Thursday, June 29, 2006
Conservative Christians and Jews have teamed up with men and women who call themselves "ex-gay" to lobby, and even sue, for the right to tell teenagers that they can "heal" themselves of unwanted same-sex attractions.
-- Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006
** On May 2, 2006, Orlando-based Liberty Counsel and Washington-based Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) launched their joint "Change is Possible Campaign." The goal is to threaten schools with frivolous lawsuits unless they allow the scientifically bankrupt message of ex-gays into classrooms.
** The Christian Post reported in April 2006 that Liberty Counsel will ask students to distribute literature and put up posters promoting ex-gay messages. "We also encourage them to start Gay to Straight Clubs, and ask that the ex-gay viewpoint be included in all diversity day presentations that discuss homosexuality," said a statement from the law firm.
** Viroqua High School, near La Crosse, Wisconsin, cancelled Diversity Day in March 2006 after the Liberty Counsel threatened a lawsuit unless "ex-gays" were allowed to participate.
** Exodus International, the largest ex-gay group in America, has a web-site, "Exodus Youth," geared towards children (http://exodusyouth.net/youth/index.html). Exodus’s Executive Director made his group's intentions clear in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, "If you're going to allow one side into the schools, you need to allow the other side, too. People want alternatives." (LA Times, May 28, 2006)
** The same L.A. Times article reported that teachers, too, are beginning to raise the subject with their principals. "It's been our hottest issue over the last two years. Without a doubt," said Finn Laursen, executive director of the Christian Educators Assn. International, which represents 7,000 teachers, mostly from public schools.
** A high school in New Hampshire invited ex-gay activist Aaron Shorey to present his story on Civil Rights Day last year. He's working with several other New England schools to get permission for similar presentations. The ex-gay group Inqueery, based in Des Moines, has also sent speakers to public high schools. In Boulder, Colo., educators are considering including an ex-gay pamphlet in a resource guide to help teachers handle questions about sexuality.
** Similar lawsuits may be filed in New Jersey where Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH) is seeking parents and students willing to sue to get the ex-gay view into schools.
** In 2005, a federal judge sided with PFOX in a lawsuit against a Maryland school district. PFOX had sued to block the district's new sex-education curriculum, arguing that its treatment of homosexuality was biased. The judge wrongly agreed that students should hear pseudo-science and PFOX now has a seat on the committee charged with drafting new lesson plans.
102 Comments:
If "change is possible", why are there no exapmles of it in the "Testimonials" on the PFOX site?
The only change featured there is from same-sex sexually active to celibate, or to married but with same-sex desire uncahnged.
There is no example of a change in sexual desire. No such examples are to be found anywhere, which is odd, if such change is possible. You'd think if people had done it, they'd be keen to describe in detail how it happened.
Surely there can be no objection to people saying in schools "we believe celibacy is best, and celibacy is certainly possible". That's honest enough. What is NOT honest, and NOT acceptable, is the obfuscatory use of language that makes people think it is possible to change sexual desire.
People should not be allowed to go into public schools and be dishonest, making students and parents think some have done the impossible when clearly that have not.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 11:22 AM
It seems to me that these cases would be swiftly dismissed or decided for the defendant if defense counsel showed that--like "intelligent design"--"reparative therapy" (or whatever it's called these days) is simply a ruse to inject sectarian religion into the schools. This could be backed up by introducing into evidence the resolutions passed by every professional mental health organization in the land condemning it as infffective and/or harmful.
The decision in the Dover Township case (about teaching "ID" in biology classes) in Pennsylvania shows that even conservative Republican judges must take account of the facts.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 11:26 AM
both sides should be represented. when gays go into schools they don't talk about all the negative sides of gay life. neither is someone who goes in and talks about change. now i know gays don't believe in change. but there was a time when people didn't believe that gays could live productive lives until they started making demands to be heard. same thing here. you may disagree with these people - that is fine. it doesn't mean that your perspective is the only perspective.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:38 PM
Religion in the schools? That's how the approach must be framed to counter these idiots. It's not just pseudo-science, it's the creationism of social engineering.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:40 PM
again - the reason people stay hidden is because of the ridicule. in addition to which, it is not the battle of our husbands and children. they have a right to privacy above and beyond my desires to see attitudes change.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:40 PM
if you speak of sexuality in school you cannot help but bring up religion since it is a religious issue for many. plain and simple you cannot counter then with removal of religion from the public schools.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:44 PM
if people demand that sexual desire is fixed then you have to approach the condition of rapists, pedophilia etc.. are these things fixed or changeable?? if they are fixed then do not people have a right to express them as well?
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:47 PM
why can't some one change?? what is so threatening to the gay community about a person who changes?? you want us th accept you - why won't you accept me?
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:48 PM
until every changed person has been seen having sex with their wives and husbands - it seems the gay community wll not be satisfied. sorry - sex is a private matter and you don't get to come into the bedroom.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:50 PM
do...not...feed...troll.
-SharonB
posted by , at
6/29/2006 1:52 PM
Anonymous,
It's pure stupidity to suggest that rapists and pedophiles be allowed to express themselves as you put it. Rapists and pedophiles injure and scar people. Frankly I have never had sex with a man who had to enter therapy afterward. And I am sick to death of being compared to the lowest form of pond scum on the planet to advance the agenda of certain groups who hate without knowledge. Stupidity.
posted by jekelhyde, at
6/29/2006 1:56 PM
Anonymous,
It's pure stupidity to suggest that rapists and pedophiles be allowed to express themselves as you put it. Rapists and pedophiles injure and scar people. Frankly I have never had sex with a man who had to enter therapy afterward. And I am sick to death of being compared to the lowest form of pond scum on the planet to advance the agenda of certain groups who hate without knowledge. Stupidity.
posted by jekelhyde, at
6/29/2006 2:00 PM
i'm not comparing you to that - i was saying that sexuality is not fixed. whether you are homosexual or heterosexual - that can change given the right circumstances. and i was suggesting that if we do not look squarely at the fact that sexuality is changeable then we should admit rapists and pedophiles into the fold - sort of speak.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:05 PM
or we allow people to change and accept that change is possible.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:06 PM
do .... not.... feed .... ignorance
Troll
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:13 PM
If all of those who advocate that changing sexual orientation is possible, then it is time for them to put their money where their mouths are. Alan Chambers needs to start naming all of the tens of thousands...wait a minute, hundreds of thousands (his words, not mine) that have experienced this so-called change. We do not need to hear from his usual suspects, those who are known to frequently fall off of the wagon.
Furthermore, until the ex-gay phonies can back up their claims with legitimate science, all they are doing is indoctrinating religion - and a very narrow-minded view of religion - into the nation's public schools. They belong in a looney bin, not in front of vulnerable children.
posted by Matthew, at
6/29/2006 2:48 PM
It's relatively apparent that the same person put in all the postings timed from 1:38pm to 1:50pm--i suspect it's our old 'friend' kurt; Empress of the Closet. I assume you were afraid Wayne would delete one of the long diatribes that you usually tried to post in the past.
NOW to the stupid remarks you posted at 1:38pm. "both sides should be represented...gays dont believe in change..." No, medical science doesnt believe in change and it's based on mountains of research and science, NOT wishful thinking and religion. "Both sides"--there is only ONE side, the truth! And that is the only one that should be represented. Your argument could be used to teach alchemy in chemistry class.
"The negative side of gay life"--the only 'negative side' of gay life is having to deal with ignorant superstious bigots like you. I and most of my gay friends are in happy monogomous relationships, I have never had an
STD, used drugs or been a bed-hopper. Plenty of heterosexuals lead reprobate lives, just like SOME gay people do.
Allowing "ex-gays" to peddle their clap-trap in schools will only increase the self-destructive behavior (including suicide) of gay youth. Not only are you telling them that they arent good enough the way they are; they will be in double jeopardy after these mind and soul crushing "therapies" fail and their same-sex attraction remains. AND IT WILL!
Gary (NJ)
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:50 PM
gary - i am not kurt.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 2:59 PM
i was not advocating that people must change. i was advocating that if people want to try to change then let them. i am advocating that people be represented whether or not you agree wih them. i am not the bigot you call me. i think people should be allowed to have their lives filled with friends and love whether you are gay or straight or celibate and even if you are a bigoted christian. and they bug me, as much as they bug you.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 3:03 PM
but apparently looking at both sides pushes alot of buttons for the gay community. no matter how you look at it - i am still ex-gay. that cannot be refuted. will i come out of the closet for you - no. i can stay here and continue to tell my perpsective- even if it pushes buttons. the christians who mock gays infuriate me. the gays who mock me are hurt and feel betrayed by me. but i am on your side. it's just that some gays have become the beast when fighting the beast. how can i be ex-gay and you say that i am not. does anyone in this blog really know me - no. the judgements made here are just as slanted and biased as the christians who say that everyone can change. it is not an all or nothing proposition. some can change - some cannot. some want to change. some do not. why are not people allowed to determine their place? it seems many gays have lost sight of the their original mission - diversity.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 3:08 PM
Why should gay people even want to change? Why are we even discussing this? If here is nothing intrinsically wrong with being gay, why should a gay person change and become "ex-gay?" What's the benefit?
They want to change because they've been taught shame and self-loathing. Instead of teaching them to value themselves as they are, the unlicensed "ex-gay" therapists teach them that there is something wrong with them that needs to be cured. Read the "ex-gay" literature. They deny our very humanity, they deny our existence.
If you've had a bad experience as openly gay, becoming "ex-gay" won't solve your problems, though legitimate therapy might help you accept yourself as you are.
The "ex-gay movement" is not about diversity and tolerance. It is exactly the opposite. It is about denying that gay people exist and are a normal part of the human condition. I believe what these unlicensed counselors do to teenagers is tantamount to child abuse and their attempts to infiltrate the schools is evil. Anyone who was ever bullied at school for being gay knows that allowing "ex-gays" into the schools will only encourage more of it. I know many people who have been wounded for life by unlicensed "ex-gay" therapists and it takes years for them to recover their self-esteem and lead productive lives.
posted by Sam, at
6/29/2006 3:29 PM
Typical "ex-gay" loser, freak, peepin Tom. Needs to spend all day on a gay web-site, proably masturbating.
Shouldn't you be on the Penthouseweb-site looking at snatch if you were straight? But you aren't you sicko creep? You are GAY GAY GAY....
Jack L.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 3:30 PM
no doubt there are quacks out there calling themselves legitimate therpaists. as ex-gay - i will again say that i am not advocating people must change. but it is not impossible. i did not have a bad experience as a gay person. i did not feel self loathing. i have a supportive family. but people do change. and just because "the movement is not about diversity" does not mean that diversity does not exist. i am not a member of any ex-gay group or ministry. but clumping people into one group and saying that they all are wrong is well - just ignorant. believe me, i go into this argument with those who say that people must be a certain way. yep - there are quacks out there. yep - there are bigots. yep- i believe dobson is disgusted with homosexuality and just wants it eliminated off the earth ( his true motive is not in helping) but i also believe that change is something people experience. it is not something everyone will experience.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 3:37 PM
Jack - you are disgusting.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 3:45 PM
Jack - you are the typical gay man who only suspects sexual motives for everything. Well, you certainly fill the definition set out by the conservative christians. Faggot!
posted by , at
6/29/2006 3:47 PM
Given the vast number of conservative Christian pedophiles locked up over the last few years, it's obvious why these people are so eager to get into the schools. Protect the children and keep them out by any means necessary.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 4:27 PM
Anonymous at 3:08 you say:
"i am still ex-gay. that cannot be refuted"
It would be extremely helpful if you would clarify what you mean by "ex-gay".
Do you mean that formerly you were attracted to your own sex, and now you are not but are attracted to the opposite sex instead?
posted by , at
6/29/2006 4:38 PM
yes phil.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 4:50 PM
Anonymous, would you be willing to correspond privately with me about this?
posted by , at
6/29/2006 4:52 PM
Sam is right. And phil, be careful, if you're *really* gay, you always will be; learn to accept yourself, dont waste time and $$$ trying to change--the medical fact is--it wont happen.
And anon. you either never really were gay (if you truely are attacted to women) or, as i suspect, you're a sad "ex-gay" wannabe. You can protest all you want-- NO straight guy would be spending hour after hour posting on and reading this blog!! As Judge Judy says--if it doesnt make sense, it's NOT TRUE!
posted by , at
6/29/2006 5:07 PM
phil the answer is 'no' because he's NOT an "ex-gay"!!
posted by , at
6/29/2006 5:08 PM
phil, do what you want to do what you feel you need to do. but i would no more give my name to anyone here than play tennis with alligators. because of the "assumptions" made here - i will stay anonymous.
BTW, i am on the computer all day long, flipping through all kinds of websites - this has just been a current interest. but since you guys cannot fathom that i am a woman, i care that all sides have voice, and that this is not a gay website but a political one on sexuality - well then adieu.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 5:17 PM
Anonymous,
Everyone has a sexual orientation.
Everyone.
The vast majority of people are born heterosexual but a minority are born homosexual.
It is determined in the womb and is an actual biological difference - like having green eyes.
It can not be changed - not unless you have developed a surgery that changes that part of the brian. Have you? No.
So please do not compare someone born with an homosexual sexual orientation with a rapist.
Rape and child molestation are evil and seriously damaging behaviors.
Sexual orientation is what someone is born with and we all have one.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 5:18 PM
Too many anonymouses here!
Anonymous you say "Sam is right. And phil, be careful, if you're *really* gay, you always will be; learn to accept yourself, dont waste time and $$$ trying to change--the medical fact is--it wont happen."
I am really gay, I assure, you, 6 on the Kinsey scale, never had an erotic thought or dream for a female in my life. And I also assure you that I am not about to waste money on any treatment which has zero evidence of safety or efficacy.
I have said elsewhere on this site that I do not believe change of orientation is possible. I have also said that I take this stance based on available evidence. If evidence to the contrary is produced, I am open to it.
A veritable mountain of evidence would be needed to convince me, preferably published in reputable peer-reviewed medical journals - but a mountain may be started with a single pebble. I am willing to consider even the single pebble. Not even that is forthcoming, however.
Since Anonymous will not comment further on his or her change, it cannot count as evidence, any more than if he/she said she went to work invisibly on a flying carpet each day.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 5:27 PM
There is no sense trying to talk sense to a fundamentalist. They live in a completely separate mental universe where everything is viewed as being upside down and backwards.
There will always be people on the margins: bisexuals, neurotics who only fantasize that they are gay, gays who are in denial ("It's only a phase I'll grow out of!") etc., etc.
"Ex-gay" therapists or ministers will imagine that their voodoo made someone straight when they may not even have been gay to begin with. Meanwhile, the gay guy in denial who married on the strength of his being "cured" or "changed" gets caught blowing guys in a men's room. Is his orientation gay after all? No! He's just backslid, you understand.
But there's more... Ten guys undergo quack therapy. One "changes" (and the definition of 'change' is always changing--a sure sign of self-deception or fraud), the other nine are just as gay as ever. A failure? No! There's that one guy, you see. He gets paraded around as if this was the norm ("Results not typical", as those late night infomercials for quack diet pills say--in tiny letters). This goes on until he gets caught in a gay bar, trolling for a quickie. Whoops!
Don't bother arguing with these people; they have a slick answer (no matter how specious) for anything you can say (no matter how factual or logical).
posted by , at
6/29/2006 5:43 PM
The ex-gay guy won't give his name because he is Bible-thumping human garbage who is a closeted cock-sucking, ball licking, anal tickling jack-ass punk fool, coward.
K
posted by , at
6/29/2006 6:07 PM
Anonymous at 5:43, your comments are entirely in line with my own perceptions.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 6:37 PM
Regan girlfrien' your observations and comments are way coool!
B. Queer
posted by , at
6/29/2006 6:55 PM
Let's be pro-active on the suggestions.
Here's one: Let's have 'Straight to Gay Clubs' in schools - equal time for a countervailing viewpoint. Helping Gay people come out in a supportive environment, provide good role models of partnered gays leading productive lives. Discuss a full range of philosophy, psychology, and broad ranging theology that is supportive of gay people, and all people when they are loving, respectful, productive, and compassionate. In addition it would be of value to help people understand that we are not all perfect. When we fail to be truthful, or hurt someone else - or ourselves there is opportunity for learning, healing, and moving on.
We can set an example, as do dozens of my gay friends, of how to live in a society that is not always just or understanding. It's a lesson for all of us, gay, straight, and uncertain - as is the case of our anonymous friend who feels the need to spend a great deal of time defending his/her? position.
We have great stories to tell each other. We have much to learn. Modern theology says that each of us is unique so that we could know the face of God/Allah/Yahweh in us.
We will all be happier when we learn to communicate with compassion with those who are afraid of our differences.
D Pecan
posted by , at
6/29/2006 9:12 PM
I do know gay men who never come out of the closet, except in a park after dark. I guess when they return home to their wives that they lie to continuously, they are ex-gay and then go to church and trash gay people. That's usually how it works. I believe that ex-gay is nothing more than a bunch of religious bunk. I don't see very many non-christian/religious ex-gays. I would actually like to see someone enter the therapy and totally reject the religion and see where it goes. No amount of religion can change sexual orientation, it is merely a mask.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 9:41 PM
As I stated earlier, I am sick and tired of being compared to pedophiles and rapists and folks who are into beastiality. I am tired of people claiming that because I want to be married to my partner of 8 years, that I am opening the door to polygamy and incest. I am sick and tired of being the Religious Right's poster boy for immorality just because of a God given desire with which I was born. You ask why gays are so defensive about the ex-gay issue. It's simple: Perhaps you have "Changed." I can't say yes or no, because I am not you. But the fact is that most of us, I'd say about 99.9 percent cannot change. Most of us wasted our lives hoping that it was just a phase; hoping that we could be like everyone else; hoping for normalcy. And in walks the ex-gay movement and tells us that we can change. They tell us that anyone can change. And they build that hope again, for those who are not happy, for those who have not found love. It's cruel and cold. I personally have been blessed with a supportive circle of friends and family. But it tears my heart out to think about the people who have been duped by this horrid group of individuals who think they know best. People who think that they know better than gay people what's inside of them. It isn't love, it's hate. It's political, not spiritual. And the first person who tells my kids that my relationship with my partner is obscene or unnatural is going to get an earful.
That said: when people talk about gay men being more promiscuious than straight men, I have little doubt. When I was in high school and college, straight guys I knew went out every weekend looking to score. They didn't want a girlfriend or a relationship. They just wanted to get laid. I was doing the same thing. The difference is I was getting it. If gay men are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, it's because they can be. But that doesn't mean that my love for my lover is less strong or less valid than my brother's love for his wife, or my father's love for my mother.
Lastly, I want to say that the ex-gay movement is harmful to more than just the poor gay person who expects change. It is harmful to the spouse they choose and the children they may conceive. If you absolutely need to not have a relationship with someone of your own gender, for the love of God, please, please, please choose celibacy. So that you only hurt yourself.
That's all I have to say on the subject for now. But I can't guarantee that I won't respond later.
Peace and love to you all.
Darren
posted by jekelhyde, at
6/29/2006 10:00 PM
One further comment; as someone stated earlier, there are too many anonymous' on the site. Please state your name, or at least a distinguishing charactoristic.
Thanks
posted by jekelhyde, at
6/29/2006 10:14 PM
Darren, very well said. I think back to a defining incident in my life at the age of 12. My last name rhymes with fairy and someone changed my name to fairy and the entire class laughed, including the teacher. It absolutely tore my insides out and I just wanted to die. Whenever I hear or see a bigoted religious outfit smearing their fellow citizens, especially in the schools targeting vulnerable young people, as I and most people on this blog once were, it makes me want to fight them with all my being to save at least one young person from going through the shaming that these "ex-gay" groups are famous for. We must keep those pathetic asswipes out of our schools. The whole movement is complete religious bullshit.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 10:56 PM
Well now...does this mean we need to have organizations in the schools to give heterosexual students information about how to "become" gay? Since the crazed Right has accused us of recruiting for years, I think they are opening the door right up for demanding that straight students be given the "other side" of the "controversy" of heterosexuality - after all, everyone knows it's created out of playing with Barbie dolls and pushing fire trucks across the living room carpet.
Perhaps we should not only demand these schools include ex-ex-gays, so that students learn the abuse heaped upon people by these ex-gay-for-pay "ministries" but a thorough investigation be conducted about their finances and research connections.
At the same time, isn't it way past time for an ex-evangelical group? Seems to me that if an organization can come into the schools trying to "provide information about change through Jesus" then we most certainly have a right to demand that information be provided to help indoctrinated evangelicals, for example, leave their unwanted, forced religious feelings behind.
posted by , at
6/29/2006 11:13 PM
Interestingly, kevin, I'm working on a satire in which members of congress question a gay group about "advertising to young people" in the same manner of which "Big Tobacco" was questioned. It gives me a chuckle to think that the religious right would take it seriously.
posted by jekelhyde, at
6/29/2006 11:22 PM
Reading over all these comments, something has really struck me. It seems that the "ex-gay" movement has taken a significant page out of the book of the creationism/ID folks. They are using the exact same tactics: claim that there is a "difference of scientific opinion" over an issue (in this case, whether people can change their sexual identity) and then demand that schools "teach the controversy." It is a great way to put the other side on the defensive. The ID people say, well, you aren't in favor of people getting to hear "all sides" of the "controversy" -- you don't want people to hear "different opinions" -- you are the one who wants to stifle the "debate." Everyone is in favor of fairness and freedom of information, so this appeals to many folks' ideas of justice and fair play.
The point here, as in the ID "debate," is that there really isn't a "controversy." I can say that 2 + 2 = 5, but no matter how devoutly I believe that, it still isn't true. It isn't a "controversy" if I claim 2 + 2 = 5 and somebody disagrees with me. It's just me being wrong. You can't gin up a controversy without at least SOME evidence on the other side, and just calling it a controversy doesn't make it so.
Similarly, I can hypothesize that space aliens COULD have been responsible for the development of the eye because I believe it couldn't have evolved via natural selection. However, unless I have any evidence for my view that that's true in any sort of objective, scientific sense, I actually don't have the right to insist that students learn my "theory" in biology class.
The point is, with the sexual identity issue as with ID, it all comes down to faith. And, by its nature, faith rests on "the evidence of things hoped for, not seen." IOW, if we had evidence for it, we wouldn't need faith... faith is what steps in when there isn't evidence. Aside from all the other harmful effects on youth, the academic environment, and so forth, this religious basis for the "ex-gay" theory makes it completely unsuitable as a subject matter for students in the public school system.
Jane in CT
posted by , at
6/30/2006 8:16 AM
I came out of the closet in 10 grade in 1983 in high school, I knew I was gay before but always heard names like fag and worse,But It was just as hard on me to lie and hide who I am, but when I came out, It was like I was sent to hell,everyday I was harrased,teased, gay bashed,was almost set on fire once.
I even skipped days in school,I went to the guidence councelor who told me that if I'm gonna live a deviant lifestyle this is what I should expect. But atleast I did'nt have to deal with Ex-gay groups coming into the school,I think I would have commented Suicide.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 11:01 AM
Why is it that all of these ex-gay ministries never provide documentation to the scientific community as to how they can make a gay person straight? If they claim they can, then why not send their evidence to the American Psychiatric Association, I'm sure they'd love to see their research and experiments. Why has none of it appeared in the scientific literature?
Robert, NYC.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 1:21 PM
it has.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 1:43 PM
It has not.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 3:17 PM
This link leads to statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Counseling Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, setting forth their official positions on so-called "reparative therapy."
Not one of them supports the notion that sexual orientation is either chosen or amenable to "cure," and that such efforts are more likely to lead to suicide attempts, substance abuse, self-loathing, risky behavior, etc.
If the "ex-gay" people had presented credible data to any of these organizations, I'd expect to see it acknowledged here. It's not. And for good reason. That data doesn't exist.
P. A. Hansen
posted by , at
6/30/2006 4:55 PM
Well, I guess I should have posted the link!
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html
Good thing it's Friday...
posted by , at
6/30/2006 5:00 PM
Yes, P.A. Hanson, that's right. The data doesn't exist.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 5:49 PM
bigots to the left of me bigots to the right
here i am
stuck in the middle again
now let's all sing along.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 7:30 PM
It is not bigotry to say that peer-reviewed published clinical evidence of safety and efficacy does not exist, when peer-reviewed published clinical evidence of safety and efficacy does not exist.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 8:26 PM
Common sense is somehow lost in this arguement. Having sex with a member of one's own gender does not make that person gay. It's just sex and frankly, most anyone can have sex with most anyone, just ask the ex-gays and their spouses. The "sex" in homosexual does not refer to the act, it refers to the gender. IF change is possible, it is possible in a very, very few individuals; I'd say less than one percent. No one, however has the right to go into our schools and preach that anyone can change orientation and that homosexuality is wrong. Such teaching is wrong and harmful, both to questioning teens and to the children of gay parents. It's disgusting that they would try to hurt my kids. And by the way, pro gay is not anti-family.
posted by jekelhyde, at
6/30/2006 8:37 PM
There are two separate types of supposed change that could be talked about in the schools:
1) Change by religious miracle.
2) Change by clinical methodology.
Anyone applying to go into a school should make it crystal clear in advance WHICH they are applying to be speak about. Neither should be found acceptable, I think.
If I was on a Board of a public school, I don't think I'd feel it was right to let someone go into a classroom and tell pupils they can get miracle cures for something. It would raise all sorts of relgion-in-schools issues. If the class members are of various religions or none, who qualifies for the miracles?
On the other hand, if someone wanted to come into my school to talk about a medical clinical method for treating something, and there was no published evidence about the treatment, respecting safety and efficacy, I don't think I would allow that either.
Neither of the two 'prongs' of the 'change' lobby, then, should qualify for presentation to public school pupils.
posted by , at
6/30/2006 9:02 PM
Then it is by faith - isn't it? What possible reason could a person have to desire to change if it is not for religious purposes? It is religion that is saying being gay is wrong - so no one who is non-religious is going to seek change. So there's the catch. How can you speak of change without religion? JMO
BNP
posted by , at
7/01/2006 2:01 PM
Well, BNP, that's an interesting thought. I see what you're getting at - external pressure to change would certainly most likely come from those with a religious viewpoint.
Conceiveably, a gay person who did not personally have a religious viewpoint might still feel that he or she wanted to change because life would be easier for a variety of reasons. You think?
posted by , at
7/01/2006 3:22 PM
Yes...and when you start speaking of "religion" or of using it to "change" or "cure" someone who may not share the same beliefs, it suddenly becomes a constitutional issue. Hence the propensity of the theocrats to demand our own constitution be rewritten, re-interpreted, and amended to ensure their official religion status.
After all, how else can they meander around the inevitable charge of violating the religious beliefs of gay citizens?
posted by , at
7/02/2006 6:12 AM
heard you had an altercation mr. besen. using the f word certainly makes you and advocate for children's education.
posted by , at
7/03/2006 10:54 PM
Everyone is human, Anonymous. As long as he is not cussing at kids, more power to him. Anger is a human emotion and a person can only be pushed so far. Since I don't know the details of the altercation, I can only speak from personal experience. A private arguement is none of your business.
posted by jekelhyde, at
7/04/2006 12:08 AM
Whether Mr Besen once used the F-word does not, surely, invalidate the facts he presents in this blog.
Even if his language were continually intemperate and profane such that he had to be kept away from children and couldn't be allowed in a school (which I don't think for a moment), and even if he were a horrible person entirely mired in selfishness and bigotry (which I don't think for a moment), ths factual information presented here still stands.
And even if the "ex-gay" ministry people were universally charming, and wonderful with children, that doesn't alter the fact that they're selling Snake Oil, and that there is no medical, clinical methodology to change sexual desire, and no evidence that it can be done by religious miracle either.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 5:02 AM
I mean, anonymous, my work colleague with whoim I share an office uses the F word fairly frequently.
He and his wife have a little daughter around two and a half years old.
I'm wondering now if I should report him and have the child taken into care, since by your reckoning he isn't fit to be around children?
Or, might the facts that he is a kind and concerned parent, a responsible citizen, and a qualifed and certificated school teacher, indicate sufficiently that he knows when and where it might not be appropritate to employ certain language?
posted by , at
7/04/2006 8:07 AM
And frankly, I'd rather have a person who cusses like a sailor looking out for my kids if he or she is a caring individual than someone who's primary desire is to break up my family. I feel that Wayne represents those who can't speak for themselves. It's important to have that voice. Even if the voice utters the f word now and again.
posted by jekelhyde, at
7/04/2006 9:20 AM
okay - everyone gets angry. not everyone uses a sexually explicit word in public. i'd rather not have anyone swearing in front of my children. it was nopt a private argument it was in public. and if he said it - it's reported - it's my business. my oh my! the arguments you people make for yourselves to excuse yourself and then condemn everyone else with is just ludicrous. you are so biased that it is not even funny to a person who wants gay advocacy in public schools. in other words, you idiot wayne for bllowing it for our side.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 1:22 PM
phil - your office mate is not out in public advocating anything. let him swear till the cows come home. who cares. you cannot compare public actions with private ones.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 1:46 PM
phil, you are so confused about being gay that i cannot even stand it.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 1:47 PM
Anonymous at 1:46, I hope you understood that I was being IRONIC in suggesting that my colleague's child be taken into care. Yes?
Anonymous at 1:47, I am bemused by your assertion that I'm confused about being gay. I disagree with you and maintain that I am very clear-headed and well-informed about being gay. I call upon you now either to make good your assertion by giving specific details, or to withdraw it.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 4:08 PM
always a double standard huh phil?
take that back - you cry. should the ex-gays stand up and in unison say and demand that from others? you are afraid of yourself and other people who are different.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 5:12 PM
I beg your pardon? I don't understand.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 6:19 PM
of course you don't.
posted by , at
7/04/2006 6:37 PM
And you ain't gonna help me?
posted by , at
7/04/2006 6:40 PM
Dont forget VP Cheney told a reporter to fuck off (or something like that) in a public forum. I dont hear anon. who's so worried about what their children hear in public bitching about that. He reached a far wider audience than wayne ever did, or could.
posted by , at
7/05/2006 9:26 AM
No word from Wayne as yet. Maybe this did not happen at all. Where is this information coming from? I would think Wayne would say something...
posted by , at
7/05/2006 9:48 AM
Wayne may have used the F-word?? Stop the presses...breaking news.
Hahahahahhaaha....what is this kindergarten? Big fucking deal. Shut the fuck up and fuck off immature cry babies.
H.I.
Rhode Island
posted by , at
7/05/2006 2:22 PM
and i didn't vote for cheney either. it's just inappropriate when discussing the moral values to children. anyway you look at it. i am a liberal and it just was not a good move.
posted by , at
7/05/2006 4:51 PM
I don't think anyone would suggest that using strong swearwords in front of children is a good move.
But I think it's a much less bad move than telling them untruthfully that people can change their whole sexual desire by a) Religious Miracles or b) Clinical Methodologies.
In the heat of the moment a person might allow his tongue to become a little unguarded. Not good. But to engineer a whole talk, or series of them, deliberately teaching youngsters things that aren't true is a much worse offence, not least because it is a calculated one.
posted by , at
7/05/2006 8:10 PM
Which is worse: To tell a truth with a swearword, or to tell a lie without one?
posted by , at
7/05/2006 8:11 PM
First of all, the F word is not a sexually explicit word in most contexts in which it is used today.
Second, if this happened at all I would like to know when and where. Not that it would change my view at all, but I'm watching this train wreck now.
Third, I really don't think anyone is necessarily promoting gay advocacy in schools. We all just want our kids to know the facts, not fiction. And we want bigotry to not be taught.
Lastly, it is fairly obvious that the original post about the alleged f word incident is very anti-Besen. Therefore it stands to reason that anything that comes from his mouth, explitive or otherwise, would be offensive to this person.
And by the way, too many of you seem to be afraid to identify yourselves. Makes a person wonder if you are all the same person.
Falls under the catagory: "things that make you go hmmmm."
posted by jekelhyde, at
7/05/2006 8:46 PM
blah, blah, blah...so Wayne is not going to comment on his visit from the Orlando police?
posted by , at
7/05/2006 10:30 PM
As a retired investigative reporter, I checked with the Orlando Police Department out of curiosity. No report had been filed. No police had visited Wayne. No statment was taken or given. Clearly, the accusations are false and pure nonsense.
So, it appears our anonymous friend is blowing smoke out of his right wing ass.
If I am wrong, please provide a police report that says otherwise. If you can't, you ought to state your name so you can get sued for libel.
J.S. in Orlando, FL
posted by , at
7/06/2006 2:28 AM
posted by , at
7/06/2006 12:31 PM
Well, has Wayne Besen denied it?
BNP
posted by , at
7/06/2006 12:32 PM
I don't believe that not approving of foul language would make a person "anti-besen" It may make them anti foul language. I am amazed at how the people on this blog jump to conclusions in an almost paranoid way. If straight people read this they really are going to think that gays are mentally disturbed or at the very least playing victims and very paranoid.
posted by , at
7/06/2006 12:36 PM
This conversation has turned really childish and silly.
For the new blog-crashers. Get a life.
Jill
posted by , at
7/06/2006 1:03 PM
Anon: "A report does not neccesarily need to be made for the police to escort somone away from someone else."
J.S. Replies: Anon, you are just plain ignorant. If it was a real incident of any substance or significance, a report would be filed, an arrest made, a restraining order filed or a statment taken. Period. This is not an arguable point.
The fact is, you have not provided anything other than anonymous character assasination. Typical of a right wing that relies on smear tactics and innuendo rather than facts.
Please, anonymous, if you have a case and a legitimate gripe, state your full legal name and some evidence. That way, you are legally accountable and not just a blithering idiot with an obvious agenda.
J.S. in Orlando, FL
posted by , at
7/06/2006 1:13 PM
hahahahahahahaha
posted by , at
7/06/2006 5:02 PM
Wayne, is it true? Let's put an end to this argument.
BNP
posted by , at
7/06/2006 5:07 PM
For Wayne to respond at this point would be legitimizing the accusation. And I still maintain that all the anonymous' are the same person or working for the same organization.
I will speak no more on the subject. If someone has anything intersting to share, I'll gladly dialogue.
posted by jekelhyde, at
7/06/2006 9:43 PM
no comment sounds guilty to me. and thank you jecklyhyde (mr I'm not sure who i am) for not commenting anymore on this subject. it is obvious that you blindly follow the fashion of the day.
posted by , at
7/06/2006 9:50 PM
These right wingers are nutty and sleazy the way they level charges without evidence. And they call themselves Christians???
Zo
posted by , at
7/06/2006 10:00 PM
Yeah - these fundies are quite queer, the way they come on here and cruise this site. I guess this is how they get their repressed rocks off.
posted by , at
7/06/2006 10:01 PM
poor wayne. he has a bunch of idiots following him around like baby ducks. it must get embarassing seeing your "cadre" talk about non-truths.
posted by , at
7/06/2006 10:13 PM
well then - why do the gays go over to the ex-gay blogs (i know who you are) and post over there. is it because really they want to give up their homosexuality??? hahahahahaha you guys make the least reasonable arguements and assumptions as a whole. here i am, on your side for equal rights and protection under the law and you can't even look beyond your own biases (because of course you don't have any). and anyone who believes they don't have biases is just plain ignorant. no one is that gifted. gays are not open to discussion or a person in the middle. they are as closed minded as the fundies.
posted by , at
7/06/2006 10:18 PM
These right wingers are such losers. They are so pathetic, that I can only shake my head.
J
Dallas
posted by , at
7/06/2006 11:56 PM
and why can't liberal gay activists make comments without calling people names?? or is that just the stereotypical gay "cattiness" one finds at a gay cocktail party?
posted by , at
7/07/2006 12:29 AM
"or is that just the stereotypical gay cattiness one finds at a gay cocktail party?"
Hmmm, sounds pretty catty. Do we have a closeted homo bitching about gays?
Sam from Houston
posted by , at
7/07/2006 8:34 AM
Eek, this thread seems to have wandered a bit off-topic.
I thought it was meant to be about whether people should be allowed go into public schools and tell pupils that sexual desire or orientation can be changed by either a) religious miracles or b) a clinical therapeutic methodolgy.
The concern focussed on the lack of evidence for either.
posted by , at
7/07/2006 10:49 AM
We also think everyone is a closeted homosexual.
Jack
posted by , at
7/07/2006 11:24 AM
How about雙眼皮with室內設計？no about each with it? i do`t think it it.室內設計風格 is design about,is creativity list,燈光音響 is a creativity work of lighting design,室內設計will show you a bright thinking of design,all to show you nice ideaecosway!
posted by , at
7/08/2008 10:08 PM
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE BLACK KOALA WALLET GRENADE
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE BLACK SARAH WALLET GRENADE
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE BLACK SARAH WALLET PISTACHE
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE BLACK WALLET M60054
Monogram Multicolore Black Wapaty Case
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE CLAUDIA BLACK
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE GRETA BLACK
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE HEART COIN PURSE WHITE
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE JUDY GM BLACK
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE JUDY GM WHITE
MONOGRAM MULTICOLORE JUDY MM BLACK
posted by , at
1/06/2010 9:40 AM
<< Home
