Programs to change gays to straights don't work, report says

[MCWAY]

Let's see.....

We have an article from the "Baptists Press" that even quotes bible versus,  eludes to "liberal positions on homosexuality", and pretty much doesn't say much other than if a person "wants" to change for religious they should be assisted.  In addition, the article appeals to people who think someone like Chambers or Stith are qualified to  challenge  APA findings.

The article isn't about whether we should help those that want to change especially when the desire to change is tied to religious beliefs which for obvious can cause undue strife and stress.  The article is about that it doesn't usually work and can have damaging effects.

So the "rest of the story" is moot.

Unfortunately for that article, as Alan Chambers pointed out, the APA paper can't whitewash the fact that Chambers and numerous others have indeed left the homosexual lifestyle, many of them via the help that groups like Exodus International.

and why did this article leave off the last part of that sentence?   "..by being celibate."    There is a big difference between accepting who you are but choosing not to act on it, vs forcing yourself to act in ways counter to your biology.

How is being heterosexual counter to one's biology? Man is designed to procreate with woman, period. The machinery, as it were, points to that. Plus, biology doesn't play into the factors that often lead to homosexuality. Case in point, how many people ended up engaging in homosexuality, after being abused/molested as a child?

Some time ago, I posted an article about a young woman who ended up being a lesbian, after watching her mother get beat up by her father, along with her being molested by a male cousin after her parents divorced. Through a mutual friend on her church softball team, she met a group of Christian women who helped her through her emotional issues. Per her words, as she learned how to form healthy friendships with women, her lesbian desires decreased.

One Sunday night in October, 1989, Kelly led me in the prayer of salvation as I knelt beside my bed in my dorm room.

When I stood up, I knew that deep down something had changed. I knew that I wanted God more than my homosexuality. But becoming a Christian was only the beginning of my journey. It didn't instantly resolve my homosexual feelings. I broke up with my partner, but I continued to struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions.

Thankfully, I found out about a ministry that helps people overcome their homosexuality, and I began to attend a local support group. There, I discovered the root causes of my homosexual desires, including sexual abuse, gender confusion, a breakdown in the relationship with my same-sex parent, an abusive father and peer rejection.

I met strong, godly women in church who helped me to see that being feminine didn't mean being weak. I met men who treated me with dignity and respect. This freed me to embrace my gender and to stop rejecting God's design. I even started using my full name, Christine, because I no longer wanted to hide being a girl.

My ideas about men and women were changed. I learned that being female is not a liability. And I began to identify outwardly with women, experimenting with wearing makeup and different clothes and using purses. I became different from the inside out.

Others noticed my progress and encouraged me. I'll never forget when Robert approached me in church and said, smiling, "Christine, this is the first time you don't look like a boy in a dress." Though his statement hadn't come out right, I knew that he had meant well, and it let me know I was making progress.

The key to my healing was developing healthy same-sex friendships. As I did this, my sexual attractions for women naturally diminished because I found what I was looking for all along -- real love and connections with others.

With God's help and the support of caring people, I now walk in freedom from lesbianism. I know that a changed life is possible because I am a changed person.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789


As for the celibate stuff, I believe Mr. Chambers is married, with children. So, I'll go out on a limb and state that he ain't being "celibate". He's being fruitful and multiplying, as it were. 

[24KT]

I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya?  

[Al Doggity]

omg I cant even read your entire post anymore, i do remember that thread and again if youd like you can bump that and ill move over there and prove you wrong there as well. My point in that thread was not that murder and homosexuality etc...where on the same level morally, my point was that society deems them either wrong or right which is my point in this thread and if a person thought of homosexuality as wrong for whatever reason why would they be ok with it seeing as it is a choice believe it or not to be homosexual or to indulge their homosexual tendencies?

Why bother bumping that thread? Arbitrary formality. This thread is about the same thing.
You haven't proven me wrong on anything. You agreed with Ozmo who basically just parroted back what I'd been saying throughout the thread. If you believe homosexuality is a choice, you're entitled to that opinion, but that does not make it fact. Even if it is a choice, that does not change the point I've made throughout this entire thread: there is no inherent harm in homosexuality and there is no justification in attempting to attach morality to it.

[OzmO]

Unfortunately for that article, as Alan Chambers pointed out, the APA paper can't whitewash the fact that Chambers and numerous others have indeed left the homosexual lifestyle, many of them via the help that groups like Exodus International.

I don't think anyone is saying it 100% doesn't work.  I don't think  or see where  the paper would be saying that.  What the article says is this:

"The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective."  Chambers is part of that "little evidence."

Again, the article is moot.  It's specifically designed to give someone who is a fundamental christian a counter point to the findings.  But the problem is, its not much of one.  It's moot.

[tonymctones]

Why bother bumping that thread? Arbitrary formality. This thread is about the same thing.
You haven't proven me wrong on anything. You agreed with Ozmo who basically just parroted back what I'd been saying throughout the thread. If you believe homosexuality is a choice, you're entitled to that opinion, but that does not make it fact. Even if it is a choice, that does not change the point I've made throughout this entire thread: there is no inherent harm in homosexuality and there is no justification in attempting to attach morality to it.

I did not attempt to attach morality to it in this thread my point in this thread is that society deems what is acceptable and whats not and that my friend is a fact if it was simply based on harm which is what you argue then slavery would have never been acceptable since it always caused harm its societies views that changed not the fact that it caused harm. You think those slave owners didnt know they where harming ppl? of course they did it wasnt until societies view of the harm they where doing changed that slavery became bad.

Homosexuality does have a genetic component but since it is expressed in a behavior it is a choice as you have the choice to perform an action or not.

My point in the other thread was that if it is indeed a choice which ive shown it is and you deem it wrong for whatever reason why would you be in favor of gay marriage? answer that...

[OzmO]

I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya?  

You really are whacked in the head.

[Cap]

I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya?  

That has to be one of the most disrespectful things I have ever read.  And you preach tolerance (for one group I guess)?  Laughable.

[MCWAY]

You really are whacked in the head.

AMEN!!!!

 

[tonymctones]

I was going to respond to her post as well but i figured id let it slide since what i had to say wasnt very nice.

[MCWAY]

I don't think anyone is saying it 100% doesn't work.  I don't think  or see where  the paper would be saying that.  What the article says is this:

"The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective."  Chambers is part of that "little evidence."

Again, the article is moot.  It's specifically designed to give someone who is a fundamental christian a counter point to the findings.  But the problem is, its not much of one.  It's moot.

As the article states, at issue here is what's being defined as effective.

Part of the divide between the APA and the Christian community, Chambers said, could be attributed to what is and is not considered change. For instance, the report criticized recent studies that conservatives have touted as supporting their position. APA brushed off those conclusions by noting the study's subjects "became skilled in ignoring or tolerating their same-sex attractions." The APA considers such a person a homosexual. But Chambers and others like him believe that, biblically speaking, the APA is simply describing former homosexuals who are resisting temptation. In other words, those former homosexuals -- according to Christian theology -- are winning their battle with sin.....

The report was released days before psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse release their next set of data in a longitudinal study that is following people who are trying to change. In the last set of data from 2007, 38 percent of the subjects followed in the study said they had successfully left homosexuality, while an additional 29 percent said they had had only modest successes but were committed to keep trying. That data was published in a book, "Ex-Gays?" Their newest data is set to be released online this weekend.

[OzmO]

As the article states, at issue here is what's being defined as effective.

Part of the divide between the APA and the Christian community, Chambers said, could be attributed to what is and is not considered change. For instance, the report criticized recent studies that conservatives have touted as supporting their position. APA brushed off those conclusions by noting the study's subjects "became skilled in ignoring or tolerating their same-sex attractions." The APA considers such a person a homosexual. But Chambers and others like him believe that, biblically speaking, the APA is simply describing former homosexuals who are resisting temptation. In other words, those former homosexuals -- according to Christian theology -- are winning their battle with sin.....

The report was released days before psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse release their next set of data in a longitudinal study that is following people who are trying to change. In the last set of data from 2007, 38 percent of the subjects followed in the study said they had successfully left homosexuality, while an additional 29 percent said they had had only modest successes but were committed to keep trying. That data was published in a book, "Ex-Gays?" Their newest data is set to be released online this weekend.

I agree on the issue you pointed out and see what you are saying even though IMO real change hasn't occurred if the subjects ends up suppressing their desires.  Think about it.  Could you ever not be attracted to a women or women?  Also, the idea that these people are having to suppress their desires only supports that being attracted to a member of the same sex isn't the "choice" people have made it out to be.

In addition to that, I am not surprised that there are studies that support the possibility of change as they did review some 80+ of them.  This latest one is no different.

[24KT]

You really are whacked in the head.

I guess you just don't appreciate my sense of humour. 

[OzmO]

I guess you just don't appreciate my sense of humour. 

Yeah, the eye roll threw me off. 

[24KT]

That has to be one of the most disrespectful things I have ever read.  And you preach tolerance (for one group I guess)?  Laughable.

Yeah, ...but to whom do you feel the disrespect was intended? Yeah, I preach tolerance. Just because I have disdain for some, doesn't mean I'm the one who condones or has condoned stretching them on the rack, ...or burning defenseless widows alive at the stake in order to seize all their property.

[tonymctones]

Yeah, ...but to whom do you feel the disrespect was intended? Yeah, I preach tolerance. Just because I have disdain for some, doesn't mean I'm the one who condones or has condoned stretching them on the rack, ...or burning defenseless widows alive at the stake in order to seize all their property.

yes perhaps we should attribute the horrendous actions done by africans in africa and elsewhere to all africans...idiocy jag

[Cap]

Yeah, ...but to whom do you feel the disrespect was intended? Yeah, I preach tolerance. Just because I have disdain for some, doesn't mean I'm the one who condones or has condoned stretching them on the rack, ...or burning defenseless widows alive at the stake in order to seize all their property.

I think your previous post speaks loud enough for everyone here.  Let the train wreck continue burning.

[24KT]

yes perhaps we should attribute the horrendous actions done by africans in africa and elsewhere to all africans...idiocy jag

Why do you always insist on bringin things back to race?
Your little diversion won't work. The people you are debating with are smarter than that. edit: except maybe Cap
You backed yourself into a stupid, specious, and indefencible position, and you've been called on it.
No point now in trying to divert attention. Back up your argument or concede stupidity. 

[tonymctones]

Why do you always insist on bringin things back to race?
Your little diversion won't work. The people you are debating with are smarter than that. edit: except maybe Cap
You backed yourself into a stupid, specious, and indefencible position, and you've been called on it.
No point now in trying to divert attention. Back up your argument or concede stupidity. 

I intentionally used that to show the ignorance of your post jag apparently that went over your head.

[Cap]

Why do you always insist on bringin things back to race?
Your little diversion won't work. The people you are debating with are smarter than that. edit: except maybe Cap
You backed yourself into a stupid, specious, and indefencible position, and you've been called on it.
No point now in trying to divert attention. Back up your argument or concede stupidity. 

Like I said, your posts show your true character.

[MCWAY]

I agree on the issue you pointed out and see what you are saying even though IMO real change hasn't occurred if the subjects ends up suppressing their desires.  Think about it.  Could you ever not be attracted to a women or women?  Also, the idea that these people are having to suppress their desires only supports that being attracted to a member of the same sex isn't the "choice" people have made it out to be.

But, the reason for that "choice" has been addressed. Again, using the example of Christine Sneeringer, she didn't choose to have her dad go Ike Turner or her mom, or to have her cousin molest her. Can you say that she would have been a lesbian, had those things not happened?

Exodus International often deals with people like her, who've had things like this happen to them. As Sneeringer states, as she developed healthy relationship with women, the lesbian stuff diminshed.

In addition to that, I am not surprised that there are studies that support the possibility of change as they did review some 80+ of them.  This latest one is no different.

Again, it all goes back to who is defining success and how. APA defines it one way; evangelical Christians (and Exodus International, in particular) define it another.

From a Christian perspective, suppressing desires is nothing new (regardless of what they are). It's often called "dying to one's self" or "crucifying one's flesh". As the referenced text, verse 11 in particular, indicates, .....And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

In other words, the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ helps people deal with homosexuality, just as it does with adultery, fornication, lying, theft, and other sins.

[OzmO]

But, the reason for that "choice" have been addressed. Again, using the example of Christine Sneeringer, she didn't choose to have her dad go Ike Turner or her mom, or have her cousing molest her. Can you say that she would have been a lesbian, had those things not happened?

Exodus International often deals with people like her, who've had things like this happen to them. As Sneeringer states, as she developed healthy relationship with women, the lesbian stuff diminshed.

If Christine Sneeringer's experiences was representative of all lesbians then there might be something to that.  But it isn't.  Not even close.  Exodus, it seems, wants a person to suppress homosexuality in the name of God.  Some people are religious enough to do that even though it may mean a life of misery. 

What ever makes them happy.  Although they are probably not very happy. 

Again, it all goes back to who is defining success and how. APA defines it one way; evangelical Christians (and Exodus International, in particular) define it another.

From a Christian perspective, suppressing desires is nothing new (regardless of what they are). It's often called "dying to one's self" or "crucifying one's flesh". As the referenced text, verse 11 in particular, indicates, .....And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

In other words, the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ helps people deal with homosexuality, just as it does with adultery, fornication, lying, theft, and other sins

.

It's not about success or failure.  The point is, homosexuality still exists in the person.  They are only suppressing it.  And its that suppression that often causes other problems talked about in the report.

Also, Adultery, lying, and or theft have direct victims.  What 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home with in reason doesn't.  So the only similarity they share is in the Bible in that they are sins.  In society they are like comparing apples to toe jam.

[timfogarty]

"In 1979, two of Exodus International's co-founders (Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper) quit the group and held a life commitment ceremony together. On June 27, 2007 Bussee, along with fellow former Exodus leaders Jeremy Marks and Darlene Bogle, each came out as gay or lesbian and issued a public apology for their roles in Exodus."

[OzmO]

"In 1979, two of Exodus International's co-founders (Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper) quit the group and held a life commitment ceremony together. On June 27, 2007 Bussee, along with fellow former Exodus leaders Jeremy Marks and Darlene Bogle, each came out as gay or lesbian and issued a public apology for their roles in Exodus."

Wow.

So they pretty much decided to stop living a lie and get on with their lives.   Good for them.

[Al Doggity]

I did not attempt to attach morality to it in this thread my point in this thread is that society deems what is acceptable and whats not and that my friend is a fact if it was simply based on harm which is what you argue then slavery would have never been acceptable since it always caused harm its societies views that changed not the fact that it caused harm. You think those slave owners didnt know they where harming ppl? of course they did it wasnt until societies view of the harm they where doing changed that slavery became bad.

Once again , you are proving that you don't have the ability to comprehend a multi-faceted argument. You are simply taking bits and pieces of what I say and arguing them out of context.

I already addressed this, IN DEPTH, here:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=292808.msg4170273#msg4170273

Reiterated: Yes, throughout the course of human/American history morality has been inconsistently placed on different actions. Slavery and homosexuality are very good examples of  that. Murder and theft are not. The impact an action has on an individual or society as a whole is the overriding factor in the vast majority of things that are accepted by society. It is not the only thing. I never said it was. You have things like slavery, which society managed to justify because there was financial benefit to be had. You have those who find homosexuality objectionable because it is the lifestyle of a minority and they consider it deviant. These are examples in which an arbitrary morality was attached to an action or circumstance to justify almost primal responses. That's not the case with murder. The egg most definitely came before the chicken here. It's glaringly, patently, painfully obvious why murder is not accepted by society. When you say that murder and homosexuality are deemed bad by society JUST BECAUSE it just sounds stupid. It only serves to illustrate how irrational it is to be so invested in someone's relationship that has nothing to do with you.

I'm sure you will find some way to misunderstand this, but I am not sure how much more I can dumb it down.

Homosexuality does have a genetic component but since it is expressed in a behavior it is a choice as you have the choice to perform an action or not.

Not true. There may be a genetic predisposition in murderers, but you are not a murderer until you actually kill someone. If you are sexually attracted to a member of the same sex, you are gay, regardless of whether you act on it or not. A man who marries a woman but still wants to be with men and imagines men so he can get it up with his wife is still gay.A man who never has sex but is sexually aroused by men is still gay.  It's not the act, it is the sexual desire.

My point in the other thread was that if it is indeed a choice which ive shown it is and you deem it wrong for whatever reason why would you be in favor of gay marriage? answer that...

You haven't shown that it is a choice. And during that previous thread, you did quite clearly make moral comparisons between a genetic propensity to violence and a genetic propensity towards homosexuality. Right in the post I linked to you did so.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=256681.msg3619791#msg3619791

your second paragraph there implies that homosexuality is ok and incest not simply b/c it has a genetic component. Propensity towards violence has a genetic component as well but that doesnt make it ok. You need more reasoning to ok homosexuality then simply b/c it has a genetic component.

This is the kind of stupidity I had in mind when I responded to your first post. I thought your comparison was monumentally ridiculous in the last thread and it has not aged well. You are using exactly the same argument and justifications, so what you wrote in that previous thread IS RELEVANT.

[Al Doggity]

I don't know what Al is talking about when he claims religion is against homosexuals & homosexuality.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The church has been supporting gays for years, ...given them safe harbour & pretty much carte blanche to do what comes naturally. How do you think the Catholic church got so big? Some men's genetic predisposition towards homosexuality was the best thing that could have happened to the Catholic church. Where else could a man spend his life on his knees, gazing adoring up at a statue of another naked man, while sequestered behind closed doors night & day, with a bunch of other men... and not have it the least bit questioned? You don't actually think it was those spiffy Friar Tuck hairdos and those ghastly robes that drove recruitment into the priesthood do ya?  

I have to say, even though some of you may have found this disrespectful, there is a certain amount of veracity in this post. As someone who went to 6 different  Catholic schools from kindergarten through high school graduation, it was hard to ignore the fact that there appeared to be a high concentration of gays among the vowed faculty at all of them. A lot of people I've met in my adulthood who attended Catholic schools share this observation. At the middle school I attended, almost all of the nuns were pretty obvious closet cases, with the exception of one who had left the habit and gotten married. At both of the high schools I attended, it was a similar story. The majority of priests were so flamboyantly gay that there was no question. There were some who appeared straight and probably were, but  even among unworldly high school students, it went pretty much uncontested that a lot of nuns and priests opted for a life of celibacy so they didn't have to deal with their sexuality.