Talk:JONAH

Lifestyle?

It attracts a variety of Jews with same same-sex attractions, including those who want to leave the gay lifestyle, and those who are already married.

This seems somewhat non-NPOV to me. Being gay is not a "lifestyle", since it is not a choice, and it encompasses more than certain customes. A lifestyle is favoring certain restaurants, or drinks, or neighborhoods, etc., depending on how big your paycheck is.

Most "ex-gay"ist proponents do recognize that gays cannot control nor choose their homosexual thoughts and drives, and they try to teach you to sublimate and not act on them through faith and whatnot. I'm not that familiar with the techniques, so I may be mistaking something. Anyway, I thought I should bring this up here instead of making a change without consensus, since this is a complicated topic.

I propose something like:

It attracts a variety of Jews with same-sex attractions, including those who are engaging themselves in homosexual activities but want to lead a heterosexual life, and those who are already in a heterosexual relationship and/or marriage. ("already married." is confusing, since gay marriage is legal in a number of places).

If there are no objections, I will make the change. --W2bh (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Teaching Hatred

JONAH does not teach hatred towards homosexuals.

This seems slightly non-NPOV, like something copied from promotional literature. By even raising the issue, it seems to imply that other ex-gay groups do teach hatred, something that all(?) of them would deny. Also, it is debatable whether it is possible to hate the sin while loving the sinner. Some gay advocates argue that "hating the sin" contributes to a hostile climate toward the "sinners." Peter Chastain (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that quoting a JONAH statement to the effect that they do not teach hatred would be better NPOV. I have searched the JONAH web site and could not find such a statement, but I also could not find any evidence of hatred toward gay people. The real debate here is whether reparative therapy is helpful or harmful. The question of hatred toward homosexuals does not come up, and I suggest that we remove it from our article. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have revised the paragraph, hopefully sidestepping the question of whether JONAH promotes antipathy toward gays. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Successfully completed their program of gender affirmation"

Interesting how the grandest assertion has a broken reference link. It should be removed. -Loppy Thug

Allegations of "Psychological Striptease"

The substantiated allegations of therapists demanding participants to touch themselves sexually naked in front of the therapists MUST be included in this article. It is a huge point of the organization's history and the plethora of allegations against it. Speaking of which.... -Loppy Thug

Plethora of Allegations Against JONAH

Including the aforementioned claims, the claim that JONAH keeps no solid statistics of its success (or failure, inflicting on intense psychological trauma, etc.), the obvious-yet-ommitted accusation of defying mainstream academia, and lying about statistics. Info on all of the above can be found here. -Loppy Thug

Arthur Goldberg

There is tremendous depth into some of his credentials, but a curious lack of some other, more important information; notably, his felony convictions (see the myriad of sources on his biographical page). -Loppy Thug

Style

The quote at the top of the article uses [and] instead of ellipses ... which is confusing and not in the wiki style manual.

Anyone object if I change them?Rgbutler (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

U r free to make things better--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The introduction quotes "aversion therapy techniques", but the body of the text uses "conversion therapy" which is specific to homosexuals, whereas aversion therapy has been used with homosexuals, but is not a subset of conversion therapy. I sugest switching aversion to conversion. If aversion is to stay it needs a citation. Also there is a conversion therapy wikipage so it should be linked.Rgbutler (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless we know which is correct, I would be hesitant to change either to match the other. (The citation given for conversion therapy actually doesn't say what kind of therapy is used.) This article could use more citations in general, for that matter... — Shmuel (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then is appropriate? I am not comfortable leaving in things which are questionable just because we don't know which mistake the original author made. JONAH endorses conversion therapy, but nothing I found on their website mentions aversion therapy. Btw the wiki description of Aversion Therapy reminds me of the scene in the film A Clockwork Orange.Rgbutler (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging around... as far as I can tell, the reason why many of the citations don't seem to fit is that the person who inserted them meant to link to the Truth Wins Out site but accidentally pasted in JONAH's URL instead. I'm going in and fixing that now, plus adding a few more citations. I agree that this article could use more citations in general, from more sources. — Shmuel (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed those messed up links, but I did not get to them yet. Another thing: "JONAH (originally named Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, now styled as Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing[1]) is a non-profit organization ..." is backwards. I think it shouyld read: "JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality [1]) is a non-profit organization ...Should I change it?Rgbutler (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK now I like the way the 1st line looks, more professional and also the way they describe themselves. I am not crazy about 'extemely controversial' as it is non-NPOV but I admit it is true. Should it have an internal link to the controversy section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgbutler (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rgbutler (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Content

This statement form the introduction "Focusing specifically on Orthodox Jews who identify themselves as homosexuals" is contradicted by the history section and is not supported by any material on Jonah's website or elsewhere I've seen. "JONAH operates within the weltanschauung of Orthodox Judaism and focuses primarily on Jews who identify themselves as homosexuals or have same-sex attractions. JONAH offers various conversion therapy techniques that attempt to change homosexuals into heterosexuals." would read better don't you think?Rgbutler (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How do I get the contents section to link to this section?Rgbutler (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Another question: How do I get my short comments to be inserted in the 'view history' page when I make revisions? -OK I figured this one out.

INTRODUCTION: How about changing the quote from JONAH to: "dedicated to educating the world-wide Jewish community about the social, cultural and emotional factors which lead to same-sex attractions. JONAH works directly with those struggling with unwanted same-sex sexual attractions (SSA) and with families whose loved ones are involved in homosexuality."(From the JONAH mission statment. It reads better than the broken qoute there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgbutler (talk • contribs) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

METHODOLOGY: Reference 4 to R. Dr. Lamm's article is insufficient to show JONAH considers homosexual acts to be abominations. Firstly, JONAH has a disclaimer on their website regarding they do not endorse all the views etc. Secondly although R. Dr. Lamm uses the word abomination in his article, he is clearly not saying one should abominate those who perform homosexual acts. JONAH is Orthodox, and follows the bible which describes" :"Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: it is a to'evah" (Lev. 18:22). To'evah is typically translated as 'an abomination', meaning: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abomination a·bom·i·na·tion, noun, 1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred. 2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination. 3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination. R. Dr. Lamm defined to'evah as 'to'eh attah bah". "You are going astray because of it" (Nedarim 51a), which hardly fits with the English word abomination. At any event the reference is inappropriate. More later...Rgbutler (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC) See http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh2.htm for more on abomination.

"JONAH asserts an Orthodox Jewish belief that same-sex sex acts are abominations.[4] As such, it seeks to prevent these sex acts by altering the sexual orientation of those likely to perform them. Although there is debate as to whether sexual attraction to persons of the same sex is religiously permissible, JONAH claims that that these attractions may be prevented and eliminated.[5] OK the first sentance isn't true (see above), so I propose to delete it. The second sentance isn't true, JONAH never claims to be trying to prevent same sex acts. Therefore this should also be deleted. Aside from the fact that everything in Judaism is debated, there is no debate in Orthodox Judaism that says a person is permitted to cultivate same sex attractions. Simillarly there is no prohibition against attractions that come of them selves, so the first clause of the last sentance is nonsense. The last clause overstates the case. JONAH actually claims these attractions can sometimes be MITIGATED and occasionally ELIMINATED. I propose the following: JONAH asserts "we not only need to respect the dignity and humanity of every individual created in the image of God, whether or not they choose to follow a Torah-sanctioned path, but also need to understand that change from homosexual to heterosexual is possible, that homosexuality is a learned behavior which can be unlearned, and that healing is a lifelong process." http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=10 Rgbutler (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

References

References 2 and 3 are the same, they should be merged. What does "Remit" in ref 3 mean?Rgbutler (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

The statement in the controversy section "implicitly withdrew her support from JONAH itself." is an editorial, nonNPOV and needs to be removed. A full quote from Dr. Respler would read better.Rgbutler (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to reorganize this section into 4 categories: Immutability of SSA, Harm from SSA therapy, Arthur Goldberg and Freedom of speech.Rgbutler (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"weltanschauung"  ! Wha-a-aaat ?

Please would someone who understands the opening paragraph replace the word "weltanschauung" ? It may be fine for the German WP but I (and I think most English-speaking people) have no idea what it means. Darkman101 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is not the Simple English encyclopedia, to be honest. --Phagopsych (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Worldview is bland and Kuhn's idea of a paradigm is obscure if accurate. I think weltanschauung is most acurate, but I'm fine with paradigm as long as it is linked.Rgbutler (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ex-ex-transexuals

OMG never knew there was such a thing. You get a sex change and then wanna GO BACK!!! Hilarious! Anyway I watched the video--didn't see anything about JONAH--did I miss something?

With the help of JONAH, Judy Kirchner transitioned back to becoming a man. He is a non-practising Jew but is held up as a poster child for gender transformation by Christian ex-trans organizations including Reality Resources, Help4Families, and RAF-T. He operated the controversial helpmereversemysexchange.org and was a contributing writer for Jerry Leach. After a year, Josef found he didn't square with the pro-binary ideas after all, coming to believe male and female are not exclusive categories. For one, he was still attracted to men. He now identifies as a gay man.

– Lionel ^(talk) 04:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Show respect for living people. Yes, JONAH is mentioned in a video called "Josef's challenges",[1] at about 3:25. I stopped watching at that point. I'm not sure about the self-published website, but the MSNBC video is probably a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on JONAH. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110426045543/http://jonahweb.org:80/sections.php?secId=2 to http://www.jonahweb.org/sections.php?secId=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"The three biggest S-fellowships"

Someone add this tag to the article - {{The three biggest S-fellowships}}. Anyone have any idea what it does? Should it be kept? --FeldBum (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. That's an interesting/cool shortcut. --FeldBum (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I took it out because it's not related to this topic. It's about sex addiction. —PermStrump(talk) 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

History section and Controversy section content

There's a huge overlap in content between the history and controversy section to the point that I can't see a difference between the two. The controversy section is just retelling the content of the history section. W

Where's the "controversy" part in the controversy section? Nakonana (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)