About the Rabids

I haven't been paying enough attention to "ex-gay" organizations here. I don't have much to say about them that hasn't been said elsewhere -- they are dangerous, unscrupulous, and prey on the vulnerable -- but in light of the spin they are giving the recent APA conference in New Orleans, it worth noting a couple of things.

Wayne Besen, long-time activist and founder of Truth Wins Out, has this nice dissection of statements actually made at the conference and the distortions being promulgated by NARTH and Exodus International. Also, check out this comment by Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin about the vulnerability of these organizations on "informed consent." They are, in Besen's analysis, setting themselves up for malpractice suits.

I think that would be nice. I remain convinced that the way to pull some teeth out of these yahoos is to sue them for major damages. Millions. Tens of millions. More.

On a more general note, I should clarify my attitude toward the Christianist right. I don't necessarily think that anyone who disagrees with me on certain issues, particularly gay issues, is a bigot or a liar, but, based on the evidence, I am persuaded that the ringleaders of the movement -- Donald Wildmon, Peter LaBarbera, Lou Sheldon, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, that whole crew -- are deliberately distorting information to gain political power. (Although I have the sense that LaBarbera is such a freak because he is fighting his own proclivities. I could be wrong -- it's almost too perfect a textbook example.) Hence, I feel no compunction about calling them liars, because I can demonstrate that they are. I will grant that their followers are often sincere in their beliefs, if somewhat confused, and too easily led. Those mentioned, along with their fellow-travelers, are really spearheading the Christian Dominionist goal of turning the USA into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, although they won't admit it publicly. All you have to do, however, is read some of their stuff (which, granted, I do seldom -- it really does upset my stomach) to see their methods and spot their subtext. (A case in point: Peter LaBarbera's website for his new organization has a "resources" pages on which he lists "pro-homosexual" resources and "pro-truth" resources. I think the perversion of the language in this case if fairly obvious: everyone who thinks that gays should be treated like real people is a liar, while those who are distorting evidence, making up facts, etc., are "pro-Truth." Please.)

So, I can understand that some people, because of their religious beliefs, upbringing, or their social context, have trouble accepting gay men and lesbians as normal. However, if they refuse to recognize the limits of their right to practice their beliefs, and also refuse to look at the evidence when it is clearly presented, then I have no sympathy: they deserve whatever name they wind up with. It won't be a nice one.

And, as a final note in this last context, I do seem to have been blocked from commenting at GayPatriot, although I haven't actually made an inquiry. Anyone who reads this blog, or has experience of my comments in others, knows that I can be a little sharp when faced with idiots, but I'm never really vicious. In fact, in the case of GayPatriot, I've only ever really pointed out that they are not investigating questions fully (granted, I may have said things which could be interpreted as nasty, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder), which apparently they don't want to hear. Let's hear it for the free exchange of ideas, by which the guys at GayPatriot set such store. As long as you agree with them. (I'm thinking of starting a new heading in my links column: Alternate Realities. Maybe GayPatriot will be the first entry.)