being as Andrew Marin (other than saying it is a bunch of lies) hasn’t responded to it.

The comment I referenced has Marin’s response which was printed in The Advocate. There is also an official response from one of those who claim they were misrepresented in the original article. I’m not sure how else one should respond to lies, if in fact they are such; the onus is on the one making the claims to offer proof.

It seems perfectly fine to factor in Marin’s views of sin, his responses to questions, etc., when making a personal assessment of his work, but we were unable to find anything that supported the comments in that article (and indeed at least one other person mentioned has officially protested it’s accuracy). If one is to base their opinion on fact, I suggest that article, which appears in several places, is not a credible source.

I think there are questions that articles raises – questions which if I was going to be supportive of Mr. Marin – I would want answers to.

I did actually read that thread on exgaywatch – that together with the article and a few other quotes from him – raise concerns for me. For one – getting him to admit that being gay is a sin (fine if he thinks that – but really if he expects gayrights organizations to support him – perhaps they should know his stance beforehand) wasn’t exactly easy. He appears to like to talk in circles – tailoring what his says (or doesn’t say) according to which side he is trying to appease.

Whatever one decides about Andrew Marin, I would hesitate to base it too much on that particular article and its various reprints, which seem to be the basis for any negatives I have read so far.

Andrew Marin – hmm – something about him and his organization rubs me the wrong way. It does seem *to me* that his organization is a sort of soft-sell of exgay teachings. I wasn’t too impressed by how he handled himself on exgay watch – he wasn’t able to clarify his position (he just kept on reiterating that others have twisted his viewpoint – ie Signorile – but without details on why Signorile’s view’s were in error). In short I don’t trust him at all. His methodology seems too much like the cultish ‘love bombing’ technique.

Hope you are well.