The Dish

A reader writes:

As a former patient of Joseph Nicolosi, my parents and I were promised that I would be a very successful candidate for becoming straight (because "I was more masculine and never had sex with other guys"). Raised as a Christian evangelical, I knew I was different from the other boys at about six. I prayed and tried everything from charismatic healings, to ex-gay groups like Desert Streams and finally ended up in reparative therapy with Nicolosi. I spent two years of hard work, determination and money to become straight with Nicolosi.(The trick according to reparative therapy is to first find out how your dad mistreated you sometime in early childhood and try to heal and make peace with dad, next develop as many same-gender non-sexual friendships as possible, then get in touch with your masculine side by working out, playing sports and going to a gym! Add lots of pray and church and bang you will be straight!)
Needless to say, neither I nor any of the other ten guys in group therapy turned straight. At the beginning I was sure I was straight and told others I was "ex-gay". Was I wrong! I finally came to the point of asking myself, "Do I want to be happy as a gay man and damned to hell or lead a horrible, depressing life on the verge of suicide, celibate and all alone but on the way to heaven?" I chose the first route and have never looked back. (Many of us call ourselves "ex-ex-gays.")
I consider Nicolosi and the ex-gay leaders con-men and hucksters. They know the truth, but push ahead deceiving and hurting so many. This is just another example of "Quack Science," that so many Christianists are pushing on our country. From "Intelligent Design," to the denial of global warming, and refusal to allow stem-cell research, these zealots are trying to make science fit their literal interpretations of the Bible.

It’s also psychological child abuse when inflicted on young gay kids. Why are so many Christians so determined to believe that the astonishing and beautiful diversity of God’s creation is so evil?

A reader writes:

This comparison also works the other way, in regards to economic/domestic policy. While there are several Republican reforms that I (a left leaning independent) would like to see carried out, there is no way I could trust the current Republican party to implement them with proper care to ensure that everyone benefits, not just the business elite. Welfare reform and NAFTA come to mind as generally right-leaning concepts that I feel have been largely successful due to their reasoned execution by Bill Clinton – and I would have been willing to support him had he pursued school choice and a partial privatization of Social Security. Meanwhile, a welfare reform plan pushed by Bush and his (former) flunkies in Congress probably would have created more poverty, and I could not bring myself to support CAFTA as it barely made an attempt to address possible environmental and labor problems (the fact that its sponsors in the House, Tom Delay and Bill Jefferson, are the most corrupt Congressmen from either party didn’t help).

Bush on AIDS (see below) would be proof in the opposite direction. All this is more evidence to me, at least, that divided government is often the best. A Democrat forced to temper and enforce conservative policies can be as effective as a Republican forced to administer and moderate liberal policies. We might even get away with government doing much less. Alas, we have had a Republican lock-hold that has given us the worst of conservatism (executive branch abuse, arrogant war-bungling, Christianist social policy) with the the worst of liberalism (massive increases in government spending, regulation, entitlements and pork). Time for a check and balance, no?

Will Saletan is onto something, as usual. I live with major cognitive dissonance, since I have been largely persuaded that the way in which most animals are treated and harvested for meat is unethical at best and may even be one the great moral enormities of our time. When I think that pigs have the same intelligence and range of feelings that dogs have, and then think of what they are subjected to in factory farming, I feel I am morally delinquent in eating bacon. And yet I still do. What if there were an alternative? Will thinks it’s possible:

How? By growing meat in labs, the way we grow tissue from stem cells. That’s the great thing about cells: They’re programmed to multiply. You just have to figure out what chemical and structural environment they need to do their thing. Researchers in Holland and the United States are working on the problem. They’ve grown and saut√©ed fish that smelled like dinner, though FDA rules didn’t allow them to taste it. Now they’re working on pork. The short-term goal is sausage, ground beef, and chicken nuggets. Steaks will be more difficult. Three Dutch universities and a nonprofit consortium called New Harvest are involved. They need money. A fraction of what we spend on cattle subsidies would help.

I’d say the market could provide the money. There are lots of people like me who want to be moral but can’t resist the crackling in the pan. Give us an alternative, and you could make a fortune.

Sebastian Mallaby is absolutely right to welcome the Bush administration’s remarkable effort to deal with AIDS and HIV in the developing world. They will never get any credit from most AIDS groups, for purely political reasons. But the more than $15 billion that has been spent providing cheap and effective, often generic medicine, to people with AIDS is a real achievement. It is something Bill Clinton never did – and he could have prevented so many more deaths had he acted sooner. The missing link is still the stigma the Bush (and Clinton) administrations attach to people with HIV and AIDS by denying them any right to enter the U.S., even as tourists. It is very difficult to fight the stigma that propels many HIV infections, especially in Africa, when the U.S. government brandishes that stigma in its own immigration policies.

A reader writes:

This is Fleet Week in New York City, and the town is crawling with sailors and marines roaming the town. At 4: 00 a.m. on Sunday morning, I was walking, hand in hand, with a sweet guy I had just met at a bar, a Kurdish immigrant from Turkey. He was off to his home in Brooklyn; I was taking the subway to the ferry back to my home in Staten Island. Walking down Eighth Avenue, we bumped into two marines asking directions to the ferry terminal. Since they were out of cash, they were planning on walking the several miles to the terminal, even though they were visibly drunk — and heading in the wrong direction!

I told my Kurdish friend that I was going to catch a taxi instead of the subway and escort these marines to the ferry. The marines patiently waited while my Kurdish friend and I exchanged telephone numbers and kissed goodbye. On the ride to Whitehall ferry terminal, the marines offered profuse thanks for ensuring that they’d be back at base before their 6:00 a.m. deadline. During our conversation, one of the marines mentioned that his brother, a second lieutenant in the navy, is gay.

It was then I realized what a perfect American moment this was, a gay man, free to be out in a great city; a Kurdish immigrant, building a new life in America, free to express who he is; and two brave, very young men, totally accepting of the gay man who offered them a lift, enjoying the city—and ready to offer themselves, if needed, to defend the freedom we take for granted. The moment caused me to well up with emotion, but I calmly thanked them for their service and escorted them to the terminal. They thanked me again and offered their assistance if I ever needed it.

It’s a rough world out there; it’s good to know the marines have your back.

My impression over two decades is that most Americans, unlike some of their leaders, are tolerant, open, warm people – to immigrants, to minorities, to each other. I focus a lot on this blog on what’s still wrong in the world. It’s good every now and again to acknowledge what’s right. And to thank those servicemembers who secure our ability to live here, in freedom.

From where I blog, yesterday, 2.06 pm, Washington DC. Only fair. Thanks for all of them.

May 7, I linked to this gripping account of the horrifying war that has been raging in Congo for several years. I’m glad to say that my corporate overlords have devoted real space and time to the story this week. It’s their cover. It will doubtless raise awareness of the matter still further. It should.

(Photo: James Nachtwey/ VII/ for Time.)

"There is no such thing as a homosexual. We are all heterosexual. Our body was designed for the opposite sex," – Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

There is a refreshing clarity about this, because it helps remind people that the Christianist movement is not about tolerating gay people, but about insisting that they do not exist, and where they do insist in existing, describing them as liars, mentally ill, or "objectively disordered." Check out this Fred Barnes piece about the latest attempt to prevent gay couples from having any legal protections throughout America. You’ll notice one thing: nowhere is there any idea that gay people exist, that they might be a part of this debate, or that they should be treated with any respect. In fact, gay people don’t appear in an article … about gay people. To Fred, alas, gay people simply cannot exist (they’re just sinful or mentally ill heterosexuals), and so an argument is made without even an attempt to offer a proposal for including them in our national life. Nicolosi, for his part, urges theories of child therapy that have been regarded as psychological abuse by all mainstream psychologists and psychiatrists for the past thirty years. Money quote:

The audience of more than 700 sat rapt in the pews of a Fort Lauderdale church. Some held Bibles. Others took notes. Nicolosi went on to tell them that fathers could help their sons stay straight by bonding through rough-and-tumble games, such as tossing them in the air.
"Even if [the dad] drops the kid and he cracks his head, at least he’ll be heterosexual," Nicolosi said, chuckling. "A small price to pay."

Or they can be beaten into submission. Or driven to suicide. A small price to pay. And it’s paid all the time in this country and around the world.

Richford, Vermont, 1.20 pm.

Can the executive branch now enter private property without a warrant if it believes there is something going on that could faintly be related to the war on terror? Seems so. And the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger enthusiastically concurs:

The Supreme Court’s purpose in Brigham was to clear up confusions among lower courts about "the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard governing warrantless entry by law enforcement in an emergency situation." I’d call the terror war an emergency. Brigham said the Court has held that officers can make a warrantless entry "onto private property" to fight a fire, investigate its cause, prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, and engage in pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Al Qaeda qualifies as all four. Yet another precedent cited for "obviating the requirement of a warrant" is "the need to protect or preserve life." That sounds like the point of the war on terror, but some may disagree.

So from now for the indefinite future, the government has "emergency" powers to violate your private property without a warrant, tap phones without a warrant, jail suspects indefinitely without due process, and even torture them? Eveyone concedes that some surrender of liberty is necessary in this new world. But the glee with which some conservatives greet the expansion of unlimited government power is truly remarkable.