NARTH really wants to be on the same page with Francis Collins, the current Director of the National Institute of Health. Or at least they really want you to think they are. NARTH is now accusing Exgaywatch editor of somehow duping Francis Collins into criticizing a NARTH article by Dean Byrd which cited Collins. Yes, that is right, NARTH believes David (Skywalker) Roberts and the Jedi Knights at XGW used their mind tricks on the current director of the National Institute of Health, causing him to misrepresent a NARTH article.
You need to go read Roberts post at XGW to get the story.
About the current NARTH apologetic, there are a couple of observations I would like to offer.
Throughout the current article, NARTH confuses genetic with biological. Perhaps, “simple biological theory” means genetic to NARTH. But such a description obscures more than it clarifies. Note this passage:
In April, 2007, NARTH posted a peer-reviewed article which considered what science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality. The article basically focused on whether not homosexuality could be explained by a simple biological theory. The article cited a number of studies and scientists, including Dr. Francis S. Collins, and basically, concluded that evidence for a simple biological theory of homosexuality was lacking. The article made no mention of alterability of homosexuality.
The first problem here is that the NARTH article does not consider what “science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality.” It did not focus on “whether not homosexuality could be explained by a simple biological theory.” Nor did it conclude that “evidence for a simple biological theory of homosexuality was lacking.” What it did do was briefly discuss estimates of heritability based on several twin studies.
The problem with NARTH’s description is that biology is more than heritability. There are genetic factors which show up larger than expected by chance which is all Collins had to say about the matter. He did not opine on prenatal hormonal influences, such as prenatal testosterone. Collins did not opine on the reasons for maternal chromosomal skewing which occurs far more often in moms of gay men than in moms of straight men. Collins did not discuss brain scans demonstrating differential responses based on sexual orientation to male and female sweat. Nor did Collins say anything in his book about differences in brain symmetry between gays and straights. Thus, Collins did not review all of the biological evidence, nor did NARTH in its “peer-reviewed” article consider “what science could and could not say about the genesis of homosexuality” or demonstrate that a “simple biological theory was lacking.”
In the current article, NARTH labors to demonstrate that Collins agrees with them but doesn’t deal with the fact that he did not agree with them when he commented on the matter. If NARTH contacted Collins directly, it is not disclosed. Their problem is not with XGW but with Collins who said that the original article used his quotes which were “juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.” (quote from Collins to Roberts).
That is good advice. Skip NARTH and go read the Language of God by Francis Collins.
UPDATE: In preparation for this post, I wrote David Pruden and asked if NARTH had made an attempt to contact Dr. Collins with their concerns. First of all, Mr. Pruden clarified that he did not write the article, but rather NARTH’s executive committee did. Here is the response of NARTH’s executive committee to my inquiries:
If Dr. Collins had problems with a NARTH article, it was his responsibility to contact us.
So the problem here is Dr. Collins?
I also asked about NARTH’s peer review process. They wrote:
NARTH’s articles go through the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). Scientists, both affiliated and unaffiliated with NARTH, are peer-reviewers. As you are aware, peer reviews are blinded reviews and the identity of peer-reviewers remain anonymous; otherwise the peer review process would not work. The peer review process is similar to the peer review process at other places. Steve Simon’s involvement was noted at the end of the article which was posted in 2007.
So the reviewers are their advisors and some unnamed people who are not on their board. Most journals publish an editorial board member list so one can see the qualifications of those who vouch for the integrity of the content. The SAC is published but the outside reviewers are not.
I also asked if NARTH was going to publish the results of their Freedom of Information Request. They replied:
The FOI request resulted in a significant amount of information, only some of which was related to this article. Perhaps you might be willing to publish your communication with Dr. Collins to see how that compares to the information we have obtained.
Click the link in order to see what Dr. Collins wrote to David Roberts and me. I posted about the matter here in 2008 when PFOX’s Greg Quinlan misrepresented Collins’ views.
Debbie,
You’re muddying the waters with those quotes above:
Collins did not say this – Byrd did:
In Fact most of Byrd’s article, beginning with the headline, is NARTH’s way of misrepresenting another person’s work so that it fits within their worldview and supports their agenda. They have a long and sad track record of doing this.
There are stories to tell about professional retaliation for efforts taken in private also. Mary and Ann cannot know how those events also colored perceptions by those of us who sought a more conciliatory process in compliance with ethical demands and scripture.
My dad used to say…”No good deed goes unpunished.” I have found that to be only rarely true, but certainly true in regards to efforts to refine and improve NARTH’s mission.
It is extraordinarily sad.
@ Jayhuck,
I am referring to the confrontation of Christian leaders of wrongdoing…it is not taught, encouraged or coached for the laity.
My example of Nathan and David in 2 Samuel 12 only works because David repents.
Think of Martin Luther and his 95 theses…and the resultant schisms and wars that followed; culminating the the freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
It is at the root of all of Warren Throckmorton’s transition…I believe.
David,
I’m a little unclear on what you are talking about here. Are you speaking about the efforts to change NARTH made by you and Warren?
@David,
Ah, the kind of thing David and Eddy were talking about.
FWIW, there are several people who post here often and some much less often who offer intelligent discourse, ask interesting questions, can disagree w/out resorting to ad hominems, and a blog owner who offers a great, intriguing mix of topics.
Could be there’s something wrong with your ears, but in any case, you can always choose to not read my posts if the tune isn’t to your liking.
Warren is more virtuous and courageous than me by far.
:).
Jayhuck,
Nevertheless, this kind of conflict is never discussed in Christians circles, which is the culture we are coming from. You have to figure out how to do it from scratch.
In scripture there are only a few examples: Paul’s condemnation of Peter; Jesus’ reprimand of the disciples; David’s longstanding suffering waiting out King Saul.
The strongest example of of Nathan’s rebuke of David for his murder of Bathsheba’s husband.
These examples are never, never organized into a sermon for the laity…can you guess why?
It is revolutionary.
I disagree with Warren and David Roberts on this matter of demeaning and mocking sincere followers of Christ who engage in difficult truths at this site.
It was a PRIVATE CORPORATION with a “PRIVATE TERMS OF SERVICE.”
Heterosupremacists like Exodus are on the same line as White Supremacists, and Apple doesn’t allow THOSE apps.
Denigrating an entire group of people as Exodus does, with its articles about how gay teens bring trouble upon themselves and you can’t be “whole” if you’re gay and you’re “broken” because of your inherent sexualiy is as unacceptable as when Stormfront.org says Jews control the media and are selfish and greedy because they’re Jewish.
That’s why apple removed the app. NOT because it wanted to silence free speech. Because it violated their TOS.
Exodus still has a website. Stormfront.org is still up and running. Neither have a problem getting their rhetoric out to the world.
Oh, Timothy, what an amazing and non-stop judge you are! Isn’t it even remotely possible that Carole decided that she didn’t know enough about your homosexuality to elaborate? Or that if she did try to elaborate, you or someone else would immediately jump on some piece that she didn’t guess just right. So she said “your homosexuality” –which you should have a clear understanding of–and then gave more details about what she enjoyed about her own.
David Roberts–
It seems you missed my point. Go figure. I tried to focus on why we don’t just swallow whole what you feed us–or what Warren feeds us. So we ask questions trying to explore some of the backstory…only to have you (especially in the case of Ann) get downright rude. (‘sweetie’, ‘how passive-aggressive of you’, ‘haven’t you been paying attention’, etc, etc, ad nauseum.) And, to demonstrate that sometimes what you say is ‘tinged’ and isn’t exactly true, I brought in examples from the topic links. Your version: “I simply asked questions”….the reality version: your questions were preceded and followed by commentary and opinion. In that commentary you played the now infamous ‘gay victim’ trump card. This you added to your gushing praise for Collins, your self-proclaimed altruism and your personal summary on the evils of NARTH. If you can stand behind your statement “I simply asked questions”, it only indicates more why we shouldn’t just swallow whole what we read here or what we’re told to believe.
And yes, we could take those other steps…we could chase down Collins but why is that necessary when you’re right here? Isn’t it logical that we start here…where the topic was brought to our attention and where one of the principles is actually in the conversation? You claim (and I tend to agree with you) that ‘this stuff has been hashed to death repeatedly’. Gotta ask yourself then what the fascination is that you and Warren have with dead horses? If it’s really been ‘hashed to death’, why isn’t it dead? Could it be that this blogsite aspires to be something more than a blogsite? More than discussion? Is the blogsite trying to be a vehicle of public pressure against NARTH. Gee, we’ve hashed it to death but NARTH won’t back off…let’s keep hashing and see if we can’t MAKE them.
David, it is not my desire to use offensive of propagandist language.
As I have said repeatedly – and say again now – I am amenable to switching to a word that you find to contain less baggage. I use “heterosexist” (and anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-tax, etc.) because these words and terms have specific, easily understood, shared meaning. But if another word that you find less offensive is proffered, I can use it in replacement.
However, I am not amenable to having ideas, thoughts, and concepts removed from consideration.
And objecting to the words used to discuss an idea because we may fear or be uncomfortable with the idea is certainly not admirable. I very much hope that hasn’t happened.
Teresa,
Howdy. I’ve been away all day but came across this post of yours and was wondering if you would mind clarifying what you mean:
This quote could easily apply to many things we talk about on this blog and I was just curious what you meant by it.
Carole,
For the record, I think you incorrectly read into statements made by others, something I’ve been guilty of as well so I don’t mean to come across as if I’m casting stones. By saying this I also don’t mean to condone the snarky comments that have been made. Like David said, sometimes its difficult not to make such comments on this thread. The blogosphere fails us at times when it comes to having truly meaningful conversations on such complex and emotionally-charged issues. I personally believe that if we were discussing this face to face we wouldn’t have most of the problems we do here.
And if you read the articles in Exodus’ FAQ, you see they’re NOT just saying “oh, we believe gay people are great and all, WE just don’t practice gayness.” It’s MUCH more political and insidious than that.
Jayhuck,
Yes, this quote can apply to many things that we talk about on this blog; and, at the social level, even more. I don’t believe in ‘equality’ as a standard or implicit of/in anything; unless, we mean mediocrity in everything. So, here’s my take as a homosexual:
Heterosexual is the normative. It’s what makes the world run at its elementary level. Nothing being equal, heterosexual trumps homosexual. Society has a vested interest in perpetuating itself; and, protecting that perpetuation.
So, we’re left with the question is heterosexuality better than homosexuality? From a purely social view, in my opinion only, yes. However, there’s another question sitting right along side the first one, which is: are heterosexuals better than homosexuals? Person by person, the answer, again in my opinion, is no … simply because being human has intrinsic qualities of worth and dignity applicable to each one of us.
Here’s where we mix up respect for each individual with an “I’m entitled to what you have” mentality. I’m a homosexual. I don’t think I’m entitled to be ‘married’ in the sense society understands it. I think as an individual, and not as a class, I should be able to keep a job if I’m performing adequately, and not be fired simply because I’m a homosexual.
I think you see the difference. I know this Comment is not going to “warm the cockles” of too many hearts on this Blog; but, at the end of the day, these are simply my opinions. Mmm, maybe not just opinions, but beliefs born of much thought and experience.
So, have at it.
It is an interesting question.
Jones and Yarhouse are the only ones I know of.
And this is despite Christian Affiliated APA approved graduate schools at Fuller, George Fox, Rosemead, Pepperdine…and that is the west coast.
which is the best coast 🙂
A quote from David Roberts’ original article on the matter:
A paragraph of what David Roberts’ actually said to Dr. Collins in his first email:
I believe David honestly believes that he simply asked questions…but does anyone see a question in the paragraph I quoted? First we have the allegation that NARTH is using Collins quotes to support their stand on reversal of attraction with a high degree of success. NARTH did not speak at all to attraction reversal or success rates. Then the allegations of preventability and of heaping guilt on parents. NARTH did not speak to preventability in this article and I don’t recall a mention of parents at all.
So, the truth is that David didn’t just simply ask questions. Like all of us, David has a tendency to minimize when it serves him and to exaggerate when it serves him. Because it’s a tendency for all of us, we come to a blogsite such as this and try to dig beyond the biases…NARTH’s, David’s, Warren’s,…heck, on a good day, even our own. 🙂 I honestly believe that that’s what Ann does. And I wince when the responses dodge the question and/or resort to personal attacks.
In an earlier paragraph of David’s first email to Dr. Collins he made a claim that sounds as if he believes a homosexually-inclined individual has the right to live according to their personal beliefs and that he supports such individual rights. (Again, not keeping with ‘simply asked.) This certainly sounds as if he’s saying that if a person does believe it’s sin or ‘wrong for them’ then he supports them. Trouble is that I cannot find ANY evidence of this being true. I see the ongoing minimization of ex-gays and those who support them here; I witness the personal attacks. I see the efforts against NARTH and EXODUS…they seem more like attempts to point fingers, discredit and even ‘bring them down’ rather than efforts at correction.
Teresa,
From a “purely” social view, or is this a social view that is colored by your religion? I’m curious
I see a great deal of this attitude in people who don’t support marriage equality for gay people. They view gay people as those who feel they are entitled to something, not that they are people who wish to be treated equally under the law. I think you could find similar attitudes directed at black people, or people of any other minority fighting for their place at the table.
As a homosexual I don’t feel I am necessarily entitled to anything. However, heterosexuals did not have to pass some litmus test in order to be found worthy of marriage. Homosexuals in the same way do not have to prove themselves in any way to be found deserving of this type of equality.
That really depends on what we mean by “better”. If the only definition of better involves procreation then I suppose you could answer the question with a yes. But there are several heterosexual couples out there who cannot conceive children. Do you feel they are less somehow than other heterosexuals. You logic seems to dictate that that is true, at least when it comes to furthering the species.
Carole,
Before leaving this Thread, I’d like to thank you for interjecting your thoughts on being a victim; or giving way to self-pity. Thanks, at least from me, for bringing us up-short on this. I know I can fall into this ‘character defect’, which is a pernicious, corrosive state of mind that leads to no good, personally and for groups that indulge in it.
There’s another aspect to this, which is the idea that I (we) deserve exactly what some other person or group has … I’m (we’re) entitled to have what you have. Where does justice leave off, and become simply an exercise in envy, or worse yet thuggery: personally and socially. And, what makes matters worse, I (we) want what you have without doing what you did to get it.
Carole, you brought up a very important point in all this. Much to ponder on, in all this. Debbie has brought this up before; but, at the time I wasn’t up to hearing it.
Thank you for your insight and courage.
Tim – Nicely done! 😉 🙂
I do think it is reasonable to ask, “Are Scientists intimidated by the GLBT advocacy groups?” And does this effect secular research on SSA?
Spitzer and Bailey might comment on this. The reactions to their research was quite heated and personal.
With all due respect, Eddy, have you spent the time I have tracking down where that article has been used, by whom and for what? What I said is absolutely, totally, 100% accurate. And even if NARTH had thought I somehow hoodwinked this incredibly smart man into making statements he didn’t want to, why didn’t they just contact him and explain themselves? Or more importantly, maybe they did and Collins still didn’t agree?
This stuff has been hashed to death repeatedly. There is no honest way to make NARTH an injured party here. Or at least, not injured from without. And I’ve learned from observation that you have a great skill for Argument by Attrition.
I spent hours and hours painstakingly writing various publications that repeated NARTH’s version of Dr. Collins, or repeated what had been further distorted by another party and then repeated again. One single publication, The Baptist Press of all things, made the correction. And then only because Bob Stith seemed to be a reasonable guy.
I’m out of patience on this, and I don’t want to get mean in my frustration, so I’m not going to keep trying on this one. What you are saying, Eddy, is definitely the NARTH narrative on the issue, and you are free to hold to it. As I said, NARTH exists only because of that kind of blind faith. Meanwhile, there is a consequence to it all.
So, NARTH as a scientific organization is responsible to report factually on the science of SSA.
They generally report on the science of SSA for those with unwanted Same Sex Attractions…and they do that in a way that tends to talk about “cures” (this is Joe’s word used numerous times in my professional relationship with him…I urged him to stop doing so in 2005). They also recommend treatments which are experiential in nature, rather than scientific (i.e. evidence based practice).
…and they do that in a way that tends to highlight the negative consequences of acting on one’s Same Sex attractions
…and they tend to do that in a way that overlooks healthy functioning associated with identifying with one’s Same Sex Attractions.
I can go on with the preferential style…
It is perfectly acceptable for a Political Advocacy Group to do this…and God Knows, people with unwanted SSA deserve a capable and strong advocacy group. Anyone?
As they persist with the Scientific Organization label but behave in a Political Advocacy role, they undermine their credibility…and the credibility of those who seek care from them for their Unwanted SSA.
David Blakeslee
I am going to say something that is due. For a very long time I’ve ignored this, but as it is becoming a matter of constancy, I have to say something.
You will absolutely not want to hear this. You may deny it. Nevertheless, it is true.
David, you personally engage in abuse towards me. Not my view, not my perspectives, but me. You do so in hurtful and demeaning ways. You do so when I’m here and evidently you do so when I have not even read the site in weeks.
It has become a pattern. You justify it by imagining that I do as attack people personally as well. I don’t. And even if I did, that would still not take away from the fact that you are engaging in a pattern of abuse.
I am now asking you to please stop.
Juan,
Think about how you feel about NARTH being criticized.
Then imagine what it is like to be in a country that identifies as 90% Christian, like Uganda, but criminalizes homosexual behavior…and someone in the parliment is writing legislation to create a death sentence for it.
If you are a Christian and act out on your sexual urges you could be criminally punished. But even worse, you could be identified by some vigilante group and beaten or killed “for God and Country.”
It is pretty terrifying.
As I said, this was my original perception and then added the following –
I wrongly felt as though fairness was being withheld from Dean Byrd and Francis Collins and narth because of a misunderstanding that, if given the proper channels, could be cleared up. I had no way of knowing the inside information that you already knew.
My comments, at the time and afterward, thanking David Blakeslee for clarifying what was not included in the original post or subsequent comments, were sincere and appreciated. If someone else, including you, would have imparted the same substantive information, I would have thanked you too. You chose to respond to me in a whole different way and manner.
Another assumption that you want to believe so you make it true – just has nothing to do with the truth. In my comment to Dr. Throckmorton and David Blakeslee, I addressed my thoughts and knowledge about narth. Those are the truth.
Ok, what is the log I have in my eye to check? What is really up to me? What is it I am supposed to “get”?
Another assumption that you are making that you want to be true but, unfortunately, it is not. Sorry if this is truth is inconvenient to your beliefs.
Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for that comment. These aren’t TV programs you are flipping through, they are people’s lives at stake, with multiple connections to places of power and faith.
What does Wayne have to do with this? I’m not aware he was even in contact with Collins. And the only contact I’ve had with him has been posted multiple times and contains no “Jedi mind tricks” that one of the most brilliant geneticists in the world would fall helplessly in front of.
The only thing to conclude here is that NARTH probably still exists at all because of people willing to ignore the preponderance of evidence against their credibility, and just like them for no good reason. Tell me how that makes sense?
Carole, I appreciate your point that your experiences as a woman making her way in male-dominated or male-centric culture are in some ways analogous to the experiences of a homosexual man making his way in a hetero-dominated, hetero-centric world.
However, I would point out that Bowers v. Hardwick (in which the Supreme Court affirmed that fully consensual sex between two adult men could be criminalized, on no better grounds than that for as long as anyone could remember, most people found man-to-man sex distasteful) is only 25 years old.
I was a teenager in high school when the SCOTUS said that it was okay for the state to arrest consenting adult homosexuals. And although I was still several years away from “coming out” to my family and close friends (a process that spanned the ages of 20-22), as a 15-year-old I was nonetheless outraged and stunned by Bowers. I was like, “How dare the Justices of the Supreme Court sully the American legal system with brazen logical fallacies, such as by arguing ad populum and ad antiquitatem!?!” (And yes, I knew terms like “ad populum” and “ad antiquitatem” at age 15, thanks to high-school Latin and lots of Isaac Asimov essays about logic.)
If I’d been heterosexual but just as intellectually precocious, I still would’ve been outraged and stunned in a budding-teen-libertarian way, but on top of my sense that there was an irrational injustice behind the decision, I also felt personally stung, because I was quite aware of my own desires to engage in lots and lots of “oral sodomy” with Indiana Jones and Magnum P.I.!
Anyway, Carole, my point is that it’s rather harsh and insensitive for you to call Timothy “pathetic”, because it was only 8 years ago that the SCOTUS (by a 6-3 decision, in Lawrence v. Texas) finally got around to affirming that — oops, wait a minute, on second thought, the State should not have the power to arrest people for consensual homosexuality.
Thus, you should cut the man some slack.
Carole,
I’m still off-topic; so, back to Elizabeth Taylor. She seemed to typify in her life, a prescient look at where our ‘culture’ was headed. Watching her private life, which we were ‘invited’ to do, was like reading the tea leaves for our society, at large. Leave it to Beaver couldn’t survive the glamor, the chutzpah of an ‘edgy’ life.
Yes, I agree, Carole, that off-stage, she:
Didn’t take you long to claim the role of victim for yourself, Timothy. It’s supremely telling that since you know that I am a woman (and not a young one, at that) you have conveniently ignored that I belong to a group that has had the “kind of” experiences you refer to with your “no, I’m not f’ing married–you won’t…..”. And, since you know nothing else about my life, you have assumed that I am “someone who has never had” experience x or experience y, experiences that might in some way parallel your own, even if they had nothing to do with sexuality. So much for assumptions. The pity party is for you alone or those who share your particular reason for seeking pity.
I wasn’t thinking of you at all when I wrote my comment, but your response sounds as if you really are the type of person I was suggesting when I said that there is a subgroup of gays who really are unable to accept that their trait is not preferred.
Do you want me to prefer to be gay, Timothy? Will you only be happy if straights want to be gay? Yes , straights want to be straight. For themselves. For their offspring (which leads to more offspring). Other than that, most of us don’t give a damn. My cousin Vinny? Who cares? He’s not going to give me grandchildren nor great grandchildren. Ah, shoot me, Tim. I am a product of eons of evolution both biologically and psychogically (the two are, as you know, intertwined). But, you don’t like that evolution? You wish me not to prefer my heterosexuality? Well, shoot me, then, because I do prefer it, just as, I think, you prefer your homosexuality. I liked falling in love, getting pregnant, being pregnant, having kids, grandkids.
When you say “intrinsically better” I guess that’s your way of accusing me and others like me of feeling superior? Right? Well, heterosexuality is certainly “better” for propagating the species. My telling you that I am glad I am heterosexual assures you that I feel superior to you, right? My God, you really do want to be a victim. You really do want to see yourself as put upon by the fates. “Oh, world, why me? Why me? I am a sufferer!”
That’s just pathetic.
It ain’t gonna happen–wanting us to want to be gay ain’t gonna happen. I never thought a guy like you who knows some science would be rolling around in this sticky tarpit of self- pity.
Okay, so shoot me and those of my ilk: sexuality has allowed my genes to be passed on to the next generation. And, my reproductive drive coupled with my sexual orientation made conceiving those little gifts to the next generation a lot of fun–it wasn’t work, wasn’t distasteful, wasn’t misery. And my family life has been a joy. Does that tick you off somehow? That heterosexuality actually worked for me? For others? That’s it’s the way of the world? The majority? That you aren’t part of that majority? What you want on an emotional level is to wish away the biology that drives the rest of us. Can’t happen.
Want to call me a heterosexist for preferring to be what I am and not caring that you are what you are? Go ahead. It’s just a word and you like name-calling.
You want what biology can’t deliver–or you want straight to lie to you.
The articles are good, the discourse not so much anymore. You should try some ad hominems, they are great with milk and sugar for breakfast — yummy! I buy them at a little Christian store down the street. But then I see you have already developed a taste for them.
And now it has degraded into a 6th grade level of “conversation.” Keep in mind it only takes one side in such a situation to break the feed-back loop and prevent it from escalating (or rather degrading further).
Correction: histrionic
I especially like the “name of hometown” version, ’cause I was born in the capital of Thailand (really!), and what better name could there be for a gay male porn star than…
…Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Yuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Phiman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit?
😉
P.S. For those who don’t feel like reading the wiki article, this is not one of those “Burma becoming Myanmar” post-colonial things. “Bangkok” and “Krung Thep” are both authentic Thai names for the city that go back centuries, but strictly speaking “Bangkok” was always a neighborhood / district / mini-city within the larger city of Krung Thep.
Oh yeah, that’s my meme alright. Christians are the root of all evil, say it all the time. I’ve been to that secular store, but their ad hominems are dry and tasteless, the others are heavenly 😉
Ken – I would have one with 8th grade, but 6th will work.
Why gosh no, honeybunch. And if I had any idea what you’all were talking about, I might even consider spending a few minutes over here bashing my head against the proverbial brick wall.
But glad to see you are still thinking of me 🙂
I’m trying my best to elevate the conversation, ken!
Now, tell me — if you could be reincarnated, would you choose:
a. Klingon (Q’omho sapiens aggressivus)
b. bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
c. human (Homo sapiens)
d. gay male human (Homo sapiens arsenokoiticus)
e. none of the above?
Teresa, that’s a little hard to do on a blog about politics, religion and sex! With this bunch, sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying. It wasn’t always that way.
David,
Sorry to disappoint you–your repeated meme of “Christians are the big bad boys against us” doesn’t apply. The secular do visit Warren’s blog, in case you didn’t know.
Speaking of using someone’s words in a way they did not intend. NARTH could use someone like you, carole. Your reaction does kinda prove a point, however.
I do. Speaking of passive-aggressiveness, it is interesting to note that you did not answer my initial simple question directed to you, and yet you chose to respond, passive-aggressively to me via a comment I made to another person. I am coming to believe that you do not take challenges very well, nor like to be called out for your inaccuracies. By the way, none of this has to do with being gay or straight, or equal rights, or anything else – just the method you are choosing to interact with another. It is very unbecoming and others take notice. I don’t think you want to be perceived as someone who is emotionally undisciplined and/or intentionally tries to hurt others. Please don’t do it anymore.
Rob I pick Klingon. They filet fresh ad hominem over live gagh, which I hear is quite an experience.
I remember when I was young (pre-Civil War), the old folks were adamant about not talking about politics, religion, or sex. The grey-hairs had much wisdom, as witness how this thread has gone a wee-bit wild.
Could we change the subject? I felt quite sad yesterday when I heard that Elizabeth Taylor had passed away. I have no reason why, particularly. I never saw many of her movies; and, the few I saw, I didn’t think she was a great actress. Somehow, I think it was the passing of an era … the passing of a person larger than life; someone of my time. Perhaps, it’s less about the person; and, more about mourning the passing of years.
OK, back to the regularly scheduled Terminator Series.
Oh Ann, still at it and my comment was so far back. Your passive-aggressiveness is so cute! I’m just glad to know you still care.
Carry on.
FWIW, Carole, you missed the point by several orbits. But that shrill screed is certainly telling. You might want to find another blog that suits you better.
Well, it need not have anything to do with heterosexism. The discussion could start from a place of inclusion and look at the real meaning of marriage and how it interacts with the state. It could have established principles related to objecting priorities and determine how these impact and are impacted by religion or the state or the culture.
It might even come to the conclusion that marriage ought only be granted to white Christian heterosexual couples in which the man holds title to all property. And that could be the conclusion based on reason and logic and a desire to do what is best for society. And it need not be a racist, heterosexist, paternalist decision.
However, if your reason and logic and desire to do what is best doesn’t even consider gay people, then yes it is heterosexist. By definition.
I think the problem, David, is that you very much want to hold on to values of heterosexual superiority but that you very much don’t like to have those values pointed out to you.
Why don’t you just proudly say, “Yes, I’m a heterosexist. I presume that straight people should always be deferred to in every situation and I care nothing about how I impact the lives of gay people.” Because the alternative – holding to views but not liking what they say about you or their consequences to others – has got to be disconcerting.
And you can hardly expect gay people to keep it secret from you when you are doing things or taking positions that make their daily living more difficult. If your feelings are hurt by being confronted with how you disadvantage others, it can hardly be the fault of those saying, “excuse me, can I be treated the way that you are treated for a while?”
Well, no. I’m not, for example, accusing you of resorting to to a polarizing and inflammatory name-calling technique as a way to control and truncate the debate. That would be impolite of me.
I am, however, giving definition and example to a word and, more importantly, the concept behind it.
I’m not at all trying to “truncate debate.” I am, however, trying to make you aware of something that you are very resistant to hearing: that decision which impact the live of gay people – especially those which impact gay people FAR MORE than heterosexual people – cannot be made without considering the people you impact.
Listen to the debates, David. Those in favor of giving gay people the same treatment as heterosexuals talk in terms of the people they are impacting. Those who are not talk about other things: their kids, their church, their faith, their culture. They believe that the lives and the experiences of gay people simply aren’t as important as their own.
Yes there are a few who rant about the “militant homosexual activists who are after our children.” The ones who hatefully rant every bogus claim about gay people that they can find on the web. Those folks are homophobes.
But they are pretty few. And I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the ones who oppose equality without even really considering who ends up suffering for their decision.
And the word for believing that gay people don’t quite matter as much as real people, are inherently inferior, love all God’s children but wouldn’t want to be one of ‘them’, is heterosexism.
LOL
Considering that Wayne once referred to me as a “typing monkey” for disagreeing with one of his positions, I hardly think that he models for me how to talk.
I appreciate that Wayne dedicates tremendous time toward the goal of gay equality. I do. But he and I seldom see eye to eye on tactics, language, or our approach to either the ex-gay movement or people of faith.
It isn’t actually true that all gay people are interchangeable.
Carol,
Honestly, I don’t think that’s what Timothy was saying. I’ll let him jump in and address the issue, but I see what he is saying differently. This is an example of why I think trying to discuss things this in-depth, emotional and complex on a blog is so problematic.
Timothy–
Sometimes it isn’t all about you. I was reading this thread and was responding to Jayhuck’s comment re the ‘dumb breeders’. Your comments came in while I was composing mine.
Don’t have the interest in pursuing anything further with you. I find your attitude extremely distasteful and abrasive. (And no, not referring to your comments to me but rather your exercising judgement on both David B. and Throbert.) There had been some semblance of actual conversation here and the tone changed dramatically from measured give and take to total bashing when you entered the scene. I’m simply not interested.
Eddy,
First – shame on you for the mental image of a porn starring someone named Minerva Huntington…. I now need to go scrub my eyes 😉
But as for this, what thread are you reading?:
I just said that it exists.
Huh? No one said anything even remotely like that.
In future conversations, I hope we don’t rant about what we imagine others are saying. It makes it more “conversation” and less “mindless hateful rambing”.
True. And there are differences, if not as a matter of attribute then at least as a matter of trend or social direction.
And if you can discuss them without being defensive or turning it into “yeah, but gays are worse” then sure, let’s discuss them. I’m not sure this is the right thread for that, but it’s a conversation that can be had.
If, however, it turns into a Laurie-Higgins-worthy litany of every negative stereotype or personal grievance, real or imagined, then I don’t really want to play that game.
Eddy,
If I haven’t said this enough in past threads I will say it again. There have been and always will be differences between individuals, groups etc. Differences do exist between minority groups whether they be AFrican American, Asian or Gay. I agree that differences don’t have to mean that one group feels superior or inferior.
There are some gay people like some straight people, there are some who are not. I suppose it could be said there are some straight people who are more like gay people than others – whatever. I care more about equality under the law than I do about some idea that all people are like everyone else – that’s nonsense.
I think gay people can be just as biased and intolerant as anyone else, however, I don’t know of any gay groups going around actively working to make sure straight people can’t marry – etc, etc… There are people in all minority groups who are intolerant, but I don’t think you can point to all of them and say that the intolerance most have had to fight against all their life doesn’t impact how they might speak against the majority which has maligned them.
Nope, I don’t care for MS stuff either, I use Linux 🙂 And when the Android tablets get a little more polished, I may get one of them.
I find it interesting that the usual theme here is that ‘gays are just like straights’ except for the gender of who we’re attracted to EXCEPT when it comes to anything negative. I just brought up the possibility of homosexism and, of course, that notion was refuted (not well, BTW, but refuted nonetheless) Bullying–let’s lay ALL of that on the straights (and religious conservatives)…Bias and Bigotry–if the gays have it, it’s only because the straights created it. Intolerance–again the domain of the conservatives; ‘gay intolerance’ is merely a natural response. Judgementalism and Prejudice–that’s the straights…we gays are simply telling it like it is.
In future conversations, I hope we can recognize that ‘gays are just like straights’ is just a line…that there are real differences and it’s okay to explore them–even the differences that might be perceived as negative. Difference DOES NOT necessarily mean superiority or inferiority…just difference.
–Throbert–
My drag name would be Minerva Huntington. ( First pet; street I grew up on) or Rusty Huntingdon if a male porn star. (First dog; street I grew up on)
Dave Roberts and others–
I agree…not fond of Apple gadgetry or it’s incompatibility. Not thrilled with MS. Even though I have a basic Windows OS, I use “Open Office” for documents, spreadsheets, etc. LOL. And somehow I wind up with toolbars offering MSN search, Norton search, Verizon search….but NO SEARCH ENGINE compares to Google!
This weekend when I had car troubles that no one could quite get to the bottom of, I reduced the symptoms to a google search “corolla brake lights blow fuses” and had both the diagnosis and the cure in seconds!!!!! Then when my brother and I couldn’t get access to the brake lights after a half hour of doing everything we were supposed to, I googled “Corolla brake light access” and laughed when the very first answer went exactly to the particular frustration my brother and I were having, assured us that we had taken the right steps, cautioned against the next steps we were considering and said ‘if you’ve undone those three bolts, put down your tools. Just wrestle with the thing until it breaks free.’ (We had tried that route too but thought that we must be missing something since it still wasn’t budging.) Go Go Google!!!!
I don’t totally disagree with this, but I would phrase it thusly:
If you are stuck on getting more and larger donations from riled-up gay people, you will encourage them to see heterosexism as an omnipresent threat that is forever ready to marginalize and victimize gay people.
Similarly, if you are stuck on getting more and larger donations from riled-up Christian conservatives, you will encourage them to see gay-rights activism as an omnipresent threat that is forever ready to marginalize and victimize Christian conservatives.
(Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with fundraising and soliciting voluntary donations — but the issue of Job Security For Activists and Fund-Solicitors can take on a life of its own and corrupt the entire discussion.)
[Checking “uppity” off the Gay-Tropes Bingo card]
Now tell us how gay relationships are only 3/5 as good as straight ones… I’m only two squares away from a full picture frame!!
The thing is – few people really care who is gay, who is not, and anyone in between, however, many will care and remember how they were treated. How we talk to and treat others is always a choice and as much as I can tell it has nothing to do with being gay or straight – it has to do with character, and this reveals whether what is said holds any value or substance.
“Heterosexism is an unscientific system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in which the heterosexual sexual orientation, heterosexuality, is viewed and treated as being superior to the homosexual sexual orientation, homosexuality.[1] Heterosexism deems homosexuals the inferiors of heterosexuals, which results in discrimination against homosexuals, commonly referred to as gays or gay people. ”
In my neck of the woods I don’t know people who go around thinking themselves superior to homosexuals or thinking of homosexuals as inferior. I realize, however, there are those who do (the young, in particular) so in this regard, the def. makes some sense.
However, there is a real downside, a cost to the use of the word. I think many who use the term “heterosexist” or “heterosexism” are concluding (or are pretending to conclude) that because the trait of homosexuality is not a preferred trait for straights (straights don’t wake up in the morning saying, “I wish I were gay or lesbian”; they don’t wish for gay or lesbian kids when they conceive; they don’t strive to convert their straight kids to gay or lesbian; they don’t watch gay actors or actresses or musicians, and say to themselves, “I want to be like them in their field of endeavor and also be gay or lesbian like them” …) that straights must think themselves superior to gays.
It is true, of course, that not minding a trait in others is not saying we prefer the trait for ourselves. We value some traits over others: most would rather be tall than short -although most would like neither extreme; most would rather be smart than dull, although average isn’t the end of the world; most would rather be attractive than plain; most would rather be assertive than shy; most would rather be graceful rather than awkward.) Given opposites, most of us can easily claim our preference, yet we realize that for most traits, we fall somewhere in the middle, far from the extremes.
However, for most, sexuality falls to the extremes. We are attracted to, we fall in love with either someone of our own gender or someone of the opposite gender. So, let me look at those extremes in terms of preference.
We straights value our heterosexuality as a trait (when actually forced to think about it) and given a choice, would surely claim it as our strong preference. We do indeed see it as preferred over its “opposite”–homosexuality.
I am sure you understand that. I feel I can safely conclude that many (maybe most?) gays who comment here value their homosexuality and given a choice, would claim it as preferred over its opposite- -heterosexuality. I know there are some who are gay who would prefer not to be. It is not a preference as a trait for themselves.
So, let’s look at traits in this manner, whether we are talking about height, color of eyes or hair, or race, or facets of personality such as extroversion or introversion: we view traits as either neutral (perhaps something like hair color); as preferred (intelligence ); as not preferred (violent).
Viewed in this manner, to the overwhelming majority of straights of all political ideologies, homosexuality is not a preferred trait when it comes to their own sexuality or that of their offspring. If you are stuck on equating “inferior” with “not preferred” and “superior” with “preferred” then you will see “heterosexists” and “heterosexism” all around you and that will always agitate you for you will feel marginalized, victimized and… inferior. If, however, being perpetually agitated, feeling marginalized and victimized and inferior is actually the kind of state you enjoy, you will be happy.
Although I don’t know about anyone posting here, I suspect there really are people who want straights to view homosexuality as a neutral or a preferred trait, and they are deep-down angry at the world because they know they are asking for the impossible, and so they play word games, settling for “heterosexists feel superior.”
So, if a person sees the trait as something they don’t prefer or don’t view as neutral for themselves (or for their offspring) it seems we heterosexuals are doomed to being called “heterosexists” by a subgroup of a subgroup.
It’ll accomplish nothing. In fact, it will be counter-productive.
The word “racist” has lost its meaning because it has been applied so promiscuously. Its misuse has turned counterproductive.
David R –
I knew it. I could almost tell from your tone that you were a Linux user 🙂
Jayhuck,
This is a much better way to say it than
Thank you for being fair and measuring your words so that they are accurate.
I find it fascinating that I was referenced in the comments of a thread that I hadn’t even read. I guess my opinions have power even without being stated.
😉
If you are suggesting that I consider racism and heterosexism to be related in that both are based in presumptions of “how people are” resulting in the invisibility of those who differ, then yes I do. I am not heading down any direction on this, however, as I pretty much have always seen anti-gay advocacy as related to racism, sexism, or any other mindview that is based on social rejection of a group.
Just as you didn’t see black people on Television before the 70’s, you didn’t see gay people on network TV before Will and Grace. “The audience” just couldn’t relate, you know.
And I am not making this up: up until a decade or so ago, when you could get a major company to advertise in a gay-audience publication, they would just run whatever ad they were running in a “regular” publication. And more often than not it would have an overtly heterosexual theme. I should drink your vodka so that I’ll be more attractive to women? Really?
No, it’s not a new observation. And it’s actually much much better than it used to be. Both for racial minorities and for gay folk.
But I have for a while, however, been growing in my concern about a cultural phenomenon, for which I don’t yet have an “ist” term. It is the consistent banishment of moderate people of faith from television, movies, or other cultural visibility.
The good guys on TV don’t go to church. And if there is anyone who is Christian, they are a raging loon trying to control everyone around them all to compensate for some secret personal horror.
And it isn’t limited to scripted TV. The “Christain view” on some issue on the news isn’t given by Rev. Friendly from the Presbyterian Church explaining theology but by Pastor Nutjob from Community Church of Self-Righteousness there to rant about the sinners.
Even Christian television is skewed towards miracle handkerchiefs, bizarrely made-up women, and assertions that God sent the latest natural disaster to punish someone (usually The Gays) for something or other.
This results in a distorted picture of Christians as loons. And it results in a distorted response. Because raging nut-jobs are all people see, the only responses they hear are directed towards those nutjobs.
And when you say, “hey, I’m not a loon” there’s always the response of, “oh, I don’t mean you. I mean those other kinda Christians.” Oh, no one ever puts down moderate, decent, neighbor-loving, Christians. They just pretend like they don’t exist.
Maybe that helps you understand what we mean by “heterosexist.” It isn’t the gay haters (though they can be part) but the presumption that gay folk simply aren’t quite real people. They are an inferior group. They just don’t matter. Or exist. At least not in our community. Or our church. Or buying our products. Or voting in our district.
Moderate (or, just not wacky) Christians take note. If you aren’t careful, you’re next.
Carol,
I think you are absolutely correct here. I wanted to take the opportunity to apologize for being off-putting during one of our conversations on another thread. I always appreciate what you write because it is well-written and thoughtful.
I do not think, however, that when academics talk about heterosexism they are talking about an individual preferring their orientation for themselves over and above other types of orientations, although I would think that idea would fall under some banner of heterosexism. I usually hear the term discussed in regards to institutions or groups favoring heterosexuality over homosexuality when it comes to civil rights – where heterosexuality is viewed as the ideal to the detriment of gay people and institutions.
Here is another defintion:
David R –
Hey – I’m a recent PC to Apple convert. Don’t be dissing my choice of OS and products 😉
Throbert,
I would go one step further and suggest that people read and cite anything with discernment that they find online, whether it be from a so-called reputable source or not. 🙂
This is true:
David Roberts-
Thanks. I understand what you’re saying–even from my ‘hippie-radical’ “if only we could all just speak freely and let the listeners sort out what works for them” mentality.
And perhaps Randy ought to be the one to spearhead a boycott of the Apple gadgets instead of supporting them with his dollars.
I’ve never been a big fan of boycotts but I think there’s some dynamic going on that is beginning to resurrect those old notions of petitions and boycotts.
I don’t want to get into a protracted discussion on the term heterosexism. All of our labels for things fall short, or are imperfect, to some degree or another. Some people will find them useful, others will find them offensive, and some will argue they have become meaningless due to their overuse. But to label all sorts of things seems to be part of our nature, and I don’t think that is necessarily an unhelpful thing to do. The attitude expressed by the term heterosexism exists. If we choose to try and define it so we can study and discuss that particular attitude I don’t think that’s a bad thing
I’m not quite sure that you do understand.
Dr. Collins isn’t “taking issue” with anything other than that his character and his reputation are being threatened by the public distortion of his views and his work. Having clarified (three times) that NARTH’s characterization of his views and work is inaccurate, he has moved on. So let’s revise:
But Dr. Throckmorton is not taking issue with the perception that Dean Byrd’s distorted. Actually Dr. Throckmorton shares that perception.
However, one may have various perceptions until a matter has become clear. Once clarified, it is no longer a matter of perception. Let’s revise:
I’m sure that Dr. Throckmorton is, indeed, concerned about whether Byrd’s distortion is/was intentional. But Byrd is not really the focal point of his criticism.
The specific authorship being assigned to Byrd is less important than that this claim by NARTH has been repeated by NARTH or other associates twice after Collins has refuted it (once by NARTH board members under the guise of a subcommittee of ACPeds and again by a Mormon organization started by Byrd.) Indeed, it was as a NARTH leader that Byrd wrote, and it is NARTH’s board that is attacking Roberts, not Byrd.
You will note that Dr. Throckmorton is not laser-focused on Byrd. His criticism is with NARTH.
(And to be more correct, it is NARTH’s beliefs that NARTH was advancing rather than the organization itself)
So, another revision:
The paragraph, as written, implies that Byrd had never been given a chance to clarify. Additionally, it implies that Throckmorton’s objection is to Byrd’s (or NARTH’s) interpretation of what was written. Both are false.
Byrd and NARTH have been specifically invited to clarity. By more than one person and on more than one occasion. They chose not to.
Also, NARTH is free to believe what it will about Collins’ work. They are free to interpret anything they like from it. What is unethical and immoral is to imply that their interpretation is shared by Collins or that they are accurately representing his opinion or views.
While I regularly interpret research and polls and findings and writings, I do not blatantly imply that the researcher, pollster, analyst, and author share my interpretation – especially after they have publicly refuted my claim.
So, our final revision:
Or:
And you are certainly entitled to that view.
After NARTH having accused Roberts of being a liar and suggested that Collins is a gullible fool, I am less generous in the doling out of chances.
Teresa,
You make the assumption that all married heterosexual couples have kids, or even want to have kids. They do not, yet they are allowed to marry. And what of every factor that gay people and gay families bring to every factor of building, maintaining and growing a society?
I think you may have missed my ramblings about equality and individuals and groups. Many minority groups are not equal to other groups or even to the one group that is seen as the majority. That doesn’t mean, however, that gay couples don’t deserve to be treated equally under the law. Marriage is about more than promulgation of the species, and understanding that gay couples do, in increasing numbers, have children, its hard to find any reason to exclude them from the institution.
I think you confuse trying to corrupt and destroy social cohesion with a minority group asking to be treated equally under the law. Again, these same arguments harken back to arguments used to deny so many minority groups equal status. I find it surprising to see you using them. There is absolutely no evidence that gay marriage, if that is what we are talking about and it seems to be, corrupts or ultimately destroys social cohesion. Although I have to admit, I’m not entirely certain what you mean by the term.
David Roberts,
Did you ever share this information on this blog?
I’m also wondering if the people at the publications you wrote to, and who chose not to respond, are aware of the other side of you who writes here. If so, they are aware of your unwillingness to retract an inaccuracy or distortion you have made when it has been brought to your attantion. Your propensity for becoming sarcastic and resort to bullying when challenged or called out for inaccuracies is becoming your reputation. If you stopped all this ineffective posturing, perhaps what you say would be taken seriously. Asking someone else to do what you are unwilling to do does not bode well for credibility or integrity. If they know this side of you, which has nothing to do with being gay or straight, then that might be just one reason they chose not to respond to all your hard work.
Ann,
If you will please kindly point out where I said similar things about you, I will happily and readily apologize, if I have not already done so.
And as it is late on a Friday I don’t readily recollect your efforts to have me stop the abuse and bullying techniques that I have inflicted on you for years. It might also be helpful to direct me to such efforts so that I can be reminded.
Timothy,
Your comment reminds me of my efforts to have you stop the abuse and bullying techniques you inflicted on me for years.
What facts are “generally” in NARTH’s favor? The facts certainly don’t favor the “father/son alienation” hypothesis that NARTH fervently clings to as the primary basis for explaining male homosexuality.
To be fair, the facts also don’t favor a single “gay gene” etiology that some uninformed gay activists continue to parrot. So when NARTH is up against a scientifically-illiterate activist who’s talking about a “gay gene,” and NARTH is saying that there’s almost certainly no such thing as a “gay gene,” then in that particular argument the facts do happen to favor NARTH.
But the scientific community as a whole does not expect to find a “gay gene” and is considering any number of etiologies for homosexuality, while NARTH remains stubbornly loyal to the “aloof father” idea, despite its lack of predictive power.
For example, I’m not aware of any studies that have showed elevated rates of homosexuality among the sons of Navy men, despite the obvious fact that the career demands of Navy fathers mean that they’re often totally absent from the household for long months at a time during their sons’ crucial toddler years, and that this is peculiarly true of the Navy (compared with the other services) even during peacetime. NARTH claims that the a failure to bond with dad during years 2-4 is especially likely to contribute to male homosexuality, so if there’s truth to this, we might expect to see more homosexuality among sons of military fathers, and perhaps particularly among male “Navy brats.”
Oh, geez… I hate to disappoint you, Notpreston, but NARTH is not going to become “more secular”, because NARTH’s entire raison d’etre is to produce quasi-scientific talking points for folks who have a theological beef with homosexuality.
That is true.
However, implicit in this thought is the presumption that gay people are, in whole, seeking rights without responsibility. Or that such efforts are either irresponsible or bad behavior. I do not think that is the case.
Sure there are always some who want what they want and damn anyone else. But it is my belief that most gay people – and especially those most involved in the marriage movement – truly believe that equality is not only better for them but better for society.
If I believed that marriage equality would result in the destabilization of the institution or in the disruption of social cohesion, I would oppose the effort. It isn’t that I just don’t care about such arguments, it is that I see them as lacking in any validity.
And that is where the supporters of Proposition 8 had their downfall.
For the very first time in court, their arguments were actually considered. Not as rhetoric, but actually given an opportunity to illustrate some evidence to support their views. They could not.
Teresa,
I don’t find your views outlandish.
Each of us finds our own worth. Mine is different, but I can’t fault you for having views not to foreign to views I once held.
And I think there could be valid arguments that would exclude same-sex couples from marriage recognition. You probably could articulate several.
However such arguments tend not to fare well when applied sweepingly or to people as a class. When we go from some to many to all, then it becomes a matter of arguing that the murderer on death row and his pen pal are entitled, by merit of their heterosexuality, to marriage rights that are denied to the most upstanding, committed, and socially valuable same-sex couple, because of their homosexuality.
If we are to apply legal (or even social) restrictions on people because of who they are, we should be able to explain the burdens we are imposing in terms that actually apply to them. To say “children raised by their biological parents do better” may be an argument that has strong emotional appeal, but how does it apply to the man on death row who murdered children or to the lesbians that are raising children who were not wanted by their biological parents.
If the line we draw does not reflect the purpose that we are espousing for drawing the line, then it is not a valid line.
Eddy,
I’m just curious. Is this the way that you begin conversations with people outside this blogsite? I do hope that I am more courteous to you and apologize if I am not.
But as to your comment, I disagree. I do not think that I saw a “this v. that” comparison where Carole only intended to share her own happiness. I just can’t come to the same conclusion as you based on the context of her comment.
If you reread the entire paragraph that Carole wrote, I think that you will agree that there is a pattern in which Carole cast her sexual orientation in terms of children and grandchildren, love and family. This was not a matter of “you prefer yours and I prefer mine.”
And I think that if you read her entire comment, it is consistent. As she put in her final salvo
Jayhuck,
My view is colored by many factors: age, common sense, biology, and I’m a Christian.
Here’s the nub of the issue. Heterosexuals shouldn’t have to have a litmus test to marry. It’s how society operates. Families are the basic building block of society. Heterosexuals get to marry; just because of every factor they bring to building, maintaining, growing a society.
We, homosexuals, are not equal to heterosexuals in this capacity. And, btw, neither are single heterosexuals equal in this capacity. That’s why through the years, single people have often felt left out in social settings. It’s just the way it is.
Everyone on the planet has issues with feeling not as good as, at certain times. It’s part of the human condition. But, we shouldn’t take those feelings and try to upset, corrupt, and ultimately destroy social cohesion.
Now, here’s a hot button issue, if there ever was one. Concomitant with civil rights, comes responsibility. Responsibility for one’s own actions within the limits of one’s own space. Walking down the road of compassion, sympathy, empathy for our neighbors; doesn’t mean being complicit in bad behavior, or excusing irresponsibility.
Jayhuck, we’re all products of our environment, but we don’t have to be victims of it.
David,
The magazines and other news sources which reported false characterizations about Dr. Collins views did not retract those statements because you are mean.
Honestly, if I were the devil and I wanted to lead people away from Christ, I doubt I could do any better than Christs’ followers.
Jayhuck,
I have known Warren for a long time and respect him deeply. Especially his effort to process the data on Same Sex Attraction through the highest Christian filter: the truth.
It is a redemptive process for him, I think, based upon some of his past decisions and based upon the bad behaviors of fellow Christians.
His concerns early on at NARTH were largely theoretical…that there were multiple reasons for SSA as opposed to the monolithic one proposed by Joe Nicolosi. Through Warren’s efforts some broadening of the etiology of SSA did occur at NARTH…some. And Dean Byrd acknowledged to me personally and privately many times that for NARTH to grow and survive this had to occur.
A chronology of events followed, and these are Warren’s stories to tell, of repeated efforts to reign in odd political views, odd theoretical and treatment regimens, and odd people who were endorsed by NARTH. These efforts took him to board rooms around the country to both challenge NARTH’s view of SSA as myopic and to warn some who mindlessly endorsed all that NARTH said and did.
In the last 4 months of my tenure as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board I attempted on multiple occasions to cajole, correct and persuade various leaders at NARTH to depoliticize their website and create a larger identity around being “scientific” to include representing soundly all theories associated with SSA.
All of this was done through back-channels in a collaborative and respectful manner.
The response, from my point of view (subjective), was to acknowledge short-comings, to talk about the importance of unity, to demonize the GLBT advocacy groups or the APA, and to take little or no corrective action.
David Roberts, above, criticizes people like Ann and Mary for their wish to find a redemptive process. It is a deep demand within Christianity to seek it privately first. He is wrong to mock them.
Warren and I and others have attempted to do this on multiple occasions, Mary and Ann could not have known this.
Warren, I was thinking. … Would it be useful for you to put up a page here on NARTH, making clear what you and David have just discussed? The topic comes up frequently, and it seems to me it would be helpful to have a page to direct people to for the straight scoop.
Are they trying to find a “redemptive process” or are they trying to find an excuse for bad behavior? I’m honestly not sure what they are trying to do. I find it odd that you seem to know their true intentions.
I appreciate your efforts in trying to reign in NARTH, but that in no way detracts from what I said above.
@Warren, David Blakeslee, et. al.,
First, thank you David Blakeslee and Warren for sharing an inside story that really demonstrated Christian behavior at its best. You are both to be commended for your conduct.
Being Catholic, I was associated with the Catholic ‘change’ ministries, Courage/Encourage. Courage is absolutely enamored with NARTH. NARTH is heavily promoted through Courage literature, conferences, meetings. I’ve tried on numerous occasions, unfortunately not in the Christian manner as Warren and David Blakeslee demonstrated, I’m afraid; to demonstrate to various people, some in quite high positions, the difficulty with NARTH. They didn’t want to hear anything adverse about NARTH. They wouldn’t listen, read, or try to understand.
The Courage position in very politicized; albeit, in a shadowy way. Anything that NARTH says is the gospel; anything from the gay is evil, bad, etc. If the gay states anything, it’s gotta be wrong. If NARTH states something, knee-jerk with Courage it’s right.
In the end, this will damage only NARTH and Courage. They’ve become blind to anything outside their myopic view. They seem incapable of seeing a “we” in any of this. I feel great sorrow for those involved in Courage/Encourage because of this.
Thank you, again, gentlemen, for sharing what you have; and, most importantly, showing a Christian attitude and behavior. I only wish my behavior was half as good.
NARTH is about the following
His most effective disguise is as an angel of light.
My comment to you is awaiting moderation, Ken.