Reparative therapist Dr Joseph Nicolosi used a conference in London yesterday to recycle a host of offensive myths about gay men.
According to David Virtue, who describes his notoriously anti-gay website as “the global voice for orthodox Anglicanism,” Nicolosi “ripped” gay organizations for promoting a “lifestyle” that is “ultimately pathological, narcissistic, self-absorbed and offers no hope for people who want to change.”
Nicolosi, the former President of NARTH, told the audience of conservative Christians that 75 percent of his clients were “completely cured” by reparative therapy, and said that he had “a great deal of evidence showing … that therapy works.”
This is an astonishing claim, given the unremarkable results of scientific studies into reparative therapy. The much-touted Masters-Johnson study of 1979 relied on dubious case studies that may even have been totally fabricated. Robert Spitzer’s 2001 study relied on anecdotal evidence from subjects with a vested interest in proving ex-gay success. The 2007 Jones-Yarhouse study was not only severely flawed, but produced only negligible evidence of change.
Nicolosi also claimed that a third of self-proclaimed homosexuals were victims of childhood sexual abuse, slanderously suggesting that as a reason why “gay activists are lobbying for the lowering of the age of consent.” He later rehashes the argument that he’s not homophobic, since he is not scared of homosexuals. Aside from being a linguistically silly contention, he clearly does fear homosexuals. He also says that “most people do not fear homosexuals,” apparently forgetting he is in the company of a group of people who obviously believe they are very much under threat from gays.
In keeping with NARTH’s general position, Nicolosi reiterated the familiar claim that homosexuality is caused by a distant father and a pushy mother. “A totally secure man won’t have sex with you,” he said. He also repeated the phrase that by now has become his mantra: “If you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.”
All about choice
“It’s all about choice, choice, choice,” Nicolosi told the conference, saying that if you choose to view yourself as “fundamentally heterosexual,” you can change.
He added, “If you believe you are born gay, you are forced to be tolerant. But if you bring in choices, it changes everything.” This is telling. In recent years, ex-gay and anti-gay activists – seemingly steeling themselves for evidence of a major biological component to homosexual orientation – have begun to argue that even if a “gay gene” (a misnomer – but let’s take it as shorthand for “biological cause”) exists, it makes no difference to the argument against homosexuality. Nicolosi admits, however, that if sexuality is biologically determined, he has to accept it.
One might expect Nicolosi’s mind to change if more biological evidence comes to light, then – but it is unlikely. He clearly has a dismissively simplistic view of the scientific evidence so far, saying that scientists “have never found a gay gene in 35 years. There is much more evidence that it is environmentally caused.”
Where is this far greater evidence? Presumably wherever the evidence is for Nicolosi’s 75-percent success rate. No study of reparative therapy so far has stood up to scrutiny. With results apparently far more impressive than the most widely hailed studies have claimed, why are we still waiting for the scientific proof, Dr Nicolosi?
________________
Anglican Mainstream’s Sex & the City conference continues today with speakers Jeffrey Satinover, also of NARTH, and Arthur Goldberg of Jewish ex-gay ministry JONAH. For previous coverage, see here and here.
hmm…. With a success rate of 75%, you would think he’d have plenty of strong evidence of his success that could stand up to scientific scrutiny. Alas, there is no such evidence. I guess that means he is lying.
What? A lot of totally secure men are same sex attracted, and they would not be thinking of me for sex either. And according Kenneth Zucker’s pseudo theories he proudly parrots, Nicolosi brands me a “pre-homosexual”, but sex with men is hardly on my mind.
Nicolosi does not have the guts to randomly pick 100 gay men and in public eyes ask them whether they were sexually abused, because he knows he definitely would hide his face in embarrassment. I also doubt he can find any decent gay man with “lifestyle” as self-absorbed as Nicolosi’s own lifestyle of misrepresenting and demonising gays. Period.
So what would an unbiased study into reparative therapy look like?
One that includes gays instead of ex-gays for sample? There are so many gays that are happy and not having unwanted same sex attraction. So many gays that are well-adjusted and not struggling. If you use ex-gay samples it is already biased. And the latest study from Jones and Yarhouse that has ex-gays as samples just adds to the true meaning of change. There is no such thing as complete transformation to heterosexuality. Only flawed straightness and abstainment.
Nicolosi seems a little shrill, like something is rather urgent about his endeavors. People who are shrill only come across truthful to those who share such a quality…
Nicolosi claims that a poor relationship with one’s father and being sexual abused in childhood are common causative factors in the development of male homosexuality.
I didn’t have a poor relationship with my father, nor was I ever sexually abused, so obviously neither of these alleged causes applies in my case. I’m sure that countless other gay men can say the same.
For those who believe that inquiry into the cause(s) of homosexuality is of value, and who believe that the above putative causes are worthy of serious consideration, the following research projects ought to have priority:
1. (α) the proportion of homosexual males who fully accept their sexual orientation and are happy with it and who had poor relationships with their fathers, compared with (β) the proportion of homosexual males who are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation and want to change it and who had poor relationships with their fathers
2. (α) the proportion of homosexual males who fully accept their sexual orientation and are happy with it and who were sexually abused in childhood, compared with (β) the proportion of homosexual males who are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation and want to change it and who were sexually abused in childhood
Does anyone know whether any such studies have ever been done?
Having heard and seen “Dr.” Nicolosi speak, – I have to say both as a gay man, (however celibate) and as health care professional and a scientist, and an Christian with an evangelical/pentecostal preference- I was shocked and appalled that this man would present his views as “science and psychology”- the man knows NOTHING of the scientific method- and anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable- from a biblical perspetive as well, I found his conclusions untenable, and as a gay man, well, let’s just say there is NOTHING MR. Nicolosi said that led me to believe he had any understanding of science, psychoogy, life experience, or the Bible at all- I heard him at a “Love Won Out” seminar that my church urged me to attend- I can safely say, not only MR Nicolosi , but Mr. Dallas, and also Mr. Paulk and his “wife” (beard), were spouting nonsense instead of the Word of God OR science- I heard not one “criterion” of “what makes a homosexual” that applied to me – so to me the whole thing seemed like a good way to raise funds for the people presenting the seminar and/or the “religious” “right” (they are neither). How sad the church seems so very obsessed with one issue to the exclusion of other more urgent issues, like war, poverty, genocide, and the list goes on and on. Basically, all I saw was a very large assembly of Pharisees.
I was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and I did not have a good relationship with my father and my step dad was verbally, mentally, emotionally, and sometimes physically abusive towards me. For several years it was the beliefs put forth by Nicalosi, Focus on the Family, Exodus, etc. that kept me in the exgay trap. What led me to leave and to accept myself was a combination of things. 1) Apart from the testimonies of 3 “professional exgays” I have never met anyone who was “healed”, even those who were able to go on and get married still had same sex attractions. 2) I believed I was heterosexual, just had a homosexual issue, as I was told. I would even do positive reinforcement, you know look in the mirror and say to myself things like, “you are not born gay, you are a heterosexual, you like women not men, I want a wife not a husband”, etc. It never helped.
3) Finally what did it for me as a Christian was studying the scriptures and coming to the conclusion that those used against us deal within the confines of sexual idolatry and temple prostitution. Whether homosexuality is genetic, environmental, or a combination of both doesn’t really matter.
I know this was long, thanks for letting me vent.
David
“Nicolosi, the former President of NARTH, told the audience of conservative Christians that 75 percent of his clients were “completely cured” by reparative therapy, and said that he had “a great deal of evidence showing … that therapy works.”
He has yet to produce that evidence, or subject it to any kind of scrutiny.
The only way this “therapy” works is to keep people like Holy Joe employed.
Let’s not forget that Joe has a new book coming out. Controversy sells books 😉
He certainly seems to be digging deep into his old bag of nonsense for this. And he keeps contradicting himself. I just listened to him on the BBC saying that they “don’t like to speak about “cures,” when clearly he did in the statement above made inside the conference.
I also find it repugnant that he uses, as do many ex-gay ministries, the rationalization that “it would be unfair to deny those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation a chance to change.” Brick after brick is knocked out of the foundation of reparative drive theory, or conversion of any kind, and yet they continue, contributing to the very strife that leads those unhappy souls to their doors.
Is it pride? Money? Or just empty wagons? If Masters and Johnson can deceive so many, why not Nicolosi?
Bill Rogers, please be careful when using the term “Pharisee.” This is the second time I’ve seen you use it. Thank you.
David,
It’s very heart warming to read your story and see you pulled yourself out of the severe emotional polarizing that held you “Nicolosi” captive. I think it must be like an addiction that can be almost impossible to break, particularly with the devil’s threat of “hell” for your “sin” barking at your heels.
It seems you found the truth that this homosexual confusion is not about being gay or gay sexual, but about the fear around being gay and sexual, homophobia, of which it would seem you addressed.
I’m asking God (others may join me if you feel so called) to strike forward divine intervention now in any way HE sees fit, so that more people in your former negative position can find freedom from fear, hold their heads up high and have loving sexual relationships within themselves and a partner with which to share their lives if they so desire.
I look forward to hearing many more stories similar to yours in the near future.
Actually, it would be really interesting to get a collection of ex-gay survivors who took the Nicolosi route and write a book or collection of essays. Daniel Gonzalez has gone on the record about Nicolosi. I would guess there are many more who would be willing to tell their story.
Beyond Ex-Gay might be able to put something like this together. It could give some real insight into Nicolosi’s pathology, as well as his pattern of behavior with his various clients. It would also be a valuable resource for those considering trying the Nicolosi path to heterosexuality.
Sorry Em, I wasn’t aware telling the truth was taboo. I mean if the shoe fits wear it, no?
Ah well, just one more place not to be welcome- hey, just like church!
So I am so outta here!
Bill
Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin went to an “ex-gay” conference and noted that mos tof the attendees were parents who couldn’t accept their children’s orientation. Imagine the sheer cruelty of telling a room full of vulnerable people (as Nicolosi did) that they failed as parents, or that their children “must” have been sexually abused (as Melissa Fryrear did).
I have great parents, I was never sexually abused, and I can’t think of anything worse than somebody tormenting my parents with the fear that I’d been molested without their knowledge.
Bill, you might at least take Emily’s feelings into account before making such an abrupt comment and exit. We won’t be able to eliminate the use of the term because it exists as a powerful descriptor in the New Testament. However, when issues of faith arise here, the idea is to avoid slandering or hurting another gratuitously. In this case, I’m sure you could have used other words to aptly describe what you saw that would not have denigrated an important part of Emily’s faith — she is Jewish.
If you think the use of that particular word here is necessary in spite of this, then perhaps you will need to move on to a site that is not striving to provide the same atmosphere. I think that would be a shame, but it is up to you.
It’s fine David, I don’t expect to change minds; I just hope that people take a bit of time to learn what the word means before using it – say, by following the links I posted in the comment. Most aren’t aware of the anti-Judaic connotations, and unfortunately, a member of my faith’s ancestors – followers of rabbinical Judaism – has become synonymous with “hypocrite.”
But then, there are also those out there who truly believe the Jewish faith is by nature, hypocritical, because of the witness put forth by the Christian scriptures. Sometimes people don’t want to learn, and it’s easier for everyone that they leave.
I agree that Pharisee should not be used as a pejorative term, but I think that was obviously not Bill’s intent, guys. It sounds like he’s still in evangelicalism, and most evangelicals simply do not know that Jewish people find the term offensive. Indeed, for that matter, most people I know period don’t know that’s offensive (I’ve realized it is only after reading about the anti-Semitism evangelicals exhibited after the Last Temptation of Christ was shown). Not excusing what Bill said, nor societal ignorance on this matter, but I think if someone’s intent is obviously not to offend, it would be better to be slightly more gentle than Emily was in her rebuke. I’m not sure Bill even understood why the term is offensive.
Evangelicals are tone-deaf when it comes to issues like this (I say that as a former evangelical), so sometimes its better to do a Teddy Roosevelt and speak softly (but still carry a big stick if they persist). Just my opinion though. I hope I don’t offend anyone. I agree that the whole Pharisee terminology has to be taken out of evangelicalism and other Christian belief systems and recognized for the anti-Semitism that it is. I just don’t think people are being consciously anti-Semitic when they make such comments.
The whole “blaming the parents” routine is so 80’s I want to puke! When talk shows became the forefront on daytime TV, parents were being blamed for everything. Nicolosi is still stuck in that daytime TV world.
Take the word “blind” out and fill in the blank:
The disciples of Jesus asked him, “Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?”
Jesus answered: “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”
– The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. John 9:2-3
updated version:
Reparative therapist Dr Joseph Nicolosi asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born GAY?”
Jesus answered: “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”
John Weaver — good points.
“Where is this far greater evidence?”
See the Wikipedia article about Nicolosi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nicolosi). It lists what he says are his sources. Or, just look at his books.
The story on Masters & Johnson study fabrication was very timely. I attended the protest and delivered in as loud a voice as I could muster, directly to Drs. Nicolosi and Satinover, that the much cited Masters & Johnson “70% conversion” may be a sham. I talked with delegates and at least one speaker from JONAH. These guys have only the tired re-gurgitation of object relations and masculine insecurity theories to offer.
A view from one who is not gay. I attended Nicolosi’s talk to give him a fair hearing. A few observations:
1. I’m not convinced Nicolosi’s use of the word ‘cure’ is wise. He himself acknowledges that the third of his clients who are ‘cured’ may still have same-sex attraction.
2. Nicolosi never made a single reference to religion or the Bible. I’ve read that he is Catholic, but from his talk I could just as easily have surmised that he is an atheist.
3. Whilst I cannot say I’m persuaded by Nicolosi’s theory, I did listen carefully to his all-day conference. I don’t recognize it as it is described in the gay and ex-ex-gay literature I’ve read so far. In other words, unless I’m missing a seminal article or book somewhere, gay apologists have yet to respond to the full substance of his claims.
4. Related to point 3, even if, as some charge, Nicolosi plays fast and loose with scientific data, he makes a very compelling case that his colleagues who take the opposite position do the exact same. Nicolosi also presented stunning evidence that the APA’s approach to gay issues is enormously compromised and unprofessional.
The wider public is not made up (entirely) of people who do not know how to sift through arguments and make up our own minds. Nicolosi raises questions that need to be answered respectfully and intelligently. Failure on the part of gay apologists to engage Nicolosi in a respectful dialogue could eventually result in a public backlash that will leave gays out in the cold. (For those who do the historical research, you realize that it has happened before – again and again.)
“Nicolosi also presented stunning evidence that the APA’s approach to gay issues is enormously compromised and unprofessional.”
I’d be very interested in seeing that evidence. So far, i haven’t.
However, I can’t let your statement go, simply because it ignores what happened in Honolulu in 1973. I was there. The reason the APA dropped homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was that there was absolutely no evidence that being gay is a mental disorder, tohugh there is a great deal of evidence that a lot of people just don’t like homosexuality.
They had a definition of mental disorder, but to make it stick for gay people they had to ignore their own definiton, and say that “Of course. Gay people are mentally disordered BY definiton. Just not THIS definiton.” It could not hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny, and has failed to do so ever since.
The really homophobic psychiatrists, like Bieber and Soccarides (father of a gay son!!!), the ones who earned their living “curing” gay people, tried to force a referendum on the APA, but it also failed. The whole procedure underlined that prejudice was really the defining issue, not homosexuality, as is often the case on this particular issue. (Not surprisingly, religious reactions to gay people are very similar). First, a whole category of people is defined as mentally ill (or particularly sinful) with no scientific or experiential (or biblical) reason to do so, only a cultural and religious prejudice. They they have a vote, and presto-change-o, a whole category of people are “cured” overnight. Then, the people who whose livelihood depend on the the “mental illness” issue try to make another vote to make all of those people “sick” again. They failed.
Clearly, this was not a matter of good science or good medicine, just prejudice. You might call it the politics of diagnosis. There is a great book on the whole fiasco called “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry” by Ronald Bayer. It’s a great read.
Nicolosi’s statement “Hug your son or another man will” pretty much sums up his approach, and it is absolute garbage, without a shred of evidence to support it.
I’d like to know much Nicolosi charges his clients for his “therapeudic services”. My guess is the Man makes a somewhat higher-than-comfortable income peddling his snake oil.
Last post: I am very sorry for using an offensive term to you Em, that was not my intent, but now that I DO know it’s offensive I won’t use it again – of course, here on this site it is moot, but I wanted to apologize to you and any I have offended here. I am not tone deaf; evangelical though I am- LOL, “still in evangelicalism” sound like “still in homosexuality”. Actually I was raised RC, and though I had and still have many Jewish friends back East in Seattle, the “P” word never came up- (of course, most of my Jewish friends are atheist, so why would it?) Now, sadly, where I live there is not so much as a synagogue. I’m pretty sure though it’s not just evangelicals who are unaware the word is inoffensive. I think it’s something most on-Jewish people every gave a thought to- now I know better, and now that I know that I shall continue to spread the word that it is offensive.
To be fair though, you COULD have told me the first time AND why, and really you SHOULD have talked, written one on one first.
Shall we rewrite history as if there WERE no sects in Judaism in those times? Shall we take out the “S” word for the no resurrection of the dead party? Not trying to be a smart-a_ _ here, just curious)- I mean they WERE historical entities. Would we also want to rewrite history and no longer use the word Holocaust? Absolutely not! Or in the case of my raising, shall we forget the infamous Inquistions and witch burnings?
Well, as for me, I have reached a solution for myself.
My leaving has nothing to do with the particular post or about that word, I just get tired (as do you I’m sure) of having to constantly censor myself for fear of offending people , and my decision is not applicable to just this group- I am taking myself offline period- so 1) I will not be an occasion of sin to anyone, and 2) so no-one will be an occasion of sin to me. (by that I do not refer to anyone here ) It’s just that it’s difficult to feel like one is not welcome in a church, (because one still says they’re gay, even though celibate) OR in the gay community, or in the political world because one always reserves the right to think for themselves, and/or dissent from the party line. I don’t really feel fed when I go to most churches , and those where I do feel fed, I am not welcome. As for gays, it’s always, “how can you believe that way”, “how do you dare to be celibate, that’s being a traitor to the Gay community.” ( I may be evangelical, but “witnessing” is not something I do unless someone brings it up and asks. ) “How dare you not agree with everything this political party or that stands for… etc.”
So, I stay here now as a retired person, read the Scriptures, and fellowship with the few Christians I know here that are not the ‘in your face”” heresy hunters”, which is here at the homestead where my partner and I live. Most all my friends here are heterosexuals, and non-theists, esp. since I find I can speak frankly with out offending most of them- and yes, even about religion. It’s not particularly fun not fitting in anywhere.
So once again I apologize to those who were offended by my post, and to those I may have led to believe that the use of the p word is acceptable. And I will make sure if I hear the word used in such a way, I will do my best to educate them as you have educated me.
God’s blessings to all here!
Peace and Best wishes to all here.
Adios
Bill
Marshall,
You also miss the point that reparative therapy, much like creationism and the theory of memetics, is completely unverifiable by science. How exactly does one define what an overbearing mother and a submissive father is? Where does one get the statistical analysis of such a phenomenon? Unlike say, mental illness, where medications have been shown to work even though there are not proper diagnostic tools yet for making exact delinieations between healthy and sick, reparative therapy has not produced any scientifically verifiable “proof” of change. And there have been excellent neutral debunkings of reparative therapy, most noteably Tanya Erzen’s Straight to Jesus.
John
OT:
According to David Virtue, who describes his notoriously anti-gay website as “the global voice for orthodox Anglicanism,”.
The irony here is that David Virtue isn’t himself an Anglican, but a Baptist minister in the American Baptist Convention USA who used to be Senior Pastor at a Baptist church in New Jersey, but now devotes all his time to this website.
His degrees are from the London Bible College (now London School of Theology) and Trinity Seminary in Chicago – both of which are arch-conservative, evangelical schools, with no connection whatsoever with the Episcopal Church or the Church of England. He also seems to have a questionable D.D. degree from a “Palm Harbor University” which no one can locate.
Hi. The following has been posted in the Comments section at
pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12161.html#
———————————————————–
Now that the Protest on Saturday is out of the way, things are actually beginning to hot up and the truth of Nicolosi and his organization is coming to light. I would like to say Thank You to the person who posted the link to the American Anglican site virtueonline.com
I found the following page there:
virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10318
Go read it, everyone. Read every last word of it. IT IS SICKENING.
First of all, the reporter (somebody called David W. Virtue) LIES and tries to create an impression of the people attending the conference being under some kind of violent uncontrolled attack from us on Saturday! Complete lies. He kicks off by saying, “I am huddled inside the doorway of Emmanuel Center, a church near Westminster Abbey, as hundreds of gay protesters yell and shout obscenities at a conference where speakers are offering healing for the homosexual through reparative therapy.” Clearly, these sad pathetic Anglican ex-gay supporters are so indoctrinated and brainwashed that in a kind of neurotic way they NEED to revel in seeing themselves as Christian martyrs suffering the taunts of a pagan multitude.
Next, let me pick out key phrases from the rest of the report of the Conference at Westminster:
——————————–
“Nicolosi argues that, at its root, homosexuality is not a sexual problem – it is a gender-identity problem.”
NOTE: Nicolosi and his followers believe that HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PROBLEM. If they believe it is a problem, then they believe that that problem should be solved, and the only way you can get rid of the problem of homosexuality is by eliminating homosexuality itself. SO WE CAN’T ACCEPT THIS HOGWASH THEY SPOUT: “We aren’t homophobic, we just want to give certain homosexuals a choice”. IF WE IGNORE NICOLOSI AND HIS FOOT-SOLDIERS AT NARTH AND ELSEWHERE, WE DO SO AT OUR PERIL.
————————————
Next quote from the article:
“Nicolosi claims that there is no such thing as a homosexual, but only heterosexuals that have a homosexual problem.”
UNDERSTAND THIS EVERYONE. IT MEANS WE GAYS AND LESBIANS DON’T EXIST!!!!!! NICOLOSI IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLAIMING WE ARE HETEROSEXUALS WITH A PROBLEM.
No way, Nicolosi. You will NOT negate who and what we are!
But let’s be absolutely sure, everyone: Nicolosi negates our existence. And through his organization he also convinces others that we do not exist.
———————————–
Next quote:
“The California therapist ripped gay organizations for their dishonesty in promoting a lifestyle that is ultimately pathological, narcissistic, self-absorbed”.
Nicolosi believes that our lives are ultimately pathological, narcissitic, and self-absorbed. WHAT IS THIS STATEMENT IF IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE HATRED OF HOMOSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN? Clearly, Nicolosi is spreading the idea that we are all psychologically sick.
I’m not sick, Nicolosi. But by hell YOU ARE. YOU ARE A MONSTER. YOU PUT ME IN MIND OF Joseph Mengele, the Nazi who experimented on prisoners in Auschwitz to research his beliefs on heredity. (Amongst many other things, Mengele attempted to change eye-colour by injecting chemicals into prisoner’s eyes!)
—————————————–
Next quote:
“One third of boys who think they are homosexual were abused by older boys, a relative or family member. It is same sex abuse. It is no surprise that gay activists are lobbying for the lowering of the age of consent.”
Nicolosi is clearly stating here that he believes that gay activists lobbying for an equal age of consent are doing so for the purpose of PAEDOPHILIA!
In other words, Nicolosi clearly believes that all gay activists are paedophiles! He believes we want an equal age of consent so that we can groom and force ourselves on young heterosexuals and turn them into gays and lesbians. THIS IS ONE HELL OF A STINKING ACCUSATION. WHY HAVEN’T GAY ACTIVISTS IN AMERICA TAKEN TO THE STREETS AND SHOWN THEIR ANGER AND HAD THIS MAN ARRESTED OR PUT AWAY? What he is saying is ABSOLUTELY LIBELOUS. People are prosecuted for libel when they use statements which are harmful,untrue, and tending to discredit or malign, and Nicolosi’s statement above does not just TEND to discredit or malign we gay and lesbian people, it ABSOLUTELY DISCREDITS AND MALIGNS US.
This man and his followers have got to be stopped. Remember, Joseph Mengele thought he was a good man. Criminals believe they are good men.
————————————————
Next comment:
“Gay couples don’t last.”
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT! I have been with my partner for 18 years and will remain with him for the rest of my life. I have three very close friends who also have been part of a same-sex couple for OVER 20 YEARS! THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF US WHO ARE COUPLES WHO HAVE LASTED AND WILL CONTINUE TO LAST.
Nicolosi has maligned us again – with the implication that every heterosexual couple that is formed LASTS FOREVER! BULLSHIT, NICOLOSI.
This man is a dangerous manipulator of words. He lies.
———————————————
Next quote from Nicolosi:
“Informed disapproval does not mean “homophobia”. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. . . . Most people do not fear homosexuals.”
Here Nicolosi is trying to sell the impression that he is not homophobic!!!!!!!!! And so many people are so shallow in their thinking that they accept this!!!! BUT JUST LOOK AT WHAT HE HAS SAID IN THE QUOTES ABOVE! If that’s not outright HATRED OF HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALITY then homophobia does not exist on the face of Planet Earth!
Nicolosi is teaching his gullible followers to go round saying that they simply have “informed disapproval” of us! INFORMED DISAPPROVAL??????? The above statements constitute ONLY INFORMED DISAPPROVAL?????
From the above we have clear evidence that Nicolosi is running an organization which is convincing many many people that
– HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PROBLEM.
– HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.
– HOMOSEXUALS ARE PATHOLOGICALLY ILL.
– HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS ARE PAEDOPHILES.
– HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES DO NOT LAST.
and he claims that he is not a homophobe, that the above statements are said purely with a detached sense of “informed disapproval”?
Make no mistake, people, Joseph Nicolosi and his followers are PASSIONATELY AND PERSISTENTLY propounding the above beliefs. There is no rational distanced “informed disapproval”. They are clearly filled with Joseph Nicolosi’s HATRED towards homosexuals. They are dangerous homophobes. They are not passive homophobes. They are actively seeking to eliminate homosexuality from the world.
We are a problem.
——————————————-
You know, when you let the meaning of Nicolosi’s words sink in, you have to ask yourself why the hell no one has brought this homophobe to a standstill yet? I can only think that the average American just doesn’t analyse things closely enough. If they did, surely they would all have been so hopping mad about this bloke for years that something would have been done to disband his organization by now.
Joseph Nicolosi, by daring to enter Britain with your hatred of homosexuals, you have gone one step too far. WE BRITS THINK! You can’t get away with your crafty use of words here, matey! You’re using the language we invented. You’re heading for your downfall! I for one am not going to let up on you and I know there are others who will join me!
If any American gay activists are reading this then for heaven’s sake get yourselves high-powered attorney and take out an action against this guy! Remove him!
That pretty much covers a post in progress and then some, Eddy. lol
Well, Eddy, it’s good to know that “[you] Brits think.” We Yanks are trying to act as well as think; but unfortunately, as has come to be my observance in the past 24 years of my life, smart humans (not just Americans, but humans) do not outnumber ignorant and stupid humans. And stupid humans vote, run for office, and demand grease for their squeaky wheels. I believe it was your own Sir Winston Churchill (undeniably a “thinking Brit”) who said that “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” And when you talk to some of those “average voters” in the states, it’s easy to believe that.
Thanks for your comments and the titles you mention, ben in Oakland and John Weaver. I think both sides of this controversy need to put away the dogmas (whether religious or gay) and focus on sorting out the competing scholarly and scientific claims. Too often, one reads comments (on both sides) that cite this or that author but quickly degenerate into dismissive name-calling of the other side rather than staying with the task of answering substantive questions that both sides raise. The pejorative slams against the other side are off-putting and useless to those of us who are trying to make sense of this issue.
I will note that though one can find plenty of un-civil rhetoric among the religious right (especially when they write on blogs), the people I met at the conference (most of whom seem to be evangelical) showed absolutely nothing of vitriol or anger against gays. Would that all religious conservatives and gays could follow their example in this regard, at least.
Marshall,
Civility is a good thing, but an imposed vision of Kumbaya does not help find the truth. Most of the people here have been dealing with Nicolosi’s unscientific, unsupported work for years. A former XGW writer, Daniel Gonzales, was his patient. Very little of his work ends up before peer review, and even then it appears to be with very forgiving journals. In any case, opposing evidence doesn’t seem to dissuade him; to the contrary he twists it into a kind of proof — everyone else is caving to the homosexual power structure, only he is correct. To say that he is narcissistic is rather obvious, but even his friends would have to admit this. None of this is new.
Perhaps we live in different worlds. In mine, making claims which confirm ones own theories and conjectures, but which are otherwise unsupported, even scoffed at by the vast majority of others in ones field, and where such claims slander and perpetuate the disenfranchisement of an entire class of people, this is not a positive thing even when delivered with a silver tongue. And trying to equivocate this with those who cite the facts in response by claiming both are somehow equally “uncivil” and therefore equally wrong, that is just a formula for neutralizing a discussion.
Nicolosi has proven himself to be unconcerned with the facts professionally, and a bully publicly. However, he does have a book coming out shortly, and controversy is good for sales. This is the most likely reason to my mind that he would be dredging out absurd claims such as a 75% cure rate.
Perhaps if you were gay, and had spent some time on the other end of such tender mercies, you would understand why the emotions can run high on such a thread. Some of what has been said above is more abrasive than we normally allow, but part of moderating is knowing when some extra steam must be released.
If you enjoyed Nicolosi’s talk, I would just suggest that you think about why you want to believe that gay people are disordered. Whatever conclusion you come up with is your business, but I don’t favor your odds at selling that here, particularly not Nicolosi’s brand.
“I will note that though one can find plenty of un-civil rhetoric among the religious right (especially when they write on blogs), the people I met at the conference (most of whom seem to be evangelical) showed absolutely nothing of vitriol or anger against gays. Would that all religious conservatives and gays could follow their example in this regard, at least.”
Smart people don’t show anger and vitriol because it makes them look stupid. People who don’t examine and label their basic assumptions, not to mention the practical outcomes of their assumptions, don’t show anger and vitriol because they are just “doing what’s right”, “following the Lord’s words”, “loving the sinner but hating the sin”, “protecting marriage”, “saving the children”, “protecting religious freedom”, and a whole host of other lying rationalizations for their behavior.
Rationalization is the key word. Most people know that bigotry, for any reason, is wrong. But if they want to be bigoted, if they have unresolved issues, if they prefer not to examine what they do and say, then they need to rationalize what they are saying as not bigoted, as not mean, as not hateful. Very few people would prefer to be known as bigots to their friends, families, and the world at large.
People like Nicolosi don’t show anger and vitriol because he would ruin a good source of income if he did. He wouldn’t look like a concerned doctor, he’d look like a crazy bigot. Instead, he makes up all kinds of things that don’t have even a grain of truth or logic in them.
Papa Prada didn’t show anger or vitriol when he declared that gay marriage was a threat to world peace, or that placing children in the homes of same-sex parents was doing violence to those children. It is hardly becoming for the pope to express anger and vitriol, just as it would be hardly becoming for the Pope to admit that the Church’s position against responsible birth control for heterosexuals– and the resulting over-population especially in poor, Catholic countries– is a more likely threat to world peace, or the reason those children are in need of a place to live with loving parents who actually want them.
Naggie Gallagher doesn’t show anger or vitriol when she claims that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage, religious freedom, the family, or children. she doesn’t show anger or vitriol when she says that “every child deserves a mother and a father”, ignoring the actual fact that 40% of children in this country are born out of wedlock, or that the hetero divorce rate is about 50%, while the gay marriage divorce rate in Massachusetts (according to an article in this morning’s paper) in Massachusetts is about 2%.
You don’t have to have anger and vitriol to be a bigot. You just have to hate so much that you will tell any lie, distortion, or half truth to express your hate. And you get extra points if you can look reasonable, sincere, or concerned, or loving, or even just religious.
The people that attended this meeting, these concerned evangelicals. Would they have similar enthusiasm for a meeting to cure Jews of their religion? Would they not look like Nazis– at least now, as opposed to 70 years ago?
Quoting my favorite author: “A growing number of religionists– not a majority, but a sizable minority– are coming to the conclusion that the traditional “beliefs” about G’s will and homosexuality are yet another in a long sad line of mistaken ideas that have been attributed to G and not to the religionists who have forever remolded G in their own image. “Good” Christians used to burn witches with exactly the same moral certainty (and assumption of superiority) that they understood and did G’s will with which they now attack gay people. How many people were tortured and murdered for that slight mis-apprehension of G’s will? 2000 years of G-sanctioned anti-Semitism (both Jew and Arab) led to the murder of 6 million people, and the mess that is the middle east today. Slavery and segregation have certainly been church-and-bible supported, but only an unabashed racist would admit to it today.
“As a Jew, I totally reject the idea that G had a son, and that by “believing” in this son– whatever that means, because it is not at all clear– I will be saved from an eternity of burning torment. This rejection of the ENTIRE THEOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY bothers no one but the most rabid fundamentalist. There is certainly no Day of Truth directed to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, or anyone else. Just gay people. And do you know why? Because if they did, they would look like religious bigots. But let them say it is about gay people, and sex in our deeply Puritanical culture, and there is no fear mongering lie, distortion, half-truth, that they will not claim. Let me reject this TINY bit of conservative Christianity, and all of a sudden, the sky is falling, and everything that these religionists hold dear is suddenly under attack.
“In short, it is not about sincere religious belief. It is simply about what it has always been about: how much the very existence of gay people offends, entices, obsesses, and frightens some straight people, as well as those-who-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t.”
And that is the problem with Mr. Nicolosi. what he has to say has not a shred of evidence behind it. His assumptions are garbage, his evidence is garbage, his conclusions are garbage. GIGO.
Nicolosi claims a “cure” rate for something that isn’t a disease of greater than 50%. Quoting my favorite author again: “Let’s look at the very best evidence we have that “Change is Possible”: the Jones and Yarhouse study. They trumpet that their study says “CHANGE IS POSSIBLE”. It then appears that change is possible for only 15%, and that the exact nature of the change is AT BEST difficult to comprehend.
They could only find 100 people to participate in their study– 100 out of the tens of thousands that Exodus has claimed to convert. Not a good return rate, especially for people who have found the holy-grail-pot-o-gold-G-honest TRUTH. Of those 100, only 15 had managed to change from homo to hetero–so they said–and one of those later recanted. Also not a very good rate of return with people who are highly motivated to change. Of the 14 left, all had experienced a change that the authors described as “ambiguous” and “complicated”. For me as a gay man, my sexuality is very unambiguous and very uncomplicated. For my many straight friends– as far as I know– their heterosexuality is also unambiguous and uncomplicated.
Why, when it was clear from the results of the J&Y study that actual, “uncomplicated” change from hetero to homo does not occur, at least by their methods, why do they advocate change, especially by their methods? If the best that they can come up with are celibates and the “complicateds”, then I put it to you that that something not changed. J&Y are on Nicolosi’s side, yet their conclusions, stretched out of recognition by evangelicals, do not support either the evangelicals claims or nicolosi’s.
Let me repeat and paraphrase: “It is not about sincere religious belief, or the latest ‘scientific’ cure, or the politicization of the APA, or anything else. It is simply about what it has always been about: how much the very existence of gay people offends, entices, obsesses, and frightens some straight people, as well as those-who-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t.”
Sorry, David, my brevity gland is on the fritz again.
I wonder if we’ll be hearing from Marshall. I had hopes that he might be somewhat opened minded, as was Shawn, to learn something.
I guess we won’t be hearing from him. I’m not too surprised. I had him in mind, hoping it wouldn’t be the case, when I wrote this:
“Rationalization is the key word. Most people know that bigotry, for any reason, is wrong. But if they want to be bigoted, if they have unresolved issues, if they prefer not to examine what they do and say, then they need to rationalize what they are saying as not bigoted, as not mean, as not hateful. Very few people would prefer to be known as bigots to their friends, families, and the world at large.”
There are three groups of people I never try to convince of anything. People who are irretrievably poisoned by hatred and fear. People who believe that their particular book is the capital T truth. And really stupid people.
Sometimes they are rolled into one person. And the winnder is…
oh, hell. There are just too many of them.
David Roberts, I have been thinking about your referral to “a formula for neutralizing a discussion” and I think you point to behaviour which is a serious threat, i.e. behaviour which quashes rightful anger and indignation and which rightfully causes people to rise up and refuse to be oppressed.
We have to be as wary of those amongst us who for whatever reason neutralise discussion and/or the spur to action as those who oppress us. I would even go so far as to say that those who neutralize discussion, and who therefore inhibit action, are as dangerous as those who oppress us. And in my experience of internet Forums I have found that there are people “from the other side” who often infiltrate objecting groups (like this one) and pretend to be of the same mind but whose intention is precisely to neutralize discussion and counter any move of the oppressed towards action.
Ben in Oakland, your statement that “People like Nicolosi don’t show anger and vitriol because he would ruin a good source of income if he did” has made me stop and consider that video of him still viewable on YouTube where he is challenged by a reporter (CNN, I think) about his warning parents to monitor their boys for any signs of the “artistic” (Nicolosi clearly twinning “artistic” with “slippery slope to Sodom”). Nicolosi briefly fires back at the interviewer and then abruptly curtails the interview. It is not a wild or loud exhibition of anger, but very clearly absolute FURY bubbles beneath his surface.
As I said in my long analysis (above) of some parts of the report of Nicolosi’s doings at the recent London conference, Nicolosi is clearly passionately and determinedly out to eliminate homosexuality. He and his adherents are unquestionably fuelled by anger and hatred of homosexuality, of gays and lesbians. However, as you say Ben, as much as they can they mask it all up with pseudo-scientific and psychological rationalization.
Only Nicolosi, his conspirators, and willing lambs to the slaughter will disallow the objects of the Reparative’s fury, i.e. we homosexuals, the right to experience rightful anger and indignation and to allow it to escalate into meaningful action.
So I repeat the assertion that the time has come to end all gentlemanly (and/or ladylike) pussy-footing around on this matter and to take action against this organization.
Eddy- I absolutely agree with you. It is one of the reasons I write. I want people to have to the tools to deal with this garbage. One of the tools is to learn not to accept at face value what they AXIS (Anti-X-gay-Industry-S**theads) powers have to say concerning either their “facts” or their motivations. another is to tap into our righteous anger, but to learn to express it appropriately.
You wrote: “there are people “from the other side” who often infiltrate objecting groups (like this one) and pretend to be of the same mind but whose intention is precisely to neutralize discussion and counter any move of the oppressed towards action.”
That’s why i made the comparison between Shawn and our boy Marshall. shawn genuinely appeared to be interested in learning something. Marshall was just here to let us know that he supports nicolosi, but was trying to appear reasonable as opposed to nicolsiferous. (I just made that up.)
Do you believe in santa claus?
Ok. they can believe in ex gay…
I KNOW LOT OF EX GAYS…. ( those who are died )
I ´m gay and i know i was born gay… i´ll never change,
it´s impossible… Only fool people believe in EX- GAY.
I don´t want to change.
There are many worst things in world than be gay.
Drugs, murders, wars… Why should i worry in change the natural condition of gay people???