APA Statement to the Advocate regarding “reparative therapy”

The Advocate posted a statement from the American Psychiatric Association regarding reparative therapy on its website. Here it is:

The American Psychological Association, in its Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which is also endorsed by the National Association of School Psychologists, states: “The American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation.”

This basically says therapy that views homosexuality per se as signalling a disorder is discouraged. I do not view homosexuality as a disorder per se but I believe that some people may not want to be homosexual for reasons unrelated to mental illness. Usually this relates to religious beliefs. The APA statement in the Advocate goes on to say that some religious denominations do not view homosexuality as immoral. Thus, the APA seems to be saying some religious beliefs are better than others. Is this an appropriate role for a psychiatric association? Where is the respect for religious diversity?

In any event, I do not believe the APA statement applies to my work since I do not view or convey homosexuality per se to signal mental disorder.

71 thoughts on “APA Statement to the Advocate regarding “reparative therapy””

  1. Dr. Throckmorton,

    Have you heard from Dr. Jacobs yet? We were at the same meeting this week but she disappeared before I could reach her. I would really prefer to have a face-to-face dialogue rather than one using public remarks, so I would appreciate your help.

  2. Funny you guys would mention Bailey. Just for your information, I do not agree with his simple reductionist thesis that arousal=orientation. And neither does the Gay and Lesbian task force.

    Matt Foreman, executive director of the Task Force, when commenting on Bailey’s latest study (as reported by the New York Times), said “We remain stunned that The New York Times science section would carry such a shoddy, sensationalistic and downright insulting story. It and the profoundly flawed ‘study’ it purports to cover are laced with biased premises, misstatements and inaccuracies. It equates sexual orientation with sexual arousal, as supposedly measured by a crude device—considered highly suspect by researchers—in the hands of an individual with a long history of controversial research”

    The Task Force challenged the equation of arousal with orientation, noting that “sexual orientation is defined by a combination of cognitive and physical responses, not just whether one’s genitals respond in a certain way to pornography.” Since the researchers’ thesis is that “for men, arousal is orientation,” the Task Force asked, “Does this mean that one-third of the participants had no sexual orientation?” (in Bailey’s study, 1/3 of the participants had NO reaction to either types of porn).

    Indeed, such a reductionistic definition of sexual orientation leaves out important elements of human sexuality NOT easily measured by physical means, such as romantic love/attraction or self concept.


  3. Dr. Throckmorton,

    1) I apologize. He was a Moonie for twenty years, and maried under their auspices. “He has been married for nearly 23 years — an arranged marriage that he said was suggested by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon when he and his wife were members of the Unification Church, to which they belonged for 20 years.” Wash Post last week.

    2)Thank you. I can easily call Ruth, but I find email easier. I’d like to sit down and have coffee with her and try to talk things through before the next board meeting.

    3) It’s interesting that Bailey did not mention that childhood video at all during the conference.

  4. PS – Cohen is not a member of the Reunification church but rather an evangelical Christian.

    PPS – Dr. Beyer, did Bailey mention his study of childhood videos of gay men? I am curious if he mentioned the current status of that effort.

  5. I will ask Ruth if I can give out that information (is Wayne Besen reading? 🙂

    Regarding the ex-gay partner question, I think that would be an excellent research project. I may just do that.

  6. Dr. Throckmorton,

    I was wondering if you had an email address for Ruth Jacobs. When I Google her I get plenty of hits in association with you, and you’re not shy about providing contact info for yourself. But she is.

    Thank you.

  7. Grantdale,

    I think the best gauge of sexual arousal would be a response from the person supposedly doing the arousing (assuming it is a human being, of course. Let’s put fetishes aside for now).

    I would expect most straight women would know quite clearly when a man has been aroused by them, and when it’s just play acting or an attempt to force the issue. But I don’t know how you can ethically run such an experiment. It’s hard enough to get funding for the less-than-perfect plethysmography experiments these days when there is no relationship involved.

    Maybe we could have a number of “ex-gays” come forward and then we can canvass for the women with whom they had a relationship, and ask those women what they thought of the experience. Of course, the results can easily be skewed by the “ex-gays” having sex with women while fantasizing that the women are really men. I know that happens.

    If the best the “ex-gay” movement can come up with for conversion is Richard Cohen, the Moonie with a Moonie marriage, well, that’s pretty convincing in and of itself.

  8. I guess a question would be — under what circumstances does that arousal change?

    Ah, the $64 question. Alas, I notice we’ve again moved onto discussing when or how arousal changes after slipping past the sale item in the “bargain bin”… what is arousal?

    It isn’t hard to watch for three particular doubts in the “I’ve changed” testimonials etc. I’m going to leave out two another obvious ones — deliberate fraud, and the still developing “adolesent” sexuality you mentioned (which, of course, occurs at different rates for individuals even if most of us have well and truly settled by early adulthood).

    > if “sexual orientation” is measured via, say, a 3 scale Klein: which scale/s measure the underlying sexual arousal? A seemingly sharp move along one scale (and zippo on the others) suggests what???

    > an issue with the “name it and claim it” style of testimonials popular in some evangelical circles. Publically expressing what they hope will be is viewed as the first part of “true change”. On any objective measure this is wishful thinking, rather than change.

    > upteen squillions of middle-age het. couples go into “fire up our dead marriage” courses/books etc — secular and religious, with professionals and snake-oil salesmen. Often these couples do indeed succeed in re-establishing their relationships with better communication, more affection, more sex, etc etc.

    Did those couples just change and become more heterosexual along some scale? Using routine exgay framing of it, then yes they became more heterosexual. Or, in reality, did something other than their sexuality undergo a “change”?

  9. Thanks for your reply, Dr. Throckmorton.

    Can you provide me with some names of clinicians or researchers who agree with you about sexual arousal?

    And I guess a question would be — under what circumstances does that arousal change? Are you talking about pubertal boys who are in the process of developing their sexuality, or are you speaking of mature adults who have developed a consistent arousal pattern and then change?

  10. Dr. Beyer: I agree with almost everything you wrote, except, as grantdale predicted, I do believe arousal does change for at least some people. I also agree with your analysis of the irony of the Christian right’s affiliation with Freudianism. I was trained in object relations theory and think of it as interesting but I do not practice that way today.

  11. Grantdale,

    I’m curious as to what Warren does believe about sexual arousal, since it seems all the researchers I know believe it can’t be changed (whatever its cause), nor do many of the conversion therapy proponents. They reluctantly admit that they can’t change orientation, just behavior. Well, there is no news in that.

    And that gets us to your other point, about the history of this issue and the need for the medical community to understand homosexuality or transsexualism, indeed, any sexual variation, as a perverse response to something. The implication is that only being normal-gendered is healthy, being heterosexual is healthy, etc. There is absolutely no sophistication when it comes to the biology of human sexuality, which encompasses gonads and genitals and bodies and hormones and receptors and, most important of all, brains. The past 50 years of the psychoanalytic literature is completely useless in my mind because it fails to take those fundamentals into consideration.

    One of the many ironies of this current phenomenon is the fierce bond formed between Christian fundamentalists and Freudianism. I recall learning that Christians hated Freud, psychology in general, psychiatry in particular, for decades. There were many reasons for this, but it was very real. Now he is their lifeboat. And it is also a hoot to see the same people whose goal in life is to discredit the supposed liberal pantheon of Marx, Freud and Darwin grab onto Freud when the issue is sex. It seems they just can’t get past that. And, of course, there is no way they can get past Darwin and still visit their doctors with a clean conscience.

    It is another irony that back in the 19th century science was so well respected by intellectuals that they intentionally called their non-scientific theories, such as the Marxist critique of capitalism and Frued’s theory of the unconscious, Science. Neither was science of course, so they were rather easily discredited. Darwinism is, and the results will be different. Though to be fair to Freud, he really did want to put psychiatry on a neurological foundation, but he just didn’t have the tools and, the creative gentleman that he was, he used his imagination to make a living with the results we know very well.

  12. Dana,

    Sounds like a wild conference 🙂

    You may want to peruse a previous discussion about this. I think your ref to “arousal pattern” measurement is matching up with the “objective measure of sexual orientation” blah.

    But Warren — and I know you’ll correct me Warren if I’m wrong — would claim that “arousal patterns” can be changed. Therefore, no objective sexual orientation?

    But, the but… bisexuality capable of a response to either sex is not actually changing if they’re hot for some girl this year and a boy the next.

    (Not changing any more than, say, a straight guy who likes blondes this week and redheads the next. Or starts going out with an Asian girl and suddenly begins noticing all these other attractive Asian girls because they reflect who’s got his attention and affection at the moment.)

    Beyond all that, we also see the perverse (old fashioned use) response of some as due to socialization; and better seen as a cover on their underlying sexuality rather than their underlying orientation. I’m thinking of how some struggle after severe childhood abuse, as example. Therapy to tackle the first can reveal the second, which is good hopefully, but I don’t see this as a change in sexual orientation either (even though the arousal responses may be dramatically different).

    More particularly, I’d lump the perverse response with a behaviour forced through a gun at your head.

    Because homosexuality came to be assumed — within the professions — as a perverse response to, well, something… much of the wild goose chase followed. And so did the assumption that a homosexual orientation could be “changed” in the same way as can a limiting fetish (often) can.

    (Doing all their “research” on homosexual people with a mental illness didn’t help either!)

    And that’s not even getting to the confusion of sex and gender and orientation and arbitrary labels that fouls most of the exgay material…

  13. Anon,

    None of the accepted CDC material points fingers at individuals or groups. The rejected material would do exactly that when presented to everyone in a classroom.

    As for all the other material you wanted included — none of that was either credible or helpful to young people and was purposely designed to stigmatize and spread ignorance. Whether you personally like to hear the ugly, false stereotypes that Cohen, Diggs and the Dailey/Spriggs team smear all over the place is an entirely different matter.

    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “no-drug use behavior material”?
    No. Stigmatizing would be to point a finger at black Americans. MCPS does not do that.

    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “no-smoking behavior material”? MCPS has it.
    No. Stigmatizing would be to point a finger at Southerners. MCPS does not do that.

    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “no-driving while drinking alcohol material”? MCPS has it.
    No. Stigmatizing would be to point a finger at young people. MCPS does not do that.

    (Personally we’d prefer you emphasize the drinking BEFORE driving.)

    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “refrain from sex materials” for all children? MCPS has it.
    No. You cannot stigmatize by referring to all.

    Unless, of course, you promote something to all of them such as “None of you should use drugs like black people do” or “None of you should be like homosexuals are”. MCPS does not do that.

    And thanks for the name Dana, I had a choice of three. Homosexual Medical Association… /snort!

  14. Well, you seem, with “sexual fantasies, attractions, and behavioral intentions are consistently toward others of the same sex” to cover more ground than most. Bailey has a specific sexual definition (everything to him is of a sexual or sexualized nature). He said that homosexuality is simply sexual arousal, and specifically penile engorgement. Why? Not because it simplifies discussion, but because that’s the way most gay men realize they’re gay.

    I don’t see why the two go together, nor did many others, but it does simplify matters. The other group responded to that to focus on romantic attraction, while many who didn’t have a dog in this fight were more comfortable with viewing any person as far more complex (and interesting) than simply his sexual fantasies or romantic objects of desire. Sort of like your position plus.

    And, of course, this leaves women out completely, which was noted by many to be par for the course. Luckily for all of us, one of Bailey’s former students, Meredith Chivers, extended Bailey’s plethysmography work (which has many serious methodological issues I hear) to women, and measured vaginal responsiveness. And, it turned out, women responded to non-specific sexual features, in contrast to men who showed a category-specific pattern of arousal that corresponded to their stated sexual attraction.

    Bailey then concluded in the discussion that women had no sexual orientation. We tried to take that as a joke, but, knowing him, who knows?

    Now, if homosexuality is simply sexual arousal, a la Bailey, I think most people on both sides of the spectrum could now agree that the male pattern of arousal cannot be changed, that it is innate. And that would end a great deal of this debate, because then there would be no such thing as an “ex-gay” or an “ex-ex-gay.” You are your sexual arousal, regardless of your behavior. So if a teenage boy has sex once with another boy, but isn’t aroused and then moves on to girls, he’s straight and always has been. And if he’s turned on by it and not by girls, then he’s gay and always will be. And some poor guy in prison who has sex wirh men because there is no alternative would still be straight. And guys on the “down-lo” who were turned on by men would have to acknowledge they are either gay or bi. And maybe then more men would simply get over their sexual insecurity in general and just be themselves.

    People could then argue all they want about behavior and controlling one’s behavior, and maybe some people would become celibate, whether gay or straight, or whatever, but at least we wouldn’t have gay men dating and marrying straight women in an attempt to convert their sexual orientation. That really is not at all fair to the women. And we certainly wouldn’t bother looking for the “ex-gay” gene, as I read in some press release a few months ago. We could focus our research on how sexual orientation works, how it develops, how it’s tied in with sexual identity if at all, etc. Very fascinating stuff really. And we would save a generation of students from being bullied and being bullies. Or at least that’s my utopian hope.

  15. Dr. Beyer:

    Good question. I can imagine why there was a fuss. In doing research, one would need to operationalize the definition. Bailey, as I recall, often uses K5-K6 as homosexual.

    I make a distinction in my mind between same sex attraction and a gay identity or a non-gay identity.

    I tend to think of a homosexual as one whose sexual fantansies, attractions, and behavioral intentions are consistently toward others of the same sex.

    Please do elaborate…

  16. I have a question for Dr. Throckmorton. I had mentioned that I attended (and presented at) the International Behavioral Development Symposium a few weeks ago. There were some fascinating papers, but one of the more entertaining events was a pleanry session between the Bailey gang and the other side which degenerated into a food fight because there was no agreement on just what homosexuality was.

    I think much of the enmity that goes around these days comes from a failure to properly define terms. I will discuss what came out of the confernece, but I would like to ask the host what definition he uses when he speaks of homosexuality and homosexual persons.

    Thank you.

  17. The materials from the CDC were and are there, in the wisdom of the MCPS, because they and parents are concerned about the health of the children. Stigmatizing was not a thought. If information helps one group to stay healthier, so be it. I see from the Homosexual Medical Association that the needs of the gay community are not being met and then they launch into these same statistics and use them to articulate the needs. That is good. I see that many gay advocacy organizations obtain money from the CDC to promote this same information. (Advocates for Youth etc.). That is helpful.
    The CDC is a credible resource. Md’s highest rate of HIV is a result of IDU uses and heterosexuals have increased in numbers. The schools tell the children this (this information is on the MD STATE Education website).
    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “no-drug use behavior material”? MCPS has it.
    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “no-smoking behavior material”? MCPS has it.
    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “no-driving while drinking alcohol material”? MCPS has it.
    Would you call it stigmatizing to include “refrain from sex materials” for all children? MCPS has it.

  18. Warren,

    We’ve had a chance to talk to a few people and short answer, yes exactly. I suspect both sides knew it was stigmatizing.

    (And that particular problem was the major issue we had with your own materials. We banged on about it at XGW, but don’t ask me to find the link; it’s a hideous bird’s nest over there).

    Inappropriate for a classroom for this reason. Not inappropriate if addressed to the particular group outside that setting. There’s a plethora of materials directed at minority groups by HIV/AIDS bodies, with much more on its way. I’m sure any decent parent would have a pink fit it if their child was made to be such a target in a classroom, in health class or otherwise.

    For any interested teacher (or student or parent) the CDC site is open to all. We’ve got free run of the house and we’re not even in the States, let alone Maryland.

    It’s how we did this. Thanks American taxpayer! 🙂

  19. My view is that the CDC material should be available to teachers. The MSM stuff was not included as I understand it because it was viewed as stigmatizing. Anonymous, is that the case?

  20. Another thing. Stop being a bully. Your mother would not approve.

    To the contrary, she went “pfftt!”.

    But, spare me the tears. Unmoved — as anyone familiar with how PFOX and ADF operated would be. I’m also sure your select “resouces” are intended to bully children (both gay and straight) and the appalling way you think of gay men and women is perfectly clear from your website forum. You are motivated by some vile reasoning.

    Anyway. So any and all viewpoints are OK with you are they? That’s jolly good, because I got an email from some “Grand Wizard” and he really wants to impress upon the children that “some races engage in more high risk sexual activity than others do”.

    According to the CDC that’s absolutely true: black Americans are half of all HIV infections. Similarly concerning figures for all STDs actually. So you won’t mind if we pull out a few CDC reports about minority races and deliberately let all the kids know those facts; especially the white ones.

    I know they can’t help themselves being black, but gee, we certainly can help them behave properly, and nice, an all. For their own benefit, you understand.

    These last two paragraphs sound as ugly as anything I’ve read at CRC. You’d also understand from the get-go that someone calling himself a Grand Wizard would have no interest in fair treatment, regardless of whatever he claimed.

    A health education class can stay clear of the morality of homosexuality, and understand one thing: viewpoint discrimination does not include abuse, slander or manipulative “facts”.

    You still haven’t given one reason why your material is suitable, other than it is anti-gay and therefore another viewpoint the children need to hear. In your opinion.

  21. Dana,

    I think Warren was being sarcastic. You demanded “” around exgay (because what proof is there) and, therefore, you got the “Dr Beyer”.

    As for the apparently deranged Anonymous, I’m not sure anyone reads them or cares. Some remedial English may help their cause.

    (Hmm. Dare I call it “reparative English”?)

  22. That is your viewpoint and is to be respected however others may say the same about gay affirming information and equally that is to be respected. If you read Judge Williams statement below you will see that no viewpoint of some should restrict the viewpoint of others. It is the law.

    “The wisdom of approving a curriculum which prohibits students from discussing one viewpoint of a controversial subject goes to the very essence of that First Amendment faith. The merit of Plaintiffs’ viewpoint — be it right, wrong, discriminatory, or just — is of no consequence. Rather, the Court is concerned with ensuring that Plaintiffs’ free speech rights are not restricted merely because they voice an unpopular viewpoint. No matter the importance of an idea to its believers, or how objectionable it may be to its detractors, the diversity of our democratic fabric is sewn together by the belief that the path to freedom lies in the opportunity for rival positions to be equally heard and discussed.”

    Another thing, you seem to not like the CDC information. The irony of it all is after the CAC did not approve of the CDC information, it turned out that ALL CDC and other government information could be included as resources because MCPS has a blanket approval of these sources. In fact the children are taught that CDC is a reliable source for information on HIV and other STI’s. One of the resources was added to the Health packet for the teachers in Jan. 04. Children need to learn all in order to keep them healthy and therefore happy. An unhealthy child is not happy!

    You are right, sexual activity is not confined to one sexual variation however some sexual variations engage in more high risk sexual activity than others do. How do we know? Look at the CDC statistics!
    Children are taught in MCPS that it is not a good idea to engage in any sexual activity until they are mature enough to be responsible for the consequences. 8th and 10th graders are not mature enough!!

    Another thing. Stop being a bully. Your mother would not approve.

  23. So, guys, exactly how does one “prove” one’s identity on a blog?

    I did have the pleasure of meeting J. Michael and Ray Blanchard at a recent conference in North Dakota, and I will admit they are quite personable fellows. Everyone at the conference, with a few exceptions, got along quite well, which is as it should be. I may vociferously differ on scientific or medical principles with some people, but it’s not a personal issue. I find the analogy to lawyers attacking each other viciously in court yet going out for a beer afterwards an apt one.

    I do believe, however, that while people are entitled to their opinions,they are not entitled to make up their own facts. And I haven’t even had the time to respond to Anonymous’ vicious attacks on transsexual persons. I dare say she has never met one, or certainly not taken the time to get to know one. Which is kind of sad, because even her Bible has absolutely nothing to say about the phenomenon. And given how the incidence of sexual variation is rising due to the increasing biomass of endocrine disruptors, I think she had better get to understand a bit more about this issue in the near future.

  24. A “Dr Dana Beyer” certainly does exist — your ol’ pal J. Michael Bailey may be more than familiar with her web presence…

    A retired eye surgeon, by the way.

    Whether this poster is her or an imposter, I cannot say.

    This page popped up while cruising around looking for the CRC recommendations.

    Gawd, I need a holiday.

    (Personally we use “” for both gay and exgay for only specific reasons, self labelling not being one of them. I have little doubt that Dr Beyer baulks at the idea of having “woman” thrown right back at her… do unto others.)

  25. Anonymous,

    Please refrain from using unaccepted terms such as “ex-gays” without quotations. None but your small coterie refer to such people in that way. An “ex-gay” is either a closeted homosexual or a bisexual, and the terms should be as clear as possible. Are you willing to use the term “ex-straight” for someone who thought they were straight but decided they were gay? I doubt it. And what about those “ex-gays” who become “ex-ex-gays,” as we’ve all read about in the papers? Do you support them as well? Face it — even your most professional members acknowledge that one cannot change one’s sexual orientation, so there is no such thing as an “ex-gay.”

    Unless, of course, what you are really talking about is behavior. In that case there would be nothing to discuss at MCPS, because we all agree we can modify our behavior. Much of school is about that, and certainly health ed where we aim to instruct the students to live a healthful lifestyle. So there would be no argument, unless we reached down to the crux, which is homosexuality in general. You couldn’t go there at MCPS because your objections are simply your opinions, biblically based or not. You don’t like homosexual relations? Fine, don’t engage in them. But it isn’t your place to tell others what they can or cannot do. As the judge pointed out, there is no place for a discussion of religion in a sex-ed curriculum. So you have no case.

    Ruth Jacobs is correct, that the risks of homosexual sex should be discussed just as the risks of heterosexual sex. And they are. As a physician, I couldn’t agree more. But leave out the moralizing. Of course, then there would be nothing for you to get worked up about, and you’d lose your day in the spotlight.

  26. Anonymous,

    I am more than familiar with all this so please don’t assume I need information.

    The resources deemed to appear inappropriate by the judge were called that because they discussed religion and the morality of homosexuality, and not because of any of the sex/health information they contained. Religious advocacy deserves no place in any curriculum. As you also well know, but neglected to mention, the judge had some rather scathing and dismissive things to say about the “factual resources” that you wished to foist onto everyone’s children.

    At the outset, the Court questions the reliability of the studies to which Plaintiffs cite, at least one of which was performed in the 1970s.

    The reason your materials were rejected by the School Committee was because they are abusive and present an extreme and false cartoon of gay or bi men and women and their lives. You, of course, are free to believe those falsehoods about gay men and women. What you’re not entitled to do is demand that anti-gay material is delivered to all children via the school system, under any context.

    There are no sexual activities that gay men or women do that aren’t also done by straight men and women. (Feel free, name ONE). Any sexual activities can be discussed in terms of risk and responsibility without stigmatizing some of the young people in the class or slandering people in the wider community. And let’s be honest — achieving fear and disgust to match your own was why you deliberately wanted to include particular CDC reports out of context, wasn’t it?

    Perhaps you may know: why is it that all exgay material is boiler-plate and anti-gay? Ever wondered why that may be the reason people are turned off by your materials? And this is before we even begin discussing the manipulative nonsense that pretends to be research and facts from people like Diggs, Cohen and Dailey & Spriggs. And I’m sure you wouldn’t want ex-ex-gay materials presented alongside, would you?

    More that just “another viewpoint”; the materials you provided are slanderous, abusive, outside all the acceptable professional and educational standards and deserve no role in a school.

    You remain free to do your own moralizing at home.

  27. As a member of the advisory committee who suggested the resources listed on the mcpscurriculum.com under documents/approved, I would like to clear up what happened.
    First of all, I first suggested that the committee set up some parameters for choosing the materials that would be used by the teachers for constructing their lesson plans. Would we limit ourselves to only medical and scientific information or would we include information that included social issues. The pro-gay group wanted both; however it was apparent that this group only wanted one side of the issue. Even their resources that had “scientific” information could be refuted by information from the Federal Government and so I submitted the Federal Information along with information pertaining to the social issues that had opposing viewpoints. All of my information was rejected. Not a single one was approved. Even the federal government ones!

    PFOX submitted separate information; one was on tolerance for ex-gays. PFOX ‘s information was another viewpoint. The pro-gay majority only wanted gay affirming information-their viewpoint. To admit that there were ex-gays would not fit into their world.
    Go read on the mcpscurriculum.com website under documents and then “APPROVED” and look at the resources that were approved. All except one had major problems. Wrong information etc
    If you think Dr. Diggs was not appropriate, look at some that were approved. Would you have approved the one from a former teen mom as a valid resource? As you know 4 were cited by the judge as inappropriate.

    The rational for the Dr. Diggs report was in the curriculum there is discussion of heterosexual health risk but not homosexual health risk. One Instructional Outcome in the curriculum,[ also in the old one], states that the children need to “Analyze consequences of sexual activity”. The new sexual activity was homosexual sex. Dr. Diggs report fit nicely there. This report pointed out the difference as do the reports from the CDC.

    Richard Cohen’s book was a look into the world of an ex-gay and how his experiences shaped his life and how he helps others that want to be helped. Here again, another viewpoint.

  28. A law suit against the gay comunity? for what? I wish I could sue all those that I don’t like… mmm I don’t know were would I start, but the true is that before doing that, I would have to take a look to myself, and refect on what I don’t like about others, or what I though that “others did to poor me” and -maybe with the help of a therapist- try to resolve all that anger… we see a lot of that in the community, ugly and insecure guys who blame others for their wrong doings and traumas

  29. I am generally not in favor of materials that do not focus on the risks of behaviors as opposed to risk assigned to groups of people

    OK, but you do realise that will now have me ask about the inferences drawn by doing just that in your professional testimony to the Ohio legislature.

    After the office move…