Talk:Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays

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)

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)

Richard Cohen

The source for the following material is Ex-Gay Watch. It appears to be a blog, i.e. self-published. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person." Note however, a self-published source can be used when written by the subject of the BLP. See WP:GRAVEVINE... Obviously Cohen did not write the article on Ex-Gay Watch.

After Cohen was interviewed by Jason Jones on the March 19, 2007 episode of The Daily Show, PFOX systematically removed all references to Cohen from their website.

I've moved it here per WP:BLG. Lionelt (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it flies past reliable sourcing in this case. They present an overview and links to before and after archived copies of the passages. Ergo this would not seem to be an unfounded, untrue or exceptional claim. It's also hardly a BLP issue. -- Banjeboi 22:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I concede that there is an overview and before/after links. With WP:BLP veracity is not the issue. Verifiability is. Sources for material about a living person are held to a higher standard. The policy is quite clear: "Never use ... blogs." The author, David Roberts, is obviously biased. He himself makes an argument that his blog entry doesn't meet WP's notability guidelines when he writes, "It is uncertain exactly why they chose now to finally distance themselves." This begs the question, why is this even in WP? Aren't there any reliable unbiased sources for PFOX's actions? If this is indeed a notable inclusion, there will be another source. Maybe even a source that can shed some light on why PFOX took the mentioned actions. Until then, this material has to be removed. Note that per WP:BLP my repeated good faith removal is not subject to the 3 revert rule. Lionelt (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting you are so well versed in 3rr. Before I get a neutral opinion on this I'll simply see if there is a more reliable source that supports this so your repeated deletions of content - which remains not a BLP issue - is rendered baseless. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While the BAR is also a biased organ, at least it isn't a blog, and it does provide the background on the The Daily Show interview. BTW, the Gonzalez source in Ex-Gay Watch also appears to be a blog.

This article is ostensibly about the activities, accomplishments and key personnel of PFOX. Apart from being the president "for a period of time" he doesn't seem to have made any notable contributions to PFOX. He didn't found PFOX, and no policies which he implemented are noted in the article. So, why is he even mentioned here, and more importantly why does he rate having his own section? Lionelt (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You right, of course, the content should be expanded to show why it is included, why his appearance on national televisipn made him and the organization regret the appearance and why those orhganizations went to extroidinary lengths to scrub him from their history. I think it's called revisionistic history or mythologizing but per your excellent points would should llok to detailing why this is a notable chapter in this group's evolution. -- Banjeboi 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Criticism

Wondering why this part of the quote is in this article: "PFLAG supports safe schools for all sexual orientations - gay, bisexual and heterosexual." It seems that this part of the quote is taken out of context. What position of PFOX does this pertain to? Lionelt (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence appears to be WP:SOAP for PFLAG. It doesn't pertain to PFOX - it belongs in the PFLAG article. Lionelt (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a quote on http://pfox.org/Can-Sexual-Origintation_Change.pdf as follows: "Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry & Chief of Biometrics at Columbia University -- “…there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” ... “It is often said that those who try to change their sexual orientation become very depressed as a result. That was not the case for subjects of this study. There was in fact a marked decline in depression after their effort to change.” (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 5, October 2003, p 403. 200 subjects, 143 men and 57 women, were personally interviewed by Dr. Spitzer.)" If the reference is true, shouldn't this be included in the article? Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Edits of this article

Hi Lionelt. After your feedback at Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008) I thought I'd check out how you were finding things elsewhere on WP, and found you editing here, and having some of your edits reverted. I'm not going to address them all in detail, particularly as this isn't an article i've had anything to do with. But just saw the latest revert, which I would support. In implementing a neutral POV at wikipedia, one of the judgments editors are making all the time is ensuring consistency of a neutral point of view while not inappropriately marginalising particular points of view. Part of the NPOV policy says the goal is "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Crucial to this is not giving undue weight to minority views and fringe theories, even if they have been published in (usually a small number or range of) a reliable source. Here's an extract from that policy:

In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is, in fact, the minority view.

It is respect for this policy that resulted in the latest revert, which the editor did at least briefly explain in the edit summary. Any time you want some feedback on a particular edit elsewhere on WP you can ask me on my talk page. People are supposed to be nice and explain things to newbies, but sometimes they don't even realise that that is what is needed, or that they have inadvertently been a little short with an editor - i've done it myself. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PFOX and recent court cae

There has been recent activity in the WP article regarding a court decision in 2009, following PFOX suing the Washington DC Office of Human Rights. This material has had (and still has) some issues, both around the accuracy of the text (whichi think I have fixed) and the reliability of the sources (an ongoing issue). Briefly, PFOX cannot be quoted as a reliable source in regards to what the court decision was. This is a general principle - you do not rely on one 'side' of a legal dispute to characterise a court decision in that dispute. The importance of that principle is highlighted by PFOX's significant misrepresentation of the outcome - namely, no clearly pointing out that they lost the case or why. Reporting of the case should be confined to reliable mainstram media, academic papers (there probably aren't any yet), or the court itself. The only reason I haven't deleted the 365gay and qeerty.com references is that i cannot access them at present, but I suspect they are not going to qualify as reliable, third party independent sources. If someone else can access them and believes that to be the case, please go ahead and remove them. The Advocate looks to me, in spite of its LGBT community orientation, to be reputable and its article read as accurate and neutral, quoting both PFOC and Truth Wins Out. If any more mainstream media reported the case (such as the WAshington Post) reported the case, that source should trump the current one. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While it is not a good idea to quote sources considered unreliable or with a vested interest, PFOX's position is important to note as the article is ultimately about them and can serve to accurately reflect their position. Additionally, a more comprehensive and NPOV position can be forged by leaving it up over time rather than deleting it. This not only includes improving the wording but also the refinement of sources. Being inclusive and allowing editors and articles time with eventually resolve perceived biases or inaccuracies. With that in mind, I propose we leave all the sources on there at least until a more mainstream, NPOV reference can be found to replace them. BabyJonas (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. PFOX's objectives are set out elsewhere in the article. They don't need to be set out again in the section about the case. The original text did not in any case accurately reflect what the case was about (because PFOX didn't appear to want to accurately state the issue - by "accurately", I mean as the court understood it). I don't agree about the way to forge a more comprehensive NPOv position. Non-neutral stuff and unreliable sources (particularly when having a clear POV as well)should be removed. The place for the evolution to take place is by discussion on the talk page, rather than maintaining problematic material in the article mainspace. By all means bring those sources through to this area and discuss them, but I continue to have the view that they not be in the article at this point. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We should avoid taking sides on the issue, particularly when accusing a group of misrepresentation without any sources for the claim. Whether PFOX is misrepresenting the case or not depends on documentation from NEA, OHR or a mainstream news organization. I haven't been able to find anything on the NEO or OHR website. Maybe someone else will have better luck. Could you please move whatever you object to into the talk page so that we can have a look at it? BabyJonas (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Will try and come back to this later - briefly on the first point, though, I thought the court transcript that PFOX themselves put on their site did not square with PFOX's interpretation. Anyway, will try and get back to this later. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be used as sources for claims (as is opposed to rock-hard facts). PFOX's statements fall into this purview. - Schrandit (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several reasons this is wrong. First, you argue that these are "claims", but the word is used only once in the para. As it progresses they read more and more like "facts". Second, regardless of how often the word "claims" could be used, however, it is material that is essentially a number of specific facts that are set out in a manner that is highly critical of an organisation that disagrees with PFOX. One should use an organisation's own material only for "claims" about itself, not others; otherwise it is no better than a self published source and is unacceptable (see WP:RS. Third, given the nature of the subject, it is not appropriate that there is no material supporting the text from a reliable independent third party source. There is no material from the court. There is no counter-balancing material from the 'other side' of the debate. Fourth, the material probably violates policy in relation to biographies of living persons. I am very surprised you are continuing to argue this on the basis of the sources offered. I will revert once again. If you are not happy, then one of us will take this to WP:ANI. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality and choice

• PFOX maintains that homosexuality is a choice, not a product of biological determination.

I removed "a choice" because (1) it was not mentioned anywhere else in the article and (2) everything I've read about homosexuals (who want to change) transitioning to heterosexuality denies the idea that homosexuality is a choice. Richard A. Cohen repeatedly affirms that "No one chooses to become homosexual". I lost count of how many times Rachel Maddow tried to put the words into his mouth but then to credit allowed Cohen to set her straight (no pun intended) about that.

Yet I feel that the two sides are talking past each other. We need a Homosexuality and choice article to clarify this point. While it is generally agreed that no one chooses to have same-sex desires, the ex-gay (or SOCE) side says that "choice" is an element in leaving the homosexual lifestyle and/or getting rid of same-sex desires.

Is that the same as saying that "homosexuality is a choice", or what?

The Religious Tolerance website, which his been consistently pro-gay, attempts to clarify this this:

Many Christians ... believe that homosexuality is ultimately a choice that young people make [2]

And "homosexuality" in that context is "defined as a same-sex sexual activity." [3]

But we all know that Homosexuality is more than just behavior. Possibly more important is desire - not to mention identity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"former homosexual"

That should be within quotation marks or it should be noted it is a claim because it directly contradicts scientific consensus. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What consensus of notable scientific bodies has issued an opinion specifically regarding Greg Quinlan's sexuality? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I obviously mean about sexual orientation in general. You're not being helpful by dodging the issue like this and constantly popping in only to revert any changes made to improve the article to ensure that it conforms with WP:NPOV. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 06:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP article and content and sourcing requirements are stringent. We need sources that are specifically about the subject. Btw BLP supercedes NPOV. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A source from PFOX itself is not reliable and is obviously biased - any changes made to reflect scientific consensus does not violate BLP, indeed it is probably the current wording, which seems to give validity to a discredited fringe view, is what is in violation of BLP. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that normally we would not use PFOX as a source. However self-published sources are reliable about themselves per WP:SPS. Note that this article is not about a fringe view, which I presume is conversion therapy. Also this is not a medical article. To include content about conversion therapy would violate WP:COATRACK and probably WP:OFFTOPIC. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, the wording as it is cannot stand because it does not pass criteria number 4 ("4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"). --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 09:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Authenticity" in the sense that the source is in fact who they claim to be. I.e. not an imposter. There is no dispute that the source cited, www.pfox.org, is under the control of the organization PFOX. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And under 1 ("1. the material is not unduly self-serving")? It is clearly self-serving PFOX. And again, it is blatantly incorrect. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 10:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may, here is the premise you're using: (A) the APA says conversion therapy doesn't work (B) Quinlan claims to be ex-gay (C) therefore Quinlan is a liar. Here is the problem: this is against policy per WP:SYNTH. The only way to arrive at C is for the APA to say that Quinlan is a liar. Without C you can't cite ABOUTSELF#1. Btw I hate to break it to you, but wikipedia doesn't care about correctness. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not just the APA, it's every major scientific institution in the world (although the APA's conclusion alone is enough). Secondly, we can look at this from another perspective if your going to bring up WP:VNT: We cannot verify his claim. Finally, VNT is an essay, and not Wikipedia policy. If we're going to have an absurd claim like that on an article, it needs to be made clear to readers that it is a claim. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

One does not need to assume that Quinlan is a liar; one can merely not assume that he is telling the truth. WP:SPS tells us that we should not accept such sources on things that are unduly self-serving, and in the case of PFOX, it certainly serves their goals to have someone be considered ex-gay. If we were to be covering a breatharian sect (to pick a more extreme illustration), it would serve their needs for them to say that their leader hasn't eaten in seven years; it doesn't mean we need represent that as fact. That is not to say that we need represent it as a lie, either (which would be both a WP:NPOV and a WP:BLP violation); we can represent it as a claim (in which case, quoting to indicate accurate sourcing is appropriate) or we can skip addressing it altogether. In this case, we could say Quinlan is a former gay activist, for example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a suggestion with which I agree. I can agree that representing what Quinlan/PFOX is saying as lie may not be appropriate (even though the statement is in contradiction with scientific conclusions). Using quotation marks, the wording you have suggested or a similar wording, or alternatively not addressing it altogether, are all appropriate solutions in my view. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead issues

The lead contained the following statement: "PFOX maintains that homosexuality is not a product of biological determination, in contradiction to the consensus of major mental health organizations." I have removed the "in contradiction to the consensus of major mental health organizations" part. It did not seem to have a source, it is also in fact untrue. There is no general consensus among mental health organizations about the precise reasons why people develop a particular sexual orientation. The American Psychological Association states that, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." (See here: http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx. It's a multi-page document, and that part is on page 4). That's a far, far different statement from what appeared in the lead. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, it is necessary to contextualize these fringe scientific views in some way. Part of the problem is that it's also just a weird way to convey PFOX's position. It would be better to say that they believe homosexuality is a choice and advocate attempts to change LGB people to heterosexual, which are unsupported/condemned by the scientific and medical community. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do with the lead, and I think you're right in principle. But the text you added, "PFOX maintains, in contradiction to the consensus of major mental health organizations, that homosexuality is a choice and that sexual orientation should be changed", makes me a little uneasy. I looked up their website, and it seems to be true that they maintain, roughly speaking, that homosexuality is a choice - but they don't use those exact words, and they might object to having their views characterized that way. Anyway, the information you added needs to be properly cited. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What they say specifically is, "Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. “Gay” is a self-chosen identity", which is almost but not quite the same as saying that homosexuality is a choice. See http://pfox.org/about_us.html. Hebradaeum (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930203539/http://www.washblade.com/2004/5-28/news/national/pfox.cfm to http://www.washblade.com/2004/5-28/news/national/pfox.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)