We’ve been told that ABC will air two episodes of 20/20 tomorrow night, Friday, from 9 – 11 PM ET. They should focus partly on a return visit to the Exodus member ministry Love In Action, comparing things now to their first report which aired May 31, 2000. Of that visit, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) had this to say:
The May 31 edition of 20/20 Wednesday ran a segment on reparative therapy, the controversial process that proponents claim can change unhappy homosexuals into happy heterosexuals. “Desperate to Change” focused on the religion-based ex-gay group Love in Action, its leaders and the men that live together in a communal setting while they go through the therapy. Reporter Peggy Wehmeyer is often skeptical about the therapy and challenges what she is told. When a doctor at Love in Action puts homosexuality on the same level as murder and rape, she calls him on the disparity. She also includes counterpoints from a therapist opposed to reparative therapy and interviews an ex-ex-gay man who reports that the therapy did not work, even though he completed the program.
John Smid and LIA have been through a lot since then, as has the ex-gay movement in general. Hopefully, ABC will push for the facts so everyone can assess this brand of conversion ministry for themselves, and decide if things have gotten better — or worse — in the last seven years.
There will also be a segment in the second hour about gay conversion therapies in general. We have heard that Dr. Jack Drescher will appear for that. The shows sound worthy of a Tivo at least. We will report on anything interesting we find. If something strikes you as interesting, feel free to discuss.
Addendum: Now we are being told that it will cover Love Won Out, specifically the Omaha conference. Whichever it is, LIA or LWO, it should be worth viewing.
“Many of the speakers at our conferences had to make a very difficult choice,” said Mónica Martí, Love Won Out media manager. “They had to choose to live their lives by God’s standard for sexuality, instead of bowing down to their own feelings or what popular culture said was unavoidable.
Again the core of Exodus, and the not so subtle ex-gay dichotomy is revealed; you have no real choice, our way is God’s way. And according to Alan Chambers, even celibacy is sinful, if one does not also consider the idea of loving someone of the same sex intimately wrong or even sinful.
And for the Christian, if the result of your struggle for understanding with God is not the same as ours, then one is “bowing down” to ones feelings. By choosing those words, Exodus’ media director is implying that one is making a god of sex.
Sad, very sad.
After that hideous piece they ran against Matthew Shepard in late 2004, I have a very, very hard time seeing anything from ABC News or 20/20 as fair towards gays.
Eugene, I have never called celibacy sinful. There are far more people living chaste than there are ones who have gotten or remained married.
Actually, I wrote that, not Eugene. If it seems confusing, refer to your book where you said:
That certainly seems like the same thing as what I said, Alan:
Where is the difference there?
You know what the sneakmeister is gonna say, don’t you David?
“See, I have never called celibacy sinful. I called gay celibacy sinful.”
Have you forgot — it’s not enough just to not have sex, you’ve got to also start thinking you are a heterosexual (albeit one who has a same-sex attraction problem).
“Gay celibacy” is not enough.
You want “heterosexual with SSA problem celibacy.”
It upsets Jesus if people even think they are gay. Everyone is heterosexual.
You know I will never understand this need to claim to be heterosexual with SSA. Are they seriously trying to fool God in all their language? Perhaps they can convince themselves that they are really heterosexual but only suffer from SSA. But God is no fool. Personally, I see this as mocking God. They are trying to force themselves into believing that they are really “straight” but suffering from the SSA. But God knows better. He knows their heart and intentions. They can’t hide the truth from him.
If we here at EGW are not fooled by their rhetoric how can they fool God and pretend to be something they are not?
Alan Chambers should be carefult about claiming that he never said something. Every time he opens his mouth, he tends to say something that directly contradicts something else he said in the recent past. I guess that is what happens when your entire life is devoted to encouraging or coercing people into claiming to be something that they are not: heterosexual.
All I’m gonna say is, this placement of gender based sexuality and orientation sounds like a lot of invention as one goes along.
This Biblical standard isn’t the issue. The issue is double and impossible standards set aside for gay people alone.
There must be considerations made that modern technology and social interaction have given us.
There is no choice in being gay. There is no choice about having sexual urges.
We, as human beings have the choice to be ethical, and sensitive and honest and caring in our sexual relationships.
And although that’s simplistic for a complex issue, gays and lesbians are treated with more simplistic values and expectations. That is to say, like children OR eunuchs unless and until they behave like the dictation says.
The requirements being put forth here by Exodus are still traveling on a line of THEORY on the origins of homosexuality. And also an assumption regarding gender and it’s spiritual and emotional integration in society.
The function of gender really is quite limited in the physical. But INFINITE in every other way. The writers of the Bible and the INVENTORS of religion….had narrow understanding of the role of gender in every day life and invented and constructed rules to separate gender effectively.
I am more certain than ever of this because of what gender is favored in most religious texts and religions.
That doesn’t make it right or the absolute truth of ANYTHING.
This patriarchal attitude that the Exodus crowd advances is on this woman’s last nerve.
Being a Christian, being integrated into a religious community of ANY kind has always created a special difficulty for women.
With the advancement of man, should come also the advancement of human understanding of who we are as sexual people, gay or not. Religion DOES allow for flexibility of conscious as we are created curious and naturally evolving as a species.
I see a lot of rigidity where homosexuality is concerned, and there is no option of seriously dealing with the fullness and potential of homosexuality among the Christianity that Alan Chambers supports.
Indeed, they are rolling backward, a great deal of progress and it’s gays and lesbians who are the easiest sacrifice.
Alan ain’t deep.
And it looks like neither are a good deal of the people who he supports and associates himself with.
Forcing the dictum that homsoexuals are all unhappy and God is as discriminating too against this group is so, so weak.
What I’m really wanting to know, is why are the options of following our natural curiosity so thwarted on this issue?
Ok Alan, so you chose to affect heterosexual life. It must mean a lot to you.
Good for you…..now…
Why gather agents to force it on other people who don’t want it and can’t really have it and selling them out in the meantime?
We have much to learn about homosexuality and gay people….what’s so wrong about learning it?
Which isn’t exactly the same as accepting it.
But something tells me, LEARNING more about it, WILL lead to accepting it.
We did learn after all, not from the Bible, but from scientists and other curious people where babies REALLY come from, didn’t we?
How was 20/20’s piece on Matthew Shepard “hideous?” Did they make mention of struggles he had with drugs?
Matthew was a martyr for our community, but he was not sinless. I personally have no qualms with both sides being presented. But correct me where I’m wrong – did they paint him as being a deviant, or “asking for it,” or something terrible like that?
To what end? Don’t get me wrong, we are used to presenting both sides when it’s germane, but how would discussing the personal struggles of his life serve any purpose? No one that I know of claimed he was a saint, only that he was brutally tortured and murdered.
Seems a bit like bringing up the personal life of a rape victim to me.
that’s fine, but i still have no idea what went on in the report or “to what end” sides were presented, so I can’t comment on 20/20’s treatment. Can someone please answer my previous comment?
Best quote from the show:
@ Emily
Google is your friend 😉
I didn’t remember the issue either, so I had to look it up myself. That does explain some remarks I have heard in general about ABC, however.
One thing I noticed: They credited themselves with breaking the John Paulk gay bar story, but that was Besen’s doing, with the help of gay papers like The Advocate and also the gay blogosphere at the time. 20/20 may have broken it to the “non-queer” media, but until then, it was the gay media that “outed” him.
Yeah, I noticed that too. That was pretty cheap, actually.
The rest didn’t seem that bad, certainly not exhaustive but it was a short segment. Even so, they figured out some of the big problems with ex-gay word games – change is never what you think it means and it changes even within affiliated ministries. If you go to Exodus, mom and dad (mostly dad) are at fault. If you go to LIA, well that place just seems as depressing as their goth looking website. I guess to keep yourself “cured” there you just have to go from client to employee – sounds familiar.
And “Exodus encourages parents to bring their children,” aside from sounding as bizarre as I can imagine trip with the family having been, is another indication that yes, Exodus does target youth.
You do learn how to change your oil, though!
How idiotic is that statement? Does Alan Chambers even own a Bible much less read it?
Alan, please do not be rude. He has a Bible, kay!
It is the EIV Bible @ Exodus International Version!
Surely the two Bibles I have in my possession, none of the words in red has Christ saying anything that comments homosexuality, let alone homosexuality contradicting Christ! : P
What is ridiculous is Chambers thinking that when a person consumes Christ until he is holy enough, the homosexual ‘urges’ would go. How about trying that on heterosexuals ‘urges’?
Emily, I can answer your question on the 20/20 piece on Matt. Several of the people interviewed from HIS side, were his mother, the detective on the case, Dave O’ Malley and Jason Marsden, one of several close friends of Matt’s.
The opposing side, was one of his killers (who needs a justifiable motive to lessen his sentence) and two people who never knew him and one with a passing acquaintance.
The upshot of Elizabeth Vargas’s reporting was on the word of people who didn’t know Matt, she went along with their story that Matt was a meth head and looking to score.
And the deal got out of hand because Matt made a pass.
It was just another attempt to smear him and imply that if he hadn’t been looking for drugs, he wouldn’t have met his killers so therefore he’s at fault for his victimization.
But when has any anti gay person EVER not believed that Matt wasn’t more guilty than those who killed him?
The evidence on the issue is this Emily.
1. Matt didn’t have the physical or physiological evidence in his body that he was a meth user. He didn’t have the personality disorder of one either.
2. Matt did smoke weed sometimes, but he’d never used hard drugs, he was on presciption medication (was afraid of drug interaction and brain damage) and he didn’t want it anyway.
3. Dave O’Malley knew every drug addict in town. And there wasn’t even any evidence that Matt used drugs at Matt’s apartment, which they searched later.
5. Elizabeth Vargas interviewed Doc, a limo driver who was interviewed for TIME magazine soon after Matt’s death and was portrayed in “The Laramie Project” at no time did Doc mention anything like this about Matt or that he knew anyone else that had witnessed any drug use. However, Doc’s fifteen minutes ran out, and gravitas sells.
6. Russell Henderson is looking to get his time reduced and one way to do it, is to make Matt look worse and to provide a justification for them having Matt with them in the first place. Matt was OFFERED a ride, the bartender said he never talked to those guys until they did, and they hadn’t offered him drugs in the first place, and they had a 357 magnum to make Matt comply with anything. Sorta takes the voluntary nature out of being with Henderson and McKinney.
I am friends with the Shepards for over eight years now. I am collaborating with Judy on a literary project and Dave O’ Malley is a personal friend as is Jason Marsden and his husband Guy Padgett, who’d know Matt since the fifth grade. I was a Guy and Jason’s wedding in Casper.
So, it if has to come down to who you are going to believe? I’d say the best character witnesses are people who spent a lot of time with Matt and not some trailer trash who want to be on television.
4. Matt
McKinney and Henderson robbed Matt to GET drugs for themselves…why would they care if Matt used or not?
And Matt didn’t know them, so how would he know they’d know where to get anything?
Regan,
All of your claims are unsubstantiated.
Please document your “evidence.”
Here is the deal. How many bad drug deals ever end up with some poor guy tied to a fence, beaten to a pulp? I think that says plenty:the attack was vicious and suggests way more than just a simple drug deal/robbery gone wrong.
Michael, in what way do you mean? What evidence or documentation do you need? What ALL claims are you talking about?
I can also claim that Judy, Dave and Jason were livid about the final cut of that episode.
Emily asked…I answered…or would YOU rather answer her Michael?
Feel free.
This is off topic anyway, but Emily put the question out there, and since I am personally involved with the aforementioned and talked to them about it, I thought I’d share as an insider. There was no follow up article in the media to offer a website or link to any other subsequent information.
However, the motive for Henderson’s interview was in the episode and Vargas asked him about his sentence. It’s the claims of Doc and two other people who claimed to have seen Matt using at a party. In the entire episode it is THEY who were making unsubstantiated claims.
I’ll admit that my remark on Doc’s motive for the interview was an opinion.
Emily, did you need the same substantiation? Just asking.
I keep kicking out….anyway, GLAAD and other media watchers analyzed the piece and had their own thoughts about it even being done in the first place.
Regan, if you are claiming first-hand knowledge from talking with specific family/friends, that’s fine. However, I don’t think you are claiming to have talked with the perpetrators.
It does seem that you are stating, as fact, your opinions and recollections from a long-ago 20/20 segment or other media. Unfortunately, your recollections carry no special credibility. If you are going to assert that a TV show or segment quoted someone saying something, then please link to a transcript or to an article that confirms your quotes.
XGW expects all commenters to document their assertions of fact. That rule is not limited to ex-gays.
I am claiming first hand knowlege from speaking to Jason Marsden, Judy Shepard and Dave O’Malley. We spoke to each other long before the episode was aired and they weren’t sure of what the final cut would say. They were not informed of the content of what Henderson would say, or what Vargas would ask.
However, after we all watched the episode, we all talked again and they told me what portions of their interviews had been edited to skew the tone towards implying a drug deal gone bad.
There is no evidence that this was a drug deal at all.
When I asked Judy about interviewing Dave for the play, she’d said that Dave had become very selective about doing them, but if she gave him the go ahead, he’d speak to me.
I was doing it for a different reason, and he’s been more than cooperative because of the motive to do the play and I’ve made everyone privy to all drafts as the work progressed.
Dave and I had private, off the record conversations. As professionals (I was in law enforcement too) and as friends of the Shepard family and then as friends. I asked Dave about everything to do with Matt’s short time in Laramie and about drug use and of course the 20/20 episode implying it.
And that’s when he told me about when he followed up on that himself and tracked down who might corroborate this being something to do with drugs.
Since the 20/20 episode, these folks have become more media shy in a way and I can understand why. I remain all access, fortunately.
Romaine Patterson authored the book “The Whole World Was Watching.” approved by the Shepards with a forward by Judy. Romaine chronicles Matt’s use of marijuana…so that is now public record. There is also mentioned what I said above and the reasons why Matt wasn’t involved in any other street drugs.
Anyway, I tried to track down the GLAAD analysis of the episode and the 20/20 archives and couldn’t find it.
Maybe Google might.
Anyway, I understand your point. But as I said, I was just trying to answer a question and it was a long time ago this 20/20 thing happened so archives are harder to come by.
GLAAD’s press release is here:
http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=3756
Doesn’t anyone pay attention to me 🙁
Just forget that, my ego would prefer not to get the answer.
Thanks Tim!