Sixteen-year-old Zach’s run-of-the-mill online diary drew unintended global attention several weeks ago when his parents sent him off to several weeks of antigay group counseling at a facility with marginal credentials. Former patients and officials say the facility injures some people emotionally while hindering emotional and spiritual development.
The young man’s diary included excerpts of the exgay facility’s regimen. The facility’s rules include strict gender-specific rules of conduct that recall 1950s family TV shows; constant supervision; rules against exposure to any media other than preapproved religious-right sources; and restrictions on what teen clients could talk about with their own parents.
Having emerged from the exgay program, Zach now offers an obvious statement: There’s more to life than homosexuality — as if anyone believed differently — and he understandably wants to resume living a normal life, free of strangers’ demands and expectations.
Zach is certainly entitled to return to private life. Some important questions are thus likely to remain unanswered:
1) Zach speaks of not wanting to talk or hear about “the past situation.” What is the past situation?
2) Zach says “Love In Action has been misrepresented and what I have posted in my blogs has been taken out of perspective and context.” Who, specifically, misrepresented LIA, and how? What context was overlooked?
3) Zach says “I refuse to deal with people who are only focused on their one-sided (biased) agendas.” Whose agendas, what do those agendas consist of?
Only Zach can answer the first two questions, and he’s not obligated to do so — though it is generally more polite to explain one’s accusations to the accused and to seek reconciliation.
Regarding the third question: Let’s take a look at the people who rode the media bandwagon:
a) Zach’s antigay father appeared on CBN television, publicly exposing the identity of his son and declaring to Pat Robertson that by requiring his son to enter fulltime exgay counseling, he was giving his son the “choice” not to die (as all or most homosexuals supposedly do) by age 40.
b) Love In Action, Warren Throckmorton, and Exodus International benefited from substantial and largely favorable international mass-media attention that overlooked prejudices and discriminatory political activities among exgay movement leaders.
c) Bloggers, blog readers, and Memphis-area tolerance advocates generated much of the initial media attention. Many of these critics of LIA opposed the facility’s lack of credentials; its biased form of counseling; its sex, gender and religious stereotyping; and its allegedly high failure and emotional-injury rate. Some of these critics also maintained that parent-mandated attendance at such a facility constitutes a form of emotional abuse. And some went even further, demanding that exgay programs generally be shut down.
LIA’s own Gerard Wellman (Google search) became a man-of-the-moment on CNN, asserting that change is solely about behavior, not same-gender sexual or romantic attractions. True enough. But Wellman avoided discussing the lifelong celibacy that awaits him as an former homosexual whose de-labeled sexual attractions remain fixed squarely on fellow men. Wellman also avoided discussing the stereotypes and labels — “So-and-So the homosexual” — that LIA deploys against individuals if they are unwilling to practice both celibacy and a politically biased reinterpretation of the Gospels.
Stark should indeed be left alone — by both gay-equality and exgay advocates. Should he make public statements on exgay issues in the future — especially if he should lash out against either gays or exgays — then polite public reaction is to be expected.
I’ll leave the guy alone, in large part because I’ll never meet him. The thing is, though, that if he really be wanted to be left alone, he should never have put his plaint public on the internet.
He’s a kid, and probably can’t give a sophisticated answer to the questions being asked. Leave him alone and let him get along with his life. Once he is out on his own, then maybe he will be able to speak. For now he is in the evangelical gulag. Best of luck to him.
It seems that the ex-gay movements are saying two distinctly opposite things depending on their audience. On CNN, LIA/R’s Wellman says:
“But the interesting thing is that programs don’t claim to change desires. Our program claims to change behavior. And that is where the success is that I found.”
However, on the NARTH website, LIA/R’s founder Frank Worthen claims:
“Is Heterosexuality Possible?
Yes, there is something beyond celibate homosexuality. Same-sex attractions do fade and opposite attractions do emerge as a result from a clean break from the old lifestyle. It is of vital importance that the counselee hold to the belief that change is possible.”
It seems the message is not only inconsistent, it’s contradictory. I suppose it could be argued that LIA has changed it’s claims since Wothen, but as the groups all are cross-referencial, something so basic as whether desire can or cannot be changed (the very premise of the movement) would have to be agreed upon… or maybe it’s just a matter of having two faces.
This is the kind of experience that is going to galvinize Zach in one direction or the other, I think (eventually). If the ex-ex-gay constituency isn’t careful and practice what they/we preach, then we’ll end up ensuring that he is a vocal opponent for life. But, given space and time, Zach will work out his own beliefs. Anonymous voices from the Internet won’t help him. Let’s hope, though, that he has a human face for both sides of the story.
As for Zach,
At age 16 I made a decision. I would live according to my family’s rules until the day I left for college. I never “rebelled” but simply followed their extremely rigid rules and immediately discarded them upon leaving home.
I don’t know what this kid is doing. I don’t know if he believes the things he was told. I don’t know if he’s simply surviving.
But I don’t think he should be called upon to answer anything. He didn’t ask to be a poster child. He had no expectation that his diary would be broadcast to the world or that when he complained to his internet pen pals about being sent to LIA/R that folks in Tanzania would ever see it.
He’s a minor, folks. Even if he wanted to, he doesn’t have the legal rights to act for himself or even speak for himself. He can’t go on some TV program without Daddy’s consent and I think it’s pretty clear that Joe Stark isn’t going to let Zach tell the world that he wasted eight weeks and a pile of cash. I’m just content that Zach isn’t Smid’s new spokesman. Yet.
In a few years, Zach may want to tell his story, and I hope he does. For now, it seems like he just wants to be left alone. And that’s fair.
I truly hope that he comes through this with dignity and grace and (for selfish reasons) hasn’t bought into LIA/R’s doctrine of sin and celibacy. But if he has, for now anyway, that’s his choice. He does know that there’s help out there and that he has support.
Some of Zach’s comments in his comments area are very concerning. I don’t blame him for being annoyed with some of the people who yelled at him or tried to claim the person now on his site was an impostor (most of the comments were very respectful though), but this comment bothered me:
“I’m sorry mark, but I have to disagree. Homosexuality does run people’s lives and it’s not a place I want to go. I don’t want to go around and everyone sees m as “Zach the Homosexual” and if the program enforced anything it was telling the truth. I’m not afraid to tell Love In Action what I think nor and I afraid to tell my parents.
I’m not taking a side, I’m correcting the wrongs.”
Obviously he can’t go around shouting that he’s gay and proud, because his parents could throw him out of the house and who knows what would happen to him. But for him to say that homosexuality is “not a place he wants to go” makes me think the brainwashing has worked. The media will use this as a “success story” and we may see more of the garbage like we saw on The View today. I hope that Zach isn’t going to wind up becoming some kind of big ex-gay activist. This is all so sad, to see what has been done to him. These camps have such a devastating effect on people, but the media and anti-gay groups will take this as a “win”.
I have rewritten this comment three times now. I am trying not to come across as pushy as I would like to be.
Zach has made the request that people leave him alone. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. Two months ago, you confided in your parents–people who you love and who love you–that you are gay. They want you to go through a camp that scares you. You complain about their reaction on the Internet as many people do these days.
You’re kept away from your blog for about 8 weeks, and you come back to find that people from all over the world are commenting there and telling you what to do. Add that on to your father going on national television to tell everyone that you’re gay. Now add the local media attention and the protests.
Is that not enough pressure on you? Would you like to go on being a public face of a private pain? It’s one thing to share your pain publicly. You’re trying to send your pain out into some abyss where you may hear some welcome echoes. Suddenly, you can’t hear for the roaring wind from those echoes.
I’m not going to hope that Zach becomes an ex gay activist or that he speaks out against reparative therapy. I’m going to hope that he’s left alone. There are others who are forced into programs like LIA/R. Focus your attention on them, please.
I leave you with a camera phone picture of a doggie.
I hope that Zach will be left alone to work out his own answers, whatever they are.
Yet I recognize that to be left alone requires keeping one’s private life and opinions private — offline. To whatever extent that he eventually chooses to remain public, it is inevitable that people from different walks of life are going to respond.
Mike, I think he’s starting to realize that part. I was going to leave him a comment that, if he keeps a blog, to keep it anonymous. I just settled for “be at peace” instead. He probably needs that more.
Let me suggest:John Smid AND Warren Throckmorton are taken, by someone they cannot refuse, to a place where all contact is cut off. And then they spend 2 months, 24 hours a day, having their heads bent.At the end of that time they could have been convinced that they TRULY are a couple of egg rolls. Or, homosexuals with a heterosexuality problem.Sent for 2 weeks — and plainly “it” didn’t work in that time — so he got 2 entire MONTHS. If it was me, I may also have cracked; or I’d be shutting the hell up rather than risk getting sentenced to another 2 months.I’ll go back to something I said all that time ago — in 5 or 10 years time this fellow is almost invariably going to appear, somewhere, someway, and begin trying to pick up the threads of his life. Please people, make a note in your diarys and be ready to help him when that occurs. He’s been through an awful lot for such a young man.
PS the “I may also have cracked” refers to the Smid/Throckmorton scenario. And not to anyone else under discussion 🙂
James, I see what you are saying, but when I read Zach’s comments, I recalled a lot of what I was going through when I came out. I was older than he is, but I fought through a lot of what he is going through, without an ex-gay group to put these ideas in my head.
At the time I had convinced myself that I was choosing to be part of a minority group. Not choosing to be gay, but choosing to let being gay run my life. I felt like by coming out I was choosing to forever be the “gay friend” or the “gay uncle” or whatever for the rest of my life.
Of course, after being out for a while, I quickly learned the absurdity of my assumptions. I learned that were lots of gay guys just like me that didn’t fit the stereotype of what gay people were supposed to look like.
For me, this isn’t as much of Zach being brainwashed as it is a kid trying to work through coming out and dealing with way too much attention at a young age.
Mike Airhart at August 2, 2005 12:23 AM
Yet I recognize that to be left alone requires keeping one’s private life and opinions private — offline. To whatever extent that he eventually chooses to remain public, it is inevitable that people from different walks of life are going to respond.
Precisely. If someone doesn’t want to go public, he should not go public. It’s as simple as that. I knew that when I was 16, fourty years ago. Putting a “diary” on the internet is “going public.”
There is something strange going on with this Zach case. It almost makes me wonder if the homophobe father didn’t stage the whole event. 8 weeks in LIAR “rehab” isn’t going to amount to much.
Pardon my skeptiscim, but I am a lawyer, but am currently unable to cross-examine the relevant parties. And it is usually through cross-examination that the truth comes out. There is something definitly strange going on in the Zach case, though.
Raj, my guess is that his Internet use is monitored. His dad went on CBN, and is well aware of the interest in his son. After 8 weeks in therapy/ministry, they probably don’t want him blogging & “cruising” the Internet unattended.
While I love blogging, I survived my adolescence by journaling–it was private, safe, and I was free to work out my emerging sense of self without fear. I hope Zach realizes that there are other avenues for him.
ck at August 2, 2005 10:33 AM
Makes me wonder: does the father have a possible financial interest in this incident?
I apologize for continually beating on the “financial interest” relating to these “ex-gay” issues, but it is too obvious not to be true.
Raj,
Honestly, although book deals and the lecture circuit might be in the father’s vision, I really think that he just wants his son to be “normal.” At least from seeing what my parents went through (and continue to, really), the father probably sincerely thinks his son will die of AIDS at 40 if he doesn’t help him. And he’s probably wracked with guilt over his own inadequacies.
This is probably a very difficult and surreal time for the entire family.
I wonder if Zach really wrote that. I find it unlikely that he would be given access to a computer after this whole ordeal. Perhaps he wrote it while “supervised” or coached.
If it was truly his writing and feelings, how disappointed are we as gay men and women? I know I am disappointed. He echoed some statements frequently heard from the ex-gay types. He belittled his sexuality or at least the part he hopes to ignore. I don’t know if being “a 16-year-old kid” is enough of a pass to forgive such feelings. My experience at 16 was quite different, though I didn’t have the misfortune of a religious upbringing to pepper me with guilt.
I for one feel let down by his statement.
I was let down as well and the writing style really didn’t seem to mesh with his older posts (IMHO).
It did seem sort of forced or at least proofed by an outside party.
I’ll also never forgive his father for going on the 700 Club. If Zach does indeed have a problem with people with “agendas” exploiting this situation he should take a hard look down the hallway at his father’s bedroom and ask his dad why exactly he needed to take this private family matter on national TV.
If you remember correctly, Zach’s friends that got this ball rolling were VERY protective of his identity.
OK… some people here are starting to sound a little paranoid.
Let’s take a deep breath and realize that it isn’t all a plot between Joe Stark and the Illuminati to circle the black helicopters overhead and use the Patriot Act to hide secret messages in music played backwards so John Smid can take over the world. Just put the aluminum foil back around your head and relax.
ck at August 2, 2005 01:01 PM
I understand the comment, and I do not understand the family dynamic. Maybe the father was frightened that he might be embarrassed if the son was outed.
I actually believe that gay kids should be very careful about coming out while they still are being supported by their parents. They should get as much as they can for as long as they can, and, when they don’t need support any more, they should go for it (express their sexuality). It may be difficult, but living well is the best revenge. And we’re only talking about a few years.
Maybe he’s not gay. Maybe he was never gay. Maybe he was just playing at being gay. Saying you’re gay doesn’t make you gay.
I know girls who pretend to be lesbians because they read somewhere that being lesbian is cool. They’re not les. I know. I put the moves on one and she ran straight to her boyfriend.
I have a lot of doubts about teenagers who say they are gay.
Raj, sadly, it is true that kids may be best off not outing themselves to their parents. And unfortunately, I understand at least some of the family dynamic, coming from a PCA church background (look it up–www.PCAnet.org). [And let’s not forget my alma mater, GCC!] My parents were (I posted a bit about this at Gay Spiritualty & Culture, gayspirituality.typepad.com) willing for me to go to a residential program, and I did spend some time researching it.
Thankfully, I didn’t go that route.
And yes, embarassment is, sadly, a knee-jerk reflex for many parents–because they feel that they have failed. We should remember that the ex-gay movement hurts more than just the one struggling with attractions–it puts unnecessary guilt on the parents!
Regarding JaneyRuth’s comment, I don’t see what Zach would gain by “pretending” to be gay. Many teenagers are working through their sexuality–they may wind up viewing themselves as straight, or bi, and more power to them, if so. It’s their choice what to do with their emotions! But why should we prevent them from trying to understand the complicated hormonal and societal forces at work on their identity?
Don’t listen to anything that Janey Ruth says. She spent hours on myspace trying to convince everyone that zach wasn’t real and it was all a hoax. She left really harrassing comments on his blog. She is the biggest troll. (admittedly I am assuming that this is the same janey ruth who did all that – but I sure don’t know of any other janey ruths)
Zach is at a very impressionable age and can be easily influenced by his surrounding environment (in this case LIA)but what happens when he is on his own? What happens when he is out in the world as an adult at 18 and his same sex feelings are still there and he is forced to deal with them on his own? Will the ex-gay people be there for him unconditionally? Who will be there for him? Somebody has obviously gotten to him lately and really hammered it into his psyche that he is ok as long as he doesn’t accept that very important part of himself that God created in him.
He’s a kid in a tough spot – still dependent on parents. His choices are few – stick it out at home and give the parents what they want to hear (whether or not he buys into the ex-gay stuff), or leave and risk being homeless, since I would assume the parents would make him return from any sympathetic friend’s house. Homeless “throwaway” teens end up tricking or dealing, not a good life at all, and can end up fulfilling that false dead-by-40 prediction. Chances are very good that there would be no social service option for a gay throwaway teen – even cities that have programs for them have only a tenth of the slots needed. He’s not old enough to apply for college scholarships or support himself through jobs – the full time job market stinks for high-school-aged non-graduate kids.
Right back at you JaneyRuth…I have my doubts about people who have a lot of doubts about teenagers who say they are gay.You’ve been a gay teenager, I presume?
The other thing that bothers me is when he told people he was deleting all the e-mails they’d sent. It seemed to me that he may have known most of them would be supportive of his homosexuality, and he deleted them because he didn’t want to hear anyone tell him being gay is fine. But to tell these people – after they all cared so much – that he wasn’t even going to read their comments was so unnecessary and made me wonder if he wanted to crush them so they would go away and he would be left with people who think that “biased agendas” are the only way to discuss the gay community.
I think he would be better off if he just stops blogging for a while, because if that post is really from him, he doesn’t seem to want to have positive contact with gay-supportive people.
I think you guys are projecting way too much into his post. When I read the article above and the quotes that came after it I was getting really irritated at the notion that the religious right managed to screw up yet another well adjusted kids life with their anti-gay garbage. I suggest you read his post with an open mind, not one assuming that he is under an “ex-gay” brainwashing spell. When stating “this isn’t going to become my life” and ” Homosexuality is still a factor in my life— it’s not who I am, it never has been,” you are assuming he is talking about being gay in the past tense. In fact it is obvious from the rest of his entry that the word “this” in the first quote is referring to the blog and this episode and not his being gay. The second quote sounds like a dose of brain washing until you read the end of that paragraph where he writes, “…homosexuality was always there but it didn’t run my life, and it will not now.” In terms of the misrepresentation of LIAR, I don’t know what he is referring to, but perhaps it is the notion of kidnapping that is being perpetrated. I personally think sending a kid off to this sort of treatment is disgraceful on the part of his parents, but it is no more kidnapping than them sending him to a military boarding school or summer camp (albeit in this case for all the wrong reasons). The disgust over his deletion of the e-mails is also explained quite clearly in his blog entry. It is not because he doesn’t appreciate them or wants to turn away from some sort of “temptation” in believing it is okay to be gay, but instead that there are just too many for him to read. Imagine if you had to read every spam e-mail that got sent your way every day, but magnify it times ten.
This kid sounds well adjusted, and is probably just trying to survive the next two years until he can get out of this fundamentalist hell hole. I have tons of friends from the deep south who would agree that such a characterization is not over the top. Everyone should be supportive of his process and let him be while he figures things out. It is something that the religious right and his brainwashed parents aren’t willing to do, and I think in the end he will appreciate it from the side of society that is in the 21st century instead of the 12th century.
Yes, Mr. Moderate, I too am tremendously impressed by this 16-year old. Myspace, with its largely teenage userbase, is hardly Daily Kos or Instapundit. He shared a very traumatic period of his life with what he believed were a small circle of friends, and underestimated the power of his own voice to express his feelings.
In a way, he was first the victim of his own talent as a communicator. Then the rest of us–and I include myself because I was among those who covered his story for the gay media–amplified his voice so that he could be heard–and found–around the world.
Mass media is a funny thing; often the character arc of an instant celebrity goes from permeation, to mass understanding and recognition, to deconstruction. Its a very delicate art to remain in the public eye and not be vilified, or to fade away without falling from grace.
There are a lot of forces on him now; a lot of people have power over him whose public actions show far less public relations acumen than he does. If I had to bet on one of the players in this soap opera, Joe Stark, Smid, Cocran, or the folks at QAC, my money would be on Zach.
Lets all take a moment and realize the REAL enemy here – organized religion. Without that nonsense, there would be no ex-gay movement or any of the associated problems.
As soon as gay people realize that a gay christian is like a black KKK member, the better off they’ll be.
Josh,
Why is organized religion as a group the enemy? I personally not religious at all, but I think you too casually lump all religious affiliations with fundamentalism. That’s really throwing the baby out with the bath water I’m afraid. Just as in everything else there are healthy and unhealthy forms of religion and religious expression.
Josh,
“Lets all take a moment and realize the REAL enemy here – organized religion. Without that nonsense, there would be no ex-gay movement or any of the associated problems.
As soon as gay people realize that a gay christian is like a black KKK member, the better off they’ll be.”
That really is hopelessly naive. The instinct to protect yourself and fear “the other” is powerful. It doesn’t truly originate in religion, though it does receive support in many of them.
Alternately, the teaching to love your neighbor and tolerate “the other” is counter-intuitive. It does not come from instinct but rather comes out of a moral positioning that does originate in religion.
Currently the religious community in America is in the most significant crisis that it has seen since the Civil War. The mainline denominations are all in risk of splitting over one issue: us. And it isn’t because some are “secular” or “not Bible believers”.
There is a significant and growing number of religious scholars, ministers, teachers that truly believe that their faith REQUIRES that they support gay equality. Not passively but to the point that they are willing to break fellowship with believers over this issue.
I periodically am surprised and heartened by reading about some church that is making a stand in their little mid-west town by becoming a reconciling congregation. Usually they say something like “Well, we don’t have any gay people in our congregation right now. But we feel it’s important to let them know they’re welcome here”.
That, Josh, is the power of organized religion when it is used for good.
Sure the Southern Baptists and the Catolic heirarchy are anti-gay. But we have the Pilgrims, the Unitarians, the Quakers, the Reform Jews, the Episcopalians, and a whole bunch of the Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians who refuse to teach the hate doctrines.
Just this month the United Church of Christ voted to support gay marriage. As far as I know, this is the first national organization other than one of the health organizations (APA? AMA?) to officially endorse gay marriage.
I’m certainly not trying to get you to join some organized religion. But to attack all organized religion or all gay Christians shows either deep hostility or a total lack of understanding.
I would imagine that Zach was unpleasantly surprised to discover that he’s now personally associated with a series of debates, including the validity or quackery of the ex-gay movement and its claims, the licensing of self-described religious therapy practices, and even gross generalizations of organized religion in general.
One thing that I did not expect was the rush to judgement about his recent comments. Was he brainwashed? Why doesn’t he want to have positive contact with supportive gay-friendly people? Perhaps one explanation for his negative reaction is that he wasn’t ready for any of this. He just came out to his parents, and they didn’t react well. He probably has more questions than answers, or he may not even know the right questions yet. A good strategy is to do nothing — simply wait — because it’s highly likely that any action could only make things worse. Some people can take years to examine their sexuality to the point of wondering if they are gay, and then proceed cautiously and come out gradually. Any feeling of control can make a tense process much more bearable, and it is unfortunate that Zach no longer has that. He needs to process on his own terms over time, not with a national audience checking feeds for his next blog entry!
In a few years, Zach will probably wake up for the first time in a college dorm room and experience the same sudden and usually very startling liberation as his peers. At that time, he’ll have more than his sexual orientation to begin to understand! Like many students, he’ll begin to form his own interpretation of his religious beliefs, apply and grow his life experiences, morals, and values as the basis for behavior, and attend to all of the details that make up college life. It would be interesting to see what he chooses — but who can stand up to that kind of scrutiny?
Lets all take a moment and realize the REAL enemy here – organized religion. Without that nonsense, there would be no ex-gay movement or any of the associated problems.
As soon as gay people realize that a gay christian is like a black KKK member, the better off they’ll be.
How incredibly hostile. Sounds like someone has some serious issues to deal with, more so than Zach. Seriously Josh, that kind of statement alienates many good people without cause.
David
Hostile? Not at all.
Can any of you reasonably claim that without religion, these people would feel the guilt they do today which makes them seek conversion therapy?
You speak out about fundamentalists, but how many times have you seen a non-religious fundamentalist? An athiest blow up an abortion clinic? An atheist fly planes into buildings? More evil has been perpetrated on this Earth in the name of religion than good. That is undeniable.
If I have offended your belief structure in such a way that I cast doubt on your immortality, so be it. Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill.
I tend to agree with Josh. The numbers of Christians who are not in either open or tacit agreement with the hate mongers numbers in the dozens, as far as I can tell. The lamentable silence of the moderate Christians regarding gay people over the last 30 years shows us the falsity of their beliefs. A ‘liberal’ like Wallis has to be dragged kicking and screaming to support gay people. And he seems to make a point of not letting many people know of his support. It took me quite a while find out about it.
Keep up the good work Josh, don’t let them get you down.
What it seems to me is Zach is laying low and finishing off the school.
Evidence:
1) Has blocked off instant messaging to only his friends; he talking to those who he trusts in and have confidence in knowing that they won’t go around spreading information divulged in the conversations he may have with them.
2) He has maintained on his profile that his orientation is gay – if he was truely ‘straight’ or ‘converted’, that would have been the first correction.
3) Like others have said; he wants to remove all references to homosexuality from his blog; if he wants to maintain a journal, I am sure he’ll maintain it privately and talk to those friends he has confidence in.
Like I said, he seems to be a pretty bright guy, and has his head on straight – he’s realised that he has two choices; either be an attention seeking gay which acts as a lightening rod to all the nutters from both extremes.
By doing that, he basically puts himself in the firing line of his parents and his religious community.
The alternative, which is what it seems he has chosen, is to pull his head in, keep studying at school and focus on other things in his life – hopefully his parents will back off from him, and all will be well.
People may call this ‘being in the closet’ or ‘denial’, but at the same time it is a learning curve, he is realising that not everyone is accepting of homosexuality and that there is a time and a place to tell people – it is about realising the time and place for everything.
He is also realising that homosexuality doesn’t define his existance; it seems that he has filtered out the bullcrap and taken on board the few microscopic perls of wisdom he was told at LIA – that his existance isn’t defined by his sexual orientation.
kaiwai, I think most of us would accept this decision from him if he had not made the comments about “biased agendas” and if he had not said that LIA was misunderstood. That makes it sound like he’s defending them, that he believes their programming, although as you said, he may just be laying low. This also concerned me. One of the people who commented on page 5 of his blog said:
“It’s interesting because yesterday I noted with some interest that if Zach had been brainwashed he would have removed gay content or mention from his blog and that was not the case as he listed his orientation and several gay groups he belongs to here… oddly enough, today the list of his groups has disappeared. :-/”
What exactly was removed from the site?
If he truly does want to move on he may want to consider shutting down his blog. I said this yesterday, but I’m saying it again because the comments seem to be more and more cannibalizing and hurt and angry as they realize he probably isn’t going to reply to them again.
It should be suggested to him, that, if he wants to be left alone, he not post his plaints on the internet. For everyone to read and for political wackos to make use of.
If he want’s to be left alone, then be alone.
You know who disappoints me? Everyone who expects this kid to come out of this experience as a poised and articulate pro-gay spokesman right away, like Athena from Zeus’ head! Good Gods, y’all, the rest of the ex-ex-gays (or ex-inmates, like Lyn Duff and Daphne/Dylan Scholinski) who have come out got to have a few weeks to get their heads right, at least. Did you people have your memories erased upon your 18th birthday or something? Because you’ve obviously forgotten what it’s like to be a teenager.
(And no, I don’t mean that for everybody. Most of you seem to get it.)
My wife and I were among the well-wishers. We can understand why his parents would like our links to sites on legal emancipation and our exhortations to find an aunt or grandparent or teacher to talk to and possibly move in with deleted. We also advised him to work like a fiend on his grades so he could get into a good college FAR AWAY, and possibly get help from the Point Foundation. I know we weren’t the only ones giving that kind of advice. I hope he can do that, but he seems bright enough to get some kind of scholarship to me.
Let him grow up–the rest of us could do that. Let him talk to his real friends who knew him before he posted about LIA/R. Let him go back to school (and possibly on school *computers*. Incidentally, does anyone seriously think that kid can get to a computer without “supervision” at the moment?) Let him work on his grades and negotiate for phone privileges. Let him be the normal, nice gay kid he was, questionable music taste and everything, in front of only a few blog readers, before he became Boy, Interrupted. Isn’t that what we really want for our LGBT kids anyhow? For them to be kids and enjoy growing up?
Y’all, he knows about us. He knows where we’re at. We can be there for him in his future. But he needs to get through his present first. Right now, we can be the adults–and that’s what we need to act like around these kids, ADULTS–who are NOT trying to push and prod him and shape him to suit their own agenda. If you want to help LGBT kids, try to remember what the individuals are–KIDS–and donate to groups of adults who are there to help out, such as the Hetrick-Martin Institute and the Point Foundation.
I am standing on my chair applauding your comments, Javelle. Tom Cruise can’t discuss psychoactive drugs on Today without causing an outrage, and this is a professional who has spent much of his life on movie promotion tour learning how conduct a public life without stepping in…well, you know.
Yet somehow we expect a 16 year old kid to emerge from an 8 week intensive program where he has been walled off from the rest of the world so that he can be fed a steady does of partisan information on a hotbutton issue so supercharged that it made the difference in the last presidential election, and speak to us as the voice of reason on an issue adults can’t even resolve.
Our faults aren’t in our stars but in ourselves.
Josh,
>>Lets all take a moment and realize the REAL enemy here – organized religion. Without that nonsense, there would be no ex-gay movement or any of the associated problems.
>>As soon as gay people realize that a gay christian is like a black KKK member, the better off they’ll be.
The explicit purpose of the KKK is racial oppression. The purpose of Christianity, explicit or implicit, is not gay oppression. Gay Christians do not make common cause with anti-gay bigots.
>>Can any of you reasonably claim that without religion, these people would feel the guilt they do today which makes them seek conversion therapy?
Yes, of course many still would. There are many other causes of homophobia- sexism, fear of male penetration, etc. that have nothing to do with religion.
>>You speak out about fundamentalists, but how many times have you seen a non-religious fundamentalist? An athiest blow up an abortion clinic? An atheist fly planes into buildings? More evil has been perpetrated on this Earth in the name of religion than good. That is undeniable.
Take a look at the history of the last century. There were tons of militant fundamentalists murdering in the name of athiestic philosophies. Some were called communists, and they murdered close to 100 million people. Nazism had mystical overtones but was not at heart a religion. ELF and ALF people commit acts of terrorism all the time that are not inspired by religion. As far I know, the Unabomber was not a regular church goer.
Have you ever stopped to really think about just how much good has been done in the name of religion across all centuries? Much more than evil. That is what is undeniable. Religion has been the most powerful force in human history. Of course its mistakes are going to be big.
>>If I have offended your belief structure in such a way that I cast doubt on your immortality, so be it. Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill.
You starting to sound almost like DL Foster.
>>I tend to agree with Josh. The numbers of Christians who are not in either open or tacit agreement with the hate mongers numbers in the dozens, as far as I can tell. The lamentable silence of the moderate Christians regarding gay people over the last 30 years shows us the falsity of their beliefs. A ‘liberal’ like Wallis has to be dragged kicking and screaming to support gay people. And he seems to make a point of not letting many people know of his support. It took me quite a while find out about it.
I know around 500 in my church alone. Several of my str8 friends are pursuing ordination or went to seminary and are very supportive of gay rights. Is there a lot of silence? Yes, of course there is. The unfortunate fact is most people are silent most of the time about issues that do not directly affect them. Why isn’t there a huge campaign among the rank and file of the gay community for trans rights? Because many gays don’t see it as directly affecting them.
Josh,
The worst part about your attitude is that it guarantees the ongoing hardness the religous right. And what does that serve anybody?
AS I keep saying, they’re here, they vote, and they put Bush in office. And they’re not going anywhere.
But if you honestbly believe that ALL fundamentalsists currently support LIA, and worse, that all fundamentalists will always support LIA, then you may as well find a rock to crawl under because nothing will truly ever change with an attitude like that.
And.. as for the Gay Christians = black KKK crack… How ignorant can you be? You not only want to cut off all communications with christians in general, you also want to turn on gay people as well? You’re just another Falwell in drag.
What a loser.
Boo said: “Take a look at the history of the last century. There were tons of militant fundamentalists murdering in the name of athiestic philosophies. Some were called communists, and they murdered close to 100 million people. Nazism had mystical overtones but was not at heart a religion. ELF and ALF people commit acts of terrorism all the time that are not inspired by religion. As far I know, the Unabomber was not a regular church goer. ”
I don’t really want to get into the whole controversy here because as an atheist myself, I both agree and disagree with Josh I did, however, want to address the above-quoted passage to clear up some misconceptions.
1) Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Everyone is to some extent an atheist, by virtue of the fact that no one believes in the existence of every god. Those who actively use the lable “atheist” simply lack a belief in one less god than everyone else.
With that said, there is no such thing as an atheist philosophy. There are secular philosophies (ones that do not require a worldview that assumes the existence of any divine being) but those philosophies don’t require atheism any more than they require theism. The concepts upon which the United States bases its government, for example, is secular but it is most assuredly not atheist.
2) Communism does not neccessarily require atheism, though many Communist thinkers have been atheists. The death and oppression that you refer to has nothing at all to do with atheism. That is, no one in those regimes have been killed in the name of atheism.
3) Nazism is also not atheistic (various strains of it are Christian and Asatruic, both of which are theism), and one could successfully argue that the attempted genocide of the Jews was the ultimate expression of the anti-semitism that had grown out of primarily Christian assumptions of Jewish inferiority. Hitler was not the only world leader in the 20th century who pondered The Jewish Question, just the most extreme.
4) Finally, neither ELF nor ALF are atheist organizations and both assert that the reasons members commit specific acts are their own, so it is quite possible that some acts are committed for religious reasons. And the Unabomber’s church attendance is not really an issue, since attendance in a church is not an inidcation of a god belief or a lack thereof.
Again, I both agree and disagree with parts of what Josh is saying. I just believe that it is important to make sure we are not maligning others in an effort to defend Christianity.
Falwell in drag. That’s funny. I am amused by the number of self-hating gays on this site. Do not embrace a religion that seeks to modify your being or at the least consider you damaged goods. You are doing yourself the biggest disservice.
Josh:
“I am amused by the number of self-hating gays on this site. Do not embrace a religion that seeks to modify your being or at the least consider you damaged goods. You are doing yourself the biggest disservice.”
You seem remarkably ignorant of both the people on this site and of religion in general. Not to mention hateful.
And frankly, your proselytizing for your religious belief is annoying. Though I am a Christian, I would find it offensive if someone came on here and said “Jesus is the redeeming messiah and the answer to all your problems”. What you’re doing is no less obnoxious.
Timothy:
Where do you get off? How am I hateful? Who have I claimed to hate in my posts? You are making this stuff up as you go along. Go apply for a correspondant position with Fox News.
Jim B:
How lonely is life out there in Tucson? Yeah I know. I used to live there. Try IBTs – on a Tuesday – your kind of crowd.
It looks like trolls come in all stripes
Robis,
>>With that said, there is no such thing as an atheist philosophy. There are secular philosophies (ones that do not require a worldview that assumes the existence of any divine being) but those philosophies don’t require atheism any more than they require theism. The concepts upon which the United States bases its government, for example, is secular but it is most assuredly not atheist.
>>2) Communism does not neccessarily require atheism, though many Communist thinkers have been atheists. The death and oppression that you refer to has nothing at all to do with atheism. That is, no one in those regimes have been killed in the name of atheism.
True, I probably worded it too broadly. “Secular” would have been a much better term to use. Josh was implying that terrorism and mass murder are always inspired by religion and I was trying to point out that that simply isn’t true. “Atheistic philosophies” was only intended to mean philosophies that have been espoused by people who happen to have been atheists, and/or had an explicitly secular purpose, not necessarily philosophies born out of atheism itself, sorry. That said, with the exception of liberation theology, Communism has always been hostile to religion, and many religious people were institutionalized in the former Soviet Union.
Josh,
To imply that all gay Christians are self-hating is itself hateful. As with every other segment of society, churches are coming to grips with gay people. Some are doing it faster and better than others. Someone who embraces an individual church which teaches that homosexuality is an abomination may indeed be self-loathing, but more and more churches are becoming inclusive. Plus, I think it was Peter Toscano who said somewhere that the gay community pushing the belief that gays have to choose between our sexuality and our religion is a good part of what drives people to ex-gay groups in the first place.
And insulting people and then denying it sounds more and more DLFosteresque.
Josh,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Raj,
It should be suggested to him, that, if he wants to be left alone, he not post his plaints on the internet. For everyone to read and for political wackos to make use of.
If he want’s to be left alone, then be alone.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. For all that I’m sure he is going through, this is the bottom line.
David
Raj:
Re: It should be suggested to him, that, if he wants to be left alone, he not post his plaints on the internet. For everyone to read and for political wackos to make use of.
Sure can’t argue with the simple and pure logic of that statement. Unfortunately the internet gave a massive megaphone to a kid who probably didn’t realize what would come of it. After all, Myspace is more about connecting with friends rather than a massive platform to broadcast to the world.
But yes, it is on the thing that is called the “World Wide Web” for a reason.
And besides, how many kids that age ever fully understand the repurcussions of everything they do?
I’m sure he learned some powerfull lessons out of all of this. I just hope they’re valuable ones as well, and not destructive.
RE: James at August 3, 2005 07:24 AM
If he truly does want to move on he may want to consider shutting down his blog. I said this yesterday, but I’m saying it again because the comments seem to be more and more cannibalizing and hurt and angry as they realize he probably isn’t going to reply to them again.
But at the end of the day; what we know, is only what he has told us; for all we know, if one has to be overly optimistic; maybe him and his father have decided to take the issue ‘in house’ rather than it being one of a family airing their dirty laundry like a Jerry Springer show.
Yes, I know I am being delusional optimistic, but at the same time, one doesn’t know what is happening or who is actually maintaining the blog.
One thing that is interesting – where is his mother in all this – typical Christian misogyny and women hating? ‘keep her in either in the kitchen or in the bedroom with her legs open to satisfy her man’ (yes, deliberately put in quotations).
I’m glad to see that despite what many of you have forgotten about what it’s like to be a teenager going through a traumatic time, you haven’t forgotten how to bicker in semi-anonymity like the teens on Zach’s MySpace. Aren’t there slightly more interesting topics to discuss?
Jim Burroway at August 3, 2005 09:19 PM
After all, Myspace is more about connecting with friends rather than a massive platform to broadcast to the world.
I had never heard of Myspace before, but, if he wants to connect he should (a) be more discrete and (b) consider using a chat room, like those on AOL or gay.com. Chat rooms do not leave permanent records. (They can be logged, but hardly anyone does.)
Alex at August 4, 2005 04:41 AM
I’m glad to see that despite what many of you have forgotten about what it’s like to be a teenager going through a traumatic time, you haven’t forgotten how to bicker in semi-anonymity like the teens on Zach’s MySpace.
I suspect that most of us were teens once. I haven’t forgotten about it. The kid should be counseled to shut the f__k up, develop as he wishes, and when he is an adult and doesn’t need financial support from his parents any more, leave. It really is not rocket science.
RE: raj at August 4, 2005 06:10 AM
I had never heard of Myspace before, but, if he wants to connect he should (a) be more discrete and (b) consider using a chat room, like those on AOL or gay.com. Chat rooms do not leave permanent records. (They can be logged, but hardly anyone does.)
I have heard of it, but personally, I prefer using blogspot – more control over what I can post and what application – its built up a fan base of loyal supporters, but to be completely honest, its nothing more than webring (remember those years ago?)
Also, he should NEVER have used he real name or photo; me, I don’t use my real photo – apart from protecting the net from my fugliness, the last thing I want is someone noticing me at work; no one knows about my blog except a few friends; its enough anonymity but enough public exposure; its about balancing the two.
I suspect that most of us were teens once. I haven’t forgotten about it. The kid should be counseled to shut the f__k up, develop as he wishes, and when he is an adult and doesn’t need financial support from his parents any more, leave. It really is not rocket science.
I have a feeling it would be a couple of his friends who pushed him into coming out to his parents; almost a certaintity; having chatted to guys like Zach online (in that sort of position with conservative parents); come out to yourself, embrace and accept yourself, maybe tell a few friends, but apart from that, lay low, stick to studying and school work, then once you’re old enough to move out, then drop contact with the parents.
Some ‘gays’ seem to go through this, ‘gotta tell the parents’ phase; there is no NEED to tell parents if you’re gay; keep them on a need to know basis, feed them enough information to keep them happy – how school is going, friends whom you hang out with etc. etc. its all about keeping your cards close to your chest.
kaiwai at August 4, 2005 06:32 AM
I don’t do blogging, except to comment on them, like I do here. I’ve never understood the allure of on-line diary journals. A few years ago, when the boston gay.com chat room was interesting, I posted some pics of myself on the internet, but largely because I got bored responding to requests that I send the pics to the people in the chat room. (My login on gay.com is LilHunkBos, so you might get the drift)
If Zach’s family had not gone public, it is unlikely that anyone would have found out. There is something very strange about this. Yes, I have a conspiritorial mind, but it’s very odd when a father goes on broadcast TV to denounce his son. There are obviously issues of which we are unaware that are pushing this issue.
Regarding
Some ‘gays’ seem to go through this, ‘gotta tell the parents’ phase; there is no NEED to tell parents..
Very correct. I would not have told my parents except that my current partner ordered me to. I was 30 at the time, had been running around for some 10 years. The reason was, we were buying a house together, and he wanted me to make clear to my parents that, if I were to die, he would own the house. I did that, and got the point across. There are some practical reasons for coming out. Actually, when we bought our current house, I made sure that it was “joint tenants with right of survivorship.” so that there would be no miunderstanding. The lawyer who handled the closing (this was in 1983) was surprised, but I knew what I was doing.
The ironic thing is that my younger brother (by 3 years) had figured out what was going on a decade earlier (early 1970s) and had outed me to my parents, and, you know, neither he nor my parents gave a tinker’s damn. I was (and still am) his older brother and he was proud of me. And so was my father. The other ironic thing is that my parents have come to love my partner more than they do me (I’m kind of kidding here). Life is weird. I’m seriously not kidding about that. But, I am really pleased that they accept him as part of the family.
There is very little family on my partners side. He was an immigrant from Germany in the 1950s, and was out and gay when he was a teenager. There’s a distant aunt, but that’s all, and that’s why I don’t talk about that side of ourfamily very much.
Boo said, “True, I probably worded it too broadly. “Secular” would have been a much better term to use. Josh was implying that terrorism and mass murder are always inspired by religion and I was trying to point out that that simply isn’t true. “Atheistic philosophies” was only intended to mean philosophies that have been espoused by people who happen to have been atheists, and/or had an explicitly secular purpose, not necessarily philosophies born out of atheism itself, sorry. That said, with the exception of liberation theology, Communism has always been hostile to religion, and many religious people were institutionalized in the former Soviet Union. ”
Yeah, I realize what you meant, my aim was to clarify what others may or may not get out of what you posted.
I disagree that Communism has always been hostile to religion. Wikipedia explains the Soviet Union’s policy towards religion thus:
“Since coming to power in 1917, the Soviet regime has failed to develop and apply a consistent and lasting policy toward nationalities and religions. Official policies and practices have not only varied with time but also have differed in their application from one nationality to another and from one religion to another. Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, the questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked. Not surprisingly, therefore, the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.”
(the link for this is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union . I apologize for being so inept when it comes to code)