Talk:Courage International
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
[edit] Seeking
I changed the phrase in the intro graf from "same-sex-oriented Catholics who seek to refrain from adopting a 'gay' identity" to "same-sex-oriented Catholics wishing to live celbately" because I really wasn't sure what "adopting a gay identity" means. It could be anything from being celibate to butching up their image. I'm not entirely happy with this phrasing, but I think it's more clear. As I understand it, Courage does not seek to change one's orientation, just control one's sexual behavior (but I could be wrong). eaolson 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to be correct. Nothing I've found about it indicates it believes in or advocates making someone "ex-gay." I imagine it does reject a "gay identity" as Catholicism rejects making sexual orientation one's identity and considers homosexuality a disorder. I believe Catholics are not to have a gay-identity in the same way we're not to have a BDSM-identity or a shoe-fetish-identity. Catholics may incidentally have such propensities, but those are to be incidental and not defining.--T. Anthony 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category: Ex-gay organizations?
I'm not sure if this fits or not. I thought the point of ex-gay was the notion that you can and should change your sexual orientation. The things I've read on this they don't really make a position as to whether that's possible, the changing of orientation, but are instead about "Persons with homosexual desires" becoming chaste/celibate. Granted maybe that's a distinction without a difference to most homosexuals, but if I'm correct I think it is a meaningful difference. Otherwise it'd be like saying that the Catholic Church believes priests are ex-sexuals and no longer have any desires at all. Even if you hate the Church, I don't think you can argue that they're that foolish. However I do have uncertainty. If ex-gay simply means any group that believes homosexuals can be happy by giving up homosexual sex than this would fit.--T. Anthony 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well their FAQ states they do not deem themselves to be an ex-gay ministry, but it does link to NARTH and states "If any of our members wish to go to professionals to explore the possibility of heterosexual development, we will stand by them," So take that as you will.--T. Anthony 09:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Based on what you have shown, it's hard to see that Courage International qualifies as an "ex-gay" organization. "Being willing to stand by someone who does X" is not the same as advocating X. (I'm willing to stand by my brother if he joins Greenpeace, but that fact alone doesn't make me an environmentalist.) They certainly don't fulfill the definition given at the top of the Ex-gay page.
-
- So I think it should be removed, but I have cross-posted this to Talk:Ex-gay#Removing "Courage International"? to see if there are any objections. — Lawrence King (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It is often called an ex-gay organization, and frequently works with other ex-gay organizations. I think there should be some kind of category that includes all groups helping homosexuals diminish homosexual attractions and behaviors. Maybe we should rename ex-gay organizations to transformational ministries, which is what medical organizations call them.[1] This might be more of a question of what it means to be ex-gay, since even that definition is under debate.Joshuajohanson 05:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well reading more on it it seems a bit ambiguous on the matter. I initially thought they just weren't, now I don't know. They do have connections to the Ex-gay world and their founder sees homosexual desire as something like alcoholism that can be overcome if maybe not precisely ended or switched. Some of their members testimonials indicate that their personal goal was to switch to heterosexuality, but others seem to have a different view. I guess the problem is I'm Catholic and liked the idea of homosexuals trying to be celibate, but in polite non-Evangelical society "ex-gay organization" is sort of equated to something like "white power organization" or at best "Christian Fundamentalist wacko organization."--T. Anthony 07:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You might find this link interesting, which is a joint statement by several ex-gay organizations as well as Courage.[2]Joshuajohanson 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ahh well there you go.--T. Anthony 08:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- But this doesn't really resolve the debate. Even if a significant number of members of CI believe that people can change their orientation, and even if CI has worked as an organization alongside ex-gay groups, that doesn't mean CI is an ex-gay group. The Democratic Party, for example, is not an environmental activist group, even though many individual Democrats are environmentalists, etc. The fact is that the stated purpose of CI does not conform to how "ex-gay" is defined on the Wikipedia ex-gay page. To categorize them as ex-gay becuase of certain members would violate WP:NOR.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That being said, I don't think this distinction is going to go anywhere. My experience is that edits to any 'controversial' wikipedia page are like lines in the sand on the beach: we could revise this article to something we thought was brilliant, and in four months our changes would be gone. Unless one of us feels like policing the changes. — Lawrence King (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I share concerns. Still for now I'm going to keep it in the category, but I did try to put some in about how the case for them as ex-gay is open to debate or at least discussion. DignityUSA's position is just that they are ex-gay, mostly based on CI believing "same-sex desire" is a psychosexual disorder that can be treatable in some cases, but others may feel different. Although they do seem to go on less about "changing" then even Evergreen International, which also doesn't see itself precisely as an ex-gay group.--T. Anthony 09:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Especially if we are going to base it on how Wikipedia defines ex-gay. Like I said, I think part of this problem is how ex-gay is defined, and I have started a discussion on the ex-gay talk page.Joshuajohanson 08:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] DignityUSA
I haev been copyediting and reorganizing some here, and noticed there seems to be a lot of material regarding DignityUSA, especially detailed contrasts to it. I am not sure how much is relevant, as it reads like a soapbox for that organization, and it at best ancillary.
I started redoing some of it, but more needs to be done. If anyone can add some context (and some refs), perhaps that contrast can stand to be so fully developed. Otherwise, I will continue. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I cleaned up quite a bit. I know it wasn't much time, but we can reintroduce things as needed.
Apart from editorial improvements, the major change I performed was to avoid the article becoming a depository for what seems a rhetorical hairsplitting contest. There certainly is a place for debating ex-gay nuances, but I doubt it is best placed here. The major and really only notable contrast between the organizations, as far as I could see, is that DignityUSA is not recognized by the Church. I kept material already present which would add context and understanding as to why they are not (vs Courage being recognized), and cleaned/streamlined the rest.
I also removed Dignity's pdf link on two accounts. First, given the context of the previous material, it was in all likelihood a bit of linkspam from someone associated with them. Second, upon close inspection of the content, it becomes quite clear that the vast majority of Dignity's content was arguing against a point which, upon careful inspection, was not an accurate representation of the point Courage's material made, i.e., straw men arguments. So this material isn't really relevant to Courage's article at all; rather this is likely some type of recruiting brochure or the like.
If anyone has any material demonstrating the contrast between these two organizations is more notable than I have laid out, in the context of writing this article, please share. Then we can work toward expanding as appropriate. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
