Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) sent out a mailing today titled “NAACP Rocks,” referencing a 2006 letter of appreciation from the organization to PFOX. According to the attached copy, PFOX held an exhibit at the NAACP annual convention that year. It is not yet known if they participated in 2007 or if they will be there this year, but the email suggests they plan on participating in 2009.
The PFOX exhibit displayed useful information on unwanted same-sex attractions and tolerance for the ex-gay community. We distributed many brochures, flyers, stickers, and buttons. The attendees were enthusiastic about our booth and our ex-gay volunteers staffing the booth were well received. Many people remarked at how glad they were to see us and took extra handouts to distribute at their church back home. Gay groups like the Human Rights Campaign have exhibited at the NAACP for many years, but PFOX was the first and only ex-gay booth there.
We would like to exhibit there next year. Please make a love offering at https://www.pfox.org/donate.htm or send a gift to the address below so we can pay the exhibit booth fee.
Thanks and see you at the NAACP convention next year!
Here are examples of the brochures PFOX might have circulated.
According to the NAACP contract for exhibit space (as of this year), PFOX could secure a presence for as little as $500. The rules to exhibit seem pretty lax, though one would hope that groups which seek to curtail the rights of others would be antithetical to the goals of the NAACP. Ironically, PFOX considers themselves a civil rights group, protecting the rights of ex-gays, and referring to them as a separate and distinct orientation. This enables them to use verbiage lifted from organizations working for GLBT rights, the very rights that PFOX seeks to negate. That bit of sad logic is an apt testament to the anger and bitterness so common to PFOX.
It is not known why there was a two year delay before this was announced. XGW has no record of the information being public before now, and we haven’t yet received a reply to our query from the NAACP. The letter has a boiler-plate structure to it and could be the standard sent out to all participants.
It is a pleasure for me to express appreciation to you for having been an exhibitor during our 97′ Annual Convention Commerce and Industry Show in Washington, D.C., July 15 – 18, 2006.
It is a pleasure for me to express appreciation to you for having been an exhibitor during our 97′ Annual Convention Commerce and Industry Show in Washington, D.C., July 15 – 18, 2006. We value your support and participation as the NAACP works to assure full rights and equal opportunities for all of our citizens. Cooperatively addressing shared concerns contributed significantly to the effective implementation of our vital
programs.The success of our 97′ Annual Convention was due in large measure to the support provided by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays + Gays. We were gratified by the enthusiasm and avid participation of our delegates, members and friends from across the nation who expressed many favorable comments about our convention. The additional audiences we reached through our web cast are also aware of your involvement as a contributor to our historic 97thAnnual Convention.
One still must wonder if an organization with antisemitic or racist overtones would be approved to exhibit, much less receive a letter of thanks for doing so. Perhaps they were confused by the “and Gays” that PFOX tacked onto their name some years ago. It has been suggested that this was done at the advice of civil rights attorney and longtime PFOX Vice President Estella Salvatierra to enable greater access to groups which would not wish to be part of anti-gay efforts, but who might see “Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays” as more neutral. But again, a simple Google search (or even a scan of their website) would reveal the more accurate and odious nature of PFOX, so this is indeed puzzling, even disappointing news.
The letter is signed by Bruce S. Gordon, President and CEO. Gordon resigned in March 2007 after expressing frustration with the job.
The NAACP says they welcome comments. If you reach them, please be civil and share any responses below. They may honestly be unaware of the nature of PFOX and their goals.
No word yet on whether PFOX representatives managed to generate any “attacks” during this event.
—
NAACP National Headquarters
Mailing Address: 4805 Mt. Hope Drive, Baltimore MD 21215
Toll Free: (877) NAACP-98
Local: (410) 580-5777
I would be surprised if they generate any “gays”, since they believe there is no such thing and believe gays can and should change, but not the same standard is applied to straights who want out of OSAD “Opposite Sex Attraction Disorder”. Hardly a true “friend” to “gays”.
I do wonder whether there seriously would be another possible fabricated attack. That way everyone would ask them, “Is there a split in your organization?”. Perhaps then NAACP would start to notice the PFOX’s intolerace towards the gay and ex-ex-gay community.
Good point. Shouldn’t it be PFOXGI?
Parents and friends of Ex Gays and the Gay Identified
I think PFOX is fine. Pursuing Fantasies Of X-Gayness.
I can’t say I have appreciated some of the ways PFOX has been administrated. There are things I disagree with in their approach. However, you state in this post:
“The rules to exhibit seem pretty lax, though one would hope that groups which seek to curtail the rights of others would be antithetical to the goals of the NAACP.” Then you encourage people to contact NAACP to, I presume not allow PFOX to exhibit
So, if I am reading you right you would like to curtail the rights of PFOX from exhibiting at NAACP?
How does that make sense? How is that not hypocritical?
We live in a world of diverse opinion, do we just censure everyone we disagree with? I might not like the way PFOX is run, but I don’t desire to curtail their rights to exhibit anymore than I would want to curtail HRC from exhibiting–even though I disagree with certain aspects of their group as well.
We live in a world of diverse opinion, do we just censure everyone we disagree with?
You’re right. They should let white supremacist groups exhibit there too if they want. So long as they don’t advocate violence, that is. If they advocate discrimination against racial minorities, that shouldn’t be a reason to censor their views at the NAACP convention, as long as they don’t advocate violence. They shouldn’t censor anyone just because they disagree with them.
Wow, Karen, such harsh words 😉
Your assumption is incorrect. My reason for contacting the NAACP is, as I suggested, to find out if they are fully aware of the nature of PFOX and their actual mission. If they are and were when they allowed them to exhibit, then that says something about the NAACP that readers should know. If they were not, then how they respond is also of interest.
The NAACP has a long history of fighting for civil rights. They have made statements supporting gay rights as civil rights, and backed ENDA. So would you not consider it hypocritical of them to allow an anti-gay rights organization to exhibit at their own convention?
As for PFOX having a right to exhibit, I’m not aware of any such right. They can and do employ various media to communicate their views, and we do the same in order to allow people to use their own judgment. But there is nothing that says someone must invite PFOX or anyone else into their living room to spread their views. That would convey a certain degree of agreement with such views and again, people should know if that is indeed the case.
The principle is analogous to the KKK asking to exhibit — do you think the NAACP should have an obligation to allow that? Only the Government can practice First Amendment censorship, that is a Red Herring in this instance. But I am curious about how you twice worded your thoughts about PFOX:
This sounds like you agree with their basic mission, but have some issues with the way, oh say, the office is run. Are you basically in agreement with PFOX? And likewise, what are the “certain aspects” about the HRC with which you disagree? You are quite vague about where you stand. Is there a reason for that?
Trying to have it both ways, so to speak? PFOX is not a violent organization. As far as I know, they are not attacking anyone or any organization. I have heard them defend themselves against attacks, and defend those who are being personally criticized. Certainly consistent with NAACP principles, yes? You keep throwing out organizations like KKK and white supremacists — groups which do advocate adverse discrimination. PFOX is not in that business. And surely you don’t think the scientific case is closed for the permanence of same sex attraction. Because it certainly is not. So PFOX does have a role to play and people to represent.
Where have we said PFOX was physically violent? The KKK “defends itself against attacks and those who are being personally criticized” as well, what does this have to do with anything?
If indeed a person could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, then what kind of civil rights are they defending, those of a straight person? They work against gay rights under the guise of fighting for the rights of ex-gays — it’s a sham at the very least, using people with their own issues to fuel the entire thing.
There message is “see, gays can change so they don’t deserve rights.” That’s hardly in line with the stance of the NAACP. At their core, PFOX works against the rights of gays. I think a full accounting of how PFOX works using their own words and actions would be a good future post.. Until then, you can review our archives.
Hi David,
Thanks for your clarification. Yes, it would be interesting either way what the NAACP thinks of the ex-gay concept.
I am not really familiar with all the details of what the NAACP gets involved with, but I imagine they probably have exhibitors in which some of their adherents agree and some don’t. For example, some of their membership may have traditional views on homosexuality and some may have progressive views. I imagine some are very supportive of ex-gay ministry and some are supportive of HRC.
The mission of the NAACP is: “to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.”
You will find ex-gay affiliated folk who are just as active against racial discrimination as those who are gay affirming. So why can’t both be part of the organization?
Is PFOX as an organization actively involved in lobbying against gay rights? They may have certain opinions, but aren’t they an information/public awareness group? If they are not actively involved in the political process of denying gays rights to housing, employment etc, then what would be the conflict with NAACP?
To be equally fair, does HRC support political legislation that might curtail the rights of people of faith from freely speaking their beliefs on homosexuality? I am very concerned that my voice as an “ex-gay” is being more and more censored. Why does my voice not have equal access in sexuality curriculum training in the schools? If HRC would want to curtail my rights as an ex-gay, should they be allowed at the NAACP exhibit? (To be clear I do not see “ex-gay” as a “class” to be protected in the way that PFOX does; I am arguing on the basis of my basic humanity. As Voltaire said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”)
On some issues we have to agree to disagree and learn to live on the same planet together. So how do we do that?
(PS, I am very offended and alarmed that because of my beliefs on homosexuality some would place me in the same category as a group as despicable as the KKK).
I guess that is something we will find out, however it seems rather conflicting to both be for and against discrimination at the same time. Would you accept a booth espousing Pagan beliefs in your church?
Again, just because we all live on the same planet, in what way does this affect which views we find valid and acceptable and which we don’t? Would the NAACP be denying PFOX’s ability to live on this planet if they were not to invite them to exhibit as part of their organization?
We at XGW have made the statement many times that we respect anyone’s right to live their life as they see fit — celibate, trying to be straight, whatever. But PFOX uses those who make the decision to attempt such a life as a way to undermine the rights of gays and lesbians. We believe this is wrong and will continue to say so.
It is not discrimination if others determine one position over the other as valid, and wish to align themselves with it. But the two views are diametrically opposed, so giving them both equal weight serves a purpose other than the truth.
No one here has done that, it was an analogy using another more easily understood position at odds with the mission of the NAACP. Only you know what your beliefs are and how close they may come to such a group. Whatever they may be, your reasons for holding them do not give you a walk from the assessment of public opinion. You may be offended if that becomes the case, but take courage in the understanding that plenty of others have suffered far worse for who they are, not just what they believe.
I have to ask, do you really know much about PFOX? What little I have heard about you leads me to believe you must not be fully aware of how they work. As I said in my comment above, we should prepare a detailed profile of them for future reference.
How is it a “right” to exhibit at any organization’s convention? By the same token, would the NAACP then have to let a white supremacist group exhibit, in order to avoid curtailing their rights?
If HRC wanted to exhibit at the next “Love Won Out” conference, would they have a “right” to exhibit there?
Sure, HRC and PFOX both have the same right to promote their points of view. But that doesn’t translate to a right to do so in a particular venue or on a particular platform. By that logic, a gay rights organization would have to allow anti-gay organizations to exhibit at their conferences — imagine Focus on the Family at Creating Change, or Westboro Baptist Church at a GLAAD conference.
And not only that, but offer the anti-gay groups the venue and platform that the gay organization has paid for; essentially requiring them to support with their own dollars the very people that oppose their missions.
PFOX does not have a “right” to exhibit at the NAACP convention. If they exhibit at the convention, they do so at the pleasure of the hosting organization. If the NAACP decides it would be better for PFOX not to have spot in their exhibit hall, PFOX’s “right” would not be “curtailed.” After all, no one is stopping PFOX from having its own conference, hosting its own website to promote its message, or exhibiting at any other conference that will have them.
They would have all the same rights they had before. The NAACP doesn’t owe them an exhibit spot, any more than PFOX would owe me the chance to post on their website or exhibit at their events.
It is not a question of a right to free speech. Period. Let’s at least get that much straight. No pun intended.
I think an interesting example of PFOX’s disingenuity can be found in their brochure on bullying. Towards the beginning, they offer the usual lip service about how all kids should be protected from bullying:
But then they go into a section explaining why calling kids “queer” or “gay” is a bad thing:
That’s right, the real reason that it’s wrong to call kids “gay” or “queer” is that they might actually start belinging they are gay. The fact that it’s usually mean-spirited and meant to tear someone else down is apparently incidental.
They then go on to talk about how ex-gays are ridiculed and called things like “homophobic,” “fake,” and “pretender.” I’m inclined to leave those words out of the school, myself. But I do have to wonder why a group that started their argument by saying that anti-bullying should apply to all and shouldn’t mention specific groups as needing protecting would then turn around and, you know, mention a specific group they feel needs protection from bullying.
Of course, it makes sense if you consider that when PFOX says, “specific groups don’t need to be mentioned,” they’re literally talking about specific groups that they don’t want mentioned: namely the non-straight ones.
Karen, nobody’s telling you to shut up. And despite fears to the contrary, there is no way this country is going to keep “people of faith” from talking about how “sinful” and “wrong” homosexuality is. HRC, in my experience with membership of their organization, has put a focus primarily on clawing their way towards equality, not cutting down local fundamentalist pulpits. The difference between “ex-gay” groups and gay groups is that gay groups are trying to make a difference by gaining equality for themselves. Ex-gay groups are trying to make a difference by preventing and prohibiting the equality of others.
Ex-gay groups are not taught in schools because those who seek ex-gay therapy do so out of an internalized feeling that something is “wrong” with them or “incongruent” with the rest of the world. Sexual health education does not promote any one form of morality; at least that’s not how it worked at MY schools (and synagogue!). We were given the cold facts about behavior, risk factors, disease, treating your partner fairly, and healthy relationships. Everything was morally “neutral.” It was not the job of the course to teach a moral stance on sexuality outside of not hurting yourself or your partner(s). For example: mast******** was described as an act that some people engaged in. Some think it is “wrong,” some think it is “right.” The school didn’t say it was either. For a school to say “here’s an option for gays who want to change” implies saying that homosexuality is “wrong.” Why would someone want to change if there’s nothing “wrong” or “right” about it? That’s their religious community’s job to communicate, not a public school.
And beyond that, sexual education is based on scientific resources from respected medical organizations – none of which declare nor recommend gays try to go straight.
The difference is legitimate URGENCY, not just opinions.
Karen K, since you are the voice of dissent here, and it seems in some way defending PFOX as someone with a differing point of view.
PFOX and other organizations with it’s similar goals foster an archaic and detrimental situation that makes furthering education and truth on gay lives impossible.
And the legitimacy in the urgency of who deserves more consideration is the simple fact that PFOX isn’t floating ANYTHING NEW or IMPROVED.
They maintain a belief and understanding of homosexuality that is ancient and as far as socio/political concerns go, allow the public to believe that discrimination is legitimate as long as they believe being homosexuality is changeable.
Mores the point, if a person is living as a heterosexual, assuming that identity and not receiving any social barriers for living as such, there is NO URGENCY in their demands to be recognized.
However, the agenda is indeed political, and the forceful visibility of so called ex gays (whose actual orientation and to what degree cannot possibly be measured) confuses, not educates.
Young gay people are vulnerable to such a cause of confusion and distrust. Alliances with a venerated instiution like the NAACP dilutes the powerful legitimacy that GAY PEOPLE have to not speak for themselves.
PFOX, Exodus and all the rest can be accused of hijacking and controlling all the information. And maintaining the belief that one cannot be discriminated against if one changes their orientation.
So therefore, such discrimination is the fault of the gay person, so no laws are required to protect them.
Tactic of persuasion #1: say that a majority of people believe the same way. It’s difficult for gay people to fight this, because of their status as PERPETUAL minority.
Tactic of persuasion #2: posit that there is a wealth of information available and provide the sources. The sort of research on gay lives that hasn’t come from very narrow and constrained sources is very recent. Without an expansion on the visibility of gay people and availability of gay people into situations they’ve traditionally been isolated from, there can’t be any other information from that source and no new information created.
Tactic of persuasion #3: virtually all information coming from the opposition to gay equality has been in the negative or conjectured that deprivation or degradation will occur. That society will have no positive changes and the majority’s traditional institutions will be destroyed or diminished with the participation of gay people.
All these tactics are used in the same way BY KKK, Nazis, segregationists and miosgynists.
Be insulted all you want at the analogy. But there IS no damage or disminishment to straight people, or whites or men or Christians from the equality of blacks, Jews, women and gay people.
But the damage to THEIR lives IS legitimate and so is the urgency in demanding the ability to communicate for themselves who they are and their intentions which PFOX distorts and legitimates prejudice.
There is no equal time for, nor should there be equal time demanded for defamation, distortion, lies and libel.
Those who have in opposition to gay equality forget that, and the consequences of when they ARE allowed that defamation.
Someone DOES suffer in the end, and it’s NOT anyone FROM Exodus, PFOX, or the clients of the ADF.
Hi David,
I guess I would like to see more evidence that PFOX is actively working to put into place discriminatory practices against gays and in what manner. I am not saying they aren’t per se. I admit I have a superficial knowledge of them and need to do more in-depth research to really make an informed opinion. But, if PFOX simply has a traditional view of homosexuality and is seeking to advocate for ministry for those with unwanted same-sex attraction and parents who might benefit from their resources, I do not see that as discrimination. I would be interested to see your detailed profile on them, if you end up creating it. I also plan to research it more myself. I have been doing that with different groups on the Right and hope to formulate some of my thoughts about it all on my blog in the next few months.
Do you want to see any ex-gay affilitated group or individual censored from exhibiting at NAACP or is it that you have particular issues with PFOX?
You write: “Would you accept a booth espousing Pagan beliefs in your church?” Someone else also eluded to the idea of “sacred space” too. I do believe it is appropriate to have “sacred space” in which we do censor. I wouldn’t expect Beyond Ex-gay to host an Exodus booth at their conferences and vice versa.
I don’t see this situation as the same because ex-gays can be just as active against racial discrimination as gay affirming folk. So I don’t see them as opposed to the mission of NAACP. Particularly if PFOX is there to provide resources to families and doesn’t exist to lobby for discrimination against gays in housing, employment etc. I don’t believe that having a different moral view on homosexuality in of itself constitutes discrimination.
Jarred–I think you make a good point. I have also had concerns with that argument.
Emily–You write: “The difference between “ex-gay” groups and gay groups is that gay groups are trying to make a difference by gaining equality for themselves. Ex-gay groups are trying to make a difference by preventing and prohibiting the equality of others.”
That is a huge and erroneous generalization. Kind of like saying all gays march half-naked in gay pride parades. The ex-gay group I help out with has taken no action against preventing or prohibiting equality. In fact, we state in our mission that we are not for or against gay political causes.
Your one-sidedness on the issue of what should be taught in school reminds of how people on the Religious Right talk about it. It sounds like liberal fundamentalism to me. I think there are ways of presenting different views without sermonizing. High schoolers should hear all the views instead of being indoctrinated in one perspective. You are moralizing just as much about what you think is right or wrong–only from the Left.
I think that needs to be isolated. PFOX has a proven track record of intentional dishonesty.
Karen, I have gotten into this so many times with ex gays and those who support them.
PFOX, Exodus’s not supporting discrimination or violence DOESN’T matter!!
The commitment to discrimination has been going on for TOO long, and the voice of gay people not long and strong ENOUGH for the public at large not to be extremely confused and still hostile!
What PFOX supports isn’t NEW. It’s precisely what’s already BEEN used to discriminate, already a huge part of what is asserted to the general public ESPECIALLY by religious people who have tremendous influence and KNOW IT.
However gently and compassionately they PUT IT, doesn’t matter, It’s USELESS and does MORE HARM to gay people in general.
What part of WORTHLESS for the needs of gay people don’t you understand? This isn’t FOR gay people, but for PFOX’s own cause. Which doesnt HAVE to be discrimination, but maintaining what already IS enough prejudice and distrust of gay people.
PFOX represents a TRADITIONALLY held view, not a new one. They are literally NOT invested in doing anything thats innovative or functional for understanding or honesty.
The deep fear and mistrust of homosexuals is because so few gay people get to speak for themselves or are not believed even then.
People keep arguing with gay people that it’s a choice, no matter how many times they are told it isn’t. So PFOX is making THAT difficult.
What this is equivalent to, Karen….is not allowing those who are most affected by that misrepresentation to FINALLY have the floor. In the time frame between PFOX’s assertions and those of gay folks, gay folks have had virtually NO time to speak their piece, live integrated so THAT truth can be confirmed.
Exodus, PFOX and the like are ALWAYS hogging the floor, taking over and imposing ALREADY retread information.
It’s rude, it causes more problems than it solves and they don’t understand the meaning of giving someone ELSE who deserves it the opportunity to be known and defined on THEIR terms and not PFOX’s old terms.
So yeah….it’s not about shutting up just to shut up. It’s about shutting up because it’s someone else’s turn, so let them have it!
I think you should reconsider your repeated use of the word “censored” in this case. No one is censoring or even attempting to censor PFOX. I could just as easily say you are censoring Pagan thought by not allowing it to be taught, “sacred space” or not (I don’t agree with your using that term to avoid the analogy, btw). From the beginning you have tried to make this the issue and yet, even though you say you understood my clarification, you continue to respond as if that were the case.
That said, as I stated in my last comment, the issue here is not anyone’s sincere belief about the rightness or wrongness of gay relationships. It is when organizations seek to marginalize gays, through misinformation or support of initiatives which negatively impact the rights of others, that we object. We respond by reporting their actions for others to use in their own contemplation of the issues. While Exodus and many of their ministries lobby against our rights as well, PFOX is particularly bitter and just plain mean about it.
So, if the NAACP doesn’t know what PFOX is like, they should. And if they do, we should know that this does not bother them. This is information that we believe people should have.
I’m happy as time permits to respond to germane questions, but you’ve asked a number of things to which I have already made clear my response. And your language seems biased toward the idea that PFOX is being censored, something which is just silly. If I may be blunt, PFOX has a big, ugly mouth. They aren’t going to stop talking, but others may stop listening and that is not censorship.
On the other hand, you would do well to find out more about them. If you want neutral ground, ask Warren Throckmorton. He is certainly sympathetic to your beliefs and yet he worked with PFOX at one time. I have to believe he knows what they are like from an even better perspective than ours.
And finally, I find it rather disingenuous that you complain so strongly here of censorship, yet you advocated against even private dialog in your open letter to conservative pastors to be visited by Soulforce during their American Family Outing.
There you justify your position by calling the meetings “strategic visits intended to change church doctrine on homosexuality.” Just what do you think PFOX wanted to accomplish with all those flyers, buttons and stickers at their booth? What happened to “We live in a world of diverse opinion, do we just censure everyone we disagree with?”
David,
I am really not trying to be antagonistic. Although, its hard to know tone through e-mail type format. Perhaps I am not expressing myself very well. I understand that you said: “My reason for contacting the NAACP is, as I suggested, to find out if they are fully aware of the nature of PFOX and their actual mission. If they are and were when they allowed them to exhibit, then that says something about the NAACP.”
What I am responding to is your statement: “it seems rather conflicting to both be for and against discrimination at the same time”–indicating that if the NAACP allows PFOX they are supporting discrimination. Am I misunderstanding you?
I was looking for clarity of specific accounts of PFOX lobbying for discrimination. I don’t disbelieve you. Like I said, I need to do more research on that. When I do, I may be just as concerned about PFOX being there as well.
Maybe I am daft, but what I still do not feel like I have a clear answer on whether you would have made this same inquiry to NAACP if it was any ex-gay affiliated ministry. I am trying to understand if you feel that a traditional belief on homosexuality, by itself, constitutes discrimination. Just having the belief itself. Or, is it more the way an ex-gay ministry presents itself? I don’t like the way some ex-gay affiliated groups act either. I do think some are discriminatory. But I don’t see them as all the same.
Also, I don’t see what is so disingenous about my open letter to the pastors. As I said in my previous response to you, I do believe there is a time for “sacred space.” I am not at all objecting to the notion of that. I was agreeing with your statement:
“Sure, HRC and PFOX both have the same right to promote their points of view. But that doesn’t translate to a right to do so in a particular venue or on a particular platform. By that logic, a gay rights organization would have to allow anti-gay organizations to exhibit at their conferences — imagine Focus on the Family at Creating Change, or Westboro Baptist Church at a GLAAD conference.”
So, I agree with you on that. My views regarding Soulforce is exactly this point.
My question did not have to do with whether or not we can never reserve certain space for those who share our ideology. My question was whether any ex-gay affiliated group would be deemed a contradiction of NAACP’s mission or if it was specific to PFOX and other groups that specifically speak out on legislative type matters. As I said, I may very well agree with you about PFOX. My question is not about them, but any ex-gay affiliated group by virtue of simply being ex-gay.
(For the record, I am not opposed to dialogue, as I state clearly on my blog post, with Soulforce or anyone else. It was the venue–a house of worship that was of primary concern for me. In my view a church is a very sacred, personal space. I have not objected to their Equality Ride even though its basically the same thing because college campuses are a place for town hall type talks and various types of dialogue).
I’ve answered this at least twice Karen. And you are now attributing quotes from other commenters to me, and then responding to them. I feel like you aren’t really listening, as you don’t even realize what I did or didn’t say. I don’t agree with your “sacred space” idea, it seems hypocritical, a way to have your cake and eat it too. Who is the arbiter of “sacred space?” Is the Exodus Freedom Conference sacred space, or can pro-gay groups come and talk there? How about Love Won Out, sacred or no?
We will find out what the NAACP thinks when they respond — I can’t speak for them. But I do think you need to brush up on just what PFOX is before you start speaking about them much more.
I happened to be one of their token ex-gays back in 2006 sitting everyday at this very convention ‘gently’ talking to people about my views on being an ex-gay. PFOX is all about the ex-gay or return to a ‘normal’ expression of sexuality as defined by a biological woman and man, and the only aspect I saw of supporting gays is that they come back to the light someday. If you subscibed to the ex-gay yahoo group, you would definately see that it is an ex-gay group and desire ‘rights’ to be ex-gay. Richard Cohen is (or at least was) on the board. They tout financially supporting the changing a transexual woman back into a man through reversal surgery and people changing from gay to straight.
Anyways, the point of me writing is that this conference was the tool that brought me into the light so to speak, and started the process of reversing everything I believed about being ex-gay and now embracing being me, gay and all. It was the last day of the conference and the event was almost done. Two very attractive girls approached me very angerly that the ex-gay thing is false and a load of crap. So I told my ‘testimony’ of how I ‘changed.’ They seemed satisfied and believed, and as they started to leave, the most attractive girl turns around and say, so do you think I’m hot? I knew if I said yes, it would cause problems, and if I said no, it would be a lie. I said no. She walked away, turned around, and asked again. It was at that moment, I turned red and answered yes. And that was the end of anything ex-gay for me. 🙂
And as far as those letters go, I am pretty sure they gave one to every exhibitor… but I may be wrong, you’d have to ask Regina or Estelle.
LOL, well they have yet to answer a single email requesting fact verification, information or anything else. I was once able to get through to Estella (briefly) on the phone once. That’s not an experience I wish to repeat anytime soon. So I don’t think asking about that letter would accomplish much, but as I said in the post, I believe it’s probably a form letter. It does point to the fact that PFOX exhibited in 2006, however. PFOX just used it as a tool to solicit funds, which might be the reason they waited so long. Estella might have found it and thought it was a good opportunity to take in donations. Just speculation, but it makes more sense than anything else I know of.
So Holly, you were at the NAACP convention in DC that we are discussing?
PS: Also, the Yahoo group you mentioned, I’ve heard from people who actually went to PFOX for help and they couldn’t get approved to get on that thing. I have no expectation that we would be able to access it. They are quite a paranoid bunch.
David,
I want to apologize, I just re-read through your comments more slowly. I am not sure why it wasn’t computing before. But, I see now where you answered my question. You wrote:
“The issue here is not anyone’s sincere belief about the rightness or wrongness of gay relationships. It is when organizations seek to marginalize gays, through misinformation or support of initiatives which negatively impact the rights of others, that we object.”
So, your answer is “no”–a belief about homosexuality as wrong does not, in of itself, constitute discrimination.
Sorry about that. It didn’t sink in the first time I read it. I think perhaps because part of me wonders what different people would consider marginalization or misinformation. If I have a certain belief and keep it to myself that is one thing. But, what if I talk about my beliefs? Some would likely see any statement about homosexuality being wrong as an act of marginalization. I know some have called church doctrine on the issue “spiritual violence.”
This is probably not the appropriate thread to get into it, but it ties into a lot of what I have been wrestling with. I have been doing a lot of soul searching on things like the hate crimes bill and the culture war on the issue and trying to figure out where I fit and how I should respond. On the one hand I do not want to see GLBT people discriminated against and on the other hand in some places in the world expressing a traditional belief on homosexuality could get a person fired from a job because of anti-discrimination laws etc.
Also, I apologize for misattributing Terrence’s comment to you regarding the idea of different groups reserving their space for those who share ideology. I was trying to read through the comments during a short break at work. Bad idea.
Though I still don’t see how my idea of sacred space is different from your concept that NAACP it might not want to have certain groups there. You write: “So would you not consider it hypocritical of them to allow an anti-gay rights organization to exhibit at their own convention?”
We all tend to want to have sacred space where we can group together with those that share our values and mission. You ask a good question though about who is the arbiter of such sacred space? What is sacred space and what is “public square.” Some of it would certainly be related to whose space it is. In this case, it is the NAACP’s event and they can do what they want. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what they want in this case with PFOX.
Anyway, enough said. Again, I apologize for not listening more carefully.
Actually, what I said was this:
I gave you the example of mast******** being mentioned in sex ed courses. But when it is mentioned, it is not mentioned in the context of being moral or immoral behavior. Saying that people engage in the act (and people DO engage in the act) is not saying it is right or wrong. It is mentioned that people do it, and the act is described, so that people know what mast******** IS (because believe it or not, not every middle-schooler knows), so that those who DO engage in it know what it is they are doing, and how it exists in the realm of psycho-sexual behavior.
In the same context, homosexuality is not taught to be an immoral or moral behavior in a school sex-ed course. It is taught as a form of sexuality that some people possess. Teaching that homosexuals exist – and they DO exist – is not the same as saying “homosexuality is right.”
I also said the following:
I suppose moral implications can be assumed, but mistakenly so, in that I think it’s an ethical duty to teach prepubescents and pubescent adolescents accurate and thorough sexual education. Some think it is “immoral” to educate students on sexuality – as if it’s supposed to be some “dirty little secret” that people “just don’t talk about.” But I don’t see sexuality as being inherently moral or immoral. The effects of sexual behavior upon the self and others is where morality comes in. I believe the dispensing sexual knowledge falls under ethical considerations. As for one-sidedness, well; we learned about all kinds of birth control and contraceptives – things some people believe encourage “immoral” sex – but there was taught that there was only ONE sure decision a person could make where a safe and healthy outcome was absolutely guaranteed: Abstinence.
Schools don’t tell students what kind of sexual behavior is moral or immoral. They describe behaviors and then describe potential consequences, medical and social, of those behaviors. It is not the school’s duty to tell a student whether or not to change their private sexual behavior. That is the student’s own decision to make.
And, for your information, I’m center-left, not leftist.
Karen,
Apology not needed but accepted — I just didn’t feel you were really listening to me so I had less reason to keep going with the discussion. While I don’t begrudge anyone their personal beliefs, there is no guarantee that this or that belief will not be looked on with some degree of social stigma or even disgust in the future. One would hope that is the case with those who might still hold a “traditional Biblical view” of slavery, jurisprudence or any number of other things.
In a democracy, we all have a right to our own views, correct or incorrect. But as I learned years ago, your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. Translating what is essentially religious dogma held by a segment of several faiths into civil restrictions is intolerable in a free society. Yet a majority of conservative Christian organizations are attempting to do just that.
Alan Chambers, President of Exodus worked against a law in his own city to prevent housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And in the scheme of things, Alan is quite moderate. They continue to fight against Bias Crime laws, shamelessly distorting their purpose and effect, when they themselves benefit from exactly the same laws by virtue of their beliefs. People see this hypocrisy and they don’t always like it, so you may want to consider what your statement of a “traditional view” of homosexuality means to others — it reminds them of the actions that so often go with the words. And this is not a generalization Karen, it’s a fact that is reinforced daily.
So you will have to pardon me if I am too tired to quibble about “sacred spaces” and how I have to get along with someone who considers me a deviant by virtue of who I am. Or who applies the most stringent, unrealistic demands on my life while ignoring the logs in their own eyes.
What I am saying is, you are talking to the wrong group — get your own house in order.
I should add, the booth was next to the lactaid booth, ford (I think), and a home loan booth. There were booths from all branches. So it wasn’t that the NAACP so much checked out the messages, just whoever was willing to pay for space to advertise their product. We were advertising cures for gays. 🙂 I don’t think we raised any money through it, it was more to get the message out that gays ‘can’ change and get the word out about the organization. This was also during the time of the big montgomery school board fight of including ex-gay material into the school curriculm or no gay material at all that they were apart of.
One other thought, I remember they really wanted me to write up my ex-gay testimony in a secular, non-christian style. It seemed like wanted to dechristianize the movement. But I remember asking my exodus leader (now the chairman of exodus) if one could change outside of Christianity… And she said one can’t and can only through Christ. I couldn’t figure out how to dechristianize my message because of it for PFOX. I was such a tool. But I find it funny that this has been mentioned 2 years later.
David,
I can understand where you are coming from. If I saw sexual orientation the same way as race, I would feel the same way.
I guess I had hoped that “nice ex-gays” could somehow co-exist with those in the gay community. And, I think in some cases this does occur. But, for those who truly see sexual orientation like race, the mere idea that homosexuality is sin–in of itself–becomes a hurtful idea. It would be as hurtful as saying a black person is sinful just because they are black or a woman is sinful just because she is a woman (which some male chauvenists in church history have essentially argued).
Even though I see your point, I simply come from a completely different worldview on what exactly sexual orientation is. I don’t see it as the same as race or gender. I think homosexuality as an identity has been socially constructed (some queer theorists would agree with that). The reason I think GLBT people should not be discriminated against is not because I see being gay as a separate category like race, but because of my beliefs about human decency and treating all people with fairness and understanding as much as possible.
Anyway, you have given me some things to think about and I will probably write more on some of my reflections on these ideas and what they mean on my blog in the coming months.
Take care, Karen
How interesting that Karen “knows so little” about PFOX yet is so willing to defend them and carry their water for them.
More interesting still that she is so unfamiliar with them but yet so well versed in their talking points and their terminology (ie. “unwanted same-sex attraction”)
I also think it’s interesting that she seems to be more concerned that a person might be fired for discriminating against a gay person than she is that a gay person might be fired for simply being gay.
A few questions for Karen. You clearly feel that protecting religious freedom and expression is very important. Do you then support the inclusion of religion as a protected class in hate crimes legislation and ENDA legislation? If so then why do you not have the same “concern” that protecting religious people from attacks from gays and others while not protecting gays from attacks from religious people? All too often a religious objection to homosexuality is loudly stated in the arrest records of those who perpetrate violence against gay people. That should be of great concern to you and every other religious person.
Also, do you believe that religion is a choice? Do you believe that people can and have changed religions? Do you believe that people who believe that religion is dangerous to individuals and society should be allowed to set up booths at say the Southern Baptist Convention or at other religious conventions to make their case? Is it OK for people who believe that religion, and it’s adherents, are dangerous to society to support and lobby for laws that would limit the rights of religious people for the betterment of society (if you don’t think PFOX does this then you really should do more research on them before you stick your neck out to defend them so strongly)?
If not, why not?
By the way I am a religious person. In fact I am doubly religious since I am a Buddhist Christian, so my questions do not come from an anti-Christian or anti-religion bias or point of view.
Oh, please. Since when has PFOX ever focused on racial discrimination? Um, let me guess… never?
Your statement is tortured logic. It’s like saying that some AAA members can be just as active against legislation which supports racial profiling, so that would justify the presence of an AAA booth at the NAACP convention. Well, perhaps some AAA members are against racial profiling, but that’s not the reason for AAA’s existence at all, nor is it a fundamental tenet of what their services entail. The same goes with PFOX. Raising serious questions about their participation should not come as a surprise.
Honestly, Karen, defending PFOX’s participation at the NAACP convention only makes you look silly, especially when the readers of this blog are far more familiar with PFOX’s aims and claims than you are.
Christopher–if you take the time to read my comments through the whole discussion you would know that my primary concern is about ex-gays in general. I am not necessarily for PFOX being at NAACP. I have to learn more about that particular organization in more detail to make a firm judgment on that. My concern is where the logic of the argument goes—that any ex-gay group, not just PFOX would be deemed inappropriate. When many ex-gays are in fact against racial discrimination.
Religion is already a protected class in bias (hate) crime laws. Religion is certainly a choice, therefore even if one were to have such a “world view” as Karen has stated (where orientation is changeable), it would be illogical to suggest that sexual orientation not be protected on that basis. Also, a certain world view does not give one the right to discriminate. Plenty of people have the world view that African Americans or Jews are inferior and should defer to the rest of the population (a rather traditional view up to the last century). That view was (and still is by some) defended with Scripture. While those people are free to believe as they do, the rest of us are not obliged to share or even respect their “world view.” We must only respect their right to have it.
TampaZeke, you write:
“I also think it’s interesting that she seems to be more concerned that a person might be fired for discriminating against a gay person than she is that a gay person might be fired for simply being gay.”
Actually, I said someone being fired for expressing their belief about homosexuality (do you see the expression of the belief itself as discrimination?) I am actually concerned about both. I am concerned about someone being fired for expressing their conscience on homosexuality, and I am concerned about a person being fired just because they are gay. Yet, in some circumstances the rights of gays and the rights of people of faith seem to directly collide. I don’t know the answer to this dilemma. Its something I am still trying to sort out.
As for whether religion is a choice–for some people it is. For me, I could no more change my faith than I could force myself commit suicide. I believe the Spirit of Christ now lives inside me and is a part of me. The Spirit cannot be removed. My faith is who I am, much much more so than my sexuality. So for me religion is not a choice. In fact, it so defines who I am that I chose that over a lesbian identity despite how compelling same-sex attraction is.
Bingo.
1. Religion is a choice. It is a daily, even a moment by moment choice we make. Every encounter we have we decide whether to follow our leader (Christ, for us Christians) or we decide to do our own thing. It’s not so much that we are “Christians” but that we are “Christians in the making.”
2. Being a Christian does not blurr or blot out who and what we are. When we become Christian, we don’t stop being human, we don’t loose our identity as citizens of the nation where we were born, we don’t change skin color, and we don’t change our sexual orientation.
3. Saying becoming Christian will somehow stop us from being gay is like what my grandma thought would happen once she married my grandpa. She swore he would never snore once she married him. Once she married him, he snored twice as loud FOR 50 YEARS of their married life. She swore it went up an octave each night of their married life. SHE was the one who changed, not HIM. She learned to tolerate and accept his snoring and the fact that he is a snorer. That snoring was a part of him. In fact, when he died, the thing she missed the most was the silence at night – the absence of his snoring!
We don’t have to give up our sexual identity in order to be Christian.
Karen K, I say again, I’ve gone through this SO many times with ex-gays this makes you ALL look disingenuous, insincere and strikingly selfish.
It absolutely doesn’t matter that you don’t support discrimination and don’t condone any mistreatment or abuse of gay people.
You don’t have to. You do a great deal of damage just asserting you’re ex gay.
You give oxygen to a raging fire that’s been burning for centuries. You give comfort to those who use change as validation that gay people bring whatever misfortune on themselves or don’t have to be gay at all.
With people like you around, whatever a gay person has to say is a symptom of their brokenness, not credible evidence that changing is ill advised.
You poison the well of knowledge that gay people have to offer, then run away when challenged on what you’re doing.
You are absolutely WORTHLESS, if not dangerous to the credibility vital to gay young people to be left alone, to be understood and accepted as gay without intervention.
And most of all, someone pointing it out to you seems to always be met with hurt feelings and wonderment at the range of responses from impatience to hostility.
You help NOTHING, you serve nothing but people already expectant and demanding that gay people change.
And a person who can’t accept their own orientation, cannot credibly defend it in someone else.
Alan, your spirituality may be a “choice” that you can switch around, but its not for me. Certainly there are practices I engage in on a daily basis to live in congruence with who I am. But those are an outflow of who I am in Christ. Scripture says that he chose his followers before the foundations of the earth. Its not just that I follow him, it is that Christ’s Spirit is now in me, and there is a oneness. My faith is who I am, not just something I do.
Scripture also says that Christians are “exiles” on the earth. That is, the Christian’s citizenship is in the Kingdom of God. That identification/allegience is above any other earthly citizenship of a particular country. I am an American citizen but that is entirely secondary to my primary citizenship.
I am not sure why you are bringing up the idea that being a Christian would cease to make a person gay. No one has made that claim on this thread. I still have same-sex attractions, but they are exactly that–feelings. My romantic and sexual feelings are not an identity. They are something I experience.
Christ calls us to give up our very self to take on the identity we find him. For the Christian, that identity must take priority over any other.
I realize some seek to combine a gay identity with a Christian one. I really wanted to be able to do that. But speaking for myself, I found theywere not compatible after many years of wanting to reconcile them. And I cannot deny or suppress my truest self–which is my identity in Christ.
Regan, you write: “It absolutely doesn’t matter that you don’t support discrimination and don’t condone any mistreatment or abuse of gay people. You don’t have to. You do a great deal of damage just asserting you’re ex gay.” (bold added)
I appreciate your straightforward and clear statement here. That is a very revealing and provocative statement.
I wonder how many others on ExGay Watch and in the gay community at large agree with that.
Karen, how would you qualify the others in xgw or the gay community at large?
The entire purpose of the thread, this website and those who used to subscribe to being ex gay pretty much says it all.
Not in the same words that I use, but knowing how much ex gays hate to hear what I say, it seems that a kick in the head or a nuclear bomb going off couldn’t sway you from wanting to believe so badly that you’re who you want to be.
Not my problem, that’s yours. Being hinkty about needing more than MY lil ol opinion is funny, because the whole point of ex gay watch wouldn’t exist in the first place.
By implying ex-gay, there are far reaching ramifications behind it. Isn’t the ex-gay label just another identity that has been picked up? But wait, calling youself ex-gay is only a descriptor, not your identity. That’s precisely like when I say I’m gay, it’s not my identity, its just easier to say than I have a homosexual orientation… Much softer on the ears. Gay kinda of cuts it short. My fundamental identity is still in Christ. However, I think the right and these organizations really pushes the idea that once one accepts being gay, it becomes this emcompassing identity that ‘ensnares’ you into this engulfing lifestyle. But really, what’s so ‘ex’ about ex-gay? Ex implies that you’re not something or that’s its been cut off. But again as you learn in Exodus school, it’s really a ‘stuggle’ and renamed SSA, which now can be fixed.
God didn’t create sexuality as a just a feeling, one that you can rename or relabel. Sexuality gets at the core of human nature and the desire for intimacy with one person and the desire for community with others and God and helps determine how you see and interact with the world. So to label my sexuality as just a feeling, cuts it a little short. I would doubt ‘straight’ people would also classify their sexuality as a mere feeling. How you express it, is a choice, but the mere condition of it is not.
Some of us have been able to reconcile our relationship with Christ and our sexuality, and don’t need people running around saying I’m ‘ex’ gay, when in reality they have just renamed their beliefs and play on semantics. Why not call yourself a heterosexual? And like I said, just being ex-gay has implications that hurts people. Just the other day, I was talking to a friend that I haven’t seen in years. She said that when she came out, she was met with criticism from people because they had heard me back in my ex-gay days and imposed those ideas on her. Guess what, it deeply hurt her… This isn’t the first time I heard how my beliefs on being ex-gay hurt other people, or caused people to act in a certain way. And it hurt me, cause people used the things I believed and said and turned them back on me. To think of the people who have brought this into their churches and schools because of me, kills me. These are reasons I’ve hear from fellow ‘ex-gays’ in the middle or after suicide attempts because people keep pushing these unnatural, unrealistic, imposed ideas on them that they hear from ‘changed testimonys,’ which are merely a play on semantics if one got truthful.
I reconciled my sexuality and Jesus through my own deep soul searching and through some amazing people who gave me grace and the freedom to pursue Christ before I was told about exgaywatch or gaychristian network. I only stick around because I now know what its like to go from the oppressor to the oppressed… and I only brought that upon myself. What I believed was ‘Gods work’ I have realized was the devils.
I don’t think I would be so against exodus if it just became an organization that was very upfront and truthful about its beliefs, and called things as they are. If they called themselves a support organization for those who believe homosexual activity is wrong, want to pursue Christ, and want to live celibately, then ok. But to run around, and imply a change or a journey that is merely a play on words backed by junk science, impose it on others, then I take issue.
I too have an identity in Christ, so to imply one can’t and be still be gay, and generalize that on everyone has massive effects… Especially when the bible says all who belive and out of love does the will of God-taking care and loving on those around them in need.
But I was in your shoes, so I understand where you come from. And I would have never been able to ever take serious the other side or let it sit in my brain without an instant dismissal.
Yes, revealing and provocative is right. So? Anyone that knows me, also knows that I am very no nonsense about telling it like I see it.
You chose not to be gay, but to embrace your Christianity, says a lot about you too.
So what if you did? You went to the side that has a great deal of power and influence in this country and is demanding more especially in gay lives. It’s been a challenge to Christian and conservative authority for gay people to gain what little visibility and opportunity they do have.
You represent regression to a worse time, Karen. You represent a person who, regardless of believing in your free will to be Christian, it’s not easy to be gay in our society, it’s not easy to be gay at all.
And you’re joined and made an already powerful entity, even moreso.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not gay, I don’t have close relatives that are. I do know what people on the fence, or those outright hostile to gay people say. They believe gay people can change and it’s extremely difficult for them to think otherwise.
You’re well intentioned, yes. But as far as gay people who don’t want to constantly be confronted with expectations of changing, you’re a detriment.
And I’ve never been gay, so I’m less qualified to speak about BEING gay. But that’s just it. You’re a more useful person for those against gay people, than I would be.
But if I knew for a second I was doing more harm than good, and someone said so, I’d back up and find another way of defending gay people than hairshirting all over how I’m SO NOT GAY ANYMORE.
It seems to me that ex gays like to think themselves brave and strong for ‘leaving homosexuality’ and disciplining themselves into being Christian and heterosexual.
Well, how much choice is there NOT to be?
Actually, the opposite is true.
Supposed and assumed heterosexuals are not challenged, neither are Christians.
The true test of bravery goes to gay people who find their way through with that identity intact, because so many are taking it away from them.
I don’t flatter ex gays, Karen. Life is tough, isn’t it? And so am I. Deal with it.
Could you please show me scientific proof that Spirituality is an immutable trait like race or sex? Show me documented proof that forcing a person to change their spirituality causes harm? I can probably find a few programs that through counseling and deep personal journey that may help you get over your undesirable spiritual alignment (USA for short).
I can offer the testimony of several people who have successfully left their USA lifestyle behind and are now leading happy productive lives. Some are even married to people who would have been “Spiritual adversaries” and are quite happy. I think the block of testimony and successes I can dredge up show us definitely that we can rid you of USA. This also offers proof that we should not grant any special rights, in areas such as marriage, employment or housing to people with USA and that to do so will hurt the traditions which are the very bedrock of our society.
—
That is the type of things people have to see from PFOX, Exodus and their champions day to day. How would you feel if you picked up the news paper and saw a full page ad talking about ridding you of your Undesirable Spiritual Alignment? How would you feel if they wouldn’t even let you call yourself Christan or spiritual, and forced you to reduce it to an acronym that was degrading and demeaning like my USA(Undesirable Spiritual Alignment)? How would you feel if instead of offering dialog all channels of communication where halted with “Well that is my belief!” How would you feel if every successful “Spiritual re-alignment” was was paraded before congressmen every time there was the discussion of religious freedom? I think you’d begin to feel that all those “champions” of “Successful Spiritual Alignment” where enemies who at the end of the day where only going to hurt you, that anyone who spoke out for “Successful Spiritual Alignment” was actually just supporting an agenda that only hurt you.
Earlier you posted that you dread people would put you in the same class as the KKK or skinheads because of what you believe. Well maybe that means it is time to analyze what you really believe vs what you say about that belief and what people do with that belief.
There is a huge difference between holding the belief that some people may change their sexuality and when/if that happens for an individual both sides should respect that change in designation and saying everyone can and should change.
Actually, I disagree with Regan’s statement. It is not the existence of ex-gays that is threatening. Only someone insecure in their sexuality would find an ex-gay threatening. It is the ex-gay movement that can be threatening, when they make blanket statements about LGTBQ persons, when they attempt to apply the horrible experiences they had as a gay person to the gay community as a whole, and when they say “because ex-gays exist, gays don’t need to.” How dare they. THAT is what is threatening. Regular ol’ celibate ex-gay folks are very much non-threatening. More often I see ex-gays who are threatened by gays, and straights who are threatened by gays – as if the gender of the person we love has anything to do with the gender of the person THEY love.
I would have to agree with Emily here. Certainly a threat is what organizations like PFOX wish for ex-gays to be. They even reverse it and state it outright, that gays don’t want to admit that ex-gays exist or some such nonsense. They are the ones using people like Holly for their own interests, and that is pretty disgusting.
For those who simply decide from their own convictions that to act upon their same-sex attractions would be wrong, a sin, or whatever, I don’t have any issue with them at all. Everyone must have that kind of freedom, which is exactly why I don’t expect someone with those feelings to limit my freedom to live otherwise.
Not don’t get me wrong, I was all about it and volunteered to do it.. Cause I was doing God’s work. I was misleading and bought into my own bs, and that’s my own fault. Personally, I have no desire to stand on either side, let people live according as they are convicted by God. God is the final judge… Just don’t push one way that’s extemely misleading, oppressive, and not telling the whole truth.
Now, if only we were the same religion. 8)
But then you say that ppl should hear all sides, and i would too like that. That way we learn about differing views. I think Regan has it right on though, the ‘differing’ view is so widespread theres really no need to present the same view at school, aka urgency. Sure, i guess it would make sense to eventually introduce it alongside the equality fighters but similar to creationism, definately not in the ‘sexuality training department’ but more so on humanities or theology area. Pseudoscience is not science, and unless you want to teach mysticism, astrology, among others as science too, it would be wise to keep it out of the ‘science-based sexual curriculum training’ classroom.
But don’t despair, Falwell’s Liberty University(among others) might be very welcoming to teach your sexuality curriculum(which i assume is the same or similar to the ‘sexually active gays die younger’ science).
Regan said:
I still FAIL to see how being a choice makes it wrong. I choose to do things all the time, none of which are remotely immoral.
I guess, for me, it depends on the situation.
I believe a muslim cannot ramble on and on, all day about or to his Jewish worker of how he is condemned, deceived and evil. But if he wants to express his views around and towards the Jew, with the fervor but without the amount, then i dont see a problem with it. Without the amount BECAUSE it might actually cut back or really distract the employer from doing their job.
If a racist white tells his fellow black co-worker how disgusting, and less than he naturally is, i am all for that. NO, i am not saying that being gay is immutable, i dont see something being a choice or being natural an intrinsic basis of where to define morality from.
Is being honest really that much of a problem? If you want to base it on ‘hurt feelings’ or ‘distress’ then i would argue that ‘suppressing the fervent belief’ is also detrimental. And maybe Randy Thomas wasnt that far off the mark, maybe we should include being fat, ugly, -to some degree ‘special’-, in the list of ‘discrimination’.
The only plus part of the anti-discrimination laws would be to discourage any physical harm and we could all live in a safer world.
Wait… i thought you were straight. I mean, that IS what ex-gay is supposed to mean right? And i am SO not talking about what you were meant to be through christ or what you ‘really’ are. Does ‘compelling same-sex attraction’=your gay(homosexual orientation)? Or do you believe that theres is no such thing as orientation? Then you said “My romantic and sexual feelings are not an identity. They are something I experience.” Umm, by that standard then no1 is really homosexually oriented(gay). Just because you do NOT want to be identified with X does not necessarily exempt you from being defined by that X. Why exactly is saying, “im gay” make you less of a christian? THere are enough gay christians at the Gay Christian Network(GCN) that accept they have that orientation yet do no act upon it and live celibate lives, some, i think, might even be ‘heterosexually’ married(which, imo, would only be fair to the spouse if she knew and did not see that as an obstacle).
I believe its the package that comes with it. The assumption that because x can change then X can also change. In a society that still largely condemns it, who WOULDNT want to change? Sad part is, change, as in becoming straight is best described as an indefinite struggle or a change in wordplay. This dishonesty would be the basis of setting ppl up for failure, and ultimately emotional damage which is, essentially what i believe they are trying to ‘fix’. I would also agree with Emily.
Liked your reverse analogy there Kith.
Hi Emily!
Actually, I’m glad you said something. I think the definition of threat is important. As far as there are different ex gays with different goals and what those ex gays specifically do would have to define threat.
Those who are extremely active, speak for the entire of all gays and lesbians in general in the negative, and align themselves with political allies, one could call a threat.
Those ex gays with no such ambitions, who typically live quietly as heterosexuals without mention of their former lives might be considered more innocuous, but in a way, I think that the issue of change being required and expected on any level runs deep enough for just about ANY ex gay could misrepresent what sexual orientation is about and means.
I still can’t get over how adamently a straight person DOES argue with someone gay over whether it’s a choice or not, and couldn’t care less about what it means to be gay.
As long as such a thing is debated at all, the damage is too obvioiusly entrenched and dislodging it impossible.
And those ex gays who are THE most vocal and visible, well I don’t have to tell you what they say.
So it doesn’t take much at all really, much the way a tiny grain of gossip can turn into a terribly destructive wildfire of defamation in no time.
I just want any professed ex gay to understand that it’s not about THEM, it’s about considering what this all means for, especially, gay children.
That’s what makes their assertions seem so self centered.
I don’t have to be here, but I know the stakes, and apparently most ex gays don’t care to ,enough to do what’s really necessary and what will really work to change things for the better.
Hi Joel, I wanted to address what you said. I agree with you that even if it was a choice, it shouldn’t mean that a person be punished for it. Especially to the degree that gay people are.
However, the prevailing opinion is that the choice is DANGEROUS and in some way destructive, not only spiritually, but physically and socially.
But as far as a category analogous to obesity, or the other ways that people conflate homosexuality with EVERYTHNG negative, but no comparisons to OTHER sexual orientations. That’s the problem. Schools need to teach what orientation is, and not posit it as a threat, or destructive or even physically dangerous (as religious people do in excess of what the Bible states).
One cannot EVER lie to children, or not lead by example. Gay children get confused by the hypocrisy and conundrums and Catch 22 standards all around them, and Exodus and PFOX exploit that.
Convincing the public at large that homosexuality isn’t dangerous, and whoever is gay can benefit from the same guidelines as heterosexuals, if given the same opportunities and protections just shy of having to cover up being gay.
And what’s incredibly frustrating also, is there is already a precedent set that doing so IS worse than just allowing gay kids to form romantic bonds and mature as homosexuals.
What we have here are gay children and straight children and their parents being lied to, and it’s a BIG lie.
Or there just has to be a tempering of religious belief for human progress to occur.
That’s why I keep reminding those with religious reservations that some religious beliefs don’t allow medical interventions like blood and organ donation. And such procedures are risky, but also life saving.
But no one with that religious belief can say that other members of the public or the medical establishment can’t engage in said procedures. That would be making personal, religious choice, a public policy issue.
So, despite what religious people think about homosexuality, public health, social integration of gay people into venerated institutions, there are certain things that REQUIRE this integration, NOT religious intervention and interference for progress to occur.
Because frankly, THEIR way doesn’t really work that great and HAS done far more harm than good to justify continuing the practice of discrimination or expecting and enocuraging conversion.
It’s time certain factions got out of the way, so people can learn something ELSE and experience gay people the way they should have all along.
A couple people asked about the label “ex-gay” and what does it mean, especially when I say I have same-sex attractions. That is a good question and I agree the term can be misleading. I personally don’t like the term and only resort to it because it is the common label used to describe people who were or are gay but choose not to affirm homosexuality.
I was in a documentary once and they asked me what I wanted to refer to myself as. I didn’t want to say “ex-gay”–so they put: “same-sex attracted; non practicing” –however that gets very cumbersome to say. There have been many discussions on labels and so far I haven’t seen any agreement on what would be a good replacement for the sociological group that comprises “ex-gay.”
I work in the disability field and have also been involved in the Deaf community in the past. In the world of hearing loss, there is what we call little “d” deaf and big “D” Deaf. Those who identify as little “d” deaf see their hearing loss more as a medical condition and they do not see their disability as an identity. Hearing loss is just something they have. However, those who identify as big “D” Deaf see their hearing loss as part of a cultural identity. Being Deaf is who they are.
I see it very similar with the concept of “gay.” I would say I am little “g” gay. It is not my identity. I see it as a type of disability–whether from physical or psychological etiology. I don’t mind referring to myself as gay with this understanding.
And you still don’t understand why someone would take offense to your characterization of a significant part of their lives as a disability? You can make analogies to explain how you feel about your sexual orientation, but they only explain your own concept, they do not change the reality that no psychological or scientific body of any note considers homosexuality a disease, handicap or dysfunction. You may comfort yourself with the idea that a vast gay conspiracy forced the hand of dozens of organizations and thousands of practitioners world-wide, but again that does not make it so.
Your understanding of your faith has led you to what would be for me a false dichotomy, that acting on same-sex attractions in the same way that another acts on their opposite-sex attractions prevents one from living a life pleasing to God. I respect your right to that belief, and your right to avoid acting on these attractions in your own life. But when you or anyone else attempts to portray this matter of faith as though it had a valid scientific basis, or worse when you try to use laws to restrict the rights of others to live outside that dichotomy, that is not acceptable in our society.
David– I never said anything about a vast conspiracy. And, in my post I only said that “I see it” as a disability. I was answering a question people had asked about how I see the term “ex-gay” or “gay” and to clarify that. I realize other people have other opinions about it.
Since I work in the disability field and realize the incredible stigma people with disabilities face, I resent any implication that there is anything about having a disability that makes a person somehow ugly or unworthy. If homosexuality is a type of physiological birth defect, there is nothing to be ashamed about any more than any person with a disability should be ashamed of having a disability.
I also know that various disabilities–even inborn and immutable ones–can cause people to have different levels of impulse control or make them more likely to act in ways that are contrary to standards/etiquette accepted by society or by God. That doesn’t make them bad. It wasn’t their fault to be born that way. But, none the less certain behaviors, regardless of disability, are still not accepted.
And, if you take offense at homosexuality being compared with a disability, I can only assume you are unfairly contributing to a negative stereotype of people with disabilities.
Again, this is my understanding of the issues. I am not attempting to speak for anyone else.
Karen K and…
I think at different times in our youth, insecurity, trying to find our own way and happiness amid the pecking order that is how we have to live, makes us hate one thing or another about ourselves.
Why would a girl starve herself to death?
Why would anyone get breast implants?
Why would an Asian get surgery on their eyes to ‘correct’ the epicanthic fold?
Why do black people endure scalp burns and hair loss to not have kinky hair?
Why would a gay person seek to not be gay any more?
These are ALL illustrative of a NORMAL person trying to fit into an unrealistic and artificial aesthetic.
These are all examples of people willing to go to risky extremes to find acceptance.
Understandable, but it’s still a serious sign of how deeply that damage can go, how much someone WOULD want to heal or escape it.
However, homosexuality IS one of THE most misrepresented and misunderstood and punished of human conditions. Not wanting to be same sex attracted is no surprise, but trying to reach an unrealistic aesthetic has required incredible sacrifice on your part, expense and another level of denial of and for yourself.
I can remember a time I hated being black. Living in an integrated community, white girls swinging their hair around and no one understanding that it’s ALWAYS black people who have to get along with white people no matter how unreasonable, instead of white people EVER feeling any obligation to know how it feels to be black.
What is happening is not making those who don’t understand homosexuality have any sense of obligation to reciprocate in kind at least in understanding.
Black people have a saying: that we know more about white people than they know about us.
The same is true for homosexuals. They know more about heterosexuality and heterosexuals than the other way around.
What you do, Karen K and the other David? is it?-you relieve the opposition of any interest in knowing anything more about what it is and means to be gay,. How much irrational demand is made to conform to the heterosexual aesthetic, despite the fact that heterosexuality is no indication of virtue or character whatsoever.
There is nothing about living as a heterosexual aesthetic that’s different, the ONLY difference is in the challenge to your everyday freedoms, and basic feelings about oneself.
You’re in that twilight zone of trying too hard to be what doesn’t come naturally to you.
Accepting oneself just on the basics like appearance and professional skills is hard enough. Trying to accept that you’re ‘no longer one of them’ is something else again.
The fight is really over what’s normal for us, and is only a matter of difference and if that difference is ACCEPTED and you don’t have to explain or justify yourself simple because you ARE different.
It’s exhausting explaining your existence and yourself to people.
Black folks have had to do it too, down to the kink in their hair and width of their noses.
WE know you and what you are Karen. We know why.
And why, isn’t the healthiest of reasons as you’d like to think and it certainly isn’t healthy for those young gay people yet to realize their full potential.
Homosexuality IS normal. So are small breasts, so is a roundish body frame.
But look at what people are willing to do to conform, and for WHO?
For WHAT ideal and whose reality?
Go ahead, I’ve seen black women be self satisfied with their straightened fly in the breeze hair, and women sporting implants.
But the fact remains, that’s NOT what their hair, breasts or your orientation is meant to do.
The perception of happy, didn’t come from a root of knowing yourself and who you COULD be without all the artifice and change of aesthetic.
And so you may think you made a choice. Not hardly sister.
You only had a choice between a rock and a hard place and even then you got pushed hard to an aesthetic, not your own.
— Karen K.
And that’s how my religious family and friends think. I should just weather the storm of this life in celibacy much like someone born with a horrible birth defect or some genetic aberration that needs to be nipped in the bud.
That’s the trend lately: branding me as if I had a disability. My religious-oriented “friends” pity me and think I should be ashamed of my SSA. I will never apologize for that brief enlightenment I experienced once: unmitigated love. I’ll never consider it a disability to give and embrace true love. I will never feel one ounce of guilt for some of the relationships I had with a couple of men. I fervently believe some higher power made me this way and the joy and angst I experienced with caring and sharing this gift should never be considered a disability. I believe it insults God that someone would think my love is even an affliction of some sort.
Karen K-
Pretty simple.
You see me as disabled.
I see you as hateful and bigoted.
This is my understanding of the issues. I am not attempting to speak for anyone else.
“Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”– dictionary.com
Who is the one being intolerant of whose views here? I find it amazing you would label me as hateful simply for having my opinion on homosexuality. I haven’t called you hateful simply because I disagree with you. I respect that people have different opinions and don’t expect everyone to agree with me. So, no I am not intolerant of your creed, belief or opinion on homosexuality. I simply disgree with it. Disagreement is different than intolerance.
Throwing around words like bigot (usually using the term inaccurately on top of it) is just an inflammatory way to unfairly demonize an opponent in a debate or discussion.
Uh, I think you missed the point Karen. Nick’s opinion of you as a bigot is no more or less valid (accurate?) than your opinion of him as disabled. Your reaction to his view of you is just what you are objecting to in others, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
You are welcome to comment here but I’m not sure why you keep repeating the same issues in this thread. While I can’t speak for everyone, I think a majority here have expressed the same views as I have, that how you deal with your same-sex attractions is your own business, and of no concern one way or the other to me or them.
But if you keep pushing the issue over and over, then you are bound to strike a raw nerve in someone like Nick C. Is this what you are looking for?
If homosexuality is a “disability,” then why can’t we then park in the disabled zones near stores? Can we apply for government assistance then since we are disabled? Is the ex-gay movement working with the ADA to get “homosexuality” on the disablities list?
Karen K.
My being gay isn’t a disability or a birth defect. You clearly have no idea how inflammatory your comment is. That is why you seem so surprised when Nick C. called you a bigot.
I don’t think you are a bigot, because I don’t believe that a person can change their sexual orientation. I believe that you are as gay now as you have always been. I do think that describing gay people (and yourself by extension) as disabled or suffering from some birth defect contributes to anti-gay bigotry. For that you should be called out.
Since you clearly don’t understand how insulting your comments are, I would encourage you to read up on Dr. Laura and the general response to her “biological error” comment.
Give me a break.
Karen, people who are queer get upset when you call their natural sexual and romantic inclinations a “disability” because disabilities are attributes that need to be overcome or reconciled. A deaf person cannot hear and is not as able as a hearing person to go through life with ease without adapting first. A blind person must adapt to their sightless condition to be on par with sighted humans in everyday survival. Disabled people often triumph above their able-bodied counterparts because of the tenacity developed in overcoming what might otherwise hinder them.
But loving someone of the same sex does not innately hinder someone. It doesn’t make them less able to survive, and it’s not something that is necessary to overcome or “dealt with” in order to live a full life.
The only way homosexuality exists as a condition to be overcome is when people treat it like something that needs to be overcome. But it isn’t necessary. I can love another woman and it won’t make a difference in how i live a fulfilling life, so long as people leave me alone and mind their own business.
karen k
You overlook the fact that when you talk about homosexuality, you are actually talking about people. People like me. And not surprisingly, those people will take offense when you label us as disabled just because we don’t agreed with your religious precepts.
Funny thing about bigots – they’re the last to recognize how hateful their words are.
Alan S. nailed it:
I used to accept Karen K’s self-positioning as a moderate.
But here, Karen presumes to pick-and-choose which “disabled” people get special rights and which ones get higher taxes and second-class citizenship — or jail, since jail is precisely where Exodus Global Alliance wants to put “homosexuals.”
Furthermore, Karen offers double-negatives and double-talk: She does not specify what, if anything, she opposes at PFOX, Exodus, or any other member of the un-Christian, superstitious far right.
Thirty years after its founding, the ex-gay movement remains overwhelmingly Caucasian. It is increasingly hostile to constitutional rights and safety for blacks and women as well as gays:
–Exodus leaders have — speaking unofficially and out of sight of blacks — opposed ALL hate-crime laws, not just the ones that recognize gay victims of violence.
–Focus on the Family and its offspring oppose every semblance of an equal rights amendment that would equalize men’s and women’s constitutional rights.
–Exodus and Focus have asserted a blanket religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws.
No one who knows much of this can credibly claim to be an innocent bystander; apathy, neglect, and intentional ignorance are not moral options.
Nor can an informed person claim with consistency to support Exodus/PFOX and the NAACP, whose missions are in direct conflict. There are ex-gay activists who favor special rights solely based on race, and who oppose constitutional equality for all (regardless of race, religion, or gender). But I think such activists will find little agreement at the NAACP.
It appears, based on the limited information, that PFOX first deceived NAACP into allowing an exhibit, and then lied to the public about the nature of the form-letter that it received afterward.
Karen doesn’t clearly state her opinion about that lie. Everything else that she says is a sideshow.
Here’s another point regarding “disability”:
The ability to intimately love one other person is not a disability. It is, among other things, Christian.
However, a celibate ex-gay activist’s choice not to express intimate love to anyone — or, on the other hand, an ex-gay activist’s choice to fake a marital relationship for political, religious, or social approval — might well qualify as selfish and un-Christian.
How ironic that lovelessness and selfishness — so evident in the ex-gay success stories — are so commonly projected by these activists from their own lives onto gay couples whose love and selflessness is beyond doubt.
Mike A said:
The fear, of course, is St. Peter will slam the pearly gates on anyone who is gay or lesbian or homosexual or has SSA or has had a gay experience or thinks they’re gay or whatever else is PC in the ex-gay world to say now. Because somehow the message of the Gospel was warped and apparently the ex-gay movement found the missing manuscript that says, “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven, AND IS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL, they shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” – The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew (Matthew 7:21)
It follows a pattern…since their religious community will only love and accept them IF THEY SHOW OUTWARD SIGNS OF HETEROSEXUALITY, or at least demonstrate that they ARE NOT GAY OUTWARDLY, then the logical conclusion (for many ex-gays) is that God expects the same. Afterall, the religious body is suppose to reflect the wishes of God so, if they say being gay is a “no-no” then God says it’s a “no-no” and so one has to do everything in their power to OUTWARDLY show the world they are straight.
In the Jewish Scriptures, the prophet Osee states that God declared, “I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than holocausts.” Osee 6:6 (Hosea 6:6) So why do ex-gay ministries require gays and lesbians to SACRIFICE who they are? Why are they not MERCIFUL to those whose sexual orientation differs from others? Why do they refuse to learn from the knowledge that has been brought forth by Biblical scholars FROM ALL WALKS OF FAITH who acknowledge the Scriptures that certain religious bodies use to condemn gays and lesbians are in fact not related to modern definitions of sexuality?
Were they alive during Galileo’s time they would have helped set up the bonfire to burn him alive!
Hi Karen,
You ran right past my post about natural attributes not being accepted and who has them going to great lengths to change them, not because they are unhealthy people, nor that their not wanting them isn’t understandable….but that wanting to change them isn’t necessarily something that will work or HELP society at large EVENTUALLY accept those attributes.
And actually, they have become more accepted. There is nothing wrong with accepting homosexuality. There is nothing wrong with homosexual people.
And no reason to KEEP teaching children that homosexuality is bad and dooms who is gay to whatever.
THAT’S why your disability analogy got you gobsmacked and you deserved it. You might as well have said my kinky hair and full lips are a disability.
Maybe to someone who hates those attributes that are most often in a black person….and they would be unusual in a whilte person.
But NEVER, EVER will I accept that those features are ugly, unnatural and not worthy of acceptance.
You feel me?
I can empathize with you as far as not wanting to be same sex attracted. You’re set UP to not want it.
But why would you, as I say, give any oxygen to those who think homosexuality so ugly a thing? And it’s ONLY heterosexuals with an agenda who think so?
One needs a LOT of brass if they are going to get along doing what DOESN’T come naturally to them Karen. You’re on the side that confuses and confounds and you’re going to have to live with your choice.
Your choice, Karen….wasn’t about being thick skinned, or strong. It wasn’t about being courageous or noble. Your choice is none of those things, not on any level.
Because of what happens to those who DON’T make your same choice. And because of what happens to education about homosexuality and idealization of heterosexuality.
Your choice seriously screws other people and when THEY know it, don’t complain.
You’re in no position to get defensive. You’re in no position to feel that any hostility or distrust of you is unfair.
Karen, if you can’t handle talking about the choice you made around gay people, that’s not our problem.
It’s an indirect insult, I think. And the folks here can correct me about that.
I know a lot of people that love certain things, like dancing and art. They may take classes and practice and practice…but without natural ability, it’s pretty much a solitary pursuit. Sexual orientation is like that. What comes naturally shouldn’t and doesn’t take PRACTICE, it just takes nurturing.
With the chronic mantra that homosexuality is representative of being a broken heterosexual, that’s like saying a person who can’t dance is just a broken dancer.
Which would be a useless and hurtful statement if they were talented as an artist or singer.
Gay folks are UNDERAPPRECIATED talent, but talented just the same. There’s a difference.
For a price, it’s not hard for a shark to tell someone they have talent in an area they don’t, because that person wants so BADLY to be among the exalted and accepted.
Which one are you, Karen?
I think a key point of what I was initially trying to express has been missed. I brought this up by making a comparison to the deaf and Deaf communities. My view of myself is that of little “g” gay and your view is that of big “G” Gay. You will find those in the Deaf community are just as insulted by the idea of having a disability. For them it is their identity and culture. Anyone familiar with the Deaf community will know what I mean.
I think the question for me is: Can Gays accept that there are some who see themselves as little “g” gay?
And a second question: Is it possible to simply disagree on these philosophical ideas about identity without resorting to calling someone a bigot? Even within the Gay community there are various perspectives on understanding what a queer identity is and how it is formed.
The reality is regardless of how or why someone is gay (and I think there are different reasons, not just one), the bottom line is: I do not see gay/Gay people as inferior to heterosexuals. I have absolutely no hate or animosity towards GLBT people. I do not desire to see anyone who is GLBT unfairly fired from a job or evicted from housing, or barred from seeing a loved one in the hospital.
The reality is I love GLBT people. I realize it is virtually impossible for people on this thread to understand that, but I hold to what I believe about homosexuality not out of any desire to hurt or condemn someone who is GLBT, but because I believe the ways of God bring us well-being. And it is because I desire shalom for all people, and especially those who are GLBT, that I share my beliefs even though it incurs anger.
I would have liked to reconcile my homosexuality with Christianity. I have great incentive to do so. I don’t live single and celibate because there is something particularly enjoyable about that. I do it because I trust God and after many years of soul searching believe homosexuality is not what God wants. You can hang me by my thumbs for believing that–but what can I do? Deny my own conscience? I trust God and I believe what he says about homosexuality is truly, truly for our well-being even when we cannot always understand that.
Anyway, I think we have had a great discussion here, even if heated at times. This is the reason I read ExGay Watch because by interacting with you all, my thinking is challenged. I appreciate hearing your perspectives, so thanks for taking the time to share them. Until next time . . . Take care.
(Mike A–Your comment doesn’t interact with anything I have actually said, so I can’t respond)
The “Big letter” “Little letter” concept is just a way to describe dedication to a subject, a way to describe commitment and the percentage of a person life the issue takes up.
The risk of letting yourself become a “big letter” person is you suffer for it, you risk becoming lonely or not doing the things you love or leading a full life because of the expectations of that big letter. Say when a big “R” religious persons feels forced to live lonely and celibate life or that big “C” capitalist finds his wife leaving him because he never found time for her. This doesn’t matter if you are a “C”atholic, “J”ewish, “D”eaf, “G”ay, “A”utistic, “T”rans. . .When you only identify yourself by one facet of your life you risk losing something important.
I’ll let you in on a little secret, while I make time for advocacy in my life and I engage in a homosexual love life, I am many things most of which have nothing to do with the letter “g” in my life , I’m a spiritualist, an artist, a craftswoman, a friend, a merchant, an adviser, a confidant, a community volunteer, and a relatively nifty (at least according to the people who know me) human being.
—
I’m also going to go out here and say something mean spirited and I will apologize before I say it, still I must say it.
I do not now, never have, and never will want your brand of “special” love. That strange sickening sweet love that comes out of a some deep-seated desire to “fix” someone broken and fragile. I say this as a gay person, I say this as a trans person and I say this as a person who survived a horrible accident that nearly left me for dead. All my life there where people who told me how much they “loved” me and that they only wanted to “help” me, what I discovered was most of the time they wanted to fix something in themselves or prove that they where a good person. It is demeaning to hear and receive. I don’t like and never have liked it when a person uses the term “poor dear” while telling me how brave I was.
I will accept genuine love, from damn near anyone, I am no where as bitter as this makes me sound, but I will say no thanks to the false brand of “love” you are offering with the line “The reality is I love GLBT people.” It is not real love, it is “love” to prove that you are better then those poor broken creatures you so desperately need to help.
So please for your sake and mine don’t waste any of that “love” for me. You can hate me, or feel indifferent, or treat me like everyone else on the street, but do not “love” me.
Karen,
I’m convinced Shakespeare had it right when he observed “to thine own self be true.” Having lived with what sounds like a similar struggle for 35 years, believing myself “gay” vs. “Gay” (to use your example), I came to the place where I finally was willing to question my idea of “Christianity.”
If the bible informs your Christianity, why do you get a snake, or a rock when you ask for bread. Could it be you ask amiss? Having a conscience doesn’t mean you are right. There are people willing to fly jets into buildings based on a conscience towards “God.” Courage of conviction is not proof of correctness.
You have a need Karen, “where now is the God of Elijah?” Where is the demonstration of “God” in your life vs. belief? How do you know that you trust “God” and not god? That “big g” “little g” thing can cut a few directions.
The apostle Paul noted it is better to be single than married. He also believed in a God who wouldn’t want people to “burn,” so there’s marriage. (I love his rousing endorsement “it’s better to marry than burn…”). I cannot reconcile burning with “G”od.
I cannot reconcile your god with a God of love.
Does anyone here views themselves as Big-G [G]ay? I don’t think I do. Anyone else? (E-c-h-o… e-c-h-o…) Perhaps I’m missing Karen’s point. Yes, some deaf people adopt a Deaf identity, but that situation does not apply to many gay people.
I don’t know many gay people who make their sexual orientation all-important, however, it’s clear that several Exodus leaders do.
Being honest about one’s sexual orientation does affect how one relates to people — but if I may say so, being honest and communicating openly are hardly sinful, and it does not translate into an all-consuming identity.
I’d like to clarify one of my earlier remarks: Celibacy can be done selflessly, as I’m sure Karen K does.
But in the hands of some other ex-gays, celibacy becomes an excuse to resent gays who represent the slightest temptation; to close off communication with people; and finally to wage dishonest cultural and political warfare against people. In that context, celibacy becomes loveless and selfish.
Karen…please. just. stop.
You are not authentic. There is no amount of defense you can muster for what you have rejected in yourself. The equation is ZERO in gain, and a two to one LOSS for gay people.
It. does. not. matter. how much you say you love gay people. Your actions show otherwise. The person who gets a nose job cannot say they love aquiline noses. You sound phony and are personally insincere. And admitting to your own nose job still doesn’t make a bit of difference.
What IS it with the folks who say they are no longer gay? You can’t CUT it, okay?
You can’t cut it as a strong, authentic defender of gay folks. Straight people will think you’re out of your tree, and gay folks will check your disingenuousness for what it is. It’s the work you make OTHERS do, that you can’t, Karen.
You leave a bigger mess then you can clean up.
Why is THAT so hard for ex gays to deal with? What IS it with you that you just can’t handle the truth of what you say and do?
If you can’t handle that reality, then maybe there is no place for you anywhere Karen. Sometimes we DO have to be one or the other for people to understand any of us better.
I understand you perfectly. It’s just that it’s not flattering what I think of folks just like you.
And check this out Karen.
I’ve already had to handle a lot in life. Seeing the evolution of acceptance and what that means. I RODE IT OUT. And in the meantime, represented black sisterhood with the hair, nose, lips, everything!
And folks got used to it and found they liked it.
You represent the archaic, a regression of acceptance, as I said. I bet I could handle being GAY too. I sure don’t underestimate that it takes quite a depth of character to come out stronger on the other side of it.
You have sold out gay folks, Karen. Sold them out and you’re here and elsewhere trying to call it something else. Gay children especially pay a VERY high price, that you’re not willing to help them pay WHERE IT MATTERS.
It takes guts to show some love for gay folks, without a posse, Karen. You can’t show love, until you show you got the brass ones to show YOURSELF.
For now, that’s not you. And you haven’t asked a soul here if you got what they need. You just assume it’s enough or pretty special on your say so.
Girl, please!
Karen:
I’m sorry, but it sounds like so many non-Catholic Christians I know who tell me they “love” Catholics, and then proceed to rip into to me and my faith as if they had free licence. If you really love someone, you don’t just love them on the surface. It is not a matter of “I love you, BUT or HOWEVER…”
I am always appreciative of having healthy debates about religion, but I find that most of the time it is a “I’m right, you’re wrong” dog fight for many Christians on both sides of the dividing line. Few people appreciate the true art of arguments.
And so it is with ex-gays speaking to Gays or gays or Ggays … I always hear those words “I love gay people” and then they proceed to rip into me and my life as if they had free licence.
I think the big problem is that everybody is running around with their own definition of love, as especially what “love” means in the context of how we deal with one another. For Christians, that means we have to go to our source and leader, Christ. We search his words and deeds to see what it means to truly love someone with whom we may not feel a connection, or even moreso, with someone with whom we completely disagree with on key beliefs concerning faith and morality.
In the four-fold written Gospel one finds that it was not so much that those who encountered Christ made a change but that they were transformed by Him. The mere sacrament of Baptism confirms the fact that we can’t change on our own accord but rather we are changed by God’s love for us. If we are Baptized in Christ and yet remain gay or lesbian because our core being is programmed with desires for those of the same sex, then perhaps the transformation Christ seeks in us is not that we destroy or sacrifice our natural desires but that we raise them to a level that expresses true love and respect for those with whom we entrust to share our lives, and to allow God to flow through the bond we create with the person we wish to share the rest of our lives with.
Karen, you said:
This puts me in mind of something that John Henry Newman wrote in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864):
The author of a brief critical history of the Oxford Movement commented that perhaps Newman should have considered the possibility that it was God’s will that he should spend more time in the fresh air and sunshine.
Hi Karen,
I got the Exodus Youth e-newletter and they had an article about youth coming out, being more vocal about their rights and educating the public.
Mike Ensley calls it promoting homosexuality. That’s an oft repeated misnomer. Promotion. There is nothing in dealing with the reality of homosexuality that’s promotion, it’s education. It’s VITAL education and information being offered.
Another oft repeated phrase is “struggling with same sex attraction”.
Struggle is a loaded word, and a matter of perception. Struggle with all kinds of things when one is young is inevitable.
One can struggle with ethnic identity, religious values, struggle with academic grades and with one’s peers.
And ALL of it, is normal. All of it is a rite of passage and all of it could occur over a lifetime in different ways and times.
Making one’s sexual orientation the locus of youthful existence from which almost all other problems of life flow, is exactly the wrong thing to do. Ex gay groups do this constantly. Centering acceptance on denial, not freedom. And all around you in every day life, the business of being couples and parents and having sex and being in a relationship is celebrated, the focus of nearly everything no matter where you are.
And you have to sit like a nun, without the uniform that distinguishes and exalts you as such in your community. And you have to daily give yourself assurance that you DIDN’T let all that love around you affect you deeply and that you don’t feel any less like an outsider than you did as an out homosexual person. You require assurance from the straight people RUNNING THINGS that yes, you’re doing the right thing and God will love you best for such a show of self sacrifice.
Young people confronted constantly with the message that gay youth get that’s negative, WOULD struggle. That’s the plan. That’s the calculation FOR gays and lesbians.
But there is struggle to make one strong, and struggle to make one weak and complacent and non challenging to established authority.
In the former, stuggle is a good thing. One can learn about emotional maturity and self assurance.
The latter, is more a matter of following and prescribed line of thinking and focus set ASIDE exclusively for gay people.
You don’t have the choice to marry someone else gay. You don’t have the same free options for children and family, those are powerful disincentives to challenging what are different rules for you, Karen.
As I’ve already said, it’s OTHER gay people, especially young ones who can’t be independent of the plans the adults have for them who pay a heavy price for your direction.
They don’t have a choice, really. You didn’t either, but I’m sure it makes you feel better to think you did.
And the whole point really IS to feel better. Who wouldn’t want to feel better?
But this IS about YOU feeling better. Because it sure can’t make gay folks at large feel better. So the decision you made IS essentially quite selfish.
I’ll say this though: a world of just heterosexuals, or those assumed to be or celibate…would be the most boring place.
There are some things about struggling with society the way it is about gay people that requires gay folks to develop a kind of savvy, and emotional and intellectual and creative quotient that keeps the world turning with spectacular variety and interest.
Look at the music, dance, literature and physical and mental attributes that black folks developed out of struggle.
And look at how the world is also a better place that doesn’t have racism anymore, and what could happen without homophobia.
See, Karen: Now you’re just beige, another member of the same old wallpaper. It’s exciting to be a part of struggle that CHANGES things for the better, that beats the world at it’s own game. The only way to be a REAL effective soldier, is to NOT be like the herd. Just blending in.
And Karen…that ain’t you.
Creation is full of variety, fluid forms, and more than one function for nearly each living thing. That anyone could believe so firmly there is only ONE way to have sex, and gender is so strictly defined in the physical sense, given all this diversity around us…is absurd.
The NAACP has a long history of opposing discrimination based on sexual orientation – PFOX supported legislation in Virginia a few years ago (that failed) that would have banned gay and straight alliances in the state.
On that ground alone, NAACP should not welcome PFOX’s presence at their events, despite PFOX’s claims that they are the ones who are truly inclusive and tolerant and that ex-gays are the real victims of sexual oppression.
Well said, Regan! Hear, hear!