Box Turtle Bulletin

Mike Airhart

September 27th, 2007

Since the study, by design, removed those who most likely felt harmed by ex-gay programs, this statement is “accurate but misleading” — in other words, weasel words:

“Social conservatives will point out that, for many people, living in accord with traditional religious teachings regarding sexuality does not appear to increase emotional distress.”

“Many” people, perhaps — but not necessarily “most” people.

Emproph

September 27th, 2007

I just got my copy today. It’s a work of….well it’s definitely a piece of work.

To recap, you reported on some of this earlier:

From Throckmorton:
“Success: Conversion – There were subjects who reported that they felt their change to be successful and reported substantial reduction in homosexual desire and addition of heterosexual attraction and functioning at Time 3. 15% met these criteria.”

Which turns out to be about 11 people out of 73.

And Christianity Today:
“We believe the individuals who presented themselves as heterosexual success stories at Time 3 are heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term.”

So this is from chapter 8 (p277): “Can Sexual Orientation Change? Report of the Qualitative (and Supporting Quantitative) Analyses”

This is where they establish the “Six Qualitative Categories of Outcomes” that “meaningfully summarize the general outcomes for these participants at the Time 3 assessment.”

Basically where they elucidate and describe in layman’s terms, the “scientific” self-reports of the glorified phone survey study.

The abbreviated descriptions have already been reported on. Other than this one, the rest are essentially irrelevant since it’s downhill and the next category is “Success: Chastity.” (celibacy sans self-acceptance).

“Success: Conversion” In Full (p279-280):

“Success: Conversion. The subject reports complete (or nearly complete) success or resolution of homosexual orientation issues and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction. Homosexual attraction is either missing or present only incidentally and in a way that does not seem to bring about distress or undue “temptation.” The person either has a successful heterosexual sex life (whether in marriage or otherwise), or reports he or she is dating and experiencing satisfactory heterosexual attraction even though not acting out sexually due to moral constraints. The subject appears to have firm confidence in the stability of change and of continuing progress. Prototype: “I’m healed; rarely experience homosexual desire to significant proportions, and enjoy a good sex life with my spouse (or am dating and am very attracted to my love interest).””

I guess that would be the “complicated” portion of the “heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term.”

Lynn David

September 28th, 2007

I still have a few ideas about the study pre-read. Such as when a reduction of “homosexual attraction” is reported with no commensurate increase in “heterosexual attraction” is that not nothing more than a reduction in the sexual drive and not ones’s attractions? Second, it seems the classes were rather contrived to pump up good numbers for the religious change crowd.

Lastly, how do they know they are changing a thing called sexual orientation? Do they or we really know what sexual orientation is? And is that thing something which can be changed? Certainly the mention that some “conversions” still experienced homosexual desires.

I do not doubt there is change in sexual attractions [SA] which represents true cognitive change (conscious mind). Maybe it is time to reserve sexual orientation [SO] for an aspect of the subconscious mind. And yes, I’d propose that SA & SO were, respectively, the result of higher brain functions of the neocortex (conscious mind) and more base instinctual functions of the limibic system (unconscious mind). SO would of course be a component (an often large component) of SA, but that doesn’t mean one cannot use reason to deny your SO as any part of a rebuilt SA. The only question is why?

Bruce Garrett

September 28th, 2007

I noted immediately the same thing Mike Airhart did…

Social conservatives will point out that, for many people, living in accord with traditional religious teachings regarding sexuality does not appear to increase emotional distress.

What is “many”? What about the rest? Don’t they matter? What kind of treatment is it, that accepts that people will be harmed, so long as “many” may or may not be? Who administers this kind of treatment, knowing that the odds of Not harming a patient are not favorable?

Timothy Kincaid

September 28th, 2007

Mike and Bruce,

Doc Throc is a wordsmith. I greatly respect his ability to craft a phrase so as to carefully avoid the need for rebuttal.

But I also know that sometimes you have to look for what is not said and for those qualifying phrases that seem integral to the claim… but are not.

For example, in his discussion about harm, I think it is important to note that his phrasing is “…many people, living in accord with traditional religious teachings regarding sexuality…”

Now that sounds like the study… but it isn’t. This phrase includes only those in the success category.

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.

But as long as you stay in the ministry (on the straight and narrow path) then you don’t view the ministry as harmful.

Which I don’t really think you need a ministry to see. After all, members of the snake handling churches don’t view their churches as harmful either.

Timothy Kincaid

September 28th, 2007

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.

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.

Todd

September 28th, 2007

Timothy,

I think I agree with you. I was considered “successful” inthat I refrained from any homosexual activity, actively attended church, and remained in my sexless marriage. While I quickly lost hope in reducing my same sex attractions, I at least hoped to gain an attraction to my lovely and longsuffering wife. While I was married for 12 years, no amount of therapy, counseling, or prayer and study helped change my attractions at all. While I guess I would be considered a failure in that I ended my marriage and left the church, I think they are wrong to beleive that becuase I stayed I was not harmed. Being constantly told you are somehow wrong because of how you feel, when it is not something you can control is very harmful. It took me a long time to overcome my feelings of unworthiness and finally break free from the expectations of the church and my family, and I am much happier because of it, but I do beleive that harm was done, even it was done with theh best of intentions by my church leaders…

Ben in oakland

September 28th, 2007

You are assuming, Todd, that their intentions were “for the best”. And why? Because they told you so.

Maybe it is true. Maybe it isn’t. I have argued, and I think persuasively, that this is not about sincere religious belief at all. It is about plain old beigotry given a veneer of respectability because it is labeled “sincere religious belief”.

But in my opinion, that is an assumption, not a proven statement. Just because someone says that “x” is their sincere religious belief, does not make THAT a true statement. And it certainly does not make it right. Religious wackos–excuse me, bible-believers– used to burn witches and heretics with exactly the same conviction that they were doing God’s will as with which they now pursue gay people, and with about as much basis in reality and about as much negative consequences for the targets of their beliefs.

If you take out that assumption of sincere motivation, what are you left with?

I think it is called MALICE.

To quote what Timothy said beautifully: “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.

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.”

Timothy Kincaid

September 28th, 2007

I have argued, and I think persuasively, that this is not about sincere religious belief at all. It is about plain old beigotry given a veneer of respectability because it is labeled “sincere religious belief”.

With all due respect, Ben, the problem is that you are arguing from the outside. Those of us who actually know and interact with people like those in Todd’s church are much more familiar with the intentions and motivations of these people.

If Todd says they were acting out of good intentions, frankly he knows them better than you. He was “them”.

I would suggest that attributing motives to people that you do not know and about whom you know nothing is based on little more than your animus towards them. Which, to me, sounds closer to bigotry than what many of those you accuse demonstrate.

Ben in oakland

September 29th, 2007

Timothy: I am willing to concede that malice may be the wrong word to use, though I think that the pages of this blog are filled with examples of it. But I do think that the word bigotry applies.

When they choose to cherry pick only the passages that support the anti-gay rhetoric they espouse, yet they ignore passages of far greater moral weight that don’t comport with their agenda, that sounds like religious bigotry to me. Whether there is malice behind that as a motivation– you are right: I don’t know. But I do know the fruits of that, and to my eyes at least, whether there is malice or not behind it, the results are the same.

When J&Y and Throckmorton spin their data, when they all say that even if there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it still needs to be eradicated and all cultural acceptance of gay people needs to be opposed– what might be the motivation there? Scientific disinterest?

When gay people are accused of all sorts of horrors and misdeeds, when statistics are made up or fudged, when there is no apparent good will or willingness to check those outrageous claims with easily available facts, reason, and logic, what am I to think? That they are sincere, good people who just happen to be horribly mistaken aboput me and eveyrone i love?

Jim Burroway said this: “I overheard two people behind me talking about a small protest by gay activists that was taking place outside. “Do you think any of them will try to come in here?” the older one asked. “Nah. They won’t bother because they know they won’t be able to find anyone to have sex with afterwards,” sneered the other.“Hah! So true!” Nice crowd. These were the kind of people whose company I enjoyed for most of the weekend.”

What conclusions about motivation am I to draw from this? You said this: “I would suggest that attributing motives to people that you do not know and about whom you know nothing is based on little more than your animus towards them.”

Maybe malice is the wrong word. I would have to disagree that I have an animus towards them. I really don’t care anything about them. They can say whatever they want in their churches, believe whatever they want. I don’t care. I don’t go around saying that all religionists are wacky, that they need to be confined, forced to see the truth, denied their freedom to worship or believe what they choose, or anything. But when I and those I love are attacked with lies, vicious half-truths, and outright silliness, I will stand up.

And I will question whatever is energizing them to do it.

Timothy Kincaid

September 29th, 2007

Ben,

I want to distinguish between those who are cultural warriors or anti-gay activists and those who attended church with Todd. I don’t disagree with you about the situations you listed above. Yes, those may be based in bigotry or animus or antipathy or malice or perhaps sometimes just arrogance and willful ignorance.

But I don’t think that the folks sitting next to Todd on Sunday necessarily were the same people. Most probably wouldn’t attend an anti-gay conference or a values voters summit. I don’t think it is fair to attribute ill motives to them.

Larry Houston

September 29th, 2007

On this blog there has been a lengthy discussion of Jones and Yarhouse’s recently published study of those overcoming homosexuality. The issues raised about this study are similar ones raised about those studies supporting homosexuality.

I work at Harvard University and have access to their vast library resources. On http://www.banap.net you may find a 36- page bibliography, containing over 500 books and journal articles. The majority of the sources are written by those who self-identify as homosexual and those advocating for homosexuality. Harvard students seek me out as a resource for their class assignments.

After a Harvard student wrote an article for the campus newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, I came under investigation by three departments of Harvard University. There are links to The Harvard Crimson articles on http://www.banap.net, under “Larry’s Story”. No one from the three Harvard University departments ever contacted me.

The two main sections at http://www.banap.net are “Inventing the Homosexual” and “Identifying a Homosexual”. The first is a historical perspective, and contains a chapter on “assimilation” or “liberation”. These are two concepts discussed by homosexuals on how they should relate to society. Another chapter is titled, “A Homosexual Agenda?”. The second section, “Identifying a Homosexual” contains chapters on a biological basis for homosexuality. One chapter discusses LeVay’s “gay brain” and Hammer’s “gay gene”. The ideas of “social constructionism” and “essentialism” are covered in another chapter. These are two concepts usually discussed by those who self-identify as homosexuals on how one becomes a homosexual.

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

How does one become a homosexual? There are multiple pathways to pursuing homosexuality; likewise there are multiple pathways to overcoming homosexuality.

Is it possible on this blog to have a meaningful, open, and honest discussion of the research and those studies supporting homosexuality?

Ben in oakland

September 29th, 2007

Thank you, Timothy. That is exactly it.

I would add this, though, for whatever it is worth. Christian: “I don’t hate you as a gay person. I just hate your sin. i love you.” My friend, “You’re right. You don’t hate me. You allow others to, you don’t speak up, you just follow along.”

Whether this fits Todd’s co-religionists, I don’t know. I have reached a point where i mistrust what anyone says is their religious belief.

thanks again.

Lynn David

September 29th, 2007

Larry Houston wrote:

“Is it possible on this blog to have a meaningful, open, and honest discussion of the research and those studies supporting homosexuality?“

Surely moreso than on your own website where you completely ignore anything which you deem to not be supportive of your position and rely upon dated literature to express your points.

Jim Burroway

September 30th, 2007

Larry Houston,

Your connections to Harvard don’t impress me in the slightest. Your Bibliography contains at least two direct references to discredited “researcher” and Nazi revisionist Paul Cameron. And that’s just for starters.

You also seem to hold in high esteem the pamphlets written by Timothy Dailey from the Family Research Council, who also uses Cameron’s research as well as other faulty methods and conclusions. Also, I see Peter LaBarbera’s name mentioned in conjunction with the fake “Journal of Human Sexuality” set up by George Rekers.

And just for kicks, I’ll go ahead and point out that Nathaniel McConaghy’s opinion on possible biological theories don’t impress me much. He spent twenty years advocating electric shock aversion therapy, the entire premise of which is that homosexuality is an entirely learned response. I personally know at least two people now who have undergone this kind of torture. By the way, your own understanding of HIV/AIDS is mystifying, to say the least.

So when you have had a chance to go and actually learn more about what these authors in your bibliography are all about, you will be welcome to come back for that “meaningful discussion” you’re looking for.

I have access to vast resources from the University of Arizona, and I’ve managed to acquire quite a personal library myself. I’m not impressed by your credentials as a “Harvard employee” (What? Not a prof? Oh, I see. You’re actually a cook in a dining hall!) so please drop the pretense. That comes across as just plain silly and maybe even a little desperate.

Ben in oakland

September 30th, 2007

“Is it possible on this blog to have a meaningful, open, and honest discussion of the research and those studies supporting homosexuality?”

you ask a question like this, and then you say things like this:

Homosexuality is an illegitimate attempt to meet the legitimate need for intimacy in same-sex relationships.

honey, maybe that’s true for you, or maybe you really need it to be true to validate your life choices. I have no idea and couldn’t care less. But as long as you make blanket statements like this, which have no basis in any reality, and open and honest and meaningful discussion with you is not a possibility.

“likewise there are multiple pathways to overcoming homosexuality.” Like Throckmorton, jones, and yarmouth?

that worked well.

Larry Houston

October 1st, 2007

In response to the comment of using dated sources, it must be noted that Gay and Lesbian studies in universities are entering their second decade. LeVay’s “gay brain” study was published in 1991 and Hammer’s “gay gene” study was published in 1993. Both studies have yet to have valid replication of their results. Gay and Lesbian authors began publishing in the 1970s. Stonewall, which is herald as the beginning of “gay liberation” was in June of 1969.

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?

Timothy Kincaid

October 1st, 2007

Larry,

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.

Randi Schimnosky

October 1st, 2007

Larry, a gay or lesbian is someone who is attracted to the same sex. One need not have experienced sex to be gay or lesbian, or for that matter heterosexual. A celibate person who experiences same sex attractions is still gay or lesbian. The only illegitimate attempts to meet the need for intimacy are those that harm others. It is perfectly legitimate to meet one’s need for intimacy in a same sex relationship. Your efforts to prevent such relationships are what’s illegitimate.

Warren Throckmorton

October 1st, 2007

Wow, Timothy, you know how to give and to take away.

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.

Timothy Kincaid

October 1st, 2007

Warren,

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.

John

October 1st, 2007

Timothy,

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?

Patrick

October 2nd, 2007

In reading the book I couldn’t help but notice the shifting terms Jones & Yarhouse employed. They sometimes misrepresented the two APA’s position which says there are “potential harm” or “potential risks” to reparative therapy. Instead, J & Y sometimes said the APA’s say it “would be” harmful, as in all cases. This sloppy scholarship is not an isolated incident.

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.

Larry Houston

October 7th, 2007

“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.”

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.

John

October 7th, 2007

Larry,

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.

David in Tampa

October 8th, 2007

The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association and The American Psychological Association have all three stated this fact; Homosexuality is not a disorder or mental defect and it is “DANGEROUS” to administer treatment in attempt to change one’s sexual orientation.

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.