Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The American Family Association's news outlet has a commentary by someone named Ed Vitagliano about a new book on ex-gay therapy. The book is called Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation and it is written by Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University. I have not read this book, but based on this review it doesn't seem to prove much at all.
The first thing one notices is that it's not published in a scientific journal but in book form. This is standard operating procedure for the religious right; that's what the ID movement does as well, bypasses those pesky scientists who have the knowledge to evaluate their work and go straight to the people who don't have that knowledge but are eager to believe your thesis anyway.
And if Vitagliano is presenting the strongest arguments in the book, it's not hard to understand why they would bypass peer review; even if every statement he makes about the book is true, it still doesn't support their thesis. Here is the strongest statement they could make on the subject:
The authors examined individuals who were attempting to change their sexual orientation by participating in a program run by the religious ministry Exodus International. They said the study was "the most scientifically rigorous study of the possibility of sexual orientation change to date ...."The results were impressive: 38 percent of the participants in the Exodus program had either embraced "chastity with a reduction in prominence of homosexual desire" or experienced "a diminishing of homosexual attraction and an increase in heterosexual attraction with a resulting satisfactory heterosexual adjustment." According to press reports, another 29 percent had had only partial success in leaving the homosexual lifestyle but were committed to continuing their efforts.
So the best they can possibly say is that after undergoing ex-gay therapy, 38% had "embraced" - what on earth does that mean? That this is what they want? That it's what they actually do? There's a hell of a difference between those two conclusions - "chastity with a reduction in prominence of homosexual desire." But that isn't a change in sexual orientation at all, it's just trying really, really hard not to follow through on one's orientation.
I've got news for you: those 38% are still gay. They will always be gay. A gay person who never has sex is still gay; sexual orientation is about exactly that, orientation, not behavior. And if someone really wants to not be gay so badly that they are willing to put in that kind of effort to deny it, by all means knock yourself out. But you haven't changed your sexual orientation at all, you've just found the willpower to deny yourself what you really want.
I don't begrudge those who go through ex-gay therapy to change their behavior. I think they'd be a lot healthier and happier if they would accept who they are, but if they don't want to do that I can't make them. And if they want to deny who they are and fight against it tooth and nail, it's their life and I don't really care what they do anymore than I care what anyone else does in consensual adult relationships.
But their desire to deny who they are is being used as an argument against the vast majority of gay people who don't want to become something they're not. It's being used as a bludgeon to beat gays up with, to say, "Ah, you see, this person changed and so can you." But if that person doesn't want to change and doesn't feel that homosexuality is shameful or sinful, what business is that of anyone else?
For the ex-gay movement, it's not enough that they made a choice to deny their identity and fight against who they are; they have to force other gays to do the same thing.
Comments
*sigh*
The destructive power of being born and raised in a homophobic culture. And all these 'helpful' 'Christian' organizations that teach these poor souls that 'hate is good' and "we'll help you 'change your core so God'll like you'.
Along with the scars these people carry from waging war with their essential selves, are the tragedy of the dead who swallowed the hate and opted out of life.
This crap kills people.
Posted by: Rick R | January 15, 2008 9:23 AM
My gf is a British evangelical Christian, affiliated with the Church of England. According to her, the British Christian community is quite shocked and appauled at the way American Christians deal with homosexuality. Rather, she uses reports like this to remind me that Britain sent all its religious lunatics to America.
Now, if only there were a place that America could send its religious lunatics....
Posted by: Royale | January 15, 2008 9:44 AM
I have trouble with this statement. Not the part about sexuality - you are spot on but how do we know that those 38% (or the remaining 62%?) is truly gay? We don't. Any numbers or opinions on sexuality of someone the wingnuts throw out can't be trusted.
My point is anyone who goes through these programs usually has a host of issues. Understanding (or misunderstanding) of their sexuality is one of them. Some of the so-called 'success' of the ex-gay movement is dealing with people that really aren't gay but due to other circumstances might be doing what the wingnut perceives as (ugh i hate this phrase) 'gay things' (or truly sits in the grey 'bi' zone.) But we really will never know since they are not getting real help and validated numbers aren't being published.
And rick is spot on - "this crap kills people"
Posted by: yoshi | January 15, 2008 10:02 AM
Now, if only there were a place that America could send its religious lunatics...
And let them form their own country, start their own "ex-gay" movement and raise their own military? What good would that do Mankind?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 15, 2008 10:10 AM
"Rather, she uses reports like this to remind me that Britain sent all its religious lunatics to America."
Sadly, no. We've had a revival of nuttery in the last five years (or at least it only really appeared on radar in the last five years), partly because of US style evangelism coming across the Atlantic but also through inner city pentecostal churches appealing to (mainly West) African communities. And of course we've got our very own homegrown Islamic fundamentalists as well. That said, the one British televangelism channel is hilariously low key and quintessentially British compared to American ones.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 15, 2008 10:12 AM
If they're going to repress their sexuality, the ones who are chaste are at least preferrable to the ones who try to force themself to live the whole stereotype of a hetro life and mess with the heads of a spouse and child(ren) down the road. And, yeah, stop condemning other gays who don't follow suit. Human sexuality is a normal thing and most aren't going to choose to be celibate by choice. There's logical reasons for being celibate but being afraid of yourself isn't one of them.
Posted by: Donna | January 15, 2008 10:56 AM
Well, they'd have fabulous uniforms.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 15, 2008 11:11 AM
My undergrad and graduate training (before I switched to law) was in psychology and sociology, and I used to teach social science methodology. Studies like this suffer from numerous methodological flaws.
First, this study is based on just 41 participants in the Exodus program, a very small sample. Second, it relies entirely on self-reported indices of homosexual "desire" and not on any measures of homosexual behavior, either before, during, or after the Exodus program. Many other studies have shown that men (it looks like all the participants were men) who are heterosexual in behavior report occasional or even frequent homosexual "desires"; that is, being sexually attracted to other men. This "study" (according to the authors) did not measure behavior in any way.
Third, the study violated the first rule of good methodology: there was no control group, matched in personal characteristics (age, education, past and present behavior, etc.), against whom self-reported changes over time in homosexual "desires" could be measured. In any group, changes over time will occur, but this "study" doesn't compare those in the Exodus group with another matched control group.
Fourth, "motivation" is a crucial factor. For example, alcoholics who enroll in programs like AA are motivated to stop drinking, and some do, for varying periods (although "recidivism" rates in AA are high). But many alcoholics (and drug addicts as well) who are not "motivated" to join programs like AA also stop drinking, on their own.
Prior "studies" by Jones and Yarhouse (who both teach at fundie schools) have been severely criticized by specialists in the field for these and other methodological flaws. But that doesn't deter people like Vitagliano from puffing this new book (published by InterVarsity, a fundie press) as "proof" that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice that can be changed with Christian programs like Exodus. Just like ID, that's a religious/political campaign, with no scientific basis.
Posted by: peter irons | January 15, 2008 11:18 AM
I think Peter makes an important point about the study being all men. In fact, while there are a few women involved in the ex-gay movement, it's almost entirely men. And yet I think a higher percentage of women than men are homosexual or bisexual. So why the distinction? Why are those who are tormented by being gay and want to change it overwhelmingly male? I suspect it's because society has a much harsher and immediate response to male homosexuality than to female homosexuality.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 15, 2008 11:34 AM
The folks over at Ex-gay Watch.com have been covering this "research" for some time, and published a long critique of the J&Y work a while back. J&Y responded to the criticism, which was decent of them, although I don't think they really answered the critics, who brought up many of the critiques Peter mentioned, along with many others.
Ed, to answer your question about men vs women in the "ex-gay" movement, you are correct. The fundies are far more concerned with male homosexuality than female and tend to concentrate on it. As for the relative numbers, however, I believe (although I could be wrong) that gay men outnumber lesbians by about a 3:2 ratio, but there are far more bisexual women than men.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | January 15, 2008 11:48 AM
I think the real reason is, that female homosexuals can easily fake heterosexuality while male can not. All a lesbian wishing to deny her true desires needs to do is to hold still for a few seconds. The fundies think that female orgasm is something unnecessary and sinful anyway. So it is not a big deal. But a gay can't do such a thing so easily, if at all.
Posted by: T_U_T | January 15, 2008 12:07 PM
Ed wrote- "Why are those who are tormented by being gay and want to change it overwhelmingly male? I suspect it's because society has a much harsher and immediate response to male homosexuality than to female homosexuality."
There's a lot of residual sexism floating around in the culture at large. Same way that gay men bear the brunt of social opprobrium in the wider world.
Women have less status than men, so female homosexuality gets less attention (and condemnation) in people's minds.
For conservative christians, the notion of a lesbian is a hard concept to get their heads around, since it implies a woman who makes choices about her sexuality, including the choice to express a preference.
And to conservative christians, the traditional male role is head of the house, responsible to lead others in a godly way. Women? Not so much.
It's safe to say that for a lot of the world, when you say 'gay' or 'homosexual', the image that comes immediately to mind is a man.
Posted by: Rick R | January 15, 2008 12:37 PM
T_U_T wrote- "I think the real reason is, that female homosexuals can easily fake heterosexuality while male can not."
The sheer numbers of married gay men would refute this notion.
In the secular world, when a gay person presents to a therapist with problems related to accepting their sexuality, they are worried about social conformity. Since homosexuality was removed from the category of mental illness, most therapists would work to help the client become affirming of themselves.
But it's important to consider the religious aspect of ex-gay 'ministries'. These gay people who present for 'treatment' aren't just out of step with the heterosexual majority, they have been 'invaded by satan' and are putting their immortal souls in jeopardy. And (somehow) eroding the good christian family at the same time.
Of course, this doesn't speak for gay minors in these communities, who are often sent for 'treatment' against their wills by parents and pastors. Ugh.
The Mormon angle is slightly different. They believe that the gay person has an 'addiction' that can and must be managed, as any other addiction would be.
Posted by: Rick R | January 15, 2008 1:32 PM
Jones and Yarhouse reported that in 11 out of 98 participants after four years there was "substantial reduction in homosexual desire and addition of heterosexual attraction and functioning".
Christianity Today provides further clarification on those eleven successes.
"Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated. ... We believe the individuals who presented themselves as heterosexual success stories at Time 3 are heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term."
Chastity is not an aspect of sexual orientation. It is, rather, a purely religious notion (setting it apart from celibacy which may also be secular). Yet the largest group of "successes" were labeled so solely because they established sexual behavior patterns that were consistent with teachings. This definition of success has no identifiable connection with the original question as to whether or not participants had changed sexual orientation.
Jones and Yarhouse suggest the results demonstrate sexual orientation is changeable (pp. 42, 325), evidenced by 11 "Success: Conversion" cases out of the original 98. The conclusion is unwarranted because: 1) they acknowledge multiple anecdotal cases from previous "ex-gay" success stories who later recanted their "conversion" to heterosexuality (pp. 63-64, 72); 2) they freely acknowledge that people in ex-gay programs declare they are heterosexual even if they experience exclusive and powerful homosexual attractions (p. 220); 3) they admit that one of their 11 "Success: Conversion" cases recanted his claim of change, confessing his homosexual attraction was unchanged after the book manuscript neared completion (p. 285; Jones and Yarhouse did not remove his "success" from their data); and 4) the only way to determine if change actually occurred is through a long-term study, which this is not.
When one examines the statements of the "Success: Conversion" participants it is once again clear that Jones and Yarhouse's claim of change is unfounded. In addition to the "Success: Conversion" male who recanted his success, another male admits to still having "unwanted sexual attraction to men" (p. 297), while a third admits to continuing homoerotic dreams (p. 298).
Meanwhile, the authors report 23 percent of the participants achieved success in changing their sexual orientation by embracing chastity. However, once again the actual desires and longings of the individuals remain homosexual. One "Success: Chastity" female relinquished her goal of getting rid of homosexual feelings and longings (p. 302), a "Success: Chastity" male admits to continued same-sex attractions (p. 303), while another male still fantasizes to the point of orgasm about being with a man and admits continued homosexual feelings and longings (p. 304). While Jones and Yarhouse acknowledge these individuals did not experience a "strong movement toward heterosexual attraction" (p. 291), they nonetheless consider them "successes."
The comments and data indicate these "successful" participants, whether classified as "Success: Conversion" or "Success: Chastity," retain same-sex attraction, desire and arousal. Thus, using Jones and Yarhouse's definition (p. 209), the participants continue to have a homosexual orientation. Jones and Yarhouse suggest the continued presence of homosexual desires, attraction and arousal does not negate successful change because a person successfully treated for depression can still be expected to become depressed from time to time (pp. 193-194).
The authors confess a change from homosexual orientation does not coincide with a change to heterosexual orientation (p. 263) and accept asexuality as a functional opposite of homosexuality. Based on the depression analogy it appears that Jones and Yarhouse would declare a person "healed" from depression if they ceased to have any and all emotions, for the person would no longer be intensely and persistently sad. I suspect the psychological community would define success in other ways. Likewise, as the opposite of depression is not a lack of all emotions, the opposite of homosexuality is not a lack of all sexual desires: being "healed" of a homosexual orientation is not evidenced by self-imposed behavioral celibacy; repression is not conversion.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/17/785
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/14/782
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-2/#more-2721
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-3/#comments
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | January 15, 2008 1:51 PM
T-shirt Hell has a shirt that sums it up perfectly:
"I only support gay marriage if both chicks are hot!"
Posted by: sinned34 | January 15, 2008 1:52 PM
I think the answer to why ex-gay programmes don't focus on women is actually pretty simple. Fundies (even the female ones) of that stripe don't believe women like sex, or want sex, so they basically don't really "believe in" lesbians. Not only that, but they don't believe that women own their own bodies (they don't believe men do, either, but in a different way) -- men own women's bodies, and have the final say as to how they're treated. Since men control women's bodies, and therefore women's sexuality, lesbianism is never actually an issue.
Thirdly, if you're raised in a culture where you're trained to believe that you don't have a sex drive and that the object of having sex is to make your husband happy and babies, not necessarily in that order, the idea that you might be attracted to women probably doesn't come up a whole lot.
Fourthly, even if you feel the feelings, you've been carefully inculcated to deny them, feel that you're sinning for having them (and so suppress them), and also feel that your resultant unhappiness is simply your lot in life. (Look at any fundamentalist Christian's interpretation of how womanhood is synonymous with suffering, and it becomes pretty clear.)
So, if you're unhappy and suffering, well, as long as you're also birthing babies and keeping your owner husband supplied with sex, that's your annointed role in life, so there's nothing to be done about it anyway. Hence, no female ex-gays because no recognised female gays in the first place, and you're supposed to be miserable anyway, woman-thing, so what's your problem?
Posted by: Interrobang | January 15, 2008 1:56 PM
Saw a good movie this weekend - "Protagonist".
It told four different stories, all about men. One was an "ex-gay" pastor. Didn't really work for him.
He ends the documentary proclaiming that "you can't really know God until you know yourself."
Posted by: RoseG | January 15, 2008 3:53 PM
I would love to actually talk to someone who thinks being gay is a choice or an addiction.
I would reduce them to quivering jelly with my patented Gay Kiss Gambit.
As a man, talking to a male homophobe, simply demand that he kiss you, just to prove that sexual orientation is a mere choice, not biologically ingrained.
"C'mon... One little kiss to prove I am wrong, and convert me forever to your ideas on the subject". :D
When he recoils in revulsion, the point should be pretty clear. If he does kiss you, tell him he is obviously a fag. :D
One always runs the risk, of course, that 90% of people with this opinion are actually projecting their own repressed homosexuality.
It helps not to look anything like Brad Pitt, so I am optimistic The Gambit would work for me. ;(
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 15, 2008 4:21 PM
Actually, there is probably a much simpler explanation for the overwhelming ratio of men to women in ex-gay ministries. It's because all of the biblical verses that condemn homosexuality are about men. Lesbians are not condemned, nor are we even mentioned.
The belief is that gay men are decadent sinners who are going straight to hell, and lesbians are wayward souls who were either bored, abused, or just haven't found the right man yet. I suspect also that another reason why lesbianism is not mentioned in the bible is because for the authors to admit that lesbianism exists is to admit that it is possible for women to have emotionally and physicially intimate relationships that don't involve men. That is too dangerous a possibility to consider in any male-dominated society, so they left it out.
For an insightful deconstruction of the ex-gay movement, you can read Kim Ficera's 2005 column entitled "Don't Quote Me: Dressing Up the Lesbians" by visiting http://www.kimficera.com/dqm_05/dressing_up.html.
Posted by: YSUBassoon | January 15, 2008 5:07 PM
[blockquote]I think the answer to why ex-gay programmes don't focus on women is actually pretty simple. Fundies (even the female ones) of that stripe don't believe women like sex, or want sex, so they basically don't really "believe in" lesbians.[/blockquote]
This brings back a memory:
Back in the '70s, an elderly Catholic man told me he was amazed to read that women masturbate.
After all, the only reason women have sex is to trap a man or to get pregnant. (his opinion, not mine)
I wonder what he would have thought of lesbians.
Posted by: khan | January 15, 2008 6:02 PM
Just an observation...
It's also standard operating procedure for the so-called "New Atheists". In particular, Dawkins and his "God is a scientific question" has not, as far as I know, written a single scientific paper on the topic.
Posted by: Pseudonym | January 15, 2008 7:14 PM
I used that argument for years, but someone eventually pointed out a verse in the New Testament condemning them. I can't quite remember where, though.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | January 15, 2008 7:53 PM
Romans 1:24
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion
Posted by: John | January 15, 2008 8:19 PM
My highly biased and completely unscientific hypothesis regarding the relative ratio of male to female's in the attempted-ex-gay movement, as well as the relative ratio of male to female bisexuals, has always been that women are socialized differently than men when it comes to sexuality. Regardless of our primary sexual orientation, we're socialized from a very early age to notice and comment upon the relative physical attractiveness of women and men - men only seem to be socialized to notice and comment on the physical attractiveness of women. I can't help but think that this makes it easier for women to reconcile and act on sexual attraction to other women, whether it's their primary orientation or not.
Then there's the mechanism by which many women experience orgasm - let's just say that for many women, the presence of a penis is of secondary importance.
Oh, and butt sex is yucky and giving head is emasculating.
Posted by: AnneS | January 15, 2008 8:55 PM
John: Thanks for the text, but I feel the need to point out that Paul's argument in Romans 1 is not to say that sexual immorality is a sin: Rather, the argument is that idolatry (the worship of anything other than God) is sin, and the various other acts mentioned are symptoms of that sin.
This has a fairly interesting corollary: If I (kehrsam) were to engage in homosexual acts, that would certainly be evidence of sin in my life, because I am not homosexual. It does not, however, necessarily mean that such acts are evidence of sin for a congenital homosexual: That is, after all, how God designed them, rather than being evidence of rebellion.
Thus showing how one can argue just about any proposition desired from scripture. Mine, of course, has the benefit of being the proper interpretation.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 15, 2008 9:42 PM
Well, since so many are already there, how about Texas? And this time we not only let them secede, we require them to.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 15, 2008 9:43 PM
Why do they focus on gay men, and not gay women?
I think it's because even the most repressed uptight fundie still gets arouse by the thought of two girls together.
Yeah, we're all sexist pigs. I have no idea what to do about it.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 15, 2008 9:50 PM
James- LOL!
I'll give you that.
Would it surprise you to learn there are huge numbers of women who saw "Brokeback Mountain" and figured out that watching 2 attractive manly men going at it nearly drove them crazy with lust?
There's a whole subculture of female fan fiction authors who write what's called "slash". (Slash refers to the slash in pairings like Jack/Ennis, Kirk/Spock, Mulder/Skinner or Mulder/Kryczeck.)
Much of it is VERY filthy indeed.
Posted by: Rick R | January 15, 2008 10:27 PM
I might as well add my half-baked suggestion into the pot as well:
The focus on gay men is driven by the expected social behaviour for men. Basically the fundies consider gay men to be effeminate and this is the underlying drive for crushing male homosexuality. For an equivlent attitude toward women, see the fundies that call for women to be submissive wives.
Posted by: James | January 15, 2008 11:23 PM
James,
You're not the first one to raise the notion that cultural and religious homophobia surrounds the idea of gender role conformity instead of sexual behavior. In fact, there's a new 'movement' among a few gay men who feel this is true. Basically the idea is that if gay men would just 'butch it up', all the oppression would magically disappear.
Unfortunately they're wrong, as the right's backlash against "Brokeback Mountain" (a story of 2 masculine cowboys in love) would seem to prove. In fact, the opposite may be true- It's more or less acceptable to be gay in the context of "The Birdcage", but "Brokeback" hit 'too close to home' in it's portrayal of gay men as average, gender role conforming guys. I don't remember Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter quivering with moral outrage over "The Birdcage".
Posted by: Rick R | January 15, 2008 11:42 PM
In fact, wasn't there an article recently about an ex-gay ministry getting their members into some kind of "manly man" training, kind of like some sort of boot camp?
In their minds I think they were trying for a "tail wagging the dog" approach- if they "train" these men in stereotypical masculine role conformity, then the sexual conformity would just naturally follow.
Just another glaring example of ignorance in the 'christian world' about how people are actually put together.
Posted by: Rick R | January 15, 2008 11:56 PM
Kersham said:
"Mine, of course, has the benefit of being the proper interpretation"
And I agree 100% with your interpretation.
Posted by: John | January 16, 2008 7:50 AM
The King James Version of Romans 1:26-27 is even more explicit:
And as for James Hanley's suggestion ("...how about Texas? And this time we not only let them secede, we require them to.") -
I suggest he read Fritz Leiber's A Specter is Haunting Texas, in which the Lone Star State secedes... then declares war upon, and conquers, the rest of the US and much of the world.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 16, 2008 11:29 AM
Why do more men than women seek "treatment" through ex-gay ministries?
I ran this one by three female colleagues. All of us have extensive experience evaluating and treating clergy, members of Catholic religious communities and very religious people among the general public. We do not "treat" homosexuality or engage in conversion therapy of any kind, but that doesn't stop people from seeking such treatment with us. All of us see several explanations for why men seek some kind of "treatment" for homosexuality more often than women. There is one explanation we all agree on based upon direct clinical experience.
Men enact what they regard as forbidden same-sex impulses far more often than women do. As a result, they find themselves either getting into jams because of their sexual conduct or they just simply end up feeling far more shame and guilt about conduct contradictory to their manifest religious values. While my colleagues and I have all seen individuals who are troubled by homosexual thoughts and fantasies, it is actual conduct that seems to generate the greatest shame and guilt, driving the most men into "treatment" to control or get rid of their homosexuality. (Again, getting rid of homosexuality is not a treatment goal any of us endorse or accept, although control of destructive sexual behavior is something that any solid clinician would, of course, address).
Aside from gender differences in biological and psychological constitution that might affect rates of sexual activity, it's simply easier for men to find eager and willing same-sex partners for quick, nsa sexual liaisons. Men also get into more financial and legal trouble over sex -- paying for porn, so-called adult entertainment and prostitutes far more often than women. Men, hetero or homosexual, seek treatment for these kinds of troubles far more often than women, but homosexual conservative religious men tend to treat problems in this sphere as a problem caused by their homosexuality. If it weren't for the gender differences in enactment, I suspect that the rates of participation in ex-gay ministries would be closer to equal for men and women.
Posted by: Dr X | January 16, 2008 5:03 PM
Umm, I don't think you quite get the point. These guys did a so-called scientific study, but didn't have the balls to actually publish it for peer-review. Dawkins et al haven't done, or claimed to have done, any scientific studies at all, but I can assure you that if they did, they'd be published in proper journals.
Also, while Dawkins does say that the question of whether or not there is a god is a scientific question, he has also been very clear that it's currently an untestable hypothesis, since disproving a negative is both impossible, and useless. Since you seem to have a problem with their lack of studies on the matter, maybe you can show us a way of actually testing it? It's certainly something you should consider before complaining again.
Posted by: Kaerion | February 24, 2008 4:57 AM
I think this shows they are gay themselves. Many of those fundie homophobes seem to have curious trouble imagining that anyone might not be gay or at least bisexual.
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 24, 2008 7:01 AM
True even in Old Europe. The entire female half of my family keeps making comments on female prettiness. Amazes me to no end -- after all, in the vast majority of cases I simply can't tell if a man is handsome or not, unless he's outright ugly.
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 24, 2008 7:09 AM
Ok everyone SING:
"Ted Haggard is completely hetrosexual
Ted Haggard is completely hetrosexual.."
(see tag of the same name 16 JAN 2008) - :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2008 9:15 AM
This "ex-gay" crap has to be especially pernicious to kids going through puberty. At that age, when raging hormones are a new and intense experience, many almost-adults are so excitable that the actual images going through their minds don't really matter that much. A certain amount of sexual confusion will result, regardless of the person's actual orientation on the het-gay continuum. That's a completely normal part of growing up, but the fundamentalist would-be sex police can't deal with it.
Whenever I hear of someone claiming to be "ex-gay", I figure that person's half right. Either s/he's not really "ex", or not really gay. But these alleged ministries consider it a success to pressure a gay or lesbian person into heterosexual dating and marriage, which is so often a disaster for everyone involved.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | February 24, 2008 1:09 PM