From today’s (02/13/06) broadcast of Family News In Focus:
Love Won Out is a ministry of Focus on the Family that proclaims same-sex attraction doesn’t have to be a life-sentence and uses conferences around the nation to convey that message. Pastor Gene Moniz is with the Evangelical Free Church of St. Louis County.
“My take is that the two words that homosexuality is ‘curable’ and ‘preventable’ angered some people.”
Melissa Fryrear, one of several former homosexuals on the Love Won Out team, confirms that gay and lesbian activists don’t want their message that homosexuality is genetic and impossible to change contradicted.
“When you have thousands of the people out there proclaiming, ‘yes, I have changed,’ that certainly undermines a position that they try to stand on.”
The Love Won Out staff is used to gay activists trying to intimidate them. Former gay, Mike Haley, directs the Love Won Out program at Focus.[*]
Sure, we could do the semantics dance since Fryrear is only counting ex-gays who “proclaim” their change. If you add up all the ex-gays in the closet about their status as ex-gays I suppose that’s how we arrive at the “hundreds of thousands” figure.
Dan,
When ex-gay groups can’t even keep their numbers straight, no pun intended or was it. If they can’t keep the numbers straight. How on earth can they make people straight?
Thousands? Where have they made these proclamations? I think if you added up all the testimonies from all the websites of all the various member groups of Exodus – and then eliminated all the duplicates – it would be true to say that DOZENS proclaim “yes, I have changed”.
Of course, that also includes all the ones that still “struggle with same-sex attraction”. Since they still have found that same-sex attraction is a “life sentence”, they can’t be the ones Ms. Fryrear is talking about.
I’m more concerned about the fact that they claim it’s preventable! I have read that, inferred, but never heard it said quite that boldly. Is that just me?
You have to remember who generally attends these conferences.
I personally believe its scared parents and “Christian” activists.
The roadshow isn’t intended to actually help anyone, its pure politics and fundraising.
How tired I am of hearing how I need to be “cured” and how homosexuality can be “prevented”.
Don’t these people realize that we’re in the 21st century?
I am of the firm opinion that history will judge the so-called “ex-gay” movement quite harshly. One day historians will look back and wonder why in the world these “ex-gay” folks were allowed to exploit the pain and suffering of gays and lesbians who are alienated from their families, their churches, their friends, etc.
Let’s face it: those who are dissatisfied with their same-sex orientation are generally those who have not been able to integrate their sexuality in to their lives. In other words, already-self-hating homosexuals are most likely to be drawn to “ex-gay” groups. If gays and lesbians have a positive, integrated sexual identity then they are less prone to seek “help” from “ex-gay” groups.
When anti-gay groups are willing to sacrifice one of their own to a “ex-straight” program, and can prove that sexual orientation is so easily changed that even the most macho he-man can be made homosexual, perhaps I would be less hostile to their cause. Brainwashing and teaching self-hate are the only tools that the “ex-gay” groups have.
Here’s to a future where “ex-gay” organizations are a thing of the past and all gays and lesbians are allowed to embrace their sexuality without self-censoring or self-prejudice. Here’s to the day when we can all respect one another for who and what we are, not who or what we “should” be.
Daniel, why not just headline it
Melissa is welcome, of course, to post line and verse at ExGayWatch to show otherwise.Now, what university do you have to go to again to become a “Sexuality and Gender Expert” at Focus on the Family?No, seriously?
Grantdale,
Melissa earned exactly the same degree that I have, from the same institution: a Master of Divinity degree from Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. I can assure you that the curriculum does not prepare anyonbe to become a ‘sexuality and gender expert.’ Although I retain respect for many at the school, I consider that Asbury Seminary – like most mainstream evangelical institutions – has its head buried in the sand re: sexuality. One of the professors – in 1999 – tried to cast a demon out of me (admittedly at my request) to rid me of my impure homosexual impulses. Other faculty would more likely lean toward less spooky pop-psych Christian methods like ‘healing of memories’ or more traditional reparative therapy. One thing I can say for certain is that Asbury Seminary does not provide classes – let alone a concentrated course of study – on sexuality and gender.
Jonathan,
Although I tend to criticize ex-gay groups more than I sing their praises, I doubt your analysis of them is accurate. They teach self-hate? Which one’s exactly? That isn’t the message I’ve heard from them and I’ve been involved in enough to have gotten a good taste of what they are about. I’d say they teach self-denial, self-discipline, but not self-hate.
And let’s face it: those who are dissatisfied with their same-sex orientation are generally those who do not want to integrate their sexuality into their lives because they have chosen their religious commitments as a higher priority and those commitments preclude an integrated homosexuality. Don’t agree witht them? Fine, but don’t overlook the choice that ex-gay people make as a result of self-hatred. They might even love themselves a little too much!
Thanks Rick — but I knew where Fryrear had been :)The question was rhetorical: Melissa Fryrear is no expert. Focus labels her as one.And to be perfectly honest, I’m not moved — at all — by a Master of Divinity degree. Actually, I have one myself. Online. Free… These are, of couse, very different to working up through a course in philosophy. At least, that what a few friendly local religious professionals claim.If it’s not a rude question — but what caused you to undertake that, and there?And I take it you’re not currently working as a professional religious leader 🙂
Xaiven,Interesting point… when does (obsessive) self-hate become selfish?One of the most bizarre aspects I find about so many exgay attitudes is this deep resentment, demanding self-contemplation, gripping desire to conform and a polarised view of anyone who does not (or will not) agree to do likewise.Yes, selfish. That will do.
Grantdale –
No, it’s not a rude question 😉 I chose to get an M.Div. degree there (through a 3-year, post-bachelor course of study in residence) because I was an evangelical pursuing ministry in a Methodist denomination. Among conservative seminaries, Asbury has a reputation for blending strong academics with spiritual formation. I got a Doctor of Ministry degree from the same school right before my self-deluded life imploded and I started coming out. After getting kicked out of that Methodist denomination for being gay – and re-grouping for a few years – and rejecting the conservative/evangelical worldview – I gravitated to the liberal/progressive United Church of Christ where I serve as an openly gay pastor.
Thanks RickI didn’t want the question to seem rude, but I’m always curious why people decide take up a specific M.Div.And, oh — according to many (M.Div. Asbury…) you aren’t working as a religious professional.UCC. Open gay pastor. See, that isn’t a real religion, and no-one can be gay Christian; let alone a gay Christian pastor!Life’s soooo simple when everything’s in black and white 🙂
Hey Grantdale,
Putting aside the question of whether self-hate can ever not be obsessive, I think that a person who is doing the things that they think will help them to root out any unwanted homosexual tendencies are pursuing their own image of self-actualization. I don’t think they do this because they hate themselves, but because they love themselves, and I noted that they might love themselves a little too much half jokingly.
People disagree about the image of self-actualization (pardon the psychobabble). Its fine to disagree, but I want to emphasize that we shouldn’t miscontrue those identifying as ex-gay as purely motivated by self-loathing. Someone sincerely pursuing that kind of transformation, whether it can be done or not, is probably just as likely to be doing it because they care about their religious commitments and their own potential.
Granted, there are those who are motivated by fear of rejection.
Returning to the first point of my original comment, it is not true that the organizations are teaching people to hate themselves. There maybe some organization that does, which is why I asked which ones specifically. In my experience of ex-gay groups, they aren’t teaching people to hate themselves, and the literature from exgay groups will bear that conclusion out. What they are teaching is obedience to certain values and a practice of self-discipline in relation to sexuality.
xaiven,
I’m not sure I agree. I do think that they do actively encourage hating an aspect of the participant, their sexual orientation.
If orientation is a changable as shoes, this would not be a problem. If you hate your shoes, take ’em off and get new ones.
But if, however, some find changing orientation to be as easy as changing skin color, it is a very short step from hating your skin color to hating yourself.
So, too, encouraging someone to hate an aspect of themself that they seem to be unable to eliminate from themself, is very close to encouraging someone to hate themself.
Xaiven,This site is full of the falsehoods, deceptions, and flat out lies told about homosexuality by exgay groups and exgay individuals. That is teaching self-hate — how else would you describe it?And I do not buy the nonsense that if someone is able to claim a (parallel) religious commitment that this somehow makes the actual viewpoints and behaviour “rational” or “not driven by fear”. Having a basis in religious belief certainly doesn’t automatically make acceptable or legitimate any subsequential behaviour.Frankly, a history of religion is full of too many examples of irrationality, imposed fear and loathing, and scapegoating — any of which may be re-labeled as “religious commitment”. But that does not alter what the viewpoints actually are. I don’t give religion a free ride on this regard, simply because it is religion.If asking that members should follow particular religious viewpoints, or show self-discipline, was all that exgay groups did… I doubt if I (or many here at XGW) could care less. I’m not bothered by Jewish or Hundu dietry laws. I have utterly no interest in vows of priestly celibacy. Or wearing yellow robes, or jumping around with tamborines. Or facing Mecca five times a day.But that is not what exgay groups do. They are spreading lies (and the fear and loathing that follows) about my life — and that has stuff all to do with religion.
“We love when the gay activists come inside because the message that they are hearing is very different than the one they expect to hear.”
I know it’s like shooting fish in the barrel, but I call BS.
Since I love another woman and stand taller than a doormat, I think I qualify as a “gay activist” to them. And I was not remotely surprised when I went there a few years ago, except by the sheer amount of unnecessary pain they were raining down upon our heads and those of our families.
https://princesswitch.livejournal.com/191183.html
Grantdale –
Yes, I do hear that line of argument from former colleagues – LOL.
Oh well – I’ve never been happier and many of them still seem miserable.
RIck
Hey Tim,
It is expected that religious organizations would encourage members to restrain themselves from behaviors they deem sinful and encourage people to seek change if it is possible. Is it possible? I won’t say because I’m not sure, but it is sensible that a person who believes it would pursue it. Self-hatred is more than being dissatisfied with an aspect of your personality. Granted the dissonance between the way a person is and the way a person wants to be creates feelings of disappointment in an individual, as even I experienced when I was apart of these groups. That isn’t self-hatred. I would venture to guess that even you have certain things about your personality that you would like to change but find it difficult to do so. The difference to someone pursuing change in sexual orientation would be in degree, not in kind. Equating sexual orientation and skin color is somewhat difficult. Skin color does not have any bearing on a person’s drives toward behavior, whereas orientation does.
Nevertheless, I understand that you are equating the difficulty, or supposed impossibility of change. That remains to be seen.
And Grantdale,
I am tempted to agree with you that there are many falsehoods coming from individuals representing the exgay movement, but I can’t say that what they are saying is intentionally malicious in the sense that they know those things to be false and yet they tell them as if they are true. Yet what I responded to before was to the charge that exgay organizations are using brainwashing and [the teaching of] self-hatred as tools. As to brainwashing, either we all do it when we make arguments and try to be convincing, or else they aren’t brain washing, and as to teaching self-hatred, as a whole, that isn’t their message, even if the message I do get from them isn’t one I agree with.
As to your comments regarding the rationality and legitimacy of people pursuing their religious beliefs, I think you are only partially correct. If someone has a religious commitment, it is perfectly rational for them to behave according to that religious commitment, even if the content of the beliefs held are irrational. That is just a matter of consistency that they would do so. It is the content of their religious commitment that is either rational or irrational, but disagreeing with the belief does not make it irrational, and rational beliefs need not be true either.
I doubt that religion of any sort is asking for a free ride from you, just a fair hearing and that it something much more difficult to do. If “they” are spreading lies about your life, then that should be heard too, as you’ve expressed, but I ask who “they” are, and whether they represent a movement any more than a gay individual represents gay communities in general.
Xaiven,I take it you have read the various postings here by Exodus et al people? Postings where their falsehoods have been laid out, clearly? This site is read by exgay people.Yet, we find… the same falsehoods repeated. These are not matters of opinion — such as, homosexuality is a sin; or even what is the definition of a homosexual (someone who is behaving, or someone with same-sex attractions) — but times when people have been caught lying or misrepresenting themself and others.To give you but one example: someone who presents themself as a Mr. Clean of Exgays (and I’ll agree he’s far removed from some other examples) came into this forum and flat out lied about his activities. This is not about his opinions but what he can be verified as having done. It is fortunate nobody was holding their breath waiting for an apology, indeed he continued to deceive elsewhere, but I think Xaiven you’d have to make a call here yourself: is that sort of behaviour “intentionally malicious in the sense that they know those things to be false and yet they tell them as if they are true”?As for the rest — jeepers, now someone’s gone into “comparative morality” territory far, far further than I ever would! Brave person :)If someone has a mental illness, it is also “rational” for them to behave accordingly. But their behaviour itself is not rational, let alone perhaps healthy for other people. I’m not even going to bother debating whether ripping out people’s hearts to make the sun god happy is rational, or drowning witches, or burning sodomites. All religiously inspired, and NOT behaviour that others can “agree to disagree” with.And the comment about a free ride was one about myself. Frankly I don’t care two hoots about what particular religious communities may be demanding of me — but I do care about my own willingness to consider, rationally, what they are actually saying and doing. I am no more willing to give someone a free ride, in terms of the effort I will put into that reflection, if they claim to be religously motivated than if they were to be politically, socially, racially, or whatever else motivated.As for who “they” are… start trawling the site. They are only one aspect of religiously inspired people. I’d have thought my views on this would be clear, as I hope my exchanges with (say) Timothy K. and Reasonable have shown. I talk with many people about faith and spirituality, even if I keep my personal beliefs guarded at this place.Sorry about the length but I don’t want you to presume, or misrepresent, me/us.
Xaiven,
To clarify, I distinguish between the condemnation of behavior and the convolution of behavior and attributes.
In other words, I’ve no problem with organizations that seek to assist those who wish not to perform certain sexual behavior. It is quite acceptable (and even admirable) to set a code of behavior for yourself and seek to live accordingly.
However, what I was discussing was not the behavior but the attribute. In other words, being attracted to persons of the same sex. If one thinks sloppily, it can be easy to confuse the two. After all, most people (outside of incarceration or other unusual circumstances) who have sexual behavior with someone of the same sex are also attracted to persons of the same sex. But these are not interchangeable.
Most ex-gay ministries that we have observed here go beyond condemnation of behavior. Most seek to condemn the attraction.
The first step they employ is to deny that a person can even be identified by their orientation. They say that rejecting this identifier (or as they say rejecting the “lifestyle”) means that they are “former homosexuals”.
In other words, simply recognizing that you are attracted to persons of the same sex – regardless of whether you live a chaste and celibate life – is considered worse than a fault or flaw; it is considered to be a lifestyle and is consitently condemned as evil.
Thus the participant has to perform within himself some sort of mental gymnastics in which he rejects his identity as a gay person but recognizes that he is also not a heterosexual person. He’s a person (non-specific) that happens to be attracted to the same sex.
Then the ministry directs him to fight the attraction, not just the action. I would argue that the level of antipathy and abhorence of the attraction is hatred.
In other word, the (not gay, not straight) person is taught to hate his attraction, his sexual orientation.
If you believe that sexual orientation exists external to a person (as it appears that ex-gay groups do believe) then you can parse this into not being self-hatred.
However I don’t think that it is legitimate to make this separation. It certainly isn’t made for heterosexuals. Although inappropriate sexual behaviors are discouraged, no one says “don’t be attracted to women”. It is assumed to be a natural and unremoveable aspect of a person.
It is only when the attraction is to the same sex that it is argued to be external. That suggests that the argument is results based and not consistent.
So, though I don’t use this language myself (I find it incendiary and jargonistic) it seems clear to me that, in at least some circumstance, ex-gay ministries use self-hatred in their efforts.
Hi Grantdale,
Although I haven’t read through each post on this site, I’m familiar with many of the stories, and there is much to be concerned about, no doubt. A great deal of the factual material presented by exgay organizations is contestable because of the dubious nature of the sources, though this is a separate thing from lying. There are cases where the inaccuracies do look more contemptible though, as the example you linked to. On that topic specifically, I don’t know what Chad was thinking, but what he said wasn’t true. He was inconsistent and that is definitely alarming. It would be good to make a distinction between how exgay individuals, and some organizations are communicating their position, and whether exgay organizations are teaching self-hate internally as a means to change. The second is what my original post was about, but the two topics are being blended together. The fact that exgay individuals and organizations inaccurately report information, and in your example tell a lie are unfortunate, but its not correct to say that these organizations are teaching self-hate based on that evidence. If we evaluate the internal praxis of those organizations, we see instruction on self-discipline, chastity, social relating. Their praxis doesn’t amount to anything that appears to be self-hatred. Now I understand that if orientation isn’t changeable, like skin color, then you can construe the entire venture of the exgay movement as self-hatred, but I don’t think that is accurate either. From a religious perspective, Christians of all orientations believe in the sinful nature of their flesh, and the majority of those Christians would doubt the possibility of ever being completely changed in that condition, yet they still struggle against it, and the individuals who are exgay understand their orientation in this same way. One would be remiss to then say that Christianity teaches its converts self-hatred.
And Timothy,
Thanks for clarifying that you were talking about the attribute and not the behaviour, as I was referring to behaviour and not attribute, though the attribute is linked to behaviour in a causal relationship, so it of course those organizations will think that the attribute is disordered, as the Catholic church states it. This isn’t teaching self-hate, and locating orientation as internal or external to the person makes no difference as I see it, but I may be misunderstanding what you mean by that. I think you discussion about the linguist games played by exgays was right on target, though I think I’m ambivalent about using sexuality and a primary identity. It is in fact true that I am a “person that happens to be attracted to the same sex,” which is to say that I am a homosexual, or gay man.
Xaiven,I’ll pick up on ne aspect of what you’ve said (and go from there).The “factual material” from exgay groups isn’t contestable because of the sources. It’s contestable because it isn’t true. In other words, the factual material — isn’t.If exgay groups restrained themselves to their particular religious notions of how they should be behaving I doubt I’d be commenting on them. Such people are as free to not behave homosexually as my Hindu collegues are free not to eat one of my sensational Indonesian beef stews. It’s no big deal to use lamb or goat instead.But exgay groups do not restrain themselves. They self-describe as authorative medical and scientific experts on homosexuality, though they are clearly anything but. It is because they want to falsely present themselves that they are reduced to quoting those dubious sources: I’d have to guess that they know that their particular religious attitudes are not very convincing to others.I think you are assuming that exgay groups are, at worst, misguided or misinformed. I said they were otherwise, based on the fact that they are well aware of what gets said about their use of inaccurate medical and scientific claims. The continued use “research” from people like Paul Cameron actually displays a more invidious attribute than merely being misguided or misinformed: it’s either a personal desire to be ignorant, or an institutional desire to deceive. Neither is flattering.We’ve several people here at XGW who can talk further about their experiences with exgay or conversion efforts, and you may also start trawling the web for ex-ex-gays. You will, I hope, begin to see a disturbing pattern of having been fed anti-gay falsehoods as part of the entirely deliberate attempt to change the individual’s attitude (about themself, and about gay men and lesbians in general). That is using self-hatred to keep people on the exgay pathway.I’ll use an anolgy: I doubt you’d have any difficulty with seeing the use of self-hate if evangelical Christians attempted to convert Jews by not only talking up Jesus as the promised messiah but also quoting from some hideous anti-semetic “research” by David Irving or Ernst Zündel.I’d be interested to know why you don’t see the use of similar material by exgay groups as nothing to do with self-hate. (and if you can apply it while also addressing the parallel Jewish conversion analogy: bonus points!)
xaiven said:
The fact that exgay individuals and organizations inaccurately report information, and in your example tell a lie are unfortunate, but its not correct to say that these organizations are teaching self-hate based on that evidence.
Inaccurately reporting information = telling a lie. One may or may not set out to do so, but the result is the same. We aren’t talking about subtle things here, but easily obtained statistics which so many ex-gay organizations simply ignore in favor of what can only be called propaganda to justify their existence. Activity on this site alone demonstrates that the inaccuracy of these positions is not a deterrent to those espousing them if they believe that what they are doing is righteous (i.e. the ends justify the means). I try not to speak in generalities, but this is just so often the case that, in this case, it is generally true.
In similar fashion, they may not set out to teach self-hate, but the result is certainly the same as if they did. As you intimated, this is true if one considers sexual orientation to be more or less immutable. I’ve seen little to indicate that it is not so I choose to take reality over the wishes and desires of others. Do I think God could change my orientation? I sincerely believe God could change me into a woman if he so desired, but I don’t see any reason to expect it. However, whatever He wants is ok by me.
David
grantdale said:
…eat one of my sensational Indonesian beef stews.
Where do you live, my mouth is watering!
David
PS: I am well aware — in case you feel a need to remind me! — that a small number of exgay groups do not falsely present themself as medical or scientific authorities. They do rely on their religious faith and their consequential interpretation of how they think they should behave.In an entirely sneaky test for you… you are welcome to suggest who some of these indivuals might be.(It’s a sneaky test because these people rarely receive any publicity, and almost never get promoted by Exodus etc. And those curious facts are what I’m really leading your attention to… eventually.)
Ha ha David — a long way for dinner.Maybe I’ll do the next best thing: post a recipe for Daging Sapi Jawa… first, I’ve got to remember all that get’s stuffed in — I cook by memory and taste, not by recipes.
OK David — here it is: Javanese Beef Stew. I forgot I’d actually typed this up and sent it to someone last year.Ooh my gawd, ooh my gawd. Swapping recipes. That’s so gay.
grantdale said:
Ooh my gawd, ooh my gawd. Swapping recipes. That’s so gay.
And what is wrong with that! 🙂
I didn’t realize you were on the other side of the world. It would have to be some really good stew! Actually, it looks wonderful – I am going to make a point of trying it sometime – thanks.
You both make an adorable couple. I guess that means you really aren’t schizophrenic?
David
Ah, Gentlemen,
I think our little debate is devolving into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I recognize that Xaiven does not want to falsely attribute motives for which he has not seen evidence. And David, grantdale, and I see evidence of teaching of self-hatred in the way that many ex-gay groups approach sexual orientation within the participant.
But that is a matter of interpretation and I think we can all reach differing conclusions.
Nonetheless, when it comes to issues of honesty, Xaiven, I will have to disagree with you.
If I tell you something (say, that Burger King’s burgers are made of cat meat), it may be passed off as a rumor I heard. If however, I try to get you from eating at Burger King, you will want more evidence than that.
If you research the matter and find out it is all a rumor, and tell this to me, I have a responsibility. I need to either stop repeating the myth or I need to support it. I can no longer go around telling people that Burger King meat is cat and consider myself truthful.
If several people research the matter and present me with documentation that Burger King meat is indeed not cat, then I have an increased liability. If I then go to legislators and try to get bills passed claiming that Burger King meat is cat, I can get sued for slader and, if I don’t cease, eventually be jailed.
How is this different than the things claimed by Exodus? The have been presented with evidence, over and over, that what they claim is not true. Yet they continue to make these bizarre claims and try to get legislation passed based on it.
Alan Chambers personally is completely aware that the claims made by Paul Cameron are false. Every time he uses them, he makes the choice.
I’m with you Timothy, these people cannot actually believe they’re telling the truth. I don’t see how one can call it anything other than malicious.
It seems as if these Love Won Out conferences are indeed reminiscent of medicine shows…kind of kitschy. Definitely sad.
And, why do all the Ex-Gays “look” so “gay?” I mean, really. Shouldn’t those “limp wristed” and “butch” qualities dissapate when one turns straight?
I was a lifeguard with Ms. Fryrear back in the day…we played on a water polo team together. Damn, she was one angry woman.
Dear Anon.So… Melissa’s met Jesus. But has she changed, or merely focused on a new target to be angry at?PS. Feel free to use a name, even created one. It helps us know it’s you, and not one of the million “Anonymous” :)PPS and welcome!
FYI, I’ll be at the protest Saturday for this event. Hopefully I’ll email some pictures and commentary to the webmasters so they can post them.
Preliminary thoughts are up at gayspirituality.typepad.com.