equality for some

In Defense of Ex-Gays: The People, Not The Predators


We thought it was a little bit funny when the Human Rights Campaign was cheering after Disney shareholders shot down an attempt to add ex-gays, as a sexual orientation, to its list of employees’ protected classes. After all, if we demand people believe us homosexuals and bisexuals and lesbians and trasngender folks have a right not to be discriminated against, wouldn’t we also support the anti-discrimination cause of anyone professing to have another orientation? Most of you — or at least those of you who left comments — disagreed with us, but much of the ire was directed at the ex gay movement (i.e. the organization PFOX), which encourages conversion therapy, a treatment that is fake, worthless, and can be quite harmful. But the Disney vote wasn’t about PFOX or terrorist psychologists; it was about actual human beings who believe themselves to have gone from gay to straight, and their right not to lose their jobs because of it. Is that such a hard thing to get behind?

Evidently so.

But we found some common wisdom in the CATO Institute’s Jason Kuznicki, who writes on The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, “One of the ways I differ from the typical gay-activist blogger (aside from being a shameless free-marketeer) is that I’m willing to give ex-gays at least some benefit of the doubt, in a few very limited ways.”


Okay, keep talking Jason — not because we don’t want to hear from anyone disagrees with us (hello, that’s what the comments are for), but because he explains the argument quite reasonably.

Being an openly gay man means asking people to credit my inner experience in a way that, in Popperian terms, is not falsifiable. I declare that I’ve always felt this way, that I’ve never sincerely been attracted to women, and that I really, genuinely find intimacy with my husband appealing rather than uninteresting or repulsive. That’s just how I am, I ask you to believe, and I ask for this belief on no evidence whatsoever. And guess what? Most of you believe me!

It seems only fair, then, that I should credit others’ affirmed internal experiences as well, even if I can’t falsify theirs, either. So I don’t imagine that I can convert heterosexuals. When they tell me that they can’t change, I accept it.

Likewise, I’m willing to credit ex-gays — those who say that they can change, and who say that they have changed. Ex-gays often fault gays for failing to do this, and I have to admit that they have a point. If we’re going to make truth claims based on introspection, we had better at least be consistent about it.

Thus: If ex-gays live up to the change that they declare has happened, and if they are happy with themselves, then I have no business doubting. The world is a big, complicated place, full of strangeness and wonder. It confronts me every day with things that I can scarcely imagine, including this. That’s just how it works. I accept you, ex-gays, as sincere.

And that’s precisely the point. We point to scientific and empirical evidence to explain why we are a certain sexual orientation or gender identity. But that’s not why we deserve protection in the workplace — we deserve it because nobody’s job should be at risk simply because of who they choose to love. And that includes ex-gays.

Reserve your criticism for groups like Exodus International and its leader Alan Chambers (pictured), or Pastor Bob Perdue. But the actual skin and bones of people who believe they are ex-gay are just like us queers: often the outcast, for no good reason other than being different and unaccepted. They deserve, at the very least, our tolerance, if not our acceptance for the way they want to live their “lifestyle.”

Protecting them — no matter how few their numbers — in the workplace might be the work of a rancid organization like PFOX. But the people it seeks to protect, who may have already been so harmed by quack psychologists, are the ones who truly deserve our good will.

(And now that you’re done here, go read Jason’s post in full here. It’s good.)

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #business #discrimination #disney stories and more


  • B

    It is pointless to classify some group as a “protected class” if they are not subject to discrimination. What evidence is there of discrimination against self-described “ex-gays”?

  • M. Bergeron

    is this the same kind of discrimination Ann Colter claims to have suffered at the hands of the Canadians?

  • terrwill

    Absofcukingloutley NO!! Being Gay is no more a choice than having brown hair versus blonde hair, blue eyes versus brown eyes, Black skin versus White skin. It is vile scumbags like these that cause thousands of Gay kids to be tossed out of their homes and or kill them selves each year because they “can’t change their ways”…………….

    The “protection of “ex-Gays” is a calculated smokescreen to dilute and make enforcment of anti Gay statues extremely difficult……..And almost every one readily admits they still have “Gay urges”………….

  • Lanjier

    Nu Nu Nu Nu no, the ex-gay movement is damaging to gay teens and adults and the people they marry. They do not get any protections because they cause harm. The harm they cause removes them from understanding, compassion and tolerance. Their “disorder” is a failure of self acceptance and internalized bigotry. Their activism works seamlessly in tandem with the anti-gay movement, providing them with false empirical evidence that being gay is not a choice. It harms me. Their group is a false argument for treating gays as a lower class of citizen under the law.

    So no. No tolerance for organizations that damage their gay members and gay non-members. Harm-causing groups are unprotected and should remain so.

  • Robert

    The debate isn’t over whether there really are “ex-gays,” but if “ex-gay” is a sexual orientation or not. It isn’t. Sexual orientation is based on the sex you’re attracted to.

    Same Sex: homosexual
    Both Sexes: bisexual
    Opposite Sex: heterosexual

    It’s really not that complicated.

  • romeo

    I’m with B. What kind of discrimination would they be facing? They’re doing what mainstream society wants them to do. What we’re seeing is a lot of whining victimization. Also, Kuznicki has a very limited perspective on the subject. guys have been doing this quietly forever. But “ex-gays” are different. By going loudly public there is an obvious agenda, or rather a target, namely the rest of us. Kuznicki obviously hasn’t read all the “ex-ex-gay” stories.

    Ex-gays aren’t “ex” anything. Kuznicki is just soft-headed; he’s confusing rhetorical flourish (Popper) with the real world. They’re not going to face discrimination in employment (as I do) or in housing. The only place they might face some discrimination is while hanging out with gay people, and why would they want to do that? Their whining is just a way to stay in the news and in our faces.

    But go ahead, Queerty, you and Kuznicki give them an inch and watch the forced “re-education camps” to follow, all in the name of “strangeness and wonder.”

  • NickC

    As one who lived as ex-gay for 30 YEARS, I feel qualified to speak:

    I understand from my own experience all the reasons someone may decide to try to live a heterosexual life despite having a homosexual orientation. So I’m happy to “credit the affirmed internal experience” of ex-gays. If that’s what someone freely chooses, fine.

    But the idea that ex-gays constitute a separate sexual orientation that needs civil rights protections is just ludicrous.

    When I was ex-gay, nobody questioned my right to marry. I never worried someone might get ticked off if I held my wife’s hand in public or gave her a kiss in the airport. I never worried that I might get targeted for violence on the street because I appeared to be straight. I never worried I might not get a job because an employer found out about my wife and kids.

    Now that I’m out (again), I have to think about all these issues.

    In other words–if you’re successful as ex-gay, then the world perceives you as straight. So what sexual orientation discrimination are you going to run into?

  • Drake

    As Sutherlabnd often said in Andrew Holleran’s hit “Dancer from the Dance”, “This face seats five”.

  • terrwill

    @NickC: So are you now “ex-Straight”????

  • NickC

    I’m one of those double-x gays. I keep saying I’ll write my life story and call it “Out and In and Out Again.”

    I did tell my story for Truth Wins Out, Wayne Besen’s organization that tries to counter ex-gay propaganda.


  • DillonS

    Ex-gays asked for protection in the Disney situation in order to make a point and validate their position. They had not done so because they were facing the prospect of losing their jobs. Were they pushing an agenda on the job that would be a different story and would warrant some form of censure.

    Secondly, ex-gays – who choose to love someone of the opposite sex – are basically becoming part of the majority. How does their choice put them at odds with their co-workers … again, unless they’ve used their ‘conversion’ as an excuse to preach.

    Queerty, few of us agree with you. No matter how many people you quote to support your angle. Why not, for once, accept that and move on instead of beating a dead horse.

  • B Stallone

    I don’t understand. Why do they want to be called “ex-gay”? I would think that they would just want to be called “straight”. Being gay, I don’t want to be called ex-straight.

  • Dick Mills

    This is an absolutely pointless and ridiculous discussion. Sexual orientation includes everyone, straight, gay, bi, ex-gay, post-gay, gay-once-in-college, neutered… EVERYONE. If anyone has ever been discriminated against for being “ex-gay”, they already are protected, and should avail themselves of the protections already afforded them by law.

    That my sexual orientation is gay doesn’t provide me with anything that a straight person, or a so called “ex-gay” person, is also provided. The laws provide no preferential treatment to any specific sexual orientation, but applies equally to ALL sexual orientations. And, any attempt to specifically designate which sexual orientations are protected, would invalidate the statute – because laws must apply equally to everyone.

  • terrwill

    DISGUSTING NEWS: The Father of a dead soldier must pay the legal expenses of that inbred bunch of scumbags from Kentucky who protest Gay and soldiers funerals:


  • Devon

    Bu dui.
    Ji nahi.
    Uh uh.

  • romeo

    Just read the Post. Truly disgusting. Phelps’s rights protected over common decency. Same goes for the subject of this post. BTW, there’s a defense fund being set up for the father.

    And what’s up with this story anyway? Does Queerty really want it getting around that it’s leaning this way? “Ex-Queerty” ain’t gonna get many hits.

  • Fitz

    No one looses a mortgage, a job, a life, for being “ex gay”. No 16 year old ends up being a BB street ho because his parents found out that he is an “ex” gay. So no.. no need to protect. Except from me, because I for one am totally pro-violence toward them.

  • David Ehrenstein

    Ex-Gay = Heterosexual.

    They are not discriminated against and therefore have no problems and need no protections.

  • Scott

    ….Ex-Gays SHOULD NOT be protected from ANYTHING!!…..really, has there EVER been a case where someone was FIRED from a job or not allowed to rent an apartment because they were NOT gay?? it NEVER happens therefore no PROTECTION is warranted

  • WisconsinGay

    If we make a non-discrimination law based on sexual orientation, and they self-identify as heterosexual, then any discrimination against them would be illegal.

    So, if they want to help us pass a federal non-discrimination law, so be it.

    I still think they are an absurd self-denying group, but they’d still be protected under the same law as us.

  • Ogre Magi

    What shall we do with the funny little things?

    Bake and toast ’em, fry and roast ’em!

    Till beards blaze, and eyes glaze;

    Till hair smells and skins crack,

    Fat melts, and bones black

    In cinders lie

    Beneath the sky!

  • jeffree

    Amen to No proof of discrmination = no need for protection.

    I won ‘t mess w/ their fantasy that they are x-gay if they dont try 2 make me ex-gay like them. I dont need conversion.

    i believe theres prob. lots of repressed homosexuals out there, but really cant say i find too much reppressed heterosexuality in the real world!

  • MikenStL


    The Phelps clan are actually based in Topeka, Kansas

    I really like parts of Kentucky, but there are some areas where groups like these thrive… It’s also the home of “The Creation Museum” in Boone County (near Cincinnati). Which is full of fun facts like that dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark and the world is less than 10,000 years old….

  • D.R.A.

    David Ehrenstein and B Stallone, you’ve both said (well, typed) exactly what I’m thinking. If these guys aren’t gay anymore, if they’re straight now, then what the hell’s the problem? Call yourself straight!

    If these guys have issues with identifying as heterosexual because they know it’s bullshit, then that’s their problem, not ours.

  • TampaZeke

    When the person/people made this proposal did they cite specific examples of discrimination that had been documented?

    It seems to me that a person who identifies as “ex-gay”, rather than “straight”, to an employer very well could face discrimination but it would come from a straight, anti-gay person who doesn’t believe that they are ex-gay but still gay and therefor would discriminated against them based on the perception that they are gay. But this isn’t the protection that these people are seeking and not the people that they are claiming to need protection from. They are trying to make it sound as if those hateful gays are discriminating against them. Ironically, It’s the anti-gay person (would actually would discriminate against them) that they so desperately try to please and even more ironically, it’s the very discrimination that these homophobes would direct toward them as a GAY person that they don’t believe OUT gay people should be protected from.

    I find it mind blowing that Queerty is making this unbelievably ignorant and bizarre argument. Sometimes it’s pretty obvious that he posts commentaries for no other reason than to stir controversy and heated debate. I think it’s a cheap and insulting move that doesn’t reflect well on an otherwise great site.

  • terrwill

    @D.R.A.: The “ex-Gay” movement is simply a ploy created by the rightwing lunatics to undermine Gay rights and protections that is why it a problem for the Gay community. Their agenda is to “prove” that being Gay is a choice one makes same as to smoke cigarettes or drink. They parade these self hating in denial fags about to show the world that “Gays can change”. By “proving” being Gay is a choice they can argue Gays do not need hate crime laws, equal rights, marriage, employment protections et all. That is why they are arguing for and actually not too upset if they lose employment protections.

    The reason minorities are granted protections to put them on equal footing as the majoirty is argued that they are members of that minority by birth, not by choice. If something is a choice or behaviour it can be changed to assimilate to the “norm” and therefore those in that class are not entitled to protections granted to those born in a class of protected persons. Don’t be fooled into thinking these ex-Gay lawsuits are not part of calculated plan by the ranking members of the rightwing to deny any and all rights for the Gay commmunity. Not to go into really scary territory, but you have scumbags like Scott Lively who argue that all Gays should be placed in “rehabilation facilities”
    If the argument goes being Gay is a choice, the majorithy would be doing the Gays a favor by placing them in those facilities to “help us change”……….

  • B

    No. 23 · MikenStL wrote, “@terrwill: The Phelps clan are actually based in Topeka, Kansas” .. true, but interestingly there are a few who managed to escape. Here’s an article about one of them
    (Nate Phelps, who bailed at midnight – the very start of his 18th birthday): http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2703846

    Those twisted Phelps nuts, it seems, are the result of years of what most of us would consider to be non-sexual child abuse. Nate Phelps’ childhood was so terrible that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as an adult (stated in the article cited above).

  • Joe Mondo

    I don’t see the need for employment protection for “ex-gays”. If they are heterosexual, as they say they are, they don’t need special protection.

  • Mysanthropic Destiny

    No, because if you’re really an “ex-gay” you were never gay to begin with. Possibly bi-curious, but not gay in the fact that you were only able to establish a romantic/sexual intimate bond with someone of the same sex.

  • T. Anderson

    I have to call bullshit on “ex-gays” for the mere fact that they call themselves that.. an “ex-gay” is just a straight person. If you are really being honest, and if I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, then all you are is a straight person who fooled around with the same sex. Case closed. You aren’t anything out of the ordinary.. You were just more confused than the other kids who fooled around with their peers growing up and decided what they liked and didn’t like.

    Calling yourself an Ex-gay is making gay youths question themselves think they can be ‘fixed’ and lead them to go down a path they may not be meant to follow.

    there is no such thing as ex-homosexuality.. its called heterosexuality.

  • Ray

    There is not such thing as an ex-gay.

  • Cassandra

    If someone were truly ‘ex-gay’, then they would be heterosexual, and therefore be a member of the most privileged sexual orientation.

    The only reason that ‘ex-gays’ would need any special label, or “protection” under any term other than heterosexual, is if they are not really heterosexual, and therefore, not really ex-gay.

    And fraud does not merit protection.

    Of course, legislation that protects people from discrimination based on sexual orientation covers all sexual orientations in theory at least, and yet ex-gay orgs have a long history of opposing sexual orientation as a criteria for protecting civil rights.

  • Jane Laplain

    If (and that’s a real IF) indeed Ex-gays are being persecuted, it isn’t for any other reason besides their gay history. IF they get fired for having had a gay past, then that is anti-gay discrimination. If someone is of the opinion that every gay person should identify themselves as gay and only as gay, that is a clear violation of an individual’s privacy and also harassment due to orientation. Are these people are whining for protections they already have? Even straight people are protected under laws that protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Somebody please school me as to the point I’m missing here?

  • Shofixti

    Wow, a lot of you don’t seem to evidence and understanding of ‘queer’, to be fluid and mobile within identity structures is supposed to be a good thing and an ex-gay is only a further example of this possibility. To say you are gay is to operate within a facsimilie of heteronormative power structures and rely on binary, fixed definitions that tug the priveledged to the centre and marginalise all others. For example the facsimilie of straights marginalising gays is gays marginalising ex-gays.

    Be an ex-gay for a day, imho, it might make you wake up to how most of sexuality is prefaced by consumption (products, services, media etc.), you are free to move around a bit.

  • jeffree

    @Shofixti: Let me guess: u JUST took a gender studies class & are trying 2 practice ur NEW VOCABULARY!

    Your grade for intelligibility is a C minus!

    Not terribly interesting.

    The X-gays were not experimenting with homonormative binary semiotic memes, Nor metacommenting on ambisexual exploration of gender reflexivity & the sexual dymamics between quasi-androgyny & overt hypermasculinity or its opposite. (june cleaver)

    No, they liked 2 have sex with members of their same biological gender. Lots of it!
    Religion brainwashed them into believing samesex attraction is a CHOICE, & so that they tried to CHOOSE to ignore their essential gayness to avoid a TRIP TO HELL after dying by banging a member of the opposite gender. That 2 them represents a CURE & SALVATION..

    that also is a lie.

    they want to convert gays/lesbians into their Xgay state, so the ALMIGHTY LORD will forgive them their trespasses.

  • Bobak

    So wait….now I as a gay man am told to support people who every single day of their lives life to discredit my life, preach about how they changed and I should too, and I’m also meant to be guilt written about it….and this on the most gay prominent site on the internet?

    LOL the gay community is laughable. We wonder why can’t gain support? we’re willing to sleep with the enemy just to be PC and not hurt feelings.

    Ex-gay groups are FAR more hurtful than any religious institute combined. They are willingly used as testimony to take our rights away. Religious organizations can’t be used as an example to support bigotry. Ex-gays can and do and will and are and….”Ex-gays” live their lives not as psuedo straight individuals, but as “I used to be a gross gay individual and am now a straight individual”…distinguish the difference (which this thread fails to do)

    Gays…stop worrying about being sure you don’t hurt other people’s feeling when same said people are killing you, getting you fired, stopping you from being happy, in love and living your livelihood.

    Gays show up to a gun fight with Hallmark cards and expect to win.

    Amazing stuff. Really sad.

  • This is Lame

    Shofixit sounds like an “ex gay” trying to test out his conversion therapy on here.

    this whole article being posted on here is actually insulting.
    Giving air time to people who live to mislead our sexuality because they are so bipolar about their own? Really? Really queerty?

  • CJ

    Ex gay? don’t you mean a homophobic closet case who’s leading a straight lifestyle? Protected class? Yes, I care so much. I’m writing a letter to my congress representative right after I masturbate this eventful evening. Thank you for the reminder.

  • Shofixti

    @jeffree: Not quite. My choice of elementary prose was my own to make. For the sake of meaning, I am gay!

    Your demystifying of “X-gay” reeks of gay fundamentalism. I won’t defend exgay groups, but I will defend an exgay person and they certainly don’t have to be exgay on your terms. What I was trying to say is that queering the exgay can make them an unwilling/unknowing ally. But you appear more concerned with polarising Truth and fiction and I can understand your investment in it.

  • jeffree

    I have NO idea what most of those words meant in post #34. i just copied them randomly from a “Queer Theory” article we read at school & also a bible booklet some nutbag handed out.

    i think the Xgays are on a mission 2 try defining gayness as a choice & even *worse* trying 2 convince parents of queer kids to enroll them in reparative therapy. They also want to convince others that praying away the gay actually works.

    They are scary unethical evil & *just plain wrong*

    amen ;-D

  • jeffree

    @Shofixti: Nice try Dr. Semiotics!

    Your fancy words cover an abiding flaw: u cannot accept yourself as a gay person. If you are bi, then fine. Deal with it. If you are trans, okay, there are people who will support you….

    Take away the Queer Theory speak, get out of yr ivory tower, live among REAL peoople fighting to keep jobs, afford rent, keep themselves fed, possibly adopt or marry or be a linguist or a gunner in the military.

    Please remember you are *human.* So am I, Have a good cry once in awhile.

    Just pls remember how you communicated & thought as a young gay person trying 2 come out. When u can do that, and NOT speak down 2 us, many of us will listen & care about your own struggles. There was not 1 shred of humanity in your polemics & only 1/4 of one in mine. Sorry.

    Get off your high horse & I will step down from mine, gingerly.

    See, look, an apology never killed anyone.

  • CJ

    Jeffree: 1

    Shofixti: Go back home to the Westboro Church. Fundie.

  • Ex- visitor

    I think it’s so stellar we gays have won so many rights, in marriage, are now able to freely and openly serve in the military, have no hate crimes commited on a daily basis toward us, and face nill discrimination that we can now move away from shedding light on our (non existant) gay worthy causes and toward “EX-gay” causes.

    We’ve truly reached full equali…wait, we didn’t conquer those things? You mean to tell me these issues are brewing and heightened more so than ever before for the gay community, yet we’re now told to wave the banner for the very people who spit in our face? at the most sensitive time for gay civil rights in our history?

    One more emPATHETIC “ex gay” story and I’m done with this site- for good.

  • Cassandra


    Project much?

    “a lot of you don’t seem to evidence and understanding of ‘queer’,”

    Grammatical error recognized and considered, the stilted wonk-speak of your statement is just a case of pretension run a muck, to conceal the derogatory assumption of saying ‘you don’t what you are talking about’ by wrapping it in needless polysyllables. In other words, much ado about nonsense.

    Trouble is, kiddo, a lot of us know know this subject a whole hell of a lot better than you appear to know it.

    We know, for example, that this: “To say you are gay is to operate within a facsimilie(sic) of heteronormative(sic) power structures” is derogatory, self-masturbatory bull sh*t.

    To say that “I am gay” is to simply to use a commonly used word to describe one’s own experiences of sex and love and companionship, and it challenges the status quo (heteroblahblahblah) by asserting that our experiences are as normal as anyone’s. That is the power of coming out, which Ricky Martin demonstrated today.

    We also know that “to be fluid and mobile within identity structures is supposed to be a good thing” is just a very wordy and convoluted way of saying “everyone is really bi” – a fraudulent claim that invalidates the experiences and testimony of everyone who only experiences sexual, emotional and spiritual attraction to one gender or the other. It is a good thing for bi people to be bi, it is good thing for homosexual people to be homosexual, and it is a good thing for heterosexual people to be heterosexual.

    The meme ‘ex-gay’ actually does not fit your construct of that “a fluid and mobile identity structure is a good thing” – the ex-gay meme insists that only heterosexuality is acceptable, and to achieve the good thing of heterosexuality, the only allowed sexual orientation, one should be willing to endure any level of suffering and financial burden.

    “facsimilie(sic) of straights marginalising(sic) gays is gays marginalising ex-gays”

    LOL. Are you really that confused about the meaning of the words you misspelled? A facsimile is an exact copy, and the power differential between gays and ex-gays does not match even slightly, much less exactly, that between heterosexual homophobes and GLBTQ people. Maybe next semester your community college will cover the the way ex-gays strongly participate in the persecution and marginalization of GLBTQ people by arguing that their alleged experiences justify forcing GLBTQ to convert to heterosexuality.

    In fact, the rejection of ex-gay testimony by GLBGQ people simply mirrors the way ex-gays reject the testimony of GLBTQ people, with one radical difference: we do not make our living from rejecting the testimony and experiences of ex-gays.

    “most of sexuality is prefaced by consumption (products, services, media etc.)”

    Good grief. While that might be a relatively accurate, obtuse description of prostitution, it simply doesn’t match how most people describe their experience of sex. If you are a gold-digger, choosing your sex partners based on how much money they spend on you or how well they “sell” themselves as an asset for future financial security, it doesn’t mean anyone else is, much less that most people see sex that way.

    You might consider asking for a refund on your tuition as it appears from your post that you are the victim of academic fraud. You might also consider trying that which you are so quick to malign as “gay fundamentalism” (ironic given how much your prose sounds like it was written by a pretentious fundamentalist), since your posts give the impression that sexuality and intimacy is entirely theoretical for you at the present, without the influence of any practical, “hands on” experience.

  • romeo

    @Cassandra #43, in the words of Jayne Mansfield, you are “Divooon.” :)

    And seriously, if Queerty (of all places) is getting ex-gay, I’m getting the fuck out of here. I’ll just Romeo-ize another site.

  • Boo

    This article is completely ridiculous.

    If ex-gays have actually changed their sexual orientation, then they’re heterosexual and covered under sexual orientation policies.

    If they haven’t changed, they’re homosexual or bisexual and covered under sexual orientation policies.

    99.999% of any harrassment ex-gays might receive would be because they’re perceived as homosexual, covered under sexual orientation policies.

    If they receive harrassment specifically because of their belief that gayness is sinful and gays need to change, that is a RELIGIOUS belief, which is properly covered under policies protecting against RELIGIOUS discrimination.

    If, as Pfox seems to be arguing, exgayness is actually a completely separate sexual orientation, then who or what, exactly, are they oriented towards?

  • Teddypig

    You are asking for protection for being a self-hating freak of a Republican nut case who believes sky daddy hates the gay?

    How about the practical response which is go get some valid counseling from a licensed mental health professional and quit listening to extremist religious oriented organizations.

    Does that work for you?

  • terrwill

    Told ya the whole “ex-Gay” movement is simply a calculated plan to deny rights and protections, and now I must add cause clusterfuck bantering on Queerts………. : p

  • The Artist

    Ex-gay? What exactly does that mean? Relax. Relate. Release! PEACELUVNBWILD!

  • Cam

    Sorry, they are marrying women, wrecking the women’s lives etc… what exactly are we protecting them from? Showing up as man and wife to a company picnic doesn’t subject you to discrimination. They are trying a back door way to give their movement legitimacy even though ever psyciatric journal, and the association has discredited it. This is a very cynical ploy on their part.

  • Mike

    This reminds me of South Park. Mr. Garrison, to be exact. At first he was a tad asexual. Then he appeared to be a closet gay. Next he came out as gay and was Mr. Slave’s boyfriend. He broke up with Mr. Slave then he got a vagina, and considered himself a lesbian. Then he got back his penis and is now straight. Except for the time he lived in a cave, he had a job teaching kids at the elementary school. Did he suffer any discrimination? Makes you think.

  • David in Houston

    So if ex-gays don’t consider themselves straight or heterosexual but some third undefinable label, then they have failed in their actual goal haven’t they? They can’t have it both ways. Either they have changed homosexuals into heterosexuals, or they haven’t. There is no middle ground. So what they are basically saying is “We know ex-gay therapy is a lie, but we want it validated anyway.” Not gonna happen… ever.

  • Warren in NY

    PFOX is pushing for the creation of the ‘ex-gay’ status, not ex-gays themselves. They want to establish ‘ex-gay- employee groups in companies. these groups are made of ‘ex-gays’ and their allies. Well, really they are made up almost exclusively of the ‘allies’ who are religious people opposed to anything ‘gay’. Once established in an organization they use their legitimacy to promote their methods and discredited beliefs. They will work to undermine all the gains we have made in corporate America. However, they are very, very smart and are able to convince people like Mr. Kuznicki with a very seductive and reasonable sounding argument. Don’t buy it! This is FoF, AFA and the other usual suspects trying to attack us from a different angle.

  • ewe


  • Matthew Johnson

    I agree with the sentiment that ex-gays deserve respect just like every other human being. Yes, the world is a complicated place, and since we all live in it, we should be able to find a way to get along and accept one another- even if it is after shock therapy. This is what bothers me about defending this group in the workplace, and it is precisely why Disney rejected this idea.

    “we deserve it because nobody’s job should be at risk simply because of who they choose to love. And that includes ex-gays.”

    The bottom line is that no matter who they choose to love, whether it be men or women, they are already protected. Adding “ex-gay” to the discrimination is ludicrous because then everyone else would become “ex- straight”.

    I personally cannot “ex-honorate” the “ex-gays”.

  • Sadie

    You know, the ex-gay people pushing for ‘protection from discrimination’ REEKS of the whole “gay people are forcing their views on us and invading our homes!!” mentality of the anti-gay movement. The ex-gay crowd *want* the country to believe that they are prosecuted and maligned and discriminated against. That the radical leftist pro-gay movement is Taking Over and hammering their doctrine into the faces of poor, innocent folk who just want to live their lives. Because if they’re able to successfully turn the bigotry label back on us, it puts them that much closer to wining.

    The awareness of this agenda makes it very hard for me to take ex-gay people calling themselves discriminated as anything other than a ploy.

    Though I won’t lie; I know how much it sucks to go on the internet or watch the news and see people insisting that the way I live my life or what I believe is wrong. I imagine that after months/years of struggling with everything in me to be something I’m not to protect my soul/gain approval of my family/whatever motives ex-gay people, it would suck all the harder. I sympathize. I respect people who hold themselves as ex-gay as people who are free to live their lives as they choice and I will never stand in the way of that.

    I have also read about many of the people who identify as ex-gay *don’t* consider themselves straight. (I which I feel is a tacit admission on the part of that segment of the movement that they can’t turn someone straight.) Instead, they’re choosing to deny their gay urges. Which is probably why they feel they should be able to define “ex-gay” as an orientation. I disagree, for reasons others have stated above.

    But honestly? The only people who’d have reason to discriminate against them are GLBTQ and their allies. Said reason would be that the ex-gay movement and it’s members ACTIVELY seek out to discredit the gay community, impede our social progress, and convince us and everyone else that we’re sick and need to be ‘fixed’. That the methods they use on their members have been proven to be psychologically unhealthy, and that they use lies and propaganda against people who are insecure and vulnerable (specifically, parents and families with GLBTQ teens), would only given credence to this position. Except there isn’t a movement to discriminate ex-gay people — no one wants to see them kicked out of their jobs, homes, communities, or denied healthcare, marriage, or the adoption of children.

    There is a big difference between denouncing a position and discriminating against the people making it.

  • jeffree

    @Cassandra: thank you! I wish I had your gifts of language facility & retort, but I recognize a well-crafted post when I see one. That could & should win a prize! You are an inspiration:….

  • chango

    (Understandable) knee-jerk reactions against the ex-gay movement aside, the LEGAL question is this:

    “Should a person be protected against work-place discrimination based upon their STATED sexual identity?”

    The plaintiff should not have to prove the sexual identity “exists”: only that the discrimination occurred.

    To illustrate:

    Case #1: A person claims to be bisexual. They later claim to be gay. Should they be discriminated against based upon the fact that they once claimed to be bisexual?

    Case #2: A person claims to be bisexual. They later claim to be straight. Should they be discriminated against based upon the fact that they once claimed to be bisexual?

  • chango

    oops. sorry about the poor grammar. wish there were an edit function. grrr. anyway, replace “They” with “He or she,”

  • Stephi

    I have come across many “ex-gays”. Sadly, most do not want to be shown the error of their ways, so if my attempts at help go unanswered or derided, I simply let them belive as they wish. I would never be intentionally mean, but I won’t waste my time on someone who doesn’t want it.

  • Wry Bred

    Very strange that these people don’t drop the “gay” altogether and, yes, simply refer to themselves as straight or heterosexual…if they refer to their orientation at all (and most straight people don’t). Being out and proud about being an EX-GAY, rather than quietly going about one’s breederly business, is a sneaky way of continuing to imply that homosexuality is wrong-bad-evil and should be shed like plague-infested clothing.

  • ewe

    @Shofixti: There is no such thing as “ex-gay” These are people who just don’t accept themselves. They have been around a long time. They are full of shame and now they get together and voice to whoever cares to listen that they are trying to conform to hateful heterosexual hegemony. It is not difficult to see. They’re fucked up.

  • James

    @B: All I have to do is Google the term “ex gay” and find that most of the results returned are extremely hateful to those, like myself, who have turned away from the gay lifestyle. Try it, and imagine that the comments were not about ex-gays, but about you. Harsh, innit? Here are some of the charges that are leveled at me, none of which are true:

    1. I must have been coerced into the ex-gay lifestyle by an oppressive religious philosophy.
    2. I must really be miserable–enough to kill myself.
    3. I must be brim full of shame and really hate myself, hate my body, and especially hate gay men and women.
    4. I must be living a lie, and living in darkness, hiding the truth about myself from others as well as myself.
    5. I must be a brain-washed victim of predators who prey on weak-minded simpletons who have been deluded into thinking there might be an alternative to being gay.
    6. Never mind how long I have been out of the gay life (25 years)–I am bound to fail and leave behind human wreckage in the form of a broken family.
    7. It doesn’t matter that I love my life, love my wife, love my family, still love men, and feel a kinship with gay men because of the commonalities we share–I must really be a complete wreck.

  • etseq

    @James: Nice try troll – cry me a river. “Ex-gay” is a cynical political strategy hatched in the late 1980s by the religious right, who were terrified at what little political success the gay rights movement had achieved in some states and localities – i.e., non-discrimination statues and ordinances and some local domestic partnership schemes. By coming out and organizing as a minority interest group, gays were simply following the successful strategies of prior minority groups in the tradition of the civil rights movement, specifically the litigation strategy pioneered by the NAACP, which relied upon federal constitutional rights grounded in equal protection and due process. One of the key requirements to constitute a suspect class at the time was immutability – the class must be defined by a characteristic that is innate/inborn so as to make it vulnerable to majoritarian discrimination. The religious right recognized that if they could cast enough doubt as to whether homosexuality was not due to the accident of ones birth, like race, but was more like ones joining a profession or political party, in the public’s mind then they could disrupt the entire political and judicial basis for gay rights activism. So, a massive PR campaign is rolled out with ads in major newspapers, voter initiative campaigns, coordinated press talking points, etc. all featuring these newly minted professional “former homosexuals” Shortly thereafter, the religious right manages to convince an aging Robert Spitzer to promote a bogus academic paper that echos these very same talking points! For a while, it looks like they could really due some major damage as both the mainstream and right wing press were publishing hundreds of articles that read more like press releases than skeptical journalism. The only problem was that the entire PR campaign was built on a false foundation that began to crumble shortly after it started. Because it relied on what amounted to a handful of “professional ex-gays” the defections and falls from grace were just as quick and dramatic. After a few years, the rhetoric of a thousands or millions of “ex-gays” was impossible to maintain – where were all these hordes of ex-gays compared to the millions of out and proud gays? Spitzer’s paper may have received glowing coverage in the media but the actual scientists were virtually unanimous in rejecting it poor methodology and naive assumptions. Long story short – piss off you troll.

Comments are closed.