Ex-Gay Watch this morning received a letter from Mathew D. Staver of the Liberty Counsel, a religious-right legal assault team based at Jerry Falwell’s fundamentalist Liberty University.
The letter warns web sites to remove this parody by Justinsomnia of this original Exodus photo.
Update: The creator of the parody has also received a cease-and-desist letter.
Update 2: Jason Griffey has created a parody of the parody — this time with the logo airbrushed out. Jason encourages others to create their own parodies. Would that be Exodus’ worst nightmare — or the sort of publicity that Exodus actually wants?
Note: XGW opposes any violation of copyright or trademark law.
You’d think Falwell would have learned his lesson after the Larry Flynt debacle.
I don’t see any logos or anything else that’s copyrighted. No slogans nor mottos either. They don’t seem to have much of a case there.
I’d love to see the C&D letter, care to post it?
Yes, can we see the letter? Do they give any legal grounds for asking for it to be removed? Once we have a case from the lawyers only then can we discuss whether it’s valid.
The Exodus logo appears faintly in the bottom left of the billboard photo.
Liberty Counsel’s e-mail contains the usual boilerplate disclaimer calling the contents “confidential” and warning against redistribution.
I’ll quote the key language:
Publication of the image on your web site also infringes on the intellectual property rights of Exodus. Mr. Watt of justinsomnia.org cites the “Wikipedia” free dictionary to support his mistaken belief that the stolen image is exempt from federal intellectual property laws as a “parody” due to “fair use.”
Unfortunately, the intricacies of federal law cannot adequately be covered on “Wikipedia” due to the variety of facts addressed by courts in numerous cases. Your publication of the image is indeed a violation of copyright law and is not covered by “fair use.” Nearly the entire image file from the Exodus web site was is used on your web site with only two changes. The word changed “Gay” to “Straight?” and “www.exodus.to” to “www.gay.com.” Furthermore, the altered image substantially diminishes the potential value of the original image as utilized by Exodus on billboards across America and online. Moreover, your infringing activity creates the false impression that Exodus is sponsoring or endorsing the altered billboard, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, as it contains the “E” logo mark that belongs to Exodus. You have not been licensed or authorized to use either the image or the logo belonging to Exodus.
The letter is signed by Mathew D. Staver, Esq., of Liberty Counsel, which is based in Orlando [correction] and has offices at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virginia.
Parody is one of the strongholds of free speech in this country. It’s why Saturday Night Live can do a Parody of Fox News, for example, and use their actual logo.
This is a bully tactic, and even they know it won’t stand up on legal grounds anywhere.
Now I see the logo. However, since the billboard is displayed in a public place, and since this is parody, I would still question whether Staver has any legitimate claim. However, I’m not a lawyer.
Clearly, there must not be much to do around Liberty Counsel’s offices these days……
They have no case & they know it. Satire, first amendment and all. Besides, let them drag you into court where everyone on Court TV can view the billboard (both) and learn the truth about Exodus.
Donations to the nonexistent XLDF (Ex-Gay Watch Legal Defense Fund) would be most appreciated.
LOL…..!!!
I love this parody!
After all…the Exodus billboards are unintentionally laughable in their own right.
If I was caught laughing at one of their ads, what would they do, have me cited?
At least if their billboards get damaged or they are made fun of, nobody dies or suffers from emotional abuse.
But their messages and political action has caused suffering.
They are lucky having a laugh at their expense is all they have to deal with.
Just shows how morally mature ex gays actually are, let alone ethics savvy.
Perhaps the XLDF should form. Organizations in Exodus’ position are in a terrible “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conflict. What is the “potential value of the original image” here? A billboard with dictionary words? Is there a brand here? Are they charging for this image?
And who would stand to benefit most from a legal action? I think it would be ex-gay watch, because while both sides in this dispute claim they want the truth to out, we consistently hear from ex-ex-gays that they never knew that longterm relationships were possible; they believed the lie that “the gay lifestyle” is anonymous sex in back alleys or the down-low of Brokeback Mountain.
Its pretty obvious they don’t like the attention they’re getting; countering it with the threat to fix even more attention on it, adding the qualified privilege they will afford when the disputed image is filed as evidence (probably getting you a place at thesmokinggun), seems a pretty dumb move.
But then I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on the Internet and a lawsuit is never fun, even if you feel confident you’ll prevail.
A hard fought attempt in Utah to ban GSA’s expired on the floor at the close of our legislative session at last night.
You simply MUST hear the audio of this AMAZING debate on the floor of the Utah State Senate
Oops. Good news is, you can be certain that members of Exodus International are reading Ex-Gay Watch daily.
My parody has been up since September 2005 and it didn’t hit their radar until now 🙂 Have you thought about tracking their IP addresses to see how frequently they visit the site? How funny would that be? Or perhaps blocking the IP address(es) of Liberty Counsel? The IP address I got the C&D from was 198.66.32.172.
p.s. I’ve contacted the EFF and ALCU. I’ll be posting updates to my blog here: My first cease-and-desist-letter.
I find this typical of the ex-gay movement.
They know full well that no one is going to think “that Exodus is sponsoring or endorsing the altered billboard”. They know that this is parady. They know that they have no case.
And yet they send this letter.
They’ve completely forgotten that Christians are held to tell the truth, regardless of legal posturing. But they hold the truth in such low regard that they feel no hesitation to send this letter with it’s untruthful bluffing threats.
Sadly enough, it will probably work. We’ll all back down because the unfortunate fact is that we don’t have the resources to withstand a legal assault by these well funded bullies.
Isn’t it ironic…
PFOX goes to schools and fights against anti-bullying efforts.
Exodus has the well funded Liberty Counsel threaten to sue us with what they know is a bogus claim knowing that we don’t have the funds to fight them in court.
I guess bullies look out for each other.
Make sure you report this to https://www.chillingeffects.org. They track bullshit like this.
Liberty Counsel is headquartered in Orlando, Fla. That’s why the contact info is for Orlando. And I’m pretty sure they may have a case when it comes to the logo even if the whole thing is meant to be a parody. And the fact that Falwell lost against Flynn is a separate issue that has nothing to do with this situation. He lost that case because he is a public figure and couldn’t prove actual malice.
They don’t have a trademark on the “E” logo (I looked it up), and in any case trademarks don’t cover partial, stylized, barely visible, blended into the background portions of logo, and even if they did it’s still fair use. More here.
Julia
Since you describe yourself as “a fiesty conservative” and express your admiration for Phyllis Schlafly on your website, you might understand when I take your comments on whether or not Exodus has a case with some caution (I didn’t review much but that was easily seen).
You may be well qualified to comment on whether a logo can be part of a parody or you may just be putting your two cents worth. However, (though it’s probably not fair of me) I suspect that it’s just a bit of “my side is always right” and can be written off as either wishful thinking or as an attempt to bolster the credibility of the bullies.
I’m sorry if I’m attributing false motives to you and please don’t let my comment stop you from contributing. But feisy conservatives have a very solid history of lying through their teeth when it comes to gay issues. So naturally I’m a little suspicious.
Mike, Don’t let those fools intimidate or supress your right to create parodies of them. If Larry Flynt can beat them, so can you!
Thats funny I think I should have done something over them keeping my picture on their Web site even though I am still “gay,” their ex-gay conversion therapy doesn’t work.
OK, — and all the usual “I’m not a qualified and permissable person to provide legal advice on matters of United States copyright law” applies.this is clearly a parody, produced for no other purpose than comment and criticsm of Exodus’ public claims. The entire image may be used if comment and criticism requires it, particularly if there is no issue with direct commercial gain (or loss, see below).the image itself is largely a street scene incidental to the actual billboard. That cannot be copyright per se (as anyone could stroll up and take exactly the same photo). Exceptions to this involve artistic works or news reports etc that have a creative or commercial purpose. The copyright work is the billboard itself, and of that only part is arguably copyright (the logo) in a parody.
the amount used is relevant only regards the outcome for the original creator. The provisions around how much may reproduced is intended to protect an artist who may find part of an original work distorted or inserted into another work by another artist, or an author who would otherwise find an entire work published. Part use of an image in a montage, or use of direct text for quotes is protected — but you cannot re-do Warhol’s “Marilyn” in a different colour and try to sell it (particularly as a Warhol, but that would be criminal fraud not copyright infringement).Use of a copyright logo is more problematic. It is permitted if the parody does not cause others to think that the owner of the logo has authorised the use, or does not cause economic loss etc. This is intended to protect a company product from fraudulent misuse (i.e. a cola Co. branding themself in a way that could cause a consumer to think they were purchasing Pepsi or Coca Cola when they are in fact not) or to protect the commercial interests of the logo owner for their own advertising purposes etc. The Exodus logo, in this case and in the web image form, is barely discernable — it looks more like a smudge — and in any case could be easily photoshopped out.the effect is to bring Exodus to ridicule, but copyright does not protect Exodus from that. Exodus suffers no economic loss from the mere reproduction itself, and arguably the publicity from the parody may actually commercially benefit them.My own suggestion is to further smudge/replace the logo until it is completely undiscernable, to end any arguament about that, and await further demands by Exodus itself.And on that important point… (and I haven’t read the one to XGW, but I imagine it reads the same).Very significantly, Staver’s letter to justinsomnia does not claim to have been instructed by Exodus on this occassion. That letter reads that they appear to be making the demand at their own initiative.
As such, the C&D may be ignored.Exodus must initiate any copyright infringement action, not Liberty Counsel. Unless you are clearly told by Exodus itself to C&D — via Liberty Counsel if Exodus chose to — any further action is not possible. Liberty Counsel has no standing in the matter.Or do they??? It may be quite fascinating to uncover who is actually behind the billboards.So… why not ask Exodus if they have instructed Liberty Counsel on this matter.
Again, a sterling example that christian attorney is an oxymoron.
thin-skinned, jackbooted fascists!
I suspect that their suggestions of potential loss of value goes to what they would consider the misappropriation of the image itself; i.e. their ownership of the picture of the street scene that includes the billboard.
If the billboard is still up, another photographer could photograph the same scene which could be then be altered in the same manner.
I wonder if they would be equally concerned that the photograph might have its value dimished by its republication in an unaltered state?
What was the point of putting up the billboard and putting it on their website in the first place? Wasn’t it free promulgation of the ideas and concepts behind it?
It seems to me like they just want the attention of the media over this to resonate around the world. I’d say they are looking for news coverage where they can position themselves as good little christian soldiers who have been hard done by, and attempt to re-ignite debate on an issue over which they have poor leverage.
OK — but it’s not worth spending more than 3 minutes on it. (so no rude comments about rough photo editing etc!)“C&D? Yeah, Exodus should Cease & Desist with the Fraud!”
Timothy – time to sort some socks 🙂
Sharon B. said:
Again, a sterling example that christian attorney is an oxymoron. thin-skinned, jackbooted fascists!
Perspective Sharon! These C&D’s get thrown around all the time. I would never suggest ignoring one because even when in the right, that can snowball into unnecessary problems but let’s not become thugs ourselves. My unqualified guess (and that’s all it is) is that the only issue here that has any potential merit is the reproduction of their logo. Also, it is my understanding (through personal experience) that one does not need to register a logo to possess copyright, it simply makes it much easier to prove. The first to actually use such a mark in a meaningful way (for a business it normally needs to be associated with interstate commerce) will usually be awarded copyright in a fight. But if that party has already registered the mark, the court will assume they own it first and it will have to be proven otherwise. It’s also worth noting that one can lose such a fight even if they had registered the mark, which is why research for prior use is so important before registering.
Anyway, the logo is not relevant to the parody so, if it were me, I would certainly just remove it to make this less of an uphill battle. My gut tells me that, as some others have said, this is simply a way to get Exodus in the news in a sympathetic light. It follows their pattern of late. If that is the case, the most effective response might well be to simply remove it and keep the publicity down to a minimum.
I have a vague memory of Exodus or PFOX doing a similar parody of Gay.com once. Does anyone remember that?
David
“My gut tells me that, as some others have said, this is simply a way to get Exodus in the news in a sympathetic light. It follows their pattern of late.”
My prediction: Look for an AgapePress article titled
PRO-FAMILY MINISTER SAYS HOMOSEXUALS SHOW CONTEMPT FOR RULE OF LAW
It will list the many ways in which homosexual activist break the law and include paint on FOTF billboards, eggs on some church, and (their only example that can be tied to “homosexual activists”) theft of copyrighted materials. Obviously these horrible people wish to destroy all the rules of society that have allowed us to survive. Blah blah blah about homosexuals wanting to tear down civilization – it’s all in their Agenda etc etc.
I’ve already sorted my socks. I have those that I wear with my jackboots, and that I don’t.
Dumb question, probably, but since XGW didn’t publish the parody, isn’t it the responsibility of the person who actually published the link? XGW publishes links to right-wingnut websites all the time, and they haven’t complained, probably due to the fact that they publish links to XGW all the time.
It’s probably time to call their bluff.
We did publish a copy of the parody here with Justin’s permission / encouragement.
I took it down this morning temporarily while we talk to some experts. I plan to put the parody back up ASAP. I’ll put a note in the original post, in the meantime.
First of all take Liberty Counsel to task and nail them to the proverbial wall with the ammunition you need from the ACLU, Lambda Legal, etc!! These inquisitional religious crusading fascists need to have their butts kicked big time. Obviously their made because you have been trampeling on their money making machine.
I hope that as many gays and lesbians as possible copy that parody and place it on their websites. I know I will. Flood the internet with this parody and tell Liberty University, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson that they can start focusing on something more important like following Christ as opposed to being pharisaical pseudo Christians. Unfortunately they are among the worsed examples of how religious power can corrupt people that there are out there. It is organizations like Soulforce, Evangelicals Concerned (a gay affirming Christian organization) and blogs like Ex-Gay Watch that unmask these fanatical religious bigots.
Oh and don’t forget to tell Wayne Besen to post a note about this situation as well. He has a lot of experience with these fundamentalists and has done a fantastic job exposing their lunacy.
Well I decided to post it just for fun.
https://realitycubed.blogspot.com/2006/03/hey-exodus.html
People. Don’t come so unhinged! This is about as futile as trying to keep others from feeding trolls. At best this is probably a play for sympathetic news by Exodus that they can then spread through Agape Press (see Timothy’s post above). Reacting like a bunch of wild cats on pcp is giving them just what they want.
No one is going to “nail anyone else to the wall” on this. Anyone can send a C&D to anyone else. Let them find out from a real attorney if they broke any laws and, if so, how to prevent that in the future. In the mean time, may I suggest you get an Rx for something like this.
David
Tim,
Thank you for your comments. I have no problem with your decision to assume I lack credibility because I am conservative. It’s unfair and highly illustrative of the narrowmindedness that happens with clashing worldviews from my side as well as yours. I personally choose to take everyone’s words with a grain of salt and assume that most people posting comments are giving opinions not expertise.
My assumption regarding the use of the Exodus logo was based on my limited knowledge of such law. I am not an attorney, although many have suggested I become one. I was not asserting that I am right, only that I thought it is possible that Liberty Counsel has a case. It is unwise of them to waste financial resources by assembling legal teams, mailing C&D and taking people to court if they know that they have no case. I doubt they’d bother. This is my assumption based on my professional dealings with the Liberty Counsel.
Many on this site have attacked the Liberty Counsel as a bully. What logical basis is there for that idea? The Liberty Counsel is merely a conservative group who uses legal means to seek to protect their interests. The ACLU does the exact same thing on the other side and no one is calling them a bully here. If one is a bully, then all legal groups who have ideological motivation are bullies. I don’t agree with that. I disagree with the ACLU on virtually everything because of my views, all of which I can make an articulate, reasoned and well-researched case for. But that does not make them a bully.
Last question Tim, what “solid history of lying through our teeth about gay issues” are you referring to? Have you considered that my side isn’t lying, but holding an opinion that you think is patently false and so to you it sounds like a lie?
My only other question (and this is for everyone on the board) is why some people care so much about some gays deciding they don’t want to be that way and going to Exodus for help? Why can’t this be a live and let live scenario?
Is this a DMCA complaint?
Julie, seriously, you said
Sounds like a great idea. So why do the people you support — Liberty Counsel et al –advocate criminal laws against gay men and women? You can do your own researching, so go find a list of who put briefs into Lawrence v Texas. Are anti-gay laws “live and let live”?If you care to take any time around ExGayWatch you will notice time and time again that it is (generally) agreed that anyone is entitled to do whatever they wish with their life. And that includes people who want to try and remake themself as heterosexual, regardless.But why do they wish to do that? It is because of anti-gay attitudes. And why do they think they can do that? It is because of the fraudulent claims made by groups such as Exodus.It is that fraud we largely discuss here. The lie that gay men and women are a menace to society, a danger to children, promiscuous, mentally ill, etc etc. And that we could chose to be heterosexual if we weren’t so selfish and perverse. While all those may be your firmly held opinions, I don’t know, they are also lies. None of us here need to be told what it is like to be gay. We are also fully aware that some people hate us, and some seek to harm us.So, I’ll put the question back to you — why is it that some people care so much about slandering and harming gay men and women? Including Liberty Counsel.
Posted by: grantdale at March 2, 2006 06:07 PM
Grantdale, you guys are ****in’ geniuses, I am truly humbled.
Posted by: Julia at March 3, 2006 10:23 AM
Julia, you ask Timothy what history conservatives have of lying through their teeth – you are incredibly out of touch, for God’s sake read through some of the archives of exgaywatch and you’ll find lie after lie by religious conservatives. For starters, how about conservatives using studies on people being treated for AIDs and telling people the behavior typical of that group of promiscuous people is typical of gays in general, in one case conservatives took STD infection rates from gays visiting an STD clinic and said “in some populations of gays disease rates run as high as 80%. What would one expect to find at an STD clinic??!!? Why would someone even go there UNLESS THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD AN STD??!! It would have been just as valid to look at an 80% disease rates amongst the clinic’s heterosexual patients and say “some populations of heterosexuals have disease rates as high as 80%.
How about the constant lying when religious conservatives at Exodus say “complete change is possible” and encourage the belief they mean its possible to completely change same sex into opposite sex attractions when they really mean its possible to stop having same sex sex.
Frankly I don’t much care if any individual chooses knowingly to repress their same sex attractions to their own detriment but that’s not good enough for people like you, you conservatives want to use “exgays” to pressure all gays to disappear – you don’t live and let live, you try to prevent all GLBTs from marrying when it has no direct affect you you whatsoever, you conservativesencourage people to believe the lie that people can simply choose to be attracted to the opposite sex instead of what they feel in the core of their being. Don’t let your ego get so overblown, I pretend to have a lawyer’s knowledge at times too and that doesn’t make you a genius (like grantdale).
Posted by: Anonymous at March 3, 2006 11:49 AM
Ooops, that above post was by Randi Schimnosky
My only other question (and this is for everyone on the board) is why some people care so much about some gays deciding they don’t want to be that way and going to Exodus for help? Why can’t this be a live and let live scenario?
How does support for sodomy laws and opposition to same sex marriage and anti discrimination laws fit into a live and let live scenario?
A lot of people object to Exodus for its inflated claims that reparative therapy changes orientation and that it holds up as role models married ex-gays, when it must know by internal experience that said married ex-gays still have gay orientation and cheat on their spouses (or simply don’t give spouses the love they deserve). The British ex-gay group Courage at least states that change in orientation is unlikely and that their goal is to help those who wish to be celibate, a more honest way to reconcile with a particular theological interpretation of same-sex sex acts.
Julia,
Thank you for responding. I hope I wasn’t too offensive in explaining why I has hesitant about your position.
If you were to read much here you would know that I too would call myself a “conservative”. However I make the distinction between economic and social conservative. While I support economic policies and issues of foreign relations and security that place long-term planning a higher priority than wealth distribution (a true conservative) I don’t have much use for the school of thought that says that some people due to their religous beliefs get to tell other people how to live (a social conservative).
Your latest post make three incorrect assumptions:
First, you assume that we all suppose that the ACLU is not a bully. I share with you the belief that they too use bullying tactics. And I don’t like it when they do, whether or not I agree with the underlying principle they are arguing. The ACLU has a long history of trying to establish policy by finding someone who can’t afford to counter their position and suing. It isn’t pretty.
Yet two wrongs don’t make a right. And “they did it first” is the retort of the childish. Liberty Counsel purports to be Christian and thus they are supposed to behave with a higher lever of integrity. But they do not.
Second, you assume that when I refer to lying that I mean that “your side” is telling things I don’t want to hear. That isn’t what I object to. What I mean by lying, Julia, is saying thing that are false, stating facts that are not true. These are not gray areas, Julia. They are not unintentional. If you look through our site, you will see that the primary focus of this site is to document such lies. We are less of an ideological site and more of a monitor. Let me give you three lies off the top of my head that we’ve dealt with recently:
1. “All gay people were either molested or have a distant relationship with their parents.” This is simply untrue and has nothing to support it yet Focus on the Family’s Melissa Fryrear makes the claim regularly.
2. “There is no such thing as a monogamous long-term same-sex relationship.” We have demonstrated this to be false over and over and yet Exodus’ Alan Chambers makes this claim regularly.
3. “Gay men die on average at age 42.” This has been proven to be an impossible statistic based on bizarre methodology and everyone in the ex-gay movement knows it to be laughably false. Yet Love In Action’s John Smid was telling a parent as recent as last fall that his son would be dead or have AIDS by 30.
Our objection is not to your belief stucture. We can debate morality or Scripture until the cows come home. What we object to, Julia, is that your side are liars (which some would say disqualifies them to talk about morality).
We object to bizarre claims made about our lives and about the effectiveness of ex-gay ministries, and about how those claims are used to try to effect public policy. Only a fool or a zealot would try to base public policy on lies. Why does “your side” try to do so?
Third, you seem to think that we oppose ex-gays. That is not the case. Those individuals who wish to pursue that effort are certainly welcome to do so.
Unfortunately, however, few ex-gay ministries simply serve those who wish to try to reorient. Most seek an anti-gay political agenda or make use of deceit.
The jury is still out on whether some gay people can change their sexual orientation from attraction to the same sex to attraction to the opposite sex. It’s clear that most cannot, regardless of the effort, but perhaps some can. There are still others who recognize that they cannot change their orientation but wish to live as though they were attracted to the opposite sex. That’s their life and they are welcome to it.
But that’s individuals. Most of the ex-gay groups use tactics that have resulted in severely negative consequences in many of their participants. And Exodus, PFOX, and Focus on the Family are all participate in an extremely anti-gay political agenda.
So I would have no idea where to recommend someone who really wanted to try to change their orientation.
You speak of “live and let live”. If you really want to live and let live, Julia, you will disavow the anti-gay activism that permiates “your side”.
Admit it, Julia, gay people are not trying to harm straight people in any way, we all have straight people we love. The vast majority of gay people are not trying Christians in any way, many of us are Christians. But the same can’t be said for “your side”.
In the past year, “your side” has advocated criminalizing sex between couples in a committed long-term monogamous relationships, forbidding gay people from adopting their neices or nephews if something were to happen to their sister, forbidding gay couples to share health insurance even if they pay for it, and the list goes on and on.
And the great irony is that if gay people say “treat me they way you treat yourself”, this is considered to be an attack on Christians (as though Christ didn’t command it) or family or whatever. This isn’t the attitude of live and let live.
We support “live and let live”. Your side does not.
So, Julia, I hope that you do consider “live and let live”. I support that position and would love to have you as an ally for that cause.
typo: that should read “The vast majority of gays are not trying to hurt Christians….”
Julia, the “what “solid history of lying through our teeth about gay issues” are you referring to? ” question either shows your ignorance (i use this in the sense that we are all ignorant on some topic or other) or purposeful obtuseness. Lets hope it’s the former.
The lies are innumerable and one need only to go to any web site of organizations like cwfa, frc, fof, afa and others: just a few.
1. average life span of gays and lesbians, or gays alone, is forty some years old, only 2% make it to 65.
2. a foster child is 11 times more likely to be abused by a homosexual.
3. gay men abuse children at 40 times the rate that straight men do.
4. 70% of all homosexuals regularly ingest feces.
and the list of hateful lies goes on and an. These are not honest ‘opinions’ but are outright falsehoods.
And you wonder why people like us don’t trust a conservative stranger who admires Schafly (who herself has spread some of these lies) to tell the truth?
Julia,
Per your “Live and let live” comment. I agree with what others have said about it, but wanted to add that there is a legitimate reason not to “live and let live” when someone is providing false and potentially dangerous information. I fully support the right of a gay person who wishs to undergo “reparative therapy” if that’s what they choose (may I assume you’d be equally supportive of the rights of a straight person who wished to undergo “therapy” to become gay?). I do however believe that person as the right to know the facts before making such a decision. The facts are that every major medica and scientific organization considers “reparative therapy” to be completely ineffective and frequently extremely dangerous. Do you not think people who may be considering putting themselves through it ought to be given that information? Would you support a doctor performing a dangerous surgery with little chance of success on a patient while telling them it was risk-free? I’m all for “live and let live” but that means being willing to provide others with ALL the information and then letting them live as they see fit based on that knowlege.
Randi, oh cringe… don’t do that.I think all of here appreciate a “nice job on that one” from time to time, but if you wait around with the two of us long enough… I’m absolutely sure we’ll (again) say something that makes us appear to be complete ****in’ idiots.Please don’t call us that either 🙂
Oh, dear. . .how dare anyone parody a scam? Maybe they are more concerned about these parodies potentially hurting business. . .seems to me that these little industries promoting fear and then offering to repair it are part of the bread and butter of the “religious” Right.
I equate reparative therapies to diet and smoking cessation programs. Do these work 100%? No. Does that mean they are extremely dangerous? No. Do we move to have them eliminated completely from society? No.
As a former President of the American Psychological Association and Fellow of the APA’s Lesbian and Gay division, Robert Perloff, said – “If homosexuals choose to transform their sexuality into heterosexuality, that resolve and decision is theirs and theirs alone.”
There are those who sincerly choose to restore their heterosexuality and are successful.
But there are those who want to eliminate that choice. Perhaps we should eliminate diet programs and smoking cessation programs.
Churchnstate contrary to the often baseless claims of high “success” rates the actual converstion from gay to straight is near zero:
https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm
Even most exgays (when pressed) admit they have not changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions, they simply repress and control same sex attractions to whatever degree they can.
Its a rare “exgay” who choses to go through the motions of heterosexuality who doesn’t do so because its what someone else wants for them – I’ve never heard of one. Contrary to what Robert Perloff said most “exgays” don’t chose to be heterosexual, they’re coerced to be “exgay” primarily by spiritual threats of eternal torture and general social rejection. People who try and fail to diet or quit smoking aren’t at a greater risk than if they’d never tried at all. People who go into “reparative therapy” run the risk of major depression when they almost certainly fail and feel overwhelmed by the spiritual threat which may be emphasized in such “therapy”.
We don’t need to remove the choice people make to attempt and fail at being “exgay”, we need to remove the abusive coercion that leads to that self stiffling choice.
churchnstate said:
I equate reparative therapies to diet and smoking cessation programs.
That analogy is faulty on so many levels it’s hard to address. Even so, to use it one would at least need to compare reparative therapies to say the fake diet pills found on late night cable. Or perhaps wearing a copper bracelet to stop smoking. While I don’t think these cause any overt harm, the individuals seeking to use them out of desperation should still be informed that they are essentially worthless.
As a former President of the American Psychological Association and Fellow of the APA’s Lesbian and Gay division, Robert Perloff, said – “If homosexuals choose to transform their sexuality into heterosexuality, that resolve and decision is theirs and theirs alone.”
This has been discussed here before. It strikes me as odd that those who espouse reparative therapy would put so much weight in the statement of a single, former president of the APA while dismissing the APA itself and it’s positions. It’s hard to appear credible when one tries to have it both ways. At any rate, as you can read in the link above, his quote goes on to indicate that Perloff believes such decisions should be made by the individual and not influenced by any special interest groups. If Exodus would agree on that point, we would have less to disagree over. As long as it does not require the APA or similar agencies to put their stamp of approval on therapies which it finds to be harmful or not in the best interest of the patient/client, I see no problem. But how is it leaving the decision up to the individual when they are told how bad and wrong they are for being gay? If you want to leave people alone to make up their own minds, then really do that.
There are those who sincerly choose to restore their heterosexuality and are successful.
That’s quite a tell. In one sentence you have made an assumption and a statement, both entirely unsupported by the facts (not that you made any attempt to do so).
David
churchnstate’s:
There are those who sincerly choose to restore their heterosexuality and are successful.
Just as there are people who choose to restore Victorian mansions and classic cars that are successful as well. That word “their” is emblematic of the new attempt of the ex-gay movement to linguistically minimize gayness and gay people and then try to argue it all away.
“Their” in this context assumes that the person had some measure of heterosexuality before, that was somehow lost. In fact, we’re all different, and there are a great many people who never had any heterosexuality to begin with. Sadly, these are the most likely to seek help. Bisexuals often get married and live their gay lives on the down low. They only tend to wind up in “reparative therapy” when they get caught.
Like the car or the mansion, you’re asking someone to restore something that isn’t theirs to begin with, and over the long haul, its not very fulfilling to the restorer.
For your smoking and diet analogy, these work best when the subject is convinced internally that these are harmful behaviors. Perhaps this is why you’ve included the word “sincerely.” (Like AA excusing its poor success rate with ‘Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path.’ I think that’s blaming the patient.)
The trouble with using this model for gayness, is that once a gay person has been in a fulfilling, supportive gay relationship, they’ve experienced what for them is the real thing. They own the mansion, or the classic car. It is, for them, all the glowing, wonderful reasons “helpful straights” think gayness is wrong. All that prattle about how much better het is than homo, gets turned on its head in the mind of the person you’re trying to help. Generally, they don’t tell you, because their understanding comes when they realize you don’t, and probably can’t, ever understand.
That’s why this isn’t a “live and let live” situation. You’re not really helping these people. You created the impetus to change because of your lack of understanding in the first place. You then try to keep the impetus alive through lies like Chambers “long term gay relationships aren’t possible” and the bogus claims of shortened lifespans. Then you top it all off by providing, as therapists, a community comprised mostly of quacks.
Do people have the right to seek help from a quack? Perhaps, through religious freedom adults do, but they at least have the right to know the whole truth, and that’s where ex-gay watch and the hundreds of other groups like it comes in, not only to provide some balance, but to sound the alarm bell for what is the real tragedy here. When parents try to make their gay children martyrs for their cause.
Wow, thanks for the responses. A couple things…
Even most exgays (when pressed) admit they have not changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions, they simply repress and control same sex attractions to whatever degree they can.
I can’t speak to what percentage “most” is. I’ve met some exgays who agree with this and I’ve met those who would not say this at all. I’ve known formally gay men who’ve established a fulfilling relationship with a wife. The fulfilling part eliminates the need to “repress and control” anything. People will say the men were never really gay – but that’s not these guys say.
they’re coerced to be “exgay” primarily by spiritual threats of eternal torture
When Christians are “saved” they do not face eternal torture.
If you want to leave people alone to make up their own minds, then really do that.
Agree. This statement also applies to those who choose to pursue reparative therapy.
Do people have the right to seek help from a quack?
For those who are successful, there was no quack.
When parents try to make their gay children martyrs for their cause
Agree – The choice moust come from the individual, not from the parent.
That’s quite a tell. In one sentence you have made an assumption and a statement, both entirely unsupported by the facts (not that you made any attempt to do so).
As I noted in the previous post, since I’ve known those who have successfully restored their heterosexuality (and find it fulfilling), this is not an assumption on my part.
Churchnstate, you’re not “saving” anyone with your psychological abuse threatening eternal torture. Many people have been successful at overcoming this religious abuse and that is a much better idea than trying to change oneself to suit the abuse. Call it “saved” if you want, its still abuse and coercion, and a very strong incentive for “exgays” to lie to you about how much “success” and “fulfillment” they truly have.
Let’s see some of these so called success stories of yours do when hooked up to a penis volume measurement device and looking a sexual images of men. I strongly suspect the results will show what religious tolerance uncovered – success rates of zero.
As I noted in the previous post, since I’ve known those who have successfully restored their heterosexuality (and find it fulfilling), this is not an assumption on my part.
That’s called anecdotal evidence. It’s the same as saying I took an herbal remedy for my cold and I fell better – it must work. Dealing with people’s lives, we have to be much more critical still.
David
Churchnstate, I said in a post “If you want to leave people alone to make up their own minds, then really do that.” You then stated “Agree. This statement also applies to those who choose to pursue reparative therapy.”
You’re contradicting yourself here. If you truly believed people should be left alone to make up their own minds about “reparitive therapy” you’d be condemning as myth rather than reiterating the abuse that people are tortured eternally if they don’t go along with your religion. That is a most shameful and despicable act on your part.
churchnstate
For those who are successful, there was no quack.
Treating homosexuality by prohibiting people from wearing Calvin Klein underwear, and teaching them to play football and change the oil in a car is quackery plain and simple. Even the academic-oriented apologists quietly shy away from such nonsense.
When success is measured by someone telling you they’re cured, particularly when the only people in the population are those who strongly desire to be cured, your numbers are going to be rosier than a study such as penile arousal or iris dialation.
I don’t doubt that people’s orientations change. Most common are people who don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Obviously people do change. Sometimes this is accompanied by a religious awakening. Its problematic to me to suggest that people can go from hetero to homo, and not vice versa.
That doesn’t mean that these religious conversion groups are effective. Sexuality seems a whole lot more complex than just some unwanted attractions or false images.
Randi: I suspect, though obviously don’t speak for Churchnstate, that her agreement only extended to minors. This has always been a problem. Only recently has Exodus and their ilk decided that parents have the right to impose these programs on their children.
The most shameful and despicable act, to me, is that these groups all have great resources in those of their leaders who come to the decision that these programs are harmful. These are very often ministers or lay ministers who have spent years in these ministries. Evans and Pennington were the first I’ve found to come to this conclusion, and there have been scores more.
Instead of using their talent and experience, the ex-gay ministries shun them the way cults do. What this does, is foster unreasonable expectations in people who seek to change through their programs.
When they don’t have the success they are falsely told that others have attained, they become depressed and sometimes even take their own life.
Jack McIntyre is the first casualty of these programs. We don’t know how many more there have been.
PBCliberal, I don’t know what you are talking about when you say churchnstate’s agreement only extended to minors. What agreement?
Randi: I was referring to her use of the word “agree” in the context of just having quoting me in italics from a section of my post where I talked specifically about children being forced to attend reparative therapy by their parents. To wit:
[my comment]When parents try to make their gay children martyrs for their cause
[her comment]Agree – The choice moust come from the individual, not from the parent.
Once again, I can’t speak for churchnstate, but that was my take on it.
Churchnstate,
“As I noted in the previous post, since I’ve known those who have successfully restored their heterosexuality (and find it fulfilling), this is not an assumption on my part.”
You have now twice used the term “restore”, so we must deduce that this is not an accidental word choice. As you know, to “restore” something is to return it to it’s original condition.
Your statement then presupposes that (at least some) gay persons were originally heterosexual and then became homosexual. But you provide no support for this suppostition.
What limited evidence that is available seems to show that for some (perhaps most) gay people, sexual orientation is determined at a very young age – though it may not be demonstrated until much later. And there seems to be a pattern emerging in research that suggests that at least some of the factors leading to a same-sex orientation are genetic.
So then, your word choice raises the question: do you believe that ALL gay people were originally heterosexual? Or is it only some gay people?
And if not all, can those who never were heterosexual be “restored” to heterosexuality?
For those who are “restored”, are they restored to an orientation that existed before they were cognizant of any sexuality or attraction? This seems to be an odd thing.
Another thing…
“I’ve known formally gay men who’ve established a fulfilling relationship with a wife. The fulfilling part eliminates the need to “repress and control” anything.”
I’m confused about this statement. Are these men who retain same-sex attraction but through a relationship with a wife are able to eliminate a need to repress? In other words, are they quenching sexual desire and finding a fulfilling sexual outlet through a wife and thus changing sexual behaviour without changing sexual desire?
Or, alternately, are they men who do not find other men sexually attractive?
Posted by: PBCliberal at March 20, 2006 07:26 PM
Sorry, my confusion there.
you’re not “saving” anyone with your psychological abuse threatening eternal torture
… reiterating the abuse that people are tortured eternally if they don’t go along with your religion
In terms of the Christian faith, I’m not the author of the teachings about saved and heaven/hell.
are they quenching sexual desire and finding a fulfilling sexual outlet through a wife and thus changing sexual behaviour without changing sexual desire? Or, alternately, are they men who do not find other men sexually attractive?
In discussion about this, some have expressed the latter. But certainly that’s not true to all.
Again, thanks for the open dialog.
churchNstate: In terms of the Christian faith, I’m not the author of the teachings about saved and heaven/hell.
In terms of christian faith, you in fact are the author, because it is your acceptance or rejection of a myriad of different mythologies generally accepted as “christian” that determines your worldview, which you accept on faith.
There are people who call themselves christian whose interpretation of “lakes are filled with molten brimstone” to be an allegory of the places corpses were taken where sulphur was burned, there are others which believe heaven is allegorical as well.
You are the one who decides what you believe on the basis of interpretations you choose as having “truthiness” (cf. Stepehen Colbert). You’re trying to blame your intolerance on someone else.
Posted by: PBCliberal at March 23, 2006 01:37 PM
Thank you PBCliberal, well said. I wanted to respond to that but doubt I could have done as well.
Churchnstate, in society it is people who are held responsible for their beliefs and actions, not their chosen god. I think its fair that at a minimum you keep your “exgay” stuff and concept of biblical sin and hell in your church where the stress people may have over being rejected for same sex attractions is created in the first place. Spare those of us who aren’t hurting you and want no part of your religion the stress of you demanding we all change to trivially please you and your freely chosen and easily changed faith. Its far, far less of a burden on you to stop repressing other people’s same sex attraction than it is for anyone to be coerced into attempting to “enhance their heterosexuality”. Its wrong to use duress to take so much from others especially when it gives you so little (nothing) in return.
PCLiberal said:
…because it is your acceptance or rejection of a myriad of different mythologies…
It might be more accurate (or at the least more fair) to say “myriad of different interpretations” 😉 Sorry to pick nits but they are my nits to pick!
David
Nit picking always appreciated. I use mythology in the Joseph Campbell sense, which is not perjorative. Indeed, Campbell believes one problem with postmodernism is a lack of myth in the life of man. His Myths to Live By makes this case better than I can, but it can cause one’s head to explode.
When you have stories, such as the Biblical Flood, which appears to be based on the Gilgamesh epic (or they are both based on a third even more ancient oral history) you not only get to choose the story, but who is telling it and when it was first told.
We need a way to look at the big picture here, and using a word that is more inclusive of the range of belief systems seems preferable, even if it may require some explanation so to differentiate its use from perjorative.
Churchnstate,
I think that we’ve reached the place where we’ve established some areas of agreement. Specifically, in reference to persons who go through reparative therapy the following categories result:
1. Persons who no longer are attracted to the same sex. A cursory review of the “testimonies” of ex-gays shows that this group is very small – even among ex-gay leaders. I can think of only a few that make this claim.
2. Persons who remain attracted to the same sex but learn to diminish this desire, sometimes by marriage and sometimes in celebacy. This seems to be the majority of that small number of people who claim “success”.
3. Persons who claim successful reorientation but later revert to same sex activity and/or relationships. This includes a significant number of examples from among ex-gay leadership.
4. Persons who go through reorientation with few or no negative consequences but who do not successfully reorient. Some of these leave ex-gay therapy as content gay people who were able to glean from the therapy some tools to resolve problems in their lives and reconcile their faith with their sexuality.
5. Persons who go through reorientation therapy and have significant consequences including depression, feelings of worthlessness, and suicidal tendencies.
Unfortunately, though studies on this are limited, it appears that a plurality (if not majority) of persons fall into category 5.
You originally equated reparative therapies to diet and smoking cessation programs.
Using your example, what would happen to a program that did harm to the majority of its participant? We do not need to speculate.
In the 90’s a drug combination of fenfluramine and phentermine was sold as a miracle drug for weight loss. However, Fen-Phen (as it was nicknamed) proved to do damage to a heart valve in a small percentage of people who used it. It was pulled from the market and a major lawsuit ensued against the manufacturers and distributors.
In this instance, the product was successful to the majority, yet all agree that the damage to the few was so severe that the weight loss program was stopped.
Unlike Fen-Phen, reorientation therapy appears to damage the majority (or at least a sizable plurality). And unlike Fen-Phen, the damage seems to make daily functioning in society difficult.
None of this is to discount the suffering of those impacted by the Fen-Phen weight loss program but rather to show that your initial assumption is flawed. Weight loss programs that do damage are removed from availability. The same would be true of a smoking cessation program that left the participants damaged. And this is true regardless of the many people that might benefit from the program.
One of our primary objections to Exodus, LIA, and other ex-gay programs is that they do not assume responsibility for the damage they cause. They promise the hope of falling into category 1, but as best we can tell (they refuse to monitor) far more fall into category 5.
I contend that if ex-gay therapy were not religious in nature, it would have been prevented long ago – not because of an idealogical viewpoint, but because of the damage it has caused people.
But shutting down reorientation programs is not our goal. We simply want the lies, distortions, political activism, and harmful methods to stop.
Should some organization arise that is honest about its goals, methods, and success rate and was responsible for the potential damage incurred, then I could support such a group. Unfortunately, I’ve not seen any.
“… but it can cause one’s head to explode.”
Nah… that can’t happen, it’s just a myth.
🙂
Posted by: PBCliberal at March 23, 2006 03:40 PM
We could debate Joseph Campbell’s conclusions until the end of the century. That guy spent way to much time in his head! I’ve had a couple of friends whose adoration of him bordered on worship itself, in a secular sort of way. Both are very analytical and shun the sacred as so much nonsense. Earlier in life I was taken in much the same way by Carl Sagon’s writings – quite a dreamer he was. Anyway, I’ve read enough of Campbell to understand what you are saying. I was, as always, just interested in keeping the discussion affirming to those Christians that may come across XGW and need to feel welcome like the rest of us. I don’t want to start sounding like the proverbial hall monitor though 🙂
Gay Christians have often lived through their own version of a private hell by the time they get to the point of seeking out the help of places like XGW. I guess I am just sensitive to that because of my own history. The main thing here is that we are all human beings who respect eachother and seek the truth.
David
PBCliberal said “I don’t doubt that people’s orientations change. Most common are people who don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Obviously people do change. Sometimes this is accompanied by a religious awakening. Its problematic to me to suggest that people can go from hetero to homo, and not vice versa.”
PBCliberal, what would give you the impression that people commonly don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Aren’t you simply seeing gays or bisexuals who have stopped repressing their same sex attractions and have stopped trying to be straight? I was a man married to a woman until later in life and now I am a woman in love with a man. I simply stopped trying to repress my desires although I know it appears to family that I went from straight to transgender later in life I am the way I always was. Isn’t this the case with the people you are referring to?
Good take on Campbell. I probably like him so much because I spend waaaay to much time in my head too. My take on it is halfway between respect, maybe even adoration for him, and disrespect of the rest of us who never thought to look at the problem the way he did. But that doesn’t mean we’re all wrong, in fact, it means we’ve been right all along, but we just didn’t know it!
I’ll also confess to using myth in a way designed to provoke a reaction so that I could proselytize for my own worldview, which is a strange amalgam of quantum mechanics and comparitive mythology. I thought the reaction might come from churchNstate, but it is so much more profound to have it come from you, David.
I am really touched by your last paragraph. I’ve always thought its our job to seek the truth, but don’t know why. I’ve also seen in other cultures, our people as the spiritual ones: the ones of two spirits, the shamans, the high priests in societies where sex and religion are intertwined.
I am constantly amazed by the richness of the thought and the depth of the understanding of the “usual suspects” here, whether its Randi wondering aloud at the motivations of the Stacy Harps, or how “nitpicking” over one word blossomed into David’s (ReasonAble) prescient description not just of who Joseph Campbell was but, by implication, why I might be bringing him up.
All this has taken me back to Mike Airhart’s public exploration of a possible greater role for some or all of us. When I read it, I sat on my hands. I had nothing to bring to the table. I still don’t.
Some of our people are suffering, and maybe there’s something more that we can do than just go after churchNstate as the low-hanging fruit. (Yeah, I know there’s a delicious line there, but I’m trying to be serious, if only for a millisecond.)
Ours are special people. They are good, and honorable, and motivated by a higher purpose, or they wouldn’t be so vulnerable to screeds that they’re moral reprobates. And they’re being ground up as fodder in a culture war.
I guess this is just a thank you, to the people in the pulpet here, and the people in the choir: the kincaids, the grantdales, the garretts, even the churchNstates and the ezekials. I too am sometimes angry by what I learn here, but most often I’m moved that so many people “get it,” and are willing to share their knowledge with people often too afraid to post, sometimes too afraid to even have this website in their web cache.
Randi: [only quoting a portion–from two posts up]
PBCliberal, what would give you the impression that people commonly don’t report any gay desires or fantasies until later in life. Aren’t you simply seeing gays or bisexuals who have stopped repressing their same sex attractions and have stopped trying to be straight?
I could have been more clear. I was trying to say that het to homo conversions are most common among those people who report a change. (Which kinda flies in the face of the exodus folks.)
No argument that most of us know we’re different from early childhood, and knowledgable observers can sometimes spot it even before we become self-aware. Or that a lot more of us have denial and repression get in the way.
I have read neither the Spitzer study nor the Ariel, Shidlo, Schroeder, Drescher book that takes it on. (I want to do both, but you know…time…), but I think Spitzer was right in that there are some people who do change, but I think its most common as a spontaneous event.
I’ve met a couple of people who didn’t come out until late in life, whom I believe when they tell me they had no attractions earlier. They just seem credible because there doesn’t seem to be any vestiage of any shame or guilt or supressed desire.
But I’m not saying there are very many. And when you then take the subset of people who actually underwent change at the time they were seeking it through professional or religious channels, you’re down to something less than those struck by lightning or meteors. Which suggests either of these options as more effective therapy.