On my previous post on narcissism as the root of the behaviour of the so called ex-ex-gay movement I received the following comment. Rather than adding it to the thread of comments I thought it would be best to use it as a basis for a post to show how the ex-ex-gay movement manipulate science and attack the credibility of those who have changed. My comments are in italics:
So much of the debate on this issue is due to the fact that "ex-gays" are not heterosexual as the public is led to believe by ex-gay claims; they are merely changing what they call themselves to "SSA (same-sex attracted) instead of "gay." Mere word play. There is no such sub-species as the homosexual who has turned heterosexual.
The commentator is out of step with the science as viewed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UK's Royal College of Psychiatrists (UKCP). As part of their discussion for the next edition of the International Classification of Diseases the WHO states that homosexuals can change. The UKCP made the same admission in their statement on homosexuality when they said "It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life" Thhe UKCP and WHO admit that ex-gays exist - but the ex-ex-gay movement still have their heads in the sand.
Dr. Nicolosi has been asked to produce such beings in more than one interview, but he has failed to do so. His "success story" David Pickup, now a fellow reparative therapist, is roughly 60 years old and still working on getting a wife or LTR with a woman (with no prospects in the works in the foreseeable future). If I am wrong, please make a list of homosexuals who have turned heterosexual (and who do not have a financial stake in said claim, nor a history of mental health problems and substance abuse). This is the 'Bigfoot moment' because you are like the people who claim that the Bigfoot exists somewhere, but you can't produce any such species.
Again the commentator ignores the research, but this time chooses to attack certain people. Dr Nicolosi has produces evidence, aloong with other psychologists and psychiatrists. The problem is that the gay rights movement refuses to accept the evidence. It goes further in its duplicity. The committee at the American Psychological Association, which we will look at in more depth in a moment, who wrote the statement against Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCEs) dismissed the peer reviewed papers published in leading psychological journal by Nicolosi et al as not good enough because they were not "gold standard" (in this case meaning a longitudinal study with a control group) despite this not being a requirement for any other form of therapy and testimony based research being a standard form of research for other therapies yet they listed the same research by Nicolosi et al in the list of research that showed SOCEs to be harmful. If they study is good enough to show harm why was it not good enough to show benefit and change?
The commentator also shifts the sign of success. In picking on David Pickup because he is not married the commentator falsely suggests that people go into sexual orientation change therapy with the aim of getting married - they do not but by having this as a false goal in their minds the ex-ex-gay movement can dismiss those who do not get married as failures.
The commentator claims that we cannot find successful ex-gays, ignoring the testimonies on sites such as Voices of Change http://voices-of-change.org/. One there, Michael Glatze, was not only a gay rights activists before he started therapy with Dr Nicolosi but is now married. Others on there who are married include James Parker. Both Michael and James have had their marriages called false with the gay rights movement denying that they could have changed. Like the Pharisees of Jesus' time who chose to ignore the evidence of the miracles, people like the commentator who I am replying to choose to ignore the evidence instead dismissing ex-gays as a crypto-zoological creature.
Meanwhile, no scientific medical associations endorse reparative therapy. The larger medical associations have explained there really is no such thing. The word "therapy" means "to cure an illness" but sexual orientation is not an illness.
In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association was the first to remove homosexuality as a mental health disorder, with other bodies following suit. The problem is, as exposed in the books Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis by Robert Bayer and American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History by Jack Drescher and Joseph P Merlino (both gay rights activists) this was done without the pro-gay lobby being able to produce any scientific evidence to support their claim but because of what would now be seen as bullying and manipulation. According to Nicholas Cummings, past-president of the American Psychological Association, there has been no research into homosexuality to show that it is normal. I have looked elsewhere on this blog at the research of Evelyn Hooker and a look at the other research quoted by the APA's committee as showing homosexuality as normal fail the same tests of objectivity - as does the committee which was made up of gay rights activists, the majority of which are gay and all who had already taken a public position against sexual orientation change. As to homosexuality being healthy, the more evidence we get the less healthy we see homosexuality to be. Homosexuals are more likely to suffer from serious health issues including HIV (according to the Centre for Disease Control, not a right wing think tank, homosexuals count for over 60% of all HIV cases in America despite being only 1.6% of the population), they are more likely to suffer from serious mental health problems (the rate of which increases when someone is in a gay marriage) and are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. Research keeps coming out that this is because of the behaviour patterns found in the homosexual community not because of societal homophobia. The fruit of the homosexual lifestyle is that it is not healthy, but if we are for gay rights we can ignore this can't we.
Also, we have counselling and therapy for a number of issues that are not seen as illnesses. What next, will we ban bereavement counselling because counselling refers that somone is ill? Thankfully more and more psychologists and psychiatrists are coming out of the woodwork and supporting sexual orientation change efforts as healthy, safe and effective.
And homosexuals don't need repair since there is nothing wrong with acknowledging your God-given sexual orientation. It's merely a trait found in humans and other species. Science shows that homosexuality exists in every species studied (Google over 1,500 species known to have homosexuality so far). Brain scans have shown since 1991 that there are visible differences in brain areas of people who are homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals. In recent years brain scans of fetuses show those differences form in utero. And with the advances in epi-genetics, scientists now know there are at least 3 genes involvd in sexual orientation, along with genetic markers that function like switches when combined with certain hormones in the womb to create a person's sexual orientation.
Again the poster shows a misuse of science. Mankind has studied over 100,000 species and sub species - a trip to museums shows that - yet homosexual activity not homosexuality has been seen in only 1500 of them. In every case of homosexual activity seen in non-human species this has been seen to cease when either the male becomes the dominant in its group or there are enough members of the opposite sex for there to be normal mating. In nature homosexual activity is a temporary stage more in line with the behaviour of tribes like theAranda of Australia, Siwan of Egypt, Batak of Sumatra, Anga of Melanesia and others than the intelligent west. We even have Micronesian tribes where homosexual activity does not exist! This questions the "God-given sexuality" claim. As does the actual science. Yes Simon Le Vay claimed to have found differences in the brains between homosexual and heterosexual males neither he nor anyone else has replicated the findings - every scan is different suggesting different areas being affected. The same is true of the scans of brains show differences in females. Also as we know that the brain is plastic, that activities and drugs change how the brain reacts it is just as likely if not more likely that homosexual activity causes any differences in the brain rather than being caused by any differences.
As to the gay gene, epigentic argument epigenetics rely on genes. Only around 13% of identical twins who are gay have a twin who is also gay. As to the "3 areas" this refers to a paper presented to secular journalists in February 2014, a paper which of October 2014 still has not been peer-reviewed, which claimed to have found two areas genetic code, including Xq28, that "have an influence on the development of homosexuality . But reading the reports, even in liberal papers such as the UK's Guardian, we find that no such evidence was found. The paper is the work of Bailey of the now questioned (unless you are a gay rights activist) Bailey and Prittard twin study who went on and, in studies less quoted by the activists, found the rate of covalence (where one twin is gay the other also being gay) at the rate I mentioned above. Reading the reports we find that of the three areas some twins had a different one of the two areas and many had none. The researchers are actually not even sure where the areas are on the genome. Unlike the commentator who I am replying to the researchers were honest about the difference between cause and influence saying “We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”. Notice that this is 2 sets of genes not the three, this comes from a flawed study on epigentics which looked at various previous studies, none of which were on homosexuality, and extrapolated a finding with no supporting data. None of this supports the claim that homosexuality is a "God given sexuality".
So-called ex-gays are either celibate persons or people who live in a state of "falling and repenting" over and over. Taking a spouse of the opposite sex does not change a person's sexual orientation. Studies have shown that same-sex attraction increases the longer a person is married to an opposite-sex spouse. As someone who spent over $40,000 with the likes of Dr. Nicolosi, I would strongly recommend that nobody else do that. It is a waste of time and money. Love, health and happiness are not found in trying to force yourself to be heterosexual. And the claims that a lack of masculinity is the cause of homosexuality is foolish for persons like myself who loved and excelled in sports and had great male role models and friends throughout life. One last point: Jones and Yarhouse are far more reluctant to make any of the claims made in this blog post even though they are paid by televangelist Pat Robertson's powerful financial empire to find as much evidence as possible to oppose the thousands of independent studies from around the globe that contradict ancient prejudices against gay people.
A quick look at the testimonies on Voices of Change and Living Out, and those involved in such groups as Hope for Wholeness, Restored Hope Network, Journey Into Manhood, JONAH, Homosexuals Anonymous, Northstar and other ex-gay groups of all religions and none testimonies are nothing like the "falling and repenting" that the commentator claims. Yes there are many who choose to be celibate but they do so in obedience to God. Not knowing the commentator's upbringing I cannot speak about his claims that he "excelled at sport" (the ex-gay movement does not say that everyone who is gay does not like sport or does not excel at them) but as a therapist who works with guys who are involved with gang culture and those with body dysmorphia I am aware that broken masculinity comes in many forms. I also know, as Reparative Therapy and other forms of sexual orientation change effort state, that the male role model is only one factor in the development of an condition - and that often people who identify as homosexual look at "positive" role models through the eyes of an adult and ignore the pain of the child. It does sound though that the commentator did not try and get help from any other form of psychological model of sexual orientation change - there by falling into the category I mentioned in a previous post, those who dismiss all help because they were not helped by one type when psychologists will tell you that not all people benefit from all psychological interventions.
As to what Jones and Yarhouse state - the commentator needs to go and read Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate (Inter-Varsity Press ISBN 9780830815678) as well as Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Intervarsity Press ISBN 9780830828463), the findings of which were presented to and supported by the wider American Psychological Association, despite the pro-gay's attempted dismissal of the paper, and which have now been published in a major peer reviewed journal to find that it is his claims which are not supported.