This article at 365gay.com https://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/071405childMurd.htm is an illustration of the damage that Reparative Therapy and the ex-gay movement does to children–particularly males.
In Preventing Homosexuality by authors and RT’s Joseph Nicolosi and his wife they encourage restrictive gender roles for the children. It is my strong opinion that this is gender abuse to believe that men and women should only act a certain way. It fosters this type of abuse that this father did to this poor child who is now dead!
Joe Kort, MSW
I don’t know of any RT’s who explicitly condone child abuse.
However, Google searches indicate that both Joseph Nicolosi and Love In Action actively encourage parental sexism against their children, and both are so preoccupied with stopping homosexuality at nearly any price, that they have made little effort to discourage abuse by parents or others.
A variety of Exodus-affiliated activists deny that antigay violence and harassment are even a problem. They assert that the people most likely to emotionally or physically abuse homosexuals are … other homosexuals.
I have to say, I thought this kind of response (for example on Wayne Besen’s site) was beneath you guys. I’m shocked that you’ve gone ahead and written this.
To link RT exponents with the murder of a child is really below the belt. Have you ANY evidence that this father’s actions were precipitated by reading RT literature? If not you should retract.
I wish those of you who comment on this site about RT and disagree with me or anyone else condemning RT would actually read the RT literature–particularly the book Preventing Homosexuality for children. It is sexist,rigid and promote intolerance of any kind toward opposite sex behavior from children.
While this father may *not* have been a part of RT, with RT literature around it only encourages men as unstable as this father to do these sort of things to ensure his son is not gay.
It would be a better world if people could learn that homosexuality has nothing to do with one’s gender or how one learns to be male or female.
Joe Kort
People keep linking to this 365gay article without bothering to check that the father has already been convicted of second-degree murder in the case.
Never, ever rely on 365gay.com — they are totally substandard and usually just repackage news from other, more reliable sources.
I differ with Peter O. I don’t believe that RTs have, here, been linked with the murder of a child. The first comment specifically disclaims that there are any RTs who explicitly condone child abuse. Even if you believe that forced participation in RTs or ministries that teach how to not “act on” what are pretty deep-seated desires are child abuse, at least that is not physical.
This man didn’t intend to kill his child. He intended to make life so painful for the child that it would attempt to modify what the father thought was effeminant behavior. Unfortunately, he went too far, and I’d suggest that this is a case of manslaughter.
The parallel to RTs is very clear, its just the father didn’t realize that the most effective pain to inflict in this situation is emotional and psychological pain, and to let the child’s peers inflict the physical pain later on through bullying that the father’s behavior reinforces.
I doubt the father had ever seen any RT literature. I would expect that any literature that talks about homosexuality even in a “hate the sin love the sinner” sense would push too many hotbuttons in him to not be immediately trashed.
You’re missing the point here, Peter, which is that the same forces driving the father, are driving the ex-gay ministries, the people that support them, and the few people who report success through them.
This man didn’t intend to kill his child. He intended to make life so painful for the child that it would attempt to modify what the father thought was effeminant behavior.
The above is so well said by looking@pigsfly.com
I wish I had said it that way because that is really what I meant!
Warmly, Joe
Peter O,
It has long been a staple of the ex-gay and reparative therapy movements to use sports as a method to masculinize males. In the latest interview with John Smid, he rambles on about his discomfort with football and baseball and implies the use of sports in his Love-in-Action/Refuge program.
“We take them out and play football because it brings those kinds of things up for some people. Now, for other people, it’s merely giving them a safe place to explore football where they’re not going to be ridiculed or feel inequal around men who already know football.
…
We have a baseball field out here. I am looking forward to the times when men will experience tremendous feeling by playing baseball.”
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/07/love_in_actions_1.html
In this story we have an example of a father trying to de-gay his son by making him box:
“The toddler’s mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified that her husband thought the boy might be gay and would force him to box.”
It is not at all reactionary to suggest that this is the exact same thing. It doesn’t matter whether or not Ronnie Paris Jr actually read literature directing him to teach his son to box. If he had, he would have heard about interacting with his son, giving him masculine roll models, teaching him sports. That’s what he did.
The constant barrage of anti-gay propaganda (“gays die by 30”) married with the message that “gays can change” when added to “it’s bad parenting” and a sprinkling of “better you were dead than gay” results in exactly this sort of thing.
Some parents take their kids to Straight Camp, some kick them out of the house, and some are so desperate to butch them up through boxing that they beat them to death.
There is no evidence whatsoever–on this planet or the little green either– that Ronnie and Nysheerah Paris (probably a black couple) were ever influenced by, heard of, knew existed reparative therapy or exgay ministry. If they are black, I KNOW that to be true. Kort should be ashamed… this is what you use a MSW for?
DL, I think what is being said here, is that the same things that bear upon and influence the ex-gay ministries to take the steps they do, influenced and drove Ronnie Paris to do what he did.
I don’t blame the ex-gay ministries for creating the shame, guilt, and persecution that are used in both these instances, I blame both for perpetuating them, and suggest the old saw that they’re part of the problem not part of the solution.
On a personal note, I’m sorry you’ve been having trouble with your blog. You may recall we had an enjoyable but spirited discussion on it, in response to your post Gays after LIA…again. Those comments, both yours and mine, have now disappeard. Someone even commented on their deletion and you responded “Who deleted what?”
So I’m left with the conclusion that you’re having system problems. I know how tough those bugs can be to find.
PCB,
If there were no exgay ministries,exgays, reparative therapy professionals, change philosophy etc, etc.. guilt, shame and its residual negatives would still exist. Exgays didn’t create nor do they have they corner the market on it. Guilt and shame is a built in human condition. You could say we were “born that way”. Who’s to say that Ronnie Paris didnt develop his own code of parental ethics –although I vehemently condemn the murder of the child– without any influence from anyone/thing?
Secondly, I deeply regret the comments from my new blog dissapeared. But as I stated the infusion of haloscan apparently bumped them into blogheaven. I’d do anything to reinstate them, but I dont have the knowledge to recover.
I’ll reiterate my first comment:
I don’t directly blame exgays for the murder of a child.
It is clear to me, however, that the Exodus-affiliated exgay activists that I linked to:
1) deny that antigay violence is a problem,
2) offer parents false data and poor guidance in the care of their same-sex-attracted children, and
3) confuse, shame, and threaten youths through stereotypes, compulsory “hobbies,” compulsory boot camps, and opposition to antiharassment programs in public schools.
I’ve said before that there may be a few exgay ministers or activists who do not contribute to these problems. But with the exception of Chad Thompson, those individuals seem to make themselves nearly impossible to find.
I encourage you to prove me wrong, Peter. Show me some specific, persistent, and ongoing exgay efforts to stop antigay violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping in churches, communities and schools.
P.S. (In reaction to what PBCliberal says below.) The religious right seems concerned about parental rights primarily when the parents happen to be fundamentalist Christians. In Montgomery County, Maryland, on the other hand, the religious-right lobby is arguing that fundamentalist opposition to homosexuality and anti-AIDS education trumps the rights of the district’s politically moderate parents to a comprehensive and healthy sex-ed curriculum.
I think Ronnie Paris did develop his own code of parental ethics. A lot of people who commit violent acts as part of their political or social beliefs feel justified in their vengence, justified by their own private set of ethics. In the 70s this was the province of the left, but in the last 10 years it has been the right-wing Christian reactionaries and the radical Muslims that have bombed the buildings, the gay bars, the abortion clinics and shot the doctors claiming they’re murderers.
What this specific issue with Paris (and with Stark) comes down to, is whether parents’ rights extend to the point that they can make their own children martyrs for their cause. Can they withhold customary medical treatment because they believe in Christ the physician and they believe their child can recover through prayer? Can they choose quackery because its the only medicine that offers their preferred outcome?
More and more, we are saying they can’t, and that the right of the parents to be free from unreasonable acts of the state is balanced by the right of the child to be free from unreasonable acts of their parents. Beating your kid to death because you think he’s a fairy is unreasonable.
Matt C. Abbott (who seems obsessed on all things gay based on how often I see his writing) has an article on Alan Keyes’s website.
https://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050714
This is actually worth a read because it lays out very succinctly the beliefs, goals, and methodology of Courage, the Catholic ex-gay group.
Basically it boils down to this:
There’s no such thing as a gay person.
The cause of same-sex attraction is a repetition of the old psychobabble stuff from 50 years ago.
The process is the AA 12-step program.
The goal is chastity. (woo-hoo, can’t wait to be chaste)
My favorite quotes:
“Despite propaganda to the contrary, homosexual desire remains an ‘evil,’ a ‘disordered attraction.'”
“The Church cannot acknowledge the unproven claims of genetics or hormones…” (when has the Church ever bothered itself with science)
“Some common experiences psychologically are as children… avoidance of interactions which form proper non genital relationships such as sports for some boys…” (Ya know, sports…. like BOXING)
Anyone have any questions as to why it isn’t surprising that some father BOXED his kid to death? After all, he’s just ridding him of an evil disordered attraction.
You’re right DL, we have no knowledge that Ronnie and Nysheerah Paris were ever influenced by reparative therapyPerhaps the real source of influence is more obvious:
You being a pastor and all perhaps you can explain — what’s with all that bible and devil stuff?And then there’s the story of how the boy very nearly had a decent family, instead of the violent parents he had. Perhaps if a decent gay couple had adopted him, the lad might be alive today. Oh, that’s right… Florida thinks children need a mother and a father.Alas, I feel it’s due to an attitude that is all too pervasive at times; one that regards children as property — for example, something like this: “Why? Because I am their father. Case closed. If Zach’s parents want to make their son go to a program to deal with his sexuality, then that’s their perogative”And when you combine that with rigid ideas about what the child should be doing, that is a recipe for some to abuse.But I guess nothing could get as bad as letting gay men and women near the children, could it?
Jeepers! If you thought your 3 year old son was heading down a slippery slope to being a ho-mo-sex-u-al (and therefore with good cause to think) a child molester, perhaps lots of parents would try and toughen the little sissy up with a few well-considered blows to the head and a broken arm. I mean, heavens, a 3 year old boy that wanted a cuddle from his mum!!!What is the world coming to???
Have you all ever noticed that so much of the anti/ex-gay claims boil down to “and you can’t prove it”? They make unsupportable claims and since it’s impossible to prove them one way or another “you can’t prove it”.
Take the old standby of “no one is born gay”. The argument for this gem is “there is no proof of a biological basis for same-sex attraction” (do I really have to link this?)
That’s usually followed by “hundreds of thousands of ex-gays and you can’t prove otherwise” (primarily because no one is allowed any sort of verification).
DL so clearly illustrates the ex-gay “claims without substantiation are true unless proven otherwise” approach with:
“There is no evidence whatsoever–on this planet or the little green either– that Ronnie and Nysheerah Paris (probably a black couple) were ever influenced by, heard of, knew existed reparative therapy or exgay ministry. If they are black, I KNOW that to be true.”
He KNOWs it. And you can’t prove otherwise.
Oh Gee,
DL Foster pontificating again.
And only to deny the influence of strict religious doctrine on ordinary brains.
While at the same time defending the influence of faith on society at large.
Typical duplicity of people who liken themselves morally certain, but are intellectually clueless, dishonest and selective.
We know what killed this little boy. The father’s outsized and unrealistic expectations of what a ‘real’ boy is supposed to do and be like.
He was only three.
But older youth have been subjected to the same violence, by their peers, if not their own family members.
Blame is in the teaching that gender, gender behavior and gender sexuality is rigid, or of one orientation.
Nothing in nature is this way.
All kinds of people are paying the price of rigid and unrealistic Biblical or archaic interpretations.
You don’t know your own battle, Foster.
Your enemy (and ours) is your own rigidity and it’s a sure sign of cowardice for what you don’t know and don’t really want to and can’t understand, no matter what’s in front of you.
If what is described in the 365gay.com article is true, the father is a vicious monster. I’m not in favor of the death penalty, but if he is convicted, he should be put in prison for life.
This “my kid might be gay” excuse (for a 3 year old) is ludicrous.
On another note, I still can’t figure out why people here give Foster the time of day. It’s clear that he is of the hind end of a horse.
There is a clearly logical explanation why there is no ‘proof’ of a genetic connection to homosexuality.
1. There is no difference or anamoly that distinghishes gay people and heterosexuals.
2. The biological characteristics regarding basic sexuality are the same. We know simply that we ARE sexual.
3. The logical conclusion would be that since there is no distinctions, no anamolies or imprints that physically make the difference-this would indicate NORMAL.
NORMAL, indistinct and HEALTHY.
Can I get a witness?
4. There IS proof that homosexuality does not distinguish or influence dysfunction. Gay people in skill, or function are indistinguishable from hetero counter parts.
Family structure, nor ethnic culture universally has no influence on the presence of gay, nor is the orientation of the parents a predictor of orientation.
Each culture has nominally the same amounts of gay people proportionate to the amount of other anomolies, such as left handedness and those with better motor skills (athletes).
Conclusion: Homosexuality is and homosexuals are NORMAL, INDISTINCT, HEALTHY, FUNCTIONAL.
There is plenty of proof of this, it’s not hard to find.
In the 21st century. Teaching that gay people are normal, IS as difficult as teaching that we are not different races, categorized by color.
But we are the SAME race, characterized by our DNA.
The difference is who exploits and commits their fellow human beings to an inferior and compromised life, based on the persistence of prejudice, rather than the facts of scientific proof.
Bias is used against human beings most considered weak, not who are actually weak. So therefore, genetics is no protection against being violated.
Sometimes the genetics is the REASON for the violation.
Hi raj!
I know you’re right about Foster.
As a black person, he just pisses me off-he fell into the same trap as those who ‘trespassed against us’ and he’s proud of himself.
He sold out to the highest prejudice and I’m so not impressed by people like him, just because they claim piety.
Piety is a poor substitute for brains or common sense.
Whew!
Too much oxygen to that one!
Point taken raj!
Mr. Kort,
You made the comment: “I wish those of you who comment on this site about RT and disagree with me or anyone else condemning RT would actually read the RT literature–particularly the book Preventing Homosexuality for children.”
and
“While this father may *not* have been a part of RT, with RT literature around it only encourages men as unstable as this father to do these sort of things to ensure his son is not gay.”
I have read the literature and I’m curious which part of that book encourages fathers to beat their children to death? Would you mind giving me a page number?
I know that sounds sarcastic, and I’m not trying to be a jerk becuase I understand the point you are making, but I think you have taken it way too far on this one.
I do agree however that the ex-gay movement needs to be doing more to discourage the abuse of effeminate boys by their parents and peers (same with girls). If you wanna talk more about this, feel free to send me an e-mail…
Chad Thompson
Chad Thompson,
Of course there is nothing in the RT literature that “encourages fathers to beat their children to death? It is not that literal and I am sure you know this. Those in the RT and Ex-gay camps would not be foolish to put that in the literature or teach this. However their teachings are dangerous to the development of healthy children and healthy parenting.
Every time you tell a child what he/she is doing in terms of gender related behavior is wrong–playing with dolls for boys and trucks for girls, each time you “take away a doll from a boy” as Preventing Homosexuality recommends page 189, “it will be necessary for you, as parents, to gradually replace toys, games and articles of clothing that support your son’s cross-gender fantasy…..You can encourage the boy to participate in the transfer of these items by having him decide which ones to give to which little girls he knows….A bye-bye ceremony might be helfpful in the case of a toddler. Get a box, put the dolls inside, seal it up, and say “bye-bye,” all the while ackowledging how hard it imust be for the boy to give these toys away. Explain, “Now Daddy is going to take them to a little girl in the neighborhood who doesn’t have any Barbies to play with”.
This is very obvious sexism, gender bashing and rigid role structuring not to mention *nothing* to do with homosexuality.
Every time a clergy person tells a church/synague full of people–which includes gay and lesbian children–that homosexuality is an abomination, every time parents say something anti-gay or force their teenagers to undergo sexual re-orientation to influence them to “not be gay” you are committing an act of violence.
You are teaching people that gays are not people so if you commit an act of violence against them it is not really a person anyway and the bible is “on your side” as I have heard those who beat gays over and over. Their learning comes from the ex-gay religious teachings.
Teaching male children to play with dolls makes them good fathers so they don’t grow up and beat their children to death like this man. Perhaps had he played with dolls he would not have become gay but an adequate father who knew how to handle a toddler!
Warmly, Joe
Hi Chad, this is a public forum in which we discuss issues and situations related to exgays. I for one would welcome your participation here. And I encourage you to take part in the free for all.
On the other hand, I would not wish to enter into a private, one on one, dialog via email. My thought on this is that it is far better to discuss in public with a number of people than leave the public forum. As happened on another forum that discusses exgay issues, your participation in community would be welcome. And your input respected. But this is not just a venue for meeting compatible folks.
Dalea,
I think it is a perfectly acceptable thing for Chad to invite Joe into a private e-mail chat.
If Joe refuses, he’d politely say so. If Joe complies…he’d politely say so.
We don’t need to speak on his behalf any more.
Anna F.
Anna, my thought here was that Chad might like to join in a public discussion. Rather than a series of individual emails. Since the topic has been mentioned here, I decided to put this option on the table.
DL Foster, HOW do you KNOW that to be true?
I have studied and continue to study ex-gay ministries and the subject of reparative therapy; people of many hues are involved. So, again, how do you KNOW that “if they are black,” they have not had exposure to RT?
Ludicrous.
Let me be somewhat more clear. In my own admittedly limited experience, I have seen a number of people involved with exgay ministries or groups who come into open forums. These individuals seemed, to me at least, to proffer some sort of comment. Then rather than join in the general discussion, they invited private emails. It seems to me I have seen Chad do so, but I could be mistaken.
And I am unwilling to play this sort of game. One in which we end up discussing the relative privacy of email communications instead of the issues presented by exgay issues. Which is why I invited Chad to join in our discussions here.
Chad,You said I do agree however that the ex-gay movement needs to be doing more to discourage the abuse of effeminate boys by their parents and peers.Personally I think a good place to start is with what the ex-gay movement defines as “effeminate”. I’m reading part of what Joe has said as being about that (am I wrong on that Joe?)A boy is not effeminate if he takes an interest in any number of things that are (“traditional”) tasks assigned to women in our culture. I use the word assigned deliberately. The polarity of male and female is on fairly obvious physical display, but that says little about the extremes that some expect this imposes on social roles.This is highly relevent to any discussion of the ex-gay literature — of which Nicolosi’s rigid and constricting views in Preventing Homosexuality is but one perfect example. Despite his (seemingly after-thought) mention that straight men can indeed be musical, literate, whatever — he returns time and time again to the idea that a boy who shows an interest is ‘at risk of becoming a homosexual’. Unless, of course, they roll up at his office, plonk down the cash, and get the kid’s head done in.The absurdity in Nicolosi’s views is that because his at-risk red-flags have nothing to do with homosexuality per se; when that child grows up to be straight (as he almost always will, regardless) — this is written up as a success for the therapy. It’s also why he’s so offensive.(If you wish to continue reading such views at the far end of the kook-scale, I can do no better than recommend George Reckers; a man so rigid on gender roles that he must snap off at the knees in high winds.)
Regan, whether this Foster person black, white or yellow–or red–you should recognize that he has a gig. He’s found hisself a way of makin’ money. (Misspelling intentional) If he was just another itinerent preacher he wouldn’t make hisself any money.
I’ve attended fundamentalist baptist churches. They were comic theater. They even had their own gift shops. It was hilarious.
It’s all about money. And it doesn’t matter whether the perpetrator is black, white, yellow or read. And I sincerely appreciate your comments.
Chad Thompson at July 15, 2005 09:36 PM
It’s nice that you’re advertising your operation here. Advertising for free, of course.
A boy is not effeminate if he takes an interest in any number of things that are (“traditional”) tasks assigned to women in our culture.
Just to let you know, my younger brother took a course in high school in the late 1960s. It was named “Bachelor Basics.” It was nothing more than “home ec” renamed. And, just to let you now further, he is married and has five kids. And he can make exellent pizzas.
But raj, cooking is not a a female thing is it???One wonders how armies and navies survived.
Regarding roles; I’ll said it once, and I’ll say it again; Masculinity is overrated.
Why do they some how equate an femme boy as being gay? I know *MANY* non-blokey guys who would set off any gaydar, but are actually straight! I think what we should be encouraging is to get guys to open up, talk more, and god forbid, help them express themselves better – maybe *THEN* we wouldn’t see the number of young men killing themselves with drugs, alcohol, suicide or speed (car crashes).
Grantdale,
When I say “effeminate” I am just talking about boys who act effeminate, whether or not they are gay. These are the boys who don’t “fit in” at school and get made fun of and never have a place to sit in the lunchroom.
In Nicolosi’s book he says that gender nonconformative behavior often precludes homosexual development becuase it makes it more difficult for boys to connect with other boys and identify with their masculinity. It’s fine with me if a boy wants to play with dolls, but I hope he also is interested is some male activities otherwise he will have a harder time making freinds w/ other boys.
After counseling more than 400 people over the course of more than 20 years, I think that Dr. Nicolosi has earned the right to draw at least a few conclusions about what things contribute to homosexuality. I know you guys will disagree with me on that though…
I also wanted to mention that Nicolosi does believe that parents should love their kids no matter what, however if you don’t believe that Nicolosi’s theories on what causes homosexuality are valid, I can understand why you would be upset by his thoughts on gender nonconformative behaviors. I for one became ex-gay not becuase I was pressured by my church into renouncing my homosexuality, but becuase I could see evidence of Nicolosi’s theories in my own life. He does have the tendency to stereotype sometimes, but most of his stuff resonates pretty strongly with
me.
Just so you know, my heart breaks for the many gay or effeminate kids who are mis-treated by their parents, and I know that yours does also grantdale. I hope we can at least agree on that much, whether they are gay or straight these are precious children and they should be treated as such.
Chad Thompson
I submit that it is magical thinking to implicates beliefs of people unrelated to an event and then somehow to find a causal link.
As long as you are promoting wacky theories of causation, then how about blaming Michael Bailey, the researcher from Northwestern? He has suggested in print that once the gay gene is found, then parents can abort their pre-born gay children. So if you believe ex-gays might be to blame for the toddler’s tragic death, then you might be more inclined to believe that Bailey is to blame. Anyone going to call the authorities?
No Warren,But I blame you — personally — for having to reply to five ignorant people in the past 2 months who have quoted you as proof that I can be a heterosexual.While we are on the subject — why do you think I am gay? And homosexual?As you can safely assume; I’m not giving any clues away, because I’m asking you for the answer. Please, do guess.I deal with side-show fortune tellers the same way. They MIGHT have some insight, or they could be a fraud.
Chad: Appealing to the authority of Dr. Nicolosi in this forum may not work as well as it does at CreationFest or at an Exodus conference. Its wonderful that Dr. Nicolosi’s theories resonate with you and you’ve found comfort and deliverance through them, but they don’t seem to resonate with his peers.
Given the choice of the 400 people over 20 years versus a professional society comprised of people who have themselves counseled hundreds of thousands over as much as 50 years, and make as a part of their business the comparison of treatment modalities, I think the nod of authority goes to the professional association.
But if just sheer number of clients counseled and length of time is what we measure by, then John Smid is an expert too. Clearly, as you point out, this is a complex subject therefore my expert versus your expert is a dead end street.
What troubles me about Nicolosi, and the “more dumptrucks less dolls” theory of sexual orientation, is that the vast majority of “men who have sex with men”–and isn’t that the ultimate measure of “same sex attraction” as the ex-gay movement is now trying to recharacterize it–are masculine, are fully functioning in heterosexual society either as out gays in same-sex relationships in a wider circle of straight and gay couples, or closeted married men who go to football games just like their Kinsey 1 buddies.
So the language of Nicolosi seems to me to represent a very small fraction of the population. You identify in that population and I’m glad you and Nicolosi found each other.
But that’s not the real world I see, and the language you, Nicolosi, Smid, Exodus, and most everybody else in the gay-change camp has adopted seems calculated to misrepresent the nature of the gay community in 2005, to redefine it in a way you can lump everybody into the tiny group that has reported success in changing their orientation.
I’m troubled by Joe Kort’s implied link between the ex-gay movement and this toddler’s murder. I agree that restrictive gender roles some ex-gay promoters support seems to encourage damaging repressive parenting. And I agree that the ex-gay movement has been far too silent in responding to anti-gay violence, intolerance, sexism, etc. But picking this extreme and horrible story for an ‘illustration’ is exploitive.
Even if the ex-gay movement became a leading voice against child abuse, anti-gay violence, homophobia and sexism, there’s no reason to believe this hateful 21-year-old father and uncaring mother would have been influenced. Afterall, even the father’s bible study friend warned him “not to play so rough with his son”. The ex-gay movement just doesn’t have that kind of influence within Christian fundamentalism.
Perhaps we are getting the causation backwards here. It seems to me that the exgay movement reflects rather than causes a system of rigid gender roles. That is to say the ideas of what is gender appropriate are widespread within the conservative church. Exgays are one manifestation of that system. The tragedy we are looking at is another. Attitudes towards gay people are another. They probably are not related except as they both express a widespread set of gender norms. Which norms are imposed in a wide range of ways.
I absolutely believe that books like, “Preventing Homosexuality” by Joseph Nicolosi and and the teachings of other reparative therapy books influence these type of incidents. Just like the incident of Zach whose weblog was popularized by living with a father who tried to change him against his consent.
Every time you tell a child what he/she is doing in terms of gender related behavior is wrong–playing with dolls for boys and trucks for girls, each time you “take away a doll from a boy” as Preventing Homosexuality recommends page 189, “it will be necessary for you, as parents, to gradually replace toys, games and articles of clothing that support your son’s cross-gender fantasy…..You can encourage the boy to participate in the transfer of these items by having him decide which ones to give to which little girls he knows….A bye-bye ceremony might be helfpful in the case of a toddler. Get a box, put the dolls inside, seal it up, and say “bye-bye,” all the while ackowledging how hard it imust be for the boy to give these toys away. Explain, “Now Daddy is going to take them to a little girl in the neighborhood who doesn’t have any Barbies to play with”.
This is very obvious sexism, gender bashing and rigid role structuring not to mention *nothing* to do with homosexuality.
Every time a clergy person tells a church/synague full of people–which includes gay and lesbian children–that homosexuality is an abomination, every time parents say something anti-gay or force their teenagers to undergo sexual re-orientation to influence them to “not be gay” you are committing an act of violence.
You are teaching people that gays are not people so if you commit an act of violence against them it is not really a person anyway and the bible is “on your side” as I have heard those who beat gays over and over. Their learning comes from the ex-gay religious teachings.
Teaching male children to play with dolls makes them good fathers so they don’t grow up and beat their children to death like this man. Perhaps had he played with dolls he would not have become gay but an adequate father who knew how to handle a toddler!
Warmly, Joe Kort
Grantdale,
Thanks for your response, I truly appreciate hearing your views.
You wrote: “Given the choice of the 400 people over 20 years versus a professional society comprised of people who have themselves counseled hundreds of thousands over as much as 50 years, and make as a part of their business the comparison of treatment modalities, I think the nod of authority goes to the professional association.”
It’s true that the APA and other professional associations have counseled hundreds of thousands of people, but they haven’t been counseling people with unwanted homosexual attractions (Most people dealing with unwanted gay attractions go to Nicolosi or Exodus), so I would actually expect them to have very little to offer in terms of knowing what causes homosexuality. I wouldn’t give the “nod of authority” to a group that has absolutely no experience whatsoever in counseling people with ego-dystonic homoseual attractions. It seems as though you are comparing apples to oranges here.
Most of the professional associations don’t counsel people through unwanted homosexual attractions becuase they don’t believe change is possible. However what we’re finding is that as some of these experts are willing to take an honest look at the issue, they are discovering that many truly have changed.
For example, Dr. Robert Perloff, past President of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Robert Spitzer, Chief of Biometrics at Columbia University, and of course your personal favorite (LOL!) Dr. Warren Throckmorton, past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association.
Chad Thompson
Chad, I will give you more time than Warren :-)I appreciate you don’t want ANYONE to be picked on or beaten up, and that you always have said (as far as I can tell from this distance). That much I respect of you, and I encourage you to continue dealing with “that attitude” within your faith circles. It must be a hard slog.But, yes the but, what I also think is that you seem to not equally appreciate how your efforts cause great hurt for people who CANNOT be heterosexual. The people you mix with, the “statistics” you quote — I regard these as mistreatment of gay men and women.You have your reasons/history I’m sure, but you are mixing with some extremely unpleasant and very anti-gay people, and supporting their efforts, and I cannot help but have “disingenuous” pop into my head when you do one thing elsewhere but say another thing here. If you are making a monumental effort to change that around, all power to you; but I prefer to go on what I see and read because that is what effects me at the end of the dayBut Chad, honestly, not 1 hour ago I was standing in the middle of 400 people in a bar, most of who were gay men. My partner of 14 years and I had baby-sat 2 children today, and then went out to celibrate a straight couple’s 10 wedding anniversary — in a gay bar. Given this, do you believe I would think Nicolosi knows better than me when all he can manage is “over 400” in two decades?You may think he can, but on that basis alone I see no reason for him to make my life difficult. If Nicolosi cares to pay for his airfare I can introduce him to more gay men in a weekend than he will meet in his lifetime — heck, we’ll even put him up in the spare room. His is all guess work, based on distressed CLIENTS in his office, none of which matches the real World (such as, the people we mixed with tonight).If you happen to match his stereotype of a client, that I put down to sheer coincidence. He writes that way, haven’t you guessed?*** And sorry to break this to you, but perhaps you are an individual 🙂 That is not bad.***But, another but, what you said raises an interest in me. You have said that you wanted not be gay BEFORE you spoke to a counselor. Here you said you became ex-gay because you matched a description. You have said you didn’t do it because of other’s opinions, but in that case where did your own opinions come from?I am willing to listen, and I’m more than willing to explore how you can get what you want in your life right now without harming others.P.S. what would happen to you in terms of employment/income if you — just throwing something out here — declared you were gay or bisexual and intended to find a like minded partner?
Grantdale: I have no idea why you are attracted to the same sex. I am not a reparative therapist so I do not approach people I don’t know with a preconceived idea of how they have developed the feelings they have. As for the five people, refer them to me about my approach and my views. I would be glad to clarify how I see things.
Norm!: This may be the kiss of death on this forum but you have spoken words of reason. He or she who has ears to hear, let him hear.
No one wants to comment on Michael Bailey’s role in this crime?
Chad,I am flattered by your focus, but that wasn’t me. It was PCLiberal.But, oh another but, what makes you say:It’s true that the APA and other professional associations have counseled hundreds of thousands of people, but they haven’t been counseling people with unwanted homosexual attractions (Most people dealing with unwanted gay attractions go to Nicolosi or Exodus)What you said isn’t even remotely true. I happen to know quite a few counselors, none of them anti-gay, who deal with people with “unwanted homosexual attractions” all the time.I guess NARTH do too, otherwise they wouldn’t keep banging on about Gay Affirmative Therapy — the very fact GAT exists suggests you are talking through your hat.
Chad says: It’s true that the APA and other professional associations have counseled hundreds of thousands of people, but they haven’t been counseling people with unwanted homosexual attractions (Most people dealing with unwanted gay attractions go to Nicolosi or Exodus),
This has not always been the case. Mainstream psychiatry dealt with gay people for decades. Then finally gave it up as futile. Only a tiny remnent still carries on the effort. I can provide references later.
Warren, thank you.I have cut and sent your comments to them. If and when these people contact you, please do explain your views. Don’t hold your breath. BTW 3 of them use very fruity language, so be prepared.But surely Warren, in order to be fixed into a heterosexual, there must be something you’ll need to go at about me? What would be your first 10 guesses? Go on — it all seems to easy in the ex-gay literature, and they mention you a great deal. (If you intend to tell me that it’s not “really” like they describe, don’t bother — talk to them. I’m not the one quoting you.)Apart from that … what exactly would Bailey’s role be in this crime? (I assume you mean the heterosexual who murdered his own child). Bailey has, I’m sure, copped more than enough flak over his self-indulgent notions about transexuals — but I cannot recall him being a gender-role straight lace, which is what we are discussing. He does not come across as anti-gay. Perhaps you can show us otherwise, or maybe we need to invite Dr Bailey to defend himself?
First, I wrote the piece you responded to believing you were reading grantdale.
Second, professional associations do not counsel people. The therapists which make up these associations do, and over the last 50 years a lot of methodologies have been tried to change orientations, from lobotomies and electroconvulsive therapy, to psychoanalysis and group therapy. If you want to narrow the subset only to people with “ego-dystonic homosexual attractions,” on the claim that addressing the universe of men is “apples and oranges,” then I’d suggest you limit your addresses to professional societies and rename your book to refine its application. If you want to talk about homosexual orientations, then there’s a lot of experience there, and not one you can wave away because they have no experience in doing something they have a lot of experience seeing is a rare occurance and a usually undesirable one.
Most responsible professionals counsel people about their sexuality and try and get the client to explore their own feelings, prejudices and desires. They don’t counsel patients through unwanted homosexual attractions until the patient understands the nature of their attractions, and comes to an understanding of why they’re unwanted.
Perhaps this is the reason that so many people come out of these gay-change ministries with the understandings that Toscano so well expresses. That as hard as they try to spread the shame and self-loathing on thick, the client works things out for themselves, though not as quickly perhaps as they might guided by a competent therapist who didn’t have a religious agenda promising a popular outcome.
While I’ve got Warren’s attention…1) what proportion of your gay-related clients are referred via the Grove City College disciplinary system?Do you know this person?
Grantdale,
Sorry to get you confused with PCLiberal, I should be paying better attention 🙂
You are right that “over 400” isn’t much compared to the entire population of gay people in the world. It would be nice if we had some larger numbers.
Also, I made the statement that I wanted to “not be gay” even before I started counseling. However, I didn’t know if it was actually possible or not until I started listening to individuals like Nicolosi, Joe Dallas, and others. That was when when I started to see that the things they said caused homosexuality were true in my own life. I explain it much more thoroughly here.
As far as the APA counseling homosexuals, you mentioned gay affirmative therapy also but I’m talking specifically about people who are seeking help with unwanted (ego-dystonic) homosexual attractions; and I apologize if I left you with the impression that I don’t think anyone in the APA has ever counseled someone through homosexual attractions. What I am trying to communicate is that the MAJORITY of people dealing with UNWANTED gay attractions will go to Exodus, Nicolosi, or some religious group for help. This is becuase secular psychiatry has, for the most part, turned their backs on people who want to change.
PCLIberal wrote: “Most responsible professionals counsel people about their sexuality and try and get the client to explore their own feelings, prejudices and desires. They don’t counsel patients through unwanted homosexual attractions until the patient understands the nature of their attractions, and comes to an understanding of why they’re unwanted.”
I agree PCLiberal, I believe that a counselors job is to allow a patient to make
their own decisions. I would expect that a gay therapist would be willing to refer a person with ego-dystonic homosexuality to someone who could help them, and also that a Christian therapist would be willing to refer out someone who wants therapy to help themselves accept their homosexuality.
And Dalea yes I am familiar with the history of mainstream psychiatry and how they attempted to counsel gay people in the past. Have you read “Homosexuality & The Politics of Truth” by Satinover? That would be a good resource for you…
All the best to you guys,
Chad Thompson
Thanks Chad,It would be nice if Nicolosi had higher numbers, and also broader ones. Unfortunately I think this would cause him self-doubt, and he doesn’t appear the type to deal well with that.And GAT is used for ego syntonic homosexuals — what makes you thnk otherwise? Ego syntonic homosexuals don’t seem to need it.But I would be interested in your evidence that the MAJORITY of ego syntonic homosexuals go to “Exodus, Nicolosi or some religious group”.(Just a heads up for you, but Mike A. can be a real cow with his demand that people produce some evidence rather than just quote something out of their posterior… not that I mind.)
I’m delirious – that should say “And GAT is used for ego DYSTONIC homosexuals”. Doesn’t make sense otherwise.And hahaha I used “heads up” when being serious! Dale will be so proud…
Grantdale:
None and no, although she has a nice name.
It is true that people with unwanted same sex attractions (SSA) do indeed see therapists within both APA’s. However, my hunch is that these therapists tell them that their only option is to be their “true self,” and live as openly gay men and women. See this link:
https://narth.com/docs/survey2.html
(Just so you know, the concept of the “true self”, as applied to psychology, originated from Carl Roger’s and the humanistic/human potential movement. He emphasized self actualization, along with finding one’s “true self.” So even though it may sound like something profound, to tell someone to “be themselves” is a relatively recent construct)
The point is, many therapists DO accept people with unwanted SSA. However, most of them tend to only offer them one option…”be gay! be free! be yourself! it’s the only way!”
Personally, we ought to do away with reparative therapy. Reparative therapy is unnecessarily insulting to happy gays, with its emphasis on fixing what’s broke. It ought to be replaced with HAT (heterosexual affirming therapy). Then, both HAT and GAT (gay affirming therapy) can be offered together, by licensed professionals. It IS possible to build up a person’s heterosexual potential without having to resort to bigotry.
Another point: the concept of sexual orientation, as Raj pointed out a few months back, is poorly defined, poorly measured, and poorly conceptualized. It’s one of those everyday constructs that everybody uses freely, but no one seems to really understand.
This construct should be done away with, because it artificially polarizes people into neat little categories, and may further contribute to intolerance and social exclusion. The western, 21st century concept of sexual orientation takes way the notion that we are all human, and thus a lot more similar to one another than different.
Read “The New Gay Teenager” by Professor Savin Williams, of Cornell University. The author discusses how the new generation of queer kids are breaking down boundaries and laying waste to the idea of a sexual orientation being something that metaphysically divides people. According to Professor Savin Williams In essence, they are living pansexually, and feel no need to close the doors on their sexual horizons. And, they are perfectly happy.
In a sense, according to this book, it just might be that (gay activist) Peter Tatchell’s vision of a future bisexual utopia is starting to be realized.
Some how I feel that I’m just about to be flamed for writing this…
love you,
Sharon
Thanks Warren — the 2nd ends a bit of speculation for a few.Maybe I wasn’t clear on the first. I read Grove City’s student book, so…Homosexuality is a reason you get kicked out of Grove City, yes? It’s considered up there with some very serious actual crimes.One of the options for Grove City is to demand you attend counseling if you are discovered at homosexual activity or with orientation (or propensity), yes?You are the Director of College Counseling, yes?This means you oversee the counseling of students at Grove City, including on this issue?If you do not do it yourself, who sees to these sessions?Are these therapists at your approval?I assume you oversee the work — what does that involve? Who do you report this information to?
After counseling more than 400 people over the course of more than 20 years, I think that Dr. Nicolosi has earned the right to draw at least a few conclusions about what things contribute to homosexuality.
This is stupid. This is about as dumb as suggesting that your local astrologist’s pronouncements should be respected because he has made the pronuncements.
Nicolosi is a religious nut case. IMHO, of course, but the fact that he works for an agency of the Roman Catholic Church, Inc., supports my opinion.
Link for MikeA: https://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/NCLSWNRC.HTML
More at link.
This kind of issue sickens me. I look at this kind of action against any child as unforgivable. Personally I think a father like that should be locked up for a long time. I don’t know if a man like this could ever learn the gravity of what he has done. I hope he does, but this is horrifying. I cannot think of anything much lower than this kind of abuse toward a helpless child.
I have a cousin who grew up in a western Wyoming town near me who used to love to play with dolls and pretend he was “Helen the vaccuum cleaning lady”. Personally I thought that kind of thing was hilarious and cute but his father didn’t think it was funny and would spank him severely for acting this way. Now that my cousin is an adult his relationship with his father is extremely distant as a result. It is our society that reinforces the kind of fear that caused my uncle to fear his son’s homosexuality thus creating many other dysfunctional situations in his sons life.
It is this same kind of dysfunctional 1950’s style homophobic male dominant kind of psyche found in organizations like NARTH that creates scenerios like the one with the father who ends up killing his son.
Bailey’s thoughts about eugenics solutions to the “evolutionary paradox” of homosexuality, in direct quotes from his book, The Man Who Would Be Queen: https://www.nap.edu/books/0309084180/html/(p.114) “What would make avoiding gay children wrong?”(p.115) “So the next question is whether selecting for heterosexual children would cause any harm?” Certainly being straight rather than gay doesn’t harm the child itself.” (p.115) “Homosexuality might be the most striking unresolved paradox of human evolution.(p.116) “Homosexuality is evolutionary maladaptive.” (p.116) “”Evolutionary maladaptive” sounds like an insult, but it isn’t.”(p.116) “The desire to have sex with members of the opposite sex helps people have sex that might result in offspring. The number of healthy offspring one leaves if perhaps the best indicator of evolutionary success.”
Grantdale,
I’m sorry for not being more clear, when I use the phrase “unwanted homosexuality,” I am talking specifically about people who want therapy to change, not someone who simply wants help accepting themselves as gay (the GAT patients). Also, as I mentioned above I am well-aware that the APA’s do see people with both ego-dystonic and ego-syntonic homosexuality. As far as your request that I provide evidence for my claim that most people with ego-dystonic homosexuality are counseled through Religious organizations, the only evidence I have is anecdotal (some conclusions I drew from Spitzer’s 2003 study in Archives of Sexual Behavior), so please accept my apologies for even making the statement, I will be more careful in the future.
And Raj in regards to your criticism of my comment on Nicolosi, I wrote in an earlier post that I agree it would be nice if we had larger numbers. Please forgive me if it seemed like I was jumping to conclusions, I was only trying to make the case that Nicolosi might have more insight than the counselors who don’t believe homosexual attractions can be changed, merely becuase they aren’t researching the issue like Nicolosi is. I was not trying to say that just becuase Nicolosi has counseled 400 men that he now “knows” what causes homosexuality. That would be a ridiculous statement to make.
All the best,
Chad Thompson
I didn’t mean to underline that I think someone left an underline HTML tag open…
Warren and Autumn,
J. Michael Bailey’s ethics violations and bad science are discussed and linked here.
I won’t further reward the my-fraud-is-better-than-his-fraud tack taken by religious-rightists who have latched onto Bailey’s work in particular.
However, I will say that I think that the heterosexual community’s promotion of abortion and eugenics do cheapen human life and make it easier for unstable parents to rationalize the murder of children with unwanted traits.
By the way, Warren, you still haven’t answered the questions. Feel free to do so, anytime.
Mike: This is a breathtaking statement: I will say that I think that the heterosexual community’s promotion of abortion and eugenics do cheapen human life and make it easier for unstable parents to rationalize the murder of children with unwanted traits.
The heterosexual community? So now all straights are responsible for abortion and by extension the murder of children? Pro-life heterosexuals will be shocked to hear this.
So Mike since gay political groups such as NGLTF and HRC support abortion rights, then what about the role of these organizations in the murder of the Florida toddler?
Pardon me, Mr. Throckmorton, but I believe the context being discussed here is abortion instead of bearing a gay child; hardly new, in fact the subject of a play then movie The Twilight of the Golds in the 90s.
Its a great hypothetical for born-agains: is it better to bring a child into a home where the parents believe the child is genetically in violation of god’s laws, or to allow them to violate god’s laws so that they don’t bear damaged fruit?
What does abortion have to do with this discussion?
AFAICT, we have some guy who went to Bible study, killed his kid because he was afraid the 3 year old might be a homo and is going to jail for something other than first degree murder.
Does this have some connection to exgays? Probably in the sense that both are the result of rigidly defined gender roles. The 3 year old was just too much of a froot loop for his Dad. Who sounds like a total nut case. But then I feel most conservative Christians sound that way.
Maybe the Bible study reinforced this gender fixation. And as America’s Best Christian reminds us, the Bible does tell parents to kill disobedient children. Could there be a connection?
In any event, I do see a connection between exgay ideology and this tragedy. Not a causal connection but a familial resemblence.
Warren,
The topic of this page is the direct or indirect ideological and therapeutic contributions of exgay political agents to social apathy regarding antigay child abuse and antigay family breakdown.
You seem to be trying to divert the topic with overgeneralizations about pro-lifers (who obtain thousands of abortions every year) and gay rights groups (some of which oppose abortion, and whose constituencies have no use for abortion). I am further troubled by your periodic effort to apply the views of a fringe author (Bailey) to same-sex-attracted people generally.
Please address the alleged culpabilities of PFOX and Exodus-affiliated groups that seek to compel poorly defined “change” in involuntary and sometimes abusive ways.
Please also explain why you lend your scholarship to political interests that are reasonably perceived to support harassing, institutionalizing or jailing anyone who rejects your ideological and sexual program.
To the earlier questions that remain unanswered, I am inclined to add more:
What specific actions have you taken, Warren, to reduce harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping — in schools and among parents — that are specifically targeted at same-sex-attracted youths?
What specifically have you done to encourage parents to give their same-sex-attracted children love, opportunity, and freedom from sexual or religious coercion?
Chad Thompson at July 16, 2005 09:19 PM
And Raj in regards to your criticism of my comment on Nicolosi, I wrote in an earlier post that I agree it would be nice if we had larger numbers.
Oh, please, give me a break. Nicolosi is a religious nut case.
I have posted here that I have known people who have gone from gay to straight. I have also know people who have gone from straight to gay. I have also known people who have gone from straight to gay to straight to gay again. And they didn’t need a “therapist” to help them do so. This therapy stuff is idiotic.
Nicolosi is a religious nut case. As should be evident from his RCCI (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) affiliation. Fortunately, the catholic laity, at least in MA, doesn’t give the RCCI much of the time of day. And they certainly don’t in western Europe.
Regarding Throckmorton, I still cannot figure out why so much attention is given to a lecturer who has a gig at a rather obscure religious college.
I would be much more interested in what anti-gay operatives might be sponsoring his gig, quite frankly. Any idea?
This message is for Chad.
I have read Jeffrey Santinover’s book, and actually talked to J. Nicolosi, and later on confronted him in public.
NARTH is in my neighborhood and I checked out their offices.
It’s a small place, that occupies a single floor in a short story office building. There are all of two clerks there who field calls. The actual therapy takes place elsewhere-but the therapy is EXPENSIVE-nearly 200.00 for a 45 minute session.
Chad, so far your only references have been ex gay therapists or ministries or books.
They are constantly referred to by rabidly ANTI GAY organizations as part of a political and social agenda that undermines gay parents, gay youngsters and the relationships they have with their straight family members and have no intentions whatsoever to ‘love a homosexual’.
That love extends only as far as renouncing one’s homosexuality and living as a heterosexual…and mostly it requires being Christian to do that.
I told you in an email Chad, that the onus of changing itself is used as a powerful weapon against gay youngsters and in the heartless ways.
As long as people are led to believe ‘change is possible’, then change will be demanded and at the exclusion of any other support or Constitutional protections until then.
Look at what happened to Zach.
Or look what happened to Maya Keyes. She’s your age and was completely and publicly abandoned by her family and cut off financially from a home and her college education.
I’m sure her parents love her….but if they believe she SHOULD change, they will EXPECT her to.
The fact that you EXCLUSIVELY address forums and speak out where you’ll be agreed with, such as at Exodus or various Christian venues speaks volumes about who most completes you and where you’ll be most easily regarded.
Eventually, I don’t think you’ll be able to handle the honest and forthright dialogue that I will be wanting from you eventually.
I’m holding up my end of our current involvement.
It’s all about dues me lad.
You haven’t paid yours yet and so far are avoiding the debt you owe.
For the record,Chad….
Throckmorton, Nicolosi and Santinover share a not so veiled arrogance and lack of empathy or real knowlege of homosexuality or homosexuals.
The foundation of all their study and work is fueled by religion, and not so much scientific application, but moral application amd judgement.
Judgement which stem from the Bible.
It’s also true that they hold deeply entrenched biases on gender, but most of all the belief that homosexuals are weak people and homosexuality is a weakness.
And clearly, one can say they have sympathy for a weakness in a human being but not favor that society accept that weakness or arrange equal protections around it.
But homosexuality isn’t a weakness, nor are gay people weak.
Again, it’s a misdiagnosis, treated by outmoded and rejected methods that are fueled by prejudice that acts as the catalyst that fosters itself though a threatening and hostile society that brings fearful and insecure gay youngsters to their door.
Fear feeds this unsatiated beast, Chad.
You’re simply one of the eaten….and spit back out to help the beast eat more.
This probably has very very little to do with homophobia and more to do with a seriously mentally disturbed man.
If there had not been homophobia in the environment for this young father to pick up on in order motivate him to abuse his child he would have simply found something else (devil possession for instance.)
Chad, you said to rajI was only trying to make the case that Nicolosi might have more insight than the counselors who don’t believe homosexual attractions can be changed, merely becuase they aren’t researching the issue like Nicolosi is. I was not trying to say that just becuase Nicolosi has counseled 400 men that he now “knows” what causes homosexuality. That would be a ridiculous statement to make.Indeed, it would be ridiculous.Unfortunately, Nicolosi doesn’t share that view with you — he leaves little doubt. He claims to know exactly what it’s all about, and I cannot recall him describe himself as ridiculous. Here’s just two examples:
Curiously, Nicolosi then goes on from these pompous words to a rapid exit stage left:”Some readers will find our theoretical model irrelevant to their personal histories. We do not attempt to propose the reparative model as the sole cause or form of homosexuality.“This is utterly typical of the contradictory and illogical “model” that Nicolosi acquired lock-stock-and-barrel from Moberly — she, who dreamt up the nonsense, has never done any research, or seen any clients.So, please, a figure of 400 (or the 100 that Nicolosi previously quoted), or even an Exodus “hundreds of thousands” is utterly irrelevant. Reparative Therapy was invented from thin air by someone who had seen nobody.That you, or others, happen to see yourself in Nicolosi’s writing; is sheer coincidence. Frankly, so what? I know someone who mirrors a character in Moby Dick — even so, to this day he still has no inclination to take up whaling.
The implied connection Kort makes is simply theory and conjecture. A man murders his child and your first thought is “exgays are to blame? Proves just how insiduous this “watch” has mutated to become.
Instead of making vain attempts to slander and defame others why not just say forthrightly “this is just my theory”? You wont/cant because a wayward mind produces wayward “realities”. Unfortunately, a great majority of the people here defending this ludicrously assumptive notion that child murder and exgay ministry are synonymous can only mean such individuals have lost touch with what is called reality.
This site used to pontificate often about “strawman arguments”, especially linked to any defense of exgay ministry/persons. Yet, the strawman has become a breathing dragon on this thread. Funny how you can manipulate things to work in your favor.
Certain individuals here have articulated that they wouldn’t be inclined give me the time of day. I count that a miraculaous blessing of monumental proportion, because after reading some of your insential comments, it would be to my advantage never to consider dialoging with you.
Jess wanted to let you know that, potnah! Interpretation: Feeling’s mutual.
To dlf4christ@yahoo.com DL Foster,
Okay you have a point. It is *my* theory.
However this was not about a father who killed his son, this is about a father who killed his son because he thought his son was gay.
Like the recommendations in Nicolosi’s book, Preventing Homosexuality, this father was doing the same thing. It was just that the “bye-bye process”–similar to the concept written in the book PH–he was doing with his son killed him.
Of course I am not saying that this father read PH I have no way of knowing that. My point is not literal it is conceptual. If you promote intolerance and lack of acceptance of healthy development of homosexuality and you try to *prevent”it–as this father who killed his “thought to be gay son” did, it is the same theme.
If that does not make sense in terms of the parallel of the themes, than I have no further way of explaining it.
Warmly, Joe Kort
Why bother Joe?Perhaps you should have just said “It is my religious belief, you’ve got to respect that” and left it.That way you could also call a whole group of people to be child molestors, said what they “did” was like murder, and said that if they form stable unions recognised by civil law the entire ediface of civilisation will come crashing down 🙂
Reagan,
You wrote: “Chad, so far your only references have been ex gay therapists or ministries or books. They are constantly referred to by rabidly ANTI GAY organizations as part of a political and social agenda that undermines gay parents, gay youngsters and the relationships they have with their straight family members
and have no intentions whatsoever to ‘love a homosexual’. That love extends only as far as renouncing one’s homosexuality and living as a heterosexual…and mostly it requires being
Christian to do that.”
You might be interested in this quote from the Introduction to my book (Mr. Kort will recognize this):
“Christians must use not only our words but also our hands, feet, minds, hearts, voices, time, resources, and attention to show our love to people who identify as LGBT….this requires that we acknowledge the social and personal struggles faced by LGBT people and that we wage a determined effort to eliminate these struggles, whether or not they decide to change. As much as the church loves to trumpet the stories of men and women who have come out of homosexuality, many in the church have turned a cold shoulder to the needs of those who have embraced their homosexuality, implicitly sending them the message that they must change their sexual orientation in order to become eligible for our love.”
In fact, Regan, there is a whole chapter in my book about homophobia in the Christian church…are you still willing to say that I am exactly like all the other public figures in the ex-gay movement?
You also wrote: “The fact that you EXCLUSIVELY address forums and speak out where you’ll be agreed with, such as at Exodus or various Christian venues speaks volumes about who most completes you and where you’ll be most easily regarded.”
Sheesh, I wish you could have been in Eau Claire with me a few months ago where I spoke at a secular technical college and the entire gay and lesbian group on campus sat in the front row and mocked me throughout the entire speech. One of the guys almost had to be taken away by security becuase he was swearing at me during the Q&A at the end. Interestingly though, him and I had lunch that afternoon and are now good freinds, becuase he took the time to get to know me. I tell the whole story here.
Grantdale,
Thanks for your views. I agree with you that Nicolosi does not have all the answers, although I respect him as a psychiatrist, and much of what he has written resonates with me. The parts of his writing that you quoted actually represent the kinds of issues that many of his clients have had to work through, including myself although I’m not a client of his. (In fact, there is going to be a whole chapter on anatomical gender detachment in my next book.) However, what Nicolosi wrote isn’t going to apply to everyone. I write in my book that there are “infinite influences” that can contribute to the development of same-sex attractions. We are all, as you mentioned previsously, individuals.
Sidenote: I’m going to be out of town and won’t be able to continue this dialogue. That does not mean I’m not willing to engage in dialogue, it just means I’m out of town. I will be checking my e-mail periodically if anyone wants to write. I’m sure I’ll hear from you Regan 🙂
All the best,
Chad Thompson
Thanks for your views. I agree with you that Nicolosi does not have all the answers, although I respect him as a psychiatrist
I’d have to do more research than is warranted, but, if memory serves. Nicolosi does not purport to be a psychiatrist. He claims to be a psychologist. There is a rather significant difference.
However this was not about a father who killed his son, this is about a father who killed his son because he thought his son was gay.
I tend to suspect that this an after the fact explanation for the murder. The man killed his kid and then tried to come up with an exculpatory explanation. I don’t believe a word of it.
Chad,
You still believe that ‘change is possible’, it really nullifies whatever other efforts you are making against homophobia.
That’s what I’m trying to explain to you.
The onus of changing IS THE WEAPON.
It doesn’t MATTER how much you denounce homophobia, it becomes a moot point
because people have ALWAYS been conditioned to think changing is not only possible, but should be coerced.
Hello?
Remember Zach?
You show up and you’d be the impetus for his father (and all the other parents)-because HE’S the FATHER- little ol YOU won’t matter to Mr. Stark, Sr.
You are giving with one hand, and taking away with the other.
Which leaves NOTHING, and in the nothing you’re leaving….is where hatred gets the chance.
You’re heart is kind, Chad.
But you’re really messing it up.
Well…I think one can believe “change is possible” without believing that if change is possible for someone over here with a unique set of circumstances, then everyone should try to change. It’s the second belief that I have a problem with, not the first.
It’s just that I’ve never seen anyone from the exgay camps who believed the first statement, but didn’t follow it up with the second. I think that’s what you’re getting at, right Regan?
Raj — you are correct.Nicolosi is an “ologist” not an “iatrist”, which makes his writings all the more odd given his basis is a rejected speculation from very old-fashioned “oanalysts”. Chad, please note :-)But Chad — I think you just proved the point: “I write in my book that there are “infinite influences” that can contribute to the development of same-sex attractions. We are all, as you mentioned previsously, individuals.”You’re doing a Richard Cohen on us here — this really means you have no idea about WHAT causes same sex attractions (and nor, therefore, do the people you reference). This is not because we are all individuals, as you would have me believe, but because there is no unified theory behind ex-gay or reparative therapy. You used a catch-all phase that avoids saying the truth “I have no idea.” This is why I specifically asked Warren Throckmorton that question earlier and he did the same as you in reply “I don’t know… about individual you”.Chad, I can only suggest that if you do wish to read more on a useful subject that will help explain what is going on with these “therapists” don’t bother with another exgay book. First get one on the history of alchemy: that too is full of misdirected hopefuls and the tricksters that hid beneath a veneer of “scientific” respectability and preyed on the hopefuls. Chemistry and physics only really started advancing after these charlatans where rejected and ejected : and no, scientific advance is NOT a democratic process — “equal time” counts for nothing except in politics.
Chad, how can there be ‘infinite influences’ in a finite world? Which most people would agree is the type of world we live in, one that is finite for all practical purposes.
I would suggest that one of the problems we face in discussion here is that the evangelical Church, as Mark Noll a prominent eC intellectual has acknowleged, is an intellectually improverished world.
Regan DuCasse at July 17, 2005 09:06 AM
I have read Jeffrey Satinover’s book…
Missed this.
Satinover is another religious nut case. A few years ago, he wrote a book about the so-called “Bible codes” which suggested that the Bible must be true because there were hidden messages in the text from the Bible. That was silly. Using the same technique, people discovered hidden messages in the text of Moby Dick.
Links for Mike A:
Satinover https://www.meru.org/Codes/satinovr.html
Moby Dick https://www.hobrad.com/acrebibl.htm
There are other sources. Just do a google search using keywords “bible code satinover moby dick” I read about this a few years ago. It’s hilarious.
NB: it’s Satinover, not Santinover (I corrected the spelling in my intro)
grantdale at July 17, 2005 04:01 PM
Reading these quotations from Nicolosi merely reinforces my belief that he’s a nut. I can see nuttiness when I see it. I could go on at length, but I’d probably be banned if I did. But, just to confirm, I know my nether regions from a hole in the ground. Unlike, apparently, Nicolosi.
I clicked onto this “chad thompson” web site. It seems to be apparent that he’s nothing more than a merchant. Much like DLFoster and Stephen Bennett. Obviously he’s here advertising his wares.
Maybe chad will be able to get a gig with WorldNutDaily. Like the Stephen Bennett fellow. Makes me wonder, though, can chad sing?
Hi Annika!
You pretty much got it right. I look at it this way.
Chad represents a person who murdered, gave up for dead or abandoned his gay identity.
And assumed the hetero identity.
Which renders him unable to DEFEND gay identity in others, IMHO.
You can’t stand up for what you DIDN’T stand up for in yourself, so to speak.
The prejudice out there is pernicious, sometimes intractable and murderous.
The defense of gay identity, not just loving gay people, has to be STRONGER than the status quo.
Those in the ex gay business, as we know, are aligned with growing political clout who want to set progress back and the rules for gay people to be impossible double standards, enforced by terror and insecurity.
The entire ex gay movement is set on psychiatric standards from the 1950’s that were abandoned years ago. The only defense left of THAT, is religious belief…and even worse social ruling.
I’m with raj’s last comment.
For the last week or so, Chad has had my phone number and said he’d like a conversation with me. But only after I read his book.
I read the articles at his site, I’ve exchanged several emails to try and be as informed as possible and give him a chance…and he’s never really engaged or talked about his conversion process directly.
I told him that he was continuing a trend.
Whenever I try to talk with the defenders of being ex gay, I’m told to read or buy something of theirs. Throckmorton referred me to his music CD.
Try as I might to get educated, I’m being stonewalled in so many ways by ex gay supporters.
However with the other side, gay men who are also authors, university profs who have speaking tours are so much more accessible and I seem to be able to call and talk to them anytime. Or they always return my calls. They’ve never told me to buy their book.
The things that make you go…hmmmmm…..
Chemistry and physics only really started advancing after these charlatans where rejected and ejected : and no, scientific advance is NOT a democratic process — “equal time” counts for nothing except in politics.
Actually, you are exactly correct. I have a master’s degree in physics, and I placed out of the chem requirement in college via advanced placement.
It took me a while to figure this out. Scientific advance sometimes follows fashion, but it is not a democratic process.
I’m with raj’s last comment.
For the last week or so, Chad has had my phone number and said he’d like a conversation with me. But only after I read his book.
Tell him to send you a free “review” copy. If he doesn’t, he’s nothing more than a merchant on a selling mission.
Thanks for explaining your thoughts above, Regan. Makes sense although I think I perhaps do not agree with all the conclusions you’ve come to…but anyway…
Yeah – I’m with Raj on the book!
I would never buy anything anymore that supports the ex-gay movement, although I do still have a bit of an ex-gay library from my years as an ex-gay. If he’s serious about having a dialog with you, he’ll send you the book. If you’re serious about having a dialog with him, you should read his book.
In some ways, I can understand him not wanting to rehash everything he already wrote down in a book…
There’s a streaming video on Chad’s website that I found tremendously enlightening. Its a speech that, coupled with his responses on here, have given me enough insight into his views to keep his book pretty far down on my reading list.
Chad is a proponent, and a very good one, of what I’d call the “linguistic reparative therapy” movement. You simply redefine the words so that those who disagree with you can’t easily express their concepts, meanwhile your success rate can soar. Its like the many light bulb jokes where the punchline is based on redefining dark so that the lightbulb need not be changed at all.
Smid’s doing this at LIA/R, by claiming there’s no such thing as gay. Its a great bit: you get rid of a whole community of troublesome examples that make a mockery of the “dead by 30” mantra Joe Stark is parroting.
The way Thompson describes gay people, for instance, is a masterful misdirection. They “embraced their homosexuality.” Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “my homosexuality embraced me?” What’s the difference? Its the difference between it being a choice or an innate part of one’s being. When Thompson is called out on the applicability of his story to the general population, and beats a hasty retreat with an appeal that his story isn’t true for everybody, but we’re still stuck with the poor words he tortured.
You can tell a lot by watching somebody speak. You can tell the words that flow trippingly off the tongue, and the ones that stick in the throat, and “gay” sticks so fast in Thompson’s throat that he’s barely able to force it out even when he must; after all, you can’t be ex-gay without being gay.
Or can you. Regan DuCasse sees this clearly, and she should get the props for being the first to call “bullsh*t” with the line he hasn’t paid his dues. My read from this thread is that others do too.
The 3000 pound elephant in Chad Thompson’s living room is the subject of Joe Kort’s book. Its love, as practiced by same sex couples. In all his meandering and misdirection and redefinition and kicking the rightwing hate establishment that he says he used to work for, he never gets to the crux of the matter. Its what the public is seeing when couples with decades together get married, and you can’t redefine it out of this issue without getting caught at it.
Re: “I would never buy anything anymore that supports the ex-gay movement”
Whenever I have to buy something like that, I always but it used for two reasons: my money doesn’t go to their causes, and my money goes to a nice independently-run bookstore.
raj,
OMG.. i read the Bible Code nonsense years ago but I never connected the anti-gay Satinover with completely-out-of-his-mind-Bible-nut Satinover.
Chad,
“It’s true that the APA and other professional associations have counseled hundreds of thousands of people, but they haven’t been counseling people with unwanted homosexual attractions (Most people dealing with unwanted gay attractions go to Nicolosi or Exodus), so I would actually expect them to have very little to offer in terms of knowing what causes homosexuality.”
What you say here is that only those who deal with UNWANTED homosexuality can provide information on causes of homosexuality. I’m guessing that you assume that those who are gay-affirming have no interest in sexuality origins. That does not seem to me to be remotely likely.
Or perhaps you don’t think that those who are gay-affirming can be unbiased; but you don’t seem to be in the camp that says “I only listen to those who agree with me”.
Surely you can concede that there must be a significant number of individuals within the psych community that have an interest in the origins of sexuality.
Considering the interest in the religious community and the scientific community it is almost inconceivable that the therapy community would be uninterested.
I suspect they simply have not had findings inconsistent with the positions of the professional organizations.
(Incidentally, the scientific community certainly seems to be actively looking at orientation causes and tentative results suggest Nicolosi’s conclusions are not completely accurate. If anyone need links – which I doubt – ask).
Hey guys,
I’m catching a flight to the Exodus conference in like two hours so I have to make this response quick, but I just wanted to respond briefly to a few things, and then I’m going to be out of town for a while.
Timothy wrote,
“Surely you can concede that there must be a significant number of individuals within the psych community that have an interest in the origins of sexuality.”
Yes of course there are many who are studying this issue outide of the ex-gay camp, however they are not researching ways to help people change as Nicolosi is. Certainly, though, they are interested in causation.
Annika wrote,
“In some ways, I can understand him not wanting to rehash everything he already wrote down in a book…”
That is exactly my reason for asking Regan to read the book. When I first went into ministry I would debate with anyone who e-mailed me but I ended up re-typing huge sections of the book in order to explain myself, and I absolutely told Regan that if she could not afford a copy I would send her one for free. (Regan I am a little dissapointed that you did not mention this in your post.)
I send out free copies all the time to those who cannot afford them. In fact, I sent sent a free copy to Joe Kort today and I am going to read his book as well.
I don’t mean this disrespectfully at all, but if my motive in discussing this issue was to sell books, then ex-gay watch would be the last place on earth that I would be spending my time 🙂
All the best to you guys,
Chad Thompson
Chad,
you say “Yes of course there are many who are studying this issue outide of the ex-gay camp, however they are not researching ways to help people change as Nicolosi is. Certainly, though, they are interested in causation.”
And yet you assume Nicolosi is correct and they are wrong. Other than Nicolosi’s desire to help people change, what makes his observations on cause any more of an authority than theirs?
I am hoping that you aren’t simply reverting to “those who agree with me must be right”. You seem too bright for that.
But (sorry) that’s how this is beginning to sound.
Oh, crap. This Chad character is just another “ministry”?
What a joke. It’s obvious that he’s merely here doing some self-promotion. I’ve never seen him here before. Maybe he should be encouraged to get a real job.
Timothy at July 18, 2005 04:06 PM
i read the Bible Code nonsense years ago but I never connected the anti-gay Satinover with completely-out-of-his-mind-Bible-nut Satinover
Same guy. Just goes to show you that education doesn’t necessarily mean that someone isn’t a horse’s ass.
raj,
At least he’s consistent. Consistently insane, perhaps, but consistent.
Actually, I think we should take Satinover’s Bible reading method, is this a ‘huermenetic’?, and ask why the exgay groups don’t use it. After all, if they were to understand the Bible by going through it backwards taking every 5th consonant and 8th vowel, or whatever, would they come up the conclusions they now have? Just wondering. Satinover’s method does have the merit of reflecting an ancient belief: that books are magical and mystical artifacts, filled with words of power.
Chad, why would you consider what Nicolosi is doing to be ‘research’? It sure doesn’t look like that to me. Instead he appears to be writing his memoirs of life as a therapist.
If he, or any of the exgay crowd, were interested in research, I would suggest they start with what is already known about gay people. There are numerous large scale studies of gay men and lesbians. And there have been such things for over 30 years. A good repository of them can be found in Nimmon’s The Soul Beneath The Skin. (Is that a sufficient reference?)
Gay people are not a Terra Incognita about whom there are only legends and rumors. We are a known, and knowable, group who produce all the usual human artefacts. Like literature, science, politics, art, theater, events and memoirs. It would seem to me logical and scientific to start with what is known and build from there.
Tidbits of this seem to pop up at NARTH now and then. For example, that gay men tend to have more older brothers than straight men seems to be one such fact.Something I can remember from 30 years ago is that gays and lesbians are much more likely to be left handed. The difference is noticeable. I was once on a softball team where half the members were left handed.
It does not appear that the exgay crowd ever looks into these figures and studies. Instead they… well it is not clear to me what they do. But it clearly does not look like science to me.
So, Chad I would urge you to check out the studies that Nimmons uses. One finding in particular I would ask you to explain. It seems that every study done in criminology and police science comes to the same conclusion. Large events with mass attendence by young gay men have an astonishingly low rate of violence. Far, far lower than anything comparable where the attenders are straight young guys.
Let us know what you find out.
Dalea said:
You are correct on the last sentence.All the exgay material I have read — and that’s mountains of the stuff — uses post hoc reasoning. You start with what you believe, and then build a catalogue of everything you think supports your beliefs. You exclude anything that does not. You weave a story line drawing it all together and, wa-la!, a 300 page book with 400 references. When you go to your second printing, you reword anything that has been shown to be false or contradictory. Repeat etc etc etc.Eventually everything has it’s own internal logic and it’s all self-referencing, so the entire story appears to hang together. But only if you don’t question the original basis. (see also: bible, authorship and editing of)One other important difference is that a theory developed using the scientific method is never written in a way that prevents it being disproved by others.If someone says, as Chad and Warren both did in their own way, that there are “infinite reasons” behind their claim; they are doing exactly that. How can anyone disprove something that you claim is caused by anything? Or, when one “reference” is shown to be a fraud or nonsense; you just change the reference but not the claim. As example, Paul Cameron is not often quoted first hand these days due to his notoriety. Instead you’ll see Satinover’s 1996 book referenced, and be unaware that Satinover uses Cameron. Or the claim made by Cameron is kept, but the “source” is flipped to Hogg et al.Or, you invoke the supernatural (“God did it”, or “God says…”) and again set up a situation that cannot be disproved.I’ll have to dig it out for you, but I have a classic from the NARTH site — two people quoting each other’s paper as “proof” that their paper is correct!(Apart from the circular logic, without post-hoc reasoning and later editing this cannot occur, ever. One paper must have preceded the other, meaning there cannot be such a cross-reference….)The well known “Kiss Hank” is a good example
ChadI’m just guessing — but did you replace Jay Bakker in the Wednesday time slot at the Exodus Conference?
There is a Gore Vidal essay, which I can not find online, called something like: The Boys in the Sand. Here Vidal goes after Midge Decter (aka Mrs Norman Podhoretz) on the subject of exgays. She has been appalled by the phenomena of men attracted to men who marry women. Vidal is also appalled by this, and by Midge Decter’s thoughts on the subject.
The essay is at least 30 years old. Written at a time when the psychoanalytical theory of homosexuality still had some adherents (outside religious circles) both Vidal and Decter go after Reparative Therapy. Decter whose conservative credentials are beyond reproach, regarded it as a cruel and useless as it subjected women to suffering when they married an ‘exgay’. Vidal regarded it as beyond cruel and useless.
In the essay, Vidal comments on psych* as having the ‘intellectual credibility of phrenology’. Which is something I think Chad and Warren should comment upon.
My undergraduate degree is in Economics, specifically Economic History. Which I am sure Raj would say is not science. Be that as it may, what I would contribute here is this: science begins with observation of the apparent world.
Which is not at all what Chad or Warren or Nicolosi are doing. They are ignoring all the wide scale studies of gay people which have been done for over 30 years. In its place, they profer biographies and memoirs. On gay people and sports, why not look at the activities of gay athletes? These are reachable, observable people. Who even have their own Olympics.
On rough and tumble, there is a large group of gay men who have a background in wrestling. Which may be the rite of passage athletic endevour of proto-gay men.
I can see no reason to accept as science what exgays are offering.
Timothy at July 18, 2005 07:41 PM
At least he’s consistent….
Consistency in the face of countervailing evidence represents an unwillingness to learn. Consistency isn’t a virtue. It’s a vice.
Dalea at July 19, 2005 01:25 AM
Dale, regardless of my opinions of economics or economic history (I could go on for paragraphs, since my partner studied economics at University) the fact is that Chad (a merchant), Warren and Nicolosi (another merchant) are merely selling stuff. They, like James Dobson (FOTF), James Wildmon (AFA), Stephen Bennett, and others, have discovered that they can increase their revenue by bashing gay people. It’s as simple as that. And they didn’t need an economist to tell them so.
Do you know what Raj, that’s highly offensive. You could say the same about Wayne Besen. Why don’t you ask Chad just how rich he’s become from his book – it may surprise you to find out the answer is “not very”.
Do you know what Raj, that’s highly offensive.
Peter, I really don’t give a tinker’s damn (note to mikea, that’s not an epithet–check your dictionary). I didn’t say that Chad would get rich off his book. Don’t put words into my “mouth.” I said that his presence here was merely for the purpose of pushing a book. And for pushing a web site. And for trying for cheep publicity for the book and web site.
Understand?
raj,
“Consistency in the face…”
It was a joke, J – O – K – E joke
I was drawing the parallel between his (quite obvious) extreme nuttiness about finding hidden clues in ancient texts and his (sometimes considered credibile) nuttiness about The Gays.
Take a deep breath, pull in the talons, let go of the assumption that the only motivation anyone has is monitary, don’t assume the worst from every post, and SMILE. It really is a nice day.
This is for Chad, in case you miss the email.
I can afford your book.
I just can’t afford your message, and especially, neither can the gay kids I work with.
For decades now, gay people are hearing from parents and other interested parties that YOU support..’I love you, but not what you do, would prefer that you’d change’.
Love is not enough, Chad.
This social/political situation is vicious and tiring. We’re up against gay people being held to old fashioned and ritual standards NO ONE ELSE is held to politically.
As a supporter of ‘change is possible’ you validate what is being used all along to give oxygen to an already entrenched PREJUDICE.
‘Change is possible’ is the prejudice.
Even loving parents can hold this prejudice….and can be much cause for conflict in families.
It’s the expectation of change, the onus of it that warps honesty or acceptance.
In the real world, you validate heterosexual expectations and conditions for withholding societal support for gay sex, gay relationships and social integration.
You can’t call people to love what you don’t love in yourself, Chad.
I told you we need people strong enough to hold onto what is given to wield the sword.
Not fall on it and convince others that falling on their own swords is valid too.
By the way, everyone.
The Anti Defamation League, or the Museum of Tolerance wouldn’t have Chad come near their institutions to speak, precisely because he fuels a strong aspect of traditional prejudice that we already know it hurtful. Not even as a cautionary example of what prejudice can do to a young mind.
It would be like having Jews for Jesus lecture at the Holocaust Museum.
Considering the legendary and murderous anti Semitism in the world, however lovingly a Christian would approach a Jew to convert-it infers another insult on an already significant minority fighting to survive.
I will literally swear on my father’s grave that when I attended Love Won Out in Orlando, Nicolosi advocated roughhousing with sons, and then joked, in these exact words, “The boy might crack his little head and risk brain damage, but that’s a small price to pay for heterosexuality.”
Wasn’t funny then, and my gasp wasn’t the only one in the audience.
Is completely painful now.
I’m sure this abusive father would’ve found another “justification” for his abuse, but this just breaks my heart.
Timothy at July 19, 2005 01:42 PM
Ok, if you wish. Some of us have started to use the HTML tag
/tic
meaning “end of tongue in cheak” to indicate that the post was intended to be a joke
/tic.
As to your other point,
let go of the assumption that the only motivation anyone has is monitary
I’ll let go of that assumption when the people stop bashing equal rights for gay people to further their careers. It’s as simple as that.
I feel that I am a coming in a little late to this discussion, but after reading, I thought I would make a point or two.
I can certainly see the love and concern for all gays (even out gays) in Chad’s words here. The section of his book that he posted calling for the acceptance of all gays (even open gays) into the Church is certainly admirable. It is apparent to me that he at least partially sees that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” mantra really doesn’t go as far as many claim it does.
Regan has made some good points about that “love the sinner idea,” and her points resonate well with me personally, even if they come off a little sharp for my tastes.
The “change is possible” does stir up the “change is necessary for gays” idea in many conservatives. After all, if gays can change, then why don’t they. Why wouldn’t a devastated father of a newly out gay kid want his kid to just go and try to change?
When I told me dad I was gay a couple of years ago, he was devastated. Luckily, for him, though, he had hope. He had spoken to his local Baptist church and had been told that change was the answer, that lots of people do it.
And there lies the problem. My father (and countless other well-meaning parents, friends, etc. of gays) don’t hear that change is possible for a fraction of those that try. They don’t hear it mainly because that part of the message is never told. So, to go out there and say that change is possible without qualifying at all what is entailed, what the success rates are, how long it might take, is a bit short-sighted and maybe even reckless.
The expectation is now that they gay person can change and should change, and if he doesn’t he is a failure, in his own eyes and in the eyes of those around him. Change becomes less of an option and more of a forced “change or else…” scenario.
Eventually my dad did some independent research about changing me to straight, talked to me about how hard I had tried not to be gay (admittedly I didn’t go to therapy) and decided change wasn’t as possible as he was led to believe.
Is change possible for some people? Probably, but probably a very small number. Unfortunately, the idea that gays can change is a huge offering of hope to those devastated to hear that their child is gay. Even more unfortunately, this shining beacon of hope causes the family/friends involved to place a huge onus of change on the gay person involved, and Regan is right, it sets the gay person up for failure and disappointment and the non-gay-affimirming friends or family can now go back to feeling vindicated for turning their backs on the gay person. After all, they gave the gay person the option of how not to be a sinner, and he chose not to try hard enough.
In an ideal world, all of this could be solved if the ex-gay camp would freely admit (i.e. keep track of) their successes and let the public know how hard it is, how rare it is, and what to expect. Then gays that want to try to change can try, but the people around them don’t feel like change is out there and possible for everyone or even most people.
raj,
OK, OK. I’ll use the HTML tags as I get to know them. It’s just that I’m ever so clear that it’s entirely inconceivable that anyone could possibly come up with another inflection for my writing other than the one I’m intending. /tic
🙂
“I’ll let go of that assumption when the people stop bashing equal rights for gay people to further their careers. It’s as simple as that.”
How ’bout I meet you half way. I’ll agree that the ex-gay movement is at least PARTLY about providing a source of income to some (most of the ex-gay writers/ministers/etc.) and a major funding source to others (Dobson/Sheldon/etc.).
But ya gotta also agree that for most of the ex-gay folks it is about more than money. They have an emotional/personal/religious investment in the work. Many of them choose not to bash – or at least not actively campaign against equality.
Of course there are some (Alan Chambers for example) who appear to have sold their soul (literally) to the political religous zealots just for money, notoriety, and approval, but I think most of the ex-gay ministers are sincere.
TA,
I believe it is a deliberate lie to say “change is possible”.
It would be honest to say:
“Hardly anyone can change the internal emotions and drives that are linked to same sex attraction. However some people have been able to change their attitudes or lifestyles and live a life of chastity and singleness. A small number of people have been able to live a life patterned after heterosexuals – including marriage to a person of the opposite sex – but most report that they continue to feel attraction and arousal to the same sex in a way they cannot with their spouse. Although these marriages seldom last, some people have established long-lasting marriages of this sort and have found that the feelings associated with conforming to the expectations of society and their religion outweigh any loss they feel in spousal connection.”
That, at least, would be honest.
If that’s too long, they could simply say “it is possible to live chaste” (or “abstemious” if your prefer). But they recognize that’s not a very convincing sell to you – or probably even to your father.
I think the most honest description (which they will never use) is “It is possible to go back into the closet”.
Tim
Me: I’ll let go of that assumption when the people stop bashing equal rights for gay people to further their careers. It’s as simple as that.”
You: How ’bout I meet you half way. I’ll agree that the ex-gay movement is at least PARTLY about providing a source of income to some (most of the ex-gay writers/ministers/etc.) and a major funding source to others (Dobson/Sheldon/etc.
Nah, I won’t meet you half way. The only discernible reason that the anti-equal-rights-for-gay-people have for bashing equal-rights-for-gay-people is because it makes them money. Example: Stephen Bennett claims to be a singer. Is the quality of his singing enhanced by the fact that he claims to be “ex-gay”? Not that I could tell.
These people are playing a gig. They’re making money any way they can. Maybe Wayne Beson should put a 24/7 study on Bennett to see if he doesn’t do a “Matt Glaven” (do a google search, if you are unfamiliar with his case.)
Or, try “Matt Glavin” 🙂
An email exchange from yesterday:Them: “Why haven’t you at least tried to change?”Me: “I’ll get to that. Why haven’t you tried to climb Mt Everest? Thousands have, you know.”As Regan, TA, Timothy etc have mentioned; it’s this unreasonable expectation that I elect to do something that I neither wish to do — or even have much possibility of “success” (in my case I suspect, zero) — that is so scaldingly inhumane.
Check out this wonderful raising of double entende to an art form:
https://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2000-10-14/rant.html
grantdale at July 20, 2005 12:15 AM
I was wondering if I had the correct spelling. Should have googled.
Actually, when I read about it a couple of years ago, I was literally rolling on the floor laughing. When I subsequently read that it was his second time being caught fondling other men in public, I roared with laughter. The stupidity of some of these people is mind-boggling.
Yes, ha ha on him.Isn’t the second time around called “doing a Paulk”?
Hi TA, good to hear from you,
I’m with you when you say that change is possible for a small number of people. It is possible for people who have pre-existing heterosexual attractions, however small they might be, to re-orient themselves towards the hetero side of the Kinsey scale. I guess you can call these types of people bisexual, depending on your definition of bisexuality, which is a whole other can of worms. You should check out the book by Martin Seligman called “What You can Change and What You Can’t.” He actually goes into this at length.
For those Kinsey 6’s and 0’s, it would probably be impossible for them to re-orient themselves. In fact, I was corresponding with a NARTH therapist over e-mail, and he told me that he never does re-orientation therapy with people who have zero heterosexual attraction, for he believes that change is impossible for them.
Some degree of latent heterosexuality, along with a personal, non-coerced desire to change, is needed.
John
Timothy at July 19, 2005 06:48 PM
Of course there are some (Alan Chambers for example) who appear to have sold their soul (literally) to the political religous zealots just for money, notoriety, and approval…
I’m going to get really mean, and I’ll probably be banned for it.
As far as I can tell, Chambers is an employee of an anti-equal-rights for-gay people-operation. He’s an actor playing a gig. I don’t know whether he has sex with the person he considers his spouse, and, frankly, I don’t care. If he has children with his own sperm, the issue doesn’t mean very much, since I could whack off into a cup and, via InVitroFertilization, have a child with a willing female (modern medicine is so wonderful). Merely having a child that is genetic doesn’t require having to have sex with the female. That should be obvious.
Chambers seems to be the anti-gay organization’s successor to John “Candi” Paulk (remember him?) who was caught prancing around a DC gay bar a few years ago. Where is Paulk nowadays? He seems to have been trottled off to Coventry.
…but I think most of the ex-gay ministers are sincere.
I neither know nor care whether they are “sincere.” I have stated here in the past and will state here once more that I have known people who have changed from straight to gay (and in this, I am using “lifestyle”) and who have changed from gay to straight, and who have changed from straight to gay to straight to gay again. And they did not have to pay religious zealots to accomplish that. They just did it.
Note to webmaster: could you provide that the “preview” feature actually displays the comment as paragraphed. I have done lenghty comments, with many paragraph breaks, but the preview feature seems to bundle the paragraphs all together. It’s difficult to parse to provide corrections.
Some degree of latent heterosexuality, along with a personal, non-coerced desire to change, is needed.
John
The trouble is can you think of a non-coerced reason to change your orientation? I sure can’t.
Some degree of latent heterosexuality
Do you know what, this really bugs me. My personal story is that I was attracted to men and repulsed by women. Seriously repulsed by the whole idea of kissing a woman, let alone having sex. Had no emotional attraction to women whatsoever. And now, here I am almost a decade later (is it that long?) and my attractions are almost opposite, to the extent that I seriously don’t want to think about sex with a man – it’s just not that attractive. My relationship with my girlfriend is emotional, sexual (though not consumated, but blimey, if we ever get married…) and spiritual.
Now, I was NOT a latent heterosexual, or if I was then EVERY gay man is, so quit calling me one.
Thanks gang.
I will state again, I have no clue what it’s like to be gay.
I do, believe what gay people tell me. I was never taught to dispute or deny what gay people know.
That’s bad manners.
I see that it’s mostly heterosexuals that claim they know the ‘truth’ about gay people and little of it is good news.
And it never squares with reality or even what I know personally.
Perhaps experiencing condescension or bigotry myself helps me to understand that it cannot be allowed to thrive.
My first instinct, since I was a kid, was to experience the very people spoken of so badly and my family didn’t try to segregate me from anyone gay.
That would have been against the creed of walking in another’s shoes before passing any judgment.
It’s not rocket science or an impossible mission to know and care about someone gay. The oppportunities are infinite.
This is why so many people roaming around avoiding experience or at the very least not believing what gay people say or caring about how gay people feel is just so rude and uncivilized.
I’m not gay, but if I get something wrong in here about gay folks, please tell me.
I am trying to learn as much as I can and be around who the subject most matters to.
I want to be taught about being gay from gay folks, not from people who hate gay people and don’t know any on the terms necessary for real understanding.
I’ve been trying to learn about the ex gay phenom, and I get stonewalled by Throckmorton, Foster, and Nicolosi and in his way, Chad Thompson.
I’ll give Chad a lot more time, but this isn’t rocket science. Even if it was, rocket science isn’t insurmountable.
I want to see more progress and cooperation with my gay neighbors and fellow citizens and I’ve lost patience with those who refuse to see the damage that most of us here are working to reverse.
Peter O at July 20, 2005 08:16 AM
My personal story is that I was attracted to men and repulsed by women.
I suspect that, peoples’ journeys through life can be quite different. One of my best friends in grade school was an adult lady artist who lived down the street. She designed the luau that my parents had in 1959. It was marvelous. I have my parents videotapes of the luau. I don’t have the sarongs that another lady did for me and my brother, but I remember mine quite well.
I would sit and talk with her for hours. And she was straight.
One of the things that I have a problem with about discussions over the internet is that more than a few discussants appear to believe that history began in the last millisecond. It did not. There is context to all of this. If they want to ignore the context, they want to ignore discussion, as far as I’m concerned.
I’m not going to go into detail, but it has taken me a long time to figure this out. When I was a teenager, I was lusting after three guys. No girls. That’s the long and the short of it.
And I, being supremely confident in the fact that I was me, didn’t really give a tinker’s damn about what other people thought. And, quite frankly, I still don’t.
Regan DuCasse at July 20, 2005 08:57 AM
>I will state again, I have no clue what it’s like to be gay.
I really do understand what you’re saying.
There was a book published in German–Der Mann Ohne Eigenschaften. The title was loosely translated to be something like “the man without charachteristics” but, like most bad translations it was incomplete. It should have been something more like “the man who does not have characteristics that differentiate him from others.”
What’s it like to be gay? I don’t know. I’ve been nothing but gay.
I’ll tell you what being gay means. Um, we go to work. We come home. We go out grocery shopping. We make dinner. Watch some TV. We don’t have kids (we could, if we wanted to adopt), but other than that, it sounds like….straight.
That’s what it’s like to be gay.
raj says:
“Nah, I won’t meet you half way. The only discernible reason that the anti-equal-rights-for-gay-people have for bashing equal-rights-for-gay-people is because it makes them money. Example: Stephen Bennett claims to be a singer. Is the quality of his singing enhanced by the fact that he claims to be “ex-gay”? Not that I could tell.”
I have a big issue with that kind of attitude, because I think it purports to decide, without any kind of compelling evidence to back it up, that any of us can make such a determination. I don’t like when ex-gay ministries tell me what my motivations are, so I see no reason to assume that we should tell them what their motivations are.
Yes, there are some ex-gay ministries in which it is all about the money. Those folks seem to be the ones in the spotlight. I wonder, however, how many people are NOT in the spotlight that you seem to be glazing over for your pat black-and-white opinion?
Peter OThe “problem” is that we’ve also heard it before.Paulk. Johnston. Richards. Marks. I do not need to go on, but you should know as well as I do how long that list continues. These were all people who said exactly as you have.Hallet. Smid. Bennett. Cohen — all, as far as I can tell, plainly bisexual before and after.You said ” Now, I was NOT a latent heterosexual, or if I was then EVERY gay man is, so quit calling me one.” but age 20 and not attracted to boys or girls??? The first people you speak to about sexuality are ex-gay recruiters, and they then spend several years working on you???So you see, public interpretation is not that simple. You are welcome to do with your life as you wish, durh, but I did not come down in the last shower either.What I do want you to know is that you have nothing to “prove” to me. And don’t marry a woman to do that for anyone, even for yourself.OK? Promise? 🙂
Robis at July 20, 2005 01:52 PM
I have a big issue with that kind of attitude, because I think it purports to decide, without any kind of compelling evidence to back it up, that any of us can make such a determination. I don’t like when ex-gay ministries tell me what my motivations are, so I see no reason to assume that we should tell them what their motivations are.
Just to let you know, I have a background not only in a real science (physics) but also in law. I do not meet people half-way, which is what Peter wanted me to do. I work from evidence, as far as I can determine it.
I have stated here in the past that I have known people who have gone from straight to gay, from gay to straight, and from gay to straight to gay to straight to gay again. They didn’t need to pay any “ministry” for them to do it. They just did it. And, what to me is more important, they didn’t villify equal rights for gay people when they did it. Unlike the professional “ex-gays.”
I could go on at length on the topic, and have here in the past, but I’ won’t. And just to let you know, Tim’s proposal “meet you half way” was similar to the logical fallacy “golden mean.” No way.
raj,
I don’t want this to be taken as a personal attack. I appreciate what you have to say and very often agree with you.
But your “never any exceptions” view of the world puts you exactly in the same mindset as James Dobson.
You lose credibility with that sort of positioning. And with constantly talking about your “real science” degree.
Just put your positions out there, support them with logic and fact, and avoid absolutes and artificial authority. You might convince others that way. And we can always use a good strong CONVINCING voice in the ever-continuing fight for equality.
Raj, I don’t think that Tim was asking anything of you other than not to paint everyone in the ex-gay camp with the same brush. That’s exactly what you did, and it is no better than when certain anti-gay people paint all gay people with the same brush. And it really doesn’t have anything to do with your background either, since it is quite possible to work from evidence without making such absolute comments.
Making such absolute comments is no less unfair –and no less offensive for that matter– because it is done by Us instead of Them.
Timothy at July 20, 2005 04:55 PM
Don’t put words into my mouth. I have noted far and wide here and elsewhere that I have known people who went from gay to straight, from straight to gay, and from straight to gay to straight to gay again. I was not joking. And they didn’t need to pay some “ex-gay ministry” to do it. They just did it. What’s the “big deal” with a “ministry”?
I don’t do “golden mean,” which is what you were asking me to do by the request to meet you half way. I know full well that there is a whole spectrum of human sexuality. I’ve observed it. My objection is that more than a few in the ex-gay industry is opposed to the equal rights for people who choose to be gay. And those in the ex-gay industry appear to market themselves primarily to anti-gay straight people. Why? Ask John Paulk. Ask Alan Chambers. Ask Randy (forget his last name). Would Stephen Bennett’s singing be enhanced because he’s ex-gay. (Probably not, but his marketing apparently is.) The professional ex-gays are professional ex-gay for a reason: marketing. That’s what I can tell. I can be persuaded otherwise. But that was my point.
Robis at July 20, 2005 05:23 PM
Raj, I don’t think that Tim was asking anything of you other than not to paint everyone in the ex-gay camp with the same brush. That’s exactly what you did…
No, I did not.. Read the first paragraph of the response to Tim above. As should be evident, I was referring to people who pound on the political ex-gay operations. I’m sure that there more than a few people who might be ex-gay, ex-straight and so forth in their youth, but they don’t bring the political aspect into it. I neither know nor care what their sexuality is–I’m not going to have sex with any of them. What I do care about is the fact that these professional “ex-gays” have gigs with organizations that are trying to deny me equal legal rights. That’s the long and short of it.
OK, I give up. Can anyone else find the logic there?
It seems to run:
Because someone went from gay to straight, etc, etc; then therefore all ex-gay ministries are only about money.
If that’s raj’s argument, all I can say is “step back from the crack pipe”.
Oh, and also, what the heck is a “golden mean”. Webster says compromise between extremes but I know the term also refers to the golden ratio (1.618 or phi). Occasionally I come across a term or concept that hasn’t crossed my path. I imagine that the term is probably quite common and ya’all know what he means, but I don’t.
If raj suggests that he does not compromise between extremes, well, what can I say.
“Paulk. Johnston. Richards. Marks.”
But John Paulk (XGW search) is still married with kids.
He was sighted in Mr. P’s (a dilapidated, now-closed Washington, D.C., bar with drag shows) on one occasion five years ago, chatting with patrons over drinks, identifying himself as “gay” under a pseudonym.
Was he telling the truth about his same-sex attraction, or was he lying (as I might) to fit in with a gay bar crowd?
Was he being simply conversational, was he reminiscing over his former life as a drag queen, or was he looking for a temporary sexual fling?
We don’t know what his intentions were, and we don’t know where his current romantic and sexual attractions are currently positioned on a same/opposite gender continuum.
So the root causes of his fall from grace are not clear.
All we know is that he lied and changed his explanation for the bar visit, and it was the string of lies — not his visit to a gay bar — that Exodus cited as the reason for removing him from its leadership.
Jason,
“The trouble is can you think of a non-coerced reason to change your orientation? I sure can’t.”
As for a reason: I know some men who weren’t able to find fullfillment living an openly gay life, and so decided to change, and after therapy, ended up with a female life partner. So there you go. To my knowledge, no one forced them to do it, other than their own unhappiness.
Clearly, there is a qualitative difference between these men and Zack from Love In Action. This should be fairly obvious to you.
On another note: did such men “really” change? I don’t know. Frankly I don’t care, and I feel that the question misses the point. We are talking about real people here, not mere statistics to be used in the culture wars. They tell me they are happy emotionally and sexually. They admit that they still experience attraction to other men, but that its no big deal and they feel no desire to act on it. I’m married, and happily so, but I experience attraction to young blondes. It doesn’t invalidate my marital happiness.
See the parallel?
It really is no big deal.
John
Ah john in my experience there is no such thing as living an openly gay life or a straight life. Life is what you make of it or try to make of it. There is no more guarantee of finding happiness in a straight life than in a gay one. The only reason why those men would want to change is if they felt that straight>gay period.
Mike A quoted
Urgh, yes??? It was the lying that I was getting at (I’m re-reading what I said and yes, that’s what I meant.). Marks is also still married to a woman. Richards has now clearly said not. Johnston — who knows!The point was about not taking a statement at face value. Ditto the others mentioned, who do claim a former identity that I don’t think is an accurate description (at least in the commonly understood vernacular).None of this says anything as such about any OTHER person’s self claims — but feeling a little jaundiced toward such statements is (I’m arguing) a reasonable response to this history. There appears considerable pressure to “name it and claim it” within exgay circles, which provides it’s own motivation to bend the truth (if not outright lie, as some did).That’s my only point. That is the problem Peter O faces, none of it being at his or my making (which is unfortunate, for him).I do not need to speculate on motivation or invent a claim that these people were lying — we already know that they did. For others who are now making statements about themselves, time will tell. Maybe it didn’t come that way, but by saying he had nothing to prove to me I was trying to indicate that to Peter O.
And as you’d probably guess — even this answer, after “The Fall”, I see as disingenuous. By blaming “the media” I see Paulk once again side stepping his responsibility for his own freely chosen words and the massive advert campaign that Exodus organised. Even in that face of his exposure, we still get a slitherng off to the side. What was that again about leopards and spots?
Oh gawd enough already raj/tim! :-)Can we just substitute “some intrinsic reward” for “money” and agree that this would cover all cases?For the record, I don’t think the majority of exgay group organisers in it just for the money (a few high profile ones, hmm, well yes…) But other rewards — companionship, mutual support, power, politics, ego, alturism, whatever — yeah, sure. This is Tim’s position?For the record, I also think that raj does not need to agree to a compromise position statement. Also not on to compare his personal wish to not accept any of the counter arguament as being the same as a Dobson directing $120 million of political reliious organisation into the private lives of others. Raj, you haven’t been arm-bending with religious right politicos in Washington lately, I assume?(And remember — the first person to mention a former leader of Germany who was fond of uniforms… loses outright! Or, perhaps here, we can substitute comparing someone to Dobson.)
And remember — the first person to mention a former leader of Germany who was fond of uniforms… loses outright!
I know where you’re going. You really don’t want to go there. My partner’s grandfather was interred in Dachau. We have an appartment near there. Please do not go into that issue. I’d expand at lenght, and will, if you go on.
Mike A. at July 20, 2005 06:50 PM
But John Paulk (XGW search) is still married with kids…
So the root causes of his fall from grace are not clear.
The fact that his fall from grace occurred virtually immediately after he was caught prancing around in a gay bar pretty much sealed it up for me. His fall frome grace was because he was an embarrassment for his sponsors, at Dobson’s Focus group. That’s the long and the short of it.
I don’t particularly care whether Paulk is married with children. As far as I can tell, men with a primarily homosexual inclination have been married with children for centuries. What they do to get themselves off, I don’t particularly care. Whether they are actually their children (genetically speaking) is not an issue for me either.
Paulk is married, with children. So what?
No raj, that is absolutely not where I was going.I am aware of your background — you’ve mentioned it before, including the apartment in Munich — and I also have my own reasons for not going there. It’s presumptious of you to assume I would not, or that I am unaware of what you’re alluding to. Jeesh, the nerve.What you seem unaware of is Godwin’s Law. We didn’t call it that back then, but we had the same rule many years ago in my debating society.
grantdale at July 21, 2005 08:32 AM
Just to let you know, I’m fully aware of “Godwin’s law.” It is a cute little joke. But it is not particularly relevant to where I was being led, or to where I was going.
Just so all y’all know.
I’ve read Chad’s book, twice and I took notes.
I let him know that and I gave him every way to contact me.
If a conversation was pending me reading the book, then it’s his turn.
I kept my end up.
I found a section in Chapter 1 on pg. 35 where he states that gays and lesbians ‘need’ Christians to be hateful to convince themselves that the Christian message is the result of homophobia, ignorance and a right wing conspiracy against them.
I read this over several times with my jaw dropped.
Seems to me like between the Vatican,the Pentagon, the President, five members of the Supreme Court, the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, the Alliance Defense Fund, Concerned Women of America, Operation Rescue, Church of Latter Day Saints and Senators like Robert Byrd, Rick Santorum and Bill Frist, to say nothing of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond…for so many years-just to name a few.
Broadcast media prophets like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Mike Savage-to name a few…
(smacks myself on the head)
Of course, gay people have no grounds to be convinced there’s a conspiracy against them, they’re just being paranoid!
I forgot the Christian Coalition and Ralph Reed. He’s an official consultant to the President on cultural affairs.
Word to Chad…this is no time for two faces.
I forgot the Christian Coalition and Ralph Reed. He’s an official consultant to the President on cultural affairs.
Ralph got himself a new gig?
ROTFL
Yes raj, Ralph still keeps himself busy these days.Alas, he still could not be considered as holding down an honest job.Ralph denies, WorldNutDaily reportsRalph confirms, WorldNutDaily is not the one who reports.Nice work if you can get it…
Regan,
Small correction on your list. Actually Bill O’Reily is fairly supportive. Bill opposes gay marriage but favors domestic partner rights and doesn’t actively campaign against gays..
While he’s not a champion of equality, I’ve seen him put down some of the more rabid bigots including Steven Bennett.
https://www.tampabaycoalition.com/files/910TBCBillOReily2.htm
Tim, O’Reilly is a bloviator. I’ve watched his and listened to his programs. As far as I can tell, his only interest is in raising the blood pressure of his viewers and listeners. That seems to suffice for his target audience.
And if you think I’m joking, I can clue you: I am not.
In Preventing Homosexuality by authors and RT’s Joseph Nicolosi and his wife they encourage restrictive gender roles for the children
I missed this. My younger brother, who followed me in high school by three years, took a HS course that was basically “Home-Ec” but was labeled “bachelor basics” He actually became a fairly good cook. This was in the late 1960s.
Btw, he is married and has five children. The course came too late for me, and my culinary talents are self-taught, but I’m gay anyway. And as far as I can tell, my brother isn’t.
Gender roles for children? Let me ROTFLMAO
Hi Tim,
I beg to differ with you on Bill O’Reilly. What he does is say HE doesn’t really care…BUT…
And after the but, he comments often that if gay people marry, then here will come the polygamists and bigamists and bestiality pracitioners. To give to gays is to HAVE to give to the others in the name of the 14th Amendment.
He gives oxygen to already entrenched anxiety and to add fuel to a raging fire…criticizes Canada and it’s LIBERAL society that would allow gay people to marry and have medical marijuana and socialist public policies.
He bloviates that liberals (and married gay people) are akin to the worst that society will evolve into.
So NO, he’s not supportive of marriage for gay people without assuring his listeners that it’s bad for society as a whole.