😉

Eddy,

I agree and have stated similar comments as well. Also, an individual’s personal opinions (whether they are actually known or only assumed) should not be viewed as how that peson conducts themselves professionally or in any given relationship or circumstance.

Although some may simply think that being traditional in view is gay-unfriendly, I doubt that is the prevailing view. Most of us have friends, family, and neighbors with traditional theological interpretations and are aware that not all of these people are opponents to gay rights.

For example, you and many here at this site. While you are not supportive of an accepting theology, you are supportive of civil equality. Folks are pretty good at understanding that, I believe.

I suspect that Warren’s reputation as “anti-gay” has little to do with his beliefs. Most people who have that impression have never heard of this site. I suspect that Warren’s reputation is the result of his public speaking and activism. For example:

a) his public advocacy for ex-gay therapy in Christian news sources. Though Warren is nuanced here, the quotes seldom are. And while it is difficult to be nuanced in soundbite, nevertheless the result appears to the reader to be favorable to reparative therapy (which I know he isn’t) and to be opposed to any and all forms of civil rights for gay people. This impression is further strengthed by his historical association with Exodus and NARTH.

b) his joint activism (with David Blakeslee and the NARTH folks) in seeking to prevent, or at least delay, civil equalitites in the state of Oregon. I could probably find other examples, but that one was brought up recently.

c) his work with PFOX to oppose any bullying programs which identified gay (or non-gender-conforming) kids as targets of bullying or had any language that instructed children not to bully such kids.

Now I recognize that Warren is not as involved in those activities at present (as best I can tell) and this does impact my impression of him. However, most people are not aware of his exact position as of today and to the extent that they have heard of Warren it has only been in the context of his opposition to gay people being treated the same as their straight neighbors.

That, I suspect is the basis of this reputation as “not exactly gay friendly”.

The notion that Warren is perceived as ‘not exactly gay friendly’ is not at all surprising. But it has more to do with the limitations of the perceiver than the perceived. They can’t see how a person (or institution) can adhere to a traditional conservative belief re homosexuality and still be gay friendly. LOL! Outside of my family, MOST of my friends and MOST of the people I care deeply about are gay, ex-gay or ex-ex-gay. As for Warren, I believe he has demonstrated his own friendliness by sponsoring this unusual blog forum, by researching and bringing ‘current events’ for applied discussion and by commenting. Is there something in the definition of ‘friendly’ that I’m missing?

You asked “I’m also wondering why there is such an incredibly small turnout! The APA has over 100,000 members, right? But only 130 turned out for SIT? I’m honestly just curious why this is the case.”

To be frank, SIT is not particularly well-known in the APA, and I would say that some psychologists who do know of it see it as an attempt to defend “reparative therapy,” even knowing nothing about it. Warren has a reputation that is not exactly “gay-friendly,” and I think this overlays his work a bit in the eyes of others. Sadly, I wouldn’t write an article for publication just because of this. I wouldn’t want my name linked to his professionally.

He also works at a school listed as one of the top 5 unfriendliest places for gay/lesbian students (according to the Princeton Review 2006), and that hasn’t changed in his tenure…why?