A Baptist Press interview with Exodus executive director Alan Chambers:
- misrepresents popular debate about the origins of homosexuality
- attempts to distract public attention from the potential criminal offenses of ex-gay leader Michael Johnston; and
- obfuscates discussion over whether homosexuals can “change”
The article begins by asserting that the “homosexual community” claims homosexuality is “genetic.” This assertion is demonstrably false. There is widespread disagreement among gays, and the general public, over the extent to which environment, upbringing, maternal biology during pregnancy, and genetics interact to define a person’s affectional and sexual attractions toward others. Few, if any, gays claim the origins of sexual orientation are “genetic.”
The BP article says Exodus “ministers to homosexuals.” In fact, the national office has no outreach to gay organizations, and it minimizes contact with gay individuals. The Exodus news clipping service refuses to link to gay news media, even though the clipping service consists largely of stories cut-and-pasted, without appropriate attribution, from a gay news clipping service.
Baptist Press quotes Chambers saying that the percentage of people who “change” but then “fall back into homosexuality” is “minute” and that there is “a very high percentage of people who continue to stay true to the Lord and stay true to the fact that their sexuality has changed.”
Before saying that, Chambers should have read the ex-gay movement’s own science studies.
Psychiatric News, Professor David G. Myers of Hope College, Dr. Gregory Herek, and ReligiousTolerance.org note that the ex-gay movement’s most prized study on “change,” by Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, found that of thousands of ex-gays advertised by the movement, fewer than 150 have achieved any significant change in sexual attraction. Spitzer also found that some of those individuals were bisexual or heterosexual to begin with.
(I wish to thank a participant in the New York Times forums for summarizing the research.)
In the Baptist Press article, Tim Wilkins only further confuses the definition of “change,” saying “[gay activist Wayne] Besen, like many, mistakenly believes that the goal of such ministries is to make homosexuals into heterosexuals. … [Instead,] the ultimate goal for the person with unwanted same-sex attractions is, as with any sinner, to become a follower of Jesus Christ, which in turn brings freedom from homosexuality and restores his true identity in Christ.”
Wilkins recites a selective and literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story, concluding: “Heterosexuality is God’s creative design. After the fall of man, counterfeits to God’s ideal emerged — adultery, fornication, incest, homosexuality, etc. When this differentiation is understood, freedom from homosexuality is accelerated as it was in my case.”
Oddly, the article does not define what Wilkins means by “freedom from homosexuality.”
Chambers complains, “We’re criticized every single day. We’re called liars. We’re called frauds. Our marriages are questioned. Our children that we have are questioned. [Critics ask,] ‘Are these things just ploys?'”
That criticism is likely to persist so long as Chambers, Wilkins, and Baptist Press misstate gay beliefs and deliberately confuse ex-gay definitions of “change.”
I found out about this article from an edition of the Exodus news clipping service. In that news clip, Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas briefly described the Baptist Press article as “redemptive” of Johnston, when in fact the article said little about Johnston.
Far from calling Johnston to redemption, Thomas’s article summary seems to call upon readers to forget about him and move on.
Sadly, business as usual. Brings me to tears.
Very good point Mike, gays do not maintain a genetic causality. From what I have experienced in talking with outgays, my take is that gays regard our sexual natures as deeply embedded in our personalities. The exact causal mechanism is unknown. There are hints, only hints, here and there of what it is. The most sophisticated explanation I have ever seen is Tripp’s in [i]Homosexual Matrix[/i]. His argument is that homosexuality is not a unitary phenomena. And as such can not have a single cause. Rather, Tripp argues, we are looking at a variety of events that have a somewhat misleading air of being similar. I would agree with this. What endlessly astounds me about the exgay and evangelical statements is the lack of any examination of a wide range of gay and lesbian writings. People like us produce a large literature, but our opponents totally ignore it.
Good point Mike no one knows what causes it even though Exodus thinks they can help free you from it.
Although sometimes I wonder have the folks at Exodus ever tried reading a whole book of the bible, like Genesis? You know the whole book, and not just those parts that they think seem to deal with homosexuality or promote heterosexuality. By modern 1950’s suburban American standards there seems to be plenty of adultery, fornication, and incest in there and rarely does God do something about it.
I think all of us, at times, are a bit confused by what some say. I have often heard gay people make comments that sound declarative – “I think homosexuality is biological and/or genetic” – when in fact they are simply stating a presupposition belief, as opposed to saying, “There is a scientifically proven causal connection between biology/genetics and homosexuality.” Anti-gay folks do the say thing when they say, “I believe homosexuality is not at all biological.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
https://www.queerbychoice.com
https://www.queerbychoice.com
https://www.queerbychoice.com !!!
I believe my debate teacher called what Exodus is doing a strawman argument.
“Far from calling Johnston to redemption, Thomas’s article summary seems to call upon readers to forget about him and move on.”
Um, it’s called “cutting your loses.” They did the same thing with Wade Richards. They do it with all of those whose “straying” becomes public. I can just imagine what went on behind closed doors after John Paulk was caught cavorting in the Washington gay bar. And HE was just let go–after a time period that would allow them not to make it look like HE had failed, too–or that THEY had failed with him.
You forget, these things are businesses.
Regarding this “freedom from homosexuality” silliness, the fact is that they seem to be playing the old “bait and switch” routine, too. Their slogan was something to the effect that “gays can change.” What is that supposed to imply to most sentient beings? That gays can change to the equivalent of eunuchs? Give me a break. They were holding out the hope that a gay person could go straight–marry, have a few kids, a house with a picket fence, etc., etc., etc. That was the impression that they intended people to have with their “gays can change” advertising. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in La-La land.
BTW, phraseology is quite important. Anyone who refers to “causation” in reference to “homosexuality” (as in “homosexuality is caused by…”) is doing nothing more than play into the hands of the homo-haters. It has the connotation of a condition or disease (measles is caused by…, pneumonia is caused by…, cancer is caused by…) You might well be advised to consider adopting another phraseology.
Ultimately, choice or not shouldn’t matter, at least in terms of civil law. People choose to commit adultery — the law does not forbid adulterers to marry or adopt kids or serve in the military or…
Uh, people choose to become members of various Protestant sects, too. Or to become Catholic. Or Jewish. Or muslim.
Or atheist. So why are nonbelievers punished under civil law for not following the dictates of one particular set of beliefs?
Juzz…I guess I am Mr. disagree around here…
The reason why choice and change are important is because people have a lot less respect for the liberties of others when it comes to things that can be easily chosen or changed.
Why change marriage or give rights, just because a few people choose not to have a relationship with someone of the opposite gender? That is the argument of those opposed to homosexuals. Why should the world change, just for you? I would certainly agree with that argument if I were not a homosexual and did not understand first hand what it is like.
I honestly don’t think that there is much choice about being heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Either you generally find members of your own gender attractive or you do not. Either you generally find members of the opposite gender attractive or you do not. I will admit that probably no one is one hundred percent homosexual or heterosexual. However, finding a girlfriend or wife is going to be hard (if not impossible) if you find very few women attractive and not terribly attractive at that!
Change is important. The real reason why is it important is because there would be little need of equal rights, if changing sexuality were as easy as changing clothes and regarded as morally neutral. However it is not, and that causes a world of trouble for us. In short we have the difficult task of proving why the world must change for us, and not us for the world.
I too believe that most don’t choose to be GLB or T. And I understand what you’re saying Jason. (Though it bears mentioning that “they” don’t give us rights. They acknowledge rights that are inalienably ours — they choose not to honor or acknowledge right that are already ours Which, in my book, makes what they do to us immoral.) But that brings me back to the questions posed earlier:
People choose to commit adultery — the law does not forbid adulterers to marry or adopt kids or serve in the military or what have you. Why pick on gays so heinously? What is the difference? Is this mere hypocrisy put into action in a most cruel fashion?
And: why are nonbelievers punished under civil law for not following the dictates of one particular set of beliefs?
Actually the law can be used against people that commit adultery. In the state of Georgia it can buy you jail time and in the military it can get you court marshaled. Until the advent of no-fault divorce in the 40ies and 50ies adultery was a reason a divorce could be granted. It probably still is, but with no-fault divorce the judge doesn’t need to find a reason to grant a divorce today.
In the case of adoption, well some states have laws that try to enforce morality. So long as homosexuality is equated with immorality those laws inspired by prejudice and supported by people unwilling to change the status quo, will stand. A funny example of that, was in the time of my grandparents, the state they lived in had a morality requirement to be a teacher. The teacher had to be a member of a church in order to teach!
In my own state homosexuals can adopt children, despite the fact that the state offers no civil commitment for gays. I think it is more the southern states that view the law as a means of enforcing morality and maintaining the status quo, than the northern ones.
Also homosexuals are viewed differently than adulterers. Thanks to psychology, people don’t view homosexual acts as things that likely could be committed by anyone. Instead, they are viewed as things generally only committed by a group of people called homosexuals.Adultery is not viewed that way. People don’t regard adulterers as a special group of people libel to commit adultery.
Yes, I know all of that. But that still does not answer my questions. What I seek are answers from Religous Rightists to explain logically why the status quo is what it is, why homos are targeted for special mistreatment by church and state.
“The reason why choice and change are important is because people have a lot less respect for the liberties of others when it comes to things that can be easily chosen or changed.”
Um, not exactly.
The reason why choice and change are important has to do with the christian version of “sin.” You have to understand the mindset of the people you are dealing with. One cannot be deemed guilty of having committed a sin unless he had the “free will” to engage in the sinful conduct. If one did not have the “free will” to engage in the conduct–if he was driven to the conduct, for example–then he could hardly be considered sinful. Or at least his moral approbation will be mitigated.
You have to listen to the language of the anti-gay religious right people very closely. They don’t refer to “homosexual,” as in homosexual people, they refer to the “homosexual lifestyle.” That is a quite deliberate use of language. What they are doing is denying that there are people who are naturally attracted to people of the same sex (“homosexual”). It is fairly obvious that, by using “homosexual lifestyle,” they are suggesting to their listeners that these people have chosen to engage in homosexual sex. And with that choice, they can be labelled sinners. Reprobates. Perverts. Whatever.
I could go on about the obvious cultural issues, some of which became quite apparent by dealing with conservative christians on FreeRepublic.com, but I’ll refrain at this point. It is actually quite fascinating. There is actually more than a bit of male sexism involved.
Raj says that Christians deem “free will” necessary to be in “sin”. This may be true for Protestant Evangelicals but it is not true for the Eastern Orthodox.
Although Orthodoxy does not have a “pope” and it is difficult to determine exactly what its theology is, one strand of Eastern Orthodox theology is even more oppressive of gay people than fundamentalism. This is the version that holds that one need not be willfully engaged in sin, but rather that nature itself, the whole created cosmos, is subject to sin (read: a degree of disorder) and that Christ came to restore this cosmic order. Homosexuality is seen as part of the cosmic disorder (like death, illness, etc.) and one does not need to choose it to be “sinful”. Here “sinful” is seen as being out of the restored cosmic order. Whether one chooses homosexuality as a state of being or not is indifferent to this theology, what is important there is that one chooses to work with grace (usually defined as taking the sacraments, prayer, and fasting) to resist homosexuality.
I would argue that this theology is even more oppressive to gay people than Christian fundamentalism.
It also is inconsistent, since physical illness may be part of a cosmic disorder but Orthodoxy does not argue that it is a sin or that it can be “resisted” and “restored” via the sacraments, prayer, and fasting. (As Christian Scientists might argue in a modified way.)
Since Eastern Orthodoxy is such a small religious group in the US it is often ignored, but it is one of the most homophobic groups out there. The Orthodox Church in America (derived from, but independent of, the Russian Orthodox Church) has argued that homosexuals who persist in “justifying” homosexuality (homosexual acts are not even spoken of here) are to be denied the sacraments as an “act of love” since to give the sacraments to such people would do them greater harm than good.