Last week, we saw that Exodus was still promoting Paul Cameron’s junk science. Even though this wasn’t the first time an Ex-Gay Watch author raised this issue, last week’s post prompt some remarkably swift corrective actions from Exodus president Alan Chambers. In a commendable act of transparency, Exodus’s FAQ on life expectancy was replaced with this statement: “This article has been removed due to the inaccuracies surrounding the research of Paul Cameron.”
Now it’s time to turn our attention to NARTH.
A quick search of NARTH’s web site reveals that they have been just as willing to promote Cameron’s so-called “research.”
For our first example, NARTH member Ross Olson sent a letter to the Pediatric Annals, a letter that was published on NARTH’s web site (I don’t know if that letter was ever published by Pediatric Annals). In that letter, Olson criticizes an article that described a thirteen-year-old transgender MTF. Because the original article described the teen’s sexual activities, Olson jumped to the conclusion that the teen was being sexually abused, and that allowed him to bring up the familiar charge that ties homosexuality to pedophilia. For support, he cited Cameron’s “research” as though it has been presented in a professional journal. Here’s the screen-shot of that paragraph:
This citation is one of the more amazing ones I’ve ever seen. The Journal of the Family Research Institute? It doesn’t exist, at least not as Olsen implies. The link actually goes to a quasi-monthly newsletter that Cameron published for several years called the Family Research Report (hence the “FRR” in the URL). It’s not a journal by any stretch of the term, let alone a peer-reviewed one. Maybe Dr. Olson aspires to be the Dr. Cameron of pediatrics.
But the worst offense has to be an article by Christopher H. Rosik that appeared in the Journal of Pastoral Care. The article carries the ironic title, “Conversion Therapy Revisited: Parameters And Rationale For Ethical Care.” Ironic, because he deploys a number of unethical distortions to provide rationale for a supposedly ethical care. The article, which purports to be a wide-ranging review of gay sexual practices, follows many of the common practices authors use to write lesser anti-gay tracts.
Rosik cites Cameron’s discredited “obituary study,” the same study that Exodus cited without attribution on their FAQ.
Rosik also cites Cameron’s “randomly sampled 5,182 adults” to claim that incestuous sexual relationships during childhood were disproportionately reported by homosexual respondents.” But that so-called “random” survey was riddled with problems, including an abysmally low response rate (about 23%), biased questions and puzzling results among the heterosexual population (for example, 52% of straight men have shoplifted; 12% committed murder or attempted murder.)
When Cameron’s work was publicly brought to Exodus’ attention a second time they finally did something about it. Exodus removed the discredited content and left a public note about the problem for all to see. Will NARTH show the same integrity as Exodus and publicly acknowledge their error? Or will they fall back to their familiar patterns of behavior we saw last year by defending the indefensible and denying responsibility for the content of their own web site before finally eliminating these embarrassments and pretending they never existed?
I had just made a comment about this subject in another topic, when I saw this topic had been posted. EXODUS has far less to lose when removing discredited research, IMHO, because they have God on their side (in theory) and God trumps all science (remember Alan’s remark about God being stronger than genetics?) but NARTH is all “science,” so they don’t have anything non-secular or omnipotent on their side to back their claims.
That URL is the slickest source I’ve ever seen cited by a stilted article. The title gives such an impression of “officialness” that I almost bought it, albeit in a puzzled manner.
I said in my other post that the more publicity NARTH and other orgs. like it get, the more people see how ethically bankrupt and un-scholarly they are. Here’s to NARTH, Cohen, Nicolosi, Cameron, and Chambers getting all the air time possible. The more people see, the more people will understand. It’s a matter of educating more people.
Olsen actually cites two different Cameron “studies”:
As to danger he will experience as a transsexual, it is a not-very-well-kept secret that the homosexual community experiences a great deal of violence that is not outside gay bashers, but actually gay-on-gay. (See “Gay Domestic Violence Finally Measured,” by Paul Cameron, Journal of the Family Research Institute, Vol. 16 No. 8, Dec 2001, https://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_12.html)
Even leaving aside that it’s Cameron, the second one really makes no sense at all, since if this kid transitions, she’ll end up in the straight community, not the gay community. Maybe someone should explain to these “experts” on homosexuality that gay men really aren’t that into sex with women.
Good work. I was wondering what a scan of NARTH’s website would reveal.
It’s time for EXODUS to break all ties with NARTH as they have done with Cohen, Cameron, PFOX, etc. With all of the recent disclaimers and dis-affiliations, EXODUS would be stronger if it stood alone — just a ministry to people who believe that homosexual behavior is sin and who want to live in accordance with that belief.
Michael, I agree.
And, though many might disagree with me on this point, I believe that Exodus is on the road to dropping these affiliations entirely and focusing on being a ministry, not the hybrid conservative political organization they are now.
From what I know, Exodus has made strides in the past year to unify its member ministries and ensure that everybody is on the same wavelength regarding the definition of “change,” “recovery,” etc. Additionally, in his many recent media appearances, it seems as though Chambers has sought to communicate realistic expectations for “change” and emphasize the spiritual growth that must undergird all “progress” in regards to seeing one’s attractions change.
I’m pleased to know that Exodus responded honorably and removed the research from their site when informed of its questionable nature. It encourages me not to give up all hope on them.
James: From your mouth to Alan’s ears, huh?
“I believe that Exodus is on the road to dropping these affiliations entirely and focusing on being a ministry, not the hybrid conservative political organization they are now.”
Now there’s a concept — “focusssing on being a ministry”. That was our only aim from the beginning, but they have wandered off the path. Too bad that EXODUS only seems to be making these “changes” when they get their rear-end in a real bad public relations sling — pardon the expression.
It is not as though they have not been cautioned and nagged repeatedly by friend and foe alike. We, the founders of EXODUS, worked very hard to stay OUT of politics and avoid querstionable affiliations — following the example of AA.
Alcoholics Anonymous thrives largely due to the fact that they do not promise that you will become “ex-alcoholic” and that they remain independent — politically neutral — taking no public stand on controversies. It’s AA’s “11th Tradition”. EXODUS would do well to adopt something similar. They might also want to run stuff by XGW and Dr. Throckmorton before they quote, reference or publish “scientific” information. Science, obviously, is not their forte.
James,
I don’t really see the evidence for change at Exodus so far. As I have said before, I think that dumping Cameron has more to do with Cameron badmouthing Dobson in public, rather than not embracing Cameron’s message.
As toward all the Exodus ministries being on the same page about change and recovery: What is their same page definition of change and recovery? They certainly haven’t made it clear to us. Alan Chambers own statements over the last year waffle back and forth from “completely heterosexual” to “I could never be as I never was” and “I am living beyond my feelings.” If the President of the organization cannot articulate what they mean by change and recovery, it all seems so hopeless.
With regard to moving away from their right wing political causes, I would point you toward their own websites. randythomas.org in particular has markedly ramped up his anti-gay political posting over the last 6 months. He also recently posted about the Exodus/conservative black political alliance against Hate Crime protections for gays.
From the outside, it looks like Exodus is dependant and beholden to Focus on the Family. I would guess that if they took the path that you are suggesting, it would result in a serious loss of funds for their work and a significant shrinkage of their operations. Have any of the current leaders of Exodus shown the courage it would take to lead the organization in a new direction that would probably include a significant loss in financial support from their biggest supporters?
There’s a great question: “What is their same page definition of change and recovery?” Look and listen VERY closely. They boldly promise “freedom from homosexuality”, but…
Joe Dallas admits (under pressure) that “ex-gay doesn’t mean ex-homosexual” but is just a “convenient way of saying a person with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies” because it “rolls off the tongue a little easier.”
Alan Chambers still refers to himself in his press releases as a “former homosexual” (without defining this) but he wants to dump the term “ex-gay and see that it is never used again because it does not accurately convey the change process.”
Ed Hurst, one of the pioneers of the ex-gay movement still defends the term “ex-gay”, even though he recently posted that the notion that “ex-gay means straight or heterosexual is a complete fallacy”.
In terms of losing funding, boo hoo. We all had JOBS. We also lived on very limited means and a few “love offerings”. During my time with EXODUS, I made about $800 to $1,000 a month. Now EXODUS is big business and big politics.
Did I miss something that Dr. Cameron has said recently? James wrote
Can someone point me to what Cameron has said recently regarding Dobson/Focus? Thanks!
Michael, I have notice over the years since I first started reading EXODUS’ endorsed “ex-gay testimonies” in the latter 1970s in the Assemblies of God’s Pentecostal Evangel (a weekly magazine) the first and last names of the individuals were listed with the testimonies. That was not anonymously at all; therefore it is not like what AA does.
One time in a PE article, Bob Davies wrote an introductory and a closing paragraph to a woman’s testimony claiming that she was an ex-lesbian. But, in her actual testimony, she never claimed to have been a lesbian herself. She only mentioned that she had thought, because of what her mother had told her, the way that you returned the love of someone who loved you, you had sex with them. She did meet some lesbians who accepted her unconditionally and they did love her as her friends.
Her testimony was put on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association website years later and it was an exact copy of her original testimony (without Davies’ comments). I discovered that they had gone to the Exodus website and just copied what was in the testimony section (where Davies’ comments were not included). I got the impression, by a phone call to BGEA, that they had never even spoken to the woman herself.
Well, “ex-gay doesn’t mean ex-homosexual” because the homosexual person is no longer gay, aka happy, about his or her sexual orientation.
Ex-gay ministries, other religious organizations and even individuals have decided that they have been given the Holy Spirit’s authority to make homosexuals feel guilty because of their sexual orientation. It is not the duty of Christians to make people feel convicted of real or imaginary unconfessed sins. Only the Holy Spirit as the authority to convict people of real sin in their lives.
I am not an “ex-gay;” because I was not out of the closet yet when I denied the existence of my sexual orientation. But, I am an ex-ex-homosexual and I was influenced by members of the Assemblies of God who also read the Pentecostal Evangel, when I was reading ex-gay “testimonies” in it, too, to not accept my feelings as normal from myself.
John:
For some time, Cameron has expressed some disdain for Dobson and FOTF. In fact, he’s been pretty vocally critical of NARTH on some points. Here’s an example from a little while back:
https://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_02_07.html
However, all of this hit a forte in 2006 when there was domestic partnership legislation proposed in Colorado, and Dobson and Cameron disagreed over the best anti-gay course of action. Here’s an example of some of the firefight, which is no longer (but was for some time) featured on the front page of the FRI website:
https://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=93
To John Doty: You are correct. When it came to our testimonies and public presentations, we were not always “anonymous”, but most of our group members were. We tended to use first names only. We did not follow the “12 Steps” per se, but we did think of ourselves as a recovery and support group — sort of like AA.
We expected a change in sexual orientation because we had no reason not to. People were “being delivered” from addictions, gambling and prosititution all the time — every Thursday at the healing service! We thought we would be next.
Being “gay” didn’t mean “happy”. It was just a less clinical (sterile) way of saying “homosexual”. We thought of being gay as being like an alcoholic — and trusted that God would reward our faithfulness by getting us back to the “default setting” (heterosexuality). Of course, THAT did not happen. Maybe we should never have expected it. Ed Hurst calls the idea (that ex-gay means straight) “totally fallacious”.
When I mentioned the “11th Tradition of AA”, I only meant that EXODUS could avoid most of their public relations disasters by leaving “science” to real scientists, being HONEST about what it can (and cannot) deliver, remaining politically NEUTRAL and steering clear of questionable affiliations.
The only reason NARTH exists is because it feeds on a society that continues to perpetuate false, fear-induced, uneducated statements and attitudes about homosexuality. The truth is, without a society that forces you to feel shame for what you feel naturally is a part of your being, people with same-sex attractions have every bit as much potential to lead happy, fulfilling lives as people with opposite-sex attractions. Other than being attracted to the same gender, gays and straights have everything in common with eachother as human beings. If people are educated about this fact from the start, they will feel comfortable about themselves, live without shame, and feel no need to turn to NARTH. The end of data declaring gays more dangerous than heteros or more likely to abuse children spells the end of NARTH — because they are based on “research” and not religious fervor. Let’s continue to chip away at their “scientific” sources.
You know, I have been thinking… Why does the ex-gay movement need to cite dubious “research” to convince us of the perils of being gay? Why not just stick to the Bible and give us graphic descritions of the torments of Hell? Isn’t the Bible their authority? Who needs NARTH or Cameron or…?
Who cares whether or not there is “scientific evidence” that gays REALLY die young, that they had bad parents, that gays are more prone to mental illness, that they are more likely to kill themselves or that gay relationships are shallow and unstable? Just stick to the Bible. Just keep telling us about “fire and brimstone, gnashing of teeth. burning winds, unquenchable fire, eternal punishment, pits of darkness and lakes of fire”.
Why does the ex-gay movement tend to sugarcoat and soft-peddle this stuff — if they TRULY believe that’s what’s in store for those of us who are not “ex-gay”, “post-gay” or “formerly gay identified?” In an 1991 newsletter, Frank Worthen of EXODUS says, in no uncertain terms, that what we call ourselves determines our Salvation: “By their words they are condemned.” He makes it clear that people who call themselves “gay Christians” are “anathema”, “cursed” and “greatly to be detested”. So, who really needs “research? EXODUS thinks we are hell-bound. Why not post that?
In the Exodus monthly newsletter, Alan Chambers writes a regular front-page letter to members and supporters. That letter frequently sets a fire-and-brimstone tone, and vows to conduct spiritual warfare (a.k.a. magic) against same-sex-attracted persons and their families. (Then, of course, the letter appeals for donations.)
Exodus refuses to publish the newsletter online — it’s available only via postal mail. I wonder why Exodus is reluctant to make its printed message accessible to a broad audience?
Why does the ex-gay movement need to cite dubious “research” to convince us of the perils of being gay? Why not just stick to the Bible and give us graphic descritions of the torments of Hell? Isn’t the Bible their authority?
Yes, but fundamentalists have misunderstood the ideals of the enlightenment and created a Bible which must be an authority on history and science. Therefore, the reason the Bible is against X is because X is scientifically shown to cause bad outcome Y.
It was recently noted here and elsewhere that Exodus distanced themselves from the work of Cameron. Today I was reading over at Randy Thompson’s blog. He was responding to a person who had a question re reparative therapy. The only place he sent them was over to the NARTH site. So, while they’ve distanced themselves from Cameron because of shoddy work, they seem to have no problem sending people over to NARTH even though they continue to use the work of Cameron.
In response to Mike Airhart’s comments re the Exodus appeal letter, I worked for an international Christian radio ministry for a number of years. Part of my job was to draft these monthly appeal letters that were sent out under the Executive Director/Speaker’s name. Use of the most inflammatory language was encouraged. Why? Because the base donors were the little old ladies who could and would read something that got them a little bit scared, open their wallets and send in money. My own experience has taught me that they [people like Chambers] don’t really believe half of the stuff that is written. It’s to drive in money…nothing more.
Does Chambers or Thompson have any sort of degrees that would qualify them to run such an organization…other than in the case of Chambers, his experience at being a hustler?
j.
Sorry, my previous post should read Thomas not Thompson.
j.
Mike Airhart asked: “I wonder why Exodus is reluctant to make its printed message accessible to a broad audience?” I think it’s the old “bait and switch”.
First, show them happy faces of people who have been “set free” of homosexuality — or call yourself a “former homosexual” as Alan Chambers does, or continue to use “ex-gay”. Contuinue to do this in spite of the fact that early EXODUS pioneers and evemn current leaders will, under enough pressure. admit that they are not heterosexual. Just give the IMPRESSION that you are offering a change in sexual orintation. That will attract enough “buyers”.
Then, when they get involved in the ministry and the “change” doesn’t happen, tell the “buyer” that you never promised it to begin with. It not OUR fault. You must have misunderstood. We never intended the word “ex-gay” to mean “former “homosexual” or “heterosexual” That’s a “total fallacy”.
The buyer, not the seller, must have misunderstood. The buyer “twisted our wordsd for pro-gay political reasons.” Or the consumer didn’t really WANT to change, or didn’t have enough faith, or, or, or….
Never, never accept responsibility for your false or misleading advertizing. Don’t pull out the HELL thing unless the buyer wakes up and decides to leave the program. Then send him detailed letters describing the flames of Hell that await him because he didn’t find the “freedom”
Mike Airhart asked: “I wonder why Exodus is reluctant to make its printed message accessible to a broad audience?” Personally, I think it’s the old “bait and switch”.
First, show them happy faces of people who have been “set free” of homosexuality — or call yourself a “former homosexual” (as Alan still Chambers does) even though he thinks “ex-gay” should be “retired”. What’s the difference, Alan?
Or continue to use and defend the term”ex-gay”, in spite of the fact that early EXODUS pioneers and even current leaders will, under enough pressure, admit that they are “not heterosexual” but just “Christians who would rather not have THOSE tendencies” (Joe Dallas). That’s OK. Just give the IMPRESSION that you are offering a change in sexual orientation. That will attract enough “buyers”.
Then, when they get deeply involved in the ministry and the “change” doesn’t happen, tell the “buyer” that you never promised it to begin with. Say, “It’s not OUR fault. You must have misunderstood! We weren’t being sneaky. We just meant to “provoke and vex” the media in order to get our message out. We never intended the word “ex-gay” to mean “former “homosexual” or “heterosexual”. That’s a “total fallacy!” — (Ed Hurst) We are just “post gays” or “from gays” or “formerly gay indentified” people (except for those for were already bisexual to some degree) who STILL have only same-sex attractions — but we’re NOT gay. Say what?
Claim you never made any promises. The buyer, not the seller, must have “misunderstood.” The buyer “twisted our words for pro-gay political reasons.” Or the consumer didn’t really WANT to change, or didn’t have enough faith, or, or, or….
Never, NEVER accept responsibility for your false or misleading advertizing. And don’t pull out the “HELL thing” (even though that’s your true agenda) unless the buyer wakes up and decides to leave the showroom. Then send detailed letters (like the one Frank Worthen sent me) describing the flames of Hell that await us because we didn’t find the false “freedom” EXODUS flashed across its happy webpage.
And no, Johnathan, EXODUS leaders are, almost without exception, NOT Masters or Doctorate level Psych students or licensed therapists — just better-than-average bait-and-switch salesmen.
Michael, you said: just better-than-average bait-and-switch salesmen.
Which would make them no better than the hustlers that ply Santa Monica Blvd. a few short miles from my home. The simple fact that the leaders of an organization the deals with such complicated issues as sexuality are without, from appearances, lacking the most basic of higher education degrees. And we are suppose to consider them experts? A HUGE disclaimer needs to be printed anytime Chambers or Thomas (or Bennett) speaks as an authority on issues of change (or political issues like those they are currently commenting on). It boggles the mind that they are allowed to continue to perpetrate something that is proven to be harmful in so many without the slightest bit of real research into what they are talking about.
They trot out official looking people like Cameron, Nicolosi or Cohen because their message coincides with the snake oil these guys are trying to sell. As the disinfecting glare of the light of truth is shined on these guys, they then find themselves in the embarrassing position of distancing themselves. When data is use in a twisted method, or when (as Jeremy over at G-A-Y pointed out in a recent post) transcripts are redone in order to make things sound a certain way, these people are proving why they have only traded one hustle for another. Albeit, this one pays them a bit better and allows for travel all over the country. Nice!
j.
My name’s not “John;” but, I do know John Doty who is my nephew.
I don’t use the word “Christian” to self-identify anymore (I use the Biblically correct word “Believer” instead); but, I still prefer to use it as a noun and not as an adjective. I use “gay” as a noun of self-identity when referring to my acceptance of my exclusive homosexual orientation.
I would like to quote what Jesus said (in Matthew 10) here: 28 “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
The word translated as “soul” in that verse is “psyche” and the word translated a “hell” is “Gehenna.” (“Gehenna” means “Valley of Hinnom” a place outside of the city of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned continually.)
My late mother and I were talking about this verse and she applied it not to something in the future, but to the present. She used emotional, spiritual and physical abuse in her explanation of the verse. She specifically applied the verse to the kind of abuse some children suffer. Mom was a Bible teacher (to adults) and a Sunday school teacher (to all ages, but mostly children).
In her words, “hell” can be a place or situation of unwarranted punishment which never seems to end.
I consider that it is hell-on-earth when Bible-Thumpers tell any person who admits to being homosexual that the person is going to hell. I have read that one-third of teenage suicides are related to sexual orientation. Many of those decided, “Well, I am going to hell anyway, so I might as well go there now and get it over with instead of waiting until later.”
Jonathan,
You said that Alan, Randy and the Exodus crowd are no better than the hustlers on Santa Monica Blvd. I am not sure that is totally fair.
Most of the sex hustlers on Santa Monica Blvd are in desperate situations (financial catastrophe, kicked out by parents, homeless, drug or alcohol dependant, etc). They do make the neighborhood undesirable and sometimes scary, but the truth is that the hustlers are usually the ones being exploited, mistreated, and often victimized by their clients.
Snake oil salesmen on the other hand exploit the hopes and fears of their clients for financial (and in this particular case-political) gain. They also usually have far more opportunities to find regular honorable work, rather than continue to exploit their clients and the families of their clients.
So, I wouldn’t suggest that the two situations are the same. I feel somewhat sorry for the hustlers, but don’t feel all that much pity for Alan, Randy and the others who are running Exodus at this time.
Here’s where Alan Chambers refers to himself as a “former homosexual” even though last year, he announced that he wants to dump the term “ex-gay” and “see that is it never used again.”
Quoting Alan from the EXODUS homepage: “This (Hate Crime) legislation says that we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now than when we were living as homosexuals.”
I am really confused. What’s the difference between “ex-gay” and “former homosexual”?
I am really confused. What’s the difference between “ex-gay” and “former homosexual”?
Michael, I think it has to do with which of the two has more of an impact on the anti-gay forces. My opinion on that is “gay” doesn’t have the same sting and revulsion to it as “homosexual” does.
Face it, “filthy and deviant homosexual” has more of a sinister tone to it than “filthy and deviant gay”. Better money maker if they use “homosexual” in all their writings.
How can a person who is living as heterosexual, assumes that identity so that the public at large wouldn’t know or care….or if the affectation is complete (oppo gender spouse and kids and picket fence), be of less value in the law than a homosexual?
Heterosexuals have all the value, no matter how much they screw up morally.
And at the same time, Chambers has the crust to show up with black ministers and say that gays demean civil rights and it’s history?
And Chambers is instead saying that ‘former homosexuals’ don’t have the same value (meaning rights?), as homosexuals?
This is not only a ridiculous statement in principle, but I seriously want to get in his face about that and HIS idea of who has more value to society.
And if Alan Chambers avoids me….he has good reason, I AM PISSED AT HIM for such a steaming pile of BS!
Aw….poor baby….what value or price tag does he think SHOULD be placed on his forehead that people can read?
What price has HE paid…or has he considered the price another gay person has paid for his activity?
He’s got his own sense of entitlement and value twisted. It’s really about the price already paid way beyond what’s fair and right…
And his cowardice in avoiding the debt, shouldn’t be coming from someone complaining about not being valued enough. For WHAT?!
Yeah, Chambers…I said it!
I know this isn’t exactly on the topic of EXODUS and Cameron, but it all seems related somehow — the vague and misleading use of language, the questionable alliances, the misjudgements and retractions, the unscientific “science”. Haven’t they learned anyting after 30 years of trying? These are not NEW complaints about EXODUS. They are patterns over decades.
Here’s another example, from Alan Chamber’s quote above: “…we, as former homosexuals, are of less value and worth less legal protection now than when we were living as homosexuals.” What does he mean by “living as homosexuals”? How do homosexuals live, Alan? You don’t have to being “living” gay to be beaten, stabbed and murdered for just being perceived as gay. How would your attacker know if your are “living” gay — or just acting like it?
By your own admissions, you “ex-gays” and “former homosexuals” are ALL still same-sex attracted — in other words, still gay. What you CALL yourself doesn’t change that reality — and it certainly doesn’t mean you are less valuable or less protected under the law. Hate Crime laws impose hasher penalties for all hate-motivated attacks and murders — even if you are just “percieved” as gay. It doesn’t take a genious or a psychic to percieve that “ex-gays”, “former homosexuals’, “post-gays”, “from gays” and “formerly gay-indeitified” folks are still gay — and therefore protected by the same laws.
I think the description that comes to mind Michael is “willful ignorance”.
“I am really confused. What’s the difference between “ex-gay” and “former homosexual”?”
I have a funny feeling Alan purposely used the term ‘former homosexual’ to include lesbians into the picture…
Wow, so when I say I am ex-ex-gay, does that mean I’m not including myself? 😉 I do want to be inclusive….especially to myself….
The lesbian is silent in ex-gay, at least in the US, however the pronunciation is the same 🙂
So you know that rule you might have been taught in school, about how to pronounce words with two vowels? “When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking.”
It’s kinda like that.
When two ex-gays go walking, the first one does the talking. Except watch out, some of us ex-ex-lesbigays are starting to talk!
Can I jump in here too. Guess I’m in the ex-ex-gay group now speaking out! I formerly directed Paraklete Ministries, an ex-gay referal of Exodus. I spoke nationally, wrote extensively and we always were told that change of orientation was possible. Well, it didn’t work for me after 15 years! I am now part of the Beyond Ex-gay movement, and as a Christian who is a lesbian, I’m proud to say that Jesus loves me just as I was created to be, His daughter! I can only apologize for any harm I did in past years! Celebrate who you are.
Its actually really sad. It seems that Exodus is making more of an effort to be respectable than an organization supposedly grounded in science. I mean, I can’t say I would’ve been shocked if the two organizations had reversed their reactions, Exodus essentially ignoring critics while NARTH made an effort to live up to whatever credibility they think they have because of their credentials.
Instead though, the organization openly founded as a faith based approach to what they perceive as problematical has become, at least on this one issue, the standard bearer for peer review and responsiveness for ex-gays rather than the group that bills itself as a legitimate scientific approach.
I think Kendall is cutting EXODUS way too much slack when he says “It seems that Exodus is making more of an effort to be respectable than an organization supposedly grounded in science.”
I don’t see EXODUS as doing anything more substantial than a little bit of window-dressing and a whole lot of “damage” control lately — disavowing this, distancing themselves from that. Make no mistake: EXODUS and NARTH are still very closely alligned. I understand that Alan Chambers remains personally associated with NARTH.
NARTH still has “expert advisors” like Berger, who advocates teasing and ridiculing gender variant kids (and who calls all who disagree with him “busybodies”) and Shoenewolf, who suggests that the slaves had it “better off” (and who calls all who disagree with him intellectually stunted “Marxists”.)
Until EXODUS dumps this hateful NARTHian nonsense, I think Kendall is taking too big a leap to assert that EXODUS, unlike NARTH, has become “the standard bearer for peer review and responsiveness for ex-gays…”