Steve Gallagher is president of Pure Life Ministries, a Kentucky-based live-in and at-home “ministry” for persons deemed to be sexual sinners.
Gallagher’s organization may not have healed a single soul of their same-gender romantic and sexual attraction, but he is eager to make life difficult for same-sex-attracted persons just the same.
In a guest column for the religious right’s OneNewsNow, Gallagher expresses disgust that — compared to the AIDS-hysteria days of 1987 — fewer evangelical Christians now support job discrimination against same-sex-attracted people who are teachers by profession.
Also, in Gallagher’s column, those who are politically correct (like him) are described as “godly” and those who disagree with him are, well, you take a guess.
The fact that Gospel-inspired churches increasingly ordain same-sex-attracted people of faith especially offends Gallagher, who seems to believe that Christian churches should be houses of self-righteousness and warfare — not worship, repentance, and service to others.
(Note: To the best of my knowledge, PLM is not affiliated with Exodus.)
Hat tip: Good As You
First I noticed at the bottom of Gallagher’s article that every single person posting was in agreement with on another. Then I noticed that, as suspected, the comments are moderated. And clearly they don’t let any dissenting voices through.
I left a comment to see if it would be posted. Somehow I doubt it. Jamie is right, all those people agreed.
And of ALL the human conditions that COULD be discussed, it’s only issues on gay people that generate sermons outright and the standards God has set.
I could talk about the criminal neglect of children by their parents that leaving children in hot cars to die is a major epidemic.
Gangs make all American life seriously compromised…and you hear little about what fuels it.
Nope, these people are SO preoccupied with turning gay people around, instead of making GANG members turn away from THEIR way of life!
I’m so done with these people. I really am. The wiff of arrogance was strong, and smelled bad on that article thread.
My own comment was based mainly on our gifts as human beings included curiosity and learning more and our modern world gives us much opportunity to learn more about each other.
And the power they think gay people get isn’t from aggression, but from the courage and compassion of people who sought greater illumination on gay people.
That nothing is certain, there is always more to learn and understand.
And since gay people HAVE been with all mankind, it’s a duty to learn more.
Starting with gay children. If they’d only listen, gay people have known since they were very, very young they were gay, but have no reason to be honest or disclose that fact sometimes well into adulthood.
That getting at the truth lies in full integration and honesty, and there is no way of doing that by exclusion and not allowing a person to speak for themselves.
At any rate….I remember saying how I resented people such as that getting in the way of MY ability to learn from who knows best. From the main source of experience and self knowlege.
That they helped nothing and no one by shutting out the opportunities we have for learning.
It’s not how humans are supposed to be. We are intellegent, curious, socially engaged and we wander….
Less than two weeks apart, two grandmothers were shot to death in unrelated gang incidents. Both had confronted taggers who were residents of their same neighborhood.
And I know those taggers weren’t gay, they were ALL (including the shooters) teenagers in gangs.
I swear, some people’s priorities are seriously bent.
If Exodus, or all the rest were as invested in gang intervention as they were in homosexuality intervention, I’d be DONATING money to them myself!
Ah, yes, Pure Life Ministries.
They are the good folks who took on and rehabilitated drug-fueled-HIV-spreading-unsafe-gay-sex-orgy-addicted ex-gay Michael Johnston. He’s now all ex-gay again and on their staff as Director of Donor and Media Relations
You have got to be kidding.
Kidding? Nope
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/01/20/183
http://www.sovo.com/2003/8-1/news/breaking/exgay.cfm
Makes ya like ’em all the more, eh?
And David, you might be amused to notice that of all their speakers, only one is available to talk about “pro-family agenda”… yep, Mr. Drug-Orgy himself.
http://www.purelifeministries.org/index.cfm?pageid=24
This is his bio on the web site:
Mike Johnston serves as Director of Donor and Media Relations. He coordinates media relationships for the ministry and production of audio content including the podcast. In 1989, Mike founded Kerusso Ministries and spent the next 14 years presenting a Christian perspective on homosexuality as it relates both to ministry and public policy. He has been with the ministry since 2003.
Let’s see, 1989 plus 14 years – yep that get’s us to 2003. Was there a Christian perspective to the drug-fueled unsafe-sex parties, and did they relate to ministry, public policy, or both?
A quick browsing of the PLM site leads me to believe it’s little more then a thinly veiled political organization. It just frustrates me so much that these people can be so dishonest. Grr…
chippy,
My take is a little bit different. I think it’s an organization that wants to help men overcome sexual addictions and achieve sexual purity. I really do think that these guys are sincere.
Nonetheless, they adopt the old “homosexuality isn’t an orientation, it’s a sinful act” notion and plug their ears to anything that contradicts their presumptions.
If they think eradicating gays who are making honest work contributions to society is of benefit to society itself, it is obvious they are mindless. They do not realise they are not useful for anything at all. They imagine they would be society’s heroes by flaming prejudice and discrimination, but at the expense of a good workforce? If they believe gays are a ‘sinful act’ then PLM sure act sinful.
Not sure why this is such an important issue to people. Same sex attraction (SSA), or “ex-gay” outreaches are for those who don’t want to live the gay life. If others want to live it, that’s fine.
Gays accept the God’s design of two in a relationship, but not two as in a man and a woman. Why limit it to two? Who sets that standard if God doesn’t?
In ancient Greece men took boys as lovers and it was a normal part of their culture. Why is it wrong now and wasn’t wrong then? If it was wrong then, how do you know it was wrong?
If a person doesn’t like his or her gender and s/he wants to be “converted” to the other, why shouldn’t they have that freedom? If someone doesn’t like their sexual orientation, why can’t they try to change it? As Kinsey reported, everyone has some degree of homosexual orientation. This is not a black-and-white issue. Change can be limited to eventually eliminating someone’s homosexual activity; Exodus never held to the belief that being ex-gay means changing one’s orientation. As Bob Davis, the former president of Exodus and an old friend of mine, told me, being ex-gay is to be identified as “in Christ,” or whole in Christ.
If you endorse gender identity change, to be consistent, you must endorse gender orientation change.
NeilInFishtown said:
XGW has never denied an individual’s right to attempt to change their behavior or, if they are bisexual, to try to emphasize one orientation over the other. We do, however, object to promising things which can’t be delivered, or not informing those who approach reparative programs of the long odds that they will be able to make any real change in their attraction to the same sex, or coming up with oddball theories on why they are gay and sell them as fact, etc. We also object to those same organizations, such as Exodus, when they go beyond ministry to lobby against the rights of those who are perfectly fine living their lives as gay or lesbian.
Fine, why don’t the Exodus billboards say this? Why don’t their pamphlets say that? What about Desert Stream, JONAH, NARTH, why don’t they say that? And to be honest, just what does that mean? Even Alan Chambers believes that one can be gay and Christian, so are you setting up a dichotomy with Christian on one end and gay on the other? I guarantee you this, if you want to make that kind of judgment concerning me, you will have to deal with God.
The entire demeanor of your comment is flip, Neil. These are serious issues and instead of showing some concern over what a tragic failure most ex-gay ministries have been, you play Pharisee, trying to snag others with meaningless questions designed to trick instead of enlighten.
People have the right to live their lives as they see fit as long as they don’t infringe on the same right of others. We are not the ones that have a problem with that, Neil. Can you say the same?
I think David’s point to Neil is perfectly clear and I support his intent, especially his objection to people who intend to trick rather than enlighten.
I am just noting that, historically speaking, the role of Pharisees in Judaism and Christianity is complicated and disputed.
David, I’ve discussed this many times before, specifically with you in the past, and more recently with Mike Airhart. However, I see that it is no use. Even the most well meaning Christians will still inevitably mis-use – and therefore DEMONIZE – the name of the Pharisees, the ancient sect of Jewish people who evolved into what Rabbinical Judaism is today. To demonize the Pharisees is to demonize the Jews. Otherwise the Pharisees would not be represented by devil-horned, hook-nosed villains in medieval Passion illustrations – and subsequently, Jews would not be portrayed as hook-nosed villains in anti-Semitic cartoons.
With all the discussion that goes on professing how important it is to take the Bible in historical context, interpret the words, and adapt it to modern life, it is so hurtful to see that some things will never die. As long as the Christians take the Gospels to be absolutely historical and literal, as long as they use the word “Pharisee” as a synonym for “hypocrite,” as long as they choose to remain ignorant of the true nature and culture of the Jewish people in 1st century Rome, my people will never really be fully understood by them.
Emily, it appears you were writing your comment at the same time that I was writing mine.
The history of the Pharisees is too complicated for simplistic statements. They were not all hypocrites or legalists, nor were they all heroes.
Emily, I don’t expect you to ignore parts of your own scriptures, so please don’t expect me to do the same with the Gospels. This is not a case of taking a parable or even something like the creation story literally – I do take the accounts of Jesus suffering and death quite literally. It is, in fact, core to my beliefs. I am not passing judgment on every Pharisee that ever lived, anymore than I am every Christian by recognizing the slaughter of the Crusades.
I respect you and your beliefs, but I also recognize that by the very nature of your faith you do not accept the authority or perhaps even validity of the NT books. This is just fine and I understand that, but please understand that I do. I’m not sure how to reconcile that in a way that will make everyone happy.
Also Emily, you are way off on your claims at my meaning. The Gospels depict instances where Jesus was questioned by Pharisees in a manor designed to trip him up – a trap. This is what I conveyed to Neil in my comment. I don’t see anything astonishing about this, since to them I suspect he was either a madman or a blasphemer or both. Why is it so awful to acknowledge that they would do this?
If that’s really the attitude that you’re going to take, then I can’t continue to be a part of this community.
I’ve repeatedly tried to explain – publicly and privately – that hatred of Jews comes from a literal view of Christian scripture – and repeatedly you’ve dismissed my thoughts as intolerance and disrespect. So be it.
Evangelical Christians are the same wherever you go.
It’s the culture of hatred of Jews – hatred that occurs because of the literal responsibility taken by them for Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:25) – that will prevent all devout Christians, especially those who take the gospel account literally, to ever think they could reconcile with the Jewish people. This makes alliances between groups like JONAH and Exodus ever-unfathomable.
I’ll miss Regan the most, I think.
Emily,
I am from a Catholic bacground. I have always viewed the gospel mention of the Pharisees as a caution not to flaunt one’s piety and try to portray oneself publicly as better than the next person. Interestingly, when growing up, I was never exposed to a rabbi or other Jewish people who behaved that way. In fact, the most prominent examples that I saw growing up were Christian televangelists like Swaggert, Bakker, Roberts and the rest.
So, in my particular case, I didn’t view the Pharisees as Jews, as much as I viewed them as members of the clergy class abusing their authority. Jewish clergy aren’t really the ones in this society best able to abuse their authority or power. The Religious Right are the ones most prominently trying to abuse their authority/influencce, and they have far more to lose in discussions about the portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospel than most American rabbis who behave very differently.
Emily, I can think of a single instance where you and I discussed this and it had much more to do with the way you pounced than what you said. If you are on a mission to require all Christians to take only your view of the Gospels, it isn’t going to happen – nor should you expect it to. If I took my bat and ball and went home every time I felt hurt by comment about my faith from others, I would not be able to participate in anything except a very narrow Christian forum – very narrow.
I lived with an observant Jew for 5 years and he never once registered any offense from Biblical references to Pharisees. He simply didn’t accept the NT as an authority in his life and, beyond the historical aspects of it, did not concern himself with it. He knew it was important to me, and so we had deep conversations about each other’s faith, but this is completely new to me with your entrance.
If you truly believe that those here are disrespecting your faith because in barely a month we have not been able to completely agree, or even grasp your offense in this area, then that is sad but up to you.
Look, i dont want people to think i’m holding their faith hostage or something – it’s difficult dealing with the gospel portrayal of Jews. After Passion plays were performed during Easter week in medieval times, the Jew never dared walk to synagogue that Good Friday. I’m just not sure. I’ve reacted very strongly around here and people have been banned for being too dogmatic or forceful, so I don’t want to allow myself to enter that situation. It wouldn’t be fair to people.
I suggest if people do want to know more about Pharisees of that day, however, they look up Hillel the Elder– he lived in Judea in the 1st century BCE.
David –
I currently belong to Courage after being involved with an Exodus affiliated outreach for many years. I have no blind, personal allegiance to either. When I started attending Courage, members told me that they always heard that Exodus requires people to change. In > 25 years, I never heard that statement from any Exodus outreach leader, although some have implied that in the beginning, but then it was back in the late 70s when everyone was still learning about the position and dynamics of the outreach. To my knowledge, that’s no where in writing, and if it is, it shouldn’t be. Studies show that only 1/3 of people change their orientation, 1/3 only change to some degree, and the other 1/3 don’t change their orientation at all. So that information was false.
Concerning Courage, I know Fr. John Harvey and heard him speak numerous times. Fr. Harvey was quoted on this site,
2. In ancient Greece men took boys as lovers and it was a normal part of their culture. Why is it wrong now and wasn’t wrong then? If it was wrong then, how do you know it was wrong?
No one who is pro-gay has answered these questions for me.
As far as lobbying, Exodus is not trying to keep gays or lesbians from living together as partners. They are trying to keep gays and lesbians from changing marriage to include two men or two women. And like I commented before, if gays and lesbians want that change, why only push for two in the marriage? Why not have three or more people in the marriage legalized. Or to my prior questions, why not allow men and boys to be in a marriage, after all, that was acceptable in ancient Greek culture.
Peace,
Neil
Ancient Greek culture is hardly a roadmap for modern Western civilization. Philosophy and learning from that era influenced European thought. However, the Greeks also looked down upon women’s rights and they had a slave class, things modern Western society does not condone. In addition, not all Greeks engaged in or supported man-boy love.
I see two categories being presented: man-boy love, and acts between consenting adults. I take issue with lumping them together.
1. If one is to engage in a polyamorous or polygamous relationship, that is their call to make. This does not harm or affect anyone outside of the relationship. However, I don’t hear any major gay political caucus calling for legalization of polygamous marriages. What is being requested is legal protection for their one person/one person relationship – so that gay couples can have hospital visitation rights and health benefits from the partner’s job, for example. Exodus takes a role in actively opposing and limiting the rights of LGBT’s. They should stick to a passive role in letting people come to them, should they- as you say- suffer from unwanted SSA.
2. None of the (post-pubescent) homosexuals I’ve known have been attracted to prepubescents. There is a difference between pederasty/pedophilia and homosexuality. One results in a relationship between two consenting adults. The other results in a relationship between an adult and a minor.
3. As a queer woman, I can personally say that I’ve had no attraction to young girls or to the idea of woman-girl love. Homosexual women are left curiously absent from objections based on the notion that homosexuality = pederasty/pedophilia: only man-boy love is ever cited as a concern. Why is this? Can anyone from the anti-gay community answer that question? If pedophilia/pederasty are not considered attributes of lesbianism, then why not award at least LESBIANS the rights that heterosexuals have?
of course, I believe no rights should be awarded to lesbians without also awarding them to gay men.
Alan, in your last two posts I think you were addressing Neil, not “David.” I never said any of those things you quoted.
Neil said:
We require a cite when claims of fact like this are made. Please reference these studies before we deal with the information.
No one who is pro-gay has answered these questions for me.
Neil,
If you are serious — why don’t you ask those as proper questions, instead of as argumentative statements disguised as questions?
Not all of us will appreciate nor will we respond to that awful polemic “style” all too frequently adopted by undergraduates in Bible colleges. Conflating unrelated subjects: that might be your first hurdle.
There are several very good reasons 1) why we want only each other 2) why 16 year olds should have 16 year old boyfriends and 3) why I don’t need to justify polygamy to answer why both gay and straight couples need their relationships equally recognised by law. Alas, I suspect the answers may be outside your frame of reference.
When Greecian men took young boys as their lovers it was usually against the will of the boy. The child had no say so in the matter. The fact that one’s free will is violated is enough to say that it was wrong. By the same token it was wrong for men of any culture at any time to take a girl against her will and force her to be his wife or love mistress.
A source for these claims, please. You are completely at odds with the scholarship — try Mondimore for a brief summary. Better yet, read Plato. The young man — note: “youth”, not “boy” or “child” — had every say in the matter, or it was rape and therefore a crime (a very serious one, actually). There is a reason these young men were called “the beloved” rather than “the sex slave”. What do you take all the fathers in ancient Greece to have been — careless, or worse??? And obviously you’ve never heard of the Sabines.
Ya know, it’s not gonna work — that “homosexual bad, heterosexual good” mindset.
But as you’re plainly in a literal mood, here’s one back for you: please give your reason/s why a victim of rape should or should not marry her rapist. You may choose which side to take, but do include Deut 22:22-29 as your starting point.
(And I’ll stop here David R. — promise.)
This is something I could never understand about the RCC. As a former Catholic it amazed me how the church defined marriage (as well as many other doctrines) as the church moved forward through time. There were at one time arranged marriages which were quite common. Some cultures still practice that today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimony
I accept opposite sex marriage (relationships). That is how I came into being. So I won’t argue with that. However, I do believe in two men and two women together as well because it is in love they are together.
The RCC has always upheld the right to follow one’s properly formed Moral Conscience, even if it means it goes against church teachings.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
Strangely, when it comes to same sex anything they like to push moral conscience aside and demand gays live according to church doctrine whether it was against their conscience or not. Even Paul said that we must follow are own conscience. If we go against our own moral conscience then it is considered a sin. So if gays have affirmed by their moral conscience that having a same-sex relationship is not a sin then it is not a sin.
Why? Germane and well stated.
Neil, as a person who is somewhat conservative (limited government) and totally libertarian, I frankly think the government should stay out of marriage entirely. However, if there are legal protections to marriage, then polygamy is impossible. Marriage as a legal institution helps to divide authority. If a husband dies, the wife receives the property, etc. Remember, much of law is about property. With two people, the law is simple. However, imagine if someone has twelve wives and he dies, who receives the property? The court would have a serious problem. If someone is not mature enough, they cannot handle property. If an animal is part of the relationship, it cannot make decisions. That is why property division among two consenting adults is not a problem. Among other situations, it would create a nightmare. This is also a argument in support of gay marriage–if multiple parties other than the spouse demand property, the courts are tied up. If the spouse has legal protection, there is no issue. Also, that spouse would have to take responsability for bills, etc. Otherwise that goes to the state, and we all pay.
As far as Greece goes, we could pull up all types of situations from history. Since it was acceptable for older men to marry pre-pubescent girls in the 15th century, is that appropriate now? No–and cultural standards do change. It is a fallacy to compare incomparable situations. While the Greeks used man-boy relationships for mentorships, we do not have that situation here. Values do change. One need only look a few decades back to see that we have changed–it is not a God-given thing as much as history and wisdom. Was it wrong? Each culture determines its values. Is the death penalty wrong? Well, almost every civilized nation except for ours thinks it is, but we have a different perspective.
The idea that god sets a standard for all is problematic. I am not a relativist, but I could be considered a cultural relativist. There do seem to be overall a few standards most societies accept, but they are based on self-preservation and survival: protection of possessions, protection of self and family, prtection of community. Yet still the individual aspects change per society. It is unfair to compare different societies overall.
in response to 29 Responses…
XGW like any other organization is about self preservation-who wants someone with the opposing view post a comment on here? I’m glad I found a site with a large audience of people waiting for a single mis-step from the ex-gay world-i guess it proves you’re better than them. And this site better not tout itself as anything closely relating to any religion of any kind (democrats hate religion anyway). This is a mainstream site that aims at those who have a godless worldview-you might want to make that Very clear as you’re ripping on ex gay “ministries”. Oops i forgot-XGW is about Spin and Not truth-actual truth would undermine your site-don’t you people believe that you’re born this way even though there is no proof? You have faith that you were born this way-to bad you couldn’t have faith in practice in another place in your life-that’s what you get for being a democrat (to destroy America for good vote HILARY 08!)
Aaron,
Your comments further prove my point. Mankind cannot be left to their own devices to determine what’s right and wrong in society without God’s direction.
In scripture, God identifies Himself in the masculine and the Church in the feminine, thus Jesus is the Bridegroom, and the Church is the Bride. So everything is about the relationship with the Bridegroom (God) and the Bride (the Church). The true Church is the Body of Christ and everyone has his or her place which are all equal. This is the model for marriage with the man as the groom and the woman as the bride. This is thematic all through Scripture.
All through time God has wooed His people into a relationship with Him. Jesus came to relate and that was His primary purpose. The purpose of ex-gay outreaches is not to convert people from same sex attraction to opposite sex attraction, but to a relationship with Christ of Scripture. People who have no or a weak conversion or reversion to Christ and try to change their orientation within their own power will fail and leave disillusioned. Some return though because they realize it’s all part of their journey home.
This XGW site attempts to point-out that ex-gays are required to change their orientation when that not is the case. Primarily it has nothing to do with one’s sexual identity but with one’s identity in Christ. Sexuality is secondary and does not define the person. The position of scripture is that all mankind needs redemption, not just people of certain orientations or persuasions.
The true Christian, in this case “ex-gay,” will seek/desire to become sanctified and not live according to secular society. If someone doesn’t want to be identified as a Biblical Christian and live their own way within their own religion, then they are welcome to. If you try to understand the “ex-gay” out of this context, you will totally miss the doctrine of sanctification. Joshua 24:15 “Choose this day whom you will serve.” God is pro-choice!!
Peace,
Neil
Neil,
You were asked to cite support for a claim of fact. Please do so before commenting further, or retract the statement.
Hey Neil, I guess as a queer Jew I’m out of luck!
But I think many gay Christians would take issue at your declaration that simply being faithful enough will result in a complete sexual conversion of some sort (celibacy, heterosexuality, the ability to deny their sexuality without feeling empty, whatever). Many tried the Ministry route and were not successful. People like you claim they just weren’t faithful enough, or didn’t pray hard enough, or weren’t really genuine in their plea to God and humbleness before Him. We Jews believe that opening your heart to God is not a difficult process. We believe that when you return to God, God returns to you – even the smallest act of goodness brings you much closer to Him. God is all-loving and not a cold-hearted being that will only come into the hearts of those whom He sees as “truly” worthy. As for people who “didn’t try hard enough the first time around,” well, Last I heard, God doesn’t need second chances, because He is a mighty and powerful God.
Also, I don’t see marriage as being presented so equally in Christian scripture at all. (1 Timothy 2:11-15, Colossians 3:18)
There are Messianic Jews. e.g. Jews for Jesus.
All women and children into fallout shelters NOW. This is not a drill…
@ Neil
You are welcome to comment here under the same rules as anyone else. You claimed the specific results of studies in your argument above, but did not cite those studies. Please do so, or retract the statement, before commenting further.
https://www.narth.com/docs/attemptstomodify.html
For instance, Bieber et al (1962) reported on the psychoanalysis of 106 gay men. Of the exclusively homosexual clients, 19% finished analysis totally heterosexual. Half of those considered bisexual were considered heterosexual post-treatment. Considering the entire sample of 106, 27% of the clients reported a shift to exclusive heterosexuality. When one considers that about one-third of the sample did not express a desire to change their sexual orientation, the rate of change is even more impressive.
Bieber et al (1962) also found that 78% of the participants who became heterosexual wanted to realize this objective. However, six subjects who became heterosexual had not expressed a pre-treatment wish to change. Although motivation to change was clearly important to this effort, individuals may change patterns of sexual arousal without making such change a primary therapeutic goal.
Hatterer (1970) described a supportive, somewhat active, psychodynamic approach to treating gay males. He proposed a traditional environmental explanation for a gay sexual orientation including fear of women and detachment from male identity. He presented case information concerning 143 clients for whom an initial Kinsey rating of sexual orientation was conducted, and follow-up adjustment was assessed. Of the entire group, 49 (34%) were considered as having achieved a heterosexual adjustment, with 18 clients “partially recovered” and the remaining 53% unchanged. Breaking down the results, it appears that client motivation and degree of identification with a gay identity are keys. For instance, only 4.6% clients who were rated “exclusively homosexual” reported a heterosexual change. The vast majority of these men demonstrated no motivation to change. However, among the exclusively gay men who were highly motivated to change, 24% reported a heterosexual adaptation after counseling. Among 21 clients with a Kinsey 4 or 5 rating, the change rate was 57%. Each of these clients were at least moderately motivated to realize a heterosexual outcome.
Socarides (1979) reported that in his practice, 20 of 45 (44%) gay men seen in psychoanalytic psychotherapy between 1966 and 1977 achieved “full heterosexual functioning.”
MacIntosh (1994) reported a survey of 285 psychoanalysts who analyzed 1215 psychoanalytic gay and lesbian clients (824 male; 391 female). The survey respondents reported that 23% of their gay and lesbian clients changed to heterosexuality. Also, the analysts reported their assessment that 84% of the clients reported significant benefits from analysis.
Recently a systematic approach to sexual orientation change has been advanced by Nicolosi (Nicolosi 1991, 1995). In his review of conversion therapies, Haldeman (1994) critiqued Nicolosi’s theory of homosexual development, but failed to include an evaluation of the successful treatment results claimed by Nicolosi and his colleagues. Nicolosi’s writings detail a multi-dimensional view of the antecedents of homosexual arousal and a psychoanalytic approach to the treatment of individuals who struggle with unwanted same-gender sexual orientation. Nicolosi offered numerous case studies of clients who have moved from primarily homosexual identity to heterosexual adaptation. Concerning the function of same-gender sexual orientation in men, Nicolosi (1991) stated, “in many homosexual men, same-sex eroticism is used as symbolic reparation of a deficit in masculine strength” (p. 157). Because many gay men have traditionally feminine interests and behaviors as young boys, they often experience rejection from their fathers and male peers. This rejection leads to what Nicolosi (1991) called a “defensive detachment” (p. 57) from father. This defensive detachment leads the pre-gay male to reject masculinity as portrayed by the father, but to simultaneously long for a close relationship with a strong man.
Nicolosi and other recent psychoanalytic clinicians have demonstrated some success in assisting individuals attain heterosexual arousal. For instance, Nicolosi, Byrd and Potts (1998) reported the results of a national survey of 882 clients engaged in sexual reorientation therapy. At the beginning of therapy, 318 of the sample rated themselves as having an exclusive same-gender sexual orientation. Post-treatment, 18% of the 318 rated themselves exclusively heterosexual, 17% rated themselves as “almost entirely heterosexual” and 12% viewed themselves as more heterosexual than gay or lesbian. Thus, 47% of this sub-group went from the self-rating of a Kinsey 6 to less than a Kinsey 2 rating. Of the entire 882, only 13% remained either exclusively or almost exclusively gay or lesbian after treatment.
Countering claims that reorientation therapies are harmful, the survey also asked clients concerning psychological and interpersonal adjustments both before and after therapy. The survey respondents also reported significant improvements in such areas as self-acceptance, personal power, self-esteem, emotional stability, depression, and spirituality (Nicolosi, Byrd, & Potts, 1998).
In summary, psychoanalytic approaches report rates of change ranging from 19% to 44% of clients. Rates for some modification of sexual orientation are even higher in some of the reports. None of the reports document negative side-effects of such efforts, and indeed seem to show positive results for a significant number of participants, even those who do not change sexual orientation. Clients who have had some prior heterosexual experience, and are motivated to change, seem most likely to report modification of sexual orientation.
My initial comment would be, where is the support for your claim of one-third, one-third, one-third? I don’t see it here.
This is not a study, but a commentary on a broad range of loose findings, most quite old. No one here has the time to find the specifics, where they may exist, for those reports mentioned. Did you get your original claim from generalized anecdotal findings given in convenient, round figures?
This is the kind of information that, when repeated often enough, becomes ex-gay dogma. Taken as a reason for more study, perhaps it has a purpose. Used as fact on which to base counseling or policy, that’s just bad science.
Perhaps the author of this particular paper can put it in perspective. Warren?
Numerous scientfic studies have shown that 78.3529% of all statistics are pulled out of thin air.
Our experiences here at XGW confirm this.
Applied to all studies and stats quoted on this site, to be consistent, that would mean 78.3529% of those statistics are pulled out of thin air. We can make sure is comment is also posted on the ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-gay watch site.
Back to the subject, Neil, it’s rather tedious that you have to be asked a question several times before you address it. Could you please address my concerns above; where in all of that did you come up with 3/3/3?
Neil and all – The segment from my 1998 paper in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling is not appropriate to sustain an estimate of change from therapy. None of the research used representative sampling, with follow up reports and other methodological advantages. Partitioning the results in thirds, as best as I can determine, comes from statements by Joe Nicolosi about his practice. But even that is an impression from him and not based on systematic review of results. The research I have reviewed and conducted demonstrates that some aspects of sexuality may shift at the time measured but we do not know to what degree nor how often such shifts may occur.
Thank you Dr. Throckmorton. I believe this answers your question David.
Neil, it would appear that even the author of the article you cite as proof disagrees with your conclusions. Unless you have some sort of genuine study which shows the results you claimed, I think it best for the sake of accuracy that you retract.
Neil,
Jews for Jesus, et al are not Jews, but Evangelical Christians who disguise their Fundamentalist Christian doctrine in a cloak of Jewish-looking traditions – often to the point of nearly stereotyping us. “Jews For Jesus” was started by an Evangelical Christian minister and is comprised mostly of Gentile Christians who are trying to get closer to Judaism. Unfortunately, they will only end up with Jewish-looking Christianity. They can cite whatever “Old Testament proofs” they want, but all basic Christian doctrine directly opposes Jewish notions of worship, sin, and the nature of God. These doctrines remain unchanged in the Messianic “Synagogue” – no other Jewish denomination considers Messianic Judaism to be an official Jewish branch. Does this all invalidate Christianity? No, but Christianity should be called Christianity, and nothing else – even for the sake of converting my people.
Guess I’m still out of luck. But you know what? I like it better that way. 8)
Neil — Bieber???
If you rely on the “work’ of a man who took 9 years to find the past recollections by 77 different therapists about 101 “homosexuals” (most of whom even their therapist said hadn’t changed) and a man who couldn’t tell the difference between a homosexual and bisexual… you’re just begging to be disappointed. Even including those bisexuals, the figures indicate a therapist can expect to see a “changed bisexual” come along once every 24 years. Wow.
(The others are equally rubbish. And you haven’t actually read them, right? Just the NARTH bumf.)
———————————————
*** my 1998 paper … is not appropriate to sustain an estimate of change from therapy ***
Well, you got that right Warren! And much else you won’t admit.
To pick on only one of all those silly references, it always brings a smile to my face to be reminded of your (previous, slavish) use of Pattison & Pattison.
For those who don’t know… P&P did their “research” through their good friends at Exodus. From some 300+ potentials they could immediately chose from, Exodus hand selected 30 people they claimed had changed. P&P said “no, they haven’t” to the majority, but did declare 11 to have been changed.
Alas, not.
Two of those guys in that eleven will be very familiar to us here… let me just say “the 2 guys from Exit who helped found…”. One of those guys, known to us here, has also said that none of the other 9 had changed into heterosexuals either.
(More embarrassing for Warren, he wrote the 1998 paper some 5 years after “One Nation Under God” had been released. And was still using unadultered Pattison&Pattison until 2? years ago… until that tip off…)
So much for ex-gay self report, and that takes us right onto the next issue:
*** The research I have reviewed and conducted demonstrates that some aspects of sexuality may shift at the time measured ***
Well, I don’t know about anyone else here but “aspects” of my “sexuality” shifted today.
I’m sure it has — I cut my hair.
Warren, you know the rule here — you make a claim, you provide the references. What “research”? What “aspects”.
Sorry, but as per above…and much else… your track record isn’t a good one on this. I’d prefer to read those references myself, and not rely on your word regarding this topic.
If that is the case Neil explain to me why ex-gay ministries infer that heterosexuality = holiness? Because if a person is gay they cannot be holy?
So what you are saying is that those that are ex-gay are truly Christian while those that are happy and well adjusted to their gay orientation and Christian are seculars and are not truly Christian? I’m sorry. I don’t by it. You cannot claim that. Nor can anyone else walking this earth. You cannot know what is in a person’s heart. And since you are unable to to do that you are making a personal judgement. There are many wonderful gay Christians that remain faithful to God. You have bought into the ex-gay lie that gays cannot be Christian.
And as for “Biblical Christian” I wasn’t created to conform to the Bibile. The Holy Spirit is the guider in my life and in all things (Acts 1 and Acts 2). The Bible is secondary. And since you are part of the Catholic Courage you must know about Moral Conscience according to the church. If I, a gay man, according to my conscience try to struggle against my sexuality and believe it to be sin all the while my conscience is telling me otherwise, then I am committing a sin. Likewise, if you believe your sexuality is wrong and you live in a relationship with another man, then you are committing a sin. According to the church you cannot go against your conscience even if it goes against church teaching itself.
Paul speaks in Romans 14 that nothing is unclean in itself; it is only when a man thinks its unclean that it is unclean (sin) for him. Although Paul uses food as a way to explain this I believe he was referring to all things. So in other words if you believe that your sexuality is sin then you MUST not have a same-sex relationship then. But if a gay Christian does not believe that his sexuality is a sin then it is not considered a sin. Only if you yourself BELIEVE it to be a sin.
So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
In reply to Neil:
Quite frankly, I’m getting a bit fed up with hearing that question posed as though it were an embarrassing one for gays.
Well, if it is, then it’s an equally embarrassing question for straights. After all, if you allow a male and a female to marry and have a sexual relationship, then why limit it to two? Why not allow a man to have several wives? Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals that the ancient Jews couldn’t see any reason at all why not. Lamech had two wives (Genesis 4); so had Jacob (Genesis 29). Deuteronomy 21:15 clearly envisages a man’s having two wives as a pretty ordinary situation. Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30). We are told that that wise man Solomon had 700 wives – and 300 concubines, to boot (1 Kings 11:3). (In The Age of Reason Thomas Paine, noting that the book of Ecclesiastes was ascribed to Solomon, commented: “Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines would have stood in place of the whole book. It was needless, after this, to say that all was vanity and vexation of spirit.”) These are just a few of the Old Testament examples that occur to me. There are others, if you have the leisure to search for them.
There are societies today in which it is regarded as normal for a man to have several wives – certain African and Islamic cultures spring to mind. The original Mormons regarded “plural marriage” as not merely permissible but positively praiseworthy, and I’ve heard on television that there are off-shoot Mormon sects that still practice polygamy on the quiet.
And let’s not forget Martin Luther, who told Philip the Landgrave of Hesse that it would be O.K. for him (Philip) to emulate the Old Testament patriarchs by having two wives – although he exhorted him to keep it dark.
So this kind of “slippery slope” argument, if valid, would be applicable even if there were no such thing as homosexuality. The implication that the acceptance of gay relationships would be either necessary or sufficient to pave the way for the acceptance of polygamy is simply so much hogwash.
I don’t wish to go into the intricacies of Greek pederasty, because I’m not competent to do so. All I will say is that, if sexual relationships between adults and children are wrong, as I firmly believe them to be, then they were wrong then. The world is like that: with the progress of civilization (and, just to forestall objections, I’m not saying that progress is inevitable – that’s quite a different matter), we realize that all sorts of things that we once thought were all right are very, very wrong. To take just two examples:
(1) Many Catholics thought it was right to burn Protestants; many Protestants thought it was right to burn Catholics; and both sides thought it was right to burn those who, from both Catholic and Protestant points of view, were heretics – or in Zwingli’s Zürich to drown them.
(2) The slave trade, on which my own native city of Liverpool grew rich, would be defended by almost no-one today, but it was defended most vigorously by many Christians in the 18th century.
And we can ask a precisely analogous question to yours about cultures in which child marriage is, or was, permitted. Why is it wrong for us and not wrong for them? And if it’s wrong for them, how do you know it’s wrong?
When, at a dinner some time late in the 19th century, an Indian judge in his seventies introduced a little girl of about eleven as his new wife, Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the foundress of the Theosophical movement who happened to be present, didn’t say, “Well, that’s fine in your culture, but it won’t do in ours.” She told him that he was “an old beast” and that he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Whatever one’s opinion of Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky’s judgment on that point was spot on, and that’s my judgment on adult-child sex in all times and cultures – no matter how “normal” a part of those cultures it may be.
I’m not trying to evade any questions, but my only reason for originally posting was to indicate that I know personally from the leadership of Exodus that heterosexuality is not the primary or even necessarily a goal of being “ex-gay.” Becoming “ex-gay” is solely at the descretion of the individual. If someone desires to be gay, have a partner, etc., that is ultimately between them and God. But for others who don’t want to act out on that orientation or those desires, they have another choice.
Neil is correct in a way. It’s not about heterosexuality, it all just an identity game.
By identifying with “I’m not gay”, you are allying yourself with the camp of “holyness”. What you do doesn’t matter, because it can be forgiven. The ONLY thing that matters is that you identify with the label Christian and that you disavow the label Gay.
Thus, Michael Johnston with his recent history of drug-fueled unsafe sex orgies (while running an ex-gay ministry) or Chris Austin with his abuse of those in his care are both in better standing with Exodus than Gene Robinson and his husband.
Neil, no one forced you to argumentatively suggest that gay relationships are no more valid that bestiality or pederasty, etc. And no one forced you to make false claims about the efficacy of “conversion therapies.” You could have made your original statement without all that.
There has always been a choice, but most of the time not the one you imply. No one here is looking to deny anyone their free will. The rub comes in two main areas: when ex-gay organizations are dishonest about the nature of “change” and how much of it one can reasonably expect, and when “choice” is exaggerated and used to limit the rights and freedom of those who are well adjusted and satisfied with their lives.
Your right to try to attempt change should not be used as leverage for those who don’t want me to have the right to live without the attempt. You describe Exodus, for example, as little more than church for gays who believe being so is a sin, and I would contend that it is much more than that.
Neil, from your comments that my comments prove your point is wrong. If Christian societies had differing societal standards based on the same God ideal, that would show there is a problem with God’s “standards.” Remember, God did endorse polygamy, animal sacrifice, infanticide, prostitutes, killing of heathen cultures, etc. If your problem with polygamy, God did for a long period of time endorse it. It could easily be argued that we are out of God’s favor because we do not have polygamy.