Ex-Gay Watch

On March 30, pro-exgay pundit Warren Throckmorton criticized Dear Abby, who in a recent column told a parent:

"It is not uncommon for the parents of a gay child to feel guilt or
shame, when in truth, it has nothing to do with the quality of their
parenting and everything to do with genetics."

Throckmorton’s objection to an overemphasis on genetics is understandable.

But Throckmorton also objects to the columnist’s referral list for parents with gay children: He says the parents’ group PFLAG and the D.C. Children’s Hospital "perpetuate the belief that homosexuality is an inborn identity with no
words of caution concerning the flexibility of identity in adolescence."

Neither PFLAG nor the Children’s Hospital gender variance program, nor any other significant pro-tolerance or medical organizations that XGW knows of, assert that sexual orientation is an "inborn identity."

(Hat tip: Jim Burroway)

Stop the counterprotests against ex-gays — or at least rethink them, says Michigan-based Quaker (Christian) gay-issues director Michael Gibson Faith. 

In an article today at PrideSource.com, Gibson Faith says gay counterprotests tend to:

1. reinforce the biased language of antigay activists
2. divert gay resources from community-building
3. subtract from lobbying for pro-tolerance legislation
4. exhaust time that would be better spent building ties with communities of faith

In other words: Act, don’t react.

AP reported today (via Newsday) that Prof. Warren Throckmorton had been "removed" from a national advisory board of Magellan Health Services.

That much appears to be false: Previous media reports said that Magellan had rethought its decision to renew Throckmorton’s board position when his contract expired. And nothing is reported to have changed at Magellan since then. The new article does not quote Magellan on any "removal."

What qualifies as "developing news," but is buried in the AP story, is not a "removal"; it is PFOX’s accusation that Magellan discriminates against exgays.

On March 24, PFOX executive director Regina Griggs — possibly seeking to distract public attention from her organization president’s reported ethical lapses and loss of professional standing — circulated this press release which promptly appeared here and was rewritten as a "news" story two days ago by the American Family Association’s AgapePress:

"She [Griggs] contends Magellan should not receive Medicaid or other federal
funds while it continues its discrimination against the ex-homosexual
community. Individuals struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions
have the right "to seek counseling and be represented at all levels of
society," Griggs asserts, "especially health-care advisory councils."
The fact that Magellan officials would "disregard their clients in such
a manner," she adds, brings into question the company’s ability to
operate as a health-care provider. PFOX is asking Magellan Health to
immediately reinstate Dr. Throckmorton and also to place former
homosexuals in advisory positions at the company." (Emphasis is XGW’s.)

(Hat tip: XGW commenter Cpt. Doom)

PFOX’s demand for hiring and leadership quotas for a sexual minority is surprising, given its claim to be a conservative organization. Furthermore, PFOX’s complaints of anti-exgay discrimination are not borne out by some simple realities:

1. Throckmorton is not exgay;
2. Advisory board positions are a privilege, not a right, and exgays are no more entitled to them than gays or heterosexuals;
3. Magellan has not been shown to discriminate in the treatment of exgay patients or reimbursement of reparative therapists;
4. PFOX supports antigay discrimination; and
5. Throckmorton frequently used his advisory board title to lend credibility — a sense of professional endorsement — not only to reorientation-therapy activism, but also to efforts to ban comprehensive sex education in Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools.

The AP report might have benefited from a fair and balanced presentation of the facts.

Jon Rowe has been blogging recently on the nature of bisexuality.  Jon’s a very smart guy and his posts always provide interesting reading–and there are some implications there for the gay/ex-gay conversation.

Even the most optimistic ex-gay proponents and researchers acknowledge that reparative therapy has a modest success rate. Few ex-gays report a true "conversion" experience; the remainder simply learn to cope by maneuvering around their natural sexuality.

Following Jon’s breakdown, it’s possible that some Kinsey 4′s and 5′s (people who ordinarily would not "flourish in any other relationship than a homosexual one"), are able–through force of will–to suppress their natural instinct for sexual and emotional fulfillment because they are capable of at least some heterosexual attraction.

But what about people who are true 6′s on Kinsey’s scale? What does reparative therapy hope to offer these people?  A life without any sexuality at all? They never quite answer this question…  When I was in the ex-gay movement, the answer was essentially, "Tough. It’s your fault that you can’t change, because see?  One guy in Akron and one woman in Tucson are Real Heterosexuals now–so it’s possible."

It’s true that a tiny fraction of highly motivated gays are able to manipulate their sexuality into some semblance of hetero-normality.  However, the ex-gay movement uses that fact as a weapon to bash the majority of gay people: those who have no ability or inclination to change.

We get into a losing argument the moment we start to debate whether or not change is possible, and the theoretical merits of reparative therapies, etc. Someone, somewhere will always have an example of an ex-gay who is truly ex-gay, and happy about it.  But that mere fact proves nothing.

The only winning strategy is for us to take up the banner of personal liberty–and not just as talking points.  We have to mean it.

You want to live as an ex-gay?  Great!  Get down with your bad self. We will never interfere in your decision to pursue your happiness.  Meanwhile, please mind your own business while we pursue happiness for ourselves.

1. Terri Schiavo.

She killed herself when her bulimic behavior led to a persistent and, in time, irreversible persistent vegetative state.

2. Michael Schiavo.

He removed the artificial feeding system that either kept Ms. Schiavo’s body alive, or prolonged her death, depending upon one’s perspective. He deserves conditional public sympathy.

3. The Schindlers and the religious right

Instead of arguing their case based on traditional bioethics and convincing lawmakers to amend Florida law, the Schindlers and the religious right took the low road: They publicly distorted Terri’s medical condition, waged a campaign of character assassination against Michael Schiavo, and sought out the same "activist judges" that the far right had been accusing of lawlessness.

But numerous judges and courts adhered strictly to the law and the U.S. Constitution. The religious right’s political campaign was, it turns out, based upon fundamental falsehoods that alienated the public.

No doubt the Schindlers’ actions were motivated by love. But because they and the religious right transformed loving motives into hateful and deceptive actions, my sympathy for them is also conditional.

4. The nation’s refusal to address health care

Along with private insurers’ premiums paid by millions of policyholders across Florida and the nation, Medicaid helped keep Ms. Schiavo’s body artificially alive for 15 years at tremendous public cost. It is a program mired in financial crisis. Neither the president nor Congress are willing to budget responsibly, nor is anyone willing to say exactly who should live — or die — at public expense.

We will never know for certain whether Ms. Schiavo would have wanted her nearly mindless body, lacking most of the cerebral cortex, to be artificially fed for 15 years at tremendous public expense while other people — lacking Medicaid, insurance payouts, and political friends — died.

We do know what factors killed Ms. Schiavo — or allowed her to die naturally. If anyone is to be "blamed," it is, well, everyone.

OK, folks, have at it. Share your rants, or your links to bloggers who are more thoughtful than I.

Addendum: Wayne Besen commented March 27 on the religious right’s exploitation of the Schindlers and Schiavos. Randy Thomas ranted (his own word) March 18 on behalf of the religious right — XGW coverage of that is here.

Greetings, Everyone!

Thanks very much to Mike for giving me the chance to guest-blog on his site. XGW is a great resource, and I’m excited by the challenge of being part of it. I was hoping to get a post up before now, but work has (unexpectedly) been intense this week.

First, a bit about me: as Mike mentioned I am a gay Mormon and I was involved with the Mormon ex-gay group, Evergeen, for several years. I’m also one of 13 children. Of my brothers and sisters I’m the only one who is out as gay (I have one brother I have reason to suspect…but that’s a long story for another time). Of my 60+ nephews and nieces, I think a handful are probably gay but none have yet come out. My family adheres to a particularly conservative brand of Mormonism. My father taught theology and philosophy at Brigham Young University for 40 years, and imbued his children with a very authoritarian worldview.

I mention all of this because it is relevant to my understanding of both gay and ex-gay issues. I understand well the conformative pressures facing people who are gay, but who choose not to come out or live their lives identifying as ex-gay. For me, it’s not an open-and-shut case; I see legitimate reasons why someone could choose to identify as ex-gay.

I paid a high price, personally, for my choices. When I finally came out for good, my parents cut off contact with me and pressured my siblings to do so as well. I had virtually no contact with my family for almost ten years (this only changed a couple of years ago, when two of my straight brothers distanced themselves from my parents and re-established contact with me). I have seen my parents only twice in the past decade and I suspect I won’t see them again while they are alive. Having said all that, I can also say honestly that I couldn’t be happier with the choices I’ve made. I have a wonderful life: I’m happy, healthy, and in a great relationship with the best guy in the world.

So…these are some of the things that form my frame of reference in the gay/ex-gay debate. In addition, my politics are libertarian, and my educational training is in Psychology/Sociology.

In my thinking and writing, I find myself returning consistently to the intersection between liberty and morality. As gay people, most of us are presented in childhood with a version of morality that we ultimately cannot accept because it is predicated on a lie–the lie that the way we love is a "sin" and that our existence is somehow unnatural or anomalous.

Once we reject that lie, too many of us reject anything thereafter that smacks of "morality." For the sake of our emotional and mental health, I think that’s a bad approach. As I blog on XGW, I hope to start a conversation (even if it’s only with myself!) about integrating our liberty to live honestly and openly as gay people into a larger cultural context that addresses the limits of that liberty.

"Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change," reports Christianity Today.

That subheadline, a misquote, is refuted by the story’s first paragraph — which acknowledges that only "some" people can sustain significant change in sexual attraction after undergoing various exgay programs.

In the interview that follows, Columbia University professor Dr. Robert L. Spitzer acknowledges the following:

• Spitzer submitted a summary of results during his 2001 study of exgays to the head of NARTH, Joseph Nicolosi, as a price to obtain Nicolosi’s further assistance with the study.
• Spitzer misrepresents the clearly explained objections of his colleagues to the methodological weaknesses of his study.
• Spitzer indicates he is not particularly interested in knowing whether the "change" is only temporary.

Spitzer says:

Some people have said, "Follow these people,
interview them five years later, see how many of them have switched
back," since it’s well known that some ex-gays give it up.

But suppose you found that 5 percent or 10 percent
did switch back. I mean, so what? You’d find the same thing if you
followed people who had treatment for drug addiction. Some are going to
relapse.

The study that ought to be done is a controlled
study where people go into the therapy, and then you initially evaluate
them, and then you evaluate them later and see how many actually
changed. But that study is not going to be done, unfortunately.

Spitzer’s interest in knowing only half the truth — and some gay scientists’ disinterest in conducting any studies at all — are equally regrettable.

Without studies of the long-term impact of exgay therapies, prospective patients can only guess which exgay programs (if any) will be effective, and which ones are ineffective or counterproductive.

Please welcome Joe Riddle as an author for Ex-Gay Watch.

Joe has first-hand experience with the exgay movement, as a former participant in the Mormon exgay organization Evergreen.

Joe will be writing on a variety of topics, including the healthy moral, social and political territory that lies somewhere in between extremes of drunken bareback barfly promiscuity (remembered with disgust by some exgays), and the religious right’s own unethical conduct and cultural warfare.

Welcome, Joe!

Also, this website will be undergoing some design changes. Long overdue: An FAQ for commenters, and prominent links to past articles that, given greater prominence, would make clear XGW’s support for mutual tolerance, between gays and exgays, regarding responsible lifestyle choices.

I invite feedback from readers about which articles and topics you’ve liked the most… or the least, and why.

TO: Ex-Gay Watch (via e-mail)

CC: Focus on the Family (via e-mail)

RE: Focus on the Family broadcast, 3/22/05

It’s somewhat odd that today on FNIF, Alan Chambers is whining about discrimination by a private corporation, Magellan Health Services, saying quote, “people are trying to tell others what to do,” and “everyone should have the right to self-determination.” This obviously reeks of hypocrisy: Exodus and FOTF are consistently telling happy and healthy gay Americans exactly what they should do and of course promoting discrimination against them, such as recently with Procter & Gamble.

It is odd they’re crying against discrimination, when they’re so fast to defend the right of private companies to discriminate.

Odd, too, they’re complaining about self-determination when they try to tell self-determined gay Americans how (not) to live their lives.

Daniel Steven Gonzales
Long Beach, California

FNIF broadcast (scroll to 5:40):
Windows Media Player format
RealPlayer format

Previous XGW coverage

Most bloggers and pundits have taken sides in the Terri Schiavo debacle, and a few have actually contributed constructively to the debate. Among them: Charles Krauthammer.

You may count Exodus official and part-time FRC pundit Randy Thomas among the "most" but not among the "few." His recent finger-wagging string of insults and threats embarrasses the cause of those who believe in providing basic sustenance (but not extraordinary life support) to the severely disabled or the not-quite-brain-dead.

Thomas’ subject line: "Mike Schiavo, his lawyer Felos and the Judiciary should pull up a chair next to Scott Peterson."

How Christian of him: An Exodus official is wishing the death penalty upon Michael Schiavo, his lawyers, and the U.S. judicial system.

Thomas’ effort to throw gasoline on a tragic fire proceeds like this:

Thomas: "Terri is not in a ‘vegatative (sic) state.’"
(False, according to most doctors.)

Thomas: "Mike Schiavo (the selfish husband)…"
(Sticks and stones.)

Thomas: "… was supposed to use those millions for her rehab. Not a dime went toward that."
(False.)

Thomas (who tolerates religious-right divorce and remarriage): "Instead Mike Schiavo shacked up with another woman, had children with his mistress and used that money for his personal life and for litigation to end Terri’s life."
(Do unto your neighbor, Mr. Thomas.)

The state of Florida has not, to my knowledge, permitted Mr. Schiavo to obtain a divorce, because he lacks the required consent of a person/body that is forever incapable of providing it. I think it is sad, but not unreasonable, for a person in Mr. Schiavo’s position — wedded by legalists (such as Thomas) to a living-dead spouse who will almost certainly never return to sentience — to eventually choose to move on with life by rebuilding a family.

Family values, Mr. Thomas. Perhaps you’ve heard of them.

Christian and mainstream ethicists disagree over whether food and water constitute extraordinary (excessive) means of life support; many say sustenance is not excessive and, personally, I side with those liberal Christians who view healthy food and clean water as basic rights for all persons — not just the undead. Compare that to Thomas’ position: His GOP buddies are slashing the Medicaid funding that keeps Terri Schiavo alive.

Unlike Mr. Thomas, I respect the U.S. Constitution; the judicial system’s check against abuses of power by extremists and mobs; and the experts who weighed all the evidence (both public and unpublicized) in the 15-year case.

My own opinion about the Terri Schiavo situation is irrelevant but, I hope, more constructive than that of Exodus officials:

I dislike the rulings, but they accurately and loyally enforce Florida law and Constitutional precedent. The only judicial activism that I see, is happening among the religious right.

I sympathize with both sides in the dispute; I support the authority of the judiciary; and I fear exactly what Mr. Thomas essentially admits he is doing:

Randy Thomas, and his co-pundits at FRC, are using the tragedy of Terri Schiavo not to preserve life — which is indeed worth preserving — but to declare a death penalty against the U.S. judicial system and to "impeach" anyone whom they presume to hate.