Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Friday, July 01, 2005

Here are some words of wisdom by Washington Blade Managing Editor Kevin Naff:

"The Damage caused to young gays by the views of "ex-gays" should not be underestimated. The two greatest weapons that opponents of gay rights wield against us are charges that gay men are pedophiles and that homosexuality is a choice. Overcoming those two obstacles would mean instant victory for the movement."

It is amazing that our major gay rights organizations don't get this simple concept. As long as people believe that homosexuality is casual choice, we lose. Period.

The gay groups should start multi-million dollar projects to defeat the ex-gay myth. After all, the religious right is placing millions of bucks into ex-gay propaganda. Why do you think that is? Maybe because it works? Duh.

Our gay groups can spend all the money they want on politics and posturing. But, until they destroy the false notion of "choice" they are throwing our hard earned money down the toilet. I hope they will soon see the wisdom in taking on this challenge. The quicker they wake up, the sooner we will be following in the footsteps of Spain and Canada. I plan to write more on this crucial topic later.

22 Comments:

I totally agree. Our gay groups need to get out of the beltway and New York and see that real people care if it is a choice. They need to stop hiring from New England, and actually listen to people in Red States. The "choice" thing is the only thing they care about. Yet, when was the last time the major organizations addressed this issue?

Lance K.
Houston
posted by Anonymous, at 7/01/2005 1:47 AM

HRC and to a lesser degree NGLTF have their heads up thier asses. They are afraid of the ex-gay issue becasue they don't want to leave the cocktail party to deal with the untermenchen in the Red States. That is why we are screwed. Wayne is right that we need to counter the ex-gay myth.

Ellen - Richmond, VA
posted by Anonymous, at 7/01/2005 1:49 AM

cocksuckers!
posted by Anonymous, at 7/01/2005 1:50 AM

Yes, and proud of it. No teeth here...want a date, closet case?

Benjamin
Eugene
posted by Anonymous, at 7/01/2005 1:51 AM

I'm not convinced fighting propaganda with propaganda is going to work. Even IF homosexuality is not a choice, it's an abberation, or a genetic defect (have seen it described as such).

You still have quite a few statements by ex-gays to deal with, which boil down to the following: even if you're attracted to men, you can choose not to have sex with them. And if you want to refute that, I can only say, good luck.

I'm sorry I don't have an immediate alternative to offer, I'm just being slightly sceptical before you start pouring your money into a propaganda war you cannot win. It may be beneficial to draw attention to all the ex-ex-gays, suicides and other failed conversions. But I don't think you should pin all your hopes onto proving it's not a choice.

In the end, it'll just be your word against theirs. Guess who their flocks are gonna believe?
posted by Willie Hewes, at 7/01/2005 7:17 AM

I totally agree that these are two important obstacles. But, the religious right is also hung up on the causes and will not consider the high probability that being gay is genetically inherited. Dobson has a majority of the US believing that gayness is caused by distance with the same sex parent and/or molestation. Also, most of the hate group web sites I've read mirror this. That is the core of the supposed ex-gay phenomenon. A post I read a few days back about protests at these programs is what I think needs to be done. They are going largely unchallenged and are getting away with it. We must not let them get away with this. If they ever come to Canada, I will organize a loud protest and disrupt the event. This needs to happen. Tim W.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/01/2005 8:41 AM

How about starting an ex-straight group? Maybe something like Parents and Friends of Ex-Heterosexuals or PFOXY?

Sorry, but I need to keep my sense of humor. The hate groups drive me crazy with their "make it up as we go along" rhetoric. I do believe the community needs to take a more aggressive approach to combating their lies. What that approach should entail is another matter.
posted by Mary, at 7/01/2005 10:48 AM

'Our word against their's'?
No, it's not that at all.
Heterosexuals are makin claims on gay life they have to right to.
In recent history, Jim Crow was implemented and justified, by the paranoia of black sexuality.
Whites wanted to own it and dictate the terms of it and the only way to isolate blacks was by their color.
Heterosexuals are doing the same thing. They are trying to control the history, science and claims of being the most insightful about gay people's motives and ability.
Only heteros were asked in the past, and are used to being the only ones believed.
It's impossible for all the heteros to know the truth (including the ONE guy that made an observation about i during Biblical times) and all the gay people to be liars.
And, in the meantime, at the exclusion of all other meritoriuous things that can and have been done by gay people.
Heterosexuals assume, and wrongly, that they are the only legit members of God's creation.
What we can do, is to keep pointing to every double standard, every hypocrisy, inconsistency and contradiction they level in the debate that shouldn't even be a debate.
There are plenty of undisputable truths to claim regarding gay life as a whole in all of creation.
Logic, clear and legit science has never had an easy relationship with religion and faith.
This can be pointed out too.
We're living in times of uncertainty. Our economy, invasions by terrorists and health care and educational concerns have left Americans fearful and gay people were a convenient scapegoat to point to, as if gay people aren't affected by the same things.
But suffer more consequences for lack of equal treatment.
Genetics or religious lifestyle (Jewish) has never been enough to protect human beings from abuse, including religious abuse.
Those most opposed to gay parents, for example: don't actually know any gay parents intimately and aren't nearly as generous to the sort of children that gay people are.
I publicly confronted James Dobson with this inconvenient fact in an open broadcast.
All I had to do was point out that his nuclear little family hadn't adopted any children of color or any with HIV/AIDS
and he would never deign to lecture me on having a dangerous life, if it's been harder to be a black woman because of hate and not anything I ever did to anyone.
So he was in no place to lecture on how gay people are supposed to live either.
His world was darker, narrower and less open to the legacy that equality has already brought.
He's still in a tunnel, while others were in the light years ahead of him.
Anyway,
this you heard from a hetero black woman that won't have my feelings on gay people FED to me.
I found my way by simply believing what gay people say.
Gay people are the undisputable authority on their own lives and should be the ones asked, not TOLD what they are supposed to be.
posted by Regan, at 7/01/2005 2:27 PM

Regan, thanks so much for your heartfelt words, it really does mean a lot to have support from the heterosexual population. You have stated very eloquently, the fact that gay people know themselves the most intimately and those who are not gay, ie James Dobson, are not really in a position to provide facts and advice on people he knows nothing about. I remember a quote of his a while back on Larry King: "gays don't want to get married they want to destroy marriage". So is this what he means by "hate the sin, love the sinner". It is very presumptuous and blasphemous for his to judge his fellow human beings in such a degrading and humiliating manner. I also want to congratulate you Regan for publically calling Dobson on his bold faced lies. I hope to have that opportunity someday soon. Tim W
posted by Anonymous, at 7/02/2005 10:23 AM

No, the gratitude is mine!
I have been so blessed to know and love all kinds of people.
I cannot abide injustice and lies against innocent people.
I cannot sit by and allow anyone to refuse to understand the misunderstood. Lives are at stake and nobody's to play with.
It's easy for Bush and his anti gay cronies to declare war on gay people...and women's reproductive organs for that matter.
It's because gay people and women's bodies are peaceful and not their enemy.
We're dealing with men who don't know who their real enemy is, nor where.
However, their perceptions are equally way off base.
Note that these men we speak of will never deal with anyone who sees right through them and their craving for power and control.
And this is a country that relishes freedom and equality and the least of us fought hard and are still fighting and bleeding for the same chances.
Self determination is in our DNA and the law of this land.
So for Bush, et al...to think they can look at you and me and lead us off a cliff....we better get our gear on brother!
posted by Regan, at 7/02/2005 5:33 PM

I also agree that our groups need to get out of the beltway. Into the red states: of course. And into the blue ones as well. It always seems to me that our groups, and our leaders, are too much drawn from a small, urban section of our community. That they are people with very little experience of gay people outside a few major metropolitan centers. Because of this, it always strikes me that national gay efforts have very little effect beyond such groups. When I lived in the rural south, I found most of the gay people I knew just could not identify with, and frequently not understand, national organizations.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/04/2005 12:41 AM

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
posted by MentalWellness, at 7/05/2005 5:16 PM

Personally, I think one of the reasons we've been successful with our equality struggle here in Canada is that we have NOT dignified the homophobe's arguments with a response that engages them on their terms.

The idea that queers shouldn't have rights because they choose to be gay clearly does not stem from any overarching belief on the part of religious groups that chosen identities are not worthy of protection. Religion is a chosen identity and you don't hear religious groups objecting to their own protection.

I think it's patently obvious to any observer that the Red states' objections to queer equality actually come from a MORAL judgement ABOUT the "choice" to be queer. And that moral judgement comes from religion. So, in effect, the right is saying "because our religious beliefs frown upon your lifestyle choice, you shouldn't have rights."

This is a clear violation of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. THAT, I submit, is what you should call them on.

So IMO the answer to the choice argument is:

So what if it was a choice? Queers are still human beings and still tax-paying citizens of this country. They are, therefore, entitled to the same benefits for the taxes they pay and they are entitled to be welcomed in the culture just the same way people who choose their religious beliefs are. People who believe homosexuality is immoral are entitled to their beliefs but they are not entitled to use those
beliefs to influence the laws of a free country.

This is the position that worked for us in Canada.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2005 5:17 PM

PS: Should've signed that post. I'm Heather in Vancouver.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/05/2005 5:19 PM

Well that was both blatantly obvious and a complete lightbulb moment at the same time.

Thanks Heather.
posted by Willie Hewes, at 7/07/2005 7:25 AM

Heather's arguement, while correct and noble, still comes up short. Polls show that people really DO care whether it is a choice. If it is not a choice - which it is not -it is no longer a moral issue.

Sorry, but the polls simply don't lie. The "choice" question is the only think that matters to most Americans....The ONLY thing.
posted by Wayne Besen, at 7/07/2005 9:24 PM

I didn't say the choice question wasn't a huge issue. I said the way to answer it is not to argue that it's not a choice. The moment you try to address a legal queer rights issue by engaging in an argument about whether homosexuality is a choice, you're conceding defeat.

By that I mean that you are agreeing that the laws of the nation should be dictated by the right's version of morality instead of by the constitution.

Nothing in the constitution or in any law of the United States says that equality is determined by whether or not your choose your identity.

So why do you want to waste time debating the right as though that were the case?
Heather
posted by Anonymous, at 7/08/2005 1:58 PM

I don't dispute that the polls show that the choice argument is the leading one these days. I would dispute, though, that it really matters.

I think that the people who say "choice" matters only say so because they feel it is the most acceptable reason to object to gay people having equal rights. It is a prejudice seeking a reason, not a reasoned stance.

As people have pointed out, religion is a choice characterized by behavior, such as going to a certain church, and in some cases, identifiable behaviors such as dress, diet, and social custom.

People do not use the fact that people have become "ex-Jews" or "ex-Catholics" to make an argument that all people should be required to do so because it is possible or that as a result, people who do not choose to change should be denied rights.

Pouring all our efforts into the choice argument is ultimately futile, because at its heart is concedes the point that being gay is inherently bad. Otherwise, there would be no need to argue it. Then, just as we make progress on the convincing people it isn't a choice, their machine slides to the "okay then, it's a disease" side.

Further, since the only way someone can TELL if we are gay is based on our behavior and choices (including our choice of saying so), the choice and behavior components can never really go away.

Heather is right. The only successful approach is having choice be a "so what" issue.

As is the ex-gay movement. The national groups need to stop denying them and start defining them. They are either bisexuals who have chosen to shift their focus, or they are gay men and women who have chosen to behave heterosexually. They have not been "cured" of anything. But if the gay rights movement means anything, it means that it is up to the individual to define their sexual orientation for themselves, and ex-gay people need to be allowed to do that if they can truly do it in a healthy and happy way.

Yes, the pain of the people, often kids, is real, and we need to be very compassionate and welcoming to ex-ex-gays. In the end, it will be the growing witness of the people who went through that movement and were hurt by it that will make more difference than anything the rest of us can ever say.

The answer in the Red States is the same as it is everywhere else -- show people that gay people are people like them in all the ways that count. Yes, the national organizations need to get a clue and use different strategies in Alabama than they do in Massachucetts.

Arguing choice and fighting ex-gays is not that strategy.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/20/2005 10:20 AM

In my mind, what is most important in this debate, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a choice (my research is as yet inconclusive), is that everyone involved in it treat the other side as being equally human.

In other words, those who are still homosexual ought to accept the fact that they are no more, or no less, human then heterosexuals and former homosexuals. Also, they should respect the wishes of former homosexuals, and treat them fairly.
posted by Anonymous, at 8/02/2005 9:44 PM