So, let’s see. What, precisely, is their objection for those of us who want to engage in homosex? There’s a lot of dancing around the issue. If the people in the ad don’t want to engage in homosex, they are not being forced to. But for those of us who want to, what is it to them that we do?
It is basicly clear that this issue is nothing more than a fund-raising issue for you-know-who.
I’d love to rephrase it like that but we just don’t have concrete evidence of that so I added “appears to be funded by” which is kinda long and doesn’t work with the suggested sentence structure.
About 7 or 8 years ago I found an Exodus page on the web that seemed a little odd, and after looking at it for a while it hit me that the logo on the page strongly resembled a bent-over butt.
So I emailed them to Question it.
They were not happy 🙁
Then about 5 months later I get this out of the blue IM saying “You want to have sex with lots of guys.”
and I was like, no, not really, and it turned out it was the site manager Stephen Black.
We used to ask Joe Nicolosi if we could meet at least one guy who had successfully moved on to a “heterosexual life.” He swore he could introduce us to many. He never did. We never pressed him much on it. I think because we were secretly afraid that he really couldn’t give us one example.
I’ve been a long-time lurker on the site – this is my first comment. Regarding Exodus’ finances – you can see their most recent IRS filing (2003) on http://www.guidestar.org. I’m registered there, if you can’t get to it, email me and I’ll email it back to you. They are reporting $454,032 of public support, 173,531 of conference fees, and other dues and sales for total support of $654,653. There’s no way to tell where the $454K came from. There is no list of contributors – it isn’t published by the IRS. It notes that Exodus gave Focus on the Family a grant of $1,000.
In addition to that suspiciously small grant, Focus provides Exodus with the bulk of its national and regional advertising at no charge. Specifically:
Focus mentions Exodus in many if not most of its articles and broadcasts about homosexuality. Focus also funds exgay billboards; makes Exodus the centerpiece of its “Love Won Out” roadshow; and helps line up Exodus spokespeople on the religious-right talk-radio circuit. Exodus has no measurable media or marketing apparatus of its own.
And someone is paying for Exodus staffers’ frequent flights to Colorado Springs and to antigay hearings in Washington, D.C.
Exodus seems to report little of that advertising, outreach, and political activity on its own books.
QUESTION why Exodus refuses to advertise one clear, consistent definition of change.
QUESTION why Exodus offers “freedom” from homosexuality but denies freedom to those who cannot or do not “change.”
QUESTION why Exodus withholds the “truth”:
the truth about high failure rates in reparative therapy;the truth that celibacy does not require adherence to a fundamentalist political ideology;the truth that people can be same-sex-attracted and Christian;the truth that women do not need to be obedient postwar-era servants to their husbands;the truth that Exodus speaker and movement grandfather Frank Worthen believes exgays should marry — and refrain from marital sex for a year or more;the truth that Exodus speaker Jerry Falwell believes confused or same-sex-attracted youths should be involuntarily confined to unlicensed exgay fundamentalist “therapy” centers;the truth that openly gay people make superb athletes; andthe truth (acknowledged by Warren Throckmorton) that sexual orientation is influenced to a significant extent by biology.
QUESTION: What will Exodus do when ex-gays are discriminated against because they have successfully defeated civil rights protections for people perceived to be gay?
QUESTION: For all you Stargate fans, am I the only one to have noticed a similarity between the ex-gay movement and the Ori?
I would consider the Focus direct contribution to Exodus with something of a grain of salt. Focus probably provides more than a bit of indirect contributing. It runs these dog-and-pony shows (I forget what they call them) that probably provides a lot of indirect financing to Exodus and direct financing to Focus. The incestuous relationship makes it difficult to sort out.
BTW, it is my understanding that the Exodus organization itself is little more than an umbrella over a number of so-called ex-gay “ministries.” If so, those “ministries” would probably have independent funding mechanisms (which might include funding from Focus) that would not show up in Exodus’s IRS filings.
I’ll put it bluntly: Exodus is nothing more than a noisemaker for Focus to shake down the rubes.
Actually, the last question was a bit long, but on point.
The question I have is why these people are so obsessed about what other people want to do in the bedroom. Succinctly stated, that is a weird obsession.
I frankly don’t give a tinker’s damn (no, that is not an epithet) whether or not the desire for homosex has a biological basis (regarding the Throckmorton reference) but I want to engage in it with my partner. Does anyone believe that someone should have the power to prevent me from doing so?
I was “groking” the billboard photo when this thought wandered into awareness. (No, I’m not smoking anythng):
If this ex-gay thing actually worked, why would the military not offer it to gay soldiers so they could become straight and stay in the service? Just think of all the money they’d save vis a vis recruiting and training replacements.
Say, another wild thought. Why don’t we write the powers that be with this sugestion, have our FotF friends demand this too. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!
It was an interesting book. I read in when it first came out in the early 1960s. I liked the earlier Heinlein books but it was obvious that Stranger was written over a period of years. I could discern two distinct styles, which seemed to reflect two different periods of time during which he wrote the book. But in subsequent essays, Heinlein said that he actually wrote the book in four periods of his writing.
Bill, I read a couple of Heinlein’s books from the 1960s, but he was getting to be a bit preachy. I didn’t read JOB. I did read Stranger, and I read Moon is a Harsh Mistress (and Farnham’s Freehold). His best work–as far as I’m concerned–was from the 1940s and 1950s.
BTW, TNSTAAFL was an acronym used in a couple of his books in the 1960s.
I find it strange and funny that the catchphrase is about questioning homosexuality. Most of the people involved in that original presentation did not question homosexuality. Many are absolutists and believe that there is no place for questioning. God said it is wrong, so it is wrong.
Many are not willing to be sceptical regarding false and misleading info, like the Cameron stats. However, as a gay man, I have always been sceptical regarding issues: the 10% notation, origin ideas, etc.
At the school I teach at, the College Republicans have had a field day with the Cameron stats and other false info. They have been outing teachers, posting flyers stating how long homosexuals live, etc. I have had debates with the President, but he is not willing to discuss anything because he is so absolutist. He has called me a liar regarding Cameron. He wants his ideas so validated that he will buy anything that supports his misguided ideas. Same with these exgay activists. In fact, this guy thinks that there is some major gay anifesto or conspiracy to turn all people gay. Any evidence to the contrary is discarded. Our campus (in “liberal” California) has become a very scary, unsafe place for gays and lesbians because of the Republican group. This group is unwilling to question any of their beliefs.
Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was telling. The American Psychological Association is one of many professional organizations that refutes “ex-gay” treatment programs and has an official stance that being gay is not a psychological disorder. The “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements, which are often one and the same, preach that the APA, AMA and other professional organizations succombed to political pressure to change their opinions on homosexuality.
You would think that after such a repudiation of science, the “pro-family” movement would shun the APA. You’d be wrong:
Calif. Lawmaker Agrees With APA: Video Game Violence Needs Curbing
By Ed Thomas
August 22, 2005
(AgapePress) – The American Psychological Association has recently acknowledged that violence in video games is bad for children’s health, and that exposure to violent game content increases anger and aggressive thoughts and behavior. Those facts are nothing new to one California legislator, who has been a leader in the fight to reform the electronic game industry’s most violent products.
Leland Yee, the Speaker of the California Assembly, is a lawmaker whose academic training is in psychology and education. For some time now, he has been adamant that ultra-violent video games are damaging America’s youth.
Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was telling. The American Psychological Association is one of many professional organizations that refutes “ex-gay” treatment programs and has an official stance that being gay is not a psychological disorder. The “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements, which are often one and the same, preach that the APA, AMA and other professional organizations succombed to political pressure to change their opinions on homosexuality.
You would think that after such a repudiation of science, the “pro-family” movement would shun the APA. You’d be wrong:
Calif. Lawmaker Agrees With APA: Video Game Violence Needs Curbing
By Ed Thomas
August 22, 2005
(AgapePress) – The American Psychological Association has recently acknowledged that violence in video games is bad for children’s health, and that exposure to violent game content increases anger and aggressive thoughts and behavior. Those facts are nothing new to one California legislator, who has been a leader in the fight to reform the electronic game industry’s most violent products.
Leland Yee, the Speaker of the California Assembly, is a lawmaker whose academic training is in psychology and education. For some time now, he has been adamant that ultra-violent video games are damaging America’s youth.
The “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements, which are often one and the same, preach that the APA, AMA and other professional organizations succombed to political pressure to change their opinions on homosexuality.
Actually, in a sense, they did. This was clear from the PRI program This American Life entitled 81 words. It’s available in streaming audio over the internet. https://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/204.html
But one thing that the “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements consistently fail to address is how and why they previously formed their opinions. It was through bigotry and preconceived notions.
Actually, in a sense, they did. This was clear from the PRI program This American Life entitled 81 words. It’s available in streaming audio over the internet. “>https://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/204.html
Raj, no one can deny that entry into the APA conventions in 1970 and 1971 was the direct result of political – actually physical – pressure by gay activists. But it is not as if the notion that homosexuality was a normal variation on human sexuality was new in 1970 – the debate had been going on in the psychological community for some time. The data used to make the final decision on withdrawing homosexuality from the DSM did not appear magically in 1970 or 1971. And there was not one gay activist at the meetings of the expert panel that revamped the DSM in 1973.
The anti-gay groups consistently argue that there was NO science behind the 1973 decision, which is false. What they are basically saying is that the APA, and following it several other professional organizations, abandoned their core commitment to scientific principles in order to end political pressure from gay and lesbian activists, which is false.
But if they believe the reason for the “pro-gay” stance of every single objective medical and psychological group in existence is political pressure, why would they ever trust those organizations again?
I know the history, and I pretty much agree with you. What I meant by “in a sense they did” was that the 81 words were removed from the DSM by a vote of the membership of the American Psychiatric Sosciety.. I have never heard of “science” being done by a vote. And I have a background in an actual science (physics). Maybe it’s different in disciplines such as psychiatry and psychology. I have never heard that Newton’s laws of motion or gravity were ever put to a vote. Or Maxwell’s laws regarding electromagnetism. (All were found to be approximations, but that’s another issue)
When I encounter someone who asserts that there is no science behind the 1973 decision to withdraw the 81 words, I go through the usual scientific arguments (which I am well familiar with) and then counter that there was no scientific evidence for putting the 81 words into the DSM to begin with. That is the point that most people seem to miss. Why were they put there to begin with?
That was one of the points of the material that I cited. The point is that they merely assumed that the 81 words were true when they compiled the first DSM. That’s the long and the very short of it. They assumed. That isn’t science.
Well thought of Dan. Now if only that infograph can be published everywhere in rural America on posts, walls, newspapers…
There’s also a grammar error in question 5: ‘harrasses’
So, let’s see. What, precisely, is their objection for those of us who want to engage in homosex? There’s a lot of dancing around the issue. If the people in the ad don’t want to engage in homosex, they are not being forced to. But for those of us who want to, what is it to them that we do?
It is basicly clear that this issue is nothing more than a fund-raising issue for you-know-who.
Thanks Raj #5 has been fixed. (well in the big image at least, there are a number of errors in the thumbnail image if you squint)
That last question reads a bit funny to me. If you switch it around like this I think it’s a bit easier to read:
I’d love to rephrase it like that but we just don’t have concrete evidence of that so I added “appears to be funded by” which is kinda long and doesn’t work with the suggested sentence structure.
About 7 or 8 years ago I found an Exodus page on the web that seemed a little odd, and after looking at it for a while it hit me that the logo on the page strongly resembled a bent-over butt.
So I emailed them to Question it.
They were not happy 🙁
Then about 5 months later I get this out of the blue IM saying “You want to have sex with lots of guys.”
and I was like, no, not really, and it turned out it was the site manager Stephen Black.
Weird.
We used to ask Joe Nicolosi if we could meet at least one guy who had successfully moved on to a “heterosexual life.” He swore he could introduce us to many. He never did. We never pressed him much on it. I think because we were secretly afraid that he really couldn’t give us one example.
I’ve been a long-time lurker on the site – this is my first comment. Regarding Exodus’ finances – you can see their most recent IRS filing (2003) on http://www.guidestar.org. I’m registered there, if you can’t get to it, email me and I’ll email it back to you. They are reporting $454,032 of public support, 173,531 of conference fees, and other dues and sales for total support of $654,653. There’s no way to tell where the $454K came from. There is no list of contributors – it isn’t published by the IRS. It notes that Exodus gave Focus on the Family a grant of $1,000.
In addition to that suspiciously small grant, Focus provides Exodus with the bulk of its national and regional advertising at no charge. Specifically:
Focus mentions Exodus in many if not most of its articles and broadcasts about homosexuality. Focus also funds exgay billboards; makes Exodus the centerpiece of its “Love Won Out” roadshow; and helps line up Exodus spokespeople on the religious-right talk-radio circuit. Exodus has no measurable media or marketing apparatus of its own.
And someone is paying for Exodus staffers’ frequent flights to Colorado Springs and to antigay hearings in Washington, D.C.
Exodus seems to report little of that advertising, outreach, and political activity on its own books.
QUESTION why Exodus refuses to advertise one clear, consistent definition of change.
QUESTION why Exodus offers “freedom” from homosexuality but denies freedom to those who cannot or do not “change.”
QUESTION why Exodus withholds the “truth”:
the truth about high failure rates in reparative therapy;the truth that celibacy does not require adherence to a fundamentalist political ideology;the truth that people can be same-sex-attracted and Christian;the truth that women do not need to be obedient postwar-era servants to their husbands;the truth that Exodus speaker and movement grandfather Frank Worthen believes exgays should marry — and refrain from marital sex for a year or more;the truth that Exodus speaker Jerry Falwell believes confused or same-sex-attracted youths should be involuntarily confined to unlicensed exgay fundamentalist “therapy” centers;the truth that openly gay people make superb athletes; andthe truth (acknowledged by Warren Throckmorton) that sexual orientation is influenced to a significant extent by biology.
OK, that last question is too long.
QUESTION: What will Exodus do when ex-gays are discriminated against because they have successfully defeated civil rights protections for people perceived to be gay?
QUESTION: For all you Stargate fans, am I the only one to have noticed a similarity between the ex-gay movement and the Ori?
gordo at August 19, 2005 07:06 PM
I would consider the Focus direct contribution to Exodus with something of a grain of salt. Focus probably provides more than a bit of indirect contributing. It runs these dog-and-pony shows (I forget what they call them) that probably provides a lot of indirect financing to Exodus and direct financing to Focus. The incestuous relationship makes it difficult to sort out.
BTW, it is my understanding that the Exodus organization itself is little more than an umbrella over a number of so-called ex-gay “ministries.” If so, those “ministries” would probably have independent funding mechanisms (which might include funding from Focus) that would not show up in Exodus’s IRS filings.
I’ll put it bluntly: Exodus is nothing more than a noisemaker for Focus to shake down the rubes.
Mike Airhart at August 19, 2005 08:14 PM
Actually, the last question was a bit long, but on point.
The question I have is why these people are so obsessed about what other people want to do in the bedroom. Succinctly stated, that is a weird obsession.
I frankly don’t give a tinker’s damn (no, that is not an epithet) whether or not the desire for homosex has a biological basis (regarding the Throckmorton reference) but I want to engage in it with my partner. Does anyone believe that someone should have the power to prevent me from doing so?
I was “groking” the billboard photo when this thought wandered into awareness. (No, I’m not smoking anythng):
If this ex-gay thing actually worked, why would the military not offer it to gay soldiers so they could become straight and stay in the service? Just think of all the money they’d save vis a vis recruiting and training replacements.
Say, another wild thought. Why don’t we write the powers that be with this sugestion, have our FotF friends demand this too. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!
I was “groking” the billboard photo …
This is merely an intellectual exercise. I wonder how many people know the origin of the term grok
I’ll be checking back.
Grok: from Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein.
Mudd, exactly correct.
It was an interesting book. I read in when it first came out in the early 1960s. I liked the earlier Heinlein books but it was obvious that Stranger was written over a period of years. I could discern two distinct styles, which seemed to reflect two different periods of time during which he wrote the book. But in subsequent essays, Heinlein said that he actually wrote the book in four periods of his writing.
Yes, indeed. Then I read J.O.B. a delightful take on the multiverse concept. But, it’s back to work. After all, TNSTAAFL.
Bill, I read a couple of Heinlein’s books from the 1960s, but he was getting to be a bit preachy. I didn’t read JOB. I did read Stranger, and I read Moon is a Harsh Mistress (and Farnham’s Freehold). His best work–as far as I’m concerned–was from the 1940s and 1950s.
BTW, TNSTAAFL was an acronym used in a couple of his books in the 1960s.
I find it strange and funny that the catchphrase is about questioning homosexuality. Most of the people involved in that original presentation did not question homosexuality. Many are absolutists and believe that there is no place for questioning. God said it is wrong, so it is wrong.
Many are not willing to be sceptical regarding false and misleading info, like the Cameron stats. However, as a gay man, I have always been sceptical regarding issues: the 10% notation, origin ideas, etc.
At the school I teach at, the College Republicans have had a field day with the Cameron stats and other false info. They have been outing teachers, posting flyers stating how long homosexuals live, etc. I have had debates with the President, but he is not willing to discuss anything because he is so absolutist. He has called me a liar regarding Cameron. He wants his ideas so validated that he will buy anything that supports his misguided ideas. Same with these exgay activists. In fact, this guy thinks that there is some major gay anifesto or conspiracy to turn all people gay. Any evidence to the contrary is discarded. Our campus (in “liberal” California) has become a very scary, unsafe place for gays and lesbians because of the Republican group. This group is unwilling to question any of their beliefs.
Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was telling. The American Psychological Association is one of many professional organizations that refutes “ex-gay” treatment programs and has an official stance that being gay is not a psychological disorder. The “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements, which are often one and the same, preach that the APA, AMA and other professional organizations succombed to political pressure to change their opinions on homosexuality.
You would think that after such a repudiation of science, the “pro-family” movement would shun the APA. You’d be wrong:
Calif. Lawmaker Agrees With APA: Video Game Violence Needs Curbing
By Ed Thomas
August 22, 2005
(AgapePress) – The American Psychological Association has recently acknowledged that violence in video games is bad for children’s health, and that exposure to violent game content increases anger and aggressive thoughts and behavior. Those facts are nothing new to one California legislator, who has been a leader in the fight to reform the electronic game industry’s most violent products.
Leland Yee, the Speaker of the California Assembly, is a lawmaker whose academic training is in psychology and education. For some time now, he has been adamant that ultra-violent video games are damaging America’s youth.
Full article can be seen at the American Family Association web site: https://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/afa/222005a.asp
Interesting that when the APA agrees with the AFA, they are a respected professional organization. When they disagree – not so much.
Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was telling. The American Psychological Association is one of many professional organizations that refutes “ex-gay” treatment programs and has an official stance that being gay is not a psychological disorder. The “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements, which are often one and the same, preach that the APA, AMA and other professional organizations succombed to political pressure to change their opinions on homosexuality.
You would think that after such a repudiation of science, the “pro-family” movement would shun the APA. You’d be wrong:
Calif. Lawmaker Agrees With APA: Video Game Violence Needs Curbing
By Ed Thomas
August 22, 2005
(AgapePress) – The American Psychological Association has recently acknowledged that violence in video games is bad for children’s health, and that exposure to violent game content increases anger and aggressive thoughts and behavior. Those facts are nothing new to one California legislator, who has been a leader in the fight to reform the electronic game industry’s most violent products.
Leland Yee, the Speaker of the California Assembly, is a lawmaker whose academic training is in psychology and education. For some time now, he has been adamant that ultra-violent video games are damaging America’s youth.
Full article can be seen at the American Family Association web site: https://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/afa/222005a.asp
Interesting that when the APA agrees with the AFA, they are a respected professional organization. When they disagree – not so much.
The “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements, which are often one and the same, preach that the APA, AMA and other professional organizations succombed to political pressure to change their opinions on homosexuality.
Actually, in a sense, they did. This was clear from the PRI program This American Life entitled 81 words. It’s available in streaming audio over the internet. https://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/204.html
But one thing that the “pro-family” and “ex-gay” movements consistently fail to address is how and why they previously formed their opinions. It was through bigotry and preconceived notions.
A succinct text description of what happened is available at https://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm
Actually, in a sense, they did. This was clear from the PRI program This American Life entitled 81 words. It’s available in streaming audio over the internet. “>https://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/204.html
Raj, no one can deny that entry into the APA conventions in 1970 and 1971 was the direct result of political – actually physical – pressure by gay activists. But it is not as if the notion that homosexuality was a normal variation on human sexuality was new in 1970 – the debate had been going on in the psychological community for some time. The data used to make the final decision on withdrawing homosexuality from the DSM did not appear magically in 1970 or 1971. And there was not one gay activist at the meetings of the expert panel that revamped the DSM in 1973.
The anti-gay groups consistently argue that there was NO science behind the 1973 decision, which is false. What they are basically saying is that the APA, and following it several other professional organizations, abandoned their core commitment to scientific principles in order to end political pressure from gay and lesbian activists, which is false.
But if they believe the reason for the “pro-gay” stance of every single objective medical and psychological group in existence is political pressure, why would they ever trust those organizations again?
CPT_Doom at August 23, 2005 11:56 AM
I know the history, and I pretty much agree with you. What I meant by “in a sense they did” was that the 81 words were removed from the DSM by a vote of the membership of the American Psychiatric Sosciety.. I have never heard of “science” being done by a vote. And I have a background in an actual science (physics). Maybe it’s different in disciplines such as psychiatry and psychology. I have never heard that Newton’s laws of motion or gravity were ever put to a vote. Or Maxwell’s laws regarding electromagnetism. (All were found to be approximations, but that’s another issue)
When I encounter someone who asserts that there is no science behind the 1973 decision to withdraw the 81 words, I go through the usual scientific arguments (which I am well familiar with) and then counter that there was no scientific evidence for putting the 81 words into the DSM to begin with. That is the point that most people seem to miss. Why were they put there to begin with?
That was one of the points of the material that I cited. The point is that they merely assumed that the 81 words were true when they compiled the first DSM. That’s the long and the very short of it. They assumed. That isn’t science.
As to the question regarding Stargate and the Ori’s similarity to Exodus: No you aren’t the only one to notice.
😉