Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 21, 2011
Homo / Tech Exodus International is a Hate Group
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:12 PM
It's also a scam. The head of Exodus, which promises to "change" gay people, has admitted more than once that his organization can't actually turn gay people into straight people. The head of Exodus admits that he's not straight after more than twenty years with the organization. What Exodus does is turn gay people into celibates by heaping on the guilt, Leviticus, and spiritual abuse. And once a gay person stops having gay sex—poof!—he's "ex-gay," according to Exodus. (I'm on the road—so, hey, I've been ex-gay for four days. Meeting up with Terry in NYC tomorrow for the It Gets Better book tour, so I should be "ex-ex-gay" sometime tomorrow night.)
The overwhelming majority of gay people see right through Exodus's lies and bullshit. But gay people aren't the organization's target demographic. Exodus doesn't exist to serve or save gay people. It exists to advance the religious right's lead argument against gay and lesbian civil rights. That argument goes something like this: "Since no one has to be gay—change is possible! look at these ex-gays over at Exodus!—there's no need for 'gay rights.' Indeed, protecting the civil rights of gay people—allowing them marry or adopt or hold jobs or visit each other in the hospital—ultimately harms gay people because it delays their exit from the homosexual lifestyle." (No one has to be Mormon either. So?)
Exodus's other target: the parents of young gays and lesbians who've just come out of the closet. The religious right advises parents to reject their gay and lesbian children, to withhold their approval, because, just like marriage rights or job protections or durable powers of attorney, the love and acceptance of family can delay a young gay person's exit from the homosexual lifestyle. The religious right encourages the families of young gay people to be hostile, to reject their gay children, and tells them that their rejection can turn their gay children straight and save them from the homosexual lifestyle. Exodus International and ex-gays like the lying faggot who runs it—that faggot is still attracted to men after 20 years with the group—are held up as proof that "change is possible," that rejecting your gay child can save him from the homosexual lifestyle (and save you from looking like a failure in front of your pastor and co-religionists), and that it's the only loving thing to do.
LGBT kids are four times likelier to attempt suicide. LGBT kids whose families are hostile are eight times likelier to attempt suicide. What the religious right promotes—what Exodus promotes—literally kills children.
You wouldn't think a company like Apple would want to help Exodus International kill gay teenagers.
More than 100,000 people have signed an online petition calling for Apple to remove an app from the iTunes store that was created by an anti-gay Christian organization. Exodus International, which according to its website has ministries that “provide support for individuals who want to recover from homosexuality,” released the app on February 15. The app has a 4+ approval rating from the Apple app store, and the organization is quick to point out that this rating is reserved for those apps that “contain no objectionable material.”
The petition is here. Sign it.
2
"like the lying faggot who runs it—that faggot is still attracted to men after 20 years with the group—are held us proof that "changes is possible," that rejecting your gay child is the loving and responsible choice."
Corrected version:
"like the lying faggot who runs it—that faggot that is still attracted to men after 20 years with the group—are held to us proof that 'change is possible,' that rejecting your gay child is the loving and responsible choice."
Expect our own self-loathing "faggot," Seattleblues, to chime in soon about how depraved Dan Savage is, et al, et cetera.
Corrected version:
"like the lying faggot who runs it—that faggot that is still attracted to men after 20 years with the group—are held to us proof that 'change is possible,' that rejecting your gay child is the loving and responsible choice."
Expect our own self-loathing "faggot," Seattleblues, to chime in soon about how depraved Dan Savage is, et al, et cetera.
3
No. That's censorship.
If you don't like it on the app store, don't buy it. Tell Apple you're not happy about it, boycott Apple for distributing it if you want.
But, saying they can't have their app is censorship. It's not going to be invading my phone nor my friends' phones any time soon. And, the gay cruising apps counteract it.
It just means you should get an IGB app out there to help get the same target audience.
If you don't like it on the app store, don't buy it. Tell Apple you're not happy about it, boycott Apple for distributing it if you want.
But, saying they can't have their app is censorship. It's not going to be invading my phone nor my friends' phones any time soon. And, the gay cruising apps counteract it.
It just means you should get an IGB app out there to help get the same target audience.
4
I'm going to ask the next evangelical Christian I see that if homosexuality is so wrong and sinful in the eyes of the Lord, how it is that there are no gospel accounts of Jesus, who raised the dead, made fruitful trees barren, walked on water, turning gay people straight. Evidently not a New Testament priority.
5
@ 3 Except Apple ALREADY censors its app store. It decides what's suitable, what's objectionable, etc. They won't allow porn apps. If they're already making judgement calls about what's allowable I say I'm allowed to advocate for a change in their blantantly incorrect judgement calls.
6
Exodus has also managed to get "charitable status" in Canada, allowing them to operate tax free here, by not disclosing that they are a hate group. If anyone wants to take a bit more time, you can follow this link and write to the CRA and ask them to revoke Exodus' charitable status:
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/action/
Good luck on the book tour!! I checked at our major big box store, Chapters/Indigo, and they're going to be carrying it.
Hope your ex-ex-gay sex is ex-tremely ex-citing.
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/action/
Good luck on the book tour!! I checked at our major big box store, Chapters/Indigo, and they're going to be carrying it.
Hope your ex-ex-gay sex is ex-tremely ex-citing.
7
dan - I think there's a missing word here. "You wouldn't a company like Apple would want to help".
gordon burkholder
gordon burkholder
8
Censorship happens when a government prevents information from reaching the public. Signing a petition to tell a company their product fucking sucks, is harmful, and won't be purchased by a significant number of its customers who want them to "take it off the shelf" or risk losing a portion of their customer base is called freedom of speech. It's coercive, yes, but not censorship.
If my government stepped in and told me I couldn't sign the petition; took the petition off the website; issued a cease and desist order or an injunction to either me or the company; or that there would be serious legal consequences for signing it, now THAT would be censorship.
Get a fucking clue, Misanthrope. Or maybe a dictionary.
If my government stepped in and told me I couldn't sign the petition; took the petition off the website; issued a cease and desist order or an injunction to either me or the company; or that there would be serious legal consequences for signing it, now THAT would be censorship.
Get a fucking clue, Misanthrope. Or maybe a dictionary.
10
Or maybe a dictionary.
Well, the online dictionaries are kind of vague on the subject, so I checked out Wikipedia, and here's what it says: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."
Considering that Apple is a media outlet and the controlling body for apps and gets to determine which ones get in and which ones don't, I think "censorship" is precisely the right word for this. You're confusing censorship with denial of free speech. Apple is not impinging on anyone's freedom of speech when they deny an app, but censoring they are.
11
@10
Is all editorial judgement censorship? No. The only reason we need the word "censorship" is to give a unique name to the despotic practice of government-controlled speech. "Government censorship" would be redundant.
People getting together to apply market pressure is just the free market in action.
Is all editorial judgement censorship? No. The only reason we need the word "censorship" is to give a unique name to the despotic practice of government-controlled speech. "Government censorship" would be redundant.
People getting together to apply market pressure is just the free market in action.
12
Maybe Ted Haggard will do a commercial where he talks about how much he loves his Iphone because he can cruise for men on Grindr and then switch over to Exodus and be ex-gay again, all on the same convenient hand-held device.
13
@5 And, I have just as big a problem with that censorship as well. I want more porn on my iPhone. But, my not having porn isn't going to make me stop religious groups from spreading their muck.
@8 Oooh, vocabulary time!
Merriam-Webster:
Censor: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."
Censorship: "1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring"
Nowhere in that dictionary does it say government needs to be involved. I dunno where you got it in that tiny little brain of yours that government is the only group that can do censoring, but that's so not true. So, what you are doing is indeed CENSORING. And, even by doing the things which I considered fairly acceptable (including sending letters to Apple on your own), it is censorship.
In some people's terms, if you become a focused group intent on blocking something objectionable you have become a controlling force. The Church was a censorship group back in the day, and they're not government. With grindhouse flicks, projectionists could be censors (see Last House on the Left). Pretty much anybody can be a censor if they're actively trying to stop some form of communication from one person to another. I ascribe to the looser definitions of the dictionary than the wiki.
@10 Thank you.
@8 Oooh, vocabulary time!
Merriam-Webster:
Censor: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."
Censorship: "1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring"
Nowhere in that dictionary does it say government needs to be involved. I dunno where you got it in that tiny little brain of yours that government is the only group that can do censoring, but that's so not true. So, what you are doing is indeed CENSORING. And, even by doing the things which I considered fairly acceptable (including sending letters to Apple on your own), it is censorship.
In some people's terms, if you become a focused group intent on blocking something objectionable you have become a controlling force. The Church was a censorship group back in the day, and they're not government. With grindhouse flicks, projectionists could be censors (see Last House on the Left). Pretty much anybody can be a censor if they're actively trying to stop some form of communication from one person to another. I ascribe to the looser definitions of the dictionary than the wiki.
@10 Thank you.
15
@11 and 14 Although, the phrase "government censorship" is not correct either. Generally, if you put a noun in front of the word censorship, it refers to "censorship of noun" not "censorship by noun." For example, "internet censorship" refers to "censorship of the internet" not "censorship BY the internet." So, really, "government censorship" would be "censorship of government."
But, really, "censored by the government" is not a redundant statement either.
But, really, "censored by the government" is not a redundant statement either.
16
I find it weird that people suddenly find "censorship" or corporate judgment (not sure what the right phrase is) abhorrent when they wouldn't under other circumstances. how about an ex-Jew organization that encouraged people to deny rights to Jews; encouraged non-Jewish parents to withhold love, affection, financial assistance, etc from their non-Jewish children (not that there are many young converts, but stay with me here); demanded that the government refuse to grant basic rights to Jews because it would prevent Jews from leaving the Jewish lifestyle?
first of all, this is a private corporation--they apparently DO elect to remove certain apps from their store, and have every right to do so. second, if you would argue that "censorship" would be ok if we were discussing race, gender, or religion, then there is no reason whatever why it should be wrong just because we switch to sexual orientation.
first of all, this is a private corporation--they apparently DO elect to remove certain apps from their store, and have every right to do so. second, if you would argue that "censorship" would be ok if we were discussing race, gender, or religion, then there is no reason whatever why it should be wrong just because we switch to sexual orientation.
17
@16 I find all censorship abhorrent, even if I don't agree with the message. I think the government was right in upholding the WBC right to protest last month, despite how sick they actually are. I think the KKK has a right to speak their minds. I think that Amazon was wrong in taking the pedo book off its listings.
But, just as WBC, KKK, etc have the right to assemble and speak their minds, and distribute their propaganda however they want, we have the right to either ignore, or actually counter assemble, counter distribute, and counter protest however we want. It wasn't that long ago that we were fighting for those rights ourselves.
But, just as WBC, KKK, etc have the right to assemble and speak their minds, and distribute their propaganda however they want, we have the right to either ignore, or actually counter assemble, counter distribute, and counter protest however we want. It wasn't that long ago that we were fighting for those rights ourselves.
18
@17 and you think that a company choosing to edit out certain apps from its own stores is censorship? it is a private corporation, after all. according to posters above, they choose not to distribute pornographic apps (I know they got rid of an app for a "baby shaking" game some time ago as well), so it makes sense to say that if they are editing which apps are for sale, they ought not to sell abhorrent apps. WBC, KKK, etc have the right to distribute propaganda but they don't have the right to demand that every single possible propaganda-distributing-venue allow them to distribute it. how about that?
19
and you think that a company choosing to edit out certain apps from its own stores is censorship?
Yes. If a video on TV blurs someone's face, that's censorship. If a movie agrees to take out a nude scene to get a different rating, that's censorship. If a newspaper editor says "Don't include paragraph 4," that's censorship. If it's a higher power telling a lower power what to include, voluntary or not, private or not, it's freakin' censorship. People who don't like how Apple censors things can make apps for Android or not at all.
20
@17 I think there is a difference between government censorship and a corporation choosing not to sell a product that many of its customers find offensive. Should Apple be required to market a KKK App so the guys in the white hoods don't feel left out?
21
@18 YES. Apple routinely censors a lot of apps. They are a huge culprit of censorship. Nine Inch Nails's app was almost censored off the store for lyrical content. Whether Apple is a private corporation or not, it is still censorship. What makes you think it isn't?
@20 If the KKK made an app, and it gets past the Apple rules, Apple could put it on there. I wouldn't care.
Should they be required to? No. That's also a restriction made by an external source onto the company. I'm not saying whether or not Apple has to put anything and everything on their app store. I'm saying that Apple has the right to allow any app on their store.
@20 If the KKK made an app, and it gets past the Apple rules, Apple could put it on there. I wouldn't care.
Should they be required to? No. That's also a restriction made by an external source onto the company. I'm not saying whether or not Apple has to put anything and everything on their app store. I'm saying that Apple has the right to allow any app on their store.
22
@12, Yes, please. And it ends with that new smarmy catchphrase,"Because if you don't have an iPhone, then you don't have an iPhone."
24
Given that Apple exercises editorial control of the app store, I think it's fair to ask them to remove this app. And I think they should remove the app, for all of the obvious reasons.
That said, I think Dan has gone completely around the bend by implying that Apple "wants to help kill gay teenagers." They made a poor decision, for a reason we don't know, but jumping straight to murderous intent is maybe just a little wildly overdramatic.
You can disagree with someone's decisions without having to ascribe the most evil possible motive to them. In fact, if you want them to change their behavior in the future, calling people or companies would-be murderers is probably both inaccurate and counter-productive.
That said, I think Dan has gone completely around the bend by implying that Apple "wants to help kill gay teenagers." They made a poor decision, for a reason we don't know, but jumping straight to murderous intent is maybe just a little wildly overdramatic.
You can disagree with someone's decisions without having to ascribe the most evil possible motive to them. In fact, if you want them to change their behavior in the future, calling people or companies would-be murderers is probably both inaccurate and counter-productive.
26
I wish I could copy and paste your column and send it to my brother, who's been telling me that I am "interpreting" my experiences wrongly and should just keep 'struggling" like people who are tempted towards any other sexual "sin." But somehow I don't think he'd get Dan's sarcasm. I don't know what to do with him other than just stop talking to him b/c it makes me so upset.
27
TheMisanthrope:
I see that you are passionate about the definition of the word "censorship" and that we disagree. There's not much point in going in circles about it.
I was just trying to point out that there is a unique problem (that is widely recognized/see first amendment) with the government controlling speech. It's such an important concept that it merits a unique word. To broaden the definition of "censorship" the way that you describe renders it useless as far as I can see.
Any act of decision-making with regard to one's speech becomes censorship under your definition. I don't believe there is such a thing as "self-censorship." We have other words to describe that.
I see that you are passionate about the definition of the word "censorship" and that we disagree. There's not much point in going in circles about it.
I was just trying to point out that there is a unique problem (that is widely recognized/see first amendment) with the government controlling speech. It's such an important concept that it merits a unique word. To broaden the definition of "censorship" the way that you describe renders it useless as far as I can see.
Any act of decision-making with regard to one's speech becomes censorship under your definition. I don't believe there is such a thing as "self-censorship." We have other words to describe that.
28
The 4 star rating that WAS shown on the app store is user generated, not Apple generated. The rating has sunk to 2 star now. Anyone can search the app and give it a 1 star rating without even buying it, as long as you have an iTunes account.
29
@27 I'm not the one broadening it. You just want to redefine words to suit your own biases. Sorry, but if you want to communicate with people down here in America, you should probably use our definitions instead of providing your own, and adding in your own modifications. There are no circles here. I'm right, and have both history, dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholars, and a majority of the human race to back me up on this one.
...
I was just trying to point out that there is a unique problem (that is widely recognized/see first amendment) with the government controlling speech. It's such an important concept that it merits a unique word.
If you want to use a unique word for "censorship by government" come up with a new word. Attempting to hijack a perfectly well-defined word is not the way to do it.
...
I don't believe there is such a thing as "self-censorship."
As you can see by M-W.com's entry on Censorship, "Self-" is a combining form, and the entry for "Self-" includes a list of terms it has combined with, which includes "self-censorship."
Thus endeth today's English lesson. I hope you learned something (though I doubt it).
...
I was just trying to point out that there is a unique problem (that is widely recognized/see first amendment) with the government controlling speech. It's such an important concept that it merits a unique word.
If you want to use a unique word for "censorship by government" come up with a new word. Attempting to hijack a perfectly well-defined word is not the way to do it.
...
I don't believe there is such a thing as "self-censorship."
As you can see by M-W.com's entry on Censorship, "Self-" is a combining form, and the entry for "Self-" includes a list of terms it has combined with, which includes "self-censorship."
Thus endeth today's English lesson. I hope you learned something (though I doubt it).
30
Promiscuous homosexuals are EIGHTY times likelier to have HIV. The CDC advocates postponing sexual activity until in a longterm relationship and monogamy thereafter.
Dan promotes promiscuous pre- and extramarital sexual behavior.
What the Dan promotes literally kills homosexuals.
Boycott Savage
Dan promotes promiscuous pre- and extramarital sexual behavior.
What the Dan promotes literally kills homosexuals.
Boycott Savage
32
Signing a petition is pussy.
Is Apple killing gay teenagers or not?
If Apple is killing Gay teenagers Savage should cease to do business with Apple.
Every Savage"Love" podcast puts money in the pocket of Gay Teen Murders. Is Dan OK with that?
Savage must call on all lovers of The Gay to BOYCOTT APPLE.
Savage must set the example.
End Podcasts. Find a new format.
Dump all Apple products from the offices of The Stranger.
If Apple is killing Gay teenagers Savage MUST CALL ON ALL QUEERS AND QUEER FRIENDS TO BOYCOTT APPLE.....
if Apple is not killing gay teens Savage must apologize to Slog and Apple and STFU.....
Is Apple killing gay teenagers or not?
If Apple is killing Gay teenagers Savage should cease to do business with Apple.
Every Savage"Love" podcast puts money in the pocket of Gay Teen Murders. Is Dan OK with that?
Savage must call on all lovers of The Gay to BOYCOTT APPLE.
Savage must set the example.
End Podcasts. Find a new format.
Dump all Apple products from the offices of The Stranger.
If Apple is killing Gay teenagers Savage MUST CALL ON ALL QUEERS AND QUEER FRIENDS TO BOYCOTT APPLE.....
if Apple is not killing gay teens Savage must apologize to Slog and Apple and STFU.....
35
@30: "EIGHTY times likelier to have HIV"
Than who?
Also, Dan promotes shaft-wrapping. What the Dan promotes literally saves the lives of people of all sexualities.
Than who?
Also, Dan promotes shaft-wrapping. What the Dan promotes literally saves the lives of people of all sexualities.
36
35
tell you what, junior-
your homework is to google it and report back.
we'll give you a hint- its from the CDC
(of course....)
tell you what, junior-
your homework is to google it and report back.
we'll give you a hint- its from the CDC
(of course....)
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Daily Show on Poor, Bullied Christians by Paul Constant
-
In Which Peter Steinbrueck Peforms in Blackvoice by Goldy
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (38) RSS