Ex-Gay Therapist James Phelan Removed From Exodus Referral List
Dr. James E. Phelan recently caused quite a stir with a disturbing and somewhat gleeful report on his blog about having “one-two drop kicked the hell out of” a man in the Columbus Marathon. Phelan had heckled a gay group, one of many who had gathered alongside the road to cheer the runners on. The victim of his drop kick had protested this by allegedly shoving Phelan. No one we contacted remembered such an event so we can’t confirm or deny what happened. Phelan himself confided that the police had not been notified.
In the mean time, we noticed that Phelan’s name no longer appears on the Exodus International referral list of ex-gay ministries and therapists. He was listed there when this story broke last month (cache), but not now. Exodus has not yet responded to our request for more information.
If Exodus has indeed dropped Phelan from their referrals, we applaud them. His comments in the post mentioned above, responses to comments about that incident and statements since on various blogs, including XGW, display a troubling attitude and certainly not one conducive to a healthy patient-therapist relationship of trust and vulnerability. We are still waiting to see if NARTH, Transforming Congregations*, Richard Cohen and JONAH will take similar action. Phelan actually spoke at the NARTH annual convention days after this incident, where he also received an award.
Apparently NARTH values such attitudes in their therapists.
* Transforming Congregations has released this brief statement on their website:
The Board of Directors of Transforming Congregations has accepted the resignation of Dr. James Phelan as one of its co-Presidents. Although the Board disapproves of some of Dr. Phelan’s recent public actions and comments, we did not request or desire his resignation, having hoped instead that we could come to a mutual understanding regarding mission and ministry. We appreciate Dr. Phelan’s integrity in recognizing that his approach has diverged from ours, and we wish him well in his future endeavors.
I love that you’re keeping track of little things like this. No one else does. Mr. Phelan, from what I’ve seen in these forums, is quite a piece of work. I wonder how someone arrives at such a nasty place. Was he always like this? Or did his absolute conviction that he’s doing the Work Of God ™ twist him into a little missile defense system?
I have observed that it’s usually ego which defeats those who try to become important in a religion based on personal humility.
Thank you, Exodus. Mr. Phelan’s abject lack of professionalism makes him unfit for anyone’s referral list.
If I knew a poem called “Gooodbye, Nasty Little Man,” I would put it *here.*
I love how David works. He bothers to send me a personal email to ask me about the award I received from NARTH for my volunteer service to them, but not about the Exodus thing, then goes and makes a big blog about it. (By the way, I don’t know why he doen’t use my updated picture? That one is 4 years old already, plus I look fat!). He should have asked and then got the whole story to blog.
But anyway, here’s the deal: Exodus, rather Alan Chambers himself, temporarily suspended me from the referral list until we can convene a conference about the matter. This was his personal decision, not the board’s. That’s why my name is not there. JONAH, NARTH, and IHF will not take such action. We already talked about the matter. As for TC and Karen Booth, I resigned from that board because I felt she was pressuring me to make unnecessary apologies, and curve my language. I already have a mother and don’t need another one.
Since XGW is so concerned about truth, then please, next time, just ask. Otherwise, be careful with conclusions because, there can be a number of reasons why a counselor or ministry is removed off a network (e.g. error, credentials need updating, provider is on extended leave, or provider requested it for numerous reasons (schedules full, maternal/paternal leave, etc.), to name a few. For example, just last month, before this happened, I was off the list for a while due to techical errors.
Yup, Franc apparently it’s not just lesbians who don’t like “nasty little men”.
Ok, so? The award was a minor issue – I asked just for the heck of it. There is a picture of you accepting it, so it was obvious you got one. That and NARTH, like PFOX, never responds to inquiries so why bother? Exodus, on the other hand, will generally respond and frankly I trust Alan Chambers more than I do you. It’s their referral list so it’s their responsibility to explain.
On the other hand I find your comments about Karen Booth and your resignation quite telling.
Freud would be all over that.
Guess it runs in everyone’s blood then.
BTW Jim, does one need any qualifications other than believe in God to be an ex-gay counselor?
Whatever hapened to keep your friends close but your enemies closer? Maybe their afraid ppl will distort their answers…
“Freud would be all over that.” LOL! David, as annoying as you can be, you do bring a smile to me once in a while. All the best, but remember as Freud once said, “Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.” -Jim.
It seems the more Phelan talks, the more people move away from him. I remember the first I saw him after my second JONAH article. I thought it was a flash in the pan, but I was wrong.
Good grief, Jim. You make juvenile, ill-informed comments like that and then expect to be taken seriously as a psychologist and social worker?
David Roberts’ report makes it appear that Transforming Congregations may have issued its statement about Jim Phelan’s resignation in response to Ex-Gay Watch’s call to do so. Had David bothered to check his facts, he would have realized we’d posted the statement several days before he posted his report.
I think you look much more attractive in this picture than in the one on your web site.
First, I see no such implication about timing in Mr. Roberts’ report.
But since you raised the subject: Ex-Gay Watch called upon you to comment on October 22. Your web site’s very small note about the resignation is undated. On what date did Phelan resign, and why did you wait until Nov. 14 to communicate?
Thanks, Emproph. Queer eye for the straight guy advice, I’ll take it.
Speaking of dated pictures, Karen’s on the TC site, needs updating. I say this since attention is being drawn there.
I suggest the XGW authors post their pictures under their names. Not totally necessary, but would be a nice feature. Just some quality assurance advice.
Let’s not overlook the fact that Phelan himself claimed to have attacked another person, and, based on the report, took great pleasure in doing so. If that’s not behavior unbecoming of a therapist I don’t know what is.
Dave R. (and others), Please don’t judge me by my unusual comments. Don’t judge a book by the cover. Get to know me. Take me out to the grill, play of game a one on one basketball with me. Sweat with me, talk with me, yell at me if you need to, hug me, share our pains. For God’s sake get to know the real Jim and not the Jim by his shortcomings and his writings.
This Blog is getting pretty heated. I once turned to this site to see what was going on about certain exodus leaders, so i could tell my ex-gay friends who to avoid… (I was molested by one and its my wish that others dont go through the same thing.) Now we are bickering and writing articles about a man who seems to be a loose cannon at best. Amongst other things as well… attractive pictures???
Perhaps this message is full of crap too, if it is i apologize.
But seriously, lets rise above our own stereotypes!!!
Michael. I may joke and get heated and talk s**t but I am deeply sad that you had to face molestation, at the hands of someone in an Exodus ministry. Someone who led you to believe they were there to help you. Parts of me struggle with being suspended from them (under a rare situation, NOT sexual!) but another part is relieved because there has been alot of hocus pocus in and throughout Exodus over the years. It is heartbreaking. I do wish you well, brother.
Mike Airhart writes …
First, I see no such implication about timing in Mr. Roberts’ report.
But since you raised the subject: Ex-Gay Watch called upon you to comment on October 22. Your web site’s very small note about the resignation is undated. On what date did Phelan resign, and why did you wait until Nov. 14 to communicate?”
David Roberts posted his report November 13; we posted our Board statement on November 10. Had David checked our site first, he would have known that, but he apparently didn’t bother.
David emailed me on October 22 inviting me to respond personally to his post about Jim’s post and asking me if I were going to request that Jim resign. (In all of this I have never asked Jim to resign and personally did not seek it. Nor have I challenged or criticized him publicly, and won’t do so now.)
I emailed David right away and told him that neither were my responsibility as Executive Director, that both would have to be a Board decision. David neglected to post that – leaving it to appear that TC and I had not responded to him.
Why did it “take so long?” We choose not to move at the speed of Internet light so as not to respond rashly. And we choose to follow Christian guidelines for conflict and reconciliation. When that didn’t work, Jim resigned on October 31. And then it took another two weeks for the Board to consider and approve the public statement.
I only see two people commenting on appearances here, and one of them is ex-gay. I agree that such commentary is a bit lacking in taste.
I’m glad that you look to XGW for information about Exodus officials, but please bear in mind that XGW is not designed as a support group and so things may get heated from time to time.
I recommend Beyond Ex-Gay (www.beyondexgay.com) as a source of gentle support to sexual strugglers.
Thanks for clarifying, Karen. So you admit that David Roberts DID check the facts with you in October. Since Mr. Roberts reached out to you first, did you make a good-faith effort to contact him after the board finally wrote the statement? Or did you just pray that the leadership change would go unnoticed?
And since your statement about the horrendous actions of your (then) co-president are so prominently placed (not!), how could I have missed that? And it is undated, so who knows when it went up anyway. Way to divert attention from the real issue here, Karen.
There is no mystery. It had been over two weeks since I contacted you to ask about TC’s response to Phelan’s actions and nothing had happened. This post was prompted by the fact that he was no longer in the Exodus referral listings. When Phelan mentioned in a comment that he had resigned, I checked your site thoroughly for any mention and found the brief statement above and posted it for accuracy.
Why do you even care? You’ve already registered more outrage at this than you did to the violent behavior of your own co-president! Not only that, but you accused us of having caused his actions in the first place in your email response to me. I am fanatical about maintaining the confidence of email exchanges but since you have breached it here I feel it is necessary to fully disclose those exchanges for context.
I was going to ask a question on behalf of my father, who is a member of a Methodist congregation, but didn’t feel it was appropriate after the terse words of that last reply. I never heard back concerning a statement. So much for transparency in the church.
So back to the real issue, Karen, do you have anything to say concerning the actions of your former co-president? Or would you have those outside the church looking in assume that you condone such things? From my vantage point is seems you want to handle your issues like a secret society, closed off from public view, and that is not my understanding of the New Testament Church at all.
Karen, are you saying that Jim’s meltdown was the result of criticism and that his violence and gloating about violence played no part? Or is the blame always on the side of gay people because they are “the enemy”?
In times past I’ve tried to communicate with you only to find that you seem often to be accusatory and hostile towards gay people. You seem (in my opinion and experience) to disdain those who are comfortable with their same-sex attraction and who have reconciled them with their faith. Please forgive me if I am reading you wrong, but this attitude was pretty strongly illustrated both here and at other sites.
Please understand that it is this hostility (or my perception of your hostility) – not your religious beliefs – that make it difficult to build any bridge between us.
It’s not because you are part of an ex-gay ministry. While I do disagree on many things espoused by the ex-gay movement, I’ve found common ground on many issues with those who firmly believe that ex-gay efforts are effective.
Please open yourself up to the possibilities of peace.
It appears from the e-mail exchange that Karen Booth of Transforming Congregations:
— twice declined to provide the requested information to Ex-Gay Watch, and resisted XGW’s efforts to check the facts
— blamed Ex-Gay Watch for exposing her co-president’s public admission of violence and for initiating TC’s allies and finally its board to take appropriate action, and
— hid the board’s late response in an unmarked and undated corner of its website.
As a Christian, I feel disappointed and embarrassed by Ms. Booth’s (mis)conduct.
Yeah, what exactly is XGW responsible for in terms of Phelan’s meltdown? I wish Karen would have named specifics.
David and Mike. To Karen’s defense, she handled the matter with me in a very Christian way. I respect her for it. I’m sure the other matters are housekeeping and communication matters that were unclarified. She meant no harm or deceit. I’ve gotten to know Karen and she does not hate or see gay people as the “enemy”, believe me. Don’t worry she comes off hostile to me, too at times. Although mothering at times (more my issue than her’s probably), she really has a good heart and means well. In the grand scheme of things, I was going to leave her no choice but to remove me, given the subseqent movement of the way I was responding to matters, and I spared her of it by resigning. She was most kind by her statement of me. She showed Christian care and respect even though she disagreed with my course. She would have liked to see me take another course. It is true that we have different directions at this point and have agreed to disagree. There are no right or wrongs here, just convictions.
Sure, Emily, here are specifics.
1. Initial posting of the article about Jim saying he had beat a gay man. Again, no fact checking. Corrected later to “pro-gay” man, but still in error in the original post and intended to inflame.
2. Continuing to describe the marathon incident as a “beating.” According to most standard dictionary definitions (and don’t we like to split hairs here!) beat means to strike over and over again in a brutal fashion. Jim kicked someone. And my understanding is it was once. Again David’s intent was and is to inflame.
3. Blind-siding Jim and me. Posting without the courtesy of notifying us before the fact. (Ditto with the current post.) And then expecting (demanding) that we “dance to your tune.” Ain’t gonna happen.
The Board’s public statement reflects my feelings and I don’t intend to comment further.
But you guys are absolutely correct about one thing. The above cited behavior at Ex-Gay Watch does make it very hard to build bridges. But then, I’m not so foolish to think that’s possible.
I’m not looking for a support group when i approach exgaywatch. But you do have a good point in saying that things will get heated on here.
I am looking for healthy community amongst homosexuals, and non gay folk as well. I believe this site can be looking for trouble, and i think I’ve joined in it many times.
Perhaps now would be a good time to pull back and look at this site objectively. In the meantime thank you for your heartfelt response.
Let’s be honest here Karen, the original post title was “NARTH Advisor James Phelan Brags of Beating Gay Man.” We did not say he beat anyone, he did, and we reported about the disturbing joy he seemed to take in doing so. As for beat, well would it have been better if we had said “brags of Drop-Kicking…”?
And yes, that it was a gay man was an assumption and I changed it the same day when someone mentioned that it might not be supported by the account. There were no facts to check, we were reporting what Phelan claimed, though we did start inquiries just the same. But again, does it make the incident more or less dreadful to you if the man was not gay? (perhaps it does)
You are actually going to quibble about the difference between “beat” and “I one-two drop kicked the hell out of him and got into a immediate fighter’s stance ready to take more of him”? Are you serious? And with all due respect, you have no idea what my intent was – shame on you for saying you do, especially since you are still dancing around the real issue here, the incredibly disturbing words and deads by someone who was involved with your ministry at the highest level.
Karen, Phelan posted this mess, XGW just called attention to it. How did we “blindside” anyone? If you wish to address those feelings in the appropriate direction, aim them at Phelan. Or do you agree with his actions?
“Dance to our tune?” What on earth does that mean? Karen, I don’t know what ministry you can conduct with these attitudes, but I’m beginning to wonder if your absolute raw anger dealing with anyone who is gay might hit close to home.
As for the issue addressed in this and the previous post on Phelan, anyone who condones not only his actions, but the disturbing glee with which he reported them, along with his inexplicable comments in the mean time, simply has no leg to stand on. Certainly this is exponentially true of anyone who is part of the Church.
Is this any less true because a gay person thinks it so?
If I understand you correctly, the cause of Jim’s meltdown is that XGW used the word “beat” instead of the word “kicked” when describing what Jim called
and that XGW initially referred to the victim as a gay man.
With due respect, that hardly seems cause for a rational person to have a meltdown. Nor does a rational person usually demand pre-notice when someone comments about what they have already posted on their website.
I’m sure you know, Karen, that my comments have been subjected to uninvited attack on the internet. And I was not granted pre-notice. But that comes with the territory of putting your opinions out there for others to see and criticize.
Was it annoying? Yes. But I didn’t have a meltdown.
In fact, the last time it happened, I was accused of being racist. My response was not to attack my accuser but to consider if my writings could be taken in the manner described, and to apologize if there had been any offense. No meltdown.
Now, Karen, let me give you an example of the sort of hostility that makes it impossible to believe that you really have any love for those of us here:
I had attempted to point out what could help mend fences… and your response was snarky, offensive, arrogant, and hostile. I truly don’t believe any more that you are sincere about finding a place for communion or conversation.
In the above statement you dismiss not only my efforts to speak with you, but you dismiss any desire to find a common place. You devalue those voices who seek to find truth in this muddle of claims, biases, ignorance, and animosity from all sides.
You have decided that a culture war (or, as you may view it, a holy war) is preferable to peace. And viewing your brother as your enemy is preferable to viewing your enemy as your brother.
And I think that’s unfortunate. I also think it is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ.
Michael G. said:
So you think we would be doing our job if we just ignored someone you see as a “loose cannon” and concentrate on those who we think are molesters? Phelan is (or recently was) prominently involved in every major ex-gay organization we know of. Tell me, what magic third eye should we use to determine which people will eventually be “really big problems” and which are simply disgusting examples of the rest?
XGW is almost exclusively about ex-gay organizations and issues. Someone like Phelan falls directly in our scope. Would you want to seek his help for therapy?
We try never to encourage or condone negative comments about someone’s appearance. In this case, both comments were made by Phelan, one about himself. In this instance, it goes to prove a point.
Loose cannon sometimes hurt people.
I suppose you would have preferred that XGW had been more supportive of Mr. Phelan’s violent confrontation and gloating about it.
The incident itself (if it even happened) is bizarre. The gloating about it is bizarre. Many of the Mr. Phelan’s follow up commnets on this site have been juvenile at best. And you would prefer that we somehow be more supportive of Mr. Phelan.
We aren’t under any obligation to somehow act as his co-dependant (or your ministry’s co-dependant).
So many of the ex-gay community’s most high profile characters have demonstrated their very serious flaws so publicly. I suppose that could lead someone like you at an ex-gay ministry to think that everyone is just out to get you and those that believe like you. Perhaps you should consider that the reason for these spectacular personal implosions is due to some serioius unresloved problems afflicting these high profile ex-gay characters. Also, you should probably consider the question why the ex-gay movement seems to attract so many characters who do so much damage to your cause.
As an outside observer, I think the ex-gay movement is fundamentally flawed and these recurrent embarrassments are highly predictable. Maybe Karen should reflect on these recurrent problems and reassess.
For Karen Booth,
I am biased (I’m gay) but I try to be as objective when reading comments on this website.
Whether the participant in the rally was gay or was pro-gay is irrelevant. I cannot see where the “inflammation” occurs. Don’t you think that’s stretching the outrage factor here a bit? Be honest. The protest over this fact is trivial.
I perceive you will not even attempt to have a dialogue because of certain personalities here at XGW. Where then should you have a dialogue with gays? What website should we expect a reasonable dialogue to occur?
Like Mr. Kincaid pointed out, your hostility towards gay people is quite evident; as with your last remarks. No hope for any sort of dialogue because you think it’s foolish?
This is like one big courtroom. You have an opportunity to state your case. I’m willing to sort through all the comments and decide what you type is salient and noteworthy. In all honesty, would you read your last comment and not objectively think it’s a little childish? Let us decide if Jim blind sided you. Let us decide if the word “beating” was intended to inflame.
I want to know the facts and then let me determine the truth.
I’m trying to be just a juror.
I’d be happy to discuss via e-mail how/where to find some healthy online communities that focus on a variety of issues. (I don’t know much about you, so it’s difficult for me to recommend a specific community here.) Please feel free to e-mail me.
XGW commenters do form a community of sorts, but as a watchdog site, we do (by definition) look for trouble 🙂 and so the resulting heated discussions can cause some anxiety, strain, or hurt feelings. I myself struggle with those feelings sometimes, and distance myself from the site sometimes to maintain some peace of mind.
— Mike (email@example.com)
To clarify and counter Karen’s objection, I described the incident in my post above this way:
Not a word about “beating” though I’m hard pressed to see the distinction.
My distrust and dislike – call it hostility if you will, but it’s someone else’s definition – is with some of the reporters on Ex-Gay Watch and with their methods, not with all gay people per se. I have no clue which of the posters on this site self-identify as gay, and really have no need or desire to know. And I won’t even get into defending how I deal with gay people personally in my life. That’s just another attempt to bait me and thanks, but I’m not biting.
Cowboy, I agree with you – whether the other marathon runner was gay or pro-gay is irrelevant. The use of either label is not supported by fact and I perceive it to be either politically motivated or very slipshod journalism. Jim Phelan didn’t use the label in his original post; David Roberts did. Ergo, my issues with his reporting.
If you’ll read carefully what I emailed David (which he shared without my permission), you’ll see that I didn’t say Ex-Gay Watch was responsible for everything that happened in what they have called the “meltdown.” I said they initiated it by their unprofessional journalistic behavior. I stand by that.
What you call baiting is a call to be accountable. You are responding, but it’s a pretty sad response from where I sit.
Again, you began that breach, and I provided the entire exchange for context. If you review my posts you will not find me revealing private email exchanges unless it is for this reason and only when the other party has done so first.
It is becoming quite clear that you don’t like that we called attention to Phelan’s comments and your connection to him. It would have been much easier for you to avoid any accountability if no one knew to begin with.
What are the chances that Phelan simply started acting this way overnight? The real disaster is that TC ever thought it a good idea to have him as co-president in the first place. Perhaps you could deal with that instead of whinning about why we used one word over the other in our post. Better yet, disregard our post entirely and take a look at the rantings of the man you trusted to help lead your ministry.
But then honestly dealing with that in a transparent manner would be “playing our game” wouldn’t it?
In his original blog post about the physical altercation, Jim Phelan explicitly stated that he drop-kicked a marathon runner who had allegedly shoved Phelan in opposition to Phelan’s shouting of anti-gay rhetoric at a public event. Ergo, Phelan believed the runner was anti-anti-gay. Ergo, he was in Phelan’s view — pick your label — anti-anti-gay, pro-gay, gay-tolerant, or gay-affirming.
I agree that the runner’s political or sexual affiliation should not have been relevant — it was Phelan who sought to make the runner’s affiliation relevant by first drop-kicking the runner and then threatening further violence in supposed defense of Phelan’s own First Amendment rights.
To this day, Booth and the TC have not said what, specifically, they oppose in Phelan’s recent actions and comments.
I fear that Karen needs to see David as a perpetrator of evil. She needs to blame Jim’s behavior and subsequent comments not on Jim’s character, but on someone else – someone gay.
Unfortunately it’s beginning to appear that Karen sees the world as divided into camps, those on her side of the great cultural and religious war – and the enemy.
But the problem with a worldview that defines your allies as always justified and your enemy as always to blame is that you lose any true objective sense of right and wrong. You begin to see the world through the lens of camp or affiliation. You define “good” as “what my side does” and “evil” as everyone and everything that isn’t on my side. And when someone on your side does something immature, or wacky, or even bad, you cannot accept it as such but have to find a way to shift the blame to the enemy.
Not to get too political, but you start thinking that torture is acceptable because it’s us that are doing it. You think that political campaigns that lie are forgivable or that the sins of our allies are to hidden rather than repented. Winning becomes more important than what you’re fighting for.
Karen, I genuinely hope you change this way of thinking. Ex-gay activists are sometimes in the wrong. And gay people are sometimes without blame.
If you can’t come to see this… the sad but unavoidable consequence of that thinking is that soon you too will find yourself defending some abominable words or deeds of your own.
Well said, Timothy.
I actually agree with Ms. Booth that one kick does not a beating make, but I find this nit-picking to be completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. I’m still curious as to how, exactly, initiated any “meltdown.”
There’s been an interesting, but typical, response to me on this thread. I post a clarification that, yes, does criticize (and I believe justly) David Roberts’ journalistic behavior in his reportage and commentary about Jim Phelan. I probably shouldn’t have second-guessed his motives, and for that I apologize. Then I post another timeline clarification and a response to Emily’s question, neither of which was personally insulting to anyone that I’m aware of. But then within a matter of a few postings, I am targeted for character assassination. I’m childish. I’m hostile. I’m deliberately deceptive. I’m out to get gays. I think I’m supposed to be in favor of torture, but not sure about that one. Etc., etc, ad infinitum. Unlike other blogs, there is no attempt to moderate any of this. One could conclude, if one were me, that this is extremely biased blogging.
I have also pointed to – if not here, then on other blogs – Ex-Gay Watch’s expectation (or demand) of absolute precision in language from ex-gay leaders and ministries, particularly in descriptions of change. But the same standard is not applied to their own writers. I find that hypocritical.
Neither of the above is conducive to dialogue and/or bridge-building. And yes, I would definitely be foolish to think or expect otherwise. But then, I don’t think the majority of folk on this blog – protests to the contrary – are into dialogue and bridge-building. They’re into digging up dirt and then compelling the exposed (and anyone else connected in any way) to clean up according to their dictates.
Our ministry was alerted to the situation with Jim. We took note and dealt with it – where it should have been dealt with, “in-house” and not publicly. We hoped for a different outcome; that didn’t happen. We issued a public statement that reflects the consensus of the whole Board (except for one who was recovering from surgery.) Now if it’s OK with all concerned, we’d like to move on. You can choose to rehash this all you want. But I won’t be continuing.
So you want us to moderate away any criticism or analysis of what you say? Isn’t this about the same as blaming us for Phelan’s comments and actions? As I said before, it sounds like you wish to treat these things like a secret society, the antithesis of what the Church should be and you know it. If anything, the Church should be completely transparent about it’s problems.
So while you continue to whine about the reputation you have made for yourself, you avoid condemning (or approving, whichever it is) Phelan’s actions and his bizarre comments since.
[Red Herring Alert] That’s absurd. We have asked Exodus for ANY consistent definition of change. If all we had to worry about is the kind of nitpicking over wording that you have done here, there would be no problem.
Tell me, what did we “dig up” on Phelan? Again, he is the one who posted this stuff for the world to see. I’m the first to say that we do investigate, and we will continue to do so. That’s pretty much the job of a watchdog. But here’s a thought, if you didn’t allow people like Phelan as co-president of your ministry in the first place, this would not have affected you. Act responsibly and openly when problems arise, and there likely won’t be an issue.
But as long as you consider responding to legitimate inquires and requests for accountability to be “playing our game,” I doubt you will understand. And when you act badly, don’t be surprised when someone calls you on it.
Karen — I just wish you’d be honest with yourself, if nobody else.
You are very anti-gay. Beyond doubt, highly anti-gay. Rudely and unsympathetically anti-gay. You avoid course language — like a true “Methodist Lady” — but frankly many/most of us would rather prefer that sort of honest vulgarity over your nauseous and self-inflicted superiority.
Need we remind you — this is actually post about an ever more obviously dreadful “therapist” called James Phelan.
It is not about That Gay David of ExGayWatch, or the fact he gathered a post together. You really do have a remarkable (if knee-jerk) ability to be in the middle of the fault, and yet attempt a guilt-trip on others as your first line of defence.
You’re the one who has some explaining to do — about your relationship with James Phelan. Yet you have, disingenuously, managed to 1) condemn James 2) defend James 3) attack David and 4) attacks The Gays. Is this sort of weaselling polemic all that you ever managed to pick up in journalism school?
James Phelan is your problem… as will be the equally awful and equally ill-informed successor that you will so eagerly seek to replace him with.
If you have something to add to the James Phelan story, we’re all ears. Really.
Otherwise, your point would be…???
AAHH!!!! that automatic flippin’ awful bible quote stuff again. Messing up our quote numbering…
Sorry folks. Not. Our. Fault. 🙁 Ignore those Bible James Two and James Three
I dunno, I think the links are deliciously on target. James 3:
“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. “
Here are a few “professional” gems from Phelan in this reply section:
“I may joke and get heated and talk s**t…”
“I resigned from that board because I felt she was pressuring me to make unnecessary apologies, and curve my language. I already have a mother and don’t need another one.”
“Yup, Franc apparently it’s not just lesbians who don’t like “nasty little men”.
“David, as annoying as you can be…”
“I suggest the XGW authors post their pictures under their names. Not totally necessary, but would be a nice feature. Just some quality assurance advice.”
— It seems the more Phelan talks, the more he drop kicks his credibility and career. Good for Chambers and Exodus for removing this troubled individual from its list.
James Phelan is your problem… as will be the equally awful and equally ill-informed successor that you will so eagerly seek to replace him with.
Perhaps James Hartline? Or maybe Peter LaBarbera?
I’m sure both would be as equally qualified as Phelan and have about the same approach.
I note this shifting of responsibility is very similar to Fred Hutchison’s attempt to shift blame onto the “prying busybodies” who called him out on his claims after he said Alan Chambers had returned to “sodomy”.
Oh Gosh now i’ve become a loose cannon. Sorry about that bros and sises! 🙂
My opinions in posts above were merely that. I don’t want anyone in the GLBT community to be threated or fall victim to physical violence. I realize that XGW does what it is designed to do, to look out for things that threaten our community, and i thank those of you who have corrected me on that, i really do.
I dont have all the answers on the issue of what topic or challenge needs the most care. And I’m not about to put my own issues above everyone else’s. I would however, hope that we can stomach urges for the pursuit of quality from members of our own community.
Ultimately i realize I have the propensity to be idealistic and i sincerely apologize if i’ve hurt anyone of you with those notions. Its just my personal belief that our GLBT community can build a bridge of understanding to the Christian community.
And thats all i’ve got.
Bless you all
Rose — should have checked, right!
Verse is oddly on target. I swear I didn’t check first! Most mysterious! Maybe him up there and we are seeing eye-to-(god)eye for once. 🙂
Of course, it doesn’t matter at the end of the day. Karen is a woman, as are you, and I’m not supposed to listen to you girls about religious matters. You are meant to sit there in silence and ask about our opinions when you get home. According to my old church… neither you nor Karen are worthy enough….
( a female “Reverend”, oh, puke, don’t make me laugh. Sounds like some fake mail-order nonsense from some lib’ral “church” to me.)
You see what you want to see, I guess. As per usual. 😛
Michael G. said:
Just to clarify, I don’t know of anyone who called you a loose cannon. You referred to Phelan with that term and I referenced your use of it.
Grantdale, you’re a “we” (what’s up with that, anyway?), so I’m ain’t listening to you either! But I (we?) digress…
Michael G: Its just my personal belief that our GLBT community can build a bridge of understanding to the Christian community.
Karen Booth: The above cited behavior at Ex-Gay Watch does make it very hard to build bridges. But then, I’m not so foolish to think that’s possible.
Just a little comparison to ponder.
“I mean, let’s look at how responsible gays, as a subgroup, are for AIDS.”
I’d actually like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
How is same gender attraction, in and of itself, directly responsible for unprotected anal sex with someone who is HIV positive?
Again, that’s “same gender attraction, in and of itself.”
-To be clear, my point is that you can ascribe any negative characteristic to any demographic.
Jim, isn’t that what you and those within the ex-gay/anti-gay industry want to do to gays? You want to silence us and make sure that we don’t gain the same rights as you so enjoy as a person of faith but then claim your religious rights are violated when gays get job and health protections?
Sorry, nothing your organizations do or say will make me believe that everything you do is in love for the GLBT coummunity. Yes, perhaps you love those that believe as you do but not those you consider your enemies. I’ve been coming to XGW for over a year now and I have yet to find love in anything you or others of your ilk do and say. And if you think things that you say or do will win others to Christ you are seriously delusional.
The subject of my comment was self-destructing exgay leaders, not the AIDS epidemic.
Michael Johnston would be an example of an ex-gay leader who self-destructed in part due to his unsafe sexual activity despite his HIV positive status.
Jim said”: You say to Karen, “you should probably consider the question why the ex-gay movement seems to attract so many characters who do so much damage to your cause.” Wouldn’t that be the same as someone saying, the gay lifestyle seems to attract so many characters who do so much damage to public health? I mean, let’s look at how responsible gays, as a subgroup, are for AIDS.”
Gays are not responsible for AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome brought on by a virus. Gay men neither created AIDS nor did we run around sticking syringes in people or forcing people to have unprotected sex.
let’s look up “AIDS epidemic”, shall we? Oh let’s see we get AVERT, an international AIDS charity. Why look they have a section on who is affected by HIV and AIDS.
What do they have to say about women?
“Yet today nearly half of all adults living with HIV around the world are women.”
Are you trying to tell me all these women had sex with gay men? Hmm, I doubt that. What else does it say about women?
“Around 76% of women living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa. Among young people living with HIV in this region, three in every four are female.”
Now, I’ve never been to sub-saharan Africa, and I don’t think a lot of people find time to visit that region, especially not to have unprotected sex with women.
oh look at this little quote “Most HIV+ women have been infected with HIV through heterosexual sex. ”
If I were similar to those in the ex-gay camp, I’d print up a flyer with that quote smack dab in the center of the page in bold print along with something to the effect that Heterosexuality is a danger to public health.
But that’s not me.
What else does Avert say about AIDS?
“Most children living with HIV – around 9 out in 10 – live in Sub-Saharan Africa, the region of the world where AIDS has taken its greatest toll.”
There again, sub-saharan Africa. Wow.
“Mother-to-child-transmission of HIV accounts for the vast majority of children who are infected with HIV.”
Again, if I were like certain people, I could put out a flyer with this new quote and say that “Mothers are a danger to public health!!!”
“In the USA, 10-15% of all reported new HIV infections occur among people over the age of 50, with a quarter of these among the over 60’s. This amounted to around 78,000 people in April 2005, and the percentage of new infections occurring in this age group are rising.1 This is an increase of 18,000 people or 30%.2 In the UK, current data suggest that 8% of adults living with HIV or AIDS fall into the over 50 age category.”
Oh God, now OLD PEOPLE are a danger to public health!!!!
But what do they say about them pesky gays. Well gay men they have this to say:
“Worldwide, it’s estimated that sex between men accounts for between 5 and 10% of HIV infections. ”
5 to 10% involve gay men? Hmm, how many lesbians?
Hmm, there does not seem to be a section on lesbians, oh wait, there’s this, buried in the generalized gay section “Generally, lesbians are at low risk of HIV infection, unplanned pregnancy and becoming infected with STDs. However, even though sex between women has a reduced likelihood of transmitting HIV, transmission can still occur.”
reduced likelyhood. Hmm, and if you look up lesbians and HIV you find a lot of people needing more study to find out what exactly the risk factors are. There are virtually no cases in which a lesbian got HIV and had no other risk factors (sex with men, needle drug use) so we’ll just guess and say 1 percent.
so 6 to 11 percent of HIV transmission can be traced to gays and lesbians. That’s how “responsible gays are, as a subgroup, for AIDS.” that’s how responsible, Jim. In other words “NOT VERY”.
But it does bring in another question?
Who’s responsible for the other 89 to 94 percent of infections????? Well it certainly ain’t gays!
AVERT, yes, Jason, that is a very interesting site. Seems like you fell into the statistical pit. The bottom line is where it concludes, “Men who have sex with men [that would qualify most gays] is very much linked to countries’ wider HIV epidemics.” (Did you over look seeing that in your beloved site?). I am not saying some gays, as individuals, do ok, but as a subgroup, compared to others, fair out to be higher in risk behavior, infection, and relapse.
I like where it supports change: “Some people who are attracted to other people of the same sex are gay and go on to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex. But other people who have gay feelings find that these change over time and they become attracted to people of the opposite sex.” And “There is now growing general support for the belief that sexuality is pre-determined and may change over time, or remain fixed.” (Cited in their “Gay & Lesbian” section). Thanks for mentioning the AVERT site.
I was not clear if you were asking me or John, but here’s my stab (oops, better watch how I say that):
“I mean, let’s look at how responsible gays, as a subgroup, are for AIDS.” I’d actually like to hear what you have to say on the matter.”
I would say that some gays, as individuals, perhaps do okay as far as protecting themselves and others. Some are even chaste, BUT, as a subgroup, studies and reports from major health organizations find that gays are the number one violators of AIDS risk and other STD behavior, infection, and relapse patterns. (This is also what I meant to convey to Jason).
“How is same gender attraction, in and of itself, directly responsible for unprotected anal sex with someone who is HIV positive? Again, that’s “same gender attraction, in and of itself.”
Attraction and acting on it are two different things. Attraction is not the irresponsibility, but acting out can be irresponsible, and as a subgroup gays are irresponsible. Data backs this up. Gays, again as a subgroup, when studied, show high rates of anal intercourse and unprotected anal intercourse (e.g. barebacking) with HIV + partners.
“-To be clear, my point is that you can ascribe any negative characteristic to any demographic.”
Yes, you can, but I am talking subgroups, and as a subgroup, homosexuals have more neg. outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts.
Thanks for asking. Hope this answers your questions.
“Simply, you hate ex-gays and the ex-gay movement and will do anything to try to stop and silence them.”
This is coming from a group of holocaust deniers, whose “bible” is “The Pink Swastika”.
Let the meltdown of “ex gay therapists” continue! And somebody needs to call Cracker Jack, and tell him to stop giving away “Ex Gay Therapist” certifications as the toy prize in the box!!!
Except for homosexual women. Lesbians have the “safest” sex practices and the fewest occurrences of disease transmission. We also have the most monogamous relationships.
By holocaust deniers, Scott, are you referring to NARTH or to some other specific group?
I’m referring to the “ex gay movement” as a whole. There’s not one “ex gay” I’ve seen who hasn’t promoted “Pink Swastika”, to try to say homosexuals weren’t persecuted in the nazi death camps – when there’s historical proof that says otherwise. I don’t know about you, but “homosexuelle” is pretty self-explanatory, even if it is in German on the original patch charts.
Emily you say: “Except for homosexual women. Lesbians have the “safest” sex practices and the fewest occurrences of disease transmission. We also have the most monogamous relationships.” What studies have you been reading to support this? Thanks.
Please show where each of Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, Jason Thompson, Chad Thompson, John Paulk, and Mike Haley have promoted Pink Swastika or its message.
Mike — this may be an easy start…
From Exodus: advertising Scott Lively’s awful, filthy lies in years gone by. Still on the site.
(such is all too easy to find, frankly. Scott Lively has continued to share a stage with “these people” for all the years he’s also been touting his Pink Swastika.)
To the best of my knowledge, none of those people you named would be so silly as to baldly claim that “The Gays ran the Nazi party”.
Sadly, they do associate with — and promote — the people who do make that claim.
We’ll see you, and raise you :)… do you have any evidence that any of those people have ever publicly refuted Pink Swastika or its message or dissociated with Scott Lively?
And that begs a question, does it not?
Did something get deleted (I don’t even know if you said that stuff anymore), but since you’re playing along..
“Thanks for asking. Hope this answers your questions.”
Not really, but it was a pretty good first try.
Subgroups are fine, in fact I love them, but when you say “gays” in the context of: “look at how “gays” are responsible for AIDS,” you’re saying gays as a whole – including lesbians, and all celibate and sexually “responsible” gay males.
In other words, when you say it like that, you’re conflating same gender attraction, in and of itself, with irresponsible behavior. At least that’s the way it comes across.
If sexual appetite is no more preventable with gay men than it is for straight men, and irresponsible behavior is just as preventable with gay men as it is for straight men, then sans the argument that same gender attraction is directly responsible for and increased propensity for irresponsible behavior, your issue here appears to be with irresponsible behavior itself, sexual or otherwise, and not with anyone who is just gay, or simply same gender attracted (whether sexually active or not).
You understand that human beings are sexual beings by nature. You also understand – whether you agree with it or not – that some of these sexual human beings understand ourselves to be homosexual, in the exact same intensity and degree to which heterosexuals do. Can you understand then how offensive it might be, to be characterized as irresponsible, simply because I am same gender attracted?
It is offensive because it is an unfair characterization of me.
As tempted as I am, and as much evidence I have, even against you in this regard, I am loathe to claim that ALL ex-gays, or ex-gay therapists, or even the “ex-gay movement,” are all a bunch of dishonest lying scum bags.
And even for the “subgroup” of ex-gays that could verifiably be considered to be “dishonest lying scum-bags,” to what extent are they? Each individual one of them has a different variation of intentional dishonesty and/or delusion, not to mention public misunderstanding.
It sometimes takes great effort judge each person on their merits, and to avoid generalizing — or to at least do so in highly specific terms, and I don’t always rise to the challenge either, but obviously you’re capable of it:
As shown, the only thing I might to that statement above for the sake of accuracy is the word “males.” In the context of AIDS, such a statement is acceptable. In the context of gays (all same gender attracted persons), unacceptable.
Anal sex amongst gay males is not comparable to anal sex amongst heterosexuals.
For one “subgroup” (of a subgroup, (sexually active gay males)), it is the ONLY sexual option. For the other “subgroup,” heterosexuals (or informally “everybody else”), it is AN option. Given the specific subgroups you are comparing, you are comparing ONLY vs OPTIONAL.
Can you see how such a comparison is unfair?
Even comparing sexually irresponsible in that situation is unfair. There are comparisons to be sure, but they definitely need to be made accurate if one wants to avoid the accusation of unfair bias. In addition, heterosexuals are at least encouraged to find a place for sex, homosexuals are discouraged from acknowledging the sexualness of our being altogether.
I’m not infering any disagreement on you part in the discouragement department, I’m just pointing this out.
It’s not about condemning the sinner as just having a propensity to sin. By linking SSA with irresponsibility itself, it’s about condemning the sinner as having a propensity to sin intentionally.
If this is what you truly feel, I would very much appreciate your clarifying as much.
P.S. Don’t hate Emproph just because Emproph is socially and stereotypically synonymous with irresponsibility due to certain online ex-gay personalities…
Wow, a link straight to leaderU:
Well, there you have it. According to Exodus, I, as the direct result of my same gender attraction, am officially responsible for the murder of six million humans.
And here I thought I felt guilty about my life yesterday…
**AVERT, yes, Jason, that is a very interesting site. Seems like you fell into the statistical pit. The bottom line is where it concludes, “Men who have sex with men [that would qualify most gays] is very much linked to countries’ wider HIV epidemics.” (Did you over look seeing that in your beloved site?). I am not saying some gays, as individuals, do ok, but as a subgroup, compared to others, fair out to be higher in risk behavior, infection, and relapse.**
what a vague quote. 1st of all, there is no country where there are no gay people. So of course gays would be very much linked to a countries’ wider HIV epidemics because they have sex.
You still don’t seem to get that 84-89(I messed up the math the first time) percent of new infections DO NOT INVOLVE MALE TO MALE SEX.
The largest group of infected people are heterosexual women who got it through heterosexual sex!
That’s what I was trying to convey to you with stats, not vague quotes from the website which is what you clinged to. By the way, it’s not my “beloved” website, it’s the first one I came across when I did a search — you know what searching is, right?
The whole point of my response was to show how IGNORANT you are and how easily you fall into stereotyping gays as some sort of health hazard above and beyond heterosexuals.
This is a particularily ignorant statement: “I am not saying some gays, as individuals, do ok, but as a subgroup, compared to others, fair out to be higher in risk behavior, infection, and relapse.”
relapse? Uh, HIV doesn’t go away. If there was a cure, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. So what on earth do you mean by relapse?
I love how you try to suggest that the measely 10-15% of infections that happen via male-to-male sex are somehow more significant than the 85 to 90 that don’t. Yet you provide NO evidence to support that claim. Only a vague suggestion that gays are tied to HIV infection in some fashion. Everyone who has unprotected sex with someone who is or may be HIV positive is tied to the AIDS crisis.
You’re trying to perpetuate the stereotype that we’re a bunch of irresponsible disease pedlers. What about the other 84 – 89 percent? What, did they get HIV from not forwarding a chain letter?
Phelan was removed from the Exodus referral list in the aftermath of his reported marathon confrontation and subsequent bizarre statements. The focus of this particular post is an ex-gay therapist who is in hot water even with his own people.
Phelan defends himself by blaming gay people for AIDS. While I realize that his statement is inflammatory and completely ignores the heterosexual and injection contribution to the epidemic, his point was to derail the focus of the discussion from his failings to a culture war about AIDS.
It’s a pretty sad statement if that is the best he can do to defend himself and his actions. I hope that future potential patients/clients who Google his name and find this post don’t get lost in the AIDS arguement and miss the fact that there is something terribly wrong with this guy.
John, I was not blaming gay people for AIDS. I was merely citing facts. Judgments are different than facts. The shift occurred as a result of my response to one of your posts, which I can’t seem to locate now. I am not the only violator of this BTW. At any rate, readers seem to engage in the discussion which, frankly is more stimulating than your so-called failings of myself.
Jason, When we talk about “relapse” in this context, it refers to people who stop risky behaviors for a period of time, then go back to them. An example would be when the AIDS epidemic hit. At that time, many people changed their risk behaviors, but then years later, they went back to the same behaviors. Gays account for the largest group of people doing so. Sorry, I was not more clear about that. Most researchers, however, know what relapse, in this context means. I think the news is pretty clear that AIDS is incurable.
Please be careful with the name calling, you call me IGNORANT but then you cite a website, that was “the first one [you] came across when [you] did a search”. What empirical study [not website] then do you know that supports your case, that is not vague, that shows that gays, as a subgroup are not the number one violators of AIDS risk and other STD behavior, infection, and relapse patterns? By the way, can we have a discussion, without all the name-calling, please?
Of course, we all know that Jim prefers to communicate via a swift kick anyway.
David, actually, I don’t. I usually never communicate that way and anyone who knows me knows that. I use physical force only when it is used on me. I’d also appreciate, less written hostility as far as what you just modeled here for your readers. Thanks.
Actually, now that I read it again, David’s comment may be taken as a joke? Sorry, David, for the over-defensiveness.
Ignorant means you lack knowledge, it is not name calling.
Yet another attempt to derail the discussion by tossing up the “oh don’t call me names.” flag. Pathetic attempt to color yourself the victim seems to be near the top of your bag of tricks.
First, the onus is on you to prove that gays are disproportionately responsible for the AIDS crisis and or the spread of STDs. If you can do this without citing Paul Cameron, NARTH, or anyone else that’s been debunked by Boxturtle, I’ll be amazed. I’ll also be amazed if you don’t use real research and misinterpret the findings to suit your cause.
I guess I’ll have to spell it out.
The reason I pulled the first website that showed up in google search is to make the point that your arguments are so ridiculous, and you are so obviously and intentionally stereotyping gay people that a .2 second search would pull up more information about the subject than I bet you’ve EVER read in your entire life.
The fact is that AIDS is caused by a virus that doesn’t care who’s body it’s in. It doesn’t care what you’re doing. You seemed to have missed this fact on your quest to demonize gay people. This information has been available since at LEAST 1991.
Jason, you are right about the true meaning of “ignorant” (lacks knowledge), but that word, as others, can be used as a form of name calling, for in the context of which it was used. For you said: “The whole point of my response was to show how IGNORANT you are and how easily you fall into stereotyping gays as some sort of health hazard above and beyond heterosexuals.” Given the case that I have read the research (other then looking on websites like AVERT and Turtlebox) I do not fall in the category of ignorant, as you have graciously defined, since I do have knowledge of what the studies show, the facts. And the facts do show that, as a subgroup, homosexuals do have more negative outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is what data finds. That does not qualify me as sterotyping, either. Now, if I went and said for example, John Doe, a gay man, is more likey to catch AIDS simply because he is gay — then yes, I would be stereotyping him. But, I never went on record accusing an individiual gay person of that, rather I make the account based on the subgroup.
I have to agree with Jason that you are either ignorant of relevant facts (perhaps purposefully) or are deliberately stating things that you know not to be true.
It is true that the AIDS epidemic in the US was spread initially by same-sex sexual activity. That isn’t being disputed. Though now it appears that the “face of AIDS” is changing in the US. If current trends continue, gay men will not be the majority of cases but rather poor heterosexual black women. Fortunately, those who fight this disease are closely watching these trends and not making assumptions based on animus.
But you cannot lay the AIDS pandemic at the feet of gay men. The frightening rates of infection in subsaharan Africa has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. It has to do with current cultural mores surrounding the status of women, sexual rights and priveleges, and probably more than anything else, circumcision.
Interestingly, had not the standard in the US been that most male adults in the 80’s were circumcized, there’s a strong argument that HIV would have spread nearly as quickly amongst single heterosexuals as it did among single homosexuals.
As for your arguments about “relapse”, I think you have been misinformed by scare stories. Those articles intended to raise attention and warn tend to imply that everyone is doing what some anecdotal story tells.
Are there those who become weary of following safer sex guidelines? I’m sure there are. But I’ve not seen any evidence that “relapse” is usual or in custom. Nor have I seen any evidence that gay men are more likely than heterosexuals of either sex to lapse on safety.
In fact, considering the staggering number of unplanned pregnancies, when coupled with the use of the pill, the diaphram, and other non-safer-sex methods of contraception, I am comfortable in saying that heterosexuals are far, far, FAR less likely to consistently use a condom than are gay people.
p.s. the site is not Turtlebox, it’s http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com
I’ve found these terms to be particularly helpful when using the word ignorance.
(I caught this on CSPAN a while back. Huffington Post has an article on it):
Following up on Emproph’s comment, here’s the post where Ed coined the term “virulent ignorance”, and here’s video of the speech in question.
Your actions leave me perplexed. You put yourself out as a professional therapist. Most professionals go out of their way to protect their reputations, yet you seem to have little to no concern about damaging your reputation.
While I understand the adage that no pubicity is bad publicity when it comes to models, rock stars and actors, courting controversy by making outrageous and flip statements again and again doesn’t seem the most prudent way of building a practice or professional reputation.
I have to believe that you are blind to how your actions and statements are percieved. If you could see the damage that you do to yourself, you would be far more careful of what you say, and how you say it.
In fact, I have begun to wonder if you have much of a practice at all. I just don’t see these sort of actions inspiring convidence in patients.
Jim Phelan wrote:
I do have knowledge of what the studies show, the facts. And the facts do show that, as a subgroup, homosexuals do have more negative outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is what data finds.
Ok but you’ll find “higher negative outcomes” for nearly any ostracized minority group. Won’t you?
Native Americans are more likely to be alcoholics and have a higher obesity rate than whites. African Americans are more likely to have out-of-wedlock pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, violence and family breakdown and Inuit have the highest suicide rate in the world.
And unlike gays, these people are born into families that support their minority race or culture. A black person isn’t likely to be rejected by her parents for being black but that happens with gay children all the time.
Presenting facts without context is meaningless. What conclusion should we draw from the fact that such different groups of people their higher negative outcomes? What do all these groups have in common?
Gays account for the largest group of people doing so.
Finally, you’ll find similar types of “relapse” amongst heterosexuals throughout Africa. In the mining camps with prostitutes, etc.
Sorry for the triple post. A few years back someone tried to use the very real data that shows that Black people score lower on IQ and standardized tests to argue that they were mentally inferior to whites. It sounds like Jim is attempting to do something similar here.
Wow, talk about ignorance! Timothy thinks circumcision yields the spread of HIV. And everything else said is shallow, with no facts. But one thing he may have right is where he said: “I am comfortable in saying that heterosexuals are far, far, FAR less likely to consistently use a condom than are gay people.” True, why should they, when indeed they go on to maintain greater monogamy, safety, and cleaner sex.
If you could see how I am not damaged, you would be far more careful to shut YOUR mouth.
Toujoursdan, Yes, Native Americans are more likely to be alcoholics, etc….however, the discussion is not about comparisons of other social problems to other groups (esp. ethnic groups). Perhaps, you take another approach than your cohorts (maybe you can help them with their denial?), you at least, acknowledged homosexuals do have more negative outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts but then allude blame to them being “ostracized minority groups”. Nice try, but no real weight to the arguments of the initial facts.
By the way, emproph and skemono thanks for sharing but Mr. Ed Brayton is a big fat rump. Ann Coulter would roast him on any given country BBQ!
Jim Phelan: You have me worried. A friend of mine returned from Iraq, and his identity then revolved around ‘the fight’. He’s vanished now. No one knows what happened. His wife and children were abandoned. He’s gone.
And he, and you, are a valuable part of the Body of Christ. I don’t want to lose you, too.
Please consider taking some days off from ‘the fight’, and ask our Lord to hold you tight. There is so much more to life than ‘the fight’, soldier… and you have so much potential. But only Jesus can show you how to use your incredible fighting spirit to refocus and to rebuild.
Much love and concern to you; Caryn
Jim/James Phelan — you use Paul Cameron as a reference.
That fact alone ends any and all “debate” about you.
Go on a holiday. You plainly need one.
I hear San Francisco is nice at this time of year.
(Be sure and leave a forwarding address: another organisation may wish to dispense with your wisdom; assuming there remain any left that still admit to associating with you.)
Yes, talk about ignorance:
And NYTimes 12/13/06
Perhaps you should check your facts a little better, Jim.
Unless, of course, you are better informed than the World Health Organization or the National Institutes of Health.
Actually, this discussion was about your being kicked out of the Exodus referral network before you tried to hijack it into some anti-gay AIDS polemic. And by the way, when King Juan Carlos told Chavez to “just shut up,” it was funny. Your similar such comment to me doesn’t even make sense.
I am familiar with the study and the infamous Dr Halperin’s rants to circumcise to world. (I’ll keep my theories about that to myself, but will hint that it probably has to do with his own bias on the matter). Now on to facts; maybe it’s true that his study “showed that the circumcision slows the spread of AIDS in the parts of Africa where it is practiced”, however you can not generalize the findings. Also, it is not totally clear that the samples changed behavior due to the circumcision or other factors (which were not studied). Finally, this was not a random sample of the world population and therefore not fair to relate the findings to other cultures, especially the USA.
Finally, don’t you think it is harmful to tell people that because they are circumcised, they have less risk? For people who are already vulnerable, to plant that hope, could in and of itself give them more permission to exercise less protection, when in deed, we know that protection is the safest course and that circumcised males are not immuned from HIV, by any means.
As I said before, I didn’t make the shift, but shift happens; perhaps deal with it. No real derailment anyway, everyone is pretty saturated by it all. And you told me to shut up, so does that ring a bell and make sense now? I guess it’s okay for you, but not me? Makes sense considering the standards you uphold?
Are you capable of ever admitting an error?
When confronted by not only those of us who comment here but also by your compatriots in the ex-gay movement that your behavior is erratic, your response has been to ignore them all or accuse them of ulterior motives.
When confronted with objective facts that refute your positions (i.e. that circumcision is a factor in HIV transmission, contrary to your claims of “ignorance” on my part), rather than admit you were wrong you try to change the subject to whether information is harmful.
Jim, you appear to have a need to “be right” at all costs. It is becoming apparant that you care more about the battle than about the reason you’re fighting. Your desire to belittle others is destroying your credibility.
Jim, seriously, please stop and consider if you would think that one of your clients that was exhibiting this behavior was in a place of mental stability.
You know what John, I realize you and I are getting nowhere and onlookers may even judge our exchanges to be, yes, crabby. My last post I take credit for it being nothing but. At any rate, it has become unproductive. If we can exchange something of value and intellect, I would be willing, however if not I suggest we end our informal cyber relationship, which probably has little or no meaning to begin with.
I did not tell you to “shut up.” I suggested that you put more thought and care into what you say and how you say it. I guess that was lost on you.
Of course, I can admit when I am wrong. My wife certainly knows that! As for my comments here of which my compatriots in the ex-gay movement accused my behavior as “erratic”, that WAS soley that of Alan/Randy of whom you might notice has been absent lately from any such devices. We will revisit our differences off line, thank you. We still have to settle these matters in a conference TBA.
Just to clarify, Alan Chambers has been away for the past couple of weeks or so, and was focused on other matters more urgent before that. His lack of activity here is not necessarily germane. Randy has only posted here a few times and then only just recently, so I wouldn’t put much stock in his absence, either.
I might suggest, Jim, that if you believe that Alan and Randy are the only members of the “ex-gay movement” who consider your behavior erratic (at the very least), you need to talk with your “compatriots” more often.
I’m getting the impression that, even before your drop kicking meltdown, you were the pink elephant in the living room of the ex-gay movement, one of a few I should say.
People who are in the ex-gay program are people whose religious beliefs do not allow them to accept the sexual orientation [homosexual or bisexual] that they were born with.
All scientific studies to date indicate that sexual orientation is biological.
People used to use the bible to argue in favor of segregation and to justify slavery.
They also used to use the bible to demonize left handed people, claim that the earth is flat, etc.
Also – some people in the ex-gay program blame their sexual orientation for their own irresponsible behavior and consequent unhappiness.
I admire XGW for stepping up in the fight against ignorange, misunderstanding, and religious fundamentalism. We all know the danger of religious fundamentalism in this world. How many people have died in the name of religious fundamentalism throughout history? – Millions.
People – keep seeking the truth.
A person can stop acting on their sexual orientation – they can deny it, they can behave in contradiction to it – but they cannot CHANGE the sexual orientation that they were born with. It is biological like eye color or height.
If you are 5’5″ – you can wear shoes that make you look taller but you are still 5’5″.
The tragedy of people in the ex-gay program is that their belief system makes them ashamed of, in denail about, fearful of their sexual orientation.
That is called a lie and to me that is the definition of evil.
Let’s call it what it is.
David, I’d love to hear more about what you know of my so called, “compatriots”. I’m so sure, there are so many from the “movement” that trust you. “Yea, let’s talk with David, so he can turn around and put me next on XGW! Let’s start a conspiracy against Jim Phelan, let’s all talk behind his back, we are jealous, we hate his power! That man, who does he think he is (and so on). Darn Christian who curses like a sailor and likes Ann Coulter.” As, the lady in Misery says, “That dirty birdy”.
Or, maybe, you are right, maybe there are some legit in your scoop. Never the less, the pansy ones that like to butter and cream you, maybe, the ones needing alibis. I might be inclined to think there are maybe one or two of them. But, that’s a stretch. The ones who you have as your fear factor experiments. So, you know the in’s and out’s and daily schedules of Alan C, and that he has “urgent” matters? oMg! I guess most stalkers would know these things? Now I know this place is wack.
“G” if you were a real researcher and produced a true random sampled study to prove that people “cannot CHANGE the sexual orientation that they were born with. It is biological like eye color or height,” then maybe people might listen to you. Otherwise, talk to the hand.
Does that dripping sound mean the meltdown is complete?
Does that dripping sound mean the meltdown is complete?
Nearly, Timothy — we’re still waiting on the “meep meep”.
Then we’ll know we’re done.
I’ve always wondered how the ex-gays explain homosexuality in nature. It is a well documented fact that some animals, whose DNA code is not different in nature than ours, are exclusively homosexual in their behavior – such as the famous 8% or so of rams. Are these rams exclusively homosexual because their daddy rams didn’t spend enough time with them, because their mommy ewes were domineering, because the other sheep teased them, because they chose the behavior, or is it because they were born homosexual? I’m really curious to know if they think it is inborn or not for the animals who are exclusively homosexual in their behavior. Perhaps Jim would be gracious enough to shed light on the matter for me. Thanks in advance.
**“G” if you were a real researcher and produced a true random sampled study to prove that people “cannot CHANGE the sexual orientation**
Firstly, you should have learned in, oh say, Junior High that science cannot be used to prove a negative.
For example, I cannot prove there is no God. However there is no concrete evidence of his(or her) existence. There is a lot of circumstantial and anecdotal “evidence” but nothing that stands up to scrutiny. Does this mean there is no God? No, it means exactly what I said to begin with, there is no concrete evidence.
The prevailing research on ex-gays shows a lack of evidence that reparative therapy works. The recent Jones and Yarhouse study shows that 11 people out of 98 can be considered a success if you redefine success to the point where it no longer resembles the common meaning of the word. If you consider a lessening (but not an end) to homosexual thoughts and desires, and an apparent increase in heterosexual “functioning” and or desires, then yes these people can be considered a success.
However, that’s not what most people would consider a success. For example, I have successfully quit drinking and successfully quit smoking. I say this because it has been 3 years since I’ve done either. It has been more than 2 years since I’ve had anything resembling a craving. I can use mouthwash with alcohol in it with no problem. I can be in a bar, and date a smoker with no problems whatsoever. This is how I judge success in any sort of “addiction”.
Now if homosexuality can be compared to an addiction, then A) there must be those who can be “moderate homosexuals” just as there are social smokers and occasional drinkers. B) If homosexuality is an addiction, then like my cravings for alcohol and cigarettes, the gay thoughts and feelings should stop within months of “quiting” homosexuality.
Since no one has produced one person, let alone a significant group of people, who have completely stopped having any homosexual thoughts or desires, and have replaced those with exclusive, passionate heterosexual thoughts and desires (as opposed to celibacy) then I’m sorry, there seem to be no success stories whatsoever.
Does this mean that change can’t happen? No, science can’t prove a negative. But someone loosing their homosexuality is a lot like me waking up tomorrow as a hamster — neither is impossible, but they are both not very likely.
you made me laugh out loud. I’d almost forgotten about DL.
Jim Phelan said:
Paranoia, too? You got the deluxe neurosis pack, didn’t you. It’s called an autoresponder, Jim. We email to check some facts, and, if he’s away, it replies with a message about him being out of contact. He also has an assistant who would probably even tell you when he is too busy with urgent issues to talk.
Actually, there are precious few who won’t at least respond to our verification of this or that. PFOX is one of those who never responds to anything. If we really press, they will end up on an obscure web audio with Matt Barber where they don’t have to respond with any legitimacy, but most ex-gay organizations will at least talk with us.
Yes, David; and your use of the term “neurosis”, Freud would be proud. And hence “deluxe pack”, a big cigar for sure. Again, thanks for the compliments; I can always rely on XGW for them.
Nick, everyone’s DNA (animals, included) is different. We can not compare rams with humans. In case you didn’t notice, they are alot different from us! Yes, homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom, but not exclusively and not under normal situations. For more information please read my article “Deviated copulation among animals,” Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1-2, pgs. 41-49, March, 1998.
Jason, so in the absence of “proof” people believe in evidence. But you say, there is no evidence, or concrete evidence, in God. I wonder why so many people believe in God, then?
This type of discussion could go on and on, especially when you throw the God factor in!
I have to agree with John we are off, have gotten way off, the real issue and the real issue is this, germane to this post: Exodus, rather Alan Chambers himself, temporarily suspended me from the referral list until we can convene a conference about the matter. This was his personal decision, not the board’s. That’s why my name is not there. JONAH, NARTH, and IHF will not take such action. We already talked about the matter. As for TC and Karen Booth, I resigned from that board. So, yes, lets turn off the “drip”. I’m taking Caryn’s advice and taking some time off. Happy Thanksgiving.
Jim, I appreciate your response. Basically you explain it by denying it. I’ll try to see if I can find a copy of your article.
(I think you misunderstood what I said – I said the DNA is not different in nature, as in all DNA is made up of sequences of A, T, C and G. I did not say that all DNA is identical in the sense of everything has the same DNA base at the same location).
Homosexuality is not an addiction – it is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality.
You may be confusing sex addiction with sexual orientation. There are MANY heterosexual sex addicts – they frequent stip clubs, spend all their money on prostitutes, etc.
There is a mountain of scientifc evidence that sexual orientation is biological.
Compare these researchers to NARTH – which is full of discredited “scientists” whose religious beliefs drive their research.
Its called intellectual dishonesty and again – it is evil. Why? because it is lies masquerading as truth.
Jim Phelan said:
Just to keep this factual, we have no information from Exodus on this yet. This is Jim’s claim. It’s not exactly out of the ordinary, however, for a CEO or President to take immediate action when necessary, such as removing someone doing and saying things of debatable character from a referral list. Then the matter can be taken up during regular board discussions.
The truth is we only know that Phelan was on the list before the incident, and he is not there now. As for JONAH and IHF, well I think we know how few take them seriously. Their inaction concerning this only helps emphasize their problems.
It looks to me like the ex-gay movement may be going through a division.
On one side is the crowd that wants to be taken seriously and is willing to try and live up to some standards of honesty and appropriate behavior. While I may be critical of them or questions their claims, I don’t think they are, well, of diminished mental capacity.
And then there are the slavery loving, holocaust revisionist, pillow beating, cuddle treatment proposing, anti-education, jogger kicking, wackjobs. Sadly these, umm, more colorful ex-gay leaders are in love with the limelight.
Awww, that’s adorable. Let’s just deny basic, well-established science in favor of assertions pulled out of our a*s.
Well, actually, exclusive same-sex behavior occurs in normal situations (all observed environments) in a fairly stable percentage of rams.
OK. But that doesn’t mean that your first statement was just plain old wrong.
But it will be a cold day in Hell before Jim admits that ANYTHING he said was wrong.
Timothy: please consider the ‘sin of Edom’ in the book of Obadiah. Simply put, Edom allowed no one to escape. There was no way out of a God-given judgment, except death… thanks to Edom.
There are times when the anti-GLBT move to beat down a pro-GLBT argument… and they go beyond debate and dialog, to scorn.
I offer that our example is Christ, not Edom… . Our example was a ‘son of man’ that knew the fury of argument, that felt the adrenaline in his veins, that spoke the truth plainly, and yet blessed when cursed with words or given scorn.
You are a skilled writer. You have done a marvelous job of making assertions and defending them. I ask you to consider as Paul says, ‘God gave you the authority to build up, not to tear down.’
Please forgive me for being dense today. It’s the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and perhaps my mind is on Turkey.
But what exactly are you saying here? That I am being to harsh with Jim?
Speaking of Thanksgiving:
I get introspective at this time of year. I have some family and friends who I appreciate are a part of my life and I will be sitting down with some of them tomorrow. Then, I plan to reacquaint myself with friends through the cross-cultural, and time-honored ritual of holiday greeting cards.
I see a lot of cards with the word JOY as part of the message. After many years, I think now I understand the meaning of JOY. It only comes from within.
So…to everyone here…and I mean everyone (gay, recovering gay, ex-gay, ex-ex gay and even those who I might consider the burr-under-the-saddle types): may you have peace. Peace and solace, at least, during this holiday season of cheer and goodwill.
Hmmm: but among many things said… there was also a moment when a wild-eyed Jew went to the temple and started kicking over tables. If memory serves.
Saul said a lot of things. Much of it “debatable”. Some, down-right ripe for rejection. You’ll need to make a bit more effort than simply quoting him. How does this apply, here?
I think, also respectfully, it may help if you simply said what was on your mind; rather than speaking through riddles. (the clue is that Timothy has had to ask what you meant). If there was a specific thing said — or even simply implied — I’m sure you’d be quite welcome to object or question. Timothy’s more than fair like that, in our experience.
James Phelan is a concern. He is making a career out of tearing people down, and seems to delight in attempting to do so.
I’m unfussed if his table gets overturned. High time: he’s a menace.
Where’s a wild-eyed Jew when you need one? 🙂
Timothy: I offer that you’ve given Jim P. no way to escape. You won the discussion long ago. As an outsider watching the ring, I think it’s time to throw in the towel – not because you are wrong, but the dialog became a debate, the debate became a fight, and the fight became far too bloody.
I am concerned that readers are watching for a strong dialog, and perhaps a hard debate… let’s call it ‘boxing’. It opens our mind to understanding arguments and assertions, evidence and logic. I may not like all of it, but then, others do like it. And I normally join the dialog, work a bit of debate, but hold my peace and then stay out of it, as it grows far rougher.
In my opinion, this thread was no longer boxing. It’s become savage. It’s blood and ultimate fighting. And the readers are learning that GLBT are as savage as they…. perhaps even more so…. when do we stop?
Jim P. lost the boxing match, but is showing that we are as savage as he… . I now consider the PR battle a ‘draw’.
XGW offered to ‘broker a dialog’, as I recall. Sorry, but this is not a dialog, in my opinion.
But then again, this is your fight. I’ll leave this thread alone. Caryn
Well, I feel sorry for these men… how low they go and how much they hate themselves. Feeling like they were born in a society that didn’t love them, that they felt they had to be tough and physical to feel loved.
Guys (Mr. Phelan in particular), when will you wake up and learn that none of that doesn’t really matter? That no matter how hard you throw a football, the pain somehow is still there….you can’t just lift the homophobia away no matter how strong you are. It isn’t your fault. Maybe the problem has to do with them and not you? Maybe you can learn to love yourselves, and stop all this nonsense.
I don’t care how tough you are physically, so why should you? Btw, you are obviously in denial. No straight guy ever says ‘sweat with me’ when talking to other guys. Please stop this nonsense. It’s just embarrassing! It doesn’t matter if you like sports, or if you’re into theater, or both. What does that have to do with your sexual orientation anyway? And if gay men are softer and more sensitive, so f*****g what? Those are excellent qualities. Why should we care? I know I don’t. Being a good person means being above all that s**t.
Self-confidence really does look good on anyone. You should try it! The reactions you have toward gay men aren’t what straight men think about us (although you really do think otherwise I know *chortle), but what gay men deep in the closet think. Please get help and come out! Think about all the young gay boys you will be saving by being brave. I do not want any more of our kind to kill themselves. Thank you.
~signed, Larry Kramer fan
Some think we over moderate, you think we under moderate. With all due respect, you must be using a very, very low threshold of “savagery” if you think anything in this thread deserves that descriptor.
According the NARTH conference schedule, both Alan Chambers and Jim Phelan were at the Marriott Dallas Fort Worth Airport on Friday October 26, 2007 at 145pm. http://www.narth.com/docs/2007confsched_rev.pdf
I wonder why a conference couldn’t be convened at that time since they were both in the same building rather than one being in Ohio and the other in Florida.
Or perhaps one or both sides weren’t particularly enthusiastic to “convene a conference” after the testy exchange between Jim Phelan, Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers in the comments section of Jim’s blog.
Somewhere up there in all this craziness Jim said:
Have you ever actually been a heterosexual male? If so, you would know for certain how utterly ridiculous this statement is, Jim. Good Grief. Or, if you’d ever been a 44 yr.old divorced woman with a MySpace page you’d get a taste of how ridiculous this sounds as well. I have a great deal of anectdotal evidence which suggest that all men are pigs….gay or straight. (lol)
Welcome to the land of creationism.
There are plenty of issues concerning Phelan in this thread, some more on topic than others, but we have no idea if he is or is not a Creationist, nor is it really relevant here. Let’s try to remember the topic.
Makes me crazy. So much negative energy. If boys want to have sex with other boys, then let them do that. If boys feel emotional connections to men instead of women, then let them do that. Who’s being affected? If you belong to a religion that doesn’t agree with homosexuality, then YOU’RE the only person who has to answer to YOUR God. So then don’t YOU do it.
Ben, it’s hard to tell from your mixed usage if you are using “boys” to mean minors. Just in case, let me clarify that nothing on this site is to be construed as supporting sexual relationships between minors and adults of any gender or orientation, as we do not.
If you were simply using boys and men interchangeably with the more generic meaning “male” then just consider this a clarification for readers.
With all due respect to everyone here, it is evident that each and every one of you may have suffered from sexual abuse on one level or another. From whatever court the thought form that squeezed you hard is hailing from, it’s effects are blazingly strong. As long as you don’t discuss your true pain and resolve it, this mini projectile missile factory will continue to brew strong poison.
There is no “bridge”with fear. Fear is not interested in bridges. Fear is only ONLY interested in separation. If everyone stays separate, then confusion rules, and evil wins. Exgay ministries use Biblical fear militia to fire at gay people. If gay people fire back it’s because at some level they may have a belief that the Bible just might be right, a very hollow yet verifiable fact. If you resolve your own inner problems with your possible sexual /boundary abuse, you may not be attracted to this type of communication ever again, because, it does not dominate your inner dialogue, any more.
You are all being the pain, exgays and gays alike, stirring the pot of your combined sexual abuse striations in your individual selves. It will drive you mad with contempt for self and others, if not resolved.
One truth is, gay straight bi, are all neutral, they exist here, always have and always will. The next truth is, it’s your opinion about these neutral things that is your surface problem, Biblical saying or not, it’s an opinion. My best friend Mike says all the time, “opinions are like a******s, everybody’s got one”. Yes and so did the men have opinions who wrote stories in the Bible. New flash, God lov’em they were men. Evolved beings do not “channel” fear through psychic men as a major proponenent to live by. The Bible got hammered with some very dark doors hinged on inaccurate inferences best being dismissed as error. Sex is one of those doors.
So you may want to stop the missile defense, on both sides, you’re hurting yourselves for no reason. You’re “acting out”. You are having opinions about something that you cannot change, ever. You can throw red dye on brown hair, as it will in the end be brown. The third truth is your all hurt birds wanting resolve in one way or another. You will never get it by throwing stones, nor will you get it by denying your inherant sexual matrix. You only get resolve by repairing your matrix, of which you have several. I have never seen anyone evolve through hating a part of the self. It doesn’t happen. Acceptance is the only way out as it leads to understanding. Without it you’re toast, kinda like the burnt walls on the surface of this blog.
Self investigation and resolution is one tough tough journey, but if you truly want happiness, instead of war, then it is a path you must take, preferably with a therapist that has resolve, soas to lead you well. If you like, ask your Gods to direct you to one, something may just happen that would be noteworthy and awe inspiring. You are all so beautiful, beyond your rage.
The worst abuse is that of the tortured analogies you are using. Try to keep the language clean at least so we can stay out of the corporate filters and maintain out work-safe status. The less evolved thank you 😉
From one less evolved to another…..thanks David!
I trust you all had a relaxing T-Day, like I, but I see many were on here, talking (gobbling) more about me (and other stuff[ing]). I am so thankful, though.
Nick, Thanks for your clarification, however, there really is no real discussion here, because science has not found a marker for homosexuality in DNA that provides conclusive evidence. I am very familiar with the infamous studies by the team of J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard; and the Hamer study. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. “Some” believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the elusive “gay gene”, but many other scientists do not. There are too many problems in the research and methodology to say for sure. Others may place stock in other theories. Some feel that perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.
So to address “G”, while there may be “mountain of scientific [sic] evidence” (rather he should say, a small hill), such evidence is not, conclusive or convincing in any one sense. What we do find is that whatever evidence we do have; we use to justify our own biases. I am guilty of this to some degree; I would hope you’d be as honest and say the same for yourselves. I think the important thing to do is to stick with the facts, and facts have it that we have some evidence for all kinds of explanations for homosexuality. I prefer the psychoanalytic triangular theory. Drs Fisher and Greenberg out of Syracuse University
found much evidence in the literature to support this. (AND, NO these are not NARTH people!). As for women, the unresolved oedipal complex is also a factor, however other factors could be an influence, such as sexual abuse. Her aim in homosexuality is to disregard the male figure and take on a female figure, one who will substitute mother (or be safe-like, like mother) and will provide a refuge from men.
Pam, regardless of one’s orientation (for ex. I could care a less about yours or anyone else’s’ on here, because I can dialogue with people and not make that an issue) they can look at research and say without a doubt that their is enough evidence in study to show that, AS A SUBGROUP, those that define themselves as heterosexual, report more monogamy in their relationship when compared to gay SUBGROUPS. Now, are there individuals in each group with EXCEPTIONS, Yes, sure there are. I am sure there are insatiable straight 44 year old women who want sex with every man they can find. If you find one, please give her my number, BTW! LOL
Pam, please stop judging people by your cyber views, and generalizations (i.e. “all men are pigs”). I mean, come on, do we really take your anecdotal “44 yr.old divorced woman with a MySpace page” to so-called “get a taste” to be any representation of the real world? Maybe you should have been doing something else on Thanksgiving? No reply nec. just think about it.
Now on to John: John, before you jump to conclusions, please check the facts. If you would have, you would have know that Alan Chambers, while on the 2007 NARTH conference agenda, did not attend. He had to cancel, but he did sent a rep. from a local Exodus ministry. Even if he had been there, that would not have ensured we would have had the time to convene anyway, given our tight schedules, press inerviews, research, round tables, meetings, and other business we conduct at this annual conference.
Jim Phelan said:
You chastise Pam for her “all men are pigs” comment (one I’m fairly certain was made tongue in cheek) and go on to prove it in the very next breath.
Let’s keep the comments on topic and a bit more concise, ok?
Jim, thanks again for your reply. I know that many of our biological traits are the result of both genetics and the environment (especially prenatal). I look at the twin studies and genetic studies much the same way I do fingerprints. We know fingerprints are inborn and partly genetic, yet identical twins do not have identical fingerprints. Any genetic search that requires 100% similarities in one particular gene controlling fingerprints is doomed to failure. Unfortunately, this is the “proof” some people require for homosexuality – it will never happen. Instead, I look to see what the twin patterns are (regardless of the actual frequencies) and what the genetic tendencies are, especially since many traits are controlled by more than one gene. The various studies I’ve read are very consistent with the neurohormonal theory – a theory that makes a lot of sense to me in that it helps explain the exclusive homosexuality that is found in nature and in humans.
It doesn’t escape me that people who hold the prenatal causes to strict standards ignore those same standards when discussing postnatal causes. From what I understand the APA indicates no postnatal factor has been found to demonstrate homosexuality is not inborn. There are gay men, such as myself, who had an average relationship with the father and who were never sexually abused. I sometimes wonder how much of the problem is because of education: I notice that creation science proponents often have PhDs from non-accredited institutions (or their accredited PhD is in a completely unrelated field) – the same seems to be true for some of those I see involved in ex-gay arguments, their PhDs are not from accredited institutions. This might not matter to some people but to me it is a consideration, especially when trying to understand their views and approaches to difficult issues.
Ah, yes, the loony end of a post string….
Pam: we, unlike Jim, saw the “lol”. Given his woeful “research” talent, he probably doesn’t know that you have a few boys that you adore with all your heart and would defend with your life. He’s an idiot, ignore him. And all men ARE pigs, btw… that’s what you chicks love about us, right?… 🙂
ChakTah: any “sexual abuse” was as an adult and mutually agreed upon with monogamous husband. It was kind of nice, actually. But I wasn’t sure, so I’ve asked for a repeat performance. More than once, over the years. Probably the only thing that’s kept us together. ***
*** delivered with double dose of Australian sarcasm, which is twice normal strength to begin with.
David, my comment was tongue and cheek as I realize Pam’s was, too. No harm intended.
Nick, I’m not sure if, as you noticed, “that creation science proponents often have PhDs from non-accredited institutions (or their accredited PhD is in a completely unrelated field) – the same seems to be true for some of those…involved in ex-gay arguments, their PhDs are not from accredited institutions” is accurate. Maybe you are right, I don’t know. Have you ever done a survey, or know of one done?
BTW, what institution is your Ph.D from?
Excuse me Jim, but isn’t your “PhD” from the “Southern California University for Professional Studies”? A “PhD” that isn’t recognsed as such, for practice?
You got your PhD in psychology via post, right? Without any prior formal psychology training. Does anyone ever fail that “doctorate” so long as they keep sending the cheques?
And you paid to publish your “papers” in vanity journals, right?
Who are you to question people’s credentials.
Grantdale, relax, I asked to see what educational level he had given we are talking about research and he said he felt things like that were important for him in consideration, especially when trying to understand views and approaches to difficult issues.
As for me, my terminal degree, is a Masters in Social Work (MSW). This is the degree at which I am licensed and board certified, and allows me to practice psychotherapy and research. As for my Psy.D, I earned that to continue my education, specifically in psychology because the social work program lacked psychology in its curriculum. Yes, this was earned through an external degree program. Most MSW’s do not go on to gain as much continued education, but I am an exception. So, to be honest, your point is invalid. Not that you had one in the first place, nor did I need to explain again since this has been covered in previous posts.
Secondly, I see you are talking about my article that was published in Psychological Reports, of which you refer to as a “vanity” publication. The research itself has strong integrity, as it was done for my Masters thesis, through an accredited school, and was supervised under strict academic standards. I did not have to have this published, I could have left it unpublished, but I chose to make it accessible. Psychological Reports, although the author assumes production cost, is still under peer review, the same standards as all professional publications, and is listed under the APA’s listing of recognized professional journals in PsycINFO http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/.
BTW: Not all my articles are in Psychological Reports, I have a variety of sources of which have published my works, yes even the APA!
Oh pfftt. What do you take us for Jim? We both check these things for a living.
We’re well aware what your “PhD” means, and we’re well aware of the academic integrity of all the places you’ve “published”. What we wanted to see was whether you’d be brutally honest. (A: obviously not.) Sorry if our posing it as questions caused you to be confused.
Vanity PhD and vanity papers; available to anyone prepared to fork over with the ready.
ps: we also have a barrel of snake-oil for sale. Interested? Or have enough already?
Mr Phelan — It looks like you are taking quite a skewering at your personal blog jimphelan.vox.com. With comments referring to “Jim Phelan’s incitement of a physical and/or verbal attack on a gay group, and an attack on a man, presumably, a gay man” zinging your ears, it must cause you to take stock. How did you vocalize your comment to cause someone such angst, so as to physically shove you? People usually don’t go to such lengths unless intensely provoked. And out of many groups supporting the marathon, why did you single out a gay group to verbally “attack” moving forward to physically maiming a man, potentially causing serious physical injury? What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited?
This is your 15 minutes of fame.
Yes, Devlin, “hooplah”, indeed! “This is your 15 minutes of fame.” Sounds like something a cheap prostitute (or presidential intern) would say. Did you learn that from Bill Clinton? BTW: What’s the difference between a puppy and a liberal? A: Puppies stop whinning after they grow up.
Oh, you said, “why did [I] single out a gay group to verbally ‘attack’..” Well, I was looking for the liberals’ group, but failed to see any group standing around burning the American Flag! I didn’t see the KKK, either, I’m sure I would have noticed them standing around in those white sheets! Nope, didn’t see em’, sorry.
Yes, grantdale, penty of oil for me. God have mercy.
You say, “We’re well aware what your “PhD” means….” Apparently, you aren’t too AWARE, because it’s not a PhD, it’s a PsyD.
“Brutally honest” Come on, if anything, I’ve been that for God’s sake.
BTW: Who is “we”????
Alright Jim, I’ve tried to treat you like an adult with gentle hints about your inappropriate comments, but you keep right on going. It’s time to rein it in. We don’t allow juvenile smears like this so consider this your first warning. This is not your personal blog; stick with the topic and remain civil toward others if you want to continue commenting here.
Jim, what’s a “liberal?” Seriously. What is the definition of a “liberal?”
In therapy, your response would be considered one of avoidance due to emotional discomfort, covering up, hiding behind a response of nonsensical meanderings. Now you know this, as you do purport to be a therapist. I know this may be difficult for you Jim, but an emotionally honest balanced adult answer might be good for you. As they say, the truth will set you free. Now why don’t you buck up and speak sensibly, the answers to my questions. It could set the record straight not only for you but for the rest of us who may be interested. C’mon, be the authentic man you know you are. Or would you prefer to bat for strike two?
Sorry pal. But stereotype, wild assumptions, and Melissa Fryrear aside, there’s no sexual abuse in my history.
Since “psychoanalytic triangular theory” produces no results on google, and because his link is to an amazon site to purchase a book about Frued, I’ll assume that he’s refering to Bieber’s old “classic homosexual triangular pattern” of “the mother is close binding and intimate and is dominant and minimizing towards a husband who is a detached father, particularly a hostile-detached one.”
Now would be a good time for us to chuckle because at this site we all pretty much know how completely useless that stereotype is. Especially if he thinks “a constructive, supportive, warmly relating father precludes the possibility of a homosexual son”.
But sadly I’m not surprised that Jim believes this steaming pile of nonsense. He also believes in Cameron’s research, Cohen’s methods, and NARTH’s objectivity.
And he also believes this site is dominated by “liberals” which really DOES make me laugh.
Like Timothy, there is no sexual abuse in my history either.
Emily K said: “Jim, what’s a “liberal?” Seriously. What is the definition of a “liberal?””
I think in his case (and kind) you’d have to determine what a conservative is first, and that’s easy.
A conservative, is anyone who agrees that a liberal is anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s the ultimate enemy recipe.
No abuse here. And no “false memory syndrome,” either.
Timothy, the “book” is not just a book about Freud, rather a cricial review of all the studies that have tested Freudian theory or therapies over a significant period of time. Why don’t you read the book first before being so critical? No, it is not just about Bieber’s old “classic homosexual triangular pattern” which everyone loves to reject!
Devlin, read my blog and learn the truth. Relinquish your fantasy to sensationalize this. Relinguish your narcissism for personal explanations. Relax. You’re the one striking out because you are missing the truth. Can’t we just get along?
Finally, I’d like to respect David and stay on topic and so I will rest the liberal explantions and just leave you with this thought: You might know you are a liberal if you actually believe what you read in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Besen’s Truth Wins Out, or if you don’t want the Christian Right imposing their morality on you, but you want to impose big government on everyone else.
My dad put me on a horse that threw me off once. Does that count as abuse?
Oh wait. I’m striaght.
You know what Jim? I’m just honest enough with myself and others to admit that you are probably right here. There are many other things I could have been spending my time on yesterday that may have benifitted my family or those less fortunate than myself yesterday than checking up on this thread. You are absolutely right about that. I make choices every day, as we all do, and ALOT of them are far less than Christ-like even though I say I’m a Christian. And here I am, back at it again today. I’ve got lots of projects and other things going which I could detail to you to explain how “worthy” I am in spending my time and talents being Christ-like, but you’re not my judge and I’m not yours. So, we’ll just continue on here discussing things in between all the other more “worthy” pursuits I’m sure we are each engaged in. You can take cheap shots at me all day….and I’ll agree with every one of them that’s true. Go for it if that’s the way you want to spend your brain energy.
Speaking of truth, and just to share again, I’ve found this article of Mr. Phelan’s to be immensely informative, on ssseveral levels.
Now Mr Phelan, the longer you delay/avoid the more this will sensationalize. Many many people are watching this blog, including your friends and coworkers and maybe even your clients. Instead of ordering people around, hiding in your shame, and trying to control the situation, relax, take a deep breath and simply answer the questions, clearly concisely and with honesty. You put yourself on trial here, not us. The way you answer will go down in history, forever. Would you rather the bailiff throw you out for non compliance? With the anger and fear you have tossed into the marketplace, I wouldn’t doubt a full disbarment for not being forthcoming, would be the least the public could do. However, I have faith that a professonal thereapist, would have the wherewithall to come forward. Are you going to continue breaking down in front of everyone when you have a chance to redeem yourself? Or are you going to continue to cement yourself into Mr. Besen’s analogy of you being the “nutty therapist”?
For your review: Mr Phelan — It looks like you are taking quite a skewering at your personal blog jimphelan.vox.com. With comments referring to “Jim Phelan’s incitement of a physical and/or verbal attack on a gay group, and an attack on a man, presumably, a gay man” zinging your ears, it must cause you to take stock. How did you vocalize your comment to cause someone such angst, so as to physically shove you? People usually don’t go to such lengths unless intensely provoked. And out of many groups supporting the marathon, why did you single out a gay group to verbally “attack” moving forward to physically maiming a man, potentially causing serious physical injury? What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited?
This is your 15 minutes of fame.
Whoa! Wait! Isn’t it the Christian Right that is trying to push their own morality on the rest of us through legislation? Since when did the majority decide who gets rights and who doesn’t? Since when does my rights as a gay man need to be put to a vote?
I’d give anything to see what the US would have been like if Abe Lincoln allowed the individual States to decide on slavery. I can bet my life on the fact that the US would be a different nation right now.
Jim Phelan doesn’t seem to know the difference between a liberal and a socialist.
The Christian Right and socialists both affirm big government. The Christian right, in particular, raises government spending (through user fees, endless borrowing, and other guises) and diverts taxpayers’ money into the pockets of partisan Christian “churches” that have become little more than self-serving political lobbies and extensions of government power.
Liberals — libertarians in particular — seek small government that allows a maximum of individual freedom while providing for a modest defense and (to varying degrees) a social safety net for those who are stricken by catastrophic misfortune.
Socialists seek — with varying degrees — to turn the roles of business and charity over to government institutions. They may, or may not, favor high military spending.
Liberals are the progressive transformational bright eyed visionaries, conservatives are status quo, don’t rock the boat, slow to move. Liberals are fast out the gate, conservatives are the stones around liberal’s ankles so as not to sprain a leg. Like poz and neg charges in electricity, we need both.
As history shows, once the liberals turn their light on something, it’s pretty much a done deal much of the time, though slow. This current sexual culture war is already won, it’s only a matter of time to put all the wiring in place so as to shine the brightest light. We can thank the conservatives and all their worn out brake pads for making sure we wire this thing correctly at every junction box. Thank God for all the great neg poz wiring. YaY.
Did everyone have a FAB thanksgiving!? What was your experience?
Due to logistics, I spent my first Thxgiving entirely on my own. The Thxgiving buffet in my favorite gay restaurant in Seattle WA was GREAT, though the au gratin yams was a bit strange. That was a first, has anyone else had au gratin yams? The waiters were talkative engaging and tres cute and gave me extra dessert. Yummm to the berry cherry cobbler w ice cream and the pumpkin pie w whip cream! All in all a grrreat day.
I am very grateful for all we do have in our great country. I always bless our forefathers and the constitution they wrote for us all. Gotta luv those guys!
I did not criticize the book.
But you used a term, “psychoanalytic triangular theory”, and you did not define it. Now if this were a common term or recognized theory that would be fine. But google gives us no (zero, goose-egg, nada) reponses for that term so I think it is reasonable to assume that either it is obscure or goes by another name which you did not use.
If it is something other than Beiber’s trangular homosexual theory (distant father – controlling mother) then you need to describe what you are talking about. That it is in some book somewhere is not adequate. And no, I’m not going to read some rehash of Freudian theories just so as to know what you’re referencing.
“Secret” theories aren’t much use, you know.
PS The movie Beowulf (the hero who is naked throughout a good portion of the movie) is flawless with the deranged monster Grendel eating and obliterating the towns people when they party hard. Yeh I know, sounds a bit morbid but it comes off way cool. Angelina Jolie is stunning. See it in 3D for a great holiday treat.
Timothy: Sorry, for confusing matters, but to explain as you asked, from much of the body of literature in Psychoanalysis, the classic triadic relationship is very common in the histories of homosexual men: a father who is an unappealing identification model to the boy, the poor relationship between mother and father, the frustration and unhappiness of the mother, and the consequent over-identification of the young son with the mother. Hence, the theory. There is research to support this, and the authors of the book I described reviewed it. This is not a “useless stereotype” as you allude, but rather a phenomenons straight out of empirical work. But I see by your dismissive stance that you are fixed, inflexible to consider anything else but in your own personal belief in the origin of homosexuality. This is fine, as we know, there are many theories, and so we abide to what we feel most strongly inclined. BTW: There is much to “chuckle” about as for the studies that look for a biological explanation of homosexuality. And, what about bisexuality? Half a gay gene?
Devlin: My friend’s brother hated that movie – and he’s a teenage boy. And the fact that the hero is naked most of the time is supposed to make it appealing? Yeah right. And that’s not just the lesbian in me talking. Unless you’re trying to appeal to stereotypical “preferences” of gay men (movies are good just b/c they have naked men in them). If that’s the case, shame. Please stay ON topic.
Delvin is someone you have to break it down to, so here you go D:
1. Q: How did you vocalize your comment to cause someone such angst, so as to physically shove you? A: No different (but less histrionic) than the guys who protest the Love Won Out conferences, and NARTH meetings I attend.
2. Q: People usually don’t go to such lengths unless intensely provoked. And out of many groups supporting the marathon, why did you single out a gay group to verbally “attack” moving forward to physically maiming a man, potentially causing serious physical injury? A: I already answered this.
3. Q: What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited? A: I learned that gays and the liberal left have double standards. It’s okay for them to protest Love Won Out, NARTH and the like, but when others do it to them it’s a sin! I learned that when we take a stand and we are attacked, others assume we need to do the wwJD thing (a misnomer, anyway) and turn the other cheek. That the expectation is that we be the “good little boy”.
4. Q: Any regrets? A: Yes, I regret having to have all this sensationalized; and No, because I got to meet lots of interesting people in the process, like you. Seriously, I may not have gotten to know some of you if not. All things have purpose. We must live now and not worry about yesterday.
BTW: The movie sounds adventurous. As does Angelina Jolie, ummm? I’m sure unconsciously, there’s alot more about her you’d like.
Jim Phelan did not define liberal. he refused to define it in a serious manner and used staying “on topic” as an excuse – but then proceeded to give a snide, unserious, immature answer anyway. Nice. I have a feeling this all will be over real soon.
I guess his definition of “conservative” includes imposing big government on us (being in favor of the government refusing homos rights) and dumping HUGE amounts of money into government fiascos (like the war in Iraq). Now, what part of that sounds like anyone is conserving anything, or reducing the government’s role? The beast is hardly starving – “conservatives” like Jim intend to keep feeding it my tax dollars.
Methinks the man doth protest too much.
But I see by your dismissive stance that you are fixed, inflexible to consider anything else but in your own personal belief in the origin of homosexuality.
Oh, so it IS the Bieber model as I originally deduced that you meant. I’m sure there is much in “the literature” that supports this model – most of it pre-70’s.
But oh well, since I am dismissive of your pet theory (as is most of the mental health community) I guess that makes me inflexible.
OK. I will inflexibly stick with the results of emperical research and leave you, Dr. Dobson, and Dr. Nicolossi to enjoy your notions about distant fathers and overpowering mothers.
Ya know, at one point you might have convinced me. Although my parents don’t fit that mold, I could have bought the idea that this was true for most. But unfortunately, there just seems to be more and more evidence of biological etiology and, well, no research supporting your notions.
But please do let me know if any new studies appear on the horizon that support the triangular theory. Oh, and let me know exactly how that fits into the x chromosome deactivation in mothers.
Hmmm. At the LWO I protested, we smiled, waved, and yelled “good morning” and “God bless you” and “have a nice conference”.
I guess that’s what Jim was yelling.
Or maybe not.
Q: What have you learned from all this hooplah you’ve ignited? A: I learned that gays and the liberal left have double standards. It’s okay for them to protest Love Won Out, NARTH and the like, but when others do it to them it’s a sin!
Well, yes. This is because both sides happen to have a disagreement in this area. If you believe one side is right and the other is wrong, then of course you’re going to have two standards. LGBT people and allies believe it’s wrong to work to deny us our rights, LWO NARTH et. al. think it’s wrong to be LGBT. Hence we think they’re sinning and they think we’re sinning. See how it works?
He don’t know me verwy well, do he.
GobbleGobble you say!!! Off to watch the remainder of the UofW football game at a straight bar full of Cougar howlers. That’s after I changed my oil in my car. Ohhhh LWO. (shaking head smiling) Y’all have a great Sat night!
More mo latoh,
BTW: There is much to “chuckle” about as for the studies that look for a biological explanation of left-handedness. And, what about ambidextrousness? Half a southpaw gene?
Well it’s nice to see some equal-opportunity pandering for once. Beefcake as well as cheesecake.
Nick, have you found a copy of James’ article in the “Journal of Evolutionary Psychology”? Has any one read this article??? I tried, but came up with zilch. I even “Google Scholar”ed the article title – nothing. I then googled the name of the Journal and found this
Also, my school’s library only carries a subscription back to 2001 to this Journal, so this was a dead end (James is this the right journal?). I guess that I will just have to order it through my University’s Inter-library loan system. O, well.
I’m just interested because this article (based on James’ brief description) flies in the face of a spat of recent books. Maybe you have heard of them: Biological Exuberance , Evolution’s Rainbow , and Homosexual Behaviour in Animals . I would like to compare these controversial books to James’ thoughts which were published in a “peer-reviewed” venue before they appeared. These works state that same-sex activity is not an uncommon (in fact, very common among vertebrate species!) practice among animals – suggesting that homoeroticism is biologically based. There are numerous examples among primates for same-sex activity – just look at Bonobos, those raunchy little pigmy chimps!! As primates, it should come as no shock then that humans practice same-sex activity also. According to these researchers, same-sex activity is a natural part of the natural order.
As for the comparing of humans to animals (in terms of sexual behaviour), as I understand it, that is part and parcel with Evolutionary Psychology. The same thought lies behind the phrase “birds and the bees”. If James still doesn’t like that, he should read a book by Roger Lancaster called “The Trouble with Nature” (2003). (P.S. Lancaster challenges LeVay’s “gay brain” theory).
For all of these years I was deceived into thinking that my homosexuality had a biological basis! Damn evolution! Maybe I can change, just like NARTH and Exodus say I can!
I hope that no one mistakes my curiosity for malice (the tongue-in-cheek is free). Basically, if James has debunked all of this research in a 9 pg article, he would have saved me so much time wondering what that pouch is really for among marsupials…
Just ordered my copy – can’t wait for it to arrive!! I also found that James reviewed Biological Exuberance as well. Have to read that one too!
Oh wait, that last one is in the NARTH Bulletin… is that even an academic source? I wouldn’t allow if for the students I teach…
Peter, no, I’ve not been able to find a copy of the article or even how to find a place that carries the journal.
I do know what he said about the dominance thing is wrong. In a number of species 1/2 the time the dominant male is on the receiving end, not the giving end. Also, it is found exclusively and in normal situations (but I suppose that depends on how one defines normal).
Peter & Nick:
Here is a fascinating informative video documenting homosexaul behavior in the animal kingdom, land and sea, from the highly respected publication National Geographic. Many may find this of great value.
Humans beings are bipedal mammals and by definition animals; classified such with a varying assortment of other animals within the animal kingdom.
PS Note that the film depicts homosexual behavior in some species as “exclusive”, and all sexual interaction in all species as normal, with all footage being shot within their natural habitats i.e. “normal situations”.
Due to the high quality National Geographic produces, this video could be an excellent tool for broadening the horizons of unbiased sex ed within the classroom.
PSS From what I have seen, the 2001 documentary Out In Nature: Homosexual Behavior In The Animal Kingdom is the mother of full length docs on the subject, is better quality resolution, and much more sexually graphic.
It is the full length version of the National Geographic doc and shows the life long exclusive homosexual partnerships of some species. It seems dolphins take top prize in that arena, whom some think out smart human intelligence. I have only seen it on Logo, a gay cable channel and it does not seem to be available for sale online. It does however, show from time to time on cable. Here is a link to watch a trailer overview and get showtimes.
Thanks Devlin – the videos were interesting…
Maybe it is time to bring this back to the topic of James’ expulsion from the ex-gay industry. Personally, I would like to see James use his “triangular” theory of homosexuality to explain all of those animals featured in the video! Humans, and very recently, are one of the few animals to live in “nuclear” family units (mom, dad, children). And yet, documented homosex has been going on for untold millennia (and presumably much more in prehistory). How do you explain that? In this light, theories of distant fathers and controlling mothers somehow do not satisfy as a plausible explanation for the origin of homosexual behaviour. Unless of course, you want to attribute “culture” to animals…but even then it still doesn’t work. I think that this whole discussion highlights the weakness of not only the “Reparative Therapy” espoused by some, but also the entire ex-gay movement as a whole. There seems to be a willful amnesia concerning human sexuality on their part. This goes to their lack of credibility, and also their extreme hubris (that their understanding of sexuality is the only correct one). The whole enterprise smacks of Right wing bourgeois mores. It should come as no surprise then when leaders and members of this movement exhibit shocking behaviours that demonstrate a lack of integrity (like James did; who could forget John Paulk?!). These people build their lives around a lie. Sooner or later they will act out their frustrations – at least no one was seriously hurt.
Maybe James is lucky to get out [sic] now, before the sh!t really hits the fan. I mean, how long can a position that lacks scientific support last? (Especially when they claim to be “scientific”.) Hopefully, Exodus and NARTH’s days are numbered. People (and animals) have been practicing same-sex activity long before these groups came on the scene, and will be practicing it long after they disappear. Life, and love, always find a way…
I might add that if you Google “classic triadic relationship,” all roads lead to Nicolosi.
And all the websites that appear in the search results are fundamentalist christian sites, like leadru.com and family.org. And did you see the reference to Beiber?? Man…
Thank you for availing yourself. Your authentic communication is highly valued. I look forward to responding to your comments first of the week.
Thank you for this info Jim, I fit right into the triadic relationship. “the classic triadic relationship is very common in the histories of homosexual men: a father who is an unappealing identification model to the boy, the poor relationship between mother and father, the frustration and unhappiness of the mother, and the consequent over-identification of the young son with the mother.” except i never did over identify, not even identify imho, with my mother. Empathize with her and my father? sure. I did identify and looked up to my grandfather tho. So i guess im 33% short of the triadic family…, enough to be gay right?
I wonder tho.., does that mean I can and have to go straight now? or willl eventually come to know that i am subconsciously attracted to Angelina Jolie?(i mean shes beautiful but… did you see the guy in Beowolf!?).. or maybe after indefinate amount of years in ex-gay therapy will come to terms that the true nature of my sexuality is irrelevant to whom i should live with, all of the effort in order to please a God which theres no reason for me to believe exists. Now please, take your cross off my crotch before I ‘send myself’ to the fiery deeps. TY!
I was going to read throgh the whole thing, but ill read it when I have time to spare, for the first 3-4 paragraphs it was quite obvious and/or implicit that gays(taken as a group) are REALLY… promiscous, pathological, violent, etc.. BECAUSE they are gay, or at least, because they see no wrong in being gay and having sex.
Nick and Peter, if your local library doesn’t carry it, you can get a copy of my article “Deviated copulation among animals” through the British Library Direct:
Joel said: “Now please, take your cross off my crotch…”
May we please have some respectful moderation here? Thanks.
Peter you said, “Maybe it is time to bring this back to the topic of James’ expulsion from the ex-gay industry.” Yes, I agree we have gotten off topic, but so have you here, because where you say I was “[expulsed] from the ex-gay industry”, is not entirely true. I was merely removed from ONE source (Exodus) for the time being until matters can be settled. Exodus does not represent the whole. Please stop from what I perceive as sensationalizing and scandalizing matters. Thanks.
If I had noticed it I would have. Joel, please leave comments like that out of the discussion here. You can show your disagreement without being crude about it.
Let’s not forget your, cough cough, wink wink, “resignation” as co-president of Transforming Congregations. Since by your own admission they were asking things of you that you were not willing to do, wasn’t it either leave or be told to leave?
And trust me Jim, you need no sentimentalization. You draw plenty of attention all on your own.
A jump back to the triangle theory, if it is not too far afield.
What strickes me about the discussion is 1) Does the triangle “cause” homosexuality or does homosexuality “cause” the formation of such a triangle? And 2) Are the triangle and homosexuality correlative? Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Have either of these questions been tested?
Where can i get a copy of such literature?
Freud Scientifically Reappraised: Testing the Theories and Therapy. By Seymour Fisher and Roger P. Greenberg.: New York: John Wiley, 1995, is the text for which testing the psychoanalytic theories in homosexuals is found. Link
Jim, please use the link button so they don’t scroll off the page. I fixed this and the last one.
Jim, I’m not trying to scandalize or sensationalize matters. Being expelled (not ‘expulsed’) from Exodus, the world’s largest, umbrella-like exgay referral organization is a pretty big deal – more than you make of it. Alan’s comments seem to indicate that you will be out in the cold for a good long while. “Resigning” as co-President of Transforming Congregations is also significant – who is next to disassociate themselves from you?
On the other hand, you did what most Right wing people wish they could do – shove back in the culture wars. They are probably just jealous. However, given the PR challenge they already face, they are treating you like a hot potato.
Thanks, John B. Your honest. You call, like you see it. Got to like you for that!
Sorry, meant Peter B. to last post (John B = error). And BTW: Its VERY cold on the Right wing lately.