Sign up for Email Updates

Posted June 8th, 2010 by Wayne Besen

Ealanweirdxodus co-founder Michael Bussee — who has since renounced “ex-gay” programs — has obtained this doosie of a quote today from Exodus’ current president Alan Chambers:

“Criticism is easy to come by at Exodus,” said Chambers. “We are a large and diverse organization made up of many members. Our growth over the years has caused us to not always know what the hand or foot are doing, which sometimes causes us to look like we are ‘all butt’.

This is precisely what I’ve been saying for quite some time. Exodus has no standards, no accountability, no consistent programming and no idea what the hell it is doing. This group of unprofessional religious hacks and quacks just sort of makes it up as they go along. If they destroy a few lives in the process — I guess that’s just the cost of doing business in such an unregulated and untoward industry.

You are correct Mr. Chambers. You do look like an insensitive ass who is impervious to the pain he has caused so many people. Shame on you, Exodus VP Randy Thomas and your harmful, hateful, little organization.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Comments »

  1. Exodus is a diverse group. They have self-hating gays & lesbians and straight people who hate gays and lesbians.

    Comment by Daniel — June 8, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

  2. ‘has caused us to not always know what the hand or foot are doing…’ I’m fairly certain ‘the hand’ is on someone else’s ankles and ‘the foot’ is up in the air with toes curled.

    Comment by Gary (NJ) — June 8, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

  3. Surprising, but Exodus is actually responding to comments about this on Throckmorton’s Blog and on the Exodus Blog. Worth checking out.

    Comment by Michael Bussee — June 8, 2010 @ 4:30 pm

  4. Language, Wayne!

    ;-)

    Comment by Evan Hurst — June 8, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

  5. It’s just a little too bad that Uganda and her gay citizens had to be the proving ground for this statement by Exodus. It seems that Lawrence v. Texas would have been the trigger for such a statement. But it was then that Randy Thomas wrote in Exodus news:

    After much reflection and more research it does appear that if the Supreme court overturns this case it could be a watershed event in redefining the family. Therefore, in the realm of public dialog, the possibility of overturning the laws deserves opposition from those of us who want to defend our beliefs as they pertain to Biblical models of relationships. Of course it is up to the reader on how to make their views known.

    And in support of that position Thomas provided a link to an FRC article about their brief supporting criminalization. The FRC claimed:

    The law has historically respected and protected the marital union and has distinguished it from acts outside that union, such as fornication, adultery and sodomy. To extend homosexual sodomy the same protections given to the marital union would undermine the definition of marriage and could lead to homosexual marriage.
    .
    In order to recognize a non-textual Constitutional right to sodomy, the Court must find sodomy to be deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. In fact, laws banning sodomy are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.
    .
    Protecting marriage, upholding morality, and seeking to ensure public health is more than enough for Texas to prove it has a “rational basis” behind its law. Homosexual sodomy is the number one vehicle for the transmission in America of the HIV virus, and given all the ramifications HIV/AIDS has on public health, Texas is surely justified is seeking to curtail its continued progression.

    What has changed in the intervening seven years? Certainly not the Christian religion.

    Comment by Lynn David — June 9, 2010 @ 12:31 am

  6. Make that ‘certainly not *conservative* Christian religion’…progressive, inclusive churches have changed a lot!

    Comment by Gary (NJ) — June 9, 2010 @ 9:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment