The First Amendment Center, along with BridgeBuilders, school administrators, conservative Christians, and pro-tolerance advocates, recently drafted a framework within which local communities can discuss sexual orientation and harassment within public schools. The agreement was based on the idea that all viewpoints deserve to be heard and that common ground can be reached. The Christian Educators Association International and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network endorsed the proposal. (Previous XGW coverage.)
In an article published today at TownHall.com, exgay Chad Thompson and pundit Warren Throckmorton defend the proposal against gay-affirming and antigay critics (citing PFLAG and Ohio antigay activist Linda Harvey in particular) who assert that youths should only be exposed to certain points of view, and who deny that the opposing side is subjected to intolerance and bullying.
Thompson and Throckmorton advocate for the inclusion of exgay voices in balanced school discussions:
When mentioned in school, the lives of former homosexuals are often either discredited or ridiculed.
But that remark suggests 1) a resistance to the presentation of legitimate facts that discredit false claims or unethical conduct by certain exgay activists, and 2) a resistance to the inclusion of former exgays.
Nevertheless, Thompson and Throckmorton warn against those who deny the reality of harassment and bullying of same-sex-attracted youths:
If we want Christian values to be taken seriously, we must start by acknowledging the true suffering experienced by young men and women who are perceived to be or do identify as gay. And we must take a stand against their mistreatment even if we disagree with homosexuality on religious or moral grounds. Any other approach only increases the likelihood that impressionable and confused kids will join up with these gay advocacy groups. Conservatives who fail to compassionately address this issue further alienate the very kids we need to help, while the open arms of gay advocacy groups appear to be a place where these kids can be understood.
The authors’ effort to strike a balance is noteworthy. It remains to be seen how tolerant they would be of ex-ex-gay viewpoints in the schools.
Kudos for Thompson and Throckmorton. It is encouraging to see some on the ex-gay side of the fence speaking out against resistance to anti-bullying programs that include gay kids.
I have to wonder, though, about “the lives of former homosexuals” that “are often either discredited or ridiculed”. How many ex-gay kids do we have in our public schools? I can’t help but think that’s all a bunch of code for ex-gay adults wanting to be able to enter the schools and evangelize about homosexuality. And that strikes me as being just another form of bullying.
I don’t see what’s “balanced” about the implication that it’s a bad thing for “impressionable and confused kids” to “join up with these gay advocacy groups.” It could be that’s just what they need. I would worry more about the kids who might fall into the “open arms” of groups that profess “Christian values.”
I certainly applaud these two taking this stand. However, this sentence from their article bothered me, “As the most infamous scandals of homosexual propagandizing have historically taken place behind closed doors…”
This sentence alone, to me, gives anti-gay folks reason to give great pause to befriending gay folks as it paints them in a negative light. It is also uncited and does not mention whether the anti-gay stance has done similar propaganzing.
With respect to “the lives of former homosexuals,” my main objection is that I have not found many ex-gays that are open publically about their attractions. Telling a class full of students that “complete change is completely possible” is an undocumented claim and would seemingly lead teens disapproving of gays to believe that their gay friends can just up and change.
If the ex-gay side of the aisle were presented as the huge life-long struggle it appears to be, comparing it to a struggle greater and more omnipresent than any struggle most straight kids would ever deal with, and still not leading to change in the majority of cases, then I would be willing to give the ex-gay view point more of a look. At that point it would be more of an “alternative” giving honest portrayals than a political way out for anti-gay folks (as it appears to be for me in its current form).
It can be another form of bullying if biblical interpretation is presented as fact, but there are remedies to prevent that on its own merit.
Don’t we have a responsibility to present all sides of an issue in school? As long as the ex-gay folks and the right wing political action groups that fund them spend the kind of time and effort to keep this issue a matter of public debate, if it weren’t included, it would be obvious by its absense. But it can be a valuable teaching tool.
One of the best responses I’ve seen to the “Intelligent Design” debates (which have a modus operandi very similar to the way “ex-gay” is being promoted in curricula), is promotion of a theory as equal that points out by its inclusion the fault of the method.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster‘s recent letters asking for inclusion in the creationist debate is a great example.
It is encouraging to see Chad and Dr. Throckmorton embracing the Framework.
I have the hardest time understanding Dr. Throckmorton. At times he seems logical and level-headed, such as his support for the Framework and his recognition that for at least some gay people genetics play a part. There are times when you can have a discussion with him and he’ll stay on point, address your issues, and state his position in a reasoned and rational manner.
But on the other hand, he’s affiliated with PFOX, which seems to be little other than a distributor of anti-gay propaganda. And when writing in conservative venues his language can get downright smarmy and hateful.
It’s almost as though there are two of him: Dr. Warren Throckmorton, the professional psychologist interested in orientation issues, and Doc Throc, the anti-gay activist interested in inflaming stereotypes and predudice against gays.
OMG, goodasyou.org tells us that PFOX now has buttons, mugs, etc. to sell to the ex-gay crowd.
https://www.cafepress.com/pfox
My personal favorite is the pink triangle surrounded by a rainbow saying Ex-Gay is OK. I thought rainbows were a sign of the evil homosexual agenda.
I didn’t know there were ex-gay pets.
I would worry more about the kids who might fall into the “open arms” of groups that profess “Christian values.”
Interestingly, I saw a report on the “Today” show about churches reaching out to kids through skate parks and teen clubs. The idea is that these kids will not go to church, but will go to these other venues – if they go, they have to go to the Bible study as well. On the surface, it seems fine, but these groups are being run by the evangelical churches, it seems, and I was struck by something one youth pastor said. He mentioned that if they don’t “save” kids by the time they are teenagers, it is highly unlikely that they would ever join this type of church or religion.
Just who is recruiting here?
More on-topic, I am totally with Brady here – were the “ex-gay” groups honest about what they are promoting, a conscious decision to repress one’s emotions for religious reasons (which priests and nuns have been allegedly doing for centuries, so it’s not necessarily bad) and stress the difficulties inherent in them, they should be welcome. But if they are going to spew anti-gay propoganda, like “being gay shortens your life span” or “I’ve never seen a happy homosexual,” then it is inappropriate for them to be there.
And no, both “sides” of an argument do not have to be presented in a school – we wouldn’t invite Holocaust deniers to school, would we?
CPT_Doom: And no, both “sides” of an argument do not have to be presented in a school – we wouldn’t invite Holocaust deniers to school, would we?”
We’ve taken a leap here from the inclusion of an idea or concept in a discussion in school, to the invitation of a spokesperson.
One of my biggest disappointments with public school (which I didn’t realize until I got to college and had a chance to do some more serious study) was the way public school beat the passion out of everything before it was presented.
We have a British historian facing three years in a Viennese prison over his speech and writing denying the holocaust. Viennese courts have become what they seek to prevent. It has become a matter of public debate.
When issues of passion captivate the attention of the public, it is counterproductive for schools to act like they (and their proponents) doesn’t exist. The best way to prove a bad idea is bad, is to give it a fair hearing.
PBCliberal says, “When issues of passion captivate the attention of the public, it is counterproductive for schools to act like they (and their proponents) doesn’t exist. The best way to prove a bad idea is bad, is to give it a fair hearing.”
It seems to me the last thing the Ex-Gay folk want is a fair hearing. They want the opportunity to advocate for something that is unproven, based upon lies and misrepresentations and considered dangerous by mental health professionals—and they want that advocacy to remain unopposed by those who would point out the fallacies inherent in it. Remember this Thompson and Throckmorton quote from the story above:
“When mentioned in school, the lives of former homosexuals are often either discredited or ridiculed”
Just who is recruiting here?
CPTDoom, excellent point!!! Half the time, I think they’re projecting from themselves.
And they lost me at the “behind closed doors” comment.
Smarmy? Hateful? Maybe there are two of me.
The “behind closed doors” comment refers to Fistgate, the Little Black Book event (not exactly closed doors but it was denied at first), the North Carolina Governor’s school classes on sexual practices (not the most recent one but the one 4 or 5 years ago), etc. Fistgate emerged because someone was taping it. I think that person now is being sued for taping it.
Our point is not to say that only gay advocates do things behind closed doors or that all gay advocates do that. We are concerned about straight teachers and personnel who attempt to indoctrinate as well. We were making a point that primarily to our detractors on the right, that openness and discussion is a good thing.
PS – If there was a forum on diversity that included sexuality change issues and an ex-gay was present, then it would seem reasonable to me to have the gay speaker be an ex-ex-gay. This is going to be a pretty rare occurence I suspect but in principle, I have been on record as favoring a balanced presentation for a long time. In fact, I presented this point of view in Montgomery County to the parents group there that opposed the original health curricular changes.
actually,
“the gay speaker” wouldn’t be ex-ex-gay.
Nearly all ex-ex-gays come from the same religious perspective (at least originally) and thus the gay representation would be restricted to the same religious perspective as the ex-gay.
You have to include all: heterosexual, gay, ex-gay and ex-ex-gay.
And sorry if that earlier post seemed too personal, Warren. But at times you seem reasonable (though convinced of your opinion) and interested in advocating for ex-gays – which is great. Then I’ll read something put out by PFOX and wonder how you can stand to associate your name with that nastiness or I’ll read something (current example excepted) in the religious press that sounds like it’s written by Lou Sheldon.
I respect half of you. And I would love to have someone in the ex-gay camp who could be pro-ex-gay without being anti-gay. Unfortunately, I never know which half of you will show up next.
On the other hand, are there that many gay people who didn’t at any point make some sort of effort to be anything other than gay, whether it be a formal ex-gay program or just denial and sheer willpower? I told myself it was a phase, admiration, or “aesthetic appreciation for the female form” from about twelve to eighteen.
I think most gay people will have had some kind of “ex-gay” experience, in the broadest sense of the word, so they would be, by default, “ex-ex-gays.”
(OK — stuck at home, bored with this report, here goes)Warren, you seem to have gathered all your outrage from the untrustworthy Brian Camenker at Article8. A few inaccurate name-drops, that we shall discuss later, and then your sudden vagueness about particulars of a case mentioned. That seems odd. Yes, that individual and others have faced court for illegally taping the conference and then, at one time, also attempting to sell it. Outcomes yet unknown.But there is one thing that should be clear about all these “behind closed doors” events. Events that you claim represent “the most infamous scandals of homosexual propagandizing”:
“Fistgate”: a voluntary conference attended by a select group of both teachers and youths. A teenager had asked the question: what is fisting — and got a straight-forward answer. The complaint was raised by an anti-gay adult who had no children present. If asked the question, in an open forum specifically meant to encourage such questions, what would you have said? The fact you don;t want the matters to be ever discussed is irrelvant.Governor’s School of North Carolina: a voluntary summer school that covers a wide range of topics, some of which have discussed sexuality. The youths are among the best and brightest in North Carolina. Over the years, complaints have come from anti-gay adults who either do not have children present or who do not like some of the topics that may be selected. Again, it’s irrelevent whether you woul dhave sent your own children.The “Little Black Book”: a publication designed for men aged 18-23, a small number was accidently packed into a box for GLSEN sponsored conference by Fenway Community Health (and both GLSEN and Fenway apologised). Contrary to Camenker’s claims that “This booklet was distributed to hundreds of kids”, only one anti-gay adult is known to have picked up the booklet — and she attended for just such a purpose. But, of course, you don’t wish for such material to be availabe to anyone, do you?: “They say it’s bad for kids, but it’s terrible for anyone. It’s terrible advice for anyone of any age.” Oh, so this really isn’t about information given to teenagers at all?If these are what you mean by the most infamous violations, you have a most perverse view and, dare we suggest, are attempting a persecution complex in these public statements). You may not like the fact that some parents feel this is important information — and you may even call it homosexual propagandizing (sic) — but sending those young people to these events was not your decision. Their parents made that decision.But we’ll throw the claim about propaganda back at you:please present any ex-gay material for our review that is not anti-gaymirroring this, please present any gay affirming material that is anti-heterosexualplease present any ex-gay material that does not take and overt religious position and/or disrepects other religious views — either of which would preclude the material from school lessonspresent any ex-gay material that does not present a false picture of the lives of gay men and women, or contain misleading information about what “change” is or how often this “change” occurs.explain why gay youths –alone — are to be told that they can (and should) be celibate for life. Because that is the best that ex-gay groups can offer when you strip away the deliberately confused messages that ignore bisexuality and falsely present “change” as involving sexual orientationexplain why all heterosexual youths should not get a mirror message to that given to gay youthsand lastly, but not leastly, please present ANY RESEARCH that supports the ex-gay claims.Until those questions are answered, ex-gay adults do not deserve a platform in a school health class. Accurately describing aspects around heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and not-having-sex-at-all is enough. That covers all potential forms of behaviour and all potential ways that people will live their lives.Sorry, but the rules are strict: people who claim the Earth is flat, or 6000 years old deserve no platform in a geology class. People who deny the holocaust deserve no place in a history class. People who claim to be able to levitate should also not be invited to a gym class. Regardless of any deeply held beliefs, or claims that they’re views are not respected enough. Evidence for their claims would quickly alter that non-inclusion.Also, because ex-gay messages are anti-gay, rather than merely pleading tolerance for themselves, they deserve no place in a diversity forum. Would you seriously claim that straight people need others to be more tolerant? Because that’s what ex-gays are, right? Straight? Or is this just an excuse to promote a specific, but contested, religious view about how others should behave? An excuse to attack gay men and women, rather than an attempt to allow others to live without fear and discrimination. The ex-gay materials we’ve encountered all run contrary to the aim of respecting people.Gay youths – however they define themself — would also have our blessing to counter any hostility or bullying directed at themself. If they wish, for now, to “conform with traditional religious beliefs” and are being abused because of that they both need and deserve the support and protection of the school system. Having said that: such occassions we’ve failed to notice, frankly. When has a student been abused for being ex-gay, by people who are supportive of gay men and women?(Note: we said abused for being ex-gay, not because they themself have been abusive to others beforehand by making anti-gay statements etc.) Mostly thoroughy deserved, we nevertheless observe that all the claims of being “discredited or ridiculed” we’ve encountered come from professional ex-gays who appear to have adopted this as a tactic so that they may go into the schools and promote their own deliberate forms of discredit and ridicule, or worse.Being supportive of gay youths does not require anyone to be anti-heterosexual.We’ve yet to encounter anyone promoting ex-gays who is not anti-gay, and who does not feed social animosity.As a good indication of that, it is interesting to note that in the article you and Chad still cannot bring yourselves to plainly say that gay teenagers — let alone gay adults — deserve to be equally, fairly and respectfully treated because that is the correct thing to do as and of itself.No, “being nice” to gay youths is merely a device to keep them from being alienated, and therefore keep them away from gay advocay groups. If “all you Christians” don’t fake being nice, the kids will go gay.Since when has manipulative behaviour ever substituted for genuine understanding and friendship?P.S. It appears Chad Thompson is not a good role model for you, or anyone, is this regard. But you knew that…
The comment above by “Liadan” is the best thing I have ever read on Ex-Gay Watch. Very clear argumentation. Thank you so much!
I send Lisa’s support for those remarks. I have not seen anything yet that lends itself to credibility in the “ex-gay” movement. They can’t even accurately verify numbers – they are all over the board with basic figures. You don’t compromise with habitual liars.
Timothy, I share your feelings about Warren. These two people make me very uncomfortable. I think Warren is struggling with what his religion tells him to do and what the evidence tells him is the right thing to do.
Warren said “When mentioned in school, the lives of former homosexuals are often either discredited or ridiculed.”. Warren, if they truly are “former homosexuals” then they are straight and no one is discrediting or ridiculing the straight lifestyle. At one time I denied my same sex attractions and desire to be female and so have all of the handful of gays I’ve known. Given that its a valid question as to whether or not “exgays” are simply lying to fit in.
Liaden said “I think most gay people will have had some kind of “ex-gay” experience, in the broadest sense of the word, so they would be, by default, “ex-ex-gays.” and I agree. Been there, done that, and to ask us to do it again is naive and inconsiderate.
Posted by: grantdale at April 5, 2006 01:02 AM
Thanks so much for expressing my feelings in a way I doubt I could have done. You two have brought me great comfort and relief.
XXOOXOXOOXO