« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Reading, writing, and reparative therapy? No way!

by Jeremy Hooper

In a new WorldNetDaily piece regarding the on-going "fight" over sex-ed curriculum in Montgomery County, MD, Regina Griggs of the Parents and Friends of Ex-gays group says the following deceptive nonsense about homo-centric bio-genetic research:

"The MBOE has taken the preposterous position that questioning children can now be taught that they are 'born that way' until science proves otherwise 'with a preponderance of evidence,'"

"Millions of dollars and three decades of research have failed to prove that homosexuality is innate or that change is not possible,"

We take a deep breath and respond:

So what do you want Regina, gay children to be taught they "can and should be changed" until the scientific and medical community is able to put the kibosh on such ideas? At this point in time, your team has NO MEDICAL SCIENCE backing up your "ex-gay" claims! While a bio-genetic link has not been pinpointed there is far more evidence for a bio basis than there is for the idea that a truly homosexual person can pray, counsel, or Fryrear/Nicolosi/Chambers the gay away!

Regina, you're acting as if human beings are like simple machines whose every gear and part is clearly laid out on an easy to read schematic. However, desire, thoughts, characteristics, personality traits, and human genetics are extremely complex things. There are scores of human traits for which we have not successfully found a definitive root cause (including heterosexual desire). However, despite the complexities, there
has been research to suggest a bio gay link. But has there been research from a non-biased scientist that gives real credibility to the 'ex-gay' idea? Not really, no. Regina, whether you admit it or not, you surely know that virtually all of the "ex-gay science" comes from the likes of NARTH, Paul Cameron, or folks whose faith beliefs seem to be much more important than their scientific method. This sort of teaching would not only be offensive to gays, but also to science teachers who wish to the children proper ethics!

We're only having this debate because there has never before been a movement as bizarrely "opposed yet embraced" as the "ex-gay" one. Regina, if other movements were as widely discredited by reasoned medical groups, had such an extreme failure rate, were so vehemently opposed by the folks to whom they're geared, and considered so damaging by so many, they would have been out of business long ago. However, because the organized anti-gay team is so fond of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" concept and so many people still look at gays through heterosexist eyes, your cherished "ex-gay" religo-socio-politco movement continues to intrigue and recruit many potentials (usually through faith-based fear). A Continued fear of gay folk gives the movement an intellectual crutch -- an automatic audience who will support it out of theological necessity. And since there is no real proof of "change" (the ability to sleep with the opposite sex or to become celibate are not "proof), your "ex-gay" team can easily embolden that audience's beliefs. You can just call a person a "success story," even if in actuality they are:

(a) still gay and re-closeted
(b) bisexual
(c) celibate
(d) truly straight, with their gayness the false identity that never fit them

Without the capacity to truly crawl in one's brain, none of us are really able to verify the "change." You kids LOVE THIS FACT, don't you Regina?

Look, if kids are to be aware of the "ex-gay" concept in any way (and we do not think they should be), it simply cannot be from the perspective of folks like yourself, Ms. Griggs. It is absurd to even suggest that "ex-gay" is a true orientation (something we often forget, as the "ex-gay" team has been so good at carving out this identity)! And it is against the ideas of public schooling to introduced any faith-based teaching (which 90% of "ex-gay" teachings are). The only way to even broach the idea of "gay change" is from a completely non-biased perspective. But since we have yet to meet an outspoken "ex-gay" who operates from such a perspective and have a true belief that the movement has far more to do with socio-polics than the reality of humanity, it's probably safer if we just keep the concept confined to the home or the church. School is simply no place for polarizing, hurtful agenda!

Telling kids homosexuality 'innate' challenged [WND]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

The whole "ex"-gay thing confuses the heck out of me. Most of these right-wing nuts don't believe that people can really be homosexual. So if we can't have a homosexual orientation, how can someone be an "ex" of something that doesn't exist. If the DO believe that someone can be an "ex"-gay, then why wouldn't they just call that person a "heterosexual?"

I've tried to get DL Foster to define what exactly an "ex"-gay is. All he'll ever say (as one himself) was that he never claimed he was no longer gay, but that his heart has been healed by Jesus Christ, whatever that means.

Posted by: jeff | Aug 1, 2007 9:20:42 PM

Jeff: It is a truly bizarre movement. And as touched on in the above piece, if it weren't for the fact that they religious right needs then to foster their "love the sinner, hate the sin" ideas, there would be far more people asking questions and shaking their head at the lunacy.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 1, 2007 9:26:27 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails