Homo No Mo’? A report from the June 10 Love Won Out conference.

Although evangelical “ex-gay” ministries began in the 1970s, recently they’ve started to come under the public eye. Ex-gay groups have turned up on TV shows like Malcolm in the Middle and Veronica Mars (not to mention the painfully funny satire But I’m a Cheerleader!), and subway ads with cute young adults proclaiming that they “questioned homosexuality” or “chose to change” appear every couple of years in the D.C. area. Last summer, a Tennessee ex-gay program run by the group Love in Action gained (or suffered) national prominence when one 16-year-old posted on his MySpace blog about his unhappiness at his parents’ decision to send him to the camp.

York: Plameologists in Crisis: With Rove Off, CIA Leak Fans Wonder What’s Next

So what are these programs? Are they havens for wounded people exiting a self-destructive lifestyle? Cruising grounds for self-hating, hypocritical predators? Places to heal from past hurts, or places where teens are indoctrinated into shame and despair?

From what I can tell, ex-gay ministries can be all of the above, to different people in different situations.

What they aren’t is what many conservative evangelicals seem to want them to be: the ultimate answer to the gay-rights movement. The groups’ problems are deeply embedded in their self-understanding.

Even some who consider themselves “ex-ex-gays” acknowledge that the programs help some people. Joe Riddle, who spent five years in the Mormon ex-gay group Evergreen, told me, “I definitely think the ex-gay choice is valid, and for some people it truly [works].” But, he added, “I think those people tend to drop out of the ex-gay groups and fly solo. The people who make it work are the people who do it on their own and depoliticize it.” And in his experience, such people were few: “I only met two people who shared convincing stories of [change of sexual orientation].”

The ex-gay movement attempts to bring psychoanalytic techniques into the service of Christian ministry. Many of the conference speakers — Joseph Nicolosi of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality was the most insistent — proclaimed that there were several types of homosexuals, due to a small set of identifiable, fixable traumas. (I noted that I fit many of Nicolosi’s criteria for a “pre-homosexual” boy — imaginative, theatrical, lonely, quick to internalize criticism — but only a strained interpretation could fit me into any of his categories for lesbians.) This leads to easily-disproved statements like Nicolosi’s claim that gay men don’t remain friends after they stop being sexually interested in one another, because if they had strong, non-sexual male friendships it would “heal their homosexuality.” Some men with same-sex attractions find that Nicolosi’s categories and prescriptions fit them very well — I spoke with one man, who wished to be identified as “Frank,” who said he’d gained a lot of insight through work with a Nicolosi-inspired therapist. But he added that he had not yet experienced any change in his sexual orientation.

During the entire nine hours of the conference, none of the speakers I heard discussed how to live chastely while experiencing same-sex attractions. The focus was entirely on the goal of switching sexual orientations.

Mike Haley, the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family and probably the speaker at the conference with whom I disagreed least, told me afterward that one small-group session had discussed chastity. “We don’t want people to believe that change means you have to be married and have to have kids,” he said, and then added, “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. We’re not trying to create people from homosexual to heterosexual.” These statements don’t line up with what I heard at the conference; but it’s much easier to be nuanced in one-on-one conversations than in lectures to big audiences.

Haley argued that the “origin stories” of homosexuality offered by Nicolosi and others “almost always ring true. With 12 years of involvement in the gay community I never met a homosexual man who had a positive relationship with his father at the ages of 8, 9, or 10 years old. All I can go by is my experience with the hundreds and hundreds of men I come in contact with who say, ‘Oh, you just told my story.’”

Lance Carroll, who spent eight weeks at a Love in Action program last year (when he was 17), strongly disagreed: “I don’t fit their stereotypical homosexual background. …I had a good relationship with my father.” He described his experience with Love in Action as “horrendous,” recalling “group activities where one person was singled out and made to associate shame with something homosexual that they had done. This was done many times for each person, in an attempt to condition you to believe that being homosexual was shameful. Other ‘therapies’ included isolation, where you wouldn’t be allowed to make eye contact, much less talk, with any of the other participants; making the women wear skirts and makeup to help them become more feminine; and making the men play sports in an attempt to help them become more masculine.”

Peterson Toscano, creator of a performance piece (“Doing Time at the Homo No Mo’ Halfway House”) based on his experiences as a self-described “ex-gay survivor,” spent 17 years seeking to change his sexual orientation. Toscano recalled that in the ex-gay programs, “I felt very much cared for and comforted in my struggles. In the midst of it, it didn’t feel like something horrible was happening.”

Nonetheless, he said, “The vast majority, and I am not exaggerating, of the scores and scores of people I know through these organizations, are out now, accept themselves as gay, and look back on that time as very traumatic and difficult. …Many of them have walked away from God and any sort of faith tradition because they were so disappointed — they’d been lied to over and over again by people speaking in Jesus’ name.”

At Love in Action’s residential program, Toscano said, “You could not spend more than 15 minutes a day in the bathroom with the door closed — you had to break that time up as best as you could. You were not allowed to wear Calvin Klein [underwear]; they didn’t want us to have facial hair; you couldn’t wear aftershave. It was very controlling. If you were in the early phase of the program you couldn’t be by yourself. You couldn’t watch television, listen to anything but Christian music; you had very limited access to people in the outside world. …The rules were inconvenient; but what makes it worse was the moral stigma: ‘You cannot be trusted.’ It eats away at a person, it’s very detrimental.”

While he was in the program, one of his friends attempted suicide. “Miraculously, he survived,” Toscano said, “but he was ready to put himself out — he was so tired of failing.”

You are misrepresenting things in post 37. She is saying that the psychological treatment offered by ex-gay ministries sometimes fails sincere people. Clearly she is not expecting to pray and have her feelings go away. She is expecting to pray and have her behavior controlled. She doesn't think the desire is itself a sin, so she doesn't know she needs to repent of it.

How do you suppose people repented of homosexuality before psychological treatments were developed? When Paul says, "such were some of you..." where does he mention their psychologists.

I don't want to be too tough on you. Congratulations on your many successes. I am happy that psychoanalysis therapy helped you. I just wish you wouldn't promote the idea that faith isn't enough. It clearly was enough in the Apostle Paul's day. I am especially bothered by the ex-gay movement's push in the public schools. Leave the kids alone. If you want to offer therapies, do it outside of public, compulsory education. You don't speak for everyone. Your cause is noble enough, and much of what you say is beneficial. But your theology is greatly lacking, and I just can't overlook that.

Ghost and SoulMan, I think what you both have to say is valuable and deserves respectful discussion (which, thank you, is what we have had so far: isn't that a FReepin' wonderment!)

I want to add that it is possible to sin in thought as well as in word and deed: that is, cherishing and nurturing within you any kind of corrupt thought (whether it be lust, envy, revenge, hatred, contempt of others, pride or whatever) is morally offensive in itself and leads to even worse outward manifestations.

However, involuntary feelings, though they are objectively disordered, are not morally culpable, You can, and should, try with all the faith and skill and persistence and tenacity you have, to banish disordered feelings (and some people, maybe after years of struggle, do so successfully); but if feelings come back un-willed and un-called-for, this constituted a trial, a vexation, and a temptation, but not a sin. You can't be guilty of anything you did not will. No more than you could be guilty of a dream.

Nobody knows what they "thorn in the flesh" was that St. Paul wanted to vehemently to be free of (he felt like it was Satan beating him up) --- but it might have been just this sort of involuntary inward temptation.

I think you worded that very well. Nice job. I really can't agree with the part about not being morally culpable for so-called involuntary feelings. People don't necessarily choose to be jealous, greedy, angry or hateful. These things are the fruits of our sin nature. I think we become morally culpable when we have the ability to recognize them. We are born with a sin nature yet we are 100% morally culpable for it.

I think you offered great clarity on this. Don't Christians still think Jesus Christ is sufficient for overcoming all sin? If we don't, then what's this whole repentance/faith/salvation exercise all about? If the therapist offers a better plan, who needs Christ? That's where I am coming from. All the Christians I know say that Jesus saved them, not their therapist (And please, I am not saying Soulman is not a genuine Christian. I would have no way of knowing. I am just pointing out an important difference.)

The Christian message is that the Lord Jesus has the answer to our sin problem. He offers forgiveness and transformation. The transformation is from the inside, out.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it sin to seek therapy. I just think the concepts promoted are not scripturally sound. So I don't like the Christian label used, especially when it is touted as a necessary addition to faith in Christ. Faith can't do it. Therapy can. That is the dangerous message, yet they claim just the opposite.

A Few Points

Ghost wrote: Clearly she is not expecting to pray and have her feelings go away. She is expecting to pray and have her behavior controlled.

My response: Every homosexual passes through a stage where they pray to God to “take their homosexuality away” and make them “like everyone else.” This phase is an intrinsic part of homosexual psychological development. Trust me, Ms. Tushnet went through this phase at some point in her life.

Ghost wrote: I just wish you wouldn't promote the idea that faith isn't enough. It clearly was enough in the Apostle Paul's day.

My response: The Apostle Paul didn’t live in a complex, post-industrial society with a broken down family structure and 50% divorce rate. If you think about, people had it good in Bible days: strong families, strong interpersonal relationships. People today confront a host of ills and problems that would be unfathomable to people who lived in Bible times.

My next response: I am not promoting the idea that faith isn’t enough. Maybe it is enough for some people. It’s not for me to say.

I am reporting an objective, empirical FACT. I have seen countless people who believe that their faith will “save” them from homosexuality. They try to pray their way out of homosexuality. When it doesn’t work, they turn bitter and start attacking the “ex-gay” movement. The article by Ms. Tushnet that started this thread is a perfect example. Believe me, this article is not benign. People will read it, it will affirm their belief that homosexuality is innate and it can’t be changed and they will go deeper into homosexual fantasy and behavior. (Read the comment by Darkwolf377 on this thread).

Based on my observations of many years, I believe that to begin to counter the destructive social trend toward acceptance of the lie that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, science and faith have to work together. The great irony here is of course that in this battle, science is on our side. If anyone else has a better idea, I am eager to hear it.

I think that part of Eve Tushnet's motivation is very much like yours, though on the obverse side. Certainly therapy programs work for some people: and may God prosper them. But she has seen people go through ex-gay programs (sometimes for years) and come out beating themselves up for failure because they "still have those feelings." After they finish beating themselves up, they turn bitterly anti-ex-gay: hard-boiled, double-dyed queers.

Tushnet wants somebody out there to say, "You may one of the subset of people who have those feelings --- same-sex attraction --- for the rest of your life. The truth is, you still have to avoid the sin of illicit intercourse. You have to deal with this the way all the rest of us deal with sinful tendencies: intimate contact with the Lord. Scripture, prayer, Sacrament.

Again I say, this goes for all of us. We are a mess. We don't just require therapy. We require a heart transplant. Jesus says, "Here, my beloved. Here's my heart."

Dear Mrs Don-o,

Do you and Ms. Tushnet believe in the God of the Bible or do you believe in the "Gay" Rights Leaders?

My sense is that both you and Ms. Tushnet believe that "Gay" Rights Leaders are smarter than God.

The Bible says a few things like "Male and Female He Created them," "Be fruitful and multiply" "Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so they become one flesh."

If God does not provide a way out of homosexuality, these statements must be seen as either cruel or idiotic.

In the Bible I read, God also seems to say a few things about human redemption. If homosexuality is not changeable, then the "Gay" Rights Leaders are smarter than God.

You and Ms. Tushnet should pray to the "Gay" rights leaders. Why waste your time and pray to God, who obviously doens't know what He is talking about?

Heck, you don't even have to be literate and able to read the Bible. Look out the window. If nature issues one command, it's "REPRODUCE." Human life as we know it is built on the dichotomy of male and female. Oh, but I guess Ms. Tushnet knows better.

My God does not make promises He cannot keep. if we have failed to help men and women out of homosexuality, it is because we are not yet wise enough, compassionate enough or loving enough. Out faith is not yet strong enough.

My God does not lie.

(Read the comment by Darkwolf377 on this thread). Based on my observations of many years, I believe that to begin to counter the destructive social trend toward acceptance of the lie that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, science and faith have to work together.

1.What are the success rates compared to the failure rates of turning someone "ex-gay"? (No conclusive stats? How wonderfully convenient for you.)

2. I guess two of the founders of one of the major ex-gay groups just didn't pay attention to the "FACTS" enough, seeing how they quit their ex-gay life and married each other. (Need I add they're both men?)

3. A show of hands--how many people would let their daughter marry an "ex-gay"?

4.The fervor of those who WANT this stuff to be true is immaterial. Let's see all these "FACTS". Simple enough request, isn't it?

You can't have it both ways. One either has faith or one doesn't.

You and Ms. Tushnet want to say (these are your words):

You may be one of the subset of people who have those feelings --- same-sex attraction --- for the rest of your life

On the other hand you say (your words again):

He will give us the strength to overcome temptation.

Well, which is it? Either faith is worthwhile or we should give up when things don't go our way. Either we are slaves to our desires or not. Either redemption exists or it doesn't. Which side are you on?

I can only judge Ms. Tushnet by the article she wrote for the National Review. She repeats the same old tired cliches seen everywhere in the mainstream media how ex-gay therapies and ministries don't work. There is nothing new here. And I said elsewhere, this article is not benign. People will read it, they will take it as further evidence that homosexuality is innate, that change is impossible and it will drive them into further homosexual fantasy and behavior. If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.

Ms. Tushnet may claim to be opposed by Gay Rights leaders. But at the end of day, she is parroting their message of despair and broadcasting it to the world. She is negating the possibility of change. People will suffer.

If this is her (and your) version of faith and Godliness, I cannot accept it. I have seen too much in my lifetime. I saw my best friend buried before he was thirty because he accepted this message and contracted AIDS.

Beware of the evil that disguises itself as good.

We have debated these questions before. There are logical answers to each of the questions you raise and I would like the opportunity to address them. I had addressed them in previous posts (you can look them up) and apparently the answers were not satisfactory. I will try again.

However, answering these questions is time consuming, since you are asking for facts and information beyond my personal experience. If you are really sincere, I will take the time to look up some information and get back to you. But I do hope you are sincere.

I don't have the time to do the research now. It will take a few days. I don't have this information at my fingertips. So I hope you will be patient. Let me ask you this, of the questions you ask, which is the most relevant to you, since addressing these concerns in a satisfactory manner is time consuming.

Thanks.

There's something wrong with merely singling out gays as candidates for comprehensive head-bending "reparative" programs; because the sexual disorder in our society is broader than just "gays" with a "problem.".

When discussing the homosexual disorder one must necessarily single out "homosexuals". Homosexuality is not comparable to heterosexuality -homosexuality is intrinsically disordered...

There is good reason as evidenced below why the Catholic Church specifically singles out homosexual candidates:

Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies

2. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry
From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

Switching sexual orientations has little or nothing to do with that. A person who experiences only same-sex attraction can still be chaste; while a person who has only opposite-sex attractions can be a pathetic horndog.

Setting aside controversy regarding what does and does not work, which method is best etcetera THERE is still one thing very wrong with what the writer of the article puts forth.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not comparable as she appears to argue. A chaste individual that suffers the homosexual disorder is still an individual suffering a disorder while a chaste heterosexual is not in any way disordered.

***Mt 5:27-28 - "You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.***

So, your arguement is that a homosexual sins because his homosexual desire in itself is a sin...
But if he was cured, his transfer of lust to a woman would make him an adulterer...

As a man with exclusively homosexual attractions, just by having those attractions does not mean that I lust for other men. I don't think I have wanted to have sexual engagement with another person in years... and if my 'orientation' was changed, then what would prevent me from lusting for a woman?... hence, your logic doesn't stand up.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.