It seems that Exodus VP Randy Thomas is no fan of the recent resolution brought to a vote at Disney by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX).
The language PFOX uses is confusing. It appears they are doing a “find and replace” word processing function on their organizational messaging. They are copying gay activist talking points and replacing every instance of “gay” with “ex-gay.”
Confounding rational minds everywhere, PFOX increasingly refers to ex-gay as a separate and unique sexual orientation. If that seems like loopy logic, there appears to be a method to their madness as XGW contributor Dave Rattigan recently illustrated.
While Thomas seems to get the absurdity of PFOX’s argument, we would have preferred his message didn’t also include a backhanded jab to gays and lesbians.
We don’t move beyond gay ideology and identity to become an ex-gay member of an ex-gay community in need of the government (in America … as of right now) or a private corporation (like Disney) to protect us as such. We are Christians … nothing more or less. Please don’t fight for special rights based on yet another false victim class.
We are Christians, not terminally unique “ex-gays.” Let’s work toward the edification of the Body of Christ, not public or private policy to make us feel affirmed as yet another GLBTQExYZ protected class.
We would like to remind Thomas that we work for equality, not to become a “false victim class” or to obtain “special rights.” And people of faith have been a “protected class” for decades. These are all catch-phrases from anti-gay campaign rhetoric. It’s good to know that he can see the folly in what PFOX proposes, but perhaps he could have found a way to say so without insulting many of the people he claims to care so much about.
PFOX was an Exodus member until last year. The circumstances of that separation are not clear.
Hi David,
Not sure if you all will believe me but I don’t ever intend to offend or insult. I know my beliefs will do both sometimes (often) but it isn’t to be purposefully offensive. I’ve tried to explain that for years but I can’t seem to convince folks that is true. It bothers me that you all don’t like and think the worst of me, I just don’t know what to do about it that I didn’t try to do for years (’98 to about ’04 or so.)
OH well…. back to the point.
I wrote what you object to because, as you well know, I am very against adding sexual orientation to any protected class status because of the precedent it sets in policy (private or public.) This isn’t new news. I genuinely wish you weren’t continually offended but I think it would be dishonest of me to not fully explain what is on my mind in objecting to PFOX’s actions here.
I felt it important to write what I did because I have spoken against this tactic when gay activists have used it … frequently. I can’t be silent when the same tactic is being used by a group on our side of the issue. It’s not really about the group … it’s about how I view the standard of protected class status and the formation of an “ex-gay” community, or ex-gay political ideology, rooted in identity politics.
On another note: I believe that there are legitimate issues represented in your public policy goals. Some of them I agree with (hospital visitation, estate settlements for surviving partners, safety to walk down the streets … among other things …) I just don’t believe redefining protected class status in public or private policy (or threatening religious liberty in some cases) is the way to go.
I will close saying again, I don’t expect you to not be offended and I don’t expect you all to believe me but it’s true, my views may offend but I never intend to offend for the sake of being offensive.
Randy, your intent is not something I can speak to, and it is my custom to take people at their word on that unless the situation is simply so extreme that it would be absurd to overlook (think Peter LaBarbera). So yes, I take you at your word that your comments were not meant to be intentionally offensive.
That said, it’s hard to take some of what you said without feeling the offense, even if not intended. Things like “victim class,” “special rights” and implying that GLBTs are somehow seeking affirmation in public policy (rather than equality), these are all rather insulting (at least to me). More to the point, they are most often heard in the context of denying equality.
Perhaps this is an example of why mixing even a little politics with ministry is not a good thing — alienating people, especially the target of your ministry, just isn’t worth it. This is doubly true since you don’t want to do that in the first place.
As to your being consistent in your views, that’s fine and I can respect that. But it seems to me that being completely consistent would involve expressing disdain for all protected classes — the very idea such. Otherwise I can’t imagine denying these things to a historically battered group of people because ones world view doesn’t see them as a distinct group.
Either way, thanks for commenting on it.
PFOX is just like every other attempt by the religious reicht to usurp and bootstrap on groups and events to bring awareness about us.
So with PFLAG came PFOX, and with the Day of Silence comes the so-called “Day of Truth”. I can’t wait to see the Christian Day of Remembrance to memorialize people who were murdered because of their faith to usurp the Transgender Day of Remembrance!
Randy — Too bad you don’t like the goal of getting sexual orientation and gender identity protected under non-discrimination laws.
I wonder what the reaction would be if it were *heterosexuals* being discriminated against, and heterosexual kids attempting and completing suicide in horrific numbers, and heterosexuals being victims of hate crimes at the hands of gays land lesbians doing it to keep “breeders” in their place.
As to supposed “threats” to religious liberty, there’s *nothing* in any law which will require churches to hire TLBGs. Other than that, you argument on that aspect is about as relevant as giving a pair of pants to someone without legs.
In fact, it’s actually the other way ’round! The religious reicht is violating the religious liberty of the Christian sects who *do* want to perform legal marriages for lesbian and gay couples, just to satisfy their own petty prejudices and bigotry.
Randy says that he doesn’t want to offend, then he repeats the oft told lie that Hate Crimes and Anti-discrimination Laws threaten religious liberty. While Dave Roberts likes to take people at their word, I would say Randy’s words so undermine his position, that they render his assurance that he isn’t trying to offend preposterous. His post was pure passive aggression, something he is very “consistent” about.
Gee. Why would i possibly be offended because someone believes that a 2000 year old prejudice that makes my life difficult and unpleasant, that resorts to telling lies constantly, that attempts to demonize me and mine for political, social, and godly brownie points, that ignores the constant problems of heterosexuals and tries to lay the blame on me, that teks some very obscure passages that may or may not be about hwat we know of as homosexuality and turns them into the central point of the existence of religious conservatives….
…and on and on and on…
why would I be offended by that?
Honey– you are so incredibly clueless. Or perhaps willfully ignorant. Or intentionally naive. Or deluded. Or unable to empathize with people who are so much like yourself. Or…
…or really just so filled with self hatred that you can’t even beign to think. Or maybe you just earned a really nice living punishing in others what you hate in yourself.
Only you would know.
I agree with Ben in Oakland – Randy, you need to seriously understand the issues before writing on Blogs. ‘Special rights and priviledges’? Infringing on regious rights? Come on man, get a grip! And by the way, ‘special classes/groups’ are designated as such when they represent a minority subset of the population, subsets that have been discriminated against contrary to the interpretation of the law (usually by the Supreme Court). I think you know not of what you speak!
Randy, unfortunately for gays everywhere, not unlike any person with a sexual addiction such as yourself, be it any addiction, you leave dead bodies in your wake. Your celibacy is nothing more than an acting out of your previous sexual addict antics, both damaging to those you come in contact with. Your brand of psycho-sexual politics brings the phrase to mind “the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions”.