Ex-Gay Watch

Hi Jim. Thanks for responding. You show valid concerns regarding the religious right’s ridiculous “advertisements” and billboards. What they’ve done is trivialize a very very complicated phenomenon–sexual orientation–giving lay people the impression that it is something that can be easily changed–like clothing–by everyone.

“The American Psychiatric Association said in 1973 that Homosexuality is not a disorder, and removed it from the DSM.”

I believe that the deision made was the correct one, but I still hold it to be somewhat political in nature, given that majority did not rule. It clearly was not purely scientific, since Hooker’s study did not answer deeper questions about sexual orientation. What her study served to do was explode the statement that

“all homosexual people are essentially diseased.”

All she had to do was find ONE (even though she found more) homosexual who demonstrated normal functioning, and the statement crumbles to pieces. Yet, her study doesn’t tell us whether most gay people are normal, or if its only a few, etc. etc. Nor does it say anything about the innateness or rigidity of sexual orienation (more on this later). But that is okay for the purposes of debunking an erroneous belief.

“…billboards [say] “I changed, so can you” well, I hear “cure”, and I don’t think I’m alone.”

Valid concerns. My only hope is that someday we will be able to look at sexual orientation as a morally neutral matter. Perhaps this is wishful thinking. But once we attain this, we will see that science clearly does not the support the notion of “cure”, in the strictest sense of the word. Rather, we really should look at it in terms of a subtle tumbling down the Kinsey scale. This would explain why some ex-gays, despite developing heteroeroticism, retain their homoeroticism (they may not have “tumbled” down all the way)

“Pharmaceutical companies are required to put disclaimers in their ads, which often include the phrase “Propecia is not for everyone”. Where is that disclaimer in the billboards?
Where was it in Houston? (Yay! We’re back on topic!!!)”

I agree. Psychologists SHOULD make it clear that Change is NOT for everyone, that NOT everyone can change, and that SOME are better off living as openly gay individuals. In fact, Joseph Nicolosi, in his book “Reparative Therapy of the Male Homosexual,” states that his therapy is not for everyone, that those happy being gay need not apply, and that those who do not fit his clinical profile of a “heterosexual with homosexual problems” also need not apply.

“yes, you’re right. They don’t use the word “cure” and they may even disavow the notion of cure when pressed. But they continue to gruble about the APA’s stance of 1973″

The grumbling is due mostly to the corollary of the decision, that “sexual orientation is rigidly fixed, innate and NEVER CHANGEABLE.” This statement is manifestly false, because again, as in the Hooker study, you only need to find one person who has demonstrated ANY degree of sexual orientation change (does not even necessarily need to go from gay to straight…gay to bisexual is good enough) to explode the entire statement. And, there has been plenty of anecdotal evidence from reputable journals from the past 80 years.

“In the popular mind, “treatments” lead to “cures” and “therapies” lead to “normal” function. ”

Good point. The American public, in my opinion, is deeply, deeply confused on the matter. They look at it in terms of black and white, disease/cure dichotomies. There is a serious problem with this.

Nave

Hi CPT,

“Now, it has to be mentioned that the 1973 decision was not based solely on Hooker’s work, and the decision was backed up with the first-and-only APA referendum on the matter.”

So Hooker’s work, along with a few othes, rested upon the APA referendum. But then what was the APA referendum based on, if not on Hooker’s study along with a few others? This would seem to make the whole situation circular.

“What Hooker proved was the psychiatrists could not distinguish between gays and straights based on measures of psychological health.”

This part is true. She sought out homosexuals who she felt were normal, and studied them. They turned out to be pretty normal. Therefore, we can no longer make general claims about the mental disease state of homosexual people. To do so would be scientifically incorrect to say the least, insulting and psychologicaly damaging to say the most.

“This means that all homosexuals cannot be considered “mentally ill,” because they can and do score very highly on measures of psychological health.”

This conclusion here is false. Her study did not rely on a random sample. She did not sample a huge, random population of homosexuals. Therefore, from a scienftic standpoint, her study says absolutely nothing about Gay people in GENERAL i.e. we cannot make generalizations from this study. “All we can say is that some gays can and do score high on measures of psychological health.” It would be as if I sought out ten six feet tall women, and concluded from that that ALL women were six feet tall. Rather, I can only conclude that it is possible for women to be six feet.

Yet, this alone is, in my humble opinion, enough to depathologize homosexuality, and rightly so.

Hi CPT, This is the same exact post from above. I’m only reposting it because the way I spaced the paragraphs makes it hard to tell who said what.

Hi CPT Doom,

Thanks for responding. My sincerest apologies if what is being said poses any “real problems” for you.

“The APA’s decision to drop homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not “political.”

I only said that I felt it was political because the majority clearly didn’t rule in the making of the decision—even a few years after the decision was made, more than half the members considered homosexuality to be abnormal, and treatable to a degree.
I don’t disagree with the APA’s decision by any means. Homosexuality in of itself is not pathological, although it can be, but the same can be said for heterosexuality (just look at Ted Bundy).

“Now, as for research into “changing” sexual orientation, there has never been a valid, scientific study, of which I am aware, that has ever claimed any level of true change in sexual orientation.”

I take issues with this statement. There have been numerous studies from the past 80 years that demonstrate that some sort of orienation change is possible in some people. And many of these studies have been published in reputable journals/books. Now, you are right in a way—no long term longitudinal study has ever been done on the change of sexual orientation. The studies that I referenced are only anecdotal reports of individual people making changes, thus we cannot make any broad generalizations based on these report as to how many people can change, what kind of people can change, etc. etc.
We can only conclude that some people can and do change. That’s ALL we know. And this statement alone doesn’t justify the suppression of homosexual civil rights.
Incidentally, a lot of homosexuals have told me that they felt that sexual orientation can change over time, but that the magnitude of the actual change varies from person to person, with women reporting a larger magnitude. Even Jack Drescher, a prominent homosexual psychiatrist of the APA and APsA, asserts that some people can change. Douglas Hadelman, another prominent homosexual psychologist, asserts that some gays who possess a degree of heteroeroticism can build upon their heteroeroticism and diminish their homoeroticism. Even though Hadelman doesn’t explicity state it, this seems like subtle sexual orientation change to me. Both psychologists, however, would disagree with the religious right as to the frequency of change and whether or not people should change.

“if you look at true self-reported heterosexuality among Spitzer’s subjects, you find that the “change” largely disappears (e.g., about 1/5 describe themselves as fully het at the end of “treatment”

What do you mean by “change largely disappears?” This doesn’t make any sense to me.

“But about the same percentage reported no homosexual activity prior to entering “change” therapy).”

Any homosexual/bisexual will tell you that behavior alone doesn’t dictate whether someone is straight/gay. Therefore, the argument that the people who changed were heterosexual to begin with—because they reported no homosexual activity—falls apart.

“It is completely possible, in this day and age, for brain and nervous system activity to be measured. No one has ever demonstrated that these physical structures (and therefore basic biological sexuality) can be altered by any “reparative therapy.”

I strongly disagree with the first part. So far, there has been NO CONCLUSIVE biological/hormonal/physiological/chemical test that can distinguish between gays and straights. Sure, you can dangle a naked woman in front of the two and measure who gets turned on and who doesn’t, but this clearly isn’t what you are referring to. Furthermore, you talk about “basic biological sexuality,” but it seems as if you’re speaking of Chimeras, because even the gay researchers themselves deny finding any conclusive biological determinant of sexuality. Even Dean Hamer himself asserts that sexual orientation has a strong environmental component, and cannot be said to be “biologically determined.” Even Simon Levay, who most cite as the person who found a “physical” difference between gays and straights, denies finding THE DEFINITIVE physical structure for gayness.
So, in answer to your second statement regarding reparative therapy, it logically follows that no research has been done regarding the modification of the “physical structures” of sexual orientation, because people still are yet to find these physical structures, if they exist at all.

“More importantly, no fully straight person has ever been made gay.”

Again, this seems like quite a bold statement. Can you back it up beyond anecdotal experiences? For all we know, an assertion like this might be just as misleading as saying “NO GAY PERSON HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED NORMALITY/HEALTHY FUNCTIONING,” because as Hooker pointed out, you only need to find one example that contradicts the bold claim, and the entire claim explodes. And, I’ve known fully straight people who’ve moved significantly up the Kinsey scale (from a 0 to about a 3-4). Of course, if by Gay you mean Kinsey 7.5, perhaps it is highly uncommon given the large amount of “space” a Kinsey 0 would have to transverse to become fully gay.
“However, no one has ever documented an actual change in the physical/biological processes that govern sexuality and emotion for these people.”
Again, you mention physical/biological processes, but no one has ever conclusively demonstrated what these things are, or whether or not they exist at all. So the veracity of this statement is seriously in question.
“It is entirely plausible, and quite probable, that the basic orientation of these people did not change – they were always bisexual to some degree (as a Kinsey 7.5 myself – on a scale of 1 – 6, I tend to disagree with the “everyone is bisexual”

Good point. Bisexuals tend to report a higher degree of fluidity. Therefore it is probable that those with a bisexual orientation might be more responsive towards change therapies. Now, what exactly is “basic orientation?” Again, it sounds like your making a reference towards sexual orientation as a mysterious, essential essence that is unchangeable—a physical structure (that science is yet to discover) perhaps?
I’m a bisexual. Like I said in a previous post, I feel my sexual orientation subtly change depending on my circumstances, mood, and current mental state. When I’m on the straight side of the Kinsey scale (2), thoughts of being with men do nothing for me. When I’m on the gay side of the scale (4), women hardly do a thing for me. My orientation clearly changes the direction of its compass. Any talk of rigidness here doesn’t seem to apply, at least to me. Furthermore, in my previous discussion, I mentioned a friend from Taiwan who went way up the Kinsey scale when he came to America. Based on his past history/sexual fantasies/erotic attractions, to say that he’s always been bisexual seems like a strong cop out.

“Changing sexual behavior, but not orientation, is an issue for philosophy or religion, but not science, as it imposes value judgements that should not cloud scientific investigation.”

I have a serious problem with this…So you believe that science, with its objective tools, should not involve itself with sexual orientation to decide once and for all this whole matter of change/therapy etc. etc.? Furthermore, you really believe that this should be an issue for philosophy and religion? To take your advice would be to throw all scientific objectivity, and perhaps the scientific truth, out the window. So far, sexual orientation change HAS mostly been an issue for philosophy, religion, and most importantly, POLITICS. And sadly, these 3 have super-ceded science, adding their own biases to a matter that should have been a purely scientific inquiry from the beginning. Hence the glut of militant gay activists and homophobic religious zealots, both of which are guilty of misusing scientific studies in an effort to achieve their respective aims.
It is NOT science that imposes value judgments. Science is DEAD, in the sense of being morally neutral. It is politics/philosophy/religion that breathes LIFE to science, not the other way around, as you believe.
Sincerely,
Nave

Regan,

“Nathan, you really don’t get it. No, a network of people who help raise a child is not a ‘group’ in the sense of being exclusively ONE kind of person, or ideology.”

I apologise. I thought your group comment was a rebuttle to my comment about the absence of multi-age communities beyond the “nuclear family”.

“Piety doesn’t make you a good person or necessarily someone you can trust with children.”

I couldn’t agree more! Not sure if you intended it, but this is an excellent summarisation of one of the main points of Jesus’ teachings, in my opinion!

“This is making orientation a right to parent with impunity. And this regardless of just how incompetent and horrible heterosexuals are as parents, even as two parent opposite gender couples.”

Not at all. I never said, “this straight couple is always better than this gay couple”. Do you think I’m not aware of the enormous number of straight parents that don’t exactly do an excellent job of raising their kids? I’m a school teacher!

“YES, should, as part of the punishment for such criminality should lose their fertility.”

My goodness. I have to say, seriously, I hope I never live in your society. This is frightening. So, will you push for these reforms after you get adoption for gay people?

Nave Cee tells me: ‘With all due respect, you are wrong, and exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the Christian faith, and what it’s all about. Even gay Christians would disagree strongly with you.’

Since I tend to find that ‘gay Christians’ are at an awareness level equal to ‘Jewish Nazis’, this does not suprise me. My understanding of the Christian faith comes from many years of experience with its adherents. Somehow, I have lived to tell of this.

Re: “Since I tend to find that ‘gay Christians’ are at an awareness level equal to ‘Jewish Nazis’ ”

Dalea, I have to strongly disagree. And as very much out, proud, gay activist who is also a gay Christian, I take the most profound and personal offense at your outrageous comment.

That’s a fine way to try to bring someone over to your way of thinking. No wonder our side is losing the debate in the popular opinion.

You understanding of the Christian faith may come from may years’ experience from some who call themselves Christian, but it does not come from those of us who are live the dictum, “Let not the left hand know what the right hand is doing.”

“The APA’s decision to drop homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not “political.”

I only said that I felt it was political because the majority clearly didn’t rule in the making of the decision—even a few years after the decision was made, more than half the members considered homosexuality to be abnormal, and treatable to a degree.

Ah, the standard kvetch that the APA’s 1973 “decision” removing “homosexuality” from its DSM was political, not based on scientific evidence.

One of the issues that is usually ignored by the kvetchers is what scientific evidence the APA had when it originally assumed that homosexuality was pathological and listed it in their holy book–the DSM. The obvious answer is, that it had none. The paper at http://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm gives a short but succinct history, and it is clear that the only evidence that the APAers had when they originally considered homosexuality to be pathological was nothing more than what they obtained by investigating their nether regions.

I could continue at length with descriptions showing that psychiatry as it was then practiced was ascientific and that psychoanalysis was nothing more than mumbo-jumbo, but I’ll refrain.

“WHY someone is here is beside the point.
How they are to be treated…and if it’s well or badly, certainly.”

Regan,

For some people, these two are inextricably linked. I’m saying that, logically, some people need to have some idea of the WHY before they can honestly decide how to treat people. I, for one, can’t stand the idea of a “can’t we just all get along?” philosophy, with nothing else behind it, no explanation for WHY we should all just get along. That’s why people’s right to examine different religions haven’t been curtailed.

Obviously we should also ask why women and gays are targets of oppression, etc. In my opinion, the answers are not difficult. The man, being generally physically stronger and/or more aggressive than the woman, has throughout history taken away her freedoms in unacceptable ways. (Incidentally, my understanding of the Bible is that this sad situation is predicted, though not celebrated.)

People with same sex attractions are targets because they are different, and/or because they present a challenge to people with already-weak and confused gender identities.

Regan Du Casse wisely says: ‘The abuses by religion isn’t discouraged, even though in America, only TWO groups most often suffer major consequences from it.
Women and gay people.’

Interestingly, adding up these two groups, for simplicity counting lesbians among ‘women’, I come to a startling conclusion. Women and gay men who make up the majority of the existing human race are oppressed by a minority of the human race: straight men. This is ineresting. And I wonder how they pull this off.

Generally it is minorities that are oppressed. How can a smaller group dominate and control a larger one? I believe this discourse is about ‘patriarchy’.

And as Lesbian Spirituality teacher Z Budapest ends her prayers: May Patriarchy Fall.

“Generally it is minorities that are oppressed.”

Really? When I look at history, and indeed world demographics today, I consistently see a smaller class of individuals (eg. nobility class, modern developed nations) living off the backs of a larger, relatively disempowered group (eg. the “vulgar” class, the rest of the world). The pattern is regrettable, but hardly unusual. The difference in number between [men who do not experience dominant same-sex attractions] (say 47%) and [women + men who do] (say 53%) is actually quite mild in comparison.

“Gay kid’s educations destroyed by isolation and abuse, even by school authorities. Their parents not held in contempt by the state for abusing them or isolating them.”

Regan, the problem with this is that ALL kids’ educations can be destroyed by isolation and abuse. You don’t have to be gay. Everyone knows about the unpopular or segregated kid in the class. I would hazard a guess that most of those kids are not gay, but have other issues [too nerdy, too weird, too fat]. Some are integration students with mental or physical disabilities.

You would also be aware that recently we’ve come to see that our current education system is failing not just a lot of girls, but a lot of boys too. Not only do boys successfully suicide much more frequently than girls, but we are facing the prospect of a large and dangerous underclass of unmarried, poorly-educated men, detached from any heterogenous community and surviving off two or more casual or part-time jobs.

Many schools are doing all they can to address issues, along with offering support and counselling to kids who think they might be gay.

And what do you mean by parents not being held in contempt by the state for abusing and isolating children? Do you see a policeman driving around to every house to check that no parent ever calls their child a nerd, or denigrates their body image, or tells them they’re a little dumb?

Can you tell me how settling for a civil union, being afforded all the tax breaks and inheritance benefits of any other couple considered united by the state, is “cruel and unusual punishment”?

Nathan,

Re: “Can you tell me how settling for a civil union, being afforded all the tax breaks and inheritance benefits of any other couple considered united by the state, is “cruel and unusual punishment”?

Since “cruel and unusual punishment” is not my phrasing, I’ll leave that to someone else. But “settling” for a civil union has become precicely the issue now.

Earlier (I can’t find the post off-hand) I believe you articulated an idea for decoupling religion from marriage and putting the government in the civil union business for gays and straights alike. I like the idea in principle. When I think back to how thrilled we all were when Vermont enacted Civil Unions, I think that if you had asked us at that time if that was good enough for us, a large plurality (maybe even a majority) would probably have been perfectly happy with it.

But when you look at the state constitutional amendments that passed last November, with most of them closing the door not only on marriage, but civil unions and even domestic partnerships and all other “incidents of marriage”, it is clear that the proposal that many offer (including George Bush) of possibly considering civil unions is completely unrealistic in today’s political climate. And for some folks (not you, Nathan), it has unfortunately become a blatently cynical political tactic.

I was talking to a local activist just last weekend about this. He said that this time last year he would have been perfectly satisfied with civil unions. But after last summer and fall, all bets are off. I’m sure this has now become the dominant opinion in the GLBT community.

And besides, since we see so few straights offering take the further step of decoupling religion from marriage and “settling” for civil unions, why should we?

regan,

Quite right. The other side (by which you presumably mean people without dominant same-sex attractions) should also settle for civil unions, and a religious or traditional marriage if appropriate.

But I still don’t know why civil unions aren’t equal. Aren’t you getting all the things you’re campaigning for? Why should it matter to you that some people think their “civil marriage” is superior to your “civil union”? They’re obviously the ones with the issue, not you. Going after nothing other than the title of “marriage” is about changing the (often faith-based) values of a large number of people. It is no longer simply a social justice issue.

re: children, I guess I’m a bit naive and idealistic. I’ve just never seen the kind of isolation and you describe, nor have I seen a teacher EVER force a kid to read Romans 1 or the big bad Leviticus laws (opening a Bible in front of a kid would probably get you in serious hot water at my school). What I see is a swathe of government programmes aimed at enhancing awareness of same-sex attracted youth, discussions and guest speakers on homosexuality in non-religious Personal Development curricula (parents are not informed, and have to call my school in order to ask that their child not be included in some of these lessons, and some have, only to be labelled homophobes by my fellow staff), and social service offices on every public school campus with rainbow signs up so there’s no mistake about who is welcome to go in there.

The thing is, I don’t see that any of this is making much of a difference to students. They still tease eachother by calling eachother “gay”. In fact the more awareness there is of homosexuality, the more the term has become a catch-all expression for any indictment of inadequacy or unsuitability (eg. that ruler is gay, this course is gay). Bookish kids are no longer “bookish” – they’re “gay”. Effeminate boys are no longer “sissy” – they’re “gay”. Any solution to this issue has to go further than bandaid homophobia programmes and vague “tolerance” sessions. An examination of gender culture and its interpretation by young people needs to form the basis of an integrated diversity component in curriculum, from early to middle to late school. This would NOT, in my opinion, require teaching about homosexuality itself to young kids.

I must admit that I find it difficult to relate to a family where a parent would bully or abuse their child just because he/she has attractions to the same sex, since it’s so completely opposite to the way my own parents would react. I guess it must happen, but it makes me very sad.

Hi Nathan- I know you are speaking from your experiences in Australia, but my experience growing up here (in the US) just a few years ago, and the experiences my teacher friends here have is not really the same was what you describe here…

“What I see is a swathe of government programmes aimed at enhancing awareness of same-sex attracted youth, discussions and guest speakers on homosexuality in non-religious Personal Development curricula (parents are not informed, and have to call my school in order to ask that their child not be included in some of these lessons, and some have, only to be labelled homophobes by my fellow staff), and social service offices on every public school campus with rainbow signs up so there’s no mistake about who is welcome to go in there.”

My highschool had zero awareness meetings of gay people or homosexuality. There was no GSA (to date my inner city HS in a major city still doesn’t have one). None of my health or sex ed classes growing up ever addressed the issue. A friend of mine was just “outed” by some of his students (they found his name online with a Pride organization). The school responded very positively to him, but he was worried for a while because his school does nothing to address the issue of homosexuality.

I do agree, i as of yet, am not sure how successful these “tolerance” programs are, so I’m not up in arms mad that these aren’t taking place (or didn’t), but I hear all of the time from US right wing members how gays are taking over the schools, and I just don’t see it. I’m not denying that it is happening where you are, but it isn’t as predominant as I am lead to believe by the Exodus groups of the world, the Rush Limbaugh’s etc. I kind of feel like they are the ones trying to rally troops by playing the victim card.

The sad thing is, the ones that lose in this type of politization are the gay kids out there who feel left behind by the rhetoric of many on the right.

As for civil unions vs. marriage- I tend to agree with you. I think it is absurd for people to claim the religious authority of the word marriage (that doesn’t include religions that allow gay marriages). But, I think it is not worthwhile to fight for the word itself. The protections should be more what we are after.

My highschool had zero awareness meetings of gay people or homosexuality. There was no GSA (to date my inner city HS in a major city still doesn’t have one). None of my health or sex ed classes growing up ever addressed the issue. A friend of mine was just “outed” by some of his students (they found his name online with a Pride organization). The school responded very positively to him, but he was worried for a while because his school does nothing to address the issue of homosexuality.

Well, it’s been more than 2 decades since my experience in junior high school and high school, but sadly enough TA’s experience was still 1000% better than mine. Not only was I physically assaulted (actually ambused by 4 – 6 kids) in a junior high corridor, the administration did NOTHING to try and catch the kids who did it (they came from behind me, so I never saw them) – even though there were witnesses, and this was during a school day (incidentally, only one teacher even bothered to help me). The ONLY thing my school did was honor my wish not to tell my parents.

By the time I was in high school, at a Catholic institution, it was in some ways worse, because in that school being outed=being expelled. That’s how they handled gay kids in my day – simply kicked them out without a single thought.

Given the national polls of teenagers in this country, I don’t really think it has gotten better, except that some schools finally have parents, administration and teachers who MAY consider fags and dykes human beings, but even that is still rare.

Kevin Jennings, who founded GLSEN, wrote a truly eye-opening book called “Telling Tales Out of School” about the experiences of gay and lesbian kids in high schools over the last 1/2 century or so – it is truly sad to see how cruel and horrible adults can be to kids who are different.

Okay, Mike et al:

Unfortunately I had to search ex-gay watch today for an old response I wrote from a time when I used to waste time reading and responding to your rantings. And, I ran across this tabloid worthy commentary on me, my wife and our inability to conceive.

Here’s the scoop:

1. I have talked openly about my sex life both before and after marriage. I agree, it’s fair game.

2. For those who are interested in hearing about Leslie’s and my brief intercourse woes during the first few months of marriage you can buy the tape from my workshop: Pursuing Marriage: The Jump, The Jitters and The Jive, by calling Exodus: 407-599-6872. It is interesting but you won’t find anything about being unable to be aroused, just a bit of info on two inexperienced heterosexuals who had no clue about vaginal dryness and its affect on successful penetration. Sorry to disappoint.

3. I have low sperm count, low sperm morphology and low sperm motility. They call this condition sub-fertal. Leslie has some uterin issues that coupled with my sperm issues made it impossible to conceive naturally. Believe me, we had a lot of love making trying to conceive for more than 5 years.

4. We went through 2 rounds of IVF and one round of artificial insemenation to no avail.

5. Today we love that we were left with no other alternative but than to adopt. We adopted one month ago and today we wouldn’t trade anything for what God has blessed us with.

Hope that clears up some of your speculation and misinformation.

Alan

Thanks for clearing things up. I admit, Mike A’s underhanded swipes at your sex life and infertility showed that he lacked class.

Don’t be bitter Alan, most of us are more concerned about how you make a living.

As a California resident, it bugs me more that you stick your Florida nose into California court cases (sorry it didn’t go your way).

I could care less how many “swimmers” you have.

Although, less a chance of another Alan Chambers is a good thing in my book.

Alan Chambers | March 17, 2005 04:34 PM

This is a joke, right? I suppose that I would also have a low sperm count in regards someone for whom I had no sexual attraction.

BTW, does anyone know how much Chambers is being paid to be an “ex-gay”?

“does anyone know how much Chambers is being paid to be an “ex-gay”?”

Probably a lot. After all, he is an ex-gay activist, much like Wayne Besen is an anti-ex-gay-activist, and both are payed to engage in activism. And we know that activism often involves involves spin/rhetoric of all kinds.
Personally I can care less for these two individuals. They can both die in each other’s arms for all I care.

Jackie | March 18, 2005 04:46 PM

I tend to doubt that Besen is being paid to say that he’s gay.

But he is paid to denigrate the ex-gay movement at whatever cost it seems…but I’m not saying that Besen is evil and Chambers is not.

Hey Alan, if God can heal those who can’t conceive (hey, it’s in the Bible, so therefore infertility healing is *entirely* possible with God) then I think you should have just tried a little harder or had more faith. Obviously you did something wrong if you weren’t able to conceive naturally or if God didn’t “heal” you and Leslie. After all, adoption just can’t be “natural,” right?

(for those who are sarcasm impaired, I’m making a point between what Exodus et. al. says about gays who haven’t been able to change – “God *can* do it, so if it doesn’t happen, there must be something *wrong* with you!” and what some might cruelly say about people with infertility issues.)

I fail to see how comments like “less a chance of another Alan Chambers is a good thing in my book” serve any constructive purpose. They just fuel Chambers’ victimology — the far-right political myth that gays are afraid of fluidity in sexual orientation.

As for Chambers’ dismissal of my post: I asked questions that were pointed and relevant, given Chambers’ campaign to add political litmus tests to adoptions nationwide. If Chambers demands to know the private sexual details of would-be adoptive parents, then it is appropriate to demand that Chambers answer the same questions.

If Chambers is really concerned about tabloid journalism, then I direct him back to his organization’s tabloid, exodus.blogs.org, which offers no help at all to struggling exgays.

The Exodus tabloid once had the potential to help heal wounded souls through daily advice about the struggle to be ex-gay. Instead, the Exodus blog is consumed by embittered and sadistic rants by paranoid political wingnuts.

If I may say so… Exodus would benefit from a religious conversion — from its current false religion of political warfare, moral relativism, and blind animosity toward same-sex-attracted people, to legitimate Christianity.

Legitimate Christians exemplify the values of cooperation, charity, community, modesty, humility, honesty, openness, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, sound sexuality, and dialogue with fellow people of faith.

These values are unfortunately not very evident at Exodus at this time.

Mike A,

You say:
“Legitimate Christians exemplify the values of cooperation, charity, community, modesty, humility, honesty, openness, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, sound sexuality, and dialogue with fellow people of faith. ”

Suppose Exodus changed their beliefs to be in line with what you described. But suppose that they continue to assert that “SOME people can and do change their orientation to certain degrees, and we would like to help those who want to change change.”

Would you still frown upon Exodus? Hopefully the answer is no.

Jackie | March 18, 2005 10:02 PM

>But he (Besen) is paid to denigrate the ex-gay movement at whatever cost it seems

If a “movement” was trying to deny me equal rights under law, I’d denigrate it, too.

Oh, wait. There is such a “movement.” It’s the “ex-gay” “movement.”

I still wonder how much Chambers is being paid to say that he’s an “ex-gay.” How much was John Paulk paid before he was found out? John Paulk. Remember him?

Actually, I’ve been wondering just how much Chamber’s complaint of “low sperm count” holds water as the reason that he’s adopting. It doesn’t take thatmany swimmers to fertilize an egg. Actually, it takes just one. Unless Chambers is a castrati or a eunuch, he probably could produce more than a few swimmers, even if he has a “low sperm count.” And they could be implanted in the various eggs in an IVF (in vitro fertilization) procedure. Chambers’s explanation strains credulity. It strains credulity so much that one might wonder whether, if he and his wife were actually actually to go to an IVF clinic and get a few eggs fertilized, it might not be reasonable to conclude that Chambers was unable to have “normal” heterosex with his wife. Which, in turn, would suggest that he isn’t as “ex-gay” as he suggests. So Chambers adopts, and people forget to wonder whether he was unable to have “normal” heterosex with his wife.

NB: Let’s be clear. Chambers made his sex life a public issue when he went to work for an “ex-gay” operation and started bashing equal rights for gay people.

Jackie | March 20, 2005 02:25 AM

>Suppose Exodus changed their beliefs to be in line with what you described. But suppose that they continue to assert that “SOME people can and do change their orientation to certain degrees, and we would like to help those who want to change change.”

I’m not sure why you pose such a question, since it is clear that Exodus since the 1970s has evolved into nothing more than another fund-raising operation for political religious right operations such as Dobson’s Focus on (some peoples’) Family. As I’ve said here before, I’ve known people who have changed their outward appearing sexual orientations have shifted between straight and gay more times than I care to count. That didn’t particularly bother me.* And they didn’t need a religious operation to do the conversion. But the people who changed their outward appearing sexual orientations didn’t do what Chambers, Paulk, Randy Thomas and others did. They didn’t denigrate equal rights for gay people. They didn’t go to work for an operation that denigrates equal rights for gay people. And they didn’t earn money denigrating equal rights for gay people. That’s the difference between the people I know and people like Chambers, Paulk & Thomas. And I’m sure that it’s a difference that even you can understand.

*Well, it’s not entirely true that it didn’t particularly bother me. It didn’t bother me as long a they weren’t screwing over someone who had reasonably been led to believe that he or she could rely on the other person for companionship. But that’s a different issue. And, by the way, yes, I do have a problem with someone–a male, for example–who comes out at 40 and divorces his wife because he discovers he prefers having sex with men.

“The happiest couples…gay or not, are the ones who choose not to have children.
Getting an IVF boost from your physician WAS unnatural.
Trying to make heterosexuals from homosexuals is also unnatural.”

I don’t see how you can back up any of these three statements, Regan. The last one is especially scary, and suggests that you want nothing more than to divide the human race into “gay” and “straight” roles.

Frankly, it’s pretty obvious to me that the tone of the reply comments you guys have given to Alan’s post are not putting you on the moral high ground.

The only exception would be Mike’s comment, with which I wholeheartedly concur. There actually used to be some positive and helpful articles on Exodus’ site. Now it’s turned into another political blog.

Jackie: “Suppose Exodus changed their beliefs to be in line with what you described. But suppose that they continue to assert that “SOME people can and do change their orientation to certain degrees, and we would like to help those who want to change change.”"

The problem here, Jackie is two-fold. First, I don’t see Exodus saying that SOME people can and do change their orientation. The message from Exodus, especially the one given in their seminars, conferences like “Love Won Out” (which many of their leaders speak at), etc. is that gays (not some, but the general) can change and should change. Their political message when they give testimony is not that some gays can change. It is resoundingly that they have changed, hence gays can change, hence gays should not get any marriage, adoptive, etc. rights. Their option is to change or not receive these rights.

As for Mike’s comment on the Exodus blog, I agree. The blog does nothing more than link to articles that by and large “build up” ex-gays and denigrate gays. I’ve never seen any article on that blog say one positive thing about gays, but I have seen many say some very negative things about them.

In answer to your question, Jackie- if Exodus’ message were “some gays can change, and we want to help those that would like to try, but we realize some cannot change,” I would have much less of an issue with them.

TA,

I’d have to agree with you here. If Exodus would tone down their message, both philosophically and politically, people would have much less of a problem with them.

Some people ARE able to experience changes in inner sexual orientation (with or without therapy). I know a few of these people, and they were happy, openly gay men who for whatever reason, started experiencing subtle changes in inner orientation, moving them from totally gay to bi. These people perhaps have a more malleable/flexible sexual orientation than others. A lot of other people have a much more rigid sexual orientation that basically stays the same throughout most of life.

This being said, I’ve read many horror stories about those with a rigid sexual orientation undergoing therapy, and after failing to experience ANY degree of change, however small, fall into a deep depression and resort to suicide. This truly breaks my heart.

Exodus seems to be misleadingly optimistic about what can or can’t be done. Obviously, this is deadly to a person’s well being.

Regan writes:
“Methinks you doth protest too much!
You having to assert yourself where no one really WOULDN’T CARE unless you were so insecure you just HAD to let us all know.
Just how much of a heterosexual you are these days.
YUCK, EEEUUUUWWW!
Too much information Alan. And unless you’re really trying to say it’s just so great to be heterosexual and finally with children.”

To be fair, I think there have been plenty of comments in this thread and others that show that actually people do care how much of a heterosexual he is. While I don’t think sperm count or adopting or whatever have anything to do with heterosexuality (look at all the gays and lesbians with kids from heterosexual sex!) the fact is that people want to know, and certain insinuations about his heterosexuality (or lack) have been made on this and other sites.

I also don’t think it’s gross or too much info to talk about matters of sexuality (even vaginal dryness). It’s life and the traditional Christian mode of anything-having-to-do-with-sex-is-gross-and-dirty had done way more harm than good in this world.

My $.02 even though I never thought I’d find myself defending a post by Alan…

“My $.02 even though I never thought I’d find myself defending a post by Alan…”

Annika,

There’s nothing wrong with being reasonable and refraining from needless hostility.

The last post makes it fairly obvious that this “jackie” is nothing more than a troll.