Like many, I accepted the invitation to participate in a blogging experiment started by Wendy Gritter and New Direction, a ministry in Canada and a former member of the Exodus network. The idea, as I understand it, is to elevate the conversation concerning bridge-building between those who are accepting of GLBT people and those who are not, the latter particularly for religious reasons.
I fought to think of what I would say that could help. After just having finished some exhaustive work on yet another one of the reasons that XGW exists (Matthew C. Manning), I’m not in a very good mood.
Then I noticed that Exodus VP Randy Thomas had also participated in this experiment. Randy is another reason this blog exists, so I read his post with some trepidation. The vast majority of it is a copy/paste from material he contributed to Exodus president Alan Chamber’s last book, God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door.
Reading this, a flood of hurt and yes, anger, came back from the first time I read those words. I realized that there was no way I could write and follow Wendy’s rules of staying upbeat, positive, etc.
Since I did agree to write, I feel I owe some explanation, and I have decided to put that here for whatever it may add to the discussion, positive or negative — it is at least sincere. I apologize to Wendy for not being able to offer something more constructive and understand if she does not wish to link to this.
The entire post by Randy was painful for me to read, but near the beginning is an example which might serve as a microcosm of most everything he says publicly concerning GLBTs. He starts by offering up the idea that the classic phrase “hate the sin but love the sinner” is not helpful. In explaining why, however, he turns what one might think is a welcome moment of understanding into a hammer of condescension.
The biggest example of this is the “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Among our Christian brethren, we all know what this means because we know that God does not view people by their actions but for who they are as a soul. We do not see homosexuality as the inherent identity of someone struggling with homosexuality and so it is easy for us to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” But let’s take this to a personal level what if your gay identified neighbor said “hate the Christ but love the Christian?
Now that I have your attention, remember, you are dealing with another sub culture who identifies as “gay.” … To say that you hate homosexuality but love homosexuals does not make sense to those whose primary identity lies within their sexuality. At the very least you sound out of touch and speaking a completely different language.
This does what I believe is the primary, fundamental, absolutely most arrogant thing one can do if one cares about GLBTs, especially for those of faith. He makes the assumption that, if one is gay (he never says gay, he injects his own belief that one only “identifies” as gay), one is not a Christian. This is clearly not the case.
There is an automatically assumed dichotomy, even honestly, though unintended, in the idea behind this synchroblog, that there is gay on one side, and Christian on the other. It boggles my mind how much this idea is ingrained in the church, so much so that one’s own faith is challenged if one thinks otherwise. But for someone who claims to have a “special burden” for GLBTs and who “used to identify as gay” and who works at a place that is supposed to know more than a little about GLBTs, this is a spectacular train wreck of a statement.
Randy then seals this idea by saying that “hate the sin, love the sinner” is equivalent to “hate the Christ but love the Christian.” Because I am gay, Randy believes I put my sexuality on the same plane as God? For those who do not share my faith, thank you for your indulgence here. I do believe in God, and I place my faith in Christ. I do not share Randy’s view of what is written in scripture about homosexuality, but otherwise my views fall in line with orthodoxy. Let God tell me what he wants for my life, and I will do the same for you.
Randy represents a view which I think serves as a primary example of why so many bridge building efforts fail. Only a short time ago, he even wrote a post on why he doesn’t even believe they are a good idea, that he is beyond all that. So what is the purpose here, why this post?
Nothing I say here should be taken as disparaging towards Wendy or New Direction. I have found Wendy to be a very special person, with an unwavering desire to show compassion and love and to please God. I do not envy her the task she has begun, but I believe the time is right to try.
David – while you’re right, this post does not fit the intended ethos of the synchroblog, I do understand its honesty.
In all of the information communications prior to the synchroblog we did try to deconstruct the notion that this is just a gap between Christian and gay ….. but referenced multiple gaps – certainly many among those who adhere to Christian faith as well as diversity of perspective among lgbtq folks. We also pointed to gay Christians, a diverse group as well, and that this isn’t about just two monolithic groups.
At the end of the day, I am grateful that the majority of posts contributed for the synchroblog were thoughtful, grace-filled, humble and hopeful. I am encouraged, particularly by the number of pastors and straight Christians who expressed openness and a teachable spirit.
Gotta agree, and this is one of the hardest things for me as I deal with, “Christians” or rather church goers who assume I’m a godless sinner. I recently had a discussion with a young man who apparently took a year of Bible College and felt a need to find out why I know the Bible doesn’t take issue with me being gay or being in a relationship with another man. After the whole thing he felt a need to say he disagreed. I asked him with what part? The whole thing. Apparently all the research, soul searching, etc was simply disagreeable. He may have never picked up a book on the subject, might not even have a gay friend, might have never even prayed once about it… but he was sure that I wasn’t someone to be trusted even though I’m sure if he thought I was straight and it was another subject he would have loved all the research and word studies and soul searching I’d done.
Sadly gay people are handicapped when they try and talk to a Church who have already made up their minds.
Wendy, as I said, I understand you not linking to the post. But I would like to ask, does Randy Thomas’ post “fit the intended ethos of the synchroblog?”
As the synchroblog day approached, I could see that some participants had a history of deliberate and emphatic disrespect for GLBT people of faith on their blogs.
Given my past history of bridge-building, and my respect for Wendy, I was tempted to participate.
But I refrained because my only contribution would be to repudiate the false hospitality and outright bridge-wrecking of these certain individuals and the refusal of the broader ex-gay movement to hold these leaders accountable for their immorality.
Ostracism and deception are not respectful, no matter how nicely worded they are. I learned from Bridges Across the Divide that minimum requirements for respect must be clearly spelled out – otherwise they will be exploited and violated by ex-gay activists whose very identity as “ex-gay” hinges upon the rejection, denial, and suppression of GLBT people.
I participated in the Synchroblog project yesterday, listed as “Dance Like Noone’s Watching”. I did so to continue my own process of learning, being challenged in my thinking, and in turn challenging others in my circle of influence. I appreciate your post here to be further sensitized to how my own words and thoughts are expressed and the impact they can have on others. I don’t have everything figured out, but I desire to continue on the journey.
I’ve read a couple of other posts (Rising Up Whole and Paradoxy) that stemmed from this challenge, but frankly, I’m finding it kind of good to know that others aren’t really into forgiving, either.
Mike, I learned a similar lesson from Bridges Across the Divide. However, I’ll say that it wasn’t until I got married that I got really angry and almost incapable of bridging outside my own family. How do you “bridge” when what the people across the divide are so worked up about is the fact that you’re just trying to live your life?
Wendy is a person of good will and good intentions. I just wish that didn’t make her stand out oh, so much.
I just took a glance at Randy’s blog, saw Alan Chambers’ misuse of the word Pagan (hint: I really am one, and this, not being a teenager who loves to party and look at cute boys, is what it means), and had to remind myself that it would only hurt me if I punched the monitor.
The whole post is why I am more inclined to snarl, “Bridge *this*!”
Sigh.
I was so intent on following the rules that I did a lot of plugging my ears and humming while I was reading the posts yesterday, and I found something to like in almost every one I read, so I focused on the positive in my comments.
I guess for me, I’m so used to hearing people say that you CAN’T be gay and be a Christian that it goes in one ear and out the other and I’m so used to being beaten down with bibles and insulted and called a dog and a pig and a wicked waste of breath (yep, those are all things I’ve been called in the past by Christians) that I just appreciate someone being willing to sit down and listen to me.
I’m glad for your post and its honesty. You’re not alone in your anger, and you really do have a right to be angry. I know you know that already, but I feel bad, because I read that guy’s book post and left him a positive comment and I was in full “ignore” mode, so any condescension he had toward me went right over my head, even when he responded to me, and now I feel like a fool. Oh well. If he thinks I’m not really a Christian, so be it. Bless his heart.
Anyway, thanks for your post and for being honest about how you feel, even when you have to go against the grain to do so.
That is a very hurtful and arrogant post by Randy.
That is the exact reason why I kringe when I hear “Hate the sin, love the sinner”. I think another thing that he fails to see is. not all gay men and women’s “PRIMARY” identity lies in being gay. I’m and Christian man, who is gay. Much like a Christian man or woman who is straight. My primary identity is in Christ. not in being Gay, being gay is part of the equation. And I happen to love Christ, and i love Christians… I do not love ALL that some Christians’ say and do. I do not tolerate bigotry and hate (especially in the “name of Christ”), but that whole notion that “loving the sinner hating the sin, being parrellel to “loving the Christian, hating Christ” is RIDICULOUS.
I have to admit that I didn’t read Randy’s post closely enough. I got very angry very quickly and needed to get away. But I went back and realized that was him writing about his former “pagan flaming homosexual” self, not Alan. It was him writing a bit of Alan’s book.
Maybe that’s a place to start. Read all the way. Listen, really listen. At least know what it is you’re angry about.
I’m still angry, but informed angry is better than half-informed or uninformed angry by miles.
Daniel, I think that I see the solution to the problem: you have to love the bigot while hating the bigotry.
My impression from Randy Thomas’ effort is that he may be burned-out and a little jaded about yet another effort to ‘bridge the gap’, so he merely cut ‘n pasted an excerpt from a book written to a narrow audience. I can certainly sympathize with being burned out of dialoguing, but it may be far less damaging to sit on the sidelines instead of making a half-enthusiastic effort.
It’s also interesting that another person from Exodus’ leadership expressed concerns about New Directions’ ministry.
You have to deconstruct Randy’s posts. What he’s actually saying is that HE was unable to be merely a person who is gay. HE was the one who “worshipped” his homosexuality, and therefore assumes ALL gay people do the same.
This is what most of the exgay leaders have done. They plunged into a sex-driven “gay” life, made it the most important thing in their lives, and then when it overwhelmed them, they turned to religion as a new obsession, which is why their primary “identity” is not as Christian, but as “not gay.”
The reason they do that is because, of course, they’re still gay. So, their every waking moment is spent demanding that the world view them as heterosexual Christians.
Their form of Christianity is the same form that I see in drug addicts. Rather than using Christianity as an instrument of freedom and love, they’re using it as a crutch and drug to forget and run away from their own selves — and they use “ministry” to drag as many people along as they can. Comfort in numbers.
Once again Randy has put up this sign post to anyone entering his blog via XGW. It went up after this post did.
He just doesn’t get it.
Randy Thomas is not the only disrespectful participant in the Synchroblog.
Several others deliberately and persistently turn a blind eye to ex-gay and antigay violence, vigilantism, and ostracism. They don’t sincerely mourn “prodigals” — they strive to create prodigals, even as their ostracism against others turns their own churches into pits of pride, self-satisfaction, greed, and meanness.
They clearly crave respect — but they have not earned it.
I appreciate Wendy’s very sincere efforts here–respect on both sides. I have said two things here at xgw in the past that seem to me to be particularly applicable.
1) If religion wants to be respected, then it must act RESPECTABLY. We see the perfect example of this is the latest Christian hypocrisy plat-du-jour– Mark Sanford. Moral superiority and religious consistency are not required in our political leaders. But they are required if you are going to claim to be morally and religiously superior.
2) I’m not really all that intersted in winning approval from religious people for homosexuality. What i am interested in is getting exactly the same respect from them that they give to Jews, Muslims, atheists, pagans, adulterers (pace Sanford, vitter, allen, Haggard, Latham, Barnes!) and all the other people that they believe are going to burn in hell forever, send there by a just and loving god for the crime of not accepting the deliverance and message he promised them in the name of eternal, god-like love.
some of you may recall a rather extensive rant i wrote last year. I’m going to quote a little bit from it, because to my mind, this really sums up the problem.
In an online debate, a pastor wrote this: “I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about homosexual people. Not all love says “yes”; all that says “no” does not necessarily mean hatred.”
Pastor, We have VERY VERY different ideas of love. You idea of love is spreading YOUR conception of the gospel to the poor sinners out there– whether they are interested or not, without knowing whether they have already heard it and accepted it–-or rejected it. In short, with knowing nothing about their spiritual state or how G sees them– or anything about them at all. In short, it’s all about you, and not about the people you allegedly love. And that’s not love, it’s narcissism.
A host of good Christians are all happy to tell me how much they love me, and then follow it up with comments like ‘cancer on society’ and the whole vicious panoply of anti-gay, homophobic, lying rants. They will tell me how much they love me right before they tell me how much they hate my child-molesting, disease spreading, country-destroying, religion-despising, marriage-compromising, military demoralizing ways — all of which is news to me. Sorry, if that’s love, I prefer hatred. At least it doesn’t assume I’m so stupid that I can’t tell the difference.
You say that YOU are entitled to say NO based upon YOUR religious beliefs (which you have admitted in this space could be mistaken), beliefs which I and a LOT of other people do not share, whether on the nature of homosexuality or G’s message to the world. But funny, you don’t usually makes campaigns against other religious beliefs– that would be so Middle Ages of you. But you– by this I mean a generic you, Christians who think my sex life is their business– feel free to do that to gay people on a regular basis. I don’t know if my marriage, which I assure you means far more to me than it does to you, will exist on November 4, thanks to people who, like you, know nothing about homosexuality, my soul, or my life– or as far as I can tell, their book– but still presume to tell me that I am not entitled to the same treatment in society that they are. In fact, the treatment I am entitled to is quite a bit different, and not in a good way, than the treatment they accord themselves. It’s called the myth of heterosexual superiority in service to the reality of heterosexual privilege.
You say you are entitled to say NO when you clearly know little about the subject (including the precious little that your book allegedly says on the alleged subject), and NOTHING about me, my experiences, my life, my beliefs, and yes, MY homosexuality– we’re not really alike, despite your assumption that our ’sin’ defines us so.
And here, pastor, is the crux of the issue. When you tell me you love me, it means vastly different things to each of us. You may tell me you love me, but the rhetoric and the religious belief is exactly the same as the generic you I have already addressed above. And I would be willing to bet that you do not believe my marriage can and should be valid, and would vote to “disappear” it if you had the opportunity, all in the name of loving me but hating my sin. As (I believe) General Westmoreland so bravely put it: “We must destroy that village in order to save it.” Lucky villagers! Saved!
As far as I can tell, in its practical effects, that “love’, that “rhetoric”, that “religious belief” is completely indistinguishable from hatred. So I prefer the hatred, because at least it is honest and not self-serving. Only self-service here at The Morality Cafe. When the practical effects of your love and your care– and the political, cultural, religious and social agendas that your commitment to ‘love’ requires you also to commit to– is indistinguishable from the effects of the ‘no’s”, the ‘disapproval’, and the hate, then I might just lack the subtlety to be able to tell the difference.
[Randy Thomas ] just doesn’t get it.
Oh, David R… he gets it.
His whole life has been about “getting it”. And, as a consequence, sadly not therefore “having it”. Steve S, as always, invites everyone to explore this further.
On the Happy-LifeAchievements scale Randy would be in the bottom left corner. Thankfully he’s invented a third axis for life; one on which he’s (naturally) always off-scale. Always 11.
Personally we’re glad he’s not still hanging around gay bars. There’s no point to ruining other people’s lives; other than what he already is doing, of course, as part of Exodus.
Are we the only ones who notice Exodus people are needy to the point of being emotionally and socially crippled? And, yet, we’re expected to tip-toe around and treat their disgusting opinions as if they had any merit.
Who the hell would want a bridge to them?
Seriously. To what place will that bridge go?
AntiGayIsGoodLand: a place I don’t care to visit even if it was a quick trip over a bridge.
We spend our life in “YeahThey’reGayYawnLand”. It, like everything else in life, is right outside our front door.
We need no bridge. But perhaps ‘they’ do, now. Why collaborate? What is the point?
Just asking 🙂
We should all stop and consider the good people at GCN. Unless I’m mistaken the Side A and Side B participants get along, fellowship, even like each other. No bridges necessary. Compare & contrast GCN with the “dialog” at Synchroblog.
The one defining aspect of exgay “Christianity” is its narcissism.
“Since we ruined our lives living openly, it means everyone ruins their lives living openly and freely gay. And now that we’re not gay, we’re going to do everything we can, legally and religiously, to destroy your relationships just to prove they don’t work.”
exgays constantly say that we gays are not satisfied with tolerance, we demand society accept us. Seems to me, that is what the exgays spend their time doing. They cater and bow to the James Dobsons, Pat Robertsons, etc. of the church but let me tell you, the day the ex-gay cash cow dries up for Focus on the Family and the 700 Club Exodus and its umbrella ministries will be left out in the rain. and the cold.
In his comments on the post I mentioned above, Randy makes a statement concerning Matt 7:3 which must be the theological equivalent to fingernails on chalkboard:
Sure Randy, I’m sure that’s the idea Jesus wanted to convey. You have it so together that you are now free to tell everyone else what God wants them to do.
Leave it to Randy to make the Bible say the opposite of what it says.
Anonymity here isn’t intentional — this is Mike Airhart from B.A., Soulforce, XGW, and TWO.
I guess I’ll speak here about why I don’t use the same name as I did at Bridges Across. It’s actually kind of relevant. Forgive me for running off at the keyboard. This is why I just can’t.
Well, I was going to change my name from “Wiggins” to “Lukash” and tried getting myself used to it by using it online. Then I decided against it and reverted to my original name for everything. And then…
Five and a half years ago, on a magickal New Year’s Eve, the girl who loved me despite everything from the time she was 17 and I was 18 became my wife. We went to Massachusetts specifically to make it legal. We weren’t going to change our names. We didn’t want to change our perceived ethnicity. Anyway, we wore matching engagement as well as wedding rings.
Four years ago, our marriage was yanked out from under us. We lived in New York, not Massachusetts. Our marriage had no legal standing in the state of New York. Massachusetts had a law saying that a marriage couldn’t be contracted there that wasn’t legal in a couple’s home state. So like many other couples, we were legally divorced through no fault of our own.
We were angry! We were really angry when we read and saw Religious Right commentators talk about this like it was a *good* thing. They *smiled*. That’s what galled me, they smiled. They couldn’t even bring themselves to understand how badly couples like us hurt. L’Ailee (my wife doesn’t want me using her first name) compared it to the way she doesn’t want to think about how the turkey in her sandwich was once a living bird. Except that our forced legal divorce didn’t even have the utility to the right-wingers that a turkey sandwich does to her. All they had was the pain of fellow adult citizens whom they didn’t even know.
L’Ailee used to wear a large silver crucifix every day even though she is an atheist (and acknowledged herself as such after 9/11–that’s another story.) She wore it to bed and in the shower. She only took it off for martial arts classes (after it hit her in the face a few times) and polishing laboriously with Q-Tips. It was one of her Russian family’s few treasures that had survived the Bolshevik Revolution. Her grandmother gave it to her. For her, it was a symbol of survival, not religion, though she never took offense when someone thought the obvious and assumed it was a Christian thing.
The night we learned we were legally divorced, L’Ailee ripped it off and stared at it for a few seconds. “I can’t wear this anymore,” she said. “I don’t want anyone to think I am one of *them*.” The cold contempt in that word “them” spoke such volumes. She wrapped it in a scarf and put it in her jewelry box. It has lived there since.
The next day, we decided that we were still married, no matter what any judge or any activist said. We brainstormed ways to declare ourselves married as noisily as any activist dared to proclaim themselves fit to vote on our right to do so. We hit upon our names. We needed to share one, obviously. So we went with hyphenation, in the same order. We pestered all our friends about the order it should be in, and we played Rock Paper Scissors for it all the way to the clerk’s window. It was the clerk who settled it, saying that “Wiggins-Lunacharsky” sounded better.
We felt good. We felt right. We felt like it had been a long time coming. Even when people kept wanting to call me “Mrs. Lunacharsky,” I felt great about it. It was a middle finger to the relatives who voted against our right to marry in my home state of Florida, for one thing. (And I’d wanted to marry at the Daytona International Speedway before the Daytona 500, which falls close to Valentine’s Day, from the time I was a little girl. L’Ailee would’ve so done it.)
I’d much rather be Mrs. Lunacharsky than someone who gave the right-wingers my very life for a trophy on their wall. I was very proud when I signed the first checks and forms. Whatever else I was, I wasn’t defeated, and I wasn’t at all inclined to reach out to the people who’d worked so hard to set us back and celebrated our heartbreak.
This past week, we and other same-sex couples just now won our right to use our married names on our passports. The people who celebrated three years ago are upset that someone is acknowledging couples like us for what we are. Let them be upset. Nobody’s taking anything away from them but their perceived superiority.
Yeah, if you wanna build bridges, use someone who see’s gays as people, not vile sinners who should just choose to ‘identify’ as straight.
Jayelle, thank you for sharing that. I felt sad and glad all at the same time while reading it. I hope you both can soon have officially recognized what already obviously exists between you.
Thank you, David. It is official again. We were able to make it so very close to our anniversary last year–thank you, Governors Patrick and Paterson. We just took a train into Massachusetts, changed into pretty but not formal dresses, and took the train back home. But we still haven’t forgiven or forgotten the activists in Massachusetts and elsewhere who worked so hard to put couples like us in legal limbo.
I am glad the point was visible in that ramble I posted. We didn’t feel any desire to “straighten up” and marry men thanks to that legal divorce, which ex-gay activists supported. (And I’m bi and have loved men.) We didn’t feel grateful that so many people had loved us enough to protect us from ourselves. We instead grew angry and drew closer. We felt that we’d overcome so many issues to even get to the point where we could successfully marry, and now we had to deal with people whose literal full-time job was to make us legal strangers to each other? It became us against the world. We had to remind ourselves that we didn’t hate every Christian quite frequently. We aren’t quite so seething angry now that we’re legal again, but we’re fine with staying on our side of “the gap.”
It’s not just online. We’ve even decided that this December, we’re going to avoid Christmas with my relatives in Florida, some of whom are quite homophobic and are getting increasingly vocal about it, and go to Pittsburgh and Detroit to watch our favorite hockey teams in their own venues instead. (The other fans will be more open to our holding hands in front of them, at least.) It may be that we’re getting jaded and bitchy and uninterested in bridging. We prefer to think that we deserve to use our time and money in a way that allows us to enjoy each other and the life we’re building together. That last sentence alone, I know, will sound hopelessly, radically inflammatory to many ex-gays and their supporters.
Jayelle- i hope you will make clear to those relatives why you are not ocming to visit them.
I do hope that we haven’t given Randy the power to derail the entire effort by making our participation subject to his.
That being said, I want to comment on what was said above about how Randy sees gay v. Christian.
One of the phrases that you often hear from Exodus is that “the opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, it’s holiness”. When we look closely at this – and at the way in which Randy writes – we see that he believes this literally.
For Randy – and perhaps others in the ex-gay movement – holiness is found in not-being-gay. In fact, that is the definition of holiness in their lives. If gay temptation gets too close, holiness is retreating and the way to get holiness back is to fight against homosexuality.
They say that they have identity in Christ, and yet the subject of their obsession is not-being-gay. If you spend two much time there, eventually not-being-gay becomes your god, what you worship, your identity, your reason for being.
And I think Randy is there. He worships not-being-gay, calling this strange religion “Christian”, though I see no gospel there. And therefore it is quite logical to him that the opposite of gay is Christian. Because being the opposite of gay is what he worships, is unattainable, is a higher power, is what he believes would fulfill him – it is a distant but compelling diety.
Sadly, in worshiping not-being-gay, Randy has errected a false idol, a god that cannot hear or see him, an all-consuming all-demanding god of his own creation, and as a consequence he has no room in his life for a compassionate Christ.
Hi, Timothy,
I don’t think folks here are giving Randy Thomas that power — Wendy Gritter is giving him the power.
I wish her effort well, but she will have to begin to police it and ferret out the intentional saboteurs.
Debbie from Throckmorton’s site asked me to read the sychroblog participation and I did. It took a long time.
But I put in the effort.
I DO put every effort into listening, observing, giving things another chance.
After all, I came here questioning and wanting VERY much for ex gays to tell me, to give me their experience and I made myself available at every opportunity.
I found XGW in that quest. But ex gays was where I first started. I’ve been hearing the same religious messages regarding homosexuality my whole life too. I was raised in a church. Confirmed Episcopalian having passed all my Biblical study requirements.
For FIVE years I tried to talk to someone ex gay, I even considered attending a program to have some inside observation. But that’s not allowed if you’re not seeking a conversion.
Well, I WAS seeking a conversion in a way. I was looking to see if the message of people like Randy, Debbie or Throckmorton would help me understand THEM.
And through all that effort, all I got was a stonewall and doubletalk.
Mostly because I asked a LOT of questions. I didn’t doubt anyone’s word, so much as a great deal of what they said conflicted or was contradictory. It’s like they grew tired of the five basic questions I kept at hand. Eventually I got the ‘you’re lucky I spent this five minutes with you, I’m SUCH a busy person’, responses.
They have a lot of pride and assurances in their advertising and when they are talking to someone who is insecure or doubtful of themselves or their gay loved one.
But the font of generous spiritual guidance shuts down after a few pointed questions.
Dr. T was VERY rude to me in the beginning, for no reason.
Which is why I have been less than respectful since.
I worked a LOT harder to just get some answers that didn’t sound like a used car pitch and the SAME pitch was coming at me over and over again, even from different people.
I was like, isn’t there a real, unique human being in there somewhere who can speak differently from the others?
After finding XGW there were real expressions and individuals under the posts. And I realized that these were some gay folks experienced with the life that had been pitched to me. Folks like Petersen, and of course, he’s a VERY smart and well articulated person.
He was very open to me, as have been just about all the regulars here.
After I put more and more information together very painstakingly and cross referenced everything, I finally realized what had been bugging me about how those professing ex gay lives.
Mostly that their prior experience as gay people was as predictably stereotypical as their pitch was predictable.
Even after speaking to Chad Thompson, reading his book and so on, real direct contact, the SAME conclusion came to me about him too: that these are people who ARE mostly self involved and invested in shifting the burden of being gay onto other gay people in the very way that makes it that much harder to give cred to what gay people can and have said about mutability.
Leaving out of course, the big dancing elephant of mitigating circumstances out of the discussion.
As I’ve mentioned before, this isn’t about ‘silencing’ ex gays, but about how their message confuses and conflicts EVERYTHING and isn’t the newer message or alternative.
It’s the ONLY one that’s had a voice and power all along.
And they don’t appreciate that, whatsoever.
It is very weak of them to think that both can be reconciled while basic human and civil rights are denied gay people on condition of being and doing what ex gays advertise.
And some ex gay organizations outright engage in discriminatory political activism and nobody knows who Wendy Gritter is or cares, like they know who Rick Warren or Pat Robertson are.
The ex gay voice registers LOUD and CLEAR on the radar of EVERY anti gay person alive.
How ex gays can either pretend they have a significant message to send or make with regards to defending gay people is almost pathologically ridiculous.
You can’t defend what you yourself don’t want to be.
And although I understand why someone wouldn’t want to be gay, I don’t understand or forgive how the ex gay position keeps the yoke on the necks of gay people no matter WHAT their efforts.
I argued for over and hour with Dr. and he’s convinced, as are those people in that Bridgeport exorcism, that whichever way gay people get ungay, it’s going to be ungay and or else.
Their way or no way.
There is no appreciation of gay people. Period and ex gays continue to give power to the opposite side who is not conceding one bit.
Even if it damages the tenets of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And a person who was gay looks GLARINGLY like someone who doesn’t appreciate being gay either.
So all the sincere, compassionate and heartfelt gestures from ex gays who don’t want gay people stripped of or denied equal rights are making EMPTY gestures.
Are carrying a broken and USELESS standard for gay people.
And no amount of FEELINGS for gay people that aren’t hostile will make any effort we’re talking about worth anything useful.
Has anyone ever seen a homeless person, obviously in a bad way and you try to give them some food you picked out or had leftover…and they refused it?
Well sometimes their attitude would seem like misplaced pride or ingratitude.
But sometimes I’ve seen charity disguised as an exploitation of someone’s bad situation.
Or certainly a meal offered with the sincerest feelings of generosity it’s assumed, should be met with thanks.
But sometimes those on the receiving end of such gestures can read the motive behind it. Or understand that such a gesture will never do or be enough.
This is that kind of thing. Some ex gays, especially the more prominent representatives of Exodus and so on ARE getting over on the situation of gay people.
It’s UGLY and nothing will pretty it up and make it what isn’t.
Ex gays can and are doing more harm than good, and are too self involved to care or admit it.