Ex-Gay Watch

PFOX’s attempt to make the Walt Disney Company include ex-gays in its anti-discrimination policy is not about sexual orientation – it is about ideology.

If it were about sexual orientation, PFOX would have to concede that ex-gays are already protected. Are ex-gays same-sex attracted? Then they are homosexual, and are therefore protected. Have they overcome same-sex attractions to become opposite-sex attracted? Then they are heterosexual, and are therefore protected. Do they now have heterosexual relationships? Marriages? Then they have the same rights as every other person in a heterosexual relationship or marriage. Do they have no sexual relationships at all? Then they have the same rights as every other celibate person.

What unique attraction or relationship is the ex-gay trying to protect by insisting he be included in a sexual orientation policy?

The fiercely anti-gay PFOX complains thus:

Disney’s exclusion of ex-gays from its sexual orientation policy and programs reinforces the second-class status of ex-gays, and contributes to the negative perceptions and discrimination against former homosexuals.  Disney’s exclusion also disregards diversity and the basic human right to dignity and self-determination.  Adding ex-gays to Disney’s sexual orientation policy and programs, which already include gays and bisexuals, will increase diversity, assure equality in the workplace, and be inexpensive for the Company to implement.

PFOX claims that ex-gays are victims of intolerance, discrimination, unfair treatment and hostility. It even claims to have “documented numerous incidents of intolerance against the ex-gay community.” But it is blind at best, disingenuous at worst to say that hostility or intolerance towards ex-gays is due to their sexual orientation. It is about ideology. In the public square, the ex-gay message is rarely heard without accompanying slander of gays and their relationships. If indeed this is a sexual orientation, it is a tragedy – not to mention an anomaly – that it is an orientation defined overwhelmingly by hatred of and opposition to another sexual orientation.

As a gay man, I am oriented primarily towards other men. My sexuality has nothing to do with opposing other people’s sexuality. I do not need to destroy heterosexuality to be able to love someone of my own gender. I do not need to slander straight people in order to affirm my own orientation.

Yet this novel ex-gay “orientation” proposed by PFOX rarely exists without setting itself explicitly in opposition to the lives, loves and relationship of gay men and women.

It is obvious that PFOX’s bid for protection is about the ex-gay ideology, not an orientation. With so little substance, this campaign is little more than a transparent ploy for publicity for a dying and increasingly desperate ex-gay movement.

PFOX stands for ‘Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays’–despite the fact that the organization is not run by ex-gays, and repeatedly and openly expresses a vituperative disdain for all things gay.

One of their more outlandish claims is that there are twice as many “ex-gays” as there are gays. In census terms, that’s about 18 million ex-gays.

You can read about their latest escapade below (For recent coverage, see Google):

Shareholders ask Walt Disney to Include Ex-Gays in Company’s Non-Discrimination Policies:

“It is about time Disney treated ex-gays with the respect they deserve,” said Bobbie Strobhar, the stockholder who submitted the shareholder resolution. “Former homosexuals are true models of courage who have been vilified by gay activists.”

Dr. Michael Brown weighs in on the matter via Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink, to assert that ex-gays are some of the most discriminated against in America:

Disney Stockholders Mull Resolution to Protect Ex-Gays
–
“If you’re going to have these discrimination laws in policies, then by all means include these as a special class of people,” Brown said.

I think it’s worth noting that Brown refers to those who identify as formerly-gay as “these.”

That succinct little bit of bluster is in light of an email in which he steers readers to an article—written by NARTH’s Prof. Robert Gagnon—that Brown describes as “exposing the very real dangers of the [then] proposed “Employment Non-Discrimination Act””–>

Gagnon’s article on the evils of ENDA is dated Oct. 23, 2007.

<–Brown’s Coalition of Conscience email (no longer in service), is dated 10-25-07, two days later.

The screen cap of the cached email above would seem to concur with those dates.

Here’s a snippet of Gagnon’s article that Brown links to:

Don’t ENDAnger Your Liberties in the Workplace

The bill will virtually codify you as a bigot so far as the federal government is concerned if you oppose homosexual practice on moral grounds.
–
If you are not convinced that this will be the outcome, try including “pedosexuality” (i.e. pedophilia), a sexual orientation toward children, under the rubric “sexual orientation” [emp mine]

Given that Mr. Brown is still a fan of Robert “pedosexuality” Gagnon, yet supports the inclusion of “ex-homosexuals” in anti-discrimination policies, are we then to assume he also supports ex-pedophiles being included in anti-discrimination policy?
–
Further, and on a much lighter note, if Disney’s “ex-gay” employees are afforded non-discrimination protections, will they then hold ex-gay days?

The celebration of Gay days at Disney is traditionally marked by the wearing of red.

So what’s the color of ex-red?