I recently learned blog Good As You has made offers to ex-gays asking them to appear on The 700 Club and take a lie detector test. Earlier this week Tim Wilkins of Cross Ministries accepted Good As You’s challenge. The 700 Club hasn’t been involved in the offer so I emailed them yesterday asking if they’re interested in having this event take place on their show.
I’d like to congratulate Tim Wilkins for having the balls to stand up for what he believes. Honestly, I’m impressed.
Update: In answer to reader comments, as well as my own initial thoughts, Good As You intends to ask far more than simply “are you a homosexual.” Ex-gays are a tricky group and have been know to do the semantics-dance around the meaning of the word “homosexual.” Good As You’s oroginal proposition (the second link above) reads:
Let’s go on your own turf of “The 700 Club” and take a lie detector test on the nature of our sexualities.
And of course there’s the issue of someone who truly believes something which is untrue. What sort of polygraph reading would result? I really know nothing about polygraphs so I’m going to shut my big mouth for now.
I’m not sure exactly what this is going to accomplish. Lie detectors are not infallible, and if the actual question asked is “Are you a homosexual?” most ex-gays could probably pass the test because they really don’t consider themselves to be homosexual by their definition of the term.
So let me gets this straight, no pun intended. He is taking a test to prove he is ex-gay? not gay anymore? or that he is now heterosexual.
I also agree he would pass, he has convinced himself that he is no longer gay, so he really believes he is ex-gay.
If they get someone really hot to give the test, will that affect the results. Perhaps some young cute twink should administer the test, smiling the whole way. If he passes then I will believe it.
“Perhaps some young cute twink should administer the test, smiling the whole way. If he passes then I will believe it.”
Um, not all gay guys are attracted to “twinks.”
Actually, I think this is great and would be happy no matter how it is resolved.
Though I’m doubtful about the ability to change your core orientation, I don’t claim that it is impossible. It’s never been proven one way or the other and if he has changed his orientation, I’m happy for him.
I assume that the questioning would have to be more than “are you homosexual” but would ask about desire, attraction, etc.
If nothing else, it encourages the ex-gay movement to be honest. And honesty is all I ask of them. That is the start of all debate.
According to the Good As You blog the actual question will be “Are you a homosexual?” Most ex-gays have convinced themselves in their own minds that they aren’t regardless of their orientation or even behavior. Better questions might be:
Are you sexually aroused by members of your own sex?
Are you sexually aroused by members of the opposite sex?
Etc. But even then, lie detectors are not tremendously reliable.
Well, you all are on the right track regarding the fallibility of lie detectors.
They are simply a gateway to state of mind, but not the conclusion to it.
This is why such tests are inadmissable in court.
State of mind is relative. And lie detector tests have to be given in a short time relevant to the questioning.
Long years time gives the subject a period to adjust and live with their emotions and thought processes.
A lie detector given to an ex gay would have to be acute. To a new recruit or someone fresh from the program so to speak, but that still won’t prove anything all that concrete.
This is a fairly wasteful exercise.
Ex gays aren’t stressed enough for anything that would be all that readable.
But the greatest lie detector of all is ourselves simply in reading how glib they are on select subjects, or unresponsive to other direct questions.
Sort of like the ones I keep asking.
Bullshit meters have gone off the charts when ex gays are allowed to talk about themselves and their favorite subject.
Which is usually themselves, or a book or music or ministry they are advertising.
I’m normally a non judgemental person. I don’t even possess any gaydar.
A limitation that’s brought humorous faux pas in my social circles.
But I have dead on accuracy when someone is obfuscating and trying to convince me they are smarter or more secure than they really are.
Ex gays are so guilty of that. The 700 Club display is only that and won’t serve anything, except another opportunity for Pat Robertson to claim and use as his reason for smug condescension.
But even then, lie detectors are not tremendously reliable.
You’re being too kind to lie detector tests. They rely on the questions that are asked. And they rely on the judgement of the person conducing the test to interpret the result from the squiggles recorded on the test strip.
I also don’t see the great merit behind the idea. As a publicity stunt, it works, but if this happens it will be on unfriendly territory, territory which will be taped and then edited. They can easily make the man from Good as You seem like pure evil and Tim Wilkins seem like a saint.
From what I remember about Wilkins and his story, he says that he got married and slowly became heterosexual. He also seemed to think that the Wisconsin college audience who went to one of his little speeches were out to get him and that a very fair college reporter was “biased” against him. It all comes across as highly delusional. I can easily see him saying he is no longer gay, and passing the lie detector test.
Unless we want to see ex-gays given free, positive publicity, then I don’t see the point.
This is a wonderful idea. But it must also be administered in tandem with one of those penile instruments that I can’t spell without a dictionary. You know, where he looks at porn and it measures blood flow.
I urge all ex-gays to follow suit. Look, some of them may paas, as pathalogical liars can often do so. But,I think the vast majority will fail if asked the right questions. This is a net plus.
Yes Wayne! I’m a big fan of the penile-blood-flow-o-meter as well. There are a variety of fun ways to measure involuntary sexual response. I believe pupil dilation is another factor.
Penile Plethysmography is also not tremendously reliable, unfortunately. The much vaunted study that found arousal to gay porn correlated with self-proclaimed str8 guys who expressed homophobia didn’t take into account that anxiety can also cause changes in penile blood volume. PPGs are also not accepted in court because it’s been determined that interpretation of the findings is too subjective.
James at December 30, 2005 02:55 PM
From what I remember about Wilkins and his story, he says that he got married and slowly became heterosexual….
The problem with Wilkins’s story is that nobody knows what he was before he got married. And it’s too late to find out. In other words, whatever testing methodology is used now, there is no baseline from the past to test it against.
Boo at December 30, 2005 03:43 PM
If the investigator’s sample size is large enough, this would not be an issue. Outliers could be relatively easily recognized and disregarded.
Boo, I agree with Raj. Of course there may be things other than arousal that cause erections but lets not forget that by far the most common cause of erections is sexual arousal. And a lot of those “anxiety induced” erections I’m betting are caused by anxiety over possibly demonstrating suppressed pyschological arousal to gay porn. No one plethysmograph may mean much, but if test after test shows most exgays show erections to sexual images of men we can reasonably assume its because they are sexually aroused.
Raj said:
In other words, whatever testing methodology is used now, there is no baseline from the past to test it against.
The man has a point. Actually, none of this sounds very scientific and certainly a single sample means nothing. It might be worth some value as entertainment I guess.
David
Randi Schimnosky at December 30, 2005 07:39 PM
Of course there may be things other than arousal that cause erections but lets not forget that by far the most common cause of erections is sexual arousal
I frankly don’t know whether or not that is true. When I was a kid growing up in a suburb of Cincinnati in the 1960s, and was being driven to the school bus stop in the dead of winter, I would oftentimes get erections. Sexual arousal in the dead of winter? Definitely not.
I’ll admit that that is merely one datum point (actually, more than one, since it happened quite frequently), but it strikes me that it is a mistake to generalize.
Hey guys, Jeremy from Good As You here…
Obviously if this were to actually happen, LOTS of details would have to be fleshed out. We would also get other groups & advisers involved.
The “lie detector challenge” is one we’ve made on numerous occasions to several different “ex-gays.” At first it was made in jest, but then it sorta became a “hmm, maybe that could work” type of situation. Personally, I’m shocked that any of them would agree, as the burden of proof is on them.
So yea, the prospect of this whole thing is very fun, and “The 700 Club” producers have been contacted — but as far as all of the details and logistics, they would need to be meticulously worked out by folks more skilled in polygraph science than I.
ReasonAble at December 30, 2005 09:10 PM
Some of us actually have a background not only in science, but also in statistics.
Good As You at December 31, 2005 12:14 PM
…they would need to be meticulously worked out by folks more skilled in polygraph science …
This is ridiculous. There is no such thing as “polygraph science.”
Posted by: raj at December 31, 2005 12:36 AM
That’s something, Raj. Far be it for me to question your own experience, but I found I do sometimes get sexually aroused in the dead of winter. I’ll be cuddly and warm inside, put on my snowmobile suit, go outside at -20 and and get turned on because the suit pulls a little tight in the crotch. Wouldn’t have been something like the cuddly bundling of winter clothes that turned you on, maybe? Regardless, wouldn’t you still say that the erections you got were most often due to arousal and your wintertime experience a bit of an exception?
Raj said:
Some of us actually have a background not only in science, but also in statistics.
Tell me Raj, does your vast experience all come from one lifetime or are you counting reincarnations? Inquiring (mere mortal) minds want to know 😉
Raj said:
This is ridiculous. There is no such thing as “polygraph science.”
It is more of an art than a science but I think we understood what he meant to say. At any rate, could you please be more civil [while jumping down someone’s throat]?
David
Yes, I am indeed aware that “polygraph science” may not be the literal term for one who is knowledgable in the art of detecting fibs. Just the phrase I used to convey what I felt to be a pretty clear concept.
Breathe.
It is more of an art than a science but I think we understood what he meant to say.
No, it appears to be largely a fraud, and that is why it is largely excluded as evidence in court. As I noted, the results depend on (i) the specific questions that are asked, and (ii) an interpretation by the tester of the squiggles on the strip of paper recorded during the polygraph session. The interpretation by the tester? That is ridiculous.
At any rate, could you please be more civil [while jumping down someone’s throat]?
I’m a lawyer. I go for the jugular.
Raj said:
I’m a lawyer. I go for the jugular.
You have mentioned that you are an attorney before and I, for one, have never held that against you 😉 Some of my best friends are attorneys. Concerning the jugular action, perhaps you could save that kind of behavior for the adversarial atmosphere of the courtroom, ok? Jeremy was just trying to clarify something germane to the thread.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program already in progress…
David
ReasonAble at December 31, 2005 05:56 PM
David, I made no reference to Jeremy. My reference was to polygraph (“lie detector”)
tests.
Raj said:
David, I made no reference to Jeremy. My reference was to polygraph (“lie detector”)
tests.
Let’s see, Jeremy said:
…they would need to be meticulously worked out by folks more skilled in polygraph science …
To which you said:
This is ridiculous. There is no such thing as “polygraph science.”
To which I responded:
At any rate, could you please be more civil [while jumping down someone’s throat]?
And to which you responded:
I’m a lawyer. I go for the jugular.
Yes, I can see how you were being dispassionate and civil there, sure.
Totally OT: To anyone who might still be going out tonight, be careful – this is amateur night at the bars and clubs. Keep a defensive driving posture.
David
Has it ever been determined that Tim Wilkins was actually an outgay man to begin with? Just wondering, as the exgay world is filled with exgays who were never demonstrably gay adults (Bennett, Alan Chambers). People who had no adult experience of gayn life could probably easily pass such a test as proposed here.
ReasonAble at December 31, 2005 08:15 PM
Yes, I can see how you were being dispassionate and civil there, sure
Dispassionate? No. If jeremey wishes to defend his comments, he can do so.
I learned from posting on FreeRepublic.com in the late 1990s that one has to develop a thick skin to post on Internet message boards. This has, by the way, continued to the present day–witness the anti-gay nutcases who post on the NYTimes gay pride board.
If Jeremy has too thin a skin that he cannot defend the statements that he makes in his comments, it really doesn’t matter to me. Cross examintion over.
Skin sufficiently thickened here, guys and gals. I only felt the need to comment becasue it seemed like lots of premature debate was occuring about a situation that I, being Jeremy and all, felt I could shed some light.
Actually, I’ve taken no offense to anything that’s been said and think many valid ponts have been raised. I’m only trying to convey that the situation this is being made out to be is far removed from actuality. For those not familiar with G-A-Y, we operate on a slightly satirical/humorous level with a goal to bring some levity to the whole gay fight. We made a slightly tongue-in-cheek offer, one man chose to accept, and we ran with the concept. The notion is a mere fetus at this point, and if CBN chose to birth this polygraph-based baby, it would take much more thought and a team of experts to mold the embryonic idea into a truth-revealing tot.
Jeremy, point acknowledged.
ReasonAble at December 31, 2005 08:15 PM
Regarding
I said David, I made no reference to Jeremy. My reference was to polygraph (“lie detector”)
tests.
And you said Let’s see, Jeremy said:…
There was no post here that somebody with the handle of Jeremy said anything. It finally devolved who “Jeremy” was.
You might want to use post references (such as above) to identify what you are referencing. It isn’t that difficult to do a copy&paste.
Happy New Year!
2006 is here – resolutions in place (Timothy).
Jeremy said:
We made a slightly tongue-in-cheek offer, one man chose to accept, and we ran with the concept.
That seems a proper way to sum up the entire thread. There are a lot of unknowns and it’s unlikely to determine much scientifically, but if it comes off it should be a great show. I would watch 🙂
David
“For those not familiar with G-A-Y, we operate on a slightly satirical/humorous level with a goal to bring some levity to the whole gay fight.”
and do so brilliantly