Ex-Gay Watch

A new website brings a fresh look to Exodus International, and XGW took a fresh look at their Frequently Asked Questions to check on what their official positions are concerning several topics, including political and civil topics.

1. They refuse to talk about a success rate for sexual orientation change.

When asked, they redirect the question so that the one actually posed never gets answered – and that’s the one we want answered: whether people can successfully change from homosexual to heterosexual.

Let’s rephrase that question. Is there realistic hope that men and women who experience same-sex attraction can overcome those temptations and lead a life of sexual integrity? Can they reasonably expect a time when same-sex attraction will no longer dominate their existence, determine their behavior, or define their identity? The answer to those questions is yes!

They eagerly emphasize that behavior can change. You can go from being a creature with a sexual appetite to one that is sexless. You can be celibate. But nobody, gay or straight, seriously denies that you can do any of these things. The question people really want to know is “can someone change their core sexual orientation from gay to straight?” And they refuse to provide an answer.

2. You cannot be gay and Christian – the two are incompatible.

No, you’re not supposed to judge others, and you are  not to presume you know the heart of another human being as intimately as, for example, God would – but that doesn’t mean you can’t question it, to yourself, out loud, within their earshot.

if someone actively pursues homosexual involvement and refuses to acknowledge this behavior as sin, it’s valid to humbly question whether his or her commitment to Christ – and especially to growth in holiness – is genuine.

It’s not enough to let it go as yet another schism; “pro-gay theology” must be “refuted.”

That’s why it’s critical to understand, confront and refute so-called “pro-gay theology,” which alleges that Scripture has been mistranslated and misinterpreted when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.

Exodus knows the correct way to read the Bible concerning the topic of homosexuality. It is unequivocal for them. Read more…

Scott Lively made a small splash by deciding to open a Christian-themed coffee house in Springfield, Massachusetts called “Holy Grounds.” People wondered aloud if this was a “new leaf” being turned over, but Lively made known that he would continue to serve as a conference speaker on the topic of homosexuality.

Now, it turns out that the man who advises parents to keep their children away from gays has himself employed a child molester to manage his establishment. Michael J. Frediani, 38, was arrested for failing to register as a level 2 sex offender in Springfield. He lived in an apartment above Lively’s shop.

In New York, Frediani was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree in 1996.

The charge relates to an arrest by police in Canandaigua, N.Y., in 1995 in which the victim was an 11-year-old girl. The description of the offense was “deviate sexual intercourse.”

He was sentenced to two to four years in state prison, serving at the Midstate Correctional Facility from September of 1996 to February of 1999, according to Carole Weaver, a spokeswoman for the state’s Division of Parole.

Local authorities expressed concern that the business was becoming a haven for truant teens, as well.

Lively is of course the co-author of the infamous book “The Pink Swastika,” in which he falsely claims the Holocaust was perpetrated by a Nazi Party infiltrated by hyper-masculine homosexuals. Its claims have been consistently debunked, and Lively has become well-associated with outright hatred of gay people. His group “Abiding Truth Ministries” has been on the SPLC anti-gay hate group list for several years, and recently played a key role in the introduction of Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill.

Lively’s response to Frediani’s arrest?

Frediani had told Lively that he had a “rough past before he became a Christian,” Lively said, adding that he did not know any specifics and that he saw no need for a criminal background check.

“That’s the beauty of the salvation of Christ,” Lively said. “When you come to Jesus Christ, and you accept his forgiveness for your sins, then you are forgiven by Him and enter a new life. It doesn’t surprise me that he had a rough past, that he has a criminal record.”

In an historic vote, the United States Senate has passed an act repealing the ban on openly gay soldiers serving in the armed forces, 65-33. Eight Republicans sided with the mostly Democratic call for repeal. The ban, called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” or “DADT,” has been in effect since 1993. President Barack Obama has expressed opposition to the ban since his presidential campaign.

“As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known,” said the President, after the vote.

Organized opposition to allowing openly gay people to serve in the military has mostly been limited to those on the farthest fringe of the right wing, among groups recently classified by the SPLC as “hate groups,” like the American Family Association and Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. Poll after poll and study after study showed the public, politicians, and veterans support its end. Even the National Organization for Marriage supports lifting the ban.

In a pathetic and somewhat unexpected lurch to the fringe right, Vietnam War veteran and once-dubbed “maverick” Sen. John McCain (AZ-R) fought repeal all the way, calling today’s vote “a sad day in history.”

Another historic aspect of the repeal is the fact that it is a stand-alone bill, and not one attached to a “can’t-lose” measure. The previous attempt to repeal DADT was attached to a bill that bitterly divided Congress along party lines, causing many would-be supporters to vote “no.” Politicians voting for repeal of DADT this time around so voted based on whether or not they supported equality. History will not be kind to those who voted “no.”

Focus on the Family has taken the helm of the Day of Truth, which was spawned by the Alliance Defense Fund to oppose GLSEN’s Day of Silence. It was adopted by Exodus International this past year. Exodus relinquished custody of the DOT not long after several kids committed suicide as a result of anti-gay bullying.

Focus has decided to rename DOT the “Day of Dialogue:”

“We’re trying to raise awareness that more than one side needs to be heard on the issue of homosexuality, and we’re helping to ensure Christian students have the chance to express their viewpoint,” said Candi Cushman, a Focus on the Family education analyst, in the release. “What is freedom of speech, after all, but a guarantee of the right to have dialogue?”

Their website is still a shell, but DOD clearly misses the mark as much as DOT did, and completely misses the point of the DOS. The DOS doesn’t exist to further the acceptance of homosexuality by every person, it exists to make people aware of a specific type of bullying suffered by certain individuals. Not every victim of anti-gay bullying is indeed gay. By focusing on “God’s design for sexuality” and “sharing faith-based viewpoints” concerning homosexuality, not only is the topic of bullying avoided, it fosters the silence endured by people shamed into thinking they are outside of the correct “godly” design.

Exodus Global Alliance has enjoyed tax-exempt status in New Zealand for more than 10 years. This year, however, they have been denied that status on the grounds that they do not meet one of the requirements for being declared a “charity,” providing a “public benefit:”

Exodus Ministries has had charitable status, exempting it from income tax, for more than a decade but the status was removed by the Charities Commission this month under a regime introduced in 2007.

The commission said the trust was not performing any public benefit because homosexuality was not a mental disorder and did not need curing.

The commission noted that the American Psychological Association said there was little scientific evidence to show that homosexuality could be “cured” and attempts to do so could cause harm.

Hardly the only charity targeted by the commission, in fact 1,224 other organizations have been deregistered for being “too political, too commercial, or not having the required paperwork.” 978 have been deregistered this year alone.

EGA is not a part of Exodus International, about whom XGW reports much more often. Rather, they are a global umbrella organization of which Exodus is a member. Details about this relationship can be found on this page of the EGA site. While Exodus International is largely affiliated with the United States, Canada, the UK and Mexico, EGA states that they encompass Africa, Asia Pacific, Brazil, China, Europe, the Middle East, India, and Latin America. Their “International Office” is located in Toronto, Canada.

The California Senate approved a bill to end a law passed in 1950 that classifies gays as sexual deviants and potential child molesters. The 60-year-old piece of legislation requires the Department of Mental Health to research the causes and potential cures for homosexuality. The bill, AB2199, was carried by Sen. Roy Ashburn, a Republican from Bakersfield. Ashburn came out as gay earlier this year after he was cited for driving drunk while leaving a gay bar.

The measure passed 36-0 without debate.

PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays) objected to the bill, and reportedly called the repeal effort “offensive.”

A study that was published in 2008 blows away the belief that monozygotic twins, also called identical twins, have the same DNA. Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and his colleagues studied the genomes of 19 pairs of adult identical twins and found sites of genetic divergence in each pair. Such divergences occur when there are a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called “copy number variants.” For example, one twin in Bruder’s study had a genetic marker for leukemia – specific genes on particular chromosomes were missing. While this twin did indeed suffer from leukemia, the other twin did not.

This complicates the numerous twin studies that take place in the scientific world, including ones that explore the root of sexual orientation. While it doesn’t necessarily nullify conclusions reached during said studies, it does contradict the belief that any difference found in identical twins could only be attributed to factors that were epigenetic (having to do with the way genes are expressed during development) or otherwise environmental (the “nuture” factor).

Organizations like NARTH who claim to have science on their side will eagerly point to studies that show up to a 50% twin concordance for homosexuality, claiming that anything less than 100% “proves” that a “gay gene” doesn’t exist. And even Exodus International, a Christian organization that focuses on spiritual healing of homosexuality is an affiliate of NARTH and has this blurb on their site:

Current scientific research simply does not support the “gay gene” theory.

…
Researchers from all points of view have not found a 100% correlation among identical twin studies in their study groups. If homosexuality is solely a genetically based trait, there should be no variance among identical twins that share the same genetic history.

A search for the term “gay gene” on Exodus’ site yields 20 results, all in articles ranging from outright denial of genetic influence to defensive posturing that genes might determine some aspects of our lives, but not our morality.

The term “gay gene” is of course an archaic and scientifically inaccurate one, not used by anybody trying to propose a serious argument for the biological origin of non-heterosexual orientations. There is no gay gene just as there is no “left-handed gene,” though the latter trait is accepted unquestionably as biologically originated. Additionally, no serious scientific claim has been made that sexual orientation is “solely a genetic trait.” close attention has been paid to factors that influence gene expression, exposure to hormones in the womb, and physiological traits found to be common among those of a particular sexual orientation.

But now thanks to this research, scientists in all fields have a better understanding of why identical twins are so rarely completely the same – and a better understanding of why, despite genetic factors influencing to a point, one twin may be gay while the other is not.

A recent case involving the dismissal of a graduate student studying counseling at the Augusta State University in Georgia has Religious Right media outlets in a spin. The student is Jennifer Keeton, who was enrolled in the Counselor Education Program at the school. She identifies as a Christian and believes that homosexuality is a choice. Since every major medical and educational organization in the United States declares otherwise, this put her at odds with the University curriculum. She was offered a remediation plan to increase her “ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.” The plan noted the following:

Jen has voiced disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian ‘lifestyle.’ She stated in one paper that she believes GLBTQ ‘lifestyles’ to be identity confusion. This was during her enrollment in the Diversity Sensitivity course and after the presentation on GLBTQ populations.

…

Faculty have also received unsolicited reports from another student that [Keeton] has relayed her interest in conversion therapy for GLBTQ populations and she has tried to convince other students to support and believe her views.

She was instructed to attend at least three diversity workshops centered on the LGBTQ community and increase her exposure and interaction with gay populations. Failure to complete the plan would result in dismissal from the program. This prompted her lawsuit against the school.

In an Exodus blog post, Randy Thomas warns,

Professional organizations are finding that activist driven agendas cannot be proved as beneficial to all who struggle with same sex attraction.  They are finding that a client’s right to self-determination cannot be trumped by gay activist ideology and morality. It should be obvious that further study on those of us who have benefitted from this type of counseling is needed, not disenfranchisement of conservative/Christian counselors.

Some gay affirming counselors and professors are finding it next to impossible to remove what is already in place.  Now it would appear they wish to attack future potential counselors who don’t adhere to a liberal gay ideology before they ever get into practice.

This woman’s religious freedom isn’t at all being squelched. She has every right to study reparative therapy techniques from socially conservative point of view at the conservative Christian college of her choice. This is America. But she does not have the right to alter the curricula of academic institutions she attends just because they might not share her specific personal beliefs, especially if those beliefs directly oppose the foundation of her chosen degree, which was laid by professional medical organizations.

Rather than acknowledge this, Randy instead politicizes sexuality and blames the school’s counseling program for espousing “a liberal gay ideology.” Apparently recognizing the existence of gay people without placing moral baggage upon them is the same as espousing an “ideology.” The university is doing no such thing. They are concurring with medical science and the professional organizations based upon it.

In an excellent comment posted by “Tommy T.“, a valid question is posed:

Let’s reverse this: let’s say an Atheist intentionally attends a Christian university, and insists on replacing the approved course material with opposing secular-based sources. Would any of us support him/her suing the school for standing by its right to adhere to the pre-approved lesson plan? I doubt it.

Exactly.

Edited 8/9/2010 to correct school name.

It hasn’t been an easy year for JONAH. First, their co-founder Arthur “Abba” Goldberg was outed as a convicted felon. Then, a scandal broke about how two young Orthodox Jewish men were engaged in bizarre, naked therapy wherein it was reported a much older man, Alan Downing, instructed them to touch their genitals in front of a mirror while he watched. This scandal led to an awkward (though ironically more accurate) name change, “Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing.”

Now a statement has been signed by many Orthodox rabbis confirming their support for gay people, including their “religious right to reject” ex-gay therapy. But their hastily applied band-aid hardly covers a thing. As was noted in a previous article, JONAH’s web page title still reads “Homosexuality” instead of “Healing.” And the dozens of references to the old name have yet to be edited in the articles on the site. But the biggest proof that JONAH hasn’t even changed superficially is the continued support for the bizarre therapy that led to the Downing scandal in the first place.

According to JONAH’s website, “Many who struggle with SSA experience touch deprivation, an issue often overlooked in therapy.” That’s why point number 10 of their FAQ endorses the practice that other ex-gay organizations have long shunned. At the Exodus and NARTH websites, damning references will disappear within hours of exposure on a gay-supportive blog. In the case of disgraced “sexual reorientation life coach” Richard Cohen, statements may even appear opposing the use of “touch therapy.” But JONAH is obviously not on the ball, and they clearly lack the self-awareness to recoop their image, even superficially.

JONAH can’t even prove “change is possible” in their own website content.

Dozens of Orthodox Rabbis have signed a statement of principles expressing support for the inclusion of gay Jews in their community, but still rejecting complete acceptance of same-sex partnering and marriage. One particular point stands out:

5. Whatever the origin or cause of homosexual orientation, many individuals believe that for most people this orientation cannot be changed. Others believe that for most people it is a matter of free will. Similarly, while some mental health professionals and rabbis in the community strongly believe in the efficacy of “change therapies”, most of the mental health community, many rabbis, and most people with a homosexual orientation feel that some of these therapies are either ineffective or potentially damaging psychologically for many patients.

We affirm the religious right of those with a homosexual orientation to reject therapeutic approaches they reasonably see as useless or dangerous. [emphasis added]

So while lip service is paid to those in the Orthodox community who see value in ex-gay therapy, it is made explicitly clear that such therapy can rightfully be avoided.

Also of note is the use of the phrase “homosexual orientation.” Ex-gay therapy is based upon the rejection of the existence of specific sexual orientations. Rather, only heterosexuals with “homosexual problems” exist. Said heterosexuals are simply “struggling with temptation.” But the rabbis who have signed on have acknowledged the existence of a unique group of people who have intrinsic non-heterosexual orientations.

This can also be considered just the latest of several blows to JONAH, the ex-gay organization that claims to cater to those in the Orthodox community.