I will embed the video when it is available. For now, here are some observations on the segment regarding Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill and the appearance of Richard Cohen.
Maddow began with a summary of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and attempts to link the Family and the bill. She described the March conference and then interviewed Cohen.
Cohen said his work has been misrepresented. He said that he is totally against the Ugandan bill. That was the high spot.
Richard said he did not portray homosexuals as predators. He scoffed at this. However, Rachel Maddow read to him page 49 from Coming Out Straight where Cohen quotes Paul Cameron. I noted this section earlier today.
Cohen said he plans to remove the Cameron quotes when he reprints the book. She then quoted a recent newsletter where Cohen again accused gays of targeting children.
Maddow then read from page 75 of Gay Children, Straight Parents where Cohen completes a list of 10 factors regarding why people are gay. Under other factors, he listed “divorce, death of a parent, adoption, religion, race, rejection by opposite sex peers.”
Cohen first was skeptical that he included race in his book which led her to read it directly from the book. He eventually admitted that race was not a factor.
It was actually painful to listen to Cohen’s protests of being misunderstood. He says he does not stigmatize people with SSA and then he quotes Paul Cameron’s “studies.” He says he doesn’t cure but then he says homosexuality is a psychological problem. He says race is a factor and then takes it back.
When the video is available, I will put it up…
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Dr. Throckmorton, I think it would be extremely useful if you did this! I am sure that the result would be of material assistance to many. However, I can understand your concern about the possible consequences.
David/Phil: I figure that is what Cohen means, although by that way of thinking we could assert with equal level of certainty that he has harmed thousands.
He does a lot of teleconferences and “healing seminars” where 10-20 poor folks are subjected to his teachings. I have spoken to dozens of people who have been in one of them. They all tell similar stories. Some like Cohen and some don’t, but they tell similar stories about what he does. I have thought about collating these stories into an article but am a little nervous about the firestorm that might result.
They have told me that he cries about how he has been treated because of his beliefs, that he has sworn at his clients, that he berates them and ther are some reports I am reluctant to believe. One supporter reported on film that participants could not ask him a question directly but rather had to ask a co-presenter (he must have been “the artist formerly know as Richard” that day).
I am willing to believe that he has been involved with thousands, but I am extremely skeptical that he has helped that many.
I have been in practice for over 20 years and the sum total of the people I have helped with all kinds of afflictions is under 2000.
Cohen may be referencing not only his individual work, but his work at public speaking and his publishing work…that would easily make thousands.
Richard Cohen at least twice in the Maddow interview claims to have helped “thousands” change from gay to straight. Impressive. The only thing is, you can never find even one person out of the thousands……
By contrast, it is interesting that the president of NARTH says (at http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000010419.cfm)
“It also confirms what we have seen evidenced in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from the help of NARTH therapists”.
I do not know the current total number of NARTH practitioner members, but it’s certainly more than, say, 10.
So, how come Cohen – one individual – achieves “thousands”, whereas the total membership of NARTH practitioners only manages “hundreds” between them all?
@ Daniel,
A personal appeal to “social justice” that seeks less “civil rights” and more personal accountability.
From: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/how_cohabitation_is_a_sin_against_social_justice
We seek a faith that validates our worthiness (and others unworthiness) and supports our biases.
If that isn’t a golden calf, I don’t know what is.
I know!!!! Amazing how selective we can be. I must admit – I have smiled and shaken hands with people I despise and have also done business with them.
It’s called selective literalism.
Speaking of Christmas, Eddy (sorry, if it is a bit off topic). I just got back from the shops and was wished a heart merry Christmas wherever I went. Australians are not as religious as you (oops, Americans), but there are trees and nativity scenes everywhere, choirs singing hymns, funded by the churches, the city of Melbourne and shopping centres. Even the most left of secularists seem to look askance at the civil phobia Americans have about Christmas.
That being said, the shopping centre your mentioned does have a right to decide which groups do what in their centre. It’s not a matter of legislation, is it? One hopes that if they really don’t want religious beliefs represented, that they are equal opportunity discriminators, and would say the same to Muslims, Scientologists and Mormons.
I am interested in the Romans sermon, too (email me off list is this is too tangential [email protected]). From what you said it didn’t seem to be a matter of legislation one way or another, but what was the problem? Curious.
Lastly, the vast material I see referencing homosexuality in 1 Cor (“Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” . . . not that I agree with this translation) just fails to mention the rest of the list and ask what that actually means today. Good on you for preaching through this list, Eddy, because I have asked dozens of people (who have disfellowshiped homosexuals) if they have ever refused to fellowship with a greedy person and no one has ever answered yes. What are idolaters in the modern church? There are no golden calves to worship but I am sure it goes on, just more subtly but no less sinful. Many of the other terms on this list were referring to the people who would use their money to got to court to get unjust rulings against the poor. But this happens all the time among Christians who have money to buy their own justice. And, no, I really am not talking about you in any way, Eddy 🙂
As always, Michael, you missed and twisted my point and I really don’t care to pursue it further.
No, I didn’t listen to Hillary. The conversation was about what Daniel meant when he used those terms. I’m sure Hillary was eloquent and thoughtful but it was Daniel’s meaning and context that Debbie was asking about.
Yes, and you keep sayting what you keep saying…
I wouldn’t have to keep saying it if Exodus didn’t keep doing it. Besides, I was speaking to Daniel. He didn’t seem to mind. 🙂
Did you listen to the “pithy statement” from Hillary? It was an hour long speech pn the US stategy for human rights, not just a pithy statement.
No problemo, Daniel. I hope you’ll stick around…maybe become a regular here.
Eddy, hey chill out. I could have said “how one views such teaching”, but it would have sounded a little silly. Sorry, to offend “you”, but there’s no need to rant. I am quite careful how I phrase things. Seriously, you are reading way too much into things. You don’t have to apologise for the Pharisees, but your post was insightful nevertheless.
Daniel–
I ask respectfully that you be careful with the ‘you’. You directed a comment to me and then repeatedly used ‘you’ in a way that was offensive since I am not guilty of most if not all of the things you charged ‘you’ with.
Here on this blog we’ve already gone the roundabout countless times. Yes, there are people who go by the name Christian who pray for the death of Obama. I won’t answer for them and I shouldn’t have to. I was pretty darn public in my support for Obama as my candidate of choice.
I have ‘freedom’ enshrined…that includes freedom of speech, freedom of religion and all sorts of other freedoms. Just as gays are hyper-sensitive to the areas where their freedoms are challenged or threatened, so am I. I’m sensitive to most, if not all, of their threats and challenges but I’m also sensitive to the challenges and threats that the Christians and other religious are experiencing. I was a ‘freedom of speech advocate’ even before I became a Christian…I carried with me a notion that guides me even now. We all have a tendency to view and interpret ‘freedom of speech’ only as it applies to us and to our causes but the reality is that we NEED ‘freedom of speech’ for everyone–even those whose views differ from ours–so that people can hear both sides and decide for themselves.
It’s a tad ironic that you suggest that a sermon from Romans 1 would never be brought to trial. Back in the late 70’s, I attended a church in Minneapolis where the pastor was working through the book of Romans chapter by chapter, verse by verse. He never made it past the chapter where Paul railed against the Jews. It became a recurring news story; protests started happening…and within two or three months the church, a campus ministry, fell apart under the pressure.
Also ironic that you state
When I was part of Exodus, I did a ‘teaching’ called ‘Scriptural Approach to Church Attitudes’ where I not only reminded Christians that homosexual behavior was only one behavior in the list but cited that it was neither at the beginning of the list ‘as the heavy’ or at the end of the list ‘as the unmentionable’…but it was on the list. And I believe it’s probably the only behavior on the list that has an advocacy and acceptance program going on.
I further cited in that teaching (and numerous times here on this site) that even our ‘righteousness is as filthy rags’.
Yes, there are Christians who are judgemental, self-righteous hypocrites. There are gays who are similarly judgemental and self-righteous…hypocrites in their own rite. But I don’t come here demanding that any one answer for anyone other than themselves and their written words and think it would be nice if that courtesy also came from the other side.
Sorry, if I ranted a bit…I can tell you that the ‘you’ business did tend to work its way under my skin.
Eddy wrote: “Trying to make a statement from such quantifying is rather absurd.”
Not in the least. If you are developing a theory of justice, the preponderance of textual material is entirely relevant. I am talking about how the theory was developed. It is not an either/or, and I wasn’t suggesting it was. But just because there is one verse on the millennium in Scripture doesn’t mean Christians can’t formulate a doctrine around it. But it does mean in this case certainly, that it is relatively unimportant to God compared with a greater issue. Jesus himself makes the point that how you treat the poor and marginalised may determine whether you get to heaven or not. (Just as some Christians think 1 Cor 6 says homosexuality may exclude you from heaven, though no one much mentions the rest of the list Paul mentions.)
Eddy wrote : ” Re the ‘hate speech’ and ‘thought crimes’: dialogue already exists that suggests that our expressing our belief that it is sin constitutes ‘hate speech’. Being aware of how causes advance, this concerns Exodus deeply; some have a fear or concern that some will try to use laws to silence the gospel message.”
Yes, I know of it but I wouldn’t call it dialogue. You have freedom of religion and freedom of speech enshrined. Apart from the Religious Right, that will use fear and distortion to whip up a frenzy for their own ends, I haven’t seen anything suggested anywhere that these would be undermined by incitement to violence speech, which is how I should have termed it. You have Christians praying for Obama’s death publicly and they are not charged. How a sermon on Romans chapter 1 could be prosecuted is beyond me. The ACLU defends Christians too. I’m sure they would take that up. I may be wrong.
Trying to make a statement from such quantifying is rather absurd. If those engaging in homosexual behavior (note that the Bible did not have a term for what’s come to be known as ‘the condition’ of homosexuality) were indeed extremely rare and the poor and the marginalized were in abundance, then naturally the topics of the poor and the marginalized would come up far more often. Such numbers could be twisted to say that God thought so little of the homosexual that he scarcely mentioned them in His Word. (I don’t believe that…I’m just demonstrating how easily such quantifying logic can lead you to illogical conclusions.)
Oh, Debbie, and you seriously cannot need a definition of seriously, can you?
Debbie writes “Define social justice. Then define taking it seriously, please”.
I guess that a definition needs to be posted says something in the least. John Rawls in “A Theory of Justice” proposed that, “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.”
There’s a lot more to it than that, of course. The term was coined by a Catholic theologian, and some Christians term social witness the work of Christians for justic in society. As you all no doubt know, of the Bible verses that appear to deal with homosexuality, there are only six verses. The number which call God’s people to care for the poor and the marginalised of society (to do justice and love mercy), there are over 2000 verses.
In seeking social justice…much injustice has been done.
The goals are often worthy, the means, corrupt.
Michael–
It may not have occurred to you but, despite the fact that we may have difference of opinion with Daniel, we are engaged in a civil and respectful dialogue. Why is it necessary for you to keep inserting negative commentary?
“Good luck with that.” “I have pretty much given up hope.” “I suspect it will be a very short list.” When you consider that Daniel’s comment wasn’t even directed to you, it’s puzzling why you feel compelled to answer with negative opinions and little more…especially given your repeated assertions that you would try to ‘speak no evil’ as far as Exodus is concerned. I’m not saying it’s not okay to take exception to Exodus and their ways; what I’m getting at is that you have to keep saying it. The negative impression must prevail!!
Then there was Debbie’s question to Daniel. She was asking Daniel…it was Daniel who used the terminology in his comment…it was Daniel…from Australia…who has already demonstrated that he doesn’t quite see things as we Americans do…and yet you answer with a pithy quote you found from Hillary Clinton. I hope it’s still okay for Debbie to actually get Daniel’s answer.
I think Hilary Clinton did a pretty good job of this: http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/human_rights_21st_century/
I have pretty much given up hope. I suspect it will be a very short list.
Personally, I think this “We’d associate with better people and produce better science if it weren’t for a polticized APA” has always been a lame excuse.
Tell ya what: They can keep their tarnished science and tainted affiliations as long as they viogorously oppose decriminalization and forced “therapy” — and strongly support basic human rights.
I’d make the same sort of deal with the APA.
Michael–
I know that you have recurring issues with me but, seriously, was my response so bad that you changed your response to the very same quote by Daniel from “Good luck with that!” (which, given the tone of your preceding comments, I interpreted as sarcastic) to a recommendation that Daniel start at Exodus HQ level.
Since Daniel already clearly stated that he had exposure at the individual ministry level and since he had made observations about the individual ministries, your suggestion that he ‘go to the Exodus website’ in search of ‘statements’ seems like nothing more than advancing your current theme of ‘policy statements’. It totally misses his desire to study individual ‘ex-gay’ response.
Daniel:
Regarding the statements you did find. I’m not familiar with a statement ‘anti-adoption’, I’ll visit the site and see what I can glean from that one. Re ‘anti-marriage’, I have a strong feeling that the general sentiment is similar to what I presented as my own beliefs. Re the ‘hate speech’ and ‘thought crimes’: dialogue already exists that suggests that our expressing our belief that it is sin constitutes ‘hate speech’. Being aware of how causes advance, this concerns Exodus deeply; some have a fear or concern that some will try to use laws to silence the gospel message.
We all have strong opinions on both sides of this issue. On behalf of those who belief that that could actually happen, let me just say that the unfathomable already happens. A current example that’s not as unrelated as some would suggest: Just last evening our local news reported that a handbell choir (oooh! Christmas and handbells…what a quaint tradition!) was advised that they could only perform secular tunes at the large local mall tonight. It seems that even ringing the notes of ‘Joy to the World’ or ‘Silent Night’ is an affront to many…they are offended by it.
Ironically, if you check out youtube, you’ll find several versions of gay men’s choruses doing a ‘laugh a minute’ version of the “Hallelujah Chorus”. You know something? I’d be willing to wager that they could get away with performing that at the mall. Our principles of ‘free speech’ have gotten muddled with some half-baked notions of ‘political correctness’ and I personally doubt that we’ll ever see the light of day. Anyway, Christians who are aware of such inconsistencies are extremely wary of the wording and interpretation of any new laws being presented governing speech.
Define social justice. Then define taking it seriously, please.
“Ask Exodus. If they do take these two things seriously, you ought to be able to find it easily on their web-site — something that says this is standard policy for them and for all their affiliates.”
The Exodus web site says bugger all (if you’ll pardon the Australianism). Anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, anti-hate crimes, which they suggest is really ‘thought crime’. You could drive a truck through the loopholes in their statements. The only thing they oppose is violence against GLBT people, with which even Pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church would probably agree.
Start at the top. Ask Exodus. If they do take these two things seriously, you ought to be able to find it easily on their web-site — something that says this is standard policy for them and for all their affiliates.
@ Daniel,
This is my point, I am not sure where the lack of clarity is. Comments on how sexuality is framed in a civil society (GLBT and others) by Christians rarely articulates Christianities restrictive views as adaptive for the culture.
About 50 years ago punishments for infidelity in marriage ceased…it appears that has disproportionately harmed women and children.
About 70 years ago all sorts of people were being persecuted by the fascists…I have no idea who I would have been then; I don’t think anyone does.
My Christian faith says that I am personally responsible for the crucifixion of Christ…
Daniel–
Thanks for your clarification.
It may be worth digging a little deeper and I’ll try to give some thought on how you might do that. The US-based Exodus ministry that I was a part of had a policy of not making any political pronouncements. Like you, we were not pleased when Exodus began to get involved with political causes…mostly because we believed it would lead to misinterpretation.
Despite being against ‘gay marriage’, for example, I personally am in favor of full partner benefits. I do not support any form of discrimination against gays yet hold the caveat that a Christian-identified organization, if it believes the behavior to be sin, should not be forced to hire or to retain a gay-identified individual. These are just two examples of where things aren’t so black and white.
I’ve cited here before that I had even signed up with and supported the Human Rights Campaign but I withdrew after I received word that ‘on my behalf’ an appeal was presented that favored abortion. (Evidently, it was assumed that all supporters shared the same views on every matter.) I am not ‘in favor of’ abortion under any circumstances but I do understand it in instances of rape and incest and am compassionate towards those who have had abortions. Again, not black and white.
Anyway, you’ll likely have a hard time finding official political pronouncements from Exodus affiliate ministries but, if you inquire of the individuals within those ministries, you may be surprised at what you learn. The difficulty will be that since your intent is to publish the results of your study, many might be reluctant to discuss politics at all.
Remember that, if they are ‘ex-gay’ ministries, then they are populated with people who have endured the various oppressions that gay people experience. They know the injustice and they feel the pain.
Good luck with that.
By being careless about their affiliations, they tarnished themselves and caused a real mess for themselves (and others) which they have now tried to clean up by coming out against this Bill.
Yes, it’s pretty much everywhere, in nearly every news account of what happened, not just the places you mentioned. Because of their careless affiliations, Exodus will forevever be associated with Uganda, whether you think they deserve the scorn or not. I think Warren would concur with this last statement. Uganda was a huge mis-step. I think even Alan would agree.
Hi Eddy
My point about the “most promising” deserves expanding. Sorry if I was unclear. My point was the disavowel of poltical action to discriminate against GLBT people. Given that injustice and unrighteousness are the same word in Greek (adikaios), I think they should be parrallel Christian concerns. It’s no good reaching one hand out in ministry if you have a whip in the other. So if you think homosexuality is unrighteous, then I think ignoing the injustice against GLBT people is a case of selective ministry, and probably hypocricy.
So my term “most promising” was about me investigating ministries that tried to be consistent about both unrighteousness (if they see it as that) and injustice (which is precisely why all these conservative Christians are being asked to comment on the Ugandan anti-gay Bill).
So . . . as it happens, those ministries are usuallly outside the US, due largely to the fact that American evangelicals since the mid19th century have been pretty challenged when it comes to matters of social justice . . . or if within the US are not evangelical.
As it happens, I was loosely involved with an Exodus ministry outside the US in the 1990s which disfellowshiped from Exodus International due to the role of the US Religious Right in Exodus. A good thng in my view. I have moved on a lot since then, but my interest now is because I am writing an article on the subject and, for one point in my article, am trying to find ‘ex-gay’ ministries that take science and social justice seriously. One among many avenues I am investigating.
Michael–
We have yet to establish what mess Exodus has caused. Warren has been uncovering lots of non-Exodus behind the scenes influence and pressure in Uganda.
The notion of ‘world-wide scorn’ seems a bit over the top. Does the name of Exodus really play into most discussions of the Uganda situation or is it mostly in places where Exodus is frequently discussed and often portrayed as tarnished already…XGW, BoxTurtle, here–and now the facebook group?
I tend to agree with David. There are more hazards and deficits in standing alone than there are in an affiliation.
David: In my mind, accepting anyone who sort of agrees with you is a big part of why the Uganda mess is such a mess. Of course, they have the right to do anything they please.
They did it with Uganda — and just look at the problems that has caused. Tarnished support has seriously tarnished them. They have earned world-wide scorn for it.
Exodus should be more selective in their afffiliations, even if they have to stand alone.
Therein lies the problem.
Daniel asked in his parenthetical:
The placement of your parenthetical question right after ‘usually outside the US’ suggests that your experience is either that ‘ex-gay’ ministries exist mostly outside the US or that the ‘most promising’ ones do. Exodus currently has approx. 230 affiliates in the US and Canada. Daniel, can you clarify your parenthetical point?
David, I think Voltaire said it best: “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This is precisely what Warren seems to be doing on the Ugandan issue, from my reading of things.
I really couldn’t follow what you were saying re. evolutionary sociologists, but you seem to be defending the alliance with the Right Wing theocrats that ‘ex-gay’ ministries have become prisoner to in the last 15 years. And where do you stop? Do you agree with the criminalisation of homosexuality? Are you scanning this list for ammo to be used in the culture wars? (I sometimes wonder whether some people are as interested in the best ministry/counselling models as in using whatever science they hope comes along to entrench discrimination of GLBT people.)
The most promising ‘ex-gay’ (sorry about the term) ministries, usually outside the US (now, why is that?), that I have come across (if they wish to support some Christian’s desires to change) are the ones that disavow entrenching discrimination in society. I wonder what you would have done in Germany in the 1930s. Would you have tried to hide Jews but not homosexuals?
Sorry if the analogy sounds harsh. I really don’t know what you are proposing.
@ Daniel,
Hmmm…
I think such a polar decision is just as corrupting as the opposite.
Heterosexual promiscuity is a form of “sexual brokenness” which our culture tries to protect against through law and public policy.
Evolutionary sociologists have argued that such promiscuity is normal and adaptive for the species. Yet, as a culture, we punish and shame those who engage in it (differentially: we condemn married men and all single women)…in part because the consequences as a culture are becoming manifest and no amount of “political speak” can protect the weak and vulnerable from such behavior.
Christian concern regarding the use of sexuality is broad. The popular media seem to want to view our beliefs as oppressive of a minority…in actuality, Christian values about sexuality are oppressive of the majority.
I like the way I said that.
We are the party poopers.
Exodus needs scientific support for what they do…until very recently, they were completely ignored by the APA.
I’ll take tarnished support, versus, no support any day.
I also don’t know why Exodus is still affiliated with NARTH but I would imagine that it’s primarily because, apart from a few ‘wingnuts’, NARTH offers connections to a number of like-minded and credible therapists. Perhaps Exodus maintains their affiliation in an effort to counter the ‘wingnuts’…to present a more realistic and balanced approach to the issue…to be a visible alternative to such viewpoints.
I’m sure that some will weigh these factors and conclude that Exodus is still wrong to remain affiliated. That is certainly their right. But the decision itself remains with Exodus and it’s affiliates. If they feel that the benefits of affiliation outweigh the negatives, they will likely continue their affiliation.
Sorry, Michael
Correct email address: [email protected]
Exodus used to. NARTH still does. Exodus is still affiliated with NARTH. Why? Beats the heck out of me.
Jon, FWIW, I think Cohen got what he deserved. If you want to be taken seriously, then you DO NOT quote Cameron’s figures. It is deeply unethical.
And what’s wrong with Rachel’s attitude? Cohen’s work was used in Uganda, just another exampe of ex-gay material being used to persecute gays. I think, if you really want to have an ex-gay ministry, you must never allow your ministry to be used in that way. In fact, to diffuse Rachel and others in the media, ex-gay ministries ought to be involved with as much public repentance for the church’s attitudes to GLBT people, as they are dealing the ‘sexual brokeness’. To further diffuse that issue, they should be at the forefront of Christians dealing with GLBT rights in society. I think Rachel’s issue with Cohen wasn’t so much that he was ex-gay, but that he was both unethical in his writing and he was being used for nefarious purposes — which he clearly didn’t dissavow..
Hey, Michael
Can you email me off-list? [email protected]
I’m doing some research at the moment and wanted to ask you a few questions.
Thanks
I am still waiting for the research on what makes people straight. 🙂 We don’t know the answer to that question either.
Gays don’t need studies give them permission to live in accordance with their values — and neither do ex-gays. Science doesn’t give us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. God does that.
Jon, I really don’t understand why studies are needed either way — unless it’s strictly intellectual curiousity.
About the race… Andrew Francis said in his research abstract: “Family structure, ethnicity, and education are also significantly correlated with male and female
sexual orientation.”
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~afranc5/Family%20and%20Sexual%20Orientation.pdf
Michael said: “Do we really need studies to tell us that we are all free to live in accordance with our own values?”
I curious… gay-minded scientist are doing LOTS of biologigical studies to convince people that SSA people are born that way… should you discuss with them because you are well know gay?
I pity Cohen… the aim of this program is to “kill him in TV”… how any ex-gay would survive in Rachel Show if her attitude is that? If born-gay-scientists would be used in a country killing gays because they are degeneration in evolution process how would they respond? I am just thinking…
Thanks for the reply, David.
I don’t think ‘isms’ are necessarily bad, as you seem to agree. I believe in Calvinism, more or less. But I take back ludicrous, sorry for saying that, because I really don’t know what you believe.
The quote I referenced was in a piece taking Robert Gagnon to task, since his formidable output is quoted all over, unfortunately, and he in fact conflates homosexuality with paedophilia and says it is more sinful than incest, whith which he thinks it is biblical analogue. So that was where those references/verbal riffs come from.
I think much of the debate in the US does vere towards a civil “discrimination similar to racism and religious bigotry”. Gagnon, for example, believes it would be his right as a small business owner to fire a homosexual for being a homosexual, just as if he discovered an employee was having sex with her brother or father. Plenty of similarities with racism there.
The contra-Gagnon piece is of interest because he uses science in a deceptive and unethical way to serve his overall point of restricting GLBT rights, something to which the ex-gay movement and the ‘science’ attending it is also used. Which was the main point of my post.
Daniel,
Regarding my familiarity with heterosexism…I didn’t mean to give the impression I was unaware of it, I think I was first introduced to the term in 2002. I was interested in where you formed your definition. Thanks for the link…I review it later.
The idea of heterosexism is an interesting one…is it asserts discrimination similar to racism and religious bigotry.
I don’t know how this translates to a possibly new term that someone at some university may coin “monogamyism.” It seems rights and privileges associated with the heterosexual world were previously granted with the promise of monogamy…that promise of monogamy (and punishment for failure) was dismantled in the 60’s and 70’s.
I understand that strict definitions are the business of the scientific community, however, how those same words are used in public policy and political debate is quite another thing…
Heterosexism as a theory and as an idea to be explored regarding public policy is of interest…I prefer heterocentric.
“isms” are meant to shape the conversation…even if scientists and legal scholars create the word.
Daniel,
Thanks for sticking around and persisting with thoughtful analysis.
To protest…I don’t think I hold a “ludicrous” position.
Regarding:
I believe the string of accusations I was referring to was pairing SSA with pedophilia.
Oh, can someone point me to the Spitzer article or study on the web . . . and any link where Busey castigates it?
Thanks
David
Hey, brother, thanks for the welcome. That was nice to hear! Hope I have something to contribute.
The quote is from Jung, P.B., and Smith, R.F. in “Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge”, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1993. Some of it is available on GoogleBooks, just search the title (the link is about a para long).
Now what, pray tell, “is horrendous that so-called Christians continue to spread it”?. Sorry, David, I missed your point. Please, go on . . .
Your sentiment that it is ‘a word engineered to control the debate on public policy regarding SSA. Much like “homophobia” and “anti-gay”‘ is, I am afraid to say, simply ludicrous. Though understandable, for a Christian evangelical. I find myself wondering why you would post on a subject (GLBT-related) if you are unaware of such terms? But, maybe it is not as common as I think it should be. Seriously, its meanig and implications go way deep in civil and political matters. But, please, read the definition. Homophobia is irrational. Heterosexism is a coherant system of beliefs. Very, very different. Quote:
‘Heterosexism is a “reasoned system” of a “cognitive constellation of beliefs.” Therefore, designating a “system” or “stance” that matches the definition does not constitute an ad hominem attack on anyone who qualifies for this position or whose stance qualifies’ (see “HETEROSEXIST MORALISM: A Response to Criticism by Professor Robert Gagnon”,
http://www.nisswa.net/~critiques/hetmor.html).
The fact that so-called ‘personal morality’ positions becomes public is very well expressed in this definition. “Namecalling”? No, not at all. Anti-Semitism might be seen as name calling too. As an evangelical, Bible-believing, washed-in-the-blood, filled-with-the-Spirit, walking in victory with the sword of the Spirit Christian (put me in whatever box you like), doesn’t stop me from understanding from history that the church has mercilessly executed, tortured and denied simple human rights to GLBT people for two millennia. Yes, the personal is political . . . in very painful ways.
Take anti-Semitism, for example. The church developed a whole ‘theology after Auschwitz’ as a result of the Holocaust. But for the hundreds of thousands of homosexuals executed or worked to death under the Nazis, there is no similar theological reflection or really much modifying of hate language. The church has much more forgiveness to ask from GLBT people than the other way around.
So . . . it must really be beyond dispute that ex-gay therapy is used (whether often or rarely and I am sure usually unintentionally), to “give heterosexual persons the authority to place all persons of non-heterosexual orientations in a subservient position”, has been obvious in the politicisation of Exodus et al in the last 15 years.
I was very loosely involved with one Exodus ministry outside the US when this happened and the ministry withdrew from Exodus over its role in the Religious Right’s campaigns. I think it very important to say that many (probably most) of the world’s Christians have no time whatsoever for the Pharisaical role of the Religious Right in the US. This is something your global brothers and sisters are telling our US brothers and sisters as often as we get the chance. We hope you listen.
Anyway . . . that’s all just a preamble to reassert what I said in my post before: US Evangelicals have made a pact with the religious devil of intolerance and you need to look at yourselves well before blaming the APA being in any way compromised.
PS I am reminded of one essay by a Lutheran ethicist looking at the ‘homosexual’ question for the church. He said, yes, we needed to look at the sins of the church toward GLBT people, but, he said, drawing what loomed to be a moral equivalency . . . and here I was saying, ‘Yes, what have the gay community done that equals hundreds of thousands of deaths and torture, persecution and intolerance, etc.? Please, tell me!’ You know what he wrote? He mentioned a GLBT group within the ELCA who formed a group called Reconciled in Christ, and said that their name implied that anyone who disagreed with them was not. I almost threw the book against the wall, even though it argued for gay ordination, in the end. Some people just have no sense of proportion!
Regarding Spitzer and his lack of a follow-up study. There could be many reasons he has not done a follow-up, and while I see the point that he got criticism from the pro-gay camp, let’s not forget how misused his study was by non gay-affirming groups. It’s surely possible that he doesn’t want his stuides to be misused and misquoted by those against homosexuality.
And, on that note, I have no problems with people doing research about the origins of homosexuality, the ability to change, etc. provied, as others have said, it is good science. My bigger problem comes with any study that comes out that is remotely critical of homosexuality or proves some degree of a possibility of change, it gets misused and flown from the flagpoles that gays can, and should, change. As long as that keeps happening, it’s going to be a big problem.
Welcome Daniel,
Could you reference your definition of heterosexism?
It is difficult to know where and how the narrative described above got started…it is a worthy historical trek to take to track its origin, perhaps similar to tracking the origin of AIDS/HIV. It is horrendous that so-called Christians continue to spread it.
I don’t know how to interact with the coming condemnation and accusation of “heterosexism.” It seems to be a word engineered to control the debate on public policy regarding SSA. Much like “homophobia” and “anti-gay.”
Regardless of the science, the personal is political…private consenting behavior between adults does reach into the public square and we have a right to discuss its implications for good or for bad…
Those in minority populations who have been marginalized are very familiar with namecalling as a means of controlling the debate…the fact that Ph.D.’s are creating these new slurs, makes it no less derogatory and stifling.
Sorry for butting in. I am new here and am writing on the topic, and am outside the US. I have to say that the slightly conspiratorial view that comes across re. either of the APAs is a bit weak. Given the history of Christian groups distorting science so often in regard to the GLBT community, we can’t really complain when some of those chickens come home to roost and people doubt our commitment to the scientific method.
The definition of heterosexism, as a “cognitive constellation of beliefs about homosexuality [that] assumes a moral superiority of heterosexuality that gives heterosexual persons the authority to place all persons of non-heterosexual orientations in a subservient position”, is really where a lot of evengelicals (and others) start from a priori. When this is revealed in unscientifically equating homosexuality with paedophilia or incest (for instance), and in efforts to discriminate against GLBT people across the political, civil and religious sphere, it is understandable that there will be a hermeneutic of suspicion operating against us.
That being said, why is there this cry that there are no studies ‘from our side’? No one wants studies ‘from our side’ in any reasonable scientific sense. We just want good science, don’t we? I would imagaine, perhaps naively, that the APA would jump at funding a good analysis, preferably caried out by impartial researchers and scientists, of all those who have passed through Exodus, Living Waters, etc., etc. programs. Why not? Religion and sexuality is an important topic. But to want to prejudge the outcome of such a study, like ‘Now they will see that gays can really change’, is really a bit of a problem.
FWIW, I found “Be Not Deceived” quite fascinating in sociologically studying ‘ex-gays’
and MCC church-goers and looking at their two models of endless “falls and restoration’ for ex-gays and ‘freedom in Christ’ for self-accepting gays. That, also, would make a fascinating comparative study for the APA, perhaps.
Let’s say that last paragraph again…
Yes, science has not concluded what causes orientation. But at the same time it has not found that same-gender orientation does not exist. An anomolous outlook bearing upon a basic human aspect reported by a substantial portion of the population (one that is greater by an order of magnitude than the most common genetic defects) is not an item of human nature of which science is able to deny the existance.
I didn’t say Exodus said homosexuality was innate. I said the way they treated it of late was in a way which would seem to say that homosexuality is innate (in comparisonn to the old idea of ‘total change’ like Nicolosi).
Yes, science hasn’t concluded what causes orientation. But at the same time it has not found not to exist. An outlook reported by a substantial portion of the population (one that is greater by an order of magnitude than the most common genetic defects) is not an item of human nature of which science is able to deny the existance.
Lynn David–
You addressed three statements I made. Here are my responses. Rather than quote or requote, I’ve simply numbered which quote of mine and comment of yours I’m referring to.
1) I don’t answer for Nicolosi and have never endorsed him…so I don’t feel compelled to mesh what I’m saying with what he’s said. And my point is that the muddling has NOT been done by those who say they can effect change but by those who, without any scientific backing, presume a ‘homosexual orientation’.
2) No, there is no suggestion in what Exodus has said that homosexuality is innate. The sex drive is innate. If we’ve learned to gratify that drive through same sex relations, then when the drive kicks in, it will likely seek gratification in the areas where it found them before. To my knowledge, no one gets amnesia with the salvation package or with any decision to abandon any behavior they once found pleasureable.
3) No, I am lobbying to say that the studies have not been thorough and have been, for years, tainted with a very strong bias. It’s the very bias you recited in your rebuttal to me: but I as most gay people can tell you it is definitely more than that. . Don’t you see that you are pronouncing that ‘it is definitely more than that’ while science hasn’t concluded much of anything. You don’t have anything more to back up your conclusion that I have to back up mine. Yet you appeal to your strong opinions as if they were facts….because you and ‘most gay people’ agree. Our protest all along has been that the scientific community has been very strongly manipulated and steered by the demands of the gay community. (Ooops…I’ve been blasted for saying ‘gay community’…. what I mean is: by the demands of ‘most gay people’.)
I do agree with you that homosexuality is more than a behavior. I’ve called it a ‘lifestyle’ and had my head bitten off for that. I’ve suggested that many have a ‘homosexual identity’ and again been roundly criticized. So, to avoid the censors, let me simply say that I do agree that homosexuality is far more than just a behavior. Where we disagree is that I feel that the essence of the ‘more’ is ‘identity’ or ‘identification’ (the sense of finding a place of acceptance, of fitting in) rather than ‘innateness’ (most often expressed in terms such as ‘and then I realized who I was all along’). Give it just a little thought and you’ll see the feeling part: the sense of ‘identification’ or the sense of ‘innateness’ –they feel pretty much the same.
Why do you think I mentioned the cigarette companies? But I think the integrity of the scientist would be more in question.
_______________________________
Except that I don’t know if there exists a scientific definition of ‘temptation.’ I thought that definition was the old one. Or rather the whole idea of change seems to have been so muddled by those who proffer that they can help a gay person effect change. Nicolosi says he can provide total change, a complete and total absence of same sex feelings and yet Nicolosi doesn’t have one inkling of thought that homosexuality (the orientation) is inborn or genetic. So…???
But that is what Exodus has of late highlighted as the idea, that homosexuality is a temptation that one should strive to overcome and yet know that the temptation may not go away completely. I thought that was the ‘new definition of change’ – the idea that homosexuality and one’s supposed holiness were incompatible. It seems to me that line of thinking is more in line with the idea that homosexuality is something more innate – something more than just behavior.
You seem to be lobbying that homosexuality is only behavior that needs to be changed, but I as most gay people can tell you it is definitely more than that. Then you comee out with the idea of a ‘change of response’ which leads to the question response to what? The innate trigger that is homosexual orientation? My point being that homosexuality is for most something more than just a behavior.
…
I think this is a very good point. Researchers have mainly been looking at whether gays lose the temptation and become straight — when perhaps they should be asking, “Can same sex attracted people master the temptation, change their behavior and change their response?” That question would indeed yield very different results. I suspect the scientific answer would be: “Yes, of course they can”.
I keep hearing how the “change” camp has to stay out of politics and yet those intrenched in the APA who push the false genetic views are left to politic all they want. It make no sense and stands completely against scientific integrety.
I agree the courage to continue. The public attacks, the threats, the potential loss of respect in an APA brainwashed community etc…
He was threatened outright by Wayne Besen.
The new definition of ‘change’…that it would be the total absence of same sex feelings…is based on the unproven presumption that it’s inborn or genetic. For any other behavior, ‘change’ would be ‘mastering the temptation’… The implication of this is that when the scientific community attempts to study ‘change’, they have already got a preconceived notion that they are studying ‘change of orientation’ rather than ‘change of behavior’ or ‘change of response’. That word ‘orientation’ (the implied notion or presumption that it’s inborn or genetic) has been slipped in at the ground level. It taints all studies; it taints all results.
I just wanted to add to Michael’s statement that the notion that those ‘who are unhappy being gay and want to do so’ overlooks those who are very happy being gay but feel they need to change their behavior in accordance with their religious beliefs.
…and courage.
And lets all think…
What has Spitzer published as a follow-up to his study?
The outrage over his study may have convinced him that it was not worth the trouble.
It is not just money that is needed, it is curiosity and a safe, encouraging environment to do the work.
Thanks Warren,
I think there is justifiable tension on this topic…I deeply respect yours, Jone’s and Yarhouses efforts to:
Lay a Groundwork for a broader understanding of SSA through research.
It is long overdue and I still do not know why believers at other universities with a faith-based world view are not more actively pursuing such research…on a variety of value based topics.
NARTH presents research much like GLSEN…when has anyone at NARTH been appointed to any NATIONAL office?
GLSEN and HRC advocate within the APA and the AMA to develop and publish public policy positions which are accepted over the protests of its members….when has anyone at NARTH been able to access that kind of power?
We can watch NARTH, Cohen, Cameron, FOTF, Exodus, The FAMILY and LIvely with very good effect…on correcting a small, already marginalized point of view.
At some point, regardless of their errors or their lack of scientific rigor, or outright distortions, they are trying to shine a light in several corners that the APA has tried to overlook and hide (with the willing encouragements of HRC and GLSEN, IMHO).
The reaction to Spitzer is very instructive…
Two wrongs don’t make either more “right” than the other. Both fail but both provide.
There are plenty of Foundations that could fund this research (e.g., Templeton) which would be respected.
I will say again, Yarhouse and I (mostly Mark) have studies and work published in peer reviewed journals. We have taken our lumps in the past but we stuck with the process and convinced people on both sides that the data and clinicial judgment support what we are doing with the SIT framework. Currently, the ACA is continuing the war.
I do think the Jones and Yarhouse study was treated in a more dismissive manner than it should have been. The study actually could have been a source of support for the APA findings — actually it is in fact. However, on the whole the task force did a pretty good job looking a what is a mess empirically speaking.
The professions do have their biases but so does NARTH. As one who has worked with most of the professionals associations, been accepted and reviled by most of them, I can tell you that bias exists on both sides. Currently, I trust what comes out of APA much more than what comes out of NARTH. I examine all of it but on this topic the APA has shown restraint and awareness of bias. They have been nuanced on causation and more nuanced on change and the religious element than ever. NARTH on the other hand…not so much.
Besides, what’s the research for? Why spend all that money? Who are we trying to convince that “gays can change”, anyway? My guess is that most gays don’t particularly want to. More and more people seem to believe there is no need to.
The ones who are unhappy being gay and want to change are free to do so — with or without the research. Why let the absence of scientific research trouble or stop them? Do we really need studies to tell us that we are all free to live in accordance with our own values?
But can’t you see the argument being made that religious money could not sponsor “good science.”
I can’t speak for all gay activists, but I wouldn’t — if it was good science.
But, how would the scientific community and gay activists view such research, were it to be funded by religious groups? They would just dismiss it as an “inside job,” would they not?
Is it not more correct that it is the function of whoever wants the research done? Or even not done? The cigarette companies sure did back in the day. Seems to me that FotF could have spent loads of money on research if it wanted to do so. Instead it spent it otherwise because it felt the issue was settled. Where does Paul Cameron get his funding…. he asked sheepishly?
Hear, hear.
I don’t believe that the APA report concluded that it’s genetic.
Just as inconclusive as their claim to genetic causes.
:).
Maybe that’s because it is inconclusive.
So…
The funding issue is very potent. State and federal funds for research; academic grants; Political Action committees and so forth.
Warren,
If Jones and Yarhouse had $100,000 to do their research, how much more scientifically powerful would it have been?
Apply the same rubric to Spitzer’s “controversial” work. If he had a chunk of money (which he had the credibility to get in other areas) how more more scientifically powerful could his conclusions have been?
It is not the function of Christians or Evangelicals to fund research…it is the function of Scientific organizations.
The new APA guidelines are an important start: but my review of that guidelines demonstrates the same double standard about research which assertion the normalcy of SSA vs. research which suggests change is possible. The former is judged as scientific (despite its limitations) and the later is viewed as inconclusive (as if much is psychology as complex as SSA is conclusive).
Let’s not be naive, here.
So heterosexual sex isn’t genetically-based in any way whatsoever?
Wowsers!
I completely agree.
Along the same lines, I think folks need to be very careful not to accept something or someone “simply because it takes on a reparative approach”. I think what Warren is suggesting (and what I would also like to see is) a real commitment on the part of ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy programs to do their homework.Or at least, do it better.
A conscious decision not just latch on to any person, resource or organization that seems to agree with some of their beliefs. A commitment to make sure it’s backed up by good science — or not use it.
Better homework. Fewer embarassments. Fewer needs for retractions and apologies. No more Uganda-type debacles. No more “we didn’t really understand what he stood for”, and “we have removed references to”, and “I didn’t know that much about the conference”, and “we didn’t really understand what was going on”.
Michael,
Perhaps you would not say this, but I have heard it many times from others who are perhaps less knowledgable than you are and often said in a very derogatory way. All I am asking from the APA is abit of balance in what types of research they consider to be good science. If they quickly judge something to be poorly done simply because it takes on a reparative approach I think their bias is unfounded and unscientific.
Concerned: I completely agree with this statement. I would never tell a person this. Accepting a “gay identity” or “gay lifestyle” may very well be wrong for them. There is nothing at all wrong with unhappy people deciding to change their lives — in ways that fit their personal values and beliefs — whatever those reasons may be.
But I would still focus on what is causing the grief, not what’s causing the gayness.
I have counseled many hurting people over the past 30 years or so. In my opinion, It would be downright cruel to tell any unhappy or grieving person: “You will always be unhappy unless you give in to your desires”. I repeat, I would never, ever tell a person this — gay or straight.
Couldn’t ex-gay/repartive therapy advocates do something preventative in order to avoid the public embarassment of first affiliating with, linking and/or endorsing a particular “authority’, fellow speaker or “scientific” reference (Cohen, Lively, Cameron, etc.) only to have to remove and/or denounce them later? Some sort of Advisory and Review Panel?
It would mean that they would really have to do their homework. They would have to commit themselves to looking for solid science and real authorities. Wouldn’t that be preferable to just “looking for people who publish research outside [APA] supervision that confirms some of [their] beliefs”?
Michael,
And equally so being treated like there is something wrong with those who feeling that homosexuality is wrong for them and that they would like to try whatever it takes to change. For me it is trying to rid myself of temptations that have caused me nothing but grief for many years and coming to the realization that they are nothing more than temptation and therefore need not be exercised.
Nothing is more likely to make you sick than being constantly told that you are sick
And nothing is more likely to make you unhappy than being told you will always be unhappy unless you give into your desires, as wrong as they may seem to you. Your arguement can so easily be reversed and maybe this is the major reason why it is so difficult for some to leave their homosexual feelings behind them.
No. No more than I think it’s important to know what causes some kids to be left-handed or right-handed. Interesting? Yes. Important? No.
“Especially if their same-sex orientation causes them much grief”? There’s the rub. Let’s stop. What causes them “much grief”? Being homosexual? Or being treated like there is something wrong with them being gay?
For me, it’s about finding out what’s causing the grief, not what causes the gayness.
“What causes homosexuality” and “can sexual orientation be changed or reversed” are two entirely different scientific questions. A third question might be “to what extent are sexual behavior and sexual identity changeable”?
Michael,
For the sake of future generations do you not think it is important to know what may be causing some children to develop one orientation over another, especially if their same-sex orientation causes them much grief even though that may not be the same for all people. I think that compassion does not necessarily mean condoning or encouraging something that goes against ones value system, in fact it is very much the opposite.
@ Warren,
think about that and its implications.
Michael–can you support this allegation? I reviewed the comments in this thread and I saw David’s comment that the APA didn’t do it (invest in studying change or reparative therapy) but no comments that ‘the APA won’t let us do it’.
When I was with Exodus, our complaint was that the APA wasn’t doing the studies not that they wouldn’t let us do them. We, especially back in the early days, knew that we couldn’t do it. We did not have the expertise to do a study that would meet the criteria of good science.
Can you support your allegation that the Evangelicals have had a mantra since the mid-70’s of ‘The APA won’t let us do it’?
Not exactly. If there is good science on change of orientation, where is it? I am not talking about studies don’t seem to support a genetic theory of it’s cause.
“What causes homosexuality” and “can sexual orientation be changed or reversed” are two entirely different scientific questions. A third question might be “to what extent are sexual behavior and sexual identity changeable”?
I personally don’t think homosexuality is “genetic”, but I see no soild evidence that sexual orientation changes through SOCE approaches. Neither did the APA report — which Warren describes as “overall a pretty fair document.”
I completely agree.
The APA has been more accountable when it comes to sexual orientation research. The recent report may have been too strict on some of the research but it was overall a pretty fair document. Having said that, I think the APA’s abortion and mental health report was not a good effort and was politically driven.
Whatever the APA does however does not prevent reparatives from doing their own good work. Mark Yarhouse has not been exactly the APA shining star but he has continued to quietly do excellent research. Without one dime of grant money from APA, we are collecting data (mostly Mark) on sexual identity therapy. I have a little grant money from a private source which I am using to do research on mixed orientation couples. No APA help there. Point is one can do good work with no help from APA and there is little benefit in blaming others.
Michael,
You continue to claim that the research that is being done by proponents of “change” is not good science and yet so much of the science supporting the genetic link has been shown to be faulty or non repeatable and yet you say nothing about those claims. I fail to understand this logic, unless it is politically motivated.
I still don’t get it. “The APA won’t let us do it” has been some what of a mantra since the mid-1970’s — mainly from Evangelicals who support change on moral/Biblical grounds — as the reason why real thinking and real research can’t be done.
That seems to be claim at least. Somehow, the APA won’t let them do good work. How, exactly does the APA prevent them? Do they have to be sloppy because the APA is political?
I acknowledge that the APA may be political, but how, exactly, does the APA block thoughtful, solid research on “change”? What do you see as a possible solution? Is their only option to “look for people who publish research outside their supervision that confirms some of theirs beliefs…”?
With real lives on the line, can they really afford to keep doing that?
What about the bad science or bad reporting of the science that the APA is pushing? When are they going to have to be answerable to that?
Once again, the APA being blamed for the bad science and abhorrent views of these men — and for ex-gay/reparative therapy organizations desperately latching onto almost anyone who agrees with them.
There’s your problem right there. Quit blaming the APA. It’s no excuse for abhorrent solutions or bad science. Shifting the blame makes them look lame.
Thank you David,
The APA have lost all credibility in my mind, because they are totally politically motivated and have been for years. The attempts at connecting behaviour with genetics is immoral and extremely dangerous and yet they continue to push this belief. How is it that people like Rachael continue to push their distorted agenda on national TV?
Thanks David for that. I get ruffled everytime I read someone who criticises (sp?) ex gay everything when the APA has been so obviously biased.
Thank you for making that point, David. It should be obvious, but isn’t.
@ Michael,
If you believe the basic rhetoric that the APA has been politically motivated in its assessment of SSA; you will look for people who publish research outside their supervision that confirms some of your beliefs…
Is it a given that the APA has been political in their approach to SSA since 1980? I think clearly, yes.
According to past APA presidents, changing the DSM III to exclude homosexuality was encouraged with the agreement that much further study on the topic would be done…the studies that have been done have overemphasized the role of genetics and completely left unexplored, the possibility of change. When small “change” studies are published (Spitzer)…all hell breaks loose.
Cameron, Narth, Cohen are all creatures of APA’s lack of integrity…(they would still exist in my perfect world, but be unnecessary or unprovocative, because the real research would be done, trusted and persuasive, even in the Christian community).
Looking for the Third Edition…
Really glad we have done our work on Cameron and Lively. Great work Warren accessing various experts to comment on Cameron and Lively…it is such a good use of the Public Policy arm of you think tank.
I have met many men who have been helped by Cohen; but I could never promote him.
Rachel’s work here is very good.
Her rhetoric, however, is very poor, and borrows greatly from Truth Wins Out (pray the gay away).
The link between “The Family” (is this reminscent of Charles Manson, or what?), C street and Uganda is strong; the link to this particular legislation remains quite weak.
@ Warren,
There seems to be a theme in Christiandom in the area of responding to SSA: that of odd religious beliefs fueling the work (Unification Church; 7 mountains).
My reaction to this interview is close to what it was when CNN featured his cuddle therapy in 2006. I have a hard time understanding how his brand persists.
Pain can be good….
What was with his weird shaking/quivering while she was quoting his book. Quite odd..but then again..that’s not all that’s odd about this weirdo…
So, Cohen will now have to do what Exodus did and what NARTH still refuses to do — stop using Cameron. Why would any ex-gay/reparative therapy leader or group use him in the first place?