belledame, I think the propoganda thing is funny too. I have heard pundits say that Brokeback is endorsing gay marriage and is an attempt to get the American people to accept it too. What balderdash! There was nothing about gay marriage in the film anyhow. I doubt Jack and Ennis would have married if there was. I think, as with all good film, different views can be applied to the same film. I can see someone thinking that gay relationships are a bad thing based on the tragedy of the film. I don’t think there is a universal reading of the film. If Brokeback is propaganda, all movies are. All movies manipulate to varying degrees, but to assume that all movies are political is a different issue. I saw very little politics in BM. However, some in society think any story or film that has gay characters has to be political and left-leaning. What a joke!
James, what exactly is GLBT/queer culture and how should we be supporting it?
It is a pity that the larger GLBT community could not have embraced a different strategy in our work toward full social equity that would have included the huge numbers of gays/queers who have recognized that marriage is an institution that has not served families very well for a very long time and that there are much better alternatives that do, indeed, promote social stability, growth, and true inclusiveness.
I disagree with the premise. I think marriage (or some type of formally recognized committed, monogamous relationship between two people) is a wonderful and essential part of human society, and the fact that some people are acting badly of late does not change that. I see this from a different perspective, that we may have in some cases formed and espoused negative views of marriage because it has been denied us. This could be extended to traditional social orders of many types. I think this may have happened in part because some of us had a choice forced upon us at some point in our lives – acknowledge the fact that we are gay and society will not allow you to live a “normal” life. Therefore that “normal” life is not important to me, it is passé, traditional and I am progressive and accepting of all. “You can keep your institution of marriage, I didn’t want it anyway”.
There is a difference between what is unhealthy and what should be “forbidden”. It would be hard to argue that living a life of casual sex with multiple partners is a healthy thing. No matter how careful one is, no matter what one’s sexual orientation is, that is generally a problematic way to live. However, some people have been doing that for a long time, with varying degrees of social acceptance depending on the era. Does that mean it should beforbidden? I don’t think it’s really any of my business. But should it be lauded as an equal alternative to the committed relationship of two people?
In our struggles as gay men and women, we have tried (rightfully) to change society’s rules concerning the understanding, treatment and rights of certain categories of it’s members and thereby hopefully make society as a whole much better for all. Perhaps sometimes it is easy to keep going and think that we must change the rules concerning all behavioral taboos. Maybe that is empathy because we know how it feels to be restricted unrightfully, but not all the rules are bad and many are even essential. Or maybe, for a time, we did get attached to certain categories of not so good behavior because they were the only avenue open to us. Maybe we even began to think of this as “our culture”. While the history of our struggle will always be significant, I think our ultimate destiny is really to be like anyone else; individual members of a greater whole, with our own set of unique characteristics, one of which is that we are attracted to members of the same sex to one degree or another. I don’t think we should consider that a loss of anything, quite the contrary.
David
James,
It has been a while since I’ve heard your positions argued. I recall at one point they were the accepted viewpoint. However time, AIDS, the maturity of our community, and the fact that many who supported your views unexpectedly found themselves in love with one (and only one) person, have caused those views to be less dominant.
Without insult to you or your choices, I personally think that this change is a good thing. Generally, I believe that couples are far more stable and beneficial to society and those gay people in couples seem happier than those with other configurations.
What concerns me in your posting is the assumption that the gay community should stop seeking equality for gay couples in favor of “cultural change” or “better alternatives”. You seem to think that gay people are championing marriage equality only out of a desire for assimilation.
However, it is my experience that most gay people that I know seek a partner not out of some desire to assimilate but out of a greater deeper need to find completion – to focus their love, affection, and care on a single reciprocating person. Most gay people I know have a partner not for some political or social purpose but out of love. And gay groups are addressing these issues because they are impacting gay persons, not because they think it is appealing to heterosexuals.
However, that being said, I don’t think assimilation is a bad direction. Most gay people are born into a heterosexual family and are raised surrounded by heterosexual friends. The desire to retain these friends and family ought not be viewed with suspicion but rather with respect. I don’t buy into some separatist queer outsider status – my sexual orientation ought to be irrelevant to the rest of my life.
Of course, you are certainly welcome to configure your life and your relationships how you best see fit. There are many people, both gay and straight, who should never marry. Perhaps you are one of them. But try to understand that others wish to enjoys the joys of marriage and are thus fighting for that right. Please don’t undermine their efforts.
James,I’d agree with Timothy on this one, and I know he has often taken issue with organized religion who — with all their wealth and influence — seem obsessed with gay men and women and silent on the poor and the destitute.And of course you are welcome to work for social or cultural change. I don’t doubt that wouldn’t be welcomed by many.But in the meantime… some of need to do what we can to protect our relationships, now. Marriage — whether you agree or are indifferent to it — is the way the couples protect their relationships. When a couple is excluded from access to marriage they are denied the abilty to protect the most initimate parts of their lives.Civil Marriage for gay couples, or whatever it is called, does not preclude anyone chosing not to get married. It doesn’t prevent anyone else from getting married and staying married.
Do ex-gay exhibitions and anti-gay programs and speakers have a history at CPAC, or is this a recent trend?
For the record:Alan Chambers as one of the “experts” speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)