Jump to content

Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Untitled comment

Nothing about this article comes from a neutral point of view. Clearly the entire thing should be discarded and rewritten by someone who is more open-minded and tolerant of differing points of view.

Merge?

After looking for other articles to add to the See also section (which I just added), I'm wondering if this article should be merged into Reparative therapy. I'm not sure what this article covers, other than a list of a few ex-gay groups, that would not also belong in the Reparative article. Opinions? eaolson 03:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

More reversions

I've removed a bunch of links from the links sections placed there by 68.161.130.126. Many of these were placed with no explanatory text, some of them were just Christian shopping sites, five of them had the same names and no other information. Wikipedia is not a link farm The links section is already getting rather long. I think we should make an effort to ensure it is highly-focused and contain only very relevant links. eaolson 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 


This is biased, must be run by Gay Activist.

Shame on wikipedia



Hi, 

I am from London and this article is biased.

Karyn

NPOV policy at Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

This article does a great disservice by its emotion alone: The tone of this article alone reads like a propaganda piece against conversion or exiting the gay lifestyle or whatever: It's weighty and argumentative as an op-ed newspaper article would be: It reads like more of an attack than an infomative prospective of what is at issue with this topic.


Revert

The following sentence was edited by 63.209.225.44.

Herrschaft called a Human Rights Campaign colleague, Wayne Besen-- who currently tours the country attempting to expose ex-gays who might relapse--, and told him that Paulk was there.

I've removed the bolded section because, well, it doesn't make sense. Is he exposing the fact that they're ex-gay or the fact that they might relapse? And how does he know who might relaps and who won't? Also, the punctuation was wrong. eaolson 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted to a few edits back. User:68.161.86.146 has been removing entire sections and replacing them with text taken verbatim from the various organizations' home pages, without any sort of formatting. Really, if you're going to plagarize someone else's work, don't copy the copyright notice. eaolson 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

stumping ex gay groups

The list of 'ex gay groups' is remarkably biased. It barely gives an account of anything other than scandles that led to their downfall. I'm not certain if this section is even all together relevent, with more information, it could become useful to see the evolution of the 'ex gay group'. As it is, i'm removing exposition of the scandles, and putting in only basic NPOV info about the groups. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can expand them. If not, we might as well get rid of them, or abreiviate the section into a chronological list. 19:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)~BigMacD24 Sept 7, 05


After attempting to salvage NPOV info, i've decide it might be better to simply move ex gay groups to their individual articles (EG A love in action article, an Exodus article) and simply generalise ex gay groups in this article. Many of the arguments listed bellow could be incorperated. 'Some ex gay groups view homosexuality as a pathology, while others aproach the question from a spiritual perspective' etc. Would trim the article down, and get rid alot of the offensive non NPOV material. Which of course, would simply flow over into the LIA article and the Exodus article, but it would be easier to controll there, I think. Bigmacd24 20:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[[User:Bigmacd24|BigMacD24]

not really NPOV

Honestly, I find these guys pretty horrible, but this isn't really NPOV. There should be prominent mention in explaining what the group is why it does what it does. If I understand it correctly, it doesn't consider homosexuality a pathology, but a sin. Which means they start from a position that science doesn't apply. Making the statements that scientists think their wrong, is therefore only tangentially relevant.

The article opens: The ex-gay or exodus movement claims that homosexuals can become heterosexual or otherwise "leave homosexuality behind" through counseling, prayer, and other therapies if they choose to do so. Perhaps this would be better: The ex-gay, or exodus, movement aims to purge homosexuality from its members through counseling, prayer, and other therapies. Dreamingkat 04:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, many of them DO consider being gay a pathology, which is why some of them approach conversion from a mental "health" standpoint. See the conversion to heterosexuality section below. Some of them claim Freud's overbearing mother/distant father theory is the cause.
Some of them are also no longer pushing "cures" of homosexuality so much now, but rather teaching people to not act on their attractions even though they still have them. I think Love In Action's Smid might be an example of that. Still has homosexual feelings, but surpresses them and doesn't do anything about them. I think I may soon revise the intro sentence to reflect that. eaolson 17:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
What about "The ex-gay, or exodus, movement uses counseling, prayer, and other therapies to discourage homosexual behaviors in it's members"? Dreamingkat 23:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The article lacks balance in a number of ways.

1. It isn't neutral; it's heavily weighted to teaching that ex-gay transformation is fraudulent and harmful, and it casts aspersions on individuals' claims (e.g. Paulk's wife) that they were 'really' homosexual. 2. The whole Paulk section scarcely belongs in an encyclopedia article; this is journalism at best and should be linked, not reproduced. 3. There really should be a section on Robert Spitzer and his response to ex-gay claims.

The major problem with this article is that it is way too long for an encyclopedia article. It is extremely tedious reading the anecdotes that do nothing to explain the situation. About 90% of the text needs to be tossed out to get to the gravaman of the subject. Jtmichcock 03:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't need balance - in fact, it shouldn't be balanced. There is in fact no real debate here as to whether "ex-gay transformation" is fraudulent and harmful - aside from a few fringe religious groups, it is widely considered so. I would argue that "casting apersions on" the various claims of "cured" homosexuality are in fact balance because there is case after documented case of a so-called cured homosexual either "reverting" to his or her old behavior or failing to be cured. The organizations facing such repeated failures then repair their various images in the name of faith.
It remains accepted by the scientific community, a rapidly growing segment of mainstream organized religions, and indeed most of the world outside societies whose roots are evangelical (ie: the US) that homosexuality is perfectly natural and need not be cured - despite continuing discrimination by various individuals (the kind unfortunately omnipresent in this world). Most European and Asian countries, the United Nations itself, and a growing number of North American sectors officially recognize homosexual relationships if not homosexual marriage. Therefore, in its most balanced form, this article should display this movement as a fringe movement that has no widespread acceptance or support. Indeed, while this subject deserves examination, it does not deserve balance no matter how strongly a vast, vast minority might feel about it. --Southpaw018 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Postscript - one thing I forgot to mention while atop my soapbox. The language of the article does need to be changed. The stance does not. --Southpaw018 19:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say right from the beginning that your assessment of America's opinions is miles away from accurate. You might not have heard of it, but there's this vast area in the Southern States called the Bible Belt, full of conservative christians, of which probably 95% are staunchly opposed to homosexuality or sexual deviance of any kind. I'm not supporting or bashing homosexuality, but your claim that this movement is a "fringe movement" is completely wrong. If this were to take the stance you would have it take, it would cease to be an encyclopedia article and become nothing more than propaganda.

I don't know if you would find any evidence of 95% of people even in the South supporting ex-gay organizations. They may be more prominent today than in previous years, but they are still controversial. And even in the South, 95% of people do not think that homosexuality = "sexual deviance". I think you are just giving your own opinion. --JamesB3 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Population of Europe: ~730M; Population of the US: ~294M; Population of the Bible Belt South: ~50M. Even if you are correct, and I respectfully disagree, I stand by my assessment of this movement as a vast minority. --Southpaw018 12:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of how many people live in the Bible Belt, this article isn't about "sexual deviance" or whether gays are going to burn in hell. The fact that every reputable mental health organization says that the ex-gay movement is both ineffective and unhealthy suggests that it should be treated like every other piece of pseudoscience. eaolson 22:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if a few of my previous claims were a bit dubious, but I stand by them anyway. First of all, I did not claim that 95% of the South supports ex-gay organizations; I claimed that there is a large number of conservative christians in the South, of which 95% probably would support them. Secondly, the second largest state in the United States (which, I realize, certainly does not speak for the rest of the world) voted to amend its constitution recently to legally define marriage as being between a man and woman. Again, this does not mean the state supports ex-gay, but that there is a sizeable portion of people opposed to homosexuality, and to discard them as a "vast minority" would be a poor judgement call. Finally, I'm not claiming that ex-gay isn't an ineffective and unhealthy pseudoscience, only that there are enough people who believe in it that this fact should be represented if the article really aims to be objective.

Whoa! Since when does representing non-minority opinions make for objectivity? For that matter, since when does representing minority or majority opinions make for objectivity, unless your goal is to generate an objective list of opinions... -Seth Mahoney 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


That fact that a state does not wish to support same-sex marriage says nothing of it's belief in conversion therapy. That fact that a state has a large number of anti-homosexual christians says nothing of whether or not they believe in conversion. The fact that a large number of people in america's south do not support homosexuality does not change the fact that that the ~vast~ majority of experts around the world agree that attempts to cure homosexuality are pointless and harmful. Sure, other opinions have to be noted so that people can make up their minds, and I think the article does this. But a fringe religious view should not be given equal weight to accepted scientific positions.

more discussion on the POV

Exploding Boy seems bent on hiding the fact that this article is not neutrual, he'd seem content to have it stay that way to suit its purposes. There are no balancing view points in this article and all sides are not represented fairly, particularly since any attempt to do so is quickly reverted. If this article can't be balanced out, and the contributors mature and secure enough to let it be so, then it should be deleted. The NPOV dispute is well documented here. (posted by User: 151.201.224.83

"The fact that the so-called ex-gay movement has had several spectacular failures in the three decades of its existence is among the most pertinent facts about said movement." Several "failures" in more than 30 years is not the most pertinent information available. Simply because a few of the failures were high-profile, they're exploited by gay activists who have little else to criticize the movement with. This entire article offers no balanced view and no neutrality at all. It's almost entirely devoted to dissension, criticism and failure and if it can't be balanced out it should be deleted. It's entirely one-dimensional and offers no compelling information.

Regardless of how I feel about the ex-gay movement, this article is not really NPOV in my opinion. It has a remarkable similarity to this article (and other pages from the site), written by a major critic of the anti-gay movement:

It appears that the article is largely from the same source material. However, maybe it's not possible to write neutrally about this topic. Could someone more familiar with the movement can take a stab at cleaning this up? I really don't know enough about it to make more than cursory changes to address the most blatant issues. This is my way of saying I really don't want to get sucked into this. Daniel Quinlan 02:12, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

Besen was my main source for this article, but I tried to confirm all the incidents he described from other sources and as far as I can tell, the chronology as presented here is not really disputed. What is probably missing are examples of "ex-gays" who have remained in the movement -- right now the article focuses on groups and indivduals who failed. Given that some of the founders of the ex-gay movement were among these failures, however, no amount of internal cases will mitigate the embarrassment which resulted. I mean, two co-founders leaving the group and holding a "commitment ceremony" -- how much more blatant can it get?—Eloquence 21:50, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
The article is basically written in the same style as Besen who is very critical of the ex-gay movement and a former spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign (a gay lobbying group). Do we write our capitalism article using Karl Marx as the source too or perhaps a socialism article based on writings on Rush Limbaugh? I don't want to get fixated on the source of the article, but it really should be fixed or rewritten. The article is factual as best I can tell, but it is neutral and objective? It would be much better if somewhat less agendaized sources were used such as newspapers:
I got those articles by doing this search on Google news (28 results, only those 2 were not opinion pieces or located on religious/gay news sites, there are probably better sources elsewhere, but they may be hard to find). Daniel Quinlan 01:29, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
Please back up your claim that this article is "basically written in the same style as Besen". The remaining paragraph of your comment makes no sense without evidence for this claim. You make vague assertions that the article is not neutral or "broken" (hence needs to be fixed) without backing up these assertions. I get the impression that you are trying to push your own personal agenda, whatever it is, into the article. Please do not confuse newspaper and magazine articles, which have to tell an interesting story, with encyclopedia articles, which have to provide the most pertinent facts on an issue in compressed form.
The fact that the so-called ex-gay movement has had several spectacular failures in the three decades of its existence is among the most pertinent facts about said movement. Anecdotal evidence beyond this fact is of relatively little interest, statistical analysis would, of course, be useful, but because it would be useful, you can be sure that the ex-gay groups will never disclose any hard data about their "success". What this article could need is a list of prominent ex-gays of the movement who have not yet experienced their "moral fall". But damn, that list is going to be hard to keep up to date.—Eloquence 01:51, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)


The tone of this article alone reads like a propaganda piece against conversion or exiting the gay lifestyle or whatever: It's weighty and argumentative as an op-ed newspaper article would be: It reads like more of an attack than an infomative prospective of what is at issue with this topic.


Converting to heterosexuality

The ex-gay movement no longer emphasizes conversion to heterosexuality, according to this article:

Perhaps as a result of the defections, the strategy of Exodus and other groups appears to have changed dramatically. Rather than emphasize heterosexuality as a goal, most ex-gay ministries now simply push a cessation of homosexual activity and, where possible, desire.
“The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality; it's holiness,” said Lance Hastings, an ex-gay Assemblies of God missionary in Key West, Fla. “It's to be set apart by God so you become a man or woman of God.”
(...)
Wilkins estimates that about 40 percent of those who seek to change their sexual orientation are successful enough to have heterosexual relationships. The others, he said, are celibate.

—Eloquence 03:34, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Probably worth adding, but please be clear to mention who Wilkins is if you quote him. The quote by Wilkins is a bit more clear, perhaps. Daniel Quinlan 03:45, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding "same style as Besen". Most of the article goes like this: group, founding, failure; group, founding, failure, etc. Same one-dimensional style as this page: http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/learn/scandals.html

In terms of the POV of the article. Generally, it's the negative tone, selectivity, blending of science with advocacy, focus on failures, negative examples, criticism, condemnations, etc. Some more specific issues I can easily point out:

  • "God and friends" is sarcastic (sounds like South Park's "Jesus and friends"), most reparative therapy seems to rely on counselling although there are some questionable methods such as "male bonding" and fasting too. Anyway, I rephrased it to be neutral.
  • "Many scientists". I think it would be better to separate political groups' views from medical groups' views as is done in reparative therapy. I'm believe most scientists look at immutability and so forth more objectively, focusing on the lack of studies, the lack of visible benefit, that contemporary psychiatry and psychology do not characterize homosexuality as a mental illness (although it seems to be an issue of sin for Christians who support the ex-gay movement). I made a few changes in this area and I think the result is better.
  • Article failed to mention that Besen is gay rights activist. Also fixed.
  • I would also hesitate to call the American Psychological Association a "scientific" opinion.

I think the article still needs a bit of work to address the lack of currently ex-gay examples, but it would be annoying to have to change the article every few years if the ex-gay leaders keep becoming ex-ex-gay. Maybe there's some way to present a more NPOV of the organizations just the same. It could perhaps also use a bit of merging with reparative therapy.

Finally, I could really do without the accusations. Daniel Quinlan 03:40, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's not my fault or Besen's that these groups are failures, I would think. Blame them for destroying lives and making people unhappy. "Negative tone" - example? "Selectivity" - the organizations described are among the largest and most prominent ex-gay organizations. "Blending of science with advocacy" - as long as we don't have a good science section here, we might as well have them under a common header. But I agree that a better section on scientific opinion would make sense. Besen has some good quotes that can be copied and used. "Focus on failures, negative examples" - uh, you are repeating yourself. "Criticism" - well, it is a neutral article, it should present criticisms. "Condemnations" - where? The only condemning quote is from an ex-member, which makes it highly relevant.
Selectively picking spectacular failures, criticism, etc. Surely there are people who think they're better now as ex-gay (although it's hard to not wonder if that's really true, but that's just my opinion) or could manage to say something positive. I think you get my point. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
"God and friends" is sarcastic - not intended this way. I am not familiar with South Park.
Scientific opinion - we must not forget that many scientists explicitly have stated that they consider this movement to be potentially very harmful to people who become frustrated and internalize their own hate when they see that their conversion does not work. A program not working is one thing -- a program being harmful is another.
True enough. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
I would also hesitate to call the American Psychological Association a "scientific" opinion. That seems to be an extremist point of view. Psychology is generally recognized as a science, not pseudoscience, and the APA is a credible representative body. Don't get me wrong -- I think the APA is in part responsible for the satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s, and I do consider much of psychology pseudoscientific. But this is not the mainstream POV.
I am not claiming that the American Psychological Association is pseudoscientific (psychology does use the scientific method, after all), but they do have a stronger history of advocacy and treading into politics when compared against the American Psychiatric Association. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
Finally, I could really do without the accusations. Then don't make false statements about the nature of this article. It was never written in a tone equivalent to the one by Besen, e.g. "The early Exodus meetings almost disintegrated the group because participants kept sleeping with each other". As I have stated, I have made a reasonable effort to verify Besen's claims and tried to bring them into an NPOV format. We can argue about specifics, but the claim that "the article is basically written in the same style as Besen" is simply not true.—Eloquence 03:57, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
I think you did a good job cleaning up the source material, but I think the source material is still somewhat evident (less evident now than the original article due to group editing). I believe it's much better to use sources that are more neutral or a mix of adversarial sources than it is to create an article requiring continual make small revisions before it can reach a POV article (which are often contentious). Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should draw from all sources -- the polemic ones, the advocacy sites, the narrative ones, the so-called objective ones etc. These all have their strengths and their weaknesses. I did cite from an ex-gay website, from the WSJ, from a psychological group etc. Using only neutral writing is problematic, as important emphasis is sometimes lost, or certain facts are not disclosed for reasons of political correctness. I do have respect for Besen, he seems to be a professional muckraker, and his style seems to be appropriate for the subject matter -- not for an encyclopedia, though.
Generally speaking, we must be careful not to confuse neutrality with unnecessary vagueness. If the facts on a matter are clear, we have no obligation to obfuscate them. I also think making minor improvements to an article to reach a mutually acceptable version is inevitable. It's not always fun, but the result is usually satisfying.—Eloquence 04:44, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I want to register my agreement with all of Eloquence's recent analysis, in general, and his points about the APA in particular. While on many subjects the APA is a credible scientific body, it also lapses into advocacy drive conclusions, and it sadly utterly failed society vis-a-vis the satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s. RK 04:32, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert -- this is a bit off-topic here, though. The article about the APA could definitely use some NPOV polishing ..—Eloquence

Ex-gay in the light of the homosexual-heterosexual continuum

I have a problem with this article that has nothing to do with it being anti-gay or anti-change, but its apparent assumptions about human sexuality. it seems to be written with the unspoken assumption that human sexuality comes in two basic kinds, gay and straight.

I would suggest that the evidence suggests that people are on a continuum. According to Kinsey,

  1. 50 per cent of his male sample denied any homosexual feelings,
  2. 13 per cent said that they had felt homosexual feelings since adolescence, but had never acted on them.
  3. 13 per cent said that they had felt homosexual feelings since adolescence, but had rarely acted on them.
  4. 24 per cent said that they had more than incidental homosexual experience since adolescence.
  5. 4 per cent said that they were totally homosexual all their lives.

The significance of these figures is not so much in the total number who did or did not have homosexual feelings or a history of homosexuality, but that the vast majority of those with homosexual feelings were also heterosexually active to a greater or lesser extent.

The significance of this when considering the ex-gay movement is that many men are in a position where they could try to live a heterosexual life and turn their backs on their homoseual feelings, if only for a time. We should remember that some of the most famous homosexuals were also married and had children. Oscar Wilde is a prime example. He was married, with two children. MG

You probably have a point, although gays would say those marriages and children were just a sham, etc. Given that some people are bisexual, I think there is definitely some sort of continuum. Beware, the Kinsey sample is notorious for being non-representative. Daniel Quinlan 16:24, Sep 26, 2003 (UTC)

Removed from article

Some anyonymous user keeps inserting this paragraph.

The APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the diagnostic manual only after successive demonstrations by gay rights activists at its annual conferences. The author of Homosexuality and American Psychiatry says that "[g]uerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" at the conferences.

This is incredibly non-NPOV, even if it's true, because the way it's written implies that the only reason homosexuality was removed from the DVSM was because of demonstrations. This isn't the case. It was removed because homosexuality was no longer considered pathological. Exploding Boy 03:35, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

--doesn't matter. He said it, and unless you were there or can talked to the delegates, you can't say why it was or wasn't removed. The point to neutrality is that there are two schools of thought on the topic -- instead of deleting what you don't like, add what you consider to be the other side. And I don't think "pathological" is the word you wanted to use. Posted by User: 151.201.224.83

Look it up for yourself: Merriam-Webster's entry for "pathological". And please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~. Exploding Boy 14:49, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


The book being referenced here is as follows:
Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis
Princeton University Press, October 1987. ISBN: 0-691-02837-0
What the book makes a case for is that the removal of Homosexuality as a psychopathology in DSM IV was not a decision based primarily upon scientific research and studies, but as the result of changing attitudes and political perspectives toward homosexuality. While the demonstrations by gay rights activists most certainly did have some affect upon the decisions that were reached by the APA (see pp.67-100) this certainly wasn't the full story. The real discussion of the book is that the APA's decision was based mostly on the political motivations of the membership, not upon the weight of scientific evidence that either homosexuality was non-pathological, and not upon the weight of research that change could result from therapy (see pp.101-154).
Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.
Michaelh 03:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that stuff might be more appropriately added to this article? Homosexuality and psychology
Amortize
I would agree; it doesn't particularly belong in Ex-gay. I think the reason it is here is because the DSM IV delisting is considered evidence that homosexuality is not a psychopathology, and thus is used to bolster a case that reparative therapy and the ex-gay phenomena is somehow invalid. Any discussion of the APA's position and DSM IV is not germane to this article.
Michaelh 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If that's the case, then it should be removed from the article, but I don't see any of you doing that.

Knowing John Paulk as I do...

I have added an article of John Paulk into Wikipedia - I have had the unfortunate luck of knowing John very well in 1983/4. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category change

There were too many articles in Category:LGBT, so I'm generally tidying up. I created a new subcategory, Category:Ex-gay movement, which is a direct child of Category:LGBT, to put this and related articles in, so all the information on the topic is collected in one place. I'm redoing the edit that put this article there; hopefully this is coherent enough of an explanation. If not, please drop me a note. -- Beland 03:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1998 campaign & the Paulk affair

I have added the npov header to this section. The language in this article is highly POV and needs to be cleaned up. RickK 07:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you find POV about this section? You cannot simply mark a section with a dispute template without some indication of what you object to. --Axon 17:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Rick; this section basically takes the point of view that what the HRC folks reported was what actually happened, and what what Paulk says is only a claim. I think if you put the two accounts on equal footing, the vast majority of readers will be dubious about Paulk's claims because he changed his story and his explanation is pretty thin. It's also improper to pound on Focus On the Family for going into "damage control mode" or assume that their motives are "obvious".
The biggest fix is probably to explicitly identify the source of the detailed account of what happened in the bar, with the struggle for the camera, the presence of only drag queens, etc, and re-word this account as a claim of fact, as opposed to actual fact. -- Beland 03:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we can work some of this information into the article? While the only women present may or may not have been drag queens, perhaps it's more pertinant to note Paul's own admission: "Later, he admitted that he had entered the bar knowing it was a gay establishment." (from the linked Exodus press release). I agree with Beland that there is no need to pound Exodus when they do it themselves so well. Squirrelist 01:19, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable: I suggest a call for links on this section so we can go about properly attributing this section. --Axon 04:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here are my problems with this section:

  • It reads much the same as it did when I read about this story on gay.com. It doesn't read as encyclopedic information, so much as sensational infotainment.
  • Using phrases like, "This excuse doesn't hold water," does not give it a very NPOV feel.
  • A significant amount of this article's real estate is devoted to a blow-by-blow (forgive the pun) account of this spectacular scandal. I wouldn't have accused this article of being POV until comming to this section, but this puts very significant weight on one side of the issue.

Of course this event is signifigant to the subject, and of course it should be mentioned, but is there any way we can pare it down a bit? Keep it do the important facts, and avoid biasing the article too much?

--Azkar 21:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References

"The American Psychiatric Association (APA) states that human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight, and that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. In fact, the Association goes even further, stating that

'Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.' 1 The APA has also stated that

'Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.'"

This part of the text refers to the American Psychiatric Association while the link of the reference leads to the website of the American Psychological Association. I have never edited anything on Wikipedia and I would not like to do it without reading through the tutorial... could someone change that, please?

The first quote is by the American Psychological Association, while the second one is indeed by the American Psychiatric Association. Fixed now. GregorB 18:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Why the scare quotes in the first paragraph? Many Christian socialists also consider homosexuality as something that can be left behind.

The question here is whether they are 'scare quotes' or a genuine quote from LIA or some other similar organisation. If the latter, some form of annotated source evidence needs to be provided.

This whole section is patently biased against the ex-gay movement.

This whole section is written as yellow journalism. Rather than simply stating the facts, it peppers the prose with words like "allegedly," "purportedly," "claims," etc. to cast doubt on the proponent ex-gay claims, while stating the opponent claims as solid facts. None of the reviews of organizations show the successes they claim, but each is quick to point out various leaders who purportedly have abandoned the ex-gay movement.

Someone needs to rewrite this whole section. Why not let the pro-gay organizations themselves write their stories, then let an opponent write their statements and post both? Richman9

Because when we do that, instead of one poorly written and biased article we get two (or one bloated and equally worthless article). I agree that this article needs quite a bit of work, in particular the Paulk section (which should maybe be excised entirely), I see that you've already made some edits, so be bold and make some more. Chances are some of them will be reverted and others won't. That's what the process is all about. --CVaneg 20:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
This entry suffers from the problem of being written by a variety of people, the majority of whom have valid reasons for doubting the truth of the quotes they must use as evidence. Distancing techniques, such as using words like 'claims' or 'allegedly', are inevitable since what a person claims can never be taken as gospel truth - John Smid's (LIA) quote re. yellow/blue walls can simply be trotted out as evidence of 'self-delusion' on the part of ex-gays. That said the Paulk Affair should be a separate article from this - as a subject, it is far to big to cover as a subsection of the 'ex-gay' entry. It is probable that the Zach Scandal subsection (which describes an as-of-writing ongoing situation) will also have to become a separate article, since there is now world-wide media interest in the case (which was not the case in the Paulk affair). Perhaps when the Zach Scandal has reached some form of conclusion, the 'Controversies' subsection could be rewritten as a couple of brief descriptions, with links through to separate articles studying these two matters in greater depth?
The Zach situation isn't a scandal at all. Just because lots of people talk about it, that doesn't make it true. ABC News reports that Tennessee officials investigated and found no evidence of the allegations (see http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=878912&page=1)
Umm, the first paragraph of the article you cite defeats your argument: "Tennessee officials closed an investigation into a so-called ex-gay ministry because of a lack of evidence to support child abuse allegations. But the Memphis organization that says instilling Christian beliefs can keep gays from acting on their homosexual desires continues to be the center of controversy." - Jersyko talk 12:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
There was a second investigation which involved LIA being unlicensed. I'm not sure if that has come to a conclusion yet (most of it involved their using drug and alcohol counselors, and supposedly they said they will move them out of the camp to a separate area). I added some information, and an update on Zach. I tried my best to be NPOV, but I'm sure others will step in if they disagree. --JamesB3 11:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed Evergreen International Section

I removed this section for three reasons:

  1. It appears to be a copyvio[1].
  2. It is a non-notable organisations. A google test on google groups returns only 435 hits for EI[2] but 7,020 hits for NARTH[3] and 2,350 hits for Exodus International [4].
  3. The editor who added it (User:Richman9) is actually the CEO of Evergreen International: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Axon 13:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of EI by BillRice on the basis that EI is a non-notable organisation as above. I would ask that people discuss further changes here first before modifying the article. I would also note that BillRice is a new user whose first edits are controversial and specific to this page, closely mirroring those of Richman9. It is for this reason I suspect that BillRice is a sockpuppet of Richman9 once again attempting to add references to his own organisations. Axon 17:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Behavior vs Trait

I think part of what is missing here is that some mention must be made of the distinction between seeing homosexuality as a group of behaviors and seeing it as a trait that is part of a person (wether inborn such as handedness or gained later such as having an lost a hand). A full discussion isn't really appropriate, but some mention that these groups must be working from the idea of homosexuality as a group of behaviors should be mentioned. (I don't happen to believe it is, but I do believe we need to present the idea.) Dreamingkat 01:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone removed all the links that had a skeptical opinion of ex-gay organizations. If no one objects I am going to revert them within a few days. --JamesB3 04:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is biased against ex-gays

Hello, I'm a gay activist who has done some study of ex-gays, though I'm not an expert. Your article reflects the extreme liberal bias against the ex-gay movement. I can tell you the last time I attempted to discuss this topic on a gay forum with a neutral POV I was massively attacked until someone declared me an evil predator. (I was trying to comment on the recent Time magazine cover story on gay youth which discusses Exodus with a neutral POV.)

From the liberal side there is a complete intolerance of neutrality on this topic. They will demand blanket condemnation of all ex-gay organizations that exist or could possibly exist and even a denial that anyone can be happy with celibacy or possibly change sexual orientation. This despite the fact that we've all seen it. Cheryl Swoopes for example just came out after having a happy married life, then later starting a happy lesbian life, and telling us that for her, homosexuality is a choice. She is famous but I could name any number of obscure people I've met and heard about over the years who went one way or another.

I have had people tell me many times that science has proved homosexuality is genetic - LOL. Urban legend. The cause is unknown and may be complex or varying depending on the person. We don't even have a standard definition of it any more because it has been removed from DSM and you have to read every study and poll carefully to find out what it really means that time.

I am personally against the ex-gay movement and I'd love it to disappear -- Not the person to make this article fair. I can perceive it is obviously not fair at all. It reads like some propaganda from the gay movement to me. In fact I recognize a lot of the material as being from the gay press which stridently opposes these people.

Somebody needs to fix it, but nobody is doing the fixing. Maybe because we all just can't stand these people. Or what? 68.154.121.173 17:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. But I'm neither qualified nor inclined to make the changes. I think first we'd need to remove the (similar) bias in homosexuality to create a base for a future, more NPOV version, of this article. -Seth Mahoney 21:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
One POV I'd like to avoid in future rewrites (which is a definite possibility) is the POV that suggests gay people should change their sexualities, just because some may be able to. -Seth Mahoney 21:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the article is particularly biased at all. Perhaps you could tell us specifically what you object to? There are a few phrases I think should be re-worded, and there is a bit of an overemphasis on the large number of ex-gay group founders that have since left the ex-gay movement.
You pooh-pooh the notion that being gay is genetic, claiming it's an urban legend. Now while the origins of homosexuality are likely varied and complex, there is also likely genetic component. To simply call it an urban legend is an oversimplification.
One thing I found interesting in your comment is your use of some rather loaded language. Specifically "liberal bias" and "gay activist." These seem to terms used by conservatives to cast doubt on the opinions of those they disagree with. I can't help but have niggling doubts that you might not be who you claim to be. You didn't sign in with a user name, so we have no way of checking your edit history. But, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. eaolson 16:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Coming from real knowledge on the subject ...

The first paragraph of ex-gay should be re-worded in this manner:

The ex-gay or exodus movement does not believe in the idea of an inherent "sexual orientation" apart from heterosexuality. Therefore, there is no "change" when going from gay to straight, just merely going back to one's primary orientation: heterosexual. Those having gay desires can, and should, choose to change from homosexuality or bisexuality to heterosexuality, with the assistance of counseling, prayer, and other techniques (see also reparative therapy and aversion therapy). Most ex-gay organizations also minister to people who identify as transgender, on the basis that they consider such feelings or behaviour to be related to homosexuality.


I tried to change this many times. This is SUPPOSE to be from the EX-GAY perspective, but it keeps going back to militant gay propoganda that only speaks of tolerance but doesn't live it. It steadfastly REFUSES to acknowledge that not EVERYONE thinks people are born gay!!!

I used to think Wikipedia was reputable. Now I know it's not. I am a professional journalist and tried to give clarity to this subject of ex-gay, but apparently no clarity needs to be given. If you are so certain of your sexual "orientation" you wouldn't have to go to the extent of spinning a group's definitions on sexuality to cover your own sense of fear about being exposed. If you are TRULY gay, then let the ex-gay movement speak for itself. Leave your Marxist propoganda to Act Up.24.144.167.37

  • Actually, I reverted you because you were blanking sections of the article out. The wording also should not be changed to what you want, but to what everyone agrees on as consensus. Bringing it here first is a good idea. Wikibofh 23:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is also not "supposed" to be written from the ex-gay perspective. It is supposed to be written from a neutral perspective, hence Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Your recent edits are significatly POV. eaolson 00:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
"Marxist propaganda"? I guess it's not quite a Godwin violation, but it's close. Eaolson is correct, this article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, which means presenting both the ex-gay POV and the scientific consensus. Your intro is problematic because you're drawing a conclusion ("therefore") based on a belief. Normally Wikipedia articles don't make any conclusions. It would be fine to write that the ex-gay movement believes that everyone is a heterosexual by default, but please don't state that as a fact. Rhobite 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Yet the gay rights movement DOESN'T need a default in their definition? How nice. This isn't the point anyway. The idea of heterosexual orientation is from the ex-gay perspective, which IS a FACT for them. And since this is a definition about them, I "thought" it might be important. This premise IS the WHOLE underlying source of who they are and what they believe. ... Yet it's not "allowed," unless by "default."

What are you so afraid of?

BTW, I also left in all the opposition to that idea, including the highly editorialized and presumptuous spew about the few scandals in the ex-gay movement.

I also left in all the so-called "science" garb, and added a paragraph about the ex-gay experience but that's now deleted, too. What's neutral about that?

The intro should be from the perspective of the group being represented. The definition for "homosexual" isn't so biased and not from a NPOV. Why is that. Because, with gay propaganda, there is NEVER a discussion. Only fear.

98 percent of what's written in this definition of ex-gay is entirely done with the idea of refuting them because there's a fear they may just actually be right. That's the premise. It's why you want to shut them up and make them look bad. Aren't these the reasons why there's a whole gay rights movement to begin with? Oh, I forgot, it's okay for you to hate.

NPOV definition? Not in the least.

But this IS a definition. I was trying to state what ex-gay means from an ex-gay perspective -- which is hardly spoken about here -- while leaving in all militant gay movement rhetoric that opposes it. I can do that because I have no fear, only a determination that this definition should be FAIR -- and it is NOT.

I am a professional newspaper reporter and understand what it means to show both sides. So, don't tell me about NPOV. You want to show all the negative because there's so little of it to stand on.

This shoddy piece of journalism has NOTHING to do with giving a definition about ex-gay. It's just another shining example of the gay movement's unfairness and persecution of a group that doesn't go along with them, while at the same time touting that we all should "get along." Everyone sees through the smoke screen. I tried to make this "somewhat" represent ex-gays, but you should add "hate" in front of the word "ex-gay" to more accurately describe this so-called "definition."

Aren't gays suppose to be openminded and tolerant. Applause. 24.144.167.37

So do you accuse people of "Marxist propaganda" in your professional newspaper articles too? Rhobite 17:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, just personal opinion. Or am I not allowed to have those, either, under the Gay Regime? 24.144.167.37

Please try not to use intolerant language. My advice is for you to carefully read the NPOV policy and discuss specific complaints on this talk page. If you feel that the ex-gay movement is misrepresented in this article, specify exactly how and why, pointing out specific sentences and words. General complaints about the "gay agenda" and homophobic remarks will not get you far here. Rhobite 18:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You know nothing about me. Homophobia is just a blanket stamp on anyone who disagrees with the gay rights movement in any way. The truth is that I detest any form of hatred or violence towards gays -- or ex-gays. My messages here are based in frustration over the bias in the gay rights "movement." When I say "Gay Regime" I'm speaking of that, the political aspect of it that chokes out all other opinions. That aspect that I even find most gays themselves hating. I apologize if it sounded differently. I am so frustrated with this ex-gay definition.

Plus, I don't believe in the "tolerance" notion. I believe in truth -- which includes disagreement and challenging things as they are. Not everyone has to be "okay" all the time, just as long as we don't harm people and give them an honest chance to have their say. That is why this ex-gay definition is so wrong. It comes under the guise of the ex-gays being intolerant, ignorant, etc. etc. but doesn't judge itself in doing those very things.

But since you subscribe to the tolerance theory, what do you have to say of the intolerance of the "ex-gay" definition. Anything?

I took this out because it's editorializing, making assumptions and it's innaccurate in representing an ex-gay standpoint. I have never heard this type of language in the movement, and individuals who have gone through this heart-wrenching process are nothing but loving:

"Because of the differences of opinion between modern medicine and fundamentalist Christianity's views on what homosexuality actually is, establishing a dialog between the two groups is difficult at best. The ex-gay movement advocates viewing homosexuality as a behavior -- a sin, rather than the scientific viewpoint, which tends towards identifying it as a trait, akin to lefthandedness."

I also added the paragraph I put in before because it "accurately" describes the ex-gay point of view in light of the so-called "sciene" of homosexuality. You don't have to agree, but it does exist. Very much so. 24.144.167.37 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Perhaps there's some confusion. Are you saying that the ex-gay movement doesn't view homosexuality as, essentially, a behavior?
As far as your last edit is concerned, there is also the issue of the fact that you blanked much of the rest of the page, including the categories and the interwiki list. I'm sure that was unintentional, but often when editors see that an anon user has arbitrarily deleted sections of an article (which is what that looks like), they will assume it is vandalism and revert the change.
It would also be helpful, to avoid confusion, if you would sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ to the end of them. Thanks. -Seth Mahoney 19:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


It's more complicated than that, Seth, which is why I made changes to start. I'm at work, so I'll have to get into that later. But, if you look at my original admission, it alludes to it. A trait or behavior, "like lefthandedness" is a very trite explanation when speaking of this. Although, in my other admission (which I hope isn't deleted), I do mention sin. But sin isn't alway the issue.24.144.167.37 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about whether or not X is sinful - I'm just asking if the ex-gay movement views homosexuality as, essentially a behavior. You might re-read the paragraph you deleted, because it doesn't say that it is a "trait or behavior, 'like left-handedness'", but that on the one hand, the ex-gay movement views homosexuality as essentially a behavior, whereas on the other hand the scientific community (and, it should say, many, though not all, gay rights supporters) tends to view homosexuality as, essentially, a trait - something essential to the person, "like lefthandedness". The paragraph concludes, rightly, I think, that this disagreement over what, exactly, is being discussed, makes dialogue between the two groups difficult. It doesn't say that the ex-gay groups are ignorant, nor that the scientific community is right. Just that there is this fundamental disagreement and that this makes it difficult for the two groups to communicate at all. Also, again, please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end of them. -Seth Mahoney 19:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what the left-handed comment meant. I read it differently. But, I also believe that the fundamental differences are not a difficult dialog on the ex-gay end. They are open to dialog. Generally, this problem comes from gay activism and its steafast refusal that gays can be ex-gays or that there is no notion of gay.

As far as gay being simply a "behavior," I still think it's too trite of an explanation.24.144.167.37 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there is a problem with your web browser or proxy. Every time you edit the page you truncate the end.. people will revert your edits if you keep doing this. This link is what we call a diff: [5] It is a record of you deleting the last few paragraphs from the page, including some important links to other language Wikipedias. I'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally, but it is hurting your case for compromise. Could you try to figure out what is causing this?
As for the content, thanks for pointing to an example. I think the sentiment of that paragraph is correct - ex-gays view homosexuality as a behavior people choose, but the scientific consensus is that it is unchangeable and there is no psychiatric reason to attempt this change. However it may be worded poorly and I think we can reword it to better represent the views of the ex-gay movement. Rhobite 21:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that the dialogue problem is necessarily the fault of the ex-gay movement (both groups have been enormously resistant to criticism), but that the problem is in the very different ways that homosexuality is perceived by the two groups. I'd also like to add, in order to avoid future editing conflicts, that it isn't as if everyone who is gay or who is a gay activist refuse to believe that people can become an ex-gay. Many people who are gay/gay activists believe that "ex-gay" people truly are ex-gay, in the sense that they are actually bisexual, in terms of desire, and once identified as gay, but no longer do. Others (have a look at queer theory) promote an anti-essentialist viewpoint that says that people aren't born gay or straight (although reducing it to a choice or series of choices is equally absurd, in this view) or whatever, but add on to the end of that, "but what right do you have to tell me how I should live my life?"
One other point: I agree with you completely that this article needs revision (maybe a complete rewrite), that it has an essentialist slant that is very much POV, and I'd like to add that it would benefit from some careful planning before any future revisions take place. Maybe this talk page would be a good place to discuss the points we would like to see appear in the article and the directions we would like it to go. -Seth Mahoney 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It says that my browser is not unicode compliant. I only have gone into the 'edit this page' part. I edited some things that were not correct, which involved taking them out, but I'm not sure why this deleting of paragraphs is happening. I really haven't had time to go all the way through article. I added some stuff about Bob Davies, but I'm not sure if that's there now. The writing misrepresented him by saying he "feared" that he had "more battles ahead." The "more battles ahead" was an original quote, but he never alluded to fear in his writing (on the Exodus website). Davies actually said he was "confident" of the battles ahead in both his spiritual growth as a Christian and redemptive process away from homosexuality. That quip made it seem as if his reasons for leaving were not substantial because of this hidden fear. Also, the addition of the "warm hug" from straight men was in his article, but he was talking about the love of his church as a whole, and how acceptance from straight men made him feel more like one of the guys. In his gay life, that feeling was never there, and it was healing for him. I think adding-in that "hugging" is perceived by some as just another form of homosexuality was not fair in that context of Davies. It was as if it was quick to cast doubt, instead of fully looking at what he was saying. He wasn't just talking about hugs from straight men, (which was how that was originally written), but unconditional love from his church (which wasn't). I added that in, but I still think the doubt-casting on the hugs is not fair to him and what he meant (since he is being quoted there).

There were a few things in the Paulk scandal that I edited, just because they were presumptuous and there was no reason for it. I wasn't trying to white out that there was a scandal, but saying stuff like Ann not having evidence of being a lesbian, and Focus on the Family going into "damage control" is presumption and editorializing. This isn't appropriate for a scholarly definition. Although, I don't think anyone is denying what happened with the Paulks. I'd like to see, though, something put in there of where he is now and what he's learned from this. That part only focuses on something that happened years ago. I noticed this with some of the others, with the exception of Zach. Plus, I'm not entirely sure all this time should go into looking at all the ex-gay failures (especially when there's very little mention of triumphs, except with the slanted writing of the Davies quote and a lean towards a different view with Zach -- if my memory serves right). To put the pros and cons at the end of the definition with web links to them is sufficient, and people can read more for themselves if they want. Or, I think more effort needs to be put into writing about the pros. There's an overwhelming amount of cons. I find it insulting that no mention whatsoever was made of the ad campaign that put the ex-gay movement into the limelight a few years back. It was controversial, but many good things also came from that. The last I heard, Exodus is funding a scientific study as well.24.144.167.37


I think some of the things I wrote being added back in is a move in the right direction. But, before the contents section, this sentencing was added by someone else and it needs some help:

"However, as discussed below, various leaders have proven themselves to be leading double lives (claiming lies espoused by the ex-gay movement) and depressing lives."

First, although it's right in one sense, in another it's wrong because it's still with that idea of casting doubt on the ex-gay movement. "Proven" is a term that's very absolute, and not all of the situations are up-to-date.

But let me go back a bit first: The whole contents section primarily focuses on the negative, which is the first problem. I think it's important to note here that a failure in the ex-gay movement isn't such a big deal that it causes them to doubt their heterosexuality. They believe homosexuality is often used to sooth or mask a deeper trauma or problem. If that's done for years and years, it's only natural that it would be hard to give up, either consciously or subconsciously. There's a lot of forgiveness in this sense, and not all this hard-core suspicion like there is in the gay rights movement.

Anyway, the lead-in sentence prior to the contents is "basically" right about the examples given, but wrong in that the ex-gay side to "failure" is not representented; not all the "failures" are follow-up on (like Paulk); the reverted gay examples are not called into question; and no real positive ex-gay examples are given unless it's in light of more suspicion. With Davies, it quotes him. But there's also the slanted language like the 'hugging' example that is making him look like he has some hidden gayness. Like I said before, in THAT context, I don't think it's fair because he's being quoted. Maybe in another context it wouldn't be inappropriate to note -- like all the ins and outs for the definition of "homosexual."

Also, I'm not sure what "depressing lives" means. I think it would be helpful for those who are writing these things to go on the Exodus website, where there are numerous testimonies of people's lives being more depressed when they were gay. I admit that societal pressure is a valid issue for some, as well as the fact that even if being gay was considered a CHOICE, it gives no one a right to hurt a homosexual, etc.

But, it goes much deeper than that. If a person is acting out a homosexual lifestyle primarily based on abuse and neglect in their lives -- and being told that lifestyle is normal -- wouldn't that be more depressing? It is for the ex-gay (which is really just a term to use for clarity; most of them would say there is no such thing as gay other than a response they had to hurt and sin in their lives). Maybe before they discovered these issues, they may have thought the "real" problem was society, but that soon becomes secondary in light of these other things. When issues of the heart are rooted out, and personal responsibility is taken, there is nothing depressed. There's a release. It's with anything. This is just one example.

Also, with the opening sentence, I think it needs to reflect the definition of an ex-gay perspective before going into the gay movement perspective. It's only fair, since it is talking about ex-gay. It should start with their ideas on this. I'll add that in later. Hopefully it won't be reverted.24.144.167.37

Well, it was reverted.

I don't know how or why, but I spent a significant time making the opening accurate and more NPOV, even looking at a gay website for more information. Can someone put that back in there?24.144.167.37 17:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that part of the reason for the reverts is that you are blanking large sections of the text. As for why this is happening, are you using an old browser? Some old browsers may have problems with large articles. May I also suggest you add some text in the Edit Summary? It's not possible to tell from your changes if the edit is a minor grammatical correction or a major rewrite.
It still seems to me that your recent edits are POV. I don't think the head section should delve into the causes of homosexuality. Unlike what your recent edits say, this is no universal view among the ex-gay community, as that covers a number of unaffiliated groups. I think the head section should be very brief, describe what the ex-gay movement is, and be as focused as possible. Anything else can be dealt with later. eaolson 18:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


It's not POV, it's ex-gay. And I've said the same thing ever time I've done this. And it is universally the same from the ex-gay standpoint. And if they are going to be "defined," it's only FAIR. Otherwise, it's just propaganda and I'm totally wasting my time.

Using terms like "sexual orientation" isn't an ex-gay idea. Ex-gays do not believe in sexual orientation being "changed." Yet, in order to define ex-gay, you have to explain that or it sounds like they're trying to "change" homosexuals to heterosexuals, which in this current definition is POV and biased because it does not accurately depict the ex-gay philosophy. They don't believe gay is an inherent thing (like a lefthandedness), so it does not apply. So, to use sexual orientation as part of the definition is inaccurate in describing the ex-gay philosophy. And it is them whose being defined. You have to go into this so it does not sound as if they're a bunch weirdos trying to make left handed people right handed. It's not fair to them, even if you don't agree. They take this very seriously. And they have sacrificed their whole lives for it.

I don't think it's NOV at all. I added in that the gay rights movement strongly opposes it and why. How is that not being neutral?

As far as being "very brief .... focused," I think it's a little too late on that with this article, which came long before I arrived on the scene. 24.144.167.37

I think it would be best if you just fixed your browser so that we can focus on discussing the real issues here. Rhobite 21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the arguments made here are quite silly. Assumptions are made that certainly would not apply to other articles. The assertion that this article should be "from the perspective" of the ex-gay movement is unfounded. Should the wikipedia page on the KKK condemn blacks and non-christians as the KKK does? The fact that the scientific community condemns the ex-gay movement is VERY significant to the subject. Should the wikipedia page on Socialism not include criticisms of socialism? I agree that the article could be "cleaned up" but these rants about the "liberal gay conspiracy" are simply off base. 67.85.208.186 04:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Needed Deletes

First of all despite the attacks by a number editors this artical is very biased and dosn't conform to the NPOV rule. As to a way to fix this problem I would suggest rewritting the artical from the beggining using the current artical as a guide. Also the middle part of the artical needs to be mostly deleted as it has little to nothing to do with the topic. John Paulk walked into a gay bar. why do I care? who is John Paulk? and ok this dude once went to a gay bar, this is actually rather off topic and unnessicary in the artical. So I went to the wikipedia artical on John Paulk and find that he is famous only for going into a gay bar. Also this kid who wrote a blog saying that they made him take a shower everyday, dosn't fit the need in this artical. In fact the artical even says that Zack has told the world that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, why is wikipedia only helping to inflame what is a nonstory. I would like to see some consesus before I delete some of this --T-rex 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • John Paulk was an important figure in the ex-gay movement and his claims and book in which he states that he has converted from homosexuality are clearly relevant. Thus anything which may shed light on the validity of his claims, such as if he demonstrated homosexual behavior in a gay bar, are also relevant. Anonymous.

Informational?

Wikipedia's articles should contain a healthy and balanced amount of critism about controversial subjects. Granted, homosexuality is a controversial subject. This is precisely where the exgay article falls woefully short. Its hue is manipulated to make exgay ministries look negative, perhaps even much more negative than it really is. That is an unnecessary bias. If it is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then where are quotes, data and anecdotes about exgays and ministries which cast them in a favorable light? I only point this out because of the overt antagonism of the article.

The citing of major mental health organizations aligned against the exgay movement is not merit within itself to determine that the movement is "dangerous". There are "dangerous" people in every movement, even in the professions. Mental health organizations are subject and influenced by political biases, therefore making their assertions questionable. Unless detrators can offer corroborating evidence apart from the obvious disdain of the major mental health organizations, I would conclude that it is merely high priced conjecture and perspective.

The article definitely needs to be rewritten without excising the critics, but certainly to balance the information so that the reader's intelligence isn't insulted, but allowed to draw its on conclusions based on information presented. The article shouldnt resemble a court case, but an information desk. 68.219.77.216 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)DL Foster

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ex-gay_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1060446120"