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?

I am sorry to have to disagree with you because in this country it was not NARTH making the claims from the Hamer and LeVay studies but the very liberal, left leaning media that had an agenda to push in order to get same-sex marriage passed in a government that in no way represented the majority of people in this country. It is good to see that they were thrown out because of their deception.

Whether any of you are able to accept it or not there have been many people who have been helped by NARTH.

The problem is there are also people who have been hurt by NARTH as well. The issue is what are the sizes of those 2 groups. Further, NARTH makes many questionable or outright false claims based on shoddy, discredited or non-existent research.

I call anyone who still holds onto the gay gene myth fringe.

what “myth” is that? That there is a single gene that causes people to be gay? You are right that is a myth. And this is an example of the kind of distortions NARTH (and others) puts out. The research into the genetic factors of homosexuality (I’m familiar with Hamer and Bailey’s work), doesn’t actually make any claims of a “gay gene.” What they claim is there appears to be a correlation between genetic makeup and sexual orientation (and admittedly they may over emphasize the importance of the correlation) However, NARTH mis-represents them as claiming there is a “gay gene” to create a straw-man they can easily shoot down to “discredit” their work. Now, the press often gets it wrong too, however, the ‘R’ in NARTH is supposed to stand for “research” so you would think they would be able to understand it better than the press.

Answers:

(1) Ex-gays are understably afraid that they will be humliated on camera. The have good reason to fear this.! In the past, they have been made fools of — and they have done a real good job of making fools of themselves.

Due to their fear, they pull away. They become secretive and defensive — instead of working with the film-makers to represent themselves well. What would happen if EXODUS took a step of faith and reached out to documentray film-makers?

(2) To use a Broadway musical analogy, the film-makers focus on the “fringe” instead of the lovely “surrey” because the “fringe” is so glaringly offensive! If the “fringe” makes the “surrey” look bad — cut it off!

(3) Someone is trying to make succh a film.! The director has filmed interviews with nearly everyone of importance — pro and con — on these issues, including: Alan Chmabers, Gagon, Nicolosi, Joe Dallas and even Dr, Throckkorton. The director tells me that the ex-gay fear is the major obstacle she has encountered along the way.

I would agree with Warren that they won’t portray these ministries in a realistic manner. But I think that in many ways that helps ex-gay ministries. Imagine what would happen if they actually showed what goes on behind closed doors, as it is happening. I don’t think Exodus or LIA could deal with that. I know from my experience at Christian reform camps that things are much worse behind the scenes than people make them out to be in real life.