There is much to criticize about the freakish conference taking place in Kampala, Uganda the past few days. Several blogs, including this one, have done their best to sift through the mess. Chief among those who are providing information on the scene is Victor Mukasa, blogging for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).
Despite the odious rhetoric and violent imagery brought to the table by Scott Lively, the fallacy of “preventing homosexuality” and blaming a parent contributed by Exodus’ Don Schmierer, and the predictable babble coming from International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Brundidge, the following stood out to us as perhaps the most disheartening bit of all.
A film was shown during the session before lunch featuring “ex-gay” Americans testifying about how they were “cured” of homosexuality. All described abuse and violence in their families during childhood and poor relationships with one of their parents. All were “born again Christians” who had “healed” from homosexuality.
Participants were shocked to hear such testimonies for the first time. They asked questions like, “How long does it take for one to heal from homosexuality?” and “Does it hurt?” One of the “ex-homosexuals” on the film testified that he had a poor relationship with his father. This led him to wanting to be with men looking for a father’s love. After the film one participant asked, “If he was looking for a father’s love from men, how did those relationships turn sexual? Would he have become sexual with his own father had they had a good relationship?”
One is hard pressed to read those responses to the movie without a degree of empathy and sorrow (does it hurt?) — they really believe it, that there is a “cure” for being gay. What is more, they trust that this group can deliver it. What happens when they realize what “change” really means?
It is hard to imagine that this population, dealing so desperately as they are each day to sustain their lives, is prepared to do the mental gymnastics required to put themselves in an Exodus style, ex-gay frame of mind. Nor is it likely they will be satisfied with a “simulated heterosexuality” filled with the familiar but subtle newspeak, “not gay-identified,” “ex-gay,” etc. It’s almost certain, however, that they become well acquainted with the “struggle” part.
So what will the lives of these unfortunate Ugandans be like after they come to the realization that they have misplaced their trust? And what of those who have willingly come forward and identified themselves as gay in order to be “healed?” The public and personal turmoil this will cause in that small country, which already jails homosexuals for life, should itself be considered criminal.
Now what we are discussing here is obviously the kernel of what is detrimental about ex-gay organizations in the US or anywhere else. Watching it unfold in Uganda, however, has provided focus for this writer — a microcosm of the entire issue, and a realization that makes one want to yell “stop!”
Exodus President Alan Chambers was notified of the reputation and history of the major speakers at the conference at least eight days ago in a letter exchange started by BTB‘s Timothy Kincaid, and through a number of personal emails from this writer as well. His response, when he gave one, was vague and off the record.
Chambers has received copies of our current information about the conference and phone service is certainly available between Orlando and Kampala. We strongly advised him to tell his board member, Schmierer, not to participate, and to make a swift, bold, unambiguous denouncement of all that is going on there, including a call for the decriminalization of homosexuality in all countries.
So far we have heard nothing from Chambers, but plenty from Schmierer. We would submit that Exodus’ window of opportunity to turn this around in any meaningful way has closed. If our experience is any indication, they are taking this time to craft a statement of some sort that will keep them in good stead with their hard-line donors, avoid action against Schmierer and at the same time make some sort of generic statement on rights. Saying one thing while meaning another is always more difficult and therefore takes more time.
How sad.
What is the old legal maxim? Qui tacet consentit (silence implies consent). By remaining silent, or following up a long period of silence with meaningless platitudes, when they had a duty to speak up, Chambers et al simply expose themselves as being just less-abrasive versions of Lively and Schmierer. They aren’t saying anything because regardless of what they may say to Western media or how much they deny it, they agree with what’s going on in Uganda. And Nigeria. And Jamaica. And everywhere else where this extreme anti-gay, and I do dare say anti-Christian, nonsense is happening. Their silence betrays the fundamental tenets of the Gospel that they themselves claim to uphold, and such action does nothing more than spit in the face of the Savior they believe they are following.
I have Alan Chambers email and had a few exchanges with him.
I left a message on Dr. Throckmorton’s site regarding this issue.
And what I said was that whatever they could say, it would be worthless. Because yes, they believe the message being fomented in Uganda. They have set in motion a machine that exacerbates the beliefs that straight people already have in place and which firmly silences the voices of those who are gay.
There is no opportunity nor framework for education on the IMMUTABILITY of homosexuality.
Much of our own legislative, judicial and political policy rests on the belief that homosexuality can be changed, so therefore gay people are not subject to any legal or political protections from policies that not only complicate their lives, but might endanger their lives.
This is in America.
The bell has been rung. And can’t be un rung.
This machine was already churning and strong most places in the world.
What makes Throckmorton think his puny and way too late statements mean anything that helps gay people?
The ex gay message has more cache and he KNOWS IT. He supports that message and he believes firmly in it.
And it’s NOT NEW and it’s MORE BELIEVED. It’s been a part of the American as well a foreign meme for decades. It’s gay people’s voices that haven’t had the time, nor strength to counter that message.
And as I keep saying, it would have been better for the Chambers and Throckmortons in our midst to STFU and let the other side speak for however long it takes for the message from the other view to take hold.
They help fuel the fires. Throckmorton and so on are the arsonists, saying they have the water after the damage is done is stupid.
They should have NEVER extolled on the virtues of being ex gay in the first place.
And they are the WEAKEST of people and of course, the least effective on the causes that would most protect gay people wherever they are.
But of course, perhaps dangerous to gay people in countries with such harsh laws against them.
Comment Moderated
Let’s preserve the dignity of this discussion, ok?
Regan, it’s hard to count the ways that you are wrong. Just because an individual makes decisions about his or her own religious beliefs and sexual practices does not mean that he or she can’t speak out against violations of human rights.
I may be ex-gay/Side B/whatever-you-want-to-call-me, but I also believe that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, and that no one should be shamed or punished for being who they are. Therefore, I will speak out against what’s going on in Uganda, and that will not be worthless.
This isn’t a gay or ex-gay thing, this is about rights to freedom of speech and freedom of choice, and any human being — no matter what their beliefs about homosexuality are — should speak out against it.
But Jay, Alan Chambers doesn’t believe in freedom of choice to live one’s life as one sees fit. He believes and supports laws that discriminate against gay people. So I would have to agree with Regan that Alan Chambers would have great difficulty responding in any way to the Ugandan situation. Alan Chambers objected when the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws with Bowers v. Hardwick. Alan argued that gay people should be declared criminals and treated as such. So what is the difference when it comes to life sentences in Uganda or mob violence?
As for Throckmorton, I know that there are many people who are fans of him. Me, not so much. I have a deep distrust of him. I think his Sexual Identity Therapy thing is just a way to try and provide prolonged cover for continued attempts to find the magic formula for changing gay to straight. His Golden Rule response to Day of Silence just struck me as a way to coopt and silence the Day of Silence by trying to bury it under a Christian blanket that was silent on the suffering of gay people.
You, Jay, on the other hand seem to be honest about where you are coming from and what you would like to do with your life. You aren’t really in the same category with these others, and I am not sure that there is any reason for you to defend them.
I hope Wayne B or other media savvy groups take this ball and run with it.
Change is Possible?
THIS is what they mean… and one- two- three expose the lessons from Uganda about what Exodus, Focus, and these ex-gay organizations REALLY have in mind when they use the term:
Change, or be hunted down and destroyed!
This easily merits a full page ad somewhere.
Well thank you, John. I’m unsure if Regan was making that distinction. If she had, that would be different, but I believe in a similar comment she made on Warren Throckmorton’s blog, she said: “Declaring one’s identity as ex gay or post gay is dangerous to those who remain gay.” She then proceeded to say that no ex-gay or Side B person has the credibility to speak up for the rights of gays, and proceeded to brand us as “worthless.”
So I’m not really defending Alan Chambers. I’m kind of just defending myself from Regan’s attitude.
Jay, I think you are right about Regan’s ridiculous statement. It was almost as “dangerous” as Exodus’ own attempts to silence and kill anyone who disagrees with them.
Sharon, thank you for the moral support for TWO and Wayne Besen. Of course, full-page ads require donations which are hard to find in a recession.
“Declaring one’s identity as ex gay or post gay is dangerous to those who remain gay.”
I do not believe this is true, I can completely respect that someone qualitifies themselves as “exgay”. There is no threat to me as a gay man about this. My problem is the promotion of legislation that hurts those that are gay. If someone believes they are changed, and happy with it. That is fine. But no need to attack those who are gay and are looking for equal rights and their dignity to be respected.
John,
I think it is important to add that Jay as a “Side B” Christian, will be the first to sit down a fully balanced sexually active gay person and tell them that they are an abomination in the eyes of God, that their active sexual nature is sinful and should refrain from sex at all costs and consider becoming celibate, cutting off ones entire sexual/romantic same sex nature. Though this may seem like pure silliness to some, it does have negative effect.
These views are the same tightly held views by Exodus and are the underpinnings of homophobic teachings that is progressing the criminalization of Gays regardless of what part of the world it’s in. Framing it in a tidy package of just being chosen religious practices, does not dilute its impact. In fact I believe it makes it even more dangerous by throwing the “God card” in the mix.
I do see this as “dangerous” to the full emancipation of gays worldwide. Though it may not be “worthless” it is surely not worthwhile, at least not to gay people as a whole. Now if Side B were to say they were simply seeing this view entirely for themselves, with a live and let live basis, without tossing the acidity of “sinner” on others, that would be another story. I could fully accept that. Such is not the case. They emit and teach such “sinner” views to others, like Exodus, which can be very destructive as we saw in a thread here with Jay not long ago. Jay in my opinion, gay bashed a guy named Trip, by calling him a sinner for being sexual with his lover, even though they had consummated a committed loving sexual relationship. Though Trip did not bow to Jay’s attempt at the shame game, it caused quite a stir and was fully inflammatory. So much so David Roberts closed the following thread:
https://exgaywatch.com/2009/01/randy-thomas-defends-ex-gays-becomes-conveniently-forgetful/
This being said, I don’t think it is wise to potentially delude ourselves into thinking Side B is not without homophobia preaching and teaching said attitudes. I find such foundational beliefs and teachings no less devastating to gays than Alan Chambers trying to turn gay people straight. In fact, it is Alan’s precursor teaching to actually making the next jump trying to turn gay to straight. Without this first level teaching, the jump to the gay-to-straight malaise would not be possible. Side B supports these foundational structural beliefs of Exodus. Though Side B may not try to turn gay people straight, gay sex is taught to others as a sinful abomination and straight sex is considered the better and permittable by God, sexual connection. This is all done without taking sexual education into account whatsoever, fully based on hard right polarizing “religiosity”.
Any and all homophobic actions relate to free speech rights. Homophobia just makes it harder to enact legal laws to protect gays as we well know. I believe Uganda is no less harmed by Side B homophobic views than any other fear based homophobic view.
It is my hope that Side B someday soon considers reinventing themselves in a more realistic rational and non-polarizing light.
So, let me clarify. If I can.
Even in America, it’s extremely difficult for a gay child to defend themselves against their family, church or school in pursuing their authentic selves as gay.
There are expectations that they SHOULD change and parents and communities exert serious pressure for this outcome.
This also is a factor in the political arena. The majority of heterosexuals assume that gay people CAN change, they don’t consider being gay a GOOD choice. A viable and respectable choice.
They only consider being celibate, non challenging or heterosexual as the ONLY state they will respect.
So there is no real choice Jay, except between a rock and a hard place.
Is that a choice?
Factor in how traditional these beliefs and exertions already have been. The historical context in which gay people have had precious little time and opportunity to counter what YOU and Throckmorton espouse.
It’s not NEW, it’s not something as an ‘alternative’, whatsoever. But as something not only expected but PREFERRED.
So how can someone who doesn’t want that to be respected as PRIMARY and legitimate biological gay person, as opposed to the acquired heterosexual one?
How does the general public make THAT distinction and as you should know, they DON’T.
I might have been harsh in saying that ex gays should be silenced, but in what way do you possibly think you’re not reinforcing what is ALREADY the traditional and most powerful belief?
And how can you change the mind of someone when it’s not something you can defend because YOU don’t want to live as gay yourself?
Were there never a legacy of terrible human and civil rights violations against gay people, I’d say your insistence that a person should be able to chose what they want to be and should be is valid.
But that’s not how it is in real life, and please don’t act like it is.
This is what you represent.
Think now.
A light skinned black passing for white in OUR day and age, would be redundant in what we know about race relations in some quarters.
But take that same person, transport them to the Jim Crow south, they would have no cred as picking living as white, while criticizing Jim Crow.
You chose dichotomy. And not even an effective one, really. Because living as gay is definitely harder than passing oneself off as not gay.
It’s because of the stakes Jay. Gay young people are still expected to submit to the expectations that they can change. You’re hardly in a place to say they have a choice, when the choice is really between having civil rights and equality or not.
I only mentioned silence in context to the voice you support having ALL the opportunity and influence, where the gay voice barely has had any.
Silence in such a way in which debaters let the other side be HEARD because it hasn’t yet had a chance to make a difference in it’s own favor as the voice you support has.
Temporary deference, so to speak. And for however long it takes until there ARE no expectations that compromise civil and human rights.
Therefore, all your beliefs that an ex gay person will have any influence or effectiveness in renouncing that gay people cannot be treated the way these gay Ugandans will be, is at best, not being realistic.
At worst, disingenuous about undoing damage already done for centuries.
You can’t help. However well intentioned you are, it can’t help. And it won’t.
You represent the kind of person that Lively and Co wants to make MORE of, how…obviously doesn’t matter.
I don’t even see in what way you really think you could possibly be of any use. I really don’t.
As I said, the stakes are high and always have been and will continue to be as long as you give MORE credibility to the belief that not being gay or choosing not to is possible and more desirable.
I hope I helped to explain myself. I’ve had a hell of a time with a medical issue that keeps me from being as coherent as I want to be or think I am.
But my criticism has stood for a while now and I appreciate xgw giving me the opportunity to explain.
I’m going to say this one time, Devlin. The idea that Jay bashed anyone in that thread is absurd. If the mere existence of those with a contrary or even erroneous point of view is unacceptable, then the extremists have won. For the sake of the discussion here, we will not revisit or recreate the train wreck from that other thread.
@Regan
We’ve discussed this before, Regan. Your issues with Throckmorton long ago became too strong and personal for open debate here. You need to be dealing with him directly.
@ Mike Airhart
Agreed. It is the official position of XGW that people are free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as doing so does not interfere with the right of another to do the same. However, we also recognize that someone declaring themselves “ex-gay” may indeed cause confusion and hardship for those GLBTs seeking equal rights — not because it indicates their differing view for their own lives, but because that person can be erroneously interpreted as having “converted” to heterosexuality and opposite-sex attractions, etc. It is a distraction because it introduces a false component into the debate and we believe this to be it’s original design (calling people to a life of celibacy does not have quite the same impact).
A person simply following the convictions of what they understand to be true for their lives, through either their personal philosophy or religious faith, must be allowed to follow the path as they see fit (within limits described above). We can speculate on their reasons being due to self-hatred, shame or societal pressure (and we may even be right in many cases), but any setbacks that may be caused by this simple exercise of a person’s free will must be accepted as part of the price of freedom.
1. Mike Ensley is laid off from Exodus – disappears from the web. No comment from Exodus, Alan or Randy.
2. A Prayer for Bobby – national attention to the failure of ex-gay programs. No comment from Exodus, Alan or Randy.
3. Exodus board member takes part in horrific hate-fest. Wide-spread coverage of the event in the US and abroad. No comment from Exodus, Alan or Randy.
..something is going on down in Orlando.
gordo wrote:
Well, while Randy isn’t commenting about any of these issues that seem both pertinent and important, he is posting about Alan Chambers’ birthday party and just how Alan and everyone else at Exodus is so great. Quite a disconnect!!!!
Through the course of several scandals since 2000, Exodus has repeatedly fiddled as Rome burned around it.
On some occasions, I understand, Exodus took no action at all until angry and embarrassed representatives from Focus on the Family threatened Exodus for its lack of response to obvious public scandal which was harming the ex-gays who are entrusted to Exodus’ care.
Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas are, as I’ve said, amoral. They both lack a conscience. Both must resign.
David Roberts said:
In a pluralistic, semi-democratic society this is very true. I think, for the most part, the LGBT community is accepting of celibate people as it is of sexually active people. The problem is that is always seems to be a one way street on this issue, or at least it always appears to be. Add religion to the mix and it becomes a game of “Name That Sinner.”
From what I have read, heard, witnessed about the ex-gay movement, it’s not just the sex between two of the same people that is considered a “sin,” but the relationships between two people of the same sex are invalid as well. Thier love and affection for each other are considered inadequate. Which is why I understand how the ones in the ex-gay movement like Exodus can appear so cold-hearted, because they’ve been told that their affection for another is wrong.
Maybe the people in Uganda appear cold-hearted to the gay community there, but if they are exposed to something even more cold-hearted, it might be a wake up call for them. At least I pray so.
The solution is simple. The destruction of the term ex-gay, which defines gay as an adjective giving homosexuals a negative perception. This way, there is no more Side B or whatever, just another person wishing to be celibate regardless of sexual orientation.
I understand you Jay, and others like me who are also celibate. But unfortunately, our celibate existance can indeed be used by groups such as Exodus that gays can “change”. It is not our fault. It is just that the general society already have been taught wrongly that the homosexual is wrong. An existance deemed invalid by many, because it is perceived that there is something wrong with being gay, that it is somewhat a sexual choice.
Even if some people accept us LGBT’s, yes trans women like me even, it is just a “respect” that everyone has every right to live their lives as they see fit without harming anyone. But will most realize and understand that we are normal and we exist?
There needs to be a collective effort from everyone, celibate LGBTs included, to continue to stand up for love for everyone, and to show that really ex-gays do not exist. That situations like in Uganda should not happen.
It is no longer an infringement of humans rights, the choice so to speak. It is no longer about freedom of speech, because actions are looked at more closely. But this is a case of an act of societal genocide, an attempt to wipe our biological imprinted beings into invisibility and vanquish our existance in this world.
Hi Michael,
I have directed as much on Throckmorton’s site. My comment here was directed at Jay.
When I’ve commented here in ways that you haven’t deemed helpful or germane to the subject, I have been warned of such that my comments won’t be accepted.
Or there have been excisions of comments that have been offensive by others.
In a word: effective silencing of remarks that have been considered not helpful or perhaps damaging to the subject or people in question.
I appreciate your interpretations of my comments. But the fact remains there is a real and oftentimes serious aspect about the ex gay issue:
If you can’t say something that helps, don’t say anything.
An please know the difference when it doesn’t help.
That’s perhaps been my point all along, even if I’ve been clumsy in articulating that.
The well meaning can in fact do just as much damage as someone deliberately invested in doing damage.
And not caring or not understanding that, is perhaps the most frustrating thing I see in debating this at all with the ex gay or ex sexual.
So why can’t they accept when they are of no help and it would be better if they didn’t try in the only fashion they are willing to bother?