That’s the sub-title of Focus on the Family’s web page entitled, “Helping Boys Become Men, and Girls Become Women.” The page goes on to offer a checklist of telltale signs to watch out for in determining a child’s (in this case, a young boy’s) developing sexuality:
1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from other boys.
2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.
3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.
4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.
5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”
6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.
7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.
Interestingly, the page also points parents who suspect that their child might be gay to a listing of Professional Resources.
What’s interesting about that (in my view) is that this is the first time I’ve seen ex-gay Reparative Therapy aimed squarely at young children whose sexual development is still incomplete. It seems the idea of diagnosing pre-homosexual tendencies in young children is gaining traction. The thinking, I presume, is that “curing” kids of homosexuality is easier if the condition is caught and treated early. This fits logically with the “homosexuality as treatable disease” idea in vogue with the Religious Right.
This idea actually would make a lot of sense–if homosexuality were in fact a disease that could be cured through therapy.
I’m one of the few people I know who began ex-gay reparative therapy to cure my homosexuality while I was still a young teenager–before I’d actually had sex. In my own experience, trying to “treat the condition early” made no difference that I can tell. But I’m curious to hear from others of you out there who may have similar development timelines…
Did any of you XGW readers experience ex-gay intervention as a child or adolescent? If so, what are your thoughts on this idea of marketing ex-gay therapy to the parents of very young kids?
Linda Ames Nicolosi wrote a book a couple years ago called A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality
https://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?pid=0830823794&ad=FGLBKS
You know, I feel a little sorry for the Nicolosis. I’m sure they have a sincere faith that they are doing God’s work as they understand it…so they must be distressed by their lack of success.
Thanks for the pointer, Dan!
They may even come to believe that god is mocking them (a parody on Julie Gold’s From a Distance suggests itself here).
The list of right wing anti-gays who have out gay spawn keeps growing. Socarides, Schaffley, Keyes, Randall. If we could only charge them a quarter for every time they use “forsaken” in prayer we could run billboard campaigns too.
This is spawned out of Nicolosi twisted mind:And it does not take them long to start with the Truth In Love…
And which vigorous homosexual-led campaign would this be? Did I misplace my invitation to the launch party?
To touch on a couple other doozies on this same web page:
“Before puberty, children aren’t normally heterosexual or homosexual.”
And just what orifice was that little “fact” pulled from? I’ve heard many gay people tell about having crushes on other boys or on various male TV actors well before puberty. I guess FOTF has redefined “heterosexual” again.
And here’s another gem:
“Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports, “In one study of 60 effeminate boys ages 4 to 11, 98 percent of them engaged in cross-dressing, and 83 percent said they wished they had been born a girl.””
And perhaps 98 percent of masculine boys play baseball and 83 percent beat up other little boys on the playground? I guess it all depends on how you define your terms.
And the final, and most telling, comment is:
“If your child has already reached puberty, change is difficult, but it’s not too late.”
Change is difficult. Well, now, that sounds quite different from Change is Possible. One might even take that to be a tacit admission that their programs for converting teens and adults just aren’t working out so well.
One final thought… They reference to Exodus and NARTH. I was not aware that Exodus had any programs whatsoever that focused on preadolescents.
Doing this (ex-gay “therapy”) to a child of 16 is reprehensible. Doing it to a child substantially younger really should be classified as abuse. People holding this point of view are battling to keep any mention of homosexuality (indeed anything about sex period in some cases) out of curricula aimed at these same ages because they don’t want to confuse or sexualize them at that early age. What the hell do they suppose a round of conversion therapy will do to them?
This really needs to be looked at long and hard by those who can classify it for what it is: child abuse.
“By the time the adolescent hormones kick in during early adolescence, a full-blown gender identity crisis threatens to overwhelm the teenager,” warns psychologist Dr. James Dobson. To compound the problem, many of these teens experience “great waves of guilt accompanied by secret fears of divine retribution.”
DUH! Of course they do, because everyone from mommy and daddy to Dobson is telling them they are deviants, and that homosexuality is an “abomination” or other such garbage. Can they really be that stupid? This really frosts me.
ReasonAble
I share your rightous anger.
Just where the heck does Dobson think they are getting those secret fears of divine retribution. God isn’t appearing before them in a burning bush to declair his intent on damning their little souls.
So they’re getting it either from Dobson, himself, or perhaps… SATAN!!! (I have trouble telling them apart).
(that’s an old SNL reference, btw)
Perhaps when the number of victims of this abuse rises, someone will think to initiate a class action suit against this madness.
Oh….my God.
Isn’t this why that poor little Paris boy got beaten to death by his father.
The father detecting in his child, exactly what these bozos say to look for?
Well, herein lies the proof of exactly where a parent will take their advice to an extreme.
And another youngster pays with his life.
ReasonAble…
It frosts me too. I don’t know how many times I’ve said over and over again that other similar programs against people works in the same way this does.
Jim Crow laws, the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union, the unrealistic body images women try to live up to.
And the mindf*** that young gays and lesbians endure from very early on.
Regardless of normalcy (skin color, ethnic features, breast size, sexual orientation or religious culture) there will be plenty of people lined up to take advantage of the caste system and who is lowest on it.
And those at the bottom go through great expense, pain and risk to conform to unrealistic standards that don’t really exist in anyone.
Look at that train wreck called Michael Jackson.
He’s got racial, gender AND sexual identity issues.
During the Jim Crow era, my light skinned aunts who temporarily went into a white closet to experience life on the white side, are analogous to the ex gay issue.
The problem wasn’t that they pretended to be white. They couldn’t ever thoroughly convince THEMSELVES they were white.
The problem was that they had to pretend to be something they weren’t in the first place to be able to work and move about freely in society.
And also the maintenance of that white identity was risky and they couldn’t emotionally sustain it for long…they were still BLACK WOMEN.
And emotionally carrying the burden of being who you are not, is savage, tiring and does more harm than good to all concerned parties.
The ex gay movement isn’t about helping anyone escape or avoid homosexuality.
It’s about the maintenance of heterosexual privilege and the myth of heterosexual superiority.
Brutally maintaining a caste system from a traditional model (gays can and should change) is easy.
Heterosexuals are not charged to prove they have the brains, character or principles to claim it.
Wow! That site is freaky and offensive. I don’t know of any homosexual-led campaign to allow pedophilia and other things. Here is the problem with the site–it seems to assume that children do not have sexual feelings prior to puberty, but we know that even babies will achieve some forms of arousal. Also, kids play pre-puberty sex games. The site seems to suggest that children only recognize gender related things. There is also the problem that is it the chicken or the egg? Do some children have certain innate aspects regarding sexuality from birth? Or are they a result of psychological traumas?
I am a very masculine gay guy (even though I don’t really care about gender as a whole). However, when I was a kid in kindergarten (early 70s), the teacher told my parents that she thought I was gay because I spoke with and played with females (and because I treated all kids equally). My parents were terrified by the teacher’s diagnosis, so I was forced to do certain masculine play. I would be forced to play certain sports every day (I have always played sports, but I never cared much for the group sports). My parents would force me to play cowboys and indians actually timing my play. I had to do all these “masculine” games even though my problem was not masculinity. I understood I was a boy. I understood that I was male. I had interests in many things, including school, but boys were not supposed to like school and art. The treatment I went through was cruel and did not work. I ended up gay regardless. I later went to exgay therapy, and that did not work.
My life today is better than it ever would have been if I pretended to be straight. Before coming out (and when I did ministry), my thoughts were unhealthy and stressful. As soon as I came out, I was healthy mentally. I am successful and happy (and I have the best relationship I could ever have).
Normally, I’d be upset that they forgot about the women (the title is “Helping Boys become Men and Girls become Women” and they only talk about boys), but I’m actually happy this time!
Though it does point to where the most homophobia is focused–that scary “hot man on man action.”
My father (and even more so, his no-good brother) were concerned about this when I was 7 or 8 years old. They told me I spent too much time with my grandmother. Since they “didn’t have the time to spend” with me, that seemed a lame excuse. Dealt with feelings of guilt, thoughts of suicide, etc. until I was 24 and crashed out of the closet.
This is all BS. Best just to let kids be who they are. If uptight religious fanatics like Dobson et. al. have problems with glbt people, I’d suggest it’s their hangup. Any counseller who buys into their crap science should lose his/her license.
I was looking around the site and found this:
“There are 800 known former gay and lesbian individuals today who have escaped from the homosexual lifestyle and found wholeness in their newfound heterosexuality.” This is according to Dr. Dobson. First, where did he get this number? Second, we finally have a number, and it is damn small.
The Focus people have it all wrong… again. These are the real tell-tale signs that your son may be a flaming homosexual.
1. A strong feeling that they are “much more gifted, intelligent and mature” than those other stupid boys in their class.
2. A tendency to cry easily when watching Beaches, be less athletically inclined to participate in sports where Speedos are not involved, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy–especially when they’re not invited to participate.
3. A persistent preference to play larger-than-life roles in make-believe plays that they write, produce and direct.
4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of disco divas and participate in their music videos and other live events.
5. A susceptibility to be misunderstood by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully in the locker room and call them “trimmed,” “shaved” and/or “way too hygenic.”
6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” on a much more sophisticated level than other men.
7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a wonderful, fabulous person who will rock your world with a kiss.
Aaron,
800???????
Yet Alan Chambers claims “hundreds of thousands”.
Let’s see who’s right…
A new quote I’ve been hearing recently is that Exodus gets 400,000 requests for information EACH YEAR.
Let’s do some Cameron-math:
The US population is roughly 300 Million. Per Cameron-math stats, only 1% is gay (or 3 Million). Exodus changes 400,000 per year with a 30% success rate (Change Is Possible). Within just 8 years EVERY gay person will go through Exodus and there will be roughly ONE MILLION ex-gays.
Of course, there are only 800 now. And only a dozen or so (those working for ex-gay ministries) are willing to be public. And they seem to be mostly celibate (but look forward the day they can be in a chaste marriage).
But just think, in only 8 years there will be a million folks that are now gay that will be happily married through the power of Jesus. You could even organize a million ex-gay march.
Ain’t Cameron-math fun?
(I didn’t use links to the Cameron-math percentages, but can provide if necessary)
I sincerely doubt most gay men actually believe they are girls when growing up. That is transsexualism, where there is an actual ~gender identity~ issue. Homosexuality involves the matter of who one is [sexually] attracted to, not what gender one holds oneself to be.
The fact that trogs like Dobson are confused about elementary distinctions like this casts doubt on the truth of the remainder of their claims.
There were a bunch of weird Dobson stats on that site–30% of gay people were molested as children (the only gay people I know who were molested were the ones in exgay therapy that were pressured to say they were molested–I was personally told I had to have been molested, but I just didn’t want to be honest and tell the group or that I had hidden the memories), 35% of Americans believe homosexuality is inherited (umm, most Americans, even those with strong religious convictions, tend to think there is a biological componant), 75% of children left untreated will become gay or bisexual. Where the hell are these stats coming from? What is the methodology? Unfortunately, because Dobson and Nicolosi have degrees and “dr.” in front of their names, many will believe them.
Let me say, and I wish more people would fight the religious right with these types of statements, I am a much better person as a gay person than I ever would have been as a straight person. I have the ability to empathize, be less selfish, deal with very difficult situations, be honest. I have done more to help mankind as a whole than if I were straight. My parents have become much better people because I am gay. I am not trying to say that being gay makes anyone superior or anything like that, but as a gay person, I have been able to help others in ways I would never have otherwise. It seems to me that the exgay position is inherently more selfish. It is all about me, me, me (how will others view me? How will I fit in? How will I attain salvation? How do I fit a very narrow, rigid worldview?). It is never about how society will be better–it is about how to hide in society and fear exposure (I saw a stat once on Randy Thomas’ site about how the vast majority of exgays do not want to reveal their exgay status). Oh sure, many people say that being gay is selfish because it is about hedonistic pleasure, blah, blah, blah…Damn, it was never about pleasure for me–it was about setting up a life with someone I loved, someone I wanted to share the world with, someone who would make the whole better than the parts (the celibate position is all about “preserving the gift” and individual selfishness–some hole themselves up in a camp for two years to “fight” something that they view attacks them individually. How selfish is that?). Sure, I am generalizing on some level, but the exgay position is inherently bad for society, family, and individuals. It is selfish all around. And we should be honest about how selfish it is.
Aaron,
I so agree. And you didn’t even touch on how selfish it is for a man who doesn’t have sexual desire for a woman to marry one.
For heaven’s sake, they are saying that you would be prudent to wait for a year into the marriage before expecting intercourse. And the woman is supposed to just praise God and be happy with this?
And although they know the odds of this arrangement working out long time are incredibly low, they encourage you to bring kids into the equation.
As you said, it’s all about me, me, me.
And ironically, it’s selfish to God. “I don’t care how you made me, or what your plans are for me, I’m going to be something other than what you created.” It puts religious conformity ahead of God and what He may want you to do for those around you. (OK, you atheists / agnostics / humanists / Wiccans / etc. can just ignore the last paragraph and not bother telling me there is no God. This is MY rant 🙂
Sharon, I also doubt that most gay men ever wanted to be girls or lesbians wanted to be boys. Although I was more tolerant to females as a whole growing up, I never wanted to be one.
I did, however, want to be a vampire!
One of the simple ways to tell inherently that I was a male who wanted males: dreams. I have never, ever had a dream sexually about a female. Not as a child, not as an adult. I find women quite beautiful, in fact, and have no problems with seeing a woman nude, but sexually there is nothing there. Dreams are more revealing than just about anything. If I was truly heterosexual in nature (at the base), wouldn’t I have at least a few hetero dreams popping in here and there? Same with my spouse–he has never dreamt sexually about a woman.
I find it very interesting that there is still “choice” in much of the “ex-gay” rhetoric – at least from the “Christian” right political movement – yet here is proof that even they recognize homosexuality is present in very young children (I believe I have read that 75% of “gender-variant” children will become gay, which is likely where the Dobson figure comes from). Nicolisi has long stated he has treated patients as young as three.
Yet are they saying these children have a mental illness? There is nothing in the 7 signs posted above that implies that. Is it inborn? Wouldn’t that make homosexuality inborn? It seems more and more that the “ex-gay” rhetoric is shifting to acknowledging the clearly innate part of homosexuality, while clinging to the illness model. But if we are getting into 3 and 4 year old children, whose brains are not yet completely developed, we can’t be talking about mental illness. The entire “ex-gay” argument then becomes about morality and religious beliefs only.
As a counterpoint to the 7 signs, here is the link to a group at the Children’s Hospital in DC, which tries to support families with gender-variant children, to allow the children to flourish as they are.
https://www.dcchildrens.com/dcchildrens/about/subclinical/subneuroscience/gender.aspx
Wait… The title of the page goes “Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?” but the remainder of the page exclusively mentions “gender confusion” three times and one case of “gender identity crisis” which is suspiciously similar to Gender Identity Disorder. Focus appears to be loosely discussing GID, not homosexuality. I find it odd an organization that employs so many mental health professionals would confuse the two.
Furthermore, Focus prefers to insist homosexuality is not an identity and so I find it odd they say a child is “becoming homosexual.” I would expect them to say something like “Is My Child Developing Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD)?”
I like this one:
—-
Protecting Your Child from Sexual Abuse
Our children need to be protected from sexual abuse, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in character.
According to Dr. James Dobson, here are five controversial yet vital safeguards every parent should establish:
1. Guard your children night and day when they are young.
2. Don’t send them into a public bathroom alone.
3. Be very careful whom you trust in the neighborhood, in local children’s programs, at church and at summer camp. Ask about their child safety policies. Check to see if they are consistently enforced.
4. Don’t leave your children of either sex in the care of teenage boys. Furthermore, don’t allow your teenage boy to baby-sit.
5. Know if your school is talking about homosexuality with students — and if so, what are they saying and at what age. Protect your child from any discussions or role-playing that threatens to cause gender-identity confusion.
—-
OK, let me just do a quick search about what sensible people suggest to prevent sexual abuse.
*hold music*
There we are, Amerian Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: https://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam/sexabuse.htm
—
Parents can prevent or lessen the chance of sexual abuse by:
-Telling children that if someone tries to touch your body and do things that make you feel funny, say NO to that person and tell me right away
-Teaching children that respect does not mean blind obedience to adults and to authority, for example, don’t tell children to, Always do everything the teacher or baby-sitter tells you to do
-Encouraging professional prevention programs in the local school system
—
Funny how there is precicely NO overlap in these two sets of advice. Just what exactly does Focus on the Family think they’re doing? It’s got nothing to do with protecting children, I can tell you that much.
This is just so wrong. This is really galling to me, as a victim of child sexual abuse, not at the hands of my teenage babysitter or summer camp leader, but at the hands of a family member/close family friend who was implicitly trusted, like the vast majority of sexually abused children.
I’m not whining, I’m over it, I’m fine now, but this kind of advice really pisses me off. It’s not just unhelpful, it’s actually harmful, because it tells parents to look for danger in the wrong place.
Do we have an email for this Dobson? *&%$£ *grumble*
Also interesting: how exactly is NOT discussing homosexuality or gender-identity confusion going to help prevent abuse? I really don’t get that one.
Aaron at August 10, 2005 09:55 PM
I saw a stat once on Randy Thomas’ site about how the vast majority of exgays do not want to reveal their exgay status…
I’m floored. If they’re ex-gay, what is there to reveal? The fact that they are straight? Channeling a Nike shoe commercial, just do it.
At some point, this gets to be ridiculous. If they don’t want to engage in homosex, they should stop. If they want to be celibate, they should eschew sexual relationships. If they want to have relationships with people of the opposite sex, then do it. It seriously isn’t rocket science.
This ex-gay silliness brings to mind the fact that most of these people seem to be “drama queens.” Literally. I actually envisage Maria in The Sound Of Music. Why don’t they just do it? And leave the rest of us alone.
BTW, James Dobson is a largely failed child psychologist who got himself a new gig via Focus on (some peoples’) Family.
He is one–but only one–example of why I tend to discount the social sciences. Maybe psychology will become a science someday, but it is not yet.
I wonder if the obsession with trying to prevent homosexuality is instead likely to promote sexual exploration. Culturally taboo subjects have a tendency to precipitate into fetishes later in life.
>>I sincerely doubt most gay men actually believe they are girls when growing up. That is transsexualism, where there is an actual ~gender identity~ issue. Homosexuality involves the matter of who one is [sexually] attracted to, not what gender one holds oneself to be.
>>Wait… The title of the page goes “Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?” but the remainder of the page exclusively mentions “gender confusion” three times and one case of “gender identity crisis” which is suspiciously similar to Gender Identity Disorder. Focus appears to be loosely discussing GID, not homosexuality. I find it odd an organization that employs so many mental health professionals would confuse the two.
There’s a strong viewpoint among many in the gay and trans communities that the DSM’s “Gender Identity Disorder in Childhood” diagnosis is just code to allow “ex-gay” therapy to be done on children. Aside from the religious camps like LIA/r, there are still several childhood GID “clinics” that do this work without the religious component. Ken Zucker, who sits on the DSM Sexual Disorders subcommittee and likely wrote the diagnosis, runs one in Toronto. His view is basically that transsexuals are really gay boys who “failed” to masculinize upon growing up.
There’s a split in the beliefs of those who practice childhood GID therapy between people like Rekers, who think they can butch the gay out of you to make you straight, and people like Zucker, who think they can just butch the trans out of you to make you gay.
The basic problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any standardized definition of what exactly constitutes “childhood femininity” (and yes, this is pretty much all about feminine boys; masculine girls are an afterthought at best). It seems to revolve around what adults feel threatened by. Boy who helps his mother clean up around the house a lot, not necessarily threatening. Boy who plays with dolls, more threatening.
The most ironic item on the list is the “teasing susceptibility” part. While some of the boys who are teased might be gay, it’s just as likely that the boys doing the teasing are gay themselves. I’ve known and/or slept with plenty of guys who were bullies in school, fearing that unless they were tough, people might find out their HORRIBLE SECRET.
This message is for Bill Ware
I have been working towards a class action suit against RT and ex gay ministries and the merits thereof.
The Williams Project is the gay and lesbian legal issue institution within UCLA Law School.
I have discussed this with advocate Gloria Allred, a prominent attorney local to Los Angeles.
I might be able to get the Anti Defamation League in on it.
The class action to have these things shut down is warranted this way:
1. When new and viable techniques for care from medical or psychiatric care givers come along to apply, it’s their duty to apply them and not older, unreliable and BIASED ones.
Ex gay therapy is not only archaic, but it’s been rejected by all legitimate and well informed doctors.
2. Much of what motivates RT is almost exclusively religious and this is a fluid and non objective application.
Religion is a separate discipline from mental health counseling.
3. Pathologies that are life threatening and harmful not only to the individual, but also those around them are evident in heterosexuals.
Blaming pathologies equal in both groups on gay sexual orientation is confusing and raises or exacerbates conflict regarding sex, period.
4. Doctors have to have accurate cure rates and treatment processes open to the public to make informed decisions about practitioners.
Religious counselors require licensing to cure something considered a mental or emotional disorder otherwise left to mental health care professionals to address.
Most people in the ex gay business have neither.
5. Most importantly, doctors or counselors must be accurate in their diagnosis of a problem.
And be unbiased in their approach to it to maximize effectiveness.
Homosexuality in and of itself isn’t a problem to the individual or others.
Opposition to homosexuality is a bias inappropriate to be effective when dealing with other pathologies present in the individual.
These alone make these therapies and ministries immediately incompetent, biased and dangerous to those at risk.
We wouldn’t accept this from any other care giver-it shouldn’t be any less true for the ex gay business.
I began to identify as a lesbian before I ever had sex or ever even knew another gay person. Being brought up very religious, this realization bothered me quite a bit and I sought out counseling from a nationally known “conversion therapist” and corresponded with counselors of an ex-gay ministry. All that I gained from those sessions was the realization that the only reason I wanted to change my sexual orientation was fear–fear of losing friends and family, fear of God, fear of the homophobia of society, and fear of what was then unknown to me. Thankfully, I emerged from my “ex-gay” therapy without being horribly emotionally scarred. It still took me some time to realize it, but I eventually realized that despite my best efforts and pleas for God’s help to change, it was impossible. Realizing that brought me more peace then I had expierienced in years. I am now a happy, healthy, lesbian in a wonderful relationship, and I wouldn’t change a thing. Not only is it pointless to try, but fear just isn’t a good enough reason for me to deny who I know I really am.
Regan- this sounds like a great idea, but there could be several potential roadblocks in the way:
most ex-gay groups are religious and could claim they are not doing anything which requires licensing. They could claim exemption on the very grounds that homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder.
For the more “professional” groups, a la Nicolosi etc., my understanding is that while most professional organizations have stated that reparative therapy is ineffective and potentially harmful, they have stopped short of declaring it unethical or calling for a ban. Nicolosi et al could claim that they are “legitimate” and “well informed” doctors and they have not rejected it. They would also likely claim that their clients come to them with the idea that homosexuality itself is their problem and that they are respecting client self-determination. With the pathologies thing, they’d just pull out their own “studies” they always cite and you’d get into expert-versus-expert on the witness stand.
So, have you got a bunch of specific people who will claim they were harmed by the specific practices of specific therapists? You might could get those specific therapists shut down that way, but I don’t see a blanket suit against the entire “ex-gay” movement as really viable. It’s just too amorphous.
On the other hand if you can actually make it happen I will buy you a Ferrari.
Hi Boo,
Your points are excellent and what you state is problematic.
The CYA tactics you mentioned are exactly why these groups are ambiguous with the substance of their claims.
When I got a app from Living Waters regarding their ex gay ministry course (300.00 for a five month commitment in one hour sessions.) They had a disclaimer that they aren’t a substitute for psychological help.
It’s the inconsistent disclaimers and tactics of all the other similar groups that tend to give them away, while their advertising and sessions at conferences contradict their actual ability and efficacy.
Their literature is loaded with buzzwords.
The burden of proof would be on us who are accusing them of fraud, mostly.
It won’t be harm in the sense of complete malpractice, but more a matter of fraud and incompetence.
On one hand they assure that many, many people have been helped. In a way saying they are very effective and successful.
And on the other, their disclaimers say they really don’t or can’t be held responsible for whatever their clients take their counsel or fail somewhere.
The success has many fathers and failure is an orphan situation, so to speak.
A film like Fish Can’t Fly reveals people who spent years and a lot of time and money eager to believe the claims.
This won’t be easy.
But your points certainly are well taken.
Rachel, I wouldn’t change you either.
I look at it this way:
Gays and lesbians are a distinct minority of unique folks.
Folks too many societies don’t really know or understand.
The only way they will is if the presence of gay people is known and gay people themselves take charge of teaching heterosexuals who they are.
I understand the risks and how exhausting that is.
But it must be done.
I realized long ago that gay people are symbiotic, an important part of all mankind.
I believe that distinct minorities have reason and a right to live.
We are on this island together and alone, and are needful of each other, all of us.
Any heteosexuals that can’t get over it, well that’s just too bad.
Our mother god has spoken, and in her mischief keeps us mystified, even in love.
Our gay brothers and sisters are here to stay, and endure and grow along side everyone. As flowers to grass and trees. Each has it’s own beauty, now doesn’t it?
And shouldn’t we nurture a flower as we would the grass, however different they are?
We are fortunate to have difference among us, as vital to life as eating and breathing.
I’m so glad your found and welcomed your real self, Rachel.
Silence isn’t an option and shouldn’t be.
As one of my characters says in the stage play that I”m writing:
“To disappear, to never dream…
Is not in the stuff of any man.”
And you may quote me.
Boo at August 11, 2005 11:06 AM
For the more “professional” groups, a la Nicolosi…
Just to let you know, Nicolosi is a psychologist type therapist. And a religious-based–Roman Catholic Church–one. He’s spinning a tale.
https://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/NCLSWNRC.HTML
Don’t believe a word he says, merely because he says it. Check it out.
Raj,
Oh, I knew that. They’re all frauds, no one questions that. It’s just that he’s not so explicit about being religion based, as opposed to programs like LIA/r. Actually, he’d be easier to go after if you found some old clients who would say they were hurt by him.
Another thing that might work would be to round up a bunch of ex-ex-es and storm the next APA convention to demand that they flat out declare reparative therapy unethical, with lots of heart wrenching testimonials as to how people were psychologically damaged.
We’ve got a somewhat similar problem in the trans community with the old-line gender clinics which heaped out some pretty horrific abuse on their clients. They could always claim they were just following the standards tho, because of course… they set the standards.
Regan DuCasse,
Thanks for your heads up on the Williams Project and their work. We’re dealing with a real slippery bunch, that’s for sure. I see that “Love in Action” in Memphis has modified it’s web site since the Zack incident took place. They’ve removed any reference to “therapy” for example. If they say, “We’re just warning youngsters about the risks inherent in the gay lifestyle,” it would be hard to find fault in that.
I agree with your points:
1. Freud had some keen insights, but his speculation that sexual orientation (as we now know it) had something to do with how a child was raised was way off the mark. Rigorous scientific studies showed that there is no correlation between sexual orientation and any factor in the environment in which a child is raised, and these studied established this fact over fifty years ago. Yet proponents of RT still pull out these discarded Freudian theories, throw in some speculation of their own regarding some nebulous “abuse” they assume must have happened and presume that since some societal (family) interaction caused this “disorder” that some societal interaction (therapy) can cure it. What a crock!
2. Religions differ. In its encyclical on human sexuality, the Catholic Church stated, “Homosexuality is not a sin… since in is not freely chosen.” Since they consider all sex outside of marriage sinful, they recommend that gays remain chaste throughout life and have support groups to aide in this objective. Many mainline Protestant Churches are coming to grips with the fact that some people are gay “by nature” and are adjusting their approach to gays accordingly. The point being that these churches acknowledge that gays exist. None supposes that one could wave a magic therapy wand and make homosexuality disappear. In contrast, some Islamic and Christian fundamentalists attack gays for their “chosen” behavior and suggest that if they can’t control themselves, then they ought to get therapy to “straighten” themselves out. All of which flies in the face of fifty years of medical research which confirms that such therapies are useless.
3. & 5. There is no psychological testing that can distinguish gays as a group from straights as a group. Other than the gender that one is attracted to, gays are in the main just like everyone else. We are all subject to the many pathologies that define the human condition. There is no internal relationship between any of these pathologies and being gay. The difficulties that some gays have is directly related to the abominable way these gays are treated by some in today’s society.
4. Counseling professionals have an ethical obligation to provide individual clients with a realistic estimate of the outcome they might expect from their treatment. Unfortunately, the boastful claims these RT proponents make in public are not covered by these professional ethical standards. Many in the RT field avoid these ethical standards altogether by having unqualified non-professionals provide the counseling. A large number of these are “ex-gays” themselves. Yet denying ones own sexuality which is an essential part of ones being is one of the defining characteristics of a mentally ill individual. Even Freud correctly realized that. So we have those who are psychologically crippled in denying their own sexuality advising others to become as psychologically crippled as they are. Religion can never be used as an excuse to harm people like this.
So good luck with your group’s efforts to end this madness.
Freud had some keen insights, but his speculation that sexual orientation (as we now know it) had something to do with how a child was raised was way off the mark.
Just a technical note. As I remember it (it’s been over 15 years since my college psych major), Freud did not believe sexual orientation was changeable, and the “Freudian” theories on the overbearing mother and distant father are more a function of later Freudian psychologists than the man himself.
I found this the other day, on-line. From Dr. James Dobson’s June 2002 Newsletter on preventing homosexuality in children:
My response was:
“Dad, I’m 19.”
“Shut up and get in the shower. Now, look at my penis. It’s bigger, see? You’re not looking, son.”
“But Dad…”
“LOOK AT MY PENIS!!” It’s just all so damn frustrating.
So THAT’S why I was so girly! I just didn’t get enough peeks at my dad’s penis. It all makes sense now…
CPT Doom,
Thanks. In my case, it’s been thirty years. Perhaps those later phychiatrists implied it was Freud’s idea to lend it more credibility.
Penis Power!
So, in the spirit of gender equality, Dad should take his daughter in the shower and show her that he has a penis and she doesn’t. Is that the gist of what Dr. Dobson is suggesting?
Or perhaps that a necessary ingredient in ex-gay therapy is for the struggler to form non-sexual bonds with other men’s penises as a substitute for dad’s penis. Maybe they should start playing all those football games in the nude. They’d probably draw in more clients, in any case 😉
Yes, ick.Yet another stupid “theory” that is made all the more creepy when you realise they recommend a substitute father when a “real” one is unavailable.Dare I say it, but isn’t that how the Boston diocese, and so many others, got into trouble?(No. I realise it was the hiding afterwards that is their real issue.)I cannot remember showering together, except in communal places like the beach or pool, but I saw more than enough of my father’s dick growing up. I cannot recall it raising (ha) much interest in me, as one would hope.With only one bathroom in the house I do, however, remember mnay occasions being very young — 4 or 5 at most — and standing on a chair next to Dad at the mirror with a razer with the blade taken out and pretending to “shave” while he really did, both of us starkers.Ok, I can scratch that “cause” of my list…
You know the worst aspect of this is:Someone (such as, Richard Cohen) would take that childhood memory and bend it into the opposite.He’d start with telling me I was gay because I had not seen a grown man naked while I was a boy (gawd, that sounds so much like a line from Flying High…). I would say I did. He would, without blinking, reply “Oh that’s interesting, I think we have the reason. You were inflamed with lust at the sight of your father’s penis You are gay because you saw a grown man’s penis”.Hurl my lunch into Cohen’s lap, or punch him in the nose at that point? So hard to decide.
My dad used to shower me, and I saw his penis. I turned out gay. Dobson has some major crock.
My father didn’t shower me, but I turned out gay anyway. When I was a teenager, I wanted to have sex with a bunch of (same aged) males in the neighborhood. I didn’t understand what was going on at the time, but that’s what it was.
It’s interesting, that Dobson 2002 newsletter referenced in Jody’s post above mentions that same “800 known former gay and lesbian individuals today…” figure as does a more recent reference from his site. Did someone stop counting?
Maybe Dobson is disturbed because when he showered *his* son, it turned out his penis *wasn’t* bigger.
Hi Bill!
Actually, the mental health pros out there took a long time to address cultural issues around maladjustment.
Mostly because of the taboo of mental illness in itself and recognizing some aspects of depression or self mutilation or other issues as responding to impossible cultural and social standards.
Blacks who lived as part of the Jim Crow caste system were a unique group to talk to.
The violence and legal enforcement of white supremacy created a certain mental process in blacks that was calculated and deliberate to keep them from challenging whites on ANY level.
I recognize much of it in the systems in place for homosexual people.
A lot of other people (like those in political leadership) should recognize it too.
The psychiatic community eventually require sensitivity to the unique mental processes that a bigoted society would ingrain in blacks.
Of course the mental health community and it’s leadership were dominated by whites in the way heterosexuals dominate that profession.
Ignoring or lacking the ability to distinguish such unique cause and effect in minority communities would do more harm than good.
Obviously the ex gay business is guilty of this.
I’ve tried very hard to discuss it with the most oft referenced pros like Satinover and Throckmorton and Nicolosi.
Their responses, if offered to another minority for example like blacks who lived in Jim Crow communities, or Jews in the Soviet Union-
their responses would be to them are the equivalent of escaping Judaism through conversion to Christianity and the Holocaust wasn’t as bad as they experienced, it was the fault of the parents.
Or with blacks, it’s to embrace white people as the gold standard of socially superior people and live with the laws of Jim Crow as whites see fit, because they set those laws according to the Biblical standards so church and the teachings of Christianity is the life they should embrace.
This is the equivalent message given to gays and lesbians.
Better living through whoever sets the standards.
Being right or fair isn’t part of the mix. Just the power to do it.
This is why the ex gay movement participates in political and socially widespread action. Giving away their objective as being protective or helpful of the person wishing to escape homosexuality.
They don’t have any confidence in their actions without the government’s influence on the rules.
If their agenda were wider, they’d also be participating in laws that maintained Jim Crow or Nazism.
It just happens to be acceptable to treat gay people this badly and wrongly.
This is the process of hate mongering. Keeping a minority isolated and fearful of the majority is a means to identify, then control.
This is political hate. A well known process used by the Klan, White Citizen’s Councils, Nazi’s, Communists and Fascists.
It’s not an opinion, it’s a historical fact.
Of course those groups are extreme.
But, they all started somewhere, and this is exactly how.
Something the Williams Project can cite if they have to.
Hmmm….
Actually, now that I think about it.
This is closer to the process experienced by indigenous cultures and missionaries.
Those cultures that accepted homosexuality had much of their objects, images or written material that depicted this acceptance were destroyed.
Even now, many anti gay media say that NO culture ever has accepted homosexuality before recently.
This isn’t simply untrue…this is a wholesale obliteration of reality through the lens of religious influence based on either Muslim or Christian indoctrination.
I hope you realize that rabid antigay elements are extreme, but that does not alleviate the outright lies concerning exgays in general posted here. Stephen Bennett is a pawn of the political religious right and is no more representative of the majority of exgays than Concerned Women for America and other fringe religious groups are representative of the majority of Christians or drag queens are representative of the gay community.
I notice that one poster takes exception to child sexual molestation being one possible contributing cause of a gay orientation and uses personal experiences as proof. If I used this as proof then I could take the opposite position since I have a lesbian cousin who was sexually abused by an older brother and I have a lesbian niece who was sexually abused by one of her mother’s cousins. Also I have a couple gay friends who were sexually abused as children. Sexual abuse is not in and of itself a primary cause of developing a gay orientation, however it can be a contributing factor.
I also find it laughable that exgays are simply suppressing their orientation in order to gain acceptance by a heterocentric society. Exgays are treated with the same suspicion and intolerance by homophobes as is the gay community.
I also noticed that one poster stated that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to biology as the primary force behind a gay orientation, which is false. Hamer, LaVay, and other researchers into a genetic cause of homosexuality seem to agree that a gay orientation is the result of a complex mixture of biology, environment, and personality.
What I find surprising in what I have read here is that a group that has been targeted by hateful rhetoric for decades is resorting to hateful rhetoric aimed at men and women who have changed their sexual orientation and do not promote or support Falwell, CWA, FOTF, and et.al. and their lies.
Oh, and that study of rams; if you read the whole study the researchers opined that the cause of homosexual activity among the rams was the result of severe inbreeding, which is not something found among human beings in our time and culture.
Bob,This thread is about “Falwell, CWA, FOTF, and et.al. and their lies”. What’s your point?Readers are free to make their own minds up about the people you promote — Satinover, Dallas… Have you failed to notice they work with Falwell, CWA, FOTF, and et.al. and provide them with their lies?And of course claiming that any of us here could change our sexual orientation if only we were Christian enough isn’t a rash, judgemental and unsupported statement at all, is it…
Hi Robert,
I’m not sure I am following all of your points 100%.
First, the “rabid ex-gay elements” that you call “extreme” are not just the loudest voices in the ex-gay crowd, they are by and large the only public voices in the ex-gay crowd. Surely there are exceptions, but even the exceptions don’t do much to distance themselves from these folks, and many evangelical Christians are working hard to become closer to these types of ex-gays and ex-gay groups.
As for the poster taking exception to child molestation causing homosexuality in some people, you are correct that allegorical evidence is not proof of anything. But, the major mental health and medical associations in this country do not subscribe to the belief that molestation causes homosexuality.
I also understand that ex-gays are treated with much suspicion. But, if you look at the perspective of a highly religious person that doesn’t want to be gay in the first place, surrounded by people that do not agree with homosexuality. Claiming ex-gay status does seem to be the easier answer. I certainly considered it in my journey.
As for hateful rhetoric, I’m not sure we are looking at the same stuff. This website, yes, does look very critically at the ex-gay world, but I have not seen anything rise to the level of hate. I’d be happy to look at individual examples you might have.
As for the gay rams study, I admit that I have not read the study in full. I would like to point out, though, that homosexuality has been found in hundreds of species of animals, so I don’t think inbreeding completely invalidates the study itself.
Actually all inbreeding does is reduce genetic variably among offspring (something handy in an experiment where you want the animals behaving as similar as possible). It can not create anything that does not occur in nature. Provided the organism in question has the right set of genes what ever conditions encoded by those genes will occur.
My point is that if Falwell, CWA, FOTF, and et.al. choose to ignore that Satinover, Throckmorton, and other mental health professionals who support the exgay movement have also stated that seeking change is a personal decision that cannot be forced on the unwilling it is not the fault of those professionals and to villify all exgays as some on this forum have is hateful rhetoric.
I see you linked to my FAQ page, which if you read it I state that not all gays should or can change their sexuality. I do not and never have taken the position that you or anyone should unless they profess to being a Christian.
On the other hand there are many ex-gays working to promote respectful dialogue with the gay community in evangelical Christian churches. Stephen Bennett and his type of ex-gay are a disgrace to those of us who do not promote the lies disseminated by homophobic groups that claim they are aligned with the ex-gay movement. And btw, I have told Bennett he is promoting hate and disseminating false information that tickles the ears of those who have never met a gay man or lesbian woman.
Yes, I promote a couple of Joe Dallas’ books since Joe is totally upfront concerning who should and who should not seek to change their orientation. And yes, I recommend Satinover as a psychiatrist who does not promote hate.
TJ, you asked for an example of hateful rhetoric. Here is part of what was posted by Regan DuCasse on August 14, 2005 11:15 AM
I personally know about 50 ex-gays who do not fall into this generalization. In fact the ex-gays I know and associate with promote equal treatment under the law for the gay community.
I have asked some gay activists this question so I think it is appropriate to ask here. Do you personally know any ex-gays? If not then to paint us all with this broad brush is just as wrong as painting all gays as perverted pedophiles out to sodomize the youth of America.
As to observed homosexual behavior among animals, with few exceptions such behavior is situational much as prison sex is situational. I grew up in rural Colorado and visited my uncle’s cattle ranches often and observed homosexual behavior among his bulls when they were segregated from the cows and steers mounting other steers. I have also seen bucks that are denied access to does mount each other during mating season. If you are going to appeal to animal behavior then wolves mate for life as do swans, so I suppose we can state that monogamy is also observed animal behavior. Male polar bears kill cubs so the sow will go into heat. Mountain lions will kill any of their kind that invades their territory (except during mating season). Appealing to what animals do can be used by sides of this issue.
I am aware of this, however part of the conclusion drawn by the researchers was inbreeding is a possible cause for what was observed. Also sheep are herd animals where the rams compete for the ewes so any observed homosexual behavior among rams could be situational. Another aspect of observed homosexual behavior among animals is the subservient males/females will take a sexually submissive posture to the alpha male or female.
Although I never sought professional therapy as a child, adolescent, or as an adult I cannot comment on the first question, however, I can comment on the second question and I think marketing ex-gay therapy to parents should be handled on a situation by situation basis. Any therapy (ex-gay or otherwise) that fills a child with feelings of guilt or unworthiness can compound his/her emotional or psychological distress and even create thoughts the child does not entertain. A boy raised in a household filled with girls is going to play with dolls and a girl raised in a family with boys is going to develop masculine attitudes that do not necessarily indicate the child will be gay. I totally disagree with LIA’s methods of dealing with gay teens. I have read Zach’s blog and LIA’s rules that he posted and find those rules ludicrous and counter-productive. I think his parents are in need of counseling on how to be good parents. The whole situation was mishandled. Family counseling involving both the parents and Zach with an unbiased counselor would have been more productive and less divisive and traumatic at least for Zach who will live with anger and bitterness for years to come. The psychological welfare of the child should supercede parental bias. In spite of the APA and other professional medical organizations stance on the psychology of homosexuality there are some gay men and lesbian women who developed their orientation based on abusive (emotional, physical, and/or sexual) environments.
Robert Stephenson at August 23, 2005 04:09 AM
My point is that if Falwell, CWA, FOTF, and et.al. choose to ignore that Satinover, Throckmorton, and other mental health professionals who support the exgay movement have also stated that seeking change is a personal decision that cannot be forced on the unwilling it is not the fault of those professionals…
Just to point out, they are not “professionals.” They are hucksters. Religious hucksters. I’m referring to Satinover, Throckmorton, et al. Satinover is author of a book on the so-called “bible codes” (which has been completely debunked). Throckmorton is a psychological “therapist” who has a gig teaching at a small “christian” college. Enough said, as far as I’m concerned.
BTW, I’m not interested in clicking onto another web site. I’ve been doing so for over a decade, and it became clear to me that (a) any one can set up a web site, and (b) most of them contain idiotic content. I’m sure that your advertising of your website here will get a few clicks.
Robert-
>>TJ, you asked for an example of hateful rhetoric. Here is part of what was posted by Regan DuCasse on August 14, 2005 11:15 AM
>>Obviously the ex gay business is guilty of this.
I’ve tried very hard to discuss it with the most oft referenced pros like Satinover and Throckmorton and Nicolosi.
Their responses, if offered to another minority for example like blacks who lived in Jim Crow communities, or Jews in the Soviet Union-
their responses would be to them are the equivalent of escaping Judaism through conversion to Christianity and the Holocaust wasn’t as bad as they experienced, it was the fault of the parents.
>>Or with blacks, it’s to embrace white people as the gold standard of socially superior people and live with the laws of Jim Crow as whites see fit, because they set those laws according to the Biblical standards so church and the teachings of Christianity is the life they should embrace.
>>I personally know about 50 ex-gays who do not fall into this generalization. In fact the ex-gays I know and associate with promote equal treatment under the law for the gay community.
Regan was not generalizing to the entire ex gay population. She specifically stated she was talking about “the most oft referenced pros like Satinover and Throckmorton and Nicolosi.” Since she is accurately describing them, I don’t see how this is “hate speech.”
And you’ve got to admit that the whole “look at dad’s penis” thing was friggin ridiculous.
Robert Stephenson:
As to observed homosexual behavior among animals, with few exceptions such behavior is situational much as prison sex is situational. I grew up in rural Colorado and visited my uncle’s cattle ranches often and observed homosexual behavior among his bulls when they were segregated from the cows and steers mounting other steers. I have also seen bucks that are denied access to does mount each other during mating season.
Oooohhh… your post was smooth until you fell in this trap hole.
Sorry, but your experiences at your uncle’s cattle ranches are anectodal, although I think you can admit that much. There’s a whole animal kingdom out there. Zoologists have already reported that there are lots of animals in the wild that engage in homosexual behaviour and relationships of all stripes; including co-parenting and monogamy for life.
Before you start implying to understand animal nature concerning homosexuality, I suggest you pick yourself a copy of Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance. In my option, his theory on animal sexuality is somewhat weak, but his book is a wonderful reference on the homosexual and transgendered behaviours found in the animal kingdom
Robert Stephenson:
If you are going to appeal to animal behaviour then wolves mate for life as do swans, so I suppose we can state that monogamy is also observed animal behaviour. Male polar bears kill cubs so the sow will go into heat. Mountain lions will kill any of their kind that invades their territory (except during mating season). Appealing to what animals do can be used by sides of this issue.
To quote the book I was referring to :
So it’s true, the animal kingdom can be used on both sides of the issue. However, what exactly do we definine as ‘animalistic’ behaviour? In most examples it involves brutality and violence, something that very rarely occurs during homosexual activity (rape seems to be mostly confined as heterosexual behaviour).
One last comment and then I will retire since my purpose was not to “advertise my site” since it has been #1 on many search engines for about 4 years using “Ex-gay + Christian” as the search criteria. What Satinover has written concerning Bible codes is not relevant to his expertise as a psychiatrist whose professional credentials are impeccable. You may disagree with his stance on homosexuality but if you are going to denigrate Satinover based on his religion then the opposition can use sexual orientation to denigrate gay mental health professionals and scientists regardless of their credentials. LeVay, Hamer, and Bailey to name a few are gay men but this fact does not have any relevance to the validity of their science. Tell me are those of you who denigrated Satinover, Throckmorton, and Nicalosi as critical of some psychologists and psychiatrists who used less than proffessional tactics in the late 60’s and early 70’s in order to get homosexuality removed from the DSMIII? Like all issues there are two sides of this issue and the best way to handle it is with courtesy and relevant research, which both APA’s have adamantly refused to do since 1976.As to animal studies and homosexual behavior those studies are in fact anecdotal, so to accuse me of appealing to anecdotal experiences actually weakens your case. Also why appeal to animals when you can appeal to thousands of years of culturally accepted homosexual behavior in many cultures througout the world? BTW, I agree with this:
Which makes me wonder why so many scientists even bother with animal studies and sexuality.
As to what Regan posted when she prefaced her remarks with “Obviously the ex gay business is guilty of this”, she was posting an erroneous generalization that is just as fallacious as some homophobe posting gay men are perverts out to sodomize the youth of America.
I wish you all success in your endeavors.
Here is the problem Robert. I believe that sexual orientation is set by biology, but I am willing to believe that some people are gay due to abusive environments. Heck vist your local prison and you may see quite a lot of homosexual activity done by normally heterosexual people.
The problem is that ex-gay therapy assumes that ALL gays came from abusive environment. Which is not true nor does it give a way to determine for which gays it could be effective and it often is a crap shoot as to what was the cause( Distant father? Abusive stepfather? Overbearing mother? Seeing a male streacker at 8? Being within 500 yards of a gender inappropriate toy? Playing with a doll once?)
Me personally I think that the degree to which you are attracted to each gender is biologically hard wired. Now I think that therapy CAN alleviate any bad feelings you have to a gender. I think that if the reason why you’re homosexual is due to bad feelings toward the opposite sex then therapy can perhaps help. However, don’t expect those same sex feelings to go away and don’t expect that opposite sex feeling will arise. Since there is a distinct possibility that there are little to none biologically present to begin with.
In addition I fail to see just HOW one can do exgay therapy without guilt. Being homosexual isn’t wrong, but pay me to help you??? Just doesn’t sound like a convincing selling point to me? When ex-gay’s offer therapy to heterosexual tired of the heterosexual lifestyle then perhaps it will be more convincing.
Robert:
I understand this site frustrates you.
And I don’t blame you for being frustrated.
You see, what you need to understand is that we are not claiming to have all the answers. We are only surmising, based on what evidence is available, as to things like the root cause of ones orientation.
You, however, have the unenviable task of “knowing the truth” and then having to explain away or refute or discount anything that doesn’t fit the mold.
We see a study about rams and hypothalami and think “Huh, that’s interesting”. However, we don’t stake our credibility on it mattering. You, however have to search for the “yeah, but” as in “yeah, but someone thinks its because of inbreeding”.
You see, if it can be conclusively proven that orientation is determined by a combination of distant mother, cat hair allergies, and the position of the moon on your first birthday, we can say “go figure”. But if it can be proven conclusively that sexual orientation is determined in some manner before birth, well then you have theological problems.
So, yeah, I can see the frustration.
Oh, and Robert:
“What Satinover has written concerning Bible codes is not relevant to his expertise as a psychiatrist…”
That’s true.
However, I learned very young that when our neighbor Norma Rae McKnight told me “I’m with the CIA and the FBI and we’ve got our eye on your mother” it meant that I really shouldn’t take serious anything else she had to say.
Robert
One more thing. I APOLOGIZE.
I think I was a little harsh with you. I’ve looked at your site and you seem like a good guy. I probably disagree with some of your theology (which is fine) but you don’t seem hateful or a real know-it-all.
I’ll try to be less quick to judge.
Robert, you replied:I see you linked to my FAQ page, which if you read it I state that not all gays should or can change their sexuality.Now where would we get that idea from…
I do appreciate what you’ve also said about the “commercial exgay” crowd (Bennett etc). I don’t imagine you’ll get too many here taking issue with your perception of them.However, it’s going to be very difficult to have a sensible discussion if you’re going to say one thing, deny it, and than claim the opposite. If you no longer believe that all gay men and women can change — then perhaps it’s time to edit your site.And as for Satinover being credible? If you mean quoting Paul Cameron is credible, then sure, you must be right.Satinover is a fraud. His drivel of a book on homosexuality used the same agenda-driven technique and the same evidence gathering method as his truly deranged book on the bible codes. In that sense, it is more than worth considering his work together.And no, pointing all this out does not make me hateful.
Robert Stephenson at August 23, 2005 09:11 PM
What Satinover has written concerning Bible codes is not relevant to his expertise as a psychiatrist whose professional credentials are impeccable. You may disagree with his stance on homosexuality but if you are going to denigrate Satinover based on his religion then the opposition can use sexual orientation to denigrate gay mental health professionals and scientists regardless of their credentials.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Satinover is pursuing a political agenda, not a scientific one. His silly book on the so-called “bible codes” (which has been thoroughly debunked, by the way) illustrates the background of his political agenda: religion.
Regarding
LeVay, Hamer, and Bailey to name a few are gay men but this fact does not have any relevance to the validity of their science.
I am familiar with LeVay, but not the other two. As far as I can tell, LeVay has been attempting to perform what is real science: to determine a genetic difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I don’t know how successful he has been (he does have a recent paper out).
The difference between Satinover and science is that Satinover bloviates about what ought to be whereas science describes what is. There is a rather substantial difference.
Dudes, if I can drag you all back to the original article for a second, it appears to be gone. Anyone know why?
Homosexuality is not a disease, it is not an ilness. It can be changed, but their nature will always be gay. You can say it’s easy to change, but imagine if being straight was a diesese. Would you want to change? Would you want to change who you are?. Or, would it be the wway you changed was being forced to by medical physicians. Thats how it was many years ago, and i’m glad that homosexuals are now hardly under taboo. I am a lesbian, facing the issue of coming out to my parents, and it’s a very lonely place to be. It hurts, I didn’t choose to be gay, I didn’t choose to prefer girls to guys, I am NOT a paedophile. And to think there are gays like that out there sickens me, and also to know straight people also commit sex crimes sickens me. I as a child, was a tomboy, hated wearing dresses, was totally more attracted to girls! I know you think I should have been given ex-gay reparative therapy to cure my homosexuality. But, I beg to differ! I am not broken, I am not twisted, I am not a bad person, I am a Normal Girl. I wear clothes, I (occasionaly) wear skirts, I am going to a prom! and wearing a dress! whoo, I am happy, I am not denying myself of my nature, I am not hurting anyone, I am not a stereotype. I fall in love, I get hurt. I cry, I Laugh. I am normal. Being gay is a small fraction of my life, It is just a fact about me, It’s not all that I am. If I write it don’t make me a pen. If I smoke it don’t make me a cigarette. If I drink it don’t make me alcohol. If you judge, it don’t make you god! So don’t judge! 🙂
THIS IS THE THEREAPY YOU EXPECT YOUNG BOYS TO GO THROUGH! you should be ashamed!
Early Child Development Homo Prevention Tips
1. A boy must not sit on a toilet unless he is having a bowel movement. Standing straight up, not hunched over while urinating, is a sign of manliness. Squatting on a toilet seat (especially if he hovers to avoid the urine of others or prissily wipes the seat with a square of toilet tissue) to pee is not only effeminate but a sign of shame! It is a secret hobby that homosexuals use in their daily lives. It is a scientific fact that when needing to use the restroom, a male is called upon to engage in the unpleasant undertaking of extruding a poopy in only 1 out of every 3 visits. But homosexuals use all three visits to practice squatting, to limber the cheeks of their bottom in preparation for even the most enormous (Negro) penises. Such calisthenics are neither necessary nor advisable for men who have no intention of squatting over an engorged penis. As soon as your child is able to walk on two feet, you must make that sure he is taught to stand proudly in front of a private or public toilet seat, and to speak not a word, especially in response to the coy whispers of Catholic priests in the next stall.
2. A boy must eat everything on his plate. But if your son pesters you to serve corn on the cob, hot dogs or sausages, that is your signal to change his diet. Try serving meals that more effectively evoke a hankering for the fragrant delights of the female genitalia. An artichoke stuffed with tuna fish will usually do the trick.
3. A boy must always wear socks, except while swimming. So-called, “flip-flops” and “sandals,” where the toes and ankles are exposed are products that were created during the (homo)sexual revolution. Creation research indicates that these types of provocative “shoes,” were invented by homosexuals in San Fransissyco during the late 1960’s with fetishes for little boy ankles. Thwart the perverted delight of these pedo-pedophiles with a thick pair of tube socks!
4. A boy must not be allowed to watch cartoons of any kind. He should spend Saturday mornings sitting quietly by his Father’s side (with a respectful 3″ between the male bodies), watching sports that don’t involved male leotards. He must watch Football, Basketball, Baseball and Boxing. Soccer is not a sport for civilized people and often results in alarmingly long, uncut penises escaping from very alluring satin shorts. Soccer appeals only to poor, uneducated halflings from underdeveloped countries where the women grow mustaches twice as fast as the men. Make your child aware of this. When there are no sports on TV, take your boy out in the backyard and throw the football or play catch with a very hard baseball. Under no circumstances: wrestle in shorts, especially if your son is strapping, handsome and sporting a noticeably turgid crotch.
5. A boy must not play with dolls. If your boy has a young sister, forbid him from entering her room except for the purposes of the type of ordinary heterosexual experimentation that occurs in any Christian household. If you catch your male child playing with dolls, Landover Baptist Child Psychologists recommended that you shave his head, and sit him out at the end of the driveway with a sign around his neck that says, “I’m a Sissy Boy Who Plays With Dolls – Mailman: Why don’t you just go ahead and stick something in my mouth?.” This method of prevention has a 99.5% success rate (unless your particular mailman is young and attractive).
6. A boy must not refer to his parents as “Mommy” or “Daddy.” As soon as your boy is old enough to speak, he must be taught to call his Mother, “Ma,” or “Momma” or “Mommie Dearest.” When addressing his Father, he should refer to him as, “Sir,” “Dad,” or “Commander.” “Mommy” and “Daddy” are what fey, spoiled boys weaned on effeminacy coo, embarrassing you in front of the neighbors by never keeping the palms of their hands below their waists.
7. A boy must always wear thick, white underwear. White boxers, and/or briefs are acceptable. Your child must be taught that men who wear colored underwear or undergarments that are cut within one inch of the outer periphery of their pubic region or the trough of the valley between the cheeks of their bottom are either European or Homosexual – and in America there is no difference between the two.
8. A boy must never cry or pout. Crying, pouting or showing feelings are weak and feminine traits. After the natural tears of infancy, brought on by a child’s traumatic exit from the spiritual realm of Heaven, to the horrible shock every young man experiences in seeing his very own mother’s hairy, dilated vagina, and into this Devil run world we call, “Earth,” your boy must be taught to stop crying. It usually takes a normal child several weeks to get over its birth – even when using daily submersions into ice-water.If your child is still crying after three weeks, please drop him off at the Creation Science Laboratory for the remainder of the year and for a determination of whether he is worth having back.
9. A boy must not use brightly colored crayons or any crayons from any colors of a rainbow. Christian parents should remove and destroy any suspiciously colored crayons from their boy’s box of Crayolas. This needs no explanation, as we here at Landover Baptist are all familiar with Mr. Crayola’s so-called “alternate lifestyle,” and his reason for putting “Pansy Pink” and “Engorged Penis Head Purple” into his boxes are quite obvious. A boy must also draw in straight lines. Some curves are fine, but if you suspect your child of “doodling,” and see that he is using more curves than straight lines, please call your Pastor immediately.
10. A boy must not skip or prance. You must not allow your boy to attend any school where they teach the children to “skip,” or play “hopscotch” in Physical Education class. Creation Scientists have proved that such activities are the precursor to cross-dressing, appreciation for poetry, a sardonic display of irony and the rampant shoplifting of skin care products.
i am going to pick out some over the top things here even thought its all crap!
JESUS wore sandals!, “a young boy cant pout or cry??” well not expressing emotion can lead to build up of anger and even suicidal tendencies!
“A boy must also draw in straight lines” WHAT!!!Is that ment to show he ain’t bent?
“A boy must not use brightly colored crayons or any crayons from any colors of a rainbow. Christian parents should remove and destroy any suspiciously colored crayons from their boy’s box of Crayolas”
JESUS wore sandals!, “a young boy cant pout or cry??” well not expressing emotion can lead to build up of anger and even suicidal tendencies!
“A boy must also draw in straight lines” WHAT!!!Is that ment to show he ain’t bent?
“A boy must not use brightly colored crayons or any crayons from any colors of a rainbow. Christian parents should remove and destroy any suspiciously colored crayons from their boy’s box of Crayolas”
**:(**
Just for the record, the list you posted entitled “Early Child Development Homo Prevention Tips” is from the satirical website Landover Baptist and isn’t meant to be taken seriously.
David Roberts