Here’s an old story, well-known among ex-gays for a long time now; not so well-known among gays.
Noe Gutierrez, a star of the safe-schools/pro-tolerance video “It’s Elementary,” is now ex-gay.
At his web site, Gutierrez says that upon coming out as ex-gay, the video’s producers were intolerant and narrow-minded:
I called Women’s Educational Media. I explained how my change had come about very ‘naturally’ and how I felt as though this change should be given the same recognition as my initial “coming out of the closet” (i.e. from straight to gay). I figured that if the aim of Women’s Educational Media was ‘respect for everyone’, why not add ‘ex-gay’s’ to that list??
The response from Women’s Educational Media was less than hospitable. Our request was for the use of less than 3 minutes of footage from ‘It’s Elementary’. We only wanted a clip to show that I WAS in fact involved with the pro-gay movement. We were denied our request. Not only were we denied it but my identity as ex-gay was not acknowledged. It seems Women’s Educational Media does not recognize ex-homosexuals. In other words… they don’t believe that I exist.
Now, it seems odd to me that a company so adamant about portraying acceptance and tolerance would be so dismissive of a person who chooses a lifestyle that is “post-gay.” This seems to say, ‘Gay is OK… Ex-Gay is NOT.’ Why would a company so opposed to prejudice and intolerance discriminate against those who choose to identify as ‘ex-gay’?
The fact is that the plight of pro-gay advocacy groups in the public school sector is NOT about equal access of information, but rather it is about the propagation of the myth that people who are gay identified have no choice outside of accepting and integrating their feelings of same-sex attraction into a full-blown identity. Because the ‘ex-gay’ denies that claim, we are seen as a direct threat to such groups. This mindset is biased and clearly defamatory to ex-gay men and women everywhere. It makes one statement: Ex-gays don’t exist.
It’s clear that Gutierrez has acquired some stereotypes, strawman arguments, and resentment toward his former colleagues and companions. Why, is not so clear.
Warren Throckmorton is one of the ex-gay movement’s leading voices for science these days, though he has few scientific credentials. One of Throckmorton’s CDs features Gutierrez and other ex-gays recruiting high school students. Throckmorton has written letters and op-eds like this one calling on pro-tolerance organizations to acknowledge that one of their own, well, isn’t.
More information (pro and con) about Noe Gutierrez and his falling-out with the pro-tolerance movement would be appreciated.
I somewhat disagree with your point of view on this one Mike. While I do agree that the hypocritical Women’s Educational Media went too far and that it failed on it’s primary mission of tolerance, ex-gays are the last thing that confused queer youth really need to hear about. It’s already bad enough that there are a few pro-ex-gay websites targeting queer youth, sites like ‘Exodus Youth’, ‘Get Real’ or even the subtle ‘free to be me’ site, which IMO is 1 000 times more hurtful than godhatesfags.com (which I now find amusing and ironically appreciative).
IMO, these sites are no different than the horrifying pro-anorexic websites that encourages people not only to unhealthy fast for beauty, but to feel comfortable in their own ‘bones.’ Both these types of sites are known for the mental and psychological damage they can cause. Not to get into a slippery slope, but should schools tolerate and accept open dialogue from pro-anorexics?
This is not to say that I advocate general censorship, yet unfortunately the rules seem to be different when there are vulnerable children involved (not for vulnerable adults though). I don’t think the dialogue in high schools should exceed the virtue of tolerating those that are different from you and understanding them while being cautious of their statements. If ex-gays inevitably get in the dialogue, then the evidence of their failiures and lies should be chain-balled to them.
Addendum:
I’ve noticed an extremely powerful form of evolution in both ex-gay youth and pro-anorexic sites. They seem to obfuscate it’s true objective by showing signs of tolerance to other in order to become more appealing to their audience. They are also more empathic, they concentrate on other qualities other than the main issue, they leave people blissfully floating in mid air and then all it takes is a gentle tad towards ex-gay/pro-ana ideologies. Yet sometimes the skinsheep slips off the exposed wolf, especially with the more revealing allies they make and where their gentle tad pushes really lead them…
Although I have never seen “It’s Elementary” I understand the purpose of the film is to explain gay people to kids, in an effort to innoculate them against the anti-gay attitudes all too prevalent in our churches, our schools, our society. On that point, I can easily understand why the producers would not want to provide any piece of the film to Gutierrez, as it would surely be used to undermine the very tolerance the producers are trying to foster.
Quite frankly, I see no reason why they should comply with his request – unless of course such use is allowed by whatever release Gutierrez signed on making the film. After all, as we all know, being “ex-gay” does not mean you are no longer homosexual (in fact we seem to be having a very nice discussion about the differences between those terms on another thread), so it is not as if the producers are lying in their film.
>Although I have never seen “It’s Elementary” I understand the purpose of the film is to explain gay people to kids, in an effort to innoculate them against the anti-gay attitudes all too prevalent in our churches, our schools, our society.
If I’m not mistaken, I believe I had read that “It’s Elementary” was intended for teachers, not kids. It was intended to explain “gay” to them and try to get them to oppose anti-gay harrassment of their students.
There was a misplaced blockquote command in my post initially, and it appeared that I was saying things that Gutierrez was saying.
I don’t think it will be necessary for the pro-tolerance movement to give video airtime to its anti-tolerance graduates until the anti-tolerance/exgay movement offers airtime on its videos that is proportionate to the number of ex-gays who are now ex-ex-gay.
If Gutierrez sincerely wants to help high school faculty, then he will truthfully disclose success/failure rates of ex-gay programs. But to my knowledge, he does not do that. It is also unclear whether he and his allies really support comprehensive sex education, or seek ultimately to ban perspectives other than theirs.
In the interest of complete honesty, I think pro-tolerance advocates should disclose when their former spokespeople switch sides, but that does not require handing over the soapbox to people voicing prejudices or newfound intolerance.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into his message, but the tone of Gutierrez’s comments suggests that he is opposed to mutual tolerance of gay-affirming and antigay viewpoints. He has become very embittered by something, but is it really the alleged intolerance of WEM? That’s what I’m curious about, here. Gutierrez has stereotyped his former allies in numerous ways, so it seems something else is going on.
I agree with Xeno in that, if ex-gays are allowed to participate in the gay/straight teen dialogue, their failure rates should be a large point. If they want to tell people about how so many people have changed, they should also have to be honest and tell about the many many more that have been unable to.
Also, they should be forced to be straight forward and honest about what “change” actually means and how possible it really is.
Actually, I think I just changed my mind. Until they conduct their own real, scientifically sound studies on their therapies (or hire someone else to do them), therefore giving real evidence of change (as opposed to the anecdotal evidence they now supply), they should not be allowed to confuse questioning youth, often times on purpose.
Xeno is dead on the mark. We as a society, in confusing the ideal of “free speech”, have concluded that it is LOGICAL to expect NASA to have a serious public dialog with the “Flat Earth Society”. Such an action does 2 things…it makes NASA look foolish and it makes the FES look LEGIT!
This is called “Elevation Theory”,it is a tactic the “exgay” movement has taken up over the last few years in effort to (As Xeno illustrated) “seem more palatable and benign” to the mainstream public.
You use this tactic in it’s best form by SEEMINGLY switching your “goal” to “Inclusion and tolerance” as opposed to flat out war! Many “exgay” groups are now hiding their true agenda, replacing it instead with the surface apperance of “just being another lifestyle choice needing to be tolerated and understood”.
This of course is a BIG FAT STRIPEY LIE! This new tactic is meant to make them appear “less threatening and harsh”…but what it really does, is make their victims lower their guard. A superb decietful tactic, and with the political correct disease that plaugues so many “nice people:…it works like a CHARM!
They put little “no gaybashing” buttons on their recruitment sites now”…and offer “exgay cult theory” as “just another valid choice”. (OF course the underlying thing they want you to accept by agreeing to that is that you acknowledge IT IS A CHOICE…clever eh???)
The fact they target youth is one of the more recent developments in the “exgay” cult, and a sick one at that. One poster called “free to be me” 1000 times more dangerous than GHFcom. THAT is an understatement. GHF is no threat at all really, it so rediculous and ignored that even the most bitter Supremacist right winger wont give it a chance or a good word..LOL
Bridges Accross the Devide is one of the most sick “Elevation theory” websites ever created, and it’s why it failed (Unless it has changed now). Elevation theory is one of the most dangerous tactics, and one of the most successful, It allows an organization without merit to SEEM and APPEAR as though they are on the same level with truth and fact. IF NASA were to take the time to sit down to a debate with the Flat Earth Society, would not that indicate that NASA found their point of view worthy of debate? As oppsed to being a silly rediculous proven wrong notion that needs no real response? Of course this is a more extreme example, since “exgays” do need to be confronted about their lies and agendas, their fixed stats, dismissed and discredited studies, and flat out lies. But you get the point.
Offering “exgay” recruitment theory as an equal and valid “Choice” or “Issue” with the proven facts regarding sexual orientation and all the evidence from every accredited agency in existance. Is the most dangerous thing that could ever be done, because it is NOT equal, valid, or benign.
We as a soicety do not have to promote lies along side truth, in the name of some “be nice” attitude, when people are harmed so badly by such a thing. It is immoral and unethical, and no Gay or Lesbian person should have to be martyr to political correctness.
Rusty
Just a note on the “tolerance” expected of gays toward “ex-gays,” which is often brought up in the discussions of Mr. Gutierrez, particularly in his fight to get the “ex-gays” at the NEA convention.
Read this little tidbit from AgapePress on AFA today, entitled “If Elected, Kerry Expected to Be Most Pro-Homosexual Prez Ever” – and loved the rhetoric from our friend Randy Thomas:
“A former homosexual who now helps people break free from that lifestyle is also warning that pro-family individuals should be concerned about the political gains and future aims of today’s homosexual movement.
Randy Thomas, a spokesman for Exodus International, says the homosexual agenda has changed since 20 or 30 years ago. He contends that homosexual activists, no longer content just to gain tolerance and acceptance, are seeking power over their adversaries. “I see it sort of as a vengeful attack against people they perceive are unenlightened, not progressive, and all these different things,” he says.
“They’re not seeking tolerance anymore — they’re seeking power,” Thomas asserts. He adds that the struggle between the radical homosexual agenda and the pro-family movement is a dangerous battle — and he fears that if homosexuality wins, religious liberty loses.”
Now that’s a tolerant message if I’ve ever heard one – not! Whatever your political leanings, I think we can all agree that engaging in exaggerated rhetoric such as this – especially the part about gay people wanting power – is completely counterproductive to any intelligent political debate.
Not to mention it is a violation of the commandment not to “bear false witness” and a complete abandonment of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” Far too often the “ex-gay” or “pro-family” movements paint the entire gay community, or just gay “activists” (meaning those of us who won’t shut up), with these horrible broad brushes – completely refusing to acknowledge the variety inherent in the gay community.
I have moved the latest messages by the banned Janet Hensley to the Janet Hensley page.
Noe deserves to be recognized as a member of the “ex-gay” community as soon as he proves that he’s an “ex-gay”. Repressing your homosexual feelings, or not acting on an attraction to the same sex doesn’t make you an ex-gay no matter what they try to say.
Also, the APA has stated that there is no way to “change” one’s sexual orientation. In light of that, I don’t see what place ex-gay advocates have in our schools. We wouldn’t allow people to come to school and advocate for ESP or some other pseudoscience so why should it be different for this one.
Shane, if you believe everything the APA says then you really need to have your head examined.
Marty, where is the peer reviewed research showing that it is possible to change one’s sexual orientation. Until it appears, I doubt the APA will change it’s position and I will believe their position.
Regardless of whether it is possible for someone to change his or her sexual orientation, the reason that one should refrain from engaging in homo-sex is, what? To please Marty? To please some sky pixie?
Give me a break.
Gee raj, i can think of 3 easily enough:
1. respect for your neighbors
2. respect for your parents
3. respect for your self
Oh, now THAT makes a lot of sense (*rolling eyes*) … not!!
“I’m going to lie about myself because I respect you.”
“I’m going to hide my life from you because I respect you.”
“I’m going to deny my own ethical, moral, and spiritual values, and all the principles and realities of my life because I respect you.”
“I’m going to deny my very nature because I respect you.?
huh??? How can lies and deception show respect for anyone? Or, on the flip side, how is being out and openly gay NOT respecting someone else?
Makes no sense at all.
Marty:
1. “respect for your neighbors”. My neighbors aren’t involved or have any interest in my private life, but we still respect each other. BTW, most of them are gay too, so this is probably a moot point.
2. “respect for your parents”. My Mom celebrates my gay life with me. So I guess we have mutual respect there too.
3. “respect for yourself”. If I didn’t live my life as God has made me (as a gay man) then that would be disrespectful to me and the others around me.
So as Ray said, your logic defies meaning.
And his meaning defies logic. 🙂
(but at least he’s consistent about it.)
Respect for your neighbors Marty?
Well, continuing your idea to its logical conclusion, that would mean my next-door neighbors growing up, whose daughters baby-sat for my sister and I, would have had to convert to Catholocism. After all, they were members of the Lutheran faith, one the Catholic church does not necessarily recognize as valid, but living in a city that was 95% Catholic. Given that ratio, it was pretty rude of them to continue actually following their own religion – they should have converted for the rest of us.
As for my parents – I did everything in my power to respect them, until, in your opinion, I came out. I got straight A’s in high school, attended a college that was named, yet again, US News and World Report’s top liberal arts school in the country, was elected to Phi Beta Kapp, graduated magna cum laude, and earned a Master’s in Economics. Along the way I became a law-abiding, decent citizen who tries to help the less fortunate – basically I was the perfect kid my parents wanted. I even tried to be straight for 20 years. I don’t think I owe them anything more at this point.
As for myself – as I have posted before, coming out was the most important thing I could do for myself. You basically have three choices if you are gay – 1) live celibate, 2) get married and hope you can work it out, or 3) come out. Clearly number 3 was not an option for a good Catholic boy who wanted to respect his parents.
I couldn’t do the second option, because I feel absolutely no attraction for women at all – nada, nothing, zilch. I simply refused to commit what I see as the grevious sin of lying, even if it meant having a “normal” life.
So I went with option 1, and tried my damndest. But what I found was that being celibate, or more accurately, shutting down my emotions and having absolutely no hope of a social life was a horribly lonely and crushingly depressing way to live. I struggled for years with no hope for the future, no sense that happiness was there for me, no way to get out. I tried the “ex-gay” routine, at least on a home-grown basis, and that didn’t work. I finally came to the understanding that living in the closet was a form of slow and painful suicide, and nothing could be more disrespectful to oneself.
Marty | August 25, 2004 09:41 AM
Given that none of these are even remotely responsive to my question, I’ll ask it again.
>Regardless of whether it is possible for someone to change his or her sexual orientation, the reason that one should refrain from engaging in homo-sex is, what? To please Marty? To please some sky pixie?
Regarding the “sky pixie” reference (and responsive to your little jab at me on another thread), pleasing some sky pixie seems to me about as dumb as Kissing Hank’s Ass
It might to be helpful to realize the world of Lesbians and Gay Men contains more than a few relgiously inclined people who are not Christians. And so, frequently, ideas that are framed in specifically Christians terms and ideas don’t reach or touch a great many GL’s. The sky pixie is perhaps a bit much, but I surely know where Raj is coming from on this. I do not believe that we are put in this world to try and fill a ragbag list of do’s and don’t’s. Nor do I find it necessary to do so.
I dunno Raj, maybe people choose not to have homosexual sex in accord with the understandings of their consciences. These may be understandings with which you don’t agree but hey, you’re not them.
Or our people not to be allowed to follow their consciences any longer?
And, to Shane, people get to define themselves as they like. Your definition of what makes someone “ex-gay” doesn’t necessarily have to apply to other people’s lives just because you say so.
David: I can’t speak for Raj, but I suspect that most of us agree with the idea that anyone can choose (for whatever reason) to have sex or to not have sex. My objection (and I think the objection of some others) to the “abstain as a way of respect” proposal was that we/you/others are expected to give up sex simply to appease someone else without regard to our own nature, conscience or convictions on the matter. The whole notion of consensual sex is based on choice — to either engage or abstain — at the personal level from within, not by coercion, duress, shame/guilt, abuse from without.
Dalea | August 25, 2004 10:43 PM
>The sky pixie is perhaps a bit much, but I surely know where Raj is coming from on this
Consider it sarcasm.
The fact is that I am an agnostic, but one who really doesn’t give a tinker’s damn whether or not a sky pixie exists. On the other hand, those who believe that the sky pixie exists aren’t particularly interested in providing evidence for its existence. The latter makes me wonder whether they fear that they might discover that their beloved sky pixie doesn’t really exist.
David Morrison | August 26, 2004 08:03 AM
>I dunno Raj, maybe people choose not to have homosexual sex in accord with the understandings of their consciences. These may be understandings with which you don’t agree but hey, you’re not them.
I don’t give a tinkers damn (no, that is not an epithet) whether or not someone who is otherwise same-sex-attracted acts on that attraction. I used “should” rather than “might want to” in my question
>Regardless of whether it is possible for someone to change his or her sexual orientation, the reason that one should refrain from engaging in homo-sex is, what? To please Marty? To please some sky pixie?
to Marty for a reason. I’m sure that you know the difference between “should refrain” and “might want to refrain”.
BTW, although I have not visited your blog very often, when I did, I got the distinct impression that you were essentially toeing the catholic church’s party line opposing equal rights for gay people. If so, quite frankly, as far as I’m concerned, your kvetches fall on deaf ears. I could make a few other comments, but unfortunately, Mike wouldn’t like them.
David said: “And, to Shane, people get to define themselves as they like. Your definition of what makes someone “ex-gay” doesn’t necessarily have to apply to other people’s lives just because you say so.”
The problem with that is that anyone can call themselves anything and the whole point of having scientifically descriptive categories breaks down because a word no longer holds any meaning. People who use the label “Ex-gay” use it because they are trying to change people’s perception of sexual orientation-namely that it is something that is a choice, or at least something that can be changed. Until there is scientific evidence that one can become an “ex-gay”, or change their sexual orientation I reserve the right to call anyone out on the use of that word. If they want to come up with a term that clearly and realistically describes their status – ie. a word that means homosexual/bisexual but no longer having same-sex sexual relations – I would fully support their right to use it.
PEOPLE,THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “GAY”.MY husband used to think he ‘s gay when we met.I proved him wrong.We’re happily married now and love each other to death!!!
What is gay?Gay sexuality is not sth you are born with!There is NOT a single research in science,proving homosexual behaviour is a part of your genetic material!GAy is someone,whose parents,teachers or authority figure have abused or VERY OFTEN a son is brought up WITHOUT his father’s attention.
The sooner you get rid of your perverted SICK obsession,the better for you and your family.There is nothing more disgusting than man fucking another man in his ass.HUH!There should be NO tolerance for faggots and pedophiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was posting on another thread and saw this one. Let me just distance myself publicly from this kind of rhetoric. Please who ever you are – this is so counterproductive. Of course I believe your husband changed but this should not lead to a disrespect of anyone. Those who read ex-gay watch and disagree, I implore you to recall the Golden Rule – treat others the way you want to be treated.
Thanks for the post here, Warren- much appreciated.
WT invoking the Golden Rule?
Treat others fine unless they are homosexual is what his real message is.
Then why does he ally himself with the political waves that want to render gay people worthless unless heterosexual?
Change is possible?
Maybe, but why is change necessary?
And why are heterosexuals the only ones who insist on it?
Repeat after me Warren:
“Change (for SOME) may be possible, but with no peer reviewed studies on the subject, it shouldn’t be pushed”.
Your rhetoric enables people like “Me” to spew this hatred and you help them feel better about it by simplifying an extremely complicated issue.
I know at least 4 ex-ex-gays that were direct patients of Dr. Nicolosi. I know several ex-ex-gays who tried to pray it away using groups such as Desert Stream, Exodus, etc.
They were threatened into “treatment” by misunderstanding parents and managed to end up gay after they were financially able to leave the nest.
If you have any peer reviewed studies proving the effectiveness of ex-gay ministries, I’d love to see them. I can create a study using the wreckage “ex-gay” groups have left behind (using Dr. Spitzer’s methodology).
I don’t mean to sound angry about this. However, I’ve seen how much pain ex-gay treatment has left upon friends of mine. I’ve also read the things you (Dr. Throckmorton) publish. I don’t for a minute believe you disavow anything the previous poster said, I simply believe that her harsh words make PR harder for you.
Scott,
I don’t think anyone here would quibble with you about the damage “ex-gay treatment” can cause, but we also should be realistic. There will always be people who, for religious reasons, decide to repress their homosexuality and remain celibate, or choose to concentrate their sexuality on the opposite gender, if they are bisexual. When people make those decisions for religious reasons, and are honest about them (e.g., “I am choosing to remain celibate,” not “I have left the ‘gay lifestyle'”) we should and must respect that.
The problem we all have are 1)the unsustantiated claims that many “ex-gay” groups make and 2) the attempt to use the choices of a few dozen people to dictate social policy for the millions of us who hold differing moral/ethical/religious views and believe that being gay is perfectly normal for a small percentage of the population.
After all, there have been Catholics choosing to remain celibate (or at least promising that) in order to enter religious orders for centuries – but no one expects all Catholics to remain celibate. Similarly, both Orthodox Jews and Muslims regard the eating of pork as immoral – but, in this country at least, neither group has demanded a cessation of pork production and consumption.
When we reach that kind of equilibrium on gay people – understanding that different religions teach different value systems for gay people, and we can and must respect those, without forcing everyone to live by only one system – we will truly have been accepted in this country.