• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can sexual identity be changed?

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Exodus International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia said:
Exodus International was a non-profit, interdenominational ex-gay Christian organization that sought to help people who wished to limit their homosexual desires. It was founded in 1976, but ceased activities in June 2013, issuing a statement which repudiated its aims and apologized for the harm their pursuit has caused to LGBT people.

Exodus International formerly asserted that reorientation of same-sex attraction is possible, but warned its members not to go to counselors who claim they could help eliminate all attractions to the same gender.

Elsewhere, Wikipedia says:

"By far the largest ex-gay organization that has existed, Exodus International, disbanded in 2013, stating that therapy can't change someone's sexual orientation."

I Am Sorry | Exodus International

exodusinternational.org said:
Alan Chambers, co-founder, and former president of Exodus International

To Members of the LGBTQ Community:

Recently, I have begun thinking again about how to apologize to the people that have been hurt by Exodus International through an experience or by a message. I have heard many firsthand stories from people called ex-gay survivors. Stories of people who went to Exodus affiliated ministries or ministers for help only to experience more trauma. I have heard stories of shame, sexual misconduct, and false hope. In every case that has been brought to my attention, there has been swift action resulting in the removal of these leaders and/or their organizations. But rarely was there an apology or a public acknowledgement by me.

And then there is the trauma that I have caused. There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions. I was afraid to share them as readily and easily as I do today. They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away. Looking back, it seems so odd that I thought I could do something to make them stop. Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there. The days of feeling shame over being human in that way are long over, and I feel free simply accepting myself as my wife and family does. As my friends do. As God does.

Never in a million years would I intentionally hurt another person. Yet, here I sit having hurt so many by failing to acknowledge the pain some affiliated with Exodus International caused, and by failing to share the whole truth about my own story.

Just as Alan Chambers lied about his failure to change his sexual orientation, many other supposed ex-gays also lie because of "good intentions," which is what Alan Chambers said that he had (he criticized his good intentions regarding the lies that he told), and because "the end justifies the means," even if it means telling lies.

The next link is about Dr. Robert Spitzer. In 2001, he published a study which claimed that sexual identity can be changed. Many conservative Christians praised his research, and quoted him widely, that is, until Dr. Spitzer changed his mind, and apologized to homosexuals.

EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Robert Spitzer Apologizes to Gay Community for Infamous ‘Ex-Gay’ Study | Truth Wins Out

truthwinsout.org said:
Today, in a letter to Dr. Ken Zucker obtained exclusively by Truth Wins Out, Dr. Robert Spitzer made an unprecedented apology to the gay community — and victims of reparative therapy in particular — for his infamous, now-repudiated 2001 study that claimed some “highly motivated” homosexuals could go from gay to straight:

Quote:

Dr. Robert Spitzer:

Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

Robert Spitzer. M.D.
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,
Columbia University

As Dr. Spitzer said, "There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation."

What Mental Health and Medical Experts Say About Curing Gays | OutFront Minnesota

outfront.org said:
American Psychiatric Association

The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone `reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed ... the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.

There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of "reparative therapy" as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989).

There are a few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person's deep-seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.

Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.

Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation

apa.org said:
American Psychological Association

The task force conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.

Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation.

As the American Psychological Association says, it is mainly homosexuals who have strong conservative religious views who try to change their sexual identity. Quite naturally, the belief that a God opposes homosexuality would provide extra incentive for some religious homosexuals to try to change their sexual identity. That partly means that non-religious homosexuals who try to change their sexual identity have a much of a less chance of "success" regarding try to change their sexual identity.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Problems with long term sexual abstinence

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia said:
Sexual abstinence diminishes the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases but prevents one from obtaining the health benefits of sex.

Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence. There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

psyplexus.com said:
PSYPLEXUS - a portal for mental health professionals

If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).

Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.

The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......

Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.

Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.

Frequent ejaculation may protect against cancer - 06 April 2004 - New Scientist

newscientist.com said:
Frequent sexual intercourse and masturbation protects men against a common form of cancer, suggests the largest study of the issue to date yet.
newscientist.com said:
The US study, which followed nearly 30,000 men over eight years, showed that those that ejaculated most frequently were significantly less likely to get prostate cancer. The results back the findings of a smaller Australian study revealed by New Scientist in July 2003 that asserted that masturbation was good for men.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't think it can be or should be attempted to be changed at will. I don't believe there is such a thing as therapies that can alter peoples' sexualities from gay to straight or straight to gay, or whatever.

Whatever gives a person their own sexuality, whether genes or life experiences or a combination of both, it is pretty much innate to the person and so I think it should be accepted, reconciled with so to speak on the mental level by the individual, if possible.

However I don't know if "sexuality" is truly, always, static. I think that it can be "fluid" and change over time, however not I must add again forcibly or wilfully, only naturally.

There have also been recognised cases in which people have had "strokes" and came out of them with a different sexuality. Gay people have woke up straight, and straight people gay.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
I wish to discuss three prestigious "players" in sex research, Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., psychology, Stanton Jones, Ph.D, psychology, and Paul Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology. All three men have excellent reputations in sex research. All three men are college psychology professors, and authors, and are widely quoted. Jones and Yarhouse are conservative Christians. I am pretty sure that Dr. Throckmorton is not a conservative Christian based upon reading some of his articles, although he may be a moderate Christian, or a liberal Christian. It appears that he supports homosexuals. I know from reading one of Jones' and Yarhouse's book that they believe that homosexuality is a sin. However, to their credit, their research seems to be pretty fair, and objective, and for me, the fact that Dr. Throckmorton endorsed some of their work makes a difference.

Dr. Throckmorton has reviewed some of Jones' and Yarhouse's research, and has endorsed it. Here are some of his comments. Since my quotes will be large, I will makes two posts.

The Jones and Yarhouse study: What does it mean?

Dr. Warren Throckmorton said:
Let me begin by saying that I endorsed the book, Ex-Gays, A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse which contained the first report of their longitudinal study. Since the publication of the book, Jones and Yarhouse have released results of their final follow up, first in 2009 at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, and then most recently in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. With the follow up, I believe the study remains an important investigation into the interplay of religion, sexual orientation and personal identity. I give them credit for the perseverance required to explore a topic which is highly controversial and to report their findings in detail.

Since the release of the peer-reviewed article, socially conservative groups have described the study as proof that gays can change orientation. For instance, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, one of the worst offenders, claims that the study proves gays can change and that they weren’t born gay. Also, Citizenlink, an affiliate of Focus on the Family reported:
Of the 98 subjects, more than half were reported as successful; 23 percent reported a complete change in orientation after six years. Also, 20 percent reported giving up the struggle to change.
This claim is misleading. Jones and Yarhouse did not report “complete change in orientation.” Instead they cautioned against misinterpreting their findings by saying
These 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. The results do not prove that no one is harmed by the attempt to change, but rather that the attempt does not appear to be harmful on average or inherently harmful. The authors urge caution in projecting success rates from these findings, as they are likely overly optimistic estimates of anticipated success. Further, it was clear that “conversion” to heterosexual adaptation was a complex phenomenon.​

 

Me Myself

Back to my username
I honestly think it can be changed, but it generally wont happen if you are trying to do so out of trying to satisfy someone else or society's expectations of you.

That said, I think in general there would be no reason to want to change it. Most of these programs come from religious ideas that while they may not want it, put shame on feeling attracted to the same gender, and because they focus so much in the "problem" they cant change it.

Its like, if I had tried to stop liking meat to become a veg, I would still want meat today and would probably have been unable to become a veg.

I ceased wanting meat because my ideals changed but at the same time I did not associate shame or guilt or "me being a horrible person" with desiring meat. Mst importantly, I was focused in what I wanted, not what I dont wanted.

I think people can change almost anything of their personality or attractions, but they rarely are able to do so at will, and the more pressure they put themselves into it , the harder it would be.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Your sexuality is innate within your pscyhe at birth. This has been proven over and over and over again. Ex-gays from christian camps are not actually heterosexuals that were turned from homosexuals. It is rather people who are still homosexuals repressing their urges.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Elsewhere, Wikipedia says:

"By far the largest ex-gay organization that has existed, Exodus International, disbanded in 2013, stating that therapy can't change someone's sexual orientation."

Namaste,

How about that, eh? It seems like reality hit them pretty hard.....

"Ex-gay"...my foot! Why can't they just be happy and content with being homosexual/gay? If I was gay, I would be proud of it! But, I like Latina women too much.....

M.V.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Dr. Warren Throckmorton said:
As I read all of the literature, including my own work, I first want to disagree with the way that Citizenlink characterized the results as “complete change.” That is not at all what Jones and Yarhouse reported. Considering the dichotomy proposed by Jones and Yarhouse — change in orientation or identity – I lean toward their alternative explanation – “sexual identity change or adjustment.” However, I believe the discussion of what their results mean needs to be broadened beyond those two possibilities. In addition to considering orientation and identity as important constructs, I believe there are other ways to account for the changes Jones and Yarhouse report which are not sufficiently addressed in their published accounts.

First, and most basically, the Jones and Yarhouse study did not examine in any systematic way the efficacy of reparative therapy or any other kind of psychological therapy as a means of altering sexual orientation. The participants in the study were involved in religiously based support groups which primarily had as a goal to reinforce a traditional moral view of sexuality. Clearly, the participants hoped they would change and engaged in various religious interventions to assist that end. However, the study did not assess the role of professional therapy and cannot legitimately be used to say such therapies work.

The following that I quoted from Dr. Throckmorton is very important:

".......the Jones and Yarhouse study did not examine in any systematic way the efficacy of reparative therapy or any other kind of psychological therapy as a means of altering sexual orientation. The participants in the study were involved in religiously based support groups which primarily had as a goal to reinforce a traditional moral view of sexuality. Clearly, the participants hoped they would change and engaged in various religious interventions to assist that end. However, the study did not assess the role of professional therapy and cannot legitimately be used to say such therapies work."

Yes, such an environment can, and often does foster an attitude of overstating "success," and in some cases, lying, although Dr. Throckmorton is too polite to say that.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton said:
Second, there were quite a few dropouts six to seven years into the study. While true of all longitudinal studies, the final percentages being reported should also take into account the distinct possibility that many if not most of the drop outs were not successful in their efforts to change. The study began with 98 participants and ended up with 65 who were followed up for six to seven years. Some reported that they were healed of homosexuality and just didn’t want to participate, while others said they were gay and stopped trying to change. I don’t know for sure what the dropouts mean but the fact that so many failed to complete the study needs to be a part of any discussion.

Third, ratings from men and women were combined. Given the low number of people involved I understand why this was done but the practice may inflate the assessments of change for the group. It has become well accepted that the sexuality of women is more fluid than for men. A few women experiencing large shifts could influence the group averages.

Fourth, the nature of the change reported requires examination. Jones and Yarhouse reported that 23% of the participants remaining in the study labeled their experience as “conversion” from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one. However, let’s look at how the authors described the starting point for this group of changers on average. On a seven point scale with seven being completely homosexuality, the group averaged a 5.09 rating which Jones and Yarhouse described in their book as “’largely homosexual, but more than incidental heterosexual’ attraction.” At the third assessment of sexual attraction, the authors reported that the rating had dropped to 1.55. This group rated themselves as having moved toward the heterosexual side of the continuum. On the Kinsey scale used to assess the attractions, the average score fell between the “exclusively heterosexual” and “largely heterosexual, but incidental homosexual” ratings. An alternative way of describing the outcome is that the participants went from one end of the bisexual spectrum to the other. On average, the group rating indicated both heterosexual and homosexual attractions at the beginning, middle and end of the study.
Jones and Yarhouse helpfully supplied descriptions of the change provided by the participants in their book which was completed after about three years into the study. To me, these descriptions describe changes in sexual identity more than categorical changes in sexual orientation. There were five examples given of people in the change group. Two men said they were still attracted to the same sex, one man and one woman described themselves as heterosexual without elaboration and one of the examples in the change category recanted his reports of change and said he was gay.

Now the following from Dr. Throckmorton is very important.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton said:
As noted two participants said they were changed but continued with same-sex attractions.

Many people who did not know any better would interpret the word "changed" as meaning "converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality," but that is not what happened. What happened was a lessening of same-sex urges, not a complete change to heterosexuality. A great many homosexuals who give up homosexuality say that many of the old same-sex urges are still there.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton said:
Whatever else is true, it is hard for me to see these situations as categorical (gay to straight) changes. The changes were certainly perceived to be beneficial but if words have any meaning, these descriptions cannot be considered as a “complete change in orientation.” The participants views of themselves and their behavior have changed but they continue to disclose attraction to the same sex in the way that a bisexual person might do.

These observations lead me to consider other explanations for the study results. For instance, I think bisexuality is a significant and generally overlooked conceptual issue for ex-gay studies. People who are attracted to both sexes may shift in their self-attributions based on current relationship, and personal beliefs about how they ought to regard themselves. These people may seem to shift within a basically bisexual orientation.

I see nothing in the Jones and Yarhouse study that is inconsistent with seeing the participants as shifting within a bisexual continuum, developing cross orientation relationships and/or demonstrating naturalistic changes. In fact, I think the study supports these explanations more solidly than viewing the changes as categorical shifts in sexual orientation. I believe it is important to note that change of orientation is not an objective we promote as an aspect of the framework.

Absolutely, surely millions of people who think that they are 100% heterosexual have latent bisexual sexual urges. Long ago, I read an Ann Lander column about a supposedly heterosexual serviceman who was separated from women for a long time. Eventually, he started to be sexually attracted to some of the other men, but he did not act upon his attractions. Soon after he got back to the U.S., his same-sex urges disappeared.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
TWO Investigation: ‘Ex-Gay’ Rock Star John Paulk Exposed As Fraud…Again | Truth Wins Out

truthwinsout.org said:
In September, I stood with a handful of protesters outside Sunrise Community Church on the outskirts of Sacramento. We were demonstrating against a new “ex-gay” organization, the Restored Hope Network. This radical group was comprised of Exodus International defectors who were staging a mutiny because Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus, had recently denounced reparative therapy and claimed that 99.9% of clients didn’t transform from gay to straight.

My gracious, Alan Chambers, Exodus International co-founder, and retired president, "recently denounced reparative therapy and claimed that 99.9% of clients didn’t transform from gay to straight."
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
SPLC Files First-Ever Consumer Fraud Suit Against An Ex-Gay Group | ThinkProgress

thinkprogress.org said:
The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against ex-gay group JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing), accusing it of consumer fraud for peddling a “cure” for homosexuality. The complaint features four young men and two of their parents as plaintiffs, including Chaim Levin, who has been very vocal about how the Orthodox Jewish community has mistreated him for being gay. The men and their families argue that JONAH lured them into paying for counseling with deceptive practices. JONAH relies on ex-gay professional group NARTH, specifically the repudiated techniques of Joseph Nicolosi.


The complaint outlines some of the bizarre treatment the men were subjected to in sessions with JONAH counselor Alan Downing and others:
  • remove all clothing during both individual and group therapy sessions including an instruction to Levin to hold his penis in front of Defendant Downing,
  • cuddle and intimately hold others of the same-sex including between young clients and older counselors,
  • violently beat an effigy of the client’s mother with a tennis racket,
  • go to the gym more as well as bath houses in order to be nude with father figures, and
  • be subjected to ridicule as “*******” and “homos” in mock locker room and gym class scenarios.
The men were also encouraged to replicate personal trauma, such as reenacting scenes of childhood sexual abuse. Another JONAH counselor instructed one of the men to snap himself on the wrist with a rubber band every time he felt attracted to a man. JONAH claimed that “gay people are all generally lonely, suicidal, and have or will contract HIV/AIDS.”

The suit seeks a revocation of JONAH’s business license and a permanent injunction against all JONAH staff from further offering ex-gay therapy through a trial by jury. In addition to achieving justice for these young men, this suit will hopefully help other ex-gay survivors step forward to challenge the harmful ministries plaguing young people across the country.

How can any Christian or Jew endorse JONAH, and NARTH?
 
Last edited:

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is one of those areas where reputable professionals have a pretty consistent set of viewpoints from decades of research and professional observation (that for all practical purposes it cannot be changed and it is considered harmful to try to change someone's orientation), but the lay public has a full assortment of opinions on the matter inspired by small sample sizes of experiences, religious writings from people thousands of years ago, etc.

And the question of whether it can be changed stems generally from a social view that certain sexual orientations are inferior or "wrong" rather than normal variations of human sexuality.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
More evidence that environmental factors outside of the womb are not primary causes of homosexuality.

LGBT-Sexual Orientation | psychiatry.org

psychiatry.org said:
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

Homosexual Orientation-From Nature, Not Abuse... [Arch Sex Behav. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

PubMed said:
Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013), using instrumental variable models, argued that child abuse causes homosexual orientation, defined in part as any same-sex attractions. Their instruments were various negative family environment factors. In their analyses, they found that child sexual abuse (CSA) was more strongly related to homosexual orientation than non-sexual maltreatment was, especially among males. The present commentary therefore focused on male CSA. It is argued that Roberts et al.'s "abuse model" is incorrect and an alternative is presented. Male homosexual behavior is common in primates and has been common in many human societies, such that an evolved human male homosexual potential, with individual variation, can be assumed. Cultural variation has been strongly influenced by cultural norms. In our society, homosexual expression is rare because it is counternormative. The "counternormativity model" offered here holds that negative family environment weakens normative controls and increases counternormative thinking and behavior, which, in combination with sufficient homosexual potential and relevant, reinforcing experiences, can produce a homosexual orientation. This is a benign or positive model (innate potential plus release and reinforcement), in contrast to Roberts et al.'s negative model (abuse plus emotional compensation or cognitive distortion). The abuse model is criticized for being based on the sexual victimological paradigm, which developed to describe the female experience in rape and incest. This poorly fits the gay male experience, as demonstrated in a brief non-clinical literature review. Validly understanding male homosexuality, it is argued, requires the broad perspective, as employed here.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
In order to be fair, here is some more from Dr. Throckmorton, who I trust.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2006/oct/06102608

lifesitenews.com said:
October 26. 2006

Dr. Warren Throckmorton

.......social or family factors.......influencing sexual attractions have been written off by numerous scholars and media. However, a new Danish study may prompt a fresh evaluation of the role of social factors in sexual orientation.

In an interview, Dr. Frisch stressed, “Prenatal factors alone can not account for the variation in human sexual orientations - otherwise, all our urban/rural and family-dynamic findings should have shown no association.”

The study adds support to the theory that environmental and biological factors work together to influence sexual attractions and behaviors. Dr. Frisch concluded, "whatever ingredients determine a person’s sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that environmental factors are important."

At best, it can be said that environmental factors outside out the womb are important factors that partly determine a person's sexual preferences, but not necessarily primary factors.
 
Last edited:

no-body

Well-Known Member
Not unless your bi-sexual. I am talking strictly relationships here. It is possible for either extreme of sexuality to be fluid and sleep with or do stuff with what they aren't use to but you can't fit a square peg into a round hole.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Mormon Church abandons its crusade against gay marriage | Cover Story | Colorado Springs Independent

csindy.com said:
Mormon church abandons its crusade against gay marriage

In the five years since the LDS church sent busloads of the faithful to California to canvass neighborhoods, and contributed more than $20 million via its members to support the initiative, it has all but dropped the rope in the public policy tug of war over marriage equality. The change stems from an even more remarkable, if somewhat invisible, transformation happening within the church, prompted by the ugly fight over Prop. 8 and the ensuing backlash from the flock.

Although the LDS' prophet hasn't described a holy revelation directing a revision in church doctrine on same-sex marriage or gay rights in general, the church has shown a rare capacity for introspection and humane cultural change unusual for a large conservative religious organization.

"It seems like the [Mormon] hierarchy has pulled the plug and is no longer taking the lead in the fight to stop same-sex marriage," says Fred Karger, the LGBT activist who first exposed the church's major role in the passage of Prop. 8. "The Mormon Church has lost so many members and suffered such a black eye because of all its anti-gay activities that they really had no choice. I am hopeful that the Catholic Church cannot be far behind."

The LDS church had always struggled for public acceptance, and the negative press wasn't helping. One poll, conducted a year after Prop. 8 passed, showed that the church's favorability rating had fallen from 42 percent to 37 percent.
But its image problem was nothing compared to the internal rifts the Mormons were experiencing. "The church probably deserved the black eye we got from Prop. 8," says Mitch Mayne, an openly gay Mormon leader in the San Francisco area. "What the non-Mormon world didn't get to see was how destructive that was inside the faith."

In response to the anger within Mormon ranks over Prop. 8, the president of the Oakland, Calif., stake (a stake is akin to a Catholic diocese) began organizing gatherings of gay and straight members to try to bridge the differences. In September 2010, the disgruntled church members received a private audience with one of the church's top officials, Marlin Jensen, who serves as the LDS' historian. The church members tearfully told Jensen their stories — of being shunned by their families, and the homophobia generated by the Prop. 8 campaign.

"We explained that [the church had] pitted father against son, mother against daughter, exactly the opposite of what we stand for," says Mayne, who attended the meeting.

After listening to them talk, Jensen did something almost unheard of in a church whose strict authoritarian hierarchy is unaccustomed to being challenged from below: He apologized "for the pain that Prop. 8 caused [us]," Mayne recalls, choking up at the memory. It was, he says, a "very meaningful event."

The apology from a high church official turned out to be just the beginning of a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of gays and lesbians within LDS ranks. In 2011, Mayne was called to serve as an official of his local San Francisco ward, as an openly gay man. It was a historic appointment in an institution with a long history of excommunicating openly gay members, which it referred to as people who were "afflicted" with same-sex attraction.

Since then, the church has opened its doors to LGBT members in many places, Mayne says: "Everybody is welcome here. Nobody is under that threat of being excommunicated." In 2012, the church even created a website, mormonsandgays.org, to convey its desire for more-humane treatment of LGBT members.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
I made the following reply in another thread:

If genetics had nothing to do with the first homosexual acts among humans tens of thousands of years ago, why did the acts occur, and why do they still occur? Quite obviously, because a large percentage of the participants derive pleasure from it? How can genetics not be a major part of the pleasure? Many heterosexuals sometimes have sex solely for pleasure. Do you object to that? If not, why would you find it strange that some people derive pleasure from same-sex experiences?

You must believe that heterosexuals derive pleasure from having sex largely because of genetics.

A good number of homosexuals have given up same-sex behavior, but very few no longer have any strong, frustrating same-sex urges.

Regarding heterosexual men who have no sexual interest in women at all, you know very well that most of them would not be able to change their sexual identity even if they were paid a million dollars to do so. Why then would you believe that more than a relative handful of gay men who have no sexual interest in women at all would be able to change their sexual identity?

Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a college professor, and he is an expert on sexual orientation. According to Wikipedia, John Michael Bailey "is an American psychologist and professor at Northwestern University. He is best known among scientists for his work on the etiology of sexual orientation, from which he concluded that homosexuality is substantially inherited.

The Wikipedia article also says that Bailey has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.

Bailey did a famous study on gay twins. In an article at J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation, Dr. Throckmorton discusses Bailey's twin studies, and provides direct quotes of some letters that he and Bailey exchanged. Both Bailey, and Throckmorton believe that homosexuality is caused by genetics, and environment, and that genetics play a very important role in sexual orientation.

Dr. Throckmorton quotes Dr. Bailey as saying:

"The folks who insist that (male) sexual orientation can be changed should put their money where their mouths are and fund you and me (and the researcher of their choice) to do a study with objective (i.e., penile and neural) pre-post measures."

So, all that people who claim that genetics is not an important factor have to do is provide enough money to fund scientific research that they hope will show that genetics are not an important factor. If such research was done, and the results showed that genetics are an important factor, you would quickly claim that the research did not matter since God opposes homosexuality. If future research on sexual identity wouldn't matter to you if it did not agree with you, why does the issue of sexual identity matter to you now?

You are no more in a position to judge scientific research about sexual identity than you are to judge scientific research on common descent. You have refused to debate an expert on common descent since you know that you would lose the debate. Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, says:

small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

And yet you would presume to lecture Behe about common descent, and the over 99% of other experts who agree with him, in spite of the fact that at this time you would not be able to pass a first year of college final exam in biology.

In another thread, you said that even if common descent is true, that would not change your religious beliefs. Well, even if creationism is true, I would not accept the Bible.

Theistic evolutionists present you with a big problem since you cannot claim that they are not Christians. Some Christians do make that claim, but I do not believe that you would in public even if that is what you believed.
 
Top