According to Bloomberg, the draft bill, now being called the “kill the gays bill” will be “refined” to remove the death penalty and life imprisonment provisions. This is being done, according to Uganda Minister of Ethics James Nsaba Buturo, “to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties.”
While this is no doubt to be seen as a good thing, our fundamental objections to the bill remain. The criminalization of relationships between consenting adults is simply not acceptable. Killing people or putting them in prison for life as punishment for such is certainly the extreme wrong end of the scale, but penalizing them at all is abhorrent to any concept of a society which claims to honor human rights. And to do so under the guise of “countering sin” is to invite a Taliban like theocracy — which sin would be next?
The true test now will be to see how Christian leaders here, including Exodus International, will respond to these changes. The new version will retain forced treatment and presumably jail time of some sort. We can’t make precise analysis until we have a copy of the new bill. However, we suggest Alan Chambers, et al, should think long and hard about their “change is possible” philosophy.
To Exodus, et al, I would like to say the following:
As last night’s interview with Richard Cohen illustrates clearly, people in places like Uganda are paying dearly because those with authority are taking the ex-gay mantras in this country seriously. They believe the pseudo-psychology, the bad science and the cries that every respected scientific body disagrees with you “because of the power of the gay agenda.” You share, like it or not, the same responsibility here as Richard Cohen, and Scott Lively. This is not an accusation, but a recognition of the facts and you should own it.
So now is the test. Will you see this through? Now that the most egregious portions of the bill are being removed, will you sit back and feel you have no more responsibility? Or worse, will you feel proud that you finally said something and take credit for this first step to righting this wrong?
Or will you recognize finally that your ideas about changing people from one sexual orientation to another, or about supposed causal factors, are simply not well founded and therefore not worth allowing others to pay the price for taking them seriously? In short, will you make it known that you oppose any such laws which would serve to regulate or punish the personal lives of individuals, gay or straight?
Don’t be gamed by people who have admitted that these tweaks to the bill are “to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties.” After all, this is basically what Scott Lively told them in the first place, and I hope by now you know what he is all about.
David, there is some discussion at Throckmorton’s blog right now about APA and the scientific community shutting out, i.e., refusing to fund, legitimate research that would present a more complete and balanced picture of homosexuality. The problem with continuing to rely on what has passed for conclusive in the scientific community is it isn’t conclusive.
Also, there remain two big problem areas in the bill, as it would still stand, even if life imprisonment and the death penalty are removed. (1) How will legitimate ministries be able to provide serious outreach and counsel to those gays who are struggling and want help? (2) What will the pressure to out gays do to AIDS prevention and treatment?
Lets keep the discussion here, just as Warren prefers the reverse. The level of discourse of there has become rather strained of late anyway.
Areas of research which prove over and over again to be dead ends will get decreased funding and attention — as it should be. I’m sure some peripheral work, like that which Warren mentioned in his comment does suffer by association, but he was not suggesting, as far as I can tell, that more money be spent to study reparative therapy or change. Then again, sham groups like NARTH and their pseudo-scientific presentation to the APA don’t help there either. To be taken seriously, one must do serious work.
Balance does not mean giving bad science equal time. In this case it does mean recognizing that some people subscribe to a faith or sect that considers homosexual actions contrary to living a moral life. For the small subset this involves, the APA et al, must factor in faith as a diversity factor in order to correctly assess and provide a balanced treatment of these issues. This is precisely what they have done, and very well I think.
Ministries or any other social workers who deal with health issues which might bring them under undue scrutiny and fear over any legislation of this type would most certainly suffer. I will assume you don’t mean reparative based ministries, as that concept is a major part of the fuel for this mess in the first place. You will get no sympathy for that work here.
I’m pretty sure AIDS is a greater issue among heterosexuals in Uganda, but the stigma reinforced by western groups will most certainly make all AIDS work difficult under any such law. I think it would effectively stop, or go underground. But after their careless attitude against the importance of condoms in the prevention equation, I’m not sure if the Ugandan goverment (certainly not the 200 Churches which came out in support of the original bill) will be too concerned about that.
How about the basic human right to decide your own course in life? The right not to be forcefully exposed to useless and denigrating “sexual reorientation” treatment because the adults to whom you are attracted and with whom you form your life bond happen to be of the same sex? Pointing out the difficulties in AIDS prevention may be a good point of leverage, but let’s not forget the basic reason this bill is so abhorrent.
Unless Uganda wants to be the next Taliban, they can not criminalize something just because various faiths may see it as wrong. Never in human history has a theocracy turned out to be a good thing, for either civil or sacred.
This bill is wrong from it’s very foundation, the concept itself. Tweaking it, as was admitted by supporters, is only to make it more palatable to those who opposed the harshest penalties. For all we know, this was the strategy in the first place, to allow that part of the bill to bear the brunt of the outrage, then fall back to a less odious position. It really must be all or nothing or none of this means anything.
No, that’s not what I am referring to. I am not aware of any “reparative-based ministries.” Therapies, yes. Ministerial help ought to be something sought out by the individual, certainly not forced upon anyone. Surely some people in Uganda are wrestling with their faith and their same-sex attractions. What would be particularly troubling to see would be an excessive attitude of guilt or condemnation emanating from the Church.
Of course not. And that is where Uganda is headed.
Thurman says: I am not aware of any “reparative-based ministries.”
Yeah, Right. Aparently you haven’t the slightest clue about ex-gay ministries or you are not telling the truth.
Fact: Almost every”ex-gay” ministry book is packed to the gills with reparative therapy information. In these books, the therapy often takes on the authority of Scripture, in that the writers never question if it is wrong or ineffective. Indeed, there are more theories based on fake science than actual religion in many of these books.
So, I find it offensive and dishonest that you would try to separate reparative therapy from ex-gay ministries. They work hand in hand 90% of the time. Practically every ex-gay ministry is a reparative therapy outlet – even if the ministers are not qualified to act as therapists, which is often the case.
Just to make my point, here is a video of a client who suffered through reparative “touch therapy” at an Exodus affiliate in Lansing. Alan Chambers has not commented on, nor removed the creep, who “counseled” this survivor.
Seriously, Debbie, how much denial can one live in?
The Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViaMczTmrkA
Wayne, I said I am not aware of any reparative-based ministries. Mentioning reparative theories in a book is a far cry from pushing such therapy in a group setting. The ministry approach is largely discipling based more on Scripture than anything. If a ministry is basing its approach on reparative drive therapy, it is off-base.
This discussion is about Uganda and a horrendous anti-gay bill. Not about reparative therapy, which David somehow managed to slip in. I am on your side here.
Debbie Thurman is a destructive and dishonest woman. I don’t understand why anyone would credit anything she says.
Did you catch Rick Warren’s statement denouncing the bill and address to Uganda pastors yet? Check the main Speak Out Facebook group.
I wish I could teach all leaders that saying nothing will not make a problem or a misperception go away. It only makes it worse. Rip that bandaid off quickly.
The two subjects are inseparable.
To you, maybe. Not to everyone.
Debbie, I think that some clarification is needed here,
You seem to be saying that reparative therapy and ex-gay ministry are two different and separate things, but each directed towards the same goal. So if you prefer a secular approach you can choose reparative therapy, but if you prefer a religious approach then you can opt for ex-gay ministry. Have I understood you correctly?
I think it is what you call an “inconvenient truth.” With that I am going to bow out of verbal ping pong with you.
They are two separate things, in my view, but not necessarily directed toward the same goal. While some in ministry may give credence to a reparative approach (that’s not my thing), the goal for any ministry-based approach for someone who does not wish to be gay-affirmed ought to be personal and spiritual growth that aligns one’s faith with one’s sexuality, or allows them to practice celibacy if that what they choose. “Success” will not look the same for everyone. It doesn’t have to. Why would we try to stuff everyone in the same box? Reparative therapy seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach. I don’t buy that.
Excellent! I’m glad that you put it like that rather than the other way around.
I think of it as going both ways, William. Just get ’em aligned. 🙂