No you haven’t – you’re just a liar.

Priya, if you don’t like lying, why do you post?

Both of these comments are not allowed by our comments policy.

– In one study of homosexual persons who had not participated in an ex-gay program, less than 2% survived to retirement age.

– In one ex-gay program, up to 82% of participants successfully completed the program, assessed as ex-gay by multiple independent researchers using objective criteria.

If you wish to make assertions, provide a link to your source. This is not optional.

In one gay (not exgay) group, it’s a fact that up to 100% committed suicide. 100%!!! Meanwhile, in one ex-gay group, up to 100% are happy with their lives! It’s true! Not a lie.

When we write at BTB, we attempt to use examples that inform rather than obfuscate.

Until you provide a source for these bizarre assertions, or retract them, I will disallow your comments.

And yes, I have indeed read many, many, many reports “showing” that gay people “are harmful”. There are people who even say that your posts are harmful. They might be right, even if you insist they’re not.

And as I said, if Alan Chambers is “happy but everyday he struggles”, the same can be said of millions of other people too, ex-gay or not — including you.

People have wondered, “Why do people claim to be gay if they’re not happy?”

I’ve struggle and I’ve been happy, but the two have never gone together. No, no one who struggles is really happy.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2011/07/17561/#comments

“A reader” said “Here are some more such claims:”.

Yes, I agree, your claims about succsessful and happy “exgays” are silly and outright lies which have been thoroughly debunked here:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/09/28/37482

“A reader” said “One can also advertise on the Internet and other places specifically looking for people who feel harmed by “the gay agenda”, and produce hefty reports “showing” that gay people “are harmful”. I’ve seen many such reports.”.

No you haven’t – you’re just a liar. Giving gays the same rights heterosexuals have harms no one.

You then proceeded to make silly claims. For example, “In one exgay program up to 30% of participants committed suicide.” Here are some more such claims:

– In one study of homosexual persons who had not participated in an ex-gay program, less than 2% survived to retirement age.

– In one ex-gay program, up to 82% of participants successfully completed the program, assessed as ex-gay by multiple independent researchers using objective criteria.

You then go on to say, “The Shidloe and Schraeder study showed that ‘exgay’ “therapy” on the whole is harmful.” In other words, Shidlo and Schroeder advertised on the Internet and other places specifically looking for people who felt harmed by ex-gay programs decades ago. One can also advertise on the Internet and other places specifically looking for people who feel harmed by “the gay agenda”, and produce hefty reports “showing” that gay people “are harmful”. I’ve seen many such reports.

And if Alan Chambers is “happy but everyday he struggles”, the same can be said of millions of other people too, ex-gay or not.

You can even put all your studies together as the APA has done, and state as the APA has stated that “there are NO studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation” — no studies “that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not [it] is safe or harmful and for whom.”

Getting the general public to believe people can change sexual orientation is far and away the primary goal of all “exgay” activities, and the “exgay” industry intentional uses this phraseology to deceive so yes it it is perfectly valid to say “exgay” therapy is bogus.

“A reader said “Likewise, not everyone believes that giving up homosexual acts is “amputating happiness”. To the contrary, many believe that giving up homosexual acts to be a big and necessary step toward true happiness, and there are people who attest it to be their experience, that “change is possible”.”.

In one “exgay” program up to 30% of participants committed suicide. The Shidloe and Schraeder study showed that “exgay” “therapy” on the whole is harmful. Alan chambers claims he is happy but admits every day he struggles to deny what come naturally to him – that’s not what a person whose happiness has been increased by this bogus therapy says. The vast majority of people who go into these bogus programs will find their happiness amputated and a lonely life of desperation awaiting them.

I don’t claim to be an expert on psychological damage caused by conversion therapies, but I am ready to accept the testimony of clinicians who have dealt with survivors of these therapies (e.g. Douglas Haldeman, Ariel Shidlo, Michael Schroeder) that psychological damage is done. We just don’t know how often it is done. Similarly, we know that the sexual abuse of children causes lasting damage, but we don’t know exactly how often.

I am not a big supporter of the “ex-gay ministries do more harm than good” mantra.

I don’t know that the harm would have not occurred outside of the ministries, and I believe that there is too quick of a dismissal of the positive introspection that occurs in the process.

In other words, I see that some people go into ex-gay therapy and as a result of the process come to understand that their orientation is and always will be gay, and leave ex-gay therapy a happy resolved and unconflicted gay man or woman.

Perhaps this effort will add to the sum total of information on the subject and someday we will have a definitive study that can determine whether such ministries do more harm than good.

But it should also be noted that passing the “more harm than good” test is hardly a glowing reference.

I hope that my endeavors never are at a place where people ponder the idea that I might actually be causing more harm than good. It really should never be a question.

Would it really be “absolutely honest” for an organization to claim that “the likelihood of such a change is somewhere in the range between minuscule and zero” if the organization doesn’t believe such claim to be true? Perhaps you believe what you claim, but your claim is a vague, flawed and unproven subjective opinion. Not even the APA insists upon it, saying instead that “psychologists cannot predict the impact of these treatments” and that “There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation.” Of course, you’re not required to agree with the APA’s opinions, no one is required to, and even the APA can change its tune, as can you, as can anyone. Change is possible.

Similarly, your claim “that attempts to contrive a change of this kind can be psychologically and spiritually damaging” is also vague, flawed and subjective. Perhaps since you claim to reject Vatican teaching, maybe you think yourself to be the authority on “spiritual damage”. The APA doesn’t define or measure it. Even “psychological damage” is subjective. Just about everything from parenting to going to the mall “can be psychologically and spiritually damaging” to some degree, in some way, according to someone. Indeed, you apparently include even “Vatican teaching” in that category.

Meanwhile, for example, Courage International, a “Roman Catholic apostolate ministering to people with same-sex attraction” says “Courage members are under NO OBLIGATION TO TRY to develop heterosexual attractions, because there is NO GUARANTEE that a person will always succeed in such an endeavour… SOME of our members have found VARYING levels of heterosexual development to be a BY-PRODUCT of living a chaste life for a period of time.”

Similarly, Exodus International says that “spiritual growth and obedience [to God's will?]” is the “measuring stick”, and that “Measuring change in sexual orientation, on the other hand, is complex and problematic”.

Even the “BeyondExGay.com” website opines, among other views, that “it is impossible to know if people who claim to have experienced a change in orientation have or not”. If so, perhaps it is “impossible to know” or quantify the “likelihood” of such a change, and thus impossible to substantiate your claim that “the likelihood of such a change is somewhere in the range between minuscule and zero”. Indeed, there is no universally accepted definition or measurement of “sexual orientation”, and many people consider labels/identities such as “gay” and things such as “sexual orientation” to be contrivances.