From Gregory Herek, Ph.D:
Q: What does the president of Iran have in common with certain antigay activists in the United States?
A: Both maintain that homosexuals don’t really exist.
While Exodus executive vice president Randy Thomas calls for President Maumoud Ahmadinejad to “go home,” some of his past and present allies might feel somewhat differently. Among those who agree with the Islamist leader’s redefinition of homosexuality are Paul Cameron (as noted by Herek), Joseph Nicolosi, and a variety of followers who assert that there is no such thing as a true homosexual, only a heterosexual with a homosexual problem.
I’m grateful to Thomas for expressing opposition to Ahmadinejad… though Thomas’ remarks are strangely limited to the president’s anti-Semitism. Hmmm.
I still do not see how hostility toward jews applies to this article and Randy Thomas? This sounds typical of XGW-a lot of noise and no actual story. Next we’ll read how Osama Bin Laden is connected to ex-gays. Glad to see XGW has sunk to a new low.
Are you reading the articles or just taking pot shots at the blog? We get that you don’t like XGW, so why are you here? We are not likely to host non-stop comments without a germane point.
I’m glad you are so happy, but I would hate to see miserable.
Moderator Action: this comment has been deleted and the commenter banned. The commenter has been using multiple identities on this blog, and all comments have been borderline violations with no reasonable content, and an overriding preoccupation with Wayne Besen. The following identities were also used by this commenter:
Kelly Anne (PROUD lipstick lover)
DATmafia
I have spoken out about the abuse and murder of those with same sex attractions in the Middle East before. That isn’t all that I have said publicly, or even in that interview, but that’s all I have time to post here for now.
Many thanks for clarifying, Randy.
I think many people in the Mideast view a man who wants to be penetrated by a man as wanting to be a “woman” Therefore man to man sex is not really homosexual sex. Two “real” men can’t possibly want to have sex. And the idea of a gay identity is totally foreign to these people. So, while the comments of the President of Iran seem pretty stupid, one must note their cultural context.
Mark, you’re much too liberal for me.
Some cultures are just plain wrong about masculinity and femininity.
It is wrong to enslave and bind the feet of women. It is wrong to rape one’s wife. It is wrong to keep women out of school. It is wrong to dictate that women must wear lipstick (various traditional cultures and some holy scriptures equate mascara with prostitution, by the way). It is wrong to obligate men to play brutal and parochial sports such as football rather than soccer, tennis or golf. And neither man nor woman is defined by whom or how they copulate.
The fact that some cherished cultural or religious works declare a wrong to be a right, or reduce people to the sum of their sex acts, doesn’t make it right.
Multiculturalism is OK — in moderation.
Excuse me, Mike, but I made no moral judgment of rightness in my comments re: how people in some some Middle Eastern countries like Iran view same sex activity, which is what you imply I did. I’m just trying to point out why someone might make those sort of comments with a straight face.
Otherwise, I generally agree with your comments.
Hi, Mark,
No, you weren’t being moralistic, I was 😀
I’m surprised folks aren’t jumping all over me for it. Where is everyone tonight?
Well Mike if it’s any help I agree with you only if you add the word “forcibly” to cultural norms such as binding the feet of women (you did put the disclaimer on other things). Certainly such things as you mentioned are inarguably harmful in various ways from physically, to psychologically. With that said, some people choose to do these things, perhaps because it is traditional, but they aren’t forced to engage in this.
However many cultures including our own have things that are arguably harmful. Take Male Genital Mutilation (Circumcision). There are questionable medical benefits (there is some indications it may reduce the risk of STDs for example), but there are also many things that are lost with circumcision.
Circumcision for one thing results in an extreme loss of pleasure for men, the area that is cut (causing pain to the baby incidentally) is one of the most sensitive areas of the penis. What is the real purpose? I’d argue that rather than a true concern for the medical benefits (I suspect most parents like to think their baby will be celibate until monogamous heterosexual marriage) the real intent is maintenance of a socio-religous tradition. And for that we brutalize male infants and deprive them of their fullest sexual function without their consent.
I’m thinking more about the comparison as I write this, but my initial reaction was that it made me feel a bit uncomfortable to see that man be compared to the ex-gay proponents in America. I can see the reason behind it, though it may be one of those comparisons where the brazenness of it is the first thing that you notice.
Mark said:
This reminds me of a talk I was at a few weeks ago in Edinburgh. The speaker was the openly gay Rabbi Lionel Blue. There was a Nigerian chap who rather dominated the Q&A session, and his first question to the Rabbi was how one was to tell who was the woman and who was the man in a homosexual relationship. It took a while for Lionel to interpret the question, but eventually the light clicked, and he said, “Oh! You mean who’s top and who’s bottom!”
Kendall, I don’t know about the circumcision thing, and I have always questioned comments about sensation and sensitivity. I sometimes think that those things are said for political reasons, and I don’t know how much proof there is for the assertions. Now, there is probably little reason for circumcision other than religion (although the AIDS data is pretty interesting) and cleanliness.
I was someone who had a botched circumcision. One side was uncircumcised; the other was not. It was largely a novelty and party favor until my cancer, which affects my skin, made it a little painful and so I had it removed completely. There was no difference in sensitivity at all on either side. My dad had to be circumcised later in life, and he said the same thing. A early boyfriend also said the same thing. All anecdotal of course, but sometimes I think it is a case of the grass being better on the other side. I prefer circumcision myself, but I find no real evidence that either situation is better or worse, and honestly, is slight pain in infancy going to really affect children later on? It was more painful for me dealing with it at age 34.
I’m with Aaron. And I don’t really see the regular practice of circumcision in the US as anything other than a medical (cleanliness) issue, and perhaps a matter of not wanting a child to be different. It’s really never had much of a religious connotation here, certainly not during my baby boomer years.
While it’s a bit OT, I would just as soon talk about circumcision as the dumpy little Iranian dictator.
Zortnac, I don’t think that it’s credible to compare Ahmadinejad and the ex-gay “little people” point-by-point on a laundry list of political issues. The small similarities are in their views of the nature of homosexuality and their disrespect for the separation of state from religious zealotry. The objective of my post was simply to draw ex-gays’ attention to the fact that they are not diametric opposites of the radical Islamists — they are not absolute “good” facing off against absolute “evil.”
The religious-right movement leaders are a different story. While they presently lack the power of Ahmadinejad, some of them share similar attitudes toward women’s rights, gay rights, and control of the state, commerce, and individuals by religious zealots. They are authoritarian at best, totalitarian at worst.
Bringing this back on topic: A few religious-right movement leaders favor the execution of homosexuals, while the softies — those most different from Ahmadinejad — merely believe sexually active homosexuals should be prosecuted under sodomy laws, fired from their jobs, separated from hospitalized partners, and denied housing by supposedly Christian landlords and neighborhoods. Why ex-gays associate with such monsters, has always puzzled me.