SEXUAL ORIENTATION CONSENSUS GUIDELINES DO NOT INCLUDE EX-GAYS.
Nice of PFOX to put us on their mailing list. We here at TeachTheFacts.org just received an email from Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (which really should be PFOX-GAG, shouldn't it?), touting the new consensus guidelines that were released this week by the First Amendment Center. That document is the result of a collaboration among Christian groups, gay advocacy organizations, educators, and others, trying to sort out how public schools should approach teaching about sexual orientation.
Of course this is an important issue for us right now, as the Montgomery County Public Schools are about to evaluate and test a new curriculum on the subject of sexual orientation. And as PFOX has a member on the citizens advisory committee that will evaluate the curriculum, I think they expect that "ex-gays" should be mentioned in the classes.
The PFOX email is a press release with the headline:
So, wow, this is pretty big news. If these experts all got together and discussed this, and hashed over drafts of this document, and if they felt that "ex-gays" needed to be in a public school curriculum, well, that would really be a pretty big boost for their side. Because, to tell you the truth, right now I don't think anybody believes it should be taught.
But there it is: SEXUAL ORIENTATION CONSENSUS GUIDELINES INCLUDE EX-GAYS.
Then I was thinking, y'know, just today I printed this document out and read it, and I didn't remember seeing "ex-gays" anywhere in it. So just now I went to the web site again, downloaded the document, and searched for the word "ex-gay." I searched for "exgay", "ex gay", everything I could think of, and there's just nothing there. I even scanned it with my eyeballs, the old-fashioned way, to see if the words would jump out at me. Nada.
So I read this PFOX email a little closer. It starts out:
I'm still waiting for the part where they say the "consensus guidelines include ex-gays."
There're a couple more paragraphs. Nothing about the consensus guidelines including ex-gays.
People, the consensus guidelines do not include ex-gays.
I want to be nice, I don't want to call anybody a liar or anything. But ... who wrote that headline?
So what does the document actually say? Rather than summarize the five-page document, I'll quote the First Amendment Center's own press release:
These all sound like good suggestions.
PFOX got a couple of members of the committee who wrote this document to express support for them and their mission -- in an interview. Of course they didn't put anything about "ex-gays" in the guidelines themselves -- it would have been ridiculous to try, and nobody would have agreed to it. Nobody in their right mind would really suggest that teaching about "ex-gays" was an important part of a curriculum on sexual orientation in the public schools.
Of course this is an important issue for us right now, as the Montgomery County Public Schools are about to evaluate and test a new curriculum on the subject of sexual orientation. And as PFOX has a member on the citizens advisory committee that will evaluate the curriculum, I think they expect that "ex-gays" should be mentioned in the classes.
The PFOX email is a press release with the headline:
SEXUAL ORIENTATION CONSENSUS GUIDELINES INCLUDE EX-GAYS
New public school guidelines endorsed by gay group GLSEN and Christian organization CEAI
So, wow, this is pretty big news. If these experts all got together and discussed this, and hashed over drafts of this document, and if they felt that "ex-gays" needed to be in a public school curriculum, well, that would really be a pretty big boost for their side. Because, to tell you the truth, right now I don't think anybody believes it should be taught.
But there it is: SEXUAL ORIENTATION CONSENSUS GUIDELINES INCLUDE EX-GAYS.
Then I was thinking, y'know, just today I printed this document out and read it, and I didn't remember seeing "ex-gays" anywhere in it. So just now I went to the web site again, downloaded the document, and searched for the word "ex-gay." I searched for "exgay", "ex gay", everything I could think of, and there's just nothing there. I even scanned it with my eyeballs, the old-fashioned way, to see if the words would jump out at me. Nada.
So I read this PFOX email a little closer. It starts out:
WASHINGTON, DC – The First Amendment Center has released the first consensus guidelines to help public schools develop sexual orientation policies. The new guidelines advise school officials to include the viewpoints of all participants in order to develop policies that promote fairness for all. According to Charles Haynes, a primary drafter of the guidelines and Senior Scholar at the First Amendment Center, the ex-gay viewpoint in public schools is protected by the First Amendment and should be heard.
Haynes explained that incidents such as the one last year in Montgomery County, Maryland, might have been avoided had guidelines like these been in place. In that case, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) successfully sued the Montgomery County School Board for failing to include the ex-gay viewpoint. Haynes said, “Americans are deeply divided over homosexuality in our society. But if public school officials and community leaders use the ground rules of the First Amendment, they can reach agreement on how public schools can guard the rights of all students in a safe learning environment.”
I'm still waiting for the part where they say the "consensus guidelines include ex-gays."
One of the endorsers to the guidelines also agrees that school officials should consider the ex-gay viewpoint. “The strength in the framework of the guidelines is that all sides should be heard and this does include the ex-gay perspective, ” said Finn Laursen, director of Christian Educators Association International (CEAI).
“As PFOX continues to work for inclusion and respect of the ex-gay viewpoint in public schools nationwide, we are assured by the consensus guidelines that the ex-gay viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment,” said Regina Griggs, PFOX Director. “In too many schools, the ex-gay viewpoint is censored or marginalized. Now school districts are held to a standard of respect. According to the new guidelines, actions by educators to exclude some views merely because they disagree with them constitute viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.”
There're a couple more paragraphs. Nothing about the consensus guidelines including ex-gays.
People, the consensus guidelines do not include ex-gays.
I want to be nice, I don't want to call anybody a liar or anything. But ... who wrote that headline?
So what does the document actually say? Rather than summarize the five-page document, I'll quote the First Amendment Center's own press release:
The first consensus guidelines created to help to educators, students and parents develop local policies and practices to address issues involving sexual orientation in public schools were announced today by the First Amendment Center.
"Americans are deeply divided over homosexuality in our society," said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. "But if school officials and community members use the ground rules of the First Amendment, they can reach agreement on how public schools can guard the rights of all students in a safe learning environment."
The nonpartisan guidelines call on school officials to be "fair, honest brokers of a dialogue that involves all stakeholders and seeks the common good." The recommended strategies include:
-- Create a "common ground" task force, with representatives with a wide range of community views, to advise school officials on issues such as safety in school, student expression and curricula;
-- Agree on protecting everyone's First Amendment rights and reach a shared understanding of current law;
-- Avoid "us v. them" political arguments, and permit all sides in the debate to be heard;
-- Provide educational opportunities for administrators, teachers, parents and students about basic First Amendment principles of rights, responsibilities and respect.
Primary drafters of the guidelines were Haynes and Wayne Jacobsen of BridgeBuilders, an organization that helps schools and communities find common ground on religious issues. Representatives from the Christian Educators Association International (CEAI) and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) also served on the drafting committee and endorsed the process recommended in the guide. Two national educational leadership groups, the American Association of School Administrators and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) have also endorsed the guidelines.
CEAI is a professional association of Christian educators serving in public and private schools. GLSEN is a national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for all students. First Consensus Guidelines Developed For Public Schools Regarding Sexual Orientation
These all sound like good suggestions.
PFOX got a couple of members of the committee who wrote this document to express support for them and their mission -- in an interview. Of course they didn't put anything about "ex-gays" in the guidelines themselves -- it would have been ridiculous to try, and nobody would have agreed to it. Nobody in their right mind would really suggest that teaching about "ex-gays" was an important part of a curriculum on sexual orientation in the public schools.
posted by JimK at 8:27 PM
36 Comments:
Really they should state that "ex-gay" is not a sexual orientation; it's an identity. People who identify as ex-gay should have a straight orientation; after all, they do tend to get married and have children. I don't see why people should identify as ex-gay though; if they really dislike homosexuality, why must they always remind themselves of it by calling themselves "ex-gay"?
THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT ANONYMOUS
YES IT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT FOR EX-GAYS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS SUCH FOR THE CLEAR REASON THAT THEY NO LONGER WISH TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH THEIR FORMER LIFESTYLE BUT NOW WISH ABOVE ALL TO PURSUE A NATURAL AND NORMAL HETEROSEXUAL BEING.. MUCH TO THEIR CREDIT SOME FORMER HOMOSEXUALS ARE WILLING TO FORGO AN ANONYMITY IN THE INTEREST OF LETTING OTHERS KNOW THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT IMMUTABLE AND THAT CHANGE IS POSSIBLE.
Eccuse me "precious" .....you said on "exgays"......
"BUT NOW WISH TO ABOVE ALL PURSUE A NATURAL AND NORMAL HETEROSEXUAL BEING"
You are kidding using language such as this right..??????
freebird
I, for one, am not surprised about Retta's biased statements. I expect nothing else from her. Retta once said we should respect her views- no, not me. Unlike CRC- we don't throw her out of here for saying this junk- but junk it is. Hey, Retta- there are no former homosexuals- just people who have put themselves back in the closet. Too bad for your PFOX friends that they even have to make up lies to bolster themselves and their nutty views.
So everyone who claims to have been homosexual and is now believes they are not homosexual is "making up lies ?".
And the curriculum should ignore that an organization like PFOX exists for the support of ex-gays because everyone in it is lying ?
Is this really the position you are putting forward Andrear ?
Theresa
Same gender attraction is merely an aesthetic preference. Like all other aesthetic preferences, it's subject to change. Calling it an "orientation" is simply a gay agenda gimmick to achieve civil rights status for a desire. There's nothing else like this.
Anonymous said:
"Same gender attraction is merely an aesthetic preference. Like all other aesthetic preferences, it's subject to change. Calling it an "orientation" is simply a gay agenda gimmick to achieve civil rights status for a desire. There's nothing else like this."
Right, and you somehow think that opposite gender attraction is not an "aesthetic preference" then? Your hypocrisy is astounding. Simply saying that something is "natural" and "normal" is not a good enough reason to call it immutable. You can't apply your logic to one thing and not the other.
Theresa said:
So everyone who claims to have been homosexual and is now believes they are not homosexual is "making up lies ?".
That really depends how those people define "homosexual". Many who identify as ex-gay admit to having continuing same-sex attractions and try to resist them. They're still gay, but they don't identify as such.
A lot of people who attempt any sort of reparative therapy, sexual re-orientation, or any other similar process end up worse than when they started. I for one do not wish to see some teenagers drive themselves into depression and suicide because of their failure to change.
If you really want to consider all the viewpoints, you should know that there are groups of people who consider themselves to be former heterosexuals too.
Someone's caps-lock key got stuck. Sheesh.
Hey Precious,
Maybe you'd also like to tell us all about the ONLY true religion.
I mean, as long as you're going to impose your ridiculous opinions on us, then why don't you trot out your whole bull**** act.
I bet you can figure out what's behind those asterisks.
Peace in the Middle East, yo.
(That's almost as much a joke as the second coming of Jesus, no sexual pun intended there)
"Right, and you somehow think that opposite gender attraction is not an "aesthetic preference" then?"
I think the original commenter was right. This one is too. Gender attraction is an aesthetic preference. Only one is a morally proper choice though.
Herbert Sherbet
"That really depends how those people define "homosexual". Many who identify as ex-gay admit to having continuing same-sex attractions and try to resist them. They're still gay, but they don't identify as such.
A lot of people who attempt any sort of reparative therapy, sexual re-orientation, or any other similar process end up worse than when they started. I for one do not wish to see some teenagers drive themselves into depression and suicide because of their failure to change."
Those who engage in any sin will continue to face temptation even after repentance but it will diminish with time.
To counter the depression of turming from immoral behavior, spiritual support is necessary. Without it change is difficult.
Herbert Sherbet
Homosexuality does not equate to immoral behavior.
freebird
Wyatt,
Your religious moralism, self-righteousness and just plain bigotry doesn't play here. I'd ask you to go play elsewhere but no one will have you.
Retta and Theresa,
The technique of screaming loud and often (all CAPS, for instance) is also losing its effect. Just ask Karl Rove. The only Americans left who buy that garbage are the Bush cultists -- you've lost everyone else.
As you might have noticed, this group is called "teachthefacts." As we've been asking for over a year now -- just bring us scientific facts -- not your religious particularism -- and we'll give you a fair hearing with an open mind. I, for one, have no problem when Ruth Jacobs speaks infectious disease. It's when she goes religious and distorts scientific fact and consensus opinion that I respond.
Show us some men who were gay and now are strictly and exclusively straight -- in desire as well as deed, and we'll give you a fair hearing. Just make sure they're on no one's payroll. Since there are tens of thousands of these men by your count who are so proud of their conversion, bring them in. Do the study, get it published, and you'll get a debate.
And get off your "natural and normal" nonsense. You have no udnerstanding of either science or history, as well as getting your Bible wrong.
"Do the study, get it published, and you'll get a debate."
The Spitzer study was done. He was an objective researcher. The people who convert will tend to be religious. It doesn't undermine the findings.
Herbert Sherbet
"objective researcher"----Spitzer
Really...???????
freebird
There has recently been a publication which includes the Spitzer report and about a dozen responses to it. Spitzer has admitted his study was terribly flawed, particularly that it depended on people recruited by the conversion ministries themselves. That ain't science. He was trying to start a ruckus, and he sure did. If that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
Again, no doubt any given individual can change his behavior for whatever reason, religious or otherwise. That is not in dispute. But he cannot change his orientation. Period. The honest converts admit that. Jack Drescher and Spitzer acknowledge that as well. Might there be a rare individual? Sure, there are always exceptions. But they mean little, and do NOT justify torturing everyone else in pursuit of your religious goals.
"it depended on people recruited by the conversion ministries themselves."
Yet, you keep asking PFOX to produce examples. If they did, would this be the strategy? to say that they just picked the right people?
Spitzer didn't have a motive to falsify findings. He examined the same type of people you're always asking to see and examined their story. Did he say why he now thinks his study was flawed? What studies do you have, proving your viewpoint?
Herbert Sherbet
"As we've been asking for over a year now -- just bring us scientific facts -- not your religious particularism --"
Problem is, you don't offer any facts yourself and you twist the studies made to support your agenda.
No one is talking about the veracity of religious belief. No matter what you believe about that, you can't deny that it is a factor in the psychology of those who believe- hence, most of our society. When you talk about whether change is possible, you can't ignore the influence of religion on psychology and still be taken seriously.
Herbert Sherbet
I see so if someone says their work was wrong to begin with and explains why- that isn't enough. They guy who cloned the dog and then admitted and explained what he did wrong- that isn't enough- you need studies to show you can't clone a dog?
Teresa- yes- if someone who no longer has sex with men or women but wants to - and says they are no longer gay- it is a lie. Marrying someone of the opposite sex doesn't make you straight. Just as a straight person who stops having sex and says they are no longer heterosexual is lying- not having sex doesn't make you straight or gay. Just because you and yours think being gay is a sin-and convince someone to "try not to be gay" doesn't make them not gay anymore. Got it now???
As much as I try in my life to take things in stride, and not get angry at other people's viewpoints, I still become infuriated when I here straight religious people assert that gays can change their orientation. It forces people into such harmful and disheartening situations and experiences. In my 15 years in the ex-gay movement I never met anyone who really changed. I don't deny the possibilities of miracles, but reparative therapy and stuff like that is all just spitting in the wind.
Lord, this makes me mad.
Robert
Robert why would you get mad? Is it because you were not able to change your feelings and others could? If you could take a pill to change the desires would you? If it were easy and not painful to look at your inner self would you do it? From what I have heard from former homosexuals the first step is a desire to want to change. If you are happy now then changing is not for you.
"If you could take a pill..."
Jeez precious, way to sound like a drug dealer.
There are enough kids taking pills and smoking weed to try to escape from inevitable reality.
Don't be so blind.
Wyatt,
I don't keep asking PFOX to produce examples. I don't trust PFOX. And many of those put forward by groups related to PFOX are later caught with their pants down anyway. Though I will admit it's fun to tweak those groups who claim they converted tens of thousands when they have an impossible time finding dozens, and very few who are not on a church's payroll.
What I am asking for is a scientific study, as best as one can be done. That means no selection bias. Can it be done? I don't know, I'm no expert in study methodology in this field.
Spitzer repudiated his claims because of the bias in accumulating participants. Continuing to quote this study only makes you look ignorant. As scientists, both he and Drescher will admit anything is possible. So? Does that have any significance? No more so than Michelle Turner claiming to love her unique gay cousin, while attacking all others.
I have ordered the book, and I will read it and report back. You, too, can do the same.
No, Spitzer did not have a motive to falsify, nor is anyone accusing him of doing so. He thought it was worth studying, because he thought conversion was possible. And he is an admitted iconoclast, so he enjoyed doing the study, flawed as it is, simply to cause a ruckus. I don't care about his motives, one way or the other; I only care about its validity in the end.
We have presented the scientific facts, and studies have been done. The APAs have not condemned the practice based on hearsay. Now the studies have been collected, and you can see for yourself.
As for the impact of religion on psychology -- of course there is an impact. I've read William James, too. Religious beliefs can change people's behavior. Who has ever denied that? It just can't change their orientation. I'm boggled that you still can't see the difference. You have no problem accepting medical science when you're ill; I think it's a fair assumption that you don't visit a faith healer. But when it comes to the most fundamental aspect of human existence -- sex and its expression -- you become all mushy and ignore the evidence in front of your eyes. Just as the creationists ignore reams of facts about evolution.
I don't care if a gay man wants to marry a woman, as long as there's full disclosure. I look forward to the day the first "ex-gay" gets sued for fraud by his "ex-wife."
As for most of the country being believers, I'm not so sure of that, either. Most people believe in belief. They think it's important to believe in God, or the spirits, or nirvana, or whatever. Most people can't speak intelligently about what it exactly is they believe in. So that's all pretty vague, too. People go to great lengths to give meaning to their lives, and however they go about it should be respected, as long as they respect the rights of others to believe as they choose.
CRC Precious Retta Brown said...
precious said...
Robert why would you get mad? Is it because you were not able to change your feelings and others could? If you could take a pill to change the desires would you? If it were easy and not painful to look at your inner self would you do it? From what I have heard from former homosexuals the first step is a desire to want to change. If you are happy now then changing is not for you.
______________________
Of course as Precious knows those that claim "change" go back to who they really are in the end as gays. And Precious and compnay know that those they claim that are "happy" to have changed are never in any number to create a crowd anywhere.
freebird
Anonymous said:
"Those who engage in any sin will continue to face temptation even after repentance but it will diminish with time."
And what about the people who didn't engage in the "sin" at all? How about the virgins who are just realising they have same-sex attractions?
I see it as the exploitation of innonence.
If the ex-gay viewpoint is to be included, it's only fair if opposing viewpoints are also brought in, such as the ex-ex-gay viewpoint, and all the news stories (and scandals) linked to the ex-gay movement. If teenagers are going to be exposed to this sorta thing, they need to be fully informed before they make life-changing decisions.
What do get after that? It won't be a sex-education that's for sure.
Herbert said: "Spitzer didn't have a motive to falsify findings."
Nobody has accused Robert Spitzer of falsifying that study. However, the bulk of those who answered the study did have a strong motive for lying -- namely they were "professional exgays", or they identify with a "name it and claim it" style of religion. They were either profiting from the exgay industry, or they hoped they would eventually change their sexual orientation simply by claiming they already had done so.
The study has come in for criticism because even using a very select subject group it showed very few people even claim to have replaced homosexual attractions with heterosexual ones (ie changed their sexual orientation). A big slab were already functionally bisexual to begin with, and needed no change in their sexual orientation to live any way that they wished.
Spitzer has come in for personal criticism over the very basis for the study -- namely, there was no outside verification despite knowing the vested interests involved. He has come in for criticism over the confused or conflicting comments he has about the study -- namely, he makes different comments when addressing different audiences. And Spitzer has also been criticised for allowing himself to be used by the exgay industry.
Spitzer gave an interesting interview to Christianity Today in which he makes it perfectly clear that anti-gay Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH had acted as a gate-keeper, apparently with Spitzer's approval. Nicolosi, of course, had every reason to manipulate the study; and that should have set off alarm bells. If Nicolosi had not been getting what he required, the study would never have seen the light of day.
"Joseph Nicolosi ... insisted on getting a summary of the results before going further. He didn't want to be set up, I guess."
At ExGayWatch, where we often comment, an interesting point came out recently. Spitzer said that Nicolosi had personally provided just 9 subjects for the study. Yet Nicolosi claims, in public, figures of "over 400".
Even allowing for under-reporting or the possiblity that these 9 were bisexual to being with, 9 in 400 is just 2% -- a figure in keeping with the guesstimate of both Spitzer ("3%") and Jack Drescher ("1%") of those who display a fluid or flexible sexuality (gay or straight).
Far from showing that "gays can change (their sexual attractions)", that merely supports an idea that a small proportion of people have an undirected focus when it comes to their sexual attractions. Even accepting that, of course, is utterly irrelevant to the lives of 97% to 99% of people who are either gay, straight or bisexual and show life-long patterns of attraction and behaviour.
How would all this fit into a factual health-based curricula for students?
I'd suggest that at the depth taken it would preclude bothering with any discussion of exgays (even if it were possible to leave out the stigmatising and divisive anti-gay messages that constantly accompany exgay claims). Factually mentioning that there are people living as either gay, straight or bisexual would already cover all possibilities; regardless of the point of time we examined their lives. Any curricula that promoted a particular view about how people should be living their lives would be stepping into moral and religious issues that have no place in a school lesson.
But... if it were nevertheless felt necessary to present "exgay" as applicable to some, it would be even more necessary to mention "ex-straight" because that would apply to many, many more people. Right?
I take it nobody from CRC or PFOX has ever suggested an ex-straight discussion be included alongside their exgay claims?
(PS and we’re finding the discussion throughout Teach The Facts to be utterly fascinating – a good summation of the difficulties facing educators with these issues. Please accept our best wishes for all your endevours.)
Well, I am not sure how the rest of the CRC folks feel about this, but I think it is fine to talk about ex-straights, ex-gays, gays, bi-sexual, etc.
The whole "questioning" in the LGBQT brings up the fact that some people are not sure of their sexual orientation.
That needs to be brought out.
After all, if you ignore ex-gays, one could certainly accuse TTF'rs of being insentive to the needs and feelings of a whole class of struggling people, really TTFs are being quite intolerant and unaccepting - why, once could even accuse them of being "ex-homophobic" and an ex-gay bigot.
Yes Theresa try as you may as a CRC'r to stick a bigot label on TTF because they and the world know there are no "exgays." How can one be a bigot over "exgays" who are really heterosexuals
and never gay in actuality. TTF certainly is not a bigot about heterosexuals.
Now on the other hand TTF and the world knows that gays and lesbians do exist and CRC'rs are bigots when it comes to them in the "lesser than" the rest of CRC'rs argument.
Nice try Theresa and a usual CRC and PFOX argument. Remember PFOX was at CAC table last go around and the group did not let that nonsense in by majority votes.
Are you hoping that it happens this time? Yes MCPS should include "exgays" a figment of imagination to say the least.
Now on another note Theresa how about you asking PFOX and CRC to produce that "whole class of struggling people" you say are exgays.
We are waiting....
freebird
Theresa,
The problem was, is, and will continue to be the fact that you and your group believe heterosexuality is "natural and normal" as you put it. Of course it's natural, as is homosexuality, as I've shown over and over again, and it's "normal" statistically. But you don't mean that -- you mean moral and anything else is sinful and immoral. But you can't make that the thrust of your argument to the BoE because it's unconstitutional.
As Grantdale have pointed out, if heterosexuality is normal and the default orientation so to speak, then all gay people are "ex-straights." That's pretty stupid, and utterly unscientific. And it puts the whole concept of "ex-gay" into the proper context. "Ex-gay" is a ploy, that's all, a cover for bigotry.
Grantdale, it's good to see you guys over here. It got very quiet over at Throckmorton's after he basically gave up and joined us, so I haven't been back there.
I wasn't trying to whitewash Spitzer in any way. Now that the Drescher/Zucker book is out, it brings together all the published articles on that one pretty poor paper of Spitzer's and makes right-wing support of his much more difficult to maintain. It's so much easier to market nonsense when the repudiations are scattered throughout numerous journals without the proper focus. I hope Wyatt takes the time to read it. (Whom am I kidding?)
Hey dana -- long time no see!
We actually popped back, on an after thought, to state that the final two paragraphs are plainly dripping with sarcasm. As we said... gay, straight, or bisexual covers the range. There is no other.
If people were to realise that exgays are not in fact straight -- meaning what are they then? -- the whole fabrication would evaporate. People are free to call themself Napoleon for all we care, but you'll have to excuse us for not saluting if they do.
We popped back to mention the sarcasm because we quite forgot many of the pro-CRC/PFOX "Anonymous" posters bring to mind a comment made about a work colleague..
"I'm dealing with an idiot savant who has yet to reveal a single extraordinary talent."
Ah, sometimes it's just too difficult to control the sarcasm.
Here are several quotes from today's news for Wyatt, who thinks it's so unfair when a nice man like Claude Allen is arrested for theft while preaching the gospels of Christianity as a member of the Bush inner circle --
The Republicans showed they don't care about responsible, effective government. And they don't care about preventing another Katrina-like disaster. "They're hoping we disappear off the radar screen," Melancon [Louisiana congressman, after the Republicans stripped funding for levee repair, 2.5 months before the start of hurrican season] said. "People who wear Christ on their sleeves and vote against helping people are the biggest hypocrites."
From Newsweek's Periscope:
"Right now, I wouldn't vote Democratic if Jesus Christ was running." Judy Deats, a Texas Republican, who is standing by Rep. Tom DeLay in his re-election bid despite the fact that his association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has made him vulnerable to political opposition for the first time in more than 20 years.
I'm glad she realizes that Jesus would be a Democrat.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I always thought Bush was more popular than his policies. I keep saying it, and I keep being wrong on this. Bush is not popular. I'm amazed when 50 percent of the people don't like him -- just don't like this guy. Thirty-nine percent like him. Are you surprised? Does that fit with the world you walk in?
Ah, sometimes it's just too difficult to control the sarcasm.
Here are several quotes from today's news for Wyatt, who thinks it's so unfair when a nice man like Claude Allen is arrested for theft while preaching the gospels of Christianity as a member of the Bush inner circle --
The Republicans showed they don't care about responsible, effective government. And they don't care about preventing another Katrina-like disaster. "They're hoping we disappear off the radar screen," Melancon [Louisiana congressman, after the Republicans stripped funding for levee repair, 2.5 months before the start of hurrican season] said. "People who wear Christ on their sleeves and vote against helping people are the biggest hypocrites."
From Newsweek's Periscope:
"Right now, I wouldn't vote Democratic if Jesus Christ was running." Judy Deats, a Texas Republican, who is standing by Rep. Tom DeLay in his re-election bid despite the fact that his association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has made him vulnerable to political opposition for the first time in more than 20 years.
I'm glad she realizes that Jesus would be a Democrat.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I always thought Bush was more popular than his policies. I keep saying it, and I keep being wrong on this. Bush is not popular. I'm amazed when 50 percent of the people don't like him -- just don't like this guy. Thirty-nine percent like him. Are you surprised? Does that fit with the world you walk in?
Dear precious
As I've said before, in my years in the ex-gay stuff, I never met anyone who changed their orientation.
Did I have a desire to change? As I told my pastor once, I would give up an arm to be straight. I went to such lengths to try to change my orientation that I will not share in public some of the things I did and were done to me.
BTW, ex-gay meetings tend to be kind of cruisy.
Happy St. Patrick's day. Did you know it's also the anniversary of the day on which the British evacuated Boston during the Revolutionary war? Boston Public Schools takes a holiday on Evacuation Day (no relation to St. Patrick's Day, of course).
Three weeks to spring break. Yay!
Robert
Having read through some of these comments, I have to reflect on those individuals I've known who are now ex-gay and happy with their heterosexuality. It's sad that these people are considered to be either non-existent or liars.
I don't have a problem with the identity of "ex-gay". These folks don't have just a straight orientation - they also understand homosexuality, having been there.
Church, I don't think anybody really cares if a gay person wants to deny they're gay, or if somebody realizes they aren't actually gay, or even if somebody's orientation changes in the middle of their life, maybe Saturn goes into Libra or something. No big deal, nobody cares, and that's not the issue.
The problem is when somebody who "used to be gay" now wants to tell other gay people that there's something wrong with them and they need to do what he did. The first problem is the fundamental assumption that there's something wrong with being gay. The second problem is the meddling assumption that they know what's better for other people. And the third problem, really, is that ninety-nine-point-nine percent of them are liars.
JimK
Both the failure and recidivism rates for gays who undergo reparative therapy are high. Several leaders of the ex-gay movement have publicly "fallen off the wagon." These facts may account for society's generalizations or stereotypes about ex-gay people.
churchn said, "...individuals I've known who are now ex-gay and happy with their heterosexuality. It's sad that these people are considered to be either non-existent or liars."
I agree. It's always sad when the actions of some members of a group are wrongly assumed to be the actions of every member of the group. If the ex-gay individuals you've known live as heterosexuals in their pursuit of happiness then I'm happy for them. Both gays and ex-gays suffer from society's stereotypes and I think that is wrong. I also think it is wrong that ex-gays are free to serve in the military and priesthood as well as marry the person they love but gays are not.
Thanks to Bill Ware for providing this link to an APA position paper on reparative therapy which states, "the APA joined many other professional organizations that either oppose or are critical of "reparative" therapies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers." These professional mental health and medical groups warn consumers that reparative therapy is dangerous and has negative outcomes.
Conversely, some religious groups encourage people to risk the harm our medical experts know is likely to result from attempts to alter sexual orientation. According to Spitzer, most people who agree to risk the negative effects of reparative therapy do so based on their religious views. Spitzer reported that 79% of his participants, many of whom were referred to him by NARTH and other conservative Christian groups, listed "conflict between their same sex feelings and behavior and the tenets of their religion" as a motivation to attempt to change their sexual orientation.
One benefit of living in a democracy is that we are all free to hold whatever religious views we choose. The problem is that some ex-gay activists, particularly those who derive their livelihood from transformational ministries, reparative therapy, conversion therapy, or "coaching" like Richard Cohen of PFOX, insist that their religious views belong in science-based health education curricula.
Our system of government, however, as reaffirmed by our court system most recently in the Dover Pennsylvania case, has erected a wall of separation between church and state. This is why the settlement agreement between MCPS and the suers states, "MCPS agrees that the revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Comprehensive Health Education curriculum recently requested by the Board in its May 23, 2005 resolution (the “Revisions”), as well as associated resource materials, will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects."
Christine
Post a Comment
<< Home