Yes. This is pretty much where I’m at. Before the whole thing with Zach came down I had this image of ex-gays and the ex-gay movement and it was superficial and callow and I wince sometimes to think about it. And you are absolutely right. How can you have a symposium about ex-gay therapy without including in it the very people who have been through it? How do you come to terms with what it Is without taking into account the people who walked into it absolutely committed and came away from it deeply wounded?

I can appreciate why the ex-gay ministries themselves don’t want to deal with them. It’s unsurprising. Are any of them to this day doing follow-up on their clients? I can appreciate why the likes of Mohler wouldn’t want to hear it. But why would the APA not care to listen to them? It makes no sense on its face.

I’m thinking now about the look on John Holm’s face as he told us outside the Love Won Out Conference in Memphis last February of the apology he got from one of the people inside for what had happened to him. If anybody needs reaching out to, it’s the survivors.

Now if they want to treat drug abuse, sexual addiction or other problems such as this that’s different but again, no reputable therapist would say that homosexuality causes these things. Homophobia and religious indoctrination may, and do, lead to patients engaging in these officially recognized dangerous and destructive behaviors but that would be the topic of another symposium altogether.

I just don’t think you will find reputable, licensed, peer review published, non religious dogma motivated psychothrapists that would touch gay reorientation “therapy” with a ten foot pole precisely because homosexuality is not something that is broken, dangerous or destructive in need of repair.

I have no doubt however that they could develope such therapy to address a patients negative responses to the homophobia and religious abuse they face. They could certainly develope a SCIENTIFICALLY based therapy to inform their patients of what we know homosexuality is and what it isn’t. They could develope an education therapy to inform patients of the complete lack of scientific evidence that reparative therapy is needed or effective and to fully inform them of the failure and the damage done.

I think that this is where the APA and therapists should focus their time, energy and attention upon, for the sake of their patients.

If there is a role for religion in an APA forum, it is to honor solid science and not engage in idle conjecture.

1. Reputable therapists must establish a treatment scheme, standards of care, recognition of potential harm, and aftercare. As far as I know, no conversion, ex-gay, or “sexual identity” therapist has established these safeguards. In particular, they refuse to do no harm and to acknowledge harm done by their colleagues. And they tend to dump their counselees like a hot potato the moment someone says a therapy isn’t working or is hurting more than helping.

2. APA forums are best suited to the presentation of new science. The ex-gay movement thus far refuses to offer science. Spitzer, Jones and Yarhouse all offered intentionally biased anecdotes of poorly defined success derived from unspecified and poorly defined therapies. Furthermore, their studies suppressed tracking of failure and harm.

When there is new and rational research which, first and foremost, studies ineffectiveness and harm done by specific therapies, and secondly, does not treat homosexuality and heterosexuality with a double standard (one supposedly good and the other bad), then I see the APA playing the professional and clinical role that it is intended to play.

1 What is the problem? How much does the Christianity really prohibit concerning homosexuality? The Bible (seems) to prohibit sex explicitly. What about lust? Attraction? Love? Hugging? Dating? Orientation? What are forgivable sins, damning sins, non-sinning unpleasantness, neutral, positive? I think only anti-gays should address this (perhaps one Southern Baptist and one moderate?) because the pro-gay stance would distract and not convince anyone.

2 What are possible resolutions? I know of only 3 possible: therapy/prayer, celibacy, and gay affirmation. On therapy, ask: is this something Christians should engage in? What’s the effectiveness, ie, how many people change and in what way do they change? What are the disadvantages (money, emotional damage, time, others)? Here you can bring in your psychologists.

3 Acknowledging that some fail at therapy or refuse after considering the risks, what about celibacy? The Church has forgotten its historical celebraction of celibacy. Can someone accept they are attracted to the same sex while choosing to abstain from sexual relations? What are pros and cons? Bring in a good Catholic here.

4 The last resolution is gay affirmation. Don’t dwell on pro-gay theology, again it won’t help. Simply demonstrate that many devote Christians choose this. I think ex-gays would be more effective here than Gene Robinson. An ex-gay survivor who still has a conservative faith that other conservative Christians can identify with.

I think that syllabus keeps scientists and clergy in their respective fields keeps everything very practical: how can we help gay Christians who don’t like their orientation? I don’t think Garrett’s confrontation is necessary or appropriate here (somewhere else, Yes) because it’s addressing people who WANT to kill off their gayness and for them their orientation is exactly like a disease (they call it a “pathology” or “neurosis”) and not their identity. That’s my 2 cents.

Hear, hear gentlemen!

Jim Burroway and Timothy Kincaid, thank you so much for this forum, where these thoughtful, intelligent and civil discussions can take place. Thanks for all the time, energy and thought that you put into this site. I read it every day. You are doing yeoman’s work here.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I’m reminded of the 1972 symposium which featured Frank Kameny, Barbara Gittings and “Dr. H. Anonymous” (Dr. John E. Fryer). That symposium, along with Dr. Robert Spitzer’s efforts, was a landmark in the APA’s coming to grips with homosexuality as non-pathology. When psychiatrists were able to see and hear homosexuals who were not in a clinical setting, it represented a major step in their understanding of the broader implications of homosexuality remaining in the DSM.

I think we’re at the same level here with regard to those who have tried to undergo sexual reorientation (or “sexual identification” as some have put it) therapy. The fact is, that even with the J&Y study which was conducted by ex-gay enthusiasts, only very few experienced “satisfactory” change — and one of those lied out of wishful thinking.

Since those who claim to change are in such a minority (and so many of them are vocationally tied to ex-gay ministries), it is far more imperative that we examine the much larger population of those who fail to change.

I think a 1972 “Dr. Anonymous” style forum is needed first, before we can begin to address any other issues. Almost nothing is know about those who have “failed”. Other than Shidlo & Schroeder’s 2001 study, there is nothing in the literature about their experiences.

Shidlo & Schroeder’s facts and figures however are no substitute for first-hand accounts of what many of these clients go through. We at Box Turtle Bulletin, as well as our friends at Beyond Ex-Gay, have been assembling some of these stories.

I am frankly dumbfounded at some of the things I’ve learned in the very short time (10 months) I’ve been actively seeking out ex-gay survivors to hear their stories. Before then, I really had no clue about what was going on, and I don’t believe very many others do either.

This is why I found Dr. Throckmorton’s suspicions of last summer’s ex-gay survivor gathering so surprising. It is also why I now find his continuing to sell “I Do Exist” (for “historical purposes” — do customers really buy this video for its historical perspective?) so especially disappointing.

I really believe it is very important for clinicians can hear these survivors’ voices firsthand. After all, a discussion about the clients’ best interest really can’t be expected to be very well informed unless we understand who the clients are and what they’re experiencing.

I have the same concerns of Mr. Garrett and applaud his comments!

The symposium would have been a publicity stunt and I can’t see this accomplishing anything fruitful. Even if such a symposium were shown on prime-time TV all it would accomplish is creating a fresh set of topics to discuss at the office water cooler.

That, and what are the group of gay Mormons expecting to accomplish by meeting with their Prophet this coming August? The Prophet T. S. Monson is fully aware of the issues on both sides (or he wouldn’t be much of a Prophet/Leader) and I predict there won’t be any “revelations”. So, it’s not worth it.

The same goes for Soul Force and what they are doing. Will it help gays in who are still in the closet? Maybe. Will all this further the cause for gay equality? I’m not so sure.