Talk:Courage International

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)

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)

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)

OK, I did it. I removed the reference to DignityUSA. It has its own article, and no sourcing to compare it on this page. But if anyone finds some good sources to reintroduce, let's talk about it here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletions by Roscelese

Courage International runs two programs: Courage (for people with same-sex attraction) and EnCourage (for their families and friends). The original text NOT written by me, included sections on the goals for each. Roscelese seems to be on a tear to confuse and obfuscate. I did not contribute the original content. Roscelese deleted on the personal, unsubstantiated, and prejudicial opinion that they are extraneous material. I suspect that she thinks that I was the author. REPEAT: I AM NOT, so leave them be. See also the ongoing discussions at Talk:John F. Harvey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Harvey. If an administrator is watching Roscelese's activities on articles related to same-sex attraction and Catholic teaching, please send a cease and desist warning. Hoestermann 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I briefly returned them, but the links were dead-links from what I could tell. If you can source it with a link that's active I'd be fine with returning it.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I returned them, and fixed the dead links. I think the actual goals of Courage and Encourage are important because one of the many complaints around this group from certain communities is that this is an orientation changing group, a gay shaming group or other slander against them. It is important to list their purposes as they state them. There are many other sources for these purposes but they are only listed in their actual format in Catholic publications which I am sure a certain user will not agree to. Listing the goals of a group as long as they are identified as the goals as stated by the group is an acceptable use of a primary source.Marauder40 (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to clear up nebulous misunderstandings, and if it were, you should nonetheless be able to do so in a way that conforms to policy. Marauder40, I'm sure you know how tired I am of having the "Wikipedia is not free advertising" conversation, so why not just give it a pass by 1) finding a reliable secondary source to demonstrate that anyone actually cares about these "goals" and 2) summing them up briefly and neutrally? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Listing goals/policies as stated by the group does conform to WP policies. As I said before I can find several Catholic sources that list the goals of Courage and what it does and why it does it, but you have a history of not liking Catholic newspapers and other sources like that even though they are permitted on WP as reliable sources. There are several Catholic newspapers that list the goals, there are also several diocese web pages that list the goals, etc. Just search on "goals of Courage" turns up tons of hits. There is lots of coverage within the Catholic community about Courage. Outside the Catholic community people discount them as if they are just another orientation change ministry and tend to ignore them unless it is Dignity trashing them. Is this article secondary enough for you, [3] Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

As you know, Washington Times (not the same thing as Washington Post) is not a great source, but I also don't see that it has this brochure-like bullet-point list of goals that you're trying to include. If what you consider important to put in is the fact that they're not an ex-gay group, that is supported by this article, and possibly by better ones. Would you swap the list of goals for a statement that they're not an ex-gay group, since you mentioned in your earlier comment that your reason for including the brochure-like list was to make it clear that they're not an ex-gay group? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking up other Catholic societies the majority of them don't look to have goal lists like this, but some kind of do. Catholic Police Guild has a section titled "Objectives of the Guild" while Jesus Youth has a section on their "six pillars." Knights of the Southern Cross has a section called "The objects of the order." So it's maybe not standard or forbidden. It might nice though to get a kind of third-party person who is neither Catholic nor LGBT to weigh in.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think "other low-traffic pages may or may not contain similar spammy content" is a great argument. Sometimes it's just because no one has got around to removing it... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I know other articles aren't necessarily an argument for or against things. And I said "not standard or forbidden" which is hardly an "it must be in!!!" statement. I don't think it's spammy though. Perhaps it's unnecessary or redundant information, but that's not what I think of as "spammy." I'm not strong either way. However if listing these goals is significant to the organization, and they can be sourced by something other than their own website, I do feel if it makes sense to have them. If that's not the case it makes sense to remove them, as I briefly did after I brought them back.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you found any good sources for this content? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said I'm not strong on this issue either way, I've largely tried to hope for some kind of middle-ground or outside party opinion, I might not be sufficiently motivated to look. Still I suppose I could give a quick look.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On doing so I found the National Catholic Reporter, a Catholic-oriented magazine but primarily a liberal/progressive one that is often at odds with the Church, says their five goals are significant to their ministry. As it clearly says the goals are significant, and it's a source not affiliated with the organization (indeed the comments page is largely hostile to this group), I now definitely lean toward keeping the goals in. Whether they need to be listed in this way, or mentioned some other way, I'll remain more neutral on. Possibly you could argue the statement in the opening, "Its goals are primarily grounded on chastity, piety and the promotion of compassionate and charitable works", is sufficient though I think a bit more expansion than that makes sense.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Does your source actually list the goals in this manner? I'm not sure "members of the group believe that the group's goals are important" is any kind of unusual statement or indicates that the source takes note of the goals. Edit: Just realized that you had added the source. So no, they do not list the goals in this brochure-like manner. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So is how they're listed in this the concern? I'm open to it not being in this bullet-point format, but this seems a bit particular. Granted Wikipedia's a pretty particular place, but I'm not sure why this is still that big a thing. (I could see including some on criticism and controversy as there is bound to be some that's notable.)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's included in far more detail, and far more overblown language, than the sources warrant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is it "totally unnecessary" to have a separate heading to cover material with criticism of the organisation? It's a highly controversial organisation, and the article benefits from having some sense of that. If you think a heading is not needed then please set out clearly the arguments. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION, criticism should be integrated into the body of the article, not segregated into a ghetto of negativity. Besides, it is just one paragraph. Or do you intend on fleshing it out? Elizium23 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't comment on this section being "segregated into a ghetto of negativity" - I don't share that view, but recognise that you are entitled to regarded criticism or controversy as a purely negative thing if that's the approach you take. In any case I have been working to flesh this out and will continue. There is a lot more still to be said. The section is now longer than that of either the history or the organisation. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Pure and simple, have you read the link that has been sent to you SEVERAL times? WP:NOCRIT. Since you seem to be unable to follow the link, here is an important portion of the page, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Criticism sections are supposed to be integrated into the flow of the overall article. Since you are still in the process of flushing it out, I will not outright remove the section itself, but you need to integrate it into the overall article if you want it to stay. I also question your RS. A grad students dissertation doesn't usually qualify as a RS. In addition to the use of the RS, I also question the references that are being used. Several quotes attributed to the dissertation do not even appear in the dissertation. It appears the RS currently being used is just an attempt to give a source to the WP editors own POV, not what is actually in the dissertation.Marauder40 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Should be avoided is not, of course, the same as "may on no occasion be included". "Criticism sections are supposed to be integrated into the flow of the overall article" are your words - not that of any specific guidance. But I stand to be corrected if you can point to guidance that does indeed make that point. The section is already integrated. Regarding the source, can I refer you to WP:RS which says "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." I've exercised care. If there are specifics in terms of quotes then please clarify what they are rather than a lazy reference to my "POV". Also funny how I bump into you on a regular basis Maruader40. It's clearly a small world.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot more still to be said. The section is now longer than that of either the history or the organisation. Textbook WP:UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Elizium23. Nice seeing you here by the way. Hope you find time to track down the ten other articles I've been editing recently and give your take on them. Incidentally 3 to 4 paragraphs on criticism is not UNDUE. The rest of the article is short - that's nothing to do with me, and if you are concerned then I suggest you get going and flesh out the other sections.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged. Including well-sourced critical material in the sections on the organization's history or operations is the way to go, not a separate section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Now it's back in by stealth and WP:EW Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no "stealth" - if you're accusing me of dishonesty then just go out and say it. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Gay vs. Same-Sex Attractions

An IP editor kept changing "same-sex attraction" in this article to "gay" and a few different editors changed it back as both better wording and more encyclopedic. Now Roscelese has changed it back. I think the original "same-sex attraction" due to the fact that the organization is geared towards all aspects of homosexuality not only "gay". It specifically says "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction" in its purposes and its ministry. They also minister to people that don't identify as gay or bi, but just may have some feelings towards that on the Kinsey scale. Using the term gay is less exact in what their mission is. IMHO if you want to get rid of the term "same-sex attraction", "homosexuality" would be a better fit, but definitely not "gay" Marauder40 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you can help find some sources about their attitude toward bisexual (or "bicurious"? your "some feelings towards that" mention) Catholics? It seems unlikely to me that they encourage celibacy for these people, as opposed to heterosexual relationships. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

They don't encourage celibacy towards those groups, they encourage chastity. The two are different. The church (and Courage) has no problems with a person that is bi or bi-curious getting married to a person of the opposite as long as both parties are honest with each other and remain chaste towards each other. There aren't sources that say "bi" this "gay" that within Courage because they only use terms "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction". It is very clear from their purposes that they administrator to people with ANY degree of same-sex attraction, not just someone that admits to being gay. The term gay is nowhere near exact enough to reflect their ministry. Marauder40 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you suggest editing "gay" to "gay and bisexual"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really because it includes all the other groups in whatever the latest LBGT... acronym is now. Including those people that don't identify with any of the letters of the acronym. The only terms that really fit are either "homosexual", "homosexuality" or "same-sex attraction" with the last term being the most exact, because that is what they are focused on, people that have an attraction to the same sex.Marauder40 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be better to use encyclopedic language than the pathologizing and jargon-y "persons with same-sex attraction". I really can't say I'm concerned that this is excluding a bunch of neologisms. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually gay is the more loaded jargon-y term. You can actually do a search on "same-sex attraction" and you will find it in many text books including medical, psychological, and scientific. "Same-sex attraction" encompasses much more then the term, gay. Not to mention the original was the long standing consensus in this article. Gay can mean the gay community, it can mean just gay men, it can mean lots of different things. "Same-sex attraction" tell exactly what the ministry is about. Marauder40 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What? Looking at the sources that come up in a search shows that it's incredibly jargon-y, and "people with same-sex attraction" is even more so. By contrast, "gay" is commonly used in mainstream sources. If you are honestly concerned that anyone might think we're only referring to men, we can add "lesbian" too. I am not worried about this happening. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You must not be performing the correct searches. Lots of non-jargony links use same-sex attraction without even going into the religious based links. [4] [5] [6] [7]. That is just a small sample. As I said before "gay" is the more loaded term, "same-sex attraction" is clearer and more precise.Marauder40 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, all three of the sources you linked (New World Encyclopedia is a wiki, so we'll ignore it) also and primarily use "gay". You're not going to continue pretending that it's some kind of niche POV jargon the way "people with same-sex attraction" is, right? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Only one source was New World. What I am saying is that the more exact term and the better term is same-sex attraction. You claim the term same-sex attraction is jargon yet I show links where it is used in official journals. It is also more exact and it was also the term used for a long time on this article. Again, courage ministers to many more types of people then those that just identify as gay, lesbian or bi. It also administers to people that just may have some feelings in that direction. I find it funny that I have no issue allowing homosexual or homosexuality as a compromise and yet you aren't even mentioning that option. Marauder40 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering your stated concern for excluding bisexuals, pansexuals, and whatever other terms are out there, I'm surprised you're proposing "homosexual", which is specific and not general. If you can find a reliable source, we may be able to add a clause which notes that not all of these people who have "feelings in that direction" may identify as gay or bi, if adding that kind of factoid is a priority for you. However, this doesn't change the fact that we must use neutral and encyclopedic language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think this discussion and others similar to it, like on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism page are becoming Orwellian in 1984 terms. Long held terms and terms in valid textbooks, physiological books, etc. are becoming non-PC and newly invented terms (LGB..) or re-purposed terms (gay) people are claiming are the better terms. I feel "homosexual/homosexuality" can be used in some locations in the article and other locations things like "same-sex attraction" should be used depending on the context. Terms like "gay" and "LGB.." are not specific enough for what this ministry is about and are to loaded of terms to reflect the ministry.Marauder40 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

First you claim that "gay" excludes bisexual people, now you're claiming it's not specific enough. Maybe sort out what your issue is first and then propose something that complies with policy and with the language preferred by reliable sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not changed my "claims" in any way. My first post said "Using the term gay is less exact in what their mission is. I think the original "same-sex attraction" due to the fact that the organization is geared towards all aspects of homosexuality not only "gay" Nothing at all has changed with my contention. The terms "gay" and "LGB..." are not specific enough for the mission of Courage. Courage ministers to anyone that has any degree of a same-sex attraction. Someone who fits anywhere on the Kinsey scale, not just to people that claim to be "gay", "bi", "lesbian" or anything else. My proposal is to return to the long standing consensus on this article and selectively change some of the non-quoted terms to homosexuality, or homosexual, leaving some of the "same-sex attractions" alone because that is what the group specifically says they minister to. Removing "same-sex attraction" attraction as jargon since I have shown that it is used by sources other then just religious sources and older sources. "Same-sex attraction" encompasses all the groups that Courage ministers to without using a biased/loaded term.Marauder40 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, "gay and bisexual people, including those who do not identify as such" would be appropriate language, but you'd need a source for that factoid. The jargon-y "people with same-sex attraction" is not neutral or appropriate terminology; likewise, as I've already said, "homosexual" is more narrow than you claim we need, not less. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not "specific" enough Roscelese because in the CI worldview, "same-sex attracted" is the superordinate and "gay" is the subset of that population that "acts on" or "identifies with" their "same-sex attraction." https://couragerc.org/groups/ This is the contrary to the majoritarian secular understanding and language that has been pointed out numerous times since my initial edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.33.155 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 2601:5CA:4000:D58:E4EE:20F3:52F:7218 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Homosexual" has attained pejorative status as well, though "same-sex attracted individual" is even worse. None of the contemporary, mainstream professional organizations that study gay people and serve their mental health refer to LGBT individuals as "homosexuals," as this is no longer the 1970s (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/). The special concern of Marauder as made transparent in Maruader's last comment is to maintain CI's and related organization's conceptual binary between "sexual orientation" and "acting on"/"identifying" with sexual orientation. When and if a gay person has sex, and the degree to which a gay individual internally distances themselves from their unchosen orientation, is a private matter. In a public, secular space, "gay" "LGBT" or "gay and lesbian" is the appropriate choice when referring to a population of hundreds of millions of individuals, many of them gratefully rejecting CI's demonstrably harmful message; as one of many examples, see this empirical study from the discipline of social work: https://sswr.confex.com/sswr/2014/webprogram/Paper21687.html.

In summary, "gay" "LGBT" or "gay and lesbian" is the semantic choice made by basically everyone except those who have an antigay religious agenda to push (the first page of a Google query of "same-sex attraction" in 12 point font returns the URLs of non-affirming conservative religious groups at a rate of 100 percent). 2601:5CA:4000:D58:C003:5B39:E0AD:7B50 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"People that may have feelings in that direction" is called being LGBT. Only antigay religious organizations seek to drive a schizoid wedge between sexual orientation and sexual relations. Which is why the previous terminology is bogus and prejudicial and super-unencyclopedic. In the real world, "gay" = sexual orientation, not "acting" on orientation... a concept that only exists, once again, in the bigoted worldviews of antigay religion. The previous biased language is loaded with that highly parochial connotation, which is why it is no longer here. CI may play its psychologically destructive games in its own parishes, but it will not do so on a public website that is accessed tens of billions of times each year... including by many gay people who do not need to be subjected to linguistic dehumanization. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:1C8:DE04:D269:6C61 (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's avoid Catholic apologetics that try to pretend that there is no such thing as "gay" people just sexual attractions that have to be managed in order to avoid falling into sin. And thus the gay rights movement has no validity, and a gay "lifestyle" is simply the flaunting of one's error. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Instead it seems some people want to follow secular apologetics to the other extreme where even the term "homosexual" is considered no longer PC. [8] Perfect example of why these discussion seem very Orwellian. Marauder40 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This comment is inserted out of chronological order – The global LGBT community is comprised of deeply religious people as well as nonreligious people. Your claim that the edits of recent days amount to an "extreme" "secular apologetics" is bogus too. There are many religions and religious people who reject your position on theological grounds...not that this has any bearing whatsoever on the contents of Wikipedia. –2601:5CA:4000:D58:E4EE:20F3:52F:7218 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I live in a secular society and am editing a secular encyclopaedia. But I acknowledge that you may favour living in a theocracy. Incidentally George Orwell was anti-Catholic so it is decidedly Orwellian in my view to use terminology connected to him to argue for a Catholic perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that it is following the other extreme, hence it is a POV. You have no idea on what I "favour". Please remember the no personal attacks policy. Marauder40 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The secular world is not based on apologetics; it is based on evidence and compassion, among other things. The previous biased language was an attempt at antigay apologetics within a secular encyclopedia. CI has a webpage and Wikipedia is not it. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:E4EE:20F3:52F:7218 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My two cents: I think that User:Roscelese and User:Contaldo80 should put their own biases aside and quit complaining about a very simple, non-epithetical description of what the organization does. As I've been told about 50 million times, just because Wikipedia content "offends" you, doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. @Marauder40: Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is that the language we removed was not neutral; it was highly charged phraseology that demeaned hundreds of millions of people in a secular space. Wikipedia articles on white supremacist groups manage to describe their subject without calling people the n-word; articles on heterosexual supremacist groups like CI should be held to the same standard. CI has a webpage and Wikipedia is not it. As for biases, yes, CI is biased towards the prevention and destruction of families while I am biased towards love and justice within them. This isn’t Alice in Wonderland and editors don’t just leave their humanity at the home page. I would wager that Wikipedia as an organization would not tolerate the bigoted re/oppression of a whole population of human beings within its organization based solely off the objections of another unrelated institution. The communal, bottom up information-building that characterizes Wikipedia seems very different to me than "delivering" information to the teeming masses below. I leave it to you to determine which bias is most appropriate in this secular space. 73.31.33.155 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4000:D58:8DE8:C2A8:20BF:F300 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not understanding how "same-sex attraction" is demeaning. If anything, defining someone as their sexual preference and turning it into an "identity" is demeaning. That should be the object of the LGBT movement's ire, not the holy grail of movement-sponsored PC terminology. I, for one, don't "identify as" straight (even though by pretty much everyone's definition, I'm 100% straight) because I am not my sexuality. And it would be the same way for me if I were "gay", "bi", whatever. How can I know that when I'm clearly non of those? Because I know myself well enough to know how I would react, again because I am not my sexuality. But I guess that's just my counts-for-nothing "cishet" opinion, isn't it? Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

On topic, folks. The revised language is more appropriate because it's what's used in reliable sources, while "people with same-sex attraction" is jargon-y. Crusadestudent is more or less stating outright that the use of the jargon-y language he advocates has a political goal - excellent demonstration of why we prefer mainstream language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that I have shown you that same-sex attraction isn't jargony. It is used in medical textbooks, physiological textbooks, and other sources. It was used before the current PC terms were used. Saying it is jargony, doesn't make it so. This is a perfect example of revisionist history and a group of people pushing a particular POV. The terms currently in the article are biased towards a particular POV and do not accurately reflect the topic.Marauder40 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. My point was that it's an accurate, apolitical description of a circumstance, and that the terms you're pushing from your particular POV are political. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing accurate, neutral, or apolitical about the phrases "people with same sex attraction" or "same sex attracted individuals." In contemporary times such language is employed almost exclusively by antigay conservative religious groups such as CI. Which is why it's no longer here. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:8463:BD54:108F:AB0D (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Other then the fact that you are incorrect. It is still used in medical and philosophy textbooks and it has been used in various forms in the past. Just one example is here [9] It is not jargon, it is neutral. Much more neutral then the terms currently in the article. Just because some religious groups have adopted the phrase, doesn't invalidate the term or the use by the other groups. Marauder40 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, @2601, you're being intellectually dishonest by calling CI "anti-gay". The whole purpose of their work is to provide services for those who have unwanted SSA and voluntarily seek assistance in doing something about their not wanting it. Are those so-called gay people "anti-gay", too? CI wouldn't still exist without a consumer base, so clearly such people do exist in nontrivial numbers. Think twice before saying something demeaning towards them. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

On another note, @2601, "same-sex attraction" is exactly neutral: smack in the middle between your PC, identity-asserting "gay/lesbian/bi/etc." and the most hateful of homophobic slurs ever devised. Describes the person's experience, not "who" or "what" that experience makes them, in either positive or negative terms. It says nothing about the person, only about their experience (and the bare minimum link between the two: that person X has/had experience Y). Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't care to argue any more with either of you. The points have been made and yours are mostly incorrect. I will not allow a return to the previous biased language and apparently others won't either. Crusader, the "distinction" you draw between orientation and identity is parochial and exemplifies the reason why the language was changed. In the real world "gay" et. al. refers to orientation. There are alternate social arenas where you can live out your fantastical worldview. Fundamentalist parishes are where the language in question belongs. Bringing your loaded parochial language into the public square where it is offensive is not going to cut it. You folks always have a way of turning yourselves into the victim when it fact it is harmful institutions like CI that do the actual victimization. No one is being fooled by this song and dance. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:6416:14F6:B679:48E0 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC); modified 21:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Marauder40, are you or are you not willing to acknowledge that your Plato source not only uses "gay" in overwhelming preference to "same-sex attraction", but that it does not use your preferred jargon of "people with same-sex attraction" or "same-sex attracted _____" at all? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Roscelese, the source that mentions Plato uses lots of different terms, but it DOES use "same-sex attraction" throughout the document when that term better reflects what is meant. If you search within that document on just "same-sex" with different words after it appears more times then just the word "gay". This is just one of many documents that use the term "same-sex attraction" yet you still claim it is "jargon". You claim I am saying the exact phrase "people with same-sex attraction" and yet I have never said that exact phrase has to be in there. I have proposed selectively modifying the document changing some to different terms, maybe just same-sex attraction, some homosexual, some others. Whatever the more exact word is. Instead of what was done and changing all the reference to "gay" which is nowhere near what the mission of the group is.Marauder40 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is getting really old. Are you really going to keep pretending like "same-sex attraction" is neutral mainstream language? REALLY? This is from CI's main web page, 2nd video link down, "Jonah and Tina v2" https://couragerc.org/courage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.33.155 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For the last time. In the secular world, an enduring pattern of "same-sex attraction" is called being gay, LGBT, etc. That has repeatedly been pointed out to you by multiple individuals. Not "experiencing same-sex attraction." Not "living with same sex-attraction." Not "people with same-sex attraction." Not "same-sex attracted individuals." Not "homosexuality" (anymore). Not "struggling with homosexuality." Just G-A-Y, et. al. I recognize that you don't like or agree with the secular definition and I acknowledge that CI attempts to deny and challenge the secular understanding. But the fact remains. "Gay" means something different "in there" with the positively buoyant CI spokespeople, but it means something different "out here," where sexual orientation is understood to be a fundamental and morally neuter property of human nature. You are going to have to come to terms with the reality that outside the CI website and CI parishes, there is a whole world that rejects your premises and assumptions. You are experiencing that rejection right now. I don't think our objections are that difficult to comprehend. Even if you still believe we are wrong, all you have done is continue to reassert your parochial assumptions without any true engagement with our concerns, without any "walking in the other's shoes" and without any recognition that at the end of the day, there are STILL going to be people whom you are not going to convince... especially gay people. I return to my statement to Crusader that what is happening on this page is a calculated, tactical pattern of denial that is shorn of intellectual content and bereft of rhetorical multivalence. "He who endures to the end shall be saved" is not something that works in public discourse. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:F0F0:852D:9E3B:32BF (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4000:D58:F0F0:852D:9E3B:32BF (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? "Homosexuality" is offensive, too, now? Where's your move request at Talk:Homosexuality demanding it be changed to "Gayness"? Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And the Beatles are no longer at the top of the charts. The world really does change unless you live an echo chamber. I'm not about to get in an edit conflict over the remaining instances of "homosexual." The worst language is no longer here and it is not coming back. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:19CE:B512:495B:55FD (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So if gays find "SSA" and "homosexual" offensive, why do the Catholics that find "Roman Catholic" offensive not get to dictate that it not be used on WP? Your being offended is not grounds for removal of the term on any scale. There's a WP:___ link for that somewhere, trust me. You have not established consensus, you've merely restated your opinion over and over again, despite being shown reliable sources to the contrary. 3 vs. 2 isn't good enough for consensus, anyway. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The main grounds for removal is that its jargon-y POV loaded unencyclopedic parochial language... and both of you know it. This conversation has ended. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:FC50:66C9:66AA:5BF (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your last edits per WP:NPA. But the fact remains that you've been shown that the term SSA is in use outside of religious and sympathetic sources. And your assertion that "homosexual" is no longer mainstream is laughable; better put in a delete request on Homosexuality... Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

https://couragerc.org/courage/young-adults/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4000:D58:2C5D:BA8:EE7E:AB90 (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Is that supposed to mean something? Is that a suggestion that I'm secretly gay or something? That would be a violation of WP:NPA. Anyway, I just ran a search on Homosexuality and found 80+ instances of "same-sex", including several uses of "same-sex attraction" and variants in clearly non-religious, secular, mainstream contexts, with reliable sources. Why don't you go take your POV-pushing over there? If nothing else, THAT proves you wrong. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

https://couragerc.org/clergy/2601:5CA:4000:D58:458C:E59:16A4:F62A (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you trying to get at? Use your words. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what attraction you do or do not experience.... nor do I care. I am currently experiencing white skin and living with pudgy ear lobes. These are just two of the innocuous human features that I don't struggle with on a daily basis. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.33.155 (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you guys should have a read here. Just a bona fide suggestion. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Roscelese, it's calculated denial. Religious conservativism sometimes takes the form of echo-chamber like social structures where those in that echo chamber hear only their worldview parroted back to them: it's the same thing from work, to school, to church, to friends house, etc. We may be dealing with that here. Thats why there's such difficulty in processing what are fairly straightforward secular objections to the language in question. It's a calculated difficulty from the heterosexist end that paints itself as the victim. It think that by repeating the same mantra over and over again human diversity will just disappear. That's why I'm not being incendiary with the remark "there are alternate social arenas where you can live out your fantastical worldview." Those arenas are really there and if you're "lucky" enough, you can spend your entire life within that subculture. Being gay, of course, is one thing that can abruptly eject you from that world. 73.31.33.155 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4000:D58:940B:CB6E:4701:D868 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Roscelese and 2601, it's calculated denial. Social justice warrior-ism sometimes takes the form of echo-chamber like social structures where those in that echo chamber hear only their worldview parroted back to them: it's the same thing from work, to school, to universities, to friends house, etc. We may be dealing with that here. Thats why there's such difficulty in processing what are fairly straightforward universal objections to the language in question. It's a calculated difficulty from the heterophobe end that paints itself as the victim. It think that by repeating the same mantra over and over again human nature will just disappear. That's why I'm not being incendiary with the remark "there are alternate social arenas where you can live out your fantastical worldview." Those arenas are really there and if you're "lucky" enough, you can spend your entire life within that subculture. Being an SJW, of course, is one thing that can abruptly eject you from that world." See how easy it was to modify that to make you look like the reactionaries? Difference is, this version isn't false. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Obfuscation and theatrics are all you have left. Produce the contemporary mainstream, non-pathologizing sources that refer to gay people "as same-sex attracted individuals" or "people struggling with same-sex attraction" or please stop wasting everyone's time. When and if you do so I will run mainstream journal searches that refute your antigay position and those searches will return thousands of results. But we're not going to get to that step because your sources don't exist anywhere outside of the echo-chamber like subcultures your position hails from. On a closing note I find it ironic that Judaism, the religion that birthed Christianity, gave the world the be concept of social justice, Jesus of Nazareth lived that vision, and Catholics were the first to name social justice ""social justice." Some would say that in making fun of those who continue the Jewish/Christian/Catholic tradition of social justice, the apple is falling very far from the tree. Shalom. 73.31.33.155 (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Enough, both of you! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marauder40: has already provided several sources. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Crusadestudent - please by all means go to church, pray every day, read the Bible etc. But could I ask that you stop trying to use Wikipedia to justify your particular worldview and chip away at article after article driven by religious bias. It's tiresome and intellectually dishonest. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: 1) I didn't start this conversation. 2) You are as much of a POV-pusher as you claim I am. 3) But you've provided no evidence that SSA is widely considered a pejorative, jargon, or not mainstream, when Marauder and I have provided sources to prove you wrong. You are the tiresome one here. (And why no love for @Marauder40:?) Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: And I'll remind you of WP:NPA:

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This was a wanton, un-contextual comment leveled at me by you out of left field, days after this conversation had ended.
• "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." You've made several such comments now, this being the most direct yet.
• "What is considered to be a personal attack? 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Speaks for itself.

CC: @Marauder40: Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

These arguements against the term same-sex attraction are uninformed. Roscelese feels that It would be better to use encyclopedic language than the pathologizing and jargon-y "persons with same-sex attraction". I really can't say I'm concerned that this is excluding a bunch of neologisms. Knowledge develops and new terms are coined – Google Ngram shows its usage in 1970s psychiatric works, over 40 years ago; it should not be labeled as something new.

According to Google, couragerc.org uses the term same-sex attraction 100 times, it is also found on .edu sites. There is a difference, same-sex attracted is a technical term. It is the term used by the American College of Pediatricians in its 2008 position statement on the subject: "Empowering parents of gender discordant and same-sex attracted children."[10] According to the position statement:

Many teens who develop SSA [same-sex attraction], however, never met the criteria for GID [gender identity disorder] – should they claim a homosexual identity? No. Sexual attractions are especially fluid during adolescence. A 1992 survey, for example, reported that 25% of 7th graders were uncertain of their sexual orientation. In 2002 Bearman and Breukner found that 9.7% of teens had experienced a romantic attraction to someone of the same-sex. Yet, the percentage of adults who identify as homosexual is consistently 3% or less. Having same-sex attractions, fantasies and/or experiences as an adolescent does not mean that a teen is or will be homosexual.

As Marauder40 pointed out, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article "Homosexuality" also uses the term throughout. It describes that "...the history of cultural understandings of same-sex attraction is relevant to the philosophical issues raised by those understandings..."[11]

Only commenting on this talk page, 2601:5CA:4000:D58:E4EE:20F3:52F:7218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) comments about "biased language is loaded with that highly parochial connotation" (here) and "calculated denial. Religious conservativism sometimes takes the form of echo-chamber like social structures where those in that echo chamber hear only their worldview parroted back to them" (here) look like ad hominem logical fallacies.

It is encyclopedic to use the technical terms which include the term same-sex attraction. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Since the American College of Pediatricians is a rightist advocacy group, you're not exactly bolstering your case that this is really the term used in the literature. I have to ask again: Where are all these reliable sources that supposedly use "people with same-sex attraction" in preference to "gay" or "gay and bisexual people"? You keep claiming they exist, but you cannot produce them. The findable sources are advocacy groups. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally have no intention of retreading this territory. I think at this point we are down to theatricality and calculated denial. The challenge for me stands as follows: 1) produce the modern, SECULAR, preferably scholarly mainstream sources that use the phrase in question in lieu of "gay" in reference to the population in question and 2) assuming these sources exist, demonstrate and justify why these relatively scant semantic occurrences should be used in place of the majoritarian phraseology, when it has been clearly been shown that the phrase in question is overwhelmingly associated with antigay conservative religious POVs. What is the secular purpose in risking the semantic association with the parochial objectives of CI when CI itself uses that language all throughout its (linked) website? There is none- there is only the parochial reason that a reversion to biased language is sought. Wikipedia is not the place for foisting gobbledygook on an unsuspecting readership, especially when that jargon diminishes the integrity of the human person, as this language does — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.33.155 (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Bwahahaahaha!!! Bwahahaha!!!! Hahahahaha!!!! You're joking, right? "...especially when that jargon diminishes the integrity of the human person, as this language does" Yet somehow reducing the whole person to their "sexual orientation" (gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, etc.) doesn't have this effect??? Okay, then... Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: do you have a label for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy like you do for the American College of Pediatricians? It looks like you are attempting to discredit the American College of Pediatricians by labeling it a "rightist advocacy group". But in fact you have committed a genetic fallacy (a kind of logical fallacy) by rejecting an idea because of its source and not its merit. Rejecting an idea because you label its source as an "advocacy group" is also committing a genetic fallacy.

You misunderstand what the article is about. The article describes an organization which uses the term same-sex attraction; it is how its members self identify. The article should describe the characteristics of the group and its members. A key characteristic is the use of the term same-sex attraction in its belief system. It is offensive to force the label gay on people who do not self identify that way. Do you force labels on people in other support groups too? — BoBoMisiu 03:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Your comments illustrate why the changes were made. You seek to use this page foist a sectarian religious POV on all readers of a secular encyclopedia, be they gay or straight. Despite the harmful and irrational anti-family objections of antigay religion, which always seeks to obscure the truth by playing theatrical identity politics such as you are doing here, sexual orientation is objectively not a choice. The secular/rational/compassionate world does not simply consider gay et. al. a "label." "Gay" can refer to more than its biological underpinnings, but in the secular understanding the unchangeable biology is always there. Individual human beings resonate to varying degrees with who and what they are for a variety of personal reasons. Sexual orientation is just another neutral human variable like any other that fearful people can latch onto and project their anxiety onto. Race, gender, you name it, have all been par for the course. This is just what's currently playing at the very human Cinema of Irrational Prejudice. But guess what? It is also very human to reject that prejudice and stand unashamedly with the least of these. 73.31.33.155 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@73.31.33.155: no, I do not "seek to use this page foist a sectarian religious POV". I am describing what I read others write about the subject; and what the group writes about itself: "Courage is an international apostolate of the Catholic Church, which ministers to persons with same-sex attractions."[12]

Separately, as I wrote before, my opinion is that forcing the label gay on people who do not self-identify that way is offensive.

You are arguing against a straw man. From what I have read, neither the Catholic belief nor the group would disagree that "sexual orientation is objectively not a choice". The couragerc.org website states that the "meeting point of spirituality and psychology with regard to same-sex attractions is in what might be called 'chastity-based therapy'. This is very far from an attempt to 'repair' or 'fix' someone." Their "meetings are not group therapy, and no Courage member is required to seek counseling or treatment of any kind."[13] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

The belief system identified both support groups, Courage and Encourage, in 2006 as "ministries whose principles are in accord with Church teaching."[14] The belief is that those "with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in terms of their sexual inclination, however, or to participate in 'gay subcultures', which often tend to promote immoral lifestyles. Rather, they should be encouraged to form relationships with the wider community." Their feelings "can lead to isolation and alienation, which are risk factors for an unhealthy life, including unchaste behaviors." — BoBoMisiu 03:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

I do applaud you, Bobomisu, for being the first and only person in your camp to have the intellectual honesty to state the actual reason for the desired reversion: you want the language to mirror the religious vision of CI. So let me ask you a question, which is as far as I plan to go with this. Would you consider it appropriate if zealous supporters of, oh let's say, the Ku Klux Klan organization, edited Wikipedia so that its demeaning epithets appeared normative? Do all the people the Klan hates deserve to log onto Wikipedia and experience that biased verbal animosity? After all, the Klan "truly believes" that certain kinds of people and behaviors between those people are fundamentally wrong and dangerous to their notions of the ideal society... and within their organization they have coded terminology to refer to these populations. So why shouldn't the Klan Wikipedia page be able to throw the n-word around when referring to whole groups of people? That IS the "label" they use. That IS their leadership's "self-understanding" of who and what those populations are. Perhaps we are doing the Klan a disservice by removing their epithets from public view? How is your label "struggling with homosexuality" more appropriate? The violence of the Klan is directed outwardly while the violence of antigay religion like CI is directed inwardly- which is worse? Both racism and heterosexism are based off irrational and uncompassionate understandings of human nature, and they have the collective effect of harming an entire subpopulation of human beings, simply because of who they ARE. Please explain to us why either one is acceptable here. Perhaps someone other than me will be here to listen. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:C5A8:9BB:26A9:C0DA (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)73.31.33.155 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, two IP editors (2601:5CA:4000:D58:C5A8:9BB:26A9:C0DA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 73.31.33.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) edited and signed one post. Is this one contributor?

@2601:5CA:4000:D58:C5A8:9BB:26A9:C0DA and 73.31.33.155: no, you misunderstand what I wrote about the relationship between the belief system and the groups' use of belief system terms. You also misunderstand my reasoning, it is not "to mirror" their language. I wrote: "It is offensive to force the label gay on people who do not self identify that way."

Your question: "How is your label 'struggling with homosexuality' more appropriate?" is not precise. Are you questioning Williams p. 118 which is a focus of reverts? I only quoted Williams and IP editors used the term struggling on this talk page.

I am not familiar with this identity politics argument. It looks like it might be a misreading of Foucault's History of sexuality. You seem to be comparing unwilled state of being, i.e. skin color, to willed behavior, and seem to be comparing the term nigger with the term same-sex attraction (redirects to "Homosexuality"). One is identified by a visible biological feature but not the other. Moreover, members of Courage self-identify with the term same-sex attraction so it is not an identity imposed on them by another group. Could you provide a source I can read to better answer your question? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the most obtuse paragraph I have read in quite some time, and it needs no comment because it is just that bad. Like many of your preachy remarks it his no actual relevance to the editing of a secular encyclopedia article. Unfortunately there are people of color who have been shamed into self-identifying with the violent ideology of their oppressors, too. The analogy stands. And make no mistake, that's what we're talking about here: violence. Emotional abuse is violence. You have filled this space with antigay preaching so now I am going to preach a little in the interest of balance and for the benefit of people who may be following this conversation. Hopefully both of our homilies will be removed. Funny how we don't hear about support groups for people struggling with left-handedness. They too were one time on the Catholic shit list (Catholicism is very human and therefore has good and bad features IMO- this is not a blanket jab). Speaking from personal experience, folks in the "support groups" you describe "self-identify" as (various permutations of) the phrase in question ONLY because bad religion has shamed and scared them into feeling like there is something fundamentally wrong with who they are. Bad religion is the biggest source of homophobic hatred in the world today. If you knew anything about the gay experience you would know that. Bad religion asks people to live a lie and forecloses on the possibility of family (so much for being "pro-family"- but again this is not new. The Klan seeks to preserve the "integrity" of their families too). The coded delegitimizing language itself is designed to drive a schizoid wedge in the center of the psyche. Where do you think a lot of those negative mental health indicators come from in the first place, in the articles and "research" you cite??? They come from bad religion. They come from subjecting a vulnerable population to a never ending salvo of abuse that continuously reactivates self-hatred and anxiety in the victims of that abuse. Courage et. al. has managed to convince its victims that WE don't have a problem with you per se, it's GOD that has a problem with you (and we speak for God- I for one am hear to tell you that you don't). That way it gets to continue re-victimizing people while never claiming responsibility for doing so. It's a spiritually and emotionally manipulative and sometimes lethal game that will not be played on this website. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:8C11:DF2C:7099:E9FB (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@2601:5CA:4000:D58:8C11:DF2C:7099:E9FB: no, I have not "filled this space with antigay preaching". My opinion, as I wrote before, is that forcing the label gay on people who do not self-identify that way is offensive. Courage International clearly rejects that label: "It’s important that we avoid labeling ourselves as 'gay', 'lesbian', or 'bisexual'. We are much more than our sexual attractions!"[15] According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the Catholic "Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful."p.5

The only support groups I am looking for references about are Courage and Encourage. I cannot comment on your experience.

Could you cite some examples of the "coded delegitimizing language" that you think Courage International uses?

Hopkins 2009 dissertation is not available online. Without reading it, a discussion about the Courage members who were respondents is completely speculative. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Just like it's not wrong to be left-handed... it's only wrong when you USE your left hand. If I could insert an expletive and a personal attack, this is the point I would do so. You have made explicit the reason you want the bigoted language in the secular article is so it will be in alignment with the biased worldview of CI. When the defendant repeatedly confesses in open court, there is little reason to continue the trial. Goodbye.

Except that penmanship has no moral content. Sexual activity does. Straw man. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Listening to the CC pronounce on the "moral content" of "sexual activity" at this point is like listening to Jack the Ripper's thoughts on family values. Goodbye again. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:8C11:DF2C:7099:E9FB (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a personal attack on me in the edit summary ("Crusader" is clearly meant as a pejorative) and against the members and clergy of the CC. Wunderbar! Your comments would make one think you are bigoted against Catholics. I'm going to WP:AGF and just hope that isn't so. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Crusader" is shorthand (so is "2601") and Apple has overactive spellchecking. That's why I reverted it. Believe what you will. Perhaps you underestimate the breadth of the Catholic thought; many Catholics have expressed opposition to an obsession with sex, including the current Pope (perhaps the Pope is anti-Catholic when he says Catholics shouldn't breed like rabbits or "who am I to judge?" - I'm not Catholic so I'll let you be the judge of that, since it is clearly your place to judge). But yes- the only folks who get to officially "pronounce" in the CC are the all-male hierarchy- and when it comes to human sexuality- the official teaching is off the rafters and the CC has lost all credibility on this issue IMO. But hey- Ken Ham gets a "science" "museum" too- who am I to judge? So far as I know his people haven't edited the Wikipedia article on evolution to say the earth is 6,000 years old. Goodbye. 73.31.33.155 (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@73.31.33.155 and Crusadestudent: lets focus on the subject of the article and start citing some sources. I think:

• 73.31.33.155: "opposition to an obsession with sex" is part Courage International: "By resisting the 'gay' or 'lesbian' label, we assert our personhood and reject the notion that our sexual inclinations define us."[16] Maybe an explanation of the Catholic virtues of self-mastery, as mentioned throughout couragerc.org, should be added the article? "Courage is a Twelve-Step Program" for "those who base their lives on religions of the Old and New Testaments, and who believe in the God of Revelation."The term alcoholism is replaced with homosexuality and the 12 steps "apply strictly to the compulsive homosexual, but they apply only analogously to the non-compulsive homosexual."[17]
• Pope Francis quotes were published out of context by many English language news sources. See here for his comment about responsible parenthood. And he said: "A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will—well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society."[18] Likewise, excerpts from the Catechism are found on couragerc.org, including: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."(CCC 2358)[19] Similarly, Courage International: "The Church does not reject persons with SSA; all persons with SSA have a right to be welcomed into the Church community."[20] While Francis was similar, he does not mention Courage International.
• Courage International is not associated with Ken Ham who is not Catholic.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: I agree. It should also be noted, before anyone gets "offended" by the verbiage quoted above, that the Catechism is translated to English out of Latin, and as such "condition" is not used in any medical sense but rather literally to mean "state of being". Likewise for "disordered"; here it means "not ordered towards moral good", not a medical disorder. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, both terms, condition and objectively disordered, are not medical terms. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to unload all of these quotes from the Courage website makes it seem like you wish to transform the Wikipedia page into that website. You weren't hear when I said all I have to say about that: "Courage has a webpage and Wikipedia is not it". I suggest you talk to senior Wikipedia users like Rosc about what you'd like to add to the article because they know better than me what is appropriate. So far it just appears like you wish to push a parochial POV within the article and I doubt those other users would be down for that. My specific concern and objection was the the phrase in question and its permutations. I will continue to revert any attempts to return to that language. Rosc. has suggested several times finding a neutral source about the "factoid" of Courage's SSA terminology. I'd suggest checking with her for more details. I will likely add a source from the APA or related mainstream organization about why that language and the attempt at repression /pray the gay away is disingenuous and unhelpful should your change go through. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:79FA:9AD:DED2:E852 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@2601:5CA:4000:D58:79FA:9AD:DED2:E852: Are you seriously describing Courage as a "pray the gay away" org? If you would actually read the quotes that @BoBoMisiu: does post from their website, instead of ignoring them and assuming the worst as you seem to be doing, you would see that this is not the goal at all. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am. And I'm not going to get into an argument with you about it. Courage attempts to pray the gay away in everything they say and do. Courage specifically recommends prayer and other spiritual disciplines to "counteract"the "struggle" with outie belly buttons... er I mean being gay. Conversation therapy is not the only manifestation of PTGA in this world. Its a sad little umbrella that has popped up in many places. In some ways this approach is more sinister than conversion therapy. If you prefer, you can call them "keep the gay at bay" or whatever floats your boat. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:2191:68D1:9102:A8F (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How about a word that's been in use for 1800 years longer than "sexual orientations" have been a thing: chastity. Applies to everyone equally, "gay", "straight", whatever. And how about you stop treating "gay" Catholics who want to practice chastity as self-loathing, victims-of-the-all-powerful-cispatriarchy buffoons? If anyone on this page is insisting on being offensive, it's you. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your delusional comments warrant no response. There are cultural infrastructures where you can live out those premodern delusions but Wikipedia is not one of those places. The rest of us will continue to try to keep the damage those delusions create to a minimum. Goodbye. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:1861:62D4:B1EF:581D (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a debate with the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society on what it is to be gay. Such an endeavor has the (intended?) consequence of giving you impetus to turn the talk page into a place where you can spam antigay quotations since all those quotes aren’t going to make it into the main article. Continuing to encounter those violent quotes and commentary contributes nothing beneficial to the epistemic enterprise, and the larger the database grows, the greater the chance it will become a (conscious or unconscious) source of pain to gay individuals who may be following this conversation either now or later. Only a fool would think that the RCC’s terminology is older than sexual orientation itself, and only an even greater fool would dare deny the very real harm that bad religion inflicts upon gay human beings. You may choose to be a fool but I am choosing to not give you a platform to disseminate you foolishness. The ONLY thing I will respond to from henceforth is this, copied here for your benefit." 1) produce the modern, SECULAR, preferably scholarly mainstream sources that use the phrase in question in lieu of "gay" in reference to the population in question and 2) assuming these sources exist, demonstrate and justify why these relatively scant semantic occurrences should be used in place of the majoritarian phraseology, when it has been clearly been shown that the phrase in question is overwhelmingly associated with antigay conservative religious POVs. What is the secular purpose in risking the semantic association with the parochial objectives of CI when CI itself uses that language all throughout its (linked) website?" GOODBYE 2601:5CA:4000:D58:7548:2E3D:C95B:4B3 (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@2601:5CA:4000:D58:79FA:9AD:DED2:E852, 2601:5CA:4000:D58:2191:68D1:9102:A8F, 2601:5CA:4000:D58:1861:62D4:B1EF:581D, and 2601:5CA:4000:D58:7548:2E3D:C95B:4B3:(can I assume you are the same person?)

• I am focused on subject of the article on this talk page and will not change my discussion style – I have cited where I find what I write. I am an experienced editor and will continue to first discuss and then add that content to the article. I will not be going to other editors for advise, they can cite and quote potential content just like everyone. They can also point out my errors.
• Courage International's website, couragerc.org, is an WP:ABOUTSELF source which "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field," when that content "is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" – similar 12 step programs exist, e.g. Harvey cited three others on couragerc.org: Sexaholics Anonymous, Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous, Homosexuals Anonymous.[21]
• you are misrepresenting the organization as "pray the gay away" as I quoted previously Courage "is very far from an attempt to 'repair' or 'fix' someone." Their "meetings are not group therapy, and no Courage member is required to seek counseling or treatment of any kind."[22]
• Your discussion about "Conversation therapy" is a straw man argument – as I quoted previously Courage "is very far from an attempt to 'repair' or 'fix' someone." Their "meetings are not group therapy, and no Courage member is required to seek counseling or treatment of any kind."[23] Please start including some sources with your arguments.
• A search for: "keep the gay at bay" courage yields only 2 unrelated pages.
• Describing chastity as among "those premodern delusions" is your opinion, while describing chastity as a characteristic of Courage International is about the subject of the article. Writing that you "will continue to try to keep the damage those delusions create to a minimum" is not objective editing. This article is about the organization Courage International and not about broader topics. Appeals to pity are logical fallacies because they are emotional rather than reason based. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This is 2601. Not sure what was up with the IP/MAC address situation. Simply writing from mobile or notebook. Fixed now. The rest seems unrelated to the 2-point challenge copied in the last entry so I have nothing more to say to you. StephenMoore8 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

From reading a deleted citation: John Harvey told the 2006 annual conference of Courage, "Our task is to help them be responsible in the future over tendencies which are out of control."[24] "While there is no intent to offend," licensed psychologist, marriage and family therapist, and clinical social worker Philip M. Sutton wrote that, it is recognized that whoever rejects Natural Law and Revealed truths about human sexuality and procreation, including magisterium-faithful teaching concerning homosexuality, may take offense at the explicit mention of and support for Natural Law and Divine Revelation, whether at a meeting or elsewhere."(p. 97) Sutton's group, for example, recites at the beginning of their meetings: "Scripture and Catholic Tradition teach that sexual activity is intended only for a man and a woman within the covenant of permanent, faithful marriage. All unchaste behavior is wrong, including fornication, contraception, adultery, masturbation, pornography and homosexual behavior."(p. 97)

According to the Institute for the Psychological Sciences, Stephen Hopkins, in his Psy.D. (Clinical Psychology) dissertation, found that "same-sex attracted" male respondents who are members of Courage "had more mental health distress than the heterosexually oriented, normative sample" and respondents "who were more-chaste had an improvement in their overall mental health". Hopkins also found positive correlation between spirituality and increased mental health, and "between chastity, religious participation and self-reported measures of happiness."[25] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

God, I feel like we're talking in circles. We use encyclopedic language here because we are an encyclopedia. If a group for Christians interested in converting to another religion identified its target audience as "people struggling with interest in Jesus" as though it were some kind of cancer, we wouldn't use that either. On the other hand, information about how Courage refers to its target audience may be a useful factoid if properly sourced and neutrally presented.

Other brief comments: the ACP doesn't need me discrediting them, they've done that job on their own; the quotes in the latter half of your comment are largely irrelevant, and I recommend that you stop using the talk page as a forum to preach about homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: no, I am not "using the talk page as a forum to preach about homosexuality", I am discussing the article and what I will possibly be adding. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

May 6th's repeat reversions to biased language

Describing gay people is unacceptable to this editor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not free web space for propagandistic rhetoric. What Widr considers disruptive editing, I consider just plain editing. The language before my revisions was divisive, unencyclopedic, and dismissive to an entire category of human beings. Consider this my invitation to dispute resolution. Consider also that I will not roll over on account of a temporary freeze when that freeze expires.

It is fine that this article accurately records CIs attempt to undermine the scientific consensus that homosexuality is not harmful to human welfare. It is not ok that its highly parochial language, used nowhere outside of antigay religious environments such as CI itself, be conflated with the majoritarian secular understanding that sexual orientation is a fundamental and morally neuter property of human nature. In a secular context, backhandedly describing gay people as “same-sex attracted individuals” is as belittling and offensive as repeatedly using the phrase “people with black skin” or “Americans struggling with African ancestry.” It is language that incorrectly connotes sexual orientation as optional while also implicitly suggesting that repression of one's sexual orientation may be something other than what it factually is: extremely harmful to human development and the wellbeing of society. It is language designed to subtly dehumanize gay people and confuse readers about the empirical realities CI seeks to deny. It is language that is offensive and unacceptable. 2601:5CA:4000:D58:C480:4F51:FA7A:CB4D (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4000:D58:C480:4F51:FA7A:CB4D (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

2601:5CA:4000:D58:CC2A:C383:34E8:2842 (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Thread moved from top of page by User:Meters 3 days after it was posted. Meters (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Stripping references

@Roscelese: you deleted a reference and commented in the edit summary: "Not supported by source. The source doesn't say that's what critics take issue with"

The content in the article is:

The leaders of New Ways Ministry, Jeannine Gramick, SL, and Fr. Robert Nugent, refused to recommend Courage to Catholics with whom they worked because they fundamentally disagreed with the approach of Courage; particularly because Harvey insisted that homosexuality was an illness or sickness.

A quote from the cited page is:

Gramick and Nugent realized the theological, ethical, and psychological answers for struggling gay and lesbian Catholics were not homogeneous. Nevertheless, they would not recommend Courage to distraught gay and lesbian Catholics due to fundamental disagreements with Harvey's premise – not so much Courage's goal of celebacy or chastity, but Harvey's ideals that homosexuality was a sickness or a disorder.

Why did you remove the reference? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Because that's not what the Williams reference says. The quote is about Courage's views, but the context of the quote does not mention critics. The Freep source which presumably supports this statement was retained. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: please read the the quotes I added – they mean the same thing.

Moreover, I think there is a problem when the Detoit Free Press replaces a scholarly work published by Florida State University in 48 hours of edit warring. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: What BoBo said. This section is not about the other Williams edit war. The sentence in question and the source are in perfect, paraphrased agreement. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a dissertation, so you're overstating the case a bit, BoBoMisiu. I'm fine restoring the citation in the paragraph beginning "The leaders of New Ways Ministry", but the quote from Williams in the paragraph beginning "Courage has faced" is apologetic and inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with you there, @Roscelese:. In one of my edits I removed the sentence entirely—even in the form it was in before I showed up on this page, it really didn't belong there. It was a paraphrase saying basically the same thing. As of right now it's still removed, as it should be. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I do not understand what you mean by "It's a dissertation, so you're overstating the case a bit". Are you giving more weight to an article by Detroit Free Press staff writer that does not mention the critics: Gramick or Nugent than to the scholar who does write about both critics Gramick and Nugent? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Observations

It "ministers to those with homosexual or same-sex attractions" is a perfectly acceptable in it current form, as a quote from the organization regarding what it doe; limiting the phrase "same-sex attraction" to the line avoids any further controversy. In the rest of the article, the sources appear to use the term "homosexual(ity)" rather than "gay"; thus, the article must follow the terms used by the sources. --Zfish118^⋉talk 04:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That said, the article relies largely on poor and/or biased sources. We should take that into account. I must recommend, again, that we use encyclopedic, neutral language and that non-neutral language be confined to quotes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That said, it is imperative that one or two users' own conception of what constitutes "biased language" not dictate everyone else's legitimate linguistic choices. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I do not disagree. I have had no prior involvement with this article, and am only commenting on the version as of today; the article is still in need of copy editing, but the majority of controversial teachings of the organization appear to be directly quoted as you suggest. --Zfish118^⋉talk 04:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I am uncertain why this article is listed as a "High-importance" to Wikiprojects WP:Roman Curia and WP:Vatican City. These appear to be recent additions, so I have provisionally removed them altogether. While this is certainly a notable Catholic organization, I do not believe it has any direct ties to Rome, except a few encouraging words (pun not intended) from certain cardinals. It would seem mid- to low-importance in WP:Catholicism, and certainly leaning towards low-importance on the other projects if some one feels strongly enough to relist either. The code is provided below for reference. --Zfish118^⋉talk 04:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Roman Curia|class=start|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Vatican City|class=start|importance=High}}

@Zfish118: Looks like they're still there... Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict canceled the edit - thanks for point that out! --Zfish118^⋉talk 04:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recovery project

I started a thread about including Courage International and other groups on the addictions and recovery project page. Wanted to mention it here in case any editors had opinions on way or another. - Scarpy (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Encourage" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Encourage. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Rv

Removed "Courage doesn't consider itself an ex-gay group" (sourced to its website). "SPLC is wrong that it's an ex-gay group; identifying as gay is reductive, so really none of the people whom we helped pray to subdue their same-sex sexuality were gay to begin with" is weak. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert

I've restored the description of New Ways Ministry as Catholic. Wikipedia doesn't follow the jargon definition according to which a "Catholic organization" is one officially and logistically affiliated with the church; for the sake of the general reader, an organization of Catholics is a Catholic organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)