Ex-Gay Watch

Actor Anne Heche’s mother, Nancy Heche, is a speaker for Focus on the Family’s antigay roadshow, Love Won Out.

Queerty found an August statement attributed to Anne on a message board of AnneHeche.com. Part of the statement is excerpted below.

The “Ex-gay” events that are going on right now make me sick. The fact that my mother is using my name to promote this movement makes me even sicker. I could not disagree more adamanty [sic] with what she and her group of unloving, unaccepting, [sic] Bible preaching hate mongers are doing. I do not believe that homosexuality is something that should be brainwashed out of someone. I do not believe that homosexuality should be anything but celebrated if that is the thing that makes an individual feel good about their life. I believe, as I have always said, that people should love who they want to love.

The source — a discussion forum — is admittedly dubious, but one assumes posts falsely attributed to Anne on her own web site would be promptly deleted. Ex-Gay Watch inquired with the site about the statement’s validity: No response yet.

Gay author and activist Wayne Besen thanks Anne for her repudiation of Nancy, and links to a New York Daily News gossip brief quoting Anne’s statement and to an earlier article by Besen recalling Anne’s allegations of abusive parenting by Nancy Heche.

Update: I emailed the WHOIS administrative contact listed for AnneHeche.com to verify authenticity. I received the following email excerpt dated 09-21-05:

Anne said through her husband that it was fine for me to confirm that she wrote that statement personally, as well as anything else on her official site that shows her name.

-Preston Bealle

It’s come to my attention some XGW readers and contributors are displeased with Howard Stern’s Sept. 15 “interview” (I use the term loosely) of Richard Cohen. I was unable to listen to the original broadcast so instead I rely on a 20-minute MP3 posted on The Malcontent. Stern neither confronts Cohen on his trail of bizarre misdeeds and claims, nor invites a guest with an opposing point of view. This is what I assume has people so upset. I, however, came to much the same conclusion as Wayne Besen, who begins his blog post so eloquently:

Former Moonie and naked cult member Richard Cohen was on Howard Stern this morning to make an ass of himself, talking about his bizarre “transformation” from gay to straight. In typical fashion, he was a buffoon and a self-promoting media ho, who plugged his book every six seconds.

Cohen is clearly willing to do anything for publicity when one considers how reviled Stern is by Cohen’s typical supporters, the religious right. As for Stern, why should he be interested in Cohen? Our very own Mike Airhart emailed me:

People go on Stern’s show to make the audience feel the lowest form of pity for them — not to achieve credibility or respect.

And that’s exactly what happened. Aside from repeatedly plugging his books and website, Cohen was able to accomplish little more than getting out a watered down version of his testimony. Stern constantly interrupted him with inappropriate and disruptive questions as one should expect on his show. Examples include Cohen being asked if he was a “power bottom” during his gay years, currently masturbates or lusts after women other than his wife. Sprinkled throughout the broadcast were a stream of pornographic sound effects. I admit I was entertained and consider the comedic highlight to be when Stern brings on a character named “Gay Ramon” wearing assless chaps and asks Stern sidekick Richard Christy to expose his shaved genitalia in hopes of eliciting a reaction from Cohen. Typical exchanges went like this:

Cohen: For me it was I didn’t bond with my dad.
Stern: Right.
Cohen: He and I weren’t… [cut off]
Howard: Join the club.
Cohen: Right.
Howard: And I’ll bang any chick in this room.

In case you didn’t notice I think Cohen did a nice job keeping PFOX and himself as well respected as a circus freak-show. Gee wiz, I’m so forlorn some stiff policy analyst from HRC wasn’t there to express the pro-gay point of view on Christy’s hairless cock and otherwise serve as a wet blanket.

I look forward to next week when Cohen will be appearing on Crossing Over with John Edward to channel spirits of the dead fathers of ex-gays to help them resolve their therapeutic issues. Don’t forget your tennis racquet!

Oh and did I mention Stern’s next guest on the show after Cohen was Danny Bonaduce. (Damn! I was hoping for Charo.)

[FYI, the whole Crossing Over thing is a joke but everything else in this post is true.]

Mike’s Addendum: The Howard Stern Show web site summarizes the interview and provides R-rated photographs of Cohen posing with Stern’s male staffers, some of whom are naked from the waist down. Warning: Some images contain pixelated nudity and raunchy gestures.

Modern historians tend to couch the Civil War in terms of economic factors. However, I think they overlook the deeply felt religious war that preceded the fighting. The unifying “body of Christ” that could have held different geographic regions together was no longer united.

Between 1838 and 1944 the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches all split over the issue of slavery. Both proponents and opponents of slavery used scripture and interpretation of the core of Christianity as the basis for their position. This issue was the greatest threat to protestant Christianity in the history of the country.

Although it is tempting to claim that the supporters of slavery were justifying their position, they actually had a stronger case. They argued that slavery was mentioned but not condemned in the Bible. There was even New Testament scripture admonishing slaves to obey their masters and to do so cheerfully. They had a God-given charge to protect the institutions established by God.

All that the opponents of slavery could claim was that slavery was abhorrent to anyone understanding the principles of Christianity. They claimed that an understanding of how God instructs us to treat each other has to trump textual references. They had a God-given charge to stand up for the oppressed.

This was not a debate over interpretation of certain passages, but rather over the nature of God and Christianity. After the abolishment of slavery and the gradual societal disapproval of attitudes of racial superiority, the division of the church over slavery became moot. But the base difference over the understanding of God did not go away. It simply didn’t have a “cause” to highlight it.

Now it does.

Again the church finds itself in debate over the nature of God and Christianity. And not incidentally, it is the same players taking the same sides.

On one hand, there is the camp of Christianity that claims that literal interpretation of scripture requires that they condemn homosexuality and fight against it. They have a God-given charge to protect the institutions set up by God and oppose evil. This is the same camp that championed slavery led, to some extent, by the Southern Baptist Church.

On the other hand, there is the camp of Christianity that claims that an understanding of Christ demands that you protect the oppressed and show God’s unconditional love. They have a God-given charge to champion justice and equality. These are the same folk who led the religious opposition to slavery, the Unitarians, Quakers, United Church of Christ, and Episcopalians.

A few years ago I took a look at the situation and realized that the mainline protestant denominations (Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Congregational) all had one single issue that was dividing them internally, how the homosexual person fit into the church and society. I started making a rash prediction that within 10 years they would all split.

In the past few years this prediction has began to play out. The United Church of Christ (Congregational, Disciples of Christ, and a few other smaller components) has taken a strongly pro-gay stance, going so far as to endorse gay marriage and to pledge to work for equality. Consequently they lost a few member churches. However, it doesn’t look like a schism is likely.

The Episcopal Church voted to confirm the election of a gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire. Some churches have left the American fellowship and placed themselves under control of other foreign branches of the Anglican Church. Also within the Episcopal Church a group of dissident churches has established itself and a split is almost inevitable. This issue may actually go further than the Episcopal Church and result in a split of the 72 million member Anglican fellowship.

The Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches are all trying their hardest to avoid conflict and trying to appease everyone. The result sounds something like “Homosexuality is sin, but maybe it isn’t. And gay people are both welcome and opposed in our pulpits.” Perhaps they’ll find a way to work things out, or maybe they can hold together until homosexuality as an issue cools. But the underlying difference in how God is understood is not going away.

But the first official split caught me completely by surprise. In a news story, the LA Times reported that the Pacific Southwest region of the American Baptist Church has announced that it is splitting from the denomination because it had failed to declare homosexual practice incompatible with Christian Scripture. The West Virginia region may soon follow.

The leader of the region stressed that the move “is not a gay-bashing issue. This is an authority-of-Scripture issue.” As I stated above, it goes to a separate understanding of the nature of God and Christianity.

This, in my opinion, is but the first of several splits or reorganizations over the understanding of homosexuality and Christianity. And I anticipate that the claims of the Ex-gay movement will play loudly in the rending. Although the tiny American Baptist Church with only 1.5 million members will probably not get a lot of attention, when this complete reorganization of protestant Christianity is over the impact on the country will be huge, going far beyond this one issue and resulting in a clash over the nature of religion and its place in society.

Because the repression or liberation of gay people does not have a significant regional economic impact in the way that slavery did, I don’t anticipate any repeat of civil hostilities specifically over issues relating to homosexuality. But if the religious bodies again become fractioned, which I believe is inevitable, much of the glue that holds the nation together will be gone.

Some other conflict could again leave this country with divided camps, each viewing the other as the enemy.

Peterson Toscano, Jeff Harwood and others are pulling together data on all participants who attended the Memphis-based live-in ex-gay program Love In Action from 1995 to present.

The list includes first names of participants, how they left the program and current status (gay/ex-gay/unknown). About 40 percent are unknown.

If you attended LIA or know someone who did, please visit Peterson Toscano’s web site and contact him via e-mail. Personal information will be kept confidential.

The Memphis-based Queer Action Coalition reports:

A lawyer for Love In Action/Refuge contacted the State of Tennessee late yesterday [Wednesday?] claiming to have received their letter that day, and thereby requested to still receive the one-week time span in order to apply for licensing, or cease operation. It appears that information will be made available about their decision next Friday.

A article about LIA/R in today’s print edition of the Washington Blade appears to be the same article published online two days ago. Neither article cites LIA/R’s request for extra time.

Is Love In Action stalling for time; fumbling incompetently with unlicensed “therapies,” drugs, and bogus health-insurance collections; or mustering religious-right political and financial support for a blank-check, “faith-based” exemption from fundamental legal and medical accountability?

The CDC has released a report today about sexuality in persons age 15 to 44. The information is based on a survey in 2002 of in-person, face-to-face interview with a national sample of 12,571 men and women. The process involved an interviewer but the sex related questions were entered into a laptop computer without telling the answers to the interviewer.

To me, the methodology seems pretty sound and the survey size is impressive.

For a quick synopsis, you can look here or the full survey here.

The media has focused so far on a trend that suggests that younger persons are engaging in oral sex as a means of delaying vaginal sex. However, several statistics relating to our community are seen from the results.

Of particular interest, is how people identify their sexual orientation. Men said:

90.2 Heterosexual

2.3 Homosexual

1.8 Bisexual

3.9 Something else

1.8 Did not report

For women, the breakout is:

90.3 Heterosexual

1.3 Homosexual

2.8 Bisexual

3.8 Something else

1.8 Did not report

Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what was “something else”. A calculated guess would include transgendered people, asexuals, and those who are comfortable with “gay” or “lesbian” but not with “homosexual”. I assume that some of them would also be those who identify as “ex-gay”. Interestingly, there is 1.8% of the population that simply froze and were afraid to push a button.

Perhaps the most conclusive thing that can be taken from the results is that there is about 10% of the population that does not consider itself heterosexual. That’s a larger number than I expected.

When the question is put in terms of attraction, men responded:

92.2 Only female

3.9 Mostly female

1.0 Both

0.7 Mostly male

1.5 Only male

0.7 Not sure

Women said:

85.7 Only males

10.2 Mostly males

1.9 Both

0.8 Mostly females

0.7 Only females

0.8 Not sure

When the question is determined by sexual activity:

6.0 percent of men have had oral or anal sex with another man in their life, and 2.9 have in the past year. This, to some extent, is determined by age:

4.5 of 15-19 y.o.; 2.4 in the last year

5.5 of 20-24 y.o.; 3.0 in the last year

6.5 of 24-44 y.o.; 3.0 in the last year

11.2 percent of women have had same-sex contact though it is not as specific as for men. 4.4 percent had same-sex contact in the past year. This is a fascinating finding in that fewer women consider themselves to be gay. This skewing may partly be a result of the more specific nature of the question to men.

Some information is presented about the number of sex-partners in the past year but it isn’t easy to extrapolate what a gay person’s median number might be. What was available was:

0.7 percent of men and 1.1 percent of women had one sex partner during the last year and that person was of the same sex.

0.9 percent of men and 0.2 percent of women had 2 or more partners of the same sex.

1.0 percent of men and 3.1 percent of women had sex with both men and women in the past year.

This suggests that gay men are not a promiscuous as anti-gay people claim. Nearly as many gay men had only one partner as had more than one. And lesbians, as is consistent with the stereotype, tend not to be promiscuous at all.

Also, I think we can assume that about 2.3% of guys are gay and between 1.3 and 1.5% of women ar lesbians whether defined by identity or by attraction.

An encouraging statistic is that for those who engaged in only same-sex activity in the past year, multiple partners were statistically invisible for men under 20 and women under 25.

Some more fun facts are:

40 percent of guys and 35 percent of women have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner

90 percent of guys and 88 percent of women have had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner

Of men who had ever had same-sex contact, 60% have tested for HIV (29% in the last year) while only 46% of men without same-sex activity have tested (14% in the past year).

About 17% of men who have had same-sex contact have been treated for non-HIV sexually transmitted infection while 7% of men without same-sex contact have been treated for a non-HIV STI.

Of males who had ever had sexual contact with another male, 91% used a condom in their most recent sex. Of those without any same-sex contact, 36% used a condom in their last sex.

During 2002, 49% of HIV infections were through gay sex, 34% through vaginal sex, 15% through injection drug use, with 2% other.

7.3% of Latinos and 7.5% of black men identified their orientation as “something else” and 3 to 4 percent of each did not answer the question.

49.1% of men who have had oral or anal sex with another man consider themselves to be heterosexual.

Yet another media request. Feel free to respond if you’re able to help this guy out.

I’ll be writing a feature article for a British Christian magazine about homosexual (but not pro-gay) and ‘ex-gay’ ministries in the UK. I’d love to talk to anyone who has had any experience of this kind of thing in the UK, whether positive or negative. I’m trying to get a broad overview of conservative ministries to gays in the UK, especially in comparison to ex-gay ministries in the US.

If you can help, or know of anyone who can help, drop a comment underneath or email me.

-Dave Rattigan

Interested readers may also view this request on Dave’s blog.

From The Malcontent here’s an MP3 of Richard Cohen on the Howard Stern Show. I’ve got work so don’t expect any analysis out of me till tonight.

From Wonkette.com:

Today, the New York Times investigates the Christian conservatives’ fifth column: Penguins. Turns out conservatives have become unlikely champions of the documentary “March of the Penguins,” saying, among other things, that the film promotes monogamy and family values. Clearly, no one has told them about the gay penguins (of course, they choose to be gay).

It seems like a stretch but, hey, it’s an improvement over talking vegetables.

UPDATE: Several readers have called attention to penguin’s not-so-socially-conservative serial monogamy. Also, fathers take off pretty early. Republicans soft on deadbeat penguins!

Family.org’s magazine, Citizen, recently published an article responding to some of Soulforce’s claims of spiritual violence. Their response, however, requires a very illogical manner of thinking to debunk anything.

1. “DOBSON SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER CAUSED BY FAMILY
PROBLEMS AND BAD PARENTING.”
Facts:
Soulforce greatly distorts Dr. Dobson’s views on the root causes of homosexuality. In fact, Dr. Dobson and many others in the mental health field see homosexuality as a developmental condition stemming from a combination of
factors—including, but not limited to, dysfunctional familial relationships.

The fact is, Citizen isn’t debating anything here. The point of Soulforce’s claim is that Dobson sees homosexuality from a clinically false viewpoint – that it is a changeable condition. So arguing about the exact semantics of it is pointless.

Thousands of men and women who have left behind their gay and lesbian identities are living testimonies of the reality that homosexuality is a condition which can be overcome.

Really? Thousands? Wasn’t it hundreds of thousands? And where are they, and where are their testimonies published and reviewed as clinical evidence?

Even the pro-gay American Psychological Association admits that the current scientific consensus is that homosexuality results from a combination of biological, psychological and social/environmental factors.

Does the APA admit that homosexuality is a changeable condition that people should undergo therapy to rid themselves of? Again, semantics.

More homosexuals than heterosexuals engage in smoking, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, mental illness and promiscuity.

Where do these numbers come from? How does one define “promiscuity?” How exactly does one “engage in” mental illness?

Recent studies in the United States, New Zealand and the Netherlands reveal a link between homosexuality and mental illness. Gay researcher J. Michael Bailey says “these studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology” and that homosexuals are at “substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, anxiety disorder, and nicotine dependence.”

Is this the same J. Michael Bailey that was linked to the Human Biodeiversity Institute and eugenics? The one who lost his chair at Northwestern amid allegations of sexual misconduct? Now, where were those other studies published?

Honestly, the whole article goes on like this. Spitzer is cited, non-sequitor questions are asked, and other malfunctions of logic are presented as arguments. They deride Soulforce for refusing to debate with them. Get the July 2005 edition of Citizen Magazine to read the whole thing; or don’t waste your time.

It seems to me that Focus is using propaganda tactics to fight the idea that homosexuality should be tolerated. They repeat, over and over, the same distortions, half-truths, discredited ‘facts,’ and outright lies in the hopes that people will believe them. Whether the research is good or not, whether the arguments are valid or not, Focus is hoping to get their ideas across through constant, loud repitition. Unfortunately, the only way to answer such a tactic is with repitition of our own, using facts and valid arguments to counter the propaganda that Focus is spreading.