Is There a War on Psychotherapy?

Last week, this came across my path:

I assume Christopher Doyle refers to the effort around the country to prohibit sexual reorientation change efforts for minors. However, I write this post to address a couple of points.

When it comes to sexual orientation and psychotherapy, the reparative therapy narrative of defective parenting doesn’t hold water or match up with research or experience.  However, there are still therapists who believe that and try to impose it on their clients and their families. Much of my work has been to develop a therapy approach (sexual identity therapy) which requires therapists to present scientific research about sexual orientation to clients and allow clients to decide what to do about it.

On the other hand, the Family Research Council speaker Christopher Doyle worked and trained with Richard Cohen who has a different approach. Here is a snapshot of a couple of Richard Cohen’s techniques.

I will leave it to readers. Is this psychotherapy?

Doyle defended these and other outrageous techniques in this legal brief designed to be used in a New Jersey trial involving JONAH, a Jewish change therapy group. JONAH lost at trial.

You can see Doyle in action in this review of a documentary called Sunday Sessions in which Doyle provides sexual orientation change counseling to a young adult man. Note that Richard Cohen is involved in the group sessions at the beginning.

In the end, the young man feels somewhat better but credits the teachings of the Catholic church for his mood improvement. There is no indication that his sexual attractions changed.

Sexual Identity Therapy

I watched the documentary (I recommend it although there is no real conclusion to the story), and I need to make another thing clear. In the film (and on this page), Doyle calls his approach to therapy “Sexual Identity Affirming Therapy.” I want to say plainly that what he does is unrelated to “Sexual Identity Therapy” as developed by Mark Yarhouse and me.

In the documentary, Doyle did not provide a range of information about the development of male homosexuality but instead authoritatively expressed the reparative narrative of weak fathers and an unmasculine upbringing. The directive style demonstrated in the movie review above is not taken out of context. None of this is consistent with sexual identity therapy. People working within the principles of SIT do not attempt to change a client’s sexual orientation. SIT is antithetical to what Doyle demonstrates in the documentary and more broadly, to what Cohen does in his various public demonstrations.

The War is Over

In my opinion, within psychotherapy, the war is actually over and change therapy has lost. No training programs teach it. I know of no Christian training programs that teach it (although I would like to be corrected if I am wrong). It is misleading to pretend there is a wronged group of psychotherapists who want to practice it and can’t. The courts have not been inclined to defend it.

On the other hand, there has been a resurgence of interest in ex-gay type ministries. While I don’t yet see an accompanying revival of professional interest in change therapy, it is the nature of true believers to keep trying.

348 thoughts on “Is There a War on Psychotherapy?”

  1. @disqus_U4H24LH1OD:disqus
    Interesting article from earlier this month in WaPo:

    McKrae Game wants people to know that he was wrong about all of it.

    He was wrong to found Hope for Wholeness Network, a faith-based conversion therapy program that seeks to rid people of their LGBTQ identities. He was wrong to create a slogan promoting the idea of “freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ.” He was wrong to tell people they were doomed for all eternity if they didn’t change their ways.

    “I was a religious zealot that hurt people,” Game told the Post and Courier. “People said they attempted suicide over me and the things I said to them. People, I know, are in therapy because of me. Why would I want that to continue?”

    I might ask why you would also want that hurt to continue? Religious zealotry, perhaps?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/09/03/conversion-therapy-center-founder-who-sought-turn-lgbtq-christians-straight-now-says-hes-gay-rejects-cycle-shame/

  2. A study published Aug. 30 that involved almost half a million participants (493,001) from the US, UK and Sweden led the lead author to declare that “same-sex sexual behavior is simply “a natural part of our diversity as a species.””

    The study found not just one gene, but a handful of genes that connect to SSA.

    It seems to me that homophobia can be dealt with therapeutically and we should encourage those who suffer from it to pursue that avenue so they can enjoy life as it really exists and not according to their fears. Gay people are just fine as they are.

    ETA: Forgot to add that a “pray the gay away” occasion in an Oklahoma church led to wall slamming and punches last Sunday. Can’t see that becoming a popular form of conversion therapy.

    1. There may be some issues with that study. As always, I’m going to wait for the review to see what comes up. I don’t doubt that there are many genes and epigenetic factors involved, as there are for just about any trait. Just don’t rely too heavily on any study until more eyes have studied it.

      To the Oklahoma incident, aside from the obvious horror of such an occurrence, I’m wondering what on earth these guys were thinking when they entered an Assembly of God church as a couple. If nothing else, the parents had to know that no AG church is going to be safe ground for a gay couple. I have more than a passing experience with this and what was alleged is not only possible, but rather likely and predictable.

      1. I don’t have a dog in the gay/ex-gay fight except that I can’t understand this insistence that there’s something unnatural about gay, while hetero is seen as totally natural, when nature itself is diverse. But I accept your caution on the study. Thank you.

        The Oklahoma parents are what caught my attention too. They had to be the ones who told the pastor that their son is gay and if they didn’t, they had to have known how it was going to turn out. So why in the world would the couple want to worship with them? AG must have one sordid history and I’m sorry you are familiar with it. Nobody should experience or be familiar with such horror.

        1. No doubt, it is definitely found in other species and we are simply another animal sharing a common genome. The AG is emotionally obsessed and charismatic to varying degrees depending on the assembly. They are absolutely intolerant of LGBT anything. Demons often get the blame for something they don’t agree with and also, it’s so much more fun to play exorcist. Way too much nonsense is allowed under their banner.

      2. I read a different version of the story , where Cormie claims his parents had encouraged him to attend the church with his partner. It appears this was some sort of staged “intervention” that got out of hand when they tried to leave.

    1. A lot of claims in that article, but not much substance. No concrete examples of the “discrmination” “former homosexuals” face. Ex: are they being fired from their jobs? denied housing? beaten up and left for dead? all because they are “former homosexuals”

      Or is it that people are questioning their claims and motivations?

      the lack of actual specifics/examples makes the article you cite somewhat questionable.

      1. Well, when I googled he man’s name, the first thing that came up was an article blaming his reparative therapy approach for a torturous murder.

        1. the only article I read mentioning Bekker and Raymond Buys was from an ex-gay site Voice of the Voiceless . Now what happened to Buys was torture/murder and quite tragic, but it appears the only reason Bekker was associated with this tragic incident was because he was trying to distance himself from these events. Maybe if Bekker et. al. had spoken up about these sorts of camps before people started pointing out how they had similar ideologies, Buys might still be alive.

        2. the only article I read mentioning Bekker and Raymond Buys was from an ex-gay site <a href=https://www.voiceofthevoiceless.info/south-african-youth-tortured-and-killed-in-gay-conversion-camp-more-activist-propaganda Voice of the Voiceless . Now what happened to Buys was torture/murder and quite tragic, but it appears the only reason Bekker was associated with this tragic incident was because he was trying to distance himself from these events. Maybe if Bekker et. al. had spoken up about these sorts of camps before people started pointing out how they had similar ideologies, Buys might still be alive.

        3. the only article I read mentioning Bekker and Raymond Buys was from an ex-gay site Voice of the Voiceless . Now what happened to Buys was torture/murder and quite tragic, but it appears the only reason Bekker was associated with this tragic incident was because he was trying to distance himself from these events. Maybe if Bekker et. al. had spoken up about these sorts of camps before people started pointing out how they had similar ideologies, Buys might still be alive.

    2. Bekker alleges harassment, persecution, discrimination etc., but he does not give a single concrete example, except for being called a “bigot”, and finding that there are people who don’t believe that “therapy” can change sexual orientation and who go to the length of actually saying so! Whatever next? If he finds that an impediment to getting on with his life as he sees fit, then it’s pretty pathetic.

  3. This web discussion reignited my interest in ex-gay ministry (I’ve been busy the last twenty years raising a family) so I’ve been surfing the web and was so encouraged to find all kinds of stuff — there are Christian ex-gay Facebook groups, ex-gay truth websites with testimonial, all kinds of stuff!! Please do some searching everyone ? I have so much love for you and so do MANY others!!

    This is a testimonial reprinted from an “ex-gay” man with a sexual orientation I am shocked he would admit on the internet! Although I think it’s more common than we realize. Through God, reorientation was possible! But the general consensus is there is zero hope for people like this – only to lock em up, which they deserve if they have offended of course.

    If ever there was a person that could have been referred to as a marginal figure, it was me. It did not take me long to discover that homosexuality placed a person on the fringe of society. Even more so if you have a sexual age orientation to young boys and teens. I discovered that most people having a young sexual age orientation, would never publicly admit their sexual age orientation. It was much safer to hide behind their sexual gender orientation.
    God, however, caused a turning point in my life and I have all reasons to believe it was because of the prayers of my mother. It was 10 September 2001 and I was 34, working as a skills trainer at a children’s home. I never worked nightshift but because of a staff shortage I was requested to work nightshift that particular night. I finished my shift the next morning and as I got home I received a phone call from the children home’s principal. He informed me that he wished to pay me a visit and asked if he could come over. I agreed and on his arrival he informed me that one of the children complaint that I have sexually molested him while I was on night duty. I was given notice that I was suspended while the matter was under investigation.

    I was suspended for six weeks, when one day I was ordered to the principals office, having been informed that the matter would be handed over to the police. I experienced in that moment my worst nightmare to come true. I always feared that I would one day have to face the law.

    Having arrived at the principal’s office I waited for two hours before the detective came from the principal’s office and introduced himself to me. He then continued by telling me that the boy has confessed to them that he has lied and that I have never sexually molested him. I felt relieved and at the same time grateful because I saw this event as a wake up call for me to sort out my life, which at that stage was in shambles without purpose and no joy.

        1. No doubt, but the testimony which you have quoted is not relevant to normal gay men, just as it is not relevant to normal straight men, unwanted sexual desires or not.

        2. No not really. further desires for sex with underage child <> desires for sex with members of the same sex.

        3. There is no equating consensual with non-consensual relationships ever. Having an affair is not the same as raping a random woman. You are a horrible person for daring to equate homosexuals with child rapists.

    1. Another person tries to improperly equate child molestation with homosexuality.

      this attempt to equate the 2 says a lot more about you than you realize.

      1. All sinful desires are the same..sinful desires. And there is hope for all in Jesus.

        There are many more testimonies from normal ex-gay people, many more. I learned Frank Worthen, founder of the modern ex-Gay movement just died. He lived half his life as an active homosexual, and the second half as a married heterosexual. Certainly his life experience is evidence that “gays” can “change.”

        In any case, “ex-Gay” ministry is alive and well- yay!! Because it is authentically serving and helping people, no doubt it always will be.

        1. Here’s the rest of the man’s story:

          I looked for help in South Africa but could not find any. Eventually, I contacted organizations in America of which one responded. It started an initial 4 year journey, receiving psychotherapeutic help while I also turned to God, was born again and through my relationship with Him experienced the Holy Spirit’s powerful transforming, mind renewing power working in me, and things started to change.

          Progressively shifts started to take place in my mind, emotional pain got healed and guilt and shame were dealt with. Big shifts took place in my identity while I found my identity more and more in Christ. In 2004 I met my wife and this year we are married for 15 years.

          What is extraordinary is that my wife was a widow with two teenage boys. In all sincerity I asked God if He knew what He was doing by letting me marry a woman with two boys. I asked God if He has forgotten from where I came from. It was in this that God showed Himself mighty. God’s work in my life was such that not only did my exclusive gender homosexual orientation changed to where I started experiencing heterosexual attractions towards my wife, but also my exclusive sexual age orientation to young boys/teens changed to an adult woman. It meant so much to me that God have entrusted me with my two sons.

          Activists, through science, psychology and psychiatry tries to convince the world that it is impossible to change sexual gender orientation and sexual age orientation, arguing that a person is born that way, but God, above all doubt proofed them wrong.

          I am still in the furnace of my Master, to be formed daily more and more in the likeness of His image. Of this I am convinced: “When I look back and wonder how I ever made it this far, you would realize it is not that I have been clever, but God has been wise. Not that I have been strong, but God has been mighty. Not that I have been consistent, but God has been faithful. I call it GOD’S AMAZING GRACE!

          1. Yes, I had already read the rest of the story, and it has no more relevance to normal gay men than it has to normal straight men.

          2. Well, no, it isn’t actually, because being homosexual, like being heterosexual, is not a sin, and therefore doesn’t need struggling with.

          3. Being a repentant heterosexual is not a sin either.

            Willfully acting on sinful desire would obviously be a sin for either homo/hetero

          4. No, of course being a repentant homosexual is not a sin, any more than being a repentant heterosexual is a sin, but being homosexual, like being heterosexual, is not itself something that requires repentance or struggling against..

          5. So if you’re heterosexual or homosexual and you form a consensual loving sexual relationship congruent with your sexuality, that’s fine, and there’s nothing to repent of.

          6. The Bible clearly defines consensual loving homosexual sexual relationships as sinful and heterosexual sexual loving relationships outside of marriage as sinful.

          7. I am certain we will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation and/or relevance of the Scriptures.

          8. Just where in the Bible is this “consensual loving homosexual relationship “ that’s so “clearly defined “ ?

          9. I was asking Liz. And I posted before his response, which was perfect. She never answered my question.

          10. The Bible certainly does not “define” consensual loving homosexual sexual relationships as sinful, and there are no examples of such relationships anywhere in the Bible. It can be argued that the authors of the very few biblical passages which refer at all to homosexual behaviour condemned by implication all homosexual relationships, but even if they did, we are free to disagree with them.

            But I’m not going to engage any further in argument about that, because it isn’t the theme of this thread, which is not the morality of homosexual behaviour, but efforts to change people’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. People can change their behaviour: they can adopt a celibate lifestyle, or they can even shoe-horn themselves into sexual relationships which are at odds with their sexuality – although I see no good reason why they should. There are no doubt people whose sexuality is fluid and can change spontaneously from homosexual to heterosexual – or vice versa – although such cases among males, at any rate, are atypical. But the evidence that change of sexual orientation can be deliberately engineered by “therapy” of any kind is poor. Adults must be free to make their own decisions in such matters, but I would strongly advise anyone who is considering dabbling in “conversion therapy” of any kind not to embark on that snipe hunt.

          11. ”The Bible certainly does not “define” consensual loving homosexual sexual relationships as sinful” wrong, homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual activity whether consensual or not is a sin, the Bible never gives homosexuality a green light in any circumstance.

          12. “Lust” is the traditional name for WHAT? If lust is forbidden, then presumably acting on heterosexual desires is forbidden, too.

          13. No, of course being a repentant homosexual is not a sin, any more than being a repentant heterosexual is a sin, but being homosexual, like being heterosexual, is not itself something that requires repentance or struggling against..

        2. And there are many ex-ex-gay stories. Because while many may “live their lives as a heterosexual” most of them are still gay.

          And again, your particular interpretation of your particular version of your particular religious text doesn’t interest me.

          1. Yes, he changed it to the extent he lived a contented faithful heterosexual for 40 years. It’s a difficult and cruel truth to accept for people who have decided they themselves can’t change; I understand the resistance.

          2. he is allowed to label himself however he wants, but just because identifies as “ex-gay” doesn’t mean he actually changed his orientation.

        3. “All sinful desires are the same..sinful desires.”

          I see. So the rape of a child is no worse than two adult men having a loving sexual relationship.

          Golly!

        4. “All sinful desires are the same..sinful desires.”

          I see. So the rape of a child is no worse than two adult men having a loving sexual relationship.

          Golly!

    2. Further, you have all this time to dig up these stories, but no time to dig up the citations for your sources.

        1. The premise of “conversion therapy” (I think you and I define this differently), is the same premise as many other forms of psychotherapy…As you address the likely impetus to facilitate healing, the painful/troublesome feelings/behaviors begin to resolve. It’s a common and reasonable approach.

          Studies are out there looking at potential causes, but as I stated, this debate has become so politicized and militant, what social scientist would want to look at it. Spitzer was bullied (polite term) into invalidating his own specialty research, and I think that of Others as well.

          1. “conversion therapy” is a term for a therapy that is intended to “convert” a gay person to being a straight person. Also, known as Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE).

            Further, there is nothing “reasonable” about these therapies. They are based on flawed understandings about orientation.

            Finally, Spitzer was not “bullied’ into recanting his study. He was simply shown how these “therapies” can mislead the patients into believing the are “straight” when they are not. However, I don’t agree that his study should have been pulled (it wasn’t flawed in that regards) and I don’t think he needed to request it be withdrawn.

          2. A difficult thing with social sciences research (vs medical research for example) is that it’s unethical to conduct on the childhoods of real-life study participants (lab animals of no value-haha) and also would be hard to control all the variables to show cause/effect.

            The best we can do is retrospective analyses, and that is never going to have the same ability to determine causation.
            If you interviewed 5000 gay men on their childhood experiences (sexual abuse, emotional, physical abuse, gender nonconformity, peer and same-sex parent rejection, emotional sensitivity) and you asked a similar cohort (maximally controlling for variables) the same questions, and you find statistically significant differences, you have correlation and inferred causation. That’s the best we can do.

            I admit some of the techniques seem extreme and using swear language is not helpful. There doesn’t appear to be a spiritual component invoking Higher Power, which I view as absolutely essential. Also, I people need Community to accomplish change and I didn’t see that in the video. So i don’t necessarily agree with some of the practices, but I do think the principle is legit.

          3. I will say the video made me laugh out loud when Doyle was explaining to Nathan that marriage is about sacrifice and not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s fulfilling in many ways but even that doesn’t ultimately satisfy…only one Person does.

            The part where Nathan was talking about his dad’s reaction to his play performance brought tears 🙁

          4. So far because of the discussion, I am behind at work, forgot my stuff in a shopping bag at Walmart l, forgot an appointment, and have no dinner cooked for tonight ?

          5. And there have been studies showing statistically significant differences in brain configurations, in birth order, and other biological factors between straights and gays (generally men). Another study (Warren has written about it in the past) showing NO significant statistical correlation between sexual/physical abuse and a homosexual orientation (although there was a correlation between abuse and same-sex sexual activity).

            And no unbiased studies showing a correlation between “same-sex parent rejection” and homosexual orientation. A lot of claims of such a correlation (based off of Freud’s theories) from people like Nicolosi, Byrd, Socardies et. al. but no actual research studies showing such a correlation exists. If you know of any such studies feel free to post a reference.

            “I do think the principle is legit.”

            Except there is no scientifically sound research to suggest “the principle” is correct or that the “therapies” based on them are effective in actually changing a person’s orientation. Warren uses a quote I like: “In god we trust, all others must bring data.”

          6. Small “g” God from Warren? Not surprised

            I looked at a few summaries of brain studies that had been criticized as not properly controlled, had small sample sizes limiting their power, and
            haven’t been replicated. A prime example of correlation (if even that) vs causation.

            A growing body of evidence indicates that disparities exist between sexual minority individuals and their heterosexual counterparts. One widespread finding is that sexual minority groups consistently show higher prevalence rates of childhood victimization (e.g., physical or sexual abuse, parental neglect, witnessing domestic abuse, all before the age of 18 than their heterosexual peers (e.g., [1–4]). For example, based on a nationally representative sample, Andersen and Blosnich [1] provided evidence that lesbian, gay, and bisexual groups (LGBs) are 60% more likely to have experienced some form of childhood victimization than heterosexuals. Additionally, researchers have also shown that LGBTs report higher rates of peer victimization (i.e., bullying) than their heterosexual peers (e.g., [5–6]). This is a pressing concern for not only researchers, but also the public, as childhood victimization and peer victimization is found to have long-term negative consequences for mental and physical health (e.g., [7–11]).

            Link: https://journals.plos.org/plo

          7. It seems my comment citing NARTH’s research was unfortunately deleted, and I’m assuming I will not be allowed to post any excerpts. Those with serious interest in any debate topic should ALWAYS read something the other side. Dr. Nicolosi has two endorsements from past Presidents of the APA, and a collection of valid research. The approach to reparative therapy is different from conversion therapy, although the same premise of helping people deal with what may be underlying cause. His books/materials have helped people achieve long term change. Y’all should check it out!

          8. If you didn’t delete it yourself, then it is likely just a hiccup with disqus, and you should simply post it again. I read it before it went away and I doubt Warren deleted it.

          9. Disqus has terrible caching issues. If Warren had deleted it (something he wouldn’t normally do) it would show up as “deleted.” I doubt he is even reading these exchanges for the same reason I have stopped reading most of them. It’s just a rehashing of thoroughly debunked junk science mixed with personal religious beliefs. Been there, done that.

          10. I have read all of Nicolosi’s material, knew him reasonably well and sat in meetings with him which were informal debates. He was as closed to any other perspectives as I have ever seen a person be. It was his way or no way. He said he never met a gay person who had a good relationship with his father and yet I witnessed him meeting such people. He was confronted by those who were harmed by his theories and practices and never acknowledged the possibility that they could have been harmed. I did damage control on several families who he worked with.

          11. Yes, I’ve heard Nicolosi say “If you show me a homosexual man I’ll show you someone with a bad relationship with his father.”

            I remember him saying that because my immediate thought was “And I can show you a straight man with the same bad relationship.”

          12. “I looked at a few summaries of brain studies”

            Not sure what “summaries” you looked at, but I suspect they were from anti-gay sites like NARTH. There have been more than a few neurological studies in differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, all the way back to Levay’s 1991 study. While most studies of the gay population suffer from small sample sizes (many other studies have the same problem), having multiple studies helps to mitigate that. While their aren’t yet enough studies to say exactly what the differences are between gays and straights, there are certainly enough studies to indicate that there are neurological differences.

            Your link doesn’t work, here is another to the paper you are quoting:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596800/

            Not sure why you posted it though. If you think it somehow indicates a causative correlation between abusive childhoods and homosexuality, you either didn’t really read the paper or you didn’t understand it. It provides a good argument for how homophobia strongly contributes to the psychological issues lgbt people face (depression, drug use, etc). However, the main purpose of the paper was to demonstrate:

            Based on the present study, the data suggests that rates of victimization of MH (mostly heterosexual) groups are more similar to the rates found among LGBs, and are significantly higher than heterosexual groups.

          13. There may be neurological differences but the point is it is unclear why the differences exist. You can only get correlation, if that.

            The paper demonstrates that sexual abuse, domestic turmoil correlate with a homosexual outcome. These do not occur because of the behavior of the child, so causation is more likely.

          14. clearly you didn’t read or understand the paper.

            “These do not occur because of the behavior of the child, so causation is more likely.”

            Nowhere in the paper does it state this. Given the paper also talks about peer-bullying it is quite likely the abuse (both in school and at home) is due to the behaviour of the child. further the paper studies about “all before the age of 18”, meaning during adolescence as well. it specifically points out it is talking about “Non-conforming individuals”

            Again this is another example of you seeing what you want to see rather than what is actually there.

          15. This statement is definitely not true. Many children are victimized by child molesters because the abusers recognize specific traits (shyness, desire for attention, lack of parental involvement, and many others) in the children that make them much more vulnerable.

            While abuse is NEVER a child’s fault, they are often targeted because of behaviours and inherent characteristics.

          16. Yes, but the study controlled for that by including heterosexuals, who also experience abuse by child molesters.

            So yes, sex abuse has some level of causation with respect to homosexual outcome (vs heterosexual)

            Sex abuse wasn’t the only factor mentioned either.

          17. “sex abuse has some level of causation with respect to homosexual outcome (vs heterosexual)”

            No it does not. And this study does not research that question. You are incorrectly reading a conclusion that IS NOT in the research you cite. Because you are missing is the temporal information. You don’t know WHEN the abuse occurred. I.e. did occur before or after the child was known (or suspected) to be gay?

            However, Warren as already posted about a study that disproves the notion that sexual abuse causes homosexuality.

          18. He did not say the study disproves this consistent observation. He’s not the final authority; he has become a water boy for the anti-ex-gay agenda and he has his own biases at this point with so much invested.

            He said things that are.basically inconclusive including this:

            The bottom line is that the study should not be cited until a follow up correction can be made. The main results — gays report more abuse than straights — may indeed be correct, given the similarity to past studies. However, I do not believe any inferences about causation should be made. Without the actual surveys, there is no way a reader can figure out the results from the journal article and/or the dissertation.

            Causation IS a reasonable conclusion if the variables are controlled which this study did as well.

            Yes, it’s one of multiple factors, but is a factor.

          19. What you quoted Warren on was where he was talking about the Tomeo paper (based on her dissertation), NOT the main study he was citing (by Widom and Wilson).

            “Causation IS a reasonable conclusion if the variables are controlled which this study did as well.”

            Where is your evidence that the abuse occurred BEFORE the subjects were gay? (i.e. before their orientation was set).

            “Yes, it’s one of multiple factors, but is a factor.”

            Not for people who are gay and were never sexually abused.

          20. You have to jump through all these hoops and continually force blame elsewhere to convince yourself that Everything really is fine and life is good.
            Study after study indicates something is wrong – physically, emotionally, mentally, relationally (multiple/random partners, polyamory – we didn’t even talk about that) Many gay people feel this in their hearts and souls. The good news is that there’s a way out.
            Peace, Rest, Love, Fulfillment, Forgiveness. Jesus Christ!!

          21. “Study after study indicates something is wrong – physically, emotionally, mentally, relationally”

            No that isn’t true at all. Only in your own mind. The one study you talked about you twisted to fit your own view rather than acknowledge what the study did (and did not) say.

            Even studies that do show gays have worse health outcomes than straights, don’t mean that it is “wrong” to be gay. Just like studies that show minority also face worse health outcomes than whites do.

          22. I’m sure it’s true that a smaller cohort people experience same-sex attraction for no apparent reason.

          23. Clearly you didn’t read the paper, Ken.

            Reprint:

            One widespread finding is that sexual minority groups consistently show higher prevalence rates of childhood victimization (e.g., physical or sexual abuse, parental neglect, witnessing domestic abuse, all before the age of 18 than their heterosexual peers (e.g., [1–4]).

            Higher rates of childhood victimization. This can’t be because their parents and family members realize the kids are gay and decide to beat them up or sexually molest them.
            You asked for a study. I gave you one. You can’t accept the results.

          24. “This can’t be because their parents and family members realize the kids are gay”

            yes actually it can be. Or it could be because the parents suspect they might be gay. Because again “childhood” in this paper means “below the age of 18.” You seem to be misinterpreting it to mean something else.

            “You can’t accept the results.”

            I do accept the results, it is you who can’t understand them. Nowhere in this paper do the researchers say or otherwise suggest, that their results in any way show a causative link between child abuse and homosexuality. That whole point of the paper suggests THE EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

            Again to quote the paper you clearly didn’t read/understand (from the Discussion section)(emphasis added):

            Early childhood and late adolescence is a time when gender roles and social behaviors are very salient for children and teens [50]. Individuals who counter these strict gender and social norms are often severely ‘policed’ or sanctioned by parents and peers [51,52]. For example, a male who wears makeup and identifies with a ‘counter-society’ movement (e.g., punk, goth) may be targeted for bullying or victimization due to non-conforming behaviors or attitudes, irrespective of sexual orientation [53].

            I.e. it is the behaviours (and orientation) that is causing the abuse, not the other way around.

          25. You cleverly redacted my comment and presented a straw man.

            Perceived orientation may be the result of some bullying due to gender nonconformity, but the paper clearly states that distinctly separate types of victimization are more commonly present in the backgrounds of whom identify as homosexual:

            Physical abuse
            Sexual abuse
            Parental neglect
            Witnessing Domestic Abuse

            This type of trauma does NOT occur BECAUSE people are gay, but they can end up gay because it occurred. That’s the only logical conclusion for the statistically significant difference.

          26. “but they often end up gay because it occurred.”

            NOWHERE in the paper is this claim made. You are misrepresenting what the paper says to fit your own beliefs. You are inappropriately ASSUMING, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, the abuse occurred BEFORE the non-conforming behaviour. You have presented NO EVIDENCE to support the claim you make here.

            “This type of trauma does occur because people are gay, but they often end up gay because it occurred.”

            Futher, this is the very definition of circular reasoning: “A because of B, B because of A”

          27. You misquoted me.

            This type of trauma does NOT occur BECAUSE people are gay, but they can end up gay because it occurred. That’s the only logical conclusion for the statistically significant difference.

            Otherwise, you end up having to conclude/infer that they are victimized in these ways because they are gay (eg witness domestic abuse because they are gay). The study controlled for variables and had enough participants to show significance.
            I’m sorry you don’t like the conclusions.

          28. I didn’t misquote you go re-read what you wrote. I cut and pasted the text exactly.

            And yes abuse can occur because they are gay, including witnessing domestic abuse. A mother tries to defend her son against a homophobic father and gets abused for it. Further there are far to many accounts of children being victimized because they are gay. Bullying in school, abuse at home, being sent to abusive “camps” to “make men of them.”

            “The study controlled for variables and had enough participants to show significance.”

            Yes, the study showed a correlation between being gay (or otherwise non-conforming) and abuse. And suggests that the abuse occurred because they were gay. Not that they were gay because of the abuse. Nowhere is that suggested in the report.

          29. I think domestic violence occurs because people generally can’t manage their violent tempers, not because of any specific recurring circumstance, as you suggested. I think that’s interesting.
            I wonder if there’s any studies 😉

          30. I’m sure there are many reasons for domestic violence. However, my example was intended to show who a gay child could have witnessed domestic violence because that child was gay, which you were implying couldn’t happen.

          31. I think don’t think that could reasonably happen consistently enough to account for the statistical difference.

          32. Nor did I say that it did. I simply gave an example to demonstrate how your claim (that a child being gay could not induce domestic violence) wasn’t correct. I said nothing about causation either way. that is all on you. You are the one locked in a simplistic mindset that if 2 things are correlated that one must “cause” the other. And that isn’t true at all.

            You are so closed minded about this issue you can’t see other possibilities. For example, it could be that gay children are more able to recognize domestic violence and thus they are more likely to report it. there could be many non-causative reasons for this (and other) correlations. However, you can’t see them because they don’t fit your narrative.

          33. Actually I would argue it did happen a lot. I grew up in a semi-traditional Sicilian family, and while I am not gay my uncles were incredibly intolerant of any ‘sissy’ behaviors in myself or their children. Including basic emotional expressions like crying. That carried over to school where other boys would police each other, bullying the ones who did anything even slightly effeminate. It’s hard being anything less than stereotypically ‘male’ growing up, and a lot of abuse, direct and indirect can occur.

          34. The study was controlled because an equivalent cohort of heterosexuals (some of whom also experienced abuse) were asked the same questions.

            Yes, you most definitely can conclude that sex abuse is one of the factors which can result in homosexuality.

          35. to be clear, my quote of your post:

            “This type of trauma does occur because people are gay, but they often end up gay because it occurred.”

            was taken BEFORE YOU EDITED the post to insert the “NOT”

          36. Liz – No, not so. With correlational research you just can’t know what direction the cause goes just by having a relationship. In the case of abuse, one longitudinal study found a slight risk of identifying as gay if there was abuse in the history. However, over 80% of the gay sample had no abuse in their histories. Abuse can’t be a general cause of same sex attraction with that kind of finding. It appears you have gotten your knowledge from a limited set of sources and aren’t open to looking at anything else. In case I am wrong, you could try this post /2011/12/07/the-evangelical-blackout-of-research-on-sexual-orientation/

          37. I think you will find that African Americans are subject to any number of increased social ills, family issues, health problems. Just about any compromised minority has more of this, but it does not imply causation. If you discover you are different in a way that your family, peer group and society finds wrong, disgusting, evil, and worse has more than tacit approval to treat as such, you are more susceptible to all sorts of ills. I have no doubt that more recent data will show this is decreasing as societal acceptance increases.

          38. Misuse of studies like this was always a major deception by anti-gay groups. As with other groups deemed “undesirable,” lies are told to support their undesirable traits. In this case, that is extended to include causation as well to support the idea that they are a malady and not people. It is another form of dehumanization. Discussion which involves the details of these results is rebuffed as it does not fit the narrative. Nicolosi was persistent in this, if not very artful.

          39. “This can’t be because their parents and family members realize the kids are gay and decide to beat them up or sexually molest them.”

            Why can’t it be, at least so far as concerns being beaten up by parents and neglected? And so far as concerns the sexual molestation, it is not unknown for parents to think that enforced sex with someone of the opposite sex can ‘cure’ a gay kid. And perhaps the ‘domestic abuse’ in the case is parents quarrelling over the kid’s being gay. I remember encountering a weeping mother in a gay bar. She was looking for her gay son who had been thrown out by the father.

          40. There may be neurological differences but the point is it is unclear why the differences exist. You can only get correlation, if that.

            The paper demonstrates that sexual abuse, domestic turmoil correlate with a homosexual outcome. These do not occur because of the behavior of the child, so causation is more likely.

          41. It’s just grammar anyway, not a matter of honor or whatever. It is petty to be concerned about it anymore than any other grammar issue.

          42. “Additionally, researchers have also shown that LGBTs report higher rates of peer victimization (i.e., bullying) than their heterosexual peers (e.g., [5–6]). This is a pressing concern for not only researchers, but also the public, as childhood victimization and peer victimization is found to have long-term negative consequences for mental and physical health (e.g., [7–11]).”

            So what’s needed is for people like you to give up your anti-gay attitudes.

          43. Robert Spitzer’s study was not in fact “pulled”. But he publicly retracted his original, very modest conclusion, viz. that conversion therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals, and apologized to any gay person who had been misled by his study into wasting time on conversion therapy. His letter of retractation and apology was duly published in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2012.

            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9966-y

          44. He is an expert in conducting this type of research.
            High pressure tactics really do work.
            The professionals/organizations helping people will go underground.

          45. It’s no more “helping people” than it would be helping YOU (I assume you are heterosexual) to be nagged and dragged and bullied into going to a therapist with the intention of your being turned straight.

          46. He is an expert in conducting this type of research.

            Who is?

            High pressure tactics really do work.

            What high pressure tactics, and work in achieving what?

            The professionals/organizations helping people will go underground

            What professionals/organizations, and helping people to do what?

          47. Proper therapy may help to alleviate shame or other effects of trauma, but the data do not support the idea that these experiences are able to cause a particular sexual orientation. Therefore, therapy cannot be expected to effect a change of sexual orientation. The perceived changes have been attributed, often with the client’s own input later on, with either various degrees of bisexuality (human sexuality is on a scale) or the effect of willful denial.

            Claims that the science has been corrupted by politics was always the claim of the anti-gay groups when things did not go their way. When new data and/or understanding comes, conclusions are updated. This was the case with Spitzer. He was not a man to be bullied, the data meant everything to him. You honestly don’t know what you are talking about and it shows.

        2. My guess it you didn’t actually read the studies they cited. Just the “summary” on the web page.

          For example from the link you gave it claims:

          “Homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, according to a study in the Netherlands.”

          However this is NOT what the actual study found (or claims). The study only found a correlation not causation as the link claims.

          Similarly, for the other studies cited, (esp. given many of them are > 10 years old), homophobia (of the type you exhibit Liz), is likely a major factor in the health issues discussed. To be clear, the studies cited (most, I haven’t read them all) only show correlations, not causation. Nor do they claim to know the actual causes.

          And while gays are likely to suffer from a variety of different health issues, these are not citations about the efficacy of “therapy” to change a person’s orientation (which you have made several claims about). And no examples of “politicized studies” either.

          1. There is nothing to “debunk.” I don’t disagree with the actual research studies just your (and your sources) misuse of them.

            they are misused in 2 ways. 1: by misinterpreting them to say things they do not actually say. and 2: (relatedly) by using them to attempt to justify your prejudicial views rather than as they were intended, to increase understanding and improve life/health of people in general.

          2. And there are many scientifically sound options for helping deal with these risks, “conversion therapy” isn’t one of them.

            There are also governmental/societal methods for helping to mitigate these risks as well.

          3. Sure, if you want to do it fine. However, if you are licensed medical practitioner, you are expected to obey expected standards and practices. “Conversion therapy” does not fall into those standards.

          4. If gay people were not subject to the sort of attitude you display, then the “mental/health risks” you speak of would probably be no greater than those among heterosexuals.

            Alas, there has not yet been a generation of gay kids able to grow up without dread that their sexuality will be discovered and condemned even by those closest to them; able to grow up in the untroubled thought that in due course they will with every encouragement be able to meet a nice boy or girl like themselves and marry them.

          5. That’s correct, but trends in correlation may indicate causation. It’s far from settled – true science is never settled.

    3. This post is incredibly offensive. Child molestation is a crime and a horror. It should never be equated with a consensual activity like homosexual relationships. Do not post garbage like this.

    1. True that.

      Professor John Whitehall from the University of Western Sydney is urging the government to hold a parliamentary inquiry into transgender healthcare.

      His call has also been backed by Trans Dissent Australia, the small online group who are agitating for a shutdown of transgender youth treatments in Australia.

      Last month the groups called on federal government to hold a national inquiry into the treatment protocols for transgender youth, arguing that gender dysphoria is a “mass social contagion” claiming that medical professionals across Australia are rushing youth into being prescribed puberty blockers and hormone treatments.

      Their campaign has been supported by News Corp, primarily through The Australian newspaper which has published almost daily articles criticises treatment for gender dysphoria.

      The newspaper claimed that Health Minister Greg Hunt had ordered the Royal Australasian College of Physicians to hold an inquiry into the issue, but the medical body were quick to highlight holding inquiries is not within their remit.

      Now the group have begun arguing that experts in transgender health who were involved in creating Australia’s guidelines for treatment should be exempt from contributing to the review of the practices.

      Only those with zero experience or expertise in the area, such as Prof Whitehall (who admits he has never seen a Trans or Intersex patient in his entire pediatric career) should have a say. Incompetents, Theologians and idealogues only.

    2. Media Release: 12 September 2019
      APS Refutes ‘Social Contagion’ Arguments

      The Australian Psychological Society (APS) today released the following statement in support of transgender people in Australia, and challenging the unfounded claim that social media influences the gender of young people specifically:

      “Empirical evidence consistently refutes claims that a child’s or adolescent’s gender can be ‘directed’ by peer group pressure or media influence, as a form of ‘social contagion’,” APS Fellow Professor Damien Riggs said.

      “To say that there is a trans-identity crisis among young Australians because of social media pressure is not only alarmist, scientifically incorrect and confusing, but is potentially harmful to a young person’s mental health and wellbeing.

      “Claims that young people are transgender due to ‘social contagion’ serve to belittle young people by asking them to believe that their sense of self and their gender is nothing more than a by-product of what other people might think or say through the media.

      “Further, describing awareness of being transgender as a form of social contagion implies that such awareness can be ‘corrected’ through psychological, medical or spiritual ‘conversion therapies’.

      “There is no evidence to suggest that such approaches work in terms of changing a person’s gender. What such debunked ‘therapies’ do produce, however, are high levels of shame, disrespect and distress. So debunked are these ‘therapies’ that they are increasingly being rejected by policy makers and legislators across Australia in favour of affirming responses to transgender people,” Professor Riggs said

  4. People should have the right to self-determine on this, which means any option that does not break criminal law should be available. This is the United States of America, for heaven’s sake. People have gone off the deep-end in their desire to shut down any ex-gay possibility whatsoever.

    1. Liz – I have no objection to someone becoming ex-gay if it is possible. However, I do object to bizarre techniques and quackery. There is a lot of that going on in the ex-gay world. Did you watch Cohen cuddle his client and attack his pillow? There is nothing professional about that.

      1. I saw that. If it helps the man along the road to healthy self expression of deep-seated anger that is causing him depression and pain, then so what? Why can’t people try it? Elizabeth Smart advises kids to practice screaming at imaginary intruders to find “their voice.” Don’t know if Philosopher Kongs approve, but why do we have get you all to sign off on everything we peons do? At the very least, this man is a case report that this type of thing works. Case reports are included in credible research.

        1. No, he isn’t. You apparently don’t have any familiarity with the research on this topic or with research in general if you are prepared to accept that as evidence. It is clear to me you need no evidence. I have spent over 20 years of my career researching and working in this field and the evidence just isn’t there. Furthermore, I have known many of the principle figures in this movement and while some have remained ex-gay (and same-sex attracted), many have returned to gay. I think the most striking thing is that almost no one still claims to have actually changed. Even those who are still heterosexually married will say they are still attracted to men at some level.

          1. “No one still claims to have actually changed” That is 100% false. If we define “ex-gay” as no longer experiencing compelling desire to have same gender sex, then yes, many people do change.

          2. And who are you to be so closed-minded about the possibilities and essentially encourage people to quit before they try anything .. essentially sentencing people with “itching ears” to a life of turmoil and destruction. If you’re a Christian, May Jesus have mercy.

          3. Warren is someone who has actually spent time researching and studying the possibilities of a person changing his/her orientation.

            As far as a “life of turmoil and destruction” those that attempt these types of “therapies” are far more likely to face that than those who seek sound reliable treatment for unwanted same-sex attractions.

          4. “those that attempt these types of “therapies” are far more likely to face that than those who seek sound reliable treatment for unwanted same-sex attractions.”

            That’s a matter of politicized research and debate Ken.

          5. No, not really. it is a matter of evidence and reason. Evidence in the form of many testimonies by people who have been harmed by such therapies. Reason in understanding how these “therapies” are NOT based on valid models of orientation (but rather the biases of the “therapists”) and how that can cause damage to the patient. I believe Warren, in his role as a therapist, has actually had to pick up the pieces of some of these failed attempts at conversion.

            What “politicized research” are you referring to?

          6. I wish I had unlimited time to discuss. Unfortunately, I have a job and other responsibilities. I read this blog from time to time, never commenting, but the smugness of the “I have all the answers approach,” bothers me. Readers, as with all matters of inquiry, do your own research and don’t just accept what PhDs proselytize. There are people on the ground who have experienced real and lasting freedom and change. Yes, it is a process, but God does not leave people hanging who sincerely seek him with their whole heart. Jesus loves us and wants the very best for us ❤️

          7. I have done my own research, I’ve been studying so-called “conversion therapy” (and the people who practice it) for YEARS.

            I’m asking you for your sources of information (ex. specifically what research is “politicized” and how you have determined it was).

          8. The therapy is trying to help people dealing with whatever underlying causes may exist, not necessarily convert to straight lifestyle, although that could be a by-product.

            I would cite research, really I would, but I don’t think that would convince you, and I don’t have time for the red herring. If you’ve done your own Ken, and are satisfied, that’s your prerogative.

          9. Born This Way suggests a genetic cause, which is mythical, because we are talking feelings and behaviors.
            Presenting absolute truth cannot be defined as arrogant; however, presenting relative truth as absolute, can be defined as arrogant.

          10. Genetics aren’t that simple. That said, the fact that homosexuality is widespread in nature implies that its not just ‘feelings and behaviors’ but instead at least partially determined by genetic predisposition.

          11. That discusses homosexual behavior in animals. I didn’t see any human DNA/genetic sequencing encoding human homosexuality, because there is none.

          12. You were the one who brought genetics into it. But most of the time when you see something like this it strongly implies some genetic impact, but as I said its rarely so black and white as a single ‘gene’.

            That said, clearly it is natural behavior as by definition it happens in nature. There is no evidence of your claim that its simply ‘feelings and behaviors’ however, which was the unsupported assertion I was responding to.

          13. Not really. The nurture part of the debate has largely been eliminated as no consistent patterns emerged. Those claims stem from early theories that did not pan out.

          14. I only have to look at myself and my own three siblings to see how little impact nurture had on all of us. No two are alike, despite relative closeness in age and conditions.

          15. Not really. The nurture part of the debate has largely been eliminated as no consistent patterns emerged. Those claims stem from early theories that did not pan out.

          16. “Born this way” having a genetic cause does not require one specific genetic sequence to be present. It is very likely a bunch of genetic sequences, possibly many, which combined, modify the probability of the resulting human being having same sex attraction.

            We also have strong evidence that prenatal conditions in the womb can increase the likelihood of same sex attraction — in the form of research that shows the more boys a woman gives birth to, the more likely it is the next one will be gay. (Nurture is ruled out by the fact this tendency is not seen in adopted children.) This finding has been confirmed many times, and is no longer disputed. So, not genetics in this case, at least not directly, but still very much “born this way”.

          17. That’s Just So stories vs Scientific conclusions

            That’s quite rich considering your other statements here.

          18. Unclear what you mean by that, multiple studies have been peer reviewed and replicated that demonstrate exactly what Tacitus pointed out. As you like to say: Use Google

          19. Yes, it is a scientific conclusion, confirmed multiple times:

            Twenty years ago, Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert demonstrated that the probability of a boy growing up to be gay increases for each older brother born to the same mother, the so-called fraternal birth order (FBO) effect. Their first investigation indicated that each older brother increased the probability of being gay by about 33% (1). This startling phenomenon was confirmed in multiple studies based on independent populations totaling over 10,000 subjects, and a meta-analysis indicated that between 15% and 29% of gay men owe their sexual orientation to this effect (2).

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/

          20. Citing the research tells me what your sources of information are. How are you determining it is “politicized”? if you can’t support your claims, you shouldn’t be making them.

            The “therapy” practiced by Doyle, Cohen, Nicolosi etc. was a specific type of therapy that is predicated on a false understanding of homosexuality and was trying to make them straight.

            You keep trying to overgeneralize what is being discussed (i.e. the SPECIFIC “therapies” by Doyle et. al. to make people straight) into “therapy designed to help people deal with unwanted same-sex attractions.” they are not the same thing.

          21. Older research supports causation theory, not in all cases, but in a statistically significant majority. I have no desire to tease through it all again right now, but I have before in different forums; it’s exhausting. Here’s a question: When I was growing up, I had the awareness that I knew of many more gay males than Lesbian females. Why?

          22. You do realize that lots of “older research” is wrong, hence why it is older and not newer. Ice-pick lobotomies were considered legitimate treatment concurrent with some of the research you mention.

          23. In the 80s world i grew up in, there appeared to be more male homosexuals than female in society. I think there was at least one study that found 2:1, maybe higher in others. Why was that so?

            And if we can say that today it seems equivalent or maybe even that female homosexuals now outnumber male homosexuals, why would that be so? More girls being Born That Way now vs the 80’s?

          24. This shift that those of us in our 40’s have witnessed cannot be reasonably attributed to more girls being born that way. I’m sorry but the theory has no basis in logical reasoning or science. The fact that boys used to significantly outnumber girls indicates that there are differences in gender development that make boys predisposed in some way to gender identity disorder issues.

          25. So without providing any research or facts, you have created your own Straw Man argument and response to prove what you want to believe in the first place. You really are on the wrong blog for that sort of nonsense.

          26. Then stop making the claims. Those are the rules here. If you have been reading the blog for any length of time, you know that. It is your responsibility to have the cites for your own specific claims, not ours.

            I would suggest that those claims you have made and subsequently refused to provide cites for should be deleted.

          27. Dr T can delete if he wants. I’m putting it out there for people to look up on their own. It’s common sense.

          28. None of what you have proposed is “common sense.” You have made very specific claims about research for which you provide no support. You are avoiding the real issue – you don’t know what you are talking about and so you avoid the responsibility of providing any legitimate support.

            This is essentially what ex-gay “therapy” is all about. Lots of sloppy assumptions with no facts to back them up.

          29. Kinsey found 2:1

            In the Final Report and Background Papers of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Task Force on Homosexuality (Gebhard 1972), Gebhard reanalyzed Kinsey’s data to eliminate sample bias. His refined figures showed that between one-quarter and one-third of adult white males with college education had had an “overt homosexual experience since puberty” (mostly in the adolescent years); weighting by marital status, he estimated that 4% of the white college-educated males and between 1-2% (and closer to 1%) of white females were predominantly or exclusively homosexual.

          30. I would encourage commenters not to engage Liz unless she actually provides some studies with citations.

          31. Thanks for not deleting me thus far and allowing ideas to flow. There’s lots of research out there, as you well know I’m sure, but I don’t have time to engage unfortunately. Christian to Christian, you need to consider the legacy you are leaving here and the answer you will have to provide to our God for the reason your followers are content and righteous in their homosexuality. Thank you for allowing me to participate for a day or so!

          32. Funny how you have “no time” to cite research (which you claim to have cited before, so it should just be a cut/paste operation), yet you have all this time to respond to comments and post unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and false claims.

          33. You haven’t submitted any ‘ideas’ that weren’t long ago debunked. You are just crapping all over the discussion.

          34. Kinsey’s data collection methodology (and the data he got from it) was very flawed. While Kinsey should get the credit for pioneering (in the US anyway) the study of human sexuality in a clinical way, no one should be relying on his original results in any significant way.

            If you are talking about changes in the estimates based Kinsey’s data and today, it doesn’t mean there are “more lesbians today than in the 1950s” it means the methodologies for collecting the data have gotten better.

          35. David and Ken, sadly you’re going to say it’s all flawed, unless it supports your position. I don’t have time for it.

            People that are sincere in their quest will consider the reasearch-based likelihood that while some do not choose to be Gay, neither were they Born That Way and that:

            “Gay” is often the result of emotional predisposition, childhood gender nonconformity (extremely painful emotionally), history of sexual/ emotional/physical abuse, family dynamics.

            Help is available and Change (as defined earlier) is possible.

            Broad is the way that leads to destruction says the Bible and most people are in the process of sending themselves to Hell. The vast majority do not change.
            But it also states there is a narrow gate through which we may Enter. God WANTS to help you; He is WAITING for you. Jesus WILL forgive you and give a life of peace, if you reach out to Him with an open heart. God Bless you my friends ❤️

          36. “David and Ken, sadly you’re going to say it’s all flawed, unless it supports your position.”

            No, we’ll say it is flawed if it actually is flawed, and we will give the reasons why it is flawed. However, you already know the research you are basing your claims on it flawed, that is why you won’t cite it.
            My suspicion is that you have cited it in the past and others have already told you how it can’t be used in the way you are claiming.

            No one chooses their orientation.

            ““Gay” is often the result of emotional predisposition, childhood gender nonconformity (extremely painful emotionally), history of sexual/emotional/physical abuse, family dynamics.”

            this claim is based on an antiquated model of orientation that doesn’t stand up to any scientific scrutiny. while the exact causes of what determines a person’s orientation isn’t yet known, it is known that there are many factors, including genetic, biological, neurological, environmental and possibly unknown others that do influence a person’s orientation.

          37. That Kinsey’s data is inaccurate is hardly a recent bit of news. For you to quote it as if it is would be a lie. Who is the father of all lies again?

            You need to separate your belief system from science. Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is accurate. The Bible is not a medical or psychiatric manual, and trying to make it so is why so many spout this sort of nonsense. You are static, not changing when new contradictory data arrives. Warren is the antithesis of this, modifying his views as more accurate data is obtained.

            When someone tells me to deny what I see right in front of me, I become vary wary of that someone.

          38. This reply is literal gaslighting. We have decades of failed change therapy and the irreparable harm it caused while showing statistically insignificant results from a time when the concept was believed to be sound and there was no bias against the practice. It didn’t work. Worse, it caused great harm.

            Insisting that somehow it works, that somehow its the fault of LGBTQ individuals when most of them went all in to change what was described to them from early childhood as a serious ‘flaw’ is gaslighting and a dangerous lie.

            What you do and say here is cruel and harmful, and you will answer to God in the end.

          39. Kinsey’s data collection methodology (and the data he got from it) was very flawed. While Kinsey should get the credit for pioneering (in the US anyway) the study of human sexuality in a clinical way, no one should be relying on his original results in any significant way.

            If you are talking about changes in the estimates based Kinsey’s data and today, it doesn’t mean there are “more lesbians today than in the 1950s” it means the methodologies for collecting the data have gotten better.

          40. Then stop making the claims. Those are the rules here. If you have been reading the blog for any length of time, you know that. It is your responsibility to have the cites for your own specific claims, not ours.

            I would suggest that those claims you have made and subsequently refused to provide cites for should be deleted.

          41. The fact that in just a generation, homosexual girls may now outnumber H boys for the first time in christianized Western history (don’t have a study on that) probably indicates cultural factors are involved.

          42. How can you possibly make that statement with any integrity? Do you understand that we can’t have a debate based on facts without the facts? It’s just idle speculation which is next to worthless in this case. You are starting with a belief and scrambling to create ideas to support it.

          43. It doesn’t work that way. You make the claim, you provide the support. I’m not going to discuss hypothetical research with someone who has a history of refusing to provide support.

          44. Ok I dug this out for ya.. Kinsey

            Reanalyses of Alfred Kinsey’s Data

            In the Final Report and Background Papers of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Task Force on Homosexuality (Gebhard 1972), Gebhard reanalyzed Kinsey’s data to eliminate sample bias. His refined figures showed that between one-quarter and one-third of adult white males with college education had had an “overt homosexual experience since puberty” (mostly in the adolescent years); weighting by marital status, he estimated that 4% of the white college-educated males and between 1-2% (and closer to 1%) of white females were predominantly or exclusively homosexual.

          45. Kinsey’s estimates were pretty inaccurate on all fronts as I remember. However, even if we are to take his results as accurate, we have to remember it was the 50s. The way people report these kinds of things varies according to culture and times. Kinsey’s greatest contribution might have been in exposing an insular culture to these realities, not in the specifics.

            Women are definitely more likely to be bisexual than men, and tend to be more fluid in their sexuality. How all that plays into the figures I can’t say at this point. I do know that these percentages vary even within current cultures. In your own words, it is “common sense” that people are going to be less forthcoming about things their culture has told them are unacceptable, or even illegal.

            If your purpose in this is to try to disprove a genetic component to homosexuality, it’s pretty weak. That it occurs with frequency in the rest of nature would itself cancel out this proposition. I don’t know why this should be such a stumbling block to you. Why not just accept the real data and blame it all on “the fall?” It works for everything else, doesn’t it?

          46. And if we can say that today it seems equivalent or maybe even that female homosexuals now outnumber male homosexuals, why would that be so?

            If we can say. On what evidential basis can we say it? You haven’t told us.

          47. the operative phrase in your post is: “appeared to be”.

            Much of the research dealt with male homosexuality not female. and it is difficult to answer questions about a “study” if you don’t cite it.

            Further, attitudes toward male and female sexuality (regardless of orientation) was very different back then. Women who expressed/asserted their sexuality (again of any orientation) where shamed for it, while men were applauded. Ex. a man who had sex with lots of different people was a “Stud” a woman who did the same thing was a “Slut.”

            It isn’t surprising at all that you heard about gays more than lesbians in the 1980s (or earlier).

          48. Correct Ken, I agree! Cultural factors contribute significantly to an individual’s decision to become Gay.

          49. For women at least. I realize some people don’t remember choosing to be gay, but for those that do, cultural factors are major.

          50. No one “decides” to “become gay” and not what I said at all.

            They may decide to acknowledge they are gay, but that isn’t the same thing.

            Your response is good example of how you are only seeing what you want to see, rather than what was actually said.

          51. Again what research? how old is “older”? much of the research prior to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM is based on flawed understandings of sexual orientation (and specifically homosexuality). However, the fact that you are relying on older research would explain a lot about your mis-perceptions regarding orientation.

            As to your question about knowing more gays than lesbians I don’t have enough info to answer that (ex. WHEN were you “growing up”? where did you live? do you mean knowing them personally or from news/TV etc?).

          52. What is your evidence for this claim?

            and who is “we” that defines “ex-gay” as you do. Because that term has been defined in many different and confusing (deliberately so in some cases) ways.

            Also, how are you defining “compelling desire” as opposed to just “desire”?

          53. Hi Ken! Action on the desire is what I’m talking about. Peace about not a ting on the desire, as with any other sin struggle. Some people have greater degree of change, but this would be at the most basic level.

          54. So basically you mean that “ex-gay” is someone “who no longer acts on their same sex desires” (which in most cases means celibacy). However, not that they no longer have such desires.

            I don’t think you will find anyone on the blog who disagrees with allowing people to seek such an option. However, that is NOT what “conversion therapy” is selling.

          55. If you attempt with the goal of gaining control of the desires (which may or may not change), and also with the knowledge that this type of therapy may not yield results, I don’t see why lack of results has to cause a person to jump off a bridge.
            Often there is deep-seated pain causing many types of self-destructive behaviors which this type of therapy (conversion wouldn’t be the right word) is trying to help people address.

          56. The reason these “therapies” are dangerous is because they incorrectly re-enforce a lot of negative (and false) stereotypes about gays (they are hedonistic, incapable of forming long-term committed relationships, disordered, are gay because of their parents, etc), thus when the “therapies” fail to make them straight, they can often be more depressed and worse off then when they started the therapy.

            How much do you actually know about these “therapies” and how they are implemented

          57. The reason you refer to it as ‘old research’ is because it has since been disproven. That’s how science works. Disproving old theories, and contextualizing the results of those studies in a broader understanding is part of the process. A lot of ‘old research’ while it may be technically true is now understood completely differently in light of additional information. That is what has happened with virtually everything you refer to but decline to cite (because you know we can point to the studies that destroyed the conclusions of that research).

          58. One thing that I do believe is that no amount of dependence on God will make a useless and unnecessary “therapy” for a non-illness either efficacious or justified.

          59. You are going off at a tangent here. Just as anyone can stop acting on heterosexual desires, so anyone can stop acting on homosexual desires. That is not in dispute here. Therapy is no more necessary to do the latter than it is to do the former, and I don’t doubt that in both cases there are plenty of people who have done it, for one reason or another.

            What is in dispute is whether “therapy” to change not just people’s sexual behaviour but also their sexual orientation, i.e. their ongoing pattern of sexual attraction, is likely to be successful. It clearly isn’t.

          60. Both heterosexual people’s and homosexual people’s attractions can fluctuate and therefore lessen. Attractions which have lessened can also later increase. That is not the same as them changing. They generally don’t change and research does not show otherwise.

          61. Yes, it can change significantly, and be defined as such, if you’re talking which is the stronger of the two (Hetero vs homo)

          62. Most people’s sexual orientation does not change, even if they want it to. There are cases of sexual orientation changing spontaneously, but they are exceptional, especially among males, and the evidence does not support the idea that change of that kind can be deliberately engineered, no matter how many years of their lives people spend on “therapy”. It is deceitful to lead people to believe otherwise.

          63. It can change for some, and they should have their shot(s) without blogs like this assuring failure and discouraging any attempt.

          64. “they” should be properly informed about the likely outcomes (and potential dangers) of these so-called “conversion therapies.” that they are not based on sound, science; that all the major medical, psychological and counselling organizations recommend against them; that they are no better than using “crystal healing” to try to cure cancer.

          65. As I’ve said, if consenting adults choose, entirely of their own free will, to dabble in “ex-gay ministry” or “conversion therapy” (or whatever its peddlers are calling it this year) in an attempt to change their sexual orientation, that is up to them. People on this blog, or on any other, have the right to point out that their chances of succeeding are, at the most optimistic estimate, minuscule, and that the most realistic expectation is disappointment, and they certainly have no duty to keep it dark.

          66. And even of that minority who have testified that their sexual orientation has changed, and who have been held up to the public as living proof that “Change is possible!”, so many have eventually recanted – the chronicle of such recantations spans the 40+ years of the “ex-gay” movement’s existence – that the only reasonable attitude to such claims is one of profound scepticism.

          67. People may change in numerous ways, but adults’ sexual orientation doesn’t usually change, even if they want it to. Such change may come about spontaneously, more often in women, more seldom in men – and in both directions – but the evidence does not support the notion that it can be deliberately brought about, e.g. through “therapy” of some kind. It is irresponsible to advise or encourage people to waste their time pursuing that ignis fatuus.

      2. Yes, I have seen what the media likes to report on the ex-gay world. I also know there are many regular people, who testify they have found real healing and freedom.

        1. however, have they actually changed their orientation? Are they no longer emotionally/sexually attracted to members of the same sex?

          no one here is claiming those with unwanted same-sex attractions can’t seek help in dealing with those feelings. And there are many sound, scientifically valid approaches to doing that.

          However, that is NOT the same thing as claiming you can make a gay person straight (as these “therapies” claim).

          1. I think the fear is that if the individual should happen to fall back into the sin struggle, the consequences for families are devastating (divorce, kids questioning faith, etc) Compare this with other types of sin struggles/consequences. I had a friend who after 6 years and a child together, was afraid to marry her long-term boyfriend because of a past pornography addiction – same type thing.
            Yes, people should be brave and trust God, but they do give in to fear at times.

          2. I wouldn’t marry a lesbian, no matter how much I loved her. I would encourage her to find herself, to get the support she needed to find the love she needs.

            I have been counseling a friend just this way of late, she is not straight but was going through the motions, and it’s destroying her.

          3. I wouldn’t marry a lesbian, no matter how much I loved her. I would encourage her to find herself, to get the support she needed to find the love she needs.

            I have been counseling a friend just this way of late, she is not straight but was going through the motions, and it’s destroying her.

          4. So would it be fair to encourage a daughter, sister, niece or granddaughter of yours to marry a man who was sexually attracted only to (some) other men and not to women, but who had his sexual attractions “under control”, on the pretext that we ought to be brave and trust God? I say that it would be unfair and grossly irresponsible.

          5. No no, I’m talking about those who say they have experienced “change” as defined in other threads.
            For instance, my friend’s boyfriend says he has changed his ways and no longer views pornography …

          6. Good job Dr. Throckmorton! You have muddied the waters for people blinded by their sin to the extent that they don’t understand how desires would compel them to act.

          7. the only person “muddying the waters” here is you. Ex: over generalizing “conversion therapy” as “therapy to deal with unwanted same sex attractions.” Unsubstantiated claims of “politicized” research.

          8. I defined my terms clearly and there is research out there out there to support my claims, for others who care to dig in.

          9. I am very glad to see the “resurgence of ex-gay type ministries.” Maybe some out there can find caring community and healing through sharing experiences and ministering to each other as friends/mentors, especially since y’all have been so tragically successful bullying professionals out of practice.

          10. What they will find is more miserable people who ultimately admit they are still gay, or unfortunately, commit suicide as a result of the failure to change their innate nature.

            And Christians will cheer, and charlatans will profit off the misery.

          11. So the people who say they have experienced a degree of long term change haven’t really changed and every single one of them will eventually become unbearably miserable and/or kill themselves. This must be true because if change is possible for some, others may be able to change as well, and they really don’t want to.
            Why is there zero possibility for any change whatsoever for any individual. Really? Really?? It’s completely irrational and unsubstantiated.

          12. So the people who say they have experienced a degree of long term change haven’t really changed and every single one of them will eventually become unbearably miserable and/or kill themselves. This must be true because if change is possible for some, others may be able to change as well, and they really don’t want to.
            Why is there zero possibility for any change whatsoever for any individual. Really? Really?? It’s completely irrational and unsubstantiated.

          13. So the people who say they have experienced a degree of long term change haven’t really changed

            Likely true, but self-denial is a powerful force when someone is conditioned not to accept the truth.

            every single one of them will eventually become unbearably miserable and/or kill themselves.

            For many, yes, for some, no. It depends on the person as to how important having a meaningful partnership is. There are certainly straight people who are loners and asexual, who are happy living a life without partnership or intimacy. But they are certainly the exception.

            This must be true because if change is possible for some, others may be able to change as well, and they really don’t want to.

            This is a logical leap, you assume that if change is possible for some that it is possible for others, and that if not its due to their desire to stay the same. Nothing backs that up.

            Why is there zero possibility for any change whatsoever for any individual. Really? Really?? It’s completely irrational and unsubstantiated.

            I used to think like you did. Sharing an office with a gay Mormon who’s family, community and church had completely ostracized him, who desperately wanted to participate and tried everything possible to change, while frequently considering suicide and begging God to ‘fix’ him changed me. He was celibate, and desperate, and had faith stronger than any I’ve ever held and nothing changed for him except severe depression and loneliness.

            Here’s a better test for you: Try being gay. Just try. Attempt same-sex attraction with follow through. If you are straight, you won’t be able to do it. I certainly can’t. There is zero reason to assume that those who aren’t straight can become straight through prayer and force of will any more than I could become gay by just trying harder and praying more or any other psychotherapy you could imagine.

          14. None of the above changes the fact that some do experience real and lasting change and they are living testimonies as to the possibility. I’m not about to get personal especially on this blog, but appreciate the suggestion!! 🙂

          15. I doubt they do. If you can’t find it in you to change your orientation, neither do they. Furthermore, given that sexuality is a spectrum, those who are not 100% gay or 100% straight can hold both attraction and a relationship with the opposite gender, however it does not mean they are happy or fulfilled.

          16. If my “orientation” was wrong, I would desire to change it. Hard to accept in the Age of Feelings Trump Truth.

          17. Precisely. Anyone who thinks that their sexual orientation is “wrong” has the right to change it. But having the right to do something is absolutely sod-all use if you can’t actually do it.

          18. That’s fine, I get it, you can’t change your orientation, and thus are ceding that other’s can’t either. Got it.

          19. Many of us, realising in our teens that we were gay in a hostile environment, perhaps even praying for change in ourselves, managed to kid ourselves for a bit that we weren’t gay. Even when our eyes were following an attractive boy down the road, we’d tell ourselves, “No, I’m, NOT gay. That’s just a lingering habit but the homosexuality has gone.” And we’d look at girls and tell ourselves that, ooh, we fancied them so very much, and might even, with much effort, not to mention thinking about, oh, Tab Hunter or Guy Madison, manage a one-off sex act with a girl, and then we’d tell ourselves, “Yes, I really am straight,” and that would keep us going as we looked at the photos of bare-chested men in film magazines.

          20. One way of demonstrating that change of sexuality would be for you to change your sexuality from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Don’t worry, if you can change one way you can change back again, and so long as you do it as a witness to the possibility of change for the sake of the Lord, He will approve.

          21. No-one’s desires compel them to act – except in the case of mentally ill people who have no control over their actions. Stop talking nonsense.

          22. Are you saying that ALL desires compel the possessor of them to act?–That when you experience a desire to visit your brother you are subject to a compulsion?

          23. Ah, so the desires, which you wrongly label “sinful”, are still there. It’s just that the person is not “compelled” to act on them.

            That’s not ceasing to be gay.

            Oh, and gay people are no more “compelled” to act on their desires than heterosexuals are. If I am “compelled” to act on my desires, then so are sweet ol’ heterosexual you.

          24. No longer viewing pornography means no longer doing something. In that respect it is perhaps comparable, for example, to giving up smoking, which I managed to achieve some years ago. Anyone who ineptly compares it to a change in sexual orientation simply doesn’t know what they are talking about and would do well to stop airing their ignorance.

          25. That’s your interpretation. Others have found different meaning. Others have heard otherwise from their own relationship with God.

          26. No it is your particular interpretation, of your particular version, of your particular religious text.

          27. One can try jump through some hoops to finesse alternative meaning, but the most reasonable straight-forward, not to mention historically accepted, interpretation of the biblical Scriptures is that homosexuality is sin.

          28. Which translation? Which edition of that translation? Which versions of the books is it based on? What seminary did you study at? Which classes did you take to understand the historical context and culture it was being written in and about?

          29. I pray that your eyes will be opened to see what the Bible actually means. “The Bible is abundantly clear” is a sure sign that you haven’t studied it at all.

          30. Lol- I know where the verses are if that’s what you mean 🙂 and I know the common arguments against the historical interpretation.

          31. “a past pornography addiction – same type thing.”

            It’s not the same type of thing at all.

      3. “I have no objection to someone becoming ex-gay if it is possible”
        1 Cor 6:9-11 says it is possible, in fact it says you must or you will not enter the kingdom of God.

    2. I think the main issue is that it does not work, and the causation theories are rubbish. Should we lie to people?

    3. Yes, adults must have the right to waste their time on dabbling in any kind of quackery that they choose, and that must include “ex-gay” therapy. That doesn’t mean that it works. It doesn’t, and we have no obligation to keep quiet about the fact that it doesn’t.

    4. A better default therapy would be to council such people on how to accept the truth about themselves so they can make healthy and positive decisions going forward. There is nothing wrong or destructive with being gay, any doctor who says otherwise should have their license taken.

      1. Yes, living out sexual brokenness in a homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong and harmful to the individual long term.

        1. You are as entitled to your moral beliefs as I am to mine, but we cannot deduce from that that “therapy” to change people’s sexual orientation works. It doesn’t.

        2. Ah, yes, the arrogance of the know-it-all Christian. “I decide what’s normal, I decide what’s moral, and here’s a bible verse or two that supports me.” Mighty judgemental, aren’t we?

          Sorry, your ancient book has no sway, and your opinions are no better than anyone else’s. Praying away the gay (or any other “reparative therapy”) simply doesn’t work. And it usually devolves into abuse and torture.

          1. Just passing along the info. Yes, it’s from God and the Bible, but also secular studies (older now) and multiple testimonials. I wish you all the very best DoctorDJ❤️

          2. My judgy commentary was for Dr. T, if he’s claiming to be any of voice for Jesus here. Maybe he’s not. I admit, I don’t check in that often.

          3. God does not speak to you more than they speak to myself or others. You aren’t the appointed messenger. Others who also have an active relationship with God, including LGBTQ individuals, have been told different things by God in their relationships. Your assertions do not override or invalidate their personal connection to God.

          4. I hope you realize that Christians like me have come to the exact opposite conclusion. AFTER studying the Bible, and experts, and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

  5. Hello Dr. Throckmorton,
    I think the arrogance by which you unequivocally pronounce that this type of intervention can never help anyone who is struggling is unfortunate. Do you know everything there is to possibly know about the topic? How can you possibly sit in judgment and tell people who are seeking answers to their sin struggles what will and will not work with such absolute certainty. Are you saying this can NEVER work? Are you saying there are no childhood/family background trends which emerge when this is **honestly** researched?
    Also, IMO, the way in which you treated Michael Glatze – as a lab animal to be prodded and dissected, instead of a human being struggling under the pressure of a life-changing public decision — is reprehensible. Do justly, Love Mercy and Walk Humbly. The measure by which you judge others is the same which will be applied to you.

      1. A guy who has spent many years trying to advance himself by judging other people into the dirt? Just kidding! You can delete that- sorry!

        1. A guy who came to the extremely painful conclusion that his life’s work had not led to the conclusions he expected and then was honest about it.

      1. Aww, so cute, but still so arrogant.

        Here’s another question — yes for you Dr. T, but also to get readers thinking.
        Let’s define “ex-gay” as no longer experiencing compelling desire to have same gender sex. If “ex-gays” (Michael Glatze, Sy Rogers, Wesley Hill and multiple others) are saying it was seeking God and 100% trusting Jesus that helped them (vs. seeking therapy), is that included in the options people should be offered/discussing? At the very least these are what research would call credible case reports, and they should be presented.

        1. Many Christian psychotherapists in varied specialties, as well as the aforementioned “ex-gays” would say healing comes through a relationship with Jesus that is administered in some ways through people – healthy caring friendships, support groups, professional therapy. So yes, there’s that as well. But it was seeking the person of GOD, not seeking HETEROSEXUALITY that they say made the difference for them.

        2. At the very least these are what research would call credible case reports

          Actually they are called anecdotes, and anecdotes are not data, nor are the plural of anecdotes data.

          Real research has been done in this field, for decades. It has not found the conclusions you seem to wish for.

    1. Can we positively assert from knowledge that “therapy” to change people’s sexual orientation NEVER works? No, of course we can’t. The same is true of just about any time-wasting quackery that you care to think of.

        1. I’m actually fine with this. Chiropractic ‘medicine’ is not based on evidence or science, and can have dangerous, even life threatening impacts when performed even ‘correctly’. Controlled studies have not consistently demonstrated any evidence of efficacy except in a few specific situations, and even then its not beyond what anyone can get with a physical therapist. Yes, it needs to be tossed out, just like all the other non evidence-based treatments out there.

          People who point at chiropractors need to actually read the ‘theory’ behind it, it’s laughable and any positive impact is some combination of accident and placebo.

        2. No, as I’ve said above, consenting adults must be free to waste as much of their time as they wish on any type of useless quackery that they fancy, entirely on their own responsibility, and that must include “ex-gay” therapy.

          We do right to warn them that they’re being cruelly bamboozled, and that they are likely sooner or later bitterly to regret squandering precious time which they will never get back on a wild-goose chase, but as the late Sir Oliver Lodge wrote, “The essence of manhood [and of womanhood, understood] is to be free – for better for worse, free.”

  6. Another interesting point I hadn’t realized before was that Berger, Doyle, Nicolosi et. al were specifically EXCLUDED from testifying at the JONAH trial as expert witnesses (because they believe homosexuality was a disorder), which is why they never took the stand in that case.

    Pity, I think it would have been useful to have these guys on the stand where they are FORCED to answer questions about their “therapies” and can’t just run away. Similar to when Behe took the stand in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case and was forced to admit his theory on “irreducible complexity” was wrong.

    Although, to be fair, I understand why the plaintiffs lawyers probably didn’t want them on the stand. Most likely they didn’t want to risk them confusing the jury with their nonsense.

  7. Speaking of ex-gays, what do you think about this?

    “It is pretty interesting that this A- list mostly movie actor from an acting family who has been busted for hitting on underage women and harassing others made the movie he did not that long ago. It turns out the subject of that movie has a lot in common with the actor. The subject of the movie traveled the country with the woman he called his wife and they would find teenage boys after their lecture and ply the boys with booze and weed and then have threesomes with the teen boys. Eventually, the police started taking note of their activities so they now hole up on the west coast and even changed their last name.”

    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/03/blind-item-8_11.html

    Is Michael Glatze guilty of that?

    1. Speaking of hit and run anonymous allegations on the interwebs, I don’t think anything about them.

      1. I have removed these allegations from the comment thread because they are completely unsubstantiated and incendiary. If they are included again about anyone, I will ban the person including them.

    2. He and Benjie may well be guilty of it; I think it occurs relatively often among male youth seeking to express their gayness that a Daddy figure finds them and provides a first opportunity to live the dream. Could be the source of the extreme guilt he said he felt after leaving. I don’t think he’s alone in this type of behavior, and can’t blame him for changing his name and moving, since nice people like you smatter it all over the internet. Jesus forgives.

      1. I think it occurs relatively often among male youth seeking to express their gayness that a Daddy figure finds them and provides a first opportunity to live the dream.

        What the hell is this garbage?

        1. I didn’t mean to upset you. Are you saying there’s research to support the fact that they act out sexually more commonly within their peer group?

          1. I’m saying that none of that nonsense makes sense. What ‘daddy figure’? What is ‘expressing gayness’? What ‘dream’ are they trying to live? This is junk, and insulting.

          2. The best I can figure is that you are referencing the oedipal complex, which 1) if true applies no differently based on sexual orientation beyond what the attraction is and 2) is not even proven to really exist, at the least Freud’s concept is disproved and there is little evidence for it at all as a thing. If it does exist, it does not resemble the version known in popular culture or out of date psychiatry/psychology.

      2. Or maybe he changed his name and moved because the feds were after him.

        He worked at the Boy Scouts (Ben Delatour Scout Ranch) back in 2010 and left for reasons unknown.

        He left his church in Wyoming (South Goshen Community Church) three years ago and left for reasons unknown.

        Another ex-gay named James Hartline accused Glatze of being a fake Christian and said his religious views/practices were a mixture of Buddhism, Mormonism, and Catholicism. Glatze also mentioned having an interest in the Catholic Church before disappearing from the internet.

        I’ve also read comments that Glatze has a drug problem, and that he often engaged in erratic behavior back in Bible college (Frontier School of the Bible).

  8. Warren, you mention Doyle “trained with Cohen”. I thought Doyle trained with Nicolosi? He certainly parroted a lot of Nicolosi’s (and NARTH) rhetoric and he has stated Nicolosi was a “mentor”

    1. At least some of Doyle’s grad experience came with Cohen and Doyle was an Asst Director at IHF for several years under Cohen direction.

      1. Interesting and odd. Because I can’t recall reading about Doyle crediting Cohen with his training, but I do recall Doyle talking about Nicolosi as a “mentor” more than once.

        I had always assumed Cohen took on Doyle because he wanted staff who were licensed (which Cohen wasn’t). Apparently there is more to that than I thought.

  9. Ex-gay ministries? Who is there to whom to minister if there are no ex-gay people? It’s not as though “pray away the gay” therapy ever actually worked, nor any of the other approaches for making gay people straight. I can understand a ministry to people who, for religious or personal reasons, don’t want to acknowledge their sexual orientation–but those people would be non-practicing, not ex.

    1. These organizations “serve” their people in three main ways. First, they push a narrative that homosexuality was something “done to them” not something they are, innate. This allows them to shed a lot of the institutional shame they feel from the Church and the circles they live in – a religious loophole, so to speak. This can’t be underestimated. If bad parenting or a sexual encounter caused this, then it is easier to treat it as a malady or condition to be dealt with.

      The second is the understandable element of camaraderie. Even in such a dysfunctional setting, there is a cathartic relief in being able to be frank about something held so deeply secret until then. If you live in the culture of the Church, particularly fundamentalist evangelicals. you don’t dare let this part of you slip. They haven’t experienced the relative openness that has occurred in our society in general over the past couple of decades.

      The third is collective denial. By claiming the “healing power of God” over this part of themselves, they have a justification for basically pretending that they are no longer that which they have learned to despise. This is where the “ex-gay” part comes in. As we know from the data, the idea that a truly full Kinsey 6 gay man will literally change to scale 0 straight is beyond unlikely. However, the ability of the human mind to deny what it wants to is amazing. It can last for years, even decades. For many, this ends in an unplanned moment which has led to so many being exposed, literally and figuratively.

      Warren mentions ways to deal with one’s desire to abstain from acting on their sexual desires. Groups that do this can also be detrimental if they are still pushing the same false narratives of causation. It is also far too difficult to separate societal bigotry from alleged religious doctrine. What you end up with is someone who comes in deeply troubled and looking for what they see as help, and leaves with even more shame and despair. I separate this from Warren’s SIT framework as its central tenant is honesty about the scientific facts and letting the individual direct the experience.

      These ex-gay groups, ministry or therapy, were often led by people who seemed to use them for their own needs, physical or mental. Being a ministry leader, counselor or therapist enabled some to get their sexual needs met in some distorted way by putting their victims through strange sexual rituals, asking for intense details of past sexual encounters, or indeed having actual sexual encounters with them under the guise of ministry/therapy. These are not necessarily outliers, the ex-gay genre was full of this sort of thing on many levels.

      It is sometimes forgotten is that ex-gay therapy can be a money-maker. It requires little in the way of actual experience or knowledge and the clients are desperate. It is like the laetrile of therapy. They gain their authority and clientele through writing books and speaking, mostly at churches, though less now than a few years ago. They are also somewhat clandestinely recommended by churches to those who come asking for help. These individual “therapists” are those who are fighting the hardest against conversion therapy for minor bans. They depend on the money from parents who force teenagers to undergo whatever they think will de-gay them. Quack would be a good term for them but I believe many to be far more heinous. At best, they serve no useful purpose in that capacity.

      It should be strongly noted that there is very little freedom of choice in this. Consider the force of one’s peer and family group, church and even private thoughts, all enforcing the idea that your very soul and the afterlife is at risk – very cult-like. This, added to the deep shame heaped out from those groups here on the temporal plane, makes for an almost impossible force for those who truly believe. To add insult to injury, this force will be interpreted, by the victim and others alike, as “conviction” from God. Heinous is definitely the word.

      Sorry for the long screed. I spent a number of years actively studying this subject and it sometimes leads to information overload 😉

Comments are closed.