It’s a wonderful archive of this debate on film. The film-maker has gone out of her way to be fair — interviewing professionals and lay people, both “pro and “con”. At first, they willingly give consent to be filmed and interviewed, then they get cold feet.

1. The point of a documentary on a different culture is to illustrate the differences.

A documentary on Spain, for example, wouldn’t be very interesting if it covered Juan and Carlita living a middle class life, working in an office and watching TV at night. No. You need bull fights and flamenco and the Alhambra, all of which probably have very little direct impact on the life of the average Spaniard.

So what is a documentarian to show: disapproval of homosexual behavior (nope, that’s any conservative Christian), a same-sex person living celibately (nope, there are lots of straights doing the same)? So what you get is something out of the ordinary and interesting: casting demons out of anuses.

2. You can only interview those willing to be interviewed. And for reasons of their own, mainstream ex-gay ministries refuse to be interviewed.

But wacky folk, they NEVER object to a camera. I doubt Stephen Bennett or Richard Cohen have ever turned away an interview.

3. The public face of Exodus seems to be very different from the daily activities of the ministries.

In general, Exodus has for some time been very visible in anti-gay political activism and in making proclamations about “change is possible” and “my story proves…”. But I don’t think that this has been the focus of the individual ministries.

“You might also think that everyone would be on their best behavior when someone has a camera and is getting ready to portray you as you really are in a film. Surprisingly, people can show you their worst side and try to bail out when they realize they may have not represented themselves very well.

Or, they are afraid to be too closely connected with the issue that has become the Pink Elephant in the sanctuary — “homosexuality” — and don’t want to appear to be “soft” on the issue or as if they are condoning it.

This project has been a delicate balancing act — because of the fact that I went to both sides in an effort to help create a dialogue, I have had to weigh my thoughts and measure my words every step of the way. It’s a fine line and I have been walking on dental floss for over 2 years now.

This is still an incredibly sensitive subject in many circles. I have often been told in back room conversations on the “down low” that “it’s just not good for business” and that has been proven to me over and over again by several prominent Christian leaders.”

Absolutely!!!!

Nothing you said in this post disproved that NARTH mis-represented Hamer’s research. The fact that the media got it wrong as well doesn’t absolve NARTH.

What Levay study (ies) are you referring to?

It is good to see that they were thrown out because of their deception.

who is the they you are referring to? What where they thrown out of? and what was the deception?