Exodus Vice President Randy Thomas wrote an article titled “Grace and Gay Men” that recently appeared in the Focus on the Family webzine Boundless. While doing my best to read it with an unbiased eye, I’ll admit that Randy’s erratic blogging and commenting behavior make that difficult. For whatever reason, the man wipes out his entire blogging history on a repeated and regular basis (which makes accountability for past statements nearly impossible).
Also, it has been my experience that Randy is incapable of allowing for or conducting any open and honest discussion with people who disagree with him. Whether he is willing to admit it or not, those sorts of behaviors take away from the credibility of his content and portray him as disingenuous when he talks about loving homosexuals as Jesus would.
The article is prefaced by a disclaimer that is almost long enough to be a piece on its own. I understand the need for a disclaimer now and then, but Randy writes three paragraphs justifying what he is about to say. Number one, someone important at Exodus can attest to how distraught he has been while writing; second, he has thrown caution to the wind against the good advice of a friend who fears he will be perceived as pro-gay; last, gay men are dying of AIDS so it’s time to toughen up and be forthright about how much he cares about all the gay men dying while headed straight for hell. In my opinion, the long disclaimer, just like Randy’s web etiquette, detracts from the sincerity and impact of the entire piece.
Following the disclaimer, there is a sort of mini-essay in which Randy addresses the Body of Christ and its reluctance to demonstrate love and grace to gay men during the initial days of the AIDS pandemic.
I did not and do not think it is appropriate to stigmatize a large group of men whom the Lord loves, dismissing them as unworthy of our love.
And,
Even today, the overarching consistent message coming from the Christian community has been one of stigmatization and warning.
Randy goes on to write an article about gay men that’s full of stigmatization and warning, spending a fair amount of print convincing the reader of his own depravity in the late 80s. It strikes me as suspect when he talks about friends seeming to drop dead during that time frame with no knowledge of what was killing them. This was 1988.
In 1987 Princess Diana visited AIDS patients in hospitals, the Ray family had their house torched in Alabama because their 3 sons were HIV positive, and Ronald Reagan gave several speeches to various groups about AIDS. In 1988, the American Medical Association urged doctors to break confidentiality to protect potential AIDS victims, and the first WORLD AIDS day took place. These are events that I remember. Statements like this one are puzzling in the context of this particular story:
Up to that point AIDS was killing friends of my friends. I remember the rumors of a “gay” disease that had no name but it didn’t take long for us to learn that it was HIV and quickly becoming the new sexual pandemic.
It’s not so much that I doubt the validity of what Randy is saying so much as it seems that he’s putting various memories together for the sake of convenience. It certainly doesn’t make sense to jump from “gay” disease to HIV since the name AIDS was officially created in 1982 and HIV wasn’t isolated until 1984 — all while he is discussing 1988. Either way, it seems to me that being as street savvy as Randy obviously was at that time, he would have known and understood what AIDS was by 1988. Randy even contradicts himself just a few paragraphs later as he tells about the depraved night of bar-hopping and drug use when he learned of the death of his former and much-loved partner, Ron, from AIDS.
The “party” crowd might not have all known Ron but they all knew what AIDS was and this usually boisterous crowd was eerily humbled.
Randy continues, relating the fear and trauma he experienced as he waited for his own HIV test results in the months that followed Ron’s death. During that time, he was comforted and counseled by his gay friends, but persisted in using drugs. Eventually, he continued pursuing promiscuous sexual relations in spite of the fear that Ron’s death instilled in him. According to Randy, it was his friends in the gay community who finally got through to him about his risky behaviors.
Because of the self-imposed accountability within my gay community, I was not a “slut” for very long.
Before wrapping up his story, Randy reminds us one final time that HIV is a gay issue by quoting Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease.
Once he clears that up, he seems to make an effort to provoke a more progressive line of thinking among evangelical Christians. Randy repeatedly affirms that it was the gay community who ministered to him in ways that eventually led him to Christ and his current Christian worldview. While this is certainly no scathing admonishment for the church, it is a bold statement for the likes of Randy Thomas.
My gut-reaction after reading Randy’s article was “he’s trying to go all Wendy Gritter on us.” If so, and it’s for real, I’ll be the first to acknowledge and applaud him. However, with a three-paragraph disclaimer and his continued insistence that his promiscuity and drug use were the result of his “gay-centered worldview,” I’m not holding my breath.
I’m trying to remember when I read Randy Shilt’s book, “And The Band Played On”.
All things considered, my life in musical theater and all the gay men I’ve known, I didn’t really know someone CLOSE to me who died from AIDS. Over several years, I’ve know older men (in their 40’s and 50’s) who have HIV and are living well. THEY have also been wonderful support and comfort, especially after my lupus diagnosis (on top of OTHER health issues I had.)
It’s still a hushed up issue among straight black folks what HIV/AIDS has done among us. There is still this almost tacit acceptance of inevitability. The same sort of mindset that has created so many children out of wedlock and among premature mothers.
Rural blacks in the Bible belt are more likely to respond this way, that urban dwellers.
But still, Thoma’s blaming his episode of risk on his homosexuality is as insulting as the myth that black folk’s oversexed lives have done the same.
Some people are promiscuous whether gay or not. And THAT is the behavior he should be addressing.
And not addressing who and why some people ARE more prone to promiscuity is more important than playing up again, dangerous myths.
People in the business of putting their lives out in front as community leaders have an obligation to the truth, not stereotypes.
That’s just as bad as the fringe nutters who insist that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
oops, grammatical error. I meant to say, AND ADDRESSING who and why some people are more prone to promiscuity is more important…
You have 10 minutes to edit your comments 😉
There was something very faulty about the article. As mentioned, in 1988, AIDS was known. I did not come out until 1990, but I knew about AIDS as a kid in 1984-1985. It was something that was known by that time. His accounting actually reminds me of Longtime Companion, but LC was set in 1983. I have a hard time believing that he was hearing “rumors.” This reminds me of those who want street cred. and manipulate personal stories to seem like they were “there”.
Who said the only time frame being referenced was 1988? … Actually … no time frame was referenced other than the broad ’80s.
You all missed the opportunity and proved what I knew you would do in response to this.
Poor misunderstood Randy. I read this thing a while ago, and at the time, I was struck far more about his portrayal of all gays as hopped up, sex addicted automatons that couldn’t stop partying even after the clubs closed. Not really a lifestyle I could relate to in the 80’s or now, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
It was almost a “prostitute(s) with a heart of gold story.”
If Randy is really concerned about Christian’s showing love to gays, he should recognized that enshrining discrimination in our Constitution, diligently working to protect those who commit hate crimes, and protecting employers who want to fire their gay employees (to name just a few) aren’t acts of love. They are part of the agenda of hate that Randy is currently signed onto while he waxes nostalgic about a group of gays who were nice to him in a burger joint in Tennessee.
You seem to have referenced 1988 specifically. That would make you about 20 at that point? Drinking age was 21 there, so I guess you started early 😉
What is that?
well, I did actually reference 1988 … my bad. But, that doesn’t negate that I was in the bars when aids first started killing people and we didn’t know what the cause was. It also doesn’t negate that many people were still dying not knowing they had the virus until it was too late.
I started going to gay bars looong before I was 21. Enough said.
You started gay bar-hopping when you were 13?? Because by 1982, that mysterious “Gay-Related Immune Deficiency” was accurately identified and renamed AIDS, and by ’83 HIV had been identified. I hope that questioning, struggling gays out there considering ex-gay “therapy” don’t look at Randy’s story and think “wow! he must’ve lived the epitome of gay life! That’s not what I want!” because I’ve never heard of 13 year olds, or even 15 or 16 year olds, getting into seedy gay bars. besides, who are you gonna hope to meet except for pederasts? Creepy.
Actually, it should not be a surprise. I was brought to an underground gay bar at that same age by gay friends who is trying to get rid of my closeted skirts which they hate seeing on me. And remember, I am in a moslem country and is part of a conservative Asian society? : )
Randy,
I would sincerely (really and truly) like to know what you mean by this. I truly would like to understand you. And it’s okay if we don’t agree. But can you just explain this? I will absolutely listen and would actually like to know what opportunity I missed. Lord knows I’ve missed my share in my time.
um….. “trying to go all Wendy Gritter on us”…. 🙂
This posts reminds me, as it should remind all leaders within Exodus, that our words, our actions, and our intentions need to be consistent. If we say that we are advocating loving treatment of gay people – then it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate that across the board.
While no one likes to be criticized…. a snarky response only serves to reinforce the criticism. I plead with Exodus leaders engaged on this site (or any other public or private forum) to be gracious – consistently gracious – in navigating critique and disagreement. Gracious is not being a doormat. Gracious does not mean not speaking truth. Rather, gracious is incarnating the presence of Christ who served and gave his life for those who misunderstood him.
I concur Randy with the folks here…WHAT do you mean? You bring it up or make a complaint and then RUN before anyone can really respond.
Yeah, and your timeline WAS your bad. What else isn’t quite adding up?
I was wondering about your math too, your age when you starting going to gay bars.
Were they bars, or house parties? Was it with young folks near your age, or are you suggesting that now you were accompanying a pedophile to an adult establishment when you went…and they let you in without i.d?
Randy, you have an opportunity NOW, to do some ‘splaining.
I know EXACTLY where I was in 1988. I literally had run away and joined the circus. No…really.
Please Regan, that’s not helpful. It’s one thing to be skeptical of a claim, and quite another to leap to such a conclusion as that.
I have heard that it was common in rural states or smaller cities for gay bars to let in underage kids in the 80’s. Heck, so did straight bars. The culture in those places at that time did not think it inappropriate.
Further, while HIV and AIDS was killing people in San Francisco and New York, just 50 miles south of SF, I didn’t know anyone who died of AIDS until 1987 or 1988. And even then it was sorta hushed up. I recall that other mysterious ailments seemed to magically mushroom as reasons for death around that time.
So I can at least somewhat buy into Randy’s timeline.
But there is one aspect of the story that does not ring true to me.
It seems that this guy died immediately after a sexual liason with Randy – or at least within the three month window. Considering the death and disease pattern in 1988, I find that rather unlikley.
The earliest strains of HIV killed quickly. But by 1988 most folks lingered and went through bouts of heath and sickness. And you could often tell by looking who had been battling AIDS for a while.
Perhaps it was as Randy said. I certainly don’t know. So I’ll give him the benefit on the doubt.
… just 50 miles south of SF in San Jose, …
(for some reason I couldn’t edit)
I commented at great length on Randy Thomas’s article here, with probably a lot more sensitivity than Thomas has earned.
Thomas has never lived “the gay lifestyle.” He lived the Randy Thomas Lifestyle of drugs and casual sex, while his gay friends warned him not to live the lifestyle that he chose for himself.
I lived a gay lifestyle in Nashville at the same time as Thomas — no drugs, no sex (besides the big M), and ample faith.
Thomas seems increasingly incapable of communicating without resorting to sweeping malicious falsehoods, scapegoating, and blame for his own poor lifestyle choices — past and present.
He is an unhappy man. And that’s honestly quite sad.
This is the passive/aggressive response we’ve come to expect from Randy.
And Wendy, beyond saying they advocate loving treatment of gay people, can you name anything Exodus actually does which promotes loving treatment of gay people?
Something small even, like supporting anti-bullying laws to protect gay (and straight) school children?
Anything at all?
Just clarifying my last comment:
“Gay-centered worldview” and “gay identity” are Thomas’s rephrasing of the tired old “gay lifestyle” meme. They mean almost exactly the same thing.
Even in 1983-84, the church where I attended/worked would share the sanctuary with a group of Haitian refugees in a later service. There were several problems with people concerned about becoming infected — most still didn’t realize that it was not possible to catch through casual contact. Haiti had a high infection rate at that time, and people were pretty scared in general anyway. It was a rough time.
Local gay bars and gay organizations, even in this backwoods part of the world, had fundraising events by 1988 to support those who were sick and indigent. And the aids quilt had already been on the mall in Washington DC by 87. I believe there was probably a hushed foreboding that went along with speculation about this or that person being ill, but there was no doubt about what was happening.
As much as I see issues with the timeline, I am much more concerned about the tone and message of the article in general. Being promiscuous, hedonistic and addicted to illegal substances is once again connected, not with lousy choices and questionable character, but with “living a gay-identified life.” The entire thing is filled with death, dying and AIDS, and the one blurb about the presumably incredible idea that someone gay might actually be used by God to comfort another hardly redeems it.
I have to ask, how can someone who is part of a ministry that aspires to help GLBTs continue to cast such a warped view of their lives? And Regan (and Pam) is right, I’ve never seen Randy address concerns like these in a meaningful manner. I’m actually shocked that he commented at all.
You have a chance Randy, take it. No excuses about indulging the opposition or whatever else, just discuss.
David, thank you for that concise overview of the timeline. I only just today learned of the “4-h’s,” Homosexuals, Heroin addicts, Haitians, and Hemophiliacs. I had no idea “Haitians” was one of them, and that surprises me, but just shows i always have much more to learn.
I’ll give randy the benefit of the doubt, i’ll concede he didn’t know about AIDS as late as ’88, or that he was clubbing when he was 14 and that it was considered “normal” for him. That being said, I hope that Randy comments. We’re all ears (eyes.)
I couldn’t agree more with this. My youth gay lifestyle didn’t involve drugs or sex either, and it still today would bore you if i described it. Being a woman, of course, changes things – women are more known for being “emotionally dependent” than promiscuous bar-hoppers in the ex-gay community – but nonetheless, that is/was my “gay lifestyle,” I’m an example, along with Mike Airhart, of a very unexciting gay lifestyle. And, like Mike, I was/is religious, in my case as a Jewish person. My Jewish lifestyle at the time was more exciting than my gay lifestyle.
I’ll give Randy the benefit of the doubt about the timeline also, but I am still skeptical. Any newspaper, TV news, etc. was talking about it. Even in a rural area, it would be pretty tough to ignore. I was a young teenager, and I was pretty aware of what was going on just on the news. The rumor thing still sounds fishy.
I also felt the concern Timothy brought up is true.
My fear is if the info is incorrect and Randy is publishing this info, it can have a different effect. He seems to be placing himself, like others we have discussed here, in a position of authority–having experienced the whole range of gay “subculture”, and many who listen to the story may not question it. However, Randy may have been ignorant of world and national issues at the time, so I will give him a break.
Randy actually seems to practice the “gay-centered worldview” that he falsely accuses others of practicing.
Most gay folks view sexual orientation as one small part of their lives, and the die-out of gay bars across the country in the past 10 years seems to confirm that to some extent: People in many large cities have assimilated and moved on. The John Paulk scandal could not happen in D.C. today because the bars where Paulk would hang out no longer exist.
For Thomas, however, the thought or avoidance of man-on-man sex consumes his entire worldview.
As a product of the 80s, I remember quite well the AIDS scare. Even straight people were buying codomns because of the fear of the disease moreso than for the fear of getting or getting someone pregnant. But also being a child of the 80s, gays did not get the support from family, community, and church that (thank God) at least some of our youth of today are receiving. We pretty much had to wing it on our own. And like playing basketball without any rules, it’s fun to play as long as you’re in control of the ball. So a lot of us probably just went out and partied and hooked up etc. At “the bars” its all about partying and hooking up, and couples who frequented the bars tended to be looking for a trade-in. So seeing the gay world from the perspective of the gay bar, it was easy for me, and sure many others, to think that there is no such thing as a long-term commitment, a life-long relationship. It wasn’t until I saw gays who were out of the bar scene, who were church goers, who had children, or who were neither church goers nor had children but were in a solid committed relationship that I realized that there are more than one style of gay living.
Because I had been told that the “gay lifestyle” is just about drugs, sex, orgies, being permiscuous, etc., I had to learn about the other side of what being gay really means. But, so did my straight friends in their straight world. They partied too, they hooked up, and yet, because society has well-established and well-approved an alternative to that (aka marriage), they knew that they could choose A or B: A) hook up or B) get married. I think for some of us who were gay in the 80s and 90s, the choice “B” was not as clearly defined for us because: A) society was not projecting the image of committed gay couples, B) our parents had no idea about being gay and most likely saw it as a sin or as being evil, C) when your only encounters with other gay people is in a bar setting the concept of what being gay is differs greatly than if you met other gays (openly) at church or some other function like that.
What I see in a lot of these ex-gay gays is that they are a product of encountering other gays mainly in a bar setting, and so they project their experiences “at the bar” and equate it to the “gay lifestyle.” It’s as if they can’t get past that. It’s a shame because like many of my straight friends who partied and hooked up and had their fun as teenagers and young adults, they finally settled down and are with the one they love, so too that has happened to me, and I am sure to countless others.
I believe our job is to educate young gays so they can have choices as well. Not the choices the ex-gays constantly propose – self denial, but educating the youth so they can have the power to make their decisions and know that they can be in committed, loving, and giving relationships if they so want to.
Thomas’ latest:
Well Randy, the “valuable feedback” here, is in regard to having access to your past statements, and not with your accountability to those you surround yourself with.
—
But this isn’t about you as a hobbyist blogger, it’s about you as a professional, who is at often times blogging about his ex-gay profession – as the vice president of Exodus International.
You suggest that those who would hold you accountable should contact you privately, yet you openly define me as sexual in a way that is somehow
belowabove and beyond human sexuality itself.Now, clearly your post is in response to this thread, which was in regard to your article entitled “Grace and Gay Men,” in which you essentially hold the entire “gay community” responsible for AIDS itself:
“Hold the gay community accountable.”
I’m assuming this position of yours is why you neglected to mention Ex-Gay Watch in your recent post. Because the “gay community” (or in Pam‘s, Regan’s et al, case, the “pro-gay community”), is to answer to ‘you,’ and be held accountable by ‘you.’
Thus, as I see it, the only “grace” you have offered to the gay / pro-gay community, is the notion that we should be subservient, especially when it comes to our need to hold you accountable for past statements.
You didn’t even recognize this enough to address it.
In freely choosing maintain my own accountable….and in the off-chance I could well be “pruned” away at Randy’s blog…here are the comments I made to him regarding his justification post for being unaccountable to the blog community by erasing entire parts of blogs and comments.
I’ll be away from the conversation for the rest of the day. Play nice. There’s a wicked time-out corner waiting from David Roberts if you don’t. heehee! 😉
That’s a nice comment, pam, but good luck. I think randy “prunes” more comments than posts blog entries. The only feedback he thinks is valuable and acknowledges are the positive comments he gets from people who agree with him on everything.
I really don’t understand the fuss everyone is making about the timeline in Randy’s piece. When I read it, I don’t see an attempt to create an exact chronology. He’s making a point–a largely positive point!–about the gay community’s response to AIDS. In doing so, he mixes together two stories: 1) the way he heard about his friend’s death, which happened on one night in (he says) 1988, and 2) the whole unfolding of awareness and response to AIDS in the gay community, which took place over a decade.
Well, so what? It’s not as if he’s claiming to have played a central personal role in story 2.
I myself credit Randy in so far as he challenges conservative, anti-gay Christians to acknowledge something positive about the gay community. He acknowledges the way gay people have cared for each other through the AIDS crisis. He even credits gay friends for pulling him away from self-destructive behavior. That’s a lot more positive than anything else I’ve ever heard Randy say about gay people.
Everything else I’ve ever seen by Randy Thomas leads me to agree with Pam’s opening comment that he seems ” incapable of allowing for or conducting any open and honest discussion with people who disagree with him. ” So I’m not unduly impressed by the change of tone in this one essay. But most of the comments here, trying to pick the piece apart over chronology, miss the point entirely.
Actually, most of the comments here so far give him the benefit of the doubt on the timeline, Nick, but even Randy appears to admit in his comments above that his portrayal is a bit confusing. I’m not sure just who is missing the point, most seem to have gotten it rather well.
NickC, here is the problem. Stephen Bennett is a good example of someone who has a personal testimony to set himself up as an authority on gay issues. To Christians who listen to him, they believe Stephen’s accounts; however, as has been pointed out here, there are problems and a lack of proof in his “testimony” even though he uses his supposed experience to counter gay rights.
Randy’s account is also presented to the Christian community that often misunderstands gay people. He of course shows some empathy, but here is the problem: his account sounds like almost every movie I have ever seen about the early days of AIDS. It comes off as too pat. We know that Randy does promote some anti-gay issues and policies, but he buffers it with items like this. Oddly, I have never questioned Chambers’ experience, but Randy has often been guarded about his experience, and his stories often seem “unreal.” I could be wrong, but this is a case where again the timeline does not seem correct, yet Randy is still going to do what he can to hurt the gay community.
Timelines aren’t usually very important, but his story sounds too fake and formulated–the timeline reenforces that.
Hi David, I hadn’t reached a conclusion at all. I was trying to ask a question. It might have been a pretty outrageous question, but conclusion?
Nah.
It’s getting so there is no variance in what those who say they are no longer living gay tell us about their pasts.
I am skeptical that ALL these gay folks were the same way, doing almost all the same things and their associations were with the same kinds of gay people.
Sorry gang, but I can tell you in all honesty that my circle of associates is pretty vast. And if someone shares a similar trait, being gay…of color, Armenian or of the same religion…NOBODY seems to have and do the same things AS A GROUP, the way ex gays describe themselves and their associations with or as being gay.
And virtually all in a negative context.
Because Pam mentioned there were varying answers, I came back for a read through but am not going to engage in ongoing discussions on this thread.
I didn’t clarify the missed opportunity because for me to name the opportunity would remove its possibility of ever happening naturally.
Nick C hit the nail on the head … perfectly. Thank you. I loved Ron (and other partners I have not mentioned), I loved/love my gay friends. I credit them with saving my life and being there for me when the church wasn’t. As stated in the article through a pointed question to the Church, I do believe Christ used gay men in my life to save my life.
It’s time they got hip to that reality of God’s sovereignty and the basic dignity of those who identify as gay.
I have received more emails on this article than anything I have written before. People email about weeping through it because they have empathy to grieve their lost same sex partners, family members and friends. I have Christians emailing me about how the article led them to repentance for harsh attitudes toward the gay community.
… and on and on.
I share stories like this often but lately I have been going to more in depth details. I just don’t blog or write much about them because they are close to my heart and people just like to be vicious. I want to make sure I am sharing these parts of my testimony with the right motivations and be strong enough to handle when people don’t hear or refuse to hear what I am trying to share.
NickC, I am sorry you feel that this is the first time you have ever seen this side of how I deal with the issue. I will work harder to change that.
For the record, she told you that there were some “very nice comments of support.”
It’s unfortunate this appears to be the only thing she said that you heard. I’ve found Pam to have great intuition, discernment, and far more patience and “grace” than I can usually muster even on a good day. If she rebukes you, you probably need it. But instead of responding to her comments on your own blog, you cast yourself as Jesus being tricked by religious leaders, something I’ve seen you do before.
As long as your litmus test about who you will and will not respond to is how much they are willing to agree with you, you will continue to run into a brick wall when you ask to be understood and trusted by anyone but a yes-man.
Randy,
I am not sure that I could be anywhere near as vicious to you as you have been to me and other gays and lesbians.
I have never worked to shield criminals who might attack you for being ex-gay identified or evangelical Christian.
I have never worked to prevent you as an ex-gay identified man from marrying a woman (even if I do personally think it would be unwise).
I have never worked to protect employers who might want to fire you for being ex-gay identified or evangelical Christian.
You have dedicated yourself to the pursuit of a very vicious agenda against gays and lesbians. You have acted again and again publicly to try to deny gays and lesbians equal rights. Surely you can understand that gays and lesbians are going to approach anything you say with a great deal of skepticism. You appear to be reaping what you have sown.
More passive/aggressive behavior. A textbook example.
John, you hit my feelings spot on! There is nothing worse than an enemy who says he or she is your friend but still is working to hurt you.
Not to mention that those pasts were at least a decade ago. They seem to fixate on the 70’s and 80’s, as though gays not only started the AIDS crisis all on their own (hell some imply or lead people to believe AIDS magically creates itself when two homos make whoopee) but that the crisis itself didn’t change people’s view of sex at all.
Yeah, and there are no convincing scare tactics used against us queer women. Our sexual practices are, statistically, the “safest” (but I take that with a grain of salt) and we’re not classically knowing for cramming into bath-houses to have anonymous encounters. People like Mike Ensley who counsel youth think they know the young gay culture today. PLEASE. Here’s a news flash from an actual gay youth (I’m 23, i came out when i was 15): If you leave us alone and let us give living “normal” lives an attempt, chances are, we’ll turn out as okay as our heterosexual counterparts. We’ll meet up in safe, friendly Gay Straight Alliances at our schools where we can plan social events together instead of doing what Randy allegedly did, which is sneak into gay bars at age 14 where 40-somethings are lurking. We’ll court and date those we’re attracted to instead of suppressing ourselves out of shame until we can sneak away anonymously to a bathroom.
Randy re-posted one of the articles he wrote in which he ascribes selfishness and believing in the “unholy trinity of me, myself, and I” to homosexuality. He claims being gay forced him to pigeonhole himself. Here’s a tip, Randy: Nobody can pigeonhole you unless you let them. Nobody’s forcing you to become the lowest of gay stereotypes. No one is forcing you to take drugs. Oh, and also, gays have more kinds of social groups other than bath-houses and crack houses. We also play sports and dance and travel and such. Becoming ex-gay (and ex-gay for pay, at that) to avoid being pigeonholed? Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire!! What could be more stifling than living your life focusing on avoiding and suppressing your same-sex attractions?? It puts sex at the center of everything! You deserve more out of life than that. You’re in your 40’s now. You should go out and live. Leave us gays alone and just live your life.
I wonder what Randy’s past friends that helped him through his ‘gay lifestyle’ would think about his words and actions against gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws.
I saw that too, Nick, but I still think it was a missed opportunity on Mr. Thomas’ fault. He did seem to give the gay community some credit for force-feeding him the message of “safe sex,” which he credits for helping him change his self-destructive behavior. But he does not make the bigger, and more important, leap to understanding how powerful the gay community’s impact on HIV/AIDS was, and how much more powerful that response would have been had it been backed up by sound and reasonable public health strategies.
When HIV/AIDS first appeared, it was the nearly complete lack of governmental concern (remember Pat Buchanan was on his “fags deserve to die” meme in the early 80s) that drove the LGBT community to working within its own means to fight the epidemic. Much of the decline in the rate of infections before the rise of the protease inhibitors in the mid-90s was because of the effective prevention strategies used by so many different LGBT groups.
But I have NEVER seen anyone on the anti-gay side express this understanding at all. Sure, Mr. Thomas only brings it up in relation to his own issues, but both the caring and concern of the gay community is nearly never acknowledged by those who would destroy us.
I’m not quite sure whether to be flattered or dismayed by Randy Thomas’s enthusiasm for my earlier comment.
I still appreciate that he made a basically positive point about the gay community’s response to AIDS. And I still find the hubbub over his timeline pointless. I spent 13 years as a writer and editor for a religious magazine with lots of personal stories. I can tell you: Almost everyone screws up dates and timelines.
But I didn’t mean to let Randy off the hook for his general stereotyping of gay life. I agree with others here that Randy projects his own limited experience on our whole community.
My life has followed a trajectory somewhat like Randy’s. I came out when I was 18 and spent a couple of years in a “gay lifestyle” focused on bars and casual sex. That was 1970 to 1972 on Castro Street in San Francisco—a wild time and place by any reckoning. (And pace Dave Roberts, I had no trouble getting into bars even though I was under 21.)
Then I had a religious conversion that led me to pursue the “ex-gay lifestyle” for 30 years. Throughout that time, my image of gay life remained fixed on what I’d seen in my two short years on Castro.
When I came out again six years ago, I was almost shocked to discover how different today’s gay community has become. Partly, that’s because I myself am older and living a different kind of life, so I meet a very different group of people. But even among my youngest friends, I find a focus on relationships, family, commitment, and career that I don’t remember at all from the gay world of my youth.
Obviously, AIDS has been one factor behind this change. But I think the growing acceptance of gay life as normal is an even bigger factor. Young gay people today have far more models of a healthy life than I did when I was 18.
My real problem with Randy Thomas is not just that he continues to view our community through the lenses of his own past experience. In his frequently voiced opposition to everything from equal rights protection in the workplace to prevention of hate crimes against gays, Randy fights to maintain the social stigma on gay people that would keep all of us locked in that old self-destructive lifestyle. In a way, he needs our community to remain unhealthy in order to confirm his own life choices.
I think that’s pathetic—whether or not he gets his dates right.
Brilliant and well-said, NickC. I couldn’t have put it better or more concisely. Randy is not the only ex-gay to benefit from the gay community being unhealthy. Feeding off of our destruction to justify one’s self – that is just evil at its purest. I, too, find this pathetic – and much more.
NickC:
I agree. I also see how this is just like a war tactic. You have to make your enemy look worse than he/she really is in order to convince others that “the enemy” is truly “the enemy.” Unfortunately what those like Randy don’t realize is that their enemy is themselves. They hate their past and now they are going to take it out on everyone else. It’s also about responsibility and oweing up to what one has done in their past. Not all of us have been priviledged to have an immaculate conception and walk around with haloes over our heads since birth. I think all of us can say at least at one point in our lives we did something that we now look back and say, “OK, let’s just sweep that one under the rug, shall we?” This, “I was a sinner now I’m saved” routine misses the point. We are redeemed when we come to terms with our humanity, not when we claim to be some “Super Christian, able to avoid sin at a single bound.” It’s when we accept ourselves for who and what we are that we truly receive redemption.
I always see the ex-gay gays as always saying, “Look at me, I’m normal now. You can love me now God. You can love me now family and friends.” It’s all about approval, wanting it so desperately that they will sacrifice their very souls at any price to be accepted by God and those of their faith. How sad to live in that constant fear that if you revert back God won’t love you anymore. Your family and friends won’t love you anymore. It’s amazing when one trades love for and of God for fear of God. Not fear as in holy reverence, but fear as in mortal terror of God. Sad.
“I always see the ex-gay gays as always saying, “Look at me, I’m normal now. You can love me now God. You can love me now family and friends.””
Hate to break it to you but for those who say stuff like that you can pretty much assume they haven’t changed at all. Someone who has changed from within for the right reasons sees no reason to call attention to it. So for those who think that God only loves you if you live a life that “looks” a certain way you’re gravely misinformed. No matter what God loves you! The notion the God waits for us to change before we seem worthy of His love is wrong. HUMANITY DOESN’T DESERVE GOD’S LOVE but yet God still loves us soo much he sent Jesus to die on the cross for the World’s SIN. Not the worlds sin minus the gay part. That’s the lie people are being fed by the world-not just the gay world either. The “holy grail” of the gay movement is to have every institution and religion in the world bless and help further the cause of homosexuality. Anything less is deemed homophobic.
Hmm, actually the goal of this particular gay person, and most of the gays I’ve met is simple : to be left alone and to live my life how I see fit, with the man I love. I don’t require anyone’s approval, and people are certainly well within their rights to disagree with me.
The part I object to is that who I love is a threat to them or society and the belief that my rights need to be restricted to preserve their religious bigotry.
People of the Jewish faith do not eat pork. There are some other diet rules that I’m not entirely clear on, I believe certain kinds of food may not be prepared or eaten together, and that certain requirements are needed to render food “kosher”.
Hindus also have diet restrictions based on deeply held beliefs.
So, why is it that I do not see Hindus or Jews trying to pass laws that enforce their religious beliefs on others? Why have I not seen an active, vocal Jewish lobby to outlaw the sale of pork? Pork certainly isn’t the most healthy and safe food out there, so it would not be hard to suggest a health concern regarding it.
Perhaps Jewish and Hindu people have a strong faith. A faith so strong they can practice their faith without needing everyone else on board by force. Perhaps they realize that the existence of other options doesn’t negate them or their faith. Perhaps they realize that being fair to everyone means allowing people to choose things that offend them deeply.
It’s a pity certain Christians lack a strong enough faith to come to that place of understanding.
Hate to break it to you but for those who say stuff like that you can pretty much assume they haven’t changed at all. Someone who has changed from within for the right reasons sees no reason to call attention to it. So for those who think that God only loves you if you live a life that “looks” a certain way you’re gravely misinformed.
So wait, are you criticising gays or exgays? I’m confused.
That’s very flattering, Jason, and thank you as a Jew. The reason for this, I believe, is that we Jews in America are living outside of Israel, our homeland. In Israel, the Orthodoxy has quite a stranglehold on food restrictions as well as homosexuality. Places like Tel Aviv, which are modern and progressive, do have an active GLBTQ community. Israel also recognizes civil unions and gay marriages made in other countries. But not everyone is an ultra-orthodox and Israel is a democracy, not a theocracy. Non-Jews, including Christians, live there. There is a struggle between worlds there as a result – a clash between orthodoxy and secularism. Afterall, Israel is the Jewish Holy Land! Should not it be completely kosher?? But others live there who are not “kosher.”
But back in America, we are the minority. As we were in Egypt, we are strangers living in a land that does not belong to us. Therefor, we must respect the others around us. One of the heaviest commandments from the Torah is to treat strangers kindly, for “You were strangers in the Land of Egypt. I am the L-rd.”
In addition, Biblically, we Jews are NOT supposed to overflow the earth. We are supposed to be small in number. Biblically, what will happen according to our religion, is that G-d will make his presence known very obviously when the anointed one comes in the end times, that you won’t have to “believe.” You will KNOW. Does that mean everyone will become Jewish? NO. It means that there will be many B’nai Noach, children of Noah. These are “righteous Gentiles,” for lack of a better term – those who follow 7 Noachide laws but aren’t Jewish. You can eat whatever you want when you are a Noachide. Some Sages wrote in the Oral Law that abstaining from “sexual immorality” – one of the 7 rules – prescribes abstention from homosexual acts. I disagree. And while I probably have a much more liberal view of religious pluralism than say Chabad adherents, I don’t personally believe this negates the Torah. Once again, I stress that this is just me.
Jews have always found a way to live among pagans. Mainly by following Torah and not being afraid to live as a very different culture. The most orthodox and traditional of us continue this today.
Gibblez wrote:
The “cause” of homosexuality? Don’t you mean the “sin” of homosexuality?
And by “gay movement” I assume you mean “gay agenda.”
Gibblez wrote:
And the “holy grail” of the ex-gay movement is to have every institution and religion in the world curse and injure homosexuals. Anything less is deemed against God.
If you ever get a chance to read the four-fold Gospel found in the beginning of the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible, and actually allow the words to speak to you, and that you learn about Christ through his words and deeds, if you find out who Christ really is and what he stands for, perhaps then Gay Christianity will not be so foreign to you.
If you ever
Emikly said: “I only just today learned of the “4-h’s,” Homosexuals, Heroin addicts, Haitians, and Hemophiliacs. I had no idea “Haitians” was one of them, and that surprises me, but just shows i always have much more to learn. ”
There was a joke oging around inthe 80’s>
You know what the most difficult part of having AIDS? Trying to convince your parents that your Haitian.