“Straight talker” Stephen Bennett launched into a bizarre tirade against virtually the entire modern mental health profession in today’s program. (Real Audio / Windows Media)
(+4:00) Irene: According to these so called respected professionals in their field, homosexuality is just as natural and normal and heterosexuality, though just not as prevalent.
Stephen: Irene, let me jump in here, as far as I’m concerned I suggest these psychobabblers abandon their practices and get a job working literally in the fields, pardon the sarcasm.
[Irene laughs]Stephen: Listen, according to them, simply put, we are the ones who need psychological counseling from the years of quote anti-gay unquote religious bigotry and intolerance that our families, pastors and churches have pounded into our heads from an outdated book, written, rewritten over and over again by man, a book known as the Bible. To them we are simply fanatical, brainwashed, ideologues.
Don’t change the channel, there’s more:
(+5:08) Stephen: And as far as these professional psychologists who say “gay is ok” obviously their schooling did nothing for them except suck them dry for their tuition money. Jesus referred to these types as “the blind leading the blind;” They and their clients both falling into the pit together.
Wow, clearly every major mental health organization in the country has led me astray. Good thing Stephen is here to set the record straight!
***ALERT***
Ex-gay ATTACK. I need everyone’s help over at Family Scholar’s Blog start at post #188 ( November 21st, 2005 at 3:47 pm ).
Any assistance would be appreciated.
I’ve done my part!
Holy crap! That thread goes on forever.
Anybody care to give us a synopsis?
Bill, just posted over there. On-Lawn has some grandiosity issues in regards to arguing that heterosexuals are somehow superior to gays. She/he also does not want us to “take personally” the fact that she/he sees us as inferior and not worthy of marriage rights. Some pretty weird ideas about gays on that thread, thanks for the heads up. Most of it I found pretty insulting actually.
Who are these Bennett’s talking to that they are so confident would buy what they are saying?
I would love to talk to these people. But something tells me they’d want to silence me.
The way DL Foster has at his blog.
I can’t say much about their show because I’ve never heard it. But I’m getting to a consensus about ex gays who engage media like blogs and broadcasts.
I can’t help that I’m not gay. I’ve never been anything but heterosexual and I can’t imagine being anything else but heterosexual.
I have known what slams to one’s identity or physical attributes can feel like. I know that one’s natural situation isn’t respected much more than the perception of what’s unnatural.
I’ve known Jews who hated being Jewish and struggled with that identity however natural and desirable that is. And how risky it is.
I know why gays become ex gays. And in general, it’s not for a healthy reason, nor motivated for greater good.
The problem I have with ex gays advertising in their way is that it’s redundant.
If they are so happy and well adjusted in their heterosexual affectation, then they should realize that heterosexuals don’t really behave in this way.
We’re not CONSCIOUS heterosexuals. Heterosexuals don’t think or are MADE to so much about it. It’s not so large in our lives. The Bennett’s make too much of something that doesn’t need it.
We wouldn’t know what WE were if gay people weren’t around to mark the difference.
None of us goes around selling heterosexuality per se because we think of it.
We don’t.
And what they tell you to do to BE heterosexual is more like painting on a varnish…it’s just a way to coat, not BE. It’s not that big a deal to be straight.
The Bennett’s are an embarrassment by exaggerating what heterosexuality is.
Emotional problems that cause marital and child raising stress, and whatever addictions or money troubles aren’t attributed to our orientation, but just how life is.
Heterosexuals don’t have a life of bliss because we’re straight.
Being straight isn’t a lifestyle, it’s a state we’re not questioned on and have no answers for either.
Straight people don’t know how they got that way, so can’t tell anyone ELSE who isn’t straight how to get there.
No straight person has the true answers to money and bill paying concerns, child raising stress, health and family care insecurity….or ideal romantic situations.
And people that switched up on their orientation were looking for something that concerns everyone and doesn’t go away just because you’re now not gay.
That’s a profound turnaround.
Indeed, why trust someone who does that? Especially for the reasons most gay people turnaround to being not gay.
Which are grotesque and determindly arrogant.
Why wouldn’t I think that a gay person isn’t just like me as a heterosexual?
I just AM, I didn’t choose to be heterosexual and plenty of gay people have said their experience is exactly the same. It was as spontaneous a happening as my own.
Why deny that’s not true? What straight person is fit to say differently and then tell gay people that THEY have a choice?
HUNH?
Says…WHO?!
So here you have these Bennetts and all the others who try to say that being gay is a choice and a gay person can not be gay if they don’t want to be.
I didn’t WANT to be heterosexual, I didn’t decide to be heterosexual, I just HAPPEN to be heterosexual.
Now, if one’s sexual orientation is a decision that can be made, if I went to the Bennetts and said I’ve decided to be gay…how should I go about it?
I wonder what instructions they would have for me.
Stephen Bennett liked being gay enough to be gay for decades. Guess he’d be the one to tell me how, right?
The thing is, EX gays don’t have being straight that right either.
There’s more to it than they think, and less to certain parts of being straight than they think.
Ex gays have been lied to, because heterosexuals telling those gay people the path to heterosexuality don’t know enough about sexual orientation at all to TELL the truth.
Or don’t want to.
Especially if they come up with ‘the Bible says so’ as THEIR license and dismiss what REAL psychiatrists have said for decades.
It’s too weird.
It’s kind of like pleather trying to say it’s genuine calfskin.
They might have experience with being gay, and going through an ex gay process, but there’s more to it.
Then you have to FORGET what made you straight.
Because us straight people, don’t remember how we got that way at all.
I posted also. It looks like ordinary, everyday christianity to me. The kind that actual gay men actually encounter in real life. Not the type promoted by the christians here. As usual, the liberal christians seem to be hidding or doing their hair. When this is the only kind of christianity gay people encounter, and in my experience it is, why even bother trying to convince us their are other types. Types that might be somewhat less hateful. When these never materialize when doing so would make a difference.
Bravo and thanks to all. As a “liberal” Christian (not doing my hair), I appreciate the help.
I’d like your opinions on what I said. It’s taken some observation and real study of this ex gay stuff.
But that’s one of the conclusions I’ve come to.
Variations of men and women…gay symbiosis with straight.
We have it all for a very good reason. The simplest and the one that makes the most sense, is the caring bridge need between men and women. We need our friends of opposite sex who won’t setup sexual tension.
The only way this is possible is with homosexuality in the mix.
Heterosexual men and women, on their own, don’t get along that well.
Murderously badly, in fact.
We need the homosexual element to keep ourselves mellowed and more understanding of each other.
This makes a lot of sense why homosexuals in other cultures were spiritual advisors.
What an excruciatingly BORING world this would be, if we only had heterosexuals, and extreme heterosexuals (ex gays).
Yikes.
Maybe I am just not dedicated enough but I find sites like that one exceptionally boring. There is always at least one passive-aggressive type like that “On Lawn” character who loves to bloviate on and on. I can just see him reading his own posts over and over with self admiration. That “let’s get back to my questions that you haven’t answered” business is a good indicator of someone with more control issues than I care to deal with. There were some thoughtful replies but it just seems like a waste of breath. I have to feel the other side is at least somewhat genuine in their reasons for debate to put out the energy. And how anyone can stand DL Foster’s site I’ll never know – truly a nut in my opinion.
I probably should make an effort to do more rebuttal, especially of such garbage espoused in the name of Christianity, if for no other reason than to let Dalea know I’m not off doing my hair.
David
HI David,
The Goddess is alive and magic is afoot. You reall ydon’t need to do anything. All you can prove is that christianity is a dead religion and beyond resusicitation. Let it go.
David, I too found the “family scholars blog” quite circular and boring. I made a comment about the condescending tone to a “Jose” and this went right over his head and he returned to his “you already have rights so shut up” mode. “On Lawn” was going nowhere fast just repeating stuff and was quite nauseating. It is a waste of time trying to win people like this to logic and reason, their prejudices are just too deep seated to look at anything else. Move on.
Hair? What hair?
Sadly Tim is right, those berks at that blog are impervious to logic and reason.
Regan, I agree with your observations. It occurred to me that the “survival of the fittest” selection of genes isn’t solely for individual gain, but for the gain of the species as a whole. Thus gays are genetically selected for to enhance the success of the entire group, not to enhance the success of individual gays in breeding. It has always been a complex world and there is value to the entire community in having individuals that occupy a great variety of niches.
Gays do and excel at things benefitting the group that heterosexuals do not.
Excellent points Randi and Regan. It seems to me that human society would not work if everyone was constantly breeding. There is a need for people who don’t have children to tend so they can do necessary work. Like taking care of children while parents rest. Evolution needs to take into account the existence of social animals.
Dalea
“All you can prove is that christianity is a dead religion and beyond resusicitation.”
Can you just stop this? You know it’s offensive, right? You know that those who are Christian really don’t want to hear this from you, don’t you? I’m sure I’ve made the point enough.
I do realize that you think the Christians gang up on you. But if you just stop for a second with this bashing, you’ll see that no one here, EVEN ONE TIME (that I can find) has ever said anything to disparage your beliefs.
Regan is a pagan (oooh, that rhymes)
Randi is an apostle of Fairness First (c)
You worship the Goddess
Jim, David, and I are Christians
So I’ll make you a deal. I won’t bash the pagan/wiccan/alternative religions and you leave mine alone (of course, we can both still bash the fundamentalist mindset in any of the religions cuz that’s just fun).
Bill, I tried my best to get into the “debate” at Family Scholar’s Blog but found it was a rare message I could get past the thought police to be displayed there. No profanity in my messages, they just won’t display anything that too overtly challenges what they want to hear. They believe in free speech only if its anti-gay. What follows is some of the ideas they couldn’t honestly face:
Jose Salono – No one has proven that heterosexuality is innate or immutable either. The answer to whether it is or not is inside you. Do you recall conciously willing an opposte sex attraction into being? The vast majority of heterosexuals acknowledge that opposite sex attractions appeared without any choice. If the lack of proof of sexuality being innate or immutable means it isn’t there would be a 50/50 split between people picking same or opposite sex partners as the choice would be totally random. That there isn’t a 50/50 split and the vast majority of people pick opposite sex partners is evidence that heterosexuality is immutable and innate. Its hard to think of a reason that gays would report, as do heterosexuals, experiences of sexuality appearing without choice and preferring one gender of partner over another if it were not innate and immutable as well. You are the one that has the burden of proof to demonstrate the unicorn exists – you’re making the extraordinary claim that the appearance of sexual attractions without choice and gender of mate preferences are somehow different between gays and straights. How can being gay be a choice if being straight isn’t?
The idea that there is no gay identity because same sex attractions are not part of who one is is a similarly false claim. Once again, if you’re heterosexual, ask yourself if your opposite sex attractions have nothing to do with your life or who you are. Are you honestly going to say that your desire to be with someone of the opposite sex isn’t important to you and doesn’t define you to a degree? There’s another unicorn, the idea that wanting a same sex mate is insignicant to gays and doesn’t define them in the same way wanting a heterosexual mate is significant to and defines heterosexuals.
Even if being gay were a choice the idea that this means it can’t be an identity is the same as the idea that there is no Christian identity – its absurd on the face of it. Ironically what most gives gays (people with same sex attractions) an identity is heterosexuals singling out gays for preferential treatment (abuse). Part of what forces people into an identity of being same sex attracted is society singling gays out for second rate treatment like being told we don’t have the same right as heterosexuals to marry the one person we are most attracted to. Or that we should choose an opposite sex partner solely because heterosexuals would then be 1/2 of one percent happier even if we lose 1/2 or 3/4 of all our happiness to supressing same sex attractions.
There is no proof exgays exist. The claim of thousands is unsubstantiated as are all claims of cures given that no long term followup is done and the exgay programss haven’t addressed the elephant in the room – their unwillingness to take the most objective test involving genital volume measurement with sexual images of men. Arousal certainly is the most common cause of erections and the fact that no exgays have been willing to verify unscientific self reports this way strongly suggests they know they can’t.
Bill, here’s a better example of the ideas the thought police at Family Scholars Blog fear letting people see because it sounds too reasonable and too much like the truth:
Jose Solano – the only essential and natural criteria for marriage is a supportive and loving monogamous relationship. Gays can do that just as well as straights. There has never been a requirement that couples be able and willing to procreate to marry.
Unless your constitution specifically forbids it, one generally has the right to do whetever one wants as long as it doesn’t interfere with any one else’s right to do the same – that’s what your ninth amendment says. Anton Scalia is wrong, the right to privacy exists, if what he said was true one wouldn’t have the right to wave your arms in the air or go to sleep because the constitution doesn’t specifically grant it – a patently absurd idea.
I don’t dispute what you say is traditionally how the law has been implemented. But morally speaking and from a fairness point of view it makes just as much sense to say the Republican party will be eliminated from the next election giving you the equal right to vote Democrat as it does to say gays have the equal right to an opposite sex marriage.
Whether or not someone meets the conditions for marriage (and what those conditions should fairly be) is a seperate issue from whether or not the law fives you a right , very special to whoever has it, to marry the one you’re are most attracted to – you do have that special right and others do not. Whether or not that exclusion from being able to marry the one you are most attracted to is justifiable or not is a seperate issue. The reasons why incestuous marriages are prohibited are not applicable to equal marriage for same sex couples (unless such a couple is also blood relatives and thus not independent enough from each other to make an informed choice to marry).
Randi
While I agree with the intent of your posting, I do have a correction.
“Anton Scalia is wrong, the right to privacy exists, if what he said was true one wouldn’t have the right to wave your arms in the air or go to sleep because the constitution doesn’t specifically grant it – a patently absurd idea.”
If the State of Alabama passed a law tomorrow to outlaw waving your arms in the air, Alabamans would have no right to do so. Anyone who disagreed could argue before the court that the right to wave your arms in the air is a form of “speach” and is protected as such. It’s hard to say if they would win.
But the Constitution does not (as you suggest) make legal all activities other than certain listed ones. What it does is establish limits to what actions a legislature may outlaw.
For example, burning tires can be fobidden by law, burning the US flag is Constitutionally protected free speach.
Whether there is a “right to privacy” in the Constitution is difficult to answer. It certainly isn’t listed there, but the concept is not inconsistent with the rights that are listed. I’m inclined to think that most things that fall under the “Right to Privacy” could be more accurately found in the Search and Seizure clause which restricts the role of Government and limits it respect to one’s private home. But, then again, I’m not a Constitutional scholar.
As I understand it Scalia is saying in the absence of any law prohibiting it there is still no right to wave your arms in the air nor a right to privacy because such rights are not specifically granted in your constitution. I still wonder why that or the other post was too dangerous to print. I can only assume they’re afraid of these ideas for a reason.
Timothy, what about the ninth amendment, does it not make it clear that the constitution goes beyond merely establishing limits to what actions a legislature may outlaw? It says the rights of the people are not limited to those specifically enumerated in the document – the constitution thus says the people have unspecified and presumably substantial rights.
I’m neither an American, nor an American constitutional lawyer, but I sure wouldn’t let that intimidate me from taking a crack at it.
lol
and I’m sure you’d do as good a job as many.
I think the distinction is that when one has a “Constitutional Right” it generally means you can grab a copy and see it right there (more or less).
Many scholars support the idea that the Constitution is a living document and that the meanings change from time to time. While I understand this concept, it does make me a bit nervous.
Scalia is a “strict constructionist” which means that he only sees rights that he believes the founders were thinking of when they wrote the document. If they didn’t see some “right to an abortion” than, by God, he’s not going to see one either.
Obviously, this is so much hoo-haw. Scalia finds plenty of things that the founders could not conceive of. And misses things they probably would have seen.
My personal take on it is that you find the rights that are there and none other. But you recognize that persons are defined differently now than then. The protections were primarily for white male property owners. Opening up the “club” to others doesn’t neccesarily have to change the rights, just the application. So too would rules effected by modern technology. You apply the principles. I think most of the Justices have tried to do that, particularly Justice O’Connor (I will definitely miss her balance wisdom).
I think that what is often forgotten is the purpose of the Constitution: to protect the weak from the excesses of the powerful, or the popular. That’s why folks rail against “activist judges” because, after all, the judges are protecting the rights of folks we may not like. But that’s really the only purpose they serve. If we wanted to protect the rich, powerful, or majority, toss out the judges cuz they are the only one’s looking out for the poor or minority folk. Pretty wize idea the founders came up with.
I (being somewhat an optimist) believe that if the founders were able to understand that there are people who are distinctly gay (not just rebellious or hedonist heterosexuals living wild lives) they would have included them under “all men are created equal”.
After all, homosexuality was certainly not unheard of in their contemporaries and it appears that they had no compelling need to stamp it out. I think (if I remember correctly) that the Prussian General that helped Washington found the American Army was fairly openly gay.
I don’t think I would have read through all those posts over there if I had known they were censoring anything other than profanity or obvious personal attacks. I have no tolerance for squelching open, good faith debate. Iron sharpens iron.
This may not fit in but it’s been on my mind lately. I’m not sure I am too concerned about whether someone wants to shun being gay and attempt a heterosexual lifestyle. I think it is probably next to futile and certainly comes with a high risk of mental and emotional issues, compounded exponentially if that person marries someone of the opposite sex without full disclosure. However, it’s not something I would be prepared to disallow, but I certainly wouldn’t recommend it. What really disgusts me is the use of these people and their struggle by others who want to exploit them to support a belief or point of view. Its not going to shatter my psyche if someone is found to have made this change successfully, nor should is shatter anyone else or their beliefs if it is found to be impossible. The truth is the best foundation for anything we do.
I don’t think any of us here are fooled by the attempt to create a minority status for ex-gays such that they mock attempts at equality for gays. The strategy is obvious; you want rights, we want rights; you exist, we exist; you want your viewpoint taught in schools, we want… My response has always been that if you are truly ex-gay, then you are straight (albeit with an interesting history) and so what is the problem? But since none of this is sincere, facts make no difference. It’s simply an attempt to cancel out equality for, perhaps even the existance of, gays (in that we are to believe that “gay” is just heterosexuals acting “badly”).
This is why I get so frustrated when trying to debate in that kind of arena. At least on a site like XGW, there is some give and take, a sense that people actually respect another’s opinion enough to consider and even modify their own. I’ve been given much to think about from others here, even when I wasn’t posting. This is a pretty special place.
Perhaps one type of marriage should be banned: that of a homosexual to a heterosexual of the opposite sex. What do you guess the failure rate there is?
David
Timothy,
I track with you on your view of interpreting the Constitution 100%, with one caveat. While I believe there are times when judges are accused of being “activist” for doing just what you describe, I do think there are times when some go beyond those boundaries and take on a role which should be played by the legislature – each branch does have its limitations. And in the case of the former, I agree in as much as making sure that everyone is treated fairly by the law (regardless of wealth or standing) is a way of “looking out for the poor or minority folk”.
David
I think that “all men are created equal” and everyone has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (I think that’s roughly how it goes)came first and are initially unqualified statements indicates they intended people first and formost to be free from government intrusion and to have unqualified rights whereas the government was intended to have specific limited rights to control individuals. I think that before and after the fight with a domineering motherland individual freedom from government was first and foremost in their goals for the new country.
I agree that what is normally meant by a “Constitutional right) is that you can pick up a copy and see it right there (more or less). However I don’t think that is what the crafters of the documents had in mind when they put first the unqualified right to “freedom”. I don’t know how or when the ninth amendment came into being, but I don’t see how that can be read to mean anything other than people have constitutional rights beyond those specifically stated in the document itself.
I don’t think one has to believe the meanings in the document change from time to time to find there are rights not mentioned there. I think the authors intended the idea that legislatures do not have the right to pass whatever law they want. I think the authors intended it to be against the Constitution to pass completely arbitrary laws limiting inherent human freedoms such as a law saying that people can’t go to sleep, or wave their arms in the air.
I’d agree with you that if they had been able to understand that there are people who are distinctly gay they would have included gays under “all men are created equal” and would have agreed the government doesn’t have the right to arbitrarily prevent gays from marrying the one person they are most attracted to.
Randi Schimnosky at November 22, 2005 11:09 PM
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
This is from the Declaration Of Independence. The DoI is a wonderful propaganda document (and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense), but it has no legal effect, even in the US.
From the post
Stephen: And as far as these professional psychologists who say “gay is ok” obviously their schooling did nothing for them except suck them dry for their tuition money.
The next time I go to an alleged singer for psychological or psychiatric advice will be after I go to a doctor who prescribes the use of leeches to cure disease.
/sarcasm
One thing that I’m amused at is that right wing nut cases in the US rail against “Hollywood lefties” in the entertainment industry, but are more than content to have a few “righties” such as Bennett in the entertainment industry.
Ye gods and little fishes!
Mr. Jose “my dear fellow” Solano has
just compared homosexuality to farmboys
buggering sheep.*
If I had pearls on, I’d be clutchin’ em.
I’m diagnosing this as another example of
a (possibly) well-intentioned heterosexual
man thinking, “Well, if _I_ had sex with
another man, it would have to be out of
sheer perverted lustfulness – so when _they_
do it, it’s all about crude, sinful, sexual
pleasure (goodness, it’s getting hot in here)
with no love or affection about it. Poor gays!
We must HELP them overcome this affliction. . .”
*This is referring to the familyscholars post
mentioned at the top of this thread.
raj
“…but are more than content to have a few “righties” such as Bennett in the entertainment industry.”
You have a very loose interpretation of entertainment. I’d rather watch a Barney tape than listen to Bennett. I’d rather view my neighbor’s vacation slides than listen to Bennett. I’d even rather sit through back to back reruns of The Facts of Life than listen to Bennett.
😉
I just checked back on the familyscholars thread – well, Mr. Solano has just gotten trumped in the barking moonbat derby by “On Lawn”.
My first direct encounter with him was the forensics equivalent of laying down three aces, and having my opponent lay down two sevens with a pitying smile. “Oh, too back, you should have had a stronger hand if you were going to bluff.”
*Huh?* At first I felt bruised, but when I saw him go off on a multiple-post binge, after coming up with a bizarre metaphor involving an anesthetized lesbian burning her finger over a candle (WTF?!), I realized that I had been standing on a street corner arguing with a deranged homeless man who had difficulty telling the difference between me and a demonic warthog-monster intent on stealing his valuable collection of gum wrappers.
Oh, c**p, now _I’m_ coming up with bizarre metaphors. . . .
I have read a few comments and yes it is very scary when people using religion begin to “judge” others. I am currently in Azerbaijan, right on the border with Iran, I look at the people and they have repressive governements here, and especially just over the border. If people think homosexuals should be silinced that is wrong i think, peoples who voices are not heard because “someone” thinks it is morally corrupting etc or “movies” that may put someones sexuality in the spotlight should be I think allowed to be seen and heard. The results of repressings this aspect of humanity as a whole is just too terrible. We in the west take free speech for granted. When speech is denied, told to go under the carpet. Told it shouldn’t be said then perhaps this is the time to shout it from the rooftops becuase this is what human beings do the best we talk and communicate. If you don’t like an idea or your think your child will be corrupted by another persons idea of what a sexually pleasing relationship is then you are denying a part of humanity’s choices to this person. I don’t know if I am making much sense but the alternative to not having free speech in my opionion is oppresive poverty. I see it with my own two eyes and it is very scary.
Gerry,
Thank you for that first-hand report as to the eventual unavoidable result of repression. I think sometimes here in America people forget.