Writing in the Salt Lake Tribune, Mormon exgay activist David Clarke Pruden — head of Evergreen International — misrepresents gay activist claims about scientific research into the origins of sexual orientation, in order to claim that those unnamed activists have been, well, misrepresenting the research.
Specifically, Pruden falsely claims that gay activists are wedded to the notion that homosexuality is determined by a gay gene. But Pruden fails to name a single activist who subscribes to such a theory.
While some of Pruden’s scientific citations are plausible, he mischaracterizes the research of Dr. Robert Spitzer. Pruden neglects to tell readers that Spitzer’s 2001 study purposely excluded the majority of exgays who fail to remain exgay for five years. Pruden uses Spitzer’s selection of 200 rare success stories among exgay activists to suggest that most people who join exgay ministries achieve “good heterosexual functioning” and that nearly all exgays are “bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings.”
Spitzer recently protested Focus on the Family’s misuse of his research; apparently Pruden either doesn’t read reliable sources of exgay news, or he likes to gamble with his own organization’s reputation.
Hat tip: Wolfi, Pinknews.co.uk.
When I read that article yesterday I almost… well, I got mad. Most everyone has considered there to be no such thing as a gay gene for years now. He writes, just as so many other (straight) exgayniacs write, so very blindly that there is no scientific study indicating homosexuality (in males) is biological. And yet there is the (ongoing) work out of UCLA concerning gene expression of the X-chromosome (incomplete methylation) and the Italian study tying (male) homosexuality to increases in female fertility, among several other studies.
And not more than a two weeks before Pruden writes that there is no scientific study supporting a biological cause, Bogaert at Brock University in Canada released the results of that study on birth order and male homosexuality for some persons.
What gets me is this guy just up and lies. And I really am beginning to expect nothing but lies from the likes of people like that. I wonder if news of the Brock study was carried in the SL Tribune or other Salt Lake paper. It was even carried in my small, local (somewhat conservative) newspaper in southern Indiana. Just how far would a Utah reader have to go to discover Pruden a liar. But then I guess the idea is that the ones Pruden is talking to would not care to find that he is wrong/lying. They find it well and good to have faith with such men, as they have faith in their religion.
More is the pity.
He quotes LeVay, “I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay.”
LeVay was simply being honest in expressing the axiom “correlation does not prove causation.”
This does not change the fact that a difference was found and this difference requires an explanation. The bimodal nature of the distribution of sizes with homesexual men being consistantly smaller (like women) and heterosexual men being consistantly larger makes any explantion other than a genetic predisposition highly unlikely.
If there’s no Heterosexual gene how do we know HE’s not gay?
We need KILL that ‘argument.’
-How about an ad campaign for Heterosexual jeans?
“So, where do you hide your heterosexual jeans?”
“What hetero- oops, I mean…In my closet.”
Will there be a response to the Salt Lake Tribune guest commentary?
It should be printed in this coming Sunday’s opinion section to give the contrasting view equal exposure.
Bill,
It isn’t true that the size difference between heterosexual and homosexual men LeVay found in one area of the hypothalamus was consistent. The difference was on average only. From the original study (available at https://members.aol.com/slevay/hypothalamus.pdf): ‘The existence of “exceptions” in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones) hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size.’
I would suspect it also shows the reverse: that INAH 3 size may not be the sole determinant of sexual orientation.
Mike,
I think it’s somewhat unfair to David Clarke Pruden to accuse him of misrepresentating gay activists. The first sentence of his article mentions ‘activists’, but this is ambiguous: it could mean either some activists or all activists, so it’s not necessarily an accusation against all of them.
As for the claims that most people who join exgay ministries ‘achieve good heterosexual functioning’, or that most exgays are ‘bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings’, Pruden does not actually say either of those things.
ab,
So what you are saying is that Pruden was deliberately deceptive rather than misrepresenting.
Hmmmm, yeah that makes a lot of difference.
(see, see, he didn’t say “all”, he just implied that this was a claim of all or most gay activist, but he didn’t actually use the word “all, so see he didn’t really lie. And he didn’t really claim that most people in reorientation therapy ‘achieve good heterosexual functioning’, he just implied it. So he’s not a liar, really, he’s just making people believe something that isn’t true. See, see.)
I’m not too fond of deceivers.
Or those who try to justify them.
Well, here’s a prime example of how misleading Pruden is:
He quotes (or rather frames) a quote from Friedman and Downey.
(It’s a quote from Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice 2002, BTW)
But he neglects to mention that Friedamn and Downey spend about half that book condemning the very reparative/conversion therapy promoted by Pruden; let alone his social agenda. The bulk of the book discusses the ways that a modern psychoanalyst can counter ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ (their words). They spend a great deal of time dicussing how homophobia — often imposed by social and religious sources during childhood — is what drives teenage and adult gay men and women to attempt to change their sexuality.
They strongly endorse the reasoning behind and the outcomes of Gay Affirmative Therapy, and are dismissive of Spitzer’s study as either providing much insight or being suitable for any broad purposes. Elsewhere they’ve also come out strongly in favour of parenting by gay couples, and firmly against those who seek to have homosexuality re-declared a mental illess. (Friedman does want to retain GID in the DSM, or a form of, we should add. But he also thinks GID is not terribly relevant to homosexuality per se.)
And a clincher… sorry, cannot lay my hands on a direct quote online with free access for y’all; but here’s Friedman and Downey ref’d in an online paper:
Get that? — they utterly disagree with the entire premise behind Pruden and his Evergreen franchise. So why, one wonders, would he be presenting them as if they were on his side?
I suspect Pruden has merely regurgitated a snippet of Friedman and Downey from some NARTH article, rather than knowing who these people are (let alone actually reading the book). Even though NARTH doesn’t actually like Friedman and Downey’s viewpoints.
Pruden knows that few, if any, readers will be aware of Friedman and Downey.
So I guess he’s safe, if deceitful, to name drop, right?
(And next installment: read how Pruden implies use of the word “environment” in a different and misleading way to that actually meant by Mustanski…)
Timothy,
I don’t think there is much, if anything, that is deceptive about what Pruden wrote. Perhaps he over-generalizes about gay activists, but that’s about it. Certainly, I don’t see any implication that most people who join ex-gay ministries achieve ‘good heterosexual functioning’ – not when the quote from Spitzer indicates that less than half of the women in that study (44%) achieved such functioning.
Grantdale,
OK, so Friedman and Downey disagree with Pruden about a lot of things. What of it? This doesn’t mean that it’s dishonest for him to quote them in support of the claim that sexual orientation is neither inborn nor fixed – it is possible to agree with people about some things and disagree about others.
ab,
The significance of LeVay’s research is that the sizes formed a bi-modal distribution, not that there may have been some exceptions due to reporting errors. A bi-modal distribution implies that there exists a switching function that turns on attraction to one sex and turns off attraction to the other, and that this occurs, at the latest, during fetal development, that environmental factors have no effect. This is consistant with decades of research findings which found no correlation (let alone causation) between upbringing and adult sexual orientation.
From Pruden:
“His study of 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded: 44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called “good heterosexual functioning” and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings.”
Sure, ab, go on and tell me that you “don’t see any implication that most people who join ex-gay ministries achieve ‘good heterosexual functioning'” in that paragraph. Make that claim, ab.
Of course, one can’t expect honesty from someone who is defending deliberate deception. But please try to stay this side of laughable.
I’m beginning to wonder if “ab” is derived from “A. Dean Byrd” — the mindset and the gymnastic selection of quotes are tediously the same.
ab: this doesn’t mean that it’s dishonest for him to quote them in support of the claim that sexual orientation is neither inborn nor fixed
It wouldn’t be dishonest, except for the inconvenient fact that Freidman has a body of work stretching back decades (as does his working relationship with Robert Spitzer). Anyone so inclined is able to check if a comment is correctly placed in a context that Friedman would agree is appropriate. If it is not, then Friedman is being misrepresented. And that is dishonest.
As always, we don’t expect you’ve even bothered to do any actual reading.
We can start with this use of a quote from Freidman and Downey: “genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.”
This is a comment about the very basis of their profession, not what the evidence will eventually prove to be. Coming from psych. professionals, it’s a fair enough comment. A biologist would disagree that it is reductionistic. The two bodies of work are simply discussing something that seems at cross-purposes, unless one understands what each means under their own terminology.
And we can know what Friedman actually means. Here’s a nice double whammy from Remafedi that runs straight into incorporating Spitzer’s own views:
Oh, says the biologist. You’re including “behaviours”, “sense of identity” and “social role” as well. Now I understand what you mean. If you include those, then yes a simple biological basis would be too reductionist. As a biologist I don’t include those.
Oh, says the psychologist. All you are talking about is the basic sexual or erotic attraction. In that case, then perhaps the biological theories are not too reductionist. I take it back.
For a starter go read Drescher and Zucker (2006) (or find the original journal articles) and Friedman and Downey’s own works instead of relying on the framing of their opinions by use of selective and out-of-context snippets. I’ve don’t own the Friedman and Downey book, but it took only a few minutes to find some of the relevant quotes off yahoo.
or
or
And, even given his work with Spitzer with that study Friedman felt free to comment after publication, as did others.
Quite clearly, these views are completely at odds with what Prudue wants to have people believe.
Far from believing that “homosexuality” is not innate and immutable — and therefore must be “caused” and “changeable”, Prudue’s own view — Friedman and Downey have a much more subtle understanding of the matter. And probably one that few here would disagree with, in a general sense.
To use these people to support his own views Prudue is indeed being dishonest.
OK, or plainly ignorant.
We go with the former.
Oh hello…
It looks like Purdue’s is simply a regurgitated puff up of NARTH A. Dean Byrd’s own earlier nonsense.
Gawd, any wonder it sounded familiar…
Bill,
That the exceptions were due to reporting errors is mentioned in LeVay’s paper only as one possibility: “It is also possible, however, that these exceptions are due to technical shortcomings or to misassignment of subjects to their subject groups.” When someone says that something is ‘possible’, they mean that it might or might not be true.
Timothy,
If less than half of the women achieved good heterosexual functioning, this really doesn’t seem to suggest that most ex-gays achieve it – unless men join ex-gay groups more often than women do, in which case the larger number of men would cancel out the lesser effectiveness of reparative therapy in women. How many people who read Pruden’s article would be likely to think about the issue that way, however? I suspect very few.
Grantdale,
My not having read this particular book does not affect any of my points. Pruden was citing Friedman and Downey for a single, specific claim, one which they did indeed make. I still don’t see how it is relevant that they disagree about other things.
ab,
Having had a chance to catch up on this site, we’ll agree with another: you are displaying very troll like behaviour.
You don’t need to read the book. Frankly, we would no longer believe you if you claimed you had. But you are expected to read the posts and respond appropriately, if you chose to respond.
You have been given the reasons why Friedman and Downey should not be quoted in support of a claim against “innate and immutable”. Prudue, via Byrd, has mined for one sentence and then used this in an article that in no way represents Freidman or Downey’s overall views. That is deceptive and disreputable.
But you don’t care. You don’t care because so long as someone can give you a single out-of-context quote you are determined to think that those who are misquoted must therefore support your views; all evidence to the contrary. And we can know it is out-of-context in this case because of all else they have said.
ab — this is an established pattern of behaviour from you. You are being nothing more than an ignorant pest, and a waste of time.
And we have far better things to do than vainly attempt to educate a brick wall.
ab,
Yes, men join ex-gay groups at a significantly higher ratio than do women. You, I, Pruden, and everyone at this site all know this.
But even if they joined at the same rate, the mean average would be 55%.
You may want to stop arguing this point as it is making you seem lacking in intellect. Or, alternately, that don’t value honesty.
I too am beginning to suspect that you are a troll. And as there is no value in arguing with a troll, I’ll stop.
Well, I’ve greatly enjoyed the performance of Grantdale, Timothy, and David in arguing with ab. I’ve found these to be the most entertaining and informative discussions on Exgay Watch. ab is the typical anti-gay. He makes specious arguments and is just well read enough to sound authoritative to someone less well read like myself. Then to watch Grantdale and you all one by one expose the apparently reasonable as night and day distortions is truly awsome to watch and leaves me shaking my head thinking I’d have accepted half of what ab says at face value if it weren’t for you. Its an important illustration of the deception the anti-gay “exgays” attempt and succeed at using on the general public every day. I’d sorely miss seeing this on Exgaywatch.
If its wrong to call someone an a**hole on Exgay Watch then its wrong to call them a troll. I believe no namecalling is one of the posting guidelines. I’ve been occaisionally accused of arguing for the sake of arguing and that hurts. I certainly don’t argue for arguments sake, if I did any topic would do. I argue persistently because the subject is extremely important to me and I have no reason to believe anything different is true with ab. As to how he can be dishonest about what’s important to him is something I don’t understand but to respond to him is really as valuable and helpful as it is to respond to trolls like Alan Chambers.
Just tell me ab, why is it so important for you to do this?
You can email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
I’ll seconds Randis’ comments. This argument has been very informative for me. The information and teaching that comes out in the responses to people like ab is quite useful. It’s important that this kind of interaction is continued even though it may feel like trying to teach a brick wall, as Grant/Dale has put it. Ab may never understand or break through his own biases and misinformation, but many other people are reading this and learning from it.
I’m humbled. If others are getting value out of my efforts (though I think them futile) then I’ll reconsider.
However, I don’t want to fall into the trap of arguing tangentially and missing the overall picture, as converstations with trolls tend to do. I’ll try to walk a balanced line.
(p.s. Randi, “troll” is not name-calling as in “you ugly old troll” but is a word used for someone who posts simply to annoy or to stir up a blog site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)
Randi and Hava,
I could go along with this if ab had just started posting, but this has been the same since day one. Allowing someone to act as a troll, dominate the discussion in that manner, and argue for argument’s sake is a distraction from our purpose here and against some of the most basic rules of conduct. We can’t indulge this behavior forever just because a few may enjoy the spectacle. And it is unfair to apply rules unequally. Shouldn’t we practice what we preach about this?
As I have said several times, there are websites which tolerate, even promote, this kind of senseless bickering but XGW is not one of them. If you truly learn something from the effort, go visit some of them. But if you really want to learn about debate, we discuss plenty of ex-gay and anti-gay issues here and just about all of us have reversed ourselves at one time or another when another brought an argument into a new light. There is a special atmosphere of civil discussion and regard for the truth here and protecting that requires diligence. If one is not the least bit teachable, the argument is in vain.
And Randi, there may have been times when it appeared you were arguing just to be contrary, but you are not and have not been a troll. Given some time, it really isn’t that difficult to spot the difference.
David Roberts
David, I do agree that interaction with someone like ab should be limited. I just wanted to state that there was some value to it. I wasn’t viewing it as a ‘spectacle’, but honestly appreciated some of the additional information being brought in because of it, particularly having the quote from Friedman and Downey put into context – both their conclusions and how Pruden misused it for his own purposes. That doesn’t strike me as tangential to the topic at all. I suppose that since I’m at the beginning of my own research, I’m finding this kind of information very useful. It’s not my intention to encourage disruption here.
If it’s any help — we’re not about to start allowing false or wrong info remain unchallenged. As if…
We do realise that many more read this site than actually comment here. It has been encouraging to receive emails from people like that, including some currently involved in exgay groups, and to know that when we — and others — are able to contribute to a better understanding there are some that do benefit.
Troll, in blog context, has an understood meaning. Spanning the range between obscene abuse through to intentional misinformation, it has the purpose of disrupting the dicussion and preventing a conclusion. In this particular case it’s not too hard to spot:
1. Claim A is made.
2. Evidence is provided against claim A.
3. repeat claim A. Ignore the evidence just provided.
4. etc etc ad nauseum.
Notice that only one side has any intention of doing any work in the exchange. The other is simply here to broadcast a viewpoint, no matter what gets said or what evidence is provided.
We have little desire or need to engage with such brick walls but, again, we’re not about to allow nonsense to remain unchallenged either. We’ll simply be altering the way we’re responding 🙂
I was aware of the context troll was being used in. Its essentially what Exodus, “Focus on the Family”, etc. do.
Hava said:
David, I do agree that interaction with someone like ab should be limited. I just wanted to state that there was some value to it.
I know, just realize that there is a lot of collateral damage to this kind of interaction. Please understand if it is necessary to deal with it more permanently in the future. Spectacle was probably not the best word to use there, sorry.
Randi said:
I was aware of the context troll was being used in. Its essentially what Exodus, “Focus on the Family”, etc. do.
Sort of, but troll behavior only works when it can disrupt a discussion based site such as XGW. I don’t know of any posting Alan Chambers has done here that would qualify as trolling – perhaps he does elsewhere. Trolling is usually about power – power to forcibly inject one’s (usually contrarian) opinion into the discussion or power to disrupt the participants and community of an online group discussion. Some people desperately want to exercise that kind of control “in real life” but can’t so they seek do so online.
I’m glad you learned something but as I said above, please don’t get upset if things concerning ab need to change at a later date. It really is largely up to ab.
I don’t mean to squelch anyone but perhaps we can put this to bed soon?
David Roberts
Grantdale,
No, indeed I don’t care that Pruden’s article didn’t reflect Downey and Friedman’s overall views. Summarising Downey and Friedman’s overall views wasn’t the point of Pruden’s article, and since he didn’t claim it was, I don’t see any deception. I didn’t imply that Downey and Friedman supported all my views.
The tone of your comments is very insulting. I may note that those accusing me of being troll don’t seem to be bothered by Grantdale’s tone. I wonder if they can seriously claim that my tone has generally been more offensive. In general, I think I have been very restrained.
Timothy,
OK, then. Perhaps Pruden’s article could be read as implying that most people who join ex-gay groups acheive good heterosexual functioning, although I don’t think one necessarily has to read it that way. It seems we just have a difference of opinion here.
David,
With all respect, I’m not arguing for the sake of argument. If I were doing that, I could go anywhere and argue about anything. That I choose to come here and argue in this way is because I’m interested in what the site is about. Do you have a problem with this?
Your comments seem to be another threat to ban me. If so, I wish you could be more explicit about it and tell me exactly what I’m doing wrong – and I hope it’s not just expressing disagreement with you and Timothy.
ab, its not your tone, its the problems pointed out by grantdale and others. I didn’t see anything in grantdale’s tone that you didn’t deserve. I believe at some point a bit of namecalling is deserved, if I was grantdale (knowing what they know) I strongly suspect I’d want to be calling you “troll” at a minimum myself.
It isn’t true that the size difference between heterosexual and homosexual men LeVay found in one area of the hypothalamus was consistent. The difference was on average only. From the original study (available at https://members.aol.com/slevay/hypothalamus.pdf): ‘The existence of “exceptions” in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones) hints at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size.’
Just to bring another scientific aspect into this discussion, there is always overlap in observed differences between populations, and it is in fact the differences in the average that point to different underlying biological development.
For example, men tend to be, on average, taller and more muscular than women, yet that does not mean that every man is taller and more muscular than every woman. However, the existence of the pronounced difference on average allows us to begin to understand the different maturation processes of males and females, particularly since those differences only begin to appear in populations after puberty.
It is also interesting that the differences in hypothalmus size between gay men and straight men is very similar to the differences discovered between straight and gay men, as well as straight and lesbian women, in other physical characteristics (sorry, don’t have cites of the original research, but will look for them) – in finger length (men), ear structure (women), and blink responses. In all these cases, the gay average was much closer to their straight opposite gender counterparts than their straight same-sex counterparts, which points to an overall underlying biological process, which appears to “feminize” gay men and “masculinize” lesbians.
And it is highly unlikely that one’s sexual orientation caused the differences in hypothalmus size, or any of the other underlying physical differences. Rather, it is far more likely that some other underlying biological process tinkers with typical fetal development, and produces this overall androgenization effect (feminizing men and masculinizing women). That is also the likely explanation for why there are heterosexual men and women that exhibit physical characteristics similar to gays – they have had some effects of this underlying process, but not as extensive as their gay counterparts. Any genetic basis would be to cause the process, not any specific effects of it.
“tell me exactly what I’m doing wrong”
You are refusing to allow logic to play a part in the conversation.
Your original point was to claim that Pruden wasn’t lying. We pointed out clearly where Pruden was twisting science (remember Mike’s original point) and taking things out of context to deceive the reader. Grantdale were particularly detailed and explicit.
Yet still, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you hold onto this bizarre notion that Pruden was not dishonest. This requires you to justify Pruden’s taking quotes out of context to suggest the opposite of what the researchers were saying (since it “wasn’t the point of Pruden’s article”) and to justify deliberate misrepresentations (because “I don’t think one necessarily has to read it that way”).
Sorry, ab, but you have been backed into a logical corner.
But rather than acknowlege the Pruden’s article was not honest, you claim a “difference of opinion”. No, ab, it is not a difference of opinion; it’s a difference of fact. We are presenting verifiable supported facts clearly demonstrating that Pruden’s article was not representative of objective truth. You are just arguing.
I can’t say for certain the reasons why you are arguing, but the possibilities that come to mind are not very honorable.
Just to show how easy this is to do, if you are a person without ethics…
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m sure David Pruden would be rather shocked to find himself misrepresented in that way; to see himself used to support something that he’s actually dead opposed to.
That’s the point here, is it not?
–
And, just to make sure this is clear, we haven’t called anyone a troll(n). We did say “you are displaying very troll like behaviour”, which is descriptive. We did use “pest”(n), and express our own opinion that we are wasting our time with, as Timothy notes, a conversation divorced from any logic.
Sorry for the mistake, grantdale.
That’s OK Randi, no apol. needed — we didn’t mean you in particular anyway 🙂
Simon LeVay has responded to Pruden’s opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Thanks to LeVay for his response in yesterday’s Salt Lake Tribune.
Now, I have to ask Pruden and his associates at Mormon-sanctioned Evergreen: Are you concerned your reputation and credibility has been muddied? You HAD to know LeVay would defend his research and rectify your blatant obfuscation of his research and work.
Thanks Mr. Pruden. I see how desperate you really must be. You represent a religious organization that markets truth but operates much like a cornered rabid dog. You are a pox on your organization and your religion.
Has the commenter “ab” been banned?
I decided today to at least give the ex-gay watch blog a try, in order to see if there would be any worthwhile information from which to glean. Unfortunately, I now see it’s too difficult for anyone trying to get to kernels of truth that may be displayed here because it is overwhelmingly inundated with husk and chaff with all the bashing and complaining going on about not only the opposing side’s views, but of the very people who hold to such views. Most of you who have posted here, including the author, have resorted to name-calling, committed character assassination, injected ulterior motive without showing clear evidence for it (i.e., how about going to the original source, straight from the horse’s mouth, so-to-speak?), and complaining ad nauseum about this and that about the person of the opposing view. You sound like a bunch of old crotchety ladies at a bridge club who are bothered by their GI difficulties and constipation, and in an unsuccessful attempt to deal with it, they unknowingly utilize the displacement defense mechanism by gossiping about everyone and complaining about everything that comes up in conversation. This just confirms to me what most NARTH professionals have been saying about one of the most common elements in the profile of a same sex attracted man, his tendency to get stuck in a complaining mode and a demonizing phase about males who have been authority figures in their lives, and those presently who are perceived by them to be like these figures, thereby implicitly surrendering their own sense of power to those they demonize. Believe me, Pruden, Byrd, Chambers, and others from an opposing view like me are not really any different from you. We all have alot in common. To be more graphic to make my point, we all shit, eat, and shower and shave the same way, have strengths and weaknesses in character, contrary to impression what you leave here, whether you aware of it or not. I believe that you need to learn how to show respect to your opponents by beginning to learn how to put yourself in their shoes, rather than being so self-absorbed and focused on being in only your own with your incessant diatribes. This is the only way to act more like what you are; men, and become more objective about the issues at hand, as well as possibly win over your opponents in some capacity.
Wait. I’m not a man, and neither are several of the above posters; do we still have to act like men?
But… in NARTH terms, wouldn’t that turn me into a LESBIAN?
Oops.
Posted by: tom from OH at July 19, 2006 03:26 AM
I doubt seriously that you have read much of XGW or you would not have posted what you did. Personally, I’m not going to spend too much time trying to understand you until you learn to use paragraphs.
Now I would love to play another hand ladies but my gall bladder has been bothering me something fierce. Come on dad, let’s go home or mom will be angry.
Good grief.
From Tom:
how about going to the original source, straight from the horse’s mouth, so-to-speak?
Excuse me?
This entire post is about how David Pruden failed to do that. He has completely misrepresented the researchers to push his baseless beliefs. And he’s not just anyone, but the head of Evergreen.
And let me assure you that none of Pruden, Byrd, Chambers are even close to being authority figures. They certainly are perfect examples, but not in a way they should be proud of.
Frankly, I prefer my father. He’s honest.
OK, am I supposed to believe that nothing in the content in my previous post here has any relevance for you, because of your complaint about this issue or your complaint about that person? How does my previous post have anything to do about the other guy’s faults and/or weaknesses, as if that would really make a difference about your own, and totally justify you to choose whatever means possible and/or available in response?
This pattern of behavior is actually the most poignant example of how people with severe characterological defects and personality disorders present themselves, externalizing all their problems, or at least the resolution to all their problems being what other people say or not say, do or not do. At least all those who have responded to my post are clearly showing this pattern, with much insolence and stubborn pride, as an incorrigible child would.
If you can’t find something in error about the message, you then have to criticize how it was written, who it didn’t include, and even the messenger, who you don’t even know! This clearly indicates much resistance on your part with just considering the counsel from others and even healthy self-analysis. Whether Pruden was wrong or not (and I don’t believe what you presented here was a fair representation of what he actually did say), you missed the point totally! It does seem like it’s about arguing for arguments sake, rather than a mature objective search for the truth. Come on, grow up! At least be courageous enough to do some healthy self-reflection, because I don’t see any of it here!
You will never win me over with this kind of adversarial dialogue and rageful spirit, nor will you with the vast majority of Americans. So, I’m totally done and will leave you to the mercy and grace of the Lord, and hopefully not to your own shameful devices that you presented here, that may eventually lead you to your own demise, unless you decide to make a drastic change in the way you communicate and engage in debate with others for the better.
Just in case Tom’s curiosity is greater than his ranting rage (the first was in the wee-hours of the morning…couldn’t sleep huh?) I must respond:
I find it interesting, Tom, you criticize for name-calling and then go on to call us all Old Ladies.
Plus, I gather from what you have typed here that you haven’t read the op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribine nearly three weeks ago.
Perhaps you need to revisit this website to see the update on the Salt Lake Tribune op-ed above.
Just a thought before you castigate everyone and project the very inadequacies you, Tom, protest about.
Pruden lied and he got caught at it. To defend him is pointless.
This dialogue is not to win you over. It is an ex-gay watch. I think the point here is to watch ex-gays and bring to light any of their lies and misrepresentations. I clearly see from this web/blog how ex-gays operate.
Rage.
Posted by: Tom of OH at July 20, 2006 04:12 PM
Tom, I don’t mean this to sound petty but I will be candid; I am having trouble taking you seriously enough to bother responding. One wonders if you know anything about these sources, at least the few you have shared. You are being lazy with your posts – you are all over the place but then expect someone else to do the research for you. We don’t operate that way here precisely because it doesn’t lead to anything except, as you said, argument for argument’s sake.
It’s quite easy to come in ill prepared, rattle off a bunch of biased psychobabble, call us names and generally be obnoxious, only to blame us when we don’t sit at your feet and marvel at your words of wisdom. And I’m sure it makes you feel like you have done your duty when you decide to melodramatically “wipe the dust off your feet” and move on. But you don’t realize that there are some very studious people here, professional researchers, doctors, professors and others who are simply used to dealing in fact. You will need to bring more to the table than a bag of insults to be taken seriously.
I’m sorry if our requirement for references frustrates you, but perhaps this just isn’t the best place for you to practice. If you do decide to post further, start by posting one or two thoughts at a time in a concise way. If you state something as fact, provide a reliable reference. And when you have the urge to call us names, don’t. A tiny bit of humility would go a long way, too. You are, after all, a guest.
Now that the ADF has linked to us in their daily news (see my post re New England…), be sure that we will be getting more hostile visitors.
Good-bye and good riddance. Tom obviously feels that none of us have ever encountered ignorant abuse from a ‘phobe before. More evidence he’s paralysed from the neck up.
So, no Tom. None of your posting have any relevance for us. You spat out some abuse, and neither know nor care if it’s even remotely true. What were your words in all that silliness again… oh yes, something about attacking “the messenger, who you don’t even know!”.
Hi pot. I’m kettle.
And thanks for the warning Sharon. As always, we’ll expect these “types” to assume they are the first person who’s ever banged on at us with abuse and threats of hellfire and damnation. They know that, because we’re all hatched from an egg and raised on another planet. Heterosexuality, wow, what’s that? 🙂
Oooh oooh oooh, we may even get a professional “watcher” assigned to report on us.
(Cue to Steve Martin, in The Jerk, holding up phone directory) “I am SOMEBODY!”