Ex-Gays? Study Claims it May Be Possible to Change One’s Sexual Orientation
- Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:25am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
When it comes to homosexuality, it seems everyone has an opinion. From policy discussions about whether gay marriage should be legalized to debates over religious freedom and the right to speak out against gay marriage and adoption, the issue remains contentious. Now, a study published in a peer-reviewed journal is alleging that some gays and lesbians may be able change their sexual orientation.
The seven-year study followed 61 subjects for a period of six or seven years, finding that 23 percent of them were, as they reported, successful in converting to heterosexual orientation. An additional 30 percent reported what the Christian Examiner calls “stable behavioral chastity with significate dis-identification with gay orientation.” Study co-author Stanton L. Jones (Jones conducted it along with Mark A. Yarhouse), a psychologist at Wheaton College, explains:
“The results that we report in our study suggest that change is definitely not impossible, and it’s probably not uncommon, either. That doesn’t mean that change is easy. We think that these results need to be taken into account as a way of respecting the religious freedom of individuals.”
These results, whether valid or not, will likely create angst and debate between those individuals who believe conversion is possible and those who adhere to the notion that people are born gay and cannot change.
The study, which is thought to be the first of its kind, followed people who were voluntarily taking part in various Christian ministries associated with Exodus International. Here is Exodus’ mission:
Through our unique programs and resources, Exodus Student Ministries endeavors to minister to young people affected by homosexuality and their families. We also strive to equip those in the Body of Christ who minister to students with the tools they need to make a difference in the lives of young people struggling in these areas.
Our mission is: Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality.
While partial results were released back in 2007 and 2009, the study is now making its way into the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. As a result, Jones and Yarhouse are hopeful that it will be given more ample attention after it was dismissed by critics when results first emerged a few years ago.
“[Its placement in the journal] signifies that the methodology meets the basic requirements for being taken seriously as a piece of scientific literature,” Jones explains.
“Critics still dismiss the study. They say, ‘Well, it’s only one study,‘ or they say it’s not a large enough sample. But I think the study stands as a significant challenge to the reigning views on this matter, especially given that the major mental health organizations say in alternate voices that change of sexual orientation is impossible or that change in sexual orientation is highly unlikely.”
Jones and others who embrace this ideology though — that change is possible — definitely have an uphill battle ahead of them. The American Psychological Association, among other experts on these matters, seems to believe that the notion that someone’s sexuality can be changed is not a healthy one. As you may recall, GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, were under fire earlier this year for allegedly endorsing and utilizing “reparative” treatments.
Critics of the study (Jones and Yarhouse respond to them here) say that it falls flat because it doesn’t record the physical responses of subjects when they are exposed to sexual stimulus. Exodus, though, wouldn’t support this, seeing as subjects would need to be exposed to pornography to monitor how the brain and body respond to it. ” … People who are undergoing change don’t want to submit themselves to exposure to gay porn as a measurement method as to whether they have changed,” Jones explained.
The small sample size is definitely a problem when it comes to looking at an overall picture. But even the study’s authors acknowledge this, as they contend that it would not be appropriate to assume, based on their research, that 23 percent of people can change their sexual orientation (based on the 23 people in their study who who to have changed). Still, the authors believe that the study corroborates the idea that change is possible.
The literature can be downloaded and read and the researchers’ book on the subject can be found here.
(H/T: Christian Examiner)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 458 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 313 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 209 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 300 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (323)
KINGRUDDY
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:24amChange? Go ask Chasity/Chaz Bonzo chick/dude!
Report Post »The answer is to transfer these people to Sharia Law countries, if they dont change, then they will be history!
InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:04pmSo someone else can murder us? Always nice to advocate violence. ;-)
Report Post »Emrys
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:42pmSo being homosexual is up there sin-wise with murder and kidnapping and treason, in that it should be punishable by death? Are you sick, or just moronic? Should shoplifters and liars and tax cheats also be sent to Sharia governed nations to be put to death? Meh.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:56pmit was called “Sexual Preference” for a reason…
if it’s genetic, it’s based on attraction… and it’s still a choice.
there are men who look and act like women and women who look and act like men.
my favorite part is that most gay people love to be “organic” and “all natural”, when they, themselves, are anything but. it is not “natural” for 2 mammals of the same sex to reproduce. if that happened, it would be because of genetic mutations, such as a uterus in a male, hence unnatural. they can say it’s normal all they want, whatever helps them sleep at night…
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:19pmI don’t care if a person is gay or not, they will answer to God not me. What I do find offensive is the “in your face” way of letting everyone know who you sleep with. Stop parading down the streets with banners of pride or asking for special attention or perks because you sleep with someone. No one cares!! Get over yourselves and keep your anger about what you are/choose to be, to yourself.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:20pm@JB … That’s because most of us are the kind of Libs that make my eyes bleed.
I usually keep my views to myself with other members of the gay community. They will turn on you in a heartbeat if they doubt your belief in the God-State that rights all wrongs and dries all tears.
I’m not sure which group wants me dead more… Fundamentalist Christians who want to expunge my sin or Gay Activists who see me as a traitor to my demographic. LOL
Report Post »RedManBlueState
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:50pm@Emrys…
No, shoplifters get their right hand chopped off. Or is it the left? The “eating hand” anyway. That way you are forced to eat with your “cleaning hand” (ie: your wiping your arse hand) and be permanently “unclean.”
Report Post »GeoffTN
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:53pmI understand your passion, Kingruddy, but the truth is all of us fall short of perfect, and someone caught up in homosexual addiction is no worse than someone caught up in pornography or adultery (sex outside of marriage). The reality is that we are created to reach and develop sexual maturity, but there is grave confusion and unhealed emotional injury that cause people to be led into this way, without self-control and self-esteem. I would do NOTHING to support anyone falling under the wickedness of Sharia law. In my understanding, sex was an ultimate gift from God, allowing us to touch his creative force within each of us. Throughout history, developed societies has often buried this truth in an effort to stem improper use of the drive He built into us; rather, it should be esteemed as the ultimate benefit of a healthy marriage. That our civil society has now legalized same-sex marriages is a very dangerous affront to the one thing He held most sacred (willing to kill the first animals in His good creation to cover our recognition of our nakedness, the closeness to His creative power; figs leafs didn’t work). If we believe there is redemptive power, we need to pray for freedom for our fellow Americans, while recognizing that civic officials have the responsibility to govern what a society permits as normative. This is what we have lost – “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – James Ad
Report Post »lengid67
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:56pmThe gays themselves are violent. What is the difference? When the muslims take over we will see who is the most violent. And yes, if the fraud at Penn. and Broad get’s 4 more that you can be sure.
Report Post »oldschoolgreen
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:14pmHomosexuality is rampant in every Arabic/muslim country I have visited. They are fond of saying that women are for babies and men/boys are for pleasure. Sharia doesn’t frown on this obviously aberrant behavior.
Report Post »stirthepot
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:33pmkingruddy, really? i sure hope you don’t call yourself a christian with that mouth.
inversiontheory, i looked at most of your posts on this article. way to stay kind :)
i have friends who i truly believe have been gay from early childhood – maybe birth? – and also friends who were for a time and are completely happy being straight now. i think the issue is so complicated and deals with psychology, religion, genetics, and environment on so many levels that we will never be able to fit it into a nice little box. but compassion and human decency should always be the prevailing attitude from those of us who have never walked in those shoes.
Report Post »ther1ghtsofbilly
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:03pmKingruddy is a homophobe.
You just try and send me and my friends over there and see how it feels to get beaten.
Report Post »Minnaloushe
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:03pm@KINGRUDDY
Coward. Try applying that idea to me and you’ll see just how fast I can exercise the 2nd amendment.
Report Post »ther1ghtsofbilly
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:05pmGod made us the way we are just like you are the way you are.
Too bad you haters are so stupid and ignorant.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:24pm@Stir … I’m here for thoughtful discussion. Getting mad or name calling doesn’t help the situation. I try to hold up a mirror and ask folks to see how they might feel if roles were reversed. I’m not perfect though…despite my best efforts.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:26pmHere is a good article on the reparative therapy treatment. Notice that religion is not a necessary component.
See here.
The Meaning of Same-Sex Attraction
Report Post »http://www.narth.com/docs/niconew.html
daver18
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:48pmEMRYS – While KINGRUDDY is suggesting a ridiculous answer, your understanding of sin also leaves much to be learned. KINGRUDDY suggests the wrong answer. You answer this with love, yet firmness that it is wrong and a choice. But your trying to make one sin worse than another is also wrong. The Bible is very clear that ANY sin is worthy of eternal punishment. God doesn’t look at us and say, “Well, that wasn‘t as bad as another person so I’ll look the other way.” No, rather He says that all sin must be dealt with. And unless each individual has dealt with that prior to death through a saving relationship with Christ then they are subject to eternal punishment. There are no exceptions. Whether the person stole a small item or was a serial killer doesn’t matter. They all fall short of the glory of God and cannot do anything to earn salvation. Only the free gift of Christ can save man and that’s also why, since we are all sinners unworthy of God’s grace, we should show the same compassion to someone who has become homosexual as God is willing to show us. And, how can we who are guilty of failure judge someone else of failing, too? Now that doesn’t mean that criminals should not be punished, but ultimately God is the judge of each one of us. When we put a criminal to death we are simply recognizing that there is nothing we can do to effectively deal with this and we are sending the person into eternity for God to deal with them directly.
Report Post »ireport uderide
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 6:18pmI’m likely the biggest sinner posting today.
Having said that, I don’t believe I will be lining up to join in the
“name your sin” Pride Parade.
It’s called free will and with that comes a conscience. If we allow this culture to deaden our ability to speak out against behavior that is detrimental to a healthy society we will end up morally corrupt.
Homosexuality isn’t the worst behavior. Neither was owning slaves, being a drunk/drug addict or despising Jewish people because of their religion. The bigger sin is acquiescing to those behaviors. We don’t have to use harsh words on others, just words that are honest to ourselves.
Pray for all that have fallen short, you can start with me.
Report Post »glenbeckisagit
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 7:51pmSo long as your fair…
Report Post »RossPoldark
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 8:12pmI think all of them should go to the middle east and use the freedom of speech they have over there as a teachable moment. After all, I am sure the rainbow coalition, socialists, Christians and Jews would all be welcomed with open arms by the people there. “`
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 8:17pmInversionTheory
I am about sick of the whole gay thing. I talked to a gay poster on Fox news. He told me he wants “acceptance” not “toleration”. That being the case I foresee major problems. We got to that point of the discussion after I told him there were some Christian denominations /sects that did not accept other Christians (won’t intermarry). So I told him that not everyone will accept. But that is want he wants/demands.
SO I can see some very militant gays demanding that certain things be taught ion schools to young children & that children be tested to see if they are gay. So I do see things ending badly.
I am still waiting for the gay gene to be discovered, Until then I will say it is a choice. A very bad one that should not be celebrated for diversity’s sake or encouraged.
I could see rich people like politicians or CEOs encouraging it so that they can make polygamy legal & they no longer have to cheat on their wives. They will encourage, but there won;t be a scientific basis for it just ulterior motives.
John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Governor Elliot Spitzer & a whole cast of other people, some of the RINOs.
Report Post »Ohello
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 8:42pmIn Sharia Law only the “Receiving Person” is guilty of homosexual behavior. The penetrating fellow is “normal”.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 9:09pm@Walkabout,
“I am about sick of the whole gay thing. I talked to a gay poster on Fox news. He told me he wants “acceptance” not “toleration”.”
The reason they will never gain acceptance – but will rightfully gain toleration, like anyone with an opinion should – is because being straight is as much a matter of identity as is being gay; Both groups making claims about the nature of gender identity, and we can’t both be right.
Interestingly, while gays want their lifestyle accepted as normal, they unwittingly impose THEIR OWN idea of what is gender identity, in that they only choose to form amorous relationships with those of their own gender. And on this point, it’s actually the bisexuals who are being the most consistent, and are the only one’s who have a legitimate claim to acceptance, in theory.
And not only do gays have their own belief about gender identity that they seek to impose on others (nothing wrong with that, per se), but it escapes them that straight ladies befriend them so easily PRECISELY BECAUSE they reject the gay lifestyle as normal – they consider gays “safe”, but they themselves seek love from the opposite sex.
There’s a reason why women want strong providers and why men want to be respected as such: It’s in the nature of our genders to be so.
The following article is helpful.
See here.
The Meaning of Same-Sex Attraction
Report Post »http ://www.narth.com/docs/niconew.html
Erin73
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 9:29pmWow. So much ignorance in one thread.. where to begin?? Tell ya what @KINGRUDDY : how about you head on over there first. They love “christians” too. :) And @8JRTS we won‘t flaunt it if you won’t. Don‘t wanna see you holding your partner’s hand or anything of the sort, k? No, you don’t like that? Why not? You‘re obviously just flaunting who you’re sleeping with. Oh and while you’re at it, you can repay any tax breaks you‘ve gotten if you’re married… can‘t have you getting special perks because of that person you’re sleeping with, right? As for the rest of you who think it’s a choice: until you make the choice to become homosexual and try it out, don’t wanna hear any more of your ignorant blather about something you clearly know nothing about. And if you don‘t think it’s possible for you to make that choice, you have no right telling anyone else that it was a choice they made.
It truly boggles my mind that anyone thinks they have the “moral authority” to deny equal (not special) rights to a group of people based on who they love. Get off your high horses, seriously. In the not too distant future you will all be looked at with the same disdain of former slave owners and racists.
Oh, and to those of you who think homosexuality is the result of some abuse or mental disorder… don’t worry, we think the same about how you came to be so ignorant and bigoted :)
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:30pmErin73
” Oh and while you’re at it, you can repay any tax breaks you‘ve gotten if you’re married”
So if 2 people get married they get to pay an increased amount of taxes because their combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket.
Only a progressive could argue so.
Report Post »jackbauer2012
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 1:43am@INVERSIONTHEORY
Report Post »Perhaps you‘ve run across a few Christians that want you dead but that such a small percentage that I don’t think you could even measure it. I have met with thousands of Christians and never ever ever have I heard a Christian say to me that they want a homosexual to be killed because they are homosexual. I have only heard an expression of disgust in the activity to disapproval of it. I have heard almost exclusively that despite the persons preference that we must remember to always love them but not what they do. By the way they hold that view for all sinners heterosexual or homosexual. So I wouldn‘t put much stock in the words of someone just spitting out poison just to get a rise of anger out of someone who I’m sure wouldn’t even think about it in a serious light.
Bucke7
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 2:50amInversion therapy,
Report Post »Kingrudy was not advocating violence …he was saying if people don’t wish to try change, they can go to those countries. Change is good. You were advocating they go there and face violence. You could have said…I agree, we don’t want them to go there and face violence. Lets try the change. No violence was implied in this country, but apparently you supported the change in scenery to a Muslim country. Which begs the question…why aren’t people picketing mosques here in this country. Stick around long enough, you won’t have to travel very far to find Islamic persecution that makes the help offered by Christians look like a wonderful and peaceful option. Stop the hate…learn to appreciate those that are trying to help you.
Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 3:18amHomos are simply perverted Heterosexuals; If Homos can convert from heterosexuals, as God made them, to homosexual then Homos can convert back (stop being perverted) to heterosexual.
God makes all of us heterosexual…That is truth…
If you do not believe in God, ok, being homos defies nature.
Nature would not create something that could not reproduce offspring.
Stop saying “gay”…. That is a label…If you are Homos why hide behind the label of “gay”? By doing so you demonstrate your whole way of life is false, a lie. At least be honest about what you are. Homos….
@R1ghtsofBilly
You are a poser…. The 1 in your name shows that. How desperate you must be to mock the true RIGHTSOFBILLY…..pathetic!
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 5:38amThat would be very bad for gays, however, oddly enough in some countries like Iran the transgendered can get sex changes. Their reasoning is that it is not forbidden in the Koran, and since it is the word of God that can’t just be a failure of imagination, so it must be okay. Of course, that’s not much good for people who are gay and can only be with their lovers if they get a sex change that they don’t want.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 1:12pm@A Doctors Labor – Read your article, the focus seems to be on people experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction. I find this unhelpful as I find my same-sex attraction to be much more fulfilling. I do not seek out risky partners or share “war stories.” I’m a quiet, nerdy dude who finds greater fulfillment with other quiet, nerdy dudes than I ever got out of my relationships with women.
@JackBauer2010 – Isn’t 1 person too many? I know there are 7 for sure because there are 7 self-identified Christians who have threatened me personally. Maybe the percentage is absurdly small, I really don’t know, but it sure feels like a lot when they’re after you. So I do what I can to persuade and things run in cycles. It gets better, it gets worse. Lather, rinse, repeat.
@Bucke7 – Imagine you’re Jewish and living in the US during WWII. How would you feel if someone came to you and insisted you TRY to change and be a Christian….or they’ll advocate deporting you to Nazi Germany? It’s not advocating violence directly, it’s more “I‘d like to see something bad happen to you if you don’t see things my way.” No matter how much you may disagree with me, I don’t want anything to happen you. Violence takes away your ability to reason.
Report Post »Erin73
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 2:47pm@Walkabout.. just a little FYI: gay does not equal progressive, just as straight does not equal conservative. I doubt anyone who knows me would label be as liberal or progressive. I’m actually a registered Republican. And if you don’t know about the tax breaks and other rights you get simply by being married, it‘s either because you take it for granted so much that you don’t even notice it, or you are simply ignorant. According to the United States Government Accountability Office, there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 7:04pmJB Kibs . . . Don’t get me wrong, I‘ll admit you’re far too ignorant to save, but that doesn‘t mean I’m not wiling to add to your anxiety, check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 7:05pm8JRTS . . . Right. Jeep it to yourself! Don’t expect special rights. I consider that good advice for Christians.
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 7:09pmOKIE . .. Yeah! Me too! I[m tire3d of “conservative.” that’s jut a label. You’re a mindless cowardly racist ignoramus. Why hide behind a label like “conservative? That just proves that your whole life is a lie. Stand tall in all your clueless glory.
Report Post »CottonMPG
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:22amWhy does this surprise anyone? It is an addictive behavior. Of course it is possible to change! If a person is a chronic adulterer we know he could change. It is very difficult! This accounts for the relatively low success rate.
Report Post »We all know you can change TO Homosexuality later in life. Look at the number of people who have children then get into homosexual lifestyle later.This is very common with woman. Look at the homosexuality rate in prison. Sex is a self reinforcing behavior. If you try it, you get hooked by it.
A lot of homosexuals find it difficult to get into a opposite gender relationship. Often difficulty finding opposite gender relationships are a root cause of homosexual behavior. It is VERY difficult to live a celibate lifestyle, especially after having been sexually active. If the only people willing to enter a sexual relationship with you are your same gender it is extremely difficult!
In our culture you also face constant discouragement by well meaning people telling you to accept who you are, you can’t change and there is nothing wrong with your lifestyle etc.. We as a society are constantly bombarded with sexual images of all orientations.
The fact that even one person in our culture is able to overcome all of these barriers to live a normal heterosexual lifestyle is proof that it is possible for everyone!
InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:31amI‘m sure it’s that….and not that propaganda doesn’t make much difference in your orientation.
Report Post »Wringeaux
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:34pmI believe it is exactly like alcoholism. You can quit but it isn’t easy. TEA !
Report Post »BetsyRoss1513
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:32pmWhile it may be possible to change, if it makes a person miserable to do so, simply because of pressure from those of another sexual persuasion, is it healthy to do physically or mentally? What is the net gain?
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 7:22pm@ WRINGEAUX
Report Post »That is the analogy I see, as well. One big difference, though, is that winos are not so celebrated in Western society.
mpthegreek
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:22amHomosexuality is caused by past traumatic events usually when a person is young. If this past trauma is not dealt with then even if you would like to change it may not be possible. Psychologists have always considered homosexuality a mental disorder until extreme pressure was placed on them by gay lobbying groups to the point of getting it removed from the diagnostic manual. Science didn‘t change societal pressure forced this change and now many don’t get te help they need and are told there is nothing they can do to change. In one case counciling and hypnosis was performed with a lesbian woman who was raped by a childhood friend at age 13. She now is pregnant with a boyfriend. This also explains bisexual behavior. It is almost always linked to missing or abusive parents and traumatic events often of a sexual nature. Sometimes a person feels their one true love has left them and turn gay but were straight up to that point. Treatment is not effective without intensive psychoanalysis dream analysis and hypnotic regression. The reason it matters is not to make everyone straight but to help people in need to have families and children and a normal fulfilling life. God bless you. You can change your very DNA. Misery loves company. People tell you what you are so you will be what they want.
Report Post »stub5050
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:35amIt is nice that people are studying sexuality, but I don‘t like when people are seemingly trying to change someone else’s.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:39am@Stu … It’s ok. I don‘t mind and take comfort from that fact that it doesn’t seem to work.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:40amtotally agree. I also agree with the statement that the homesexual community makes when they say “do you think I would have chosen this life? it is not easy to be different“ I fully agree that this ”lifestyle” is a result of extremely tramatic events whether they be conscious or unknown via suppression. Our brains do odd things to protect us from damage, including suppressing painful memories which is where the regression therapy comes in to play. Homosexuals need to be treated with love and concern, and the underlying issues addressed.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:50amMy underlying issue is people who insist I have to give up things that make me happy to please them. Is there treatment to get them to mind their own business? Some pill I can take?
Imagine the some vegans wanna force you to stop eating meat. They insist you’re immoral for wanting to eat meat. That’s how I feel about my sexuality.
Report Post »docsmooth
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:56amwrong, this is a lie. There are innumerable gay people WITHOUT traumatic experiences, as there are innumerable straight people with extreme trauma. Use your head, the logic just is not there
BetsyRoss1513
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:01pmSo by all accounts, this agnostic person ought to be gay, but isn’t. Right?
Report Post »bicyclemilitia
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:32pm“stub5050 says he doesn’t like it when people try to change others” yet homosexuals are set to change everyone else to thinking homosexuality is ok. Also wouldn’t everyone agree that if you were a child molester that we should try to change you to a normal healthy lifestyle?
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:41pm[stub5050
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:35am
It is nice that people are studying sexuality, but I don‘t like when people are seemingly trying to change someone else’s.]
The bulk of the gay community is trying to influence as many people as possible to become gay. Deny this fact or not, it is still very true.
Report Post »Unix
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:57pmWhat you speak is true. Injury or environment is what it boils down too!
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:57pmYou want to make the average gay person angry? Tell them that their orientation is a choice. The become visibly angered at the mere suggestion of it. Why? Religion is a choice, politics is a choice. Your career is a choice. People usually don’t get angry with their choices. However gays are angered if you suggest choice. They are for choice, generally, when discussing the killing of your unborn children, however they do not like the word or concept of choice in this issue. What is the phychology behind their fear of choice in this case?
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:02pmAnswering my own question above, fear of the word or concept of choice regarding being gay is a general guilt response. If you eliminate the concept of choice you are deluding yourself into thinking that you can get rid of some of the natural guilt feelings that you pocess. And you do have feelings of guilt. That part is obvious. But, being self deluded, you do not wish to admit your feelings of guilt. It is a vicious guilt loop that you are stuck in. It stems from your most inward feelings that what you are doing is wrong.
Report Post »Postolic
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:39pmINVERSIONTHEORY….You should not be concerned with what other people say you should give up. Instead you should ask yourself what does God want me to give up. In other words, Matthew 16:24, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” If you believe you can please yourself and still please God, more power to you. However, I would not want to stake my eternal soul on that belief.
If, on the other hand, you do not believe in God or eternity, then why in the world are you even concerned with what religious people say? It would be like me worring about what Santa Clause has to say when I don’t believe in Santa Clause. It sounds kind of silly to me. :)
Report Post »K-CHooo
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 5:03pmI agree, MP. Many girls (and boys) are molested, some even in infancy, by babysitters, siblings, cousins, neighbors, friends, relatives, daycare workers, even parents–most of whom were probably molested themselves. If this occurs before the age of three, it most likely will not be remembered. Thus the child concludes that they were born this way when sexual maturation reveals their “orientation.” The skewed orientation results from the vows and judgments (conclusions about self, others and the world) precipitated by the trauma. These vows/judgments act like software programming on our hard drive (the brain). Conclusions run the gamut, but are binding on our brains. “I’ll never let another man touch me.“ ”Men are not safe.“ ”All men are predators .“ ”I’m bad (dirty, worthless).“ ”I hate men.“ ”Something’s wrong with me.“ ”It’s not safe to be a girl.“ ”I’ll never be like my dad/mom.” Even before we have words, our conclusions/decisions at a heart level shape who we are, and those decisions/vows/judgments have to be accessed, identified and precisely renounced/cancelled/deleted at a heart level before the effects can be undone. (Check out “Theophostics.”) Personality changes, splits, dissociation, attachment disorders and the like can also occur due to partitioning of the brain. Associations are made as well. One friend associates titillation with the male gender because he was stimulated at age three by his mother’s boyfriend. He thought he must be g
Report Post »K-CHooo
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 5:12pm(continuing) He thought he must be gay because it felt good. He’s struggled all his life to overcome his attraction to men. Now in his mid-30s, he’s working at identifying and renouncing those early vows and judgments that reprogrammed his brain. I agree with another poster who said that gays need our empathy and support. They are most often victims of rank abuse first. If we could all recognize the reality of the dark side’s agenda, to steal, kill and destroy, we would not be at loggerheads on this issue.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 1:36pm@Postolic – One could ask a Christian the same question. Why struggle against evolution? If you believe it is false and clearly so, why not have it taught in school? We each want to express ourselves and move the opinions of the people around us. I don‘t see anything wrong with that as long as we don’t grab weapons and start killing for our beliefs.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 2:20pm“@Postolic – One could ask a Christian the same question. Why struggle against evolution? If you believe it is false and clearly so, why not have it taught in school?”
well maybe because evolution doesn’t exist…and its nothing more than a racist atheist fairy tale posing as science?
” We each want to express ourselves and move the opinions of the people around us. I don‘t see anything wrong with that as long as we don’t grab weapons and start killing for our beliefs.”
well apparently the gays want to silence those who disagree with them…and end their freedom of religion, like the doctor in CA who was sued by a lesbian because he didn’t want to artificially inseminate her….the gays sure can’t tolerate that kind of opinion!
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 11:13pmTo InversionTheory:
I think that your analogy to evolution is interesting, but very flawed. The issue with evolution today isn‘t that it’s being taught- but being taught to the exclusion of other beliefs. I think it would be fascinating if science teachers gave a few religious views across the board about it- they don’t. But they DO say it is a theory. Also, it’s taught, if memory serves, sometime in late middle school?
Gay advocates seem to focus on little kids- we’re talking books about two princesses marrying, here, read to 4 year olds, you know? That strikes me as an attempt at programming from a young age “gay” thoughts- aka, you look at someone, or yourself, and think “are they gay”, “am I gay”. Anywho…maybe if they presented this in science class in middle school as a scientific theory, your analogy might work better. But the effort being made in schools targets kids waaay too young to even be thinking sexually, it just doesn’t have a place at that age- and when it is stated as a fact that it is normal behavior, when many, many people in this nation view as a sin via their religion, um…sorry, your opinion about this shouldn‘t override a parent’s choice to teach their kids what they see as truth. Meh, just saying.
On another point…I was very protected growing up. I though “queer” meant strange, and “gay” meant happy. I didn’t have ANY exposure until my teens. It would be fascinating to see how many gay people did have exposur
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 11:23pmlol…got cut off. Oops.
But yeah…I also have a friend who told me that when she was in middle school she went through a mini crisis for about two weeks in which time she thought she was “in love” with another female friend. Then she “realized” that this was simply sisterly affection, etc.
Her mother was a sex counselor, something along those lines. My friend was clearly taught, from a young age- at least as young as middle school, anyway- that being gay is natural and normal. Fine, whatever- but I‘m thinking that if she hadn’t even been exposed to the concept of “gay”, that little crisis she had never would’ve occurred.
I could be wrong. I’m sure there are cases of same sex attraction with absolutely no social introduction to the concept ahead of time. I do think that the number of “gay” people is, let’s say…artificially high in our society. It is an automatic way to be cool, to be given a network of supporters, to join an instant click- just be gay. And you’re special, and a victim too! People hate you, oh my gosh! That’s so mean, let’s form a support group…I’m sorry, but this is a very attractive thing for some people. It gives them a cause.
I don’t know you, don’t know who you are or what you stand for. You might be someone who was attracted to the same sex from a young age or something, and going hetero would be like growing a second head. Meh. But I do think that a lot of “gay” people really aren’t- which explains thi
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 11:41pmLast post, I swear! lol, I keep going just a LEETLE too long. (Intentional misspelling! :P)
For myself, I would say this: the whole sexual orientation thing, the whole dating thing, that’s kind of alien to me. Maybe someday I’ll find someone (when I start looking) who I can start a family with, and grow old with. This is where my thinking comes from. When I start really seeking someone, they will automatically need to be the opposite gender, because I’d like to have kids.
Does that make sense? The “gay” thing just seems like a very weird way to think of things. A girl wanting to ask me out…I’d just be like, um. Hello, we can’t reproduce. But yeah, I guess there are so many different kinds of people with different life experiences- it’s hard to say how someone gets where they are.
The concept of dating just for fun is also alien to me, though- you’re looking for a contract for life there, yah know? You don’t just kiss, etc, random people, then move on like it’s nothing. I think a lot of unhappiness comes from sleeping around- not saying you do.
Woohoo, this is random-day for me. Yay. Honestly, I believe in reincarnation- and if you’ve been a guy for 10 lives, being a girl could be pretty freaky. We’ve all been both at some point. Being gay could be a phase people go through at some point or other…before moving on.
Ultimately sex is completely left behind- as with Christ, Buddha, etc.
Sorry, I know this post will freak some out, lol.
Report Post »normbal
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:14amOf course people can change their sexual orientation. From man to woman to hand to goat to sheep to pig to chicken to dog to rubber sex toys. It’s all about choice. But the basic orientation, the genetically hard-wired orientation, the one that ensures the success of the species, is heterosexual. Actually it’s to spread as much seed as far and wide in fertile ground as you can but species success requires social contract and a means to protect family and offspring. Anything else leads to disease and decay and dysfunction (look at the “gay” community as it is now to confirm that, Q.E.D.).
What’s most interesting to me is, homosexuals complain (god, about everything), that they are born that way. As if they were, the change is immutable. But they welcome those who, in midlife crisis, after trauma of abuse/rape/drugs and/or alcohol, suddenly, like Saul of Tarsus on the road to damascus, have a revelation from god “I am born this way.” So living a heterosexual lifestyle all one’s life to suddenly turn “gay” is fine, proof of being “born that way,” but someone who is acting out a homosexual lifestyle, realizing the error, the sin, the lie of their choice deciding to be a heterosexual, this doesn’t happen? Puh-lease, your bias and double standard are showing, cover those things up, would you?
Report Post »CottonMPG
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:24amWell said!
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:25amI agree with your comment. My question on this subject is that psychiatrists have recognized mental illness and personality disorders that cover about 35% of the population. Why is it that homosexuality is not included in this 35%?
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:29amIt really doesn’t bother me if people come and go from the “Gay Community”… Heck, I lost a boyfriend that way. Spent 3 years with him and he decided being gay wasn’t right for him. Be true to yourself and live in accordance with your own conscience. I like myself and the way I am.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:31amThe change in the position of American psychiatry that homosexuality is a mental state, not a physiological one came about in the 1970′s not through the review of the research or new conclusive research, but through the lobbying of homosexual and liberal lobbies to remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. This study only adds weight to the position before the 1970′s that homosexuality is indeed mostly a mental state, not a physiological one. This is why the homosexual lobby and it’s surrogates are pushing for “gender choice and neutrality” in younger and younger children….they want to damage the child early as possible so that there’s no hope of treatment to work. Many children before adolescence and indeed into adolescence will find a little confusion in their sexual identity…this dissipates in time..but the homosexual lobbies want to impose homosexuality or “transgenderism” as early as possible and continue a campaign of imposing that through the child’s formative years. Consistently in studies, strict homosexuality occurs in less than 2% of the population. It never goes higher..however homosexuals and their advocates want the number to be raised even in an illusory sense.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 8:22pmInversionTheory
“It really doesn’t bother me if people come and go from the “Gay Community”… Heck, I lost a boyfriend that way. Spent 3 years with him and he decided being gay wasn’t right for him. ”
How could he change if it was genetic?
Sounds like a choice. He was able to choose.
I want to be on a different health plan than your average gay. It’ll be cheaper that way.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 2:05pm@Walkabout – I haven‘t got a clue if it’s a choice or not. Maybe it’s a choice we made before we became aware we were making a choice. Maybe it’s just a choice whether you embrace it or struggle against it. I don’t have all the answers. I chose to embrace my same-sex attraction and that has made me happier and more productive than I was at any time before that.
But I don’t find personal anecdotes convincing as there are certainly alternate explanations, so I wouldn’t be surprised if you reacted skeptically. The truth is that we do not have a good explanation for human behavior at this time. I’m ok with that because I know that scientists will figure out more of the puzzle until we have a good understanding.
If ultimately it is 100% genetic and I never had a choice, I will shrug and enjoy my life. If ultimately it was 100% my choice, I will shrug and enjoy my life. If you want my opinion, I’d venture a guess that there is some genetic aspect to it (where hormone levels are naturally in your body, for example) and a behavioral aspect (a choice or action taken to push you over that critical threshold).
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:12amAngry homosexual and Far Left response in 3… 2… 1…
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:39amHey I was going to say that! :D
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:44amBut…but… I’m not angry, nor far left.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:08pmGo back to acting classes INVERSIONTHEORY.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:18pmLOL… The last time I had anything to do with acting was playing Ben Franklin in an elementary school play. I didn’t care for it.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:43pmIf my sarcasm was lost on you INVERSIONTHEORY…you have my sympathy.
Report Post »Centralsville
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:10amLike adultery, don’t feed the sin, then it’s hard to stop. Some of the girls my daughter graduated with became lesbians by convenience. They were too fat to get the boy of their dreams and were accepted in the lesbian community so they joined the other team.
Report Post »saranda
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:44pmAll accounted for now. The small minded idiot crowd has now been heard from.
Report Post »Obeeone
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:33pmNot Right On, but Left On.
Report Post »OccamsGun
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:09amYou first have to start with a definition of homosexual. I think the only reasonable definition is that a homosexual is a person who has repeatedly engaged in sex with another person of the same sex. (You may think this is obvious but many, including gays, would argue that you can be celebate and still be gay.) With my definition of homosexual is it painfully obvious that many people go through periods of homosexuality and then go on to lead a ‘straight’ life. The most obvious example are the much reported college women who go through a ‘wild’ period in college but eventually find a man and settle down and raise a family (living a life of embarrassment, hoping their kids never learn about their lesbian flings). The other example, on the male side, is prison sex. Homosexual sex is common in prison but those engaging in it (generally) are straight outside of prison. I do think that some people are born with a strong homosexual predisposition (that would be difficult, if not impossible, to resist) but most homosexuals *choose* that lifestyle.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:08pm“You first have to start with a definition of homosexual. I think the only reasonable definition is that a homosexual is a person who has repeatedly engaged in sex with another person of the same sex.”
Then you’re already off-basis compared to this study. Jones and Yarhouse define “sexual orientation” by the object of one’s attraction, desire or arousal, not by their actions.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:13pmSo….If you never get married, have children or even have sex….You’re not heterosexual?
Report Post »tzion
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 3:27pmA lot of people talk about prison sex but from my understanding much of that is rape. Most experts agree that the rape is often about power and superiority. If you put a bunch of hardened criminals in jail, they will seek to establish a sort of “pecking order”. Homosexual rape is one way of asserting one’s dominance.
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 12:00amI think some people are naturally asexual. Meaning they have no sexual attraction, and are completely uninterested in marriage, etc. People who are focused on career above all else, or God.
There are all kinds of people. That said, I think that the assumed predisposition is obviously heterosexual, unless an individual who never has a relationship their entire lives states they are something else. But seriously…some people just aren’t sexual at all. Some are, first and foremost, children of God- and remain childlike in many ways. Innocent, guileless, simple in wants and needs, etc. Very close to God. :)
Report Post »sickoftalking
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 12:51amTzion:
People who say rape is about power and not about sex, don’t really understand sexuality, imo.
At the base of most sexual desire is some issue of control or friction, whether control of others or of yourself or over your life. That’s the basis of S&M, dominance-submission, attraction to authority figures (teachers, bosses), and so on. Its also why repression increases sexual desire, and overexposure to sex leads to boredom with it. Its why people are attracted to things that are forbidden, or unavailable to them. People are only attracted to the idea of people of the opposite sex being naked, because they normally wear clothes. Its normally something forbidden to them.
In animals, homosexuality is generally about dominance also, which most dog owners should know. In ancient Rome and Greece, pederasty was generally a dominant-submissive relationship also, the master would always be the dominant and the slave the submissive, and it was considered shameful for a master to be in a submissive position.
The same thing gets established in prison. Of course, in prison, its usually unwelcomed and forced, which is what makes it like rape. But that doesn’t mean its not about sex.
Report Post »Southern Rebel
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:07amBeing gay is ‘the newest craze & fad’, it‘s ’the IN thing’ to do right now. This study may be small, but there are thousands upon thousands of ‘ex-gays’ out there who are living normal hetero lives. Of course, this being a politically correct and sensitive topic by miltants homosexuals and their enablers, you don’t hear much about this.
Report Post »Man can turn from their sin with the blood of Jesus and be healed of their perversions. Satans whole game is to pervert the ‘marriage bed’ between God & Man which was the first Covenant made in the Garden and the ultimate Covenant between the Lord and His Bride at the end of time.
I hope many of those folks realize soon that their sin will cause their ultimate destruction…time is running out.
qpwillie
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:04amNature wouldn’t produce “extra” genders without harmless physical accommodations for their intended behavior.
I believe in the spiritual aspect but if you have a good look at pure nature, you’ll see that it is geared completely to bring on the next generation and rear it to produce subsequent generations.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:58amWatched a program couple of years ago where a female had changed her own life from a homosexual to a heterosexual lifestyle. Said it was difficult, took some counseling and a lot of prayer…..but she changed it. All things are possible!!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:40pmWe need to count them. Mostly the gays have a derisive term they use. It is called “ex-gay for pay”.
It might be true in a few cases, but they can’t all be getting paid. In large part I think this argument is used so they don;lt have to look ion the mirror.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 1:39pm@Walkabout – Do you have a source for the “Ex-Gay for Pay” thing? I’m just curious and not trying to pick at you. I’ve been in the gay community for years and have never heard that term.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:55amAlso, just to note, some statements are misleading in this article:
“The seven-year study followed 61 subjects for a period of six or seven years, finding that 23 percent of them were, as they reported, successful in converting to heterosexual orientation.”
This is not correct; the study started with 98. Over the course of the study, 37 dropped out. The final number of “success cases” was 11, or about an 11% success rate.
Also, the 6-7 time frame is vague; participants had to be involved in Exodus International for less than 3 years at the start of the study. But 56 of them had been attending over conversion therapies for years before starting Exodus. The authors also note that they cannot claim orientation has been changed long-term or only short-term as it would require a study over a much longer time period (20-30 years). However, they contradict this statement in their conclusion, claiming some individuals can change their orientation.
Also, out of the success stories; one recants his success, one admits to continuing to have gay desires, and another says he still has homoerotic dreams. The chastity part has the same issue; those people still claim to have homosexual desires, but try not to act on them.
It seems like in the end, behavior has changed, but the amount who “become straight” is much lower.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:03amThe 23% reported here is actually the number who chose abstinence; as reported above, they kept their homosexual attraction and did not change their orientation.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:04am“May” be possible?” It’s definitely possible. Since sex is a personal choice. I’ve seen news stories of people having sex with animals, plastic dolls etc. That is NOT a genetic mal-attribute. And I don’t care what your argument is. Science doesn’t back up the theory (except ONLY in theory). But we also don’t see people with wings. Or people with four legs. Or super human strength. Or any of a huge array of potential “genetic defects”. Why? because genetic mis programming isn’t that inaccurate.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:17amAbstinence may be their best choice Locked. I admire their decision. God set rules for man and if that is the only way they can find to follow them, I say bravo. God is more concerned with our obedience than our personal comfort or sexual inclinations. If you say you love God but do not obey Him, you’re a liar. Hard medicine in the modern world I know but, that doesn’t make it less valid.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:18am@Ruler … Try an experiment. Choose to be gay and let us know how that works out. It’s not as easy as you might think.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:42amGONZO…Men who have sex with men make up less than 2% of the population but they constitute about 55% of people who get HIV every year — an overrepresentation of 2,750%. I’d say abstinence is a very sensible policy for them and the figure only highlights further the anti-natural basis of homosexuality. It’s just not meant to be taking place because clearly their lives at risk through the act of male-male copulation. I’m not even citing the disproportionately higher outbreaks of syphilis and gonorrhea in male homosexuals. Gay, Inc.’s sentinels are determined to reveal ex-gays as paid stooges of misguided religious persecutors. But if we accept that most people who go from being in homosexual relationships to being in straight relationships are probably “bisexual” — a simple explanation that takes all of ten seconds to proffer — then the homosexual crusade against the ex-gays starts to look, well, idiotic.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:14pm@Ruler
“It’s definitely possible. Since sex is a personal choice.”
Orientation does not mean actually having sex with a specific gender. This study says as much. The researchers defined a homosexual orientation as having the object of your desire being of the same sex. It is attraction, not necessarily action; it does not have to include actually having sex with people. Hence why the “conversion” category is separate for the “chastity” category in their results.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:18pmIf my post that most responded to seems out of place, it’s because it was supposed to be a follow-up comment to my original one further down the page. Just an FYI.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:54pm[InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:18am
@Ruler … Try an experiment. Choose to be gay and let us know how that works out. It’s not as easy as you might think.]
Since most gay males are afraid of relationships with females, their next choice is to try having relationships with males, which they find easier. How do these choices work out? Not well, since so many gays (much larger percentage than normal) end up depressed and or suicidal.
Report Post »BonnieBlueFlag
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:14pmNo one can explain why there are more homosexuals today than the 1980s… it sure is not because there were hundreds of thousands of homosexuals hiding in the closet fearful of catching a beat-down. I know homosexuals who were out and proud in the 1980s and it was the most fun they ever had. Ecstacy (the drug) was legal and they did not have to fear cops or violence any more than the average citizen. They carried Studio 54′s torch all the way into the 1990s.
The reason there are more homosexuals today is because it is a movement of the mind, and definitely flexible. I don’t want to go so far as to accuse of “recruitment” by gays but I *will* accuse Hollywood of recruitment. The bad guy in movies and television is almost NEVER the homosexual, who is ever chipper and witty. Those that disagree with the LGBT community’s pressuring and celebration are demonized into Phelps-like monsters (and probably gay themselves.)
I don’t want to change anyone, I just wish the gay community didn’t have such venom for practicing homosexuals who *do* wish to change and I wish they didn’t have such hate for the Bible as it is *written* not as they wish it was written. Some of us will never, never, never see it as a wholesome or healthy lifestyle. We’ll never agree with it, and it doesn’t make us hateful. I have plenty of gay friends and family who I love dearly. I can always have my hope that they see the light; I will not nag them with my ideas about it, and I expect the sa
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:19pm[Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:55am
Also, just to note, some statements are misleading in this article:
This is not correct; the study started with 98. Over the course of the study, 37 dropped out. The final number of “success cases” was 11, or about an 11% success rate.]
A correction on your math. If you start with 98 and 37 drop out, especially if they drop out early, then the proper number you use in your findings is a percentage of 98-37 (61), not 98. Therefore, 11 out of 61 would be 18%,
You have to exclude those that dropped out from the total count, unless they dropped out for very specific reasons which would logically require you to at least note what the reasons for dropping out were. In the case of no valid reasons being given, then the logical choice would be to exclude them from the total calculations.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:33pm@KMichaels
“You have to exclude those that dropped out from the total count, unless they dropped out for very specific reasons which would logically require you to at least note what the reasons for dropping out were. In the case of no valid reasons being given, then the logical choice would be to exclude them from the total calculations.”
Allow me to correct your correction. Even only 61 made it to the end, the total of the beginning sample size is still 98.
If you’re studying 98 rats for a new drug, and 37 die, you don’t say “Well, we only have 61 left, and 11 of them show no side effects. This drug works GREAT!” You start with a sample size, and compare the ending amount to the beginning amount; you don’t switch numbers midstream. Out of 98 people who were studied, by the end of the period only 11 claimed to be straight. And of those, at least three mentioned still having homosexual attraction, dreams, or physical activities.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:44pm[Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:33pm
@KMichaels
“You have to exclude those that dropped out from the total count, unless they dropped out for very specific reasons which would logically require you to at least note what the reasons for dropping out were. In the case of no valid reasons being given, then the logical choice would be to exclude them from the total calculations.”
Allow me to correct your correction. Even only 61 made it to the end, the total of the beginning sample size is still 98.]
Since 37 did not die but voluntaryily left the group, then they would not logically be counted. But using your weak logic, if 10,000 flyers were sent out, asking for volunteers, but only 98 responded, then 37 of the 98 dropped out, you should count the total number of test cases as 10,000, since that is how many were sent flyers. Again, you have extremely weak logic on your side.
If the test cases were voluntary (which they were) and some of them voluntarily leave, giving no reasons for their departure, then including them in the test results totally destroys the statistical results of the test.
To properly include them in the test case they have to fulfill all of the requirements of the test. Seriously, you need to learn to think more deeply.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:50pmAccording to experts in calulating test results this is what they say.
“Failure to include all participants in the analysis may bias the trial results. Most trials do not yield perfect data, however. “Protocol violations” may occur, such as when the patients do not receive the full intervention or the correct intervention or a few ineligible patients are randomly allocated in error. Despite the fact that the most clinical trials are carefully planned, many problems can occur during the conduct of the study. Some examples are as follows:
The patients who do not satisfy the inclusion and/or exclusion criteria are included in the trial,
A patient is randomized to the Treatment A but has been treated with the Treatment B,
Some patients drop out from the study, or
Some patients are not compliant, that is, do not take their medication as instructed, and so on.
The analysis can only be restricted to the participants who fulfil the protocol in the terms of the eligibility, interventions, and outcome assessment. This analysis is known as an “on-treatment“ or ”per protocol” analysis. Also, the per-protocol restricts the comparison of the treatments to the ideal patients, that is, those who adhered perfectly to the clinical trial instructions as stipulated in the protocol. This population is classically called the per-protocol population and the analysis is called the per-protocol-analysis.
Again, Locked is proven wrong.
Report Post »GeoffTN
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:10pmLocked, as someone who has struggled with addictions (not this one), there will always be a residual desire to ‘return to your own vomit,’ as it were. It does become a question on whether you allow those feelings to drive you, or if you are able to become self-controlled enough to push them aside as not beneficial. My feeling is that many people in the homosexual subculture have found it to be the one place of acceptance and friendship they never had, and this is acted upon physically to maintain the desire of being in a community. Unfortunately, the pain of conscience never allows for peace of mind, so there is a overt attempt to continually justify this behavior to the overall society. You mention the medical and psychological journals; on this issue, they are attempting to ‘help’ based on what they consider compassion, but there is never any healing, freedom, or overcoming of the pain since the behavior remains constant. You can be free…
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:19pmGeoftn
The article itself states that homosexuality is the desire, not the action. By your own words, you’re never “free” or “cured;” you just don’t act on it. As Gonzo said early on, that’s perhaps the best possible result for someone wanting to be converted. You’ll always feel attracted to the same sex, but you can make peace with the desires and not act on them.
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:44pm“The final number of “success cases” was 11, or about an 11% success rate”
Of course to follow your math we must buy into the assumtion that every person who left the study made the choice to stay gay.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 3:47pm@KMichaels
Your points make sense, assuming the questions to be asked would not be answered by those dropping out. The researchers wanted to know if conversion therapy could change sexual orientation and if it did harm. Those who dropped out could answer as well as those who stayed in; one could easily say maybe they were all cured, or maybe they were all gay still. If they were not asked this… oh wait. They were.
Also, my numbers are slightly off because this study’s results have been released three times; each time, more participants dropped out of the program (leaving 61 at last count). Their book on the study, published in 2009, had 75 still in the program of the original 98. Between then and now, 14 more dropped out; two claimed conversion (one later recanted, saying he said just what he thought they wanted him to say), one chastity, and 11 homosexuality.
Life Site News also posted on this last month, but despite their proclamation of “Gay can be cured!” they then amend it to: “In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some.”
Finally, one of the researchers had a separate study showing that you can change behavior but not orientation: http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/07/15/new-study-sexual-behavior-changes-but-not-sexual-orientation/
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:09pmThat second part was to Welcome Black Carter as well, by the way.
@Bonnie
“No one can explain why there are more homosexuals today than the 1980s…
The reason there are more homosexuals today is because it is a movement of the mind, and definitely flexible…”
This is a logical fallacy. If no one can explain it, than neither can you. That said, I’d be interested in seeing some information on your assertion. I think changing social norms have made people feel more comfortable in coming out, but it sounds like you’re saying boys watch movies and TV and suddenly decide they want to kiss other boys. I haven‘t ever met a gay person who’s said that, but that’s anecdotal; hence why I’d like some studies on it.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:20pm[Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 3:47pm
@KMichaels
Your points make sense, assuming the questions to be asked would not be answered by those dropping out. The researchers wanted to know if conversion therapy could change sexual orientation and if it did harm. Those who dropped out could answer as well as those who stayed in;]
Actually, no, you are just making things up as you go. Those that “dropped out” would not be classified as dropping out, if they could “answer as well as those that stayed in.” Your argument is falacious from the get go.
Your math and your logic have failed you.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:25pm[Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:09pm
That second part was to Welcome Black Carter as well, by the way.
@Bonnie
“No one can explain why there are more homosexuals today than the 1980s…
The reason there are more homosexuals today is because it is a movement of the mind, and definitely flexible…”
This is a logical fallacy. If no one can explain it, than neither can you.]
Actually, again, Locked is wrong. “Saying no one can explain it” is a common saying, with the common understanding that “no one” is restricted to the group representing the opposing theory. It is almost always followed with what is meant to be additional, wiser, and or more truthful reasoning.
For example, if the debate is about liberals claiming that the rich need to pay a fairer tax rate, and I said, no one can explain what a fair tax rate is, I am saying, through common use of that saying, that the average person in the liberal camp of thought is incapable of stating what a fair tax rate is.
You being anally minded and playing games of semantics is a popular diversion played by people with a weak response.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:30pm“You being anally minded and playing games of semantics is a popular diversion played by people with a weak response.”
First, kudos for the immature pun about “anally.”
Second, I laugh again at you insisting “No, it doesn’t mean this, it means that!” Nice diversion.
So, my weak response being “I’d like to see some studies on that?” Gosh, I wonder what a “strong” response would be from you KMichaels. You seem to have a dog in this fight: show me the data?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:37pm@KMichaels
I do enjoy you picking at my posts, but I am curious as to your interpretation of the data. Presumably by now you’ve looked at the report, read reviews, etc. Do you think the researchers exaggerated their results? Do you think they extrapolated outside what the data has shown? I personally do not think they’ve lied, and I do think the results should be monitored over the long-term, but it seems they’ve jumped to conclusions. I have a post further down with some bullet points that you never answered. Mind weighing in on their accuracy now? (I removed the one about the number of participants, as you’ve addressed that, in a way)
- The study does not talk about long-term orientation;
- the “cured” folks are possibly eight out of eleven (as three reported still having a gay orientation);
-the researchers did not use participants new to the program, but those who had been in it for 1-3 years (and 54 of them had been in other therapy programs prior to this one);
-The pool is actually even more selective, as it did not include people in the program for less than a year. If more participants dropped out, we do not know.
-The authors say early on they cannot make claims on long-term success, but claim definitively in their conclusion that orientation was changed
-The authors ignored reports of trauma from their patients (not even included those 37 who dropped out) to say it’s “not harmful”
Hoping to stay on topic :-) Thanks!
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:56pm[Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:30pm
So, my weak response being “I’d like to see some studies on that?”]
Wow, strawman arguments now eh? Seriously, quit playing your asinine games, little nit.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 5:00pm[Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:37pm
@KMichaels
I personally do not think they’ve lied, and I do think the results should be monitored over the long-term, but it seems they’ve jumped to conclusions.]
Jumping to conclusions must be a good thing in your mind, since you are a frequent practioner. My main point is that your math sucked. Add that to your weak logic on most of your conclusions means you should quit pretending like you know what you are talking about.
And your excruciating gymnastics exercises to twist the facts to meet your bad conclusions is monotonous to say the least.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:34pm@KMichaels
… no answer? Really, I want to hear your analysis. Answer the questions, if you please. Additional information is never a bad thing. Please, contribute to the discussion.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:53amhomosexuality is a choice , with that choice assisted by choosers environment
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:03amIt would seem to me that if it were entirely a conscious choice, the result should’ve been 100% success in conversion. I’m assuming the people who joined the study genuinely WANTED to change.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:49amWho said it is a conscious choice? You’re taking a erroneous position. It‘s a psychological state that’s what this study is stressing and that‘s what American psychiatrists asserted before the 1970’s and the lobbying by liberals to remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:06pm[InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:03am
It would seem to me that if it were entirely a conscious choice, the result should’ve been 100% success in conversion.]
Your logic is weak at best. Certain people choose to be involved in crime. How many of them convert to not being involved in crime? Are we to assume that crime is a wise choice, because so many people make a lifetime habit of it? Or do some people simply make unwise choices, for various reasons.
Gays tend to fear the opposite sex. So many choose what they considere the next best choice. Instead of overcoming their fears, they choose an alternate route.
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 3:04pm” I’m assuming the people who joined the study genuinely WANTED to change.”
Not everyone who tries, ends up quitting anything… smoking, drinking, over eating ect.
Report Post »Erin73
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 9:48pm@KMICHAEL, where do you people come up with these random blurps like “Gays tend to fear the opposite sex” or were subjected to some form of abuse early in life? Honestly, it’s ridiculous. By sheer statistics, there are far more straight people who have been abused than there are homosexual. It’s obviously not the catalyst, or there would be a whole heck of a lot more gays than there are.
I challenge all of you bigoted homophobics to actually associate with gay people. And I’m talking about the AVERAGE gay people. The ones that are quietly living their lives together (many for MUCH longer than most married couples), raising children, paying taxes, and generally living the SAME way you so-called “normal” people do. How do their lives impact yours? How does it threaten your marriages?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 2:25pm“I challenge all of you bigoted homophobics to actually associate with gay people…..How do their lives impact yours? How does it threaten your marriages?”
so is anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda a ‘bigoted homophobic’? its clear the gays want to silence those who dare disagree with them…like the doctor in CA who was sued by a lesbian because he didn’t want to artificially inseminate her….the CA supreme court told him no free speech or religious liberty for you..those don’t exist when it comes to the gays. the gay pigs are more equal than others…
or how about the catholic charities in MA? they were forced out of the adoption business by the gay lobby…no freedom of religion for them!!!
maybe if your movement was so fascistic in nature it would be easier to get along with…just sayin…
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 2:37pm“maybe if your movement was so fascistic in nature it would be easier to get along with…just sayin…”
maybe if your movement wasN’T so fascistic in nature…
Report Post »Erin73
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 3:06pmJoe, there is no gay agenda, other than trying to gain equal (no, not special) rights under the law. The things you are talking about are called discrimination, and we have laws against it in this country, for very good reason: to stop people such as yourself from mistreating swaths of people based on your yes bigoted viewpoints. For the same reason that the doctor couldn’t have discriminated against someone for being black, Christian, an adulterer, or any other personal reason, so was he rightly punished for discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. Your rights in this country stop at trampling on someone else’s. Which you have no problem with until it is you wanting to trample someone.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 8:16pm“Joe, there is no gay agenda, other than trying to gain equal (no, not special) rights under the law. The things you are talking about are called discrimination, and we have laws against it in this country, for very good reason: to stop people such as yourself from mistreating swaths of people based on your yes bigoted viewpoints.”
yeah there is a gay agenda, to take away the rights of christians. and what you want is a special right that has never existed in the history of the world. you gay bigots have no problems taking away the rights of those who disagree with you…your gay ‘rights’ is a fascist movement designed to take away the rights of christians.
“For the same reason that the doctor couldn’t have discriminated against someone for being black, Christian, an adulterer, or any other personal reason, so was he rightly punished for discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. Your rights in this country stop at trampling on someone else’s. Which you have no problem with until it is you wanting to trample someone.”
so in other words there is no freedom of speech, religion, or thought…not when it comes to brown-shirted fascists intolerant hate-filled gays…..so you have no problems trampling on his rights….oh no the gay pigs are more equal than others. you’re a fascist.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 9:19pmoh and erin, do you think a child care facility refusing to hire a pedophile is discrimination too?
after all pedophilia is just a sexual orientaiton, and if refusing a homosexual (which is just another sexual orientation) anything they want is ‘discrimination’ then surely a child care facility refusing to hire a pedophile is disriminatory right?
Report Post »Erin73
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 2:08amSo tell me Joe, what rights are gays asking for that “have never existed in the history of the world”? And what rights are gays taking from Christians? The right to discriminate? Mmm.. nope, because you never had that right to begin with. Both of the situations you cited were involving businesses. These were not situations occurring in a church, where yes there is the option of being discriminatory based on religious beliefs. And by the way, if you had done any actual research into the Massachusetts Catholic adoption agency, you would know that the board of directors of the agency voted overwhelmingly to continue placing children in same sex parent homes but were overruled by a demand from the Vatican. Eight of those board members quit in protest of the ruling. They WANTED to place children in same sex households because they understood that those homes were just as loving, safe, and secure (probably moreso) as heterosexual homes.
.And if you don’t understand the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles (here, let me clue you in: consent and harm to another individual)… well I can sum it up with this phrase: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
You are obviously quite poorly educated and have no actual arguments other than to stomp your foot and yell “fascist”. Toddle on.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 11:22am“So tell me Joe, what rights are gays asking for that “have never existed in the history of the world”? And what rights are gays taking from Christians? The right to discriminate? Mmm.. nope, because you never had that right to begin with. ”
gay marriage. freedom of speech an religion. the right not to have to bow down to the gays and their special rights. we do have freedom of religion and speech…until you fascist gays take it away.
“Both of the situations you cited were involving businesses. These were not situations occurring in a church, where yes there is the option of being discriminatory based on religious beliefs”
oh so we get to have our religious freedom, and freedom of speech ONLY within a church huh? my thats mighty white of you!! but you gays have already sued a church in NJ because they wouldn’t let you use their pavilion for your ceremony…and you’ve already denied the catholic charities their right to practice their religion in MA….so whats your next lie I wonder?
“And by the way, if you had done any actual research into the Massachusetts Catholic adoption agency, you would know that the board of directors of the agency voted overwhelmingly to continue placing children in same sex parent homes but were overruled by a demand from the Vatican”
and so? you gay fascists denied them their religious freedom…and children need a REAL MOTHER AND FATHER…some woman wearing flannel pretening to be a man doesn ‘t cut it.
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on October 30, 2011 at 11:26am“.And if you don’t understand the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles (here, let me clue you in: consent and harm to another individual)… well I can sum it up with this phrase: There are none so blind as those who will not see. ”
yeah you are pretty blind, and its pretty easy to expose you for the fascist hate-filled wacko you are. if there was such a big difference why are the gays trying to indoctrinate children all over the country? GLSEN anyone? and the former head of that organization, and obama‘s safe schools czar didn’t think a pedophilic relationship was any big deal, he sure didn’t report it to the authorities.
pedophilia is just another sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality…the next step is lowering the age of consent…which has been change over the years…its why a group like NAMBLA exists, and there is no heterosexual equivalent.
You are obviously quite poorly educated and have no actual arguments other than to stomp your foot and yell “fascist”. Toddle on.
”
I may be poorly educated, but I made you look so stupid so easily…apparently you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are.
don’t forget to polish your jack-boots and starch your brown shirt today
Report Post »UrbanCombatSurvivor
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:53amSince when is psychology “science” anyway? It’s a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals pretending to understand things they have no experience of. Have you READ anything by Freud? Come on people
Report Post »BonnieBlueFlag
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:23pmLol, that’s what the first chapter in my psychology book was all about, how psychology is a “science.” I argued the point that it cannot possibly be a science because they are fumbling around in the dark, labeling and relabeling nuanced behavior of which no two individuals are the same. It is like Plato’s cave; they think they know until they change their mind. Neurology=science; psychology=hogwash
Report Post »Centralsville
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:50amSexual perversions are difficult to stop once they start. For rapists, pedophiles, bisexuals, transvestites, and homosexuals. As a society we would do good not to encourage these sexual perversions in the first place. I don’t believe anyone is born into any of these perversions, but once they feed the perversion it is hard to turn away. There is no pervert gene.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:09amExactly, homosexuality is a mental disorder not a genetic abnormality. Psychogolist have done studies with other psychotic disorders and found that children of people with psychopathic disorder don’t have the same traits when raised in foster homes. Bad behavior is learned. As far as the spike in homosexuality is it any wonder that generations of men raised by women would increase the number of homos. As single mothers feminize their sons and create a hatred and distrust of men in their daughters. The lack of resonsibility and morality will destroy the foundation that built this country.
Report Post »Unix
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:49amSure, one is able to change their minds, it is a lifestyle CHOICE to begin with, sheesh, doesn’t everybody know that by now? I don’t associate with homosexuals if I can help it, or condone homosexual behavior, as I find it detestible, lude and immoral; moreover, the acts are an abomination to God. You see, the homosexuals HAVE to attack the Bible, in order to gain legitimacy, which they never will in my eyes and IMHO.
You may call me judgemental (God tells us to be decerning), fine, that is ok, I just won’t judge them, that is for the Lord to do, not me.
Report Post »Mister July
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:30amHow about, instead of taking that attitude toward them, you realize that they are just as much enslaved to their sin as anyone else, and in just as much need of Christ’s love and salvation as you. How about demonstrating Christ’s love, let the H.S. convict them of their sin instead of you.
Report Post »Unix
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:45pmYes, judge not, lest you be judged more harshly. And you hvae judged me as well. God did NOT say we could not judge people, or have a judgement about people, He said you shall not be the FINAL judge. If you TRULEY judge someone, you are the judge, jury and executioner. I am not judging in that manner – I am making a judgement about the behavior, the sin, not the sinner. Jesus told us to love thine enemy, and I love all people.
Report Post »threedoor
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:48amPeople change all the time. Sin is fun therefore you natraly gravitate toward it. Ive seen plenty of straight men and women converted to the gay side because its fun and trendy. Why not go the other way?
Report Post »Mandors
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:46amDidn’t that happen on Seinfeld when Kramer went out with the lesbian?
Report Post »Blazerilla
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:46amAs a professional researcher I have to point out that the methodology is non-scientific and looks at first glance to be extrememly biased and full of holes. I’ll wait for real research to come out.
Report Post »BikerMickAG
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:09amContrary to your opinion, the research spoken of here is more scientific than the political posturing & maneuvering that resulted in the diagnosis being removed from the DSM in 1973 & the prevailing Marxist representations that support the homosexual lifestyle as anything other than one of the many deviances that exist as part of the human condition.
Report Post »bboatmanable
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:14amAt yet, when anyone going against a study on say…evolution, makes that same statement, and we happen to be Christian, it‘s because we’re ignorant and bigotted. They followed 61 individuals for 6-7 YEARS. ALL wanted to change and only 23 reportedly did so. They’re not saying everyone can, or tha they even want to. They‘re saying that it’s possible. And, we know that ALL things are possible with Christ.
Report Post »TRUTHSENSE
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:36amI am not against scientific research, but I can do my own research. All I have to do is meet or read someones testimony who has changed, and for those who have changed they don’t need research, they are their own proof. Also, if homosexuals are born that way and are unchangeable, then should it not also hold true that heterosexuals are also born the way they are and are unchangeable? Homosexual activists know better, or they would not be actively recruiting heterosexuals to convert.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:31pm@Biker and @Boat
“Contrary to your opinion, the research spoken of here is more scientific”
However, their conclusions are erroneous. While they claim they cannot know if long-term orientation change is possible early in the study (as it’s only 6-7 years, not a period of 20-30), they do so in their conclusion. Out of the 11 people converted, at least 3 still have homosexual feelings, dreams, or desires. Those who chose chastity (the actual 23% misquoted here) also still held homosexual instincts; completely the opposite of the “cured” label the researchers claimed. Further, the numbers here do not include the 37 who dropped out of the program within that time period. Oh, and the second half of their research was addressing the “is this harmful?” issue. While they conclude it is not, they recount the feelings of hopelessness, lack of self-worth, and trauma that arose in some of their participants.
The study has some science behind it, but their conclusions seem to pick and choose what to accept.
This study was not trying to figure out “is being gay inherent?“ but ”can you change your sexual orientation?” The conclusion can be summed up as: after several years in the Exodus International Program, fewer than 10% of participants reported no longer having homosexual thoughts or attraction. More research will need to be done to see if these results are long-term or short-term.”
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:45am“While partial results were released back in 2007 and 2009…”
I was wondering why this seemed familiar. On the subject itself, it’s tough to say when a behavior is “cured.” It’s compared to alcoholism, which AA will tell you can never be cured; you can stop the physical behavior, but the longing never seems to go away. Yet alcoholism is a disease; homosexuality isn’t considered one (at least not my any medical or psychological organizations).
If people want to try to be cured of their gayness, there’s no reason to stop them from doing so. It should, of course, come with the facts: even in this study, the vast majority did not change their orientation.
And as always, follow the money. Exodus International paid for the study, and was doing the conversion therapy as well.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:53amAnd homosexual lobbies and their advocates successfully had the AMA (American Psychiatric Association) in the 1970‘s remove homosexuality from it’s list of phsychiatric disorders..not on the basis of new research to the contrary..but purely on an ideological basis. Do you have a point?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:20pm@Avenger
Actually, what is your point? Either you think that money influences the results, or it doesn’t. If it does, then the medical definition may be suspect, and this study is completely so (as unlike with the AMA, it was directly funded by the people doing the research). If not, then you accept the medical definition, and overlook that the group performing the conversion therapy also paid these researchers for their study.
So, what’s -your- point?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:50pmNo actually what’s your point LOCKED? Homosexual lobbies got homosexuality removed from the AMA’s list of psychological disorders not based on research but on ideology. This study only reinforces the pre-1970′s position that homosexuality is founded in psychology. Someone has to pay for a study LOCKED..would you like to fund one so as to “prove” Exodus fumbled theirs?
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:11pmI see society has taught you to accept the false idea that alchoholism is a disease. What utter nonsense. It is a ploy to help “cure” people to call it a disease. But it is not a disease, not by any stretch of the imagination. You are self-deluded falling for that silly ploy.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:26pm@KMichaels,
If you don’t believe in medical definitions, that’s fine. Just as long as you understand that you’ve got no medical standing.
@Avenger
No, tell me, what’s your point. Do lobbyists and money make research invalid? If so, then you claim this study is invalid; if not, you claim think homosexuality is indeed a medical condition.
You’ll notice that in all of my comments on this page, I have not questioned their research, the reason for it, nor their numbers. I have questioned their analysis and conclusions, because they ignore some of their data to make them. The study does not talk about long-term orientation:
Report Post »- the “cured” folks are possibly eight out of eleven (as three reported still having a gay orientation);
- the numbers used in the Blaze article ignore the actual number of participants who dropped out of the therapy (98, not 61);
-the researchers did not use participants new to the program, but those who had been in it for 1-3 years (and 54 of them had been in other therapy programs prior to this one);
-The pool is actually even more selective, as it did not include people in the program for less than a year. If more participants dropped out, we do not know.
-The authors say early on they cannot make claims on long-term success, but claim definitively in their conclusion that orientation was changed
-The authors ignored reports of trauma from their patients (not even included those 37 who dropped out) to say it’s “not harmful”
kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:37pm[Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:26pm
@KMichaels,
If you don’t believe in medical definitions, that’s fine. Just as long as you understand that you’ve got no medical standing.]
There is no scientific evidence that alcholism is a disease. Logically, it makes no sense at all. And calling it a disease was a result of a council of human beings, similar to the “medical” councils deciding to change being gay into a “mental state” as opposed to a phychological disorder.
And this gets back to you being so easily suckered into what councils of weak human beings end up concluding.
Do you also believe in global warming being man made, simply because some retarded council of men decided to make that claim?
But you have proven that in many ways your mind is a weak one, so I understand how you in particular are prone to being lead around by your nose so easily.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:49pmAgain LOCKED…you bleat a lot but what‘s you’re point? The article says the study is peer-reviewed. That indicates that it’s a study warranting their review. Again…studies have to be funded and contrary to your lefty desires…tax payers don’t pay for everything. It‘s noted that it’s the first study of it’s kind in the article..let’s hear what the “peers” have to say. I give them more credence than your “ah ha..Exodus funded it” banalities. Savvy?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:13pm@Avenger
Savvy indeed. You believe the AMA isn’t influenced by lobbyists, nor the study by the money funding it.
@KMichaels
Alcoholism affects the brain, influencing physical actions. Medication has been shown to be effective in treating it. A majority of professionals agree it is a disease; and unlike global warming, I can‘t really see how many would claim there’s a financial basis for it (as most of the argument against it being a disease comes from the medicinal field).
So… yeah. Gonna go with “it’s a disease.” Not sure why you stress this point, but there it is. Back on topic? Your insults are cutting me sooooo deep, I‘d almost think you weren’t just spouting off things without any information to back them up!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:02pm@KMichaels
Among most medical and psychiatric professionals (and the AMA on the whole), alcoholism is called a disease. That is a fact. “What makes something a disease” is also decided, as you say, “by a council of men.” You can call it whatever you’d like, but it is treated in a certain way (and covered by insurance) because of how the medical establishment labels it.
Saying “it’s not a disease just because a council says it is!” comes off as ridiculous when the same council classifies what defines a disease. Again though, you’re quite a bit off the topic.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:37pm@KMichaels
“The AMA is not the authority on what the correct definition of words are.”
Of course not. But when it comes to medical terms… well, they are. So please, enlighten us: who is the authority when it comes to medical terms? You?
Report Post »OneTermPresident
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:43amGays… only parts designed for each other go together. A square peg will not fit in a round hole… get it.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:58amYou do realize that it does ACTUALLY work from a biological standpoint, right?
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:16amWho has a square peg?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:57amReally INVERSIONTHEORY? It works from a biological standpoint? Is that why the less than 2% of the population that comprises homosexual men takes up more than 55% of HIV indicences? That’s a 2,750% over representation. You call this “working biologically”? No seriously?
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:16pmYup. The parts fit together in a way that feels good. That’s what I mean. If it were impossible for the parts to fit together…or if it was mind-numbingly painful, I‘d say it doesn’t work from a biological (or physiological) standpoint.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:01pmheroin might “Feel good” too… it also might “Feel good” to stab someone in the face… does it make it “good to do”?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:04pmINVERSIONTHEORY, your peurile statement only succeeds in emphasizing that you won’t admit the truth..that homosexual activity between human males is against the natural disposition of the species and a disproportionately high risk to their lives. They‘re simply not designed to have sex in the manner they’re compelled to. Men can place their penises in anything that will accept them- animals, rubber dolls, artificial vaginas or as seen in American Pie..a pie..ad nauseum- .for sexual stimulation. You seem to have great difficulty in differentiating between the desire for sexual stimuluation and “works from a biological standpoint”. Clearly male homosexuality doesn’t “work from a biological standpoint” when there’s a 2,750% overrepresentation of HIV incidences between homosexual men and the rest of the population and it irrefutably demonstrates that NO…homosexuality doesnt’ “work biologically” You seem to be the usual liberal idiot who is willing to say anything that sounds good to them and when even a cursory examination of the statement is initiated..your assertion falls apart. Seriously…your assertion is an insult to one’s intelligence.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:35pmJ.B KIBS….INVERSONTHEORY is an idiot. Less than 2% of the population is homosexual yet male homosexuals make up over 55% of HIV incidences…again..an overrepresenation of 2,750%. There’s no “works from a biological standpoint” there no matter how much INVERSIONTHEORY tries to cover his idiocy. The only thing male homosexual activity “works” with “biologically” is to create disproportionately higher incidences of HIV infection…and I’m not even touching the higher incidences of syphilis and gonorrhea that constantly break out among homosexual men. Their sexual practices are contrary to the natural disposition of our species. This is why heterosexual partners who have never been exposed to high risk partners or habits can continue to have normal sex without risk of HIV infection. Heck why do you think they ask you if you’ve had male on male sex when donating blood? Because it‘s a risk that’s not natural to normal heterosexuals. Look…I’ll put it bluntly…the human anus may be an errogenous zone to some but it’s not designed for penetration and prolonged sexual use by the male penis. This is why homosexual men comprise most HIV patients. This is just the plain open truth but INVERSIONTHEORY has trouble admitting that so he offers some peurile deflection to give succor to his sensibilities. Deep down he knows the truth but cannot admit it because it erodes the mental defenses and excuses that he and his enablers have created for themselves.
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 2:25pm@ AvengerK
A) Take a breath. Seriously.
B) In my experience the people from whom this subject evokes a strong reaction do so for personal reasons and not an altruistic motivation.
Just sayin’…
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 8:33pmTHX-1138
Yes but AvengerK is correct about “designed for penetration and prolonged sexual use by the male penis” . When you point to a study that shows that that type of coitus is 10,000 times more likely to result in an HIV infection, people mostly ignore it. This is suspicious since the same authors had a study that was lauded by the gay community.
So listening to the glib remarks of InversionTheory is upsetting.
Then again AvengerK should know “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”
We can tell the gay community the scientific truth, but they can refuse to countenance the truth.
So at some point we have to drop the matter & separate from them as much a s possible.
Report Post »cntrlfrk
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:42am‘
This has been proven long ago.
Like any addiction, or other mental disorder, gayness can be overcome.
.
Report Post »GeorgeWashingtonslept here
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:36amNope, not buying it.
Report Post »The next to last american president
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:35amIt is possible for all to turn from sin and ask God for forgiveness!
Report Post »ClunkerT
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 11:45amSimpetruths, God did show up in person as the “Son of Man” and his name was Immanuel – God with Us!
As far as Gays changing their sexual orientation, it is NO DIFFERENT that an alcoholic who stops drinking or a drug addict to stop using drugs or a person with a porno addiction to stop watching porn or an adulter to become faithful to his spouse or a thief to stop stealing or a foul mouth individual to stop cursing, etc, etc.
Report Post »Bullfrog85
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:35amTell me something God can’t do. Why is this surprising?
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:41amGod can’t show up in person, to name one. (hint..because God is a fairy tale.)
Report Post »OneTermPresident
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:45am@SIMPLETRUTHS, You’ll find out… the hard way
Report Post »SimpleTruths
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:36amI’m not worried, but I am happy and well. Oh, and not delusional.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:06pmActually SIMPLETONTRUTHS….you voted for Obama and are willing to vote for him again…your self delusion is quite apparent.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:27pm[SimpleTruths
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:41am
God can’t show up in person, to name one. (hint..because God is a fairy tale.)]
Actually, if God existed (I believe he does) he could choose not to show up, as part of a bigger plan, which plan somebody like you would remain totally clueless about.
How do I know you are clueless? Because you are stupid enough to not understand that God may purposely choose not to make his physical presence known.
The scriptures say that it is a wicked and adulterous generation that seek after a sign. So far, my experience has been that those wanting a physical sign to prove that God exists typically have serious character flaws.
Report Post »Valrobex
Posted on October 29, 2011 at 12:33pm@ simpletruth –
I suspect shortly after you die you’ll be saying, ” Oops! “
Report Post »Infidel49
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:35amSomeone should go tell “chaz” so it stops making a fool of itself.
Report Post »The next to last american president
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 10:37amwhat shall Chaz change to next?
Report Post »booger71
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 11:06amA ****-sapian.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 12:16pm“Chaz” is a mess of a human being and you can see that in her demeanour. She chose not have the surgery to create fake “male bits” because the surgery is far too risky..she’s admitted this by the way. So she took hormones had her breasts removed and calls herself “a man”…nay..“a different kind of man”. No…she’s a woman who took hormones to suppress her female hormones, had her breasts lobbed off, retained the sporadic facial hair that resulted from the hormone treatment and fools herself into believing she’s a man.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on October 28, 2011 at 8:24pmChaz: train wreck in slow motion. His/Her girlfriend will leaver her before 10 years are up. It will go downhill from there.
Report Post »