60 Second Review:
Ex-Gays?

In Review — By on October 17, 2007 at 12:09 am

Ex-Gays?The Book: Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse
:10 — The Gist: Psychology professors Stanton and Yarhouse present and defend their results on a longitudinal study that examines the possibility of change of homosexuality orientation via religiously mediated means.
:20 — The Quote: “The fact that some human beings can break the four-minute mile barrier establishes that running a four-minute mile is not impossible, but that same fact does not establish that anyone (every human being) can break the four-minute-mile barrier. So also our findings firmly refute any notion that change of sexual orientation is impossible. Saying that change is not impossible in general is not the same thing as saying that everyone can change, that anyone can change or that change is necessarily possible for any given individual. ” (p. 372).
:30 — The Good: Presents the most solidly researched and conclusive study affirming that reparative therapy can affect homosexual orientations.
:40 — The Not-So-Good: In pointing out the shortcoming and imperfections in their own study, the authors concede too much to their critics and downplay the significant results of their findings.
:50 — The Verdict: By maintaining the politically correct lie that homosexuality is immutable, mental health professionals harm patients who desperately want to leave a destructive lifestyle. Yarhouse and Jones provide a valuable service in exposing how the professional counseling community chooses to cling to an illogical and anti-science position on reparative therapy rather than address actual research. They show that, despite the claims made by the professional psychological and psychiatric associations, there is no evidence that participation in ex-gay ministries is harmful. And while the outcomes of such therapy are modest (it rarely leads to a complete eradication of homosexual attraction) in any other area such treatment would be considered “respectable in the mental health field.”
Despite its shortcomings the study is valuable in countering the anti-religious bias against ex-gay therapies and for showing the need to respect the “autonomy and right of self-determination” of individuals who seek to be free of a homosexual orientation.
:60 — The Recommendation: Both supporters and critics of “ex-gay” ministries would gain from carefully considering the arguments and implications of Jones and Yarhouse’s research.



  • Ludwig

    this is probably by far the greatest non-issue in any discussion regarding homosexuality…weather or not sexual preference is mutable depends on each and every single individuals as all research on the subject clearly demonstrate…and yet,even that fact is completely besides the point…the question is not weather or not homosexuality can be transformed into heterosexuality but rather should anyone be required or pressured to undergo the “transformation” to which the only sensible answer is a resounding negative. the claim that homosexuality is in itself a “destructive lifestyle” is a shameless lie driven by nefarious political and religious agendas…in essence it from the very same people who used to claim that masturbation caused blindness. I personally would have no problem with so called “ex-gay” organisations if they were content to provide their services to whoever sought them for their own reasons. But many of these same groups are also engaged in active campains to curtail the rights of homosexuals in society,no doubt believing in their twisted minds that it is their duty to “encourage” homosexuals to come to them for help in “overcoming” the “evils” of homosexuality by making homosexuality as unconfortable as they possibly can in society…as it is,decency requires opposing such unconcienable activities as well as the wretched vermins who engage in them.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Not a bad post by Joe. A few thoughts:
    Behavior is certainly not immutable. Homosexuals have long recognized that there are plenty of people who are gay but have had hetrosexual experiences. It isn’t in itself shocking that the reverse may also happen where people with homosexual histories settle down in long periods of hetrosexual behavior.
    I would ask the reverse question, could you imagine a ‘therapy’ that would turn hetrosexuals gay? I think such a thing might be possible, there are probably many people who would be more open to homosexual behavior if they overcome taboos, squimishness and the fear of social disapproval. But overall I would not say such a program would be successful in the sense that it would result in a large number of people who lead gay lives happily. I would suspect many people would revert back to hetrosexuality or feel their homosexual behavior was being somewhat forced on them.
    So the question turns to what is the point? Yes some people may be in between and such ‘therapy’ might let them feel comfortable living a hetrosexual life. That’s all well and good but what is the point of a therapy that otherwise has a high failure rate as Joe admits.
    Yes other psychological therapies may have similiar failure rates but there is no choice in those things. If you have bi-polar disorder, for example, you should try something to address the problems it creates. Likewise if you have cancer you should consider chemotherapy even though it too has a high failure rate. It would be insane, though, to engage in a therapy with chemotherapy’s side effects and failures if you’re trying to treat wrinkles or being 10 pounds overweight!
    Hence I would question how the authors came to their conclusion that this ‘therapy’ has not been shown to be harmful? Since Joe read the book he could tell us did they just look at the patients or did they also look at the partners of the patients? How many failures of this therapy resulted in failed marriages or failed hetrosexual relationships because a woman (or man) partnered with someone they thought was hetrosexual only to find out that they weren’t?
    Unlike other failed psychological therapies, there are potentially two or more victims here. Not only may the patient be harmed but so can his partner(s) and children.

  • Oclarki

    What is the more Christian approach? To let homosexuals maintain their sexual identity but encourage them to be celibate, or to try to turn them into procticing heterosexuals?
    Would we encourage this sort of therapy to steer pedophiles towards a more healthy sexuality? If so, why not use the same techniques on homosexuals?

  • http://www.evaneco.com Don Bosch

    Ecologists and biologists are well familiar with the link between increasing levels of bio-disruptive chemicals and synthetic hormones in our environment, and the increase in homosexuality, transgenderism, and other sexually related mutations in animals (frogs, fish, mice, etc).
    Why should we assume humans are not similarly affected? If so, is therapy the solution? It might be, and then again it might not.
    And if gender issues are at least partially caused by pollution, shouldn’t this demand more grace/compassion from Christians? But then we’d be treating homosexuality as a handicap.
    Neither approach – treating gays as moral failures or as physically damaged – is very popular. Or productive.

  • http://www.randythomas.org Randy

    This is a really good review. It’s nice when science can agree with what I already live and know to be true :).

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Don,
    Suppose that pollution alters hormone levels in such a way that more males are born than females. The solution wouldn’t be to label the ‘surplus’ boys as handicapped or try sex-change operations on them against their will. The boys might have been caused by pollution but the fact would remain that they are boys and pretending they are girls will not help matters.
    The question is that people do appear to be ‘born’ straight or gay (if not set in utero or by DNA then set very early in childhood by means that are probably so complicated that no single cause can ever be determined). Given that’s the case then the standard for any type of ‘therapy’ has to be much higher than simply helping people to live with their orientation in a healthy way. Orientation ‘change therapy’, in other words, should be viewed like plastic surgery. Because it is so optional it needs to meet a higher bar for being safe and effective than a therapy that treats a real dysfunction.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Needless to say frogs, mice, and fish are only so good as models for humans. Many drugs that had wonderful test results in animals only went on to fail when tried on humans. It’s not clear at all that “bio-disruptive chemicals and synthetic hormones” in the environment have the same impact on humans as it does to those animals. Frogs especially, I understand, are highly sensitive to their environmental chemicals.
    Would we encourage this sort of therapy to steer pedophiles towards a more healthy sexuality? If so, why not use the same techniques on homosexuals?
    I would imagine it depends on what type of pedophile. For true pedophiles (those attracted to children and not just those who end up with people who are ‘below age’) I think the theraputic consensus is to aim for chastity rather than trying to steer towards ‘normal sexuality’. For others ‘on the edge’ the story might be different.

  • smmtheory

    I would ask the reverse question, could you imagine a ‘therapy’ that would turn hetrosexuals gay? I think such a thing might be possible, there are probably many people who would be more open to homosexual behavior if they overcome taboos, squimishness and the fear of social disapproval.

    Rumor has it that it’s the Public School system.

  • http://www.evaneco.com Don Bosch

    How about “Study on the effects of endocrine disrupters in wild birds and mammals,” Stockholm University and
    WHO study on global risks/effects of endocrine receptors on humans. The latter says there’s no smoking gun between EDCs and human pathology (other than cancer risk) yet, so you may be right Boonton.
    But WHO also says: “Considerable data are available on the early molecular events involved in hormone response, but there is little knowledge of the relationship between these molecular events and the potential for adverse health outcomes. Until such data become available, it will remain difficult and controversial to attribute adverse effects due to
    endocrine-mediated pathways.”
    The fact that this research is “controversial” will prevent any study in this area that concretely links human sexuality and EDCs. Imagine trying to get a grant for THAT at your average liberal university.
    But that doesn’t mean it’s not probable given similar impacts in other mammals. And we are, of course, eating a lot fish.

  • Gene


    … or to try to turn them into procticing heterosexuals?


    Umm, Dr. Freud, call your office.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Well can’t burn the candle at both ends can we? :)
    If you’re going to say orientation is not immutable then going from hetro to homo should be equally as plausible as the reverse no? As a hetrosexual I can tell you it feels to me even the mighty public schools couldn’t pull this off very easy.
    Rumor has it that it’s the Public School system.
    Or being a member of Idaho’s GOP Congressional delegation or a famous televangelist. What’s in those potatos exactly!

  • ex-preacher

    I think a good analogy here might be the preferences that we have for handedness (if that’s a word). As I recall, about 90% of us are right-handed, 10% left-handed, and a tiny handful are ambidexterous (sp?). I assume those preferences are in-born. For a long time, many societies believed that everyone should be right-handed and so young left-handers were taught to use their right hands proficiently. That didn’t really change their preference, but they learned to get along. Left-handers were considered deviant. As I recall, the word “sinister” has its Latin roots in the idea of being left-handed. Today, we can accept and even celebrate left-handedness and lefties can proudly come out of the closet, though I don’t approve of their flamboyant parades.
    There are various estimates, but 90+% appear to have heterosexual preferences, some single digit percent have homosexual preferences and an even smaller percent are bi-sexual or even a-sexual. I have no doubt that years of therapy combined with pressure from one’s conscience, family, church, peers and society can help a person with homosexual preferences to learn to operate and live as a heterosexual. They may even convince themselves that they have changed preferences, but deep down, they still have a homosexual preference. Like Boonton, I’ve wondered if, in an alternate world, we might use “reparative” therapy to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals. Now that would be an interesting study.
    Next on the agenda: convincing people who love chocolate that they really hate chocolate and love brocolli.

  • Gene


    As I recall, the word “sinister” has its Latin roots in the idea of being left-handed.


    Indeed, the Italian word for “left” is sinistra.
    But then in French is gauche, so maybe there’s more to it. :-0

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com Collin Brendemuehl

    I would ask the reverse question, could you imagine a ‘therapy’ that would turn hetrosexuals gay?
    I think it’s called “public school curriculum”.
    ;)
    Collin
    http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Definitions are tricky here. Joe confuses orientation with lifestyle. Lifestyle is observed behavior while orientation is more subtle. Many people think Larry Craig is gay, for example, but clearly his lifestyle has been mostly heterosexual.
    Preferences also seem to be lacking in the way to think about this. I may not like Indian food but I could change my mind if I was introduced to it in the right way or understood it better or even started to associate it with someone I liked. Orientation, though, does not seem that weak. I don’t think the nicest, most handsome or whatever guy in the world would turn a straight guy gay the way a guy might take up Indian food because a hot girl he likes loves it.
    Left/right handedness seems to be the closest analogy. Clearly you have the ability to write however you choose but its clear that most people tend to have an easier time writing with one hand or the other. This probably is not as simple as a ‘left/right hand’ gene but it is much more locked in than liking Indian food or not.
    It’s interesting to remember that gender seems to be locked into the brain. A while ago there was some tragic stories about a man who was raised from birth as a girl due to a botched circumcision. Despite never being told about it and having surgery he grew up knowing something was deeply wrong. His story turned out to be powerful evidence against the theory that gender is only a ‘social construct’. Likewise I’d be skeptical of pretending that orientation is some type of social construct that can be altered just by raising kids differently or finding the right ‘therapy’.

  • http://www.icthyus.blogspot.com mkz

    there may be some concern of rejection or even persecution on the part of the authors, or the publishers on this subject, leading them to downplay the possible positive benefits of sexual orientation therapy. The days when asserting homosexuality to be the sin it is will convict you in a court of law are looming.
    As an ex-bisexual I can attest to the positive aspect of religious practice in addressing my behavioral deviation. While I have never undergone any professional ‘therapy’ in the context of this discussion, I will state that a program of this nature would have been a boon to me in the early years of my walk . It is unlikely however, that any such program will ever be publicly available. Given the prevailing winds of culture and law that seek to silence the majority in the interest of political correctness, the opportunity to accurately gauge the personal and social benefits of such an initiative are almost nil for the immediate future.
    In my experience the greatest distress caused to the psyche, heart and mind of most practicing homosexuals comes more from the internal fight to reconcile how we choose to behave, with how we were designed to behave. The strain of social stigma, family rejection, and the perception of lower societal status while an added burden are not the primary cause of the pain of homosexuality. Be assured that there are many who are trapped in a contrary lifestyle, and are desperately seeking a solution. It is a pitiably circumstance that learned men will shrink in fear of defining homosexuality for what it is, and so take hand in assuring so many who need the help this type of research may offer, will not soon receive it.

  • Oclarki

    Heterosexual males change their sexual natures all the time. It’s called marriage. The natural inclination and biological drive for all heterosexual males is to crave sexual encounters with a variety of partners and to seek out the most suitable for reproductive success.
    A functioning society demands that men channel their natural tendencies away from violence and sexual promiscuity. One of the great triumphs of the Judeo-Christian worldview is that it provides a context and meaning for this channeling of male sexual nature.
    So if society demands male heterosexuals control and change their sexual natures, doesn’t it stand to reason that there is some way homosexuals can change theirs as well. (I’m speaking mostly about male homosexuality, because female sexuality is quite a bit more plastic in nature. Hence the large numbers of women who experiment with lesbianism or bi-sexuality in college.) Of course, I concede that it is a lot more difficult for someone with a homosexual orientation to change their sexual nature. However given that billions of heterosexual males do so (with varying degrees of success) it isn’t impossible.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    mkz,
    With all due respect I think you’ve failed to learn a major lesson from your own unique experiences which is that we all are unique. You say you were or are bi-sexual but you then try to apply that experience to being homosexual. Why would you think such an application could be possible.
    This may sound strange but I think someone who has always been heterosexual might have more in common with a homosexual because we both have a feeling that our orientation is inante and trying to act otherwise would feel ‘unnatural’. It’s not my intention to sound cruel but do you think it would make sense for someone born as a hermphradite to conclude gender is not a big deal for others because s/he combines elements of both genders? You being bisexual had an element of choice that others do not.
    I would agree with you that people should be free to use the tools they need to figure themselves out and make peace with their nature. I would agree that a person who thought he was ‘gay’ but now announces he isn’t shouldn’t be pushed around by liberal family members who insist such a thing is impossible. But more often I think the shoe is on the other foot where this type of ‘therapy’ is pushed down peoples throats by others.
    In short I think both sides need to make peace with each other. It should be accepted that some people are confused and just as the person you thought was straight may announce he is gay, the person you thought was gay may announce he really isn’t. But it should also be recognized by the right-wing side that there are people who are, for want of a better term, ‘designed gay’. Whether you want to consider that a mutation or just the diversity of life the fact remains such people should not be made to feel like they don’t deserve to exist because you find their existence too hard to square with your worldview.

  • tommythecat

    why do christians care about what others do that doesn’t harm them?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Heterosexual males change their sexual natures all the time. It’s called marriage. The natural inclination and biological drive for all heterosexual males is to crave sexual encounters with a variety of partners and to seek out the most suitable for reproductive success.
    This is a change of degree, not type.
    A functioning society demands that men channel their natural tendencies away from violence and sexual promiscuity. One of the great triumphs of the Judeo-Christian worldview is that it provides a context and meaning for this channeling of male sexual nature.
    While I’ll give some credit don’t get carried away. Just about every major society seems to have found some type of balance between promiscuity and chastity. In other words marriage exists roughly in just about all societies even ones that have had little or no influence from Judeo-Christian theologies.
    So if society demands male heterosexuals control and change their sexual natures, doesn’t it stand to reason that there is some way homosexuals can change theirs as well.
    Degree vs type again. Limiting your sexual partners is hardly the same as switching the gender of your partners. Again think about the reverse. How easily would it be to tell large numbers of heterosexual men that they now have to have sex with other men. Somehow I think the resistence would be much greater than you get from just telling them they can’t cheat on their wives.
    Of course, I concede that it is a lot more difficult for someone with a homosexual orientation to change their sexual nature. However given that billions of heterosexual males do so (with varying degrees of success) it isn’t impossible.
    Aye but why is it desirable? Remember the potential for failure here is rather large. The guy who is pushed around to be straight not only can end up ruining his life but can ruin the life of the women who marries him as well as any kids they have. Does anyone here really think heterosexual marriage needs more couples like the McGreevys and Craigs? What would be gained by, say, adding 70 marriages like that to obtain 30 more ‘truely heterosexual’ marriages?

  • http://www.icthyus.blogspot.com mkz

    Boonton,
    I hope to convey an internal look at homosexuality in regard to this therapy. I opine that ‘bisexuality’ is not necessarily an even split. Bear with as I try to explain. Emotionally, intellectually, and physically I am predisposed to the company of women, this creates no dilemma for me in any way. I believe God has created all men to this ideal according to His will. My homosexual interests in men are purely physical, fed by lust, in the interest of easy gratuitous mutual satisfaction. This does not preclude me from having a genuine heterosexual love for another man, say a long time friend, but it is not necessary to a homosexual pursuit. Bisexuality is not a separate state of sexuality, but a description of dual choice. A light switch is either on, or off, not both at the same time.
    Where you use the word “innate”, I would suggest that a man with homosexual drive is resigned, albeit happily in that he is having his desire fulfilled, but internally, struggle will remain if honest dialog is to be had.
    Therapy of this nature, well researched and documented may go a long way in offering a viable counseling platform to help homosexuals understand the internal unrest, and develop guidance parameters to help deal with it.
    I am not sure the hermaphrodite analogy is contextual here, unless we were to agree that homosexual practice is related to a physical mutation, an idea I will respectfully decline to support due to the lack of hard scientific evidence, and in light of what I hold to as Biblical truth.
    We do emphatically agree on choice and respect, if one chooses to be homosexual, and feels there is no consequence to the choice and so is not troubled by it, then they should be afforded all the respect due any human being. For my part I would witness in kindness and love of the Gospel and the hope they can have in Christ and leave the rest to God. We also agree that it is the worst aspect of mankind to hate, victimize, and marginalize any individual or group because they do not think, feel, or believe as oneself does.
    This is indeed a convoluted social crossroad, and I hope to have done well in clarifying my view with compassion and respect. I truly enjoy civil intellectual exchange!

  • oclarki

    Boonton,
    While the Judeo-Christian worldview isn’t the only philosophical/religious worldview that has encouraged marriage, it’s influence in Western society is the most important. I’m quite confident that the idea of modifying homosexual behavior is almost exclusively a matter of debate in Western society not in Asian, Muslim or African.
    I do find it hard to generate much enthusiasm for trying to “convert” homosexuals to be straight. There is way too much of the psychology/neurology/genetics that is unsettled and debatable at this point to provide a clear picture of the nature of homosexuality. I think the wise course of Christians in this matter is to look toward Christ’s example and meet people where they are show them compassion, love them as individuals not as a label, and treat them as we would like to be treated. I think homosexuality is way less of a threat to the integrity of the church than the use of pornography.
    Besides if we convert all these gay men, who is going to style my hair, design my clothes, and write musicals? Not to mention the real estate crash when there are no longer gay couples to renovate funky urban spaces and begin the process of gentrification in old neighborhoods. ;)

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick (gryph)

    “The Verdict: By maintaining the politically correct lie that homosexuality is immutable, mental health professionals harm patients who desperately want to leave a destructive lifestyle.”

    Well Joe, if you are willing to grant that heterosexuality is a “Lifestyle”, then I’ll grant that homosexuality is also a “Lifestyle”. Otherwise I require that you admit that you are talking about two different things.
    And judging by the recent pictures over at FRC, your McDonalds Cheeseburger “Lifestyle” is oh-so-much more unhealthy than my homosexual “Lifestyle”. But it just doesn’t quite generate the moral outrage does it?
    And by the way Joe, you are the only one I know that insists that gays can’t change. No major gay and lesbian group says this, at least about individuals.

    “A functioning society demands that men channel their natural tendencies away from violence and sexual promiscuity. One of the great triumphs of the Judeo-Christian worldview is that it provides a context and meaning for this channeling of male sexual nature.”

    Thats overly simplistic. The Judeo-Christian worldview is also the source of many negative values about manliness and violence as well. Go to any Christian high school today and you will find that the guy that has nailed the most chicks is still considered the most manly or most possessing of “male virtue”. And thats not a corruption from non-Christian culture either, its a direct function of the Patriarchal values the Judeo-Christian worldview springs from. In this Worldview, men sow the field, and women pick it.

  • Rob Ryan

    “Rumor has it that it’s the Public School system.”
    This is easily the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. That might be mitigated if it were funny in the least.

  • Gene


    why do christians care about what others do that doesn’t harm them?


    First, it does harm them because it contributes to the general degredation of society. There has never been a culture that survived rampant sexual promiscuity, and the hallmark of male homoesexuality is promiscuity.
    More important, though, is that if homosexuals would just keep it to themselves and not insist on everyone not just tolerating them, but affirming them and forcing our children to learn this, too, then maybe we wouldn’t care so much.

  • whojno

    I think Gene is right-those gays ought to just keep their perversions to themselves. If they want to act that way it’s their business, but just don’t throw it in our faces.
    Same thing with the liberals too. They don’t have to be christians, but they should be trying to erase every last vestige of our judeo-christian values from our country.

  • whojno

    I think Gene is right-those gays ought to just keep their perversions to themselves. If they want to act that way it’s their business, but just don’t throw it in our faces.
    Same thing with the liberals too. They don’t have to be christians, but they should stop trying to erase every last vestige of our judeo-christian values from our country.

  • JohnW

    I know it’s a little off topic, but here is an interesting item in the news today. It’s an example of the ACLU assisting a christian in his dispute with the government –
    news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/ts_nm/usa_soldier_beliefs_dc

  • Ludwig

    whojno
    Gene is an idiot for throwing around one blatant falsehood after another and you re an idiot for agreeing with him…nuff said.

  • http://thebronxblogger.blogspot.com Matthew Goggins

    Memo to Joe Carter:
    If someone is homosexual, and doesn’t want to be homosexual, then he has a problem and should consider talking to a counselor.
    But if most homosexuals are happy being homosexual, why should you or anyone else characterize homosexuals as people carrying a burden or afflicted with a bad disorder?
    Reading this post and comment thread is like Alice tumbling through the rabbit-hole into Wonderland. Are we going to hear your insights soon on the “problems” of interracial marriage or the devastating social costs associated with woman’s suffrage?
    If you are going to write about homosexuals, then I suggest that maybe you get know some first. Then you might show a little restraint in diagnosing people and prescribing therapies for them when there isn’t even an illness or a disorder to be dealt with.
    You know that the Soviets in their heyday made a practise of medicalizing dissidence and other forms of alleged deviancy. A person who publicly espoused deep religious beliefs the way you do on this blog would either be pressured into relenting or carted off to a mental hospital.
    I think it’s a shame that you seem to be committing a similar error in regard to homosexuality. I hope you can find a way to stand up for your heterosexuality and family values without feeling a need to put down and seriously insult homosexuals. If you did, I think you would be better off for it, both as a bio-ethicist and as a person.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    mkz
    thank you for your attempts to be honest and open. It’s very hard to understand ourselves. Since we are all stuck inside our our own bodies so it’s ironic we spend most of our time talking about other people.
    Bear with as I try to explain. Emotionally, intellectually, and physically I am predisposed to the company of women, this creates no dilemma for me in any way. I believe God has created all men to this ideal according to His will. My homosexual interests in men are purely physical, fed by lust, in the interest of easy gratuitous mutual satisfaction.
    I would consider that you’re making a false distinction between emotion/intellect and the body. Your body is predisposed to the company of women. I’m sure if we could hook you up to MRI’s, heart monitors etc. we would find your body altering its states as you enter the presence of women. Do you perhaps think your attraction to men as gratuitous is perhaps being fed by your experiences? Perhaps when you were younger your found it easy to quickly have male-male encounters while encounters with women were more difficult to obtain, hence to this day your mind views it as an easy escape if you happen to get hard up (sorry for the pun). Sort of like how a man who hit Times Square in NYC before Disney took it over might still think of it today as a place to go for easy gratuitous satisfaction.
    We do emphatically agree on choice and respect, if one chooses to be homosexual, and feels there is no consequence to the choice and so is not troubled by it, then they should be afforded all the respect due any human being.
    Let’s back up, we agree on respect. Choices do have consequences so if one chooses to be, say, a prostitute (whether straight or gay) that choice has consequences for how he (or she) is viewed. I would say, though, that one does not choose to be homosexual anymore than I choose to be heterosexual. As you pointed out for yourself, even you do not fall evenly down the middle equally attracted to both. Did you choose this really or do you feel you just kind of ended up there not quite on one side but closer to one than the other? If your attraction was almost exclusively towards men I’m not sure you would have been able to so successfully ‘choose’ to stick with women. I suspect if you did you would end up in that state of feeling something was missing that you suspect gay men feel. Or to put it more bluntly I have a hard time believing Andrew Sullivan is ‘less fulfilled’ than Larry Craig. I’m basing this on what I’ve heard and read others say about their own situtation as I’ve taken you at your word about your own experiences.
    oclarki
    Besides if we convert all these gay men, who is going to style my hair, design my clothes, and write musicals? Not to mention the real estate crash when there are no longer gay couples to renovate funky urban spaces and begin the process of gentrification in old neighborhoods. ;)
    Don’t laugh, gays do seem to contribute a disproporate amount to culture and arts. I would guess there is some evolutionary advantage to the human species having a few ‘gay genes’ flowing through the population.
    whojno
    I think Gene is right-those gays ought to just keep their perversions to themselves. If they want to act that way it’s their business, but just don’t throw it in our faces.
    Yea but when you guys say ‘throw it in our faces’ you mean simple existence.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    First, it does harm them because it contributes to the general degredation of society. There has never been a culture that survived rampant sexual promiscuity, and the hallmark of male homoesexuality is promiscuity.
    I don’t think there’s any basis to your assertion. There are cultures that glorify the promiscuous male yet have lots of intolerance for homosexuality. Likewise there are cultures that seem to have huge homosexual subcultures yet are generally not promiscuous (Saudi Arabia). Likewise as a society we are almost certainly more tolerant of homosexuality today than we were 20 years ago but I think we haven’t become more promiscuous….if anything we’ve probably tappered off a little.
    More to the point I don’t get your assertion. If your beef is with promiscuity then bash anyone who is promiscuous….if that happens to hit a disproportionate amount of gay men then so be it. No instead you seem to be asserting some strange sort of connection between what the gay guy down the street from you does and how many women you sleep with.

  • http://benedictionblogson.com Bene D

    You might want to check out the excellent analysis at Box Turtle Bulletin.
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/17/785
    Dr.Jones responded to the review, and responded with right off the top with an error on the Australian study. Not to worry, Australian study people responded respectfully with substantial corrections.
    Jones didn’t come back to respond to corrections of his error which is unfortunate.
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/18/792
    This study was funded by Exodus International btw.
    Joe wouldn’t dare criticize it.
    This would be like doing a gambling addiction study funded by the gambling industry.
    Or an alcoholism study funded by beer companies.
    Or a smoking study funded by the tobacco industry.
    One of the main questions being asked by experts is why this was released as a book without going through peer review. Clinton Anderson, the APA:
    Even if you think it’s an excellent study, why would they choose to not have it published in the peer-reviewed literature? That’s where it belongs,” he said. “Otherwise, I don’t think I understand where they’re coming from, as far as science and making a contribution to it.”
    Focus on the Family’s Citzen link misquoted the study. Did Jones and Yarhouse correct them, or would that be biting the hand that fed them?
    There were few Christian organizations that rubber stamped this.
    Even the authors admit the problematic methodology with ‘self-selected participants from an evangelical Christian ministry, it relied exclusively on the truthfulness of patients self-reporting their desires and feelings, and it had a high dropout rate.’

  • http://solshine7.blogspot.com SolShine7

    Interesting. Have you ever heard of Exodus Ministries?

  • http://www.aqurette.com/ C. L. K. Aqurette

    A book on ex-straights would be far more relevant considering most, if not all, gay men started out as guys eager to lead a heterosexual life.

  • http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/metal-grindcore/g846/ Gxzkiul
  • http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/metal-grindcore/g846/ Gxzkiul
  • http://www.eadfbn.rxjcae.com uwcyvjf fdhbogywp

    wtyqb jxclurdb emvqnig fxtqzpj zcqrmu usgdqva icln

  • http://www.eadfbn.rxjcae.com uwcyvjf fdhbogywp

    wtyqb jxclurdb emvqnig fxtqzpj zcqrmu usgdqva icln

  • http://online-seek.net/ onlinereplicacatalogss

    [url=http://online-seek.net/fake-designer-watches/new-yourk-designer-watches.html]buying luxury watches in london[/url]
    [url=http://online-seek.net/top-replica-warches/watchid309.html]watches of switzerland[/url]