It is very frustrating when you do not follow scientific rules and make broad statements. And then wait for someone who holds your opinion most of the time to come in and say almost the exact samething. Your bias is clear but to impose that on others is -well – something you accuse others of doing.

Oh yeah, and arbitrarily deciding (because it means nothing to YOU) that married people who have same sex attractions means nothing – is not science – that’s bias and discrimination.

Oh yeah???????

I never meant to suggest that married people who have same sex attractions mean nothing to me. What I was trying to say is mute at this point because I believe I originally misread the sentence.

Mary, I’m doing my best to be nice – to apologize to you because I felt that some of the things I said were not in the best interest of this discussion and because I caused you to feel angry with me.

I think Timothy did a very good job summing up what the study is and isn’t. This helped clear some things up for me anyway.

I am truly sorry Mary!!!

15% had complicated heterosexual relationships”

100% of heterosexuals do also.

They may have complicated relationships Fitz, but I doubt that their heterosexuality, or quasi-heterosexuality is what is complicating it 😉

Just a bit of clarification on the Jones and Yarhouse study:

First, this was not a representative sample of gay persons or persons unhappy with their same-sex attractions. In fact, it is not even representative of Exodus participants. It would not be accurate to draw conclusions from this study and apply them to all gays or ex-gays.

Second, to understand the study one has to know that there were two populations measured. One was a prospective study (ie. measure now, measure later, observe the difference) and one was retrospective (ie. measure later and compare with recollections of a prior period). Obviously, change in recollection is less meaningful than change in observation.

When looking a the prospective study, there was little to no statistically measurable difference for this group over the three year period of the study in sexual orientation. There may have been some measurable shift in social preference – who one hangs out with – and in the frequency of experiencing unwanted attractions, but the object of attraction did not seem to change.

When taken on an individual basis, some reported “success” (or, more accurately, they did not report success but J&Y defined them as success). However, these persons also reported continued sex dreams, attractions, and even a desire to be able to better “control their eyes”. While these persons may have found the programs helpful, they did not become heterosexuals in any meaningful way (in my opinion).

One might even go so far as to say that J&Y provided evidence that Exodus programs may not be effective in shifting sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. This is not to say that there are no persons who were once homosexual and who are now heterosexual – it only says that the programs used by Exodus may not be the methods by which such a goal can be achieved.