Disclosure: I am a long-time supporter of Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family (FOTF) publishes their financial statements on their website http://www.family.org. In 2004, FOTF received $135M in contributions, $4.62M in sales revenue, and $713k in event revenue.

Note that contributors often receive a book or audio tape to accompany a contribution. I can personally attest that the value of this book or tape NEVER exceeds the value of the contribution … I mean, come on, how could it? Anyway …

FOTF recently conducted an event in Boston: Love One Out. This event addressed homosexuality. So, let us assume that ALL of the event revenue relates to homosexuality. And for good measure, let us assume that ALL of sales revenue relates to homosexuality. So, $5.33M (= 4.62 + 0.713) of $140M (= 135 + 4.62 + 0.713), or 3.8% (= 100 x 5.33 / 140) of revenue relates to homosexuality.

So the revenue reasonably assigned to activites related to homosexuality is small relative to total revenue.

OK, so what about absolute numbers?

Well, assume the average income of a FOTF employee is $50k per year. This may be high, but it is a good round number. It is commonly assumed that the employer carries a cost of about twice (or bit less) of the employee’s salary for each employee. So, $5.33M supports about 53 ($5.3M / $100k) employees undertaking activities related to homosexuality.

So the number of employees devoted to tasks related to homosexuality is about the same as, say, those employed by your local WalMart. I mean, just one store.

Another disclosure: I make many mistakes. Though, I hope I did not make any arithmetic mistakes above.

So, by all means, challenge my assumptions. But as far as I can tell, there is very little money on the line, at least as far as FOTF is concerned, from activities related to homosexuality.

I would love to see the numbers on what focus on the family makes off of its ex-ministries.

Coming from a fairly religious, although pretty politically progressive, Southern family with members who have listened to/read james dobson’s stuff for years, when I came out, my sister signed herself, her husband, and my mother up for one of their “answers in genesis” conventions and invited me to come along. After some fairly fiery emails and phone calls making my feelings about the group extremely clear, I agreed to go in chaperone capacity and as a fact finding mission.

Inside the church, everything had a dollar sign on it.

It cost $60 dollars per person to attend. This did not include lunch, which was sold seperately. The were a very few handouts and every presentation included a or multiple sales pitches for complementary literature and reminders that audio or video copies of sessions were available for purchase. The foyer and side halls of the church were filled with stuff for sale. Everyone on the circuit seemed to have a book they were hawking and there were multiple cash registers set up around the church to make purchase of materials easy. Visions of Jesus and the money changers in the temple flashed through my head as I watched the registers ca-ching as the suburban parents who had frog marched their cringing teenaged kids there ring up their take home literature.

Shortly prior to this when my mother had first been told that I was gay, I had found the invoice from her purchase of about 6 or so books from focus on the family’s online store about ex-gay stuff.

I often listened to american family radio and focus on the family on long road trips. I’d get angry and find it easier to stay awake and also felt it was probably a good idea to actually have a listen to the people who my mother and sister got so much of their worldview from. If you ever hear them mention they are going to do a fund drive, get ready for hearing about homosexuality. The subject seems to be like “The Power of Myth” for PBS. On one trip I heard them mention that they were short of their goals and were going to do a fund raiser. I was talking to my mom and pointed out that they often use gut wrench bigotry against gay people to fund raise. She said I was being silly and that they don’t talk about it all that often on the shows. I heard three hourlong shows devoted to the subject that day.

I don’t have explicit inside information on how ex-gay stuff is used as a money maker beyond the anecdotal evidence I’ve shared here, but I would be interested to dig deeper and hear other folks opinions. I think that they are successful as money makers when they aren’t too stand-alone. I imagine that ex-gay things marketed mostly at dissatisfied homosexuals or at actually converting folks probably struggle and are destined to have finacial and legal troubles, but as a part of a larger ministry and catering to folks who have a peripheral relationship with the subject, like my mother and sister, do quite well. And as a hot button subject to drum up bigot dollars by constantly bringing up the subject and then saying “Don’t you wish those gays would quit throwing all this stuff in your face? We do too; give us money to fight ‘em.”

I haven’t seen a decent analysis of the money side of the equation, but if you ever delve into one of the events, the finacial factor is blatant.

I agree with Raymond’s posts in that it would be interesting to see the debate framed in a different way than the typical Gay Determinism Vs. Christian-Anti-Gay stance, if that is possible.

Because of the inflamed rhetoric on both sides, it’s not possible to discuss the variability of sexuality. The fact is that sexuality is not easily confined to rigid categories labeled ‘gay’ and ’straight.’

Although I only have anecdotal evidence, it is my belief that some people are able to alter their sexual orientation. But here’s the kicker: It’s not those in the Ex-Gay Ministries that are able to do so. Rather, it is those who, in a sense, move beyond the black and white mentality of gay/ex-gay. And they are able to do this only because of complete and radical self-acceptance. In other words, they aren’t seeking to *escape* their homosexual attractions. Rather, they integrate and transcend.

Ex-gay groups, in my view, are based on a false premise that homosexuality is a spiritual illness, and from what I have witnessed, cause adherents to get caught in a never-ending cycle of psychological torment, always trying to escape or overcome some part of themselves that they have been encouraged to view as ‘bad’ or ‘broken.’

But another less obvious consequence of evangelical rhetoric is that it keeps pro-Gay groups locked into a defensive strategy that says “It’s Genetic, hard-wired, end-of-story.” And who can blame them? As long as the evangelicals frame the issue in terms of sin and spiritual unworthiness, they will be dealing with people who have done their ‘inner work,’ and aren’t going to play that game.

Ultimately I hope that we get to a place where we are humble enough to recognize how little we really still know about sexuality, and are therefore compelled to act with more openness and understanding, accepting those who are gay, and helping those who are uncomfortable with their sexuality in ways that are respectful and helpful.

Jon

I do not accept any validity to the evangelical side of the issue. Their “truth” is not based on reason but on their faith. They consider the Bible to be sacred writ. I consider it a mish-mash of ancient and irrelevant religious lore.

One more thing…can you please fix the link on the photo credit and point it to my blog at: http://www.eachdaycounts.com. That would be great!

Take care!

http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_Sex_1975.htm

To those saying that the ex-gay movement is a “huge” money making machine I would suggest: quantify and provide context. What is the revenue? How does this compare to the revenue of, say, the various addiction programs mentioned by brookes.

To those realizing that “conversion is futile” I would ask: How do they know this? And why do they think conversion from “being” homosexual, rather than a decision to stop “behaving” homosexual, is even pertinent? And is human sexual desire even simply and immutably hetero- or homo-sexual?

I was also trying to get across that ex-gay ministries are not necessarily advocating celibacy; they are encouraging those who still “struggle” with same-sex desire to get married and have families. That is, even if one still experiences same-sex desire, one can live a just life by practicing heterosexuality.

Again, this is not news to anyone, but the way that this plays out at the level of rhetoric both within these organizations and without deserves attention. For example, when Dobson et al. say that homosexuals can “change,” what do they mean? Often they mean something quite different than those who are actually involved in ex-gay minisries, as the latter often claim that they are _never_ able to change their desires, even if their practices align with a just Christian life of some sort or another.

Some gay rights activists are arguing that the ex-gay movement is not only part of a political agenda, it’s also a huge money-making industry. Others say that’s not so, that these ministries are actually dying out because they’re realizing that conversion is futile. As Brookes mentions, ex-gay ministries are now focusing on behavioral changes–advocating celibacy as an alternative to conversion.

A heterosexual male may desire to have a sexual encounter with his female coworker. His coworker may have a reciprocal desire. I have heard no one express doubts about the origin (genetic and cultural) of these desires. But the man’s wife may very well expect him to choose to behave contrary to his desire. Her expectation seems reasonable to me.

Can there be any reasonable expectation regarding behaviors motivated by homosexual desire?

For my part, I think that the perspective from American History is compelling, and Jenny Terry’s book _An American Obsession_ is great on this. I think the more interesting angle, however, is to look at ex-gay ministries as producing fascinating rhetoric at the intersection of politics/religion/science. The “choice” debate takes some surprising turns in this context. For example, to the best of my knowledge, some ex-gay groups claim that even if sexuality is genetically determined, one can still “choose” to alter behavior, even if altering desire isn’t possible. They even build the idea of “falls” into their program, i.e., they expect people to “relapse.” In this sense, as is well known, ex-gay programs resemble various addiction programs.

Well, is this good, bad, or something else? And, why? You seem to assume that this movement is such an obvious good that there is no need to say so or to ask why. No other view is even possible?

“But evangelical Christians decided that it was their duty to pick up where the medical community left off. Ex-gay ministries were sprouting up across the country.�

All evangelical Christians decided together to do this? You seem to assume that since the vast majority of evangelical Christians do not view homosexuality as a good, that the vast majority of evangelical Christians do view aggressive approaches for “curing� homosexuality as a good. Are there no evangelical Christians that advocate any other approach to homosexuality?

The unstated and unquestioned assumptions in this debate are the story.

Why devote another hour of radio to discussing two views which are widely known to be starkly opposed: gay rights supporters and evangelical Christians. This is just an easy way out, pinned on a fringe Christian movement, and we’ve heard it all before.

I want to hear you illuminate the gray confusion between the obvious black and white. I want to hear you bring each side, fighting till exhausted, to the hateful admission of at least some truth in the other’s view. That would be a compelling hour of radio.