Updated
An online religious webcam station, 24/7 WWJD, is hosting a free video stream of “It’s Not Gay,” a 28-minute video that has been sold for several years by the American Family Association for $15. The video stars now-disgraced exgay activist Michael Johnston, who in 2003 retired from exgay activism after he was discovered to have had recent orgies with gay men while neglecting to disclose his HIV-positive status to his liaisons. The video co-stars PFOX president and exgay counselor Richard Cohen, who in 2002 was expelled from the American Counseling Association for unethical conduct with some of his patients. The video does not acknowledge either scandal.
The message of the video: Nearly all homosexual men are promiscuous, diseased, unfaithful to their partners, and traitors against their parents. The video cites countless unsubstantiated statistics and unnamed “studies,” and interviews no actual homosexuals or mainstream experts.
WWJD finds some parts of “It’s Not Gay” too graphic for airing, so it talks over portions of the video — arguably prettifying the video’s dishonesty and vitriol against homosexual men.
If you’d prefer not to visit 24/7 WWJD directly, you can watch the video via Google Video. If you do visit the religious web site, consider writing a polite letter to the operators — and take care to document specific factual omissions and distortions in the video. Feel free to borrow from the responses that follow this post, or from elsewhere at XGW. Tell them who sent you. 🙂
The original wmv file (if you don’t like google video’s interface) is available from here: https://tinyurl.com/8ksk7 (24M)
I watch a fast forward version of this and watched some of the interviews…..can you say “deception by omission. The whole video focuses on gay males who have made poor choices in their lives. It uses debunked research om fidelity rates. This is a classic case of “deception by omission”. Don’t show any of the happy, stable gays who have made good choices and have good lives with commited relationships. Just focus on the bad ones. In turn they do the same for heterosexuals in this movie. They say the norm for homo’s is infidelity and the norm for hetero’s is fidelity, and the divorce rates in the country don’t agree with this statement.
Deception is lying.
I have always felt bad for Michael Johnston, but he comes off as such a dishonest “victim.” This video is very disturbing knowing Johnston’s history–I am supposing this was prior to his scandal.
Some of his victimization as I heard from him:
Friends with straight porn led him to homosexuality because he was exposed to sex as a preteen. Did the other kids become gay?
Somehow Michael was led to a gay bar without knowing what a gay bar (or gay person really) is like. He seems to suggest that he was straight until the bar and then he was gay? He calls the other guy an agressor.
Did I get this wrong? It is all about others doing it to him. I wonder how he assigns blame about what he did later in his scandal.
The video seems totally foreign to me. When I came out at 21, I knew all along that I was gay. I never had any experiences prior to that, yet it was clear from early on that I was gay. I developed close relationships with women (and was engaged twice), but I knew I was a liar at that point. It was clear who I was attracted to, so I talked to my church about excommunication before I had any sex with others of my gender. At that point, I went to my first gay bar. No one ever sexually aggressed me. I have been in a relationship for thirteen years–again, the video does not present anything in my life.
I don’t know if there are exgays or not, and I will take people on their words, but Johnston comes off as claiming everything was forced on him. He is the victim. If sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful, then logically Johnston should have probably accepted what he has done–you can’t repent by blaming others.
I watched this a couple years back, and one guy was talking about a gay man who lost his colon due to his sexual activities, and I thought, “They should have a new line: DON’T BET YOUR ASS–AVOID GAY SEX!”
But that would require humor, style, creativity, and other things they’re in desperately short supply of over at the AFA.
The question I have is why is Google News running this for free? What is their policy on this? Have they ever run any pro-gay videos for free?
Tha is a great point and we should contact google and ask that question.
The colon thing was the funniest part–First of all, they said it was HPV, but I have never heard of such a case. I suspect there was something more if the story was true.
My mom worked with a doctor in gastroenterology who said that rumors and stories about gays and colons were complete urban legends.
James said:
The question I have is why is Google News running this for free? What is their policy on this? Have they ever run any pro-gay videos for free?
It’s the new Google Video (video.google.com). They run pretty much whatever you submit with the usual caveats I think. I believe they would run a pro-gay video if someone submitted it. It might just be that these “ministries” caught on to uses for the free bandwidth first.
David
Wow, what a mess. I have to agree with Aaron, Michael Johnston (at least when this was made) has not come to grips with anything. He is looking back on a sad, empty, dangerous life but it’s not the gay that did that – it was just him. To blame it on straight porn carried on the bus by 6th graders, well that is just sad. Did someone on there actually say they “became gay” because they were the cool crowd to hang with???
I don’t know about anyone else here, but I knew very strongly that I was gay just prior to and certainly during puberty. I could say I had other inklings that I was different before that, but nothing sexual. I have never in my life had the slightest sexual attraction to a women – never. The only risky behavior I indulged in early on was prompted by the “back alley” nature of homosexuality at the time – and even then it was not someone else’s fault, I certainly could have abstained. In fact I did abstain from a lot of things that would have been unhealthy.
If someone wants to argue against risky lifestyles, that’s well and good. But they will need to talk to some of the straight guys I know who bop a different girl every other night. There is just so much wrong with this movie that there is no sense continuing. It is terribly dishonest at best.
David
The question I have is why is Google News running this for free?
I have never understood Google’s business model. I’ve read about it but it didn’t make much sense. I suspect that Google gets paid (by someone) whenever somebody downloads the video. Maybe there are accompanying advertising links and Google gets paid when the viewer–in a moment of indiscretion–clicks onto them.
Um, Michael Johnston? Wasn’t he the one who was trotted out by Jerry Falwell, in his meeting with Mel White, and who was later identified as being involved in duplicitous unprotected homosex? I’m sorry, but I won’t be paying him any attention. He made his bed, let him sleep in it. The unfortunate fact, though, is that he appears to have made the beds of a few people for them–people that he might have infected.
Google Video is a free video hosting service by Google. Anyone can upload video – search for “drunk college” and you’ll get a lot of humorous results. Google’s policy regarding appropriate content is pretty loose – no porn, no hate / incitement of violence, no copyright infringement.
It would be awesome if they uploaded “Fish can’t fly” as a free download. Maybe they could put it in the Google Video Store?
Re: “Maybe there are accompanying advertising links and Google gets paid when the viewer–in a moment of indiscretion–clicks onto them.”
That is exactly Google’s business model. And they are one of the few internet companies that make tidy profit. After all, there’s no inventory, and everyone else provides content to them. They don’t even have to pay for that.
They also make a good sum off of Google Ads that other websites carry on their sidebars, like Ex-Gay Watch for example.
Aaron at January 9, 2006 10:30 PM
“My mom worked with a doctor in gastroenterology who said that rumors and stories about gays and colons were complete urban legends.”
There does appear to be an increased risk of colon cancer among gay men. It appears to be linked with HPV and to some extent with HIV.
https://lgbthealth.net/awarenessweek04/factsheets/cancer.html
However, the number of gay men with colon cancer (about .0035%) isn’t significant. The issue is blown completely out of proportion by anti-gay activists. We discussed this, and a new vaccine for HPV, at
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/10/one_weapon_remo.html
There’s an increased risk of cervical cancer for women from HPV, smoking and sex with uncircumcised men.
No matter how much they try to take the joy out of gay male sex…
Or out of lesbian sex based on risk of breast cancer (which is really about ovaries that don’t rest due to pregnancy, and nonstop production of ovulation hormone, NOT being a lesbian.)
So the cautions regarding breast cancer and lesbianism, is really about women who never get pregnant.
Gay or not.
So the more they try to take the joy out of SEX for gay people…
Straight folks haven’t got it so easy either.
I wish they would just STOP with the excruciatingly BAD science as if there is some exclusivity to certain health problems because of homosexuality.
Lifestyle health problems are the same for everyone, gay or not.
Are they still trying to sell that masturbation will make you go blind and to hell too?
Wow!
This video is ridiculous! I like the norm of homosexual relationships is non-fidelity and heterosexuals is fidelity, really! Straight people never cheat! What about of garbage. Not to mention, I am gay and have not slept with 100s of men! Yuck!
Ryan
Aaron: I don’t know if there are exgays or not, and I will take people on their words, but Johnston comes off as claiming everything was forced on him.
The ex-gay movement seems to reward many lonely, insecure people with close friendship and a certain amount of social status. It is inevitable that it will also attract various con men and hustlers. Where does someone like Michael Johnston fit in? Who knows.
There is nothing unusual about finding hypocrites in the Church but that doesn’t invalidate the Christian message. This site focuses on the hypocrites and bigots associated with the ex-gay movement – which is fine because that’s what the site owners set out to do. That doesn’t mean all ex-gays, former homosexuals or whatever you want to call them are deceiving themselves or others.
Jim Burroway at January 10, 2006 11:20 AM
I know what google’s business model purports to be. It reminds me of the business model of antique dealers from the early 1980s: the bigger fool theory. I won’t go into detail, but it didn’t work then. I wonder how long it will work now.
My mom worked with a doctor in gastroenterology who said that rumors and stories about gays and colons were complete urban legends.
I suspected as much. 🙂
I think when Katie Couric did a show about colon cancer (her husband died from the disease at age 42) that statistic was true for MEN period.
If gay men make up a certain percentage, so do BLACK men as well.
Who, by their numbers seem to suffer disproportionately worse from this cancer as well.
I don’t know how off topic this is but:
As a reference for my stage play, I’m studying the treatise by Anders Walker (www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles.htm)
“Legislating Virtue: How Segregationists Disguised Racial Discrimination as Moral Reform Following Brown v. Brd. of Education”
There is a chapter on shifting the grounds of racial discrimination from COLOR to CHARACTER.
By examining illegitimate birth and marriage rate indicia-these statistics were used to deny blacks public accomodation and integration with whites and equal standards for voting and marriage.
These stats, were indicators that blacks were too sexually irresponsible and promiscuous to be accorded equal rights.
Segregationists literally made proving you were of good moral standing a requisite for marriage.
Although, common law relationships were recognized among whites.
Much funding and promotion went into finding these studies and results (provided by hospitals, also segregated) SOLELY to provide scientific proof that blacks were the justification for, not victims of this engineering.
So it was the BEHAVIORS of blacks, not their color that was promoted as incompatible with moral standards of normal civility.
Any black clergy and their congregants that are participating in anti gay rhetoric and support of unequal treatment based on what they consider immoral sexuality-which is after all EXCLUSIVE to gay people only…
Should be utterly ashamed of themselves, daring to whip their gay brethren with what flayed THEM not so long ago…
Regan, thanks for informing me that illegitimate birth and marriage statistics were used to deny people marriage and other rights. I have often asked anti-gay people if seeing as they support denying gays the right to marry because of supposed promiscuity would they also favour denying marriage rights to whichever racial groups can be statistically shown to be less faithful to marriage. No one answers that question and now I have a better idea why.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse at January 10, 2006 05:48 PM
Thank you Regan, that is fascinating! I have often thought of doing a study of the supposedly “rational” arguments that were used to justify racial discrimination in the US. Not the rabid KKK stuff, but the people who actually tried to make an educated argument for it. I guess it is my disbelief that otherwise decent people could have held such positions that drives me to know more about it. If you know of any good sources for more of this type of information, please share.
This certainly does shed some light on the current gay/ex-gay situation.
David
Andrew said:
It would be awesome if they uploaded “Fish can’t fly” as a free download. Maybe they could put it in the Google Video Store?
Excellent idea. I wonder if the producers of “Fish Can’t Fly” would do that?
David
Fish can’t fly? I don’t know where this comment came from, but it is relatively well known that members of some fish species can fly.
Flying Fish:
https://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/biodiversity/flyingfish/flyingfish.html
raj at January 11, 2006 02:28 PM
“Fish Can’t Fly” is the name of a documentary that was prepared to rebut some of the claims made by ex-gay ministries. This is not only evident from the context of this discussion thread but has been discussed at this site before:
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/07/review_of_fish.html
Hi, I’m the ministry directory of 247, of which this blog article was about. I read the comments,,, interesting. I’d like to do more shows on the topic… from both sides (Christian and non-Christian view of hmosexuality).
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Bernie,
I have no idea what you mean by “Christian and non-Christian view of homosexuality”.
Considering that there are a significant number of Christian churches that do not condemn monogamous committed same-sex relationships, it would seem to me that the breakdown is not by Christian v. non-Christian but by anti-gay v. gay-accepting.
Mike Airhart wrote:
“WWJD finds some parts of “It’s Not Gay” too graphic for airing, so it talks over portions of the video — arguably prettifying the video’s dishonesty and vitriol against homosexual men.”
I talked over a portion of it that was too graphic. They went into too much detail about sexual intercourse by gay men… for the purpose of explaining that it was unsanitary and physically harmful. It definitely would not be appropriate for kids to watch on TV, and this was shown on TV (Portland Oregon area) before it was made into a webcast.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
Timothy said:
“I have no idea what you mean by “Christian and non-Christian view of homosexuality”.
I think the majority, at least traditional, Christian groups do not accept homosexuality. It seems to me that those who do are part of a modern phenomena (less than 50 years). Yes, some Christian denominations do accept homosexuality in it’s entirety, but don’t you think that’s the exception rather than the rule? In modern times, the issue of homosexuality is splitting churches and denominations. I think the fur is flying, and we have yet to see how the dust will settle.
…Bernie
https://fgn.typepad.com/
That movie is SO not representative of gay people on so many levels.
Where do they get off saying that if a child is told over and over again that they are gay then they will become gay? I don’t know any gay people that had it hammered into them that they are gay – if anything most of us have been told over and over again that we’re not really gay, we’re just confused and we’ll get over it.
And go to any bar, gay or straight, at 2am and see sad icky men sitting at the bar because they haven’t pulled a shag for the night. And to point out that younger male sex partners are favoured over older ones – how ridiculous! Of course they are! We’re in a culture that worships youth – you don’t see many older women out there getting propositioned by straight guys either because they usually are looking for younger women.
The story about the warts is total overkill – I’m a peri-op nurse and have seen lots of wart cases coming in for removal both gay and straight and it never eats someones butt off like that. Most likely he got secondary infection from the treatment for the initial warts and it went from there.
And where’s any of the talk about lesbian couples? I’ve been with my partner for over 3 years and I can tell you that we’re not out having anonymous sex in bars. Why do they only discuss the promiscuous section of the male community? I would be very interested to see the behaviour of young straight men if offered unlimited no-strings female sex partners. I can just about guarantee that their behaviour would mimic the behaviour of the more promiscuous young gay men.
I agree with the commentator that the “star” of the movie is just trying to shift the blame for his own behaviour. If he had started seeing women only as potential sex partners then why did he not have sex with women? And if he now sees the errors of his ways then why’s he out bare-backing when he’s positive? Talk about someone so in denial and caught up in his own victim story that then he refuses to take any physical responsibility for his sexuality.
I have always found during my time working in nursing that it’s the people who cannot admit to themselves what they are doing and thus take responsibility for their actions, are the ones who end up in the most trouble. It’s the Catholic girls who refuse to address the issue of birth control that end up with unwanted and unintended pregnancies. It’s the men who identify as straight who end up coming in to have their wifes vibrator/deodorant bottle/candle/carrot medically removed from their rectum because their own fear that any anal sex may indicate that they may be gay (unfounded – men can enjoy anal penetration and be 100% straight) that means they don’t research the fact that you should only used appropriate items with a flared base or handle for anal penetration. And it’s the poor women who assume that because they’re married their husband is being faithful that come in with their fallopian tubes glued shut by chlamydia, rendering them infertile.
That they use crap like this film as some sort of evidence of a “lifestyle” is very sad. They are probably closing down any sort of communication and honesty between couples and families – imagine being the daughter of that couple who think that just inviting their child for holidays should be enough! Probably every time s/he’s gone around to visit they try to manipulate and intimidate their child. But I’m sure they do it with “love” in their hearts.