For the sake of time, I am going to react to parts of NARTH’s new statement on sexual orientation change. First, I want to say a few things about this paragraph:
Finally, it also needs to be observed that reports on the potential for sexual orientation change may be unduly pessimistic based on the confounding factor of type of intervention. Most of the recent research on homosexual sexual orientation change has focused on religiously mediated outcomes which may differ significantly from outcomes derived through professional psychological care. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that the probability of change would be greater with informed psychotherapeutic care, although definitive answers to this question await further research. NARTH remains highly interested in conducting such research, pursuant only to the acquisition of sufficient funding.
I am surprised that NARTH complains about religiously mediated change when they highlight such change on the organization website. In any event, it is good that the writer of this statement acknowledges that religious mediation is different than therapy. Now, if only they would stop offering Jones and Yarhouse as evidence that therapy works.
On the subject of research, I am highly skeptical that NARTH really wants to do the type of study that would really address questions about change related to therapy. I say this because NARTH has been in existence since 1992 and they have had ample opportunities to do research. I believe one study has been funded by NARTH (please correct me if I am wrong NARTH readers).
Regarding funding, I believe the religious conservative world could spare funds for such research if there was a willingness to do it. I recognize NARTH is not a rich organization but there are ways to do research without large sums of money. For instance, Mark Yarhouse has been prolifically doing research on sexual identity and the sexual identity framework without much funding. I have done some research on my own out of my own pocket (although far less than Yarhouse). Surely, some Christian right organizations could go together and get NARTH the funds necessary to really test their claims.
Over the past several years, I have asked various social conservative sources for funding in order to test those who say they have changed in Michael Bailey’s lab at Northwestern. We need somewhere between $60-100K to do it. Bailey has identified profiles of straights, gays and bisexuals. I think we could also identify the spousosexual profile with some creativity but neither one of us has had success in getting funds.
An intellectually more honest position would be to say that NARTH does not know for sure about change since adequately designed research has not been conducted. Until then, NARTH’s leaders who go out to religious right groups saying with confidence that change from gay to straight happens will be violating their own statement.
In any event, it is good that the writer of this statement acknowledges that religious mediation is different than therapy. Now, if only they would stop offering Jones and Yarhouse as evidence that therapy works.
You mean “Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation”? yeah, I can see how that would not make much sense.
David,
If I’m not mistaken, it’s actual Christian love which brings you this very website (though Warren’s motivations are his own business, of course).
The sort of “Christians” associated w/ NARTH are better known by the term Christianists [Andrew Sullivan’s term, to compare the similar relationship of regular Muslims to Islamicists (i.e., hate-filled fundamentalists)]
I am a Christian who confronts the Christianists *constantly* (lovingly, I hope. Jesus is my role model). Christianists have wounded so many, but there are those of us trying to show them the Christ-like way—“Change is Possible!” (so to speak)—or at least protect you from them if they don’t change. Peace—and Jesus’s Queer Love—be with you.
Micheal
Perhaps Jones and Yarhouse could ask them to refrain from doing this — if they have not already done so.
Well, so far, when any researcher says “stop misstating and distorting my work”, NARTH’s response has been to attack the researcher. But maybe they won’t this time. (Oh, hey, was that a pig that just flew by?)
It is ridiculous that over the course of 20 years they couldn’t conduct a study. They already have access to a large group of subjects and they have the facilities in which to conduct the study. What is the huge obstacle that keeps this from getting done for 2 decades? Are they seriously contending that they couldn’t procure a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Focus on the Family, John Templeton, the Prince Foundation, or any number of wealthy conservative outfits? Heck, why don’t they even do follow-up interviews with their former clients? That costs nothing. What a joke.
I also have always wondered why, if this issue is so vitally important, is there no effort on the part of conservative Christians to create straight buddies for reparative therapy clients. A key ingredient to success in that therapy is having good straight role models who ease you into manhood and boost your sense of masculinity. But in over 20 years I have never heard of the slightest effort by any Christian group or even a single Christian church to tap into the hundreds of thousands of straight Christian men to help out.
Apparently, Christian “love” means writing checks for anti-gay referenda campaigns but not actually meeting and talking and getting to know actual gay people, even the ones who hate being gay. Either that or the Christian movement knows that the whole reparative therapy effort is BS and they don’t want Christian men wasting their time on a pointless effort.
“On the subject of research, I am highly skeptical that NARTH really wants to do the type of study that would really address questions about change related to therapy.”
I agree. The “we don’t have funding to do research” is just the latest excuse from NARTH about why they have never lived up to the Research (the R in NARTH) part of their name. Previously, they complained that the pro-gay bias in academia prevented them from publishing. Now they are blaming a lack of funding. And soon it will be bias in the NIH, NIMH and APA is preventing them from getting research grants.
If NARTH had actually come up with an honest proposal to actually study the effects of their therapies (and not something designed to give the results they want), I would be willing to kick in a few bucks to support the study.
Thank you, Warren, for sharing some insight regarding developing studies. I’ve never quite bought the excuse that there’s no money to fund studies from NARTH (and until recently Exodus). Regardless of their conservative/religious motivations, it seem any organization claiming help others would want to study what is actually effective and ineffective.
Sadly, the lack of studies confirms that these groups are more interested in reaffirming their predetermined conclusions than actually helping people.
I am very aligned with GayGrandfather’s comment in as much as it says it’s not the sexual attraction that is unwanted, but the sexual persecution that is truly the unwanted item. If there were complete acceptance and support of homosexuality, NARTH nor Exodus would exist.
Christianity is a violent religion which has throughout history, depended on “obey or die” control tactics to gain moral superiority over the masses, just as governments have invaded countries to overtake land and wealth. They both use the same subversive tactics to ascertain their desires, lie cheat and steal to gain power through guilt anger and greed. NARTH and Exodus fit within the same matrix. If Jesus were here today he’d most likely toss the money changers out of the temple post haste for selling snake oil in the house of God. Jesus has a vile contempt for the Jewish elite that ensnared the masses, this is no different.
I think NARTH and Exodus are well aware their baseless suppositions around sexuality rest on water soaked toothpicks at best, and a study would fold their house of cards and they therefore actually would never fund one. They would go immediately bankrupt. It would mean certain death. What they are doing now is preparing a white flag of surrender, which will no doubt come sometime soon.
I might forgive, but as with all the horrifying machinations of our pathetic religious past, I certainly won’t forget.
David,
If I’m not mistaken, it’s actual Christian love which brings you this very website (though Warren’s motivations are his own business, of course).
The sort of “Christians” associated w/ NARTH are better known by the term Christianists [Andrew Sullivan’s term, to compare the similar relationship of regular Muslims to Islamicists (i.e., hate-filled fundamentalists)]
I am a Christian who confronts the Christianists *constantly* (lovingly, I hope. Jesus is my role model). Christianists have wounded so many, but there are those of us trying to show them the Christ-like way—“Change is Possible!” (so to speak)—or at least protect you from them if they don’t change. Peace—and Jesus’s Queer Love—be with you.
I am very aligned with GayGrandfather’s comment in as much as it says it’s not the sexual attraction that is unwanted, but the sexual persecution that is truly the unwanted item. If there were complete acceptance and support of homosexuality, NARTH nor Exodus would exist.
Christianity is a violent religion which has throughout history, depended on “obey or die” control tactics to gain moral superiority over the masses, just as governments have invaded countries to overtake land and wealth. They both use the same subversive tactics to ascertain their desires, lie cheat and steal to gain power through guilt anger and greed. NARTH and Exodus fit within the same matrix. If Jesus were here today he’d most likely toss the money changers out of the temple post haste for selling snake oil in the house of God. Jesus has a vile contempt for the Jewish elite that ensnared the masses, this is no different.
I think NARTH and Exodus are well aware their baseless suppositions around sexuality rest on water soaked toothpicks at best, and a study would fold their house of cards and they therefore actually would never fund one. They would go immediately bankrupt. It would mean certain death. What they are doing now is preparing a white flag of surrender, which will no doubt come sometime soon.
I might forgive, but as with all the horrifying machinations of our pathetic religious past, I certainly won’t forget.
Thank you, Warren, for sharing some insight regarding developing studies. I’ve never quite bought the excuse that there’s no money to fund studies from NARTH (and until recently Exodus). Regardless of their conservative/religious motivations, it seem any organization claiming help others would want to study what is actually effective and ineffective.
Sadly, the lack of studies confirms that these groups are more interested in reaffirming their predetermined conclusions than actually helping people.
It is ridiculous that over the course of 20 years they couldn’t conduct a study. They already have access to a large group of subjects and they have the facilities in which to conduct the study. What is the huge obstacle that keeps this from getting done for 2 decades? Are they seriously contending that they couldn’t procure a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Focus on the Family, John Templeton, the Prince Foundation, or any number of wealthy conservative outfits? Heck, why don’t they even do follow-up interviews with their former clients? That costs nothing. What a joke.
I also have always wondered why, if this issue is so vitally important, is there no effort on the part of conservative Christians to create straight buddies for reparative therapy clients. A key ingredient to success in that therapy is having good straight role models who ease you into manhood and boost your sense of masculinity. But in over 20 years I have never heard of the slightest effort by any Christian group or even a single Christian church to tap into the hundreds of thousands of straight Christian men to help out.
Apparently, Christian “love” means writing checks for anti-gay referenda campaigns but not actually meeting and talking and getting to know actual gay people, even the ones who hate being gay. Either that or the Christian movement knows that the whole reparative therapy effort is BS and they don’t want Christian men wasting their time on a pointless effort.
Micheal
Perhaps Jones and Yarhouse could ask them to refrain from doing this — if they have not already done so.
Well, so far, when any researcher says “stop misstating and distorting my work”, NARTH’s response has been to attack the researcher. But maybe they won’t this time. (Oh, hey, was that a pig that just flew by?)
In any event, it is good that the writer of this statement acknowledges that religious mediation is different than therapy. Now, if only they would stop offering Jones and Yarhouse as evidence that therapy works.
You mean “Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation”? yeah, I can see how that would not make much sense.
“On the subject of research, I am highly skeptical that NARTH really wants to do the type of study that would really address questions about change related to therapy.”
I agree. The “we don’t have funding to do research” is just the latest excuse from NARTH about why they have never lived up to the Research (the R in NARTH) part of their name. Previously, they complained that the pro-gay bias in academia prevented them from publishing. Now they are blaming a lack of funding. And soon it will be bias in the NIH, NIMH and APA is preventing them from getting research grants.
If NARTH had actually come up with an honest proposal to actually study the effects of their therapies (and not something designed to give the results they want), I would be willing to kick in a few bucks to support the study.
“Now, if only they would stop offering Jones and Yarhouse as evidence that therapy works.”
Perhaps Jones and Yarhouse could ask them to refrain from doing this — if they have not already done so.
I have noticed that many evangelical groups and advocates of “ex-gay”/reparative therapy use the Jones and Yarhouse study in this way.
“Now, if only they would stop offering Jones and Yarhouse as evidence that therapy works.”
Perhaps Jones and Yarhouse could ask them to refrain from doing this — if they have not already done so.
I have noticed that many evangelical groups and advocates of “ex-gay”/reparative therapy use the Jones and Yarhouse study in this way.