The estimable Peter LaBarbera commented on my post about GLAAD. Some folks here replied with varying levels of snark and/or mockery. LaBarbera does tend to bring that out in people.
But I think his comment deserves a bit more, because I think his assumption helps clarify the distance between us. He says, "When will the entertainment industry catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic FORMER homosexual character who is content with his sexuality in a major film? The "gay-as-victim" shtick is getting so tiresome."
I couldn't agree more with his final sentence. That is one of the things that distinguishes IGF, I hope. But what about those former homosexuals who are content with their sexuality?
It's here that I think LaBarbera and his supporters are at odds with the vast majority of America. it's not that we don't think there are people who describe themselves as ex-gays, or even who have found someone of the opposite sex to marry and are content with, even proud of their lives.
But very few people think those folks are "former" homosexuals. Rather, I think most of us agree with Alan Chambers. Chambers, who is the president of Exodus Intenational, is candid that he continues to "struggle" with his homosexuality, but that his religion helps him to resist that temptation.
While most Americans understand sexual temptation, they don't "struggle" with their sexual orientation, and I doubt very many today imagine God demands that exertion of homosexuals any longer. If homosexuals want to make that deal with their God, they certainly can, but that God is looking increasingly unreasonable. Why should secular gays be in the same class as Catholic priests? Even American Catholics are evenly split on priestly celibacy, with 55% of all Americans saying that rule appears to have outlived any usefulness it might once have had.
I don't know what kind of God LaBarbera has in mind, but I think the deity he and Chambers worship is not the one the rest of us envision. If some TV producer wants to do a modern-day Thorn Birds, with a gay man in the role of the priest (maybe Richard Chamberlain is still available), he might give it a try. But I think that God might get a lot less sympathy than the one in the original could count on.
8 Comments for “America’s Reasonable God”
posted by CPT_Doom on
Well if Peter were paying attention, he would know there was just such a character, on Big Love last season. The eldest daughter, Sarah, of the polygamous family found herself pregnant and began looking for an adoptive family. One of the couples she interviewed was a traditional-looking Mormon couple, until it was revealed the wife was obsessive-compulsive and the husband was struggling with “SSA” (which he helpfully identifies).
Of course Peter would not have liked the program, because Sarah mentions that she doesn’t “know what the solution to the gay thing is, but it’s not to have gay men marry women.” Smart girl that Sarah.
Interestingly, the show is produced by openly gay men and has Dustin Lance Black as one of its writers.
posted by MAS on
I am in general agreement with this post, particularly the empirical claim that Peter’s unique brad of religion is not likely to garner sympathy from the American public. The one aspect that is missing, and that I think rightly drives a lot of the LGBT community’s loathing of ex-gay programs, is the deep psychological damage that such programs can due. It’s one thing if the decision to struggle with one’s orientation is made in an autonomous and psychologically affirming way and entirely another if it is induced by self-loathing and psychological abuse (particularly among young people who are struggling with their self-identity anyway!). Unfortunately, I think many ex-gay programs use the latter approach since the former is not likely to be very effective. The objection to ex-gay portrayals is that they legitimate what are deeply irresponsible programs, rather than fairly innocuous picture of ex-gay therapy David implicates in this post.
posted by Pat on
Was that really him? Either way, I probably should not have been snarky.
Anyway, it’s good that LaBarbera’s point of view is becoming outdated fast, and fewer people are finding the need to be ex-gay, instead of finding out the hard way that it simply doesn’t work.
posted by Damon on
For LaBarbera’s argument to hold up, he completely ignores that one of cable’s most popular shows, “The Shield,” featured a character that went through “ex-gay therapy”. For seven seasons Officer Julien Lowe presented himself as someone who could “conquer his demons.” While those of us in the gay advocacy community spoke up about the inaccuracy of such a portrayal, LaBarbera should have been out celebrating the recently concluded “The Shield.”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi CPT Doom and Damon!
You have made it obvious that Peter LaB ISN’T paying attention.
You’re right about those shows.
But what P. LaB would like to think is that heterosexuals and ex gays are victims. He and several others seem to think it’s a commercial bonanza for studios and show runners that the public cares enough to make ratings go higher.
MAS and Pat rightly point out that ex gay programs are not effective or successful and in fact do a great deal of harm.
The ex gay industry is successful at spreading misinformation and unrealistic expectations, and at best these are the only results that warrant attention.
Otherwise, the industry itself isn’t based in scientific research and result, but religious coercion and intimidation.
It requires serious REPRESSION and no medical or psychiatric body would EVER condone complete sexual repression as healthy.
So to have any tv show be so irresponsible as to portray this as desired, popularly accepted and the healthy response to homosexuality isn’t up to Hollywood to portray as important or acceptable.
Funny that Peter LaB says that gay victimization is a ‘schtick’ and is getting old and no one should care about it anymore. So this is opposed to ‘ex gay victimization?’
I’ll remember that when I think of Sean Kennedy, Scotty Joe Weaver, Angie Zapata, Lawrence King or young Carl Walker-Hoover or Jaheem Herrera.
The worst fate that ex gays have to worry about is irrelevance.
And Hollywood isn’t obligated to do anything about that.
posted by TS on
“The estimable Peter LaBarbera…”
Nice use of the word estimable! You don’t hear that classy word everyday.
posted by Throbert McGee on
This is good timing — an evangelical Christian woman whom I’ve known since we were in high school 20 years ago just asked me what I actually think about the “ex-gay” thing.
I responded: “Give me a few days to answer this properly — it’s complicated.” And I added: “Just to give you a hint of where my feelings are, remember The Music Man? And how even though Prof. Harold Hill was a charlatan and his ‘think system’ didn’t truly work, by the closing credits the town of River City was a friendlier, more interesting, and altogether better place because of him? Well, that’s sort of my take on ex-gay ministries, but I’ll explain in more detail when I have time to compose my thoughts.”
The other reason it’s complicated is that she’s an evangelical Protestant who’d mainly be familiar with Exodus, and I also wanted to give her my take on NARTH and such groups as the Catholic-run “Courage” and the Jewish-run “Jonah” (which focus on encouraging a lifetime of unrelieved celibacy — but at least that’s less overtly misleading than the ex-gay approach!).
And I will certainly be linking Carpenter’s essay for her. There was also, some years ago, a surprisingly balanced story on salon.com about ex-gays, and how they can help gay people who’ve totally immersed themselves in a slow-mo suicide of promiscuity, drug abuse, etc., albeit at the expense of encouraging them to “live a lie.”
posted by Penis Enlargement Pills on
Penis Enlargement Vimax, Vigrx Plus, Prosolution may be up best penis enlargement pills available, and can increase the size of the penis between 3-4 inches with as little as 2 weeks. http://www.pill-penisenlargement.com