An Exodus press release, not yet available online, tries to sound optimistic:
Leaders of the world’s largest outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality commended recent research showing change in sexual orientation to be possible at a press conference today in Nashville. The study, released by InterVarsity Press yesterday, is the first longitudinal, peer-reviewed, scientific research of its kind on this topic to date.
The Exodus press release offers no specifics — no success or failure rates. And no evidence of genuine peer review.
After reading Prof. Warren Throckmorton’s preliminary look at the study, Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin finds cause for ex-gays to be very concerned:
Only 11 percent of the study’s original participants, or 15 percent of those who completed the study, claimed a substantial decrease in homosexual attraction and an increase of any sort in heterosexual attraction.
Exodus’ press release states:
Their findings indicate that religiously mediated sexual orientation change is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm to the patient, on average. These conclusions directly contradict the claims of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association that state that change in sexual orientation is impossible and attempting to pursue this alternative is likely to cause depression, anxiety or self-destructive behavior.
That’s not entirely true. By failing to track the 25 people (out of 98) who dropped out of the study, the study effectively failed to track those who were most likely to have felt harmed by ex-gay programs — or threatened by study questions that pry beyond superficial claims of undefined success. Furthermore, of 73 participants who were monitored to the study’s conclusion (according to Throckmorton), 12 percent reported unequivocal failure and 15 percent reported no change and great uncertainty about continuing in a program that wasn’t working.
Even among the study’s greatest success stories, as Kincaid and Christianity Today observe, the kind of success that is marketed by Exodus was elusive: The study’s successes reported themselves to be conflicted between homosexual and heterosexual attraction.
Exodus acknowledges that it funded the research:
In the absence of any scientific, peer-reviewed research on this topic, Exodus International funded the research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse.
Beyond the information and the questions that have emerged thus far, I am curious to know the answers to questions raised by two commenters at Box Turtle Bulletin:
1. Did the study attempt to measure the different success and failure rates of wildly different ex-gay “therapies,” or did it assume (as Exodus implies in its communications) that all conversion therapists agree on the causes and treatments for unwanted sexual orientation?
2. Did the study explore and measure the possibility of bisexuality in those who mistakenly believe themselves to have been solely gay in the past?
Addendum: I checked with Jack Drescher, M.D., who says that, contrary to Exodus’ claim, “It has never been the position of the American Psychiatric Association that change is impossible. I also do not believe that the American Psychological Association has issued a position statement saying that change is impossible.”
Does Exodus, or the study, even have any kind of statement or policy about bisexuality or bisexual orientation? Did the study participants rate themselves on a Kinsey or Klein scale, maybe?
Most of what I’ve read from Exodus or similar doesn’t even mention the possibility that someone can be anything other than “homosexual” or “heterosexual.” Always seemed more than a bit of an oversight to me.
The numbers are meaningless in this study. It might be scientific because over 5 years they queried certain people concerning their sexuality and documented a certain change (&/or repression of prior sexuality). But that adds no real knowledge to the situation. Jones and Yarhouse can make no real claim as to whether this particular type of “therapy” is harmful or not. For all they know the 25 dropouts were suicides.
Harm doesn’t come from identifiable problems, however. Harm is wasting 5-7 years of your life, or more, on something that turns out to be useless to you and your stated goals.
These numbers are awfully small compared to the thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands that Alan Chambers like to mention walking away from homosexuality. Even of this small group, only 11% currently claim to be heterosexual. Of that particularly small group of heterosexually identified individuals, an unclear number (at this point) indicated that they hadn’t completely rid themselves of their homosexual inclinations/feelings/or whatever you want to call it. Despite the spin, this Exodus sponsored study seems to document the essential failure that is Exodus.
I am curious how they picked their initial 98. I doubt this was everyone who approached particular Exodus affiliates during a particular month or year. If it were, I would find it highly unlikely that 75% of them were still hanging around a few years later.
Wow, who knew that I am actually an ex-gay. By this studies standards, I am ex-gay since I have not had an intimate relationship with another man for a couple years. I am 25 in case you think I am some washed up middle ager. I have not been in a relationship because I have focused on building positive friendships and also developing my successful business. I have a mixture of friends who are both gay and straight, though more straight just because of the field of work I am in. I also love that this has been highlighted by WorldNetDaily almost the second it was released. Why is it that right-wing demagogues are so desperate to push a study that actually does not strengthen their numbers at all? I really compare sexuality to food likes. Some people have criticized me for oversimplifying sexuality, but I feel that the analogy holds true. If someone has always enjoyed chocolate and craves chocolate, they will always desire it. They might go on a diet and develop a condition where it has to be cut out, but they will never really lose their desire for chocolate.
Yes I am gay but, is it me or does anyone not read when claims by ex-gay groups are made along the lines of “We do NOT claim to change orientation. We exist for the individual who wants to select a different path in life due to a conflict with living a homosexual lifestyle.” Like the folks at peoplecanchange.com
What snotty negative remarks can you come up with for that site (you don’t rag about it 4 times a day as prescribed by Master Dictator Wayne Beson) since the idea of NOT WANTING A GAY LIFE makes most “gay people” so uncomfortable all they can do is spew hate at those who wish to change their life for the better for THEMSELVES! It would be nice if gays were truthful. We all know gays run from the truth like they run from AIDS (unless they are of a growing number of proud and loud Bug Chasers). I am tired of all the ragging on people who want to make a better choice for Their life, I believe if you’re not happy being gay str8, bi, purple or a dinosaur change the way YOU want, not the way the world wants you to change. Does faith based organization therapies work? Not for many-does that mean no other person who struggles with homosexual feelings they don’t want be denied help forever? You know it’s common practice for gay people to say all the time to others “have an open mind-just try it” as our recruiting tool. “We’re all openminded here.” Why can’t someone who is living a gay life try to live a str8 life? Oh that’s because the gay double standard- you can turn gay but never turn back-so say the queen bitches of Mt. Fagula. If being an “open minded” gay means acting like a close minded queen bitch like Wayne Beson than I proudly denounce ever having anything to do with gay “culture”.
No gays ever have to wonder why violence against us doesn’t stop-we never shut the fuck up nor are we known for the respect of others unless.
DATmafia,
your language is unacceptable. You were asked to please tone it down. Dropping F-bombs and calling people “b*****s” only negates the point you’re trying to make. You come off as a radical, angry extremist who can only make a point by name-calling and swearing, and those people are either ignored or banned on this site.
You say you are a gay person, but the way you talk about gays – “recruiting,” lying, hateful – wreaks of vernacular and technique used by the Christian Right. It seems like you’re just saying you’re gay in order to “prove” that you really know what gays are like, from the inside. I doubt you really are gay. Any gay person who’s really gotten to know the gay population knows that it is as diverse as the rest of humanity and wouldn’t come to your conclusions. If you are gay, and just happen to be a self-loather, then i suggest you get out of the house and see what a diverse culture we have – and get to know gays that you relate to and get along with.
Again, Exodus and the like are using a Gracie Allen method of research….her uncle Gallop Allen the Poll Taker took a survey to found out how many people had telephones and the answer was 100%….everyone he called had a phone!
What saddens me is that, instead of searching for the truth, which is one of our goals in religious life, these religious based organizations will do anything to “create” the truth rather than allow the truth to be seen in all its glory.
The other sad thing is that, in Christianity, we should not be concerned about the “success” stories as much as much as we should be concerned about those who do not “succeed.” Christ always ministered to those who fell outside the loop, not to the ones who met the status quo. If Exodus and the like are truely Christian, then their main concern should be on how they can minister to those who cannot “change.”
The fact that they do NOT do this is proof enough for me that, while they wave the Christian banner, they are far from what Christianity and Christ is all about.
First, DATmafia, the site you quote does not seem to have the explanation in a readily available spot.
What is the heading on the front page?
“Men who have overcome same sex attractions supporting others who seek similar change”
So yes, they do claim that change is possible. They even have a section all about how it is possible.
Secondly, your estimation of the gay community is not only absurd it’s bitter and guilty of the same attacks you accuse the gay community of. Where is this loud and proud bug chasing movement? I seem to have plently of HIV negative friends still. They must not get the newsletter.
Thirdly, be honest, these groups don’t merely exist to help troubled people find answers and direction, they certainly do pretend to do that. But what else do they do? Let’s see, just about every time gay rights comes up for a vote or into a court case, out come the Ex-gays trying to tell everyone that gays don’t deserve fair treatment because gays don’t have to be gay! What a supportive attitude! If they were merely interested in being heterosexual, then why not just call themselves heterosexuals? Why label themselves “Ex-gay”? Publicity and exposure, and not for the purpose of help, for the purpose of discrediting the gay rights movement.
They are not simply content to change and live their lives, they want the rest of us to change and live the life they are leading. They want to convince naive straights that gays are gay because they choose to be, and are therefore not worthy of simpathy and equality. That’s why they file friend of the court briefs, that’s why they don’t want GSA’s on school campus, that’s why they fight tooth and nail against ENDA. They don’t just want to march to the tune of their own drummer, they want all of us marching to the tune of that drummer, too.
And what’s more, the internet is littered with the stories of ex-ex-gays and the nightmares they went through. People commit suicide when they discover that change really isn’t possible. That they can’t simply trade in attractions for one gender for the other.
Correction: According to Warren Throckmorton’s analysis, the study’s claimed conversion success rate was 15 percent, not 11. I have corrected this in my post above.
Focus on the Family has posted some Q&A with Stanton Jones regarding the study. Reading the dialog, I was impressed with Jones’ candor; he certainly doesn’t paint the rosy picture that Exodus does, nor does he interpret the results of his own study in the wildly optimistic (and inaccurate) way Alan Chambers did. Some quick excerpts:
Mike,
If you start with the original 98, the claimed conversion rate is 11%. If you ignore the 25 who dropped out and only count the 73 who stayed, then you have the claimed conversion rate of 15%.
John, thanks — my head was starting to spin from the numbers that Warren and Timothy were tossing out.
The problem with this type of study is that the people who are involved in this study are more likely than not to say that they have had change. Mr. Jones says that he didn’t believe that homosexuality is unchangeable because someone told him they used to be gay. Of course there are people who think they are no longer gay. Some people work very hard to shut down any homosexual attractions. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that reparative therapy should be encouraged, that gays should not be allowed to have their basic rights because maybe if they work hard enough, they might be able to shut themselves down? That’s usually where the ex-gay movement leans towards. They may say that they want freedom of choice, but so many of these groups are politically active in trying to stop gays from having their “choice” to have laws that protect them, to have have legally recognized relationships with their partners, to be able to adopt children, etc.
I really find it very hard to believe that gays who go through this study do not feel worse afterwards. How can you not feel worse when you are repeatedly told that being gay means you must have had some mental defect as a child, that you must hate your father, or that your mother smothered you with affection, or that you are terrified of “healthy” affection with your own gender? In Jones’ interview he talks about “healthy” non-sexual relationships with people of the same sex. Why is love between two members of the same sex “unhealthy”? If someone wants to be celibate, I understand that — I’ve been celibate for years. But why is that considered a “success”? Why is simple love between two members of the same sex so shameful? That is what I have never understood. They like to drag out all the various bowel syndrome stereotypes against gay men (or now in the comments section, the “growing number of bug chasers”, none of which I have heard about recently), but lesbians don’t have any of those problems, from what I recall.
These studies always lead to the same conclusion. Even though this study could be seen as by and large a failure (100 people who were brought to them specifically in efforts to become straight and only 11%, after a long, painful process, became straight), it will still be spun as a success, because of the idea that if any homosexual anywhere ever feels anything for the opposite sex, then that means all gays can and should turn straight.
What cracks me up about this study is simply the rate of “success”. If only 11%, or even 15% (depending how you look at it) of people became straight, that seems like an overwhelming failure of gay change organizations. I mean, its not even a significant minority, much less a majority, of the sample who changed. But we all know that a certain group will preach that “change is possible” even if so remote that approximately 9 of 10 people will fail miserably? I actually thought that the authors doing this study would “find” a higher success rate, but I guess even when you do it on your own terms, the success rate is still terrible. If I was doing a study and found that only 11% of the population liked my product, or would buy it, or really anything, I’d ditch that product/idea in a heartbeat. Same here. So I’m going to continue to be a happy gay.
I must point out, for the sake of accuracy, that (according to Throckmorton) the study also treats homosexual chastity, with “satisfactory reductions” in sexual desire, as a form of ex-gay “success” enjoyed by 23 percent of the (original or final?) participants.
But Exodus does not (treat chastity as success). Exodus leadership and Focus on the Family both seem to treat chastity as an unwanted, second-class fallback.
Their ads and testimonies proclaim “freedom from homosexuality” and portray happy, sexually fulfilled heterosexuals. They do not proclaim “freedom from sexual behavior,” nor do they portray the study’s “successful” ex-gays who sit alone at home, still same-sex-attracted, regretting forfeited loves.
Exodus is able to cherry-pick data from the study to boast a success rate of 38 percent by using one standard of success from the study (modest bisexual “change” plus chastity) with a completely different standard of success in its marketing (heterosexual marriage) — without telling the public about the discrepancy in its standards of success — or its silent embrace of bisexuality.
A few things.
—-This study was funded by Exodus international
—-Yarhouse one of the researchers is a professor at Regent University which was founded by Pat Robertson. Regent also funds other projects Yarhouse works on
Knowing these two facts do you think they are going to conclude anything contrary to the financial backers of not only the study but also ones paycheck?
Its important to note the following.
—As stated previously the notion of bi-sexuality was never introduced.
—-They have a very low inaccurate reliability rate because of the methodology used which was self reporting by filling out a questionnaire and mailing it in????
YOU DECIDE
Well I bought the book, it’s available via Amazon, and says it’s in stock.
I too want further clarification of what, and to what extent their definition of change is.
Given the ridiculously biased methods used to conduct and present this study as science (much of which they “admit” to) that we know of already, there is a lot of information currently available at the IVP press site that is worthy of picking apart.
Their admitted motive for the study itself seems to tell it all. An Excerpt from the book, entitled “The Controversy”:
There are so many things wrong with the way those “two simple questions” are phrased and characterized it’s disgusting.
First of all, “claims…that homosexual orientation can be “healed,”” is NOT the same as (or “in other words” as they put it) saying “…is it ever possible.
In the context of the way they put it, “Homosexual orientation” implies ALL homosexuals on the planet, and “ever” implies at least one. So right off the bat they’ve equated two.
Secondly, given that this study is based on self reporting, why would they characterize the reports of the harmfulness of the attempt to change as a “claim,” since self “claim” is the basis of the proof they are operating under to begin with?
Given what I know about these two already, I don’t think I’m nitpicking. Their entire premise is based on a strawman argument. It seems that they just do a much more thorough job of building, and then picking apart said strawman – as to thoroughly obfuscate the real issues at hand, and thus convincing themselves that they’ve presented an “objective” and “scientifically sound” argument.
One good thing about them is that they don’t use blatantly anti-gay rhetoric, but they are masters of obfuscation. They mention their first point (strawman) again and again and again, in order to “qualify” the legitimacy of it’s opposite (these are just a few examples):
As a premise I find that last part pathetic. But not with the fact that their methodology IS faulty, and that they ARE dishonest, if only with themselves, but with the sheer idiocy of that whole self serving exchange to legitimize the strawman idea that there is some grand conspiracy to convince ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE that no person, ever, within all time and space, past and present, can, or ever will be able to change their sexual orientation, in any way, shape or form.
In short, it reads to me as; “The monolithic homosexual agenda, and homosexual activists want you to believe their absolutist claims.” That’s gay-bashing 101, they just took the time to pretty it up.
All the crows I know are black, and all of those crows are only aware of other black crows, but that’s a far cry from the accusation that I am contending that creation itself is incapable of generating another colored crow. To accuse me of speaking for creation itself is to lie about me. I do not take this lightly Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse.
You’d think as Christians bent on proving the impossible-to-find needle in the haystack they’d be trying to prove the existence of miracles or the power of prayer first.
It seems they’ve taken a lesson from the Intelligent Design crowd. Poke holes, find the “missing links,” and the need for proof won’t matter anymore.
Teach the Controversy. This is perhaps the grandest example of that yet.
Exodus is able to cherry-pick data from the study to boast a success rate of 38 percent by using one standard of success from the study (modest bisexual “change” plus chastity)
I would suggest that it’s even less than that. It’s modest asexual change for the 23% (of the smaller sample of 73). These folks seem to have developed no attraction for the opposite sex… they just now exist in a sexless limbo – not being attracted to the opposite sex while sublimating all attraction to the same sex that might raise its ugly head.
Yes that might be adequate for those who are convinced that their goal is avoiding the sin of being attracted to the same sex. But it’s hardly a goal that is likely to be adopted by those interested in patient mental health. And let’s remember that this is the real target of this “study”: pressuring the APA to allow and/or endorse reorientation therapy.
Who exactly are these “peers” that “reviewed” this crap? other fundamentalists with an anti-gay agenda?
All this talk of 15% success rate, etc., the idea of changing one’s sexuality for some strange reason reminds me of one of my favorite movies called “Europa Europa.” It is a German film about a German Jewish boy whose family are forced to flee to Poland, so he “changes” to become Polish. Then the Germans come so he has to flee with his brother to Russia and there he “changes” to become Russian and a Communist. He fights for the Russian army and is captured by the Germans so he “changes” to be a Nazi. He cleverly is able to hide his “Jewish trademark.” But all the while he is all these things, the fact that he is a Jew haunts him, and despite everything, he cannot deny who he is. But he does what he does to survive, just as many gay people in this country do today… denying their identity and changing their outward appearance and behaviors.
In a real sense, that is what a lot of ex-gays are, they are like the character in this movie who, while he can change and adapt, the fact remains, we are what we are. Our behavior on the outside, our outward appearance can change, but what is inside us cannot.
At the end of the movie, he had become so confused as to his identity, but he finally accepts and realizes who he is, and is proud of it. I think for those who leave the ex-gay programs or the ex-gay life in general, we should be proud of who were are, and accept who were are. God does, we might as well do the same.
As far as I can tell, no one in the study was entirely gay or straight. The mean starting point for the most successful change group, the meaning of which I am still searching, is Kinsey 5.09, but they used an adjusted Kinsey scale of 1-7 instead of 0-6 (for technical reasons). By my understanding, that would mean they started at what most would understand to be Kinsey 4.09, and that’s bisexual, leaning toward gay. I really need to read further.
A couple of the comments above refer to the 15% or 11% of respondents who “became straight.” The comments are critical of the study, but I would urge everyone to be careful of stating that even this small group truly became straight.
The study’s actual definition of “Success:Conversion,” as reported by Warren Throckmorton, is “There were subjects who reported that they felt their change to be successful and reported substantial reduction in homosexual desire and addition of heterosexual attraction and functioning at Time 3. 15% met these criteria.”
As I’ve already commented on Throckmorton’s site, that sounds like another way of saying, “Subjects still have same-sex attraction, but report that those feelings are diminished and they’ve been able to feel some level of heterosexual desire for at least one person.” As someone who was “ex-gay” for 30 years and married for 26, I can say that description fit me perfectly for many, many years. Nevertheless, I always felt that my basic orientation remained homosexual. That eventually led me to leave my marriage and come out again as openly gay.
Having done it myself, I accept that some individuals can successfully live as heterosexual despite having a predominantly homosexual orientation. But in my mind, and in the thinking of most people, that is not the same thing as “becoming straight.”
Despite the relatively modest claim of the authors themselves, we all know this study will be spun–as has already started–as “proof” that at least a third of all homosexuals could easily change to straight if we would just try. Let’s not lend aid to the spinners by using a term–“becoming straight”–that even Yarhouse and Jones seemingly take pains to avoid.
Most people I know would refer to that as being “deeply closeted”. That’s hardly unusual, in fact, it’s depressingly common.
ALAN, what you’re stating has been my main concern. It’s the coercive, if not threatening nature that makes someone ‘want to leave homosexuality’. We know this desire to not want to be gay doesn’t come naturally or without extreme influences.
However, those advancing ex gay therapy make it sound as if they aren’t participating in those socio/political coercions. This is the dishonest part of their outreach.
The other part that concerns me is the confluence of danger and unhappiness that they say is inevitable in living as a gay person. And as the big stick, they use God and God’s disapproval and payback for embracing one’s orientation fully and happily.
Considering how much Exodus targets the young and least able to counter their influence, it is very clear that hedging their influence is their ultimate goal.
Almost as if religious influence and interpretation hasn’t already been a strong part of most people’s lives.
This reinforcement looks to me to be especially overbearing.
I look at it this way Alan, I resent this intervention. It confuses and disallows ordinary folks to be able to communicate what is truly felt from those that are gay and what gay people feel THEIR needs are.
It’s unfair and unscupulous to take full control of this issue without the gay person having the option of saying anything openly about who they are and have been.
It may have nothing whatsoever to do with being gay, but other factors that will miss being addressed because people in these studies and who support this intervention keep blaming homosexuality for EVERYTHING in the gay individual’s life.
I am the type of person that looks for reporting from the source more qualified, the gay person.
What would that say about me, that only looked for anti gay straight people for ALL my information? And I kept gay people at such a distance that I can’t claim knowing any hardly at all?
They are dishonest also because this group, Exodus, doesn’t really know gay people either. They have their own guidelines as to what KIND of gay people will be in their club.
Even if they had 100 % success, and by what measure the figure that, it’s only 100 people.
That is a pathetically small sample, in any case.
My biggest issue of all is :what’s it to THEM whether or not someone is gay? Leave those who are alone to pursue and live their lives fully and freely as any citizen should. This reveals to me that lack faith in God. They lack faith in the hearts of people. That they lack faith in compassion and in the qualities of life that equal civil rights must reveal.
For people who say their faith is strong and the motivating factor for their activity, they show they actually are not so strong in it.
It’s come down to social and political integration of gay people being the decider. Not their say so.
Integration and social justice for minorities revealed that the stated fears and social collapse was all lies.
Yes indeed, I want the truth-but this isn’t the truth in this study, is it?
If Exodus told clients on day one that they had a 15% chance of changing (and I doubt that) – and a 1/3 chance of becoming asuexual, even though they were healthy – they would not stay in business very long. Alan Chambers – within six months – would have to get on Monster.com and look for a new job.
It seems to me, that if the real goal is lowering sex drive – why even have Exodus? I mean – for the sake of argument – you can accomplish the same thing more effectively though injections that lower sex drive – and you won’t have to sit through those insufferable weekly support meetings.
But, of course, we all know that Exouds dangles words like “revolution” and “change” in front of new recruits. They are in the business of selling miracles and false hope.
Regan DuCasse, I agree with your statements. It is RELIGION that is the main force behind one wanting to change their sexual orientation. It is a belief that God hates in the same way humans are capable of hating that involkes fear into people. It is the strong belief that if one engages in homosexual sex that he or she is condemned by God to burn in hell for eternity.
In order to justify themselves, it appears that those at Exodus claim that they are heterosexuals who just have tendencies towards attraction of the same sex, so for them, they are not really homosexuals but merely heterosexuals with gay tendencies. That is an important part of their belief system because, since most take Scripture literarly, if they WERE homosexuals they would be condemned to hell, but since they are merely heterosexuals with homosexual desires, they are not homosexuals according to them.
This is a key factor in their belief in salvation, because, as long as they do not engage in any form of gay sex, they are assured salvation. So the pressure is intense, because if they backslide, their salvation is in question. A former friend of mine who is now an ultra-fundamentalist Biblist (and I use that term in its true meaning), stated to me in numerous discussions concerning the ex-gay ministry, that any those who had left the ex-gay movement, in his eyes, were not really saved in the first place. I’m sure he is not the only one whose theology is similar that holds that kind of view. For them, GAY = DAMNATION = HELL; HETEROSEXUALITY = GOD LOVES YOU = SALVATION = HEAVEN. For the majority of those in the ex-gay movement, that is a reality.
I agree with you 100% Alan. I sit here day after day reading the exact same thing on websites that promote healing from homosexuality. How can anyone have such a belief system? I guess that is what happens when one bows to scripture. And for those that do, they demand others to conform to it as well.
I find the conservative evangelical/fundamentalists the worst of the offenders when it comes to gay people. I’ve had people tell me I need to repent and change but I say to them I rather have my skin peeled off my body and lemon juice poured over me than accept their belief system.
How did Christ’s message of love and peace turn into something so rigid and cold?
I recently read an article that featured a girl in her 20’s struggling with her homosexuality. She was under the view that you had to do things to get into God’s favor, and then you would be saved. But isn’t this directly opposed to the doctrine that Paul set up? Isn’t the Christian declaration of faith – framed out by Paul – about God loving you no matter what you do, not because you do stuff to be in favor, but because God loves you no matter what? i don’t understand how this keystone belief for Christians can be so conveniently forgotten so often by so many people.
There are days when I thank Creation for being a curious person and eager to learn. I am highly opinionated and not always flexible, but I think that Exodus dragging out the same old, same old is suspect on it’s face.
They have absolutely NOTHING new to offer, there are no innovative insights or revelations on how acceptance improves lives more universally. I mention often that being heterosexual is also highly overrated with this crowd.
Some things are a matter of difficulty because of how people get too caught up and abandon one another over trifles, or one’s expectations were never realistic to begin with, not because of their orientation.
I don’t know why Exodus keeps selling heterosexuality as the magic bullet for relationships.
Unrealistic expectations are deadly to relationships, and ex gay supporters seem like the worst culprits for such falls.
Celibacy is overrated too. Sometimes one has to accept that situation simply because relationships are elusive and our ideals are hard to meet….and of course sometimes it might be a relief after too much dissatisfaction and I can understand that being an option for someone needing some breathing room.
But seriously folks, to find one’s most workable and happiest companion is very often luck, where these ex gay people try to tell you there are a few easy lessons for it starting with being heterosexual.
But the traps of promiscuity or lack of relationship stability is often a matter of self esteem, not orientation. So it’s no surprise if those whose esteem is most attacked (like gay young people) would suffer the most from such a thing.
I just happen to be a straight person that’s not confused by what the ex gay business says.
I haven’t said much about my own busted situation except maybe to Tim Kincaid.
I don’t have my orientation to blame. I can blame trifling folks, Interfering judgemental folks for it.
I can only imagine what a gay person goes though if it’s just a small portion of what I deal with now.
I have a very dear, closeted friend who married and I respect Pam Ferguson more than I can say for her bravery in sharing her struggle.
What I’m trying to say is….the ex gay business uses people for their own gain while trying to sell concern and compassion for ‘those stuggling with homosexuality’.
Struggle is a fact of life. One can struggle with heterosexuality too. So?
One can struggle with self esteem and abandonment issues. One an struggle with keeping their marriage together or with their children.
Using ordinary and very human struggle to sell intervention is really low….but doing it and especially targeting youth, before they ever really know themselves and what they want to be is worse.
And sometimes we relearn about ourselves and can become very strong….which is who ex ex gays really are.
And those who manage to be happy despite the blows to self esteem along the way, which can occur when your marriage or other significant relationships fail, or one doesn’t take at all.
I believe that everyone should have the choice to enter into a relationship as fully realized and confident as possible.
To Exodus change might be possible….but change into truly fully realized and honest people…I don’t think so.
Emily,
Excellent point. And it is especially true for those communities in the Christian faith who base their faith soley on Scripture. Their emphasis is usually on the writings of St. Paul so it does seem strange that they would overlook the cornerstone of St. Paul’s theology. But many (not all but a great number of) those who adhere to this style of Christianity are often converts who have issues and they are looking for a miracle cure. Many who convert from an Orthodox faith negate their faith experience and consider the day they “converted” or “handed over their life to God” or “accepted Jesus as their personal savior” as the true begining of their encounter with God. They truely believe that at that moment they are transformed into a new person and their former self no longer exists. That’s why, if they backslide then others of their faith community will say that the one who backslided wasn’t really saved in the first place because they really weren’t transformed.
What I find too is that, in order to justify their decisions, they somehow need to negate others who do not share their view. Is it no surprise then, that Exodus is on the defensive? They are trying to justify themselves and since it is easier to do so by using negative reinforcement, they take that route. The concept is always “God will love you if only you…” and when you live under that kind of theology, you are hated by God until you make some sort of change.
Orthodox Christianity takes a different view in that, we believe God loves all people equally, what is missing in the realtionship is the reciprication by the person. Baptism is the first step in recipricating God’s love for us. As we journey through our lives, we are given opportunities to either grow in God’s love or reject it. But the emphasis is on the fact that God is providing us love and that we are at liberty to accept it or reject by our actions (or lack of actions). So for those in the Orthodox tradition, it’s not that God hates us until we change but rather it is us who hate God by not changing. We are rejecting God’s love. So for those who are ant-gay in the Orthodox faith, they look at the GLBT community as those who hate God, not that God hates us.
The more insidious form I find are those who live by this, but profess just the opposite. They claim it’s all grace, not works, but sure enough the works and conditions are there when you poke around. This might even be more common that those who come right out and say it.
My faith says God began a work in me when I put my faith in him, and He won’t stop until it is done. He has worked out many things in my life, but changing which sex I am attracted to and bond to on the deepest levels has never been a priority in that plan. If He wants to change that, I will listen – but unless and until He does, I’ll trust Him and not someone else’s solution for their own lives.
Sorry, I don’t have 17 years nor $30,000 to follow someone else’s plan, even if it did have a chance of working. I have more important things I can do in that time.
David Roberts:
Well said and so true. That’s the beauty of having a relationship with God versus being in constant fear of him. We can grow in his love instead of being fearful that the rug is going to be pulled our from under us.
Going back to something that Ken R and Regan were saying:
I disagree that religion is the sole factor in wanting to change one’s orientation.
Some people are confused or mistaken about their own orientation; some are repulsed by the thought of sexual activity with one or both genders; some feel a conflict between their primary sexual attraction and their primary romantic/emotional attraction or feel divided in their attraction to different attributes of each gender. Some people (especially ex-gays, transgenders, and perhaps some drag queens) feel weak in identification with their own biological gender or strong in their identification with the opposite biological gender.
I agree. There are different factors that would cause someone to want to change their orientation. But from what I have seen in the last year on many different websites both pro-gay and anti-gay is that religion was the main factor at seeking out one’s desire to change their orientation.
What one of my main beefs about this issue is since several gays have so-called “changed”, those on the conservative right demand that we change as well in accordance to their beliefs. That their beliefs are supreme above all others. And they are doing this through the legislative process.
When did the majority decide on the civil rights of a minority? What would have happened if Abe Lincoln allowed the states to decide to free their own slaves? I doubt slavery would be going on today but I can bet everything I own that it would have taken the southern states longer to free their own slaves.
When one minority is still struggling to attain the basic civil rights as others so freely enjoy then none of us are truly free.
That’s a really good point, which is at the heart of so much confusion. It’s the fact that we are “unrepentant” that infuriates so many of them. I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer as to just how one is supposed to “repent” of same-gender attraction.
Alan Chambers gives an abysmally lame explanation in “God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door,” by stating essentially that all you have to do is feel guilty about your same-gender attractions and you’re good to go in God’s eyes (p 217,218):
Which clearly is NOT clear, thus the need to equate homosexuality with destructive behaviors such as alcoholism or gluttony, or chosen behaviors that harm others, such as lying, cheating, adultery, stealing etc., – without ever explaining how the human need for intimacy, and the consensual expression thereof (sexual or otherwise), is even remotely comparable — and even then, ONLY when it comes to gays.
The closest accurate comparison I can think of would be heterosexual relationships outside of marriage, including the adultery of remarriage. But apparently unrepentant fornication is perfectly acceptable as long as it’s done with the opposite gender. But I digress.
The fact that we have to think that our love is evil, without any offered logical clue as to why, is testament to their own moral relativism. And as long as they can confuse their personal beliefs with God’s, via the Bible, they don’t have to take any responsibility for their actions.
In a nutshell, it’s idolatry. Cherry-picking and “interpreting” the Bible to legitimize one’s personally egotistical beliefs is mistaking the love of self with the love of unconditional love itself (God).
And if you believe the Bible was inspired by the hand of unconditional love, then it’s no coincidence that the #1 commandment in both the old and new testaments was to love God first and foremost.
In regard to the “scientific” subject matter at hand, this at least helps me to understand their delusions. Since God created science, and their god is based on whatever they want it to be, then science should be based on the same standard – whichever way their egotistical/political wind blows…
And make no mistake, I’m an egomaniacal supremacist idolater too, I just make it a point not to confuse or conflate that with unconditional love.
Good grief, every time I manage to forget that he said something that stupid it comes up again. Thanks for the needed reminder – how sad. It seems to me the ex-gay groups started all this “identity speak” in the first place.
And PS,
according to me, and my perception of God’sunconditionallove,
unconditional love means; I only only only want to be with you.
The take-home point about this study is that it was published by a Christian book publisher, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Without a substantive peer review process, the study has no credibility. This, presumably, is the reason why the mainstream press has ignored it.
Kevin,
The other take-home point is that the study failed on an objective level. They set out to see if change was ever possible from gay to straight.
Objectively, the results are “no, it’s not possible.” as all 11% of their “success: conversion” category still have same-sex thoughts and desires. Their sexuality is “complicated”.
Inadvertantly they’ve proven just the opposite, that despite prayer, hard work, and years of dedication, those same-sex thoughts and desires diminish, but never disappear. You can avoid and cope with them, but they will always be with you.
The only way they can view their 11% as a “success” is by lowering the bar and covering it with double-stick tape.
Much as textured vegetable protein patties labeled “chick’n ” are not actually made of meat, let alone chicken meat…the folks in these “successes” are not heterosexual.
This assumption is not shared by the entire Christian community and, if being a homosexual is contrary to Christ then there is no hope for any homosexual irregardless of his or her outward behavior.
For those of us who are Orthodox Christians, as I stated earlier, we believe that God loves us unconditionally but that we can refuse that love by our actions or lack of action. But those of us who are also gay and Orthodox Christian, we do not believe we have to repent for who were are. That would be absured. That would be like left handed people having to repent for being left handed, or visual learners repenting for being visual learners. There are some things that are part of our being that we did not decide.
But , believe it or not, there are some Christian traditions, Orthodox included, that view left handed people as evil, or at least they once did. And visual learners were considered evil by some segments of Christianity because they wanted images to view instead of only listening to sermons and scripture readings.
Emproph,
I do not agree with that statement. Unconditional love from God is God providing all the things we need spiritually without conditions. How we obtain that love is by willingly receiving it, but that does not mean we are to love God only, or only want to be with him (or her). On the contrary, if one loves God one wants to be with others who do the same, and even to be with those who are in need of God’s love.
The Virgin Mary is an excellent example to this. When she received Christ both spiritually and physically, she immediate “ran with haste” to visit her cousin Elizabeth. The love she received from God and the love she had for God compelled her to share that love with others. That is why in Orthodox Christianity she is called the first Christian, because she received God and immediately wanted others to share in the love she received with others.
T Michael Airhart, I can understand where this is very true. These ARE matters of gender as well as orientation.
The important thing is….being weak or confused about these things or swinging strongly one way or the other doesn’t make one a bad person or required to submit themselves to discrimination or denial of happiness from outside parties.
Sometimes it takes truly supportive love from real friends, those without a political or monetary agenda who can love you through those times when one is feeling weak, confused or tired.
That’s why people blossom and grow in the presence of real love and don’t have as much fear for themselves and their feelings.
This is why I cannot believe or trust those who support ex gay ministry.
Fear and loathing are at the foundation of their outreach, NOT love.
If this runs counter to the teachings of whatever church. It’s easier to change churches…than accord changing orientation.
I didn’t see where this has been aired but the spin is coming to mainstream news papers: Denver Post: Focus on the Family says Sexual Orientation can change
Note Fryrear’s use of words in what she says to the Denver Post:
[emphases mine]
That doesn’t sound as though they’re actually achieving the goal, but perhaps they’re taking comfort from Robert Louis Stevensons’s dictum that “it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.”
Note also:
and
Once again the red herring of the “right to change” is being used to distract attention from the point at issue, which is not the right to change, but the efficacy or otherwise of attempts to do so.
Man, what a truly worthless article. I wonder how hard Focus had to pressure them just to get that out there?
Denver Post: Focus on the Family says Sexual Orientation can change
And here I thought Focus says Sexual Orientation doesn’t exist.
Alan, my specific point was that Love’s only desire is unity, and in our (human) case, to express that understanding of unity-with-Love (God), with others.
Which your description aptly reflects. 😉
Indubitably.
From God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door:
If love is life, and our love is evil, then what is life?
I’m not seeing the selling point of salvation here Randy, especially given the fact that I’m already “saved,” but then again, this book wasn’t written for me was it?
It was written for my “neighbors-next-door” to judge me with. Wasn’t it?
Regan is ultra spot on. But I would expand the point above.
Are people really blinded by the ‘struggle’ homosexuals face? Did the general public really fall for the deceptions of ex-gay ministries so much so that they fail to recognize the struggles are always external and not internal?
Thus far all of the testaments of the real ‘struggles’, even from some ex-gays themselves, are about prejudice, stigmatization and discrimination served to them daily.
So are these ex-gay ministries really concerned and have compassion on gays? If so:
Why are these real struggles never addressed, and instead these real struggles are being enforced and multiplied by ex-gay ministry themselves?
Why add the struggles of gays by creating additional struggles by continuously banging and whipping the Bible on them and call them sinners by virture of their being itself?
Why homosexuals are presented as the only ones with ‘urges’ and ‘struggles’ worth so much concentrated energy, money, effort and time to eradicate?
If this is the kind of ‘love’ from them, dare I say ex-gay ministries are struggling to love!