What is so offensive about these advertisements is the fact that there is not one (not one) reputable study which has shown that it is possible to "convert" a gay man or lesbian to a heterosexual person. Here in the USA, Exodus International (the largest "ex-gay" group in the nation) refuses to release data pertaining to its "success" rate or methodology, despite making wildly outlandish claims that this rate is very high. Two of its members fell in love and denounced the group at one of its conventions. Then there are cases such as that of John Paulk, formerly a star at the Family Research Council (FRC) who claimed to have been converted and who even went so far as to get married. He was sighted at a gay bar on Du Pont Circle in Washington, D.C. by a gay rights activist who recognized him, and was photographed hastily leaving the bar after spending more than an hour there trying to pick up another man. Paulk told his handlers at the FRC that he had merely stepped into the bar to use the rest room; when it was pointed out to him that there were dozens of establishments near the bar where he could have used the rest room, he changed his story and stated that he was merely curious as to whether there had been any changed to the gay "lifestyle" since he had supposedly left it. These explanations were too much for even an organization as lacking in integrity as the FRC to tolerate, and Paulk was fired from his high-paying position.

Exodus International uses marriage as a surrogate for "cure," which is ridiculous. Any gay man may marry a woman; this does not make him one iota less gay. Thus, when Exodus International makes wild claims, it is impossible to tease out the number of "successes" for which it is responsible.

This problem with the bus advertisements is that it pits freedom of speech against freedom from the type of harassment, bullying, gay-bashing, and even suicides caused by such in your face invalidation of a core component of the identities of gay persons. I remember knowing, as a very young boy, that there was something different about me, but I did not know what it was. When I hit puberty and hormones started flowing, the full and shocking nature of the difference became clear to me. I am not in control of my parasympathetic nervous system, and do not choose my sexual attraction to other men. It chose me.

Here in the USA, this type of advertisement may survive scrutiny by the courts based on what is referred to as "viewpoint discrimination" under the First Amendment. However, the UK is light years ahead of the US in terms of the progress and speed with which it has equalized the status of gay persons relative to that of heterosexual persons, and there is no First Amendment. While still a core component of British democracy, protections of freedom of expression in the UK are balanced against the potential harm they can cause to members of minorities. My personal prediction is that the ban of these advertisements will be upheld by the appeals court.

PHILIP CHANDLER
Queens, NY, USA

This woman's assertions fly in the face of clearly established facts derived from numerous studies involving children raised by same-sex couples (as compared to children raised by opposite-sex couples). All of the research on point has shown that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well on a wide variety of developmental and emotional markers as is the case for children raised by opposite-sex couples. There is simply no basis in fact (or logic) for Harvey's claims.__This train has already left the station. A majority of Americans now support gay marriage, and the US Supreme Court will soon hand down two decisions involving this issue (most court-watchers believe that the Court will not go so far as to declare a fundamental right to gay marriage, but will strike down California's infamous Proposition 9

How absolutely typical of FOTF and its leadership. This organization has promoted flat-out hatred towards gay men and lesbians, has written countless amicus briefs arguing against gay equality (anti-discrimination laws, marriage equality, etc.), and made countless ugly and baseless comparisons of homosexuality to any number of paraphilias (sexual disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V-TR). This organization is indeed an anti-gay hate group, regardless of its protestations to the contrary.

Never explained is exactly HOW gay equality will lead to the collapse of the family, the undermining of Western civilization, and the overall decline of humanity. None of this is ever explained -- it is simply repeated, as though it gains credibility through sheer force of repetition. Equality is a prize to be sought after in ANY society, regardless of its religious roots or original founding faith.

There is so little true love in this world -- so little true love -- that any form of love shared between competent adults should be celebrated and applauded, not relegated to condemnation and abuse.

PHILIP CHANDLER

Thank you not just for clarifying this, but also for providing an extensive bibliography for those who are interested to make reference. I have tried, over and over again, to point out that I never "chose" my sexual orientation -- it simply unfolded as puberty hit me, and I had about as much choice in this matter as I had with respect to my height, bone structure, or weight.

There are those who will never believe this. There are those who will insist, to this day, that all gay persons are liars; that we are all part of a massive conspiracy aimed at overthrowing the family as the building block of society. What these people fail to understand is that those of us who believe in gay marriage wish to STRENGTHEN gay families -- at least one in every five openly gay persons is currently raising a child.

Thank you for your message. It is long past time that we heard another voice of sanity on this thread!

PHILIP

Let me clarify this issue further.

The only reason the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 (in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009)) was because all of the substantive legal rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage remain available to gay couples in California, in the form of legally binding "domestic partnerships" -- only the designation of marriage has been snatched away from gay couples.

How do you feel about this? How do you feel about domestic partnerships? Should these remain available? If so, why not marriage? If the two concepts lead to substantively identical rights, privileges, and benefits, which of them (if either) should be available to gay couples -- and what reason exists for the other option not being available?

PHILIP

If you can argue this issue on its merits, without your anti-gay hatred obscuring factual analysis and logic, then by all means, let us debate this issue. But if you are going to insist that gay people are so worthless that we should not be raising children in the first place, expect a spirited and angry rebuttal – and expect me to call you as I see you.

The choice is, and remains, entirely yours.

PHILIP CHANDLER

I also pointed out to you the cold fact that many gay couples raise children, and that several state supreme courts have weighed in on the importance of marriage to such families – marriage provides children who are raised by gay couples with a degree of stability and certainty that is lacking in its absence. Your response was to opine, implicitly, that gay couples should not raise children in the first place.

When all is said and done, I believe you to be guilty of vicious, anti-gay bigotry of the crudest form. You cannot articulate a single coherent reason to prevent gay persons from marrying, so you fall back to positions which become increasingly difficult to defend, each of which gives way to more and more obvious animus (i.e., hatred) towards gay persons.

CONTINUED...

I then pointed out to you that the courts consider marriage to be a “fundamental” right. This means that any attempt to deprive any group of persons of the right to marry must satisfy the demands of strict scrutiny as a matter of law – and one of those demands is that of narrow tailoring. You went off on a tangent, accusing me of misrepresenting you when, in fact, all I did was point out that you were trying to have it both ways – treating marriage as a mere contract when it suits you, then treating it as more than a mere contract when it suits you. Make you your mind – either marriage is merely a civil contract in the eyes of the law, intended to effectuate reproduction, or it is a basic, fundamental right, with purposes other than that of merely effectuating reproduction.

CONTINUED...

Calvin – the problem here is that you are not consistent in your reasoning.

First, you claim that marriage is merely a contract, and that the only issue that distinguishes marriage as being of any great significance, in your eyes, is that it is related to procreation. I pointed out that such a worldview necessitates the conclusion that infertile and elderly couples should not be permitted to marry, and that couples who choose not to have children should not be permitted to marry. You responded by stating that a contract does not have to include every possible exception to its general purpose. If that is indeed the case, then what is wrong with adjusting the contract so as to include gay persons too? If the contract can include some persons who are unable or unwilling to procreate, then what is your logical basis for excluding gay persons, whilst including elderly, infertile, and unwilling couples?

CONTINUED...

Calvin writes: "This presupposes that gay couples *should* be raising kids to begin with."

************
Response:
************

AHA! Now here, at last, we have it -- an open acknowledgement, by you, of your own homophobia. Implicit in the above statement is the judgment -- by you -- that gay persons should not be raising children in the first place. This is proof positive of your own homophobia -- your own personal animus towards gay men and lesbians.

Why, pray tell, should we not raise children?

PHILIP CHANDLER