Jump to content

Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Ex-gay vs Ex-gay Movement

I may be wrong but I always thought the word ex-gay meant a person who has changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. I know there this is a very controversial subject and it is debated whether this is possible. However the first paragraph of the article does not define the actual term of "ex-gay" explicitly. The article defines the ex-gay movement. Maybe a new article should be made about the ex-gay movement and this article should be edited?

Representation of Scientific Perspective

There are two lines on this page that I think would benefit from some clarification:

"There is scant scientific evidence suggesting that any actual changes in sexual orientation have taken place."

This is true. Nonetheless, it is not clear what would constitute "scientific" evidence of a change in sexual orientation, or how likely it is that any such person would be monitored with appropriate standards. Homosexuality is not considered an illness, and hence it is difficult to imagine that such a change--if possible--would occur in an environment subjecting it to acceptable scientific standards.

If the statement is to read this way, the article should cite evidence of attempts to verify these claims. The article currently reads "those changes [...] are generally dismissed as the result of [...]" This statement should attribute the "general dismissal" to the scientific or gay community. Furthermore, it sounds rather aloof without any further explanation.

"modern medicine [...] Fundamentalist Chrisitianity [...] homosexuality actually is"

The use of "modern medicine" here, I believe, should be replaced with explicit references to the scientific fields that express their understanding of the matter (that is, Psychology, Psychiatry, etc.) The nature of evidence and research in these areas differs from those which might otherwise be implied by the general term.RWZero 06:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


bias and vandals

This page has an undue amount of biased info. The vandals pink penguin and fireplace keep adding the biased and questionalble info back after it has been corrected. Then they accuse anyone of correcting the info as vandalism. How do we take care of this issue?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyhiloguy31 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You've had enough warnings. Next time, you're going to be reported. Grendel 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

rehack it?

after reading the article and the posts of its critics I also belive that there is no amount of editing that could satisfy the goal of a neutral POV basicly this needs to be scraped and reworded from top to bottom. i wish that everyone who would like to help please post your name as an extension to this or e-mail me at rabies07@gmail.com --rabidronin 12-30-2005 3:31

The article seems fine as it is. Please elaborate on which particular areas are causing problems, and reach a group consensus (on this talk page, not through personal e-mails) before attempting to make any major changes. Grendel 09:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a vandal on this page named fireplace who keeps inserting very biased info. Is there a way to delete or block him?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyhiloguy31 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is against Wikipedia policy, as well as personal attacks. (please take the time to go over Wikipedia policy before further contributing) If you have an issue with the tone of the article, then please discuss it here before making changes. I will not say it again. Grendel 07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I revised the first paragraph to word it in a more neutral way, and to show that ex-gay ministries do not deal in terms of 'orientation' but rather in terms of desires, behavior, and confused feelings, and that emphasis on gender roles is key part of this movement. --Starstattoo 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A Set of Proposed Changes

To make this article NPOV, I offer the following changes:

  • I propose that the overview and introduction be modified, and that three new sections be inserted, as offered in the below text
  • I propose that the sections "ex-gay groups" and "controversies" be pared down significantly
  • I propose that the "Dissenting Views" section be edited, and perhaps retitled and pared down to reflect the new text


Modified Overview and Introduction, New Sections:


The ex-gay or exodus movement is a controversial movement that consists of several groups that seek to alter the sexual orientation of homosexual or bisexual individuals from homosexuality or bisexuality to heterosexuality. Most, though not all, of these groups believe that all homosexual or bisexual individuals should attempt to make this change. Ex-gay groups offer counseling, prayer, and other techniques to achieve this. 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.

Introduction

The movement is primarily based in the United States (though it exists in other countries such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom), and is largely led by Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians (see also Homosexuality and Christianity).

The modern ex-gay movement has been broadly condemned by nearly all major psychological, psychiatric, and medical associations. Today, these secular associations point to scientific evidence suggesting that homosexuals cannot change their orientation and argue that homosexuals have no reason to do so aside from societal pressure. They say repressing those feelings may cause future psychological damage. These assertions are vigorously disputed by those in the ex-gay movement.

Because of the differences of opinion between modern medicine and fundamentalist Christianity's views on what homosexuality actually is, establishing a dialogue between the two groups is difficult at best.

Ex-gay Use of Language and Terminology

One of the most common barriers to dialogue stems from the fact that the language and terminology related to homosexuality that ex-gay groups employ differs significantly from the common usage. In common usage, the terms "gay" and "homosexual" are used to refer to a person whose primary attractions are to persons of the same sex, with little distinction made between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Ex-gay groups, however, regard the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior as extremely important, and generally place greater emphasis on the latter. The term "gay" is always applied only in reference to sexual behavior and identity. Usage of the term "homosexual" varies; many use it in the same sense as "gay," while others use it more flexibly, most frequently using it as a modifier of other terms (e.g. "homosexual feelings," etc.) The terms "ex-gay" and "former homosexual" are thus used to refer to people who have altered their sexual behavior but do not necessarily indicate a claimed change in sexual orientation. The possession of a homosexual orientation is almost always referred to as experiencing "same-sex attractions" (the existence of "homosexual orientations" as such is generally denied). For an example of the differences in usage, consider a man who in the past engaged in homosexual behavior but is now celibate but has an unaltered homosexual orientation. In common parlance, he would be called a "celibate gay man" or a "celibate homosexual" but in ex-gay usage would be referred to as an "ex-gay" or "former homosexual" who is still "working through his same-sex attractions."

The Ex-gay View of Human Sexuality and Homosexuality

Ex-gays view homosexuality and its causes significantly differently from the modern scientific community. The scientific community generally regards human sexuality as a continuum from heterosexuality to bisexuality to homosexuality (see Kinsey Scale). Although the scientific community does not fully understand the causes of homosexuality, it is generally believed that it results from a combination of genetic and environmental factors and that one's sexual orientation is probably set sometime in early childhood or before. While fluctuations in one's sexual orientation may occur over one's lifetime, it is believed that one's sexual orientation is generally not alterable. The scientific community views homosexuality and heterosexuality as traits, akin to left-handedness and right-handedness.

Ex-gay groups, however, view human sexuality in terms of a default heterosexuality. Although some may make use of the Kinsey Scale, it is clear that Kinsey zero is seen as the default and that any other number is viewed as deviation from the norm. Ex-gay groups generally believe that "same-sex attractions," as they call them, are caused from environmental factors only--defective relationships with one's father or male peers during childhood or adolescence are most frequently cited as its primary causes. They do not advocate denial of homosexual feelings, but believe they mask a deeper underlying issue that needs to be searched out. They believe that, through treatment of these underlying issues, same-sex attractions can be controlled, diminished, and/or eliminated, and that opposite-sex attractions can be amplified and developed. Ex-gay groups regard homosexuality as a psychological disorder, and regard its treatment much in the same way that one regards treatment of alcoholism or other addictions. Ex-gay groups assert that the scientific community has taken its stances on homosexuality due to political, and not scientific, considerations.

Ex-gay Claims Concerning Homosexual Change

Ex-gay Groups and Changes in Sexual Behavior

From the point of view of ex-gay groups, a change in the sexual behavior of an individual from homosexuality to either celibacy or heterosexuality is generally regarded as "change," irrespective of any actual change in the underlying sexual orientation. Many ex-gays live celibate lives. Although the wisdom and moral necessity of doing so is hotly contested, the capacity of homosexuals to do so if they so choose is not disputed. Other ex-gays marry opposite-sex spouses and remain faithful to their spouses within their marriages. As a matter of morality, it is generally regarded that the spouse must be made aware of one's past and/or ongoing struggles with same-sex attractions before the marriage takes place. Some married ex-gays acknowledge that their sexual attractions remain primarily homosexual, but seek to make their marriages work anyway.

Because of the way that ex-gay groups regard homosexuality and because of the way they define the term "ex-gay" itself, "relapses" into homosexual behavior are hardly surprising to ex-gay groups. Since one may be "ex-gay" without having experienced a total, or even any, change in sexual orientation, that some ex-gays may "fall back" into "old patterns of behavior" is seen as something to be expected. Ex-gay groups regard embarrassing exposures of their leaders engaged in homosexual behavior in the same way that an anti-alcoholism group might regard the exposure of one of its leaders to have taken up drinking again.

Ex-gay Claims Concerning Changes in Sexual Orientation

Many ex-gays claim that their sexual orientation has been altered as a result of their treatment. Most say they have experienced a decrease in same-sex attractions coupled with an increase in opposite-sex attractions, and a significant number claim that their sexual orientation is now predominantly heterosexual—that is, that their opposite-sex attractions now exceed their same-sex attractions. Very few, however, claim to have completely eradicated their same-sex attractions such that exposure to homosexual imagery would pose no temptations.

These claims of an alteration in one's underlying sexual orientation are hotly disputed by the scientific and gay communities, and there is scant scientific evidence suggesting that any actual changes in sexual orientation have taken place. Ex-gay groups rely heavily on testimonials, and the "scientific evidence" they cite are generally survey results of reported change among ex-gays. Those changes in reported sexual orientation are generally dismissed as the result of denial, wishful thinking, sexual repression, or willful deception.

Person 1485 04:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Person_1485

I revised the first paragraph to word it in a more neutral way, and to show that ex-gay ministries do not deal in terms of 'orientation' but rather in terms of desires, behavior, and confused feelings, and that emphasis on gender roles is key part of this movement. --Starstattoo 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

LIA

In the Love In Action section, the article says: "On September 12, 2005 the Tennessee-based Love in Action facility was determined by the Tennessee Department of Mental Health to have been operating two "unlicensed mental health supportive living facilities." [1] LIA was given until September 30 to apply for a license as a mental health facility." Has LIA applied for such a license? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

LIA and the Zach Scandal

FlareNUKE keeps editing the page to say Zach's last name is not know. It is known, but I think it was removed at some point because he's a minor. It may not be appropriate to publish his last name on such a public forum. Anyway, it is known, his father even did an interview at some point with the conservative Christian press. See the edit history for details. eaolson 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Eaolson is right. Zach's last name was unknown, some people didn't even believe the blog was real, until his father was on the 700 Club and said their last name and confirmed the story. --JamesB3 07:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Zach's info, as well as the larger story is available through http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/crosshairs.pdf It was just released this month. I'm not personally techie enough to know how you'd like me to sign this off. -

Intro

This is not recognized by mainstream psychology and has little/weak backing in research. I think it should be noted in the introduction, as it is very one-sided as it stands. --Shadow Puppet 15:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I documented some legitimate research that DOES exist. Ignoring that research only makes one look foolish. Studies have been published that represent both sides on this issue. It's also rather sad that attempts are made to silence a link to newdirection.ca which actually is very forthcoming in listing the strengths and weaknesses of research summaries that support the idea that orientation can be changed. For this reason, I added other research, all of which has been published in respectable journals. (Ghostmonkey) 19:26, 22 March 2006.

Shadow Puppet is right; we can't give undue weight to those who disregard medicine. I'm going to wind up reverting a lot deeper at this rate before this article even approaches the level of neutrality it once had. Alienus 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The only one disregarding science is you. Your agenda is very transparent. You want the article to be biased against ex-gays. I want it to be neutral. There IS research that supports that orientation is not fixed for all. Mentioning that isn't biased. Especially since stuff from Activists like Besen is put in the article as gospel. Trying to turn the article into a hit piece against ex-gays does hurts Wikipedia. I do not propose writing the article as pro-ex-gay, only NEUTRAL, which means science that supports them, must be mentioned. User:Ghostmonkey57 23 March 2006

The evidence is "biased" against the notion of ex-gays, so don't blame me for following wherever the evidence leads. We need to discuss these fringe and disputed studies that support the ex-gay movement before inserting them, otherwise this article will lose all genuine neutrality. Alienus 08:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No, you want to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your agenda. Your terms on this talk page give away what you are attempting to do. IE: "The notion of". Scientific research exists. There is nothing biased or NPOV about a study that was reported in a peer reviwed journal. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that even many homosexuals are starting to embrace the idea of choice in orientation. The only reason to attempt to silence these points, and hide research that conflicts with your agenda, is bias and propaganda. The article as was written was challenged as NPOV, this was due to it being written up as a hit piece against ex-gays. I added neutral research studies and some other things to attempt to bring about neutrality. It's obvious that neutrality isn't your goal, rather you want a hit piece against ex-gays. That's not what Wikipedia is for. You talk about undue weight, yet have no problems with Besen, who is demonstratibly biased.
For everyone else who is involved with this article, who might have some sense of reason, I do not want to take the article into a pro ex-gay direction either. Instead I want a neutrsl article. Considering that the article was patently anti-ex-gay and challenged as NPOV, the edits I added can only improve the situation.
Read the article as edited, see if there is any endorsement of ex-gays in them. There isn't. The only thing that appears is information. Instead of an anti ex-gay hit piece, readers can now see both views and decide for themselves.
User:Ghostmonkey57 23 March 2006
Early in the article, it states:
The modern ex-gay movement has been broadly condemned by nearly all major psychological, psychiatric, and medical associations. Today, these secular associations point to a lack of scientific evidence suggesting that homosexuals can change their orientation and argue that homosexuals have no reason to do so aside from societal pressure. They say repressing those feelings may cause future psychological damage.
Read it again. Broad condemnation. Nearly all major associations. Now read the policy on undue weight. A key quote from it is: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."
The simple fact of the matter is that the medical pro-ex-gay viewpoint should only be represented in proportion to its prominence, and that means it deserves about two words, and one of those is "crackpot". We give it more than that, and then only because this article is about the ex-gay movement. You would like to rewrite the article into an ringing endorsement of the ex-gay movement, ostensibly in the name of neutrality, while it's painfully obvious that you're a partisan who doesn't understand what NPOV even means. Alienus 12:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be having some trouble understanding this. A few hints.

1) Moving the entirety of your desired changes into a section here is overkill. When I want to see that text, I can access the history.

2) Please respond here to what I say here. Don't respond in another section.

3) Making mention of these studies is about as much space as they deserve. Extensive quoting of studies that go against "nearly all major psychological, psychiatric, and medical associations" is undue weight.

4) If you want to argue that these studies are not among the "broadly condemned" views, then you have a whole different problem, called Original Research.

Got it? Alienus 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Still waiting for a reply from Ghostmonkey57. Alienus 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit

After about three months of leaving the text above on this page for comment (and getting none), I went ahead and implemented the text (further edited somewhat). I now propose that we move to the second and third steps I have suggested:

  • I propose that the sections "ex-gay groups" and "controversies" be pared down significantly
  • I propose that the "Dissenting Views" section be edited, and perhaps retitled and pared down to reflect the new text

Person 1485 07:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Person_1485

This is reasonable, but the article has since gone in the opposite direction. I've taken steps to move it back into line with Wiki policy. Alienus 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Reparative therapy?

Before the recent major edit, I had been thinking that this page should be merged with reparative therapy. I think there is a difference between the issues in that ex-gay is a movement while reparative therapy is a therapy to achieve the change ex-gay groups say are necessary. But much of this article now discusses (and, to some extent) defends reparative therapy. Is it necessary to maintain separate articles? eaolson 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, merge the articles. User:Ghostmonkey57

I believe they should be merged as well. --Petersian 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

After a quick scan of the articles, it seems the major contribution of the Ex-gay article is information about specific organizations and the controversies surrounding those organizations. A better layout might have Reparative therapy as the main article, with a small section on "Ex-gay" groups that links to a larger article on those groups (the content could largely come from this current article). Fireplace 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Al 04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

After having started this thread, I have to say that I think I've reconsidered. Not all ex-gay groups use reparative therapy. It sounds like Courage, for example, teaches that gay people should be celibate, but not that they should change their actual orientation. Also, reparative therapy is not the only method ex-gay groups have or do use. Aversion therapy is another example, hormone therapy is another. I now say keep the articles separate. They're related but not merge candidates. eaolson 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive POV injection.

This new set of changes has served to inject a lot of POV into the article, particularly in giving undue weight to fringe studies and other questionable sources. I think we have to stop, step back, and consider each proposed insertion carefully before we go forward with any of them. I suggest that you bring up any changes here first, to avoid further reversions. Alienus 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Absolute nonsense. Point by point:

However, in spite of this, some research that graded participants on the Kinsey Scale in regards to the strength of their homosexual orientation, documented clear shifts in the orientation after Therapy, or for other unexplained reasons.

Cites are provided for this. There is no POV in that statement. Some research does exist, in fact research from every decade since the 1940's has demonstrated this.

It is also of note that many homosexuals are now embracing the idea that sexuality is not fixed and unchangeable. In the homosexual publication "The Advocate" Donna Minkowitz wrote about how she chose her lesbian oreintation:

Remember that most of the line about homosex being one's nature, not a choice, was articulated as a response to brutal repression. "It's not our fault!" gay activists began to declaim a century ago, when queers first began to organize in Germany and England. "We didn't choose this, so don't punish us for it!" One hundred years later, it's time for us to abandon this defensive posture and walk upright on the earth. Maybe you didn't choose to be gay—that's fine. But I did.—Donna Minkowitz, "Recruit, Recruit, Recruit!" The Advocate, December 29, 1992

Others acknowledge the possibility of ex-gays:

Can one be "ex-gay?" A year or so ago I would have answered a simple "of course not" to this seemingly simple question. In the second issue of Whosoever, we even presented the question as "Ex-Gays? There are None." Now, I'm not so sure. Surprisingly, it was Rev. Mel White who made me rethink the answer to this question. I asked him, in a rather derisive manner, about "ex-gay ministries" and their work, and those who now claim to be "ex-gay." His response was, "maybe they are, who am I to say?" After his long struggle with his homosexuality and especially his journey through some ex-gay therapies, I was surprised by his answer. He clarified saying, "some people say they've chosen to be gay, and I have to respect that." —Candace Chellew, "Am I Ex-Straight? Ex-Gays and the Ethics of Labels," Whosoever: An Online Magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Christians, Vo. 2, No. 2, September/October There are even organizations run by homosexuals that endorse the idea that orientation is a choice. [1]

Again, this is not POV material. Many homosexuals are now open to the possibility of change, and cites are provided (From Homosexual publications and a homosexual organization). The only possible motivation for attempting to paint all homosexuals as being unanimously opposed to ex-gays, is bias. There is no undue weight given to these homosexual groups. These are mainstream homosexual publications, and they thought fit to publish them.

Some, such as Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D. of Regent University and Warren Throckmorton Ph.D. of Grove City College, believe that homosexuality is not fixed and unchangeable and that the possibility exists for change. They published a Study in an APA Journal which argued in favor of providing reorientation and related services based on three principles: (a) respect for the autonomy and self-determination of persons, (b) respect for valuative frameworks, creeds, and religious values regarding the moral status of same-sex behavior, and (c) service provision given the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful. (Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75.)

This is fact, before this addition the article suggested that scientists were unanimous that homosexuality is fixed and unchangeable. It is important for readers to know that some dissent exists, and the views were credible enough to be publised in an APA journal. There is no undue weight here, this research was credible enough to appear in a peer reviewed APA Journal. Yarhouse and Throckmorton are no Paul Camerons. Their research is well done, and APA published.


However, scientific documented change has been recorded in individuals that had been classified on The Kinsey Scale as Homosexual in orientation. For example, in 1993, a Psychatrist perscribed treatment with phenelzine for a homosexual male suffering from social phobia. During treatment, however, there was an unexpected change in his sexual orientation. (See: Golwyn, D., Sevlie, C. (1993) Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 141: 173 -181.) It is important to note that this was not the intent of the treatment, but none-the-less, is scientfically documented change in sexual orientation.

In another study, published in 1970, two Doctors provided group therapy and counseling for 30 homosexual men. They recorded some interesting results. They split their group into two subgroups, one containing 14 men who expressed a desire to change their orientation, another containing men who expressed no such desire. Of the 14 exclusively homosexual men who wanted to change, everyone of them attained some degree of heterosexual adaptation. 10 were satisfactorily married at follow-up. However in the subgroup of clients not expressing any pretreatment interest in sexual orientation change only (27%) reported any shift in orientation. This led the authors to identify motivation on the part of the client as key. (Birk, L., Miller, B., Cohler, B. (1970) Group Psychotherapy for Homosexual Men. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia. 218: 1 - 33.)

Again, this is simple information, I picked two studies, one in which spontaneous change was documented (and was not intended) and another where change was the desired outcome of the treatment/study. There is nothing POV about this information, nor is it given undue weight. This information merely allows readers to be informed and come to their own conclusion. In fact, this research is much more credible (as it was peer reviewed) than the ramblings of anti ex-gay activist Wayne Besen, who is referenced throughout the article. Again, there is no undue weight being given to this research. It was published in mainstream peer reviewed journals, this isn't Dr. Cameron stuffUser:Ghostmonkey57




Ghostmonkey, first, I would direct your attention to the top of this page. "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Before I made my major edit, I posted that edit here for people to see. I only made my edit after allowing an extended period for comment. I then proposed how the editing of the article should proceed, hoping to acheive a consensus. Your changes should have been post here first, for comment. There was no reason for this to degenerate into an edit war.

Before I made my edit, this article was significantly biased against ex-gay groups, and failed even to include useful information on them. I think most observers would agree that the edit I made was extremely neutral in nature (particularly given the utter lack of controversy that surrounded the edit). I understand this issue fairly well, and I will defend my edit. (I do acknowledge, however, that the remainder of the article does contain a fair amount of bias, hence my proposal for how to proceed with revising the article).

Many of your additions have nothing or very little to do with the heading under which they are placed. Your addition under the "terminology" section has nothing to do with terminology. I'm confused entirely by why "queer by choice" belongs at all in an article about ex-gays.

I would consider the "scientific community" to be the American Pyschological Association, the American Pyschiatric Association, the American Medical Association, among others. The scientists you cite are not the scientific community, they are dissidents from the scientific community.

With all due respect, the changes that you have made indicate that you lack a fundamental understanding of the history of the science regarding this issue. Although I appreciate New Direction's attempt to take a scientific approach, their reviews of the studies they cover are hardly unbiased. Merely because changes "were recorded on a Kinsey Scale" does not mean that actual change has taken place. In 1994, Dr. Doug Haldeman published a critique of the pre-existing scientific literature regarding conversion therapy, establishing strong doubt that any changes in sexual orientation have actually taken place. This critique seems to be generally relied upon by scientists, and is cited in subsequent literature--hence, my statement that scientific evidence is "scant." The only subsequent study showing changes in orientation is the Spitzer one, but there was significant dispute in the scientific community as to whether the self-reports are methodologically reliable. Even Dr. Spitzer, however, agreed that the percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation who might be able to alter that orientation is very small (he estimated perhaps around 3%).

Given your failure to submit your changes for review, and your general lack of understanding of the issue, I am changing most of the changes that have been made to my major edit back to my language. I understand your concerns, however, which I why I submit the following statement for review and comment (it should be inserted after the sentence ending in "willful deception"): "At most, the body of scientific evidence supports the assertion that it may or may not be possible for a small percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation to modify that orientation." (I have also gone ahead and removed the scare quotes I had placed around "scientific evidence" in an earlier sentence; they don't strike me as appropriate.)

If you would like for some of your changes to remain, please post them here for review and comment first. And then, perhaps, we can go on to revise the remainder of the article on a basis of consensus.

(Haldeman's critique may be found here: http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Practice&Ethics.pdf )

Person 1485 21:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Person, there's also a problem of bad faith. He's made changes without responding to discussion here, which is unacceptable for an article this controversial. Alienus 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm more willing to attribute it to ignorance of proper protocol instead of bad faith. But yes, any further attempts at changing the article must absolutely come here first. Person 1485 22:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence." So, yes, he's probably just not getting the idea, although I've tried to be very clear. I'd rather hash out these issues here than edit-war over it. Alienus 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article as edited is still extremely biased against ex-gays. It needs fixed badly.

Let's start with your point:

With all due respect, the changes that you have made indicate that you lack a fundamental understanding of the history of the science regarding this issue. Although I appreciate New Direction's attempt to take a scientific approach, their reviews of the studies they cover are hardly unbiased. Merely because changes "were recorded on a Kinsey Scale" does not mean that actual change has taken place. In 1994, Dr. Doug Haldeman published a critique of the pre-existing scientific literature regarding conversion therapy, establishing strong doubt that any changes in sexual orientation have actually taken place. This critique seems to be generally relied upon by scientists, and is cited in subsequent literature--hence, my statement that scientific evidence is "scant." The only subsequent study showing changes in orientation is the Spitzer one, but there was significant dispute in the scientific community as to whether the self-reports are methodologically reliable. Even Dr. Spitzer, however, agreed that the percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation who might be able to alter that orientation is very small (he estimated perhaps around 3%).

This is absolutely incorrect. First of all, I am glad you brought up Haldeman. You seem to think he is credible, if that is the case, you should be interested to know that he has participated in several symposiums with Dr. Yarhouse & Dr. Throckmorton. If he thought they were quacks, do you think he would have given them that legitimacy? The study published by Yarhouse and Throckmorton was credible enough to appear in an APA journal, and it was published after 1994 (Note, that's subsequent to Haldeman's study. Also subsequent to Haldeman's study was the one already mentioned in the article, performed by two homosexual Drs. Ariel Shidlo & Michael Schroeder, even they found that some (Albeit a small number, did change their orientation).

The views of Yarhouse and Throckmorton should be allowed in the article, as they are credible researchers. The study that I mentioned from 1970 should also be permitted, as it was well documented and did record scientfically that change DID occur in homosexuals.

This gets to another problem. A huge portion of the article is devoted to stuff by Wayne Besen, and attacks on the shortcomings of Those like Paul Paulk, I see this type of nonsense consistantly from homosexual activists. They falsely believe that if they can discredit some ex-gays, they can somehow destroy the rest of the ex-gays by association. This is fallacious logic, it does not matter if Paulk really didn't change, him not being able to change does not negate the change that others have experienced.

Going back to the study I cited from 1970, the researchers there found that self motivation was key to success in any treatment.

There should be mention of successes, ones who have never been accused of failures like Paulk. For example Dennis Jernigan www.dennisjernigan.com/testimon.asp, or Roberta Laurila http://www.precious-testimonies.com/BornAgain/o-r/Roberta.htm. (There are many others that could be included here).

Of course the successes are attacked by homosexual activists too (Usually with the claim that they were not really homosexual in the first place but rather bi-sexual) But this is also fallacious, (See "No True Scotsman Fallacy")

The article needs balance and Neutrality. I am not trying to write a pro ex-gay article, only a Neutral one. There is no reason (Other than bias) for Wayne Besen to be given more representation that legitimate scientific researchers.

I'm confused entirely by why "queer by choice" belongs at all in an article about ex-gays.

Two reasons, First and most importantly, it shows that homosexuals are embracing the idea that orientation can be chosen, and are open to the possibility of change (Both Heterosexual and Homosexual). As written the article makes it sound as if the homosexual community is united against ex-gays. Secondly, One of the quotes was directly about ex-gays:

Can one be "ex-gay?" A year or so ago I would have answered a simple "of course not" to this seemingly simple question. In the second issue of Whosoever, we even presented the question as "Ex-Gays? There are None." Now, I'm not so sure. Surprisingly, it was Rev. Mel White who made me rethink the answer to this question. I asked him, in a rather derisive manner, about "ex-gay ministries" and their work, and those who now claim to be "ex-gay." His response was, "maybe they are, who am I to say?" After his long struggle with his homosexuality and especially his journey through some ex-gay therapies, I was surprised by his answer. He clarified saying, "some people say they've chosen to be gay, and I have to respect that." —Candace Chellew, "Am I Ex-Straight? Ex-Gays and the Ethics of Labels," Whosoever: An Online Magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Christians, Vo. 2, No. 2, September/October

Coming from a homosexual publication, that is huge.

My only intent with my edits was to bring Neutrality to the article, perhaps enough to get the NPOV tag removed. As it stands right now, that isn't even close to happening.


User:Ghostmonkey57

The ability of people to change sexual orientation really isn't relevant to this article. This article is about the ex-gay movement, not whether sexual orientation is mutable. Yes, there are some studies that suggest that it might be for some fraction of the population. The problem with singling out a few studies to be highlighted in this article is that there are hundreds of studies, and attempting to draw (or imply) conclusions from a few smacks of original research. Also highlighting these few studies implies that there is a scientific concensus where there isn't one. Cherry-picking data is also a form of bias.
Most of the contested stuff belongs at reparative therapy or perhaps sexual orientation, in my opinion. eaolson 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
There are over 40 Studies that have been documented that show some change can occur. I must point out that since those against ex-gays insist that NO ONE can change, the showing that Some can and Do Change is important. There is no Cherry picking of data. [User:Ghostmonkey57]]

There are many problems with the basic claim that even a small percentage of homosexuals have a mutable orientation. First, the methodology is notoriously inaccurate, relying on self-reports. When asked, people say what they believe or what they want you to believe, not necessarily the truth. Second, the null hypothesis is that their orientation was already somewhat bisexual to begin with, and that would need to be ruled out somehow. Besides out and out bisexuals, there are certainly many cases where people who act in all ways heterosexually so long as opposite-sex mates are available will settle for homosexual relationships rather than be celibate. And, of course, making a monosexually gay person celibate does not make them straight. In short, the whole thing is doomed from the start. Alienus 03:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, you rail against self-reports, yet have no problem including a study by two Homosexual researchers, who relied on self-reports to document "damage" done by reparative therapy. Yet even these researchers found some homosexuals who benefited from therapy and changed. Your agenda is obvious here. Are you Wayne Besen???[User:Ghostmonkey57]]
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that it was "doomed." Difficult to research and control all the variables, sure. I doubt that we will ever understand human behavior as well as we understand, say, the charge on the electron, but it's still a valid topic for study.
That being said, it seems to me that many of the researchers that have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is mutable are putting their own biases before the medicine. Looking through some of the abstracts of papers listed at the recently-disputed Newdirections website makes it clear that these researchers are coming from the unfounded assumtion that homosexuality is something that should be changed, not just can be changed. And, I'm sorry, but I just can't accept anything like the Journal of Psychology and Christianity as a valid scientific journal. eaolson 03:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
First off, here we see the bias of "Alienus" right out in the open. He wants to ignore all data that doesn't come from Wayne Besen. Secondly, Your not much better. You rail about Cherry-picking Data, then you pick one study off newdirections website to try to dispute the rest by default. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. The Yarhouse/Throckmorton study that I noted comes from an APA journal. The other two studies I highlighted both come from peer reviewed mainstream journals. Why don't you just admit, you don't want them heard? [User:Ghostmonkey57]]

For some reason, when I read that title, I imagine a journal dedicated to the psychology underlying Christianity. This may be due to the fact that I'm reading Dennett's new book on religion at the moment, though. I agree that such journals seem inherently suspect due to their religious affiliation and the concomitant obligations.

You're right that this inquiry isn't literally doomed, but it sure is inherently problematic, and it doesn't look like anyone has come close to dealing with this level of difficulty. If anything, they seem ill-equipped to do so, and not particularly motivated to try.

This brings us to the next point, which is bias. Historically, the idea that gays can change their orientation is strongly linked with the idea that they should. To put it another way, people who call homosexuality immoral are less likely to do so if they believe it's not a matter of choice.

Some pro-gay activists find this more offensive than reassuring, because they believe the morality of homosexuality is independent of whether it's a choice. In other words, to say that it's immoral if chosen is to suggest that homosexuality is inherently harmful and anyone who would choose it is immoral. This may well underly the thinking of the few pro-gay activists who occasionally speak of homosexuality as a choice. Alienus 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Take for example, the first two articles at the New Direction site [2]. Barlow and Agras research the treatment of "sexual deviation" and Berger deals with the "treatment of male homosexuality". I think it's also interesting to note that virtually all of their research summaries predate 1975 or so. eaolson 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Science puts great value on new work, especially when it has the potential to overturn conventional wisdom, so when you see a curious tendency to refer only to archaic science, you know the fix is in. Creationists do the exact same thing. Alienus 05:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am suprised anyone would be so foolish to attempt the "These are old Studies, so they are automatically invalid." That is so utterly fallacious that it almost isn't worth a response. No study automatically becomes invalid soely because of it's age. Nor are newer studies "better". The only thing that matters is the methods used in the study itself. Going back to cherry-picking data, Of the three studies I directly mentioned, only one was 1970, the others were 1993 and 2002. You guys are doing one favor for me though, you are demonstrating the bias I am talking about, and show you want a hit piece on ex-gays, not a neutral article.

I also note neither of you mentioned my point about how A huge portion of the article is devoted to stuff by Wayne Besen, and attacks on the shortcomings of Those like Paul Paulk, I see this type of nonsense consistantly from homosexual activists. They falsely believe that if they can discredit some ex-gays, they can somehow destroy the rest of the ex-gays by association. This is fallacious logic, it does not matter if Paulk really didn't change, him not being able to change does not negate the change that others have experienced.

There should be mention of successes, ones who have never been accused of failures like Paulk. For example Dennis Jernigan www.dennisjernigan.com/testimon.asp, or Roberta Laurila http://www.precious-testimonies.com/BornAgain/o-r/Roberta.htm. (There are many others that could be included here).


[User:Ghostmonkey57]]



Instead of just debating each other, let's try to figure out how to go from here.

Let's start with sections 1-4. These are the ones that I edited, and I believe them to be reasonably free from bias. (The rest of the article has some serious bias problems; this I have acknowledged repeatedly.)

No changes have been proposed to the section 1 (introduction), so I will assume that it is acceptable for the time being.

I think we should be able to agree that section 2 (terminology) is acceptable as it stands. The section spells out the differences in usage, and then provides an example that illustrates the differences well. The proposed addition to that section had nothing to do with terminology. I understand that you might be concerned about the example giving the impression that all ex-gays are actually just celibate gays, but I don't think that the example does anything more than serve to illustrate the differences in terminology.

Section 3 discusses the ex-gay view of human sexuality and homosexuality. The only things relevant to this section are 1. how ex-gays view human sexuality and homosexuality, and 2. how the scientific community views human sexuality and homosexuality, for purposes of contrast. Since there were no modifications made to the second paragraph (the ex-gay view) I will assume that it is an acceptable stating of their views. The question, then, turns on the views of the scientific community. I believe that the language is acceptable as it stands. The scientific community, speaking as a whole through its professional organizations (the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, etc.), has taken a position on this issue. I believe that the current language is an accurate portrayal of that position. The scientists you have mentioned do not represent the scientific community, but instead are dissidents from the scientific community. I understand that you object to the implication of unanimity. Perhaps we could solve this by adding at the end of the ex-gay views paragraph something along the lines of "A very small minority of scientists support this view." I am not particularly fond of this solution, since some (most?) ex-gay-sympathetic scientists have a middling position that does not reflect the view of the paragraph. Suggestions?

Reference some of the material that supports the ex-gay views. [User:Ghostmonkey57]
I was actually hoping you might suggest some language. The only problem with the language as it currently stands is your objection of the implication of complete unanimity in the scientific community, when there are dissenters. The views of dissident scientists are not relevant; the only things that are relevant are ex-gay views and then scientific community views for contrast. Thinking over it, then, I am more comfortable with my proposed addition to the end of the ex-gay views paragraph: "A very small minority of scientists support this view." Objections or preferred alternatives? Person 1485 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "queer by choice" material: first, you are mistaken concerning the signficance of these declarations. A number of leftist gay activists have taken this position out of marxist, post-modernist, or social constructivist beliefs. These beliefs, however, have no scientific basis, and are not common in the gay community (or anywhere else, for that matter). Second, the views of these leftist gay activists has nothing to do with either of the two criteria I suggest are relevant to this section. It neither explains ex-gay views, nor does it explain the scientific community views, which are needed only for contrast purposes. This material might belong in articles about post-modernists or social constructivists or in the article about homosexuality itself, but it does not belong here.

The reference article from whosoever should be included as it illustrates that many homosexuals do acknowledge that ex-gays can exist. [User:Ghostmonkey57]
That some leftist post-modernist/social constructivist homosexuals think that ex-gays can exist has no bearing on whether or not they actually do. It just isn't relevant here. Person 1485 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no changes have been proposed to section 4.1 (ex-gay claims regarding change in sexual behavior), I will assume that this section is acceptable as it stands.

On section 4.2: first, even aside from the science, there is a fundamental problem with the assertion that "there is documented scientific evidence that has recorded change in homosexuals who were graded on The Kinsey Scale." Namely, that the scientific community, speaking as a whole through its professional organizations, denies the validity of that statement. Essentially, that statement might be rendered as:

"The American Psychological Association and related professional organizations assert that there is no evidence showing the efficacy of reparative therapy. This assertion is false."

Although you may believe that the scientific evidence contradicts them, it simply cannot be NPOV for a Wikipedia article to make a declaration that a position taken by the APA, the AMA, and related organizations is in error. We just can't do that.

Next, I have looked up the Throckmorton/Yarhouse "study" you cited (Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75). That document is not a study. It is rather, a commentary; even its abstract says that "The purpose of this article is to identify the ethical issues in efforts to ban reorientation therapies." It does not break any new ground scientifically. Further, whether I believe that Haldeman is credible is irrelevant; the only that matters is that his 1994 critique seems to be generally relied upon by scientists and is cited in subsequent literature. The "debate" point is entirely off-topic; a scientist may debate a quack who's spreading falsehoods to prove the person wrong. There's a Catch-22 with quacks: if a scientist refuses to debate a quack, the quack says it's because the scientist is afraid to be proven wrong; if the scientist does debate the quack, it elevates the quack's credibility. (Please note that I'm not calling Throckmorton a quack, I'm merely illustrating that "debates" should not be used as evidence of credibility). Shidlo & Schroeder did not find a small number of ex-gays who had changed their orientation, they found a small number ex-gays who had claimed to change their orientation. There's a difference. Relying on the Spitzer study, I have offered to add the following sentence to the end of 4.2: "At most, the body of scientific evidence supports the assertion that it may or may not be possible for a small percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation to modify that orientation." Is this acceptable?

Your way off base here. If you actually read further than the abstract, you will find that Yarhouse and Throckmorton documented "scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful." They go into great detail in doing so. They should be included in the article, the edit I proposed doesn't endorse their views, but merely explains that they exist, and the APA thought them credible enough to publish in one of their peer reviewed journals. [User:Ghostmonkey57]
You neglected to respond to the first half of this--"it simply cannot be NPOV for a Wikipedia article to make a declaration that a position taken by the APA, the AMA, and related organizations is in error." We cannot make an unqualified statement that evidence exists showing that a homosexual orientation is mutable when they have declared that it does not. The Throckmorton paper you have cited goes into the literature for all of 1 column of one page. It does not break new scientific ground. He asserts that change may be possible, which is why it should not be banned. I do not see how anything here contradicts my proposed addition: "At most, the body of scientific evidence supports the assertion that it may or may not be possible for a small percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation to modify that orientation." If you have preferred alternative language, please offer it. Person 1485 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There are huge problems with looking to the APA as unbiased and fair on this issue. For example, the APA recently came out for homosexual marriage. What they fail to let people know is that the panel that reached this decision consisted entirely of "gay activists."
The panel consisted of: Armand Cerbone, Ph.D., Chicago; Beverly Greene, Ph.D., St. John's University; Kristin Hancock, Ph.D., Graduate School of Professional Psychology at John F. Kennedy University; Lawrence A. Kurdek, Ph.D., Wright State University; Candace A. McCullough, Ph.D., Bethesda, Md.; and Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles.
  • "Dr. Armand Cerbone, who was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 2003 and was awarded an award for distinguished service to the gay movement by the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues, which is Division 44 of the APA.
  • "Dr. Beverly Green, who served as editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, published by Sage Publications in 2000.
  • "Dr. Kristin Hancock, who developed the APA's 'Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients,' and is a founding member of APA's Division 44, a group focusing on gay issues.
  • "Dr. Lawrence A. Kurdek, who serves on the editorial board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology."
  • Dr. Candace A. McCullough, is an outspoken lesbian who attempted in 2002 to produce, for the second time, a deaf child by artificial insemination, using sperm from a deaf donor.
Tell me, given your concerns about the research I posted, do you see anything wrong with the APA using the above panel to issue a statement on a political issue like same sex marriage??
There has to be some way to strike a balance here. [User:Ghostmonkey57]
I don't really see any bias in the APA's stance on gay marriage. Frankly, it just seems like the inevitable extension of its scientific and medical conclusion that homosexuality is not a pathology. As for these five doctors you accuse of being "gay activists," the first four of them sound like probably-straight people who are knowledgeable about LGBT issues, and are probably the most logical sort of people to have on such a panel. eaolson 14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a valid point considering that the ex-gay groups argue that the APA is biased. Perhaps a mention can be made that the ex-gay groups accuse the APA of bias against them. Ghostmonkey57 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
Somehow, I think that a valid definition of "bias" needs to be something other than "disagree with." eaolson 23:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
As valid a point as the fact that creationist groups argue that all biologists are biased. How much space do we have to allocate to anti-scientific rantings? Alienus 23:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Eaolson, a central claim of ex-gay groups is that some of their members have changed their sexual orientation, so change in sexual orientation (limited, of course, to the extent that it applies to ex-gay groups) is relevant to this article.

Again, for the moment let's focus on sections 1-4. Then we can move on to the rest of the article. Person 1485 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, piece by piece, I have some other suggestions that I will propose, when I can devot more time. Please note, I'm only trying for a neutral article, not a pro ex-gay one. [User:Ghostmonkey57]
I understand that, and I believe you. I hope we can reach consensus. Person 1485 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to bring some focus back into this; I'll cooperate with that effort. So far, what you said seems accurate. In particular, I did some follow-up research on queerbychoice.com and they're definitely social constructivists making a polticial statement as opposed to gay rights advocates or scientists. Frankly, they don't seem at all relevant to this ex-gay issue.
In particular, not only do these peoople oppose the idea of gays becoming straight, not all of them even say it's possible. Clearly, whatever they mean by "choice" is not what most people mean. To quote from their FAQ: "Some queer by choice people do believe it's possible to choose to turn hetero—which most definitely does not mean we'd ever care to do it! Others of us believe it's not possible. Some of us simply have no opinion on (or interest in) the subject." [3]
That's what you get for trying to make sense of postmodernists! Alienus 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the discussion on whether sexual orientation is a choice should be relegated to its own section. That will allow us to at least confine the disputed text to a particular location and the rest of the article can be edited. I still say that an in-depth discussion is out of the scope of this article, and should be moved over to choice and sexual orientation or homosexuality and psychology. eaolson 02:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's a limit to how much space we can dedicate to this issue here, but it doesn't fit into the second article you mentioned and the first is, well, a cesspool. Alienus 03:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not "using" the APA. The APA (and the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medial Association, and etc.) say that there is no evidence showing the efficacy of conversion therapy. A Wikipedia article cannot make a declaration that they are wrong. To repeat what I've already said, your proposed addition is essentially the same as saying: "The American Psychological Association and related professional organizations assert that there is no evidence showing the efficacy of conversion therapy. This assertion is false." We simply cannot do that. To take into account Spitzer (and Throckmorton, etc.) I have proposed that the following language be added at the end of section 4.2: "At most, the body of scientific evidence supports the assertion that it may or may not be possible for a small percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation to modify that orientation." I believe this statement is consistent with the science on the matter and resolves all concerns regarding 4.2. Is this acceptable? If not, please propose an alternative. Person 1485 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, since this proposal seems to have gotten lost in the woodwork, I have proposed the following addition to the end of the ex-gay views paragraph in section 3: "A very small minority of scientists support this view." I believe this should resolve all concerns regarding section 3. Is this acceptable? If not, please propose an alternative. Person 1485 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"A minority of scientists, including Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D. of Regent University and Warren Throckmorton Ph.D. of Grove City College, support this view." Ghostmonkey57 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

A minority might be 49%. Instead, we're talking about a grand total of two people, so even saying "a very small minority" is overly generous. We could just say "a pair" or "a statistically insignificant number". Alienus 23:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to include the words "very small" because, well, the minority is, in fact, very small. (It is not "a pair," I think NARTH claims something like 1,000 members). I have two objections to including the specific citing of Drs. Throckmorton and Yarhouse. First, it is inconsistent with the style of the rest of the material. The material thus far addresses this issue from a generalized perspective, not from a perspective of personalities. I don't believe that the viewpoints of two individuals are especially important. Second, and most seriously, I don't believe that Dr. Throckmorton would agree with the contents of that paragraph. That paragraph is more in line with the views of psychologist Joseph Nicolosi and others who are much more closely identified with the ex-gay movement. Dr. Throckmorton lays out some very signficant differences with that point of view here: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=183 . To say that he endorses those views would be, I think, factually false. I don't know of any ex-gay groups that rely on Throckmorton as their primary resource. While I'm certain that they don't mind the support and credibility he lends, almost all of the groups I've read about would be more closely in line with Nicolosi. (Of course, if you know of any significant ones who are closer to Throckmorton than Nicolosi, that could warrant some new material describing those views). In short, I favor my proposed revision as it stood previously.

Lastly, since there hasn't been a response to the other proposed change, am I to assume that all parties accept the change and that there are no longer any disputes over sections 1, 2, and 4? Person 1485 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"A small minority of Scientists however, including Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D. of Regent University and Warren Throckmorton Ph.D. of Grove City College, believe that sexual orientation is not a fixed and immutable trait, and that change is possible for at least some." Ghostmonkey57 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
Hmmmmm. I don't have a problem with the content itself, but as written it definitely doesn't fit at the end of section three (Just read the end to section three, and then read your addition--it doesn't fit). How about something like: "A very small minority of scientists support these views. Another minority of scientists oppose much of these views but support a related viewpoint that maintains that modifying one's sexual orientation is possible at least for some."
I don't think the last sentence is especially necessary, but I'd be okay with including it. I removed the "fixed and immutable trait" language since we state in the scientific community paragraph that "fluctuations in one's sexual orientation may occur over one's lifetime." I also reworded it to make it clear that the change is not of a random fluctuation type. I still don't think that including the names of personalities here is appropriate (especially since it's broadened to a somewhat larger minority by stating only that "modifying one's sexual orientation is possible at least for some"--this would include Spitzer and others). I do think, however, that it would be appropriate for a footnote. We could footnote both the viewpoints, the first mentioning Nicolosi, etc. and the second mentioning Yarhouse, Throckmorton, Spitzer, etc. Thoughts? Person 1485 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be fair, if we include the footnote, perhaps we could footnote with a weblink to each of the viewpoints. I have other revisions to suggest when we move on. Ghostmonkey57 00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
That's very interesting; I'm glad you did the research. I'm fine with keeping "very small" and omitting the names of these two specific people. Alienus 19:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The only concern I might have is that Courage, a Catholic group, does not seek to gays into "straights" (i.e. ex-gays). Their focus is on encouraging people to be celibate for their entire lives. That doesn't quite mesh with section 3. Perhaps it's not really an ex-gay organization, then? This is a minor point, as it's addressed in the section specifically on Courage.
I also think it would be a good addition, perhaps to section 4, to make a mention of the "success rates" of these organizations. As I understand it, Exodus has been criticized for making claims about the number of people they've treated, but refusing to provide any sort of data or verification of their claims. I will try to do some research and add this soon. eaolson 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
True, Courage is significantly different from the protestant groups. Its focus on celibacy does make it sui generis, and it is important to note that. It is, however, still an ex-gay group: remember, ex-gays define themselves as persons who are no longer behaviorally homosexual; it is only the behavior that is in conflict with theological teachings, not the attractions. Theologically speaking, the difference between a celibate ex-gay and a straight one is minimal.
The "success rates" are highly disputed, especially since definitions of "success" vary wildly. In terms of an actually change in sexual orientation, estimates run from 0% (from opponents) to around 33% (from supporters). Dr. Robert Spitzer, of the recent ex-gay study, estimated around 3%, but that is, at best, an educated guess. Personally, I think that this idea of success rates is covered adequately by the approved addition ("At most, the body of scientific evidence supports the assertion that it may or may not be possible for a small percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation to modify that orientation"). Person 1485 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I'm going to go ahead and make the two proposed additions, since it seems that everyone is okay with them. I'm not especially familiar with Wikipedia footnotes...does someone want to do that? The only remaining dispute that seems to be present is the one over section 3 regarding Courage. Aside from that, is everyone okay with declaring sections 1-4 NPOV and undisputed, and moving on?Person 1485 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Section 6 is where we REALLY need to do clean-up. The overwhelming majority of the section seems to be based on the faulty premise that "If we can discredit a few ex-gays, we can discredit the rest by association". This has been a trademark of Wayne Besen, who isn't exactly the most unbiased source to quote. There should definately be mention of successes, ones who have never been accused of failures like Paulk. For example Dennis Jernigan www.dennisjernigan.com/testimon.asp, or Roberta Laurila http://www.precious-testimonies.com/BornAgain/o-r/Roberta.htm. (There are many others that could be included here). However, these don't fit under the heading "Controversies", as they are not Controversial, and neither Jernigan nor Laurila have been called into dispute. What can we do to NPOV this section? Ghostmonkey57 00:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
I'll assume that no one has a problem with NPOVing section 6? I'll start working on some revisions forthwith. Ghostmonkey57 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57
I have been trying to convert some of the external links to footnotes, with full citations. I will try to do that soon for more of the article. eaolson 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

separate articles?

I notice that PATH ist discussed in this article, rather than having a separate article as is the case in the German Wikipedia. Several users of the German Wikipedia have proposed that the various ex-gay groups which each have separate articles in German be discussed centrally in the German article on the Ex-Gay movement, since it is tedious and repetitive each time to explain what they think, why they think it, and why it is controversial. There previously existed a separate article on "Zwischenraum", an Ex-Ex-Gay organisation, but this was deleted as "irrelevant", while the articles on PATH, NARTH, etc. were all considered to be relevant. I was wondering if someone would provide a perspective as to why the various groups here are dealt with in one central article, since the language in which they are discussed doesn't seem very relevant to the question of whether they merit separate articles. Any thoughts on this matter?--Bhuck 13:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Exodus Int'l

I belive that there should be a clear distinction drawn between the "ex-gay" movement and Exodus International. Exodus is but one of many organizations that address the needs of those coming out of homosexuality as well as those who have unwanted same-sex attraction. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.120.220 (talk • contribs) 19:01, May 20, 2006.

You don't think the distinction is clear now? I think the only mention made of Exodus is in the section specifically devoted to Exodus, with a link to its main article. eaolson 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Flagrant Bias

Personally, homosexuality is neither genetic nor environmental, as there are NO scientific proofs available for now. But let's be frank, this is not an article for an encyclopedia, it's clearly too biased. It seems like it was written by a member of a gay and lesbian organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vincent shooter (talk • contribs) 16:27, May 26, 2006.

It's a fine point, but this article isn't about the causes of homosexuality (see Choice_and_sexual_orientation and Biology and sexual orientation), but about the ex-gay movement. I disagree that the article is "clearly too biased". There's been quite a bit of work done to make the article much less POV than it has been in the past. It might help if you could be specific in what you find to be so biased, rather than just vague claims of it. eaolson 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to center in on the subject and present the view of the many success stories of those who left the seduction of homosexual practice. Homosexuality is an adiction or temptation much like alcoholism and the article needs to present the compassionate side of deliverance.

The main body of the ex-gay article should be written from a pro standpoint. To mix in words such as controvery and other bias muddies a readers interest. Opposing views should distintively be in separate headings following. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.253.244 (talk • contribs) 09:13, June 5, 2006.

There is no basis for saying the main body of the article should be written from a pro standpoint. It is to be neutral. By the way, please sign and date your comments using four tildes (~). David L Rattigan 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The main body of the article should just present facts based on what ex-gay organizations present. Opinion or discussion of a subject should be in separate headings. Readers can make their own decision of pro or con based on two presentations. It muddies a topic to have someone interject their personal oppinion or agenda throughout a whole article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.253.244 (talk • contribs) 09:51, June 5, 2006.

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end, even if you don't have an account.
I do agree that controversy/criticisms should generally be left in their own sections at the end of the article. However, that doesn't mean the article should be written from a "pro standpoint". I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "should just present facts based on what ex-gay organizations present". If you're suggesting that we should limit ourselves in the body to saying "such-and-such ex-gay organization has blah blah blah as their mission statement. According to their published statistics, blah blah blah." then sure. If you're saying that we should say something like, "Gay people can and often do change into healthy, normal straight people" because that is the ex-gay POV then no. -Smahoney 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Gay people can and often do change...". That is precisely what the subject of the article is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.253.244 (talk • contribs) 10:09, June 5, 2006.

Once again: Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end, even if you don't have an account.
I'm not at all sure what your point is. The article isn't about whether or not gay people can become heterosexuals, but about groups that want them to.
To get back on topic, are you suggesting that we should present ex-gay organizations' statements about themselves in the body and leave criticisms to the end, or are you suggesting that we should present ex-gay organizations' beliefs about the world as fact? -Smahoney 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This article MUST be "biased," in the name of fact, which is what an encyclopedia deals with. It must make it clear that, by any reasonable account, you cannot change your sexual orientation; perhaps the external manifestations of it (e.g., gay men engaging solely in heterosexual relations as a moral/religious choice) but certainly deep-seated desires cannot be affected by conscious will. Of course, this should not be the concern of the article as such; as Smahoney said, "The article isn't about whether or not gay people can become heterosexuals, but about groups that want them to." So we say: there is an ex-gay movement, its logic is disputed by every branch of science and as far as anyone knows is demonstratably false, but in any case here is a survey of the movement, its beliefs, etc. I think that's generally what this article does. --Tothebarricades 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I find it interesting when I go to the "gay" definition that it's entirely from the gay point of view, but for some reason "ex-gay" doesn't get the same treatment. At best, "this article isn't about whether or not gay people can become heterosexuals, but about groups that want them to." Says who? Certainly not someone ex-gay. All this time is being spent refuting a movement that has legitimate people in them, but no time is spent on refuting the definition of "gay." In fact, the article is "protected" from editing. Just more bias and gay propoganda based out of fear. So much for "tolerance." No, not if you're a Christian, who is ex-gay. Which IS definitely REAL!!!! No amount of editing will change that. 24.144.167.37 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're asking for would require giving undue weight to a fringe belief, which would violate NPOV. Al 16:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not fringe any more than the idea that "gay rights" is fringe. Neither perspective is valid for an encyclopedia. Both should be handled with equal weight and not editorialized for or against in the article text. The quotes should be shown. The facts should be stated. Readers should draw their own conclusions. That's what NPOV means. DavidBailey 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. NPOV does not mean that minority viewpoint must be given equal weight with majority ones. All credible, unbiased scientific thinking agrees that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and that attempting to do so is potentially damaging. The article can present the views of the ex-gay movement, but can also counter them with the scientific evidence. Exploding Boy 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require giving "equal validity" to fringe, pseudoscientific views, and allows those views to be presented as such. See WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity" Fireplace 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but at the same time, the text of the article cannot be derogatory. It can present a view as being "unscientifically proven" or "disproved by the following" with proper citation. You cannot debunk something you consider a myth in the narrative of the article itself. DavidBailey 21:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course you can't say "I consider x a myth," but you can say that a given claim is rejected, widely disputed and/or disproven. Exploding Boy 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if you follow the claim with substantive, authoritative source citations (see WP:V#Sources), otherwise you are expressing a POV and/or using weasel words, and it's just as likely to reverted as anyone spouting their opinions into the article. Whether you feel your viewpoint is more justified, relevant, and/or valid is irrelevant. DavidBailey 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arguing over policy and what POVs should be presented and to what degree, why not argue specific things that editors feel are problematic with this article. I'd recommend making a laundry list of points that have POV (or other) issues. What say ye?--Andrew c 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that approach would probably be more productive. DavidBailey 21:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we've actually done a pretty good job of building an NPOV article here. The article basically (1) describes what the ex-gay movement is, (2) describes the ex-gay teachings about homosexuality, (3) briefly summarizes and describes some of the major ex-gay groups, (4) describes some of the controversies that have arisen around these groups, and (5) says that the major medical organizations disagree with this movement. It's accurate, could be sourced a little better, and respectful. There may be pockets of POVness around, and they should of course be fixed, but I think the article as a whole is fairly NPOV. eaolson 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A point of note: this article is not a scientific article. Thus, I would think that this article, in general, should not be saying "the ex-gay movement is good/bad". I think it is permissible and good to say scientists commonly disagree with the ex-gay movement, but this article should be talking about the scientific community in the third person, and not going into "great" detail about the science. This makes no sense at all, but it makes sense to me. :) WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because it isn't an article on a scientific topic does not mean that science can't be applied to the topic. If the scientific evidence suggests the ex-gay movement is bad, that should be put in. Science is merely one viewpoint. Some may consider science the be-all-end-all of the truth, others may not. And from what I can tell, most scientists would probably say it's bad. Science is in fact an important part of our society and the views of the scientific community are often given much prominence, so it makes sense that an encyclopedia would give scientific information on a topic when that information will help add to an understanding of that topic, and this is an example of that. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving introduction above TOC?

My understanding of WP:GTL is that the introduction should appear above the table of contents. So as it stands, there are two "Introductions". All the material in the Introduction section after the TOC is genuinely introductory, so I've moved it. No wording was changed.Fireplace 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Add

I still believe that his last name should be added (Stark) as I seen it in an interview, think it was CNN --FlareNUKE 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some new ideas

The section on Zach is tedious. I propose it be edited and condensed for ease-of-reading. Specifically, many of the direct quotes from Zach are unnecessary, or could be abridged.

In records to NPOV: It is justified that the article focuses on inherent conflicts between the ex-gay and scientific communities. I propose we continue editing in the same vein: if many of the ex-gay movements rely on personal testimonials rather than credible scientific research, quotes from these testimonials should be included in the article, in contrast to the scientific studies. Such quotes would also help establish a better understanding of the tactics used by ex-gay groups. Singlewordedpoem 07:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia?

From the article:

The movement is primarily based in the United States (though it exists in other places such as Canada, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom)

Now, the article clearly speaks about the movement inside the US and the UK. A link to a Canadian website is featured... but what about Scandinavia? The only thing mentioned is that it "exists". I think that could use some further reference :)

I'm a resident of this corner of the world, I have not ever heard of such thing before. There are very very few Christian fundamentalists in the Scandinavian country I belong to (Sweden), and the gay movements seems stronger than ever.

I'm not saying the statement can't be true, I'd just like it to have some sort of reference to back it up! As for now, it could aswell be naming every country in the world that has a few people who believe they can convert homosexual individuals :)

85.225.24.59 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Gay is a pseudoscienceGLGerman 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I just made a few changes to the introduction. First, the assertion that "many of these groups regard such sexual orientation as immoral" is false. The orientation is not regarded as immoral, only acting on that orientation is regarded as immoral.

Even after the changes I made, I am not completely satisified with the introduction because I think it fails to put the appropriate emphasis on sexual behavior as distinguished from sexual orientation. Although the ultimate desire for these groups is to change homosexually- or bisexually-oriented individuals to a heterosexual orientation, most of them acknowledge that a complete change in orientation does not occur with great frequency, and they tend to regard changes in sexual behavior (to celibacy or to heterosexuality in marriage) as far more important than changes in orientation.

Person 1485 18:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edits per WP:POV. Your edit was giving a neutral contrast to ex-gay groups when they are not, by any means, neutral. As the article currently stands, it does not discriminate against the endeavors of ex-gay groups -- it merely states the fact that ex-gay groups seek to change what they percieve as immoral. Grendel 00:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your reversion is that that the statement "many of these groups regard such sexual orientation as immoral" is not true. My edit was not giving a neutral contrast to ex-gay groups, it was correcting a falsehood. You will never find an ex-gay group saying that it is immoral, in and of itself, to possess a homosexual orientation. See below in the article: "Ex-gay groups, however, regard the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior as extremely important, and generally place greater emphasis on the latter." If you wanted to restore the text but replace "orientation" with "behavior," the sentence would be true, but doing so does not really fit with the rest of the language.
I deleted "reportedly" because as a definitional matter, the term "ex-gay" (as the ex-gay groups define the word) is defined as a person who has altered his or her sexual behavior, not someone who claims to have altered his sexual behavior. If a person says that he is "ex-gay" (using the conservatives' definition) while still engaging in homosexual behavior, then his statement is false. The word "reportedly" suggests that, as a definitional matter, people with homosexual orientations are incapable of modifying their sexual behavior. While that they have an obligation to modify their sexual behavior is generally rejected (and by myself as well), the notion that they are incapable of doing so is both insulting and false.Person 1485 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ex-gay article is unbeliveably biased due to Organization of Text

In the opening paragraphs this is presented first:

"The modern ex-gay movement has been condemned by many major psychological, psychiatric, and medical associations. Today, these associations point to a lack of scientific evidence suggesting that homosexuals can change their orientation and argue that homosexuals have no reason to do so aside from societal pressure. They say repressing those feelings would likely cause future psychological damage.[2] These assertions are vigorously disputed by those in the ex-gay movement."

This paragraph includes a citation to make it look credible. Further on in the article, in the fourth last subsection (Dissenting views), it is stated:

"Many gay rights groups and scientists sharply dispute the movement's claims, and see sexual orientation as genetic, although no scientific evidence of a gay gene exists (Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics 2005;116: 272-8). Sexual attitudes are regarded as being largely formed before adulthood. Many medical groups have stated that there are no scientifically rigorous studies to evaluate whether ex-gay treatments are beneficial and that no studies substantiate their claims of sexual orientation change. Some of these groups have also stated that attempts to change one's sexuality are potentially harmful, yet no studies exist here either."

Keywords: repressing [homosexual] feelings would likely cause future psychological damage yet no studies exist here either

First I would like to point out that the article does present both sides. However both sides are not emphasized equally because of the placement and organization of points.

The first thing one reads is that changing your sexual orientation is 1. impossible and 2. physically/mentally harmfull. When actualy this is not true because it is not proven regardless of however many respected organizations believe this. Truth is not based on general consensus!

Most people do not read whole articles on wikipedia, merely the beginning summations. I think (because of general consensus) that the popular belief is that you are born with homosexuality. That is why it is presented first. Even so, popular belief should not get in the way of neutrality.

The organization of this article badly needs to be changed. It presents a highly biased view if one only reads the beginning summations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.54.136 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The citation is not in the first paragraph to make the quote "look credible." It's there to show that this accurately describes the opinion of the medical community. It is the general opinion of the medical and scientific community that it is not possible to change one's sexual orientation, nor is there a reason to attempt to do so. eaolson 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, studies do exist showing there can be harm from reparative therapy. In just 5 minutes on Google Scholar, I found Haldeman Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 260 (2002) [4]:

In 20 years of clinical experience with individuals who have been through some form of sexual orientation conversion therapy, I have noted that different patients manifest different responses to their treatments. For some, particularly those who have been made vulnerable by repetitive, traumatic anti-gay experiences, or those who have been subjected to aversive treatments, conversion therapy has proved to be harmful. Typical negative sequelae of conversion therapies include chronic depression, low self-esteem, difficulty sustaining relationships, and sexual dysfunction (Haldeman, 2002).

eaolson 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ted Haggard, a well-known Evangelical leader (founded a church that has 14,000 members!) was removed from his position as paster after admitting that he recieved a massage from a male prostitute, although he denies having sex with the man. According to a Denver post article Haggard confessed that in spite of "warring against it [homosexuality] all of my adult life" that while he had stretches of "freedom," nothing proved effective. (not sure if this merits mentioning on the main article?) Multisport 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of six subsections

One editor (User:CovenantD) has deleted six subsections of this article, and two other editors (myself and User:CC80 have reverted this deletion). There have been three of these edits-and-reverts. I don't like edit wars (even though we could "win" this by brute force, because the WP:3RR allows two editors six reverts per day), so I will suggest a compromise.

The six groups should each be handled separately. In particular, I propose the following:

  • 4.4 Courage International: Remove from this page. It is not an "ex-gay" group, nor does it claim to be.
  • 4.7 Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH): Delete. It has only one reference, its own website, and this give a 404 error.
  • 4.8 Wüstenstrom (Germany): Delete, unless someone wants to follow the links on the founder's page and read the German.
  • 4.9 Atzat Nefesh (Israel): Delete, since the only reference is a site in Hebrew that I can't read. (If this group has never been discussed in an English-language document, it's not encyclopedic for en.wikipedia.org.)

Then we would add a new subsection called Other ex-gay organizations. This will include the remaining groups, all of which have their own Wikipedia articles already. Since none of these appear to be large, and since they all have their own pages, it makes sense to not give them entire subsections on the Ex-gay page, but just lump them all together into "Other ex-gay organizations".

The following organizations are in this category:

  • 4.5 Courage UK (formerly Courage Trust)
  • 4.6 True Freedom Trust (United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland)

If you feel that some of these group aren't encyclopedic, by all means you should request their Wikipedia article be deleted. But as long as they have Wikipedia articles, it doesn't make sense to forbid another article from linking to them.

Might this work as a compromise? — Lawrence King (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I note with humor that you agree with my removal in four of the six instances. Can we start by getting rid of those?
I don't think the other two are notable enough to be included either. (I've already nominated Courage UK for deletion and TFT's only claim to fame seems to be a slight difference in approach from other Ex-gay organizations, as reported in one independent interview - all other references on that page are to the group's own website.) If they are kept, there's no reason to create a new subsection for them. CovenantD 22:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes I suggested. Since Courage UK and True Freedom Trust have their own pages, I also moved some of the material that I deleted here to their respective pages. Most of it is fluff, but I'm not a deletionist, and I would like someone who cares more about these pages to decide what to keep. That way, if those pages remain the information can be kept, and if those pages are deleted the information will go away at that time. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ex-gay_movement/Archive_2&oldid=1136712805"