Can gays change? An Oak Park debate

What’s forbidden in the matter of black-white relations is mandated in gay-straight ones, namely a genetic explanation.  As it is not allowed in general discourse to allege racial cause for black behavior, so it is required to say gays are born gay without hope of change.

See how the issue is argued in Oak Park, Illinois:

At the time, I didn’t believe there would be any opportunity for a discussion, but rather a one-way stream of hate, which would have likely led to health care-like forum shout-downs,

wrote Oak Park Trustee Ray Johnson about the Buzz Cafe book–author appearance to talk about gays becoming straight through prayer and therapy.  The “hate” involved would be the contention that gays can change, vs. their being destined from birth to be gay.

[Buzz-owner] Laura Maychruk had a right to offer a forum to promote hate, but people certainly had a right to protest the poor taste of that event, and Maychruk had the right (and I believe the responsibility to her community) to cancel that event,

wrote Oak Park resident Rachel Weaver in the same issue of the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park & River Forest, which had run the story about cancellation of the author-appearance, the author being a black Christian clergyman of inexact provenance [oops, see below], the book self-published (and Amazon-available) as Transition: From Homosexual to Preacher

Again, the hate is the claim that gays can change and are not irreversibly programmed, a claim that Weaver compared to promoting “the Tuskegee Experiment” and “forced conversion of all Jews to Christianity.”

What really gets me . . . is the suggestion that people offended that Laura would offer to hype this book and make Mr. Williams money from his hatred of gay people shouldn’t have [told] her [their objections].

wrote David McCammond-Watts, referring to the reaction that led to the cancellation.  Again, the hatred accusation relates to the claim that gays can change.

We need not even consider the reaction there would be if a speaker argued for a genetic cause for blacks’ low marks in school or rates of incarceration.  It’s not going to happen, any more than the author appeared at Buzz Cafe arguing against it for gays.

Later: Not so uncertain provenance at that.  Williams co-founded his “church without walls” in 2005, calling it “Holy Remnant International Ministries.”  He was commissioned, as it were, by Rev. Leroy Elliott, pastor of the New Greater St. John Community M.B. Church, at 3101 W Warren Blvd. on the West Side, since 1978. 

Rev. Elliott: 

Rev. Leroy Elliott

Missionary Baptists go a way back, to the early 1800s, in fact, per Wikipedia, which says their goal was

to organize para-church institutions for the promotion and funding of evangelism (particularly in foreign lands and on the American western frontier)

etc.

Obama vs. the individual

Creepy collectivism in these lines from the classroom speech?

If you quit on school, you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country….

Don’t ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America [is] about people…who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best….

What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?…

Someone like him, he means, making it explicit:

I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down. Don’t let your family down or your country down.

I? Us? Then family and country. Wow. “Creepy” is right, “the president as national dad.”  Straight from the shoulder of the Maximum Leader.

Or as Dr. Helen asks, “Who Cares What Presidents Think?”

Rather than this “What can you do for your country?” stuff, she refers to Milton Friedman:

The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny.

The organismic, ‘what you can do for your country’ implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them.

He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors, and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.

Can you imagine getting elected representative of the 7th Illinois district on such a platform?  Telling people about their glorious personal responsibility?  After 70–plus years of creeping creepy collectivism?