Thank you, David, for your good review and wise counsel.

I look forward to more reports from this conference.

Excellent overview

Did they give fractions / numbers / ratios?

In my experience, saying that "we did a huge study and on occasion we saw something" is worthless, because all studies have experimental error and the "something seen" can easily have been a case of mistaken identity

People see UFO's - but it doesn't mean the planet is being visited by teenage aliens in dad's flying saucer.

/Bevin

So is this type of conference going to suggest that the church go back in time to the Colin Cook program.
I hope not.
There are no real changes as was shown with this program.

There are lessons to be learnt over this feasco.
The church got its hands burnt and should know better.
May be someone should have taken it to court over this.

Thank you David for a timely report
May we all learn to live and let live.
Noel

Donna, Bevin and Thorpe

Thank you! Their book is filled with statistical analyses, graphs and charts that impress me and I think will impress others. But when all is said and done, it seems to me that all their sophisticated research establishes very little.

This would seem to be so unless one believes that the standard pschological doctrine is that no homosexual person ever experiences any change is his or her orientation and that without a single exception all attempts to foster such change are very harmful.

I doubt that many psychologists would go that far, particularly if we press them for clarification. After all, only one contrary example for each claim would falsify them both and Jones and Yarhouse unsurprisingly found more instances than that.

They have established with their impressive research that experiencing at least some partial and possibly temporary change in one's homosexual orientation is "not impossible," just as running a four minute mile isn't. But how helpful is that? After all, even with the power of God in our lives how many of us can reasonably hope to run that fast?

I am not at the conference this weekend. Those who know me best and love me most believe that attending would have been too stressful for me because my interests in this topic are so existential as well as academic.

I am not gay but many for whom I care are. I should also say "were" because some are now deceased.

I hope I am not being disrespectful when I say that I wish that some people were more concerned about those who are lying alone in their graves because of what they say and less concerned about those who are living together because of what I and others say.

I am looking forward to Jared Wright's reports here at "Spectrum!"

If instead of the usual classification of gender that's generally accepted in the west, we were to think in terms of a spectrum of sexualities that exhibit a wider range of sexual behaviors and attractions, such as those we hear about other cultures, would we not therefore theorize that some of these societal artifacts (for want of a better term) are either impossible or not impossible to change?

David
The only "cure" for homosexuality offered by Scripture is the death penalty. The mere fact that the ancient Hebrews felt compelled to resort to such draconian measure to change behavior speaks volumes about its prospects.

Before the best man in my wedding died from AIDS, the entire debate about gays was nothing but an academic exercise. During my short career as an editor, I remember writing an article for the Norwegian Signs magazine on homosexuality and the Bible. I cringe at the thought and thank my lucky star that there was no cyberspace back in the day that could immortalize such youthful drivel.

It makes a huge difference the day your friends and acquaintences morph into the gays and lesbians you had no idea they were. One day they're arguments to be bandied about, the next day they're friends and their burdens are your burdens. Our nation has been going through this process for the last decade, and to judge from the Spectrum blog, so has the SDA church to some extent.

I was glad to see that the researchers had the integrity to circumscribe their findings with disclaimers that so serious as to question the value of the study. But maybe that is the greatest merit of the study to have established that even the most rigourous protocols can't validate the idea that a homosexual orientation is simply a moral abberation that can be shed like a garment.

Thanks David - A very balanced report I think.

My biggest question was how do they measure change? Was it self-report? Was it measured physical response to various sexual stimuli? Combination?

Was success having pleasurable intercourse with the opposite sex and being unaroused by the same sex (like us straight people) or managing to complete the act with the opposite sex with a lot of effort and fantasy?

I ask, not to insinuate that change isn't possible but just because I know self-report would have a stronger bias even then usual in this situation.

I would also question the harm conclusion. While I think it is quite possible that additional messages about the wrongness of being gay wouldn't cause additional harm, that may be only because the damage is already done. If you have been told that being gay is unacceptable for most of your life, one more message like that isn't going to give additional measurable harm. That doesn't mean it still isn't a harmful message overall. Compare those who have been given these messages and internalized them with those who have grown up in supportive environments and then measure the psychological harm.

If being either gay or straight were the case - the Stanton & Yarhouse study may have some merit. If one is only gay or only straight - then you can do numbers studies. But unless you factor in the bi-sexual element - and allow for it - any conclusions would have to be suspect.

My own theory - is that human sexuality lies along a spectrum of ranges. Those close to the middle of the spectrum can by enculturation and strong wills choose or 'change' their gender identity.

Beth

I find your comments about the possible harmfulness of reparative therapies very helpful. Thank you for these clarifications.

Their study is based primarily on self-reports.

They explicitly state that their study could be faulted by some as unscientific because they had no control groups and because they did not do the kinds of physical tests you describe. Yet they do not consider these shortcomings to be methodologically fatal.

I'm inclined to give them a break on this because their findings strike me as so unremarkable. If they had reported complete and permanent change, I would be more methodologically alert . But I think they discovered pretty much what most of us would expect: some change is "not impossible" for some people at least some of the time.

Many thanks!

Precisely so, Donna!

David

It would seem that you would change the church rather than the person. I think history would indicate you will accomplish neither. That doesn't mean it is not worth the effort. It seems you have softened many hearts, that may be your high water mark on this issue.

The hate and fear within and by the churched is overwhelming.

To often the hate seems to be reciprocal.

I think you have chosen a very lonely mission, good luck.
Never-the-less, I don't think pre-judging the study is any more open minded than the "churched". Behavioral research is a soft science at best. I spent ten years with Bruce Rice conducting 5 day plans to stop smoking. We think we got close to 20% success rate. I still meet a few graduates at the mall who thank me for being "clean" for over 25 years. The important result for Bruce and me was that everyone thanked us for trying.
Tom

My way of putting it is to say that they discovered that in some religiously based reparative therapies some homosexuals experience some changes in their orientations for some uncertain lengths of time. As we have seen from their nine disavowals, they explicitly deny that their studies establish that all who participate in such therapies experience complete and permanent change. David Larson

What can you NOT say that about? Where is the once cured always cured guarantee for other forms of treatment? For any disease, mental condition or addiction?

Instead of thinking its not a very affective treatment perhaps you should realize that certain things are in fact not very treatable.

I agree David. There is no perfect study, especially in the social sciences, and their acknowledgment of the limitations of their work speaks well of their research abilities. It will be interesting to hear if they are as measured in their speaking as they are in their writing.

I don't think their study is really the REAL question. The question I have is WHY did Andrews choose them to open and close their conference.

I don't think their study is really the REAL question. The question I have is WHY did Andrews choose them to open and close their conference.
Posted by: Donna Haerich | 16 October 2009 at 6:11
-------------

Perhaps because the organizers don't expect the hedges and disclaimers to survive second- and third-hand reporting, and in the outer bands of the church where the conference is not happening and will probably not happen for another three or four decades, the core message/brand theme will remain intact: "Change is possible. Change is desirable. God can fix the broken cistern."

Hedges and disclaimers are not significant in churches, conferences, and divisions where people still believe things like "Ellen White predicted 9/11." Not even joking: I heard same last Sabbath -- with quotes and pictures.

The organizers want to reinforce the brand theme. I'd say that's normal in an organization like ours.

I don't see the point. If people say they're gay why argue with them? You don't have to get married to be a good Christian. You don't need to have kids to be a good woman or man.

This whole innate conversation is a huge distraction from the real question. How should the church relate to gays and lesbians and how can gays and lesbians be faithful to God's command?

Johnny, this conference will have a panel discussion on that very question (about how the church should relate) this evening.

We have an close family friend whose life was seriously damaged because she married a Christian gay-turned-straight who then turned gay again after having fertilized but not raised children...

I think such dangers and damage are much greater than not repressing - excuse me - changing ones orientation

/Bevin

Thank you Jared! I updated our fb status to link to the twitter page. Keep up the good work!

I am optimistic that this conference will do goodd. It is my view that while we might never agree on the latter we should all agree on the former even if our practices falls short of our principles.

I imagine that a clear sense will come out of this conference that there is universal agreement that we can be better witnesses to gay and lesbian Adventists. I hope not to be disappointed :/

Here is a link with the Conference Agenda

http://www.andrews.edu/mhcconference/

Yes Johnny I hope some good does come out of this conference.
I will not hold my breath.
Universal agreement is a long way off.
You have to factor the human element into it.

As to treating GLBTI people better that remains to behold.
The damage that has been done, could not be repaired by just one conference, or just moving around a statement by an organisation.
It may help a generation to come, I think.

We would not be talking about this subject if Gods commandment was to "Love one another" as Yourself was done.

Bevin,
Your story is so often told and it is sad that we as humans never learn from those stories.
Disaster only awaits those who repress being Gay and marry and involve others.
The Colin Cook storey should be a lesson that we learn from.

Yes there is a scale and some are fully Gay and others are not.
I am not a God and do not understand the Deity.
Humans have a need to explain things and if they can't, we shun it.
How sad.
Noel

The conference is a white wash and is going around in circles.
The same old stories with nothing new, how sad.
Come on!
So the Colin Cook stories again and again.

"Instead of thinking its not a very affective treatment perhaps you should realize that certain things are in fact not very treatable." per Michael

Being homosexual IS NOT a disease. It DOES NOT warrant treatment. And what is purported as "treatment" is reprehensible at best and fraudulent and malicious at worst.

[This is far different from the legitimate treatments of trans-gender, androgynous or hermaphrodite individuals.]

If a homosexual person, on their own initiative, should seek some process to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, then they do have that right to seek whatever they think might work for them. There is a reason quack medicine exists. And because sexual orientation is such a "choice," the person who wants to change from heterosexual to homosexual can attempt the same process. Good luck!

And yes, a person can seem to oppress what they deem as an undesirable or unwanted sexual orientation, and enter or re-enter the closet of denial. And truly believe they have conquered their demon.

But how is this to be verified? To themselves? To the judgmental church promoting this?

A one-nighter sexual "experiment" involving full, penetrative coitus with verifiable climax, yet without the "legitimacy" of a marriage license? Or is this person really expected to "get married " to gain permission to verify their change? And what about the "victim" of this little tryst to prove one's change? Perhaps there is medicinal role for prostitutes of either gender.

And the heterosexual that chooses to be homosexual (for apparently that is the 'only' way one can become homosexual)? Is their confirmation a simple slut session in a gay bar? Would oral contact be enough or must honest-to-goodness sodomy be involved?

This whole reparative fiasco is an abomination. And any religious organization that would support or condone this malicious, nefarious evil is also an abomination.

I have no idea why Andrews University would want to be associated with reparative therapy as a part of this seminar topic. Unless they are prepared to apologize on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist church for its past practices, the very fact that they are giving it recognition simply fosters a false sense of legitimacy to this reprehensible reparative therapy practice.

Kenneth James

Everyone should read about the Colin Cook Fiasco.
What a church did to its fellow members and got away with.
Check it out for yourselves if you dare.

For Andrews to put this up again and again shows how spirituality is none existent in that place.
I shall spew you out of my mouth because you are lukewarm and are found wanting.

I have just scanned down the tweets coming from the Andrews conference.

It is beyond my comprehension the degree of ignorance and bigotry coming out of some of those speakers.

Kenneth James

I would note that for those interested in balanced reports of the conference that I have found a blog by seminary student David Hamstra, a conference attendee, to be both reasonably detailed and quite accurate and fair in its reporting. His blog can be found at http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/. The conference organizers did not ask him to undertake this blog, but became aware of it after it was started.

Thanks,

Nicholas Miller
Chairman
Steering Committee
Homosexuality, Marriage and the Church Conference

I will forever hope that church leaders will put as much interest and money into asking how, with all our social, economic and gender-related differences, the church can promote better understanding rather than intellectual or social conformity. Narcissistically trying to make others into the "same" as us so we can feel better about ourselves is a harmful, low-grade, moral project. Doing it in the name of "true religion" is shameful.
In ministering and counseling men and women for 20 years on sexually-related issues... hope, anger, death, playfulness, love, liberation, despair... I value compassion, acceptance, support for the person as she is. Authentic change always happens slowly and beautifully from from deep within the person, never from an external source of authority or coercion, or even from the projected wishes of the therapist.
I will wait to see how the church responds to the issues raised in the conference, as our leaders need time to work through their issues and resistance to unconditional love--like all of us.

David is a good guy, but he's only doing summaries. Frankly, I can see why Nick would point folks there as they don't include the speakers' actual words.

For their actual words, drop in here.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/10/16/tweeting_andrews_conference_...

Like this from Miller:

"Natural law is the only moral compass we have as a society."

Here's Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. on natural law logic in action:

"The discovery of the natural law is a continuously unfolding enterprise. Just as it took human beings a long time to separate out and clarify the laws of physical nature, so too for the laws of moral nature. The passage of time and additional philosophical reflection always raises new issues in natural law theory. For instance, slavery was once accepted as normal and natural even by many who subscribed to natural law theory. We now know that slavery violates the natural law. Society once accepted judicial torture as being normal and natural. We now know that judicial slavery violates the natural law."

Great moral compass.

How does we know that slavery "no longer" violates so-called natural law? The same reason applies to gay marriage. Seems like another conservative hiding their fears under cultural comfort relativism.

Like with interracial marriage, I'm looking forward to natural law realizing that we were right about gay marriage in a decade or so.

Natural law is another word for the status quo - and the prophetic example from the Bible is to call folks to moral conviction beyond fear to expand the kingdom of God.

In fact, just a few minutes ago, one of the actual conference presenters, Jason Hines shared about his experience. . .

"As a presenter at this conference I am very disappointed with the way this conference has been handled. . ."

Click here.

To Alexander Carpenter.

There is something in the link you just provided that breaks in my Internet Explorer 8 window. However, I can read it on my iPhone.

Kenneth James

Thanks Kenneth.

Perhaps this will work for IE 8. Click Here.

Yes the conference is against Kinship and its role and its book.
Having so called changed persons at that conference tells me so.
Shame that it could be the start of something good.
Mr Miller you should be ashamed of yourself.
But you are allowed by the Grace of God to have your say.

Shame that people get hurt in the process of it all.

Makes one think of how much we have come with education and how low one can go.
Colin Cook is alive and well in this conference.
Maybe he was asked to come and declined or maybe he is in the audience and shaking his head.

No links that you have on this site work.
So I gave up on here and went to David Hamstra.
That works.

Alexander,
Please. Frankly I don't find the snide remarks worthy of their presentation or our reputation. Please do right by us. Write reports to give context to these quotes! We need more articles like this pre-conference column by Dave Larson.

Spectrum should not be the place where progressive Adventists gather to snicker about the 'right'. They deserve better, we are better and you can do better.
Thank you!

That was fast! Thank you Jared Wright for this report:

Much better!

Is there some reason that all the links to the conference coverage here on the Spectrum website seem to be broken, except for the link here to Dave's post? I was amused by Alex's suggestion that somehow contextualess and fragmentery twitter quotes of the presenters "actual words" are somehow more informative of the conference than meaningful summaries of whole presentations. But I was not truly able to judge for myself, because the links to the twitter feed seem broken.

To briefly engage an Alex soundbite that "the natural law is another word for the status quo," well that would come as a terrific surprise to some of the greatest revolutionaries of the past, including Thomas Jefferson, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., all of who appealed to natural law reasoning to challenge and overthrow the status quo.

We are sorry that you are not here Dave, but understand the reasons. I think you would appreciate the spirit that has prevailed at the conference, and I think we will have engaged in a meaningful dialogue between our two conferences and books by the time this is ended.

I would note that for those really interested in the "speaker's actual words," that American Christian Ministries has recorded all the presentations (with the exception of a couple of the lunch break-out panels), and they will be available on CD shortly.

We all appreciate your interest in our conference!

Blessings,

Nick

Nick

Thanks for the message! There is a part of me that wishes I were there and another part that is relieved that I am not.

Sounds like Mark Yarhouse is making a positive contribution. I find his distinctions among same sex attraction, homosexual orientation and gay identity helpful.

Sorry that Stanton Jones's father is so ill that he couldn't make it.

If the reports are accurate, I think that the tone of Robert Gagnon's presentation would have surprised and upset me. This is the sort of thing that makes me glad that I didn't go. But perhaps my impressions are mistaken.

Duke University New Testament scholar Richard Hays was with us here at LLU on Thursday evening and throughout the day Friday. I hope to post a summary of his remarks. In any case, in the Q&A session, Henry Lamberton asked him if he would take the same more conservative stance on these issues that he did in "The Moral Vision of the New Testament." He said he would but that today he would be less of an "essentialist" about sexual orientations than he was then. It might be possible to get him to write a chapter for your book.

Thanks, too, for the link to David Hamstra's blog. In addition to the others, I am finding Kelly Youngberg's Twitters informative.

I agree that taken together our two books will make a positive contribution.

Running conferences like this is exhausting. All the best for a splendid Sabbath!

Dave

Note to site editors: the Tweet thread displays in Firefox, but not in IE.

Nick,

It looks like we have a forest/trees issue. Actually both are useful, and I would hope that folks check out David's forest approach and Jared's tree approach for the fullest picture of the proceedings.

Having read both, I find the quotes particularly troubling because this conference appears to have pulled in some pretty shoddy thinkers - professional apologists used to mollifying their sympathetic audiences with pictures of gay sex and personal stories, and talk of compassion, while actually reinforcing stereotypes and excusing discrimination.

The few folks have trouble can read the tweets here as well.

http://twitter.com/spectrummag

Johnny, I agree.

I find it odd that earlier on this thread you wrote: "Thank you Jared! I updated our fb status to link to the twitter page. Keep up the good work!." But then as soon as Nick commented, you publicly criticized Jared here and on the twitter post. Don't you have his email address?

In fact, his quotes provide a variety of statements, which broaden the context of the meetings. Furthermore, they fit quite well with this comment by one of the presenters, who apparently appreciates Jared's work.

Here's Kelly Youngberg's tweets from the conference as well.

http://twitter.com/kellyyoungberg

Let's get back to the substance of the proceedings!

These quotes today are increasingly unfortunate.

Roy Gane: The problem with homosexuality is that it feminizes a man causing man to be used as a woman to receive male seed.

Roy Gane: "Seed or semen is a controlled substance." [Laughter] "That last statement is true--it is a controlled substance."

Gane: God directed authorship of Bible. No knowledge available to science now not available to Bible writers. Science doesn't change Bible.

http://twitter.com/spectrummag

Dave,

That's interesting that Hays says he would back off on his approach as Dwight Nelson's study guide for his message today, "Sex in the Temple: What’s So Gay about That?" quotes heavily from Richard Hays.

Here's the link.

http://www.pmchurch.tv/article.php?id=28

I find that hearing what people at the conference are saying from up front as they are making their presentations in the "Tweets" [is that the right word?] of Jared Wright very helpful. Kelly Youngberg is also doing a good job.

I don't know Miller. If I remember correctly he presented a paper to ASRS in San Diego on 7 different ways of interpreting the Bible. Is that the right guy? My comment had nothing to do with him.

My understanding is the Nicholas Miller is a lawyer and church historian at Andrews University who specializes in religious liberty. I met him at the "Questions on Doctrine" conference and have had some email correspondence with him since. He has been cordially conservative in my interactions with him.

Sperm is not in short supply. The reserves are ample and they are easy to replenish. Ova are more difficult to acquire. Hence I do not understand the meaning of calling it a "controlled substance." Perhaps this was meant merely as a joke. About this life and death issue? In church?

Context is everything. Because Alex inaccurately characterizes my critique I will say that to understand my comment one must read the earlier exchange which followed Alex's use of a tweet at http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/10/16/tweeting_andrews_conference_...

Someone asked why links weren't working. The reason is that many browsers don't like super long URL's. The auto-slug feature will create a URL using an unreasonable number of characters from the post title.

Is there anything I can do to correct the "super long URL's" problem?

Thanks to Dave for this very nice summary of the book. I have read a lot of Jones and Yarhouse's stuff, and seen them present several times and had some email correspondence with one of them (I think, Yarhouse). While I disagree with much of what they conclude, I have found them to be reasonable and respectful in conversation and debate.

In my email exchange with them I found that they agreed with the importance of giving fully informed consent to any client contemplating conversion "therapy" (scare quotes are mine of course, not theirs), including information about the low probability of "success" and possible harmful consequences.

One of my chief criticism of their work however is that they significantly underestimate the potential of harm from conversion "therapy". Dave quotes them as referring to the "now established facts that changes in homosexual orientation are “not impossible” and that on average such attempts are not harmful" but this is far from accurate. It is not at all an established fact that change attempts are not harmful - indeed there is important data that suggests that very harmful consequences (including increased suicide attempts, substance abuse, mood disorder and risky sexual behaviors) are much more likely than any meaningful sexual orientation change.

I think a more accurate summary is that their data (and some from others) suggests that some people who seek change "therapy" report no significant negative consequences. Their study does not really allow us to draw any conclusions about what percent of people who experience these kinds of change treatments have negative consequences, because of how their sample was selected. It is also difficult to integrate the results of their study (which, based on their description, was at least as good as most others that have been reported) because they chose not to publish it in peer reviewed scientific journals, or through an academic press. They have their own explanation for why they made this choice, but in any case the end result is that their results have not been subject to peer review, which decreases the weight it might otherwise have. If researchers who believed in faith healing reported a study published by a Faith Healing believing book publisher that showed that members of an organization that was zealously committed to faith healing reported no harm from faith healing, we would perhaps not ignore it completely, but would be excused if we did not promote its results to the level of "established fact". That is basically what we have here.

Jones and Yarhouse also make use of a common gambit that by now I think is worn out - using the same term to mean two different things at different places in their argument. On the one hand they portray the conventional secular wisdom as being that no change in sexual orientation is possible, while portraying the results of their own research as showing that changes in sexual orientation are possible. However, what the "secular conventional wisdom" means by sexual orientation is quite different from what they later mean by the same term. What their research shows is that it is possible for at least some small fraction of men who identify themselves as gay to change their sexual behavior so that they have less sex with men (and sometimes stop all together) and have some (sometimes a lot) of sex with women. Some of these men may even report that they are happier having less (or no) sex with men and some (or a lot) of sex with women. But most of these men will also acknowledge that they still have same-sex desires and fantasies, which, using techniques they learned in the "conversion therapy" process, they actively work to inhibit.

The reality is that the results from Jones & Yarhouse are less surprising or discrepant from the "secular conventional wisdom" than they like to imply. It is widely agreed that adult men are capable of exercising control over their sexual behavior. Heterosexual men have been known to reduce their sexual behavior with women on occasion, and heterosexual men sentenced to prison for long periods can engage, often with pleasure and satisfaction, in sexual behavior with other men. In neither case would it make sense to say that they had changed their sexual orientation to homosexual.

A more accurate summary of this part of their work would be that some (probably quite small number) highly motivated homosexual men are capable, for unknown lengths of time, of reducing or eliminating same-sex sexual behavior and, in some cases, increasing satisfying opposite sex sexual behavior. Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who published results similar to Jones and Yarhouse to much acclaim by the fundamentalist community, has agreed with my own estimate that we are talking about a very small fraction of the gay male population - probably somewhere in the 3-5% range. I can not imagine any "condition" for which a "treatment" that had a "success" rate as low as 5% and a risk for serious, life threatening side-effects (some estimates as high as 60% or more) that would be considered ethical by any competent psychotherapist.

Among other things, I seriously resent this "4-minute mile analogy". In my opinion this exposes exactly what the researcher should either avoid or admit: pre-existing bias. Being able to run quickly is an admirable goal; one that many of us, were we so inclined, would love to accomplish. Is converting your sexuality similarly admirable? Clearly the researchers think so, and this is why they are so inclined to suggest that there is SOME shred of evidence that SOME people can SOMETIMES change. But if we argue that pursuing a heterosexual orientation is something that is morally good only in the eyes of those who are convinced that homosexuality is evil (regardless of that person's sexuality, gay people can hate homosexuality too), we would not be so concerned about changing them as we would be accepting them. Homosexuals are this era's "least of these": good people trampled down by an oppressive society of hate.

God's love for the world includes you and also extends to those who have hurt you the worst and also to those you most disagree with.

Don't resist God's love for you and others. Embrace it. Rejoice in it. Revel in it. Let it work a miracle in you so your good works glorify your Father in heaven. —Matthew 5:16

Jesus said: "Go and sin no more" NOT "Go, get married, cure your nymphomania by being monogamous". John 8:11 Some people are so sexually damaged that they should not attempt heterosexual monogamous marriage. Tradition tells us this was Mary Magdaline who became an evangelist and converted many in the Roman palace. Like Paul, such work is best accomplished by a single person.

Jesus also said, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made so by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Mt 19:12

The whole basis of "reparative therapy" is that everyone has to be sexual. That is not Jesus solution to this problem.

I believe that Jesus 3rd catagory applies to settled gays who have practiced their habit from youth for years before understanding God's call on their life. They should not attempt reparative therapy. God is calling them to be asexual "eunuchs for the kingdom of God". If they have accepted this gift from God and become asexual for years, avoiding all appearance of evil, I would be pleased to have such as my pastor.

Aubyn

Thank you for this additional information on the research of Jones and Yarhouse. Your personal acquaintace with them and their work is exceedingly helpful.

I agree that, whether or not this is intentional on their part, it is easy to misunderstand them. They are careful to state that their findings establish that homosexual change is "not impossible." Most people probably think that this means that it "is possible," and they sometimes write this way too.

Yet their preferred language is "not impossible" because this makes clear that they set out to confirm or disconfirm a very strict reading of the claim that it "is not possible."

The difficulty is as you state. There is a strong possiblity that some will use their very specific report to bolster a sweeping affirmation of religious reparative therapies. Those who read their book need not make this mistake; however, many will not be able or willing to do this.

Looking back over this, I realize that I have focused more on the issue of "change" and you perhaps more on the issue of "harm." I take your concerns on the second matter to heart.

The conference is over! I am confident that those who planned and participated in it are exhausted. Let us hope they have a restful weekend!

Dave

Ditto to Tom Zwemer's remarks above quoted again here:

"David

"It would seem that you would change the church rather than the person. I think history would indicate you will accomplish neither. That doesn't mean it is not worth the effort. It seems you have softened many hearts, that may be your high water mark on this issue.

"The hate and fear within and by the churched is overwhelming.

"To often the hate seems to be reciprocal.

"I think you have chosen a very lonely mission, good luck.
Never-the-less, I don't think pre-judging the study is any more open minded than the "churched". Behavioral research is a soft science at best. I spent ten years with Bruce Rice conducting 5 day plans to stop smoking. We think we got close to 20% success rate. I still meet a few graduates at the mall who thank me for being "clean" for over 25 years. The important result for Bruce and me was that everyone thanked us for trying.
Tom"

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 16 October 2009 at 3:14
reply.

Aubyn writes:

.. indeed there is important data that suggests that very harmful consequences (including increased suicide attempts, substance abuse, mood disorder and risky sexual behaviors) are much more likely than any meaningful sexual orientation change.
I think a more accurate summary is that their data (and some from others) suggests that some people who seek change "therapy" report no significant negative consequences.

Posted by: Aubyn S. Fulton | 17 October 2009 at 10:05

If I understand you correctly, you suggest a sampling error on the part of Jones and Yarhouse using data derived from a few/some self reporting individuals who have undergone religious reparative therapies. I'm just wondering how the contrasting data pointing to the "very harmful consequences" you listed was collected. Would you kindly provide us the documentation or studies you referenced?

Joselito Coo wrote: "If I understand you correctly, you suggest a sampling error on the part of Jones and Yarhouse using data derived from a few/some self reporting individuals who have undergone religious reparative therapies. I'm just wondering how the contrasting data pointing to the "very harmful consequences" you listed was collected. Would you kindly provide us the documentation or studies you referenced?"

Yes, J&Y's study does suffer from sampling error, but that sounds like a harsher judgment than it really should be. No study done in this area is immune from sampling error, and it is difficult to know just how this kind of error could really, practically, be avoided. Ideally we would randomly sample from all gay men, and randomly assign half of them to conversion "therapy" and half to some placebo. But this will never happen (not least because, of course, homosexuality is not a disorder, and so there is no legitimate basis for offering "treatment". The people involved in any study of the conversion "therapy" will always then be highly self selected - both the "clients" and the "therapists").

J&Y acknowledge the sampling problem quite openly. So, my point is not that their study suffers from this error (that is well known and acknowledged by all). Rather, my point is that the particular nature of their sample makes it impossible to estimate the incidence of adverse effects from conversion "therapy". I doubt J&Y would disagree with this.

One study of gay men who had received conversion "therapy" that reported much higher rates of adverse consequences is that published by Shidlow, A. and Schroeder, M. (2002). "Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report". Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, Vol 33, pp. 249-259.

J&Y refer to and discuss this study in their book, and it is well known. It also suffers from sampling error - while the participants were mostly recruited to change efforts by very conservative Christian organizations like Exodus, they were recruited to the study from announcements placed in gay media outlets. So basically, what we know is that few men who report that conversion "therapy" worked for them report adverse consequences, while a lot of men who report that conversion "therapy" did not work for them do report adverse consequences. Of course, when judging the efficacy and ethics of a particular "treatment", we have to keep in mind the negative effects for those for whom it does not "work".

Given that the burden of proof always lies with those advocating the use of any intervention to show that it is both effective and safe, until we have reliable and valid evidence that establishes that so called conversion therapy is not harmful, in my view it should not be used.

I know this is a controversial issue, and in religious communities we are used to it being presented as part of some religious or culture "war". But it does not have to be so combative. I do not have any kind of personal relationship with J&Y, but I have engaged them in conversation at academic conferences, and engaged in an extended private email exchange. In all of these settings I have found them to be polite, respectful and reasonable - open both to the methodological limitations of their work, and to the possible effect of their own personal biases. One can not ask for much more than this from any researcher. I disagree with their biases, and with many of their conclusions, but I respect them and their work, and value their contribution to the discussion.

Dave,
Changing the URL at this point would break links and bookmarks folks have set to this page including the ones on our twitter page.

I looked at it again and noticed that there are actually quotation marks in the URL. If the length of the URL didn't cause the problem, the " character certainly did.

I emailed Jon and Rich to see about coming up with a solution on the back end with Drupal (our software) so this problem doesn't occur with future articles. Sorry for this!

Johnny

No apologies needed. I'm glad that there are some among us who understand these things!

Aubyn and Joselito

I appreciate the academic seriousness and politeness with which you are discussing these issues. These are life and death matters and I am grateful when people treat them as such. Also, I'm learning much!

I'm guessing that the degree of harm depends upon many things, including how affirming or condemning the therapist is.

Tom and Rhondo

Tom's remarks were helpful the first time around and now they are helpful the second. Thanks! Some responses:

1. My respect for Doctor Zwemer and the late Doctor Rice is very great.

2. I am working for a little change all around the circle. I'm not requesting total sanctification, just minimal decency. I hope that's not asking too much!

3. I would rather not leave the impression that I am "churching" the research of Jones and Yarhouse. Although I am learning from Beth and Aubyn and others, in general I think that they have done a good job and that they are candid and courteous about the strengths and weaknesseses of their work.

4. My apprehension is not their work, particularly among those who actually read what they have written. My anxiety is that some might use what they have reported for ends they do not intend. Their research focused on a very specific question. My fear is that some might use it to make more general points that they explicitly disavow.

5. Let's say it again: Homosexual men and women are not the greatest threat to society. Heterosexual men are. People like me are the ones who are most responsible for the mess our world is in.

Again, many thanks!

Dave

I woke early this Sunday morning, my heart heavy with concern for my 17 year old son. He has been refusing to participate in school events this year, and it suddenly hit me that all his good friends, all of whom are girls, have significant others, and he probably is alone at these functions. I have been questioning our decision to keep him in Adventist schools since he came out at 15, but as my husband and I have discussed, there is no where on this planet where we can shield our son from the antihomosexual sentiment that pervades most societies and religions.

I have suspected since he was 3 years old that he is gay. I sought professional advice when he was 5 years old as to whether there was any way we could redirect his sexuality. I was told that though there were programs with questionable degrees of success in this area, my psychologist did not ascribe to these methods, and did not believe that we could effectively change the outcome. And the deciding factor for me: it required as a starting point that we tell my son there was something wrong and unacceptable about who he was that needed drastic measures to change him. My husband and I refused to do this.

So instead we have tried to raise him with the knowledge that he is loved and accepted for who he is, and when he was obviously searching for answers on the internet at age 11, I had a conversation with him about the possibility of his being gay. He had questions about what being gay meant, and he resisted the idea that was who he was, but he wept. Over the next 4 years, we had sporadic conversations about the matter, but he has always shown a reluctance to go there. For even though he knew his parents loved and accepted him, he also knew that the rest of society did not.

Now at 17 he has been out to friends and school and family for 2 years. He has remained in Adventist schooling where he has always been, though we have offered him alternatives. He hears regularly from his teachers about the evils of homosexuality. He pretends to let this slide off his back, but I know it damages him. I also know that they are probably ensuring that he will leave the church of his upbringing though it breaks his mother's heart. For why on earth would anyone stay where they are so unwelcome for being who they are?

Cheryl, Thank you. Thank you very much.

Kenneth James

Thank you, Cheryl. How I wish your's were an isolated story. Sadly, it isn't. But knowing that others also have heartaches does not stop yours. The good news is that it sounds like your son is fortunate to have you and your husband as his parents. All the best as you continue to be responsive to God's presence in your lives. Meanwhile, I think we should all read and reread MATTHEW 18: 1-14 and then read it again.

A proposal:
1) Given that there can certainly be a case made that the Bible says practicing homosexuality is a sin (though I, personally disagree with that conclusion), and;

2) Given that we are all sinners, and;

3) Given that a church must decide which sins must be held accountable to the community and which sins can be left up to the individual and God and;

4) Given that traditionally (and reasonably) those sins which are directly and strongly damaging to others and/or self are those which the church family has every right to take action against (i.e. child molestation) - while those that are less harmful and/or difficult to pinpoint like greed or abuse of the planet are not subject to church discipline and;

5) Given that the church has been fairly inconsistent about following the above guidelines, showing a much stronger reaction to homosexuality then is warranted given the harm caused versus say obesity and;

6) Given that the church can maintain a position that a certain behavior is not officially desirable without taking additional steps to discipline those engaging in it (like overeating);

I propose the following:

The church continue its official stance that practicing homosexuality is not part of God's design. However, the church also agrees that while it may not be ideal, it is between the person and God how they will deal with their homosexuality. The church can certainly continue to condemn promiscuity, abusive and exploitive relationships gay or straight, but can agree that seeking a stable loving relationship with a person of the same sex is not cause for discipline any more than being overweight is. The church does not have to officially sanction it but it need not single out those practicing it either.

(I apologize for my analogy - I don't think being gay is like being overweight but for purposes of movement in the right direction, treating it like gluttony would be wonderful.)

"can agree that seeking a stable loving relationship with a person of the same sex is not cause for discipline any more than being overweight is."

There are stats that seem to indicate same sex relationships (euphemistically called sexual preference) are not stable, etc. Why any solid, clear thinking Christian would even entertain the idea of endorsing sinful abnormal relations is beyond me. What a tragedy for children brought up is such an environment.

I think that something along the lines that Beth proposes is the best approach at this time; however, I would add that this should be implemented by local congregations with the anticipation that they will differ depending upon their members and pastors. This is already taking place to a some degree.

In the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, matters of church membership and discipline are wisely decided by local congregations, not conferences, unions, divisions, or all the divisions together in the General Conference.

These other entities can influence or even pressure. They can also transfer or fire pastors who do not yield. They can even disband a congregation and sell its property. But as long as it lasts they cannot force a congregation to disfellowship or censure any member.

No matter what the issue is, local congregations have to study each situation and make the best possible decision in light of all the relevant principles and circumstances.

This is a great responsibility, one that some congregations might want to take more seriously.

Dear David,

I beg for pardon - because just now not finding the time to give you any support to the very issue.

"Not impossible" ? Well, that is scientifically correct. But already the precautions given with the analogy of the "four minute mile" point to the direction for a biased evaluation : Some really good tough ones reach the goal - - .

Joselite Coo already stressed the broad spectrum of sexual "interests", Beth questioned the items used to measure changes. You informed about the self - report - method : Say, did they also insert the lie scale of the Eysenck - Test, measurung how far one is in tempted to give the answers acceptable and pleasing the questioner ?

I have observed and experienced a number of tragedies; I only can get angry when SDAs promote Nicolosis books (German version !); when about 1930 a minister gave advice to just get married - and the camouflage held for some 35 years (of a very poor marriage as he confessed and his wife just could weep about); when a little time ago a retired minsiter (not a student of Gane, but fitting in his school of thinking)held a sermon misquoting pages and pages of Platons Symposion and told a number of obscene details - and after the sermon had to confess never in his career having met a "homosexual" and justified the horrible sermon with "in three churches before they were very thankful for my bold, clear and informative presentation !"

One -I was very young and unexperienced - asked me hopefully beseeching : "Will this vanish when I get old ?" And still today I am glad for the inspiration to say "No, see it as the "thorn", believe in "My grace is sufficient for thee".

Many years later he died; I was told that the last verse he read out of his beloved Bible was I John 5 : 12.

let us hope and pray and comfort those with such a lifelong burden.

Greetings G.

Gerhard

Thank you. The cases you relate are so sad!!

The only thing worse in my view is the sermon the retired minister recently preached. Although after church he said that he had never met a homosexual person, I suspect that he had met a number of them but just didn't know it.

I don't recall if they used the Eysenck test. I'll have to doublecheck.

The 4-minute mile analogy is very instructive for me too. Although it makes an important theoretical point, it doesn't strike me as helpful for everyday life. But when it is coupled with the claim that God can help one do the impossible, it is very harmful.

Indeed, it is sometimes lethal because the one who finds it impossible in his or her sexual orientation to achieve the equivalent of running a 4-minute mile often feels rejected and condemned by God.

Thinking that there are no other options, suicide too often becomes the "solution."

Again, I don't think we can hold Jones and Yarhouse responsible for this, only those who irresponsibly use their work for purposes other than theirs.

But you know all these things better than I do. Thanks again and I hope things are going well for you in Vienna!

David

David Hamstra has informed me of Mark A. Yarhouse's own web site. It is http://psychologyandchristianity.wordpress.com.

David blogs at http://apokalupto.blogspot.com. He has provided informative summaries of the sessions of the conference.

Here is something from Yarhouse's site for August 12, 2009:

"The evidence from the Exodus study does not appear to reflect categorical change (from completely gay to completely straight). Rather, these are meaningful shifts for some participants, and some individuals experienced more of a shift. That was enough for us to conclude that change is possible for some, but it is unclear exactly what percentage. That we are talking more about shifts in degree (rather than categorical shifts) will be important to a ministry and to participants."

I believe that the last sentence is very important for pastoral care and preaching.

From David: Here is something from Yarhouse's site for August 12, 2009:

"The evidence from the Exodus study does not appear to reflect categorical change (from completely gay to completely straight). Rather, these are meaningful shifts for some participants, and some individuals experienced more of a shift. That was enough for us to conclude that change is possible for some, but it is unclear exactly what percentage. That we are talking more about shifts in degree (rather than categorical shifts) will be important to a ministry and to participants."

I believe that the last sentence is very important for pastoral care and preaching.

*******************
This is where things get a little slippery. When J&Y say change is possible, this is what they are talking about. But when they claim that the secular consensus is that change is impossible, they really don't mean this kind of marginal change at all, but categorical change in sexual orientation.

In talking with them I find that, as long as you make the translations from their presuppositions, they are pretty reasonable and very honest. It's just that they really do start from the assumption that homosexuality is bad (both in a moral and a psychological sense). Thus any change away from homosexual behavior is always seen as a good, and worth almost any risk of adverse consequence. For them, using the APA's conclusion that categorical change is not very likely to discourage people from conversion therapy that might result in some marginal reduction in homosexual behavior would be like discouraging cancer patients from taking chemotherapy that is unlikely to cure them, but might extend their life by several years. This also explains their fondness for that 4 minute mile analogy.

I think they genuinely believe that their bias that homosexuality is "bad" needs no more justification than a bias that homosexuality is either good or neutral, and they tend to get a little righteously irritable when pressed to justify it. I think it is obvious that, from a psychological or medical perspective, the burden of proof must lie with those who claim that any syndrome is pathological or problematic, and it is not just incorrect but unethical to reach the conclusions they do.

All of this to say that, while at one level I agree with your (Dave's) sense that the danger lies more with those who do not carefully read the details of J&Y's work, rather than with J&Y themselves, I think that even when their work is read closely, with due respect to their technical competence and careful scholarship, it still carries its own significant danger.

Cheryl,
I think from your letter that you were seeking answers here.
You will not find answers here.
Some on this site maybe sympathetic to our cause, but by most, are not.

I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart on how you have had the courage to tell your story.
Your son is very blessed to have a wise Mother and Father.

Your son will have to find his way in life and face many foe.

If he wants to remain a christian (and SDA) he will have the biggest fight of his life.
Christians are not welcoming of someone who does not fit the mold. Unless he changes his ways he will be always put on the mat. If he is employed by the organisation he will have to go around in secret, not telling anyone about it.

Some strangers may welcome him in, but when others find out he will be sorted out and treat as a stranger.

Does that not bring to mind a story that has been used against us for many years.

Your son is Loved, an "Unconditional Love" and that is the most important thing you can tell your son.
Noel

Cheryl, You do not know me and probably never will, at least until heaven. I do not know your son either. I agree with Noel that you need to make sure your son knows that he is loved unconditionally by you and his father.

Your son happens to be in a very interesting time in the world's history. On one side he has a ton of people telling him that he was born gay and has no control of it and that he should just accept it and do his best. On the other hand there are people who have experienced real change and walked away from SSA (same-sex attraction). Your son can choose to follow that path too. Either way, your son is going to have a fight trying to be accepted as a gay man, or reclaiming his masculinity and becoming the man God meant him to be.

The message that your son can change is not a popular one with many on this site, and I am sure that they will try to attack me over this post. I am man enough to take it and I will be faithful and stand up for the truth. The truth about change from SSA is not politically correct, but it is the truth.

If your son wants to change, he can. He will need your help. HE ESPECIALLY NEEDS HIS FATHERS HELP, or some other trusted male mentor.

A good place to begin is to visit the NARTH website (National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and call Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's office in Encino, CA to find out where in your area you can get some help. Second, I recommend that you look at the People Can Change website and especially their Journey into Manhood weekend (JIM weekend). There are so many great experiences that he can do to learn to see himself differently. There is a very vocal pro-gay lobby in the world today. They would like you to think that they are the only voice and sole authority on this subject. THEY ARE NOT. The truth is that there are many men (a silent minority) who have experienced REAL change from SSA. I am one of those men.

It is true that the SDA church is not good at helping our members with SSA. Fortunately there are many other groups outside of our church that can fill in the gap. Your son will likely not be able to just pray this away, it is not that easy. He will need to do some very hard work, but it is totally worth it. Good luck on your journey!

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not conflicted at all about my son's homosexuality or his place in God's kingdom. I have had many years in which to pray and meditate over the matter, and I know that if it had been God's plan to spare my son the road he has to walk, God would have done so. There is not a fiber in my being that doubts that God fully accepts my son for who and what he is. There is much in Scripture to which we no longer ascribe, or which we reject as being flawed interpretation of inspiration - stone any adulterers lately, anyone?- so really, I have no conflicts believing that God made my son exactly the way He wanted him to be. I neither feel the need to argue the point with anyone who believes otherwise.

Rather, I grieve that the world at large, Christianity in particular, and the SDA church in specific, being our community, is so intolerant to people of my son's persuasion. I wish that he could have been shown that it was possible for him to remain within the Adventist family despite some differences in beliefs. That what trumped all was 'Love thy God, then love thy neighbor as yourself' and we will leave the judging to God as He asked.

Cheryl,
I respect your view entirely.

New man,
I know you mean well and that is fine.
I also mean from your Father above, "Unconditional Love"

As you did say it will not be easy in this world to be different.
You are also different when you change from same sex attraction, if you indeed can.

Yes there are groups that try to help you on this path of change.
Change is not a word that I would call it though.
Yes It might help you better understand your whole body, better and give you education.
But the biases are very different from change group to change group.
Some offer ( ECT) shock treatment, drugs, others offer cold showers.
Don’t forget the Prayers and keeping those hands and mind busy.

SDA Kinship on the other hand has been around longer than most of the change ministries have. It helps people through support and education. You are not alone in this.
My advice is to read, read and keep reading on this subject.

Anthony Venn-Brown was a high profile preacher in the Pentecostal mega-churches of Australia. For 22 years he tried to change his sexual orientation through psychatric treatment, ex-gay programs, exorcisms and 16 years of marriage. Falling in love with a man at the age of 40 was the catalyst that forced him to face reality.

Anthony now lives as an openly gay man today and has become an ambassador for the GLBT community educationg people about sexual orientation and assists gay and lesbian people resolve the percieved conflict between their faith and sexuality.

His award winning autobiography 'A Life of Unlearning - A Journey to Find the Truth' has had a profound impact on many 1,000’s around the world.

He is also the Co-founder and Convenor of Freedom 2 b[e] which is a network for GLBT people from Pentecostal and Evangelical backgrounds.

In 2007 he was voted one of the 25 Most Influential Gay & Lesbian Australians
So I wish your family well, in its journey in life.
Noel

We are all honored by Cheryl's willingness to share with us her thoughts and feelings because they are so real and insightful.

Nevertheless, I do not think that this is the appropriate place to make specific recommendations to her that go beyond our feeble attempts to be supportive.

None of us knows enough about the situation to do so responsibly. Also, some issues are better handled in private.

I have no problem with discussing the issues. But discussing in public what any particular family should do is what I have reservations about.

Thank you!

Just as those that were healed by Jesus told their stories, I will tell my story. You may choose to stay stuck in your stuff, I do not. There is a path out of SSA. It does not require electric shock, cold showers, or memorizing Bible texts. It helped me understand me, getting my needs met in a healthy way, and seeing the world around me differently.

Noel, I hear your conflict. I pray that God will help you resolve that and have peace. Kinship is not the only voice on this subject. Being around so long does not make them the sole depositors of truth. Lies are lies no matter how long they have existed. The Bible promises us freedom FROM sin, not in sin.

Aubyn writes:

So basically, what we know is that few men who report that conversion "therapy" worked for them report adverse consequences, while a lot of men who report that conversion "therapy" did not work for them do report adverse consequences. Of course, when judging the efficacy and ethics of a particular "treatment", we have to keep in mind the negative effects for those for whom it does not "work".
Given that the burden of proof always lies with those advocating the use of any intervention to show that it is both effective and safe, until we have reliable and valid evidence that establishes that so called conversion therapy is not harmful, in my view it should not be used.

Posted by: Aubyn S. Fulton | 18 October 2009 at 6:42

Just want to make sure we're all looking at the same data. On the one hand, J&Y's samples consisted of those who had undergone religiously-motivated, self-help reparative therapy mainly through Exodus International which is a paraprofessional ministry that included a few/some licensed professionals. On the other hand, S&S (Shidrow and Schroeder) collected their information from self-reporting gay clients who claim to have been harmed more than they'd been helped, some by licensed professionals who used various treatment methods including electroshock. If so, we’re looking at two different population samples that may not be comparable in the sense that J&Y samples consisted of willing, satisfied consumers and S&S of unwilling, unsatisfied ex-clients.

I agree that whatever we do in behalf of anyone should cause no harm. I would go so far as to include diagnosing the other's condition as "homosexual" since such label is so value laden. IMO, this is not the same as "don't ask, don't tell". Finally, I agree with those who view sexuality from a health rather than an illness perspective so we can focus attention on correcting potentially harmful behavior no matter their self confessed gender orientation.

Newman,
God heals! If pastors and church leaders who speak on sexuality and other conditions were held to the same standard of accountability as clinicians, fewer of them would be able to speak with certainty and authority.

gerhard svrcek-seiler,
I'm wondering if the Nicolosi you speak of is the same person who is based in the University of Utah.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=Nicol...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481660?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSys...

Joselito, Dr. Nicolosi is a pshychologist located in Encino, CA and was instrumental in starting NARTH. Do a Google search online and you will find both. And yes, God does heal!

I find much of this discussion very depressing. I am sure that much of the world sees the Christian church as impotent. That is what they see from us. They have great problems that need solutions. They don't want to come into a church and continue in their problems and wallow in their sorrows. The Bible is about overcoming and living victorious lives through the blood of our Savior! Is Satan that powerful that he trumps God? Where is our power? Is SSA the one sin that can't be overcome?

I don't think that having gays marry someone of the opposite sex is a good thing, certainly not a cure for a deviant lifestyle. I know of too many diastrous marriages where this has happened, with awful consequences for those involved.

Thank you Newman, for your enlightening comments but I disagree strongly to the suggestion that SSA is a sin! It seems to me that some read God's word with pin - dot lenses seeing what they want to see and ignore others. I'm glad others are more open and see the whole picture and emphasize at the same time how Jesus would treat folks - with love, dignity, repect and compassion.

Rabek, you are mistaken if you think that I am hardcore about those affected with SSA. I have love and more compassion for these people than you will ever know! I have experienced SSA. I understand the trap. The difference is that I promote a path out of SSA, and others on this site promote staying stuck. Which of those two options is true compassion? Jesus called sin, sin. He then provided healing. Your compassion, love, dignity, and respect without healing is impotent.

Lance, you do not say who you are directing your comment towards regarding individuals with SSA marrying members of the opposite gender. You are right, it could be a disaster. It is possible that a man or woman who has undergone enough healing from SSA might find a very fulfilling marriage relationship after some healing. There may be others that may best find fulfillment in a single life. This equally applies to those who are straight (I hate that term -only Jesus is truly straight). Just look at the divorce rate!

Joselito wrote> God heals! If pastors and church leaders who speak on sexuality and other conditions were held to the same standard of accountability as clinicians, fewer of them would be able to speak with certainty and authority.

There is another way of saying this - namely that pastors and church leaders often claim to be certain about things that they should not be so certain of...

/Bevin

New man,
Who is stuck?
You do think I need to be healed and that is where we differ.
I do not think I need to be healed!!
Yes I am a sinner and like all need Gods Son to be able to have the Grace that we all need.

Why must man think he has all the answers?
Do you think God is that small?
Take him/her out of the box.

You chose a different path and I am not telling you that path is wrong.
No one path is wrong, if it gets you to where the top is.
I left that behind when I was a youngster
Our church would have you think it is the only church.
Not true/ false teaching.

Yes it is depressing to hear the same story over and over, but the church has slammed the door.
Not all churches have done that and see light.
So the few that see the light want the door to be opened to all.
Christ opened the door to all. Not just too a few select.

So because the left helped write a book the right want to copy that as well.
Too wrongs do not make a right my mother taught me when I was young.
But is all right if you do it in the name of the Lord.

Noel

Bevin
Thanks.

When you think you have all the answers.

Joselito wrote: "Just want to make sure we're all looking at the same data. On the one hand, J&Y's samples consisted of those who had undergone religiously-motivated, self-help reparative therapy mainly through Exodus International which is a paraprofessional ministry that included a few/some licensed professionals. On the other hand, S&S (Shidrow and Schroeder) collected their information from self-reporting gay clients who claim to have been harmed more than they'd been helped, some by licensed professionals who used various treatment methods including electroshock. If so, we’re looking at two different population samples that may not be comparable in the sense that J&Y samples consisted of willing, satisfied consumers and S&S of unwilling, unsatisfied ex-clients".
***********************

I am not sure I see where you are going with this, but yes, we certainly are talking about two different samples, that are incomparable in a number of ways. That is just the point - not only are these samples not comparable with each other, but we have little way of knowing how they relate to the larger population of gay men.

I don't think it is quite right to describe S&S's sample as unwilling clients of the conversion attempts - at the time that they participated in these attempts, most of these men were likely very willing, and very motivated. While it is difficult to know precisely in what ways these two groups differ from each other, it seems to me a major difference is that one group was mostly satisfied and the other mostly unsatisfied. But your conclusion seems to be the same as mine - that the data we have now suggests that satisfied customers of change efforts report relatively little adverse effects, while unsatisfied customers report high levels of adverse effects.

My understanding is that the procedures J&Y would use to screen for any kind of conversion therapy would filter out large fractions of gay men, and as Dave has been pointing out, J&Y do not argue (as far as I know) that their data suggests that most gay men can change their sexual orientation. I do think that J&Y underestimate the potential harm of conversion therapy, both because they do not fully accept that the burden of proof lies with those who claim this is safe, and because they overestimate the generalization of the results of their study, while minimizing the results of other studies. In my judgment this kind of "therapy" is unethical.

Would someone please tell me the type of harms that clients of Reparative Therapy have reported?

Would not just having failed at something you invested time and money into leave you more depressed? Everyone wants to expose a snake oil salesman, even if he told you up front 1/3 will make no improvement. If you are part of that 1/3, you will feel harmed by all the money you spent as well as not reaching your goal. A stock crash can make some jump out of windows, but we aren't going to make all risky investments illegal.

Then there is the politics involved. If you report these harms, then you get a kind of revenge on Reparative Therapists. Their presence in the "gay debate" hurts the gay cause. If you report all your harms to the right pro-gay researcher, you can help silence them. So do they report that Reparative Therapy was the straw that broke their back and led to a suicide attempt?

Can we trust as honest and valid reports of harms by persons who have finally decided to settle into the gay lifestyle? Of course shock therapy especially ECT should be made illegal as Reparative Therapy; but honest caring life coaching therapy, phychological or psychiatric therapy + maybe even some cool sitz baths every time you feel tempted never hurt anyone.(IMO)

If it were that simple!!
We could remove all unwanted habits and most of us would be with out sin.

Aubyn writes:

I do think that J&Y underestimate the potential harm of conversion therapy, both because they do not fully accept that the burden of proof lies with those who claim this is safe, and because they overestimate the generalization of the results of their study, while minimizing the results of other studies. In my judgment this kind of "therapy" is unethical.

Posted by: Aubyn S. Fulton | 19 October 2009 at 11:19

Even if the potential harm you speak of exists only in the mind or perception of those reporting their experience, and has not been clearly established, I'm guessing that most mental health professionals would still be deeply concerned.

As far as I know, J&Y select their clients based on clear guidelines respecting each individual's uniqueness and religious freedom. I don't see anything unethical about their practice though it differs from the majority view.
See Sexual identity therapy:
Practice guidelines for managing sexual identity conflicts
Warren Throckmorton, PhD
Grove City College
Mark A. Yarhouse, PsyD
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/sexualidentitytherapyframework0506.pdf

On account of J&Y limiting their study (which did not include their own clients but only those recommended by Exodus International) to those who felt conflicted about their religious beliefs and sexual preference, the motivation for the kind of religiously-motivated, self-help service should be obvious. In contrast, because S&S received their information from gay outlets, I suspect a variable degree of interest on the part of their samples in regard to reconciling their personal views with their perceived gender identity. Because we've not been told of any pre-existing emotional concerns, what exactly prompted them to seek help by a licensed professional is subject to speculation. In any case, if in their minds sexual re-orientation would result in a near miraculous cure of their underlying problems, their unwillingness to continue would be predictable consequent to their disappointment.

Elizabeth,
You make a good point. Self reports have limitations and Dr Gerhard Svrcek-seiler reminded us of the need to test the reliability of our sources.

Newman,
He's the same Nicolosi I googled on PubMed, publishing with a group from Utah. Thank you.

Jared, did they, at any time, provide data sets? Also, did they state whether or not they controlled for bisexuality? From the face of it, it is little wonder that they "chose" not to publish their study in peer reviewed publications.

Sorry David. I referred to you as "Jared" in my previous post.

There's evidence to show that aversion therapy in particular caused much harm. It's a form of treatment that reinforces what self loathing already existed due to societal stigmatization. IMO, it's wrong in any setting and unethical for anybody to even suggest it. I'm citing from the Executive Summary of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation:

We found that there was some evidence to indicate that individuals experienced harm from SOCE. Early studies documented iatrogenic effects of aversive forms of SOCE. These negative side effects included loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety. High drop rates characterized early aversive treatment studies and may be an indicator that research participants experienced these treatments as harmful.

Recent research reports on religious and nonaversive efforts indicate that there are individuals who perceive they have been harmed. Across studies, it is unclear what specific individual characteristics and diagnostic criteria would prospectively distinguish those individuals who will later perceive that they [have] been harmed by SOCE.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf

Read Warren Throckmorton's blog on Aug 05,2009:
http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/opinion/2009/08/american-psychologica...

Even if the many suicides and significantly damaged lives resulting from change "therapy" that I have been told about were the only ones, it would be reason enough to oppose these programs.

Why do many homosexuals want so desperately to change? Is it not because they have spent their lives hearing their sexuality vitriolically condemned from the pulpit and being abused by society and learned to hate themselves?

Jerry

It's an honor to be called "Jared!" But I apologize for not responding earlier.

If we are using the terms the same way, I would say that in their book they do provide their data sets.

My recollection is that they do not control for bisexuality, perhaps because they are relying on self-reports. Therefore, they take at face value the claims of those who say they are or once were homosexual persons.

I don't recall whether they tried to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals; however, in their book they do describe the difficulties they experienced in trying to get it published by a secular press with a good reputation. Unsuccessful in this, they turned to a respected religious press. They attribute their disappointment to widespread bias and fear of reprisals in the publising world.

The other side of the argument might be that even a secular press might see a big market for books like theirs in conservative religious communities.

A sale is a sale whereever one makes it [says this former student literature evangelist!].

DAVID, In a report the first week of August 2009, the 150,000-strong AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION declared (as summarized in USA TODAY, August 6, 2009): "Mental health professionals should not tell gay clients that they can become straight through therapy and other treatments. A comprehensive research report by the APA's governing cvouncil says that there is no evidence that so-called reparative therapy, works; some research found that these therapies could induce depression and suicidal tendencies. Instead psychologists should telll patients that if their religion and sexual oreintation conflict, they should consider options such as celibacy or switching churches"
In light of this forthright and unequivocal report by the APA, I have two questions for Doctors Stanton L Jones and Mark A Yarhouse (and their ilk):

FIRSTLY: If you had a gay son or lesbian granddaughter, knowing that reparative therapy can cause depression or suicide, would you now subject your own loved owns to reparative therapy?

SECONDLY: Are you so committed to the concept of reparative therapy that you would be willing for your darling daughter, your gorgeous granddaughte, or your nice niece, to marry and "ex-gay"?

Now that the APA has forthrightly stated the dangers of reparatiove therapy, would the Adventist church be wise
to set up a massive contingency fund, if it should start to espouse reparative therapy to its gay members? In today's litigious society, Adventist gay teenagers who became suicidal while following a program of reparative therapy advocated by the church, would merely have to cite the APA pronouncement to win large financial damage awards.

ROBI VANDERMOLEN MD

Carrol Grady posted:

Why do many homosexuals want so desperately to change? Is it not because they have spent their lives hearing their sexuality vitriolically condemned from the pulpit and being abused by society and learned to hate themselves?

Elizabeth Iskander MD responds:

1. How about the desire to have children who live with both a mother and father. Such rears the most sucessful children. Such is very rare in prison populations.

2. How about not wanting to have to smell, see and touch feces every time you have intercourse. This alone is a large part of the shame gays carry.

3. How about not wanting to damage your partner's rectum, or your own. (anal sex causes varing degrees of anal incontinence, especially when they get into butt plugs, cucumbers and even eggplants.) They end up with enema habits, frequent trips to the bathroom to clean and having to put a tissue to catch the drainage. This adds to their shame.

4. How about wanting to avoid STDs which are more common in gays.

5. How about wanting to have a normal lifespan, not the decades shorter average lifespan of gays.

If I had a young son who I learned was starting to come out of the closet and he consented to let me pay for counseling, I would find someone like Dr. T, but I would would start by having a session with him myself. I would clearly outline the therapy I wanted and that which I did not. I would ask for educational therapy. Young gays have a way of closing their ears to the medical aspects of homosexuality. I would want my son to have a private "Literature Club" with his therapist and understand all relevant literature on his future. I would also set my son up with counseling from a proctologist so he might even see some of the rectal damage some homosexuals suffer. Even if these counselors were not sucessful in moving my son into celebacy or heterosexuality, if they only helped him be less promiscuous, helped him be faithful in safe sex practices and helped him eschew rimming, fisting, caprophagia, water sports, sadism ect ad nausium, I would be forever grateful and consider my money well spent. I have read that about 10% of gays do not do "the dirty thing". I have much more respect for them and may their tribe increase! IMO the SDA church should come forth with an official statement that members, both gay and straight, should never participate in any sexual activity that involves the anus, even if they are married heterosexuals. The violation of this is the cause of may faithful wives attempting easy birth control, especially in Africa, getting AIDS.

Dr. Iskander, how about not trying to be as graphically offensive as you possibly can. Your comments are about promiscuous gay men, in particular. Unless we push them out of the church, most of the gay and lesbian people I know want to have as normal a relationship as possible, and would be as horrified as you over such activities. I don't know where you read the 10% figure, but i would doubt the accuracy of it.

How about the many monogamous gay and lesbian couples who may or may not have anal sex, and only about as often as heterosexual couples have sex. How about the dear couple I know who will soon celebrate 50 years together - more than most hetero couples today manage! And many others who have been together for 20-30 years or longer.

And why are you so fixated on the sexual aspect of gay marriage? Marriage involves so much more than sex.

Carrol,

See a summary of the Prevalence of anal sex in the Wikipedia site on anal sex. You will see that anal sex is increasing since the 1950s. I would say that today 60% of settled gay males practice anal sex on a regular basis and 90% of young gay males have tried it at least once. Younger gay males are more likely to practice it than older gay males.

You seem to be drawing your conclusions from a few individuals that you personally know. Research shows that the chances of 2 gay males staying faithful to each other are extremely low! The hormonal chemistry does not fit. The anatomy does not fit. They experience shame from the nature of what they are doing. They are hardening their conscience especially if they include filthy acts.

I understand from your 1st sentence in your 2nd paragraph that you do not consider having anal sex a sin.

I consider it a filthy violation of the body temple we have been given and an insult to the obvious natural design of our Creater. God made the rectum to be a one way street. The 1st time a person has anal sex the anus strongly resists. The drug amyl nitrate (poppers) is frequently necessary to get it to open. Deut 23:13 God clearly states He wants excrement kept away from others. This is violated with anal sex. Sodomy is the highest risk sexual activity that can be done according to the CDC. Visible blood is frequently present as well. HIV is mainly transferred from anal sex. Vaginal sex is very low risk by comparison.

I believe our Lord will one day say, "Let him that is FILTHY be FILTHY still." 2 Pet 2:7 says God rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the FILTHY lives of lawless men.

You do appear to be distressed by their filthy lives. Do you ever plead with your son to eschew this filthy act? A mother's warning is important, both for you and for him.

MD E Iskander.
Why do you call the act Filthy..
I think having intercourse with a female filthy to.
You urinate out of yours and it smells like fish.
You even bleed out of yours.
The bible says your are cursed for all the days of your life.
To be treated like dirt, sold for the meat market, to the highest bidder.
Dirt you came from and dirt you will return to.

But I would say you have shut yours up for good, thrown away the key for not a soul to enter.
No wonder men have turn inward.

Elizabeth, Thank you for telling the truth. This is Present Truth for those who don't want to hear the truth. See how angry and nasty he gets when you tell the truth. Homosexuality is not God's design for us. A monogamous marriage relationship between one man and one woman is what God planned. We need to keep telling the truth over and over and over and over and over. Those stories that they keep telling us that homosexual men live committed long-term relationships are only a very small minority. THEY ARE OUTLIERS ON THE BELL CURVE. Most homosexual men will not find this to be true for them. They will live very lonely lives and die early. That is what the statistics say. Thanks Elizabeth for speaking up.

Thanks a lot Elizabeth and Noel, I think you have both managed to make even this happily married woman celibate for awhile.

I don't think straight people really want to get into contests with gays over which sexual practices are hygienically superior - when forced to look at all the various bodily organs and the various functions they serve besides sex, I'm not sure it is time well spent (unless you really are trying to celibate.)

New Man be honest.

Present truth we have won the hard battle to be recognised as equal and not less than.

Beth you are welcome!
If we keep this up most of the church may go just that way.
Kellogg was, for fear of losing the seed.
But women weren't considered part of creation at that time.
You only carried it for nine months.

Times do change things and so it will be.

Noel, modern society accepts many things that are lies. Acceptance by the masses does not mean you are right. Adherence to what the Bible says is the only thing that can make you right. The Bible clearly says you are wrong. Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible clearly says that. People on this site and in the world can go around with their cleverly crafted arguments that try to reinterpret what the Bible says, but it says what is says. Homosexuality is a sin. If there is one thing that I agree with you on it is this, the Church does need to change. It needs to get rid of the homophobia and judgement and love homosexuals and those with SSA so they can walk away from their SSA.

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Matthew 7: 13, 14 ESV

Yes I have heard that dogma before.
Adventist love to say that verse. Because they are the only ones going. How sad.

Sorry I do not subscribe to your judgement.

Your judgement is no better than.
If you take you out of your setting and put you back in the City, I think you would be different.
I feel for your wife and family.
It is a shame that to be accepted we go to great lengths.
We all want to be loved in this world by something that is real to us.
Judge not less ye be judged and that is the only way forward for both of us.
Thanks for your testifying of your success.
Your path as I have said before is not the only path.

I would like to ask Noel or any Christian gay spokesman some questions:

1. Where did homosexuality come from?
2. Is it God's idea?
3. Did He create it?
4. If so, why?
5. If Eve never sinned, would homosexuality have arisen?
6. Is it part of God's perfect plan or His permissive plan?
7. What purpose does it serve?

It seems to me that if God intended homosexuality to arise, he would have created our bodies very differently.

I would like to understand the Christian gay perspective on this.

It has been said the the biggest and most important sex organ is the human mind.

Should not the intelligent rational Christian mind look at its body and ask these 7 questions?

Or have gays stopped their ears and closed their eyes to even considering these questions?

Elizabeth,

Asking those questions infers either: you know the answers, or you don't and would truly like to know. If you truly don't know the answers, then you need to do some studying into the entire subject. Better yet, get acquainted and talk with several homosexuals. Nothing is better learned than by talking to someone who is there. Assuming from afar, is to remain ignorant.

If you do know the answers, please tell us. You will then be credited with omniscience for which no human, so far, has been able to understand. Which is it?

My views are the traditional Biblical views. Homosexuality is not God's perfect nor His permissive will. He underscored this with the story of Sodom. Jews, Moslems and Christians have understood that for thousands of years. Historians in all 3 faiths will tell you that for thousands of years they all understood the sin of Sodom was a culture where homosexuality was practiced. Only recently has gay revisionism appeared.

IMO if Paul's comments were to be understood that monogamous homosexuality was not sin, todays Jewish scholars will tell you that historical Jews would have focused in on such a heretical teaching. Paul would not have taken a Nazarite vow to prove he was still Jewish, he would have been attempting to explain why he was teaching such heresy. Such a new view on sexuality would have been all over the writings of the 1st few centuries. If Paul had attempted to teach this, we would have seen gay marriages in the early Christian church. Gay weddings would have shocked even the Romans and Greeks.

Now I am interested in the Bible believing gay apologists to answer my questions above.

"My views are the traditional Biblical views."

Is that biblical view to be the only one on every possible subject, or on only some? The Biblical view was that the earth was flat, that the earth evolved around the sun, that skin diseases were all leprosy, that demon possession covered all sorts of mental illnesses, that polygamy was normal, that men carried the "embryo" within himself and women had no genetic heritage in children that they were only the incubators.

If you truly believe in the "biblical view" modern medicine would not be consulted, but the Bible views would be sufficient. Consistency should apply in all things, shouldn't it, or is there very selective use by many?

The Greeks and Romans were very familiar and had wives while simultaneously having young boys as "lovers." So, they would not only be shocked, they would have gladly participated.

Elaine,

You are not even attempting to answer my questions.

I see the Bible as a moral compass, not a history or science text. God is giving mankind the big picture; not all details need to be accurate.

I also think that when a man with light skin like Moses married a woman with dark skin, then saw his kids did not look like their cousins; that Jews figured out that seed in the ground was not a perfect metaphore for birth. Why do you assume they did not?

Job spoke of the circle of the earth and that it was hung on nothing. I think that is pretty amazing. We still speak of the 4 corners of the earth. Biblical metaphores should not be forced to walk on all fours. They are details only.

It is my understanding that pederasty was rare and frowned upon but not illegal. Some parents felt the higher education their son might receive was worth it. You have proved my point. If this new sect of Jews were preaching gay is OK and gay weddings were happening, even Gentile historians would have written about it.

Do you think that the Romans who received Paul's letter understood that he was only talking about temple prostition and that Paul affirmed monogamous homosexual relationships?

Elaine, its your turn!!! Will you attempt to share your answers to my questions above?