We here at exgaywatch have been recently criticized for not applying the same standards to those that oppose the ex-gay ministries as we do to those who support them. Specifically, we have been called hypocrites for not condemning a website put up by the Michigan Quakers called exgaymichigan.org.
I think that I can speak for all authors here when I say that we strive for intellectual integrity and consistency. If the Quaker church is making claims about ex-gay ministries that are unfounded, unfair, unsubstantiated, or as bizarre as those made by Exodus or others, we have an obligation to hold them to the same standards. We are not a propaganda machine; rather we simply seek that the various debates surrounding sexual orientation are argued with truth and not lies, myths, stereotypes, and bigotry.
In that spirit, I will endeavor to analyze the Quakers’ site. While some authors at XGW may have been familiar with the site, I was not so I have looked it over. There may be parts of it I didn’t see but I think that I have a fairly decent feel for the content.
Most of the content on the website was couched in the terminology of “we believe” or “we suspect”. This does shield the site some criticism. There did not appear to be many statement of an absolutist nature which – considering that it is a Quaker site – is not surprising. One strong statement is made immediately upon entry into the site:
It is easier to wring blood from a stone than to change sexual orientation.
This statement is clearly to attract attention and is supported by the following:
That’s a pretty powerful statement! But it’s true: there’s no evidence that anyone has ever changed their sexual orientation. It’s possible to modify one’s sexual behavior, but sexual orientation appears to be fixed.
This is a very strongly worded position. But yet, there is no evidence – other than anecdotal claims without any of the rigors of scientific analysis – that sexual orientation has ever been changed. The closest that comes to meeting that criteria would be the Spitzer study and that, as has been discussed at length, was conducted by telephone and had no follow-up nor did it take into consideration the financial and emotional incentives for the participants to answer as they did.
There are those who could argue “but my life is evidence”. Unfortunately, most of those making a claim to have actually changed their sexual orientation from strictly homosexual to strictly heterosexual are not very credible. At XGW there are many many discussions of exactly this, and the Quaker site makes very clear the efforts made to seek evidence of change that will withstand scrutiny.
The site does make a number of suppositions. While they may or may not be correct, the only one in which I think that the Quakers may have made too far of a leap is:
Some homosexuals have completed therapy in a temporary euphoria… Some are even able to engage in sexual intercourse with members of the opposite gender, by closing their eyes and fantasizing that they are actually making love to a person of the same sex.
I find that to be too speculative. But yet, even in their supposition, the Quakers were careful to note:
Unfortunately, these suspicions are based on inadequate evidence. Certainty awaits a meaningful, credible study by mental health professionals. Unfortunately, the studies that have been made to date are seriously flawed.
I did not find much to be harshly critical of in this site. It states its position and bias up-front. Rather than demonize ex-gay ministries, it tries to warn of the dangers and counter them with what it believes to be truth. It does not appear to list any bogus medical, psychological, or mental claims about those with which it disagrees. It admits where its conclusions are not as clearly supported as it would like. In summary, without our integrity having been challenged, I would have not found much need for a critique of the Quaker site.
As to the specific areas where we have been accused of hypocrisy:
If a Christian or exgay backpeddled like that, or created a site that clearly uses deceptive keywords to attract visitors, you could guarantee a site like Exgaywatch would be all over it. But since this guy is a kindred spirit, I’m guessing they’ll just turn a blind eye to it.
First let me comment on the irony of having a Quaker being contrasted with a “Christian”. I don’t think that simply because the Quakers do not subscribe to an anti-gay agenda that they are all excluded from the Body of Christ.
Now to the accusations:
1. That the creator of the site, Michael Gibson-Faith, has backpedaled in his approach to ex-gay ministries and we haven’t called him on it
The primary basis for this claim is an article in which Gibson-Faith argued that ex-gay ministries should not be confronted with protesters or pickets. He said:
I used to be someone who thought we needed to protest every time they had a conference and every time they came to any church or campus… My experience over the past few years convinces me that we need to just let their events go and commit to our own agenda.
However, the creation of this site does not appear to be in response to ex-gay conferences. There does seem to be some reporting of people who went to conferences, but the site itself seems to be focused on presenting a position rather than responding to an event. This seems to be to be consistent with what Gibson-Faith said in the same article:
We have a long way to go. We have to frame our issues as an effective alternative to the right’s messages; we have to repeat our new frames often and in ways that folks can hear it. If we want change, we need to shape our agenda and stop reacting to the events and actions of the right.
If there was any change of tune about how to respond the ex-gay ministries, I can’t detect it. As to charge #1 of hypocrisy against XGW, it is unsupported.
2. The website uses deceptive keywords and we didn’t call them on it
On Google, the site comes up as follows:
Exgay Michigan Ministries
Don’t Change your sexual orientation, live for christ, find hope,
www.exgaymichigan.org/ – 2k – Cached – Similar pages
Perhaps there could be some criticism of the title tag in that at first glance it reads as though it were for an ex-gay ministry. However there are two reasons why I would be disinclined to assault the Quaker site over this:
First, the words that immediately follow the tag line make it clear that this is not a site that favors changing sexual orientation. If the person wishing to find ex-gay ministries in Michigan were to read the description before selection, he’d realize that this site does not champion changing one’s sexual orientation.
Second, the Quaker site does actually list the ex-gay ministries in the Michigan area. The person wishing to find ex-gay ministries in Michigan could do so by clicking the site. Since this, however, is not the primary purpose of the site, this is just incidental and may be immaterial.
I would recommend, if asked, that perhaps another primary tag be selected. But it is hard to base a serious criticism on this for a site that tells you “don’t change your sexual orientation…” before you select it and it immediately lets you know what it’s about when you do. It certainly wouldn’t rise to the standard of requiring a harsh critique. As to charge #2 of hypocrisy against XGW, it is unsupported.
So since there was no hypocrisy on the part of exgaywatch, it makes me question why the cheap shot?
Was it a genuine analysis and belief that we are biased and hypocritical? With such a weak case for the hypocrisy charge, it seems unlikely.
Perhaps it reflects an obsession? After all, there is a tendency on the part of some sites to find objection to exgaywatch whenever possible. But I doubt that is it either.
I suspect that the accusation of hypocrisy reflects something else. I think that it is a reaction to what is perceived to be hostility on our part. I suspect that there are people who are seeking to live an ex-gay life that feel that we at XGW are unkind to them or are unsympathetic to where they are in life.
Speaking solely for myself, I think this has some justification. I have not always been careful to distinguish between anti-gay activists and ex-gay persons and have been quick to offer my suspicions about the motives, honesty, or feelings about ex-gay individuals.
At this time of year it is traditional to reflect on the past year and resolve to be better. I think that now is a good time for me to look forward to 2006 and resolve:
* to fight the lies of anti-gay activists
* to expose when ex-gay ministries behave as anti-gay activists
* to show love, compassion, and support for those persons who – for purposes of their own – choose to live as ex-gay
Regarding the description line in Google, site owners don’t get to pick what that is. From Google’s FAQ:
They couldn’t change it if they wanted to. The best they could do is eliminate that text from their page, thereby forcing Google to pick some other snippet which may or may not be what you want.
Are there any “ex-gays” who are not also anti-gay? I suppose if I ever meet one I’ll reconsider my reflexive dislike of anyone who’d claim to be exgay. I’m not expecting to see anytime soon an exgay post on exgay watch who isn’t advocating that someone other than themselves suppress same sex attractions. Its hard for me to see how an exgay cannot also be anti-gay, how someone can think its a good idea to suppress their own same sex attractions without also believing others should do the same. By the same token I wouldn’t consider suppressing any attraction solely because of the gender of the person involved and I wouldn’t want anyone else to do so either.
Exgay Watch has not been at all hypocritical on this issue. The proprietors of XGW have given more than the benefit of the doubt and been more than fair to “Exgay” shops. The balance provided by XGW has made me give consideration to “exgays” and religious people that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
(Moderator’s note: Thanks to Raj for catching a typo in the main article.)
Here is the only prior case in which I recall encountering Michael Gibson-Faith. I was unaware of his exgay-related site until Timothy posted the above article.
Gibson-Faith’s effort to promote gay-tolerant/antigay dialogue last year was admirable, but the results were disappointing (imho). Gibson-Faith is skilled at structured dialogue and experienced in the practical application of Quaker faith. But, almost by definition, dialogue appeals to persons seeking tolerance, not intolerance. This is especially true when dialogue is structured to enforce constructive two-way engagement.
XGW does not attempt to enforce structured dialogue in its comments. Exgay and antigay individuals are welcome to post under the same terms as everyone else: Comments should be on-topic; they should be focused on exgays rather than gays; if they contain allegations, they should be documented.
I’m often tempted to suspend or ban several gay-tolerant commenters for their intolerance of exgays. I tend not to do it, though, because their explicit intolerance serves to document the fear of backlash that we frequently see expressed among exgay political activists.
I rarely need to consider banning antigay commenters, simply because so few comment in the first place. Some, like Chad Thompson and Doug M., are considerably more hospitable than many of the gay-affirming commenters.
I agree with Timothy’s resolutions for 2006 and will try to adhere to them, also.
Mike, thanks for letting me post anyway. I can tone it down a bit, I’ll think about how Daniel or Peterson might feel before I post in the future.
Specifically, we have been called hypocrites for not condemning a website put up by the Michigan Quakers called exgaymichigan.org.
Called hypocrites by whom? It should be fairly evident that the “callers” can set up web sites of their own to condemn the Michigan Quakers. They do not need you to do if for them. It’s cheap to do a web site (sorry Michael A–but I know that the personal web sites aren’t particularly professional looking)), thousands of people have done it on AOL. If someone wants to condemn the Michigan Quakers, they should do so themselves and let ExGayWatch do what they want to do.
Seriously.
On the part of the post as a whole, as far as I can tell, it was nothing more than a cheep shot (misspelling intended). Continue doing what you’re doing, and don’t worry what the members of the peanut gallery send your way.
This seems more like an effort to get attention than anything else. Timothy, you were nice to respond to this claim of hypocrisy, but I don’t think you should have made the effort.
I’m with Randi on the question:
‘Are there any ex gays who aren’t also anti gay?’
I would have a lot more respect for ex gays if they admitted to the constant negative programming that young gays and lesbians are unnecessarily subjected to that causes the internal struggles often cited.
I would say that their path was fine to embark on if they weren’t also engaged in promoting political policies and social actions that brutalize young gay people’s emotional health and welfare and hope.
Most of all I wish heterosexuals would get over the conceit that this whole world is for them, always about them and what homosexuals really, really want or need is THEM.
Without the ignorance and fear and violence to help the ex gay cause….would they really have one?
“Are there any ex gays who aren’t also anti gay?”
I believe so. But I don’t think they get much press.
I’ve met people who simply could not understand deep deep inside that God loves them the way He created them (I’m thinking of two right now in particular). They are usually from a Christian backgroud and they believe that they have to change to become what God wants them to be. If you can be at peace and be gay, that was fine with them, they aren’t trying to convince you of anything. They support gay rights and gay marriage and equality (unless they’ve recently changed) but they just can’t find a reconciliation for theirself.
I pity them. And hope they find peace either as ex-gay or returning to the way they are.
So Timothy, by calling them “ex-gays” are you indicating that they’ve experienced a change in orientation, or are you using the term “ex-gay” as a shorthand for those that reject their gay identity and/or don’t pursue gay behaviour?
I know one person in particular who wouldn’t go by the term ex-gay (although that’s what most would call him as he’s celibate and works for an “ex-gay” type ministry)…he doesn’t claim to have gone from gay to straight (thus would not be ex-gay in my opinion). However, I know that he also is not against gay rights/marriage. In fact, he’s someone I would consider a friend.
So there are some out there….but it’s the “ex-gay” label that gets me.
They are “ex-gay” in the same way that most “ex-gays” use the term (wrongly, imo, not in the way that I’d think of someone being ex-gay–i.e., straight). They haven’t experienced a change in orientation, but reject their own gay identity and/or have stopped engaging in homosexual behaviour.
“Are there any ex gays who aren’t also anti gay?”
I believe so. But I don’t think they get much press.
As to the first, yes indeed. I’ve known some. I’ve mentioned that here many times. And they didn’t need a “ministry” to “change” them. They just did it. And after they “just did it,” they weren’t anti-gay.
As to why they don’t get much press, the probable fact is that they aren’t looking for much press. From what I have seen, many of the stories of this type that are published in newspapers are planted by people or groups who have axes to grind. (Sorry, Timothy, no link, merely observation and inference.) The ex-gays that I was referring to don’t have axes to grind. The pRR people, like PFOX, Focus, Stephen Bennett, and so forth obviously have axes to grind (money).
Timothy K., That’s a professional effort to respond to the claim but I tend to agree with James – it’s probably not worth it. I’ve read that blog a few times and Ben seems pretty conflicted and he writes about it. Where he gets in trouble (IMO) is when he criticizes others for stands on issues for which he admittedly doesn’t have his own firm grasp. Since he has an entire XGW sub-section over there, I’m guessing he has a bit of an obsession with us in that we are bound to be on the other side of his thinking at one point or another as he fluctuates.
Posted by: Timothy at December 28, 2005 02:17 PM
I’ve know one person in the Church who might technically be called “ex-gay” and was not violently anti-gay. To me, he was actually more celibate than anything else. He had no illusions of becoming affectionate with women; he just disassociated himself from all things sexual and didn’t identify as gay or ex-gay (for much the same reason as you mentioned).
I have found that, for many, the conflict between what one is and what one believes God will accept (with respect to being gay) is so visceral, that once one finally lands on this or that side, there is very little tolerance left for those on the opposite side. While I can understand this, it’s still very sad. I would also never want to minimize what such people go through before making their decision, but imposing that decision on others as a way of reinforcing ones own belief is not acceptable and there will be resistance.
David
“So Timothy, by calling them “ex-gays” are you indicating that they’ve experienced a change in orientation, or are you using the term “ex-gay” as a shorthand for those that reject their gay identity and/or don’t pursue gay behaviour?”
Ah, yes, I certainly wasn’t very clear, was I?
I meant that I know people who have rejected their sexual orientation and seek to no longer act on their sexuality and strive to change it to be heterosexual. I have full sympathy with these folks. I, personally, have doubts about their ability to become heterosexual but if they can reduce the confusion and stress in their life by celibacy, more power to them.
I guess that I called them ex-gay as a kind of shorthand and probably because they might describe themselves that way.
But I distinguish them from the political anti-gay activists that call themselves ex-gay ministries. I’ve yet to see one that I can clearly identify as not being politically involved in seeking to deny equality to gay people.
Timothy at December 28, 2005 04:43 PM
I meant that I know people who have rejected their sexual orientation and seek to no longer act on their sexuality and strive to change it to be heterosexual. I have full sympathy with these folks. I, personally, have doubts about their ability to become heterosexual but if they can reduce the confusion and stress in their life by celibacy, more power to them.
There was an aphorism to the effect that “they have made their beds, and now they should be permitted to sleep in them. In other words, they decided what they wanted to do for themselves, and one really cannot dissuate everyone from doing what he wants to do.
I understand your concern, but we (the amorphous “we”) can’t cure every problem. The only problem that I have with “ex-gays” is with those “ex-gays” who oppose equal rights for gay people. If someone doesn’t want to have homosex, it is no problem with me. But it does become a problem with me if he wants to deny me equal rights. And that would be the case whether or not he was ex-gay.
Raj said:
I understand your concern, but we (the amorphous “we”) can’t cure every problem. The only problem that I have with “ex-gays” is with those “ex-gays” who oppose equal rights for gay people. If someone doesn’t want to have homosex, it is no problem with me. But it does become a problem with me if he wants to deny me equal rights. And that would be the case whether or not he was ex-gay.
That’s pretty much the bottom line here. Once that rather reasonable line is passed, there is bound to be trouble somewhere.
David