Comments on: Jones and Yarhouse: “The Use, Misuse and Abuse of Science in the Ecclesiastical Homosexuality Debates” http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:53:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Jason http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764/comment-page-1#comment-2605 Jason Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:36:31 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764#comment-2605 "I have no objection to ex-gay people who have found a way to find peace between their sexuality and their faith. I only object to the ones who lie, condemn others, insist that we all do what they did, or fight against civil equalities." If the ex-gay industry wasn't a vehicle for the relgious conservatives to run over gay people, claiming we can all change, and therefore don't deserve equal rights, I think most of us would not care. “I have no objection to ex-gay people who have found a way to find peace between their sexuality and their faith. I only object to the ones who lie, condemn others, insist that we all do what they did, or fight against civil equalities.”

If the ex-gay industry wasn’t a vehicle for the relgious conservatives to run over gay people, claiming we can all change, and therefore don’t deserve equal rights, I think most of us would not care.

]]> By: Ken R http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764/comment-page-1#comment-2604 Ken R Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:11:42 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764#comment-2604 <i>DO either of these comments sound like they come from people who can render findings in an unbiased fashion?</i> Nope. I don't believe that we will find anything new in the book. We have heard it all. The only "truth" they see is gay = sin and you need to repent and be saved. And I personally believe they will write the book in such a way to support that. <i>I have no objection to ex-gay people who have found a way to find peace between their sexuality and their faith. I only object to the ones who lie, condemn others, insist that we all do what they did, or fight against civil equalities.</i> Agreed. Because they have "changed" doesn't me we have to. But their argument will always be WE MUST change and they will never support any type of GLBT rights.Ever. DO either of these comments sound like they come from people who can render findings in an unbiased fashion?

Nope. I don’t believe that we will find anything new in the book. We have heard it all. The only “truth” they see is gay = sin and you need to repent and be saved. And I personally believe they will write the book in such a way to support that.

I have no objection to ex-gay people who have found a way to find peace between their sexuality and their faith. I only object to the ones who lie, condemn others, insist that we all do what they did, or fight against civil equalities.

Agreed. Because they have “changed” doesn’t me we have to. But their argument will always be WE MUST change and they will never support any type of GLBT rights.Ever.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764/comment-page-1#comment-2603 Timothy Kincaid Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:52:19 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764#comment-2603 <i>These men will never say, “That woman caught my eye on the beach”. However they will be able to love one women, perhaps a partner and fully commit to her. No one should decide to live a way that is not right for them.</i> Joe, I would suggest that for some of these men, finding a partner and committing to her would be a way that is "right for them". It provides congruence with their closely held religious beliefs and is adequately satisfying. I have no objection to ex-gay people who have found a way to find peace between their sexuality and their faith. I only object to the ones who lie, condemn others, insist that we all do what they did, or fight against civil equalities. These men will never say, “That woman caught my eye on the beach”. However they will be able to love one women, perhaps a partner and fully commit to her.
No one should decide to live a way that is not right for them.

Joe, I would suggest that for some of these men, finding a partner and committing to her would be a way that is “right for them”. It provides congruence with their closely held religious beliefs and is adequately satisfying.

I have no objection to ex-gay people who have found a way to find peace between their sexuality and their faith. I only object to the ones who lie, condemn others, insist that we all do what they did, or fight against civil equalities.

]]> By: Joe Kort http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764/comment-page-1#comment-2600 Joe Kort Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:08:00 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764#comment-2600 My opinion on Yarhouse and Throckmorton's work and others who believe sexual orientation can change is that the only one's that fit into their work or straight men "acting out" homosexual behavior and bisexual men who can adapt themselves to just their heterosexual side. In other words, these men were not gay to begin with. Otherwise, the only other success they make in this work are homosexually oriented men who will not, cannot and never will commit to a gay identity so they change their behavior, not their orientation. These men will never say, "That woman caught my eye on the beach". However they will be able to love one women, perhaps a partner and fully commit to her. No one should decide to live a way that is not right for them. I just wish that Yarhouse and the others would stop calling thise "ex-gay". Leave "gay" out of it. These are men who either are *not* gay or are homosexual and do not want to live that way. Joe Kort, LMSW www.straightguise.com My opinion on Yarhouse and Throckmorton’s work and others who believe sexual orientation can change is that the only one’s that fit into their work or straight men “acting out” homosexual behavior and bisexual men who can adapt themselves to just their heterosexual side.
In other words, these men were not gay to begin with. Otherwise, the only other success they make in this work are homosexually oriented men who will not, cannot and never will commit to a gay identity so they change their behavior, not their orientation.
These men will never say, “That woman caught my eye on the beach”. However they will be able to love one women, perhaps a partner and fully commit to her.
No one should decide to live a way that is not right for them.

I just wish that Yarhouse and the others would stop calling thise “ex-gay”. Leave “gay” out of it. These are men who either are *not* gay or are homosexual and do not want to live that way.

Joe Kort, LMSW
http://www.straightguise.com

]]> By: ARE you Kidding Me?? http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764/comment-page-1#comment-2597 ARE you Kidding Me?? Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:08 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764#comment-2597 I apologize for leaving that comment and back it up with only the link. I did so because it is a long quote but the quotes below are from both researchers that will substantiate this claim. Both have made homophobic comments and are self proclaimed Evangelical Christian. We all know being homophobic is negative but not necessarily being an Evangelical Christian. However the combination is negative. I'm stating this because it will definitely have an impact on the outcome of their research and people should know that their views may significantly slant any findings. "as evangelical Christians, it seemed to us that homosexuality is the area where more pressure is being put on the church to depart from the explicit moral teachings of scripture than any other area." http://www.narth.com/docs/jonesyarhouse. html “Christ, or God, has a pre-existing claim on their sexuality” that trumps same-sex attractions, Yarhouse said. Sept. 14, 2004 interview with The Virginian-Pilot The other researcher was quoted as saying those who support ordination of homosexuals are trying "to normalize a pattern which is destructive and abnormal" DO either of these comments sound like they come from people who can render findings in an unbiased fashion? I apologize for leaving that comment and back it up with only the link. I did so because it is a long quote but the quotes below are from both researchers that will substantiate this claim.
Both have made homophobic comments and
are self proclaimed Evangelical Christian. We all know being homophobic is negative but not necessarily being an Evangelical Christian. However the combination is negative. I’m stating this because it will definitely have an impact on the outcome of their research and people should know that their views may significantly slant any findings.

“as evangelical Christians, it seemed to us that homosexuality is the area where more pressure is being put on the church to depart from the explicit moral teachings of scripture than any other area.”
http://www.narth.com/docs/jonesyarhouse.
html

“Christ, or God, has a pre-existing claim on their sexuality” that trumps same-sex attractions, Yarhouse said.
Sept. 14, 2004 interview with The Virginian-Pilot

The other researcher was quoted as saying those who support ordination of homosexuals are trying “to normalize a pattern which is destructive and abnormal”

DO either of these comments sound like they come from people who can render findings in an unbiased fashion?

]]> By: Jim Burroway http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764/comment-page-1#comment-2594 Jim Burroway Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:42:35 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764#comment-2594 To "ARe you kidding me??" That is an ad hominen argument. We don't just label people, call them names and just dismiss arguments based on those names. The whole point of this web site is to examine arguments themselves. If you can't contribute a critique -- pro or con -- based on what they said rather than who they are, then I suggest you move on. Once again, please review our <a href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/About/NoCrawl/CommentPolicy.htm" rel="nofollow">comments policy.</a> To “ARe you kidding me??”

That is an ad hominen argument. We don’t just label people, call them names and just dismiss arguments based on those names.

The whole point of this web site is to examine arguments themselves. If you can’t contribute a critique — pro or con — based on what they said rather than who they are, then I suggest you move on.

Once again, please review our comments policy.

]]> By: ARe you kidding me?? http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764/comment-page-1#comment-2591 ARe you kidding me?? Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:02:01 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/13/764#comment-2591 A few points here Both researchers are evangelists and are homophobic. check this out http://www.truthwinsout.org/ A few points here Both researchers are evangelists and are homophobic. check this out
http://www.truthwinsout.org/

]]>