Is this a amateurish mistake for a professional study? And then to pretend that it didn’t happen . . .

I don’t know, it just seems that if more people could see that the notion of change purported by some in the Right is based on a lexicon all their own and doesn’t really mean that homosexual people can do things to make themselves sexually respond to the opposite sex ONLY, then would all this “debate” in popular culture over homosexuality (or any non-heterosexuality between consenting adults) just end? I mean what more than these supposed studies is there that gives ANY non-religious credit to holding an adverse view towards homosexuality and homosexual people in the U.S., and Western world in general (well besides thinking ill of two men or two women knocking boots)? Because thus far even with any new “studies” coming out, the premise of “gay going straight” seems to be heading out the window fairly quickly. I just think that premise is quickly shaping itself up to say something more like “we can’t truthfully say we’re not 100% gay anymore, but if you’re gay wouldn’t you like reacting to it in a manner like we do, instead of going with it?” today.

just some musings I felt compelled to leave after checking out the article above…sorry, rambling tends to get the best of me on these blogs. :p

btw william, that last statement in your entry…effing brilliant dude, lol.

I knew when I was in my teens that I was gay, although it took me a long time to admit it to myself – I kept hoping that it was only a phase. I was in my early twenties before I actually had sex with another guy.

I started smoking when I was 19. At no time prior to that (or afterwards) did I ever dream that I was smoking a cigarette and then wake up to find my pyjamas mysteriously sprinkled with tobacco ash.

They come at homosexuality full of preconceived notions. One of which is that being gay is merely a behavior, not a fixed characteristic.

Well the research presented here, especially concerning their success stories suggests the opposite.

If being gay were merely a bad habit, merely an addiction, there would come a point where the attractions, the cravings, the sexual thoughts would stop, right? I’m not an addiction specialist, but having completely given up both smoking and drinking, I’m at a point (3 years for both) where I have absolutely no desire for either of them. I’m dating a smoker, and I go to the bars with friends sometimes. I haven’t experienced any sort of craving for either substance in over a year.

The research suggests that the most highly motivated people, who have prayed, and worked, and dedicated a great deal of their time — can’t overcome homosexuality, they can merely avoid expressing it. These people have found coping mechanisms to deal with their desires, but the desires don’t stop.

If the highest of highly motivated people cannot stop their attractions, that would strongly suggest that those attractions are not changeable. It not only provides some proof that being gay is more than just a habit, or behavior, it strongly points to it being a fixed characteristic.

When the most highly motivated, self-loathing evangelical homosexuals make a serious effort to become heterosexual, only 11 of 73 achieve modest success and none becomes what any unbiased observer would view as a full-fledged heterosexual.

Anti-gay evangelicals admit in writing that Biblical texts are not about homosexuality

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html

and still some in the church keep pushing the failed reparative therapy mantra.

Does anyone else detect the desperation Ex-gay businesses convey when mediocre results like this represent their best effort?

Rick Brentlinger

I say that what the study has proved beyond a doubt is not that change is or isn’t possible, but that belief in Jeebus and giving money to ex-gay ministries has no effect on sexual orientation. it just keeps feeding the people who make money off of promoting hatred and fear of gay people.

Alan “Ex”ambers is at least somewhat honest, though disingenuous. but as Mark Twain observed: “Tell me where a man gets his corn-pone, and i’ll tell you what his ‘pinions are.”

Alan “Ex”hambers has a lot invested in his opinions– his job, his family, his status among people whose approval he seeks, and the whole story he has been telling himself for years. very similar ot Michael Glatze. as far as I can tell, Glatze is someone who needs his story to be true so that he can not take responsibility for the life he created for himself.

*** not satisfied with their blow-off of the 25 that refused to continue. The book may contain more details, but the verbals in the current media releases etc are not a good sign.

*** particularly noted their “Truly Gay” category. (don’t know why the capitalisation, but they obviously thought it mattered). One would imagine that means 100%-far-right-on-the-scale, but it’s not… “above average hom. attraction” AND “hom. behaviour” AND “past embrace of gay identity”. So, in-reality-bi included… huh??? It’s this type of convenient (value-laden) labelling of people that should make one pause and examine the nitty-gritty, rather than accept the interpretations made by Jones or Yarhouse.

*** including a high % of people who were sexually abused as children is problematic in all sorts of ways — least of all that such people could begin and end with a very confused sense of self/sexuality. Not sure, therefore, about validity of self-reporting at a most basic level. Again, may have more details in book itself.

*** they mentioned “one” (yes, singular) woman had established a “successful heterosexual relationship” in the period. Even given the limited time period, as for the rest??? (we realise this is no measure of being heterosexual, but it’s perhaps worth a mention for any potential exgay hoping for that as an outcome)

*** 40 of the 72 males had had sex with a woman, previously; many with multiple. Ditto, for the female participants and male partners. 34 had even been het. married (6 were divorced /1 separated) at the start of the study. Hope the book explores this in detail.

*** very, very interesting results comparing Time 1 to Time 2 to Time 3 changes. They noted “even slightly eroding” reports of change for the latter period compared to the first. First question that comes to mind… the claimed “success rate” declines with time, therefore? Ooops.

Maybe it’s just as well they didn’t continue the study for the entire 2000-2007 period. (if they commenced in 2000 it appears? they stopped counting about 2003/04/05?).

This failure to SUSTAIN “change”, even given a generous definition for that — and even given the very modest self-reported changes in K-scores etc — has for decades been the primary critique of reorientation efforts and the claims made by pro-change therapists.

All this, and we haven’t even begun with the (frankly, egregious) language they’ve used at times.

Since the ex-gay industry is so famous for equating gays with some sort of disease of the soul, let’s pretend for a moment that we’re talking about cancer instead of homosexuality.

Look at “sucess” from this viewpoint

Success: Conversion – There were subjects who reported that they felt their change to be successful and reported substantial reduction in cancer cells and addition of healthy functioning cells at Time 3. 15% met these criteria.

So they still have cancer.

How exactly is that a “success” ?