The sign read, "Focus on the Family welcomes Dr. John Corvino and the Bible Babes." I did a double-take. "Bible Babes" sounds like the title of a really bad porn video, but there they were, listed with me on a placard at the welcome desk in Focus on the Family's administration building. I snapped a quick photo.
Focus on the Family aims at "defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." I was invited by my friend (and frequent debate opponent) Glenn Stanton, who works there.
"You're going WHERE?" my friends had asked. "Aren't you afraid they're going to try to, um, re-program you or something?"
"Don't worry," I responded. "I'm wearing my protective rainbow undergarments."
The truth is that I have long wanted to visit Focus. As a premier organization of the Christian right, Focus is one of the most influential opponents of gay rights in America. Gay-rights advocates and gay-rights opponents spend a lot of time talking ABOUT each other, and I was intrigued by the opportunity for us to talk (and listen) TO each other.
My visit consisted of a campus tour, a lunch, and a meeting with some members of Love Won Out, their "ex-gay" ministry. Although I was there for only a few hours, I learned several things.
First, Focus on the Family is a well-funded, well-organized operation. No surprise there. What impressed me is that the bulk of what they do…is to help families. Because Glenn had to leave town on a family emergency, I ended up taking a standard tour. I expected to hear plenty about how Focus fights the "gay agenda." Instead, I heard plenty about how they help people with parenting issues, relationship challenges, and other basic life concerns.
This is not to deny that fighting gay rights is a key goal for Focus. But that goal seems to constitute a far larger proportion of its public image than of its day-to-day activity-at least based on what I saw.
A second thing my visit made clear was that the people there tend to see God's hand in most aspects of their daily lives. "God lead us here…God blessed us with this…What God has in store…"-the language was constantly providential. This theme continued through my meeting with the ex-gays, whose stories typically included a strong sense of God's direction. Hearing their accounts made me realize that reconciling Christianity with a pro-gay stance will require more than simply addressing bible verses. For it wasn't (merely) the bible that convinced these people to renounce gay relationships. It was their understanding of their personal relationship with God.
These providence-infused accounts resonated with me, despite the fact that I'm now an atheist. For during my own coming-out process-when I was still deeply religious-I too felt that God was guiding me. Twenty years ago, I thought God was telling me "John, you're gay. Not `straight with gay feelings,' and not `going through a phase.' Gay. It's time for you to embrace that." Looking back, I would now describe that voice as my conscience, or perhaps my reflective self. But at the time, I firmly believed it was God.
I recounted my coming-out story to the Love Won Out group, who listened attentively. Then one member asked me, "But isn't it possible that was a deceiver talking? Isn't it possible that you were wrong?"
He seemed surprised when I responded, "Of course. That's always possible. But we have to do our best in discerning the truth, and that's where I believe the truth lies. I'm gay." I explained that believing in an infallible God does not render one infallible. It didn't for me 20 years ago, just as it doesn't for them now.
I'm a big believer in trying to find common ground with one's opponents-after all, we all have to live in the same world together. I believe that gay-rights advocates can find some common ground with Focus on the Family. But my visit also underscored areas of disagreement that will not permit compromise.
For example: I want every child growing up with same-sex attractions to know that it's okay to be gay. That vision is a big part of what motivates my work. That vision is deeply troubling to many (if not all) members of Focus on the Family, who see it as a fundamental threat to their values.
As long as Focus sees me as threatening their kids, and I see them as threatening "ours" (that is, GLBT kids), peaceful coexistence will be an elusive goal. Yet we still have to share the same world. I'm grateful for opportunities like this one to continue the dialogue.
36 Comments for “Behind ‘Enemy’ Lines”
posted by Rob on
XGW wrote an article this week about having a ‘dialogue’ with Focus on the Family. I think it’s a waste of time since they’re unlikely going to take your feedback into consideration if it damages their rigid worldview. It’s better to talk with regular folks instead and let the FotF ideologues wither and perish.
posted by Richard on
I am not entirely sure what the point of such a news ‘tour’ was. Basically you went on a little tour of an interest group and spoke briefy with some of their ex-gay members..
Sounds and awful like some of the Congressional ‘fact finding’ reports I have read.
posted by chris on
I think what you did was a good thing. Just because you take the time to listen, and dialogue with someone you disagree with, doesnt mean you approve of what they do. I think it is very needed. Bravo for being brave enought to do it, and to acknowledge some positive things you lerned from them. maybe they will have learned some things also, wether they openly acknowledge it or not.
posted by Throbert McGee on
XGW wrote an article this week about having a ‘dialogue’ with Focus on the Family.
It does bring to mind a famous observation by the Polish poet Stanisław Lec (not to be confused with the Polish sci-fi author Stanisław Lem!), who asked: “If a cannibal learns how to eat with a fork, is that progress?”)
Or, to put it another way, sometimes the whole “Baby steps, baby steps” thing is a waste of time.
posted by Charles Wilson on
This was an uninformative article about an exercise that was probably pointless to begin with. The only interesting aspect of Focus on the Family’s freak show would have been to find out more about their anti-gay gay auxilliary.
How much are they paid? What sort of lives are they leading? Fuller portraits of these stunted people would have been interesting. But a “dialogue” that includes taking their propaganda at face value? Oh come on.
posted by Amicus on
John, you are the worst kind of appeaser of these bloodcurdling Heretics!
Keep up the good work.
[btw, if you have the mini-surveillance tape, I’ll pass it on with the microfiche to the conspiracy of the Great Gay Agenda, who will be meeting in “Mexico City” this year…]
posted by tavdy on
“It does bring to mind a famous observation by the Polish poet Stanisław Lec… who asked: “If a cannibal learns how to eat with a fork, is that progress?”)
Or, to put it another way, sometimes the whole “Baby steps, baby steps” thing is a waste of time.” – Throbert McGee
“This was an uninformative article about an exercise that was probably pointless to begin with. The only interesting aspect of Focus on the Family’s freak show would have been to find out more about their anti-gay gay auxilliary.” – Charles Wilson
“John, you are the worst kind of appeaser of these bloodcurdling Heretics!” – Amicus
You know, perhaps if we see beyond our own hate – and theirs – we might be able to recognise that these people are actually human (yes, I know it sounds really strange, but it’s actually true!). If they deserve anything from us it’s pity, not bile – their wilful narrow-mindedness, and their rejection of anything which doesn’t fulfil their pre-determined ideals, are blinding them to so many of the forms that love and beauty take. We should avoid making their mistake.
posted by avee on
Ok, so how many of the lefties above who are blasting Corvino for meeting and speaking with "the enemies" of gays are supporting Obama, who promises to meet and dialog with leaders who are sworn enemies of America and support terrorism?
posted by Amicus on
tavdy, I was trying to be “ironical”. But I could see how, absent tone, one could mis-read my remarks (and that’s my fault).
I honestly believe that a great number of people who are attracted by the likes of FTF are … just like “us”, struggling to perceive and do what is right in the world.
Unfortunately, I think most of them are deeply *misled*, with a number of the senior leadership … not involved in that struggle at all.
posted by tavdy on
Sorry, Amicus – though TBH it looked more like parody to me, and there was a hefty dose of parody in my own post…
On the FotF front (and on a more serious note) they’re actually doing a really good job of alienating Europeans from both Americans and (especially) the Church – so much so that British Evanglicals have started to distance themselves from their American cousins for fear of being tainted with the same fruityloop reputation. The Religious Right might look slightly kooky from where you are, but it doesn’t begin to describe what they look like from the other side of the Atlantic.
posted by Joel on
I believe their “threatening their kids” is the most interesting point they have. Do they believe ‘the gay agenda’ and ‘lifestyle’ is somehow going to seduce them into believing that such ‘agenda and lifestyle’ are good, and ultimately partake in it?
I know of straight ppl that partake in SS intercourse first beause they dont see nothign wrong in ‘being gay’, and are curious to see what it’s gay sex is all about. As to examplify what i just said, there was a member in the gay christian network community that opposed their parents belief that homosexuality is wrong(without them knowing she was gay), and they tried and tried to point out why it was wrong because they were worried that she would ‘partake’ in such immoral activities.
If its not that they feel their kids will be seduced into immorality, in this case, sodomy and whatever the lesbians are into. Then… i dont know what it could be.
If being seduced into such abhorrent actions result in no real corporal or emotional harm. Or harm in general then, in essence, it is not really dangerous. SO… i guess
ff being seduced and/or practicing immorality is a threat to the children, and ultimately a wrong in society, then it would beg the question,imo, does this mean they advocate for a theocracy(so as to be consistent)?
posted by Attmay on
This gives me a great idea for a bumper sticker:
“Terrorists oppose gay marriage, too!”
Hell, they oppose gay BREATHING.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Attamay, I think that bumper sticker should read:
“Terorists support Democrats”
or
“Terrorist support Obama for Prez”
since that’s a wee bit more truthful given Hamas’, alQaeda’s and God knows which new terrorist group will come out and endorse Obama over McCain.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan Matt, your idea that the statement “Terrorists oppose gay marriage” is untrue is profoundly stupid and dishonest. You don’t even believe that yourself, but your dishonest enough to claim it.
posted by Scott on
These people believe they are acting on the will of God, as they divine it. You’re not going to win an argument with God.
I think your time spent in dialogue is better used with people who are willing to engage in an exchange of reason and ideas instead of people who endlessly cling to their most sacred dogmas despite all reason to the contrary.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Priya Lynn, please see my post here
http://independentgayforum.com/blog/show/31519.html#17009
and try to find not only your moral compass, but your brains with both hands… because I never said
“Terrorists oppose gay marriage”
Now, let’s see how well that charge you made about “people fly off the handle” when characterizing your comments as fast-tempered and irrational?
I’ll encourage you to admit that you were in error and regret your statement. I’ve done it lots of times myself.
posted by BobN on
“Terorist Oppose Literacy!”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BobN, wouldn’t that be
“Tear-U-wrist A Poes Lituracy”?
just saying…
posted by David Skidmore on
Meanwhile, back to the issue at hand. John said:
“I’m a big believer in trying to find common ground with one’s opponents?after all, we all have to live in the same world together. I believe that gay-rights advocates can find some common ground with Focus on the Family. But my visit also underscored areas of disagreement that will not permit compromise.”
And that sums up the dilemma. Focus on the Family may not actually kill gays (unlike Islamic terrorists) but they want us to disappear. This is completely unacceptable as far as I’m concerned. There are definitely limits on negotiation with these people and at some point we have to go our separate ways. Same-sex marriage is just one of the issues we can’t compromise on.
posted by randy on
This is good to visit FOTF. why? Because they need to see a real live gay person. Many of them know gays only from video tapes that are selectively edited to make gays look bad. I don’t pretend to think that any of them will change their outlook any time soon, but at least they will realize that not all gays are sex-crazed devils. It’s not much progress, i will admit, but the situation is never hopeless.
posted by Charles Wilson on
This is good to visit FOTF. why? Because they need to see a real live gay person. Many of them know gays only from video tapes that are selectively edited to make gays look bad.
Nice in theory, but you’ve completely ignored what actually happened there. He visited FOF’s anti-gay ex-gay auxilliary. Those people have “seen a real life gay person.” They ARE real live gay people, but have been manipulated into denying their nature.
FOF knows that you can’t change someone’s sexual orientation, but they spread the lie anyway. Which makes them damn good Republicans, but which does not make it worthwhile to talk to them.
posted by David Skidmore on
I agree partly with Charles. To use analogy, do any Christians in America try to convert Jewish people to Christianity and say that being Jewish is sick, unnatural and a crime against God? If so, they’d rightly be labelled bigots.
However, there are Republicans and Republicans. Some card carrying members of the GOP dislike anti-gay bigotry and oppose a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. As much as I detest the Republican Party, dialogue with these people is essential in the struggle for gay rights.
posted by John in Illinois on
John, I have a lot of respect for you for being willing to meet with FotF on their turf. As a former ex-gay myself (and a former Dobson follower), it was strange to find myself able to identify with both sides of the dialog you described. I’m curious if you turned the “but isn’t it possible that you’re deceived” question back on them and asked them if they felt that *they* could be the ones who are deceived.
Bravo for the dialog. It sounded tense/tough, but I’m so happy to hear that it took place. I agree with the previous comment that it’s important for FotF (indeed, for evangelical Christians in general) to interact with healthy, respectable, openly gay people like yourself. While it is true that the ex-gay staffers at FotF “were” gay at some point and knew/know real gay people, from their own stories it is clear the gay people they “were”, that they “knew”, or that they presently now “know” were addicts. FotF is quick to describe all gay folks as being as chemically and sexually addicted as their ex-gay leaders “were” in their “former” gay lives. I think, if nothing else, it’s helpful for them to interact with gay people like yourself who are healthy and respectable and respectful. The more people like you step forward, the thinner the arguments about gay people being sick, maladjusted, and perverted will wear.
Well done. Keep up the good work!
posted by Patrick on
John Corvino, thank you for reporting on your meeting behind enemy lines with Dobson’s group. Just like some commentators who praise your willingness to meet and talk, I think it is a very good idea and you deserve a healthy dose of gratitude from all gays for your tireless advocacy on our behalf. I strongly disagree with the people here who claim it is akin to sleeping with the enemy.
For those who question the usefulness of such meetings, I think it will always be difficult (for a simple reason) to teach them why we need to keep talking to our foes.
I think those anti-talking people share a common attribute. Whether gay or Dobsonite, part of their utility lay in demonizing the other side to an extreme. It helps keep the rabble behind them angry and connected emotionally to “the cause”. It helps them raise money and motivate volunteers. It feeds the beast of hatred residing deep in the pecs of their respective supporters on both sides. Gays, too; both sides.
Again, thanks for reporting on your meeting. I wonder if the Dobsonite crew reported your meeting to their people via some blog? Do you know?
posted by David Skidmore on
I think the main problem for gays is not so much that they are political extremists who are emotionally connected to “the cause” but that they are politically indifferent. People posting to this forum seem to think that gays are somehow lining up with leftists and not listening to any other arguments due to supposed political purity. In fact, most gays are politically apathetic and probably haven’t even heard of Focus on the Family. That is the real problem.
posted by Marcus on
As a celibate gay Mormon, I have thought for a long time that there must be a middle ground between extremely conservative “anti-gay” organizations and the gay mainstream in America. I think there must be a lot of area where an “agree to disagree” pact could work, while trying to reach some common ground where both “sides” see the good in one another, and a small measure of peace breaks out. While I realize that FOF is not a religious organization, it is based in the philosophies of the Christian Right–of which I consider the “Mormon” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to be part. Will John Corvino or some other representative of IGF be visiting Salt Lake City anytime soon?
posted by tavdy on
“I think there must be a lot of area where an “agree to disagree” pact could work,” – Marcus
That would require both sides to agree to such a pact and, while I think that would be possible with the LGBT community, I do not think it possible for the Religious Right to do so. It would require them to publicly accept the possibility that they might be wrong and, having spent decades proclaiming themselves to be the only true authority for good and evil, that would be a serious dent in their pride.
Pride is, after all, the deadliest of the seven deadly sins.
posted by ted on
Makes me think of the tours of the soviet union given to press and people like Robeson. I hope it really was productive, but I don’t think a “faith” based rationale can be changed, since fundamentalists believe the bible is immutable. TOo bad your guy wasn’t there. Maybe he will offer again since he had to cancel. (You don’t think he chickened out, or was told not to meet you, do you?)
The family forum in Louisiana spews some hateful stuff, and the “pro-famliy” e-mails that killed our school bullying initiative was rancid – even threatening to label LA lawmakers as homos if they voted with us.
posted by Rob on
As a celibate gay Mormon, I have thought for a long time that there must be a middle ground between extremely conservative “anti-gay” organizations and the gay mainstream in America.
Why? Do you honestly expect it to be possible and natural for every single homosexual on this planet to be celibate? If it is, expect a lot of lost souls, which is impossible with an all loving deity. Think quite seriously about this, is that what you honestly believe?
I think there must be a lot of area where an “agree to disagree” pact could work, while trying to reach some common ground where both “sides” see the good in one another, and a small measure of peace breaks out.
Again why? The culture war is already won in the Western World. Besides, the other side would never agree to some middle ground.
posted by Coregina on
I think we should protect the rights of GLBT, at least we should give them a friendly and confortable environment to them, just like bisexualmingle.com. It is an Online Community for Bisexual, Bi-curious, and Open-Minded singles & couples. There’s always somebody for you to chat with or hook up with! Here you can find many lesbian, gay, bisexual, bi-curious, transgendered, and other open-minded singles and couples looking to explore their sexuality, come out, have fun, romance, fulfill fantasy, etc.
posted by elaygee on
If you had tyhe opportunity to visit a Nazi Party center before WWII started, you would have seen the same thing, people helping people, working out probelms, etc with the Jew murdering on the back burner but understand this: the Jew kiining was themain objective and the family assistance was just a means toi the end. The FOF is no different.
posted by guapoguy on
Many years ago, when I was living in San Francisco as a married and supposedly straight man, I had a straight friend who lived in the suburb of Walnut Creek and who was a devote and active Mormon. One day he announced that he was moving his family to a small city in the Sierras, which had a predominant concentration of fellow Mormons. When I asked him why, he said that life in Walnut Creek was far too “fast” for him to raise his children (for those unfamiliar with Walnut Creek, it is a pleasant middle class suburb, but hardly in the “fast lane” by most people’s standards). He went on to explain:
“If my children are around other “types” they will start listening to them; and if they listen to them long enough my kids will start thinking they understand them; and if my kids start understanding those types, they’ll start tolerating them; and if they start tolerating them, they’ll end up accepting them. And I just don’t want to let that happen.”
By “other types,” I knew he was referring to homosexuals. But I honestly believe that his fear was not so much the homosexuals as it was that tolerance and acceptance might lead his children away from the Mormon Church. Nevertheless, I was appalled even then that he consciously understood the “risks” of exposure to diversity, and therefore wanted to avoid it. But perhaps more appalling, in retrospect, was that I lacked the courage then to come out to him and challenge his attitude.
So I think that exposing ourselves to our opponents, as John Corvino has done, serves more good than may be immediately apparent. For, as my Mormon “friend” saw, exposure can trigger a gradual process which leads to listening, which leads to understanding, which leads to tolerance, which leads to acceptance.
Contrary to what our dullard President thinks, dialogue with enemies does not constitute appeasement.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
guapoguy, I’m guessing you really can’t tell the difference between intern’l enemies of America and the Free World and philosophical opponents on domestic policy issues? Just for your education: any 1st yr foreign policy grad student can tell you no leader ever meets unconditionally with the enemy… even in the most liberal regions of the US State Dept that’s considered stupid with a capital “S”. The guy you refer to as a dullard knows this basic premise, if you don’t; which is good he’s your twice-elected President.
Your Mormon friend probably wasn’t all that concerned about his kids growing up gay… the ones I’ve been able to meet are more concerned with their kids growing up M-TV “literate”, appeasing the drug dealer with some action on the corner across from the public school and thinking that scoring in the backseat of their parent’s car is the moral equivalent of what you probably think “maturity” defines.
The Mormons I’ve met in the Midwest tend to be socially conservative and more worried about farLeft Hollywood values negating their effort at raising morally upright children -not in whether those kids “go gay”. They tend to be on the correct side of the culture war –which probably bugs you far more than they are bugged at the prospect of their kids growing up gay.
Why so many gays think that villifying Mormons or the Pope or fundamentalists is the only game in gaytown is perplexing; not surprising tho’.
Dialogue with your enemies is good if it serves a purpose beyond just placating your LeftWing supporters’ collective sense that “America is Wrong, Evil and corrupts the world”. It’s why BarryO will replace JimmineyCricket as Leader of the BlameAmericaFirsters whether he wins or not in Nov.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/05/27/can-jimmy-carter-win-the-jimmy-carter-bitter-old-man-award/
posted by Joel on
I believe… sooner or l8er the sex=taboo mentality, including public sex is wrong thinking, will fade away… but not anytime soon. It will be like the modern story of sodom and gomorah, only difference will be their will be condoms and dildos. Hopefully ‘God’s’ wrath wont descend upon us -_-, albeit i believe it will be more of ‘god-inspired’ crusades than supernatural intervention.
I’m not sure yet if i actually oppose that things like nudity and public sex. Personally i would not do it, but i wouldnt mind ppl doing it in the streets. All this shift of morality came with approving of gay behavior. Kinda made me step out of the bubble and look at it with as much rationality and logic as possible. THe only logical thing about morally condemning things like incest or public sex is quite… illogical and irrational, imo. Morality for me is determined through ‘does it harm life or not’. And even then, it has to be a harm not based on consent.
Michigan matt im sure my ideas are possibly as far left as they can possibly be, but i would love to know under what grounds you oppose havign sex in the back of moms car? DO you believe being moral intrinsicly means being opposed to ‘having sex in the back of moms car'(while shes driving it too)?
posted by guapoguy on
Michigan Matt’s patronizing and sophistic response to my previous posting is annoying, but it points out to me that I should have left out my reference to our current president. While polls indicate that my description of the president reflects the opinion of an overwhelming majority of Americans today, conservative and liberal alike, it nevertheless was gratuitous and detracted from the my primary point about the value of dealing with opponents in an open minded manner. I would emphasize to M-M, however, that hubristic denigration of my point of view neither negates it nor alters it nor invalidates its truth.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
guapoguy, I don’t think my response to the thrust of your comment was either patronizing or sophistry (more on that in a second)… what polls indicate -and you and many others avoid telling the whole truth- is that W’s rating is still 2x as good as Congress’s rating, 2/3rds of the governors serving, nearly 3/4trs of the state legislatures and almost (W at 31%) more than three times better than the people rate journalists (8%), lawyers (7%) or big business leaders (9%).
Go figure? Sure. I think those ratings reflect the unease people feel toward war in general, the economy and their future, etc. You’d like to use to indicate anyone who defends W is in the minority… which is ok, gay white moderate GOPers like me are used to others employing the debate tactic of isolated your opponent in the minority to discredit their point.
Overwhlemingly people don’t have a high favorable rating of anyone or anything related to govt -people are really pissed and some have used that anger to divide the country into blue, red, male, female, gay, breeders, morally upright and hedonistic secularists, etc.
You noted that your Mormon friend wanted to seek an isolated, insular community to protect his children. I noted the Mormons I know in the Midwest are very much a part of the real world, interacting and recruiting door2door, and want to protect their kids from base and corrupting Hollywood values.
Your point fails because you probably wrongly perceived why that Mormon and others seek refuge in “community”.
There is no hubristic denigration of your point here… but, like many who cite W’s polling #s in a vacumn, the denigration to your argument comes from your unwillingness to embrace the full truth in context. That’s your problem, guapoguy; not mine.
No sophistry there… we do agree that dealing with opponents in an open minded manner is the best course. I’d add, guapoguy, speaking directly to your opponent is a better course, as well… rather than your choice of voice in the above… it kind of sounded like you were addressing the crowd from a soapbox perch –would that be evidence of your patronizing character? Just wondering since you raised the issue.