Thursday, October 12, 2006
"I expected people to take issue" - Schoenewolf
In light of Dr. Schoenewolf's accusations that Brentin Mock, reporter for the Southern Poverty Law Center twisted his words in the SPLC article, Mr. Mock wrote to tell a little more about his interview with Dr. Schoenewolf.
Mr. Mock asked Dr. Schoenewolf this question: "What exactly did you mean by the paragraph in which you say Africans were better off as slaves in America?"
Dr. Schoenewolf replied, "The point I made is what I was trying to say. I don't know that there's any other way to say it. I expected people to take issue."
Dr. Schoenewolf is welcome to come on here and dispute this. However, this exchange paints a somewhat different picture than Dr. Schoenewolf presents in his newest NARTH article.
Mr. Mock asked Dr. Schoenewolf this question: "What exactly did you mean by the paragraph in which you say Africans were better off as slaves in America?"
Dr. Schoenewolf replied, "The point I made is what I was trying to say. I don't know that there's any other way to say it. I expected people to take issue."
Dr. Schoenewolf is welcome to come on here and dispute this. However, this exchange paints a somewhat different picture than Dr. Schoenewolf presents in his newest NARTH article.
# posted by W. Throckmorton @ Thursday, October 12, 2006 
Comments:
<< Home
I must not be at Paiget's "fourth stage" either. Can someone help me? Is NARTH pulling the article, apologizing for it or defending it? I'm REALLY confused.
# posted by 
: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:07:00 PM
: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:07:00 PM
I find this issue annoying because I think some ex-gay-movement-antagonists (clumsy, but what else can we be called?) wish to try to discredit the ex-gay movement by painting it as "racist".
While there may very well be members of NARTH who are racist, I think the ex-gay movement should fail on its own lack of merit, not because some of its proponents are racists.
I will return here, Dr. Throckmorton, so that I may comment on what you are doing. Just so you know, I am a gay adoptive parent, and I consider the ex-gay movement to be the most significant ideologically-driven threat to my child. It is not just some ex-gays who are evil, but it is the movement itself which is evil.
While there may very well be members of NARTH who are racist, I think the ex-gay movement should fail on its own lack of merit, not because some of its proponents are racists.
I will return here, Dr. Throckmorton, so that I may comment on what you are doing. Just so you know, I am a gay adoptive parent, and I consider the ex-gay movement to be the most significant ideologically-driven threat to my child. It is not just some ex-gays who are evil, but it is the movement itself which is evil.
"I expected people to take issue."
Then how come he and NARTH have their panties in a bunch that people are upset?
Then how come he and NARTH have their panties in a bunch that people are upset?
# posted by : Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:48:00 PM
: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:48:00 PM
Off the blog some have written to ask why I am spending lots of time on this issue. I had let it go as indicated by my post regarding afterthoughts on the controversy. However, the new article on the NARTH website takes to task people who have found fault with the beliefs expressed by Dr. Schoenewolf. That would include me of course. I remain in disbelief that gay rights, woman's rights and racial civil rights can be reduced to Marxist thought, sub-adolescent thought and then further reduced to activist opportunism. I am not a gay activist and yet my objections to historical revisionism on a scientific website have been painted by that website admin as in cahoots with those who oppose dialogue. I have taken on ideas and writings on their substance, not the personality or source of their writings. I ask those who are uncomfortable with what I am saying to respond in kind. If I have made an incorrect criticism, then point out the error. I hope my detractors are not engaging in reverse political correctness.
NARTH did come out much stronger against the Berger piece with an actual statement from its president. That is what keeps this going; there is no clear position that has been stated. The most recent post on the NARTH website is not much of an apology whereas the organization clearly rejected ridiculing kids. Now if you mean the Schoenewolf article that was unclear about bullying, then I see what you are saying. I think it just got lost in the other issue.
Boo Said:
"I don't think it's necessarily fair to assume that Exodus is in agreement with everything NARTH says unless they specifically state otherwise, because they're different organizations"
I disagree. It IS fair to assume that EXODUS agrees -- unless they CLEARLY state otherwise. EXODUS and NARTH stand side-by-side at the Focus on the Family "Love Won Out" events. They "co-star" with NARTH at these events. EXODUS will do it again in Novemeber.
So far, they have done NOTHING to distance themselves from NARTH. Silence either implies agreement -- or cowardice. Both are unacceptable for a "Christian" organization.
"I don't think it's necessarily fair to assume that Exodus is in agreement with everything NARTH says unless they specifically state otherwise, because they're different organizations"
I disagree. It IS fair to assume that EXODUS agrees -- unless they CLEARLY state otherwise. EXODUS and NARTH stand side-by-side at the Focus on the Family "Love Won Out" events. They "co-star" with NARTH at these events. EXODUS will do it again in Novemeber.
So far, they have done NOTHING to distance themselves from NARTH. Silence either implies agreement -- or cowardice. Both are unacceptable for a "Christian" organization.
# posted by : Friday, October 13, 2006 7:39:00 PM
: Friday, October 13, 2006 7:39:00 PM
It is NOT fair to tarnish the ex-gay movement or Exodus with racism because of the racist statements made by a member of NARTH. It is convenient and potentially powerful, given that the charge of "racism" is so powerful, but that does not make it honest or fair.
Allow me to argue by analogy. Harry Hay was a gay activist. In a gay pride parade, he marched with a sign that read, "NAMBLA marches with me."
If I, as a gay man, do not specifically repudiate his claims, then is it fair for someone to assume that I, as a gay man, endorse and support NAMBLA the same way that Harry Hay did?
This "let's tarnish the ex-gays as vile racists!" is stupid and wrong-headed. If they can't fail on their own lack of merits and you have to rely on charges of racism, then what does that say about you? It says that your refutation of the ex-gay movement is weak. Stay on task, stay on topic. The ex-gay movement is evil because the ideology and methods of "ex-gayness" are evil, not because some of the proponents are racist.
Allow me to argue by analogy. Harry Hay was a gay activist. In a gay pride parade, he marched with a sign that read, "NAMBLA marches with me."
If I, as a gay man, do not specifically repudiate his claims, then is it fair for someone to assume that I, as a gay man, endorse and support NAMBLA the same way that Harry Hay did?
This "let's tarnish the ex-gays as vile racists!" is stupid and wrong-headed. If they can't fail on their own lack of merits and you have to rely on charges of racism, then what does that say about you? It says that your refutation of the ex-gay movement is weak. Stay on task, stay on topic. The ex-gay movement is evil because the ideology and methods of "ex-gayness" are evil, not because some of the proponents are racist.
Well, I agree that the ex-gay movement cannot be branded as racist because of what Schoenewolf wrote and defended. I do not agree that people wanting to live by their beliefs is evil. Guess that goes without saying but I thought I would anyway.
boo wrote:
"No one is suggesting tarnishing the entire exgay movement as racist, just the part the expresses racism and the part that enables, promotes, and stands by them."
I disagree. After my first post, Michael Bussee wrote the following:
"I agree that the movement lacks merit on many levels (both Biblical and scientific) but as long as leaders of the ex-gay movement remain SILENT on THIS issue, it is fair to assume that they hold the same views as NARTH."
Michael is apparently willing to label every one of the "leaders of the ex-gay movement" as racist unless they specifically repudiate the beliefs of one ex-gay. I think that is unfair. I also think it is weak that we would have to resort to cheap accusations of "RACISM!!!" rather than continue to attack the ex-gay movement where it deserves to be attacked, and that is in the ways that it fails to live up to its promise, in the ways that it makes statements that are false and unscientific, and in the ways that it harms people. THAT is what this is about. This is NOT about racism!
"No one is suggesting tarnishing the entire exgay movement as racist, just the part the expresses racism and the part that enables, promotes, and stands by them."
I disagree. After my first post, Michael Bussee wrote the following:
"I agree that the movement lacks merit on many levels (both Biblical and scientific) but as long as leaders of the ex-gay movement remain SILENT on THIS issue, it is fair to assume that they hold the same views as NARTH."
Michael is apparently willing to label every one of the "leaders of the ex-gay movement" as racist unless they specifically repudiate the beliefs of one ex-gay. I think that is unfair. I also think it is weak that we would have to resort to cheap accusations of "RACISM!!!" rather than continue to attack the ex-gay movement where it deserves to be attacked, and that is in the ways that it fails to live up to its promise, in the ways that it makes statements that are false and unscientific, and in the ways that it harms people. THAT is what this is about. This is NOT about racism!
throckmorton wrote:
"I do not agree that people wanting to live by their beliefs is evil."
I think that this is a very shallow statement about ethics. It implies that all "beliefs" are of equal value or are equally good. If beliefs are evil (and some beliefs are evil), then a person who wants to live by their evil beliefs is also evil.
I don't care if some "progressives" here think that my statements are not "nuanced" enough. The Nazis had evil beliefs and were evil people because they wanted to live by their beliefs. No, I am not saying that Christians are Nazis. I'm only giving the example that no one in their right mind would dispute.
The idea that gay men are disgusting and wicked is an evil idea, and the desire to do whatever it takes to "fix" them causes harm. It is evil. Period.
Post a Comment
"I do not agree that people wanting to live by their beliefs is evil."
I think that this is a very shallow statement about ethics. It implies that all "beliefs" are of equal value or are equally good. If beliefs are evil (and some beliefs are evil), then a person who wants to live by their evil beliefs is also evil.
I don't care if some "progressives" here think that my statements are not "nuanced" enough. The Nazis had evil beliefs and were evil people because they wanted to live by their beliefs. No, I am not saying that Christians are Nazis. I'm only giving the example that no one in their right mind would dispute.
The idea that gay men are disgusting and wicked is an evil idea, and the desire to do whatever it takes to "fix" them causes harm. It is evil. Period.
<< Home
