 |
 |
| Before | After |
Ex-Gay Watch congratulates John Paulk on his new look, which we trust matches his good cooking.
We don’t know whether he learned to project long-haired, diet-conscious, post-metrosexual masculinity from Kyan and Carson or from Ex-Gay Eye for the Christian Guy, but however it happened, he looks fabulous, and healthier than ever.
More pictures of Paulk, cooking colleagues and family are in color here.
Best wishes to John and his family from the folks at XGW.
This post doesn’t serve to educate anyone on exgay issues, it is just mean.
Feeling a bit judgmental this morning Joe? How on earth is that post mean? Have you bothered to look over his site? He has made amazing improvements, not the least of which is that he looks fantastic and has a successful career. Considering how he was used, I think he has done pretty well.
He’s cuter the old way.
Maybe the intention of the post and how this post comes off, don’t match up. In my opinion this seems more sarcastic then it does well wishing, but that is just my take. Perhaps I have jumped to a judgement, but If you were John, how would you feel about this post when you saw it?
I think it’s all in how you read it. I thought the post was congratulatory and deservedly so. Mr. Paulk is a nice person outside of the ex-gay arena, and it doesn’t hurt to recognize when he does well in his personal life. Too often we end up seeing the players in the ex-gay movement as caricatures of people, and this post humanizes (at least one of) them.
Joe Brummer:
Good grief man, do you see how good he looks now? Flattered? Perhaps we should leave it up to John to express how he feels about something. After all he has been through, I doubt he is quite as fragile as you seem to imply.
For the record, the post is exactly what it says, congratulations and recognition that John seems to be getting on with his life in a positive way. Please avoid any tasteless or mean comments, I’m sure he has had his fill.
And Joe, I recommend you take a break. This stuff is getting to you 😉
I could not help myself be reminded of the old axiom: Never trust a skinny Chef.
I, too, read the original post as sincere and genuinely applaud any person who can make such a transformation…in the physical sense.
Good work, Mr. Paulk.
So, John Paulk left Seattle and moved to Portland, OR, eh? He gave his “official” reason for leaving Dobson’s Focus on the Family was that he wanted to “pursue his own ministry for the Lord.”
I see that it is very interesting that he has a “bartender,” too. Shades of Mr. P’s in D.C. back in Sep. 2001! LOL
Paulk’s heterosexual marriage to an “Ex-Lesbian,” Anne, and being the father of 3 sons does not an ex-gay make.
I also have suspicions about EGW’s “congratulations” to a notorious ex-gay activist. But if you say it’s genuine, I’ll take your word for it.
Although I disagree with his politics and hypocrisy, I have to admit that Paulk’s makeover is terrific. Paulk should be commended — especially after some harsh comments about his weight like from Wayne Besen. If I remember correctly, Besen cruelly described Paulk’s running as “waddling” in Anything But Straight.
Maybe I will go back to the gym.
I share Joe Brummer’s discomfort with what strikes me as a bit of a snarky tone in both the original post and some comments. Come on–Kyan and Carson? “Ex-Gay Eye for the Christian Guy”? Don’t tell me there’s not a little innuendo there.
As far as I’m concerned, Paulk was fair game for any kind of comment as long as he was putting himself forward as an ex-gay activist. But it seems he’s left that identity behind (not the ex-gay, but the activist), and is focused on his business and family. If he’s still promoting himself as a model of “change” or publicly advocating anti-gay politics, then fire away. But if he’s really just trying to pursue his own life, I think we should all leave him alone.
It seems like Paulk has found happiness, peace with his family, a career that suits him, comfort with his personal appearance and identity…and those are all things to be commended.
Isn’t part of the problem with the ex-gay movement that so many of them seem to be “on display”, fitting a pre-conceived image and “being ex-gay” as a career? Mr. Paulk has (probably because of his fall at Mr P’s, unwittingly) chosen to take a different path, one that appears more genuine and, importantly, doesn’t impinge upon the civil rights of others.
So I saw XGW’s congratulations as sincere and pointing out what the bloggers here have always said–that the problem isn’t in people “choosing to be ex-gay” (yes, yes, argue over what that means), but in the political ideology of that movement, and how it impacts the lives of others.
I’m sorry, I’ve read it over 16 times and I find it mildly humorous and overwhelmingly complimentary. I know for a fact that the post started with Mike noticing how good John looked yesterday and calling our attention to it. I was shocked, but genuinely happy that he has gotten on with his life. Mike dug up an older photo for comparison and put it up.
I woke up to Joe calling us mean and the rest you know. Can we just be happy for the guy and stop reading into it? Geesh!
CK:
Bingo!
I think you could easily make a convincing argument for why this is a positive post, but just for the sake of being honest I have to say my initial impression before I read the whole thing (and ultimately decided otherwise) was that it was sarcastic. I dunno…maybe that just says more about me and how I read in to things? Maybe one could argue that the fault is mine because part of me wants to see sarcastic and spiteful stuff directed at “the enemy?” I’m just thinking out loud here….I’ll stop now.
I think he looks good and his business seems to be doing very well. He’s obviously got the resources to employ a staff, he looks healthy and happier than I’ve ever seen him.
He’s not harming my ability to live my life anymore and he’s got a really cute family.
To all of this I say congrats and good for him. Now if some of the people who took over at Exodus and FOTF after he left would follow suit, I’d be a happy man.
I’m sorry that my effort at levity with Queer Eye vs. Ex-Gay Eye fell flat, but my congratulations were sincere. Paulk’s new look reminded me a bit of a young Patrick Swayze, though there are probably better comparisons. (Sorry, I’m not an expert on recent hunks and supermodels.)
As for Joe Allen Doty’s comment — after leaving FOTF, Paulk did go into ministry via Portland Fellowship for a few years before going back to school to pursue a career as chef. That seems to me like a perfectly sensible set of career choices. I don’t imagine that Portland Fellowship offers very good salaries or a whole lot of creativity.
Hats off to John — and now I’m sure to catch still more flak for making a pun about chef hats.
Oh come now everyone enjoys a good pun. 🙂
He looks like he’s really enjoying life. And yeah, he does look like Patrick Swayze there (I actually didn’t think it was John). I wish him all the best.
Looks like John Paulk has moved past the ex-gay movement’s narrow view of personal appearance and expression. Good for him.
The sad thing is that many ex gays who are not affiliated with the politcs of being ex gay are a lot like anyone else. They come in all shapes and sizes. It is too bad that the gay community focuses on just a few people and how they look. John Paulk deserves to be left alone on this issue since he has started a new career. And obviously he has remained married and continued to have children after his slip from whatever year that was.
Congratualtions to him.! He looks great. (Which hair color is his natural one?) A good friend of mine has met with John sevral times recently and tells me that he is feeling good about his new (post-EXODUS) life. That’s not an easy thing to do, as I can well attest. My (chef’s) hat is off to him.
Mary:
Oh my! Pot, meet kettle; kettle, meet pot.
I believe it was John that once said that putting on weight was part of his ex-gay identity because it was a rejection of the emphasis in the gay culture on an attractive exterior presentation. I’m glad to see that he’s let go of that notion.
I know we’re only going by photos, but John looks more attractive and genuinely happy than I’ve ever seen him. His new carreer seems to suit him well.
And his food looks delicious!! Congratulations to John and his family and here’s hoping he is as happy as his pictures present him.
I’m all about the creme brullee.
Yes, congratulations to John for chasing his dreams and making them a reality.
He does look happy, doesn’t he?
Mary said “It is too bad that the gay community focuses on just a few people and how they look.”
Yeah that’s really sad, isn’t Mary. But when you thrust yourself into the spotlight and demand that the world impose laws on other people, well you just have to expect that those people are going to focus on you. That’s what happens to nosy busy-body theocrats who seek to impose the Kingdom of God by means of a police state.
I suppose that if all the ex-gays (be they millions, hundreds of thousands, or a few dozen) happily did as John is currently doing and left their neighbors alone, no one would care what they looked like or what gay bars they periodically dropped into to use the bathroom.
Oh, and if anyone wants to see a snarky response to Paulk (in contrast to this post), look no further than this thread.
The next to last comment by a supposed gay colleague was the most interesting, I thought.
Mary,
1. There is no singular “gay community,” no single gay set of opinions or actions on any given topic.
2. If “many” apolitical ex-gays exist, they are not making themselves publicly available for discussion and dialogue. We wish they would. So please clarify: Do you want us to discuss apolitical ex-gays (who are unidentified and whom you say deserve privacy) or do you want us to focus on the political ex-gays? If you choose the latter, then please stop complaining when we do as you ask.
I’ve forgiven John Paulk for his past politics and dishonesty (there was no marital slip) and I’ve congratulated him on his career and his apparently improved health. I hope you’ll consider showing a little more grace in kind toward communities of same-sex-attracted persons.
If there is no gay community – do you think then that there is a single definition of the ex gay community??
Mary, there *IS* a single definition for the political ex-gay community.
I’ve never seen anyone on here go after somebody who chooses to be ex-gay and shuts up about it.
The ex-gays who use their lives and positions to influence legislation against gay families deserve every bit of investigation they get.
Then there is a single definition of the gay activist.
Doesn’t sound right – does it?
Depends on what you consider an activist.
Take all the things you say about ex gays and try them on for yourself (the things that people say about gays). And as an exercise try this Say ” All blacks are….., All protestants are…, All lesbians are…. ” you fill in the stereotype.
You get the point. Making such a broad remark about any group like that starts to sound – well, ignorant.
And apparaently not all ex gays look wierd, or republican or whatever. – John looks fantastic – even hot!!! And yet – he is still ex gay.
Does this mary-go-round of circular logic ever stop?
Mary, your using a view of ex-gays which I have almost exclusively found at PFOX. Ex-gay is not a sexual orientation or a particular class of people. If one is truly ex-gay, then they are straight, no? If not, then they are gay and dealing with it in a way other than acceptance (fill in the blank on how). There is at least the possibility that homosexuality is inborn (research pending) but there is zero chance that ex-gay is not a genuine choice made well into life. So, even using the extreme right criteria, there are no civil rights for ex-gays as a group as that truly would be “special rights” (ironic, I know). If there are ever enough of them to actually even rate genuine discrimination, then I guess you can take a shot at that, but as of now it’s hardly an issue.
Have we covered all the possibilities now?
Mike
I only rebutted your answers which seemed to go in a circle.
Something like:
Ex gays are a group but gays are not.
That just sounds strange to me.
And I also responded to PW comments that John has moved past the Ex gay narrow view of personal appearance and expression.
As if there is one expression or preferred appearance for ex gays.
Ex gays say they are ex gay to show that if you have gay attractions – those attractions can and do change over time. And yes, they are straight people. I don’t want to play semantics here – the fight isn’t mine.
I AM IN NO WAY PROMOTING THAT PEOPLE MUST CHANGE OR LIE OR PRETEND TO BE SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT.
Having clarified that:
Anyhow, gays just don’t believe the ex gays. Simple. I happen to believe that people do change. Also, until the gay gene is found, arguing over whether or not it is inborn or genetically predisposed, or whatever – is useless. Do what you want to do – be gay or ex gay, or non sexual – I don’t care.
Finally – I just thought it strange that soooooo much is made about this man’s appearance. And if you did forgive him – then let him go an live his life. Obviously you are still tracking him down and giving the rest of s updates.
What’s really amazing is that this post has 33 comments and the one above it about Paul Cameron, arguably a much more significant matter in the scheme of things, only has 3. I guess celebrity fluff is the way to go?
No kidding!! At least – you get it. Hey, if you think that article was scarey read the one out about pedophiles being genetically predisposed that way.
Mary, nobody at XGW says “all ex-gays are” anything.
And nobody at XGW says there is even an “ex-gay community” — though Exodus does claim to represent many or most organizations that were formerly known as “ex-gay” but which are now rejecting that label in favor of “formerly gay-identified.”
The word “gay” is slang for predominant attraction to the same gender, whether one is celibate, monogamous, or something else. In other words, one can be gay and oppose homosexual behavior.
“Ex-gay” is a label that was created by the founders of Exodus — one of whom, Michael Bussee, comments frequently at XGW. The label sought to describe persons who were predominantly same-sex-attracted but who sought to act sexually in a heterosexual fashion and to lessen their predominant same-gender sexual attraction.
Even Exodus is now abandoning the “ex-gay” label for various reasons, so your reliance upon the label as a counterpart to “gay” is outdated.
Anyhow, when you compare gay and ex-gay, as David indicated, you are comparing apples and oranges — different and unrelated concepts. “Gay” is slang for a specific sexual orientation, “ex-gay” is an outdated relabeling, often of the same sexual orientation.
Finally, I posted about John Paulk precisely to show that ex-gays can become happier, healthier, more genuine, and less political, and better fathers when they leave the overworked, intolerant and unhappy confines of Focus on the Family and choose to live normal lives in a broader community that includes both gays and ex-gays. I get the impression, however, that you do not want us to present positive role models for other ex-gays.
I took this post for being sarcastic as well when I read it, but I’ll let others here debate that. I wish Mr. Paulk well, his restaurant looks like a great place to eat. The pics of the food left my mouth-watering!!! I hate to say it, but the new bartender Patrick is a bit of eye-candy himself…
I think this post would have come off better in a differnt light, but even “some” of the comments see bitter. Some are serious well wishing, and I applaud those, but some are just bitter.
I am sorry if my comments were out of line, but I took this post to be something you didn’t intend, but I also didn’t know that you intended something else. Perhaps, you were right in your email to me. I should have emailed you privately to ask you intentions, but this post has turned out well I guess.
Most of the comments have been nice, but I suspect John wants to move on with his life without any comment from us at all. I respect that.
I will add he does look like P. Swayze….
(Ack, we weren’t responsible for this coming to your attention were we Mike A???!!!)
Like, umm… Christine, it was … we did a double take too. Thought we’d actually had the site trawler stumble onto the wrong site — but then we looked and realised that it was still John Paulk. Half the man he used to be, and a mighty commendable thing that is too.
Wry observation about the photoshopped teeth bedazzling aside… (plainly you can take the show-girl out of the show, but not the show out of the show-girl!)… we saw no need for other comment about Paulk because none was really required. He seems more at one with himself than he ever was as an ex-gay store dummy. Due to his new life away from Exodus, or finding maturity? Or were those related? Who knows.
We all take things as we see them, but I think much of the reading of snarkiness into the post (something we didn’t read, as such) stems from an assumption about why the post would suddenly appear here.
I think it’s a good thing to highlight that there does indeed appear to be life beyond failure as a professional exgay. When one compares John now to the person who was at that time using and being used by the politically religious forces behind Exodus et al we see — it appears — a very much happier and personaly more successful man.
Plainly, it isn’t just the lives of gay men and women that are contorted by the demands made by the political exgay industry. Conformity requires that they cripple their own, too.
All good stuff. And knowing that, by way of “Where are they now?” from time to time, is no bad thing.
“Also, until the gay gene is found, arguing over whether or not it is inborn or genetically predisposed, or whatever – is useless.”
Mary are you speaking metaphorically, or are you literally waiting for the discovery of a gay gene? Remember that traits don’t have to be genetic to be inborn.
Mike,
You did. And if ex gays don’t exist – why the website about them.
And to the other responder – My personal belief is that sexuality is inborn and we – each person – guides it, develops it, experiences it in new ways and attitudes – and basically that sexuality is flexible.
It’s up to each person to do with his/her own body what they want to do. If you are gay and want to persue that then do that. If you don’t want to then don’t. If you want to look at your sexuality in a private session with a therapist – go ahead. Honestly, it is a personal choice to move your body in the way that you want.
And if you want to change the way you act and feel about yourself then do that.
Back to you Mike.
Oh – and by the way gay was a term coined in the 20’s. It is no more wierd as a term than ex gay. Ex gay is used to define that a person has changed from one thing (gay) to ex gay. Please??!! We all know what is being said by that word and so what if you don’t like it or find it irrelevant to you. It is relevant to those who use it.
Fag ( a skinny stick) was used at one time to refer to homosexual men. What term do you prefer that or gay??
I mean, who cares what people call themselves?
It’s a term and we can all agree what is being said by that.
Oh and if it doesn’t exist then ex ex gay does not exist either. You might as well just say those people are just gay! Get over it.
What a cynical world we live in….
It was a sincere post full of goodwill and good wishes toward someone who at one time used his position in a politically-charged (and religious) organization to rally for laws which limit the rights of almost every writer at this site.
I was part of the discussion prior to the post. There was nothing mean-spirited about it.
Noticing someone’s improved looks, particularly that sort of healthy weight-loss, is not exclusive to sexual orientation. I hope if Mr. Paulk sees the post, he will take it in the spirit it was meant to be taken. Good grief, even I, when I introduced myself here, made a little joke about being “The Gay Whisperer”. (that was a reference to one of my favorite tv shows, The Dog Whisperer) Making culturally witty remarks and being able to laugh at ourselves is a very HEALTHY way of being.
Mary, your posts are degrading into pointless ramble. At the very least you are pushing this already wobbly thread further off topic. The language in this last post caused it to be queued by the spam filter. If you have no further comments relating to John’s positive changes, please give it a rest.
I was thinking that he looked more like Sorbo than Swayze. In any case, maybe he could pass on his secret. If it involves eating the delicious looking desserts on his webpage, sign me up.
Making good food that people can genuinely enjoy seems like a much more productive usage for someone’s time than engaging in the lies and deceit that are entailed in being part of Exodus and Focus on the Family.
Yes Mary, people can change. John Paulk seems to be actually doing something productive with his life. I wish him well in his new life.
No degoratory language was used – in my defense. Your say so does not make your statement true.
The spam filter can’t tell how you are using the word “fag” just that it was used. We don’t get a lot of comments with that word in them (thankfully). I’m not sure how any of that is changed by your statement, which quite frankly is a bit odd.
Again, please think more carefully before commenting, and make sure that you are not being needlessly adversarial.
Okay.
The term “exgay” is a ridiculous lie. No one can become “exgay”. Its impossible so enough with the semantics and call it what it is. To quote Wayne Besen, an “exgay” is a “recloseted homosexual”.
So here we have John Paulk, a man who caused anguish and heartache for countless gays and lesbians during his years at Focus on the Family and Exodus. He colluded with the hateful James Dobson in spreading the shameful and destructive message that being gay is bad and, not only that, its changeable! Now because Paulk starts a new job as a chef and drops some weight, I’m expected to wish him well in his new life? Puh-leeez.
He may not be politically involved on the scale he once was, but Paulk is still living a lie along with his recloseted wife, Anne.
From https://www.mezzaluna.biz/chef.htm: “John, and his wife, Anne, have been married since 1992 and delight in raising their three young sons. They make their home in Southeast Portland where they are active members of the faith community and other non-profit local organizations.”
Active members of the faith community? What would you be willing to bet that this activism doesn’t involve acceptance and love for his gay brothers and sisters? Has Paulk made ANY reparations for his past actions?
When Paulk publicly comes out and begins the process of apologizing for the hate and lies he’s propagated over the years, including that TIME cover story, perhaps then I’ll be open to forgiveness. Until then, I spit on his creme brulee.
John, in my opinion when we make absolute statements like “no one can become ex-gay” we are no better than those in the religious right who make absolute statements about homosexuality, for example that all homosexuals are the result of a broken family or sexual abuse or a distant father, etc etc.
I know that what you say about ex-gays is certainly true for me (in fact I think it’s true for the majority of gay people), I could never change my orientation nor would I want to, but I think that we have to acknowledge that identifying as gay is a complex issue and people have many reasons and personal histories behind why they choose that identity. Because of that, and for the sake of intellectual honesty, I have to concede that it’s *possible* for some people to change their sexual identity in some significant way.
Again this is assuming that a person can identify as gay, or have homosexual attractions for more than one reason. Again I think that the vast majority of homosexuality is a very natural and normal inborn trait or characteristic, and in those cases I don’t think that trying to change is very realistic, but I can’t truthfully rule out that maybe one’s environment and past experiences can also make a person gay.
I think where the religious right starts to get it wrong is in two aspects at this point. First, like I said, they think that all or most homosexuals are gay because of something in their past or upbringing. Second, they figure that this somehow makes it wrong or in *need* of changing. I strongly disagree with that; I think that a person who is gay because of their past experiences has no more need or expectation to change than a person who was born gay.
However if they want to try and change, and this is tricky because I mean that if *they* want to change, not because they were forced to or not because they were pressured to, which sadly I think accounts for a lot of cases, but if they really want to try and change then I think we have to respect that. Being gay is so…truthfully what I am, I can’t see myself as anything else or ever wanting to change, I’m very content with this identity. But if someone really feels that being gay just isn’t right for them, if they feel conflicted, again I think we need to respect their desire to redefine or rediscover themselves, and acknowledge that for some it just may be possible.
I’m getting repetitive so I’ll stop. It’s not my place to ask you to take the high road in forgiving John Paulk and in all honesty I’d probably be a hypocrite if I did so.
Well, yes John: Paulk is still “living a lie”.
So?
Beyond pointing that out, exactly what sort of passion do you expect of, say, us on this matter?
However, there are people actively doing today what Paulk was doing before he crashed and burned. It is at those people that we feel our energies are better directed.
And no, we have not forgotten. Nor have we forgiven. We live in hope that Paulk should some day apologise for all the harm that he caused. (Not holding our breath for that though.)
For the record, I used the term ‘ex-gay movement’, and they do have a ‘narrow view of personal expression and appearance’. They are in the business of getting you (if you get into their clutches) to modify your behavior, your appearance and yes, your personal expression, because they’ve come up with the ‘proper’ way that men should act and look and women should act and look. I experienced a form of this when I went to a Exodus-style group and got the list of items one can’t wear when attending; one of them was cologne because you might ‘set someone off’. And my experience was mild compared to what Peterson and others went through when they were in Love In Action! But even when there are no official rule sets, there is pressure from within therapy groups to conform, and it is reinforced because you share a common purpose and goal with the members of the group. You learn that you will be rewarded with inclusion if you conform. This is such a powerful incentive that you’ll continue to conform even after you stop going to therapy altogether. I still find myself falling into the thinking patterns I learned while in ex-gay therapy. In Paulk’s case, as a professional ex-gay, he had the additional pressures of money and public image. So it’s interesting to note Paulk’s transformation and definitely worth discussion because what we have here is a formerly prominent ex-gay leaving the culture of the ex-gay movement, though it has to be said, remaining ex-gay.
Click on the link for the new restaurant. If John can spend his days in the presence of Patrick, the bartender and not weep from the guy’s sex appeal, he may well be heterosexual. Looking at how thrilled John seems to be to have Patrick’s arm around him, I doubt it.
You did. And if ex gays don’t exist – why the website about them.
Well, I think this site is more about the “ex-gay industry” or “machine” if you like, then the people who have been used by it.
It is amazing how much better Paulk looks now, then when he was part of The Industry. I had to study those two photos carefully for a few minutes to convince myself it was in fact the same person in both.
Since the vast majority of ‘hundreds of thousands’ that Exodus claims have changed (if they in fact exist at all) remains silent, one can infer that they have no loyalty to their fellow ex-gays, no sense that they should be speaking up to defend the ex-gay movement’s beliefs (or at least the principle that ‘change is possible’) and no duty to make their presence known. Instead they are apparently at home being ‘apolitical’, ‘private’ and ‘straight’. Sound familiar?
“John, and his wife, Anne, have been married since 1992 and delight in raising their three young sons. They make their home in Southeast Portland where they are active members of the faith community and other non-profit local organizations”
Exactly what kind of faith community do they belong to? I ask that kind of question and include the deal about Paulk’s bartender because the original denominational church where Exodus was founded does not approve of the consumption of alcoholic beverages and I don’t think that Dobson does either.
I am not against the consumption of alcoholic beverages in moderation (I like beer with Pizza and Tex-Mex) and wine has a purpose as part of a meal and even has medicinal qualities.
Some folks who are exclusively homosexual in their sexual orientation do make great parents. But, the above quote does not say that the Paulk’s marriage is a delight. My late partner, Ed, should never have gotten married; but, according to his children and step-children, he could not have been a better father. He was married for 13 years before he left the closet.
I still consider Paulk to be a hypocrite. I do know a whole lot about his real “testimony.”
“I think where the religious right starts to get it wrong is in two aspects at this point. First, like I said, they think that all or most homosexuals are gay because of something in their past or upbringing. Second, they figure that this somehow makes it wrong or in *need* of changing. I strongly disagree with that; I think that a person who is gay because of their past experiences has no more need or expectation to change than a person who was born gay.”
Well said.
I would only add that if a person wants to change for whatever reason they may have – then let them do so.
If Paulk refrains from further involvement with the political muck of the so-called “ex-gay” movement and makes amends with God, that’s good enough for me. I have no special axe to grind with him or anyone else over this. Frankly that’s the whole point of this. I do not wish to grind people into the ground who disagree with homosexuality, I just want them to leave me the hell alone and quit treating me as if I’m a second-class citizen, let alone devoid of the dignity God has instilled in all of us. Paulk certainly doesn’t need my forgiveness as I’m no better than him, nor is anyone else here I might add. Our sins may differ but in end we all much to be ashamed of.
Mary, I think most (if not nearly all) of us are all for self-determination.
While we might not think that people should feel the need to change, I don’t think any of us have a problem with someone trying to change (you don’t specify what kind of change – behavior? orientation?).
Where the problem starts is when they say things like “I changed! Change is possible” which continues to bring pressure on gays, pull apart families, and makes just one more excuse for folks to abuse us (well, if they can change then they should. If they’d just change I wouldn’t have to feel this way or deal with “these people”).
I think many of us also take issue when people use their stories of change (again, that word change…what does it really mean? They say one thing, knowing that for the majority of people, they will take it to mean orientation, when obviously that’s not what they mean when you start looking into it) to fight against hate crime legislation or for things like the constitutional amendments against legal recognition of same-sex partnerships (the old “Hey if they can change, why should they have the same rights as us?”)
I think this is where the anger and hurt comes in. It’s not, for the most part, for most people, against individual ex-gays.
Mary,
During the time that my now ex-husband was involved in reparative therapy and I was writing about it on my blog, not ONE time did any gay person show up in my comments or in my email to discourage either me or my husband. Not once. I was always very honest about the process and I even threw around words like “change” very loosely (quite innocently, actually). But none of these folks ever attempted to make a mockery or do anything but be supportive of me and my husband as self-determined individuals.
During that time, I would also comment here at Ex-Gay Watch. There was NEVER a time when I didn’t feel safe and even protected from anyone who might ridicule me for my beliefs.
I believe the reason for this is because I’ve always been respectful, honest, and willing to listen.
The folks here at Ex-Gay Watch are not terribly interested in ex-gay individuals, it’s not individuals they are “watching”. They are interested in the Ex-Gay Movement as a whole becoming open and honest about their claims of “changing orientation” or turning gay people into straight. Also, it’s one thing to market the sort of “fixes” they promote (that’s bad enough), but on top of that, organizations like Exodus and PFOX spend a great deal of their time working against gays politically. I know several ex-gay individuals who SUPPORT gay marriage as well as hate crime legislation.
That’s the sort of thing Ex-Gay Watch is concerned about.
Its not just ex-gays working against gays politically though Pam. What disturbs me is when anyone advocates dividing families because of any sort of political or moral disagreement. I’ll be honest, I’m not fond of a lot of ex-gay leaders personally because I disagree with their policies, although I think they have a right to believe and spread their message. I’m probably more willing than most to tolerate the hate they spread because I believe more and more people will realize how damaging their message can be at times, in other words I support their speech because I believe an inclusive message is the right side of science, history, and faith.
With that said, my tolerance of leaders of the ex-gay movement is severely eroded when individuals like Stephen Bennett speak about making a gay person choose between his parents and his partner. I’m disturbed when a message of love and respect turns into hate and fear. I’m disgusted when social ostracism is advocated by religion.
So I agree with you that a lot of people oppose the ex-gay movement and have no problems with ex-gay individuals. But I think that the more the leaders of the ex-gay movement support destroying families the more its easy to resent a person who is ex-gay because it makes you wonder if they support those same divisive policies as the leaders of their movement.
I don’t even think that’s fair, and I do understand that individuals are not the same as groups. But it seems that the ex-gays you hear about are never just living their life quietly (as I’d commend John Paulk for trying to do) they’re always trying to spread a message.
“But it seems that the ex-gays you hear about are never just living their life quietly (as I’d commend John Paulk for trying to do) they’re always trying to spread a message.
Well there’s also the point that if they are living their lives quietly, then that means we don’t see them in the media and don’t know about them.
There is a huge difference between the leaders in the ex-gay programs and your neighbor next door who considers themselves ex-gay. I know people who claim to be ex-gay but have never been in the public eye at all.
Well…..none of the ex-gays I’ve known have ever wanted to be a part of any “movement”. In fact, they don’t even call themselves “ex-gay”. They would actually just say “straight”, since they aren’t identifying as gay.
I hope I don’t sound as confusing with all that as those in the “movement”. But, that is the reality of it.
I do understand what you are saying, though, Kendall.
Mary says…”change for whatever reason”.
That Mary, is loaded. I find it particular grating to listen to or read straight people lecture a gay one on whether it’s a choice, when a gay person EMPHATICALLY says, it’s not.
Mary, there is no ‘straight gene’, either. In scientific circles, certain results that have not aberrations or anomalies…are called normal.
The most important factor here is that there is no urgency to be straight for ANY reason, and the ex gay industry is very fear based.
Conjoing the fear of God, with the fear of HIV/AIDS.
This isn’t about changing orientation, but AFFECTATION of heterosexuality.
So, what’s the POINT in doing it at all?
Ex gay ministry, or therapy are hard to distiguish from the other. So are the various and sundry groups, churches or counselors who claim they are expert at changing someone gay.
Homosexuality, most often is treated as a substance addiction would be treated. If the client is young and vulnerable, the counselor eventually will have them believe that homosexuality has the inevitable health risks and death that alcoholism does.
This is an unconcionable approach to doing anything with or for homosexuality.
It’s misrepresentative.
Refraining from substance intake has very specific and beneficial results.
The ex gay industry has yet to show that they are even relevant, let alone successful.
Widespread success would prove what? From my chair, there is no shortage of heterosexuals, or the ability to procreate. So what’s the big urgency that gay men or women have babies?
Or, what’s so important about pleasing God, when you won’t know about that until you’re dead?
If it’s about pleasing God, one can do that without the intervention of an ex gay ministry or therapist.
Enough high profile ex gays….can’t keep up the facade for long. I’m not saying they inevitably will break…but I AM saying that their intellectual dishonesty when it comes to motive, results and the exploitation of fear, must be challenged.
They confuse the general public. They foster stereotype regarding promiscuity, disease and inferior skill in relationship endurance.
In so many ways they are indefensible BECAUSE they don’t go quietly into a life or profession that’s ordinary.
So many ex gays become PROFESSIONAL ex gays. A caricature of straight people and what they think straight people do with their sex lives.
Affectation doesn’t impress me.
I would believe them more, that they REALLY didn’t want to be gay….if we lived in a generally accepting society in which homosexuality didn’t raise any more emotion than the sun coming up in the morning.
But we know there is still much hostility, threat, violence and discrimination against people who are gay.
So it’s no surprise someone would want to change, and no suprise there are people who say that to avoid all that ‘change is possible’.
But it’s the prejudice that’s GOT to change, not gay people.
The ex gay industry has had it’s claws in gay lives for too long now. From the beginning, forever.
And not because they were right, but because they could.
It’s time that gay people represent gay people, NOT ex gay people represent gay people!
That is definitely true Christine and why I hesitated to make that point, I know we aren’t hearing from some ex-gays. Its just… I dunno, maybe my standard is impossible to meet, but for example take Charlene Cothran, the “former lesbian, now celibate” editor of Venus magazine covered by XGW recently. She could’ve just left the magazine and left it at that since she was essentially totally changing what the magazine covered, or she could’ve offered refunds to subscribers that expected their usual magazine. Instead she decided to use it for her own agenda. That’s the kind of advocacy that bothers me.
I sure agree with your thoughts on Cothran and the magazine, Kendall. I wonder if she is reimbursing everyone for their subscription.
How wonderful it is that Mr. Paulk was able to get on with his life. I find myself wondering how many men and women haven’t been able to get on with their lives because of the damage of reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries?
You know, some of you folks need a serious sense of humor transplant. The post was excellent. Heck, even I think Paulk looks fabulous and I wish him well. I only hope he will cater my gay wedding one day.