Ex-Gay Watch

During the years from 2005 to 2007, IRS records show Exodus designated over $1 million for “various education programs and publications that explain how to change sexual orientation…”

Exodus International Form 990 for year 2007

This period begins several years into Alan Chambers’ tenure as Exodus President, and covers what might be called their pinnacle.  While those of us who study Exodus may not find this particularly startling, we must remember that they have vehemently denied ever having this as their goal.  To have an official record stating those intentions is important.

Of course, Exodus’ history is littered with evidence of their emphasis on change.  Their motto, Change is Possible, has been plastered on billboards across the country.  They have routinely claimed a 30% to 50% success rate in changing from homosexual to heterosexual (a laughable figure), and even paid $100,000 for a study intended to substantiate that figure.  To this day the Exodus bookstore features books on reparative therapy by Joseph Nicolosi and others which promote pseudo-scientific theories on causation and conversion of homosexuality.

Exodus representatives repeatedly deny the idea that they seek to bring sexual orientation change to anyone.  In a symphony of semantics, they deflect responsibility for most anything they do.  In a particularly sarcastic article written in 2009 when Exodus could still afford professional PR people like Julie Neils, she wrote:

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard the words, “Exodus International” and “religious group that claims to cure gays” in a sentence I’d be rich . . . and in Tahiti right now.

Exodus International Form 990 for year 2006

Exodus also makes a big deal of the claim that they only exist to help those who seek them out — those “400,000 phone calls and emails” we are always hearing about.  Until 2006, Exodus put the following expense claim on the same form to the IRS:

Missions and outreach projects allow Exodus to reach individuals not actively seeking help who may be open to change.

Again, hardly a surprise to those familiar with Exodus but basically we have here evidence of their intent — ironically enough — to recruit those not “actively seeking” their help in the first place.  This directly contradicts their own claims, but Exodus has a way with words that enables them to say one thing and mean another.

Perhaps equally significant is the fact that this verbiage has been removed in years since.  Clearly Exodus still does these things yet they don’t wish to make that fact so obvious as they once did.  What kind of message does all this double-talk send?  Perhaps it is just this kind of mixed-message that sends churches like Willow Creek in the other direction.

Supporting Documents

Exodus Form 990 — 2005

Exodus Form 990 — 2006

Exodus Form 990 — 2007

Despite their rather up-beat press release (and more than a few blog headlines), The Superior Court for the District of Columbia handed Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, Inc (PFOX) a defeat today. PFOX had asked for a review of an earlier decision by the DC Office of Human Rights (OHR) which has jurisdiction over cases involving the DC Human Rights Act (HRA). That decision, prompted by a complaint filed by PFOX in 2003, found that the National Education Association (NEA) was within it’s rights to deny PFOX a booth at their annual convention in 2002. The DC Superior Court denied the relief requested by PFOX:

PFOX asks the Court to reverse OHR’s final decision finding no probable cause that NEA discriminated against PFOX on the basis of sexual orientation when it denied public accommodation services to PFOX by refusing to provide PFOX with exhibit space at EXPO 2002. As a matter of law, OHR erred in determining that ex-gays are not a protected class under the HRA. Regardless of whether or not OHR erred in its classification of ex-gays, it correctly found that PFOX’s exhibit booth application was rejected for non-discriminatory reasons.

Furthermore, while EXPO 2002 was held in Texas, OHR did have jurisdiction over the charge because the rejection of PFOX’s application occurred in D.C., where NEA was headquartered. Therefore, Petitioner’s request to reverse the OHR’s decision, the requested relief, is DENIED.

The confusion upon which PFOX has been able to claim this a victory stems from what appears to have been some sloppy statements in the original ruling by the OHR. While the HRA is written to be extremely broad in it’s interpretation of what might comprise a protected group, the OHR ruling upheld the claim that a group, in this case “ex-gays,” could be excluded as a protected category if it’s distinguishable trait is mutable. Immutability is not mentioned as a requirement in the HRA and so the DC Supreme Court found that the OHR erred in it’s determination as a matter of law.

It is important to note that the court did not make the determination that ex-gays do or do not constitute a protected group under the HRA, only that immutability could not be used as an exclusionary factor. PFOX has carried this, and the entire ruling, way beyond any proportion of fact.

The DC Supreme Court made a clear case for NEA’s right to do what it did:

The Court affirms OHR’s ultimate determination that PFOX’s application was denied
legally. In NEA’s judgment, PFOX is a conversion group hostile toward gays and lesbians.
Thus, even though PFOX vehemently disagrees with NEA’s characterization, it is within NEA’s right to exclude PFOX’s presence at NEA’s conventions. NEA cites Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), to support it’s jurisdictional argument, but the Court also finds it helpful in the analysis of whether or not NEA’s reasons for rejecting PFOX’s application were proper. In Hurley, the Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in a unanimous opinion because the state court misapplied the Massachusetts public accommodations law to require private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message that the organizers do not wish to convey. In Hurley, South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (the “Council”) denied defendant GLIB’s request to march in the Council’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. Hurley at 557-58. The Supreme Court agreed with the Council’s argument that it had no prohibition against homosexuals marching in the parade, rather the Council objected to the message GLIB sought to express in the parade. Id. at 572. The Supreme Court reversed the state court because the state court’s interpretation of Massachusetts’s public accommodations law essentially forced the Council to alter the message of its parade. Id. at 578-579.

Furthermore, NEA persuasively argues that its rejection of PFOX’s application was
proper in light of the facts and Hurley. Indeed, the HRA would not require NEA to accept an
application from the Ku Klux Klan or a group viewed by the NEA as anti-labor union or racist.
Int’s Br. 8-9. Similarly, military organizations and the Boy Scotts of America are excluded from renting exhibit space at the NEA Annual Meetings because of the positions those organizations take with regard to gay and lesbian rights. The analogy is persuasive because NEA rejected PFOX’s application not based on their personal traits, but rather because of PFOX’s mission and message. Certainly, other exhibitors at EXPO 2002 were homosexuals or heterosexuals, like the members of PFOX, but they were distinguishable from PFOX because the other exhibitors presented exhibits the NEA deemed to be agreement with its policies. Thus, PFOX’s arguments miss the point. The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX’s members include ex-gays, homosexuals, heterosexuals, or members of any other sexual orientation. Rather, NEA rejected PFOX’s application because PFOX’s message and policies were, in NEA’s opinion, contrary to NEA’s policies regarding sexual orientation.

The case document is not long and makes it abundantly clear that this was not a win for PFOX but for the NEA. While it could be said that the original opinion was lacking, the court has determined that any errors of law did not affect the outcome of the decision and so it stands as it did before the appeal.

In fact, if the issue of immutability as presented here does anything, it is to counter some extreme, right-wing arguments against the inclusion of homosexuality as a protected class. Certainly there should be more than a few conservative pundants less than enthusiastic about PFOX today.

We encourage other blogs to review the case before helping to sustain the rather energetic spin placed on it by PFOX, an organization which has never been too concerned with the facts.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton appears to have written an introduction to a series of arguments to counter those put forth by Scott Lively in his book, The Pink Swastika.

Scott Lively has made a career of drawing parallels from Nazi Germany to modern homosexuality. He has gone around the world with the message that homosexuals were responsible for Nazi totalitarianism. Throughout the next month or so, I will provide counter arguments to Lively’s thesis.

After delving into the matter, Throckmorton seems to believe that, if comparisons are to be made, the government of Uganda is acting and sounding more like those leaders of the Third Reich with which Lively seems so titillated.

Lively visited Uganda, as he has other emerging countries, with his revision of the Holocaust and other such “teaching” materials in hand.  From the video we have of at least one meeting after he left, they learned well.

The original meeting also included an Exodus board member, Don Schmierer, a member of Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation.  Exodus was soundly chastised for Schmierer’s involvement as well as their silence and inaction after the fact.

Read what looks to be only the beginning of some badly needed fresh air on this subject at Throckmorton’s blog.

by Jack Drescher, MD

A recent article in Scientific American by Thomas Maier has cast into doubt the veracity of a study published 30 years ago that purported to demonstrate that some people can change their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one.

The study in question was carried out by the most pre-eminent American sex researchers of the last century, the husband and wife team of gynecologist William Masters and psychologist Virginia Johnson. In their own time they were as famous as Alfred Kinsey and like Kinsey, their names became synonymous with the study of human sexuality, if not with the notion of sex itself.

As with the Kinsey studies of the 1940s and 50s, Masters and Johnson’s scholarly books on human sexual responses attracted popular audiences in the 60s and 70s. Based on laboratory research with human subjects, they developed a model of sexual function and dysfunction that would eventually serve as a template for the Sexual Dysfunction section of the 1980 Third Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III) and the subsequent volumes since then.

Not as well known today is their 1979 book, Homosexuality in Perspective, in which they describe their research history and objective:

A report of the basic science investigation of heterosexual function was made to the health-care professions in 1966 with the publication of Human Sexual Response . . . the second step in the investigative process was the creation of a 10-year clinical control period for the [Masters and Johnson] Institute’s newly developed techniques for treatment of heterosexual inadequacies [reported in their second volume, Human Sexual Inadequacy, published in 1970].

The homosexual phase of the open-ended investigation of human sexual response began in 1964 with the Institute attempting to respond to the overwhelming cultural and scientific need for an objective investigation of homosexual function. The same protocol of basic science precedence to new clinical treatment constructs was employed. The research program was initiated with an evaluation of physiologic response patterns demonstrated by sexually experienced homosexual men and women responding to effective sexual stimuli in a laboratory setting. This evaluation of homosexual function was completed in 1968 after almost five years of laboratory involvement.

The 10-year period of clinical control for creating and evaluating treatment techniques for homosexual dysfunctions and dissatisfactions began in 1968 and terminated in 1977. With this textual presentation, the Institute reports to the health-care professions both the basic science investigations of homosexual function and the new clinical programs designed to treat sexual inadequacies of homosexual orientation [pp. 235-236, italics added].

They go on to describe those sexual inadequacies. They excluded difficulty with anal intercourse “since rectal [sic] intercourse is not a consistently utilized form of male homosexual interaction, facility in rectal penetration could not be considered a vital factor in arriving at a definition of homosexual impotence” (p. 237).

They further asserted that, “the homosexual male has no absolute requirement for attaining or maintaining an erection of sufficient quality for accomplishing a penetrative act (Though admittedly a penetrative act, fellatio, creates only minor nomenclature confusion because the male does not need even a partial erection for oral penetration.)” and “since it is also apparent that rectal and vaginal penetration are not regularly recurrent sexual techniques employed by lesbians, these penetrative acts have not been considered in defining lesbian anorgasmic states” (p. 237). Read more…

Last week, the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) National Strategist for Gender Issues and Exodus speaker, Bob Stith, weighed in on Ray Boltz’ announcement that he has been gay all his life and that God created him that way.  Ray Boltz is a celebrated contemporary Christian musician and his announcement prompted many in the ex-gay and anti-gay world to publicly reinforce their belief that homosexuality is the result of nurture, not nature, and that it can be changed.

As XGW has reported, one of the more recent distortions being used to reinforce that belief is a quote from noted geneticist Francis Collins who headed the massive effort to map the human genome, a task completed in 2003.  The quote is from the appendix of his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief and was used by National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) incoming President Dean Bryd for an article last year which, even according to Collins himself, twisted it’s meaning to make Byrd’s own point. XGW dealt with this when it came out.

In mid-September, in another Boltz aftermath interview, ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan apparently morphed this distortion into an even more egregious one, seemingly out of thin air.

When he says he’s born that way, we know now for a fact that that’s false. In fact, just last year in March, the director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, said this: homosexuality is not hardwired. There is no gay gene. We mapped the human genome. We now know there is no genetic cause for homosexuality.” [emphasis added]

That last part did not appear in any Google search until after Quinlan gave his interview on September 15, 2008, and Collins himself denies ever saying it at all. When informed that the quote was erroneous, Quinlan accused XGW of lying and claimed that he had found the same one on “professional mental health organization” websites. We could find no such sites, save the related reference at NARTH.

While XGW went about contacting Collins yet again, Stith made his own comments through an article he authored in the Southern Baptist Press on September 25, ten days after Quinlan’s comments.  His article contained two areas of particular concern to us: Read more…

Those who claim to speak for “American Values” would often have us believe that a core American value is discrimination against gay people. Increasingly, however, this “value” is becoming an anachronism.

Another evidence that gay people are beginning to be recognized and valued as a part of the American family is a new poll from the folks at Gallup.

Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates — their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be homosexual, would you vote for that person?

Of those polled, 55% said yes and 43% said no.

Interestingly, even among conservatives, a gay candidate could receive 36% of the vote. Liberals found the idea of a gay presidential candidate less concerning than a septuagenarian, a Mormon, or a thrice married heterosexual. Everyone preferred a gay President to an atheist President.

There was no mention as to whether an ex-gay presidential candidate would fare well.

“Its statements routinely outrage gay-rights activists. But two commentaries posted online in recent months by members of NARTH’s scientific advisory committee have raised concerns among its closest allies as well.”
–Stephanie Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, October 15, 2006

It took a while, but what was first documented at XGW made it to the mainstream press. On XGW, Daniel Gonzales covered Joseph Berger comments about gender variant children here, and then frequent reader of XGW Boo uncovered Gerald Schoenewolf’s comments on slavery here — Timothy Kincaid writing it up as a full post here .

These stories on gender variant children and slavery have snowballed in the LGBT press (here and here), civil-rights organizations (here and here), and the blogosphere (here and here).

Mainstream press publication The Los Angeles Times has now published a piece about what NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee members have had published on the NARTH website, and what Dr. Warren Throckmorton, Wayne Besen (director, Truth Wins Out), and Alan Chambers (director, Exodus International) said in response.

Article excerpts from the LA Times’ ‘Ex-Gay’ Group Draws Fire From Allies:

Berger’s advice that children with differences be ridiculed “wouldn’t be something we would tolerate from someone who was part of our board,” said Chambers, who recalls being teased for acting effeminate as a boy. “We have to be very careful about what we say and how we say it. Peoples’ emotions, hearts and even lives are at stake.”

And…

Schoenewolf’s essay on political correctness not only seemed to justify slavery, it also denounced the gay-rights movement as “mob rule.” Using explicit language, Schoenewolf asserted that “the entire planet has now been forced to agree that [homosexuality] is normal.”
“This puts a real spotlight on what we’re dealing with…. This organization is incredibly reckless and irresponsible,” said Wayne Besen, a gay-rights activist who founded a nonprofit, Truth Wins Out, to keep tabs on the ex-gay movement.

The slow snowballing of the coverage on the original Berger and Schoenewolf articles speaks to how these incidents are impacting NARTH’s credibility. Thank you Los Angeles Times for bringing these stories about NARTH and its Scientific Advisory Committee members to the general public’s attention.

From Bush’s nomination speech:

She led by example. She put in long hours of pro bono work. Harriet Miers has given generously of her time and talent by serving as a leader with more than a dozen community groups and charities, including the Young Women’s Christian Association, Childcare Dallas, Goodwill Industries, Exodus Ministries, Meals on Wheels and the Legal Aid Society.

It’s ok if your heart stopped there for a second, mine did too. But I was still in my underwear this morning calling every non-exgay “Exodus Ministries” I could google when HRC came to the rescue:

During the announcement, President Bush referenced Miers’ affiliation with Exodus Ministry. This is not the so called “ex-gay” group, but is “a non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs.”

Addendum from Mike A.:

1. Exodus International confirms no connection to Miers, but withholds further comment on her qualifications.

2. Wayne Besen views Miers with caution.

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.

American Medical Association position on reparative therapy and health care for the homosexual

The AMA:

opposes, the use of "reparative" or "conversion" therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality
per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.

In other words, the AMA does not reject exgay therapy per se, but opposes therapists who equate homosexuality with sickness or who assume, regardless of the individual patient, that orientation should be changed.