At Conference on Gays, No Gays, Naturally
Ah, Valentine’s Day weekend. The tang of love fills our nostrils, the grit of conversation hearts our molars; red merch lines seasonal aisles down at the Duane Reade, prix fixe prices speed the pumping of blood; and down in little Lynchburg, VA the Liberty Counsel is getting ready to fete true romance with a conference on the “consequences of same-sex attraction.” That’s amore!
Now, now. Order in the court, order in the court. Let’s give the agenda a chance. Maybe there’ll be a multiplicity of viewpoints on the issue. Laypeople are welcome, so let’s head on down. First up, an address by Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, the group involved in the Uganda conference that led to a bill threatening to imprison and kill gays there. Hm. Maybe I’ll clean out my purse in the lobby and wait for the next panel.
OK, later we’re looking at an analysis of the American Psychological Association’s task force report on homosexuality, which concluded that “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and may results in some risk of harm.” Oh, that sounds promising. Who’s leading the panel? Rena Lindevaldsen, Associate Professor at LU’s law school. Hang on, Googling. Let’s see, says here she “filed the first lawsuit to enjoin San Francisco’s efforts to “marry” same-sex couples, and obtained two orders enjoining public officials in New York from officiating same-sex unions.” Um. Sounds like professional neutrality on the APA report might be in short supply. Do you want to go check out some antique shops?
Wait, this is weird. When I started writing this post, there was a panel scheduled for later today titled “The Child’s Right to Self-Determination,” but it’s since changed to read “The Client’s Right to Self-Determination.” And the font’s still all wonky from the change. And the guy leading the panel, Tim Clinton, wrote an article for ParentLife on educating children about what being gay means. What an odd coinky-dink.
So today seems like it might be a bust, healthy-debate-wise. Let’s knock off for some Bahama Mamas at Applebee’s. What’s going on tomorrow? Here we go, the umbrella title for tomorrow’s events is “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?” Interesting. That means…what, homophobia is a free speech issue?
There’s a panel on how gay rights are eroding the rights of employers who don’t want gays on payroll, another called “Hate Speech and Free Speech: Will the Advancement of Homosexual Rights Silence Others?” We’re looking at panels led by law professors from Brigham Young and Pat Robertson’s Regent University, representatives from the anti-gay Military Readiness Institute and the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and there’s a guy from Concerned Women for America who helped draft the Defense of Marriage Act.
Hm. Maybe I’ll just stay home for a John Waters marathon.
Look, I know the homogeneity of this line-up is about as surprising as feathers on a chicken. But it bums me out!
I was just telling someone in an interview for my book (plug, plug) that persistent evangelical Christian ignorance around the realities of gayness stems in part from the fact that conservative Christian communities are very hard places for gay people to carve out an existence. So if you’re gay and born into a predominantly evangelical community, chances are you’re going to leave when you’re able. Of course this means that there’s a real diversity vacuum in conservative communities when it comes to sexual orientation, so perceptions of gayness are built on myth, and misconceptions go unchallenged.
I want to believe in the semipermeability of evangelical thought. I want to believe that homophobia can be confronted in evangelical churches through patient, unflinching exposure to the truth. But it won’t work if they snap shut all the blinds.
This event is sponsored by a college, a college that wants to be taken seriously as an accredited institute of higher learning, where a free marketplace of ideas is supposed to be the hallmark of intellectual rigor. So allow me to slip this suggestion into the imaginary box I’m drawing in the air of the web: how about next year’s conference on the consequences of same-sex attraction actually includes some gay people?
You can listen to the conference via webcast. It kicks off at 2PM today.
UPDATE: I’ve got to amend my suggestion a little, since currently on the webcast is a gay speaker who “overcame” his sexual orientation. He doesn’t satisfy my call for voices of dissent, since he’s saying things like “holiness is the opposite of homosexuality” and “if Rogaine for Women can say it’s strong enough to overcome genetic baldness, can’t we say Jesus Christ is strong enough to overcome genetic homosexuality?” Good gravy. Gay or straight, I’d like to see this conference feature some voices making the case for gay rights. That’s what I meant.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Hey look, another case of the majority using the language of oppressed people to claim that they may possibly be inconvenienced in the future and thus have a moral backing to continue to oppress people. Hooray! The funny thing is (and maybe I’m just living in a particular bubble) I can’t quite get outraged. People like this are fighting against an unstoppable tide of gay rights. Sure there’s still Prop 8 sized set backs but this thing is in motion and won’t be stopped. Within our lifetimes these people will be pushed to the background and mocked like the elderly white people who still complain about the end of segregation.
Don’t bother, we’re all doomed anyway:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124704
Homosexuality will soon be mandatory. Or something.
Wow. What a link. One of the quotes that really stood out was this one:
“It turns private sin into a public right and brings the force of government against morality itself. Any such law is a violation of our unalienable rights as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. To put it more simply, a statute that directly contradicts God’s moral law is illegitimate,”
There’s so much wrong with this statement I don’t know where to begin. The article really highlights why rational discussion may never be possible with people who think like this.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Gina Welch points out that at At Conference on Gays, No Gays, Naturally: [...]
[...] Gina Welch points out that at At Conference on Gays, No Gays, Naturally: [...]
Ms. Welch,
You wrote:”I want to believe in the semipermeability of evangelical thought. I want to believe that homophobia can be confronted in evangelical churches through patient, unflinching exposure to the truth.”
The principle issue here is not psychology of the fundamentalist community or the opacity of their cognitive universe but rather politics. Fundamentalism is about politics, gaining political power and influence. Christian fundamentalists in the USA seek to gain political power through feeding the homophobic fears of evangelical and other conservative Christian communities. The organizers of this conference gain politically by stoking fear of homosexuality, openness to other views on homosexuality would defeat their political strategy.
For them to “open the shutters” might be good scholarship but it would be very bad politics for them.
Thanks for your comment, David. I think it’s important to differentiate between evangelical leadership, who set the political agenda, and evangelical churchgoers, many of whom are very political, but are not designing their personal politics in order to accrue power. Because their politics are not “strategic” in the way that their leaders’ politics are, I do believe there’s potential for impacting them.
There’s cynicism in leadership, a knowledge that a socially conservative platform is useful for galvanizing the base. But among the base, I do think psychology and limited social experiences determine, to a large extent, their susceptibility to manipulation, their willingness to believe outrageous lies about, for example, homosexuality.
In response to another comment. See in context »>Gay or straight, I’d like to see this conference feature some voices making the case for gay rights.
Good luck with that! You’re better off with the John Waters home film festival. Make sure to hit Pink Flamingos, because that’s probably the fundies’s best case for why this conference showcases their chosen speakers. ;~)
Hmmm, I don’t think the conference on the “consequences of same-gender attraction,” at Liberty University’s School of Law was purposed for determining whether homosexuality was moral or not. I think it is more likely that the conference was aimed at … explaining the “consequences of same-gender attraction.”
Although the surrounding topics dealt with whether homosexual rights and amendment freedoms can “co-exist,” I would not have ‘naturally’ assumed gay advocates would be present. That’s just me though.