« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Video: They promise a 'mutiny,' yet we're the ones with the 'agenda'?!

by Jeremy Hooper

Focus on the Family, backed by their own stable of professional "ex-gay" advocates like Joseph Nicolosi, are continuing the fight to place faith-based "transformations" into the body of science. Check it out:

Wow, Carrie -- we should expect a "mutiny"? Scary. But we must know: Will you be forcibly converting APA members so that they must believe in the religion that is, whether you deny it or not, the fundamental of your "ex-gay" ideas, or will the revolt only require practitioners to accept the "healing power of Jesus" while on the job? Considering that Focus on the Family's "ex-gay" work is intrinsically connected to God, we think it's an extremely fair question!

Convention of Mental-Health Professionals Highlights Liberal Agenda [CitizenLink]

**NOTE: For extra insight, read this firsthand account that was obtained by Box Turtle Bulletin's Dan Gonzales. It seems like the "extensive document" that Nicolosi presented might have been his own book(s)!

*AFTER THE JUMP: The sort of teachings that David Pickup, the first voice of dissension featured in Focus' vid, wants the APA to embrace:

**ExGayWatch has more on Pickup (who apparently was in a pro-gay movie just over a year ago)

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

I have great affection for some of the less masculine men in our community.

But I do think that if you are going to speak with credibility about changing orientation, it might be more convincing if coming from someone who is less flamboyantly demonstrative in his hand movements and vocal inflections than David Pickup.

Posted by: Timothy | Aug 21, 2008 1:20:22 PM

Carrie Gordon Earll. You got to feel something for a woman with 2 male names. Love how she smiles when she threatens mutiny.

Posted by: johnozed | Aug 21, 2008 2:45:59 PM

Jeremy - I am in awe of you being able to run this site. Each time I come here (more and more frequently) I find my blood pressure rising. The smile from Carrie Gordon Earll literally sent me over the edge. I just fail to understand how someone like her has the brazenness to tell me what's 'normal' for ME, as though she has some special insight. The combination or arrogance and ignorance is just astounding. I hope the APA will do the right thing and denounce these lunatics.

Posted by: Gregus | Aug 21, 2008 7:07:28 PM

Gregus: It is certainly astounding. And frustrating. And at times, it has taken its toll on me. However, the juxtaposition between their constant claims and my actual gay life is just so huge, I can't help but laugh at it all. While I have to respond to all of this stuff with logic and whatnot, I basically file it all in a separate "absurd" cabinet that I've installed within my mind. Whenever it gets too much, I simply shut that cabinet.

And since our community's brighter day is just so inevitable, it's been even easier to keep a smile on my face in

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 21, 2008 8:14:39 PM

People need to stop trying to reason with these nutballs, and put them where they rightfully belong: the loony bin.

Posted by: Scott | Aug 22, 2008 7:56:19 AM

Manly huh? Well... as a very manly, muscular gay man of European decent... I challenge David's man-ness. Put him side by side with me without his shirt on and I'd like to see who might need to fortify their Y chromosome.

Posted by: Forky | Aug 22, 2008 10:11:40 AM

When these folks can deal with real science, instead of parsing it like the creationists do, then perhaps the APA should listen to them. I don't object to someone taking religious counseling to live a celibate life if that's what their beliefs call them to do, but what does the APA have to do with that? I don't agree with their beliefs but I can respect that someone else holds a differing view (though ironically such tolerance is seldom returned on this matter). The evidence for so-called reparative therapy is so tissue-paper thin it makes gruel seem palatible in comparison. It has no scientific basis but is based on religion. Now that I think about it, this is precisely like how the creationists attempt to hijack science in the name of their religion. No, the APA should remain firm in rejecting this.

Posted by: John | Aug 22, 2008 10:21:25 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails