The organization needs to be shut down — shut down. Don’t tweak it, don’t try to improve it, shut it down.
— Michael Bussee
On June 20th, the OWN network will air the third and probably last of their reports on the idea of “curing gays” and how that has affected many lives. This time it will be Exodus President Alan Chambers vs. a group of ex-gay survivors. Viewed against the backdrop of the major disruptions at Exodus and the rest of the ex-gay world this past year, could we be looking at the end of Exodus International?
We have not been impressed with Lisa Ling’s handling of this subject in the past. Hopefully in this one she will step 0ut of the way and let those involved speak. I have heard that the session was powerful and m0ving. If this is not destroyed in editing, this should be worth viewing. We will revisit this after the airing.
In the mean time, what legitimate functions can Exodus now serve? Assuming there are some, is their reputation too far gone to allow them to accomplish this? As Michael Bussee above is quoted, is it time for Alan and the Exodus board to simply shut it down?
Tune in Thursday, June 20th at 10/9c for a special presentation of this powerful report, God and Gays.
I am no fan of Lisa Ling either.
Looks like Alan was really confronted by some harsh truths in that clip, though. I am really gonna flip if he tries any of the following tacks:
a) we’re sorry “if” we unintentionally hurt anyone;
b) we never meant what you thought we meant – we just communicated it badly;
c) sorry you misunderstood our message.
Amid all the changes, I’ve yet to hear a frank acknowledgement and apology from Exodus leadership that wasn’t softened by something like the above.
I agree with Rattigan. I’ll be waiting for yet another two-faced non-apology from Chambers. One where he says “I’m not gay, I’m a new creation in Christ who has no defined sexual identity because defining myself as gay would be EVIL” – and then assures his conservative base that he still thinks being gay is wrong and incompatible with being a good person who can find love.
Isn’t there something in the Bible that warns against serving two masters?
Sorry, Charlie, but if you think you’re gonna reinvent yourself into some kind of gay celibate Christian/Side B support group and gain accolades and kudos for doing so, think again. There are SPECIFIC things you need to answer for. Things XGW has documented well over the years.
Well, what about “Restored Hope” and the others? They´ll keep doing the work… and by the way with even more extremist ideals.
That’s true but RHN isn’t Exodus. For that last few years Exodus has contained a moderate element which allowed it’s message to gain ground in places the extremism of RHN will never be accepted. As we ramp up our activities at XGW again, we will certainly be concentrating on whatever is left. Personally, I’m far more concerned about those operating at therapists.
I think Lisa Ling and her crew “got it” this time. I spoke to her at length beforehand about the need to let actual Survivors tell their stories — and boy did they! For three plus hours, they told Alan Chambers exactly how they felt.
They pulled no punches. Unfortunately, it’s only a one-hour program and I am not sure how the editing will impact it, but I am feeling much more confident this time that the harm done by Exodus will be self-evident.
The folks at OWN actually asked the producers to include MORE of the confrontation. The apology (as you will see) is weak, non-specific and gives the impression that Alan Chambers feels any harm was purely accidental. But the Survivors didn’t let him get away with that. I think it will be powerful.
Good, I hope it wrecks him into sleepless fits at night.
Mark my words, soon enough people like Alan, their “marriages”, and their alternative loveless choices they made for themselves will fall away into the dustbin of history, never to be remembered with anything other than pity.
I suspect that terrifies him more than anything.
For the record, I came to realize long ago that Alan loves his wife a great deal. He seems to be one of those few gay men who has found the one woman on earth that he could bond with, and therefore I wouldn’t characterize his marriage as a sham. Of course, there is no way to know how physically intimate their relationship goes (nor does it seem like a good topic for speculation), but they do seem to love each other. And for the sake of their two kids, I certainly hope they keep it together.
In fact, this relationship may be one of the reasons that Alan for so long has not understood that it was not something just anyone could achieve, even if they were so motivated. And it was never acknowledged that opposite-sex marriages were being used as a kind of “certificate of completion” and that many more were loveless couplings rather than what Alan and his wife have managed to find.
It goes without saying that I would not recommend that anyone pursue such a relationship, but it is their right. Holding them up as some sort of “gay cure” or otherwise exclusive relationship for happiness is another matter entirely.
I certainly agree with your assessment, that these “marriages” were often viewed as a certificate of completion, and encouraged as such- if anything because it *locks* persons into this “ex-gay” lifestyle, and prevents them from disentangling themselves and being free.
However, let’s be frank. Whatever relationship he has with his wife is equivalent of an intentional community, a familial affection but not an intimate, romantic, one that we normally associate with or think of when we use the word “marriage”.
This isn’t a normal marriage, and I stand by all that I’ve ever written or said about them. They are inherently unstable, and likely to be very, very self-destructive, loveless relationships. Discussing these arrangements, these security blanket insecurity marriages, is part of the discourse on this great subject. Certainly, I don’t want to be disrespectful or outright mean- but when our relationships are called “unholy” or evil, or against ‘god’s’ design, then theirs are also on the table.
I agree in general, but there are exceptions out there and to deny that is to deny the facts. I don’t think we should be willing to sacrifice the truth in order to make our ideology more tidy (which anti-gays do with regularity).
Alan’s relationship with Leslie may be more akin in quality to brother and sister for all I know, but it does seem to work for them. I would add that theirs is the only such relationship I have run across – it is the exception that proves the rule.
As I said, if Alan begins using his marriage as some sort of example for others to strive to, then that is absurd and he should be called out on it. But if they just go about living their lives having found their own happiness, more power to them.
It will never be a true marriage.
I guess that depends on what criteria you use for a “true marriage.” A lot of people don’t consider same-sex marriages “true marriage” so I’m not terribly fond of making such pronouncements. What if Alan is bisexual even to a small degree, would it fit your criteria then?
Again, I don’t believe it is healthy or honest to use a marriage as evidence of some sort of “gay cure,” but if two adults are in love, is it fair to belittle what they have? That seems like going backwards.
Yeah, but is that really the same relationship as what you and I have experienced with a man? With the person we have natural attractions to?
I will not accept as fact that the relationship of a person who believes he is inherently broken, that he needs to get married to make “God” happy, perhaps even to get into heaven(Looking at the Mormons here), that s/he should force themselves to only have sex with one person they aren’t attracted to, that they are forcing themselves to emulate a heterosexual relationship with, etc. etc. I can go on, but you get my distinction.
I realize what you are saying. And I know that, on some level, my repulsions to these attempts at making oneself whole is a bit similar to what some people feel towards us. I get that, I admit to the irony.
But I’m still not going to accept that those “marriages” are similar, or equivalent to, Michelle & Baracks, Mitt & Anne Romney, or NPH & David Burkta’s relationship.
It’s not. It’s so fundamentally different, the motivations for it are so fundamentally NOT what you think of with two person’s in love that it’s got to be a part of the discussion.
True love to the person you sleep next to at night is not something you artificially create spontaneously, nor is it something that exists between two people who have, for all intents and purposes, a plutanic yet sexually forced relationship.
I’m not saying they aren’t a family, they are a family unit- but it’s not the same as what we typically think of as a family, it’s not the same motivations as the other straight couples they idolize, it’s completely and inherently different. These marriages are not, at the end of the day, heterosexual relationships- they are imitations that people work at, painstakingly, their entire lives.
And most of them end in catastrophe, and failure. I think we can all agree on that.
It needs to be part of the discussion. A part handled respectively, far more respectively than they have interacted with us. But make no mistake, when our love, our relationships are on the table, are being called unholy, evil, sinful, abominations, or against ‘god’- then yes, their imitations of heterosexuals families must be part of the discussion, especially when they are perceived as the alternative to living as an honest, authentic, mature adult.
I think assessing the quality of another person’s marriage is kind of beyond anyone’s boundaries. I don’t like it when it’s done to gay people, and I don’t like it when it’s done to ex-gays (or gay people who, for one reason or another, are in opposite-sex marriages).
Straight people and gay people alike get married for a variety of reasons. The “true love” ideal is a relatively modern viewpoint, and sexual chemistry is not as big of a factor as most people like to claim it is. Anyway, it’s not really anyone’s place to say what constitutes a “true marriage.” That’s simply someone that no one gets to define for another person.
I meant to say “something,” not “someone.”
There is not one thing I like about alan chambers, and even his apology seems to me to be of the non-apology “I’m sorry that YOU…” sort. Which makes me like him even less.
Nevertheless– his marriage is HIS marriage. I’m not a part it, nor are you. If it works for him, then it’s his business. If it doesn’t work for him, then it’s his business. As long as he isn’t cruising to local kwikkeeemart while proclaiming how wonderful his marriage is, there really isn’t much for anyone else to talk about. As david says, ” if Alan begins using his marriage as some sort of example for others to strive to, then that is absurd and he should be called out on it.”
I don’t want someone judging my marriage based upon their beliefs about gay people, and I promise I won’t do the same based upon my beliefs about antigay people.
At the NGTLF conference, in Baltimrore in 2012, 2 kids who went through this cockeye therarpy told us that of the 12 total kids in their class, 5 committed suicide within a year.
Someone belongs in jail for this kind of medicine / pscyhology
I know 2 ex gay adults One told me that the gays support the (nuthouse) Westboro baptists because it brings them sympathy
Both told me that “matthew Shepareds Parents should have fixed him” Insanity of these people who blamed mathews parents for his vicious murder.
ONe of them also when I 30 sec later told him he was nuts re Matthew Shepard, he denied saying it
All the ex ers do is terrify these people and make them feel guilty of their problems The second guy btw for sure went through the catholic church program called “Regeneration:
That name btw was the name given to the programs in the middle ages to convert Jews to Catholicism on pain of death. Hundred s of thousands were murdered or committed Masada.
And of course these programs are not free – they just feed the hate houses more money.
And of course fix programs feed the BS idea that gay is a choice.
Scumbags behind these BS programs belong in jail or a psychiatric hospital.
Five suicides out of twelve kids is absurdly high. Do you have any specifics on this? If accurate, we would definitely want to look into it further. You can email me at david@exgaywatch.com.
As far as I know, the Catholic program for gays is Courage. The only ex-gay group called Regeneration that I have ever heard of is the one started by the late Alan Medinger, Regeneration Ministries. It is not part of the RCC. Again, if you know of a new group by that name, let us know.
I have met Alan Chambers and his wife Leslie on two occasions. I think he genuinely loves her and she loves him. She knows he is not heterosexual and she has written that she doesn’t even want him to “pursue” heterosexuality. She is content with him as he is, “unwanted SSA” and all. They seems to genuinely admire each other and enjoy each others company. They also seem to be loving and devoted parents. I do not think his marriage is a sham. But the way he presented in the past definitely was.
The fact is, Alan Chambers (and others at Exodus) did indeed hold up their marriages as proof that “change was possible”. Alan took it even further. In 2004 he told a NARTH audience that he was one of “tens of thousands who had successfully changed their sexual orientation”. He now admits that was a “mistake” and that 99.9% do not change their sexual orientation. Now, Exodus seems to have shifted away from orientation change completely and is putting the focus on helping people with “unwanted SSA” to remain celibate or faithful to their opposite-sex spouses.
The belief which fuels both those options is inherently flawed, and causes the pain and anguish those victims are trying to escape from. I don’t doubt their sincerity, but it’s still harmful, and hopefully one day won’t even exist.
My feeling is that a marriage is a blending of all parts of the selves, naturally. Though Alan may have found a soul mate in a woman, that does not necessarily mean they are sexually compatible, naturally, which is a major component of marriage strait or gay.
The fear of condemnation and eternal hell fire and damnation, is a very strong motivator. And that, coupled with the fact he is president of an ex-gay organization and must hold up to intense scrutiny, means the marriage is not based on a natural attraction normally experienced by people who blend naturally and then get married. The basis is fear. Who gets married out of fear? Scared people.
I also believe that to get a true picture of their connection, a full disclosure of their sexual attraction and activities would be imminent. We already know they didn’t have sex for the first nine months of their “marriage”, nor are their children biologically produced by them as they adopted. Right their smacks of the opposite of what married people generally experience. And for that I would have to say they are certainly not a “traditional marriage”, and don’t fit the definition of marriage as we know it. Marrying legally due to fear of retribution and hoping the sex gets had in the coming months; hmmm, does that sound like the marriages we know in a historical sense?
Though I am an Authentic Christian and not a Judeo Christian, I was with my soul mate woman for two years, but the chemistry was not a total match, but it was enough to have occasional sex. I didn’t find her visually sexy or sexually attractive, though she was to most straight men as even I thought and admired the fact she was gorgeous. But I had to hold her in bed for a long while to have sex happen, and that was rare. But I really loved holding her. There was a marriage of the hearts and I genuinely lover her, but there was not a marriage of the full physical visual romantic passionate sexual chemistry inherent in marriage or romantic relationships. Though we lived together, we never sat on the couch and made out or cuddled watching TV. I never had a time when I wanted to get home so I could tear her clothes off. Just wasn’t there. Now if I had the pressure of “the church” to live up to, who knows how I may have forced myself to stay in the relationship regardless of full chemistry not being present. Would that have been a marriage had we pursued it? Maybe on paper, but it would not have stood the test of the true definition of marriage, a full sexual romantic emotional connection. If I had married her, I would have been lying to myself thinking the relationship was complete.
Is their entire marriage a sham? I don’t think so entirely. They did marry some parts of themselves. Is part of their marriage a sham? Maybe so. It is certainly not a true full marriage of all of the parts of the selves. And that, they have proven.
So when people look at them as a couple not fully sexually connected, with true passion, it can be very easy to say it is a total sham, because that strong sexual romantic piece is part and parcel to marriage itself, traditionally in full bloom, which they seemingly lack.
I don’t know what straight people think of their marriage, but if I look at it objectively, it doesn’t add up, and I would be very skeptical when all the features of their lives are taken into consideration. It would seem very easy to give it one big raised eyebrow for most.
If I were to give it what might be a reasonable label, cult marriage comes to mind. The threat of fear can lead to finding love in certain ways not natural to society at large or the body itself for that matter. Alan forced out something, his true sexual self, to find another thing, and that thing is incomplete. Married straight people don’t have to pray-away-the-gay thoughts everyday. Big red flag. And in that, to raise their controversial “marriage”, or celibacy for that matter, as a waving flag for all god’s gay children to follow, is as flawed damaging and controversial as several aspects of the Bible itself, which seems to be where they got their go ahead to get married, irregardless of the authentic sexual self they have seemingly subjugated.
If Alan were not a self inflicted victim, under the pressure of predatory religious doctrine and Exodus, we most likely would have seen an entirely different picture go down than the one we see today, with much less damage to society in general.
Though if his fear is too strong, maybe not.
OWN has decided to release one hour of the exchange between Alan Chambers and Ex-gay Survivors online. Lisa Ling posted this last night:
“Just wanted to let you know that the expanded version of the exchange will be online when the show airs. I’m almost more excited about that because people will get to experience the rawness and the courageousness that you all exhibited practically in full. Few things have made be prouder than this episode and what will be available online.”
The show itself with only be on OWN. They have also released this promo for the June 20 Special Report:
https://silo.mediasilo.com/quicklink/34C444C294DC517D4B08C1EA70DE4A92
@College Jay
Chambers’ marriage is a public role model he uses as a business to distract and confuse gay people away from their true nature for financial gain and promote homosexual orientation change, which has proven deadly. He therefore violates the very boundary of which you speak. Therefore, this “marriage” not only deserves careful assessment, it deserves “heightened scrutiny” as Biblical and non Biblical confused gay people have based their lifetime marriage goals on this flag waving homo to hetero sexual model, the outcome of which has been horrifying.
That being said, I do agree with you in the general sense of the average population, however, in a life and death case such as this, I personally feel your logic does not garner merit.
I recommend anyone using someone else’s non-traditional mixed sexual marriage as a role model springboard out of sexual romantic confusion, gather all facts and assess said role model with laser beam accuracy coupled with the deepest contemplation, prior to taking any personal action in one’s own life.
PS I am not sure why, but your comment got inserted between Michael Bussee’s and mine days after we had both commented, though the time stamp shows differently. I suppose if your readout showed differently, it could be a delay in my end.
It’s the threaded commenting system. I don’t know if I like it myself.
Hi David Roberts,
Just a note about this thread situation. On my phone it shows 24 comments with Ben in Oakland being the last one. On my Mac desktop, it shows 24 comments but Ben’s is not present. Very strange. Which is it? Do you show Ben as the last comment on this thread?
Thanks,
iDavid
No, I don’t, but the threaded feature of this new comments section allows in-line replies. I don’t think I care for it because of the issue you are bringing up, you can’t just look at the bottom of the thread and see the last word. I would prefer the way we did it before, where a click on the “reply” link just inserts “@the previous commenter” in the new comment, but keeps it in a chronological order. We haven’t finished updating the site so I’ll see about changing this if others agree.
Ok sounds good. I had a response for Ben’s comment but will not reply as it seems his comment isn’t fully public, at this point anyway.
Thanks for your response and good luck with engineering this comments issue.
Actually, Ben’s comment is there and public. You can reply if you wish.
Hey Ben,
I would not investigate Chamber’s marriage to judge it, but to discern for myself if I wanted to emulate it if I were an ex-gay wannabe, as most ex-gays are prone to emulate Alan as an example of salvation. David Roberts is correct in that Alan does not wave his marriage verbally as a flag for salvation, but the inference is certainly there.
I look at this from the ex-gay survivors point of view. My thinking is that some or all take Alan’s marriage as a goal, and therefore have been harmed when they have not been able to ascertain “god’s plan”.
Exodus does judge your marriage. They have made that perfectly clear. It is/was right in their slogan of “change is possible” and Alan is the poster boy. That is why we are upset and attacked. I feel the least anyone could do who feels attacked by biblical “god” fakery, is be diligent in their inquest, not to judge but to discern for themselves, the best route to take with the examples given by Alan: celibacy or straight marriage.
If you look at it from a hurt person’s point of view, you might then see how this approach may be helpful.
David, you’re right. I don’t have that particular perspective on the matter. Butthen, I have never been hurt in so direct a manner by the exgay BS.
For myself, I long ago realized, as St. Harvey said, that we will never reach anyone who has been irretrievably poisoned by hate, or religious belief, or stupidity, or fear, or their own very personal demons. That’s the definition of irretrievably.
I prefer to concentrate and those who are reachable.
Hi David Roberts,
An update for the comments sitch. Ben’s comment shows on my phone just under College Jay’s comment “I meant to say something not someone” and on my desktop it is under your comment “It’s the threaded commenting system. I don’t know if I like it myself”. It may be a one time thing but thought you’d like to know.