- September 5 has been set as the theatrical release date for “Save Me,” the ex-gay drama starring Chad Allen and Judith Light.
- TWO: A panel on “gender issues” organized by the Southern Baptist Church is overrun by ex-gays, is all white and all male except for one member, and seeks to acquire Southern Baptist financial support. They supposedly are also here to offer a “Way Out.”
- Soulforce, Jay Bakker and Peterson Toscano dialogue with the leaders of Willow Creek Church.
- Wayne Besen reports of a man whose partner was “brainwashed” away from him by a born-again Christian woman who pretended to be his friend. The woman was determined “at all costs” to break the couple up and get them out of each other’s lives.
- Peter LaBarbera has accused a Chicago PBS station of airing “religiously-bigotted, pro-homosexual” programming at the taxpayers’ expense. The program aired was about a men’s chorus.
- Ted Baehr argues that homosexuals must be a tiny minority since gay-themed movies earn only one-tenth as much as “movies with very strong Christian worldviews.” By his own logic, then, Christians must outnumber gays ten to one, which would suggest the gay population is between 7-8% – several times higher than Focus on the Family’s numbers and hardly a “tiny minority.”
- Timothy Kincaid of BTB examines “pro-gay marriage-defender” David Benkof, exposing his positions, claims, and arguments by going through them with a fine-tooth comb.
X
I’ve seen some dim-twittery in my day, but boy howdy…
(bold mine)
I happen to rent my “homosexual movies” (from a conservatively located Blockbuster no less). When I like those movies, and when available, I then listen to the commentary. One consistent theme I’ve found in listening to them, is that they are usually the passionate brain-child of an actual gay person.
So Mr. Baehr’s suggestion that “the movie industry should stop wasting money on this tiny group,” is literally to suggest that gay persons should stop “wasting” money on themselves.
Okay, Besen’s story about the “brainwashed” boyfriend is a little ridiculous (and sounds even more strange on the jilted partner’s blog). If the woman was deliberately trying to break up the couple, I’ll agree that sucks and she was wrong to do it, but are we really going to say that she forced the boyfriend to do something against his will? Besen speaks of “mind control” in his report, and it sounds just as ridiculous there as when Greg Griffith accused Peterson Toscano of it.
I’ll have to admit that story has a sort of “Enquirer” type air about it. However, I can state from personal experience that “brainwashing” or at least what most of us would call that, is not that hard to accomplish with the right people. I might go into this more in another post. It’s not that someone does something against their will, it’s that their will is modified through various methods. I have no idea about the instances Wayne describes, I’m just speaking in general because I’ve had to investigate some of this lately.
You will have to evaluate Wayne’s post for yourself, I only scanned it.
Well, I read both Besen’s article and that of David Nahmod, the boyfriend who was left by the supposedly “brainwashed” man. Perhaps he needs to go into more detail, but so far his only evidence that the woman “brainwashed” him is that he started experiencing headaches shortly after he met her. Simply put, I don’t want to get to a place where using a persuasive argument is considered an attempt to “brainwash.” And I really would be skeptical of an assertion that a normal born-again Christian woman is thoroughly trained in “brainwashing” tactics.
How do you know she was a “normal born-again Christian woman”? Persuasive argument in a normal setting is hardly what I’m talking about, but again I have no idea if what those articles describe is either. I was only addressing your rather casual dismissal of “brainwashing” in general.
I remember reading Ted Baehr’s piece when it showed up on Digg (it’s a guilty pleasure, hunting for worldnetdaily.com diggs). My favorite part was his questionable and misleading math where he slips Brokeback Mountain in with a handful of independent films to say that LGBT themed films only make an average of about 8 million at the box office (Brokeback Mountain made 82 million).
Did anyone listen to Talk of the Nation yesterday? There was a discussion panel on marriage equality in California and recent discrimination law suits, such as the one with the wedding photographer who denied service to a same-sex couple. Jordan Lorence was speaking for the Allance Defense Fund, and it was funny to listen to him argue because every single example he made of anti-discrimination law coming back to haunt the LGBT people who fought for it involved LGBT peopl wanting to deny service to ex-gays. The discussion wasn’t at all about the ex-gay movement/industry, but at the same time, with all of the euphemistic phrases he used, like “freedom from homosexuality,” and “people who have left the gay lifestyle,” he almost sounded like a mouth piece for Exodus®.
Is this true? does this actually happen or is this a construct of ADF and other anti-gays?
I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear, all of his examples were hypotheticals, I just thought it was funny that they all were hypothetical examples of ex-gay discrimination (isn’t that just straight discrimination?)
That’s what most people might naturally assume, but no, it isn’t. That “ex-gay” simply means “now straight” is the impression that the titles of their books, and the adverts for their programmes, ministries etc. seem to be trying to give, but once you look more deeply into the matter you discover that it very seldom, if ever, really means this. The nearest to it that most ex-gays ever seem to achieve is being straight in an unusual and complicated way, which your average, normal, common or garden heterosexual probably wouldn’t recognize as being straight at all – and certainly wouldn’t want for himself/herself either.
David, I don’t know if she was “normal” or not… at the same time, I’m not sure where anyone learns brainwashing techniques. As far as I can remember, no detail is given about her profession or background, so I just assume that she is ordinary. I’m not saying that “brainwashing” doesn’t happen at all… but usually it’s associated with large systems such as churches and cults whose influences completely surround an individual. I am skeptical that a single person could “brainwash” a friend of theirs.
I think it’s important to keep tabs on this type of thing. Otherwise, we’re going to get to a point where gay men and women might see their Evangelical friends as “bad influences,” which I find is quite an ironic role-reversal.
I had a few questions myself about the story and how wayne wrote it. It wasn’t making sense entirely.
Ummmm…. magic headaches? Really?? This is the evidence we want to use for brainwashing?
Sigh
I thought brainwashing required changing perspective by cutting off all counter-positions and presenting one perspective only. If he was living with his boyfriend, how on earth could someone else brainwash him?
It’s my responsibility to deal with what is, not to protect the image of Evangelicals in general. That a small number of same might use their religion to seriously manipulate another (even “brainwash” them) is hardly reason to indict all “Evangelical friends.” If you truly want to prevent the irony you describe, I suggest there is far more “bad behavior” by that group which could be addressed.
Again, I have no idea about the veracity of the events Wayne described.
I read the linked posts finally. What I am talking about has really nothing to do with what is described in those accounts. I would have to be rather skeptical as well of the headaches, etc. I’ve recently researched an incident which is fresh in my mind, and which caused me to empathize heavily with the people involved. The discussion here touched that nerve and so I wanted to make sure we do not become too flip about such possibilities – people can be systematically cut off from their family, friends and even reality by the actions of even one person. But again, that’s a different matter from this.
I have to agree about the brainwashing story. To me it had the tone of a scare story, or an urban myth. For some reason it put me in mind of stories like the one that gay people go around taping HIV-infected needles to gas pumps.
Sure it could have happened, but at first glance it looks to me like a stretch to believe it really says anything valuable or informative about ex-gays and Christians generally.
Perhaps not, but if a prominent Evangelical reported on how a straight friend of theirs was manipulated into becoming gay by hanging around a homosexual (and it’s not hard to imagine such a story being reported), I’m sure XGW would do a good job of deconstructing its ridiculousness. I’m just hoping that you’d do the same for the reverse, especially since any real evidence is lacking at this point.
Well, here’s what I take from the story:
• A gay man had a partner who was friends with a Christian woman.
• The gay man’s partner started to become increasingly distant.
• He left this man to go live with the Christian woman.
• The Christian woman never simply wanted to be his friend.
I don’t know what to make of the “headaches.” HOWEVER: I do know that it is easier to manipulate people than most think. “mob mentality” is one example. Social constructs in Junior High School is another. Don’t forget peer pressure.
I don’t foresee someone ever “converting” someone to gayness. In this society, being gay is usually the last thing someone wants to become. I think the wave of desperation NOT to be gay is too strong for someone to convert. In addition, people who assume an identity that is not truly theirs – such as ex-gay – have to really struggle to keep it going. Their lives become artifices and sometimes living hells. A gay person who is not comfortable being gay shouldn’t be gay – they are probably just confused. That is: If this gay person can’t imagine having a romantic or sexual relationship with a person of the same sex, maybe they aren’t really gay. I think of the movie “Kissing Jessica Stein.”
Jay, I’ve tried to make it clear that my comments have little or nothing to do with the example reported by Wayne, but you keep responding as though I was referring to a case such as that. Your implication was that it would take a large and specialized operation to brainwash someone, and I strongly disagree. That is the extent of my purpose with my reply.
That said, and setting aside the absurd premise of your statement, I think the shear number of ex-gay “ministries” and their fallout make the reverse a lot more likely. If you know of entire organizations dedicated to making one gay (and for that matter how one would go about that), then please do share. To my knowledge, there are few individuals out there disparately seeking help in becoming gay, which makes your scenario rather unlikely to begin with.
I honestly hope you never encounter a situation where someone has been manipulated against all reason to believe things which are not true, and shun their own family and friends until there is nothing left but pain and agony for everyone. It does happen, but I’m going to stop talking about it because I can’t go into the particulars to explain what I mean, at least not yet.
For the record, I never said that anyone could be converted into being gay. Many Evangelicals, however, think that people can. It’s one of the “scare tactics” that they use. “Don’t hang out with gays, or they will try to recruit you.” I’m sure we’re all aware of those tactics and I applaud XGW for working against them.
My point was that this story seems to have a similar, though reversed, undertone. “Beware Evangelicals, or they might brainwash your boyfriend.” Does that make more sense? I don’t think my premise was “absurd” at all, but if I didn’t communicate it effectively I apologize.
I don’t think “brainwashing” would exactly require a huge system, but like Timothy said, it would have to be large enough that no counter-opinions could get in.
This is simply false, and I’m tired of debating it.
Okay, Besen’s story about the “brainwashed” boyfriend is a little ridiculous…
Two names: John Evans. Ron Marano.
I think you’re getting hung up on this ‘brainwashed’ stuff. Anti-gay religious fanatics try to break up same sex couples all the time, and this one apparently did it by befriending Goodwin first. The headaches could simply have been the result of the emotional stress Kathryn was putting Goodwin under. If she was slowly convincing him that his eternal soul was bound for Hell for loving David Nahmod, and yet he loved him all the same, it would strike me as surprising if there Weren’t any physical signs of stress. The emotional wounds I have witnessed myself, endured by people who have been through ex-gay ministires, whether they broke up with someone in the process or not, would make a brick cry.
It may seem fantastic that a fundie could, simply by befriending one half of a couple, break up their relationship. But it happens. It happened to John Evans and Ron Marano and that’s one of the crying tragedies that gave birth to Love In Action. That should be all too familiar history around here.
Bruce please enlighten.
Happens all the time in divorce cases, with the kids. I know.
Well my goodness, I just came across this thread, 2 1/2 months after the fact.
I’m the David in David & Beecher.
Before posting my story, Wayne Besen met with me & looked over my documentation.
Wane knows all too well that
what Kathryn Rock did to Beecher Goodwin & I is very real.
If you check recent posts at my blog, you’ll see documentation of her mail tampering activities.
You’ll also see taunts that Kathryn herself posted at my blog.
Beecher & I are both manic depressive, and our illnesses are the tools Kathryn used~~and uses~~to enrage us against each other.
Her goal was singular:
to destroy our relationship & get Beecher to live with her.
I’ve been blogging the whole story bit by bit, while bringing up related mental health/LGBT issues at the blog.
Still to be posted at my blog:
Abusive emails sent to me~~behind Beecher’s back~~by Kathryn’s husband, and a falsified court document that Kathryn “prepared”for Beecher to sign.
In addition to his manic depression, Beecher has reading disabilities, which Kathryn also uses to her advantage.
Beecher’s own siblings are openly supporting Kathryn Rock’s hate campaign in the name of their “Lord Jesus Christ”.
Besides my blog, I’m also pleased to announce:
This Fall, I’ll have stories in the gay publications ON Magazine (San Jose CA) and Outword Magazine (Sacramento CA), written by freelance journalist Alfonso Chinea, who has also seen my documentation.
The LGBT community has a long history of treating mental illness as a “lifestyle choice.”
It’s time for this to change.
We need to insure that mentally ill LGBTs get proper treatment.
We need to protect mentally ill LGBTs from predators like Kathryn Rock.
When a person has cancer or diabetes, we don’t have philisophical discussions as to whether or not the disease should be treated.
We simply treat the disease without question.
Unless we adopt this same policy regarding mental illness, the Kathryn Rocks of the world will be able to continue with their shameful, evil deeds.
David,
I’m also gay and mentally ill, bipolar as a matter of fact. I have yet to experience the discrimination from specifically the LGBTQ community that my mental illness is a lifestyle choice. In fact, I’ve found that this type of discrimination comes from the human community rather than just one segment of that community. Unless you have a mental illness, or a close relative or dear friend with a mental illness (but more often the former) it is difficult to understand a physical deficiency that you can’t see and that people have difficulty understanding, even in the scientific community.
I’m glad that you are getting some large outlets to tell your story. It is important to tell because of every factor – the mental illness, the gay community, and Christians who aren’t very.
I’m not sure I’ve noticed any increased denial or misdirection of mental illness amongst gays, is there some supporting source for that? What I have noticed is a refusal to accept homosexuality itself as a mental illness, and with good reason. But what legitimate mental illness do you claim GLBTs in general are labeling as a lifestyle choice?
As to the discussion of the original article, I think what sent up red flags for many was the reference to headaches, as though some unconscious technique was being employed to cause them. This may have been a misinterpretation, but it did seem rather odd.
For David Roberts:
I don’t blame you for being skeptical~~it’s a strange, shocking story.
But true.
A mental health care provider could explain to you how stress could be deliberately instigated to cause headaches, and how vulnerable
a mentally ill person would be to such a horrific attack.
Though Kathryn Rock is not an offcial “ex gay” minister, her tactics are similar to what Focus on the Family does~~use a person’s weak spots to break them down.
Emily K:
I’m glad to encounter you.
I hope you saw the thank you I posted at my blog for your very sweet & supportive comment.
Emily, I don’t kow where you live, but here in San Francisco, mental illness is indeed being treated like a lifestyle choice.
Mentally ill homeless people are allowed to languish in the streets for years on end, while LGBT “activists” argue that they should be left there out of “respect
for their personal choices”.
I knew a bipolar woman here who claims that not treating her disease
“empowers her to make choices regarding her body”.
LGBT activists SUPOPORT HER!
Disgusting!
In trying to tell people here in SF about Kathryn Rock, the responses from LGBT activists & journalists has been “Shut up, get over it, youre co-dependent”
Here in San Francisco, LGBT activists find it “empowering” to constantly scream “Shut Up, I don’t want to hear it” at each other.
I’ve seen LGBTs in San Francisco support Palestinian suicide bombers, while refusing to give each other the time of day!
I’m glad to hear that things are not like this elsewhere.
But here in SF, the LGBT community is bitter, fragmented
and refuses to embrace it’s own.
Listening and caring is called “co-dependency”
It’s a sad, sad thing to see, and the community here needs to own up to this.
A community under siege, as we are, cannot afford to behave this way towards each other. It’s time for LGBTs in San Francisco to realize that the only thing they’re “empowering” is the hatred of Kathryn Rock, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc.
Thanks to Wayne Besen, a great activist and a great person.
Because of Wayne, my story is getting play.
Wayne Besen listens and cares, and that’s what we need more of.
BTW, would anyone consider linking my blog to this site?
http://www.DavidsOpenForum.Blogspot.com
I’m not only telling the Kathryn Rock story at the blog, I’m also trying to raise LGBT mental health awareness, and to make the San Francisco
community a little more sensitive to it’s own people’s needs.
And I’m being as harsh with myself as with anyone else.
Please visit my blog to see my latest post, put up on Aug 1st, 2008.
I fess up about my first serious manic episode.
It’s a shocker of a story, but in telling it, I’m trying to make ammends to those I hurt & let others know that help is out there.
Peace & love to all.
It’s been a while since I spent much time in San Francisco. But I am familiar enough with the city and its politics to know that it is unlike most other places.
I suspect what David sees as “the LGBT community” is, in reality, a subset of that community. SF has attracted, over the years, a more radical and extremist element (I’m not trying to be judgmental or use “scare” word, but I think this is accurate). While the community as a whole is not significantly more peculiar than anywhere else, I do think SF has more individuals who live far outside the norm.
It is not surprising to me that it was in SF that some gay persons – identifying themselves as “the economic left” – sought to undermine an HRC fundraiser to fight Proposition 8 because they feel that HRC is not sufficiently representative of the needs of transgender person. SF was also home to the last holdouts who believe that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus.
So I’m not surprised that there are persons there who believe that mentally ill persons can express their freedom by not taking their medications. My libertarian streak can find some sympathies with that notion.
But the reality is that mentally ill persons are not free. Freedom means the ability to make rational choices and if one’s mind will not make rational choices outside of medical assistance, then there is no “freedom” to discuss. Mentally ill persons are subject to either medications or a mind that processes information in a flawed manner.
And while SF may indeed have some persons there who think that avoiding medication give one “freedom over their body”, I’m quite sure that attitude is in no was representative of the LGBT community at large, or even the majority of those in SF.
I live in the Bay Area. I am not familiar with any organized GLBT groups working to keep the seriously mentally ill off medications. I am sure it is possible, but I think there is a more likely explanation.
Since the Kennedy Administration (while Ronald Reagan was Governor of CA), they closed the mental hospitals (which were in bad shape anyway), but did not follow through with community based mental health care. As a result, lots of people fell through the cracks and it accounts for significant parts of the homeless problem in SF, as well as other cities in CA as well as around the country.
It is very hard to force someone into care. They have to be a danger to themselves or others or gravely disabled, and all these terms are narrowly defined.
You also cannot force people to take their medications. There is a famous case of an inmate who went to the CA Supreme Court and won the right not to take his meds. He subsequently was paroled, still off meds, and only a year or so ago apparently killed his roommate in Alameda, CA. He is currently in jail, and I don’t know the status of his case (to be tried, setteled, etc).
This isn’t a gay issue in that it affects anyone who is close to someone with serious mental illness. It also puts healthcare workers in a bind, because there are very limited circumstances where you can intervene against the wishes of the mentally ill person.
The seriously mentally ill used to have no rights. Now, they have very strong rights, but sometimes the person is too ill to properly excercise those rights, but not ill enough to allow others to make decisions for them. It is an unfortunate situation, that nobody seems to want to address. And I don’t have the answers either.
I just wanted to make clear that I see this regularly and do not think this is something special to SF or to the LGBT community in particular.
I’m glad to see people here challenging me.
Asking questions and offering alternate viewpoints is how we get people to talk about these things, which is what I want.
Please visit my blog & read my two most recent posts.
Yes, Beecher’s pals are trying to get a judge to stop me from telling my story.
Some very serious free speech issues at play here.
So who’s next?
Truth Wins Out?
Ex Gay Watch?
More than anything, we as LGBTs need to listen to each other.
A people under siege, as we are, cannot afford to ignore it’s own, as I have been ignored by the uncaring community in San Francisco.
This week’s SF Weekly gives my story some nice play.
Google:
“David Nahmod SF Weekly Conservative Arizona”
and the story comes right up!