I've seen this story develop and didn't really pay attention much. It would surprise me if it were less that a kosher camp in Tennessee or it was simply another jihad from the left. From some reason I checked the NYT story above, and as usual, it isn't the point of the story but a detail which is the most interesting. In this case:
Although Zach wrote only a handful of entries about the Refuge program, all posted before he arrived there in the Memphis suburbs on June 6, his words have been forwarded on the Internet over and over, inspiring online debates, news articles, sidewalk protests and an investigation into Love in Action by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services in response to a child abuse allegation. The investigation was dropped when the allegation proved unfounded, a spokeswoman for the agency said. (emphasis mine)
According to the New York Times (that house organ of Christian fundamentalists) this whole thing blew up over the comments of a kid who HASN'T EVEN BEEN THERE with everyone drawing conclusions about what is going on. DCFS made an investigation (and found nothing) based on the testimony of someone NOT EVEN THERE. Now, I'm not going to pretend that the parents of this camp are all lily white here, but it is obvious this whole scandal was started based on comments of someone not even there, albeit who was upset at what was going on.
This sounds more like an ideological-based attack by the media and certain groups than anything merited by what's going on. It seems the attack is more because people have a problem with teaching someone not to be gay than any serious claim of abuse. That's the story here, people lobbied for these investigations because they believe teaching someone not to be gay is ipso facto abuse. They tried to use the blog posts (which were before he got there) and then pointed to some of the less than fun rules. But in the end, it appears this is an attack on the idea that someone can change from being gay.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
Zach's father has been on talk shows talking about enrolling his son in an ex-gay camp against his son's will. So even his right wing religious father disagrees with you, about it being fiction.
How come ALL comments to this thread have been deleted? Every time I read a John Bambenek authored thread where he uses his Christianity to assault and demean others, all comments against him get deleted.
2 - John Bambenek
Children are able to be taken all sorts of places without their permission... that's irrelevant.
Talk to the editors about it Steve.
3 - John Bambenek
Also, I used the NYT and not Christianity... and I've not been assaulting or demeaning anyone.
Anytime someone criticized a tenet of your theology you take it as hate... why is that?
4 - Steve S
Anytime someone criticized a tenet of your theology you take it as hate... why is that?
I've shared little of my theology with you, for you to attack it. No, you attack and assault the civil liberties of my family (this is not an attack but simply stating fact which can be evidenced by previous threads). You support forced indoctinration of Christianity against someone's will. (This is not an attack and is simply stating fact, as evidenced by this post here alone.)
I've not been assaulting or demeaning anyone.
But that's all that you've done, since you've arrived here. You, yourself state that you don't know if someone is born gay, but you have no problem assaulting differing orientations on a spiritual level.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that that becomes an assault on a person's identity. Yet it gets to remain, and counter points attacking your ideology (which is a choice and you are not born with) always get deleted as personal attacks.
5 - Phillip Winn
The comments should not have been deleted, but they were all essentially irrelevant given the editing of the post.
The initial problem was with the post, and we (the editors) are still working out the best methods for handling such circumstances.
Sorry.
6 - Phillip Winn
Steve, comments should only be deleted as personal attacks when they contain actual personal attacks. There is always a way to state things that avoids the no-personal-attacks rule.
But the comments here were deleted as the result of an error and major revisions to the post.
7 - John Bambenek
Huh, I support forced indoctrination? Where did you get that? I've said repeatedly I'm not saying the parents or this place aren't douchebags, but this scandal about it's abuse is a fraud.
I'm not assaulting anyones orientations... I'm assaulting this stupid scandal that really is about people having a disagreement over an idea.
8 - Silas Kain
Back to the heart of the post. As I said in the thread about that NY coalition's comparison of homosexuality to smoking: I think that humans are far too complex to generalize about sexual orientation. Some are compelled to make the choice to be straight because it is easier to cope within the society they live. Others may choose to be gay as a form of revolt against family or authority. It certainly happens. All in all, though, the majority of heterosexuals and homosexuals didn't make the orientation decision. It's a part of their personality and biology. It's just like being Sicilian. One would not choose to be that way, one just is.
I'm ambivalent when it comes to these conversion camps because I think we tread on dangerous ground when we take liberties with a parent's right to parent. In all honesty I don't think most parents would want their child to be gay and that includes gay parents. It's not an easy life and it disturbs me that those who don't understand the complexities of human sexuality can just assume that through deprogramming and a commitment to Christ one can change.
9 - John Bambenek
Well I'm not sure about the whole concept either, but parents move against their kids will, put them in schools against their will, make them wear certain clothes against their will, and the list goes on.
If you want to talk about what level of autonomy a kid should have, but that is independent of this "scandal"
10 - Dave Nalle
There is a point to be made here, but it's not about fraud, it's about the media working as willing pawns of activists who want to blow something out of proportion to push their agenda.
And Steve, Bambenek may be a Christian - frankly I can't tell for sure how religious he is from his posts - but this one doesn't use Christianity or arguments from a relgious perspective at all.
Dave
11 - Steve S
whatever folks. Someday you all may come back to this thread, realize that changing one's orientation is NOT like changing one's clothes or school. And the removal of one's free will from the decision will become more readily apparent as being harmful and destructive.
Then maybe one's eyes will roll and they may say to themselves, 'did I really make those ignorant, hurtful statements?'
or maybe not.
12 - Dave Nalle
>>whatever folks. Someday you all may come back to this thread, realize that changing one's orientation is NOT like changing one's clothes or school. And the removal of one's free will from the decision will become more readily apparent as being harmful and destructive.<<
Steve, even Bambenek hasn't argued that what's being done to this kid is a good idea.
On the other hand, there are peoplke who have changed their sexual orientation, either as a result of imposed conditioning or as a conscious act of will. Clearly it's not easy, and it may not be desirable, but it is possible.
Dave
13 - Natalie Davis
Actually, Mr. Bambenek, it is two things: Worry for Zach and dismay at so-called reparative therapy being imposed on anyone against their will. Mr. Kain is right -- Zach is a minor and parents have the legal right to do what they want to him. Whatever the court's ruling, many people believe that it is potentially abusive. I have done a lot of research on the topic and can tell you that many adults constitute that what happened to them in ex-gay ministry or reparative therapy was abuse -- sometimes physical (although that is less true these days; electroshock therapy, which has been used by "therapists" in the past, seems to have gone away, thanks to the anti-ex-gay 'scandals you mock; and a good friend of mine experienced it firsthand), often spiritual (many ex-ex-gays tell me that these ministries drove them away from God), sometimes sexual (check out the cases of ex-gay ministers Colin Cook and Michael Johnston for two damning examples), often emotional (many ex-ex-gays report being ripped apart emotionally while in these ministries -- some even have suicidal thoughts, and some do kill themselves).
If these programs and ministries are so good, so beneficial, so worthy, why is Exodus International, the ex-gay netowrk, so reluctant to release actual statistics? Many of its spokes-ex-gays boast about thousands of people experiencing change, but in fact, the number is exceedingly small -- and most of them work for ex-gay ministries and fundamentalist Christian groups (and thus have a financial stake in promoting it). And so many of its proponents bring scandal upon themselves: In addition to Cook (slept with people he was "counseling") and Johnston (preached the ex-gay mantra while still shtupping men whome he may not have informed of his HIV+ status), John Paulk, national poster boy for the movement, was found in a Washington, DC, gay bar under questionable circumstances in 2000. Psychologist Richard Cohen, president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), was permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association in 2002 for his unethical practices.
As I have said since first learning of Zach's dilemma in early June, this story and scandal is about so much more than one teenage boy. The controversy over ex-gay ministries is a long one -- and it's justified.
I know some people who believe they have changed. If they are happy, I am happy for them. And I know many, many more who tell tales of horror about ex-gay experiences. So I am not convinced that the vast majority of people can "turn straight" -- too many people, even diehard believers, come to the eventual realization that they have been manipulated and that they have endured a lot of pain and swallowed a lot of crap and have wasted a large portion of their lives.
In 1999, I published an award-winning investigative piece on the phenomenon of ex-gay ministries that includes a wide range of viewpoints -- even ex-gay people who are part of the story say I was fair and balanced in reporting it. Give it a read and then tell me that people don't have a right to be scandalized.
14 - John Bambenek
DCFS doesn't investigate things because of concern about reparative therapy... they investigate abuse, and it's clear that abuse wasn't happening hear no matter how much screaming was going on in the media and from activists. Abuse is a legal word with a legal definition if you want to bring the courts and DCFS into this... and this is no where close.
I have no idea whether these things work or don't, what kind of effects they have, or whatever. That was not the point. If you want to engage these ministries in terms of whether or not they are helpful, then do so in the realm of ideas, not by cooking up claims of abuse and sending out DCFS.
15 - Natalie Davis
As I've said, many people sincerely believe abuse can be involved. Decision or no, many people are not convinced of LIA-R's honesty or methods. And truth be told, DCFS doesn't get 'em all right.
16 - John Bambenek
Abuse can be involved anytime. I sincerely believe that abuse can be involved in schools, does that mean I can put every one of them under investigation?
I believe parents can abuse their kids, does that mean every parents needs to be investigated?
17 - Natalie Davis
Of course not. And to be fair, not every ex-gay ministry was investigated -- only one about which many people had (and still have) grave concerns. I believe an investigation was warranted given the secrecy that surrounds these types of establishments. People were worried and afraid -- yes, about the issue in general, but about this specific boy's circumstance as well -- and DCFS looked into the matter. Apparently LIA-R was able to pass DCFS's test: Whether the organization was able to manage it honestly or through some kind of chicanery we may never know. I find it interesting, for instance, that its web site said that it offered "therapy" and suddenly changed the word to "counseling." And the stories of people who say they were harmed by LIA-R should not be ignored.
18 - John Bambenek
Worry and fear are not and should not be cause to start investigations... facts should.
If you want to investigate the people who say they were harmed, do that, don't investigate a place based on claims of a kid who WASN'T EVEN THERE YET.
Is truth in packaging so hard?
19 - Natalie Davis
Investigations are launched to look into allegations and to attempt to determine what DCFS believes the facts are.
20 - Silas Kain
For those where this aversion therapy has worked I have to question where on the Kinsey scale they were to begin with. I had a childhood friend who was put through aversion therapy. This guy was a beautiful, gifted person who had so much going for him. His parents never could accept that he was gay and put him through this therapy. He was dead within two years by his own hand. His mother died shortly thereafter and to this very day his father regrets having put his son through the horrors.
Again, I'm not saying that some therapies won't work. It depends on the individual. Do I advocate it? Yes, if the case warrants it I do. I think what's important is to recognize the complexities of sexuality. I know I sound like a broken record but what in humanity is black and white? We live in a multi-hued world. If there were a 'heterosexual' child who obviously had homosexual tendencies I would condone teaching the kid that being gay is not the end of the world. Being true to one's self is far more important than being assimilated into a culture on false pretenses. If we spent less time debating the sexuality issue and more time on education and tolerance we'd be a hell of a lot better off and wouldn't have as many screwed up kids.
21 - John Bambenek
Kinsey was a fraud.
22 - Bruce Garrett
Are you saying, genius, that the kid should go in and be abused first, before he can worry his little self about being abused? Nice. And what would you tell him afterwards then? Sorry kid?
People in good conscience read the rules he posted, read the stories of other LIA survivors, including Peterson Tonasco's in which he wrote that John Smid admitted to him that he's mixing teens with adults who have engaged in bestiality in group sessions, and were horrified enough to contact the authorities. You may not see the problem here, but that doesn't mean people who did were cynically manipulating the system.
Tennessee has a high standard for "abuse", and this outcome in that context is not all that surprising. But that's a definition of abuse that regards the emotional impact of abuse as non-existent. If it's not physical, it isn't abuse. If you can't see the wound then it isn't there. But what John Smid is doing to gay teens against their will is child sexual abuse regardless of whether or not the bruises and wounds are visible. It is no different then if the parents had decided to raise little Johnny as little Sally because they always wanted a girl. But then...I think that may be legal in Tennessee too.
It was a noble try, the part of some people in Memphis who still have a conscience, and who think the lives of gay kids are worth defending too. To assert that this was nothing more then political posturing is grotesque.
23 - Natalie Davis
Well said, Bruce.
24 - PseudoErsatz
The larger issue is whether a minor child can claim s/he knows what is better for their life than their legal parent/gardian. This issue has the potential of granting "more rights" than necessary to children. Speaking from personal experience, as a surly, mouth-breathing slacker of 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17 years-old, I would have loved to "run" my life (make all sorts of important personal decisions) at any of those ages. During those ages, I already knew the important facts of life--1) my parents were idiots, and 2)the world came about for my instantaneous pleasure. But because I was not able to convince even the family pet that I should be able to legally challenge my parents and their hideously silly notions and oh-so-bass-ackward rules, I did not end up as a ego-centric little dictator I would have surely been destined to become. I think what John is getting at is that the things are a-changing to the point where some surly, mouth-breathing slacker--who mutters certain PC words, or is convinced through popular culture or through cultural indoctrination that he is she is of a certain persuasion--could actually be able to bring some kind of legal action (read: state acting on behalf of the minor child) upon his or her parents/guardians just because they don't let him or her run their own life, then there is great danger indeed.
25 - John Bambenek
Bruce,
Thank you for once again demostrating the incapability of having an intelligent discussion anymore. All your side can do is twist words and set up straw men. Can't you come up with some facts first?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Before people start getting thrown in jail, I'd like SOME crime to be committed first.
This isn't Minority Report.