I will now delve into the organizations that were funded so that my point can be fully expressed.
First is the Eagle Forum, which was created as an anti-feminist group by Phyllis Schlafly, who was largely against the 19th Amendment, also-known-as the Equal Rights Amendment. The group as a whole however is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-vaccination, anti-sex education, anti-feminism, and is essentially a social conservative group.   This groups is pretty much all around driven by social conservatism, and the LGBT, as well as Liberals, have every right to disagree and even fight back against their agenda because they take an anti-gay marriage stance for which they attempt to drive into legislation.
Focus on the Family
Second is Focus on the Family. This organizations was founded in 1977 by James Dodson, who is a psychologist, but more importantly he’s an advocate for traditional marriage, feeling that homosexuality is neither a choice nor genetic. In one quick way, Dodson believes that homosexuality can be ‘cured’, in sort, by tackling the developmental issues stemming from childhood which led to the problem – this view, it is important to understand, does not follow along mainstream psychology, something for which I can say for certainty as I am a mental health counselor. In any case, Dodson supported the failed 2004 Federal Marriage Amendment that would have defined marriage as constituting only a man and a woman, as well as prevented courts from having any ability to rule on the matter. Focus on the Family shares these views, along with the idea that same-sex marriage will in many ways continue to bring down society. Focus on the Family is also part of a coalition that actively sponsors California’s Proposition 8 which bans same-sex marriage.
Interestingly, Focus on the Family doesn’t just believe marriage to be between one man and one woman, but they believe sexuality to be specifically as such as well. They oppose other Church’s and, in their words, “revisionist gay and transgender theologies”. They oppose the idea that transgenderedness as being God’s gift. And, because of this, they must fight the theological and social battle against the acceptance of transgenderism, and homosexuality. But, in the same fell swoop, they also acknowledge that a person going through a gender identity crisis goes through extreme struggles, confusion as they put it, and rejection.
It’s fascinating to me, because they essentially explain that being Gay is not just a sin, but they go on to express how it’s a war that the gay people are waging. When Focus on the Family makes it a matter of a social-war, that’s what makes the LGBT community feel like outcasts, confused, and rejected. They inflict the very pain that they also express the Christian need to heal holistically. But there’s nothing holistic, rather its legislative hostility, and a stance that dictates supreme authority on the matter as if no others’ opinions are of importance.
“While we do not believe an individual typically “chooses” his or her same sex-attractions, we do believe that those who struggle with unwanted same-sex sexual temptation can choose to steward their impulses in a way that aligns with their faith convictions.”
It’s important to understand, that when groups like this, and Exodus International, and people like James Dodson use scripture to berate the LGBT community for simply wanting to be treated like humans – that’s where the “unwanted same-sex attraction” comes from. It doesn’t come from some innate understanding that they’re flawed, it comes from the social perspective, and vile from people that call it a sin, and unnatural. The aversion comes from a conflict between personal feelings, and social expectations of being a “man”. Their effective tactic is to make people in the LGBT community feel flawed, and less than human so that they’ll want to “change” their sexuality. So, what do they do? They open their arms, profess to be loving and caring like Jesus was, and then they attempt to convert Gay’s to Straights. And to boot, they quote 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 as teaching that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. And just to drive home this flawed logic, this is what 1 Corinthians says:
“ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
This Bible passage in no way explains that homosexuals can and do change, it says that they won’t inherit the Kingdom of Heaven if they don’t. Although, because this interpretation for the NIV points out that “men who have sex with men” were among those washed and sanctified, it doesn’t at all suggest that they became straight, it simply means that they were saved, “washed” of their sins – they were celibate. Or, such is how I read into it. And this is where we also have a roadblock in rationale, the interpretation that I gave you is but just one interpretation. There are a number, and it wasn’t always expressed as “men who have sex with men”, it has also been translated as “effeminate, abusers of themselves, homosexuals, sodomites, calamites, boy prostitutes (which were common in Rome at the time), male prostitutes (which were also common), sexual perverts, homosexual perverts, liers with man, men kept for unnatural purposes, and so on. As you can see, the entire context changes depending on the interpretation. Focus on the Family takes one, and dictates it as the infallible word of God. But more importantly, all of these are ambiguous in relation to the original Greek words (malakoi and arsenokoitēs) – which has been lost. That means that those who are against homosexuality from a Biblical New Testament Perspective, and even in some senses the Old Testament, are giving meaning to a word that has lost its meaning. That’s not biblical interpretation, that social coercion masked as infallibility. I will discuss this topic more later.
Family Research Council
Third is the Family Research Council which was also founded by James Dodson in 1981 and was a division of Focus on the Family until they became independent groups in 1992. The FRC’s Senior Researcher for Policy Studies, Peter Sprigg, is particularly notable in relation to his stance on homosexuality. In his official capacity as a member of the FRC, during an interview on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ with Chris Matthews on February 2nd, 2010, he was asked if the United States should outlaw gay behavior. Sprigg’s response was first that ‘it was certainly dispensable’, and upon being asked the question again, he said that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v Texas was wrong in overturning sodomy laws, and further said that he does believe that “there is a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior”. And lastly, he said that he agrees with the statement that we should outlaw gay behavior.
And just as a side note, starting at 2:10 in the video which was cited in Footnote 27, Mr. Sprigg goes on in detail about why it is wrong to allow gays in the military. What he says, and I am paraphrasing in part, is that ‘by forcing people into cohabitation with those that might be viewing others as sexual objects, can lead to greater amounts of sexual assault and other incidents’. Well that’s interesting, because that’s the typical argument made against pornography, make-up, and reality television. That’s also the point made when discussing why, and how, America has the largest number of rapes per year. So why is it okay to say that allowing gays in the military will lead to sexual harassment and assault if people are viewed as sexual objects – but it’s not okay to use the same argument when trying to protect women’s rights, as well as strengthen women? I say this, because that was a very powerful and important aspect to the Women’s Rights movements for which the Eagle Forum’s founder is heavily against. No, I am not saying that she’s against rape prevention, she’s just against strengthening women, which has been shown to reduce the likelihood of rape.
Regardless, Sprigg’s argument against allowing gays might explain why women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than they are to die in combat. Some 30% of women, and 6% of men, are victims of sexual harassment or assault in the military.  Further, according to a 2000 study by the Pentagon, 5% of soldiers had witnessed an anti-gay beating. And the year before that, Private Barry Winchell was beaten to death by Calvin Glover and his accomplice Justin Fisher at Ft. Campbell, KY. And another example of prejudice can be found from 2010 where a U.S. Air Force officer was stripped of his rank after admitting that he assaulted one of his comrades and told him to die of AIDS. More importantly, the police never filed charges, nor did they file a report – they simply didn’t care.
But what would Peter Sprigg tell you? Well, in his article titled “Homosexual Assault in the Military” he attempts to “analyze” (which is the process of methodical and meticulous examination into the constitution or structure of something in order to provide an explanation) about 18 cases involving forced sodomy or some sort of sodomy. Several instances involved alcohol, another involved child pornography, and several others involved some form of hazing or forced sexual act. But in none of the examples does Sprigg detail whether or not the assailant, or the victim, were of which sexual orientation. But such would be the case when only reviewing the synopsis of the case, rather than the whole thing – which is what Sprigg claims to have done with 1,643 such cases that occurred in 2009. But most astonishing of all are the conclusions that Sprigg comes to.
First, Sprigg states that “nevertheless, more than eight percent of sexual assaults in the military are homosexual in nature. This is nearly three times what would be expected.” To say that the assaults were “homosexual in nature” is extremely vague, and compounded by the fact that he doesn’t specifically point out whether or not a homosexual is doing the victimizing, he’s making bold-faced claim that isn’t upheld by anything other than his own personal judgment. Nor does he define “homosexual in nature”. That’s not science, it is bias. Second, he goes on to say that given such a high percentage that it can only be suggested that “homosexuals in the military are about three times as likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers.” He somehow sanctifies this by comparing it to a telephone survey from the New York Times in 2010 that also found that roughly 7% of sexual assaults were male-on-male, and combined with women-on-women tallied up to about 8.2% which is similar to his 8% figure.
Interestingly, Elizabeth Bumiller from the New York Times, for which Sprigg cites, didn’t discuss the sexualities of the victims and assailants, nor did she accuse the assailants of being gay. Furthermore, Bumiller was discussing the Department of Defense’s annual report on Sexual Assault in the Military, which also does not discuss the sexuality of the parties involved in the crimes. She did, however, make a very important point that, quote:
“Leading studies indicate that most sexual assaults that occur in America are not reported to law enforcement. The Department’s own statistics indicate that only 20 percent of unwanted sexual contacts are reported to a military authority. Underreporting poses a serious challenge to military readiness because the potential costs and consequences of sexual assault are extremely high.
And more importantly, to quote from Bumiller’s article:
“Ms. Whitley said that most sexual assault in the military went unreported, as it did in the general population, and that she did not believe that there was more sexual assault in the military than in the population at large. “We are recruiting from the society we serve,” she said.”
This brings up a particularly important question. Given the implications here, wouldn’t that also tailor to the sexuality of the parties involved in those crimes? After all, “we are recruiting from the society we serve.” With that having been said, a report from the National Coalition of Anti Violence Programs titled “Hate Violence against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and HIV-Affected Communities in the United States in 2010” found that 76.1% and 23.8% of offenders were heterosexual men and women respectively in 2010. And, 41.5% of offenders were likely to be white, and 35.5% were likely to be black. Further, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault pointed out that, “…in the vast majority of sexual assaults, offenders are heterosexual men.” They also point to a 1979 study by Groth, titled “Men Who Rape”, that shows how heterosexual adults are more likely to be a threat to children than are homosexuals in rebutting to arguments that homosexuals are also more likely to be molesters.
A very predominant aspect to rape is about power and domination rather than sexual pleasure. Sexual assault, which the military defines more broadly than society, still has to do with power. And as Shaun Knittel, writer for Seattle Gay News points out:
“While many might assume the perpetrators of such assaults are closeted Gay soldiers, Ellison found that military experts and outside researchers say assailants usually are heterosexual.
Like in prisons and other predominantly male environments, experts say male-on-male assault in the military is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability.
‘Often, in male-on-male cases, assailants go after those they assume are Gay, even if they are not,’ wrote Ellison.
‘One of the reasons people commit sexual assault is to put people in their place, to drive them out,’ Mic Hunter, author of Honor Betrayed: Sexual Abuse in America’s Military, told Newsweek. ‘Sexual assault isn’t about sex, it’s about violence.’”
One good example of such power and domination over a low ranking cadet would be the case of Petty Officer Third Class Joseph Rocha. This sailor refused to hire a prostitute which ultimately led to the perception that he was gay, and finally being hog tied, along with being forced to simulate oral sex among a variety of other things. To make matters worse, the main assailant, Chief Petty Officer Michael Toussaint, wasn’t just promoted, but he also handcuffed a female officer to a bunk, and forced her to simulate lesbian sex on another female officer. He recorded both incidents, which apparently weren’t the only ones, and later, one of his female victims committed suicide. This was in 2009, and the leadership and accountability shows that 1) sexual harassment is treated as nothing, and 2) similar to civilian police officers and reporting habits, it’s usually ignored when it relates to LGBT issues. But Rocha was perceived to be gay, and so far as I can find, he was a heterosexual that simply didn’t want to hire a prostitute.
But, what Peter Sprigg has done, is write a document, express that 8% of assaults are “homosexual in nature” and therefore all of the assailants must be gay. That’s a very loaded stereotype that, using research over the last 20 years, can be debunked just on face value. He provides no statistical analysis for his case, besides 8%, which, he also uses as a measure of homosexuality in the military by comparing it to the 3% or so of the general population. He makes sweeping generalizations that are based off of already debunked myths against the LGBT community, and quite frankly, he’s simply not a scientist. You must understand that Peter Sprigg is the senior researcher for FRC. There’s nothing scientific about his work. There’s research, but it’s scrutinized by a mind that functions off of well known myths as compared to facts. He ridicules, if not entirely shrugs off many works and studies completed by the American Psychological Association, and remedies this by then citing sources that are either overwhelmingly flawed in structure, or works that do nothing more than regurgitate his own beliefs. One good example of this is when he points to the American College of Pediatricians.
The ACP was founded in 2002 by a group of doctors as a protest against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for their support for gay rights. The ACP isn’t based in science, either. It’s a socially conservative political organization that serves to work against gay-rights from a religious perspective. Unlike the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Sociological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers – the ACP does harm to a group that the rest seek to actually help – based on facts and science.
This is what you support when you support Chick-Fil-A, and this is what you ultimately fund. You fund myths, lies, propaganda, and an ideology that is so closely tied to the harm perpetuated onto people that Sprigg views as an underclass punishable by their own actions. That, my friends, is hate. And what fascinates me even more, is that as a form of rebuttal, they just call the educational institution, and all of the organizations that have lashed out against the ACP, as toting to liberal agendas. That’s not a rebuttal, nor is it even remotely founded in science. As a mental health counselor, I am guided by a strict set of ethical responsibilities that mandate, and dictate, that I do no harm to others. Simply resorting to “well that’s just a liberal agenda” does nothing more than polarize an issue that doesn’t need any more polarization than it already has.
Fourth and last is Exodus International. EI was founded in 1976 by Michael Bussee, Gary Cooper, Frank Worthen, Ron Dennis, and Greg Reid, and was hugely based on the ideas related to “ex-gay” therapy, or Reparative Therapy. Interestingly enough, Cooper and Bussee left the group in 1979 to be with one another and in 1982 had a commitment ceremony – a marriage of sorts. Before I discuss the ideas and articles relating to Reparative Therapy, you should also know that Exodus International was also supportive of Uganda’s Bill No. 18, “The Anti Homosexuality Bill, 2009” that broadened the criminal sanctions of homosexuality between either death, or life imprisonment.   And, as you’ll also remember, the Family Research Council lobbied against Congress in 2010 against a resolution that would denounce Uganda’s Bill, which was also called “Kill Gays Bill” –a $25,000 lobby as a matter of fact.  
Conversion Therapy/Reparative Therapy/Ex-Gay Therapy all stem from a contextual perspective that there’s something to be repaired, that a change must happen, that essentially there’s some sort of disorder to be remedied. By trying to change someone from gay to straight, in essence, is the same as trying to change someone from depressed to happy, anxious to not anxious, etc. And, psychology, psychiatry, and mental health professionals all try to fix the problems related to the psyche. More importantly, we empower the person. But, if you’ll recall, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1973 and 1975 respectively due to scientific evidence that homosexuality – being Gay – isn’t a mental disorder. And to paraphrase one of my graduate professors, ‘if it aint broken, don’t fix it’. So, why then are people still perpetuating this agenda to fix someone that’s not broken? And what else does science also indicate? Well, it seems to indicate that people aren’t broken because they’re gay, gay people are broken because of a lack of acceptance, and social support.
Interestingly, many other countries, based on scientific evidence, points to the lack of similar rights and social acceptance and the leading causes of depression and suicide, and not, fundamentally, because they are gay. Homosexuality is not a disease or a mental disorder. The Royal College of Psychiatrists for example pointed out that “official sanction(s) of homosexuality both as illness and a crime led to discrimination, inhumane treatments and shame, guilt and fear.” And to further quote:
“The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy recently commissioned a systematic review of the world’s literature on LGB people’s experiences with psychotherapy. This evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client’s sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field. There are however at least two studies that have followed up LGB people who have undergone therapy with the aim of becoming heterosexual. Neither attempted to assess the patients before receiving therapy and both relied on the subjective accounts of people, who were asked to volunteer by the therapy organisations themselves or who were recruited via the Internet. The first study claimed that change was possible for a small minority (13%) of LGB people, most of whom could be regarded as bisexual at the outset of therapy. The second showed little effect as well as considerable harm. Meanwhile, we know from historical evidence that treatments to change sexual orientation that were common in the 1960s and 1970s were very damaging to those patients who underwent them and affected no change in their sexual orientation.”    
I encourage you to follow the link in the footnote, read the article, and further read the sources that were used in it. But to continue, the American Psychological Association held similar points, among others in their 2009 report “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation”. For starters, they found that focusing on core values within a client’s religion such as charity forgiveness, and compassion was a better approach, leading to more self-acceptance and direction than simply dwelling on the fact that their religion doesn’t accept homosexuality. Further, they pointed out that long lasting changes to sexual orientation weren’t common and that in the process people were harmed. And to continue, clients benefited more through social acceptance, and group support measures. They point out that being gay is normal, being gay is not a mental disorder or an indicator of such. The APA also delves into the fact that applicable research is limited in measuring both the harm, and the benefits of measures related to sexual orientation changes, citing that several sources have methodological problems. Moreover, the report also pointed out that the benefits that were reported in the small number of studies available could be achieved through processes entirely exempt of trying to change sexual orientation.
I have provided this information with the hopes that you’ll understand the more scientific evaluation of therapy as compared to one that’s not grounded in any legitimate theoretical basis other than biblical doctrine that something is bad. I fully encourage you to read the entire report by the APA, as it is a very well written document, fairly I might add, tacking the issues of conversion therapy vs. empowering therapies.
Exodus International, since it began, was about trying to convert gays to straights – up until this year. Alan Chambers, the President of Exodus International, came out as saying that reparative therapy doesn’t work.  Furthermore, they decided to cease their support for Day of Truth, which as many of you should know as the counter protest to Day of Silence. But more importantly, Chambers decided to stop Day of Truth because to him it became too divisive and confrontational. In Chambers’ own words:
“All the recent attention to bullying helped us realize that we need to equip kids to live out biblical tolerance and grace while treating their neighbors as they’d like to be treated, whether they agree with them or not.”
This of course was in 2010. And to really try to tie all of this in, is that if you’ll remember the case involving Tyler Chase Harper, who wore a T-shirt expressing how homosexuals should be ashamed, and that, quote “Our School Embraces What God Has Condemned”. Last I checked, Jesus didn’t tape the words “Prostitution is shameful – Proverbs 5:3-5”. No, forgave them if you recall. Regardless, later in the same year, Exodus International officially issued a statement condemning Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill – which if you’ll remember, they supported the year before. Regardless, Allan Chambers has realized that the Day of Truth, and that in trying to convert Gay’s to Straights through this biblical approaching of making people feel shameful isn’t Christ-like. Furthermore, he seems to have realized that Exodus International has likely done great amounts of harm to people – psychological harm. They have, along with the Eagle Forum, the FRC, and Focus on the Family, been social assailants perpetuating this false idea that being Gay is unnatural.
Constantly denying the LGBT community the right to marriage, and other equal protections under the law is one thing. As a social progressive I obviously disagree with it. But to bully them, to try and “cure” them of something that isn’t curable – as there’s nothing to be cured; and to do so under the litigating principles of God, Jesus, and the Bible, is entirely different. Furthermore, it is abhorrent. It is wrong. It is hateful. It is spiteful. It is bullying. It is gay-bashing. And it only invites prejudice, violence, bullying, and injustice. So, when you go to Chick-Fil-A, think about this; they will likely give money to the Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family (which intermingle on the same issues and causes much of the time) for which Peter Sprigg will then write articles discussing how wonderful and effective reparative therapy is, and his support for the incarceration and death of homosexuals, along with perpatuting the idea that gay people are mentally ill individuals that should be ashamed of themselves for something that they can’t control. You’re funding the perpetuation of bigotry – because that’s what it is. When Dan Cathy gives money to these groups, that means he also ascribes to those groups’ values. He ascribes to bigotry, and the perpetuation of social violence (which leads to physical) against gay people, lack of acceptance, and myths.
 Sprigg, P. (2010). Homosexual Assault in the Military. Family Research Council.
 Sprigg, P. (2010). Pg. 6.
 Sprigg, P. (2010). Pg. 6
 Sprigg, P. (2010). Pg. 6;
Bumiller , E. (2010) “Sex Assault Reports Rise in Military”. The New York Times. March 16th 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17assault.html?_r=1)
 Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, March 2010. Pg. 5
 National Coalition of Anti-Violence (2010). Hate Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and HIV-Affected Communities in the United States. Pg. 9. (http://www.avp.org/publications/reports/documents/NCAVPHateViolenceReport2011Finaledjlfinaledits_000.pdf)
 Knittel, S, (2011). Military struggles with growing sexual assaults – Why men in the military rape other men. Seattle Gay News. Volume 39, Issue 13 (posted Friday, April 1st, 2011).
 Frank, N, (2009). What Can Stop the Gay-Bashing in the military? Huffington Post. September 22, 2009. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/what-can-stop-the-gay-bas_b_295170.html)
 You can read the bill by following the link (http://nationalpress.typepad.com/files/bill-no-18-anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf)
 Roberts, D. (2009). Open Letter to the Exodus International Board of Directors (published March 11th, 2009). (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/03/open-letter-to-the-exodus-international-board-of-directors/)
 Joe (2010). CHRISTIAN LOVE: Family Research Council Lobbied Congress Against Resolution Denouncing Uganda’s Kill Gays Bill (Published June 3rd, 2010). (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/06/christian-love-family-research-council.html)
 Kelli (2012). The Real Reason We Should Be Boycotting Chick-Fil-A. (Published August 2nd, 2012) (http://www.practikel.com/2012/08/02/the-real-reason-we-should-be-boycotting-chick-fil-a/)
 Wooledge, S. (2012). Chick-Fil-A story is about so much more than just ‘marriage’ and ‘speech’. Daily Kos. Originally published August 1st, 2012. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes-the-gays-mad-about-Chick-fil-A?c=upworthy)
 King, M. (2007). Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. RC Psych Royal College of Psychiatrists. Published October 31st, 2007. (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf) Pg. 1
 King, M. (2007). Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. RC Psych Royal College of Psychiatrists. Published October 31st, 2007. (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf) Pg. 3
 Drescher, J. (2011). Ex-Gay Therapy: NPR Forgets Infomercials are not Science. Psychology Today. Published August 13th, 2011. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychoanalysis-30/201108/ex-gay-therapy-npr-forgets-infomercials-are-not-science)
 The Associated Press (2009). Psychologists Reject Gay ‘Therapy’. The New York Times. Published August 5th, 2009. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/06gay.html?_r=2&ref=us)
 Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation. UC Davis (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html)
 Arana, G. (2012). My So-Called Ex-Gay Life. The American Prospect. Published April 11th, 2012. (http://prospect.org/article/my-so-called-ex-gay-life)
 APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009). Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pg. 59
 APA Task Force, 2009. Pg. 63.
 APA Task Force, 2009. Pg. 67.
 APA Task Force, 2009. Pg. 68.
 PinkNews.co.uk Staff Writer (2012). Leader of ‘reparative therapy’ group Exodus says gays can’t be cured. Published July 7th, 2012. (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/07/07/leader-of-reparative-therapy-group-exodus-says-gays-cant-be-cured/)
 Condon, P. (2012). US Christian group backs away from ex-gay therapy. Published June 26th, 2012. (http://www.mail.com/news/us/1389808-christian-group-backs-ex-gay-therapy.html#.7518-stage-subhero1-2
 Gilgoff, D. (2010). Christian group pulls support for event challenging homosexuality. CNN. Published October 6th, 2010. (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/christian-group-pulls-support-for-event-challenging-homosexuality/?hpt=T2)
 Roberts, D. (2010). Exodus International Shuts Down ‘Day of Truth’. XGW. Published October 6th, 2010. (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2010/10/exodus-international-shuts-down-day-of-truth/)
 Kwon, Lillian. (2010). Exodus Leaders Issue Statement Against Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill. CP Church & Ministries. Published March 26th, 2010. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/exodus-leaders-issue-statement-against-uganda-s-anti-gay-bill-44477/)