Monday, August 01, 2005

Take Away One and What Do You Have?

Sitting in a restaurant today in Chinatown, here in Montreal, I was thinking about something I saw on TV last night. We were clicking channels in the hotel room, and there was Warren Throckmorton, the psychologist to claims to make "ex-gays" out of gay people. Oh, he is doing them a favor, y'know. He just wants them to know change is possible.

And I was thinking about this:
  • There is something wrong with you
  • But don't worry, change is possible

All they say is the second part: change is possible. They say, "We just want them to know there is hope," or "We want to tell gay people there is an alternative," or "We want gay people to know they can change."

All the same thing.
  • Don't worry, change is possible

Without the first part, the second part is meaningless. And that's what stinks. It wouldn't matter if change was possible or not, if there was no reason to change. So in order to make sense of the statement, you have to assume the first part.

It's very subtle, I am impressed by the strategy of, well, not saying what you mean, but laying it in boldface between the lines.

Imagine if the first part was, "You are very intelligent." Or "You are a very likeable person." Or any other non-degrading comment. And then: "Don't worry, change is possible."

Hate can be very clever.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your attitude is really offensive to me alex. You will find that no meaningful dialogue can take place when you insist on making sweeping generalizations and insulting people.


August 02, 2005 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex and Marie,

Phrases like "nutjob Christians" are not useful and are insulting. Name-calling is simply not a way to engage in civil discussion.

As a person who feels a deep commitment to my faith community, I feel badly that there are others with a similar commitment who believe that religious faith and homosexuality are inconsistent. There are very few scriptural literalists out there -- for example, none of us, I believe, would advocate capital punishment for a child's disrespect of his/her parents or for adultery, even though such requirements are in scripture. So we all do make decisions about what is godly and what is not godly.

I suggest that those who believe that their religion compels a conclusion (based on a few scriptural references to homosexuality -- none of which are attributable to Jesus Christ, I understand) that a person's homosexual orientation must be changed or suppressed should examine the core of their spirituality (and the variations on the Golden Rule). I believe that such an examination might well lead them -- as it has so many others -- to conclude that there is nothing wrong, spiritually, with loving, committed same sex unions, just as there is nothing wrong with loving, committed opposite sex unions. Both have value.

David S. Fishback

August 02, 2005 12:38 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Sad part and very expected part is CRC never being happy with what they have gotten in jettisoning the old CAC and holding up curriculum. They will object to each and everything every step of the way if homosexuality is talked about in any positive light or the new CAC is not being run by them.

I bet they will be running all over the place trying to get new CAC headed by one of theirs and one of theirs only. If Weast or BOE appoints a chair watch out for continued incoming from CRC as they must make sure homosexuality is kicked to the curb along with anyone who supports.

Kay R

August 03, 2005 9:33 PM  
Blogger Willie Hewes said...

I just wanted to say Alex K's first comment is really funny, and appropriate.

It amuses me that anon (Marie) is offended by it. It perfectly illustrates the point the original post made.

August 04, 2005 3:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nut jobs, bigots, hateful...
I am glad you all find this name calling amusing. It shows the level of discourse that takes place on this blog. I am stooping over so low to comment here that I think I hurt my back.

August 04, 2005 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Anon, last I heard it's still a free country so you are entitled to your own opinions just as those who comment here are entitled to their own opinions.

If you prefer "sodomites" and "homosexual activists" and the like for labels, go check out comments by opponents of comprehensive and inclusive human sexuality education. You should fit right in there without straining your back.

August 04, 2005 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Nut jobs, bigots, hateful...
I am glad you all find this name calling amusing. It shows the level of discourse that takes place on this blog. I am stooping over so low to comment here that I think I hurt my back.


Anon...while you are stooping over so low say HI to your buddies and PFOX and CRC.

August 04, 2005 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Would you like to respond to the substance of my comment (4th post in this thread)?

David S. Fishback

August 04, 2005 8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Fishback, I am glad to respond. First of all, I am not doing the name calling.

Secondly, CRC has not and does not say that a person MUST change or supress their orientation. Where did you get that idea? PFOX says change is possible and who am I or any of you for that matter to say that it is not. However, this only applies if a person desires that change. PFOX and indeed the CRC has never said this is what must happen for each person. Just that if each person is be free to live their own lives, then a person should be free to try to change... and they should not be condemned for it.


August 05, 2005 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One could say that could only be true if one believes that people change their sexual orientation like they change their socks. Behavior and orientation are two different things.

Ex-gay equals straight person pretending to be gay but was straight all along and still is.

August 05, 2005 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, Marie, but Cohen, the head of PFOX, was quoted recently as saying that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle and should be changed. Mr. Cohen seems to like to say whatever fits the moment- as his comments to the MCPS BOE showed- when he claimed people could be either gay or straight and it was okay. PFOX's supposed nominee to CAC is Peter Spriggs- the man's statements are one step from legal hate speech against gay people- saying gay teachers are a danger to students and that most pedophiles are gay(which is proven untrue in all accepted studies- straight, white hetero males. As to CRC- well, you may not say people should all"change" but CRC comes out with plenty of terrible statements about gay people on your website links.


August 08, 2005 10:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home