Ex-Gay Adverts on London Buses
Well this took me by surprise.
The full length advert, which will appear on five different routes in the capital, is backed by the Core Issues Trust whose leader, Mike Davies, believes “homoerotic behaviour is sinful”. His charity funds “reparative therapy” for gay Christians who believe that they have homosexual feelings but want to become straight. The campaign is also backed by Anglican Mainstream, an worldwide orthodox Anglican group whose supporters have equated homosexuality with alcoholism.
The advert will say: “Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!” Post-gay and ex-gay are terms used by Christians and some psychotherapists and psychiatrists to refer to homosexual people who have undergone spiritual or pastoral therapy and, according to an Anglican Mainstream definition, have “now left a homosexual lifestyle [and experienced] an increased emotional and sexual attraction to the opposite biological gender and possibly a reduction in or loss of same-sex attraction.”
The buses are due to roll out on Monday morning on some of the most popular routes. They will be seen for two weeks travelling past St Paul’s Cathedral, down Oxford Street, round Trafalgar Square and through Piccadilly Circus as well as across other parts of the capital.
The campaign is an explicit attempt to hit back atÂ gay rightsÂ group Stonewall, which ran its own bus advert saying: “Some people are gay. Get over it.” The Christian groups have used the same black, red and white colour scheme as Stonewall and accuses it of promoting the “false idea that there is indisputable scientific evidence that people are born gay”.
The Rev Lynda Rose, a spokesperson for the UK branch of Anglican Mainstream said because her group adheres to scripture that all fornication outside marriage is prohibited, it believes that homosexuals are “not being fully the people God intended us to be”.
Interesting. I had no idea that this was happening and I’m not sure what to make of it. In some senses I’m eager for the Church and wider society to really grapple with the reality of human sexuality and sexual identity. On the other hand, we’ve seen this kind of stuff before (famously Exodus ran a campaign in newspapers in the late 90s) and I’m not sure how well this will work without good media follow-up. When you look at the different names that Anglican Mainstream has put up as contacts and quotes, only one (Mike Davidson) is actually ex-gay / post-gay. Once again we have people talking about us, but no-one ask us to actually talk about our experiences.
What is fascinating and predictable is the visceral response from some. The Guardian report continues,
The former Europe minister and gay ex-vicar, Chris Bryant MP, said the advert was cruel, particularly to teenagers struggling to come to terms with their sexuality, for promoting the idea that you could become “ex-gay”.
“The emotional damage that is done to the individuals who try to suppress their sexuality, the women they marry and the children they might have is immeasurable,” he said. “Most sane Christians believe that homosexuality is not a lifestyle or a choice but is a fact to be discovered or not. The pretence that homosexuality is something you can be weaned off in some way is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of creation.”
The emotional damage is “immeasurable”? Really? And the high quality academic study (rather than just anecdotal reports) that evidences this would be? And look at the language – “suppress” sexuality. Chris Bryant has obviously never read my piece on being “post-gay” – it has nothing to do withÂ suppressingÂ sexuality (indeed you can’t really begin a post-gay journey until you become honest about your sexual attractions) and everything to do with trying to align your sexual identity with your moral framework.
Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, said the adverts were clearly homophobic and added: “The only reason some gay people might want to stop being gay is because of the prejudice of the people who are publishing the ad.
“The promotion of this voodoo therapy is hugely irresponsible given the damage that it appears to do to some people.”
Attempts to “treat” or alter sexual orientation have been strongly condemned by leading medical organisations. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that “so-called treatments of homosexuality create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish” and concluded in 2010 that “there is no sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed”. The British Medical Association has also attacked “conversion therapy”, a related field to reparation therapy, passing a motion asserting that it is “discredited and harmful to those ‘treated’ “.
The RCP’s statement was never supported by any clinical evidence. It was simply a statement of opinion. Similarly, the BMA never supported their statement with any academic research.
Here’s the thing – we have as much evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) work as we do that they don’t work. The only way to be absolutely sure would be to do controlled multi-cohort samples with separate non-therapy control groups to compare. Since this work hasn’t been done by *anyone*, it is simply incorrect to claim that these therapies don’t work. At the same time it is wrong to over-state the case for SOCE. The best research, the Jones and Yarhouse study, had a “success rate” of around 15% and success in this case was a change along the Kinsey scale on average of 1 point.
The rest of the evidence is just anecdotal and it exists on both sides. Beyond that there is just posturing and dogma with very little engagement with the hard facts on the ground.
If there are any journalists out there who want to talk to someone who is a reasonable conservative voice on this issue and who has personal experience, you know where to find me. In the meantime, I’ll try not to let me head get to big about the fact that an intellectual concept I first invented and wrote about 5 years ago is now on the side of the number 9 to Piccadilly…
Transport for London are pulling the ads. This is going to be interesting…
“We do not believe that these specific ads are consistent with TfLâ€™s commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London.”
So they’re being tolerant and inclusive by pulling an advert that offers people a different perspective?