Longitudinal Ex-Gay Study Update – Can Sexual Orientation be Changed?

Timothy Kincaid

August 12th, 2009

This week the American Psychological Association released a report that said that while religion and its value in a patient’s life should be considered and respected, therapists should not encourage clients to seek a change in sexual orientation and that there was no evidence to suggest that such efforts are successful.

This did not sit well with those organizations who build their existence on convincing their public that gay persons can “change” and that because such change is possible then public policy can be punitive to gay persons that do not submit themselves to such a change.

In response to the APA\’s Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses To Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts, NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) declared

They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study. Had the task force been more neutral in their approach, they could have arrived at only one conclusion: homosexuality is not invariable fixed in all people, and some people can and do change, not just in terms of behavior and identity but in core features of sexual orientation such as fantasy and attractions.

And Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International spoke to USA Today.

Its president, Alan Chambers, describes himself as someone who “overcame unwanted same-sex attraction.” He and other evangelicals met with APA representatives after the task force formed in 2007, and he expressed satisfaction with parts of the report that emerged.

“It’s a positive step — simply respecting someone’s faith is a huge leap in the right direction,” Chambers said. “But I’d go further. Don’t deny the possibility that someone’s feelings might change.”

So it was with great joy that those opposed to equality received news of evidence of change. The Baptist Press is crowing. Just “four days after an American Psychological Association task force released a 130-page report that said “gay-to-straight” therapies are unlikely to work”, they are trumpeting some amazing results of a study on Exodus International and their ex-gay ministries.

In findings that directly contradict mainstream academic thought, 53 percent of subjects in a new seven-year study reported successfully leaving homosexuality and living happily as heterosexual or celibate persons.

These “latest findings” are actually an update of the multi-year study of participants in Exodus ministries presented by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse in their 2007 book, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.

The authors were not pleased that the study which they proclaimed throughout Christian media as an evidence of change in sexual orientation did not convince the APA.

“They selectively apply rigorous scientific standards,” he said. “So when it comes to examining the evidence that sexual orientation change can occur, they apply extraordinarily rigorous standards, and those standards allow them to disregard significant evidence that sexual orientation change can occur. That’s what happens with our study. They, I think, invalidly applied several methodological concerns to dismiss our study.

Indeed, the APA did apply concerns and dismiss the study.

Dr. Judith Glassgold, a clinical psychologist who led the APA task force, said the paper was not written in response to Dr. Jones’ work, though it did dismiss his findings.

“We don’t believe the claims were proven, to be honest,” said Dr. Glassgold in an interview. “In our looking at all the research we find that people don’t change their underlying sexual attraction. What they do is figure out a way to control their attractions. And some learn to live a heterosexual life but mostly for religious motivation.”

Presented as a counter-point to the APA’s declaration that there is inadequate evidence that therapies designed to change sexual orientation are effective, Jones and Yarhouse argue that:

the findings of this study would appear to contradict that commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt.

I won’t speak to the likelihood of harm, but when it comes to change in orientation, their study convinced me of exactly the opposite.

When the Jones and Yarhouse book, was released in 2007, we hosted an exchange between Jim Burroway, BTB’s editor, and Stanton Jones.

My synopsis of the results, as published in the book, was

the Jones and Yarhouse study revealed little to no statistically measurable change in orientation in the prospective sample. The much touted “successes” were either in recollection (which again were quite small) or were those who had decided to no longer call themselves “gay”. However, they still identified their orientation as homosexual (“I\’m not gay but my attractions are”).

In short, the Jones and Yarhouse study was funded and fully supported by Exodus and conducted by two researchers who were avid supporters of ex-gay ministries. They wanted to study 300 participants, but after more than a year, they could only find 57 willing to participate. They then changed the rules for acceptance in order to increase the total to 98. After following this sample for 4 years, 25 dropped out. Of the remainder, only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” Another 17 decided that a lifetime of celibacy was good enough.

What the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse book revealed, and what this update further confirms, is that the “change” which NARTH and Exodus loudly proclaim is not a change in sexual orientation at all and, in fact, may be nothing more that a change in identity or recollection.

Prospective v. Retrospective
In order to understand the J&Y study, you have to understand the distinction between retrospective and prospective sampling. Prospective uses currently measured data, and retrospective uses recollections about the past.

For example, if one were wanting to compare changes in the length that a student has to walk in their morning commute to school, a prospective study would select a random sample (say a selection of schools), measure the distance the students walked, and repeat the process over a long enough period of time to determine if there is change. A retrospective study would go ask Grandpa and compare today’s walking distance to “ten miles through the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways!”

Obviously, measured differences are far more accurate than recollected differences. Time has a way of providing support for what we want to believe and recollections tend to be very selective. Things were simpler then, or tougher; summers were hotter, or milder; politicians were more honest, or scoundrels.

So the best studies are prospective rather than retrospective. Oddly, the J&Y study is both.

Of the 98 participants, 57 were more-or-less prospective. These were persons who had been involved with an Exodus (ex-gay) ministry for less than a year. So while there may have been some recollection error, it was at least a discussion of reasonably recent events. These participants are called Phase 1.

Unable to get a sample size that the authors felt was sufficient, they then recruited Exodus participants that had been in the programs for one to three years. These participants are called Phase 2 and to the extent that there is a measurement from a recollected starting point, their participation is retrospective.

Fortunately, it is possible to distinguish between the results for these two groups.

The Update
The paper presented by Jones and Yarhouse to the APA is significantly less detailed than was their book, as could be expected. Specifically, the several scales of measurement were reduced to two, Kinsey and Shively & DeCecco, and while the book provided information on interim points, the paper uses only the starting point (T1) and the final point (T6).

The results in the book are based on 75 of the original 98 participants. Since J&Y presented their results in their book, an additional 14 participants have dropped out of the study, bringing the sample size down to 61. The remaining participants have now been part of the study for six to seven years.

The Results
Because the total sample is a hodge-podge of two very different subpopulations, it is informative only to the extent that it reveals information about the difference between those subpopulations.

The group that is most accurately studied, and that whose results are most revealing about the extent to which Exodus is successful is Phase 1, the prospective study. And this is what Jones and Yarhouse report about that subpopulation:

  • There was, on average, virtually no change in sexual orientation on the Kinsey scale using measures of behavior, sexual attraction, emotional/romantic attraction, and fantasy.
  • There was, on average, a small but not significant increase in homosexual behavior.
  • There was, on average, a slight but not significant reduction in homosexual attraction.
  • There was, on average, virtually no increase in heterosexual attraction.

In other words, on average, after six to seven years of participation, those who went through Exodus ministries reported over the period of their involvement no change in sexual orientation at all.

Averages v. Individuals
Averages, while meaningful to statisticians and to those who are evaluating the effectiveness of Exodus International, do not tell the full story. We must also look at individual results.

For their book, Jones and Yarhouse classified their participants into categories based on their individual reports. They came from a religious evaluation model and defined two groups as successful (conversions and chaste), two as failure (identifying as gay and considering identifying as gay), and two in the middle that were still trying but seeing little to no results. For the final report, the authors changed their procedure and allowed participants to select their own category.

As I am less interested in adherence to religious identities and more interested in sexual orientation change, I’ll group the failure and the middle two together. After time T6, J&Y report:

    Success: Conversion – 14 (23%)
    Success: Chastity – 18 (30%)
    Non-Success – 29 (48%)

This does not, however, present an accurate story of the study participants. It does not account for those who dropped out of participation and thus overstates the success rates. One could extrapolate from this reporting method that eventually only those who are successes of some sort will remain and the authors could declare with great fanfare that 100% of all Exodus participants eventually succeed.

But that would not be truthful.

When I made the observation that drop-outs should be considered a likely failure, those who defended the skewing upward of success rates argued that because we don’t know the reasons for discontinued participation, it was just as easy to believe that these individuals were now happily heterosexually married and not wanting to be reminded of their old life as that they had embraced a gay identity. But additional information in this report reveals otherwise.

Of the 14 persons who left the study between T3 and T6, two were Conversion, one was Chastity, and the remaining were Non-success. We know from the book that one of the Conversion drop-outs reported that he had never been heterosexual and was simply reporting what he thought the authors wanted to hear. So it is rather unlikely that these drop-outs went off to live heterosexual lives. Nor is it (or ever was it) likely that any sizable chunk of those who dropped out before T3 left because they are now happily hetero.

Considering drop-outs as their own category, a more accurate reporting of the self-identified placement into categories would look like this:

    Success: Conversion – 14 (14%)
    Success: Chastity – 18 (18%)
    Non-Success – 29 (30%)
    Drop-Outs – 37 (38%)

And considering just the Phase 1 participants, the results are

    Success: Conversion – 5 (9%)
    Success: Chastity – 6 (11%)
    Non-Success – 18 (32%)
    Drop-Outs – 28 (49%)

When looking at these numbers, we should consider two things about the “conversion” category shown above.

First, much of Exodus’ efforts go into changing identity. They view a “gay identity” as sinful and contrary to a “Christian identity”.

So this change in identity may not be related to an actual change in orientation. As I noted above, the first measurement of “change” reported in the book – the one trumpeted in anti-gay press upon the book’s press release – was a change in self identification. Yet is was accompanied by a measurement that spoke of one’s orientation as separate from one’s identity and found that those who claimed that they were not homosexual were willing to admit that their orientation is homosexual. It was literally a declaration that, “I’m not gay but my orientation is.”

We should be careful to recognize that those claiming conversion at T6 may be doing so for themselves and not for their orientations. The authors do acknowledge that such success may be seen as relating more to identity than to orientation:

Some may see these results as reflecting not a change in sexual orientation for most participants who reported such change, but rather a change in sexual identity. Such a change might result from how one thinks of oneself and labels one\’s sexual preferences (that is, attributions and meaning-making).

But with Exodus placing heavy emphasis on identity, by allowing unanalyzed self-assignment the authors may have created a scenario in which there is an inflated increase in the “success” categories.

And second, this report differs from the book in that the qualifiers are removed. The book provided discussion of the non-traditional definitions of “heterosexual” used in the study and how those who were so identified also experienced wandering eyes, erotic dreams, and other situations that are most often associated with a homosexual orientation. In the paper, it is limited to

[W]hile we found that part of our research population experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) “conversion,” our evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated, dichotomous and unequivocal reversal of sexual orientation from utterly homosexual to utterly heterosexual. Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at T6 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and they did not report their heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated.

I don’t think that I’m alone in noting that few of the heterosexuals that I know experience much homosexual arousal. Perhaps Stanton Jones himself said it best in an interview.

“A typical hetero male finds himself attracted to a wide range of females. But among the successful people who reported conversion the typical response was I’m very happy with my sexual responses to my wife, but I don’t experience much hetero attraction to other women. Also, when asked and pressed about whether they still find attraction to men, they will say: ‘Yes, if I let my mind go in that direction.’ “

And finally, when comparing the individual with the average, it must be noted that without an average change, any individual change experienced is offset by an equal and opposite experience.

In other words, for every person who came to Exodus and found that they became one Kinsey point more heterosexual, there was a person who found that Exodus made them one Kinsey point gayer. If Exodus sees their mission as rescuing those sinking in a sea of sin, for each person they pull into the lifeboat, they hit another over the head with an oar.

Failure to report Phase 2 Results
Jones and Yarhouse report the “whole population”, a commingled combination of Phase 1 and Phase 2 as though it is informative. While they do break out Phase 1 results, they do not disclose Phase 2 results.

I believe that were Phase 1 to be visually compared to Phase 2, the variances between the two would be startling. The question jumping out from the report might shift from whether there is a significant effect size in responses to why these two subpopulations are reporting opposite conclusions.

And, indeed, the results from Phase 2 can be deduced to be significantly different from Phase 1. If we know the average response of the 29 remaining participants in Phase 1 and the total average responses of all 61 remaining participants, we can back into the Phase 2 reported change.

A comparison of the two would show:

    Kinsey – behavior only
    P1, -0.21
    P2, 1.79

    Kinsey Expanded
    P1, 0.55
    P2, 1.01

    Shively & DeCecco homo
    P1, 0.40
    P2, 0.99

    Shively & DeCecco hetero
    P1, 0.05
    P2, 0.62

As we can see, there are sharp differences in the results of these two subpopulations. And although no information on Phase 2 is directly reported, the authors somewhat acknowledge that the two subpopulations vary in results

We expected that the results of change would be somewhat less positive in [Phase 1], as individuals experiencing difficulty with change would be likely to get frustrated or discouraged early on and drop out.

That is a round-about way of admitting that the Phase 2 subpopulation does not include those who got frustrated early and dropped out in the first one to three years. It avoids pointing out that results for the Phase 2 subpopulation are already skewed towards those who either believe they are experiencing “change” or have a stronger more deeply dedicated commitment to Exodus ministries.

But even so, with such astounding results in this subpopulation, why wouldn’t the authors include this separate information. It may be that isolation of Phase 2 raises questions about the validity of including them at all and, more importantly, what it says about the claims made by Exodus members both included and not included in the study.

The real difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is more than just that P2 has been in the program for a few more years. It is more than that they have fewer drop outs. The real difference is that P2 is based on recollection to a much greater extent than P1.

And Phase 2 participants recalled being more gay than Phase 1 reported. Significantly, especially in the area of behavior. The Kinsey 1 report was 4.52 for Phase 1 and 5.49 for Phase 2.

There is no reason to believe that those in Phase 2, having eliminated the drop outs, actually were any more homosexually oriented than those in Phase 1. Rather, it seems likely that they simply recalled being more homosexually oriented when they established their base point some one to three years later.

So all reported change in Phase 2 – and indeed all reported change – may be attributable to this variance in starting point due to reliance on recollection. Ultimately, all of Jones’ and Yarhouse’s announced success may be nothing more than, “I remember being much more gay three years ago than I am today.”

Truly Gay
The one subpopulation that Jones and Yarhouse are excited about is what they call the “truly gay subpopulation.” These are defined as those who “scored above the scale midpoint at T1 for homosexual attraction, and for homosexual behavior in the past, and for having previously embraced full homosexual or gay identity.” This subgroup reported the most change.

It is difficult to know whether these persons are mostly Phase 1 or Phase 2, but it would appear that they are a combination of both. We know from the break out of results in the book that a number of the non-successes in the truly gay subpopulation were also Phase 1. This lends itself to assumptions that those in the truly gay subpopulation that reported progress were likely in Phase 2 and that much, if not all, of their progress consisted solely of exaggerated recollection.

This is further supported by noting that most of the change reported over the seven year life of the study was between the first measurement (often as recollected) and the second. In discussing the possibility that reported change is largely identity, the authors noted:

This might also explain to some why the Truly Gay subpopulation showed more dramatic change, as their shift was away from a more pronounced gay identity. Such a departure may have been measured as a greater movement away from something that had previously been more salient to them.

Or, more likely, a greater movement away from the recollection of being very gay three years ago.

Based on the Jones and Yarhouse book, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, and on their follow up report, Ex-Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, we can observe the following:

  • The prospective sample reported, on average, virtually no change in attractions and a small increase in homosexual behavior.
  • A retrospective look at ones perceptions of prior orientation from the perspective of one to three years yields a sharply different result from that seen by a prospective sample. This change in perspective may account for all reported change in Exodus ministries.
  • Most change reported away from homosexuality and towards heterosexuality was in the interval between the starting point (T1) and the second measurement point (T2). This change occurred most strongly in the retrospective sample and may be due to variances in recollection.
  • A combined prospective and retrospective sample experienced, on average, no significant increase in opposite sex attraction.
  • A small percentage (perhaps 9%) of those who start Exodus programs may eventually self-categorize themselves as “experiencing substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning. These persons will be unlike other heterosexuals in that they will continue to experience homosexual arousal and not experience much attraction to the opposite sex.
  • Another small percentage (perhaps 11%) of those who start Exodus programs may eventually achieve a life of manageable homosexual attraction and chastity.
  • Others may continue perpetually in Exodus programs without ever achieving any significantly reduced homosexual attractions.
  • Eventually, most of those who start Exodus programs will drop out.
  • On average, for each person who enters and Exodus program and finds any movement away from homosexual attraction, another will find movement towards homosexual attraction.

But these observations are not readily obvious from the media reports of either the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse book nor this follow-up report. And those seeking “proof” that homosexuals can “change” have used both to advance a false image of the results of this study. Exodus, NARTH, and many others will spin this study to come to conclusions that are far from of those I’ve stated above.

The authors have a moral responsibility to discourage those who will make false statements or who will falsely claim that this study justifies their ex-gay or anti-gay endeavors. And they have a moral obligation not to allow their wishes about the mutability of sexual orientation cloud the results of their study and give false hope to those who believe Exodus’ slogan that “change is possible”.


August 12th, 2009

Thanks for your work. I’ve been waiting for J&Y’s sequel to come out to learn what happened. Where are the results themselves? An unpublished paper?


August 12th, 2009

“But these observations are not readily obvious from the media reports of either the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse book nor this follow-up report.”

And they’re certainly not obvious from Exodus International itself. I wish Exodus had the transparency and honesty to report the types of data Timothy listed. People wishing to go “ex-gay” deserve to know how many participants drop out, how many end up depressed or suicidal, how many “relapse” back into homosexuality, etc. Assuming, of course, that Exodus even keeps track of such statistics.

P.S. For anyone interested, Exodus now has a blog: http://exodusinternational.wordpress.com/


August 12th, 2009

And now I’ll start the countdown until we get someone with NOTHING against gays, they just refuse to ever accept that homosexuality is normal, healthy or unchangeable.

It happens every frickin time, the APA and they’re actual science is ‘pro-gay propaganda’ while they dont criticize in any way the laughable idea that telling people they’ll burn in hell for all eternity for being gay then asking them if they’re straight is a serious scientific study.

Anyway, thinly veiled bigot in 5, 4, 3…


August 12th, 2009

Why do these “Christians” lie so much?

Timothy Kincaid

August 12th, 2009


Sorry. The link above wasn’t very obvious.

It’s here.


August 12th, 2009

Does this mean hetrosexuals can also be changed the same way. This nonsence
that excodus in doing needs to be tryed on them selves to see if they can be turned gay too.


August 12th, 2009

Sounds to me like Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse are trying to sell a bill of goods. these two are like the old medicine shows of the eighteen hundreds.
They are trying to sell something that has been watered down. Then they get ot
her straight people to buy it.
Why don’t they just give us the same rights they have? Then they could get ride of all the hate preaching the churches do. (Good christians baloney). The God that I belive in only preaches
love and excepting everyone as they are.
not hetrosexual or homosexual but as just people of the world. All Loving God and each other.


August 12th, 2009

Fantastic Job, Timothy!
The truth behind the Jones and Yarhouse spin. The so-called “ex-gays” have nothing to sell, as usual, except a forlorn hope.

Priya Lynn

August 12th, 2009

Yes I agree, very impressive analysis. Very helpful to me when the anti-gays use this to lie about the truth.


August 12th, 2009

I notice the majority of their “successes” are just chastity.

If chastity = change in orientation, does that mean all priests, monks, and nuns of the appropriate religious sects (as well as all other chaste/sexual people) are homosexual?


August 12th, 2009

Should be *A*sexual.. Whoops.

Another Freudian slip.. *rolls eyes*


August 12th, 2009

Exactly, Burr. It reminds me of what a lot of conservative Christians tell me: “If you do not commit homosexual acts, then you are not a homosexual.”

Jason D

August 12th, 2009


“If you do not commit homosexual acts, then you are not a homosexual.”

which is a defintion that LGBT don’t use at all. We define ourselves (who better?) by our attractions, whether or not we act on them at all. Acts are secondary to the forces that drive them.

By their definitions, I was straight off and on (sometimes for years at a time) simply because I was a dateless wonder. I don’t think so.


August 12th, 2009

You note:

A small percentage (perhaps 9%) of those who start Exodus programs may eventually self-categorize themselves as “experiencing substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning…
Another small percentage (perhaps 11%) of those who start Exodus programs may eventually achieve a life of manageable homosexual attraction and chastity.

IIRC, approximately 20% of the Spitzer study participants classified themselves as completely heterosexual at the end of the study (although an equal percentage at the start of the study had reported no homosexual encounters, just fantasies and dreams). Interesting that the numbers are so similar here.

Can we conclude, then, that about 20% of the “motivated” population (to use Sptizer’s language) are able to convince themselves of “change”?

Priya Lynn

August 12th, 2009

Not from the Spitzer study CPT_Doom, it intentionally excluded all those who didn’t claim they were successful at changing orientation.


August 12th, 2009

CPT Doom- I don’t think we can make such a conclusion. We have to keep in mind how long it took J&Y to find a sample at all. 57 people in 1 year sounds quite small, considering Exodus claims to have thousands of support groups and thousands to millions of ex-gays (depending on who you ask). Given all of that–I think it would be quite hard to extrapoloate that number to the ex-gay population at large.

There’s no hard data to back this up, but given the high drop out rate of the study participants here, I’d imagine that the difficutly getting study participants would mean a much lower number of “successes” than these numbers indicate.

Richard W. Fitch

August 12th, 2009

Before you start using the Spitzer study as a benchmark for change, be sure to analyze what Spitzer himself has said since the completion of the study. This was not a general population study; rather a group handpicked by NARTH and Exodus to see if ANYONE had ever changed. It took over two years to find a group of less than 200 to participate. Based on the structure of the study it is really amazing that the percentages were not even higher. Some of these people were paid staff members. Also note that some related later that they had ‘fudged’ on some of their reporting. I’m sure that Robert Spitzer will rue to the day he dies that he ever agreed to conduct this study. Nicolosi, FoF, Exodus have all taken statements out of context to ‘prove’ just the opposite of the actual conclusions of the study.

Timothy Kincaid

August 12th, 2009


Exodus has less than 100 ministries with about another 120 chuches that provide a supportive environment for ex-gays.

Richard, etc.

For further discussion on the flaws of the Spitzer study, see here.

Priya Lynn

August 13th, 2009

“Exodus has less than 100 ministries with about another 120 chuches that provide a supportive an exploitive environment for ex-gays.”

There, fixed it for you.


August 13th, 2009

Thanks for the correction, Timothy. Apparently I’ve been overestimating their size in my own mind. It still seems like they should have been able to find people more easily, and I can’t help but think that issue should be taken into account.


August 13th, 2009

10% “success” and 15% turn to chastity….


Chris McCoy

September 14th, 2009

Was directed to this Youtube video yesterday on Facebook.

Appears to be a rip off of your work here, Tim. No credit given at all either.

Timothy Kincaid

September 14th, 2009

Thanks Chris,

Actually I take a slightly different tack in that I differentiate between retrospective and prospective samples and point out that the heterosexuals that they produce are, well, not recognizable as heterosexual by anyone outside the ex-gay movement.

Brian Mahieu

October 15th, 2009

I am a survivor of 19 years in the reparative therapy/transformational ministry movement. For the first 4 or 5 years I was undergoing weekly exorcisms to try to cleanse me of the “demons” related to being gay. Needless to say the experience was horribly debasing and I still have deep emotional scars from it. In good faith I married a woman as an expression of my faith that I had been “cured”. She and I were both victims of what I believe is a hoax. The marriage lasted 15 years. Another part of my process was christian psychotherapy and a cocktail of 4 drugs designed to kill my sex drive. My sexual orientation did not change in the least. When I admitted that to myself and those around me I was gay I was immediately shunned by my entire social circle, biological family and even kicked out of my own business. I am being treated for complex PTSD as a result of the years of emotional abuse in ex-gay programs and unaccepting home and social environments. In the end the choice I saw before me was to pray for death or to kill myself as I could not be “cured”. Ultimately I felt I could not do that to my wife, so I came out and dealt with the fallout. I feel that I wasted 19 years of my life trying to achieve the impossible, and I lost the entire social network, and most of the business contacts that I built in that time. This kind of ostracism is definitely not disclosed as a possible result of “failure” when entering into the transformational ministry movement.


October 9th, 2010

I don’t know how I missed this, Timothy. I started following “The Great Conundrum” comment you made about Boyd K. Packer and worked my way here.

This is a Masterpiece in analysis.

Remember, when my twins are born, I’m naming them Timothy and Jim even if they’re girls.


Bruce Darr

December 29th, 2012

I was raped by 4 of my brother’s friends at the age of five. I told my parents and they didn’t believe me. I yelled and called me a liar. They raped for 6 years. I found at the age of 6, I was on my own. I cleaned myself up after each incident telling no one. From that point on I allowed men to use me as they wanted because I believed that want I had to do to have male friends. It always started out as a nice man treating me well, then sex, then dumped. This went on for 2/3 of my life. I am now 58. I got married early in college to make myself straight. I have daughters and have been married over 30 years. On the day I decided to kill myself, I heard the tail end of a radio program saying I change. I jumped into the ex-gay lifestyle with both feet. I joined every recovery ministry, begged God to “fix-me,” save me, and make me normal. I was in leadership with each ministry hoping that would make my desire to become straight happen. But it never did. I speak 10 of thousands of dollars of Counselors, seminars’, books, tapes, hours of prayers. I blamed myself for not praying, learning, daily groups, and countless hours reading the Bible and praying with anyone who would talk with me. My daily war inside never let up. I was gay, I wasn’t. I loved God He didn’t love me. Twenty five years later the war continues, death is thought of everyday. There are no more classes, looks, ministers, people, prayers, advice of help that will get me out of this. Now I am in love with two men who are my best friends. I am still married, but unhappy and depressed most of the time since I can’t be with my guys all the time. I get time with them with I can….and that’s not much. I love these two married men. So I have to admit that moving to gay to straight DID NOT WORK FOR ME…. I am tired and can do now more. Ii will remain married until I die because I made a commitment to my wife and family. I plan to keep meeting my best male friends every Monday to touch and intimacy for as long as I can. I DO NOT RECOMMEND THESE MINISTRIES TO ANYONE. BE WHO YOU ARE….FORGET THE WORLD AND WHAT THEY SAY. It’s too late for me. I tried and failed but I love my two guy friends and they love me. So the cost in my life, money, time, pain, and tears was payment for these healthy relationships…. The ministry didn’t cure me. But it did bring men in my life who believes that we are all perfect just the way we are.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.