I liked Alan Chambers’ post today commemorating the International Day Against Homophobia. I encourage you to go read the entire post. Highlights are:
Today is the International Day Against Homophobia. And, you might be surprised to learn that I support this effort. Homophobia does exist. Irrational fear of those who are gay or lesbian is a real problem in our culture. While I believe we have come a long way, I still see true homophobia at work each and every day.
and
It has long been my goal to so impact the Church with the message of truth and grace that Exodus would be able to go out of business.
So, when it comes to the evils of homophobia, bullying, name calling, hatred and violence where those affected by homosexuality are concerned, I stand with all decent human beings who are fighting and praying for an end to the ignorance and ungodliness that cause them.
Join me, won’t you?
I wonder what Paul Cameron got me for my IDAHO present?
One last comment:
You can’t treat people as second-class citizens, as not deserving of the same rights as yourself, and then call for an end to violence to that group. It is in the mere prevention of these rights that you create a reason and environment for people to hate and persecute them.
I find it interesting that the same person who claims homosexuals are possessed by demons, who denies gay people the same rights of marriage that straight people enjoy, and who works daily to undermine these rights would so boldly talk about preventing homophobia when it is people like him who tend to, probably unwillingly, promote it.
Can’t answer for Daniel, but I suspect that the “typical day or week” for the homosexual is very similar to the typical day or week of your average straight person: getting up, getting dressed, going to work, having lunch, driving home, checking email, having dinner, doing some household chores, paying some bills, watching some TV — maybe a solo orgasm or brief romp with your life partner (if you have one), sleep — and repeat the cycle. Pretty ho hum… And I know maybe fifty gays personally, perhaps 100 or so straights.
Others have already addressed the issue of bigotry I was trying to point out in my initial post here. I do have one question for you Daniel, how many gays to you know personally? Well enough to be able to describe what a typical day or week would be like for them.
Daniel,
I share Gordo’s curiosity. What would such behavior be?
Gordo,
I thank you for your input. I know the differences we have in this debate run deep, and it’s very unlikely we are going to change minds in this thread. For my part, I think I’ve given more than my fair share of time and effort in it, but I’m encouraged to see the level sophistication and sense of mutual respect displayed by commentators on this blog. This will have to be my last contribution to it for now, but I invite you to add any final remarks you may have on the matter, if you’d like.
Timothy,
Your calm response is refreshing (though I feel it to be egreegiously misplaced). I harbor no animosity towards anyone who is unable to be attracted to the opposite sex, and I’m perfectly willing to assess a person’s moral character purely on the basis of his conduct. And I fully agree that insofar as social policy is concerned, I could care less what two homosexuals do behind closed doors. What’s of concern on the larger scale is not any individual sexual predisposition. This should be evident from the fact that homosexuality itself has existed far longer than the current controversy.
I’m primarily interested in the logic employed to further social ends in public discourse, and from where I stand, it seems no one “side” of the debate is innocent of their share of mistakes; As this blog entry indicates, however, there are positive signs of maturation among conservative groups in the discussion. However, I have yet to witness what I consider to be necessary reforms in the thinking of some activist organizations on the other side of the divide: I see a generally short-sighted disregard for the philosophical considerations their social policies would have on the culture at large. It may not be immediately apparent to such groups that a wrong rationale can set dangerous precedents upon which more damaging outcomes can emerge in our culture, but foresight requires a willingness to focus our attention beyond the immediate.
Of course, it is always possible that some of our differences in some matters may lie in our basic value-systems, which may in-principle preclude any possibility of agreement on those matters–but I hold out hope that perhaps some of my listeners would likewise pause and reconsider.
Dr. Throckmorton,
Thanks for chiming in on the matter. My training is philosophy and social theory, and I would have to defer to your perspective on many of these issues. I’ve been reading a range of material, but I unfortunately don’t have the background to assess their overall worth. I wonder if I could e-mail you what those studies are and ask what your evaluation of them would be? It’s obvious, I do hold a viewpoint in the discussion; I simply want to be fair and well-informed.
Michael,
In Ken’s defense, he did not suggest any of the ideas you attribute to him in your remarks. They were stated in response to Gordo’s expressed skepticism against the idea that the general welfare of children is what’s in mind when conservatives weigh in on the issue. My response was intended to show that such speculation on intent often hinders, rather then helps, discussion on the issue. Sure, we can assume some general insincerity of conservatives concerning their “actual” concerns on the matter, but such speculation can easily move in the opposite direction. I don’t think it prudent to presume one can speak on the collective intent of all conservatives, any more than it is wise to do so with homosexuals. In short, a sweeping generalization on that score is probably more unhelpful to mutual understanding.
This does not preclude, of course, examination of individual cases, which I’m perfectly satisfied with.
Boo,
I proceeded with the understanding that racism is perpetuated by discrimination based on skin color; extraneous cultural associations run rather secondary (whether or not they are accurate generalizations), and emerge “after the fact” of one’s physical identification as a Black or Hispanic. The racist would seem to fault a person simply for being a racial minority. The same cannot be said about non-homophobic conservatives. The question in that case continues to be, “What are you going to do with it?”
But your point is well taken: not any behavioral pattern is acceptable criterion for concern. In this discussion, I don’t mean to highlight any behavioral patterns which are rather secondary to the basic fact of one’s homosexuality (whether it be styles of dress, mannerism, or sexually predatory acts). These, I consider to be cultural associations, and are not always true. Rather, I only refer to behavior which is rather essential to what it means to be “openly homosexual,” and that’s really the only behavior that’s relevant to the controversy.
Rather, I only refer to behavior which is rather essential to what it means to be “openly homosexual,†and that’s really the only behavior that’s relevant to the controversy.
Please, Daniel. Elaborate. To what essential openly homosexual behavior are you referring?
I spent lots of years consulting with protective services and helped deal with the fall out of male adult to male child and male adult to female child abuse but in most cases, the perpetrator was a married man with children.
Warren, thank you for that first-person testimony.
Daniel,
You misunderstand the nature of bigotry. It is not really based on attributes – it’s based on assumptions about those with attributes.
No one is racists because they dislike the particular hue of someone’s skin. Rather they dislike “what they do” and “who they are”. They make assumptions about the character and behavior of a class of people. They are criminals and dangerous and they don’t talk properly.
So too an anti-Semite isn’t really concerned about the parentage of a Jewish person. They probably don’t even care about their religious practices. Instead they object to Jews because they are stingy and will cheat you and killed my savior.
And to be honest, if you will be, you have to admit that your justification of discrimination against gay persons isn’t really because of what they do behind closed doors. You object to who they are and what they do – they are evil and sinners and hedonists and child molesters and decadent and in all ways objectionable.
And, of course, “what they do” is no more accurate than blacks are criminals or Jews are cheap. It’s not what is going on in the actions of the gay person (or black or Jew) but what is going on inside your head.
Your discrimination is not based really on the gay person at all. It is a conversation with yourself. It is you making assumptions and then justifying bigotry based on those assumptions.
And when we start doing that – whether to another race, another culture, another religion, another orientation – we know that we are participating in bigotry. A good person stops and reconsiders – an insecure or ill-willed person digs in their heels and refuses to question their own assumptions.
I invite you to reconsider.
The state be “being black†is not at all similar to the state of being “openly homosexual†in the sense that one is typified by a person’s strictly physical traits, whereas the other is more typified by a behavioral pattern.
And as we all know, racism is always based on opposition to physical traits, not perceived expectations of behavior patterns. No one is a racist based on the belief that black men all want to rape white women or are all lazy, or that Jews are all greedy, for example.
To all: Suggestions about the tendencies of any class of people must be backed up by data. For the record, I know of no credible data that suggests gays are more likely molest kids than straights. The largest correlate I have seen is being male. While some highly publicized cases of women who abuse can be advanced, statistically being male of any sexual orientation seems to be the predominant factor. Males are more aggressive and more likely to sexually offend. I spent lots of years consulting with protective services and helped deal with the fall out of male adult to male child and male adult to female child abuse but in most cases, the perpetrator was a married man with children.
Daniel said: “But I think a person’s homosexuality should definitely be one among many factors worth taking into consideration.”
Really? Shouldn’t we also then take into account the teacher’s heterosexuality? Is Ken suggesting that straights are safer? I do take offense at Ken’s comment: “Is it really “for the children†that gays are so passionately wanting greater access to them?”
His implication is clear — we want to be teachers so we can recruit or molest. Could it be that gay teachers want to teach for the same reason that straight teachers want to teach — that they sincerely care about kids and believe that education is a good thing?
It’s not that gays “passionately want greater access” to kids — it’s that gays passionately want the same rights as anyone else — to be judged on their skills and character, not the gender of the person they fall in love with.
Timothy,
It would be very odd indeed to conclude from this that the only possible motivating factor behind this was a mass phobic disposition to young unmarried males. As I’ve said, this occurred when parents were confronted with a situation they surmised to be an unacceptable compromise of their children’s well-being. They could have been wrong, but what if they weren’t? They were certainly within their rights to make the call, and they did not have to be clinically phobic to do so.
Honestly, I don’t know that some nationwide restriction on a homosexual person teaching or adopting is at all necessary. But I think a person’s homosexuality should definitely be one among many factors worth taking into consideration.
Ken,
I think there are significant enough distinctions between these two cases that suggest the analogy just doesn’t hold. The state be “being black” is not at all similar to the state of being “openly homosexual” in the sense that one is typified by a person’s strictly physical traits, whereas the other is more typified by a behavioral pattern. I leave untouched the question of whether any or all cases of homosexuality are a matter of genetic predisposition; the matter in question is one of conduct, not one of race.
Gordo,
I have no reason to doubt that their main concern was for the well-being of their children, however ill-conceived I believed their methods to be.
With respect to our present discussion, I suppose your sentiment can equally apply in the other direction: Is it really “for the children” that gays are so passionately wanting greater access to them? You might take offense at the implication of this question, as did I when I heard why these parents wanted to restrict me from befriending their kids. But they would have been justified to question my own motives had I responded by trying override their concerns with protests about “my rights” on the matter. This doesn’t answer the question of whether or not their course of action was at all a necessary one to take. I just highlight that it is their prerogative to make that call.
I’m curious Daniel, if that same grandma took her calm, reasoned and principled approach to the matter, and concluded that blacks nor hispanics should not teach children, would you call her a racist?
I think we can agree that if “grandma†were applying a calmly reasoned and principled approach to the matter, and if after having considered all pertinent details she still thinks it is to the children’s betterment that an African-American not teach or adopt children in her district, then it’s not necessarily true that she’s a fit candidate for the “racist†label.
I agree it will negatively affect the black person who wants to adopt or teach in that local area, but negative effects are not always avoidable when certain circumstances are at play.
Yes, the exclusionary factor will hurt those who are affected, but in the end if our concern is not about me, but for the children, then it’s not obvious that I am the only person who can do the task.
Ugly, isn’t it? Even when it’s “for the children” does bigotry look ugly.
Timothy,
I don’t know you, so don’t take this at all as an assessment of your suitability for teaching or adoption; I think we can agree that if “grandma” were applying a calmly reasoned and principled approach to the matter, and if after having considered all pertinent details she still thinks it is to the children’s betterment that an open homosexual not teach or adopt children in her district, then it’s not necessarily true that she’s a fit candidate for the “homophobe” label.
I agree it will negatively affect the openly homosexual person who wants to adopt or teach in that local area, but negative effects are not always avoidable when certain circumstances are at play.
I served in the U.S. Armed Forces at an overseas base and worked as a youth leader of a chapel Jr. high ministry. Later, another male volunteer came to work with the youth; not long after, certain rumors began spreading (unbeknown to me). I soon found myself sitting at a staff meeting where I was asked to step down from my role not because I was suspected of any actual incident; my sex and young age played a role. I was deeply devastated, and so were the youth I had come to know over the previous year. At the moment, I felt it very unjust that I should be discriminated against simply because I was an unmarried male (sorry, but those are traits I simply could do nothing about!).
So I understand the frustration, but when I thought about the situation in perspective, I realized these aren’t my children! I really have no “right” to be around these kids, at least not such that I could reasonably protest the authority of a parent. If they would rather I not be around their child, that is entirely their prerogative!
In similar fashion, I believe the larger community should have a legitimate role in determining the standards by which the welfare of children (orphaned or not) should be cared for. Yes, the exclusionary factor will hurt those who are affected, but in the end if our concern is not about me, but for the children, then it’s not obvious that I am the only person who can do the task.
That’s just my two cents.
Perhaps. But if grandma is sitting in front of her local grocery store collecting signatures to stop me from being able to adopt or teach in a public school, then grandma’s more likely to negatively effect my life than is Kennedy’s killer.
I really have come to shun the word “homophobia,” mostly because it has been used so recklessly that it has effectively lost all meaning. I think it’s significant enough to use words like averse, opposed, disapproving, prejudiced, ill-informed, ore any number of other adjectives which are typically more precise.
I think there’s a huge difference between an otherwise kindly grandma who has never met a gay person in her life on the one hand and Sean William Kennedy’s killer on the other. But if both of them are “homophobic”, then the word really doesn’t mean a whole lot in my book. After all, grandma isn’t likely to punch me in the face, which would be a far more immediate concern to me than whatever opinion someone has.
Regarding the word “homophobe” — I agree that sometimes this word has been used carelessly and unfairly to emcompass anyone who does not condone homoseuxal behavior — whether they are a mild-manned old woman with strong religious convictions about out-of-wedlock sex of ANY kind (but who sincerely loves gay PEOPLE) — or a vile and hateful man like Cameron who apparently thinks extermination might well be a final solution to the “gay problem.” For the old woman, “homophobe” is way too harsh. For Camerson (and those who support him) not nearly harsh enough.
I also commend Chambers for his commitment to fight homophobia. Now I hope he can push Exodus International to support IDAHO and call for the universal decriminalization of same-sex sexual acts — just as Exodus has opposed hate crime laws.
Glad to read this. If he- who is surrounded by Christians most of the day – is speaking of homophobia – doesn’t that speak volumes? Perhaps the times they are a’changin’.
I wholly support the sentiments behind Mr. Chamber’s stand; however I do have some concerns about adopting the term “homophobe”. And I harbor this hesitation for the same reason I believe Christians should avoid adopting the label “fundamentalist”.
For all the technical accuracy these terms may denote, it’s an unfortunate reality that they carry additional political baggage that may in the end distort the overall intention of the person adopting it.
Despite any agreement one may have with the basic theological principles “fundamentalist” embodies, the word has been made into a term of abuse in many circles, and carries the image of an uninformed, backward, and generally close-minded ignoramus–an unfortunate development, but one that can only be ignored at one’s peril.
“Homophobe,” while having a wholly legitimate use within certain professional circles, has come to denote any sort of negative association with homosexuality in general. The label is all-too-often carelessly applied to anyone who takes even a principled, reasonable stance on the matter.
I think it’s probably wiser to instead affirm the god-given dignity of all people, without adopting the nomenclature of those who use the language to further something which may run contrary to Mr. Chamber’s wider purposes.
As a Christian and as a survivor of a terrible anti-gay hate crime, I want to publicy thank Alan Chambers for this bold and loving step. He will undoubtedly take heat from people who think his statement is “just PR” — but I believe he is sincere.
Now, I pray he takes it a few steps further by (1) exhorting all EXODUS friends and affiliates to adopt a similar policy, (2) posting that policy clearly on the EXODUS homepage and (3) calling on all EXODUS friends and affiiates to strongly denounce Cameron’s hateful and ungodly views on castration, tatooing, extermination and the like — some of which are detailed here: http://www.wiredstrategies.com/cameron.html
After all is said and done, they will KNOW we are Christians by our LOVE.