In a rather self-congratulatory post to his personal blog, James Phelan claims to have picked a fight with a pro-gay man* during a recent public event.
They had several huge rainbow banners all lined up, seen for yards and yards away. As I passed the group, I yelled over that, in my opinion, they were there just to “push their gay agenda”. My opinion was they were using the large public event (which had nothing to do with homosexuality) to pollute it with gay politics. Well, one runner, a huge muscled-type, didn’t like me doing this and thought he’d teach me a lesson, unexpectedly shoved the heck out of me practically knocking me to the pavement, an act of violence and physical attack against my person. Of course, little did the fool know I was a trained fighter having served in an elite force of the US Army. So, I one-two drop kicked the hell out of him and got into a immediate fighter’s stance ready to take more of him. Naturally, the coward backed down and ran away.
Phelan is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a scheduled speaker at their upcoming annual conference. He is also a member of Exodus, and PATH, and is “certified as a sexual re-orientation coach” by the International Healing Foundation (Richard Cohen) . He is also co-president of Transforming Congregations ministry and a prolific contributing author for Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH). He claims to be a Christian and wants to help gay people, saying he can identify with their struggles. From this it appears he is also quite a bully, and may have some deep issues of his own to resolve.
If all this happened as Phelan claims — and like other recent events we have no real proof that it did — then certainly the other person should not have become physical in response to Phelan’s heckling. However, one must question the motives of a man who claims to be a psychiatric professional and yet apparently spends his free time baiting gay people so he can become physically violent “with the fool” and “drop kick the hell out of him.”
We are waiting for a promised response from Exodus, but sincerely call on NARTH, PATH, Richard Cohen, JONAH and Karen Booth to distance themselves and their organizations from Phelan. At the very least, his clients should know about his issues and the prospect of abuse.
Update: Alan Chambers has commented on Phelan’s post here. We are still waiting for his official statement.
* (6.54pm ET): Mr. Phelan has not responded to our requests for clarification, but in a comment reply on his own blog about an hour ago he said that he didn’t know the sexual orientation of the man with whom he fought. His original account clearly implies that the man was gay, however since this all seems a bit confusing we are contacting the gay organizations represented in the marathon and will ask each one just what happened, including any information available on the man in question. Anything we find will appear in a new post and linked here.
Sounds like something out of a Z-rated pseudo action movie.
I am sure that while Mr. Phelan was supposedly “kicking butt,” he uttered a witty catchphrase:
“Gotcha sucka!”
Whoa… That’s just weird. I did like Alan’s response, though. I look forward to his official statement.
Imagine if at the same marathon, gay runners had yelled insults at a local Exodus or PFOX group holding up a banner to cheer on their members who were running. Imagine if that had led to a fight, in which an Exodus/PFOX representative had gotten “drop-kicked to hell.” We’d see press releases all over the right wing media about the horrible harrassment and hate crimes ex-gays are suffering from gay activists.
As a veteran, I find Phelan’s allusion to his military service offensive in this context. My experience in relationships with other veterans of three generations (both my father and grandfather are combat veterans, and I grew up around the VFW and American Legion) leads me to be suspicious of boasts regarding one’s fighting prowess or claims to have served with “elite units.” Those I have known who have such credentials rarely need to advertise them, and in fact seem almost universally averse to doing so.
Doesn’t James comment here? He usually takes an interest in my posts. I listed him as one of the Christian resources JONAH uses. I think he goes by “Jim Phelan,” if it is indeed the same James.
@ Allyson
I said this to someone else earlier today. People with advanced training of that type seem to respond much more proportionately to threatening situations, as if they have a healthy respect for the damage that can be done. There is also less need to prove the ability when one has it. Then again, Phelan may have made the whole thing up — either way it’s quite telling of his own issues.
@ Emily
Yes, it’s the same person. His comments here and on other blogs appear arrogant and abrasive to me. I wonder if those around him notice a problem with anger.
Jim may or may not be telling the truth, but anyone with any sense does not go around in public trying to provoke strangers to the point that they get into violent confrontations. In our society, only an idiot would do that.
Too many people are armed. Confrontations escalate to shootings and stabbings every day. If Jim thinks this is a good way to spread his message, he may find himself in the Trauma Bay of an Emergency Department or worse yet, in the local morgue.
How did you get the idea that he beat a gay man? Are you being dishonest on purpose for effect, or are you just not reading as carefully as you might read say, an ex gay study? Go over his post again, but pretend this time that it’s the Spitzer study.
Ivan,
If you could just say what you mean rather than couching it in contempt it would be easier to answer. Still, I will make a guess at what you are talking about.
If you mean that Phelan only implied that the man was gay, that’s fine. It’s pretty obvious from the text that this is what he means to convey. Since he has not responded to our request for clarification, we will have to go with the obvious.
But let’s say the man was not gay, and simply thought Phelan was being a jerk. The runner would still be wrong for pushing Phelan, and Phelan would still be just as wrong for having responded the way he did, and certainly for reporting it with such smugness and glee, complete with violent imagery.
Are you implying that somehow it makes it ok if the guy was straight?
If you meant something else, you will just have to actually say what you mean before I can respond further.
For the record, if Phelan does respond saying that it was not a gay man he beat, we will update the post to reflect that.
David,
I think the bias is just a little too obvious. Sorry, can’t help but notice it. You’re the writers? Why should I have to note to you something so clear and obvious? And no, he didn’t imply the runner was gay in any way at all. His sentence is clear and non-descriptive on that point.
“…Well, one runner, a huge muscled-type…”
How does that imply a gay man?
And, the fact that you’re leaving the post to reflect something that is not in any way implied in the post by James Phelan, (unless of course he responds telling you otherwise) well, I find it incompetent. The burden of proof is on you to prove differently to what was written, not James Phelan.
As a side note, I’m not defending James Phelan. I’m Just calling it as I see it.
Wow, your correction hasn’t changed much. You’re implying the glee on James Phelans’ part was because the man was pro-gay. Perhaps the glee was defending himself against someone who knocked him to the pavement? Did he say anything about glee in kicking the guy *because he was pro-gay*, or did you just add that in for good measure?
Well, I thought I’d post about this issue, but didn’t expect balance or honesty. Sad for a website that practically exists to enforce honesty and balance among those they oppose.
For the record, if Phelan does respond saying that it was not a gay man he beat, we will update the post to reflect that.
David, Phelan does clarify in his own comment section as follows:
BTW, Joe, I didn’t know the sexual orientation of the man who attacked me. You called him a “gay dude”. He was not with the gay organization, just a runner.
Ivan, your objection is bizarre. Phelan’s original wording left the impression that the person who shoved him was gay.
My take: Phelan comes across generally as self-righteous and self-congratulatory. He argues with anyone who disagrees even the slightest with him – be they gay or anti-gay – and finds it necessary to take a tone of superiority.
Frankly, I think he’s delighted because he has some traffic to his otherwise-obscure blogsite and has attention directed his way. Sadly, I think this will only encourage him to behave in additional outrageous ways so as to draw more attention and feed his need to feel like God’s special chosen warrior standing alone against sinners and compromisers.
Timothy,
Can you elaborate how he implies that?
OH… and this is a guy that thinks “the golden rule” is “tell the truth”.
Me thinks his bulb may not be shining brightly in the night.
Where does Phelan say he was knocked to the pavement?
No, I’m not. Read it again:
But let’s say the man was not gay, and simply thought Phelan was being a jerk. The runner would still be wrong for pushing Phelan, and Phelan would still be just as wrong for having responded the way he did, and certainly for reporting it with such smugness and glee, complete with violent imagery.
It’s one thing to be objective, quite another to ignore all intellectual discernment. If you can’t agree that the guy was pro-gay, or at the very least thought Phelan was being a jerk, then I doubt you can even agree that we know he was a human being.
So, while debating all this minutia you did not answer; are you implying that somehow it makes it ok if the guy was straight?
That’s why I changed the references and posted the note at the bottom. I’m talking with the GLBT group that Phelan referenced. With any luck, we will have some additional information tomorrow. Somehow I wouldn’t be surprised if no one saw this, though it would only deepen my concerns about Phelan.
Ivan,
We request your email when you post for a reason. It doesn’t say put garbage in the box, it’s asks for your valid email. Please supply this with any future posts. It is not disclosed, but it is required.
Thank you.
David,
“..unexpectedly shoved the heck out of me practically knocking me to the pavement…”
As for the glee, I was talking about your post title.
And as for your last question, I don’t know and I don’t care.
For what purpose, David?
Ivan,
In discussing the situation, he stated that the man wished to “teach him a lesson”. Further, the lesson was in the context of his yelling at the gay marathon supporters. He further stated the man was “huge muscled-type”, a common gay phrase, and stated that he was “a coward”. He claimed that “these type of cowards” silence folks who are stating their opinions (presumably anti-gay opinions).
It was a natural assumption that Phelan was indicating that he thought the man was gay. A wrong assumption as it turns out, but certainly not an indication of bias.
Perhaps you think that the false impression is outrageous. Or perhaps you’re simply being argumentative. I really don’t know or care – I’m logging out and going to dinner.
Then it would seem there is no reason to continue any serious discussion with you about it.
1. It cuts down on disingenuous comments. We don’t require registration to post comments as some do, but we do require a valid email. Again, that’s why it was requested when you entered your comment.
2. It enables us to verify more accurately that you are the one posting if someone attempts to use your nickname and post something under your identity. Not only is this rude to you, but it disrupts conversations – people need to know they aren’t talking to 3 different Ivans (we have at least one other).
3. If we need to discuss something with you that need not clutter up the threads, like this comment perhaps, we can do so via email.
4. Because you can’t post any more comments without it.
Your choice.
Timothy,
So “Teach him a lesson”, “huge muscled type”, “coward” all imply James Phelan thought the guy was gay? Are we reading different posts? Could it be he meant “coward” because they guy ran off? Could it be he meant “huge muscled type” because they guy was huge, and well, muscled, and thought he could push people around? Could it be “teach me a lesson” because he felt he could/should teach him a lesson?
Like I said, where does he say he was knocked to the pavement. It’s easy to assume the obvious, isn’t it?
Well, David, on that last question, yes, because it wasn’t relevant to the point I brought up.
I’m careful with my email, as one should be. Thanks for elaborating.
David,
Uhh… What in that quote does not verify what I wrote?
“Claims to be”? What was the point of sticking that in there?
Clarify, how is that not relevant to what he said and did? He does claim to be a Christian.
A certain passage in Scripture came to mind as I read about this sordid debacle:
You have heard that it was said ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that is was said, ‘Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” Matthew 5:38-45
Nowhere did Jesus say getting shoved at a marathon is justification to “one-two drop kick the hell out of someone.”
Even more disturbing than the alleged physical violence itself is the smug, self-righteous attitude that this Christian leader displays in recounting the whole ordeal. Are we supposed to be impressed with his manliness, that he shouted down a group of “gay activists” on the race route, and then kicked a guy who pushed him? Was letting us know that he was in the military, and is obviously tough as nails and a real badass, supposed to make him more of a man than those silly fairies behind their booth?
In follow up posts on his own blog, Jim also alleges that (in his mind) the gay community is so intolerant and full of hatred to opposing viewpoints that we equate preaching against gay marriage in a church as being just as evil as Matthew Shepard being attacked in Wyoming. Thus, he’s not the one full of anger and prejudice: it’s really the gay community. I suppose he should be lauded for being such a brave warrior of Christ against those godless homos.
As a trained psychologist, you’d think he’d recognize projection.
If people from Exodus or NAARTH do read this blog and its follow-up messages, please take this to heart: this scandal, in a nutshell, is emblamatic of why your message lacks credibility in the gay community. *This* is why you are losing the war for the hearts and minds not only of gay men and women, but of the straight general public as well. Teenagers and college students these days are not only overwhelmingly themselves more tolerant of gays than ever before, they are apt to see through through the hypocrisies of those who hold themselves up as role models of Christian conduct. I tend to believe most of my straight guy friends would themselves have shoved anyone they saw yelling hateful remarks at a group of gays who set up a table in public. Bigotry, and prejudice, despite whatever “holy” veneer justifies it, is overwhelmingly distateful to people of my generation.
As a young gay man, I’m willing to entertain intelligent conversation about human sexuality, relationships, and theology. I respect people who decide, for their own reasons, to embrace celibacy, or to endeavor to please God in whatever way they feel called to do so.
But if I was at that booth, or in the crowd watching this incident, my ultimate “take-away” would be that this “Christian” man was full of self-righteousness; that he’d right there passed judgment on me and my friends; that he probably personally loathes me; and that maybe as an out gay man I should even be afraid of violence from someone like this, since he feels so vindicated by “fighting back” in a public forum.
His witness would not have impressed me. It would’ve confirmed all my worst stereotypes about fundamentalist believers, and how little they really want to get to know me, or listen to what I have to say.
This part in particular cracked me up. I don’t know too many people who, while in a large crowd, would yell, “IT”S MY OPINION THAT…”. Me thinks what he said was probably a little more provocative than what he lets on.
I have to say though, this man and those like him are clearly a danger. If ex-gay leaders keep discrediting themselves so thoroughly like this you all here a xgw might find your selves useless :p
I tend to agree, chippy. I suspect the “it’s my opinion that” was added to make his First Amendment slant more palatable. I suppose those he mentioned who where there to cheer on the runners did not have that right in his estimation.
Jim Phelan’s behavior is just another example of the craziness that seems to pervade the ex-gay movement. Richard Cohen, Nicolosi, Regina Griggs, they crazy guy that routinely runs amok in San Diego, Peter LaBarbera, the Camerons, and on and on. Even the (only by comparison) respectable members of the bunch like Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas just leave me shaking my head.
I realize that they have the fundamental underlying difficulty of pushing for sexual reorientation despite the fact that there is no evidence that people can change their sexual oreination. But really. Couldn’t they find a few more balanced individuals to push their cause?
Maybe that is the real problem: there just aren’t any out there.
Frankly, I don’t see that his religion has any relevance at all. But even if you do think that his being a Christian is relevant, the phrase “claims to be” implies that it may not be true. Do you have any reason to believe that his religion is something other than Christianity? Why would you not just say “he’s a Christian” unless you were trying to make people think that he isn’t, or at the very least might not be?
As in, he claims to be a professional who cares about gays, but his actions tend to contradict. I don’t know the man, so I can’t say what he is, only what he claims to be and see how that compares to known actions. As in someone claims to be a Christian, but acts contrary to the faith.
As to it’s relevance, someone who is involved in several Christian ministries relating to exgay work certainly puts the faith he claims as his own and any hypocrisy in scope for this discussion.
What’s with all the reading between the lines today? Some seem to be ignoring the obvious issues in the text to chase unintentional subtext.
Christians are defined by their beliefs, not their actions. As long as he believes that Jesus is god, that makes him Christian, and there’s no reason that I know of not to take him at his word about that. So again, unless you have any reason to believe that he’s a closet Muslim or Yazidi, there’s no reason to cast skepticism on his religion.
Why should we comment on what’s obvious?
Christians are defined by their beliefs, not their actions. As long as he believes that Jesus is god, that makes him Christian, and there’s no reason that I know of not to take him at his word about that.
Skemono, I disagree. Someone can claim to be a believer in Christ and his message but if their actions are contrary to Christ’s message of loving a neighbor, no, they are not Christian. The label Christian has been used over and over again to justify bigotry and hatred whether it be against gay people or another minority. Would you call someone a Christian that goes out and kills people one day and then attends church the next day and claims every other day of the week they are a Christian because they believe Jesus is Lord? No. Their actions are contrary to Christ’s message of loving a neighbor.
I’m tired of people claiming to be Christian but their actions prove the opposite of Christ’s message. If you claim to truly believe then that person MUST look towards his neighbor with love and compassion. Not with hate and scorn.
When I read James Phelan’s post about this incident (the entire post) it didn’t take me long at all to figure out the man is as childish and egocentric as they get. It is these kinds of “professionals” that the “ex-gay” organizations like NARTH and EXODUS trot out as authentic. God help any unsuspecting, naieve conflicted gay Christian who is conned and persuaded by this man’s influence. Phelan strikes me as very manipulative, prideful/egocentric as one can see by his response to Alan Chambers. We’re going to see and hear more from this man in the future. He strikes me as being toxic and dangerous. In fact he is (to me) another example of how dangerous fundamentalist religion can be.
I couldn’t disagree more, Skemono. If everyone who slapped that label on themselves was genuine, I suspect there would be much less reason for XGW.
Christian means “Christ-like.” According to Scripture, even Satan knows that Jesus is God, so the belief itself does not a Christian make, Mark 5:1-8.
And we definitely know a Christian by the products of their lives and their actions, Matthew 7:15-23.
Now again, you can pick over the unintentional subtext of what I wrote, or you can discuss the weightier issues reflected by the direct reporting. Either way, I just don’t see the point to all this minutia.
Can we compromise and say that Jim Phelan is “Christian-identified”? 😉
How appropriate.
I’m frustrated as well by the nit-picking here. That said, when one of your functions is to scrutinize the credibility of your opponents, you certainly shouldn’t find it surprising when others try to apply the same scrutiny to you (regardless of the skill with which they do it, or lack thereof).
I would love to know more about Phelan’s military service. What “elite unit” did he serve with, for example? His biographical sketch is vague enough at this point to allow for misdirection (intentional or otherwise). For example, I attended Army airborne training, and for three weeks was assigned to the U.S. Army Airborne School. Thus, I might say with complete factuality that I once “served with an elite unit,” and thereby imply that I had a certain level of training and experience that I did not in truth have. Additionally, the way in which he refers to his service causes me to question his credibility here, as I commented earlier. Can XGW look into this? I believe some of these records are open to the public, although I’m not sure.
Yes, nick-picking indeed, Allyson. All this accusatory stuff such as I shouldn’t have done this, I shouldn’t have done that. I should have done this and that…. Sounds like a bunch of silly sissy stuff. I especially like those who accused me of cranking up bragging points (as if I needed those!). Look, I had no intentions to brag in my post, just to bring awareness to how when we (those against gay rights, et al.) speak up, we are forcefully silenced. This time I fought back. BTW: I served in the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, NY from 1988-1990. The kick is referred to as the “roundhouse” and actually comes from our Asian friends. Thanks for asking.
Damn it, David if I knew you were going to feature me on XGW, I would have sent you my newest photo.
I agree. We really should have the newest available photo of this Christian.
Really? You couldn’t find a more adult or mature way to put that? Maybe something like, “this is an argument without substance because…”? And you wonder why people are accusing you of being an immature megalomaniac?
Hahaha you can’t even claim your not bragging without bragging more!
This is one anecdote! It has nothing to do with any ‘oppression’ you face from the GLBT community. Not to mention the fact that ‘speaking up’ and yelling at some passing gay marathon runners are two totally different things. You antagonized these people (in my opinion on purpose), and they responded; what exactly did you expect to happen?
“Chippy”, could you find a name with more substance?
Is that really JP posting?
If so, narcissist much, there, Jim?
Ya know, of course, this kind of anti-gay posturing ( “silly sissy stuff,” “fight back”) is turning off an entire generation of young people to Christianity.
WWJD, indeed!
Dear Readers,
I need to be very clear that Jim Phelan speaks for himself. His attitude and actions, in my opinion, are attrocious. His name calling and snide remarks inexcusable.
While he is, today, a member of the Exodus Professional Network, he sorely misrepresents Exodus.
As the head of Exodus I am sorry that someone officially linked with our organization is responding in this way. I assure you this is not going unnoticed.
Alan Chambers
I find it incredible that people who are morally opposed to homosexuality, or some who operate in the ex-gay community feel as though their voices are being “silenced,” or they are experiencing “prejduice” because of their views. Their anti-gay rhetoric has been the cultural standard in this country practically since its inception. Do you think there was much openness, or much tolerance for gay people in the 1800’s? Or even in the 1950’s, during the McCarthy era?
The ability of gays and lesbians to feel safe enough to live publicly is a relatively recent social phenomenon, tracing its roots to the Stonewall Riots and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. Prior to that time, homosexuality was associated with mental illness, perversion, and even criminality. Heck, consensual gay sex between adults in private was still a criminal offense in many states until the recent Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision!
Cry me a river about the “persecution” anti-gay individuals face in today’s marketplace of ideas. In a society where gays can still be fired from their jobs just for being gay in many states; in a society where gay teens show alarmingly high rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation because of perceived hostility towards them based on their sexual orientation; in a society where many gay people feel as though they must stay in the closet for the sake or their career, friends, or personal safety, I find it ludicrous to attempt to drum up sympathy for people like Jim Phelan who attempt to turn the tables and cast themselves into the role of the victim because of their message. The very notion that Jim is responding to some sort of insidious reverse-discrimination for his heterosexist morality is so absurd as to be comical, except that he seems to truly feel persected, and justified in lashing out because of it.
I agree with an earlier poster about how unfortunate it is for the ex-gay movement when their principal leaders whine and fume about “the gay activist agenda” and how much “money and power gays have” and how we recruit little kids at picnics and parks to be homos. Such ramblings are paranoid, even delusional. It’s no wonder that the intellectual and moral authority of people who bandy about such rhetoric is bankrupt.
It’s really not even necessary to “nit-pik” when faced with diabtribes like this. These pillars of the ex-gay and reparative therapy community shoot themselves in both feet, and lose an arm in the process, just by opening their mouths. I suppose all we need to do is sit back and let them destroy themselves, and necessarily discredit their own message.
Chippy was a pet chipmunk me and some of my friends found when we were kids and tried to take care of. It reminds me of being young, and of the futility of controlling that which nature never meant to be controlled (chippy bit one of us and ran away eventually as you can imagine). It has quite a bit of substance to me.
“Jim,” could you find a complaint with more substance?
I completely agree with Alan … I am stunned by this behavior and it does not reflect Exodus OR any other ministry I know of in our network.
Oh goodie, it’s official, Alan Chambers’ and Randy Thomas’ anti-gay supremacy (in the name of Jesus) is COMPLETELY different from Jim Phelan’s anti-gay supremacy (in the name of Jesus).
As to the poster who insisted that all that is required to be a Christian is to simply assert that one is a Christian, without living a Gospel life, the Bible itself contradicts such a viewpoint.
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by your fruits you will know them.” Matthew 7:15
Not everyone who claims to be a Christian, is, in fact, a genuine Christian believer. The Bible warned of false prophets and false teachers, those who would speak in the name of the Lord, but whose actions and conduct would betray their true nature. This is, in fact, the essence of the practice of discernment: looking beyond the words that someone speaks, to judge the true character and source of the messenger. It is disingenous, even immature, to think that we should give deference to anyone who stands on a soapbox (or trumpets in the blogsphere) simply because they say they are a Christian.
Moreover, “faith without works is dead.” The witness of Christians to unbelievers is the “love they have for one another,” which shines out and serves as its own attractive testimony. Jesus himself admonished his disciples that there would be believers still facing an accounting for the actions of their life:
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thrist and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”
Being a Christian is not a “get out of jail free card” or a dispensation from a moral obligation to live uprightly and to help your neighbor. True Christianity is a wellspring of grace that bears fruits of faith, hope, and love, and that can be noticed in the everday actions of how believers conduct their lives. Actions can and do speak louder than words.
The point here is not to debate salvation theology, but to point out that “bumper sticker” Christianity, that which is merely with an affirmation of belief in Christ with no corresponding metanoia of life, is neither Biblical nor worthy of praise. We can and should notice the hyporcrises men like Jim perpetuate, especially when he speaks as a believer. His conduct is a window to the authenticity of his message, and clues us in to whether this person is operating from a space of prayer and grace, or is rather responding out of a sense of hurt ego or the need for validation. Now, Jim, like everyone else, is loved by God, and has great opportunity to learn and grow in Christ. I’m not judging himin such a way as to make assumptions about his salvation or his relationship with God — that’s not my place. But, when he puts himself forward as a Christian leader, a sort of modern day prophet, he necessarily invites discernment of his teaching, and it is perfectly appropriate to realize that there is a disconnect between what he speaks, and how he acts, that should warn believers to weigh his testimony accordingly.
It IS heartening to hear disavowals of Jim Phelan’s behavior from Alan and Randy. Thank you, guys. I guess I’m just saddened that Exodus can’t seem so far to”police its own” without vigilant opposition blogs like ex-gaywatch beating the drum. It necessarily tarnishes your own ministries by association, which I’m sure must be very frustrating.
Alan and Randy,
Thank you for your public statements disavowing Phelan’s comments, actions and attitudes. I am encouraged each time I see you willing to set aside “culture war” sides and respond with basic civility.
I hope some day that those who favor ex-gay theology and those who favor gay-inclusive theology can find a way to disagree without resorting to hostility, violence, demonization or political oppression. Each small recognition of the need for civil discourse and each day we see each other as brothers rather than “evil” takes us another small step in that direction.
Yes, it is indeed heartening to hear Alan and Randy be such class-acts about this whole debacle. But I think it’s a bit much to expect them to be able to police their ex-gay compatriots. I’d hate to be blamed if some ex-exgay nutjob spouted off something offensive. They came down quickly and decisively on Jim Phelan’s repulsive venom, and that’s absolutely what they should have done – no more, no less. Kudos. I hope that XGW can show the same response if one of their own ever pulls a stunt this noxious.
Alan/Randy et al: Sorry to see you fell into the goals and objectives of the XGW – Conquer and Divide. (Smile wide now all you XGW’ers!!). You are so easily molded and twisted by them. They love it when they see division in the XG community. They live for it. And makes for good sounding boards for “Adam”, and the like, whose personality disorder rants and raves, trying to pull at anyone’s heart strings who’ll hear him and shed a tear. Inject Adam here: “Oh thank you guys, you’re my heroes!” (“Until I can manipulate you again, that is”). Those of us who are trained, can spot them a mile away. Hey, watch out, a truck is coming, ready to unload; Beware!
If you can’t afford therapy, at least read Dr. van den Aardweg’s book, “Battle for Normality”, and try to understand and help thyself!
No, Jim,
I for one rejoice when different people of faith and conscience stand united for morality, shared community values, and nonviolence.
There has never been a solitary (singular) “XG” community, nor has there been a one-and-only “gay” community. People are united as communities by common values and traditions, not by their sexual identities.
Unfortunately, Jim, you have severed yourself from civil society. It is you who divide others with your anger, fear and violence.
Um, this man claims to be a threapist?
Rose,
I’m not sure what you mean by “one of their own.” XGW authors represent a mix of faiths, sexual orientations, and nationalities. Were you mistakenly assuming XGW is gay?
Regarding your underlying concern: XGW has spoken out against gay activists and events that promote violence or unsafe sexual behavior. XGW has also criticized an anti-ex-gay event that overgeneralized and sensationalized ex-gays’ alleged “hate.”
Yes Jim, it’s such a war. WAR, I tell you.
When you are in a hole, you really ought to quit digging deeper.
Speaking of digging deeper, Mike or David or someone here ought to do an article on Mr. Phelan’s writing (https://www.phelanconsultants.bravehost.com/publications.html )
I am sure it would be at least as enlightening as reviews of other NARTH contributors.
I pulled one up at random and BING! Cameron quote.
Alan and Randy, you did right by both of our communities. Thank you for speaking out. You two might stand for things I’m extremely opposed to, but at least you advocate open peaceful dialog. James Phelan does none of this.
And Chippy, don’t worry. He bashed me for going by “Emily K” – claiming it was a form of anonymity, when it is anything but! In fact, in 3 lengthy comments following his complaint I gave him the whole story about my name, including disclosing my full first, middle, and surnames.
I’m deeply embarrassed that religious Jews, Jews who love God and Torah and Judaism and Israel, would align themselves with such a man. Rabbi Hillel the Elder, The greatest Pharisee who ever lived (in my humble opinion), told us that the greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18) and to not do what is hateful to you to your neighbor. Phelan violates both of these; and, I’m aware that these commandments are greatest in Christianity as well, his own religion.
Emily,
I am often embarassed by how people of my faith throw the term “Judeo-Christian” around with no knowledge or interest in the “Judeo” part.
It may well be accurate to state that the one true Judeo-Christian ethic is the “golden rule” as stated in Leviticus and elevated to prominance by both Rabbi Hillel and Jesus.
Sharon, you’re a gift. This is rich.
__
Written by James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD, Psy.D.
So it really isn’t about hate. It’s about being scientifically, and THEN legally defined as sick and inferior.
Hmmm, sounds strangely familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right, the eternal Jew:
__
I couldn’t resist this one:
“Rapid sexual fluidity,” not to be confused with unhurried lesbian sexual fluidity…
Thanks Emily :). I wasn’t actually offended so much as incredibly surprised that someone with the level of education and traing Jim presumably has would resort to that kind of childish attack. Then again after having read his original post I suppose I shouldn’t have been.
I actually laughed out loud when I read your most recent post on here, “Jim.” Instead of addressing any or most of the criticisms levelled at you, or attempting to salvage what remains of this unfortunate situation, you resort to name-calling and behavior remniscient of a kindergarden playground.
I find it reprehensible that you throw your professional credentials behind drive-by character attacks on those who disagree with you (apparently a growing chorus, now). If that’s the way you run your therapy sessions with paying clients, I’m amazed you haven’t yet lost your license for malpractice. As it is, one would think a licensed professional would be more careful about tossing out invective using clinical terms from your field. Certainly, I know for a fact that attorneys, physicians, and other professionals are very wary about speaking carelessly in their area of expertise, whether on-line or in person. Such lapses in judgment can lead to potential discplinary hearings, or loss of accreditation, if complants are made to the appropriate review board.
You know you could still redeem this situation with a genuine apology for your original post, and all the nasty, juvenile comments that you’ve blasted out since then.
That being said, I do feel sorry for you, and I think your own posts dig you ever deeper into controversy and disrepute.
… lesbians are at great risk for AIDS …
oh that’s funny.
To date, I believe the instances of woman to woman transmission of HIV are so rare that this is statistically the “safest” sexuality.
https://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/LesbianAIDS.htm
Phelan appears to have some issues with integrity and honesty. Or perhaps he’s simply incapable of getting the facts straight. From the article y’all referenced:
Not according to the police who were present that night. This was a regular plainclothes roust-the-fags raid out of the First Division in South Manhattan. There was no tip about sex on the premises. That exists only in Phelan’s imagination.
And the “got mad and fought back” occurred during the raid while the cops were on the premises not at some time after the fact.
Alan and Randy, thank you for your posts.
Luke 9 states: “As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.” [v. 51-56]
Although Jim Phelan claims your rebuke is in reality accepting division, on the contrary, your rebuke of violence, is what Jesus did do. Thank you for imitating Him. Sincerely; Caryn
Adam is quite right. I’m not so sure Dr. Phelan’s credentials should be hung on any wall over at NARTH. They should be embarrassed by this whole episode and Dr. Phelan’s reaction on this and other websites. It doesn’t bode well for NARTH.
The previous source was a local officer. The plainclothes officers who performed the raid also report a very similar story:
https://www.nycop.com/Stories/Jul_99/A_Cop_in_the_Stonewall_Inn/body_a_cop_in_the_stonewall_inn.html
Again, it was a simple roust by plainclothesmen and not because sex on site, real or imagined.
And perhaps the most interesting thing about all of this is that after the statutes that supported the raids (Consensual Sodomy and Loitering statutes) were overturned, both the gay community AND the police were relieved.
Adam is quite right. I’m not so sure Dr. Phelan’s credentials should be hung on any wall over at NARTH. They should be embarrassed by this whole episode and Dr. Phelan’s reaction on this and other websites. It doesn’t bode well for NARTH.
Oh, I don’t know. I think his credentials go quite well at NARTH. Phelan got his doctorate from an on-line “university”.
Thank you, Timothy, so much for that comment on “Judeo-Christian” – my all time greatest pet-peave.
Chippy, yes that swipe was incredibly childish.
And yes, statistically the lesbian sexual practices are the “safest.” We are also the most monogamous, statistically, compared with gay-male and hetero relationships.
After he and others ransack my past articles, in frantic efforts to discredit me (surprise, surprise), Timothy Kincaid, attempts to debunk my findings that lesbians represent high numbers of AIDS/STDs. He says, “To date, I believe the instances of woman to woman transmission of HIV are so rare that this is statistically the ‘safest’ sexuality.” He backs up his bogus statement by citing information from the site about.com from, of course a lesbian writer who says, “My name is Kathy Belge and I am your guide to Lesbian Life. I grew up in New York State and now live in Portland, Oregon with my partner of 14 years, our two Alaskan malamutes and two cats. I hope you find the information you are looking for here on Lesbian Life.” I guess that qualifies her to clear lesbians of their sexual diseases stemming from sexual fluidity?
I think the readers now get the opportunity to see how far the XGW’ers can stretch something. Now are we way off the original issue? Now it comes to personal attacks on me (e.g Timothy mentioning again the Psy.D issue which was already addressed with him in the past). In Warren Throckmorton’s blog he wrote,
“For someone so concerned with Dr. Throckmorton’s licensing and that the blog is full of “air brains”, I find it surprising that you chose to get a mail order degree.
I’m not suggesting that this disqualifies you from practice or that you did not get the socialization experiences that most college students receive by some other means. And considering how little time it takes to become degreed as well as how inexpensive it is to have education that doesn’t require interaction with an educator, it really is quite a bargain. I congratulate you on your wise use of time and resources.
But it does surprise me that you would assume intellectual superiority over those who chose the old-fashioned methods of education. That’s all.”
I then had to clarify:
“I earned my Psy.D is from the Southern California University for Professional Studies, thanks for asking. Yes, this was an external degree program. I am not licensed at that degree level, however. I merely achieved it for gaining more substance in psychology as my grad degree was in social work (Received from Marywood University – not an external degree; I earned it on campus) and is more of a generalist degree. I am fully licensed at the master’s level and have been since 1994, however. I am also board certified in clinical social work (BCD). I have all the rights to practice psychotherapy and bill insurances as an independent clinician. The Psy.D is irrelevant of that. Tim brought this up, so to make me look bad, as he has nothing better to do then to personally attack others.”
Finally, after all this negative attention and personal attacks maybe I should feel like Brittney Spears, right now, head hung low, after ex-friends are calling for her album boycott?
Jim, I wonder if you’d be willing to share a little more about your military record. In what capacity did you serve with the 10th Mountain? What was your rank and career field/MOS? Did you receive your martial arts training through the military, or privately? If you would share similar information about your Air Force service, I would be interested to know that as well.
One last issue. On the Phelan Consultants website (https://www.phelanconsultants.bravehost.com/bio.html), you mention having been awarded the “Global War on Terrorism medal.” Would you please clarify whether you mean the Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal or the Global War on Terror Service Medal, and in which qualifying theater of operations you served?
Thanks in advance for being forthcoming.
This is juice…*sigh*
Jim Phelan says:
As though an education makes you worthy of defining others as inferior.
And “ransack” your past articles? Good God man, why not just claim Google is out to get you?
Wrong.
I’m not so sure about that; I suspect you meant that the Bible has been used to justify bigotry and hatred, which I would absolutely agree with. But what of it?
Of course I would, because he is a Christian.
And I’m tired of people trying to re-define the word Christian to mean “person whose beliefs and actions meet with my approval.” I called Anthony Falzarano on trying to re-define what it meant to be a member of a religion, and I’m not about to let you guys get away with it either.
Yes, yes, yes, I don’t care what scripture you decide to focus on. Christian, as a noun, means: “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.” There’s nothing in there about meeting David Roberts’ standards for how a Christian should act.
Even though it is off topic, Jim seems to be an authority on lesbians getting AIDS, I guess he missed this article….
https://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102208925.html
But I’ll just cut to the chase:
“CONCLUSIONS: IDU and heterosexual sex were the most common means of HIV-1 entering the lesbian population. There was no evidence that lesbian sex was responsible for HIV-1 spread among the participants.”
There’s also the CDC fact sheet from June 2006
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm
First sentence:
“To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005).”
One of the findings:
“A study of more than 1 million female blood donors found no HIV-infected women whose only risk factor was sex with women.”
Which is not to say there are no HIV+ Lesbians. There are more than enough, however their numbers are far far lower than even straight HIV+ women. In 20 years of an epidemic there has yet to be a confirmed case of woman-to-woman HIV transmission.
Yes, Skemono, and the very next definition is: “a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ.” Under adjective, as in Christian person, we have “exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike.” We also have “a male given name.” So what?
My criteria have nothing to do with it, neither do yours. Would you characterize a believer in Islam by the Qur’an or Websters? I’m not sure why you are so intensely interested in the notion that one can be a Christian and act like the devil, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
Unless you have something substantial to bring to the table on this, I’m going to bow out.
Jim wants statistics from a NON-“pro-gay” site. Fine. Here is a GOVERNMENT site: https://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt/lbstd.htm
It goes on to describe in more explicit detail the reasons and causes for female-to-female STD contractions, but it is inappropriate to post such things here. You can read the article for yourself.
Also, how about the Center for Disease Control? That good enough? https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm
Individual cases HAVE been reported where HIV has been transmitted – but this is hardly the festering disease pool that people like Phelan claim it is. Again, explicit details and reasons are given in the article that you can read for yourself.
Mike, relax! I’m on your side! I’m not in any way suggesting that XGW wouldn’t (or hasn’t) distanced itself from its own wingnuts; just that it’s pretty cool that Alan and Randy have come down so hard and quick on the apparently board-certified whackaloon, James Phelan.
As a card-carrying lesbian, married with kids, no affiliation with any religious or exgay (or exgay survivor) organization, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I did assume most of you were gay, but that’s pretty reasonable, right? It’s hard to imagine a large contingent of straight people having much interest in watching ex-gays! Anyway, I think XGW’s coverage of this issue has been fascinating, and Phelan’s replies to be truly terrifying (both as expected). The only real surprise here is the class with which Alan and Randy have shown. It’s nothing against XGW (kudos to you too), but more the wow factor about Exodus’ response. I have no underlying concern, so don’t lose any sleep.
I don’t like it when people decide that “Christians don’t do these things” by using the No True Scotsman fallacy and redefining the word Christian. I don’t when people redefine Christian to exclude gay people. I don’t like it when people redefine Christian (and Jew) to exclude people who accept gay marriage. And your aside reeked of those tactics.
People of good conscience can interpret some parts of the Bible in different ways, such as whether or not gay marriage is a sin, etc. In those situations, at least until the culture war, it has been common in the Protestant Church to rely on what is often called “the priesthood of the believer.” In short, you deal with those issues not core to the faith in your own way with God and your conscience.
There are other issues which simply are not open to the same kind of interpretation, and it is those which help define a Christian to others, not simply an acknowledgment of Christ. I would think anyone who has read this site for any length of time could appreciate the harm done by hypocrites, and those who use the label Christian for their own gain.
Sorry for being so defensive, Rose. Time for me to go take my “happy pills”! (Prozac, folks, it’s legal…)
I agree with you 100% David. I wonder if this reasoning is why some Christians believe they can do as they please because their belief stands on “saved always saved” mentality?
Skemono, a person that applies a Christian label to himself does not give that person a license to threaten, kill, or abuse someone in Christ’s name.
(from Answers.com)
Chris·tian (krĭs’chən) pronunciation
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
While you are correct a Christian is one that believes in Christ, it goes even further. A Christian is defined as one that embraces the teachings of Jesus and his ministry. If a person murders people all the while claiming to be Christian that person goes against the teachings of Jesus. Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Would you say he is a Christian even though he killed over 6 million Jews and millions of others?
You can ask a liberal or conservative Christian and they will both tell you the same thing. A person that follows Jesus must embrace his teachings. Simply stating you believe in Jesus Christ is not enough. As David said Satan knows Jesus is Lord. Jesus taught that those who follow him MUST love God and love others. To apply the Christian label to oneself and then go out and kill, abuse, or beat up people is contrary to Christ and his teachings.
Of course they’re open to interpretation. All parts of the Bible are interpreted. Again, just because you and others think the matter is settled, and the Bible only means one thing on this issue, doesn’t make it so; people can come up with all sorts of bizarre interpretations of the Bible.
And these teachings can be interpreted to justify however a person decides to behave, including criminal acts. That you, or “a liberal or conservative Christian”, might disagree with that interpretation is meaningless.
Of course I would.
The simple fact of the matter is that people of all religious (and areligious) stripes can, and do, perform atrocious acts. It is absurd and even malicious to try and claim that “real” Christians don’t by simply defining Christianity that way. When you say that people who do these things are Christians it’s an implicit attack on other religions and atheism, because if this person wasn’t a Christian then he was something else.
Oh, and something I forgot to respond to:
Neither. My entire point was that it’s them who decides what their religion is. So James Phelan is a Christian if he says he is. And I quite agree: your criteria have nothing to do with it, and neither do mine.
I would say we are looking at an example of that right now. What you are describing has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. You are welcome to believe as you wish, but since you imply that all Scripture is so nebulous as to be without true meaning except that given to it by the reader, discussion of it here, again, seems useless.
Above you used the dictionary as the arbiter of what defines a Christian, now you say it doesn’t matter – which is it? By this logic, I could say that I am Hindu even though I have no idea what it means to be so. By extension, I suppose I could also say I am straight, when in fact by any reasonable criteria I am not. But then, we are not using any external criteria. This all seems quite pointless to me.
Now we just have to figure out where to bury this poor horse 🙁
An Open Letter to XGW:
Thank you for recently proving me right. Over the years that I have monitored your writings, I noticed a trend – that is, your sole mission was not really about helping men and women confused about same sex attraction, but to defame anyone who tries to help them. With your recent posts of me, you have made it feel so personal. I never came into this wanting to win a popularity contest, however.
Be that as it may, whether you like it or not, there are men and women tormented by the homosexual condition who do not want to live as homosexuals, who want constructive help and support. Unfortunately, they have no voice and tend to be influenced by folks like you who only smoke screen the truth and hope. I spend a large portion of my day helping men with unwanted homosexuality, to help them obtain what I have obtained –heterosexuality, and have for years, not beating up people, yet you choose to sensationalize the latter. Why, because you hate the former. You want to impose your ideology that change is not possible, that homosexuality is normal and thus discriminate against and bash those who know it is a lie.
Thanks again for proving me right. Yes, I will admit it, I have been a rabble rouser recently, but it goes to prove my point, as radical as it may seem, even to those whom I thought were on my side. For example, Exodus International, whom I have been a supportive member of for many years, has abandoned and alienated me over this whole issue. It saddens me that that XGW has met its goals, to divide and conquer. They rejoice that any efforts which focus on helping men and women become fragmented, that way it leaves an opportunity for a fallen soul to land into their web. I am sorry for my part in letting this happen, for letting anyone slip in the cracks of the deceit of homosexuality. God forgive me.
Is that a “no” then, Jim? Will you not share any further details of your military record, relevant as they are to the incident you reported?
Jim,
Your writing has not given any evidence of any form of remorse for your actions. If I, as a priest, were to go out and “rabble rouse,” and when someone took the bait, if I were to have “one-two drop kicked the hell out of him,” I would expect to be called on my actions. This isn’t a gay/ex-gay thing, this is an existing in civil society thing.
“I spend a large portion of my day helping men with unwanted homosexuality…”
Let’s just hope that none of them will be so prudent as to google your name, huh? Regardless of how you may feel, Jim, you do not look like the victim here.
Or even, like, the reasonable party.
Gay-affirming folks have no difficulty helping people who struggle with same-sex attraction. Professional counselors and groups like PFLAG have done that for years. At XGW we tend to tell strugglers there are two options:
1. Celibacy, or
2. Accept your attractions and behave responsibly.
Strugglers don’t need help from partisan political activists with no professional training, no respect for science, and/or no respect for the struggler.
People like Phelan, and some others who are affiliated with NARTH and PFOX, have been shown by XGW to be motivated by anger, bitter political warfare and sometimes a desire to commit acts of violence against fellow strugglers and other same-sex-attracted persons. In my opinion this anger and violence sometimes are directed against those who do not conform to ex-gay political activists’ flimsy assumptions about the causes of homosexuality.
When we find ex-gay activists who are motivated by a love of the struggler or a desire to offer practical solutions that meet individual strugglers’ circumstances while preserving the constitutional liberties of all, we point it out. Such folks are admittedly very hard to find. If readers are aware of some, by all means please refer us to them.
While XGW is supportive of the needs of strugglers, it is not XGW’s mission to behave like an ex-gay “ministry.” It is XGW’s mission to point out when and how specific ex-gay activists are harming strugglers and other same-sex-attracted persons, so that other strugglers can avoid harm and make informed decisions.
If Jim has in fact “obtained-heterosexuality,” then good for him.
However, if the only way he can find to maintain heterosexuality is through anger manifested and projected at glbt persons (and others who do not share his antagonistic positions), then I hope he resolves that inner conflict and achieves a goal higher than heterosexuality – inner peace.
I would hope he has a supervisor who he can share this series of posts with and accept whatever direction and inspection that person suggests.
Good for Alan and Randy, at least.
I’ve seen people get knocked over by runners at a marathon. (Never ran, but watched bits of them.) I’ve seen all kinds of groups, too. Anyone who’s that threatened by a rainbow banner, I think, is horribly insecure.
I resisted the urge to comment, “Ooh, you’re a big man, ain’t you?” in his blog.
At XGW we tend to tell strugglers there are two options:
1. Celibacy, or
2. Accept your attractions and behave responsibly.
I would add a third option – one I think is particularly relevant to those already married with children:
3. Seek to find a way to live heterosexually.
Go into this approach carefully with all available information and with full disclosure.
If you go this route you must be completely honest with yourself and your spouse and you must be aware that the expectations are not that you become heterosexual. In most cases you will retain your homosexual orientation and only your behavior can be modified or controlled.
Your best case scenario is that you may decrease homosexual desire and increase heterosexual functioning. However, you must be aware that the success rate for even this limited result is likely in the very low teens, at best.
Before moving in this direction you have a moral obligation to weigh the consequences of such a step according to the very likely result that this effort will not be successful. In other words, if you are not married then DO NOT GET MARRIED. If married, don’t bring new children into the relationship. Do not make declarations and proclamations that may only hurt yourself and others if this doesn’t work out for you.
Nonetheless, this is an acceptable and valid choice.
Timothy Kincaid, attempts to debunk my findings that lesbians represent high numbers of AIDS/STDs.
Nah. Don’t need to debunk this “finding” as it has no basis whatsoever. You didn’t even do a Cameron and make up bogus methods… you just stated it and pretended it was fact.
Jim, this is sincere advice:
If you have a position on some issue – any issue – support your position with fact and logic. Throwing obviously erroneous claims into the mix, such as those you have about lesbians and HIV, only cause people to dismiss you out of hand.
Secondly, if people of greatly differing ideology – such as XGW and Exodus – all agree that you are behaving badly it is probably best to reconsider your behavior rather than become defensive and play the martyr.
Honestly, dude. If you want to be taken seriously in the arena of ideas, you have to humble yourself a little. People see through a charlatan pretty quickly. Be sincere, be informed, be accurate, and be willing to question yourself. Allow yourself to say, “hey I was wrong, I’m sorry”.
Otherwise you are fair game to people like me and my snarky brand of observation.
Timothy, I agree that #3 (attempt to live heterosexually) is valid when done as you describe.
I second that as well Timothy, well put.
Timothy-
I’m not going to bother to go read Jim Phelan’s full original text, but I suspect when he wrote:
he meant that many lesbians also have sex with men (that’s the “rapid sexual fluidity”) and so are at risk for AIDS.
I have absolutely no idea if he has any data to back up that statement, and I’m not even certain my interpretation is corrrect. But if I am right, wouldn’t that logically lead to advocating that lesbians should ONLY have sex with women?
I’m glad to know that Jim is encouraging at least half of us to stay gay!
Timothy wrote:
Having been through no. 3 unsuccessfully, I think it borders on irresponsibility (borders on, not is). I was nearly suicidally depressed attempting to keep up the facade. I do not think that was doing anyone in my family any good. All it lead to was anger by my spouse that escalated into physical violence, and the aforementioned depression for me. My parents nourished a false hope, and the eventual “failure,” was seen as my fault because I really didn’t want to try hard enough.
But this is perhaps deserving as a whole separate post?
SharonB – I generally agree with you on this issue more than Timothy but I can understand his point. If someone has lived heterosexually long enough and convincingly enough to marry and to have a child (presumably without telling their spouse they are struggling with feelings they don’t want) I think it’s rather unfair that now, that they’ve established social ties, brought a new life into the world, perhaps lied to their spouse about their attractions that they should just walk away. They might say it’s not “fair” to ask them to deny themselves any longer, but it’s even less fair to the innocent spouse and child that they were lied to and deceived.
Gay men and women shouldn’t marry the opposite sex merely to keep up appearances, but if they do so I have a lot less sympathy for them when they suddenly want to walk away.
Kendall:
What is you were told by a well meaning but dangerously stupid counselor that marriage would “heal” your brokenness, better yet, children would heal you even more!
What if the spouse knew everything, but believed that marriage would heal….
Problem is, you can’t hide who you are. Submerging and pretending only work so long. You can only fool yourself so long. What do you do when you come to the end of your denial?
Does anyone really just marry to “keep up appearances?” Isn’t it usually more complicated than that? (I share your distaste for sociopaths, but I think the issue is usually much more complicated.)
Timothy,
I was glad to see you add #3. As for encouraging people who are unmmarried never to get married or those who are married never to have children is too broad. I waited 8 years before getting married and found it to be the best decision and option of my entire life. While we had no plans to wait 7 more years for children, God had other plans. Our story may be the exception, but telling someone that they shouldn’t even consider this option is wrong.
We DEFINITELY agree, however, that marriage should not be entered into blindly or lightly. A prospective spouse must know exactly what they are getting into and the two should go through extensive pre-marital counseling–actually, a good rule for anyone these days. Far too many people see marriage as the cure when it can make things FAR worse for those still struggling with their identity. I don’t encourage anyone to even consider dating for AT LEAST 2 years after their last sexual/emotional/relational encounter.
I know we disagree on many things, but it is nice to see a little common ground from time to time.
I know I’m not the only one, but I have a circle of friends who are in varying stages or expressions of the 3 “options” expressed above. I do not want to describe in detail their specifics but generally they are not happy.
So, to add to these 3 options I want to add another factor…another dimension…to this matrix. Happiness. Specifically: happiness versus acquiesced contentment.
Are you truly happy?
Isn’t there a Biblical quote that goes something like: Man should be happy. ?
Sure, I could say I’m happy. I make the most of my situation(s) and I have only myself to blame for the situation I am in now (single and not rich). I would be whole lot happier with someone to share my life with but I can forego the Porsche and the lodge in Jackson Hole, WY. I am happy but, I could be more happy…err…happier.
Then, I have friends who wail to me about their marriage. They acquiesce at being married (some by peer-pressure and others by direct counseling by their ecclesiastical elders) and they almost all literally say: “I made my bed and will stick it out for the sake of my children”. Is that contentment or happiness?
Are celibate men happy or just contented? Would they be happier if the guilt factor was removed from the matrix.
Most are contented but I’m not sure they’re happy.
I will agree there has to be some truly happy ex-gay marrieds out there but, then, we need to also acknowledge there are a whole lot of same-gender marrieds who are happy too. The debate might be who has more examples of “happy marrieds”. I doubt anyone has really done a scientific study or survey on this.
So, maybe XGW is working for those 3 options as long as we are contented and not necessarily “happy”.
Please understand I have contemplated this concept of contentment versus true happiness for the last couple of days while staring at my ceiling in my bedroom just as I am going to sleep. You know, that time when you can get introspective about your life. Mr. Airhart is at fault for the sleeplessness I am having. ((wink wink))
Maybe Pam F can share her perspective on #3.
I truly do not think it is a sustainable option. It might be a delay tactic (until the kids are of majority/out of school/etc.) but I wonder at the human toll. Very few people are capable of sustaining what essentially amounts to a deception.
“Our story may be the exception…”
If you were as honest, and as modest, in public like that ALL of the time… nobody could care two hoots about you Alan.
But you over-sell. You present yourself, pious claims here otherwise to the exception, as if you are indeed a “typical gay”.
You are not. You never were. You leave your audience ignorant of the fact that you never were gay.
Alas, except for the over-selling… nobody would take any notice of you or Exodus either. Hence, your need to do the the over-selling.
Apart from that — all the “pre-marriage counselling” in the World does not change a person from gay to straight. At very best, such counselling might show people how to behave with dignity and gentleness as they tumble toward divorce.
Knowing, as we do, how unsuccessful Exodus is with producing heterosexual coupling… it seems remarkable you haven’t provided some policy, procedure, or guidelines for divorcing exgay couples.
Don’t care to, right?
More accurately — don’t want to advertise that fact, right?
Open letter to Jim Phelan.
Jim, except for “people like you” — people would not have “unwanted” homosexuality.
1) You are the cause of the harm.
2) People seek you out, to help to cure that harm.
3) But, in fact, you have no cure to that damage.
What does that suggest you should do, to any sensible person?
(clue: start at step 1)
Sharon, my life isn’t a deception. You, like all of us at times, speak of what you do not know.
Grant or Dale, you aren’t gay now. How’s that for a ridiculous response to your ridiculous statement?
Alan — do you need a video, or something? Sorry, no can do. There’s somethings on this Earth we don’t wish to encourage. You wouldn’t know it was us in any case.
Perhaps phone anyone in Melbourne at random, I’m sure they all know about us. Bang away at +61 3 xxxx xxxx. Go wild, big boy.
Which is more that you can offer. Oddly, you draw a complete blank…
Give us a name Alan. Give us a name from your illustrious 6 month career as a Gay(c)… how about a name of those “best friends” who you say stood you up on Easter day…
Memory a bit blurry? — well OK, for a start, give us the name of your 14 year old cousin who you claimed sexually assaulted you when you were 10 years old. I’m sure you must remember his name.
(ps: we know “his name”, or at least we know the names of your cousins. Just want you to declare him, in public, again, if you dare. Check with your Exodus lawyer first… )
Timothy,
You hit a couple of big homeruns with your comments!
j.
Alan:
Very few people are capable at sustaining what for them would be a deception. I speak of what I do know!
YMMV 🙂
Sharon, your initial comment seemed to suggest you know my story and my life. Thus, when it comes to saying that living the way I do is deception, you are incorrect.
If that comment was speaking only of your own experience then of course you know. Sorry if I misunderstood.
What is YMMV?
Wow, Grant or Dale or both, you continue to sink to new lows. You disrespect my wife, children and now you speak of things as personal as my childhood sexual abuse.
It is also incredibly frightening to think you have stalked me to the point of knowing the names of all of my cousins—something that would be difficult to find out to say the very least.
If you’re such good researchers then you two should know the names of my friends that stood me up—very easy information compared to the names of my cousins–and the names of those that walked into the bar on that Easter Sunday night.
For that matter, as closely as you two seem to stalk me, you could at least find some folks to interview that would know the names of those that I was once involved with. I don’t even know all of their names.
Go for it. Show the readers how truly intrusive and creepy you two are.
Alan,
I don’t call your life a deception.
But I do wish you were as forthcoming with legislators about the less-than-total transformation as you are with those who you wish to help avoid feeling a failure.
You are honest with strugglers that your attractions need monitoring and that you’ve taken such steps to ensure that you have the support that you need. You have been honest with those who also seek help that your attractions are to a woman and not to women in general.
I commend you on that honesty. And I support your choices and are glad that they give meaning to your life.
However, Alan, if you search your heart I think you will agree that you have not been equally honest and forthcoming in political setting. When you speak before legislators or in the media or when addressing political campaings, you do employ deception. You leave out the struggle and project an image of total victory. Further you deliberately imply – and sometimes state – that other gay people can become completely free from same-sex desires as well.
You, I, and everyone else involved in this great discussion know that this is not accurate, or even true.
And I think that sort of thing can weigh on you as a person and eventually come to defeat your sense of a moral self. Ironically, I believe this constant challenge to your integrity could threaten that which you hold most dear – your identity as not-homosexual, which is tied to your identity as a moral person.
Alan — the old “prove I’m not lying” technique hey?
Right, so you’ve “got” nothing on us — other than we have point blank declared you to be a liar. So you become abusive toward us. Standard operating procedure for you, as far as we have heard.
We, apparently, are just two guys who ask you the awkward questions — questions that you refuse to answer.
Alan — those matters are simply public record. Births, Deaths, Marriages. Nobody needs stalk for that — they are public records for a very good reason. 2 minutes away from anyone with Internet access. Checking public records is not stalking.
But then you expose yourself as a nasty and weak man — apart from you claiming it, we have never disrespected either your wife or children. In fact, we pointedly defended both you two and your decision to adopt when you were attacked by Stephen Bennett, as example. This has nothing to do with them, but why are you are so willing to thrust a woman and children in front of you when you are challenged?
That’s really cowardly of you Alan. Utterly unmanly. You may as well curl in a ball and whimper. Pathetic.
What we have said to you before (many times) is that you should stop lying because you are setting a very bad example for your children. You are a minor a public figure, and some day your children will have no difficulty finding your words on record. And those include your lies about yourself and about others.
Do you imagine your children will respect you when they find those lies? How do you imagine they will respond, or respect you, after finding that out their father has made a career out of lying? You are a very silly man at times.
I’m sorry if you are raising your children otherwise, but the issue of lying has always a big concern in our family. None of us were raised that way. None of the children are.
For the record … you make claims about yourself that appear, on investigation, to be completely unsupported. Either you are lying, or other people are lying.
Now… you have lied to us before. We know that as fact. We therefore assume you will more than ready to lie to us again. A leopard does not change its spots — even if Exodus convinces it that it is a zebra.
Tell everyone the name of that cousin, or admit you were lying.
Name some names, Alan, or admit you are a fraud.
It’s that simple. And it’s long overdue.
Name them.
Timothy,
I can honestly search my heart and say that I am honest when it comes to how I have conducted myself publicly whether with a group of Christians, politicians or gay activists. Do I nuance my message–yes, I am sure I do.
I have learned a lot over the last 6 months about policy issues and have been very careful not to speak about things that I am still researching. Knowing I am opposed to something doesn’t always mean I can or should speak about it.
I have tried to simply share my story and am learning how to be absolute in biblical truth and less absolute when it comes to someone’s story. As we all are, I am a work in progress–that makes some on my so called side of the debate nervous as you have witnessed.
As for attractions, I am clear that my attraction is for my wife. However, it would be a lie to say that I have no attraction to other women—I never struggled with taking that too far, but the truth is that I could. Being married and attracted to my wife’s character, inner beauty and physical beauty has opened me up to the potential for looking at other women in that way. Thankfully, that remains an area that I haven’t had to battle on great occasion—but I am careful to realize the potential.
Grant and Dale,
Can one of you point me to the online document that lists the names of people’s cousins? I can’t honestly think of one of my cousins that shares my last name, thus searching would be tedious and very time consuming. Thus, that would make you guys either obsessed or a stalkers or both. And, how much money are you spending investigating my life? I have tried to find friends from high school and even the online white pages cost money .
As for giving you the name of someone that molested me, sorry, that won’t happen. An underage boy—regardless of his crime—should not be exposed. 25 or more years have passed since that incident and there is absolutely no purpose in me tarnishing the name or family of someone who, to my knowledge, is not involved in criminal behavior. To that end, I do not know the motive for his committing that act—all I know is the result of how it affected me.
Your question is inappropriate and irrational and a smack in the face to any victim of childhood abuse reading this thread.
Your obsession is frightening. Thank God for neighborhood watch and security systems.
Keep commenting, though, it really does tell a lot about you two.
Alan,
One of the greatest tragedies is that the church has convinced itself that “nuancing” – i.e. deliberately providing a false image with the intent of deceiving – is somehow acceptable to God.
Nonetheless, I welcome any efforts you make in the direction of full disclosure. And while I welcome the evolution of character, it can make it difficult at times to measure evolving honesty.
If the claims of “hundreds of thousands just like me” disappear, I may err in assuming that they are still being made. If claims about what certain legislation says or will do – that have no basis whatsoever in reality or truth – are no longer being made, I may not be aware that they have ceased. So while I celebrate improvement, please forgive me for assumptions based on prior behavior.
And I encourage you to continue to measure your “nuanced message” to politicians against God’s requirement that our yeas be yea and our nays be nay. If you make a claim about ENDA, for example, that leads others to believe something that isn’t factual or honest, I believe that it compromises your soul. It eats at your integrity.
Even if a statement is couched in such a way as not to be an outright lie, deception is not in the toolbox of God.
Alan Chambers protects the identity of a child molestor
Excuse me Allan — why you protecting the identity of a (claimed) child molestor??? Too long ago, might be embarrassing…
Wow.
Is this a legitimate excuse for others, or just for you?
(You know what the law is in Florida, right?)
Alan, you are a piece of work. Apparently we are bad people for asking you to name to person who (you claimed) molested you.
What do you imagine the person who most closely resembles your “cousin” would say — about you, about your claim, and on public record? Would a stat.dec. suffice???
Again — Alan, name them. Or admit you made this lie up 15 years ago.
Your refusal to be open and honest tells a lot about you — you cannot be trusted.
Grant and Dale,
I am finished with this conversation. Your line of questioning is like a rape that will not end.
You are both barbaric in your tactics and could not have been more offensive or incorrect.
yep — ended. He thinks.
Alan Chambers is now to be known as a self confessed protector of a child molester. Remember that fact.
His “history” — as an abused child etc etc etc — remains unproven. He refused to provide evidence, even after being directly asked to do so.
Alan, lying about who you are for 35 years doesn’t make you an expert… about gayness.
It just makes you a (pathological) liar.
You cannot name anyone for one simple fact — you have made all this up. You are a fraud. You do not want anyone to be able to easily check on your history, because there is none.
Your Mum and Dad must be real proud of you… ours would be ashamed.
I feel like I have just witnessed an assault and I don’t know who to call.
Ironic, the post where this takes place.
I’ve not always been overly kind to Alan. I think I said he was a snake-oil salesman/hustler once (or twice…LOL). I’ve also usually enjoyed the well thought-out comments that often come from grantdale. They often provide their own brand of humor that makes me think I’m hearing two voices say the same thing (ok…maybe that’s just me and I’m a little crazy…LOL).
Having said that, I’m a little bit uncomfortable with your comments regarding Alan here. What’s the point? It’s obvious you don’t believe Alan’s story. I don’t have a problem with that. But, I get the impression that you kind of feel that if you badger him hard enough, he’ll throw his hands up like the Mary you think he is and in hysterics say “you got me, I lied a long time ago!” I mean come on, it ain’t gonna happen (the confession that is).
Not that I carry any weight around here…I’m just a guy who shows up once in a while and comments. But, I think you do more damage to your rep that to Alans following this particular line. It appears you’ve got a lot of anger directed at Alan. Maybe he deserves it, but is there a better way of releasing it?
j.
What is going on here? Grantdale, you must know this is way over the line for a civil discussion, and if you were based in the US, probably close to evidence of criminal stalking. I’m upset because neither of you are irresponsible, hit and run commenters, and so you know better.
This is a community, and considering the respect I have for both of you, I think it necessary that you issue an apology to Alan and those reading for these recent comments. This is violence, and smacks of the same kind of bullying we see from Phelan in the original post.
Those with your considerable knowledge and reason should not have to stoop to such tactics in order to make a valid point, and I hope you know there is no way we can allow it to continue here.
Yes, okay, David.
Interesting dialogue happening here folks…
I’m unaware if this subject has ever been approached here or anywhere else, so here goes…
If there’s truly hundreds of thousands of ex-gays in America now happily living a straight life by getting married, having children, or even being celibate etc as Exodus, PFOX, etc proudly proclaims there are. Well then, it’s time to organize an Ex-Gay March in Washington! All these hundreds of thousands ex-gays should want to join together for a huge public proclamation of their cause and proudly show the world that they have been set free! Similar to the Million Man March, Civil Rights Marches of the ‘60s, Million Mom March and all the hundreds of other groups throughout history that have shown their cause in public on the national mall or streets of our nation’s Capital, Washington, DC.
It’s long overdue!
So then why isn’t this just nuance?
Because Salzer is a psychiatrist who is looked at as an expert in research on mental health and it is statement made by that expert in a public forum. Things would have been better for her if she had given a nuanced answer.
This was a fascinating thread. I didn’t find it until today. I have to agree with David that the line of questioning being directed at Alan made me very uncomfortable, even if the posters felt they had a sincere and valid point.
Mr. Phelan is someone I never heard of, but his self-congratulatory post was nothing compared to his breathless follow-ups. At some point, if he’s an intelligent man, he’s going to realize he kinda lost it. We all do. I call my alterna-aggressive other half “Loud Steve.” Everyone hates Loud Steve. (Except me).
Alan, I also commend you for making a statement. Contrary to Mr. Phelan’s feelings that it was “divisive,” I felt it humanized both of you. United fronts are so boring and corporate. And political.
As for the three options that XGW proposes a person can choose, I find them to be just a rational list devoid of commentary. And even though it’s premised on the belief that sexual orientation cannot (or almost never cannot) be changed, it still says, “Hey. You wanna live in a hetero relationship? Go for it. But don’t lie to yourself or to your upcoming spouse about what kind of marriage it’s going to be.”
I just hope that if someone feels very lonely as a gay person that they don’t assume choosing 1 or 3 will be an automatic cure for that loneliness.
Thanks, guys, for your support. [grantdale’s] attack was unwarranted and violent.
So, [grantdale], I am waiting for you to do what David asked you to do. Apologize and show that you are a good uncle.
Moderator Note: Post was edited to remove full names disclosed without permission.
Hey Alan, don’t waste the support and good feelings that you just engendered on this board. You were classy re: the Phelan debacle, and again classy when attacked rather repulsively by grantdale (whose comments I usually enjoy). Don’t start acting like a grade-schooler now – to continue yor run of impressing a lefty, unrepentant lesbian like myself, you should show a little grace and quietly drop the subject.
The first sentence of your last post was fine. The second was stooping to their level.
You are right, Rose. I did stoop. I apologize to Grant and others.
I wonder how many of those complaints one might legitimately file concerning the folks at NARTH? Aren’t some of them psychiatrists? Don’t they often make statements of fact which no real science supports? This is not to say that Salzer should do this, but only to put the official complaint into perspective.
Alan: I noticed that you’ve not replied to my queries on scriptural defensibility in other threads. My question here is therefore not concerning the Bible, but concerning consistency of reason:
You apparently concur with #1, #2, and #3 above. Yet, an article entitled, “What Does Healing Look Like?” by Heather Scaife on your Exodus website, implies endorsement of a fourth option: seeking healing continuously until death.
https://exodus.to/content/view/104/55/
Could you clarify or expand on that apparent #4, please? Sincerely; Caryn
David – How many? Probably quite a few. And if they say science shows us that 96% (or some such number) of people can happily and easily change orientation, then I say go for it.
Alan, I was most impressed with the fact that you applied a very aggressive standard of non-violence and turning the other cheek.
Random: Do you think the people who run XGW have the personal integrity to be an honest broker in an ongoing dialog between our little camps?
Fair enough Dr., but it’s not so much about her as it is about Mr. Chambers and Exodus making any kind of an “Ethics complaint” at all. Especially when it comes to the misrepresentation of numbers, or the “nuancing” of numbers as it were.
Steve,
Thanks. Do I think people at XGW have the personal integrity to be honest brokers of ongoing dialog….I think so. I don’t know everyone who writes here but there are a few that I genuinely respect and believe to be honest in their attempt to communicate. We disagree on many things, but I find there is a developing bridge towards healthy debate.
Is that what you meant?
Caryn,
Seeking change until death in my opinion is a valid option. I think people who struggle with unwanted same sex attractions can become too focused on their struggles and lose sight of Who it is they are trying to serve. There are plenty of people that never experience radical shifts in their attractions but desire to honor biblical standards. Those folks may continue to pray for and strive towards a change in their attractions, which is commendable.
The following excerpt from the recent Christianity Today article might be helpful here:
Let me know if that answers your question. Sorry if I missed others you posted. I am a notorious skim reader.
Alan, yes. That’s what I meant. And I agree with you.
Alan: continuing with my concern then, for consistency of reason:
In the posts above, you appear to concur with #1, #2, and #3 above. Yet, in your Exodus website “Policy Statement” section concerning “Healing”, your organization posts the following:
“Exodus affirms reorientation of same sex attraction is possible. This is a process, which begins with motivation to, and self-determination to change based upon a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We facilitate resources for this process through our member ministries, other established networks and the Church. The key outcome of this is measured by a growing capacity to turn away from temptations, a reconciling of ones identity with Jesus Christ, being transformed into His image.
This enables growth towards Godly heterosexuality. Exodus recognizes that a lifelong and healthy marriage as well as a Godly single life are good indicators of this transformation.”
Shouldn’t the last two sentences of the above quote be more accurately written? Perhaps as follows:
“This process enables growth towards (1) celibacy or (2) a heterosexual lifestyle with possible homosexual temptations. Exodus recognizes that a lifelong and healthy heterosexual marriage requires much counsel, honesty, and commitment. We also recognize that (3) some individuals will choose to accept their same sex attractions and urge them to live responsibly.”
You’ll notice that I selected to define the previous term “Godly heterosexuality” more in keeping with this thread’s discussion. I also removed the concept of “indicators”, which some readers may take to mean “goals” or “objectives” by mistake. Lastly, I added the third option.
Your comments would be most appreciated. Sincerely; Caryn
Alan: “skim reading” is quite acceptable. Last I checked, it is not listed among the “seven sins that God hates”. I am normally a reader of Ex Gay Watch every few days… which makes my comments appear quite ‘slow’ in this very fast environment. Thank you for your response and if it was an apology, it is absolutely accepted. Sincerely; Caryn
Warren Throckmorton wrote:
Perhaps Warren can sit down with Salzer and pass on some of his expertise on making nuanced statements.
So apparently it’s only unethical if numerical digits become involved.
The clip makes it seem like they’re saying that every homosexual can become heterosexual, but I know how Haley, like Chambers, parses his words to avoid that. Not to avoid giving the impression that change means becoming heterosexual, but to avoid the impression of INTENTIONALLY giving that impression.
I find it additionally dishonest when the time isn’t taken to clarify that “the opposite of homosexuality ISN’T heterosexuality, it’s holiness.”
Nuanced message of “Change is Possible” = 100% Change is possible from homosexuality to heterosexuality.
-Again and again and again, over and over and over. LWO, Citizenlink, books, TV, radio, et.al — completely morally acceptable to God.
But,
“96% of people cannot change”
COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
Is this the argument you wish to defend?
Oh. My. God. You people have no shame. Is there an ACTUAL hypocritical oath you have to take?
As if the majority can accurately represent the minority? This is your complaint?
__
Correct me if I’m wrong, but ethically speaking, doesn’t one have to at least understand the concept of honesty itself before complaining that someone else is being irresponsible about it?
__
I refine my message and repeat:
It would seem that the complaint here is that complete, utter, and total Christian dishonesty is better and thus more “ethical” than slight secular inaccuracy.
Am I missing something?
Serious discipleship? Since when did lobbying, speechmaking to straight audiences and showing up on talk shows fall under that category? The rank-and-file in the ex-gay movement may definitely be walking against the tide but the leadership is no different than any individual getting their fifteen minutes of fame by profiting from one’s own story. Let’s at least be honest and admit what we all know, the ex-gay leadership gets paid for it, so why in the name of sanity should I or anyone just sit back and pretend otherwise? Why should I ignore the reality that they have a vested interest in promoting this movement? Why should I believe anything they say at all?
Chippy:
Phelan’s posts are funny.
He wrote ” Sounds like a bunch of silly sissy stuff.”
Then you said, “You couldn’t find a more adult or mature way to put that? Maybe something like, “this is an argument without substance””
Then he said “Chippy”, could you find a name with more substance?
When looking at these posts together, you can see he implying your name is sissy stuff. Whether or not this is funny is debatable but you totally missed what was going on. This was proven by your very lame story of a dead chipmunk.
As for the “beating” he described at the marathon, I know if I was there, I would’ve kicked both his and the huge muscle guy’s asses because I am the one and only Moon Master.
“little did the fool know I was a trained fighter having served in an elite force of the US Army.”
Idiots who talk like this have NEVER SERVED, they just wish they had.
Let’s see his DD214…
JudgeJudy88, I love you! Alan, you sure are weird, sometimes. Jay, I have two DD 214s. But, such nasty name calling, though. We are now at something like 149 posts (perhaps a record, or close to it), maybe we can let this rest and I can get the last word! He who is last, laughs last.
Ha ha!
Thanks, Benton… appropriate this thread ended on Halloween night! It was truly it’s own kind of nightmare on Elm Street.
Whatever happened to the “turn the other cheek thing”?
I just don’t understand these new Christians!
Ummm, are you channelling George W? Because I think the correct quote is:
(or in Italian: Ride bene chi ride l’ultimo)