The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality recently released a journal.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
June 10, 2009
Contact: David Pruden
Phone: (888) 364-4744
E-mail: [email protected]
New Scientific Research Refutes Unsubstantiated Claims Regarding Homosexuality
Encino, CA- A new report in this month’s edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation is not immutable and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions is beneficial and poses no significant risk of harm. The study, What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Associations Claims on Homosexuality, examines over 100 years of professional and scientific literature as well as over 600 reports from clinicians, researchers, and former clients principally published in professional and peer-reviewed journals.
This research, assembled over a period of eighteen months by three of the leading academics and therapists in the field and under the direction of the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee directly refutes unsubstantiated claims made by some factions of the American Psychological Association and several other professional mental health organizations. The study, conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a network of professionals dedicated to upholding the rights of men and women dealing with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, confirms the results of a 2007 longitudinal study conducted by researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark Yarhouse that found that religiously mediated sexual orientation change is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm on average.
“This research is a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over the issue of homosexuality,” said NARTH president Dr. Julie Hamilton. “It also confirms what we have seen evidenced in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from the help of NARTH therapists. We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs.”
In addition to What Research Shows, a collection of peer-reviewed scholarly and professional papers entitled Understanding, Preventing, and Treating Sexual Identity Confusion in Children and Adolescents, will be published in Volume II of the Journal of Human Sexuality.
Requests for copies or for a more detailed summary of the inaugural issue of the journal should be addressed to: Journal of Human Sexuality • 307 West 200 South, Suite 3001 • Salt Lake City, UT 84101. The journal can also be ordered by phone at 1-888-364-4744 or online at www.narth.com. A PDF summary of the journal may be downloaded at www.narth.com.
###
NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, it disseminates educational information, conducts and collects scientific research, promotes effective therapeutic treatment, and provides referrals to those who seek assistance. NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care.
I have a copy of the report heading my way and will review it later this summer. For now, it is worth pointing out that there is no new research in the response to the APA, rather it is a review of literature. If the paper “confirms the results” of Jones and Yarhouse, does that mean that NARTH will scale back the claims about change to the 15% found by those authors? That result would require a change in rhetoric from NARTH leaders when on the stump.
In any event, this paper and the journal as an effort is likely a response to the APA Task Force which will probably report in August at the APA annual meeting.
Warren,
Oh, it’s in the first article, written in 2001
Throckmorton has reviewed this literature, as well as the few more recent studies, and concluded that there is support for the effectiveness of approaches seeking to modify patterns of homosexual arousal41 For example, psychoanalytic approaches obtained change rates to exclusive heterosexuality ranging from 18% to 44%, with rates for shifts in orientation tending to be even higher.
I am so proud of myself — I cut and paste this. I’m so techno!
Did I read somewhere that you think maybe around 15% of people experience some shift, if not “categorical”?
Katie
Warren: We have been conversing via email. He said he didn’t know who Cameron was. I showed him that NARTH indeed cites his “research” on the NARTH website.
He expressed no interest in looking into this or stepping up to the plate and rebuking Cameron’s “abhorrent solutions” — as you have done.
He also expressed no interest in speaking directly to ex-gay survivors to really determine, first hand, whether or not the NARTH/reparative therapy does harm.
He further accuses me of believing that people (1) have no “right” to seem help for their unwanted SSA and (2) that professionals should be prohibited from provding such “help”.
As you know, I don’t believe either of these things.
Hey Warren,
You do read the posts!! Wow.
I’m talking about the article who’s link is provided above — by Michael Bussee. Two comments back in this thread.
K.
@Katie Cannon: You have the journal? I just got it and haven’t read it yet. I will do a post soon about it with comments on their use of my articles.
What exactly are you referring to?
Either Warren, or those who know him well, I just read the NARTH article provided above, and it quotes Warren as saying that change happens within a psychoanalytic approach X% of the time.
What does Warren (that’s you) think the percent is?
Thanks,
Katie
@Michael Bussee: How and when did David tell you that?
Davud Pruden, the NARTH contact person for this article, says NARTH won’t denounce Cameron because Mr. Pruden is not “familiar with the man or his work.”
Really? Then why does NARTH repeatedly cite his “research”? http://www.narth.com/menus/search.html?cx=007457206426124633447%3Adybvfspccfw&cof=FORID%3A11&q=cameron&sa=go#2090
Eddy,
LOL … don’t get me going down that path…. maybe I like Rob precisely because he’s gay and I’ll always just be a Grace with a Will….
Katie
Katie–
LOL. Only the straight ones! Sorry, your comment reminded me of my own perceptions of ‘typical straights’ or ‘typical breeders’ that God needed to deliver me from. How amazed I was when I got involved with a church and with small cell groups…and found men who could talk about–and who cared about–more than booze, babes and ball games!
Eddy,
My impression is that this group is pretty much made up of really nice people. Really.
I’m new to the whole online thing. But it’s been a very interesting experience in lots of ways. And one of the ways it’s been really cool is that — and you might laugh at this — it’s a medium in which men seem relatively comfortable talking about stuff, and so it’s given me a whole new insight into men. I’ve come to like you guys a bit more. Most of ya’ll are pretty sweet, thoughtful, concerned, desirous of love and contact….. Imagine that not all men are booze guzzling, mindless, animals 🙂
Really, though, it’s interesting that I’ve had so little experience with the type of openess in real life with men as opposed to this type of communication, and I’ve historically been more comfortable, for better or worse, with developing friendships with men rather than women — but that’s another story.
Anyway, I might disagree with a bunch of folk here, but I nevertheless admire the attempt to find, and live by, higher Ideals.
Take care,
Katie
Thanks, Katie–
I get what you’re saying and I agree.
Although I try very hard not to have a ‘sin meter mentality’, I can tell you that secretly both hypocrisy and bullying are higher on my list than homosexuality. Any violence against another person is at the top of my list.
Re homosexual behavior. I do regard it as sin but I don’t rank it higher than other ‘more socially acceptable’ sins. On this website, homosexuality happens to be a prevailing theme. LOL. Even when a topic isn’t homosexuality (i.e. the impending divorce of Jon and Kate), someone will inevitably turn it into a discussion of attitudes toward homosexuality.
Anyway, apart from this website, I speak frequently to my concerns about gambling, lying and or bullshitting, divorce, infidelity, child support, personal responsibility, respect for property, respect for neighbors…principally because they are problem issues that surface in those I’m in contact with. (Large and very close family…lots of dramas and issues.)
Compassion, respect and encouragement for those who suffer from any mental illness is another prime concern of mine. As is respectful and dignified care for the elderly.
Most of these issues never become the focus of a topic here so it can appear that I (and others here) have homosexuality as the prime focus of our concerns. I do believe there are some here who do have ‘attitudes towards homosexuality’ as their prime life focus but many of us are far more diverse.
Good point, Katie. Now, back to the heirarchy of sins. Some will tell you there is no such thing — that gay sex is “just the same as murder or rape — they’re all sin”. I happen to agree with you. You would be surprised (OK, maybe not) how long it took EXODUS to adopt a simple anti-bullying statement…It took a lot of pushing…
Hi Eddy,
I get the banner thing, but being curious humans, I see this group also shares thoughts on other ethical issues, like bulying, racism, etc….
So, maybe I should say that maybe a god would be more concerned with the harm done to others by things like bulying as opposed to if two boys sort of liking eachother.
Sure, we used to be much more outraged by homosexual contact than by a boy bashing another boy’s face in, but I think things are changing — maybe?
Which brings up an experience with my son: For 4 year old pre-K I sent him to a very liberal school — hippy liberal. Still, they had a rule where the children were to “keep their hands to themselves” and respect the personal space of others.
So one day I was at the school playground where the kids would get together before going inside in the morning, and my son’s teacher was telling me that Jason just refused to stick by this rule. Her tone of voice was so annoyed, and I’m standing there thinking to myself that she was acting like my son was actually hitting others rather than, perhaps, “not respecting the personal space of others”. So, as all the parents dropped their children off, the girls would run up to their girlfriends and hug eachother. Then a little boy got let off, and my son, Jason, ran up to him to hug him…. His teacher had a cow, and looked at me like — “See — this naughty child just won’t obey the rules…”.
Anyway, my assumption would be that even among those who think both male homosexuality and lesbianism is a sin, their emotional response is much like the above. The picure of the “sinful” homosexual is, in most people’s minds — whether they’re religious or not, is male, not female
And as a culture, it seems to me, we’ve been much more willing to secretly applaud the bully who bashes in another boy’s face, yet have been horrified of male/male love.
So back to the hierarchy of sins —
Katie
Are you talking about the Stonewall Inn and riots of ’69 or the verb “to stonewall”?
I’m sorry. I fail to see how a discussion of pride is being insulting. Why are you not open to an examination of the effectiveness of the gay community’s appropriation of that word? I am open to re-examining the use of the term “ex-gay” and even “change.”
Ahhhh..Katie, there you are!
I posted this on another post i’ve subscribed to before I realized you were really asking your question over here.
Katie–
Let’s not overlook the obvious. Please consult the banner at the top of the page. First you will see the name of our host: Warren Throckmorton. Next you will see a byline describing the topics our host is most interested in. I’m not saying that Warren is not interested in or concerned about genocide…but it’s a HUGE world wide web. This is HIS website. He’s a Christian Psychologist and has even launched a program of Sexual Identity Therapy. While genocide is a worthy topic and surely has consequences and ramifications (at least while on earth) that far exceed homosexuality, do his ‘issues of concern’ really have to be put on hold until genocide is resolved? Or can we trust that genocide will be discussed and perhaps addressed on one or more of the gazillion other websites? (You’ve been around awhile. I meant no disrespect although I know my comment may have come across direct and curt. However, sometimes, the more direct route communicates most effectively. I wasn’t putting you down or putting you off…simply explaining why we do what we do here.)
I agree, it can be very painful…especially to an outsider…to witness these dialogues.
Katie,
I totally get that. The war on homosexuality is silly to me. I’m not sure the gospels are clear on the subject and I AM CERTAIN that I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING about God and his ways. If some of these hardlined conservative christians only knew what the man or woman sitting next to them in the pew thought about God – they would be very surprised. I think we all have a different perspective and view.
And Katie: I echo Timothy when he compared your “simple” attitude to that of Jesus:
Thank God for that simplicity! An old hymn says “‘Tis the gift to be simple. ‘Tis the gift to be free. ‘Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be. And when we are in the place just right, we will be in the valley of love and delight…” http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/simple_gifts.htm
I pray you stay simple. You have your sins in proper perspective.
Debbie: very gracious of you to say that:
But, I am with Timothy on “pride”. I like these defintions I found surfing the net:
1. A sense of one’s own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.
3. Satisfaction with self: the happy satisfied feeling somebody experiences when having or achieving something special that other people admire — as in He took great pride in his work”.
4. A proper sense of own value: the correct level of respect for the importance and value of your personal character, life, efforts, or achievements; as in “Defeat didn’t damage her pride.
I think I know the “under-belly of pride” you are speaking of: It is the sin of thinking we are better than others, are the center of the universe, unwilling to admit our frailities or limitations, stubborn in our refusal to admit our need of God: as in “He struck down the proud in the imaginations of their hearts” or “Pride comes before a fall.”
I guess there is good pride and bad pride.
Katie,
I dare say that your “nonreligious” views probably mirror those of Jesus. Or at least that’s how I read what he said in the gospels.
Just because ya’ll seem to speak so frankly with eachother, I will too.
As an outsider, meaning both without SSA, and not religious, this discussion is super painful.
If there is a god, I can’t imagine that he/she wouldn’t be far more concerned with sins like, oh, genocide, rather than who loves who.
I know that’s simple of me.
Katie
Debbie,
As usual you misunderstand. I hardly know where to start. Let’s just say that there is more than one meaning for the word “pride” and that nowadays “Gay Pride” pretty much means “parade and festival”. It has never meant “conceited” or “prideful”.
I do wish that you would just cool it with the deliberate insults.
Is it fair to assume that you don’t know the original meaning of Stonewall?
Nope. We take “pride” in our accomplishments and our community.
As do the Irish, African Americans, and residents of Texas.
It isn’t just SSA I am speaking to, Michael. Pride covers a multitude of sins. But you are correct in that I do see acquiescing to SSA impulses as sin. Sorry. We will just have to accept that we believe differently on this. You are no less human to me because of it. We’re both at the foot of the cross, in need of grace.
Yes, you and many gays have been beaten down by well-meaning and hypocritical Christians. So, gay pride became the Stone-wall — the point beyond which gays were not going to be pushed any longer. Certainly understandable. But we do have to consider the underbelly of the beast at some point. Pride is a manifestation of the flesh that is not spoken highly of in the Scriptures.
Maybe gays want to get a new word, just like ex-gays need to reconsider “change.”
Hey, we agree! 🙂
Maybe we our “pride” is on target — and not the reason we have trouble accepting your position. Maybe our pride was hard-earned. Maybe it’s the real deal.
Self-respect. Maybe we decided to stop feeling ashamed and frightened. Maybe a healthy pride replaced the irrational stigma we accepted.
Once again, you are speaking from your conviction that SSA is always a “sinful impulse” — and you seem to imply that, deep down, the less “prideful” person knows that but stubbornly won’t admit it because of his “pride”.
Timothy, then “strugglers” ought to apply to every human because I am fairly confident we all at some point struggle with sinful sexual attractions, gay or straight.
I know you don’t like my reference to the word pride. Sorry. It’s the one thing that causes me to think that Time review of “After the Ball” may still be relevant today. If we play the word association game, how often would the word pride come up after the word gay? It would be right in there with “rights” and “marriage.”
Maybe Satinover was onto something when he wrote the final chapter of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. What is gnosticism if not a prideful belief that you don’t have to struggle with the truth or your own sinful impulses? You can choose the other way that the secret god of your understanding revealed to you.
Welcome to the 55 club, Michael. Ain’t it wonderful? Gotta love those little aches and pains. It’s a milepost but not the finish line (I hope). That means the Big Struggle isn’t over. Drat.
I contaced Mr. Pruden personally, and asked if he had given any serious study to the claims of Ex-gay Survivors” — as to whether or not reparative therapy “is beneficial and poses no significant risk of harm.”
He obviously had not. He rather sarcastically dismissed such sufferers, equating them with”Scientologists” — who believe all psychotherapy is harmful and should not even be given to those who seek it.
One would think that a reputable, scientific entity — like NARTH — would want to answer the question “does this cause harm?” more carefully. For example, by talking directly to those who were not repaired and who experienced significant harm in the effort.
And maybe, just maybe, the fact that some ex-gays find that SSA is still “tempting” (but not much of a “struggle”) is not really proof that gays can “change” — as much as it may be a by-product of aging. Their “SSA” has less gas in the tank.
Heck, I am 55 years old now. I get the senior discount at Denny’s! I am usually in bed by nine or ten. I watch 60 minutes and Jeopardy. I have a grown daughter and a grandson. I get tired folding laundry.
Sure, I have “temptations”, but not as nearly strong as I did was I was in my early 20’s — and everything very inviting and everything sexual was new. Things are different now. I am a senior citizen. I get more offers from AARP — not that many guys. And if my failing memory serves me, Eddy is older now too.
It’s not nearly as much of a “struggle” anymore. I have less energy… The bigger struggle is getting my butt out of bed.
Maybe pride gets in the way of accepting and respecting that Christian SSA’s may see things differently than you do, or that there is a possibility, somehow, in the great wisdom and love of God, that we may both be “right”
I often do. I find that “strugglers” seems to be a term often used by those persons who seek to live in opposition to their attractions and it does in many ways seem appropriate.
‘Gratuitious anti-gay slur’ alert.
Debbie–
Terms such as ‘homosexual strugglers’ were in fact considered–and dismissed. With all the semantics games being played, many would take ‘homosexual’ to be a label or identity rather than as an adjective describing the type of sin.
And many would take exception to the negative values implied in the word ‘struggler’…they may be tempted but it isn’t any real struggle.
Debbie: I am with you on this: “Maybe the term we should be using instead of ex-gays is homosexual strugglers” I agree with Alan Chambers that “ex-gay” is confusing and “does not really reflect what the change process is really all about”.
Eddy likes it and sticks by it because it indicates where he came from and where he hopes to go. I prefer a more descriptive term like the one you suggested.
I also agree that it is “vain, however, to presume that change cannot happen in those who fervently seek it in the right spirit.” Yes, That would be vain.
I never said that “change” was not possible or “cannot happen”. I question what changes — and to what extent. I said that all the ex-gay males I have met are still SSA — not straight. I am sure some “ex-gays” have made many changes — and probably for the better — for them.
That said, I reject the idea that gayness is a “thorn” and that many diehard gays (I guess you mean ones like me) “cannot accept that because the concept of pride gets in the way “ Maybe it’s pride. Maybe not. I just don’t believe that all gay behavior is always sin.
Some people believe that recieving blood transfusion is a sin. Or that dancing is. Some early Christians believed that not being circumcised was. Or that eating meat sacrificed to idols was.
So, it is not necessarily pride. Maybe they sincerely believe. And that we have to make room for — letting God be the final judge. God may have allowed “3 percent (for discussion purposes) of the population to have an SSA thorn”. That is possible. Maybe so.
Maybe not. Maybe it isn’t a “thorn” for some. Maybe it isn’t always sin. Maybe it’s morally neutral and God expects us to live with it according to our own best understanding of His will — and in accordance with our own conscience.
If acting on SSA is always sin, then what is OK with God? Are we to have no sex at all? Remain celibate? Is masturbation ever OK? (David Blakeslee thinks it is, even though it is not sex between a man and a woman within the context of marriage — but there is no BIblical basis for that belief.)
Some in EXODUS teach that masturbation is OK with God sometimes to “relieve pressure” — “as long as you don’t think about anything…” Is that even possible?
What are SSA’s to do? Eddy seems to know. Maybe you can tell me.
I have to amen this one, Eddy. The idea that struggle is bad or unhealthy is wrong-headed. It’s not easy to run the race, using the analogy that Paul uses in the New Testament. But there is something inherently worthwhile in the running and the stretching of yourself. You can’t know what’s at the finish line if you quit. It may seem pointless to run in the view of some, but it’s not.
Maybe the term we should be using instead of ex-gays is homosexual strugglers. I don’t think we need to get hung up over the semantics of how much change is implied in any term. True, a lot of change is implied in “ex-gay,” and that is not the case for many strugglers. I do find it particularly vain, however, to presume that change cannot happen in those who fervently seek it in the right spirit. If we can’t believe in God’s grace, we might as well just check out.
I think we also need to think more about the “thorn in the flesh” concept. Those who understand that and view their SSA as a thorn stand a better chance of seeing positive change, I think. Many diehard gays cannot accept that because the concept of pride gets in the way.
Is it reasonable to think that God may have allowed 3 percent (for discussion purposes) of the population to have an SSA thorn? Why not?
Michael–
You challenged that i have been trying to paint gays as promiscuous, etc. I said that I could never get anyone to admit that things like ‘open relationships’ or ‘bathroom sex’ were sin. My point, which you are taking out of context, was that the conversation here is so guarded and biased that we won’t really discuss the nitty gritties. We’ll discuss the failings of the conservative Christians but the brush we paint ALL homosexuals with is ‘loving, caring and committed’…and, if not, it’s all the fault of those darned conservatives and their oppression.
Michael, I just finished explaining in detail why I think your statement is an exaggeration. I won’t explain it further. Re your added statement about calling ‘oneself a “Gay Christian’…are you certain that Frank was referring to anyone who did this or was he speaking to you in your unique position of having once been a leader in the ex-gay movement and now being a lead voice in the opposition to that movement? I cited areas where I think Frank wouldn’t be as black and white as you suggest.
I can see where we’re stuck in a very uncharitable and, therefore, unchristian loop here. I’m going to exit.
Eddy, You weren’t only referencing divorce and open relatiomships. You said that you couldn’t get any gay christian to admit that things like open relationships and bathroom sex were sin. You knew that wasn’t true when you said it.
Do we need to look back at your own words? You spoke as though all gay Christians didn’t think anything was sin, that any type of behavior was okey-dokey — or that no gay Christian wouldn’t admit it that it was sin sometimes. That is complete hogwash — and you knew it.
You ask, above, “Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in your opposition to all things ex-gay and at the same time is guiding us ex-gays in our attempts to subject our homosexual impulses to our apparently misguided Biblical beliefs?”
Yes and No. I am saying that the Holy Spirit is in both of us at the same time, guiding both of us on our journeys. Neither one of us has complete understanding yet.
One of us may be wrong that all homosexual behavior is (or is not) “always sin”. Maybe you, maybe me. Maybe we both have it wrong to some extent. God knows. You and I do not.
In the meantime, He has promised to guide us — all of us — into all truth. He is guiding us — all Christians — and yet we disagree. Neither one of us has the monopoly on truth. Heck, real Christians still disagree on which books should be in the “real” Bible and which whould not.
The “heresy” I was referring to is the idea that something other (or in addition to) God’s grace saves us. I know that not all ex-gays believe as such. I do not think that you believe this.
And, I do not believe that ” Ex-gays are engaged in a lifelong pointless battle striving to aspire to a righteousness apart from God’s intent.” No struggle to “aspire to a righteousness” or to live according to our understanding of what God wants for us is ever pointless.
But determining His will is indeed a “lifelong” process. I also believe, as you do, that “even if we are unclear about what God’s position is, that does not change the fact that God has a position.” I just don’t think that either of us can say, for certain, what that position is. Neither of us speaks for God.
You do indeed know someone who who says that simply ‘believing…that gay sex is not always sin’ will send you to Hell.” He even believes that calling oneself a “gay Christian” will cause the angels to “push you into the lake of fire” His name is Frank Worthen. He is (was) the founder of EXODUS and EXODUS has never challenged him on that.
About this comment: “If it’s sin, God takes it seriously enough that He sent a Redeemer who paid a very high price to free us from it. If it’s not, many of us are cheapening that sacrifice by prescribing and endorsing a righteousness apart from God (self-righteousness.”
IF it is always sin. IF. God takes all sin “seriously enough that He sent a Redeemer who paid a very high price” — not to set us free from it since we still struggle with sin, but to pay the price for it. No one “cheapens that sacrifice” by living according to their own conscience before God.
I have never “prescribed” it or suggested that others should “endorse” it. Each of us must live according to our beliefs. I have only said that real, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians view it differently. God alone has the final word on it.
Warren et al….
I did not mean to post twice. And, lol, it will usually say “oops, you’ve already said that”. Anyway, i think when I was scrolling up the page to check on something, I accidentally did a ‘submit’ before finishing up my comment.
Michael–
I have a very hard time with your use of the word ‘too’ at the end of this statement. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in your opposition to all things ex-gay and at the same time is guiding us ex-gays in our attempts to subject our homosexual impulses to our apparently misguided Biblical beliefs?
Frankly, the only scenario I can envision where ‘He is guiding us, too‘ is that God guided you into Exodus with the ultimate purpose of leading us to your interpretation.
The two positions are mutually exclusive. If your belief is correct then ex-gays are engaged in a lifelong pointless battle striving to aspire to a righteousness apart from God’s intent. When they pray for God’s grace and strength in times of weakness, their words fall on deaf ears and they mistakenly draw upon personal resources to resist. Not only are we the heretics that you accused of being a few posts ago but we are misguided in this area as well. We are deceived about the daily grace and empowering of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Christ.
We disagree on whether God really has a position on homosexual behavior…even if we are unclear about what God’s position is, that does not change the fact that God has a position.
Yes, unequivocally, yes. If it’s sin, God takes it seriously enough that He sent a Redeemer who paid a very high price to free us from it. If it’s not, many of us are cheapening that sacrifice by prescribing and endorsing a righteousness apart from God (self-righteousness).
I agree that it should not matter to most of these discussions and have always wondered how and why ex-gay or conservative Christian bashing seems to get introduced into every conversation whether it’s really connected or not. (Yes, I do get involved in these conversations but I do NOT initiate them…instead I respond to the unfair bashing I perceive.)
This is untrue and goes to your bias not mine. 1) You cite ‘promiscuous, exploitive, impersonal, compulsive’ sex. In my previously stated objections, I have challenged divorce and ‘open relationships’. Different scenario entirely. Neither situation automatically fits ‘promiscuous, exploitive, etc.’ 2) I do not paint you. I ask questions and challenge statements that don’t ring completely true. It seems that you reach into my yet unused paint bucket, add a heaping dose of ‘hue’ and apply the paint on my behalf….much as you did in the previous quoted paragraph.
No, Michael, I don’t. I believe that even Frank Worthen while believing that gay sex is always sin would concede that an honest hearted person (whether gay or straight) who has been deceived into believing it’s not sin isn’t guaranteed a trip to Hell. I also believe that Frank would concede that the Holy Spirit has his own agendas and priorities with a new Christian and, if a new Christian should die before the Holy Spirit gets around to all the homosexual stuff in their life, they also don’t get an automatic ticket.
Michael, it really is time that you lead by example. I am not certain but weren’t you the one who introduced the term ‘ex-gay’ into this particular discussion? It appears the term did not appear in the lead topic discussion and that conversation proceeded without its use until you stepped in at comment #14. it appears you are saying that EXODUS should stop using it but that you can use it and define it for the benefit of all hearers.
LOL. And if God really was trying to use you to guide me to a more complete understanding, I fail to understand why He would continually prompt you to try to provoke me with the use of ‘vex’ or ‘provoke’ or their derivatives after I’ve addressed several times how you are quoting me out of context and asked you quite directly to desist. For the benefit of the casual reader: I once said that we used the term ‘ex-gay’ to ‘vex the media and provoke them to ask what we meant’. Michael continues to use the words out of context and always leaves out the part where our intent was for them to ask what we meant so that it would open the door for us to explain our Christian beliefs.
Michael–
I have a very hard time with your use of the word ‘too’ at the end of this statement. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is guiding you in your opposition to all things ex-gay and at the same time is guiding us ex-gays in our attempts to subject our homosexual impulses to our apparently misguided Biblical beliefs?
Frankly, the only scenario I can envision where ‘He is guiding us, too‘ is that God guided you into Exodus with the ultimate purpose of leading us to your interpretation.
The two positions are mutually exclusive. If your belief is correct then ex-gays are engaged in a lifelong pointless battle striving to aspire to a righteousness apart from God’s intent. When they pray for God’s grace and strength in times of weakness, their words fall on deaf ears and they mistakenly draw upon personal resources to resist. Not only are we the heretics that you accused of being a few posts ago but we are misguided in this area as well. We are deceived about the daily grace and empowering of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Christ.
We disagree on whether God really has a position on homosexual behavior…even if we are unclear about what God’s position is, that does not change the fact that God has a position.
Yes, unequivocally, yes. If it’s sin, God takes it seriously enough that He sent a Redeemer who paid a very high price to free us from it. If it’s not, many of us are cheapening that sacrifice by prescribing and endorsing a righteousness apart from God (self-righteousness).
I agree that it should not matter to most of these discussions and have always wondered how and why ex-gay or conservative Christian bashing seems to get introduced into every conversation whether it’s really connected or not. (Yes, I do get involved in these conversations but I do NOT initiate them…instead I respond to the unfair bashing I perceive.)
This is untrue and goes to your bias not mine. 1) You cite ‘promiscuous, exploitive, impersonal, compulsive’ sex. In my previously stated objections, I have challenged divorce and ‘open relationships’. Different scenario entirely. Neither situation automatically fits ‘promiscuous, exploitive, etc.’ 2) I do not paint you. I ask questions and challenge statements that don’t ring completely true. It seems that you reach into my yet unused paint bucket, add a heaping dose of ‘hue’ and apply the paint on my behalf….much as you did in the previous quoted paragraph.
You said: “I don’t know anyone who says that simply ‘believing…that gay sex is not always sin’ will send you to Hell.” Yes, Eddy, you do.
Sorry, I don’t have the hang of the white box yet… If I am wrong and homosexual behavior is always sin, I believe that God will either clear that up here, or I will understand it fully later — and He will forgive my misunderstanding. I think God is like that.
cool.
Debbie, “Can we be at peace with each other and let God be the judge?” That would be real nice.
By the way, can someone tell me how to highlight another person’s comments in a nifty little white box like that?
It may or may not, Michael. I find that many are walking on the edge of existentialism without knowing it, i.e., truth is really unknowable and all that matters are our choices. It impacts some theological systems. If God does reveal Himself through His creation and the inspired biblical record — and I believe He does — then can we say that is enough, even if we don’t know all truth? Is it OK if some say they know enough truth to live by and others are just hoping they do? Can we be at peace with each other and let God be the judge?
It occurred to me that a new or casual reader of this blog might conclude that Eddy and I are at complete odds with each other — stubbornly debating each other and taking swipes at each other as we are both prone to doing.
But upon reading deeper, you might actually be surprised by our similarities, not our diiferences. Let’s review:
(1) We are both born-again, Bible believing Christians
(2) We are both love God and are trying to live according to our best understanding of God’s will for us.
(3) Neither of us knows God’s will, for sure.
(4) Both of us see the Bible as the sure foundation of Christian belief, morality and practice, but neither of us sees the Bible as being “completely clear” about SSA.
(5) Neither of us think you will go to Hell simply for having a different understanding of what Scripture actually means.
(6) We both believe that explotive, compulsive, impersonal sex is sin.
(7) We both believe that “gays” can “change” — we just differ on what changes — and how much
(8) We both believe that terms like “ex-gay” can be confusing and easily misunderstood (even “vexing and provocative”, if you will) — if not clearly defined by the user. Eddy favors keeping it. I agree with EXODUS President, Alan Chambers, that it is “time to officially retire it.”
(9) Regardless of what we call ourselves, we are both strill SSA, not straight.
(10) We both believe in — and love — Jesus.
So, where do we really disagree? And does it really matter?
Me: “I define the words “ex-gay” or “former homosexual” (not “success”) as “the absence of homosexual thoughts or feelings”.”
You: “I guess you have the right to define the term any way you wish but, since that isn’t the definition employed by those who identify as ‘ex-gay’, it will most certainly cause you much frustration especially in dialogue.”
LOL!!! You made my point. Male ex-gays are SSA. My frustration is that they keep using a term that doesn’t make that very clear. Talk about “frustrating the dialog”! It’s downright “vexing” http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861733991/vex.html and “provocative” http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861736265/provocative.html, isn’t it?
Even Alan Chambers agrees with me on this point — and has said so openly — quoted on this very blog. He said, “…do away with it entirely and see that it is never used again.” I say, define it clearly or stop using it.
Eddy: Thank-you, thank-you for this: “whether ALL homosexual behavior is sin or not, there are ex-gays who know that the homosexual behavior(s) they are inclined to is indeed sin…is indeed broken.”
Yes! And let it be known that here are also self-affirming, SSA Christians like me, who know that the particular “homosexual behaviors they are inclined to are indeed sin…indeed broken.” For them… For them..</em>
That’s why their faith in God and their relationship to Jesus is so precious to them — as yours is to you. We all need a Savior. Once saved, we are “sealed with a promise” — as we are told in Ephesians 1:13.
I believe that deep down, we Christians know when we are straying from the path God intended for us. Thepromised One, the Holy Spirit, is alive in us too, Eddy. He is guiding us, too.
I am one who strongly believes strongly that not all gay behavior is OK with God — and always have been one — and you knew that when you posted that you “had never met one.” RIdiculous!
Eddy, you knew very well that there are many, many committed Christian SSA’s who believe that promiscous, explotive, inmpersonal, compulsive sex (homo or otherwise) is sin — “indeed broken”. And yet, you paint us as if we were completely without moral restraint or scriptural good-sense. Biased.
Unfair. Untrue.
You said, “I really wish you’d stop speaking for people you don’t fully know or understand. This generalization is offensive. I, for one, don’t believe the Bible is totally clear about this.” Thanks. Finally! Both of us admit we don’t know for sure — we believe.
But, you have said that people who believe as I do are “misled” or have been “misled”… You have expressed grave concern for their “eternal destiny” and the “hardening of their hearts”…
You said: “I don’t know anyone who says that simply ‘believing…that gay sex is not always sin’ will send you to Hell.” Yes, Eddy, you do. You know Frank Worthen — whom EXODUS long listed as its only true “founder” — on the EXODUS Global Alliance Network Webpage — until I raised a ruckus.
Then, confronted with the facts, they very reluctantly switched it to “one of the founders”… Alan Chambers apologized to me and said they didn’t know who else founded EXODUS, but thanked me for correcting their mistake.. He knew.
Frank (EXODUS’s patriarch), wrote that even calling yourself a Christian gay was condemning oneself to the Fire. “Anathema!” he wrote. “Greatly to be detested”! Not saved. Not real Christians. And no one at EXODUS took him to task for it or told him to simmer down.
You said, “I only know of one ex-gay (I guess you mean Frank Worthen) who is convinced you are going to hell; there are others who do worry about it but they are not convinced…” So, Frank is concinced and others are worried. That’s real nice of them to worry. They don’t need to.
You see, I don’t worry about them because I know they are saved by grace, just as I am, and not by their SSA or what they happen to believe about it. I know that being SSA really has very little, if anything, to do with our salvation.
I do not worry or make such judgements since “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto HIm against that day…” http://my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis2/believed.html
Michael–
Your last post came in while I was writing my lengthy one. I wish you would stop with the tone. It does not become you at all.
Please cite even one place where anyone of us has defined repentance as ‘agreeing with us that gay sex is always sin’. Our definition of repentance is as broad and open as the one you professed to later in your post…it’s just that homosexuality is one of the things we’ve had a change of heart about.
Timothy–
I’ve appreciated your comments on this thread…some of the most clear, concise and objective that you’ve written. Thanks.
Michael–
I guess you have the right to define the term any way you wish but, since that isn’t the definition employed by those who identify as ‘ex-gay’, it will most certainly cause you much frustration especially in dialogue.
At the time you left Exodus, the entire ‘ex-gay movement’ was in its infancy and ‘what we call ourselves’ was still being debated. “Ex-gay” was decided upon because it was a term that could be agreed upon by people from differing theologies. I supported the term because ‘ex’ means ‘from’. The one thing we all had in common–regardless of where we were at the time…or where we felt we were heading–was that we all came ‘from’ gay. Many supported the term because it did link in meaning with ‘Exodus’…a name taken from a book of the Bible describing a journey out of bondage (and, it turns out, a very long journey before achieving ‘the promised land’).
Actually, an ex-gay person is someone who believes that same-sex partnering is wrong for them. I’m sure that most wish they didn’t have those feelings but it is a bit presumptive to assume that and it presumes ego-dystonia. Consider an ex-gay minister…does he really wish that he/she wasn’t SSA…how then could they relate to their clients struggles?
I really wish you’d stop speaking for people you don’t fully know or understand. This generalization is offensive. I, for one, don’t believe the Bible is totally clear about this. It’s the reason I’ve kept myself open to discussions with those who disagree with the beliefs that I have. (LOL. But we never ever discuss theological interpretations and always resort to ‘psychology says’ and ‘such and such church has changed their stance’.) Yes, I believe what I believe…but I remain open to the possibility that I may be wrong.
I don’t know anyone who says that simply ‘believing…that gay sex is not always sin’ will send you to Hell.
Most ex-gays don’t know who you are.
I only know of one ex-gay who is convinced you are going to hell; there are others who do worry about it but they are not convinced…and it’s not because you don’t agree with them but rather that you’ve set yourself up as an adversary to what they see as God’s work.
LOL. My how you spin! How about ‘For the ‘ex-gay’ continuing to have gay sex is sin.’ Period! Sin, by definition, is an example of our being ‘broken’ or ‘disordered’. The notion of ‘proof’ really doesn’t play into the picture unless the person is playing their life for the public rather than personally between themselves and God. All Christians (I think) accept the fact that they are broken and in need of redemption; they don’t need proof…we’re really just quibbling over whether homosexual behavior is or isn’t sin. Is it one of the things that are broken or not?
And, with all of that said, I can further tell you that whether ALL homosexual behavior is sin or not, there are ex-gays who know that the homosexual behavior(s) they are inclined to is indeed sin…is indeed broken. To assume that the answer for each and every one of them is that ‘they come to accept their true gay identity’ is presumptuous. Satan is as a roaring lion…seeking whom he may devour. The notion that he ensnares everyone with an identical trap is folly. So, even if some homosexuality was good, if God had a heterosexual purpose for someone’s life and Satan lured them with a homosexual fetish, they would not have a true gay identity underneath all the gunk.
Here’s another big difference between us theologically. They believe that “repentance” (which they define as agreeing with them that gay sex is always sin) is necessary for salvation for people with SSA.
I believe that such teaching is a heresy — that instead, we are saved by grace — period — not by anything we do or believe.
Yes, we are called to repent (to have a true change of mind and heart in response to the love of God) , but I see true repentance as flowing from the fact of being saved — as a response to it — and not a prerequisite. It’s a radical thought, I know. But we do not choose HIm. He chooses us.
Katie: Simply put, a “gay” or “homosexual” man is a man with SSA (same sex attractions). By the way, “Gay” doesn’t mean he is necessarily happy with it or proud of it. Some gay men are, some aren’t.
On the other hand, an “ex-gay” man is a gay man who wishes he wasn’t SSA. Over time, some “ex-gays” feel less SSA, some feel the same — and some actually feel more. Some “ex-gays” get some straight feelings — and some were bisexual all along, but choose to act only on the OSA they already had.
In any event, the struggle with SSA, whether you choose to think of it as “orentation” or “temptation” goes on — with the possible exception, it seems, of Alan Mediniger and Stephen Bennet. Maybe they are two very, very rare exceptions — out of countless SSA men who have tried. Maybe they are fibbing just a little bit? Only God knows…
If there are more than two possible ex-gays without SSA, one would think this would be very well-known and that they would “come out, come out — wherever they are…” — like other people “healed” by God.
Based on strong religious convictions that all gay sex is sin, an “ex-gay” tries not to act on his SSA. Some ex-gays are successful at this, some aren’t.
They may believe that solo masturabation isOK sometimes — to relax and relieve stress — like “reading a good book or enjoying a nice meal“, but not person-o-person contact — not even in the context of a loving, committed, and monogamous relationship.
For the “Ex-gay”, person-to-person gay sex is never OK with God. Period. The Bible is totally clear about this, except to “pro-gays”,”gay activists”, non-Christians — and those who have been “misled” by such folk — like me.
For the “ex-gay”, continuing to have gay sex (apart from the possible exception of masturbation mentioned earlier), is proof of being “broken”, “disorded” or a giving in to “life-dominating sin” — and it puts the ex-gay in real jeopardy of Hell — even if the person is a devout SSA Christian.
You may go to Hell for even believing or teaching that gay sex is not always “sin” — as I do. That iidea is “anathema” to ex-gays and “real Christians”. Most ex-gays are convinced I am going to Hell if I don’t agree with them. I used to be ex-gay and I am convinced that “nothing can separate me from the love of God.”
So, here’s a partial “who’s who” to help you out — until you get more acquainted with all of us and our ususally strong biases:
Eddy is ex-gay. I am ex-ex-gay. We are both SSA and both of us are doing our best, as SSA Christian men, “to figure out how to live with it…”
Katie,
There are many different types of folks here.
Some are gay and quite content.
Others are ex-gay. They may or may not still be same-sex attracted but do not identify as gay and live their lives in accordance with religious values. Some are socially accomodating of gay people and their rights and others seek a culture in which homosexuality is condemned and rights are curtailed.
At least one is ex-ex-gay. He was a leader in the ex-gay movement but left the movement many years ago.
And some are everstraight.
Warren counsels people who experience same-sex attractions but have deeply held religious values that are not conducive to expressing sexuality outside a heterosexual marriage. Mostly, I think, he works with married men (though I may be mistaken).
But most of us here have for various reasons an interest in the science surrounding sexual orientation, its relationship with ex-gay ministries, and how individuals and society respond. And while we are a bit inclined to approach these discussion though the lens of our own bias and while we can snap at each other, I think most participants here are looking for objective information.
It’s not some you ‘figure out how to live with.’ Being gay is simply one aspect of your life itself.
Eddy (Sorry I feminized it accidntally): I was stating facts — not defining success. “Success” would depend entirely on what the individual attempted, wanted or expected. That would be an individual thing.
I was only asserting what you guys already admit — though it often takes some pressure to elicit the admissionm namely this: Once SSA, always SSA. I wasn’t talking about whether or not the attractions “dominate”.
Dominate what? You and and both are SSA Christian males, but my “SSA” does “dominate” me either. Does it “dominate” me that I accept that it is true and then try to live a life as pleasing to God asI can — as a “self-proclaimed”, SSA Christian man?
I define the words “ex-gay” or “former homosexual” (not “success”) as “the absence of homosexual thoughts or feelings”.
People who have only SSA are gay. People who have both OSA and SSA are bi. People who don’t have SSA but only OSA are straight. It’s pretty simple really. We are talking about which attractions a persson has — not determining the value of the person or making a conclusion about his happiness or holiness.
You guys seem to want to change the common usage, definition and understanding of “gay”, “homosexual”, “bisexual”, “straight”, “ex” and “former” to suit your religious and political purposes. You can do that if you want to — just like Humpty Dumpty — but it confuses, provokes, vexes and misleads. Or as Alan Chambers says, “it doesn’t really express what the change process is really all about…”
Once SSA, always SSA. I am just stating facts. I am not trying to re-define words or insist that accepting or embracing one’s SSA is the only way to happiness or the only definition of “success”.
You asked: “I’ve said where my definition of success is rooted; can you expound on where yours comes from?” Same as you, Eddy: my personal faith in God, my study of the BIble, prayer, the guideance of His Holy Spirit, my life-experience, seeking out wise counsel, living according to my conscience, trying my best to follow Jesus…
You have successfully changed you life and have reconciled your SSA with your faith. Congratulations. I have done the same.
I have conversed with some people in other forums who have stated that they were ‘cured’ of homosexuality (one of whom said he laughed the demon away in the Toronto blessing), a couple of them claimed to be leaders of groups which have taken ‘many’ men ‘out of the gay lifestyle.’ Frankly, I don’t know whether to believe some of them or not because they are almost rabidly anti-gay (though that might be the brand of christianity which ‘saved’ them). Try to ask any of them about the practical aspects (do you still feel attractions towards men?) and they clam up or start spouting scripture and more rabid anti-gay propaganda – often quoting Cameron. So I often ask them ‘how many young boys did you molest as a gay man?’ The silence that follows is quite telling. Try to talk about Exodus with them and you get nowhere too.
.
It seems they rely upon a spiritual cure; but what kind of spiritual cure is it that turns you into a person who seems to be reliant upon the lies of the more rabid anti-gay crowd?
P.S. I don’t actually read here very often, so don’t know who’s who, but apparently there’s some regulars.
Thanks,
Katie
May I ask a question?
Are a lot of guys here gay, and trying to figure out how to live with it?
Or are most of you straight and simply interested in all this gay, ex-gay stuff?
Oh, by the way, I’m straight. My fiance is either bisexual or a lesbian, I haven’t decided which 🙂
I mean I’m pretty sure some of you are straight — so why the interest in gay ex-gay stuff?
And are there any participating gays who are trying to change? Or figure out if it’s even possible?
If these questions are too personal, just ignore them.
Katie
Michael,
I think Stephen Bennett also claims to have no more same sex attractions. But, well, Stephen is, ahem, a rather ummm unique person.
Eddy,
I am satisfied with this definition of success. Especially for those who are only trying to change themselves so as to live according to their faith.
I am troubled only by those who are less honest or those who try and spin this change into a tool for a theological or political battle. If Alan and Randy didn’t go around telling politicians and activist groups that they had “changed” – without the clarification – I’d have a lot more respect for the ex-gay movement.
As it is, I have respect for individual ex-gays who live their lives with honesty. It’s sad that too often unscupulous individuals seeking political advantage make them look bad.
Actually that isn’t a good definition of heterosexism. Heterosexism isn’t a deliberate and intentional discrimination. It’s more tied to the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and basically ignoring the existance of gay folk. It’s a more passive form of discrimination.
A classic example is the 1990 census. A number of same-sex couples found it inaccurate and dishonest to fill in the box marked “single” so they checked “married”.
The Census Bureau said, “oh there’s a mistake. Two people of the same sex can’t be married”. So they changed the sex of one of them and recorded them as a heterosexual married couple.
Until recently, there were a lot of areas in which gay folk were invisible: greeting cards, family discounts, singles events, and employers who included spouses as part of the company family and never even thought to consider those of gay employees. Fortunately, much of this has changed.
Michael, I think I heard Alan Medinger say he no longer feels any SSA. Well, if he is one in seventy thousand, or however many, God bless him. I do not consider him to be superior or anyone else to be inferior. God alone is good. And I don’t feel envy or any less blessed by God, because it’s not about what I feel, it’s about who God is.
Yes, Michael, except for the spelling of my name, you’ve got it right. Just like you had it right the dozen other times you’ve said essentially the same thing. So I’ll answer pretty much as I have those other times. Like all other Christians, we are still tempted by that which once gratified and satisfied us. The Bible did not promise to eradicate our homosexual impulses but rather that ‘sin shall no more have dominion over you’. Your definition of success is the absence of homosexual thoughts or feelings; my definition of success is that homosexual thoughts and feelings no longer dominate. I’ve said where my definition of success is rooted; can you expound on where yours comes from?
Most significantly, not one of the male leaders of EXODUS is no longer SSA. Alan calls himself a “former homosexual” — but admits he still struggles with SSA — against that which “comes naturally” for him.
Eddie calls himself an “ex-gay” but he is not straight.
Joe Dallas admits he has always had both SSA and OSA.
Frank Worthen says that “when the sun comes out and shirts come off, ex-gays have a real problem”.
I could go on.
Some don’t act on the SSA. Some feel less SSA. Some have developed or discovered some OSA. Yes they have “changed” — sometimes in major ways. They are happier, and good for them! — but they are all still SSA.
And even if we find one, isn’t that a really poor success rate?
TImothy: “Surely there must be at least one ex-gay that claims not to have any residual same-sex attractions. Isn’t there at least one?”
Debbie: “Apparently Michael has talked to all of them. Even those still “in the closet.” Just like Melissa Fryrear has talked to every gay person on the planet.”
No, I have not talked to everyone of them. I am waiting to talk to just one of them. There may be one! Bigfoot may exist, too. I just want to look him face-to-face, talk with him, maybe take a picture of him and shake his hand.
Remember, I am speaking of all male ex-gays I have met. They are all still SSA — they all still admit it. And I am still waiting to meet a real male “ex-gay” — in the sense that he is now straight and no longer SSA.
After 30 years of trying, you would think that EXODUS or NARTH — anyone –could present at least one good example of one male ex-gay who is no longer SSA. The ones with “residual same-sex attractions” are still exclusively SSA or were bisexual to some degreee to begin with.
Someone prove me wrong.
sorry – I meant that anti-gay does not HAVE a simplistic definition!
David,
Judging from the Wiki article on the term, anti-gay then is not a simplistic definition, and it applies to many who blog here. When you use the word simplistic to refer to the Dictionary.com definition, I think what you meant is “vague”. Vague enough to encompass the extended definition that Wikipedia uses.
The term is valid and its appropriate. When people use religious or any other type of bias to deny a class of law-abiding, tax paying citizens civil rights, in my mind they don’t get to complain too much about what terms are used to describe them.
Apparently Michael has talked to all of them. Even those still “in the closet.” Just like Melissa Fryrear has talked to every gay person on the planet.
@ Jayhuck,
Re: Anti-gay definition…
Dictionary.com indeed characterizes it this way…but their definition of anti-abortion is similarly simplistic…
I tried other on-line dictionaries (free) and the several I searched did not even list the term.
I searched Wikipedia for the term:
Anti-gay can refer to activities which fall into any (or a combination) of these categories:
* Prejudice in the forms of
* Homophobia – a fear or hatred of or, more generically, antipathy toward homosexuals
* Heterosexism – discrimination against and social intolerance toward homosexuals
* In a political sense
* An opposition to the broad, perceived gay agenda, which can include same-sex marriage, gay rights and related topics.
* Specific opposition to an LGBT issue or person.
* Also the title of a book by gay author Mark Simpson which criticizes current gay culture.
* Also known as a “gayter” (gay-hater), i.e. an anti-gay bigot.
Jayhuck…
I think simplistic definitions are something we have fought against on all sides on this site…
Tim,
I know. I was in NYC last week and went to a surprisingly inspiring exhibit on the Stonewall Riots at the NY Public Library. I wish I could be there for the actual celebration.
Jayhuck,
The 40th anniversary is a week from tomorrow.
Surely there must be at least one ex-gay that claims not to have any residual same-sex attractions. Isn’t there at least one?
This is completely unrelated to the thread – but is anyone else aware that this year is the 40th anniversary of “Stonewall”?
Yeah – that no risk of harm statement flies in the face of and flat out ignores the real harm done to many ex-gay and ex-ex gays. It makes me question its validity.
Regardless, the information was assembled under the direction of NARTH. Who cares about NARTH? Does anyone, really? I don’t know any reputable, self-respecting psychologist who believes they deserve any respect, or for that matter who knows about them.
Encino, CA- “A new report in this month’s edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation is not immutable and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions is beneficial and poses no significant risk of harm.”
Interesting statement. No one said that sexual orientation is completely immutable — only that no men who previously had only SSA are now exclusively OSA.
Yes, some ex-gays do experience some shift towards some OSA, but they are still SSA. And many of these were bisexual to start with.
I have no doubt that “psychological care for individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions is beneficial” — I am sure that it is, at least for some SSA men — sometimes. But what was the benefit? Are they no longer SSA? No.
As to the conclusion that attempting to “reorient” SSA individuals “poses no significant risk of harm” — what harm are thet referring to? Did they bother to ask any Ex-gay Survivors? http://beyondexgay.com/
Michael,
That’s interesting. Warren had mentioned to me years ago that he thought most of the people he worked with were indeed bisexual.
Wasn’t persecution one of the forces that contributed to the Early Christians’ sense of identity? This, from Wikipedia:on the relationship between Persecution and Identity:
“Past persecutions can become important elements of a persecuted group’s identity. Members of many ethnic groups and religions can name at least one time when their group was persecuted by others. Periods of persecution may include martyrdom, in which a person killed by the persecutor becomes a powerful cultural symbol for the persecuted group. “
“The historical memory of persecution may long outlast a group’s status as an oppressed minority, becoming a symbol of group membership. For instance, Christianity’s two best-known symbols — the Christian cross and the ichthus — are relics of persecution.”
They are all still SSA, Jayhuck, not the majority. All. The ones who have attractions to women either had them to start with — like Joe Dallas — or they discovered or developed some straight attractions later on. But they are still SSA. They all admit it.
Another thought…How is it that we come to “identify” ourselves as gay or straight — or bi? Isn’t a big part of it based on whether we find ourselves attracted — consistently and persistently — to either one gender or the other — or both?
There is something about this “gay identified” question that has always bothered me. There seems to be something pejorative about it.
“Well, I can understand that they are not straight, but why do they have to identify themselves as gay??? I mean, isn’t there something better to base it on?”
Would you ask the same question of my Dad — who was unabashedly heterosexually identified?
I identify as gay because I am persistentlyattracted to and tend to fall infall in love with men — not women — just like all other gays, ex-gays, homosexuals and former homosexuals. By-sexuals do both.
I would probably say that the majority of Ex-gays are still homosexual, regardless of whether they identify as gay or not.
David,
I know we’ve been through this on other threads, but there is a specific definition for anti-gay – it is:
“opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions, etc.” – Dictionary.com
I don’t see how this definition is distorting anything.
BRAVO, Timothy! Well spoken.
I think it is very true that “gay people identify strongly as being gay because they need the protection of the pack. They know that without such an identity – and the community – then they may find themselves in a real heap of hurt.”
Having found myself in such a “heap of hurt” one night in June 7 years ago, it was healing to see my community, with which I strongly identify, come together publicly (some taking a huge risk and coming out of the closet for the first time).
They did this to stand beside each other, as a gay-identified community, to spontaneously protest the hate crime which ended by best friend’s life — and nearly took my own. Non-gay, Conservative Chrtistians were strangley absent — perhaps for fear of being “Identified” with gay people. Who knows. That is between them and their conscience.
So, I am child of God first, as far as “identity” goes, then Christian, then father, then gay incidentally — but deeply proud of each identification.
ugh
… and once it is an anomoly rather than an assumption that you are NOT welcome at your church…
Much of the “identity” issue which conservatives find so objectionable is of their own making.
Yes, it is natural for people to identify with those who have things in common with them. We have bowlers and African Americans and swingers and Democrats and bird-watchers and senior citizens and gays and lesbians. But the importance placed on such an identity is related to the way in which belonging to such a demographic impacts your world.
Christians living in a Moslem world are MUCH more identified as “Christian” than the average church-going American. It is dangerous.
And when being Irish-American meant that you may be denied employment and definitely were second class citizens Irish were clannish and strongly identified. Now they probably couldn’t tell you what county in Ireland their family is from.
Gay people identify strongly as being gay because they need the protection of the pack. They know that without such an identity – and the community – then they may find themselves in a real heap of hurt.
I suspect that once the nation ceases to discriminate in taxation, immigration, military service, relationship recognition, and a whole host of other legal and social restrictions, and once it is an anomoly rather than an assumption that you’re welcome at your church, then gay people will be less likely to identify so strongly as gay. Instead they may be devoutly Methodist or fiercy libertarian or proudly Italian American or strongly pro-life – and only incidentally gay.
It may well be more fluid for lesbians, I don’t know. As by “more fluid”, if I understand correctly, this would be fluiditiy in some lesbians but not in all.
As for bisexuals, I think that what is experienced (as best I can tell) is that behaviors shift as well as social expression. I dont’ know if attractions shift for bisexual men.
What is a good term for people who dedicate their life to activism in opposition to gay rights? They aren’t “pro-family” because a) they oppose gay families altogether and b) they are entirely focussed on one single issue. They aren’t “Christian” because a) some belong to other religions and b) many many Christians are not in opposition to gay people, their lives, their freedoms, and their rights.
I go with “anti-gay” because it doesn’t have accusations about motivation like “homophobe” or moral judgments like “bigot”. It’s literal: anti-gay.
@ David:
(1) “All” is warranted — unless you can provide good, solid, scientific evidence of a male ex-gay who is no longer “SSA”. I would love to meet just one. Have been looking 30+ years… The Loch Nss monster may exist, too. I want hard evidence.
(2) “What do we do with the sensations?” I take it that you mean the ongoing same sex “attractions”. Same thing with do with heterosexual ones: Live the best life we can, following our best understanding of God and Scripture — living according to our own individual conscience — guided by our best understanding of Two Great Commanments.
(3) “Do we develop an identity around them: with a label — Homosexual or Gay?”” That depends on what you mean by “develop an identity around them.”. Gay or homosexual are not my “identity”. They are just part of the truth about me — not the foundation of my “identity”. It is just a fact that I am “SSA” not “OSA”. My identity is made up of so much more..
(4) “Do we create an opposite label — Ex-Gay?” Not unless we make it clear what we mean by “Ex-” and what we mean by “gay”. Male ex-gays are still SSA. I would prefer “A Christian male who chooses not to act on his SSA ” (or, asJOe Dallas explained — “…a Christian with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies…”. Then go on to explain the “changes” — being very specific and honest about them.
“Ex-gay” is too vexing and provocative. Even Alan Chambers of EXODUS thinks we should “do away with it entirely and see that it is never used again” because it “doesn’t accurately communicate what the change process is really all about…” Alan, like all other male ex-gays, is still SSA.
(5) “Do we identify around something other than our attractions?” I sure hope so! How about we identiify around Christ?
@ Michael,
“But all male ex-gays are still SSA – whether you think of that as “orientation” or “temptation” and regardless of what label you apply.”
I think we are close here…but your used of the categorical (all) seems unwarranted scientifically.
It has always been…what do we do with the sensations?
Do we develop an identity around them: with a label> Homosexual or Gay.
Do we create an opposite label> Ex-Gay
Do we identify around something other than our attractions?
“Sexual orientation seems to be more fluid for lesbians and bi-sexuals than for gays, correct?” Sure seems that way to me, David.
Male ex-gays, all of whom are still “SSA”, may experience less frequent or less intsense attractions over time — many people do as they age. Some act out less, fantasize less. Some resolve an underlying sexual addiction so they are no longer so driven by their “SSA”.
Some become celibate. Some repeatedly fall, repent, fall, repent…. Some develop enough attraction and bonding to one special female that they can manage a satifactory marriage.
Some were already bisexual in attraction to begin with — and notice that they move closer to the straight side. But all male ex-gays are still SSA — whether you think of that as “orientation” or “temptation” and regardless of what label you apply.
That’s how Joe Dallas of EXODUS once describd the changes he saw in EXODUS. He told Joan Rivers’ national TV audience — “It is not a change from one end of the spectrum to the other — we are all both” He told an LA area radio audience: “I do not think of ex-gays as ex-homosexual. Ex-gay is just a convenient way of saying a person with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies — it just rolls off the tongue a little easier…”
Timothy: This would be a great bumper sticker: “”I’m not gay but my attractions are”.
After 30 years, I have not met one male ex-gay who was not “SSA”. Who is “SSA”? Gays, ex-gays, homosexuals, former homosexuals and bisexuals. Straights are not SSA. Ex-gays are not straight.
The question, “Can gays change?” depends entirely on what you mean by “gay” and what you mean by “change” — and as we have discussed on this blog repeatedly, those two words can mean anything you want them to mean.
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.'” —
@ Timothy,
“When anti-gay activists go to politicians or the public and seek policy decisions, they will say “sexual orientation is not immutable” and that “change is possible”. What they wish to imply is that gay citizens can “change” and become heterosexual instead of homosexual.”
Sexual orientation seems to be more fluid for lesbians and bi-sexuals than for gays, correct?
“anit-gay activists” is like calling Pro-choice people, Pro-abortion…it is hostile and a distortion.
And the beat goes on…..
Karen,
We often discuss the difficulties inherent in the word “change”. The way that I and the rest of the secular world uses the word is different from the way that anti-gays or even Christians as a whole use the word.
When anti-gay activists go to politicians or the public and seek policy decisions, they will say “sexual orientation is not immutable” and that “change is possible”. What they wish to imply is that gay citizens can “change” and become heterosexual instead of homosexual.
When anti-gay activists quote Jones and Yarhouse as evidence that “change is possible” and public policy should be based on such an evidence of mutability of orientation, it is important that those making such decision know that J&Y does not support such a claim.
While there may be a greater adherence to behavior and structure, little to no statistically measurable change in orientation in the prospective sample.
In other words, all the change was anecdotal rather than representative of the group. On average there wasn’t statistical change because, simplistically speaking, as many people become more gay as those who became less gay. Such shifts seem less likely to be evidence of change in orientation and attraction than they are change in perception and behavior.
As for their becoming bisexual, I couldn’t say. I’ve never seen anti-gay seek to base public policy on “but if they tried they could become bisexuals”.
For me (and politicians and the voting public), the quetion is not “can they function sexually with the same sex”, but rather “have their basic attractions changed from homosexual to heterosexual?”
And the answer to that seems to be: “not exactly.” Or at least: “not in the way that you are thinking.”
Karen, the study was not of “individuals who were exclusively homosexual”. Many of the participants were married, including those in the “success” category. What you are seeing is not actually the results of the study.
I make no pretense to understand or speak about female sexuality. I suspect that it is more fluid than male sexuality. However, I’ve not seen any indication that it responds to either therapy or religious mediated change. It’s a mystery to me.
Timothy– you write: “None of their sample was reported to have entirely eliminated same-sex attractions and replaced them with opposite-sex attractions.”
Its my understanding that the 15% did experience a shift toward more opposite-sex attraction. You could say these individuals became more bisexual perhaps instead of heterosexual. But, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to say “entirely eliminated same-sex attractions” as if that is what is required to experience change in sexual orientation. Sexuality is hardly so precise.
What I tend to see, if a shift occurs, is individuals who were exclusively homosexual cultivating bisexuality or spousosexuality. So a shift occurs even if its not complete heterosexuality.
Warren, what is your opinion on the 15%? Its been awhile since I read the book.
On another note, I found Lisa Diamond’s book “Sexual Fluidity” to be a helpful contribution on women’s sexuality which is so often overlooked in these studies.
Mary, et al
I agree that the J&Y study should be continued and expanded upon.
Not to mention the study was not long enough or thorough. How much did the participants engage in a homosexual identity and lifestyle/culture. How long? Etc… and to really experience change – it takes years not 18 months, not 24 months from the beginning of deciding to do something about unwanted SSA . There is spontaneous change for some women but I think we will find that there is still mountains to move when dealing with the SSA.
The Jones and Yarhouse study revealed little to no statistically measurable change in orientation in the prospective sample. The much touted “successes” were either in recollection (which again were quite small) or were those who had decided to no longer call themselves “gay”. However, they still identified their orientation as homosexual (”I’m not gay but my attractions are”).
In short, the Jones and Yarhouse study was funded and fully supported by Exodus and conducted by two researchers who were avid supporters of ex-gay ministries. They wanted to study 300 participants, but after more than a year, they could only find 57 willing to participate. They then changed the rules for acceptance in order to increase the total to 98. The new participants based their “starting points” on their recollection of being much more gay in the past.
After following this sample for 4 years, 25 dropped out. Of the remainder, only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” Another 17 decided that a lifetime of celibacy was good enough. And one of the 11 later told the researchers that his testimony was false, that he indeed did not have any change in sexual orientation.
And, by the way, “not uncomplicated” included wandering eyes, sex dreams, etc.
Basically, Jones and Yarhouse found no conversions to heterosexuality as most people would define it (the uncomplicated kind). None of their sample was reported to have entirely eliminated same-sex attractions and replaced them with opposite-sex attractions.
From a religious perspective, J&Y found successes. They found persons who had experienced emotional benefit from change in behavior and they found persons who had changed perspective so as to find meaning in a life of celibacy.
As far as the goals of a SSA person who wishes to live according to a faith that disapproves of SSA behavior and gay identity, that was achieved. But having read their book, it seems to me that what Joe Citizen would define as “sexual orientation change” was not reported.
Warren,
My guess is that the forms of homosexuality linked to abuse as a heavy influencing factor probably does account for much of the change reported — whatever the stats on change is.
Whatever causes the various forms of homosexuality, it seems to me that for those who experience early SSA, they’re less likely to experience categorical “change”. My guess is that change is experienced by those who are more “bisexual” is some way or another — more bisexual, that is, than say me — who really just can’t get excited by the idea of having sex with a woman, try as I might. Though I’m not without a certain type of bisexuality.
So when people talk about change, I wonder change from what? My heterosexuality might be considerably different than the next woman’s…. Maybe if I experience sexual longing for women in the future, it could be claimed that I all along had a leaning in that direction anyway — at least more so than another woman…. So maybe my change wouldn’t be viewed as categorical, but only “partial”, cuz I had a high degree of homoerotic needs from the beginning.
Katie
Warren,
Can you link me to the study that shows most gays are not victims of SSA?
@Karen K:
I have done two previous literature reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. The 30% figure is a guess based on the studies published prior to about 1980. One should not place much stock in it as it is a combination of studies using different measures of sexual orientation, different “treatment” methods, and different levels of follow up. Clearly the studies reported some degree of change but we have no idea how long the change lasted, how much change really occured and whether the change was a few points on the Kinsey scale or categorical change.
Given our conversations in the sexual abuse thread, it is entirely possible that people who came to homosexual behavior via confusion post-CSA were lumped in these studies with people who never experienced CSA and were gay from an early age. There is some spontaneous shifting that takes place for some people, especially women but this has not been taken into account within most of these studies because there were rarely any kind of control groups.
The closer I have gotten to these studies and this field, the less I believe extreme categorical change happens in people who were not traumatized during upbringing in some way. Since most gays were not victims of CSA and parenting is not a big discriminating factor, then one must look elsewhere for causes of homosexuality in general and at least I remain skeptical that categorical change occurs for more than 10-20% of people who seek it.
That was my impression of the research, too. Support/recovery groups and therapy can work well in tandem. I’m not sure how those who may have utilized both approaches are broken down in the study, if at all.
Karen,
I totally agree.
If I remember right, I believe Yarhouse and Jones said their review of the literature showed on average a 30% rate of change in the studies they examined (put all together). Though, their own particular study showed 15% with ex-gay support group populations. Might be apples and oranges somewhat because support groups are different than undergoing professional therapy.
I wish there wasn’t so much culture war baggage attached to this so that we could actually get more sound research on this. Yarhouse and Jones is a good start, but we need more.