A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
Continued from Part 2
A Focus on the Results — Examining if it is Harmful
The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association regard attempts to change sexual orientation as “potentially” harmful or risky. However, Jones and Yarhouse misrepresent the American Psychological Association as saying that such involvement “would be” harmful (p. 353) or “is highly likely” to be harmful (p. 365). Likewise, the authors state they are examining whether the change process is “always” harmful (p. 19), “potentially” harmful (p. 77), or “likely to be harmful” (p. 77). They conclude there is “no evidence” such attempts are harmful (pp. 296, 332), it is not harmful “in and of itself” (p. 359), there is “no meaningful” evidence for it being harmful (p. 363), there is “little evidence” for harm (p. 365), and it is “not harmful on average” (p. 367), the latter being a far cry from there being no evidence it is harmful!
The participants themselves refute the authors’ assertion that change therapy is not harmful. One participant says these groups are not “healthy or necessarily beneficial” (p. 301), another reports his faith is “taking a beating” (p. 313), a third feels “hopeless”, “helpless”, “empty”, “frustrated”, “hurt”, and “very alone” (p. 314, all after 3 years in the Exodus program), a fourth bemoans he spent so many years trying to change that he has missed out on other goals in his life (p. 316), and a fifth claims involvement in the therapy made life “more difficult” (p. 317). One wonders what would have to be the reports of the participants for Jones and Yarhouse to declare the ministry harmful? However, they do recognize that the 23 participants (of an original 98) who dropped out of the program may have been harmed, but they cannot be sure of such a conclusion (p. 354). Nonetheless, dismissing this possibility and ignoring the statements of the participants that remained in the program, Jones and Yarhouse confidently declare the change process is not harmful. Once again, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: those who declare they are hurt by the process are evidence of harm.
One might be inclined to forgive Jones and Yarhouse for their optimism if they had not presented anecdotal stories of individuals not related to the current study who committed suicide because they were unable to change. The authors plead: “should such anecdotes foreclose the option of the individual choosing to attempt orientation change?” (pp. 359-360). Jones and Yarhouse do not indicate how many deaths and testimonies of harm they consider permissible in order to allow other individuals the opportunity for a change that, by all evidence, is unlikely to ever happen.
Jones and Yarhouse recognize that individuals who enter ex-gay ministries are vulnerable (p. 64). Thus, it is disappointing to have the authors draw unwarranted conclusions that are in direct opposition to their own decree as to what the study can and cannot indicate. While their book will be likely and erringly used to convince some homosexual Christians or their families that change is possible, the results demonstrate nothing of the kind. How many lives must be broken before the authors realize the actual damage caused by these ministries outweighs any potential good?
It is clear to me why the participants in this study retain homosexual desires, attractions and arousal: they were born that way. While Exodus and many conservative Christian leaders argue that postnatal causes lead to homosexual orientation (p. 69), to this day no scientific study has successfully identified any postnatal causal factor or factors. Meanwhile, scientific organizations, supported by considerable research summarized in Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman’s Born Gay, recognize the importance of prenatal factors in determining sexual orientation, specifically prenatal hormones and genetics, and believe that a homosexual orientation is immutable.
The evidence indicates that while a person can change his or her behavior, sexual orientation cannot be changed. Homosexuality is not a disorder or illness that requires healing. Contrary to the conclusions of Jones and Yarhouse, the data from the current study adds additional support to this conclusion.
—
This is the final part of Dr. Chapman’s critique. One of the subject book authors, Dr. Stanton Jones, will be providing a response here within the next few days — check back.
Patrick M. Chapman has a PhD in biological anthropology and is author of “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: in press).
I appreciate Dr Chapman’s posts. He refers to an American Psychological Association resolution about attempts to change sexual orientation.
The American Psychiatric Association has resolutions that are similar. However, I like this statement in their Opinions of the Ethics Committee On The Principles of Medical Ethics (2001 edition, section 1-GG) since it is clear, concise and to the point:
When talking with those who support such therapies, maintaining that gays should change for moral (religious) reasons, I quote the above and ask, “Why would you promote something that is clearly unethical?” and conclude, “There’s nothing moral about that.”
Bill, so you are saying that Jones is essentially correct on that point?
Are there are clinical studies that show that reparative therapy is harmful, or is it just anecdotal evidence (like the above)?
Asking myself the same thing. Randomized clinical studies at that too.
The Shidlo and Schroeder study was not randomized; it was a convenience sample. But it did establish that some harm is experienced by some people.
The Jones and Yarhouse study might have served to help understand that harm and to determine if it is widespread or debilitating. Sadly, due to methodoloy, implementation, and interpretation, J&S provided very little whatsoever to this discussion.
The author of this post said: their was “…anecdotal stories of individuals not related to the current study who committed suicide because they were unable to change.” I am not writting to refute this, but I would like reference(s) so I can check. Thanks.
Right so let’s get this straight. The Shidlo and Schroeder study was a convenience sample that reported that some people experienced harm from reparative therapy. This is useful because it points the way forward for more research.
At the same time, the Jones and Yarhouse study was a convenience sample that reported that some people experienced some form of shift along the homo/heterosexual continuum. This proves nothing and should be ignored as people being self-delusional, with it obviously being down to modified behaviour patterns and nothing more?
No, Peter, that’s not what Timothy said.
Here you go again, resorting to strawman arguments in order to disrupt a discussion.
So to answer Joel and Peter correctly, there are only anecdotal evidence and the Shidlo and Schroeder study which was not randomized rather it was a convenience sample. Also, S&S set out to look for harm in the first place, by directly advertising for consumers that felt they were harmed. This was not just convenient, but rather, bias. Interestingly that same study found folks that did not described themselves as harmed. So, you really couldn’t conclude that it was the therapy that was harmful in the first place. Don’t get me wrong, I think any study, regarless if it is random or not, is a good contribution to the literature and they all have their stenghts and flaws.
I think that we should be wary of saying “just anecdotal”. The trouble is that “anecdotal” is derived from the noun “anecdote”, and when we hear the latter word it’s easy to think immediately of an amusing after-dinner story that the chairman or president or whoever told at the conference. It may not be true at all, and we don’t really care whether it’s true or not, because the virtue of the story doesn’t lie in its truth but in its entertainment value. Or we might think of the guy whom we got talking to in the Black Bull one night the other week, who told us about this woman that his auntie once knew who….
The first definition of “anecdotal” given in Chambers Combined Dictionary Thesaurus reflects this, but the second definition is: “said of information, etc based on chance accounts of incidents rather than systematic explanation.” This is the kind of information to be found, for example, in Ariel Shidlo et al.’s Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives and over on Peterson Toscano’s Beyond Ex-Gay website. Where testimony of this kind is given firsthand by people who have undergone reparative therapy and seems to have been given in good faith – rather than, say, given to a tabloid newspaper to make a quick buck – it deserves at least to be taken seriously.
I’m absolutely no expert on devising clinical studies, so I speak under correction, but it strikes me that it could be very difficult to get information in this way. How many people are going to be willing to submit to therapy if they are told beforehand – as, of course, they should be told – “You must realise that there is a possibility that this therapy will be harmful to you, and that, if you’re unhappy now with your sexual orientation, you may find yourself even worse off if the therapy fails to change it”?
Jim, the comment regarding anecdotal stories was in Jones & Yarhouse’s book. If there are references to the specific stories you will find them in the J & Y book. I apologize for the confusion.
Patrick
Mike A,
I didn’t day that Tim said that. I was making that observation.
William,
Do you assume that everybody sharing their (anecdotal) story of change is making a quick buck? What about those who aren’t? Are their (anecdotal) stories as valid as those for whom forms of reparative therapy were detrimental?
William: Informed consent is just that — be aware, and tell the client what you know and make them aware if it. We do not know for sure that it is harmful or not. What we DO know is that SOME people have said so and SOME people have said not. I discuss the book Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives with clients. The worse thing to do is try and hide things. People are much too wise for that.
No, Peter, I’m assuming no such thing, nor did I imply it. And yes, I agree that those who claim that reparative therapy was not detrimental to them, or that it was positively beneficial, deserve also to have their testimony taken seriously. Please do try to refrain from putting gratuitous glosses on what I write.
I’m not putting a gloss on it. It’s just that in a previous thread I was ridiculed by some for claiming (anecdotally) to have seen a change in my orientation. I didn’t notice you defending me there.
Peter, your habitual Straw Man arguments are getting very old. Please avoid them in the future.
Jim Phelan said:
Now that’s rich.
I’ve had it. Peter, this is not your playground. Every thread in which you participate ends up a tangled, OT mess with you against the world. Stop it, now.
The next comment not related to the Jones and Yarhouse study and Dr. Chapman’s critique will be deleted.
That is not an honest statement.
It would be truthful to say: what we do know is that some people have said that it is harmful and some people have not said that it is harmful. What is NOT the truth is that some people have said that it is NOT HARMFUL.
Yes, it’s just the movement of one word. But it makes all the difference.
We know that some were not harmed. But there isn’t anyone with credibility that is claiming that no one was harmed through reorientation therapy.
THe question is not whether reorientation therapy can be harmful. The question is to what extent, in what circumstances, and what methods could be implemented to mediate that harm.
Sadly, Jones and Yarhouse did not investigate those most likely to have experienced harm and they discounted the claims of harm that were reported. I could understand the limitations that impeded their investigation of the dropouts, but find it disconcerting that they missed the evidences of harm that were presented on a silver platter.
It may be a nasty thing to suggest, but could it just be that some people feel that, if a handful of people can become heterosexual “in a meaningful but complicated sense of the term”, then harm to others is a price well worth paying, just as a minister in Margaret Thatcher’s British government last century felt that a record number of unemployed was a price well worth paying for economic stability?
Was the Jones and Yarhouse Study peer-reviewed? This was probably answered but I might have missed it.
Interesting, I remember doing an essay trying everything possible to show that internet pornography caused an increase in rape. Never really succeeded conclusively but I did suggest it did. And the reason to prove that was to ban pornorgraphy for the benefit of humanity. Looking back at it… no wonder my professor thought it was so silly. And I remember someone in a stadistics class told me that one of their proyects was to prove, statistically, something completely foolish playing with the numbers. He was amazed at what ppl managed to ‘prove’.
Im extremely skeptic at these sort of things. Harm, no harm, so-so harm, etc, same with half conversion, converted, no conversion… Just because they harm some ppl, it doesnt mean the rest shouldnt have the opportunity to try it, of course, if its under informed consent.
ALL therapies, procedures, surgeries, and medication interventions “can be harmful”. Your commute home tonight can be harmful (granted you commute). Life in general can be harmful (unless you live in a bubble, and even that has risks). Reading this blog can be harmful, and so on. But, to address Timothy’s questions “under what circumstances, and what methods could be implemented to mediate that harm”, the clinician should advise the the consumer of their rights and risks of treatment. This should be standard practice and it is really not a new concept.
Unfortunately, neither is the abuse of it.
All I know is that when I joined an Exodus-affiliated ministry I never once heard that there was an extreme failure rate, that some came out harmed, and that there was evidence it was inborn, that there was evidence it wasn’t caused by the “classic triadic relationship’ as some are calling it, etc. In other words, there was no informed consent whatsoever – just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims!
Jim,
Medications have to go through an FDA approval process to determine if they are safe and efficacious. If the drugmake cannot prove that the drugs work on some level, they don’t get approved.
Yes, medications that are generally safe and efficacious can cause death (allergic reaction to penicillin), and side effects (nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression from narcotics), etc. But first and foremost, they have to be proven effective at treating some sort of condition; for example penicillin effectively treats many infections and is the first line treatment for strep throat, and narcotics have been proven to treat pain.
Homosexuality isn’t considered a disease, so is there even something to treat? As of yet, there is no convincing evidence that reparative or other forms of reorientation therapy change sexual orientation, and the burden for the proof lies with the advocates of sexual orientation therapy who have failed miserably to prove effectiveness for many decades. Without evidence of effectiveness, safety issues become a much greater concern.
The Jones and Yarhouse study doesn’t show convincing evidence of sexual orientation change. The study also doesn’t show that the attempt to change is without harm.
So, if reparative or reorientation therapy were a drug, it would never get approved.
“So, if reparative or reorientation therapy were a drug, it would never get approved.”
Correct – and it should be banned.
and if not banned (great idea, by the way) at least put the a similar warning on them as is on a bottle of echinacea:
*This statement has not been evaluated by the food and drug administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or condition.
“So, if reparative or reorientation therapy were a drug, it would never get approved.”
Correct – and it should be banned.
Actually, then that standard would apply to every form of psychological therapy. Should we ban all psychological treatments and counseling?
David Roberts asks:
“Bill, so you are saying that Jones is essentially correct on that point?”
I have no idea about what Jones (and Yarhouse) are saying. They seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
All I know as a former member of the American Psychological Association (now retired) is their consensus opinion on the matter, that “reparative” therapies are ineffective at best and harmful at worst.
In thirty years of counseling experience, I’ve never seen anyone’s sexual orientation change. These basic limbic system responses to external sexual stimuli have been around since the age of the reptiles over 300 million years ago. The idea that by taking thought or praying enough one could change these innate limbic responses in any way is simply inane.
On that point, Chapman points out that Jones and Yarhouse create a bit of a straw man by mis-stating the APA’s statement on conversion therapies. Your statement tends to give credence to J&Y.
I think we can accept as fact that sexual drives are quite old and basic, but do you have some data that proves drives which don’t lead to reproduction (i.e. same sex attractions) also stem from those depths? IOW, as with earlier discussions, do you know of data which supports an exclusively biological origin for homosexuality?
I think I will change my username to “show me the money.”
“but do you have some data that proves drives which don’t lead to reproduction (i.e. same sex attractions) also stem from those depths?”
Well, animals have non-reproductive sex, including oral, anal, masturbation, etc. The video link someone presented earlier discusses all that. I’ve also read that almost 50% of bonobo ape sex is homosexual. I don’t see any reason to suppose that while animals often have non-reproductive sex, it’s not “normal” for humans to do so also.
I understand, Nick, but that wasn’t the question.
For nearly all the time since I became an APA member over 30 years ago, the APA and other professional organizations have tried to get those who practice reparative therapy to engage in a clinical trial to demonstrate it’s effectiveness.
A clinical trial would involve taking those who complained that their same sex attractions were giving them problems in life and randomly assigning them to two groups. One group would have their treatment directed by a practitioner of reparative therapy, while the other group would have their treatment directed by a therapist would follows the recommended APA guidelines regarding therapy for same sex attracted clients.
Regular assessments by an independent third party, who would not know which group each person was in, would provide the data by which the two groups could be objectively compared.
Despite the incessant pleadings by the APA and others, no such clinical trial has ever taken place, simply because not a single reparative therapist has ever agreed to lead the reparative therapy group as required for a clinical study to take place.
What are they trying to hide, one must wonder.
Then they turn around with the most innocent smile on their face, and declare, unabashedly, that no clinical trail has shown that their treatment is ineffective or harmful in any way. Well d’oh!
Those who promote reparative therapy have no interest in the truth or taking responsibility for the harm that they do.
Those of us who are saddled with the chore of repairing the damage that “reparative therapies” do would rather not have this damage occur in the first place. I hope that the APA committee studying reparative therapies, in its December, 2007 preliminary report, will condemn these destructive approaches to gays in the most certain of terms.
Got this yesterday in an email from Exodus:
From the Exodus ad:
Those other “psychological problems,” as per:
Patrick M. Chapman, PhD, author of the above, also recently covered this:
Now back to:
So in one sentence, not only does homosexuality become “curable,” but also a “psychological problem” to be cured. And just in case any doubts linger after all that sinks in – “Such therapy is not harmful to individuals.”
To compare homosexuality with depression is to compare happiness with unhappiness. At least to the extent that “the love of my life” can be taken as a literal statement.
So if loving and experiencing love in my life, is a “psychological problem” to be cured…
I know alcoholics who as long as they have a drink are very happy. Does that mean they don’t need help?
Peter said:
Apples and oranges here. When I am with my beloved, I am not out causing fights, running down pedestrians, or destroying my liver. I am happy and the people I associate with are also happy. I am a better worker, a better friend, a better citizen. Can that be said about a drunk?
John,
Yes, homosexuality, per se, is no longer considered a mental disorder since 1973. But, considering there were individuals who were homosexually oriented, yet dissatisfied this way, the American Psychiatric Association replaced the diagnosis with the category of “sexual orientation disturbance” in 1974. This was later replaced with the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality in the DSM-III in 1980, but this was removed in 1987 with the release of the DSM-III-R. A category of “sexual disorder not otherwise specified” continues today in the current DSM-IV, which includes “persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation”.
Therefore, there is still a place at the clinical table for those who seek resolution, and in some cases, for those who seek to change in their sexual orientation. This is largely the case because ex-gays have collectively stood up to be counted, as once did their openly gay counterparts in the 70’s. On May 22, 1994, in Philadelphia, for the first time in history, the American Psychiatric Association was protested against, not by pro-gay activists, but by a group of ex-gays claiming that they had been cured and that cure was possible for others.
I don’t think it’s in any way apples and oranges.
Firstly, not all alcoholics go and cause fights or running down pedestrians in the same way that not all homosexuals are sexually promiscuous or publicly vivacious at Pride. But then on top of that you raise the issue of liver damage and I might equally raise back to you the destruction of the soul when one’s life is willfully oriented away from that which God has desired for you. (I could go on about the much lower lifespan for homosexual men than for heterosexual men, but that might lay me open to accusations of “bigotry” for stating simple statistical facts).
And yes, I grant you that the paragraph above is a theological argument that many people here simply aren’t in the same ball-park as that game. Fair enough.
And since you raised the issue of alcoholism, do you know what the success rate is for groups like Alcoholics Anonymous? What about the percentage of people who went on a 12 step program and found that it didn’t help in the slightest?
What do they say?
Peter,
Where do either Jones and Yarhouse, or Chapman, discuss alcoholism?
It seems you are AGAIN disrupting a discussion with off-topic smears.
Aaaahhh, so if raise an analogy or something that’s not in the Jones and Yarhouse (or Chapman) then that’s off-topic? OK, I understand, but why then do you slap my hands but not the hands of those on this thread who raised the issue of animal sex habits (which I don’t think from my reading of Jones and Yarhouse was part of their study)?
Hmmmmm???
Emproph,
They tell me that they don’t have a problem, that I’m interfering in their lives and that I should mind my own business.
Do you think that’s what we should do with alcoholics? Or should we continue to care for them and try to get them to engage with the truth or their situation?
Peter, I am going to go quiet on your comment not because I am backing down but because it would pull this way off topic.
Benton,
I quite understand.
Given that the analogy is with homosexuality (same-gender attraction), then I’m assuming by “truth of the situation” you mean this:
So then, if God didn’t think it was a sin, what problem would you then have with our relationships?
Emproph,
If God didn’t say that same-sex behaviour was wrong then I would have absolutely no problem with it.
“But then on top of that you raise the issue of liver damage and I might equally raise back to you the destruction of the soul when one’s life is willfully oriented away from that which God has desired for you.”
We can prove without a shadow of a doubt there is a liver, we can even tell you what it does, what common problems it has, where it is located, and what it looks like. We can show you examples of both healthy and diseased livers.
The same cannot be said for the “soul”. What is it’s color, taste, smell? What are it’s physical attributes? What part of the body is it located?
You cannot compare the “soul” ( a vague concept which has not physical attributes and no solid evidence of it’s existence) with something we can pull out of a person today and show you, namely the liver.
The effect of homosexuality on the “soul” cannot be proven or disproven. We might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
“(I could go on about the much lower lifespan for homosexual men than for heterosexual men, but that might lay me open to accusations of “bigotry” for stating simple statistical facts).”
There are no facts that show gay men have a lower lifespan. All the studies that suggest this have been thoroughly disproven on many points including these:
1) Lifespans are descriptive, not prescriptive.
2) The statistics for life-expectancy for men includes homosexuals, we are not left out of those metrics.
3) the data for those surveys and studies was gathered through gay newspaper obituaries and does not include
-homosexuals who’s family refused to have an obit printed.
-homosexuals who’s families did not know they were gay.
-homosexuals who did not have any friends or family to put up money for the obit.
-homosexuals who did not have a local gay paper in which to put an obituary.
-homosexuals who’s friends or family members didn’t think to put up an obituary.
4)Newspaper adds are voluntary. They are not required.
5)Obituaries do not typically indicate the sexuality of the deceased, so there is no reason to suggest that all the obituaries in a non-gay specific newspaper are straight people.
6) At least one of those surveys was done during the middle of the AIDS crisis in Canada, which can hardly be considered reliable data for American Gay Men in 2007. Much has changed in that time.
So I’m sorry, no, we do not have shorter lifespans. I’ve been hit on bar far too many senior citizens for that to be possible. 🙂
“And yes, I grant you that the paragraph above is a theological argument that many people here simply aren’t in the same ball-park as that game. Fair enough.”
Good that you recognize that not everyone is interested in that game.
If you believe that, then you certainly shouldn’t engage in it, however the rest of the world will have to come to their own conclusions. Until you respect that, you will always be obsessed with the lives of others. You have your own issues, Peter.
After reviewing the threads from the past couple of days, I’m going to ask you to take a break from XGW Peter. Come back the first of the year if you like and see if you can debate the issues at hand instead of returning to the same argument each time.
To everyone else, this critique brings out important issues. Please comment based on that topic.
How about murder, or theft, or rape. Would you also not have a problem with those if God didn’t?
Peter, are you serious?? You’re citing the Paul Cameron (Nazi-admiring “it’s a plausible solution that gays should be quarantined and exterminated” Paul Cameron) “lifespan study” as proof that gays are unhealthy? David Roberts was right, it really doesn’t take long for your true colors to come out. It’s one thing to insist gays are sick spiritually (“destruction of the soul”) which, by the way, as a devout Jew, I have yet to experience – but it’s quite another to attempt to persuade the skeptics and atheists with your bad science. This is exactly what Jones and Yarhouse attempt to do – use bad science. And you’re using the bad science of a man who sides with genocidal Nazi ideology, at that!
This is always what happens when so-called “tolerant” people start talking more and more – their true colors come out. They end up not only openly denying gays the spiritual opportunity to live as fulfilled happy faithful people, they try to convince them on a scientific level that their lives are that much more destructive, denigrating, and diseased than theirs on a scientific level – as if that really drives the point home. “God is not only not on your side, medical science isn’t either! So even if you don’t believe in God or my religion – well, science hates you too! You’re finished!”
Peter, why is it so important that you “prove” to us gays that we’re so much lower than you “non-gays?” Is that the only reason you’re “not” gay anymore? Because of fear? fear of an Angry God and fear of science?
Because last time I checked, being in love with someone was not “destructive of the soul.” How can love ever destroy the soul?
Aw, don’t ban Peter! He may take up space, but bandwidth isn’t that expensive. I know it’s no one’s intention, but if the annoying, tedious people who diasagree with you aren’t allowed in, very soon we’ll just be a bunch of like-minded folks patting ourselves on the back for how clever we are and how deluded everyone else is (see Rush Limbaugh listeners). I can see banning people for egregious personal rudeness, but Peter, although only tangentially on topic a lot of the time, is a useful counterweight here.
Emily K,
I’m not citing Paul Cameron. I didn’t even mention Paul Cameron. You did. There are far better studies than Cameron’s to indicate that in some parts of the gay community there are serious public health issues to be addressed.
Please don’t let that stop you associating me with words like “genocidal Nazi authority” though.
Just a reminder to anyone who is able to receive British radio: remember to listen to BBC Radio 4 tonight at 8 o’clock (GMT) to hear the much-revered Archbishop Desmond Tutu talking about how the Anglican communion has beome obsessed in recent years with matters of human sexuality, at the expense of far more vital issues; how he is ashamed of his Church because of this; and how he believes that Jesus, too, would be ashamed of it.
Rose, Peter was not banned, he was asked to obey our guidelines for constructive discussion. This is not a graffiti site where vandals can scrawl whatever they wish. XGW requires that commentary be civil, on-topic, and free of strawman argumentation. We welcome ex-gay commentary that meets these simple requirements.
Peter O
If you are not referencing Paul Cameron, please provide the source for the study that indicates that homosexaulity in and of itself results in a shorter life span. Please also provide access to the peer reviewed article in a reputable journal (not pay to print) which reported this observation.
If, on the other hand, you find that your source truly is Paul Cameron, rather than change the subject or ignore this post, please do come back, apologize, and retract your claim.
Thank you.
Peter, feel free to cite them. As offhandedly mentioning “studies” without citing sources will get you nowhere with this crowd.
Although please save us some time and visit Boxturtle Bulletin first and make sure you’re not using something they’ve already exposed as fraudulent, heavily flawed, misrepresentative of the actual work done, or simply a boldfaced lie.
If God didn’t say that same-sex behaviour was wrong then I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I always find these statements rather silly. They are so full of preconceived assumptions about how Scripture was written, compiled and interpreted that they are meaningless and naive. Even those who make them don’t believe that God “said” everything written in the Bible, nor that every thing God “called wrong” is applicable to all people in all situations.
Unless someone is following all 613 commands of Jewish law (and the additional dozen or so commands in the NT) they aren’t doing everything God “said”. It should be no surprise that other Christians are going to disagree on whether their rationalizations for picking and choosing are valid, or use different criteria for their own. This has happened since Peter and Paul fought over circumcision in the 1st Century.
The NT (in Galatians) clearly forbids using the law to condemn others, unless those who do the condemning follow all 613 laws perfectly. I find it odd that people spend so much time constructing and maintaining so called “ex gay” ministries yet do nothing to stop divorced and remarried people from committing ongoing acts of adultery with their second spouses and embrace lifetime celibacy (per 1 Corinthians 7:10-11) or urging the rich to give up their possessions.
But Biblical consistency has never been a hallmark of the Anglican right-wing. If surveys are to believed, all this ex-gay stuff is part of a dying worldview; even younger evangelicals have a more diverse and nuanced view of committed same sex relationships.
You are more than welcome to respond to the open questions before taking your sabbatical, Peter.
I was on another website discussion forum and someone brought up The Law when discussing The Law and Homosexuality.
The Law was not given to me (a Gentile) but it was given only for the Jews to follow. So The Law is not binding on me as a Gentile. And you know what? It makes perfect sense. I am not Jewish. My ancestors were never Jewish. So in short The Law is not something I need to follow since it was never given to me to follow. I am a Christian. I follow Christ. He fullfilled The Law upon the Cross.
So my question is this: How can anyone bind The Law to me when it was never given to me, a Gentile, to follow in the first place?
Studies indicating serious health problems in parts of the gay community:
Holly et al, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81 (1989) p1728, “Anal Cancer Incidence” – Shows much higher rates of drug taking amongst gay men then rest of population using a longitudinal study (1983 to 1989)
Williams et al, Comprehensive Psychiatry 34 (1993) p153 shows extremely high levels of alcohol abuse amongst self-identified gay men
Also in this study (Williams et al) and in Bell & Weinberg’s “Homosexualities” (page 200) there is clear evidence of much higher rates of mental health issues amongst gay men (though I grant this is a 1978 book, but it comes out with similar results to the 1993 Williams study)
D I Abrams in the Journal of AIDS 3 (1990) p545 has a table showing the huge difference in STD carrying between heterosexuals and homosexuals (not just AIDS patients).
Schomer et al in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 41 (March 1992) shows phenomenally high Hep A rates amongst homosexual men. Keeffe in his “Clinical Approaches to Viral Hepatitis” (published in The Medical Clinics of North America 70 – 1986 I believe) shows the same for Hep B.
Obviously I don’t even need to quote the HIV figures for you.
This takes us then to studies like Hogg et al (Int Jrnl Epidemiology 1997 26(3) ) which show definite lower life spans for gay men. In this follow-up, they argue (cogently) that the evidence that lifespans are 8 to 21 years less for gay men isn’t a reason for homophobia. Good point. They also suggest that if the study was repeated today the life-expectancy figures would be higher. However, no one has done the repeat study (to my knowledge) so we cannot assume that is necessarily true.
That’s just for starters. Want anymore??
Please note, I normally never raise these issues as I find talking about STDs and death rates is a bit too brutal and doesn’t add anything to the theological argument, but given that I’ve been challenged on this I’m happy to provide.
Forgot to add this.
You are quite right toujoursdan. But tell them that. I was on a site that claimed to clear up the misconception of divorce and remarriage. They claim that the act of remarriage is the sin and that there is no such thing as “continuous state of sin (adultery)” for those that have divorced and remarried. Only the act of remarriage is a sin. And that it can be forgiven. So they are breaking it down and making divorce and remarriage a thumbs up in God’s eyes. They also have a wonderful section on Homosexuality which is consistent with the anti-gay theology most evangelicals/fundamentalists have. No surprise there.
As for the rich giving up their possessions, haven’t you heard of the “Prosperity Gospel”? They claim its God given. One minister on CNN (can’t remember his name) claimed that if Jesus was walking the Earth today he’d be riding around in a Rolls. *shakes head in disbelief*
*I apologize if I am off-topic but there was questions raised that I needed to put my two cents in about. 😉
David Roberts asks:
On that point, Chapman points out that Jones and Yarhouse create a bit of a straw man by mis-stating the APA’s statement on conversion therapies. Your statement tends to give credence to J&Y.
The APA position is stated in Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
It’s not just gays who are damaged by the false promises these treatments make. Parents are adversely effected as well. A child has years to adjust to the fact that they are gay, while the realization that a child is gay may happen all at once. This can send parents into a frenzy looking for answers. If they are misdirected by the likes of “love won out” the resulting conflict between parent and child is quite challenging to manage. Jim Burroway discusses the mischief LWO causes on his excellent blog Box Turtle Bulletin
David continues:
We know that same sex and opposite sex reactions come from the same place since these reactions are in all ways identical even thought the external stimuli differ.
This study has PET scans which show how the limbic system “lights up” in reaction to male and female pheromones in both gays and straights, graphically demonstrating that these responses are at the same “depths” of the brain for both.
Peter O,
do you believe the same thing about lesbians (of which I am one)? Since they lead “healthier” lives (according to the center for disease control, no HIV transmission has EVER been recorded regarding F to F relations), does that make my personal “lifestyle” better in your eyes? Also, there is nothing in the Law or Prophets that forbids female homosexuality. There is only an oblique reference in the Talmud (which Christians reject). Do you “approve” of lesbians since we’re clearly “healthier” and much more morally acceptable?
Peter O,
I know.
Also Blacks are much more likely to be victims of crime, die young, suffer from poverty, etc.
Why are blacks not joining an ex-Black program?
The answer is not to deny one’s sexual orientation – but to examine the underlying causes of self-destructive behavior.
Please use your intelligence.
Peter O,
A 1997 study on life expectancy???
That would be significantly affected by the HIV epidemic.
Gay men who were infected in the late 1970s and early 1980s before anyone knew about HIV would skew those numbers.
Now gay men have significantly changed their sexual behavior and new drugs have made HIV a manageable disease.
Please use your intelligence.
Actually, Peter, you did not answer the question at all. You changed the subject. The question, as you appear to have forgotten it is:
“…please provide the source for the study that indicates that homosexaulity in and of itself results in a shorter life span…”
What you gave was a bunch of SDI statistics that are not applicable to many homosexual men and women. The closest you came was to the Hogg study.
However, as you well know, the Hogg study was a measure of how the AIDS crisis had impacted the gay population and was reflective of the height of that crisis. As Hogg stated in 2001, “If we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved.”
(a helpful hint: next time do check your facts with http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com before throwing around statistics and studies)
In other words, this too was a measure of a specific virus and was not indicative of homosexuality per se.
One could argue that promiscuity in a time of sexually transmitted diseases leads to a shortened life. One could even argue that homosexual promiscuity (especially outside of safer sex guidelines) in a time of sexually transmitted diseases leads to a shortened life.
But it is dishonest to suggest that homosexuality, per se, is akin to alcoholism because of the “much lower lifespan for homosexual men than for heterosexual men”.
Bill said:
Bill, the link isn’t working, but in any case these are fascinating indications that what you say may very well be true, but it is still speculation at this point. It does us no good to claim solid facts exist for something when they do not yet. I tend to agree with the hypothesis, but we will have to wait for more conclusive evidence. Until then, making a matter of fact statement about origins and causality of homosexuality is not appropriate here.
David Roberts,
For some reason that link had https:// in it not once, but twice.
Let’s try it again here.
Ah, that’s better.
In the years after WWII, researchers took a heightened interest in homosexuality. The focus of this research was to confirm and clarify Freud’s conjectures that factors in upbringing led persons to be gay. If we had a more detailed understanding of the psychodynamics underlying this process, we could develop more effective treatments for those who suffered from what was then considered a psychological disorder.
Freud based his insights solely on his intimate knowledge of his psychiatric patients. He never included members of the general population in his research. Many of his insights were valid to some degree when applied to people in general but some were definitely not.
When researchers took random samples from both the gay and straight population and looked at their upbringing, no particular differences were found. This was so astonishing to many that they assumed that these studies were flawed. Yet when even larger, better controlled studies produced the same results, they had to conclude that Freud had been wrong about the origins of homosexuality all along, that upbringing had no bearing on adult sexual preferences at all.
The idea that we haven’t found the “gay gene” yet, is a red herring in determining whether or not a trait is genetically determined. Even though we have not found the gene(s) that control for eye color, we know that eye color is genetically determined simply because we know that no environmental factors or process of thought can change the eye color one is born with.
When researchers find that no environmental factors (upbringing) effect adult sexual orientation, the same criteria are met. This also means that no environmental factors (therapy) can change sexual orientation as well. When we see that no treatment, from deep psychoanalysis to electroshock therapy has ever changed a person’s sexual orientation, we confirm this basic truth.
The fact that these sexual inclinations are a trait, not a disorder, is one of the five compelling reasons why homosexuality was dropped from the DSM by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973.
peter, you seem to be leaving out a lot involving the supposed early death of gays. How about some quotes from that rebuttal, (bold is mine)
“From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.”
You say this
*They also suggest that if the study was repeated today the life-expectancy figures would be higher. However, no one has done the repeat study (to my knowledge) so we cannot assume that is necessarily true.*
…but seem to not have actually read what they wrote:
“In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.4″
How’d you miss the part where they put little notations that someone actually had some proof to this effect?
“Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor.”
Translation: you cannot use this study to prove gay men live shorter lives. You can use this study to show that a certain subset of a Canadian gay population that lived in this area during this time period had significantly shortened lives. Things have significantly changed since then.
and this final note:
“If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man’s risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.”
So in essence, gay men as a group do not live significantly shorter lives. The researchers themselves pretty much tell you that.
The only reference they have is to HIV deaths, NOT to the overall life expectancy of self-identified gays.
Note very carefully what they say (which you highlighted Jason) – “Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used.” – That’s putting together all the male population tables and then asking you not to split it out into gay, bi-sexual and straight because it’s not convenient. If you think that’s a robust way to decide that gay men don’t have a lower life expectancy then I think you’re kidding yourself. That would be the equivalent of adding all HIV deaths into the aggregate death count of all people and then, looking at that average for all people (and not looking at the HIV subset) and from that arguing that people with HIV don’t have a shorter life expectancy then anybody else.
The rebuttal was a rebuttal of the homophobic use of the research, not a rebuttal of the data. What we are still left with is the Hogg analysis that gay men had a much lower life expectancy than others, with no repeat study to show that has changed. Do you deny the Hogg study? Have you any research to show that the figures have changed in the last 10/15 years? Or are you simply going to accuse me again of bigotry without presenting the research that you seem so keen on?
I only presented all the other health data to show you a number of reasons to explain why the life expectancy might be lower. But frankly, you just need to look in the advertising pages of magazines like Gay Times and Attitude here in the UK and see the huge number of health clinics advertising STD and Hep tests to see that sexual and physical health is an issue in the gay community.
So do me the courtesy now of presenting either the critique that show that the Hogg paper is wrong in saying that the life expectancy of gay men is lower than others OR some more recent research that shows how Hogg’s observations have now changed.
Amazing, Peter, just amazing. I point out to you the the researchers themselves say that gay men do not have a lower life expectancy, and that the researchers themselves, people with degrees and an amount expertise (where’s your expertise on this subject?) say that gay men’s life expectancy is not significantly different, and should therefore be calculated like everyone else — and you refute that by saying it’s not convenient??
I point out that the study was of a specific population at a specific time and you ignore that and suggest it can be attributed to all gay men everywhere? But what logic do you come to that conclusion? My brother is straight, I’m gay, can I therefore say that my research shows that 50% of the population is gay? Of course not, but that’s the logic you’re using.
When the researchers you quote say that their data does not prove what you say it proves, that should be enough. It is for me, but apparently not for you.
I never accused you of any bigotry until now.
It’s very clear to me that you will do anything, say anything, use anything to your advantage, to prove your point, even if the experts you quote say that you are wrong to use —I’m sorry— MISUSE their research to prove your point!
I’m not going to bother looking up statistics and studies for you because I’ve already presented you with verification from THE SAME SOURCE YOU CITE and you don’t believe it. I don’t see the point in continuing any sort of dialogue with you, you’ll simply listen to what you want, and dismiss what you don’t want to hear.
I’m gay by any definition, but I have exactly zero chance of harm from any of those things you mentioned. In fact, I suspect you are in greater danger from them than I, Peter. This is an old, and somewhat tawdry slander.
More
Peter – Hogg in his follow up letter also noted the following:
I linked to a blog post of mine which discusses the use of data in the longevity debates. I also asked epidemiologist Morten Frisch about this and his view is that we do not have sufficient data in the US (or in his country either) to make unbiased estimates of longevity.
If mortality decreased by threefold, one would certainly expect an increase in longevity. This has not been quantified, however, Hogg warned about using their work predictively and with good reason.
Where did Jones, Yarhouse or Chapman have anything at all to say about longevity?
Once again, Peter Ould has disrupted a civil discussion about recent research and academic criticism of that research, with off-topic, unsourced, misquoted, and long-discredited propaganda.
I knew I read this somewhere. Thnx Phelan for reposting this.
Too bad liver damage is real. Im gay, but you know, I’m really aware of AIDS(prolly even paranoid) and will definately not have any sex until I settle myself with someone( I dont agree on open relationships btw, so sum1 with the same values is vital), Whats the life expectancy of ppl like me? I wonder tho… is acoholism that relative too?
Why so much religious talk when ex-gay comes up? I think Peter answered it. If its harmful or not bears no wait on anything. Even if they PROVED it was mostly harmful or if the bad outweighed the good, well… someone already stated that they were gona blame ‘the fall’ and the ‘few will enter heaven’ comes to mind.
Proving that ppl can change orientation is just a way, imo, to tell the world that God exists and that their not psychotic. ANd they succeeded. You can’t disprove anecdotal evidence(like I am straight now! and I am happy), the same way you can’t disprove that there was harm. You have to take it as evidence, as Patrick so profusely acknowledges.”those who declare they are hurt by the process are evidence of harm.”. So the same thing should be said of those that say they have changed, no?
Joel,
One has to look more closely to see if that is really what they are saying. Most often, they are not saying, “I am straight now”.
Sadly, very very few talk about being straight. Most reference that they struggle with temptations, or sexual dreams, or fantasies. Those who are most successful at maintaining a heterosexual life seem to be those who have put severe limits on their own freedoms in order to reduce the chances of temptations.
Those few who do make claims of miraculous change to complete heterosexuality seem to be those most likely to find themselves in a “fall” or embarassing predicament. Not being as on guard, or perhaps as honest with themselves about their own desires, they are ill prepared when temptation arises.
Mostly, “change” means something other than change of attractions. Usually it means change of attitude, lifestyle, perspective, or behavior. And often that is adequate and fulfilling for those who seek change.
Which is fine… until such claims of change are used to sway politicians, denominations, voters, or others on matter of social or political policy. Then it ceases to be “change” and becomes “lying”.
Jason,
I don’t think you’re engaging with what I’m saying. As Warren rightly points out, there has been no repeat study to confirm Hogg’s suspicions that the death rate will have fallen. Until the new data is presented that suggests as much you can’t criticise me for not accepting your claims.
And Dave R, you’re absolutely right that a large proportion of the gay population doesn’t engage in dangerous sex. But a large proportion still do and with that comes all the dangers of STDs and worse (increased risks of cancer, Hep A and B etc). And your Hogg quote is out of context because he is stating very clearly that homosexual orientation in and of itself does not lead to a lower death age. Rather it’s behaviour that might contribute to a decreased longevity. The problem is we continue to see behaviour patterns in a significant part of the gay population that are deterious for their life span expectancy.
Mike A – I was specifically invited to answer a challenge on this issue. Please don’t now take THAT as an excuse to accuse me of twisting the conversation again.
Tim K – Once again you insist on attacking the testimony of those who claim to have seen change in their sexual orientation. That seems to be the favourite default position here. If in doubt, attack the anecdote!!
I think that Peter O. likes to argue. In fact, I think that he needs to argue in order to satisfy some deep seated desire to defend his recently acquired “heterosexuality” (the sister protests too much!). I’m glad that you are happily married, and have a child on the way. Good for you. Please recognize that you and your anecdotal story are in the severe minority among people who are same-sex attracted (‘hundreds’, ‘thousands’, ‘tens of thousands’, ‘hundreds of thousands’ out of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of gays globally [that last one was something of hyperbole]). Seen in this light, do not chastise others for being skeptical of your highly atypical story as they are working from their own experience of “ex-gays”. Given the equally anecdotal long term histories of countless “ex-gay”ers and their flip-flopping from gay-to-straight-back-to-gay, is it any wonder that many are skeptical of the movement and its results? [This ‘coming-out deja vu effect’ should really be quantified by “real” social scientists.]
Please also recognize that admitting that you are “post-gay” is a subtle admission that you still have SSA, but chose to live a life consistent with your conservative christian beliefs. Your life will forever be tainted by the scourge of your homosexuality – face it, you will always like guys even though you are now married. You can claim that you are moving beyond homosexuality as a defining characteristic of your identity, but somewhere in the back of your mind… Furthermore, you claim that your orientation has changed from exclusively homosexual to heterosexual (is that exclusively as well?), but argue against a dichotomous view of sexual orientation. Which is it?
Peter O,
AGAIN, I respect and even admire (i’ve met what haunts you) the committment you have to your wife and family.
It just appears to me that you keep trying to use these statistics, ultimately to prove how bad gays are….even though you’re willing to admit that not ALL gays participate in these unsafe behaviors.
Let’s say for a moment that every statistic you’ve linked can rightly be interrpreted in exactly the way you interpret it. What then? This no more compells my gay friends not to be gay than the opposite sort of statistics (and they are easily found) could compell me not to be straight.
It seems to me that your ultimate points are these….and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong. 😉
* Sexual activity of the gay sort is inherently not safe.
* If all the gays would turn straight, or at least be celibate, there’d be less disease and death in the world.
Let’s say we all conceded those points. (just pretending here) Then what? Would you go happily about your business and stop incessently arguing here? What IS it that you are really trying to say here with all this arguing?
Peter B,
I’m not to crazy about the sort of snarky way you said it…but….I do think you’ve made a great point. I don’t understand why the ex-gay movement is not forthright about this. Particularly when they claim to have God on their side. It’s as if God is not big, good, or right ENOUGH. They have to do so much of the work FOR him by yammering on and on and making claims about total and complete change. I know how very difficult it is at times for these guys and their wives. I admire them for sticking to it and I honestly don’t know another group of people who are more reliant on God for daily sustenance during the times when it’s most difficult. I wish they could be more publicly forthright about all that.
Peter O asks:
Psychologists who conduct studies which compare homosexuals and heterosexuals in order to determine their similarities and differences cannot “take their word for it” when it comes to which group each individual belongs.
They employ physiological testing to make sure that all participants are correctly identifying their sexual orientation. Briefly:
The importance of this became evident in a resent attempt to study gay, straight and bisexual individuals.
So you see, we don’t have to rely on anecdotal reports to know if a person has changed their sexual orientation from gay to straight, for example. We only need to give them this physiological test to determine the truth of their claim.
This test is available at universities and research centers around the country. So when can I set up an appointment for you for this test?
There has been a “repeat study” of Hogg, albeit un”published” except at XGW.
Hogg updated… by us.
The “life expectancy” has not only increased from Hogg et al’s estimates, but increased dramatically.
We used the same methodology as Hogg et al (because it is perfectly valid for what they wanted to show), but applied the methodology to stats for the entire United States and updated from 15-20 years ago. It’s valid for 2003.
(Hogg used only Vancouver and a much earlier period. He and his colleagues set out to “guesstimate” simply how bad it could get — and Hogg, for one, is very glad their worst cases did did not predict what has actually transpired over the past 2 decades.)
Hogg, who we did contact out of sheer politeness, had a few comments — a few positive ones encouraging us to EXTRA work (ick, like NO WAY), and some very pointed comments about how his work has been misused and abused by anti-gay people.
The old post at XGW is here. 2 and a half years ago…
All the raw data is available in the public domain. The methodology is straight forward. We have EVEN made the spreadsheet available for you. Dispute the outcomes if you like, but if you wish to do that … please provide the evidence to the contrary. (Or shut up.)
(given Dr J Pelan’s banging on about homosexual v heterosexual risk, would be much interested in his take on “white” v “black” risk. ie: should black people stop having sex???)
grantdale,
At the risk of sounding trite, thank you for finally having a proper debate with me. For the first time in the years that you and I have chatted I’ve not felt you were simply abusing me. You actually produced some evidence that corrected Hogg and (as someone who has a degree in hard sums I can honestly say) the sums are good. It appears that gd’s work clearly shows that the effect of HIV on the lifespan of gay men has been much reduced over the past decade or so.
Pam,
I’m afraid you misread me if you assume I am obsessed (or even believe) the bullet points you listed. Far from it. For example (as has been pointed out on this thread), female gay sex leads to almost no transmission of STDs or other diseases. Non penetrative gay sex is equally not a greater spreader of STDs (or causer of damage). I rarely bring up this subject and only did it on this thread because I was challenged on the longevity rates of gay men. I simply wanted to provide some evidence to support the claim.
Peter B,
I understand your scepticism but please understand that there is a clear difference between scepticism and the abuse and ridicule that I get (and from regular posters on this site). People seemed to be obsessed with how many times I day I might or might not think about people of this or that sex.
And stuff like “Your life will forever be tainted by the scourge of your homosexuality – face it, you will always like guys even though you are now married” is just demeaning. You make it sound as though every day I have to steal myself to not look at men and deny some basic urges. That couldn’t be further from the truth and to suggest otherwise is to engage in that ridicule that I mentioned above. If you expect me to treat those who self-identify with respect and integrity, have the decency to do the same to me.
I’ve made it very clear on a number of occasions that “post-gay” is to move beyond being defined sexually by one’s emotional response to something. So yes, you can wire up my genitals to a machine, and that will probably show me aroused by all kinds of things. In terms of my sexual practice though, I’m very happy with my wife. Given that I only have sex with her, what does that make me? Bisexual? Monosexual? The one thing I can say for sure is that I used to be 100% homosexually attracted and now I’m not. Apparently though, that isn’t good enough for some people. And when I say to them “You know what, it could work for you to” they attack me with a kind of viscousness I rarely see elsewhere.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us:
i) with some proper evidence that the longevity rates of gay men might not be as lowered by HIV as Hogg originally thought
ii) with a number of people like myself who report a clear change in their sexual orientation which, anecdotally, shows that non-fluid theories of sexual orientation may not be the final answer
Peter O,
You satte:
“HIV on the lifespan of gay men has been much reduced over the past decade or so.”
HIV has reduced the lifespan of heterosexuals all over the world. The vast majority worldwide are infected with HIV through heterosexual sex.
Can we start an ex-straight program?
Peter O,
The vast majority of gay men changed their sexual behavior after HIV was discovered.
I cannot say the same for heterosexuals in the US or Africa and India.
Maybe it is b/c gay men tend to be higher educated and earn more money – have access to information – I don’t know.
I cetainly hope that you, as a re-closeted, shame based, gay or bisexual man, are not having unsafe sex on the sly.
Peter O,
I feel for you – that you have been shamed about sexuality by certain forces in your life – religious or other ones. I think it is tragic.
Its not just tragic for you – it can be tragic for those in your life as well.
Look at all the gay black men who have sex on the “downlow” b/c they cannot accept the sexuality that they were born with – due mainly to religious, family, and cultural forces in the black community.
It is tragic for them and the women that some of them have infected with HIV – the church is certainly guilty too.
When you deny truth and facts [whether out of religious based bigotry or shame or cultural attitudes] – they don’t go away – they become powerful forces.
G,
What if I were to write “I feel for you – that you have been damaged in your sexuality by certain forces in your life – emotional or other ones. I think it is tragic.”? Would such a response be treating you with respect?
Peter O — thank you.
And for the “first time in years” we actually have NUMBERS to discuss, instead of your bald claim. There’s the difference.
(and, HEY!!!, don’t forget we — actually, only one of us… ’cause t’other doesn’t get it — thought it “very cool” or words to the effect that you lived next door to Dr Who’s assistant. Sorry cannot remember who that was for the life of me — but it did make me chuckle.)
If you’d met us, instead of Mario Bergner Pty Ltd, in your younger, confused days… you wouldn’t think the way you do. Least of all, you wouldn’t have thought you were gay in the first place — and, hence, not thought you’d achieved the miracle… ex-gaydom.
And I’m sorry, but you’ll always be open to correction (aka “abuse”) for so long as you remain ignorant, and spout falsehoods about a subject you barely are familiar with.
There is a particular quirk with you: a quirk that turns “love one another as you expect to be loved” into “punish me as I’d expect others like that to be punished”… and if you can get over that, the World is your oyster. No, really: gay, straight or Calathumpian: same rule.
But…
When you deliberately set out to make our lives difficult, or misrepresent what homosexuality is, or bloat your credentials as an ‘ex-gay’, or cause us to be caught in some cultural crossfire that we frankly care little for … expect our opposition.
We are on record here at XGW saying that you do not either need to “explain” yourself, or live other than you want to. You have every right, we think, to live according to your religious beliefs. Both the law and the opinion of society should be structured in a way that makes your efforts able to achieve your own ambitions.
All we want from you is a “likewise” commitment about ourselves.
REGARDLESS: we genuinely wish you and Gayle a long, productive and joyful life together: intellectually and physically. It means nothing to us that you are straight, but we do wish you both to be glad to be together and to display that pleasure about each other in all your relationships.
Why, oh why, cannot you want the same for us?
You wouldn’t dare talk about, let alone treat, single mothers or divorced people the way you describe or scheme against “us”.
Yes, I used that word — scheme. Hence, The Opposition.
ps Peter O — we did not “correct” Hogg. We simply undated their study.
Hogg, et al, were right in the first place with their methodology. But the early data was way out of kilter with what would later prove to be the fact.
It is a shame “you, et al” have kept repeating it. We expect otherwise, from now.
Peter O,
My sexuality has not been damaged for emotional reasons. Sexuality is biological. A small minority are born gay. I did not suffer any emotional trauma as a child neither have my closest gay friends.
I feel for you – that you have been shamed into thinking that sexual orientation is emotional or pyschological when it is biological.
It is not fair to you and it is not fair to those to whom you spread this misinformation.
When you look at the WEIGHT of the EVIDENCE re: whether sexual orientation is emotional/psycholoigically based versus biologcal – it is clear that a biological cause wins out.
The truth matters.
Keep that in mind Peter
No, Peter, I’m only giving my observations. And, as I noted, the lives about which ex-gays testify may well be adequate and fulfilling for those who seek change. I don’t wish them anything other than happiness.
I’m just clearing up misconceptions about these testimonies.
For example, Joel seemed to think that they were illustrations of persons who at one time had a homosexual orientation and now had a heterosexual orientation (ya know, the bi-polar model you so dislike). Further he was under the impression that these newly heterosexual people were similar to all the other heterosexuals that he knows.
Clearly, though, if one reads the testimonies and follows up on them one soon learns that this is not at all what they are saying. And if one reads the stories of success (Jones and Yarhouse, for example) one soon discovers that “success” includes a very large component of continued struggle against regularly occuring temptations, attactions, dreams, and fantasies.
“Success” is simply the ability to combat these urges and to diminish patterns of behavior or thoughtful dwelling that might make them occur more frequently. And from a religious perspective, that may well be considered success. But it is certainly not a change in sexual orientation.
Which makes me wonder: how did someone like Joel come to think that these testimonies were about folks going from gay (like me) to straight (like the postman)?
And further, why are you so threatened whenever I clarify exactly what is being said?
Peter Ould-
I don’t see anyone “attacking” your testimony regarding the degree of change you’ve experience. But no one here buys your attempt to label the actual change you describe as a change in orientation.
I hate to repeat the obvious, but it seems necessary to define a very basic term in order to communicate with you. For most of us, “orientation” refers to a person’s basic sexual attractions. That may be primarily toward people of the opposite gender (heterosexual), or primarily toward the same gender (homosexual), or it may involve attractions toward both genders.
Whatever the direction of one’s primary attraction, or orientation, most of us are perfectly capable of attraction and sexual functioning with someone in the other camp. I have never felt any sexual interest in women in general, but I was deeply in love with my wife and we had a very good sexual relationship for most of our 26-year marriage. Many, many of my gay friends, including my partner, have had the same experience. So to me, the fact that you are happily married and sexually attracted to your wife says absolutely nothing about whether you’ve experienced a change in your primary orientation.
From your own descriptions of yourself, it seems that:
* you once considered your attractions to be exclusively homosexual, but now experience some heterosexual attractions.
* Some could represent only your attraction to your wife–you haven’t said that, but you also have never suggested you feel strong sexual attraction to women in general
* You continue to feel primary sexual attraction toward men, but normally don’t feel any great urge to act on that attraction, because you feel content and fulfilled in your heterosexual marriage
You want to define the above as a change in orientation, or dispense with the idea of sexual orientation and just call yourself post-gay. The rest of us are simply saying that you haven’t described anything that we can recognize as a true change in orientation. What you’ve described seems absolutely no different from what most of us who have tried to change our orientation were able to achieve.
You want us to change our definitions to suit your way of thinking. Sorry. We can fully accept that your current experience is what you describe. But you need to realize that what you describe is not a change in orientation, as the rest of us understand that term.
On the issue of life expectancy for homosexuals:
I don’t think anyone disputes that unhealthy behaviors like drug abuse, alcoholism, smoking, and promiscuity remain serious problems within the gay community. Gay organizations and the gay press regularly speak out about these issues. So we don’t need to be defensive about the idea that average life expectancy for gay people may be shorter than for straight.
However, the same is true for many minority communities. African Americans have a substantially shorter life expectancy–66.1 years for African American men, compared to 73.6 years for American men in general. Some of that difference is also due to unhealthy behaviors in segments of the black community, especially among young men.
But imagine the derision that would be heaped on any social critic who suggested that the way to improve longevity trends in the African American community is to discourage young black men from forming committed relationships or getting married, deny them jobs based on their race, shut them out from military service, and generally stigmatize them and try to make them stay hidden.
Moderator Note: This comment has been moderated because of length — 22 large paragraphs. This is entirely too long for a comment, much longer than the posts around which the discussion is based. It was also mostly OT. Please rephrase the germane issues into something more manageable and submit again if you like.
Thank you.
Ben, and everyone. please don’t post comments that are longer than most of our posts. It makes reading the threads and following a train of thought very difficult. This would be more appropriate as a personal blog post, or a private email.
We aren’t asking for one-liners, and we don’t want to stifle germane discussion — just try to use some judgment on comments this long before submitting them.
Thanks.
I’m not sure I could shorten it, at least not all that much. It is a lot of thought that has been gelling for quite a while in response to a number of blogs. If i have time later, i will give it a shot. that took 90 min. to write!!!
I’m not saying it wasn’t valuable in and of itself, I’m sure you made some intelligent, thoughtful points. It’s just too long to make any sense here, we have to draw some sort of line. The fact that it took 90 minutes to write is also an indication 😉
I have a copy of it saved if you didn’t and want it.
I agree and plead guilty to all counts. It is just a large thought that has been gestating and seeking expression for quite a while. I will see if I can shorten it. i’ll probably have to cut out all the witty remarks.
The Apology I wrote this in a somewhat playful mood – I often forget that I have claws (apologies). (Has anyone here seen But I’m a Cheerleader – closing sequence? – What was I thinking, of course you have) Not trying to minimize the swipes, I do think that I was trying to capture how the ex-gay movement (and most Evanglicals) view SSA persons. You can never be as if you never were (to paraphrase Alan on the ‘taint’ factor) – it’s something that you will (probably) struggle with for the rest of your life, or until you stop struggling against it. Most conservative Church people who are welcoming but not affirming view SSA as a ‘thorn in the flesh’ (what else but a scourge?). I just used a little rhetorical license, which tried to capture the sentiment that I have encountered most.
And now, for another really pointed remark… From what I can tell, by your own admission Peter O., “post-gay” speaks not so much about desire, but mostly about behaviour. In terms of desires, you may not be “100% gay” anymore (but really, who is?), but you aren’t 100% straight either. You just choose to not act upon your homoerotic desires plain and simple. I think that your arguments against a dichotomous view of sexual orientation are simply a way to avoid admitting that you are not “straight” (exclusive heterosexual desire), which is the (not so) implied goal of ex-gay ministries. The whole orientation system that ex-gay programs are based on necessitates going from one to the other. In order for the scheme to work, you need to go from one to the other. Come to think of it, by definition you can only be 100% straight, while you can be 25%, 50%, or even 75% gay; to be “straight” is the complete absence of homosexual desire. I think that, given the failure to produce the expected results promised by “therapy” (i.e., the Jones and Yarhouse study that started this post), ex-gay ministries and organizations are increasingly forced to abandon their quest for complete heterosexuality by adopting a much fuzzier objective. Thankfully, this objective is also more attainable. Namely, living according to their religious beliefs, and not their desires. This lets them off the hook of actually having to change a person’s arousal response one iota, even if this does come after enough behaviour modification and conditioning. And yes, I do think that many people undergoing ex-gay “therapy” do ‘guard their heart’ daily, because you never know where temptation might come from, or when your eyes might linger too long and cause you to stumble. This last point goes back to the Jones and Yarhouse definition of a “success” story, ie., given these goals, how successful can an individual really be when they do not “come out straight”?
(Hopefully I have kept the “snark” factor down. I think that some things need to be said bluntly. Writing things down is so much more complicated than speaking to people face to face.)
Peter O: I’ve been following your comments, and it seems to me that you and Jim Phelan are very similar. So, I will repost something that I wrote to him, modifying and expanding it a bit, as I have had a lot of thoughts on it.
You have stated why you think gay is bad and people ought to try to be straight, that you have accomplished the same, all of which points to those of use who are gay changing our ways, getting right with G, and becoming straight, or at least, not-gay. Just like you.
I don’t really care whether you are gay, straight, or petersexual. You can be a monkey, if you want to. It is all OK with me. Insisting that your life experience ought to be valid for me is not OK with me. I don’t wish to be a monkey. It does give me a clue about where you are coming from.
Your religious beliefs about homosex is another clue. Again, you are entitled to them. Where we disagree is that because you think you understand something that you read in a book that claims to be the word of the living G, that there MUST BE something wrong with me, with G’s view of me, and with THE STATE OF MY VERY SOUL. You are not qualified and do not have the authority to make that judgment. What part of “Judge not, lest ye be judged” is inapplicable to you? By what right of spiritual arrogance do you pick the parts of your sacred book that you will adhere to, or worse, insist that I must? Of course, 4 billion out of six do not accept your book’s authority at all. I think I’ll go with the majority on this one, but I don’t think it is really about religion, either.
You have cited the “fact” that gay men die young, and is an argument as why being gay is bad and contrary to G’s will. Arguments and evidence to the contrary have made no impression on you, which is your right, but it doesn’t MAKE you right. Even if it’s true, what does it have to do with anything? Why does it make me unworthy of equality before the law? I’m not saying that you support this, but a lot of organizations which very much support a host of other indignities and offenses directed towards gay people, use the same “evidence” and draw these “conclusions” from it. As someone pointed out, black men do not live as long as white men, but nobody uses this to promote the un-naturalness and/or spiritual inferiority of black people.
Maybe this is really a lot more about ideology than it is about dispassionate fact and reason. Or passionate religion, for that matter.
It’s not about science. It doesn’t really matter whether animals “do it” or not. It doesn’t matter whether there are weak fathers and strong mothers, or not. It doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is a mental illness, a result of molestation, or biology. It doesn’t matter whether the bible bans, loves, encourages, allows, homosex, because it isn’t about religion either. Even the change-your-gay-ways researchers cited have all stated that even if gay were completely biological, we would still need to change it. It’s not about religion, either. My being Jewish excites no one any more, but being gay…well!
There is not one true thing that you can say that is true about gay people as a group except that they prefer members of their own sex for dating, sex, romance, or family. Just like heteros. Therefore, this is about one thing only: either you think that being gay is OK, and that being gay means that gay people should not be treated differently, or you don’t, That is, I think, except for room for some gray area, as fair, dispassionate, and accurate a description of reality as I can come up with. All else flows from those two basic positions. Gay is OK I call affirmation, gay is bad I call prejudice– prejudice given a very thin veneer of respectability by religion. Segregation in the old South was very much supported by law AND by religious belief. Yet we now see it as prejudice, and not divine rule.
There are a lot of platforms from which these two positions get expressed: religion, fear, political power, career, money, self-hatred, self-protection, fear of self, fear of sex, and on and on and on. But these are all after-thoughts. No one is born knowing that gay=bad, though we learn soon enough that some people think so.
Either position is ideology, of course. I am willing to admit that I am an ideologue, absolutely committed to GAY IS OK. But then, I am a gay man great life, as are my very wide circle of friends, so perhaps that is to be expected. But I can say also this: I am willing to concede the possibility that there is something inherently “bad” about being gay, but the sum of my life experience, which is considerable, indicates far lesser consequence than the usual run of heterosexuality. If you can show me evidence that being gay is bad for society, bad for gay people, bad for anything except fundraising on the basis of prejudice, I would certainly be open to looking at it. That is what this website, and others like it, are about.
Peter, can YOU admit to your ideology, that being gay is NOT OK, and that this determines everything YOU have to say? You may say: well, why is your ideology better than mine? As Mammy Yokum said: “Good is better than evil because it’s nicer.” Jesus put it another way: “By their fruits shall you know them.” My ideology is about ending prejudice. Yours is very destructive. That you prattle on about the destructive nature of homosexuality on the human soul is entirely theological, not even theoretical– and we only have your word for it.
Do you want evidence? Look no further than my brother, a man who spent his adult life fighting against being gay. He died unhappy and alone. But at least he died “not gay”. Would you like to take responsibility for that?
But your ideology is clearly soul-destroying for gay people, and the poor-wanna-be-straights. Soulwise, I would prefer taking my chances with being gay than with being ex-gay. Do you want to talk about crimes against nature? What about the crimes against our natures? Gay people are imprisoned, attacked, kicked out of their families, fired, murdered, vilified, persecuted, jailed, slandered, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve. People engage in destructive behaviors because they are gay, you say. No, honey, it is because the anti-gay industry is bent (pun intended) on creating the world where gay=bad=destructive, too busy saving my soul to worry about my body, my life, or my happiness.
Your ideology is destructive to straight people as well– Ted Haggard and families with gay members, to name just a few. Of course, they’re “not gay”, just the consequences of the ideology that gay=bad. Also, AIDS in black women has surpassed AIDS in gay men. It is linked to the number of black men who are “not gay” and having unprotected sex with other men, and then going home to infect their wives, and ultimately, their unborn children. Contrary what some black “preachers” are claiming, accepting homosexuality will do more for the health and security of the black family in general than all of the constitutional amendments “defending” marriage could have even in the magical world where such things are related.
Your ideology is destructive for our country. We waste so much time and energy on the topic of homosexuality. The sad irony is that given the quality of people homophobes people insist on electing, fear of homosexuality will bring about our downfall, if indeed it led to the utter disaster known as the second term of George Bush.
And finally, your ideology is destructive for the world. Your focus on this subject, the stories you tell yourself about it, allow you to ignore untamed, unregulated, unconscious heterosexuality, which has produced (in no particular order of importance) consequences of over-population, dwindling resources, global warming, abortion, war, unwanted children, sexual slavery of unwanted children, family breakdown, refugees, pollution, and on and on and on and on. As a gay man, my sexuality is responsible and affirming.
Compared to all of these consequences, either what makes my dick hard, or the alleged status of my alleged soul — well, they just don’t seem all that important after all, do they?
Ben In Oakland, I officially love you.
petersexual… 😀
How appropriate that you should use this wording on this thread. To quote from one of Jones and Yarhouse’s “success – conversion” (p. 298):
This is the language of the highest level of success in Exodus ministries.
Thanks, Emily,Feel free to quote. 🙂
While I have no desire to eliminate erotic dreams of any kind, I’d be absolutely fascinated to know how one goes about it.
I believe Lysol makes an “erotic dream” formula you can spray on your bed at night.
And every 15 minutes throughout the night.
and then you get up, just in case. 😛
“Whatever the direction of one’s primary attraction, or orientation, most of us are perfectly capable of attraction and sexual functioning with someone in the other camp.”
Capable, in the sense that it is “possible” yes. Does it happen, hmmmm.
For my own example I have never been sexually attracted to women. Never. When I was very young, I made a lot of false assumptions about heterosexuality in order to make it possible for me to remain in that camp. When you think about it, there’s a lot that makes sense.
TV shows and movies often show men chomping at the bit to get away from their wives so they can hang out with “the boys”. Men and women are often portrayed more as advasaries with almost nothing in common than they are as friends or comrades. Comedians of both sexes routinely make biting observations about the intelligence and folly of the opposite sex. I think some women are pretty, but I also think some flowers are pretty. I have no sexual attraction to either. It took me awhile to understand that thinking a woman is pretty in an aesthetic sense is not the same as sexual attraction. So with all this in mind it seemed reasonable to me when I was younger that men and women do not actually find each other sexually or emotionally attractive, they just pretend to in order to get what they want (sex, a family, etc). And thus I was able to explain to myself that my thoughts and feelings (or lack thereof in the case of women) were something everyone had, but just didn’t talk about. It was quite a shock when I realized that while straight men may look at each other, may even admit that they are “handsome” they are not thinking what I am thinking at all.
So I guess I wanted to say that in my case I don’t have primary and secondary attractions when it comes to gender. I only have one: men.
I will admit, however, if the population was severely limited, if only a few hundred men were alive, and I were one of the few healthy enough to reproduce, I would do my best to help the human race survive. And even then I would hope that artificial insemination was still an option. Thankfully we are not in that situation.
Very well thought out, Jason. It summarized things that felt when I was kid very clearly. I didn’t see parents who were in love with each other, or who even seemed to love each other all that much. I thought that that was what it was supposed to be like.
I had sex with a woman on July 4, 1974. First time. i wasn’t particlarly attaracted to her, but I was VERY attracted to the idea of trying out sex with a woman. Her name was Joy, but that wasn’t the name of our sexual activity. It wasn’t bad, it was just BORING. I told my roommate, also gay, that i had wanted to try it out, but if that’s what straight boys had to do, well, thank god i’m gay.
I had sex with a second woman on July 4, 1979. (Nothing happened in 1984!) We actually had a two-week affairette. It was actually a lot of fun, and a much different experience than boys or my previous girl. But atfer two weeks, as much fun as it had been, it was not any longer particularly interesting to me. Sort of like Abbott and Costello. Lot’s of fun the first time, but doesn’t bear much revisiting.
So i guess I’m a 5.98 on a scale of Kinsey 6. Or put another way, I’m just a really big queer, happily married to a great guy. Having sex with a woman did not turn me straight.
Me either Ben and Jason. I thought “I just have to have sex with a woman and then I will understand.” I didn’t. As far as being well in my soul, I am happily a Priest and my partner is happily a pastor. God loves us just as much as God loves Peter and Jim.
I just want to say to people, if you don’t like gay, DON’T DO IT! BUT LEAVE US ALONE!
Mark Twain: “Nothing needs minding so much as other people’s business.” He might have added that it is often more profitable than minding one’s own.
Rochefoucauld: “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” He might have added that it is also more profitable.
“While I have no desire to eliminate erotic dreams of any kind, I’d be absolutely fascinated to know how one goes about it.”
I found that regularly masturbating 2-5 times a day eliminated my erotic dreams entirely. Perhaps that could be of help to ex-gay ministries (then again, maybe not).
Many thanks to Ben in Oakland for his quotations. I’d like to add another on the theme of hypocrisy.
Molière: “Hypocrisy is an art, the practice of which always commands respect, and though people may see through it, they dare say nothing against it. All other vices of mankind are exposed to censure and anyone may attack them with impunity. Hypocrisy alone is privileged. It stills the voice of criticism and enjoys a sovereign immunity. ”
Molière, oh please. Voltaire struck at the heart of ex-gay…
“Once a philosopher, twice a sodomite!”
As memory serves (’cause we are that old, afterall)… this followed an “experiment” with a young Swedish Count at Sans Souci.
Voltaire was rather ho-hum about the occasion. Not an hideous episode, but also no big whoopty-do. The young Swedish Count, however,. was able to regale him a week or so later with all his “extra scientific experiments” — with soldiers, stable hands, etc etc etc.
Oh. Right. Nice for You.
At which point … Voltaire made his comment.
He could have provided an equally witty / accurate comment at a person who insisted “I’m not gay, I’m just a gender-confused heterosexual who (unfortunately) keeps having sex with unknown men in parks every Saturday night…I love my wife, not that she knows about this thing about men in the park and all…”
Yeah right… also… once a philosopher, twice a sodomite.
“Experiment” only goes so far…
(says someone who is currently “experimenting” with breathing. I swear I am a non-breathing person who “falls” and sucks in a bit of oxygen sometimes. Like, every 5 seconds.)
I’ve been thinking the past few days about the flip side of studies like this, one that the anti-gay movement rarely considers. The gist of these “change” stories is that heterosexuality is clearly a biological, “normal” phenomenon, whereas homosexuality must be the illness, or mistake, or “choice.” But if one looks at the alleged scientific support for the homosexuality-as-mental-illness model, it works exactly the opposite way. If there are straight men and women with gay and lesbian identical twin siblings, does not this mean that heterosexuality cannot be genetic? After all, identical twins share all the same genes?
And if people exist like Anne Heche, who move between hetero and homo relationships, does not that mean that heterosexuality is just a choice? If it is a choice, why again would I choose to be a straight man?
After all, straight men are responsible for most of the violent crime in this country, not to mention drug dealing, prostitution (without johns there are no ladies of the evening) and child abuse – all out of proportion with their percentage of the population. Why would I want to join such a violent lifestyle?
And statistics show that straight men are also at high risk from early death, certainly earlier than their wives, and many studies point to stress and other bad lifestyle choices as the culprits – where is the rationale for being a straight guy again? According to the anti-gay memes, gay men have shorter life spans (nearly always due to HIV), higher risk of some other STDs, and increased violence from partners. Yet all those are easily avoidable by not being promiscuous and being very selective about whom one dates. In the coverage of the murder of Sean Taylor (the Washington football player), much has been made of the difficulty some straight men, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, have in escapting the violence of their subcultures.
As Jason points out, even allegedly happy and non-violent straight men are often shown as being trapped in marriage (the “ole ball and chain” phrase comes to mind) and eager to avoid the responsibilities that come from being a husband and father, if only briefly. Why would I want to be a minivan-driving, escaping-to-the-golf-course, unhappy straight guy again?
Trust me, I wish I was born straight. But I’m wasn’t. However, I still want the right to be myself. I still want a world of understanding. I don’t just want sex… I want compassion, trust, and empathy in a partner. I can only see myslef in a relationship with a man. Much like you can only see yourself in a relationship with the opposite sex. I think we should base ideals on love and not genitalia. Please don’t try to brainwash those who are like me! SPREAD LOVE – NOT HATE.
Matt, I don’t mean this as a criticism of you, but for myself, I’m very happy to be past the stage where I wished I was born straight. I love being gay!
A little story: a couple of weeks ago, my partner and I threw a party for a friend celebrating his 50th birthday. It was an all male guest list, and the birthday boy was one of the youngest guys there.
For an unrelated project, my oldest son, a video producer, had arranged for someone to tape footage of us setting up and the first guests arriving. The camera man was my son’s age–late 20s, straight, and had never met us before.
When we wrapped up the video taping, I told the camera guy to feel free to have a drink and some food before he left. Two hours later, I realized he was still there! He came over to tell me what a good time he was having, how interesting he found all of our friends, how great the food was, how beautiful our house is, etc, etc. I told my son the next day, “I think he was ready to sign up for his gay card on the spot.”
That gave me a fresh opportunity to look through someone else’s eyes, and realize what a wonderful life I have found as a gay man. The very best part of it is my friends–I really do believe that gay men form more and closer friendships than most straight men. I’ve mentioned here before what my daughter said after another of our parties: “Straight people can’t just walk into a bar and leave with a bunch of really nice friends!”
I don’t tell these stories to boast about how good I have things, but because it’s important to counter the constant negative stereotypes we hear from the other side. Six years ago, when I decided to leave my marriage, I was very afraid that I’d end up lonely and sad. I bought the whole story about the misery of older people in the gay world, and the impossibility of finding stable relationships. At that time, I would have given anything to have been born straight, and be able to stay in that life.
Now, you couldn’t drag me back!
I am a Family Doc in Ohio and the American Academy of Family Physicians just added to its bylaw a section that basically condemns reparative therapy. During the on-line discussions, we engaged in much of the same as I have read here today. The Jones and Yarhouse study was discussed and, at that time, I expressed my concerns about its “claims”. We too went round and round in circles with mainly one dissenting voice (i.e. a supporter of reparative tx).
For me, as a doc, it comes down to the following:
1. Sexually is not broken and does not need to be repaired.
2. There is a difference between sexual orientation and behavior and unfortunately the two are often cited as one and the same.
3. Not looking to see if there is harm from a treatment does not mean you can say the treatment causes no harm.
And I always go back to that old joke:
Two psychiatrists meet at a party.
“You know, all of my gay patients are crazy”, says Dr. A
“You know, all my straight patients are crazy too”, says Dr. B.
Two Freudians were walking down a hall towards each other. Dr. Jones says to Dr. Yarmouth: “Hello”
Dr Yarmouth says: Hmm. I wonder what he meant by that?”
If it was only that… without implying anything else. Something like… ‘hetero-marriage/celibacy is the only way’, and/or… theres no such thing as equal-rights for the homo-couple . Thats what ex-gay ppl and therapy represent to me.
Seems this quote responds somewhat to the first quote… but anyways, it wasnt why i quoted it.
Correct me if im wrong but… if by cultural crossfire you mean an anti-gay culture vs a pro-gay one, then you definately want to care about it. Is there a culture war without the topic of homosexuality?
At the start you are implicitly stating that you are still SS attracted(as far as naturally occuring emotions go) and then say that you are not completely gay, then how gay is your “petersexual”/post-gay orientation? Its been stated pretty clearly that sex doesnt make you straight or gay, so what im asking is how gay are you as far as naturally occuring emotions go.(say from a scale of 100-0)
You made an interesting point on gettin aroused by things. Im pretty sure ppl(for example gay) will get aroused by more than just men… How else would a gay, hetero-married person have children? This would, as a result, prove that using a machine to determine arousal and thus orientation is a flawed or useless method. We are back then at anecdotal evidence. (Unless we find conclusive evidence of a biological basis).
I dont remember who stated this but I remember that someone commented(even if implicitly) that he wasnt straight, but he enjoyed(im guessing he meant get aroused by) the satisfaction that she was experiencing from it.
Ah, another lingering point comes to mind, I remember Jim Phelan stating that gay-sex was less emotionally involved then hetero-sex. I wondered why that was relevant, now it’s quite clear why he brought that up. If being gay means that ones simply naturally emotionally attracted then this would somewhat disprove that it was and it fits quite nicely with ‘gays are promiscous’ because they are really just sexually-obsessed individuals with not much gay goin on.
Still… I wonder Peter O, would you still be in a hetero-relationship if you didn’t believe it was wrong?
Probably not, no reason to believe so because Peter O’s change is not from gay(100%) to straight(0%)… Peter O is quite clear on that. Then again, Phelan, as far as I know, went from gay(100%) to straight(0%). Even if the J&Y research doesnt support this, no reason for me not to believe him.
PS- Go see the movie The Mist ASAP! The screenwriters really worked hard on this one imho.
Kreuz und Queer is a movie out there maybe worth watching for a different point of view,imo it’s a +1 for ex-gays(without the religious belief attached to it). Sumwhat explicit nevertheless.
There are some brief videos that Jones has done where he addresses some of the critiques of this study. This is one that he does address. He says the rate of harm seen in ex-gay therapy exists, but is not any more likely to take place in ex-gay therapy than it is in any other remotely similar type of psychological therapy. I suppose the appropriate language would include words like “statistically significant comparative difference in rate of reported harm.”
So that question isn’t just likely to be answered; it already has. In order to determine if some form of therapy causes undue harm, you compare the rates of reported harm to similar therapies and see if that rate is higher in any statistically significant way. It seems that Dr. Chapman was able to come up with only five examples of people who reported harm, so unless all types of therapy that bear similarity to this study report numbers on the order of a one percent rate of harm, I’d say it’s likely that this type of therapy is at least on par with other areas of interest in psychology.
Lock Down,
We actually don’t know the harm or lack thereof experienced by the 25 or so who dropped out of the study, so clearly more research needs to be done in that area.
I’m curious, however, wasn’t the entire study about “religiously mediated change” rather than professional psychological therapy? That’s certainly what my copy of the book says. Have you had a chance to read it?
While to be sure Exodus and other ex-gay ministries often profess agreement with the theories of a Dr. Nicolosi or Satinover, I hope those which the authors monitored were not practicing psychotherapy.
Aside from the relatively small sample used by J&Y, and the fact that a hefty percentage of those that did not drop out were replenished from those already in the process, the period during which data was collected seems very brief. I think you will find quite a few people here who have been through such ministries did so for longer than three years.
When one is told by those one considers knowledgeable that God considers their sexuality a sin, the struggle to avoid it, or change it,can go on for a long time. Certainly you would agree that the damage caused to some because of that would not likely show up in a scant three years. It also doesn’t count the marriages entered into in the hopes that ones attractions will be changed by the experience, etc.
I didn’t see any of this covered in the short promotional videos at IVP.