Upcoming ex-gay documentary stirs up controversy

An upcoming documentary (Spring, 2008) regarding the ex-gay movement has created hard feelings months before release. I received this release from filmmakers Bill and Mishara Hussung responding to an email from Joanne Highley of Life Ministries in New York City. Watch the trailer on You Tube.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Bill Hussung/ Mishara Canino-Hussung

Coqui Zen Entertainment

[email protected]

[email protected]

Ex-Gay Ministry criticizes upcoming documentary.

A New York City ministry claiming to cure homosexuals with exorcisms isn’t pleased with an upcoming documentary by filmmakers Bill Hussung and Mishara Canino-Hussung. Joanne Highly, who runs LIFE Ministry, is responding to a Youtube trailer for the upcoming documentary in a recent mailing to ministry supporters. Highley says the filmmakers are, “using our footage to make us look bad,” and she adds, “We have been made fun of before.”

A trailer for the upcoming documentary features members of LIFE Ministry singing and dancing at the groups’ annual Christmas party. The trailer also includes a sound bite from Highley saying she came to New York to minister to “homosexuals and Jews.”

Co-director Bill Hussung says he’s surprised Highley views the clips of her annual Christmas party as an effort to make the ministry look bad. “The clips show people enjoying themselves and celebrating the work of the ministry, there’s no spin or slant involved in how those clips were edited,” Hussung says.

A trailer for the film, Chasing the Devil: Inside the Ex-Gay Movement, can be found at the following website:

http://www.coquizen.com/Site/trailer.html

Bill Hussung followed up the news release with this statement in an email about the challenges of making a documentary about those who believe they have altered sexual orientation.

More than four years ago we set out to document the journeys of people belonging to the most politically incorrect subculture in America. The result is Chasing the Devil: Inside the Ex-Gay Movement, a documentary film. Spending time with those who claim to have changed their sexual orientation from gay to straight can be a bit of a paradigm rattling experience. We accept that identity is largely self-defined and acknowledge that sexuality can be fluid. Mick Jagger switches back and forth between men and women for much of the 1970s and defines jet setting chic. Self-defined identity and fluid sexuality are both left of center beliefs long associated with urban elites and secular progressives. Folks like most of those in the documentary film business. But there’s a disconnect when this paradigm butts up against the ex-gay movement. If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid, then there’s nothing surprising, or offensive, about the ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists claiming to “heal” homosexuals of their unwanted desires. But we are surprised. And often offended. The central underpinning of gay identity is the belief that people are born gay and can’t change. The ex-gays challenge these beliefs. Their claims of having changed from gay to straight challenge our understanding of identity and tolerance. But are they living a lie?

We made this film to answer that question.

Bill Hussung & Mishara Canino-Hussung

Co-directors, Coqui Zen Entertainment

Looking forward to it.

106 thoughts on “Upcoming ex-gay documentary stirs up controversy”

  1. Jayhuck,

    It is very frustrating when you do not follow scientific rules and make broad statements. And then wait for someone who holds your opinion most of the time to come in and say almost the exact samething. Your bias is clear but to impose that on others is -well – something you accuse others of doing.

  2. Ooops – ignore the quasi-heterosexuality comment above. That’s what I get for thinking about something else and typing at the same time 🙂

  3. Mary,

    Oh yeah, and arbitrarily deciding (because it means nothing to YOU) that married people who have same sex attractions means nothing – is not science – that’s bias and discrimination.

    Oh yeah???????

    I never meant to suggest that married people who have same sex attractions mean nothing to me. What I was trying to say is mute at this point because I believe I originally misread the sentence.

    Mary, I’m doing my best to be nice – to apologize to you because I felt that some of the things I said were not in the best interest of this discussion and because I caused you to feel angry with me.

    I think Timothy did a very good job summing up what the study is and isn’t. This helped clear some things up for me anyway.

    I am truly sorry Mary!!!

  4. Fitz,

    15% had complicated heterosexual relationships”

    100% of heterosexuals do also.

    They may have complicated relationships Fitz, but I doubt that their heterosexuality, or quasi-heterosexuality is what is complicating it 😉

  5. Jayhuck, Mary, et al.,

    Just a bit of clarification on the Jones and Yarhouse study:

    First, this was not a representative sample of gay persons or persons unhappy with their same-sex attractions. In fact, it is not even representative of Exodus participants. It would not be accurate to draw conclusions from this study and apply them to all gays or ex-gays.

    Second, to understand the study one has to know that there were two populations measured. One was a prospective study (ie. measure now, measure later, observe the difference) and one was retrospective (ie. measure later and compare with recollections of a prior period). Obviously, change in recollection is less meaningful than change in observation.

    When looking a the prospective study, there was little to no statistically measurable difference for this group over the three year period of the study in sexual orientation. There may have been some measurable shift in social preference – who one hangs out with – and in the frequency of experiencing unwanted attractions, but the object of attraction did not seem to change.

    When taken on an individual basis, some reported “success” (or, more accurately, they did not report success but J&Y defined them as success). However, these persons also reported continued sex dreams, attractions, and even a desire to be able to better “control their eyes”. While these persons may have found the programs helpful, they did not become heterosexuals in any meaningful way (in my opinion).

    One might even go so far as to say that J&Y provided evidence that Exodus programs may not be effective in shifting sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. This is not to say that there are no persons who were once homosexual and who are now heterosexual – it only says that the programs used by Exodus may not be the methods by which such a goal can be achieved.

  6. Oh yeah, and arbitrarily deciding (because it means nothing to YOU) that married people who have same sex attractions means nothing – is not science – that’s bias and discrimination.

  7. Jayhuck,

    The study was designed to find out if people change and if changing or trying to is harmful. It is very limited in its scope of ex gays. Using it as a defining feature of ex gays in total is a misuse of the research. (Something you accuse others of doing with research)

  8. Mary,

    By the way, I would expect to find among ex ex gays a higher portion who remained celibate.

    I wasn’t quite sure what you meant by this last statement. Were you referring to the 62% when you spoke of ex-ex gays? I’m just curious.

    I also want to apologize to you Mary. I feel as if I’ve been a bit “heavy-handed” (not sure if this is the right word) with you on this thread. I truly believe that you and I probably agree on more things than we disagree on – I’m just sorry that we seem to have gotten off to a bad start in 2008. I think the study above can tell us some things about ex-gay people, but it, of course, can’t tell us everything – and you are right that it didn’t span a great deal of time.

  9. Mary,

    I’m quoting a study that speaks for itself:

    Of the HIGHLY MOTIVATED (and I highlight this) individuals who identified as ex-gay:

    15% had complicated heterosexual relationships

    23% are celibate

    And 62% of people who were not deemed successful by the study.

    I also know people who were married Mary – and they later came out and left their spouses. Being married doesn’t really say a great deal to me.

  10. Finally – his truth comes out. And quoting studies that are designed specifically for one thing does not make applicable to “your” own uses and interpretation of it. I happen to know several women who are in marriages. Some were in marriages while they were going through the SSA struggle. Some who are not and are not celibate. By the way, I would expect to find among ex ex gays a higher portiob who remained celibate.

  11. Eddy,

    In all honesty, it seems to vary. I’ve spoken with two Ex-Ex Gay people who were ex-gay for 10 years or more. Most of the other ex-ex gay people I spoke with were ex-gay for at least 5 years. In general, I don’t know that many ex-gay or ex-ex gay people so I couldn’t speak for either “community” as a whole. That might be something interesting to find out!

  12. Jim,

    According to the study I listed earlier it is not just some ex-gays who are celibate, but most.

    Thanks for helping clarify what I was saying 🙂

  13. Mary,

    In all fairness, earlier Jayhuck was speaking for himself and of his own experince and opinion. I don’t see that he was generalizing or making any rash conclusions. (e.g. he said, “…but I don’t know that that is true for all or even most…”) In other words, he is not an all or nothing commenter.

  14. Thanks, JayHuck.

    I can respect your conscious choice to be celibate.

    Yes, I am sure some ex-gay people live celibate lives.

    Personally, I don’ like labels either, but in this culture war it seems we deal with them all the time.

    I also see as you do, those terms represent different things to different people. You did mention that the ex-gay represents a political movement that you do not agree with. On the some taken, I feel the same way about the gay movement.

    Thanks for sharing. I appreciate it.

  15. To me, a long time is 5 years or more and a VERY long time would be 10 years or more. Jayhuck, is this the standard you are using? Simply put, to you, how long is a long time and how long is a VERY long time? (Note: we’re discussing real ex-ex-gays that you know. Please be more specific as to the duration of their ex-gay periods.)

  16. Mary,

    And one last thing to remember is that some Ex-Gays become Ex-Ex Gay as well – and most Ex-Ex Gays I know were Ex-Gay for a VERY long time.

  17. Mary,

    I have a strong feelings that if “MOST” gay people were somehow becoming ex-gay identified, we would know this without at doubt.

  18. Mary,

    Its apparently the best study we have of ex-gays to date. The staggering thing to note is that 62% of Ex-Gays weren’t successful at all – even at remaining celibate.

    I used the only study I knew of Mary. If you know of something else that shows that most of the 3 – 8 million gay people somehow change their orientation midstream, please let me know.

  19. That was a study of a specific group (those who have sought through Exodus or a ministry group associated with Exodus ) completed only within a two year period – or did you miss that part? Is a person only ex gay for two years?? (Oh wait – that’s where the study ends so – it must be accurate about all ex gays over the course of 5, 10, 15, 20 years??)

  20. Mary,

    The wording of the Jones and Yarhouse study on Ex-gays goes something like this (I culled this from Disputed Mutability’s blog):

    “Exodus can describe 38 percent of its programs’ participants as successes, changing to either a “meaningful but complicated” heterosexuality (15 percent) or a stable chastity (23 percent).”

  21. Ann,

    Are you willing to give those who no longer identify themselves as gay the same consideration and believe them when they say they are not suppressing anything?

    It depends Ann – but I already do with many people – including Mary and Eddy.

  22. Mary,

    Actually, when I was speaking of most gays being celibate I was speaking about the ex-gay study that was recently done by Dr. Yarhouse that showed that only 38% of ex-gays were “successful” – a loaded term – and out of those, 23% were celibate.

    It is my experience, but I know of NO study anywhere that shows that MOST gay or straight people change their orientation midstream. If you have proof of something else, please let me know. It seems to be the rather rare occasion when people “change”.

  23. Jayhuck,

    Maybe it would be better if you spoke of your experience. You are saying things that are arbitrarily decided on by you. IE: most ex gays are celibate??? most young people have decided on their sexuality (paraphrasing of course) etc… please -please – speak for yourself.

  24. I don’t feel that I am “suppressing” anything.

    Jayhuck,

    Are you willing to give those who no longer identify themselves as gay the same consideration and believe them when they say they are not suppressing anything?

  25. Eddy,

    Overeating is not a disease. And neither is depression. Both can become diseases but they aren’t in themselves diseases.

    You are right Eddy, my apologies.

  26. Jim,

    JayHuck, Why do you “live an exgay life”? Some say ex-gays live a life suppressing their homosexuality. Do you agree with that? Do you do that?

    I read before where you said you live celibate, but you are a gay man. Some would say that is suppression? Would you agree? If so, why do you suppress? I position these questions in the open forum but if you wish you can address them offline. Thanks, Jim.

    I think some ex-gay people probably are simply suppressing their homosexuality – but I don’t know that that is true for all or even most ex-gay people.

    I made a conscious choice to be celibate. I don’t feel that I am “suppressing” anything. Most ex-gay people live celibate lives, don’t they? This is where we are going to have a problem with labels. Technically, I am an ex-gay man, but I do not like the term ex-gay, as I’ve stated before many times on this blog – probably in discussions in which you weren’t present. The term represents different things to different people, and to me it represents a political movement that I do not agree with.

  27. Fitz,

    I think when Michael said it was a “rule” he meant it was generally accepted practice or normative of the gay community as he experienced it. Not that it was written down somewhere & anyone who disagreed gets fined.

    I knew what he meant Fitz. I was part of the gay community for many, many years – still am in a way, and I know of no such rule.

    I’m saying that for a young person coming of age sexually this can be less important or central than the pressure to fit in and belong to a group of ones peers, Peer pressure is acknowledged as a preeminent force among adolescents. Combine this with the great pressure the popular culture creates (along with hormones) for young people to be sexually active and you have a perfect storm.

    The pressure to “fit in”, even in today’s culture, is one of being straight. Being gay is difficult, and one has to overcome many hurdles before they can be comfortable with themselves. As tolerant as society has become, it is still primarily one that rewards straight people and often punishes gay people for being “different”. Society has a very hard time with minorities and acceptance.

    Mary,

    Apparently the author of that statment has overlooked those who seem to change midstream. Hmmm. Another way of discrediting a person or trying to intimidate them.

    I wasn’t in ANY way trying to discredit you or anyone else. I was trying to say that the people who change midstream are in the minority – I never meant to suggest that they are any less deserving of respect and equal treatment. All I meant to say is most young people who are straight or gay don’t change midstream – that is ALL I meant.

  28. JayHuck, Why do you “live an exgay life”? Some say ex-gays live a life suppressing their homosexuality. Do you agree with that? Do you do that?

    I read before where you said you live celibate, but you are a gay man. Some would say that is suppression? Would you agree? If so, why do you suppress? I position these questions in the open forum but if you wish you can address them offline. Thanks, Jim.

  29. Peterson said: “Regardless of how people feel about the whole ex-gay discussion, I believe that the stories of people negatively troubled by conversion therapies and ex-gay ministries, reveal that harmful practices, theories and techniques affect not only the people who submit to them, but can also harm their loved ones.”

    I say,

    “Regardless of how people feel about the whole ex-gay discussion, I believe that the stories of people positively helped by conversion therapies and ex-gay ministries reveal that no practices, theories, or techniques harmfully affect the people who submit to them, or their loved ones.”

  30. “I think most young people know which gender they are primarily attracted to”

    Apparently the author of that statment has overlooked those who seem to change midstream. Hmmm. Another way of discrediting a person or trying to intimidate them.

  31. JAYHUCK

    “There is no such RULE in the gay community – LOL. To have Michael Glatz speak for some 3 – 8 million gay people in this country is ridiculous.”

    I think when Michael said it was a “rule” he meant it was generally accepted practice or normative of the gay community as he experienced it. Not that it was written down somewhere & anyone who disagreed gets fined.

    Apparently Mary disagrees with the force of this “rule” when she writes “Oh yeah, and you can explore – so long as you ONLY come to the same conclusion as the “community” otherwise you are labled a quack, a conservative, a hate monger, anti-gay, brain washed, uneducated, unsympathetic, unchristian, intolerant etc…”

    As Michael alludes, the stigma seems quite strong & Mary concurs.

    “I think most young people know which gender they are primarily attracted to”

    I’m saying that for a young person coming of age sexually this can be less important or central than the pressure to fit in and belong to a group of ones peers, Peer pressure is acknowledged as a preeminent force among adolescents. Combine this with the great pressure the popular culture creates (along with hormones) for young people to be sexually active and you have a perfect storm.

  32. Jayhuck–

    If you’re going to attempt to correct somebody, please do it with true statements. Overeating is not a disease. And neither is depression. Both can become diseases but they aren’t in themselves diseases.

  33. Fitz,

    J.N. “I can explore the foundations of my alcoholism, my overeating, my depression– but not my homosexuality.”

    First of all, homosexuality is not a disease and those other things are.

    Second, that may have been Michael’s experience, but it certainly wasn’t mine. I questioned my homosexuality many times,and tried to suppress and repress it before I realized that is just who I was. There is no such RULE in the gay community – LOL. To have Michael Glatz speak for some 3 – 8 million gay people in this country is ridiculous.

    Mary – I do agree with you though – I know the labels that all sides like to throw around at each other and I’m sorry if you were hurt by them.

  34. Fitz,

    They dont call them “formative years” for nothing. Its not hard to imagine (and heck I know multiple examples personally) of young people seeking identity, companionship, and solidarity only to find themselves labeled and pigeon holed later in life with no prospects of understanding and help in adjusting.

    I agree, but this goes both ways – for self-identified straight people and self-identified gay people. I think most young people know which gender they are primarily attracted to. That’s not to say that there aren’t those that experiment both ways and then find themselves caught up on one side or another – I mean, look at all the adults that have gotten married, had kids, etc, only to come out later in life. I don’t think this excuses us from supporting young people though, especially if they identify as gay, when being gay can be so tough to navigate through without help from others. I grew up in a conservative town and had to keep my sexuality private until I got to college where I could finally be around others like me. It was NOT a pleasant experience to have to hide that part of myself for so long.

  35. MARY

    “Oh yeah, and you can explore – so long as you ONLY come to the same conclusion as the “community” otherwise you are labeled a quack, a conservative, a hate monger, anti-gay, brain washed, uneducated, unsympathetic, unchristian, intolerant etc…”

    What particularly alarms me is the potential this presents to young people coming of age sexually.

    Not everyone fits the Barbie & Ken ideal. The pressure to fit in and belong to a group of ones peers is enormous. Peer pressure is acknowledged as a preeminent force among adolescents. Combine this with the great pressure the popular culture creates (along with hormones) for young people to be sexually active and you have a perfect storm.

    They dont call them “formative years” for nothing. Its not hard to imagine (and heck I know multiple examples personally) of young people seeking identity, companionship, and solidarity only to find themselves labeled and pigeon holed later in life with no prospects of understanding and help in adjusting.

  36. Mary –

    Your point is a valid one for both sides to be wary of. In any majority group, if you vocalize difference, you are an anathema – ex-gays are persecuted, gays are persecuted, etc…and sadly, everybody calls each other names around it, hoping they conform to whatever the rest of the group believes.

    It takes courage to be honest with your own opinions and be genuine to yourself – whoever that self is and whatever that self believes.

    I hope more people can do that…maybe it will start to get others thinking.

  37. Oh yeah, and you can explore – so long as you ONLY come to the same conclusion as the “community” otherwise you are labled a quack, a conservative, a hate monger, anti-gay, brain washed, uneducated, unsympathetic, unchristian, intolerant etc…

  38. I find this particularly germaine to the conversation & the Luaman study I discuss concerning fluidity and hinderances to fluidity.

    The case of Michael Glatze A former gay activist who explains how he left homosexuality.Michael Glatze decided at the age of 13 that he was gay and eventually founded Young Gay America, a nonprofit media outreach project. Through a series of incidents,however, Glatze slowly began to realize that he was not gay at all but was dealing with fears about his own masculinity. He has since rejected his gay identity.

    This follows the evidence presented in the Lauman Study – providing the kind of context one would expect concerning the “fluid” nature of human sexuality & the “extraneous factors primarily the “social milieu” in which the person finds himself.

    It seems that for Michael the “social milieu” that was preventing his natural progression towards heterosexuality [as the Luaman Study above attests] was the homosexual community he found himself part of.

    From an interview with Michael Glatze

    Michael Glatze: “Well, I think maybe the first thing that comes to mind is just that I began noticing the nature of my desires, and the fact that I was able to change them.”

    J.N. “That’s an interesting phrase: “the nature of desire.”

    M.G. “Although when I look back on my life in the gay community, there was always a sense that “You don’t question your same-sex desires.”

    J.N. “Yes. That’s a very big rule in the gay community.”

    M.G. Right. In fact — it’s rule number one.”

    J.N.” Rule number one: “Don’t ask why.” People “just are.” No questions about why.”

    M.G. “As soon as you join the club, that’s the first rule. You can go ahead and examine any other thing’s cause, except for homosexuality.”

    J.N. “I can explore the foundations of my alcoholism, my overeating, my depression– but not my homosexuality.”

    M.G. Right. “And ironically, it’s even OK for straights to question their heterosexuality.”

    J.N. (nods)

  39. The fact that gay people are still being killed for who they are shows how much there is left to accomplish when it comes to tolerance and understanding.

    Wow – I broke one nice-size post into three – so much for that New Year’s resolution – sigh

  40. And while society has gotten better at understanding gay people – they still have their own problems with recognition and understanding as well.

  41. Eddy,

    Bending and stretching is a good thing, but I think gay people have a great deal more to lose than ex-gays. That is NOT to diminish the stuff you and other ex-gay people have been through (including myself) from friends and so-called friends and even strangers. But when it comes to “rights”, gay people have much more on the line. I don’t see the ex-gay problem as one of rights as much as it is of better recognition and understanding of what we are and what we are not.

  42. Don’t worry Eddy – I recieve things for Cialis!! Well, I guess? I could be a target market.

  43. Jayhuck,

    I would agree with you but it is still bullying regardless of who is using it and unless you have a very thick skin it can be very hurtful and I believe there are times when it is meant to be so.

  44. Went back to check my e-mails. Got one in ‘junk’ which rarely happens. I didn’t read it but it wants to talk about regulating my menstrual cycle. I was relieved to see that MSN ranked it ‘very high’ in the ‘potential junk’ rating.

    And all this time I thought it was just a bad cold….

  45. But I wll accept your word here. History is a good indicator of future actions/behaviors. But a fresh new face is also an indicator.

  46. Thanks Timothy. I appreciate that. I did write the morning one a tad hastily…barely caught my bus. My apologies for not making it clear that the work associate was gay. I realized that I hadn’t even mentioned the bit about my best friend’s partner about two blocks into the bus ride.

    And Jayhuck, I’m in agreement as long as we hold onto a more global picture of ‘freedom and rights’. As I demonstrated above, I want a better world for ex-gays too. I want both sides to do a little bending and stretching. Don’t know what that is yet…I keep hoping we’ll discover those parameters here.

  47. Mary,

    Sorry but that has been my experience and I have to say Timothy in the past on other blogs a has been that individual ( very cruel, judgmental, assumptive etc..) . He now claims to be a different man. Good.

    Nope. Same ol’ Timothy.

    I don’t change my story, my history, my name, my approach, or my idealogy. I do change positions, from time to time, if evidence arises that contradicts an opinion, but that’s about it.

  48. Well since we are on the topic of one’s feeling I will add my two cents.

    #1. Its not hard at all to imagine an ex-gay feeling isolated. a.) They are not welcomed warmly by other than the most Christian communities.

    b.) The gay community seems to have every political reason to deny their very existence. (up to an including the active lobbying to make reparative therapy un-ethical treatment)

    #2. The tactic of “your really gay inside” or “self hating homosexual” is not just used against ex-gays.

    I can attest that this (interesting) tactic is used against ostensible heterosexual’s who are apposed to the gay “rights” agenda.

    The idea is that anyone who invests any time or passion in refuting either political or social claims made by the homosexual community is really a closeted homosexual himself.

    Having witnessed this tactic one can only imagine the force by witch it employed against ex-gays.

  49. Eddy,

    I am here trying to determine if, when, and how there can ever be any ‘common ground’ between the two polarized sides.

    That’s an excellent question Eddy. I’d like to think that the two groups will find common ground, but it all boils down to how we want to treat each other – and by that I mean whether or not we want to squash another person’s freedoms or rights. I know you know I feel this way – and I’m sure you want other people to comment on this – hopefully they will.

    I live an exgay life – I empathize a great deal with the struggles that exgay people deal with. However, I also find myself identifying with gay people more often than exgay – mostly because of politics.

    I think its possible – I believe anything is possible – but things will have to change.

  50. That last boatload of comments actually dropped in while I was writing mine above so I didn’t get to them until after I posted.

    Concerned–

    While there may have been some truth in your post, the idea of making it a tactic only employed by the liberals seemed to be a perfect example of intentional button pushing as I described in my previous post.

    Jayhuck–

    Thank you for 79430. The only qualifier I’d want to tack on is that: it does seem that things, in general, have heated up here since just before Christmas.

    Up til then, things were pretty much as you described but suddenly the blog tone, in general, did increase measureably in sarcasm and dismissive statements. (But I think it’s a stretch to blame that all on T.K.!)

    I wondered about: 1) holiday stress in general 2) particular stressful holidays some may have had 3) whether it was a bleed-over of the ‘culture wars’ from ‘Dr. Brown responds’ thread 4) sin talk (that is our biggest difference)…again from Dr. Brown thread 5) well, the last one, you don’t have to wonder about. Whatever the reason was for the tension to increase, tension feeds upon tension and things just got snarkier.

    So, I appreciate Jayhuck’s reminder that we do all manage to get along most of the time. Let’s shoot for that again (and make Warren proud of us!)

  51. Timothy–

    Two of the people I cited were heterosexuals; the third one was gay. But I wasn’t making a point about what gays do versus what straights do, my comments went quite specifically to how real people like me are victimized by the spin mentality. My brother-in-law’s views seemed to be garnered from ‘things he’d read’ while the raving woman got much of hers from a ‘gay activist friend’.

    I spoke about the VFW environment some months ago when I mentioned that it’s a very mixed crowd and that a lot of the regulars just assume I’m gay. LOL! I’m there to sing. Anyway, I don’t really make it a point to straighten people out on their misconceptions until they try to set me up with their brother or something–or unless the topic somehow comes up unavoidably in a conversation. I learned one way to diffuse the awkwardness and have employed it a time or two. Rather than saying “I’m ex-gay” in response to one of these situations, I quip “no thanks, I’m trying to quit.”

    My best friend (a gay man) doesn’t want his partner of 6 months to know I’m ‘ex’; he tells me ‘he isn’t ready to hear that’.

    Anyway, in 3 places that occupy a significant portion of my average week (the bus to and from work, work, and karaoke) there is more pressure on me to be silent about who I am than there is on a gay person. I’m not crying about it; I’m just saying it’s so. And, I’d like to find a way to fix that in my lifetime.

    In response to a comment I made shortly after New Year’s, Jayhuck said I was wrong when I said this blog never seemed to be interested in really hearing how it is for people on my side. This topic seemed like a logical place to explore the validity of that statement.

    And I must confess once again to the agenda I’ve admitted to a number of times. I am here trying to determine if, when, and how there can ever be any ‘common ground’ between the two polarized sides. Are we forever bound to speaking at each other rather than to each other? Do the big disagreements we have totally obliterate the concerns we have in common?

    For that reason, the ‘flashpoints’ intrigue me. When a seemingly simple statement sparks a flurry of comments, whether pro or con, I try to understand who’s button got pushed and why. I also try to understand if the speaker knew their statement would push a button. I apply this to myself as best I can, as well. Whenever I find that my ‘buttons got pushed’, that always provokes a mandatory time-out where I try to understand that button. (Yeah, we all know there’ve been times when I didn’t take that time-out soon enough but I do see progress.)

  52. Concerned,

    My conservative Republican friend uses sarcasm as a weapon all the time. Trust me, its not something unique to liberals. It would be a mistake to make a blanket statement like that.

  53. Warren et al,

    Now I understand they were angry

    Is it enough to understand that they were angry or should we try and understand why? I think I do understand why many are angry, but I doubt I’ll ever be sure.

    Mary,

    I’m defending Timothy because I’ve seen him be incredibly gracious and understanding under fire. I don’t know of all the blogs you speak of, but I think we often have trouble deciphering tone on blogs. I used to think that Eddy was attacking me every chance he got and I could have sworn his tone was patronizing, condescending and sometimes angry (all this was my perception). That is what makes these faceless online discussions so difficult – we cannot see another person’s body language, and I think we (not necessarily you) sometimes mistake simple frustration for hostility or anger…..Anyway, I’m sure I misread Eddy many MANY times.

    That’s not to say any of us on here aren’t guilty of being angry or displaying that anger to others – rightly or wrongly. I think we’re probably all guilty of that. Overall, though, I can’t think of anyone of what I consider to be our CORE group now who is spiteful or hateful – or even just mean.

    And its also probably good for all of us to call people on poor conduct when we see it. I’m sure I’ll have my turn 🙂

  54. Mary,

    I have also noticed that sarcasm is often used as a tactic to shut people down in discussions that challenge the views of those who only want the gay position to be heard or accepted. To me this is a way of bullying someone or a group into silence or submission. My experience is that this is very commonly used in liberal circles.

  55. May be, Warren. But not everyone lives in L.A. And no I am not going to name specifics but it is a general overall feeling and experience. I am not hoping everyone pats me on the back and says way to go! I am hoping that people are not hostile, mean, vengeful and filled with hate speech towards me. Sorry but that has been my experience and I have to say Timothy in the past on other blogs a has been that individual ( very cruel, judgmental, assumptive etc..) . He now claims to be a different man. Good. Then my presence and remarks are beginning to have an impact – as well as Eddy’s and Ann’s etc..

  56. It should be enough to just say, in my experience, the gay people in my life did this or that. There is no need to generalize to a community, nor is there any reason to react in defense of an entire community since no one can know what another person has gone through.

    I have witnessed gay folk at the NEA convention attack ex-gays with hateful speech which had nothing to do with any perceived ulterior political motives. The ex-gays were told they were lying, intolerant, etc., just for being there. Now I understand they were angry, but the 10 plus members of the gay educators caucus who came to the ex-gay booth were intimidating. However, I do not assume this conduct is representative of Timothy or the people he speaks about.

  57. Mary,

    I think I was confusing in the way I wrote the previous comment. I was actually addressing both you and Eddy in the paragraph after the one specifically directed to you. Sorry about the confusion. Eddy was the one passing out a “bookle” he’s written.

    My point, and I think it is a good one, is that you and Eddy have both for quite some time leveled claims against the gay community (or gay people in general). These claims are that gay persons (or the community) are hostile and antagonistic towards you. And all that you are doing is just trying to live your life.

    That rings false to me. Not that I think you are lying, but rather that I think you are misreading all this hostility and challenges to your right to choose your destiny. That is certainly not the way that gay people or the gay community react in LA – and it doesn’t get much more “liberal” than LA.

    You seem to be thinking that any opinion other than “gosh golly, I’m so happy you are ex-gay now” is not accepting your right to self determination. That is nonsense.

    “You’ll be back” and “you can’t change” are not matters of denying you rights. They are opinions based on the observations of those making them. You may not like these opinions, but they are not abusive or restrictive. They may not “accept your choice” but most people on this site don’t “accept” mine either. Fortunately many, like you, recognize my right to make choices that others don’t accept.

    It’s frustrating to hear these claims of abuse over and over but when confronted about them you and Eddy both listed what heterosexuals have done and get indignant when I point out that your stories don’t match your claims.

    So please either quit accusing my community of things, or offer evidence that they have actually done these things. If you are too fearful to back up what you say, don’t say it. Otherwise you are just making false witness against gay people.

    I’m not trying to attack you. I just want you to stop attacking me and my community.

    Can we agree on this?

  58. Timothy,

    Anti-gay publications??? Surely you didn’t write that about me. And I have never dsaid anything to anyone about changing if that is not what they feel is in their best interest. EVER.

    Evangelical christian view? – surely you have never heard me preach to any about being a christian except to say that we are not all that way.

    Vague antagonism from gay people?? If you want me to name names – ain’t gonna happen. If you want me to be specific about every incident (it could reveal my geographic location and possibly others) so I won’t do that either.

    From my experience – not yours – I propose that the gay community is not accepting of my choices and right to self determination. They have the usual mantra – “You’re born gay and can’t change. You’ll be back.” And …. whenever speaking with someone who is gay or my family or their friends I just say that I am not gay anymore. I don’t go into details and I don’t talk about my faith except to say I attend a protestant church (enough to bring a gasp to everyone at the table).

  59. Eddy,

    Thank you for clarifying. But if I understand you correctly, all these folk that were dismissive were all heterosexual.

    Mary,

    Other than vague “antagonism from gays”, all your examples are heterosexuals as well. I know in the past you’ve mentioned that your gay friends didn’t want to hang around with you now that you were living differently, but I don’t think this is quite the same as challenging your right to make choices other than the ones they would make for you.

    Is it possible that this hostility and antagonism you are experiencing as coming from gay people may in actuality not be coming from gay people at all? No doubt some friends and acquaintances think your choice was not for the best and tried to dissuade you. No doubt some individuals find your evangelical ex-gay (or, more likely, anti-gay) publications to be offensive.

    But I propose that the gay community recognizes and respects your right to self-determination. I respectfully challenge you to consider this and perhaps ask whether the accusations charged against “the gay community” really hold up.

  60. The film is nothing more than creativity in that it takes parts of what people say and blends it into their own agenda — one which makes ex-gays look weird and ex-ex gays as survivors, hence the latter is the one felt sorry for. I’d respect the film makers if they give this disclosure.

  61. JAG said, “One of the gentleman said that he understands why many gay people make the choice of being gay over their faith…This continually perpetuated dichotomy seems to be one of the biggest lies going…”

    That happens to be David Matheson a Licensed Professional Counselor in private practice the Salt Lake City area and co-creator of the Journey into Manhood weekend (www.peoplecanchange.com). He is also the author of Evergreen’s Workbook for Men, a practical guide to the change process. He also authored Origins of Male Homosexuality, a lengthy review and discussion of research and theory regarding the development of same-sex orientation. He is a former member of Evergreen’s Board of Trustees. So, he knows what he is talking about and is not a lyer. You are only getting a part of the message he was trying to convey.

  62. Rarely – do I talk about “it”. The comments are just too much.

    Mary and Eddy,

    As you know, you are not alone.

  63. Eddy,

    I have had many similar kinds of experiences. A family friend who tried to fix me up with one of her girlfriends (imagine the woman’s surprise when I told her I was no longer gay – she became expressively angry), antangonism from gays, my family of origin laughing at my belief system (without inquiring I might add and which came later than the changing of my attractions) and then rolling their eyes when I say I’d rather settle down with a man. Rarely – do I talk about “it”. The comments are just too much.

  64. Eddy,

    Maybe the “woman” at the VFW was drunk?

    Where you say,

    “At the most recent wedding, he pulled me aside to tell me I needed to let go of my conservative Christian viewpoint and find me a good man. ”

    You should have told him, “I’m straight! But, thanks for the proposition, big guy!”

    Happy New Year! Jim

  65. Jayhuck said, “I’m wondering if it [the film] will actually add anything new to the discussion!” And he is probably right, because by the looks of the trailer it is nothing more than patchwork propaganda.

  66. Timothy–

    You don’t know them. They’re out here in the flesh and blood world. The most significant was a woman who saw me hand a booklet I’d written to a bouncer at the VFW where I sing karaoke. She was standing there and wanted to know what that was all about…I said something to the effect that he wanted to understand what I meant by ‘ex-gay’ and those were the last words I got to speak. She literally ‘went off’…telling me I was hateful, confused, and an assortment of other lovely messages when all she really knew was that I identified as ‘ex-gay’.

    Then there was my one brother-in-law who I’ve never seen outside of family gatherings. At the most recent wedding, he pulled me aside to tell me I needed to let go of my conservative Christian viewpoint and find me a good man. Not really a fit but–when you consider that I expressed no dissatisfaction with my life and didn’t bring up the topic–a totally unwarranted lecture.

    A guy at work thought I was gay, when he found out I was ex-gay, it changed our relationship completely. He no longer saw me but rather my beliefs in this area. Hasn’t talked to me since and, for a time, was spreading ‘my secret’ to the other gays at work trying to throw a wrench into these friendships.

  67. Eddy,

    I wasn’t aware that anyone was having fits about your decision not to engage in sex or to associate with other gay people.

    Who, precisely, is having these fits? Who is challenging YOUR decision or YOUR choice.

    I am becoming weary with these vague accusations against nameless gay people who are treating you so badly.

    Who are they? I’ll go have a little talk with them.

    Sure they have the right to challenge anyone’s testimony that is being used as a tool against their freedom. And sure they have the right to doubt your reorientation. And sure they may think that you are self-loathing (what an odd term that is) and making a bad choice.

    But they have no right to challenge your decision or your choice.

    Who did this?

    Specifically?

  68. Jayhuck–

    I hear you. But I’d still like to hear from others in response to the questions. See if there’s any new or different light or perspective. Or perhaps there’s several dynamics at work, some that go beyond the political/religious spin. Anyone?

  69. Eddy,

    Let’s not forget that the speech coming from Ex-Gay organizations is itself often loaded with spin. Which came first, who knows? Perhaps this is something like the Hatfields and McCoys. Perhaps the gay spin is in reaction to the spin from Ex-Gays – or vice versa.

  70. Eddy,

    I personally see these kinds of comments as a symptom of a disease – the one involving using people’s spiritual journeys as political tools. – BUT, I realize there are other reasons.

  71. I believe there’s more we might uncover in the questions I posed. Wouldn’t many automatically defend the ones who were ‘coming out’ saying they were actually ‘realizing who they were in the first place’ while viewing the gays who went straight as ‘denying their true selves’? What are the repercussions of this ‘spin’ in the lives of real people?

  72. Jayhuck–

    So people have fits about my choice to leave the gay life behind and are justified in challenging my decision and how it’s played out “Because the Ex-Gay movement is used as a political tool to restrict equal rights for gay people.

  73. Fitz–

    Sorry, I’m not well acquainted with the Laumann studies. I do hope Warren checks in with a response to 79129.

    All–

    Here’s a statement related to fluidity that struck me. Jayhuck said: “This study also doesn’t answer why so many people seem to be coming out as gay later in life…“.

    What motivates this coming out? If something can motivate them ‘to leave the straight life behind’ and to identify as gay, why do we have such fits about people ‘leaving the gay life’ and identifying as straight? Or, more to the point, why are we more inclined to accept their new identity without question while we challenge and demand proof from those who go from gay to straight? Can Christian belief be a sufficient motivator?

    BTW: I have no doubts that portions of this video will be highley embarrassing (pun intended). That New York gang has always been notorious for being a bit ‘out there’. (I’m having flashbacks to the characters in the group meeting in the ex-gay episode of ‘Will & Grace’. Only ramp it up a notch and throw in a few twists.)

  74. JAYHUCK

    “So the authors knew their work would be taken out of context, that their work wasn’t definitive, and that there were challenges and problems with measurements.”

    Of coarse.. It is both #1. Science & #2. on a highly controversial subject.

    Nevertheless (and once more) it is enough to note that Laumann makes the existence of those who once had a homosexual identity (however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity) who then later successfully rejected such an identity: not just a statistical certainty but rather a majority.

    P.S. You should read that (brief) excerpt that you posted carefully & make sure you understand its terms well. It says quite a bit about this discussion & is an excellent primer.

    It is not however the substance on the finding made in the study. Rather it is the context the researchers were operating within.

  75. JAYHUCK

    “No one was trying to refute the Laumann study – they were trying to help you put it in perspective – to understand what it was really saying.”

    I wasn’t aware you have read it.

    I own a copy of it, attaining it at a certain expense & difficulty.

    Yes: multiple people claim not to refute it but want to make sure they put their own spin on its findings. Often this comes down to matters of nomenclature and semantics (what we mean by words & identity).

    All that aside: it is enough to note that Laumann makes the existence of those who once had a homosexual identity (however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity) who then later successfully rejected such an identity: not just a statistical certainty but rather a majority.

    Timothy Kincaid

    Your Welcome.

  76. Jag, Wish the dichotomy wasn’t emphasized either. Or that one has to give up God or their sexuality (since we live in a society that has expression for gay christians, young christians, new christians etc…) either.

    And I was disenchanted with the woman who was almost protesting too much that she isn’t gay because God does not make gay people. Ah well – she does not speak for everyone with that opinion.

  77. JAYHUCK

    I have had this discussion on multiple blogs as well as my own.

    They always turn out the same way.

    #1. No one ever substantially refutes the finding of the Laumann study.

    #2. Individual scientists are attacked as partial or “quacks”

    #3. Pro-gay activists devolve into a “we can never know???” – “give me more studies” – “quote supporting studies” type of mealy mouthed obfuscation.

    Never the less the conclusions of Laumann and supporting studies the inherent flexibility and one directional nature of sexual identity based on multiple identifiers.

    Timothy Kincaid (writes)

    “Can you please provide a link to the subsequent studies that have confirmed your assertion that homosexuality is not a fixed trait.”

    No – why would you suspect such studies are available online?

    However: here is a beginning of some of the relevant literature.

    M. F. Schwartz and W. H. Masters, “The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Psychiatry 141, pp. 173—81

    Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403—417 (2003) Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation.

    Nigel Dickson, Charlotte Paul, Peter Herbison, Same -sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood. Social Science & Medicine 56 (2003) 1607–1615

    K. Skegg et al., Sexual Orientation and Self -Harm in Men and Women, Am J Psychiatry 2003;

    160:541–546

    Jorm, AF, Dear, KB, Rogers, B, Christensen, H. Cohort difference in sexual orientation: results from a large age-stratified population sample. Gerontology. 2003 Nov-Dec; 49(6)392-5

  78. Fitz,

    Most references to studies include the year which was, in this case, 1994.

    1. Can you please provide a link to whom you are quoting. It is uncertain if you are quoting Laumann or someone extrapolating from Laumann

    2. Can you please provide a link to the subsequent studies that have confirmed your assertion that homosexuality is not a fixed trait.

    3. Will you please confirm whether these “not fixed trait” conclusions are for both sexes or only for women.

  79. JAYHUCK

    “Please show us these “large-scale epidemiological surveys” that support Laumann’s instability findings.”

    They support his findings in general including those.

    I have a copy of both the survey itself & the companion piece that details the corresponding surveys done before and after the U of C work.

    That article is entitled…

    A Political History of the National Sex Survey of Adults

    Edward O. Laumann, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon

    Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. – Feb., 1994), pp. 34-38 doi:10.2307/2136095

    And can be found at.. (cost involved)

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7354(199401%2F02)26%3A1%3C34%3AAPHOTN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

    You can understand my reluctance to re-type the multiple surveys (you & others will simply have to do your own research)

    Its not hard to imagine why such finding (even though widespread and accepted) dont make it into mainstream news sources.

  80. “I personally think what Laumann’s study says is interesting – but not any more interesting than what it DOESN’T say.”

    This seems impossibel due to the fact that you have never read it.

  81. Jayhuck

    I am afraid that Laumann is more important than you realize.

    {The Laumann study,} was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publication, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings.

    Having said that: it merely alluminates our understanding and is not a replacment for further conversation or neccesary ajudication.

  82. This statement by the Hussungs is ridiculous:

    “The central underpinning of gay identity is the belief that people are born gay and can’t change.”

    What rubbish. Some practitioners of identity politics (many of them ex-gay) may believe that, but most people define “gay” simply to mean “predominantly attracted to the same gender.”

    Also rubbish: The notion that ex-gays are politically incorrect. They are under constant criticism for mandating pseudo-Christian, GOP-defined political correctness in all of society — not for being correct or incorrect in their private lives.

  83. JAYHUCK (as stated above)

    “…Furthermore, as was already evident in the data concerning prevalence of homosexuality—however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity—before age eighteen and after age eighteen, Laumann et al., found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one -directional: declining, and very significantly so. “Sexual orientation” wasn’t just not a stable trait, homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women—the pull of the normative, as it were.” (See Laumann et al., chapters eight and nine.)”

    This is a study. Not a summary by a commitee, nor a political statement issued by an organization. It is neither a religious or GLBT advocacy group.

    The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.

    The Social Organization of Sexuality reports the complete results of the nation”s most comprehensive representative survey of sexual practices in the general adult population of the United States. This highly detailed portrait of sex in America and its social context and implications has established a new and original scientific orientation to the study of sexual behavior.

    “The most comprehensive U.S. sex survey ever.” —USA Today

    “The findings from this survey, the first in decades to provide detailed insights about the sexual behavior of a representative sample of Americans, will have a profound impact on how policy makers tackle a number of pressing health problems.” — The Boston Globe

  84. Warren:

    I am sure you are more than aware of the Laumann study out of U of C.

    I bring it up here because of its direct bearing on the quote:

    “But there’s a disconnect when this paradigm butts up against the ex-gay movement. If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid, then there’s nothing surprising, or offensive, about the ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists claiming to “heal” homosexuals of their unwanted desires. But we are surprised. And often offended.”

    Based on The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.

    The Laumann study, was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publication, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings. One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist” stating that “[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,”

    Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the subject. It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but “because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.”

    All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.” Furthermore, as was already evident in the data concerning prevalence of homosexuality—however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity—before age eighteen and after age eighteen, Laumann et al., found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one -directional: declining, and very significantly so. “Sexual orientation” wasn’t just not a stable trait, homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women—the pull of the normative, as it were. (See Laumann et al., chapters eight and nine.)

    Such findings and there mainstream scientific acceptance need to be highlighted in the documentary you discuss. Rather than a fringe religious ministry, such organization represent the natural cultural reaction to a scientifically verifiable phenomena of (at the very least) people transitioning “back” to heterosexual relations or practicing them for the first time.

  85. One piece that I know this film will offer that has previously not been considered is the perspective of a parent of an ex-gay survivor.

    Bill and Mishara spent extensive time with my father and filmed him talking about his experience with the ex-gay movement. He is a straight man, a former US Marine and is supportive of me as his son who also happens to be gay. Hearing his thoughts about the hopes he had up front and the concerns that quickly grew once he became exposed to the treatment at the Love in Action ex-gay program gives a new perspective.

    In 1996 he and my mother attended Love in Action’s Family and Friends’ weekend, an event that I have described over at Beyond Ex-Gay where I presented some of his thoughts. (see http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/parents). They attended another such weekend in 1998 as part of my graduation from the program.

    Regardless of how people feel about the whole ex-gay discussion, I believe that the stories of people negatively troubled by conversion therapies and ex-gay ministries, reveal that harmful practices, theories and techniques affect not only the people who submit to them, but can also harm their loved ones.

  86. For example, Even if you do believe homosexuality to be a sin, and everybody sins (sometimes volitionally), why are homosexuals “different?”

    Jag,

    If homosexuality is a sin, and that is left to each individual’s conscience based on their beliefs, then it is the only sin that is asking for acceptance and endorsement and approval. That would be the only difference I can think of.

  87. Jayhuck–

    Please, please, please. All I said was that I have hopes of seeing something new. A statement that simple does not need to be challenged or refuted. I have hopes…okay?

  88. As near as I can tell this is an honest effort to portray the experience of the people involved in their own words — and sometimes it does not appear flattering (e.g., Richard Cohen saying same-sex pairing is a non-sequential).

    jag, who knows maybe the raquets are unleashed in the film too?

  89. The fact that this is a film that makes ex-gays unhappy is interesting…I think it will likely make many gays unhappy too.

  90. Sadly, again what this clip demonstrates is that somehow the film depicts that there are two groups: gay people and straight christians….not that you could be a “gay christian.” One of the gentleman said that he understands why many gay people make the choice of being gay over their faith…

    This continually perpetuated dichotomy seems to be one of the biggest lies going…and it isn’t consistent with how most conservative christians view many other issues.

    For example, Even if you do believe homosexuality to be a sin, and everybody sins (sometimes volitionally), why are homosexuals “different?”

    The presence of Richard Cohen also adds that magical “something” to the film…at least this time he pulled out magnets and not a tennis racket (or a spontaneous body hug).

    Someone should tell Cohen that as much as he refers to “opposites attract,” research shows that the couples who are the most similar tend to report being the happiest with the most longevity.

  91. This statement gives me hope that they are in fact trying to say something new:

    But there’s a disconnect when this paradigm butts up against the ex-gay movement. If we really believe identity is self-defined and sexuality fluid, then there’s nothing surprising, or offensive, about the ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists claiming to “heal” homosexuals of their unwanted desires. But we are surprised. And often offended.

    Whatever the results, it should be an interesting read.

Comments are closed.