Talk:Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Comment

The statements below were added:

'Assuming someone who is not gay or bisexual, is heterosexual, PFLAG’s executive director Jody Huckaby said that "since this is the case PFOX should have no concerns. PFLAG supports safe schools for all sexual orientations - gay, bisexual and heterosexual."'

What position of PFLAG's is this a criticism of? Has PFLAG neglected to support safe schools for all orientations or have they marked gays and bisexuals as less worthy somehow of safe schooling? This point needs to be elaborated upon, or I'm going to have to delete it and rewrite the criticism section to make more sense. - CobaltBlueTony 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


holy cow, I'm suprised there isn't more, um, direct analysis of PFOG's views. --24.12.54.230 04:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be explained that PFLAG works to ensure safe schools for all (which I think is there) whereas PFOX seems to be position ex-gays as needing further consideration of some sort, which frankly I find confusing as well. The best example I can think of is in the sex-education field educators when the teach about sexual attraction would also teach that some people are attracted to the same gender. PFOX, it seems, would want to ensure that language is also included that this isn't natural and that you can change. Benjiboi 11:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assertions about PFOX, possible POV

I've left the reference to "GLBT persons"; this is the first time I've ever heard using homosexual as a noun considered POV, but I can understand why it could be. However, the criticism of PFOX's position belongs in the article about reparative therapy, or at best, in the Criticism section. You'll notice that it is already there, but at least one editor (who is not me) placed a tag about straying from the topic even at that. Only material about the organization itself belongs here.

Also, as I understand it, PFOX does not promote only the ex-gay lifestyle. They recognize all choices as valid. They get the reputation for promoting the ex-gay lifestyle because that's largely the only one anyone disputes. Whether or not you agree with them promoting it as equal, it shouldn't be represented as the only one they promote. Acdixon 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The addition of a Criticism section does not necessitate the use of the {{off-topic}} tag. A Criticism section is not inherently off-topic. Many articles have Criticism sections without that tag.
PFOX does not recognize "all choices as valid". Their website says "you definitely do not want to take your child to see a “gay affirmative” therapist." ref. This is not accepting of gay people as they are. PFOX puts up giant billboards referring to changing the orientation from gay to straight. PFOX recognizes conversion and celibacy as valid. They do not support a gay person who embraces their sexual orientation. They promote conversion from gay to straight, not acceptance of gay people who have accepted themselves.
I agree that most of it belongs in the Criticism section, but I am removing the {{off-topic}} tag, it's completely unnecessary. Joie de Vivre 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The very billboard you reference clearly states that PFOX supports tolerance for all. Your quote from PFOX's web site is taken out of context. The statements preceeding it read: "You do not want to bring your child to see someone who has little or no experience in this area. You do not want to bring your child to see someone who will simply try to “pray” this away or “cast out demons”." It is a statement about avoiding biases or under-qualification in a therapist. In their About Us section, PFOX states as a core principle: "We do not seek to force our viewpoint on anyone, to tell others what they "should" do, or to shut down others' voices. We do work to raise awareness of alternatives to living a homosexual life -- alternatives that many have found to be positive, life-affirming and congruent with their values, morals and beliefs. We support freedom of information."[1] (emphasis added) Acdixon 15:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The comment about "casting about demons" was not in reference to a gay-affirmative therapist. I can't imagine any gay-affirmative therapist would try to "cast out demons", although some Christian therapists might. The paragraph from the website is:
"And you definitely do not want to take your child to see a “gay affirmative” therapist. This is the teaching and training of the mental health profession and recovery movement. In fact, they have given a new diagnosis to those who do not accept their homosexuality: “internalized homophobia”. This means that someone has internalized societal or religious prejudice toward homosexuality. So be careful when selecting a therapist."
In the section about suggested questions for potential therapists, the website goes on to say: "Do you practice and/or believe in “gay affirmative therapy”? It is important to ask this question. Don’t make any assumptions when interviewing a therapist, even if they are “religious”." and "Regarding a therapist’s personal faith, do not be fooled. Many Christian and Jewish therapists also believe in the “innate, immutable” concept. They too may try to enroll your child into the mythology of homosexuality." This is not the language of a group that is affirmative of gay people.
If you have concerns about specific edits that I have made, you are free to state them. Let's try to stay on-topic. Joie de Vivre 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
My concerns are about the edit that states that PFOX condemns the homosexual lifestyle. And we agree on the point about "casting out demons." I suspect they are referencing some Christian therapists. I'm saying that the paragraph is warning about biases on either side, not condemning only the "gay affirmative" bias. What PFOX condemns is the idea that anyone is born gay. What they do not condemn is people who choose to be gay or the choice to be gay. Promotion of the idea that choosing an ex-gay lifestyle is a valid choice is not the same as condemning a choice to be gay. Acdixon 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about "a choice to be gay". I will say that PFOX uses language that is condemning of same-sex sexual activity. They do not support same-sex sexual activity, and they actively promote "change" that involves ceasing such activity. I am not aware of any organization of gay people that recognizes PFOX as accepting of gay people, regardless of what PFOX advocates say about themselves. I've changed the wording of the lead sentence slightly. Is there a problem with it, as-is? Joie de Vivre 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see anything from PFOX that indicates that they condemn homosexual activity. All you have provided is condemnation of "gay affirmative" therapists, which are therapists that do not recognize the choice to live an ex-gay lifestyle, but rather refer to it as "internalized homophobia." The fact that they do not recognize homosexuality as "innate and immutable" does not make them anti-gay or condemnatory of the gay lifestyle. The fact that they advocate change therapy as an option also does not make them anti-gay. The fact that no pro-gay groups recognize them them as accepting gay people doesn't mean it isn't true. Since every pro-gay organization I know of promotes the idea of being born into the gay lifestyle, they would naturally shy away from any friendly overtures for PFOX, regardless of PFOX's other stances. Acdixon 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Evidence that PFOX does not support same-sex sexual activity:

"As responsible parents, we must seek the facts and love our children unconditionally without having to affirm their homosexual behavior." ref

You're right, PFOX is very careful not to out-and-out condemn same-sex sexual activity. They leave that to what they call their "sister organization", Positive Alternatives To Homosexuality (PATH), which has numerous links to ex-gay organizations like Exodus. These organizations promote techniques which attempt to convert GLBT people to heterosexuality, which have been condemned by the gay community and the mental health community alike on the grounds that they are condemning of gay people.

I would like to point out that PFOX has no shame in taking selected quotes from the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, vaguely alluding to the idea that these organizations are sympathetic to their cause (ref). The fact is that both of these organizations have directly condemned the use of reparative therapy as harmful, a fact which is conspicuously absent from PFOX literature. We can't make PFOX be straightforward about what they're doing, but we can document their actions. Please stop trying to sanitize their image and make them appear to be "supportive of gay people". Gay people are people who experience and act on same-sex attraction, and PFOX has stated that they do not support people who live that way. Joie de Vivre 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, if they do not out-and-out condemn same-sex sexual activity, then we cannot say that they do. You are welcome to document the connections to PATH, Exodus, and others in the context of the article, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusion about PFOX's ultimate agenda, but I still disagree with making the assertion that they condemn homosexuality when heretofore all I have seen is statements by PFOX that the decision about how to handle one's personal sexuality or the sexuality of a family member should be a choice by each individual and that the choice of that individual should be respected. Acdixon 18:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As the word "condemn" seems to be the most problematic, the sentence now reads "They advocate for love and acceptance of the GLBT person, with disapproval of all same-sex sexual activity." This paraphrases the sentence on their website: "We must seek the facts and love our children unconditionally without having to affirm their homosexual behavior." I hope this addresses your concerns. Joie de Vivre 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Using the sentence from their website would take care of any perceived POV. I have replaced the sentence in the article with the sentence from their site. Joie de Vivre 18:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is a fair solution, and more accurately reflects the purpose of the organization. It is not the affirmation of homosexual behavior that PFOX opposes, but rather the idea that loving someone must necessarily be coupled with acceptance of that person's homosexual behavior. Thank you for remaining diplomatic and open during this discourse. I believe this discussion represents a classic example of how disputes on Wikipedia are to be handled. Acdixon 21:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I am glad that you are satisfied with this solution. I thank you for remaining calm, for being willing to listen, and for responding thoughtfully and rationally. If everyone would follow this example, there would be far fewer disputes on Wikipedia, regardless of the differences in editors' backgrounds and beliefs. Thanks again. Joie de Vivre 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)