Ex-Gay Watch

churchnstate’s:
There are those who sincerly choose to restore their heterosexuality and are successful.

Just as there are people who choose to restore Victorian mansions and classic cars that are successful as well. That word “their” is emblematic of the new attempt of the ex-gay movement to linguistically minimize gayness and gay people and then try to argue it all away.

“Their” in this context assumes that the person had some measure of heterosexuality before, that was somehow lost. In fact, we’re all different, and there are a great many people who never had any heterosexuality to begin with. Sadly, these are the most likely to seek help. Bisexuals often get married and live their gay lives on the down low. They only tend to wind up in “reparative therapy” when they get caught.

Like the car or the mansion, you’re asking someone to restore something that isn’t theirs to begin with, and over the long haul, its not very fulfilling to the restorer.

For your smoking and diet analogy, these work best when the subject is convinced internally that these are harmful behaviors. Perhaps this is why you’ve included the word “sincerely.” (Like AA excusing its poor success rate with ‘Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path.’ I think that’s blaming the patient.)

The trouble with using this model for gayness, is that once a gay person has been in a fulfilling, supportive gay relationship, they’ve experienced what for them is the real thing. They own the mansion, or the classic car. It is, for them, all the glowing, wonderful reasons “helpful straights” think gayness is wrong. All that prattle about how much better het is than homo, gets turned on its head in the mind of the person you’re trying to help. Generally, they don’t tell you, because their understanding comes when they realize you don’t, and probably can’t, ever understand.

That’s why this isn’t a “live and let live” situation. You’re not really helping these people. You created the impetus to change because of your lack of understanding in the first place. You then try to keep the impetus alive through lies like Chambers “long term gay relationships aren’t possible” and the bogus claims of shortened lifespans. Then you top it all off by providing, as therapists, a community comprised mostly of quacks.

Do people have the right to seek help from a quack? Perhaps, through religious freedom adults do, but they at least have the right to know the whole truth, and that’s where ex-gay watch and the hundreds of other groups like it comes in, not only to provide some balance, but to sound the alarm bell for what is the real tragedy here. When parents try to make their gay children martyrs for their cause.

Wow, thanks for the responses. A couple things…

Even most exgays (when pressed) admit they have not changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions, they simply repress and control same sex attractions to whatever degree they can.

I can’t speak to what percentage “most” is. I’ve met some exgays who agree with this and I’ve met those who would not say this at all. I’ve known formally gay men who’ve established a fulfilling relationship with a wife. The fulfilling part eliminates the need to “repress and control” anything. People will say the men were never really gay – but that’s not these guys say.

they’re coerced to be “exgay” primarily by spiritual threats of eternal torture

When Christians are “saved” they do not face eternal torture.

If you want to leave people alone to make up their own minds, then really do that.

Agree. This statement also applies to those who choose to pursue reparative therapy.

Do people have the right to seek help from a quack?

For those who are successful, there was no quack.

When parents try to make their gay children martyrs for their cause

Agree – The choice moust come from the individual, not from the parent.

That’s quite a tell. In one sentence you have made an assumption and a statement, both entirely unsupported by the facts (not that you made any attempt to do so).
As I noted in the previous post, since I’ve known those who have successfully restored their heterosexuality (and find it fulfilling), this is not an assumption on my part.

Churchnstate, you’re not “saving” anyone with your psychological abuse threatening eternal torture. Many people have been successful at overcoming this religious abuse and that is a much better idea than trying to change oneself to suit the abuse. Call it “saved” if you want, its still abuse and coercion, and a very strong incentive for “exgays” to lie to you about how much “success” and “fulfillment” they truly have.
Let’s see some of these so called success stories of yours do when hooked up to a penis volume measurement device and looking a sexual images of men. I strongly suspect the results will show what religious tolerance uncovered – success rates of zero.

Churchnstate, I said in a post “If you want to leave people alone to make up their own minds, then really do that.” You then stated “Agree. This statement also applies to those who choose to pursue reparative therapy.”

You’re contradicting yourself here. If you truly believed people should be left alone to make up their own minds about “reparitive therapy” you’d be condemning as myth rather than reiterating the abuse that people are tortured eternally if they don’t go along with your religion. That is a most shameful and despicable act on your part.

churchnstate
For those who are successful, there was no quack.

Treating homosexuality by prohibiting people from wearing Calvin Klein underwear, and teaching them to play football and change the oil in a car is quackery plain and simple. Even the academic-oriented apologists quietly shy away from such nonsense.

When success is measured by someone telling you they’re cured, particularly when the only people in the population are those who strongly desire to be cured, your numbers are going to be rosier than a study such as penile arousal or iris dialation.

I don’t doubt that people’s orientations change. Most common are people who don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Obviously people do change. Sometimes this is accompanied by a religious awakening. Its problematic to me to suggest that people can go from hetero to homo, and not vice versa.

That doesn’t mean that these religious conversion groups are effective. Sexuality seems a whole lot more complex than just some unwanted attractions or false images.

Randi: I suspect, though obviously don’t speak for Churchnstate, that her agreement only extended to minors. This has always been a problem. Only recently has Exodus and their ilk decided that parents have the right to impose these programs on their children.

The most shameful and despicable act, to me, is that these groups all have great resources in those of their leaders who come to the decision that these programs are harmful. These are very often ministers or lay ministers who have spent years in these ministries. Evans and Pennington were the first I’ve found to come to this conclusion, and there have been scores more.

Instead of using their talent and experience, the ex-gay ministries shun them the way cults do. What this does, is foster unreasonable expectations in people who seek to change through their programs.

When they don’t have the success they are falsely told that others have attained, they become depressed and sometimes even take their own life.

Jack McIntyre is the first casualty of these programs. We don’t know how many more there have been.

PBCliberal, I don’t know what you are talking about when you say churchnstate’s agreement only extended to minors. What agreement?

Randi: I was referring to her use of the word “agree” in the context of just having quoting me in italics from a section of my post where I talked specifically about children being forced to attend reparative therapy by their parents. To wit:

[my comment]When parents try to make their gay children martyrs for their cause

[her comment]Agree – The choice moust come from the individual, not from the parent.

Once again, I can’t speak for churchnstate, but that was my take on it.

Churchnstate,

“As I noted in the previous post, since I’ve known those who have successfully restored their heterosexuality (and find it fulfilling), this is not an assumption on my part.”

You have now twice used the term “restore”, so we must deduce that this is not an accidental word choice. As you know, to “restore” something is to return it to it’s original condition.

Your statement then presupposes that (at least some) gay persons were originally heterosexual and then became homosexual. But you provide no support for this suppostition.

What limited evidence that is available seems to show that for some (perhaps most) gay people, sexual orientation is determined at a very young age – though it may not be demonstrated until much later. And there seems to be a pattern emerging in research that suggests that at least some of the factors leading to a same-sex orientation are genetic.

So then, your word choice raises the question: do you believe that ALL gay people were originally heterosexual? Or is it only some gay people?

And if not all, can those who never were heterosexual be “restored” to heterosexuality?

For those who are “restored”, are they restored to an orientation that existed before they were cognizant of any sexuality or attraction? This seems to be an odd thing.

Another thing…

“I’ve known formally gay men who’ve established a fulfilling relationship with a wife. The fulfilling part eliminates the need to “repress and control” anything.”

I’m confused about this statement. Are these men who retain same-sex attraction but through a relationship with a wife are able to eliminate a need to repress? In other words, are they quenching sexual desire and finding a fulfilling sexual outlet through a wife and thus changing sexual behaviour without changing sexual desire?

Or, alternately, are they men who do not find other men sexually attractive?

Posted by: PBCliberal at March 20, 2006 07:26 PM

Sorry, my confusion there.

you’re not “saving” anyone with your psychological abuse threatening eternal torture
… reiterating the abuse that people are tortured eternally if they don’t go along with your religion

In terms of the Christian faith, I’m not the author of the teachings about saved and heaven/hell.

are they quenching sexual desire and finding a fulfilling sexual outlet through a wife and thus changing sexual behaviour without changing sexual desire? Or, alternately, are they men who do not find other men sexually attractive?

In discussion about this, some have expressed the latter. But certainly that’s not true to all.

Again, thanks for the open dialog.

churchNstate: In terms of the Christian faith, I’m not the author of the teachings about saved and heaven/hell.

In terms of christian faith, you in fact are the author, because it is your acceptance or rejection of a myriad of different mythologies generally accepted as “christian” that determines your worldview, which you accept on faith.

There are people who call themselves christian whose interpretation of “lakes are filled with molten brimstone” to be an allegory of the places corpses were taken where sulphur was burned, there are others which believe heaven is allegorical as well.

You are the one who decides what you believe on the basis of interpretations you choose as having “truthiness” (cf. Stepehen Colbert). You’re trying to blame your intolerance on someone else.

Posted by: PBCliberal at March 23, 2006 01:37 PM

Thank you PBCliberal, well said. I wanted to respond to that but doubt I could have done as well.

Churchnstate, in society it is people who are held responsible for their beliefs and actions, not their chosen god. I think its fair that at a minimum you keep your “exgay” stuff and concept of biblical sin and hell in your church where the stress people may have over being rejected for same sex attractions is created in the first place. Spare those of us who aren’t hurting you and want no part of your religion the stress of you demanding we all change to trivially please you and your freely chosen and easily changed faith. Its far, far less of a burden on you to stop repressing other people’s same sex attraction than it is for anyone to be coerced into attempting to “enhance their heterosexuality”. Its wrong to use duress to take so much from others especially when it gives you so little (nothing) in return.

Nit picking always appreciated. I use mythology in the Joseph Campbell sense, which is not perjorative. Indeed, Campbell believes one problem with postmodernism is a lack of myth in the life of man. His Myths to Live By makes this case better than I can, but it can cause one’s head to explode.

When you have stories, such as the Biblical Flood, which appears to be based on the Gilgamesh epic (or they are both based on a third even more ancient oral history) you not only get to choose the story, but who is telling it and when it was first told.

We need a way to look at the big picture here, and using a word that is more inclusive of the range of belief systems seems preferable, even if it may require some explanation so to differentiate its use from perjorative.

Churchnstate,

I think that we’ve reached the place where we’ve established some areas of agreement. Specifically, in reference to persons who go through reparative therapy the following categories result:

1. Persons who no longer are attracted to the same sex. A cursory review of the “testimonies” of ex-gays shows that this group is very small – even among ex-gay leaders. I can think of only a few that make this claim.

2. Persons who remain attracted to the same sex but learn to diminish this desire, sometimes by marriage and sometimes in celebacy. This seems to be the majority of that small number of people who claim “success”.

3. Persons who claim successful reorientation but later revert to same sex activity and/or relationships. This includes a significant number of examples from among ex-gay leadership.

4. Persons who go through reorientation with few or no negative consequences but who do not successfully reorient. Some of these leave ex-gay therapy as content gay people who were able to glean from the therapy some tools to resolve problems in their lives and reconcile their faith with their sexuality.

5. Persons who go through reorientation therapy and have significant consequences including depression, feelings of worthlessness, and suicidal tendencies.

Unfortunately, though studies on this are limited, it appears that a plurality (if not majority) of persons fall into category 5.

You originally equated reparative therapies to diet and smoking cessation programs.

Using your example, what would happen to a program that did harm to the majority of its participant? We do not need to speculate.

In the 90′s a drug combination of fenfluramine and phentermine was sold as a miracle drug for weight loss. However, Fen-Phen (as it was nicknamed) proved to do damage to a heart valve in a small percentage of people who used it. It was pulled from the market and a major lawsuit ensued against the manufacturers and distributors.

In this instance, the product was successful to the majority, yet all agree that the damage to the few was so severe that the weight loss program was stopped.

Unlike Fen-Phen, reorientation therapy appears to damage the majority (or at least a sizable plurality). And unlike Fen-Phen, the damage seems to make daily functioning in society difficult.

None of this is to discount the suffering of those impacted by the Fen-Phen weight loss program but rather to show that your initial assumption is flawed. Weight loss programs that do damage are removed from availability. The same would be true of a smoking cessation program that left the participants damaged. And this is true regardless of the many people that might benefit from the program.

One of our primary objections to Exodus, LIA, and other ex-gay programs is that they do not assume responsibility for the damage they cause. They promise the hope of falling into category 1, but as best we can tell (they refuse to monitor) far more fall into category 5.

I contend that if ex-gay therapy were not religious in nature, it would have been prevented long ago – not because of an idealogical viewpoint, but because of the damage it has caused people.

But shutting down reorientation programs is not our goal. We simply want the lies, distortions, political activism, and harmful methods to stop.

Should some organization arise that is honest about its goals, methods, and success rate and was responsible for the potential damage incurred, then I could support such a group. Unfortunately, I’ve not seen any.

“… but it can cause one’s head to explode.”

Nah… that can’t happen, it’s just a myth.

PBCliberal said “I don’t doubt that people’s orientations change. Most common are people who don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Obviously people do change. Sometimes this is accompanied by a religious awakening. Its problematic to me to suggest that people can go from hetero to homo, and not vice versa.”

PBCliberal, what would give you the impression that people commonly don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Aren’t you simply seeing gays or bisexuals who have stopped repressing their same sex attractions and have stopped trying to be straight? I was a man married to a woman until later in life and now I am a woman in love with a man. I simply stopped trying to repress my desires although I know it appears to family that I went from straight to transgender later in life I am the way I always was. Isn’t this the case with the people you are referring to?

Good take on Campbell. I probably like him so much because I spend waaaay to much time in my head too. My take on it is halfway between respect, maybe even adoration for him, and disrespect of the rest of us who never thought to look at the problem the way he did. But that doesn’t mean we’re all wrong, in fact, it means we’ve been right all along, but we just didn’t know it!

I’ll also confess to using myth in a way designed to provoke a reaction so that I could proselytize for my own worldview, which is a strange amalgam of quantum mechanics and comparitive mythology. I thought the reaction might come from churchNstate, but it is so much more profound to have it come from you, David.

I am really touched by your last paragraph. I’ve always thought its our job to seek the truth, but don’t know why. I’ve also seen in other cultures, our people as the spiritual ones: the ones of two spirits, the shamans, the high priests in societies where sex and religion are intertwined.

I am constantly amazed by the richness of the thought and the depth of the understanding of the “usual suspects” here, whether its Randi wondering aloud at the motivations of the Stacy Harps, or how “nitpicking” over one word blossomed into David’s (ReasonAble) prescient description not just of who Joseph Campbell was but, by implication, why I might be bringing him up.

All this has taken me back to Mike Airhart’s public exploration of a possible greater role for some or all of us. When I read it, I sat on my hands. I had nothing to bring to the table. I still don’t.

Some of our people are suffering, and maybe there’s something more that we can do than just go after churchNstate as the low-hanging fruit. (Yeah, I know there’s a delicious line there, but I’m trying to be serious, if only for a millisecond.)

Ours are special people. They are good, and honorable, and motivated by a higher purpose, or they wouldn’t be so vulnerable to screeds that they’re moral reprobates. And they’re being ground up as fodder in a culture war.

I guess this is just a thank you, to the people in the pulpet here, and the people in the choir: the kincaids, the grantdales, the garretts, even the churchNstates and the ezekials. I too am sometimes angry by what I learn here, but most often I’m moved that so many people “get it,” and are willing to share their knowledge with people often too afraid to post, sometimes too afraid to even have this website in their web cache.

Randi: [only quoting a portion--from two posts up]
PBCliberal, what would give you the impression that people commonly don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Aren’t you simply seeing gays or bisexuals who have stopped repressing their same sex attractions and have stopped trying to be straight?

I could have been more clear. I was trying to say that het to homo conversions are most common among those people who report a change. (Which kinda flies in the face of the exodus folks.)

No argument that most of us know we’re different from early childhood, and knowledgable observers can sometimes spot it even before we become self-aware. Or that a lot more of us have denial and repression get in the way.

I have read neither the Spitzer study nor the Ariel, Shidlo, Schroeder, Drescher book that takes it on. (I want to do both, but you know…time…), but I think Spitzer was right in that there are some people who do change, but I think its most common as a spontaneous event.

I’ve met a couple of people who didn’t come out until late in life, whom I believe when they tell me they had no attractions earlier. They just seem credible because there doesn’t seem to be any vestiage of any shame or guilt or supressed desire.

But I’m not saying there are very many. And when you then take the subset of people who actually underwent change at the time they were seeking it through professional or religious channels, you’re down to something less than those struck by lightning or meteors. Which suggests either of these options as more effective therapy.