Interestingly enough, this was not always the case because our society’s views over the years have changed to include Homosexuals as a significant part of humanity. In light of scientific discovery and the lifetime experiences of countless numbers of men and women who have made attempts to change their orientation and have failed or have been severely emotionally damaged in the process; we must ask the question, who would choose to be gay? Yes, it’s a rhetorical question and my heart breaks for those men and women who seem to be unwilling or unable to humble themselves and admit that it’s only their personal experience which motivates them and by making blanket statements about someone elses, “sexual identity i.e. morality” they are only projecting their own insecurity with their truth.

See, truth doesn’t need to attack or be defensive, it simply communicates respectfully. It stands on it’s own and brings freedom. It’s my hope that we as a community of gay and ex gay a like can come together and respect each other as well as support each other in our desicions.

When I first read your comments, I thought that you were somehow academically related to Harvard. Only after looking further into it, did I discover that you were a cook in the cafeteria.

I strongly suspect that the reason for the Harvard investigation was to determeine if you were falsely portraying yourself as an academic scholar from Harvard.

Institutionns like Harvard have much at stake in preventing people from trading on their good name to push a personal ideological agenda.

You have carefully worded your comments to give the impression of being a Harvard scholar without directly coming out and saying that. I think it is extremely dishonest for you to use Harvard’s name and reputation to push your particular cause. If you want to be honest, you should state up front that you work in the student cafeteria at Harvard. Or better yet, don’t mention Harvard at all. If your ideas have real merit, they shouldn’t have to be falsely shrouded in Harvard crimson in order to get a hearing. They (and you) should be able to stand on their own.

Timothy you wrote the above comment. I am puzzled that anyone would presume that I portray myself in the manner that others are saying that I do. Please further expand on your comments.

“But this is not the thread for that debate. This is a thread to discuss the Jones and Yarhouse study and Dr. Throckmorton’s reporting thereof.”

Timothy, Jones and Yarhouse is the third study to show that one may change/overcome . . . sexual orientation/behavior. The two other studies were Shildo and Schroeder (2002) and Spitzer (2003). I am sharing my story of change/overcoming. You may read my story on http://www.banap.net. What was instrumental to me when I was able articulate, i. e. put into words that is most accurate and able to be understood not only by myself, but also by many others.

“The parameters of the discussion are best framed, “Who one is, a homosexual” or “what one does, homosexuality”. The support for the latter is the strongest, homosexuality, homosexual behavior.”

“Homosexuality is a relationship issue. Homosexuality is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for intimacy in same-sex relationships.”

I think it is important in this thread to also include a discussion what these studies are attempting to measure. In doing so we immediately have difficulty with terms and their ascribed meanings.

One example is the changing term used by those who self-identify as homosexual/gay/lesbian/queer. In the early 1970s they used “sexual preference” and now it is more common to see “sexual orientation.”

As I have written before comments written critical of the Jones and Yarhouse study are also applicable to those studies that are used to for a position supporting homosexuality. They include but are not limited to (1) “sampling” the participants included in the study and how they are recruited for the study. (2) The participants use of “self-reporting”. (3) The “researchers conducting the study” itself. Many of those studies showing support for homosexuality are done by researchers who self-identify as homosexual/gay/lesbian/queer. (4) Those “sponsoring and/or supporting the study”. The study by Shidlo and Schroeder, was by researchers who self-identify as gay and one of the sponsors was the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce.

This thread (“to discuss the Jones and Yarhouse study and Dr. Throckmorton’s reporting thereof”) supports the conclusion that one is able to change/overcome whether it is described as sexual orientation or behavior. But so often this thread is made more difficult by the terms used and the meanings ascribed to them, as is any discussion of homosexuality.

I was unable to reply earlier in the week. Being a “cafeteria cook” was very demanding, I worked 6 days this week and two days I worked from 6 am to 8 pm.

For example, J & Y employ shifting terms to describe their own results, suggesting it is not “harmful”, it is not “harmful on average”, it is “not likely to cause harm”, and “there is no evidence of harm”. There is a tremendous range from “not harmful” to “not harmful on average”. In contrast, many participants made a variety of claims suggesting they were indeed harmed by the experience. Some speak of feeling empty, alone, and confused, one said they felt helpless and hopeless, another that his faith is in tatters, and one explicitly states that the program is not helpful or beneficial.

Furthermore, they suggest the study is prospective and repeatedly refer to participants at “the beginning of the change process”. However, they indicate that over a dozen of the participants had taken concrete steps in the change process for over 13 years. Half had participated in other change-ministries. A majority had sought professional or religious counseling on this matter. What became clear is the individuals in the study were not at the beginning of the change process. Yet, J & Y repeatedly use the term. Apparently what they really meant to say was that the participants were near the start of their attempts to change at Exodus. Very sloppy scholarship.

In response to Timothy’s suspicion, there is evidence that the “success: conversion” participants achieved nothing of the sort: almost all of the select qualitative examples indicate they still have homosexual desires and longings. In my opinion if “conversion” and “change” truly occurred they would have heteroerotic dreams, desires and longings, not homoerotic ones. I am not aware of too many heterosexuals who have homoerotic dreams, longings and desires!

J & Y are also highly misleading in their analysis. In response to Table 7.4 they suggest it shows more “modest positive progress”. Yet, when one examines the pre- and post-data there was no change whatsoever: 9 identified as heterosexual before and after, 51 identified as homosexual before and after. No change. I am incredulous as to how this is “positive progress”.

I found this book representative of extremely sloppy scholarship with agenda-driven conclusions that were not warranted based on the data. No wonder they had to seek a Christian publishing house for this non-peer-reviewed effort funded in large part by Exodus itself.

Evidence by the Amazon.com review, and not surprising to me, the book will be used by the religious right to further promote harmful, inaccurate, and misleading information to trusting individuals.

Jones and Yarhouse used the word “refused” to describe the response from some of the 25% who dropped out of the study. That is a very strong word compared to “lost to follow up” which one commonly sees in studies describing people who drop out of a study over time.

For those who have the study, were there any participants who remained in the study, but had decided to leave Exodus? Also, for the 25% who dropped out of the study, were any of them still active in Exodus, but just not participating in the study?

I corrected myself in the very next comment:

Ugh… let me clarify. I combined two thoughts and left a wrong impression

What Dr. Throckmorton is saying, in layman terms, is that the interest of social conservatives is limited to the welfare of those who stay in their camp.

This much is, I believe, a fair critique of your statement. You did very carefully limit your observations about harm to those who are defined as successful, ie. adhering to conservative religious doctrine: living in accord with traditional religious teachings regarding sexuality.

Neither you, Jones, or Yarhouse (at least as far as I have read in the book) have any commentary about the likelihood of harm for those outside the fold.

What followed was purely my observations about the patterns of behavior I have observed in many conservative church circles (It may be the same in liberal churches but I don’t have much experience there). Hence my immediate correction and the bolding to make sure the reader knew it was my observations, and not your own.

And I dare say this is true about the concerns of social conservatives. If you “backslide” or “give in to temptation” then you are more or less deserving of whatever harm comes your way, even if it can be traced to Exodus’ ministry efforts.

you said: “What Dr. Throckmorton is saying, in layman terms, is that the interest of social conservatives is limited to the welfare of those who stay in their camp. If you “backslide” or “give in to temptation” then you are more or less deserving of whatever harm comes your way, even if it can be traced to Exodus’ ministry efforts.”

Where did I say that? I think you are not translating Throckmortonese well. As you know, on my blog, I do not discount the harm efforts at reorientation can lead to (e.g., Cohen). I think efforts that are associated with reorientation efforts in general can be helpful and/or harmful. Please show me where I have discounted reports of harm.

We all understand that in addition to your duties as a cafeteria cook you also attend public discussion groups or ask questions of guest speakers during the Q&A period. This is all fine and good. But Jim’s point is that, unlike a professor, you do not speak from the prestige and authority of the university’s history of rigorous scholarship and you should be careful to avoid the appearance of doing so.

Further, we all know that you want to argue that homosexuality is what one does rather than what one is. As we have long recognized, the error in that thinking is that redefining “homosexuality” still leaves you with a problem that cannot be solved by nomenclature. Individuals that are same-sex attracted still exist regardless of your efforts to rename them out of the debate.

But this is not the thread for that debate. This is a thread to discuss the Jones and Yarhouse study and Dr. Throckmorton’s reporting thereof.

Following is a partial list of self-identified gay and lesbian authors from the bibliography on http://www.banap.net. These are books, and do not include journal articles written by these authors. The number of the books is in parenthesis following the authors’ name. I have quoted these authors in my writing at http://www.banap.net.

Denis Altman (4), John DeCecco (3), John D’Emilo (4), Martin Duberman (3), Dean Hammer (1), Glibert Herdt (3), Simon LeVay (2), Martin Levine (3), Charlotte Patterson (2), Kenneth Plummer (6), Ritch Savin-Williams (3), Michael Signorile (2), and Jeffrey Weeks (6)

As a member of the Harvard University I am allowed to participate in many activities. I was apart of a 5-week discussion group, “Being Gay and being a Christian.” I actively took part in the discussions after hearing the gay and lesbian Christian ministers and professors speak. I identified myself as a former homosexual and talked of my life. It was the following year the student wrote the newspaper article and I came under investigation by these same gay and lesbian Christian ministers, but they never contacted me as a part of their investigation. Last spring Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Court received an award at Harvard University. After she spoke, there was a time of question and answers, which I participated in. Once again I identified myself as a former homosexual. These are only two examples of being apart of activities that have taken place on the Harvard University campus. So in addition to cooking in the freshman dinning hall, as a member of the Harvard University community I take advantage of the many opportunities available to me.

The parameters of the discussion are best framed, “Who one is, a homosexual” or “what one does, homosexuality”. The support for the latter is the strongest, homosexual behavior.

How does one become a homosexual/gay/lesbian/queer?

What does it mean to be homosexual/gay/lesbian/queer?