Prof. Warren Throckmorton and TownHall.com editor Ryan Zempel want antiliberalists to know that exgays exist.
According to Zempel, Throckmorton’s exgay video I Do Exist demonstrates “that change is possible for those with same-sex attractions.” Change is always possible, Zempel implies; he acknowledges no exceptions.
To their credit, Zempel and Throckmorton acknowledge — albeit briefly — that “no specific psychosocial (or life circumstances) or family dynamics cause for homosexuality has been identified.”
Declaring that the cause of homosexuality is therefore “something of a scientific mystery,” Throckmorton contends that “homosexual attractions are caused by different factors for different people.”
Yarhouse gets more specific, crediting a “weighted interaction” between genetics, prenatal hormonal mechanisms, parent-child relationships, childhood sexual abuse, and disinhibition about sexual relationships.
Sounds sensible enough to me, except for one small detail: The causes of various forms of heterosexual attraction — healthy or unhealthy — seem not to be given equal consideration.
He also details five stages that mark the emergence of a gay identity and argues that experiences of same-sex attraction do not mean a person is gay.
Yarhouse’s caricature of “gay identity” is not new; Yarhouse has for years sought to separate sexual orientation from gayness.
Dr. Robert Spitzer in performed a 2001 study of the degree of “change” among 200 long-time exgay activists. In the video, according to Zempel, Spitzer allows himself to be quoted saying that “people” can change from gay to straight. Something is overlooked, however: Spitzer’s own past statements that only some people change, while many other people either cannot or should not change.
It is possible that Spitzer has abandoned the belief, rooted in his studies and those of others, that only some people can change, and that he now subscribes to the belief — rooted in no scientific finding — that anyone can change if they wish:
While the video continues with further anecdotes and assertions regarding the possibility of change for homosexuals, it notably makes no suggestion that homosexuals should change. Instead, it simply argues that they can if they wish to.
In this, one might falsely assume they have a message that is inoffensive to the gay community. Spitzer, however, describes the severe criticism his study faced and attributes such reactions to gay activists who feel that their political goals are threatened by any suggestion that homosexuals can change.
Spitzer seems reluctant to accurately and comprehensively discuss the range of clinical and activist criticisms of shortcomings in his 2001 study. His caricature of critics raises some concern over the integrity of the reinterpretation of his own 2001 study data.
(Dr. Spitzer has not responded to XGW requests to discuss the misuse of his study by gay and antigay activists.)
TownHall.com editor Zempel goes on to say, “Generally ignored by the media, ex-gays are often shouted down by gay activists when they try to raise their voices.”
Zempel may be right about some gay activists, but he fails to acknowledge that exgays are also shouting down gay equality activists. And Zempel also fails to acknowledge that exgays constitute such a small number of people that they are difficult for the media to find outside of religious-right lobbying groups.
Exgays exist. And some exgay ministries are relatively benign. But exgays are largely anonymous and secretive. And many exgay political activists subscribe to fringe political ideologies that make them as unpalatable to mainstream society as the Unification Church, Jimmy Swaggart, Michael Savage, or Gary North.
hmmm…you know… we really do exist. you dont want to change? thats perfectly fine. were cool.
Frank, here is the thing–if someone “changes”, why would they be at XGW? If I were a drug addict (and no, I am not comparing gays and addicts), I would stay away from anything that would remind me of addiction. If I change, I am not going to dwell on the past, but exgays cannot get away from their past. Even their “identification” says they were once gay. What happened when Lot’s wife looked back? She was turned into a pillar of salt. What does the Bible say? Remember it no more. The fact that “exgays” dwell on the fact that they were once gay tells me no real change has taken place.
What I find really funny is that as a gay man, I really don’t care what others think about my orientation. It is something that is natural, and I don’t think constantly about identification. However, exgays are so focused and obsessed on their existence and identification their lives encompass that which they say they “changed.” A truly changed person would go on with their lives.
P.S. The exgay pictures of children and parents always looked forced and unnatural. Stephen Bennett has to be in every picture with his children, but the pictures always look like catalog photos–staged.
Frank,
I think exgays are “cool” when they oppose antigay discrimination and acknowledge that “change” means celibacy, not true heterosexuality, for most exgays. Exgays like Alan Chambers are not cool when they argue that their wellbeing requires that gay people be discriminated against.
Do you believe exgays are cool when they permit their leaders to promote discrimination or mislead the public about the nature, difficulty and extent of “change”?
Question for Frank.
If profi (the german word for “professional”) “ex-gays” are “cool” with gays who don’t want to change, why do they oppose equal rights for gay people?
I won’t anticipate receiving an answer any time soon.
If profi (the german word for “professional”) “ex-gays” are “cool” with gays who don’t want to change, why do they oppose equal rights for gay people?
Because these so-called “exgays” haven’t changed, they’ve repressed their homosexual desires and support the anti-gay agenda in a hope that all those who are gay can join the “exgay movement” and be as misserable as them.
Its the old story of, “I don’t want to be proven wrong, so I’ll make everyone else feel worse than I do”.
On the topic of the post, anyone who has actually studied real science (as I did–physics) would know that Spitzer’s study was a farce. After-the-fact telephone interviews with people supplied to him by sources with an agenda? Give me a break.
And people wonder why some of us hold social “science” in low regard.
Spitzer’s after-the-fact study of longtime exgay activists (he excluded more recent exgays and all ex-exgays) found few people that have changed significantly as a result of reparative therapy.
What’s needed now are studies of the general population and ex-exgays, performed by people who will be less willing to see their results subsequently misrepresented by activists.
From Alan Chambers’ open letter to Marylyn Musgrave:
“On behalf of the 200,000 people who contact Exodus each year seeking freedom from homosexuality, thank you for your courage and bold leadership; you are making an eternally significant difference.”
So, 200,000 people contact Exodus each year. This is not to mention the numerous other ex-gay groups not affiliated with Exodus. And, all Spitzer could come up with after 2 years of looking was 200 people, many of whom still hadn’t changed? Wow, that says a lot.
I am gay with a partner of 24 years and why should I change? Because some minister, professor, physiatrist say so, I am happy with who I am. Why should my rights be abridged? I have known that I am gay since I was a child. Most of the so called ex-gays that I have known have become ex-exgay.
Doctor Laura Schlesinger is a famous American radio journalist; during her radio shows she always provides very useful advices to all the people who call her on air. Some time ago, Laura declared that homosexuality, following the Bible (Lev. 18:22), is a mortal sin and cannot be tolerated in any case by any one. Follows hereafter a very important letter sent to Dr. Schlesinger by one of her major supporters.
—-
Dear Dr. Schlesinger,
I’m writing this letter to personally thank you for your educational work regarding the Bible and God’s laws. I learnt a lot listening to your radio shows and I tried to share your precious advices with as many people as possible.
From now on when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle I always remind him/her that in lev.18:22 it’s clearly said that homosexuality is a mortal sin: end of the discussion. I now feel so relieved I need to ask you for some more precious advices regarding specific God’s laws and how to apply them.
I would like to sell my daughter as a slave as it’s said in Exodus 21:7. What do you think it could be a good and fair price?
When I give fire to a bull on a sacrificial altar, I know from the scripts that this produces a pleasant smell for God (Lev 1:9). My problem is that my blaspheme neighbors sustain that the smell is not as pleasant for them. Should I hit them violently?
I know that I cannot have contacts with a woman during her periods (Lev. 15: 19-24). My problem is how might I ask this specific thing to her? Many women feel insulted.
Lev. 25:44 says that I can have slaves, both males and females, but I have to buy them in foreign countries. A friend of mine says that you can do that with those coming from Philippines but not with the French people. Could you help me to better understand it? Why I cannot have French slaves?
A friend of mine insists he wants to work on Saturday. Exodus 35:2 clearly says that he should be killed. Am I morally obliged by law to personally kill him?
A friend of mine thinks that eating seafood (especially lobsters) is a mortal sin (lev. 11:10) but less mortal than being homosexual. I don’t agree because I really hate lobsters. Can you guide me in this dilemma?
Lev 21:20 says that I cannot get close to any God’s altar if I have serious problems with my sight. Do I get any benefit if I say I use glasses showing the prescription or my sight has to be perfect, period? Do you have, let’s say, any “easy” solution to the problem?
Most of my male friends use to shave their heads including the hair next to their ears even if this is clearly forbidden (lev 19:27). Which is the best death sentence I could use with them?
Lev 11:6-8 says that I become impure if I touch the pork’s dead skin. When I play soccer, football, basketball, etc. should I wear gloves?
My uncle owns a farm. He is a sinner (lev. 19:19) because there are two different kinds of vegetables in the same garden. His wife as well violated lev 19:19 because she wears dresses made with two different kinds of fabrics: cotton and acrylic. My uncle also says the name of God in vain so many times. I really think it’s a pain in the neck try to collect all the inhabitants of my town to stone both of them as the sacred scripts say. Should I really do that? Couldn’t I simply burn them when they sleep as lev 20:14 suggests for people sleeping with other people of the same blood?
I know you studied so deeply these topics, so I’m pretty sure you will be able to answer my very simple questions.
I use this opportunity to remind everybody that the words of God are eternal and unchangeable as you suggested so many time reading the Bible.
Sincerely yours,
Posted by: Bob the happy gay at May 2, 2006 12:33 AM
Yes, I can’t remember if that was first read on The West Wing or if they just used the story as it had been emailed around before the show – I know I got it in my inbox every day for some time a few years ago. Either way it demonstrates one of the reasons that Lev 18.22 is not the verse I would use if I wanted to argue a scriptural basis for the idea that homosexual sex is sin. It deals with Levitical laws and there are much better scriptures, particularly in the New Testament that one could use for this purpose if one were so inclined. The Lev passage is used the most but is the least appropriate. I think they just like how it sounds – bold and easy to cherry pick.
David