Free Republic

All my gay friends have had strong mothers and non-existent fathers.

Very astute observation. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to homosexual development.

Would you be comfortable with your beautiful daughter or niece marrying an "ex-gay" who previously frequented bathhouses for anonymous sex?

I have seen this argument before and I find it disingenuous and disturbing as well as a ridiculous oversimplification.

What is the point? That one can never change one's life for the better? Once a sinner always a sinner? There can be no compassion for others?

If you take away the possibility of change, if no one can have the hope of a better life, then we might as well say that the "Gay Agenda" wins. Why fight it? What is the moral good? We are condemning a behavior that people can't change. That is cruel and unjust in the extreme.

I'll say from my experience you can't make general rules about what will make a marriage work or know whether a man will prove himself a worthy husband beforehand.

Question: If your beautiful daughter/niece marries a hard-driving, hard rockin' heterosexual, how does she know that on the day when she is no longer physically beautiful (which inevitably comes), he won't go hunting' for other women? I think it's happened on more than one occasion.

You told him you were flattered? Seriously? As a woman, I can't imagine the reaction most hetero men would have is "flattered".

Have you ever heard the expression "gentleman" before?

It sounds to me like the polite response of a man considerate of and concerned about another person's feelings.

You're attack on Little Jeremiah is uncivil and unjust.

It is political activist "gays" that gave turned what should be a private sexual matter into a political issue by:

1. stopping the psychiatric treatment of homosexuality, convincing people that it is not a problem of psychological development (the best definition possible), that it cannot be treated, thereby leading thousands of young men to their deaths

2. spreading the ridiculous falsehood that homosexuality is "biological" or "genetic"

3. forcing the agenda of "gay" marriage unto the public.

This is an issue that is going to affect the very foundation of our society. Soon "gay" marriage will become a reality putting the final nail in the coffin of the american family (if everything is marriage then nothing is marriage); thousands of young people are going to die of AIDS because they believe they have no choice but to be "gay"; it is not trivial.

Like it or not it is a HISTORICAL FACT that the "Gay" population was the breeding ground for the spread of AIDS in this country. And homosexual sex is still the most common way by which the virus is spread in the United States.

Conservatives should be concerned about fostering a society that upholds traditional values. Who else will speak up for Western Civilization and the family? The Mainstream Media?

I have seen the "Gay" life more up close and personal than you ever will. Fortunately, I got out of it with my health intact. We need more people like Little Jeremiah; it's people like Little Jeremiah who were willing to speak the truth who saved my life.

For a better understanding of the significance of the "gay rights" and homosexuality to our society read:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1575153/posts

This article explains better than I can why this issue is significant and why people who believe in traditional values should be concerned and why such people should have the right and a forum to express their views.

Lost sense of restraint caused by doors being opened and mental pathways being formed that are easy to repeat

You are exactly right. These mental pathways are not only easy to repeat. It can be very difficult to change them (they are traumatic or form new mental pathways over them.

There are many important points that stem from your message. The broad, social acceptance of the "gay" agenda makes it extremely unlikely that people will be able to correct these deviant mental pathways.

The Nazi analogy is not irrelevant. Many major corporations in the thirties and forties did support and cooperate with the Nazis (IBM and Ford Motor Company among them). Of course, now they regret it and issue apologies but a lot of good that does. Six million plus bodies are underground already (as are the bodies of many men with homosexual leanings who contracted AIDS). Mineralman, though he lives in error, has a certain point. Business entities are inherently amoral. My conclusion is a different one: It is up to us as consumers to speak out.

In our time, it is fashionable for major corporations to be "gay friendly." This despite the fact that the "Gay" rights movement is spreading dangerous falsehoods and myths, has made it virtually impossible to get psychiatric treatment for homosexuality (even if the client wishes it) and has created a "gay" subculture which was the breeding ground for the AIDS epidemic in the United Sates and continues to lock men and women in a destructive and dangerous lifestyle.

I work for a Fortune 100 company that is very "Gay" friendly. Sometimes I swallow my pride as I read announcements of corporate sponsored "Gay" events or diversity seminars, but I need the paycheck. The Christian Radio Host who is advocating the boycott is doing the right thing. True if this is a popular chain it may not have much effect, but he can go to his grave knowing he did was was right in his lifetime.

Thanks for your kind words. I want say first that your thoughtful and humble approach is appreciated and you have my respect. I reveal some very personal information here and getting a post like yours makes me feel that it is worthwhile. Other people could learn from your open minded and generous way of writing.

I want to say second that I have to GO TO WORK. There is a lot to talk about here and I will get back to you.

I have come to a conclusion about people: They don't change. They can TRY to change; they can abstain from behavior; they can make cosmetic alterations. But what they ARE, inside, doesn't change. When people point out various seismic changes in people due to religious experience, I point out that they are really revealing something which was in them all along--maybe not a belief in God but an intense NEED for a belief in God, for example.

WARNING TO ALL: THIS POST CONTAINS SOME PERSONAL, GRAPHIC CONTENT, NECESSARY TO MAKE MY ARGUMENT

Darkwolf, the issue of whether people really do change is important to me and this is something that I did study in my journey out of homosexuality.

There is a substantial body of scientific research which shows that the human mind can literally "rewire itself", -- create new neural pathways (the circuits that nerves use to communicate in the brain). These studies are the biological and scientific evidence of the existence of human change. There is evidence (derived from studies with stroke patients) that this "neurological rewiring" takes place throughout adult life, and not just during childhood. These independent, empirical scientific studies (not biased toward religious belief of any kind) are documented in the book The Mind and Brain by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz and Sharon Begley published in 2002 by ReganBooks and available at your local bookstore.

Dr. Schwartz's work had and continues to have a tremendous influence on my life. If you read his work, it might challenge your ideas about human change. He did his major work with people who suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder (another anxiety related disorder). He showed that people with obsessive compulsive can use cognitive havavioral therapy to alter their brain chemistry. (He used MRI scans to demonstrate altered brain chemistry). He also makes a purely scientific, empirical argument for the existence of a free will.

After reading Dr. Schwartz's work, I began to understand the changes that were taking place within me.

Darkwolf, try at least to understand this: I do not even think in terms of changing my "sexual orientation." That is an abstract concept, a pursely social construct and not really useful for me. I think of changing specific behaviors and thought patterns.

For example, my ability to obtain and maintain an erection when I am with my girlfriend is increasing. I also consider my cognitive approach to the stresses of daily life.

I used to revert to homosexual fantasy and masturbation in periods of stress and anxiety. I used to ejaculate to homosexual fantasy as much as three times a day. I am now able to withstand stress and anxiety with resorting to homosexual fantasy and masturbation. I cannot even recall my last homosexual fantasy. I am not sure if I am even CAPABLE at this point of ejaculating to a homosexual fantasy because it has been so long. This is a specific change and I believe circuits in my brain are literally rewiring themselves.

Darkwolf, the subject of change is an important one and I am sticking my neck out here by revealing some very personal information. I am trusting you to respect the personal nature of the information I am sharing.

I did not ping you because I want to "somehow win you over." I had mentioned you in my post and wanted to alert you to it, to give you an opportunity to respond as a courtesy. I am not trying to win you over, but answering your challenges helps me to understand my own experiences.

Darkwolf

You're starting to confuse me. In a previous thread I offered to do some research, and you told me not to bother. I am starting to get confused by your comments and I hope that you are sincere in voicing your concerns. If you are, I am cetainly certainly open to discussion.

To answer your charge, I do care. Unfortunately, I am not a walking encyclopedia and coming up with he depth of argument you seem to require is going to take some time. I do have to pay bills and make a living. I will go through my computer files and some web sites and see what I can come up with that is most convincing. I also have a couple good books. Give me an opportunity.

Let me say a few things from just what I know off the top of my head. I think, first of all, the basic question "what is the proof of successful change from homosexual to heterosexual" is a legitimate one. Believe me, it plagued me for much of my life.

A look at sceintiffic literature will reveal pretty consistently that of people who seek to leave homosexuality through some kind of change therapy, about a third are successful, about a third experience some degree of change but it is not complete, and about a third do not experience change. You need to look especially at the studies that took place before the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a psychiatric diagnosis. There are web sites which catalog these studies.

What is significant about psychiatric studies is that the rates of successful change are consistent with other psychiatric disorders, such as anxiety disorders. The ability to treat homosexuality is pretty consistent with our ability to treat other mental disorders, especially other anxiety related disorders (i believe that anxiety is at the core of most homosexuality). To put it another way, our lack of success in helping people change says more about the dismal state of mental health care than it says about whether or not homosexuality is amenable to treatment.

An interesting statistic to look at is this: the percentage of the population that self-identifies as homosexual declines with age. I don't have the exact numbers, but say, for example, 4% of the population identifies themselves as homosexual between the ages of 16 and 20; between the ages of 30 and 40 only 3% of the population identifies as homosexual; between the ages of 40 and 50, only 2% of the population and so on. I don't know the exact numbers, but the drop off is significant. That change cannot be explained solely by higher mortality rates for homosexuals. It seems likely that at least some of the people who are "dropping out of homosexuality" (ceasing to self-identify as homosexuals) are achieving heterosexual functioning.

It's late now Darkwolf. More later.

But the facts aren't with you as far as I can see.

Well, the fact is the FACTS are with me. But more than that, the GOOD FEELINGS holding my girlfriend, kissing her, loving her, seeing how beautiful it is to be loved by a woman, these outweigh any research done by any professor! It's hard to prove statistically but Trust Me It's the Truth!

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.

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.

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.

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 looked at her blog. Now I understand where this woman is coming from.

Ms. Tushnet is one of those people who believes she can deal with her homosexuality through faith alone (be chaste and all that) but she has not done the hard psychological work of understanding and coping with her own homosexual feelings (and trust me it is hard work). She expected to pray and her homosexual feelings would go away. It didn't work and now she is bitter, as reflected in the National Review article. I have known many people like her.

The role of religion vs. psychology in growth out of homosexuality has been debated in this thread. Both approaches have their role, both are essential. Ms. Tushnet shows the problems of a strictly religious or theological approach to overcoming homosexuality: Without the hard psychological work of dealing with one's past and one's feelings -- it won't work. Now, in bitterness, she is attacking the ex-gay movement publicly.

Modern psychology and the "ex-gay" groups both are very flawed...but these are the tools we have right now to work with to grow out of homosexuality. We have to make the best of them.

I am believer. I believe in God. God will provide for me, but I still have to go to work to make a living. God will heal us, but we still have to do the hard psychological work of dealing with our feelings, understanding our past, moving beyond our past, and correcting our thinking. God will heal us, but we have to use the hearts and minds he gave us.

Here is the letter I wrote to the National Review in response to the article

Dear National Review Editors,

I was greatly disappointed with your decision to publish the article entitled "Homo No Mo" by Eve Tushnet. You have done a grave disservice to humanity.

Essentially, this article is no different from the hundreds of articles in the mainstream media that attack the "ex-gay" movement. It emphasizes the flaws of the "ex-gay" movement and people who failed to achieve the change they were seeking. The frustrations and biases of the author are apparent in every line.

As a man who struggled with homosexual fantasies and attractions for most of his adult life, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for conservative publications such as the National Review to speak out with the message that homosexuality is NOT innate or inborn and that ANYONE can recover from homosexuality. Yes, the “ex-gay” movement like any human endeavor has its flaws and its failures, but the National Review should be emphasizing the essential truth of the “ex-gay” message, the hopeful concept that growth out of homosexuality is possible.

Growth out of homosexuality is the truth ingrained in my own soul. I live it every day. I struggled with homosexual attractions for years but through patience, faith, therapy, abstinence, the love of family and friends, thinking for myself and the help of God I have come out on the other side. I am now developing a physically and emotionally intimate relationship with the most wonderful woman in the world (God has been exceptionally good to me) and we will marry the end of October. Homosexual fantasy is becoming a distant, vague memory.

Rather than repeat the gripes of disgruntled individuals who for a million possible reasons (including poor psychiatric care and lack of strength of character) may not have achieved the change they seek, the National Review should emphasize the political and social history that brought us where we are today.

Consider this, I was born in 1960. In 1973, when I was thirteen the American Psychiatric Association said homosexuality no longer qualified as a mental disorder. By the time I was graduating college, there was a virus going round that no one knew much about, but that would kill off a significant portion of my brothers, the misfit boys of my generation, the boys who weren't picked for the basketball team. Yet no one said the obvious, obvious truth that these boys needed help to get out of the homosexual lifestyle. Instead the graves were dug. What is man that he would rather face death than face the truth?

Today, the mainstream media (including now the National Review), the educational establishment, and the therapeutic professions continually broadcast the lie that homosexuality is inborn, genetic, an essential character trait, a characteristic that defines the human being, that nothing can be done to change. After my life experiences this lie is so absurd it's hard to respond to it.

News flash: There ARE homosexual feelings and homosexual attractions. Indeed it is not uncommon for people to experience homosexual feelings, especially given a particular set of circumstances. Indeed, such feelings can become quite fixated. But there is NO SUCH THING AS A "HOMOSEXUAL," a special species of human being, a separate species that is incapable of finding emotional or physical satisfaction with a member of the opposite sex (as God intended all humans to do).he media, the "Gay" rights movement, the educational establishment and the medical/psychological establishment is entrapping people in a horrible and sometimes even fatal lie.

It is up to publications like the National Review to speak out about this, not parrot that attacks on the "ex gay' movement that we hear from the mainstream media. There are few causes in our time that require more bravery or are as important.

As a man who struggled with homosexuality, I was greatly disappointed that the National Review published this article. I may write to them directly.

Yes, the "ex-gay" movement" has flaws. Its not hard to find people who are disgruntled because "change" didn't work for them. But who are these people? What type of effort did they put into it?

Ultimately, the "ex-gay" movement (as a broad term for people who promote change from homosexuality saved my life. That's all I know.

When I think of some of the things I used to crave or indulge in, that now repulse me, I shudder with disgust, then I thank God that I no longer am a slave to such habits or desires. Drugs, alcohol, lying, theft, and promiscuity for a start.

It is the depth of your experience that has given you your wonderful understanding of human nature and makes you such a great man to communicate with on this web site. The greater the sin, the more powerful the return to God.

It is a blessing to have you on this website.

It's getting late and your most recent post is all in italics and hard to read. I can't respond to everything you wrote but I'll try to address a few of your concerns. Please be patient.

YOU are the one who brought up the topic--YOU are the one who posted the article titled "EX-GAY MOVEMENT"--not me.

Uh, actually that isn't true. I didn't bring up the topic, I didn't post the article. I saw the article posted and decided to comment on it, based on my own experience.

You know exactly what I mean--people who stop being homosexual, stop practicing homosexuality, or whatever you want to call it. So please, enough with the word games.

In all honesty and all sincerity, I was not being coy. I was trying to make the point that these issue can be easily manipulated because of the ambivalent meaning of terms like "homosexuality," "homosexuals," and "Gay." The nature of human language is that it can convey ambivalent meanings, and this is especially problematic with homosexuality and the "Gay" rights movement.

Think about this: There is no objective trait (outside of subjective experience) or physical trait that defines a "homosexual", no diagnostic test for homosexuality. One scientist who writes a great deal about this issue is Jeffrey Satinover. He is very logical and brilliant and can express the point much better than me. Look for his articles on the NARTH website, especially one called the Trojan Couch (the question is not academic, it has a lot of legal consequences). NARTH is an organization of psychologists and psychiatrists who help men and women overcome homosexuality. Their website is www.narth.com.

In fact, if you will explore the NARTH site, you sill find articles that address your questions about recidivism for people who struggle with homosexuality as well as discussions about success rates for treatments. These are scientific and sociological studies, If you are really interested, e-mail me privately I will refer you to some interesting articles I have stored on my computer. Also anecdotal stories about people who have left homosexuality behind. Some inspiring stuff (how people overcome barriers). There are other good websites as well. NARTH is a good place to start.

A point needs to be made that since it is no longer politically correct to change, scientists and psychologists are not doing a lot of studies about the change process. A lot of the good studies, therefore, predate the 1973 APA decision. Nevertheless, there are many places where successful change is documented.

But I'm not surprised by the game you're playing, seeing how the founders of this whole movement subsequently left it and married each other.

I am familiar with the story you are talking about. It is been greatly exaggerated by the "Gay" rights folks to attack the ex-gay movement. The man (it was one man) you are referring to was the on the board of a particular "ex-gay" ministry, not a founder of "the movement." All of the other men involved in founding the organization he was part of (a predecessor to exodus, the largest ex-gay ministry) remained married to their wives, supportive of the cause etc. I might be able to find an article that gives the other side of this story, but no time right now. If this is truly important to you, let me know and I'll look it up when I have more time.

I need to make the point here that I am not and was never part of any ex-gay movement or ministry. That is not the path I chose out of homosexuality. These organizations are like all human endeavors, they have their strengths and weaknesses. There are many people who leave homosexuality behind who are not part of the ex-gay movement. There was a website by one such person who called himself the "yestergay." I am not sure if this website still exists or what happened to him. I am not an "ex-gay," I am a man and concerned about my fellow man.

That's fine for that one man, but what about those others who it doesn't help but merely sidetracks into something that may lead them to start relationships with women who are subsequently heartbroken when this method fails? How about those women--don't they count as much as the (failed) opportunity for a gay man to deny his true nature?

You raise some very important points here and there simply isn't time or space to address them. I agree with you that when a man has a homosexual past he has to consider carefully before he proposes marriage to a woman. Where I disagree with you is the standard, politically correct and currently fashionable "gay who denies his true nature" line. His true nature is a man, capable of loving a woman (and being loved by a woman). He may not be able to achieve his true nature at a point in time because of psychological blocks.

Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows about the current divorce rate and the problems in relationships between men and women. Homosexuality can be one of them. But it is not necessarily the worst. These are loaded questions and can be loaded however you want to. You load them against "ex-gays." I can load them the other way, Is a girl better off with a "Raging hetero bully who beats her and fornicates with other women" or a "guy with some homosexual fantasies in his past who treats her gently and respects her"?

In my own life, I have seen the other side of the coin. There are a lot of lonely, older single women out there with no families, no man to support them and care for them (Consider that the rates for fixated homosexuality are higher for men than for women. Men also die earlier and are more likely to be imprisoned. The statistics are tough for older single women) My judgment based on my experience is a lot of these women are unhappy. Based on my experience, I can't help but think that the fact that the mental health professions have abandoned efforts to help men leave homosexuality have something to do with this.

More later, if you are interested.

What is the recidivism rate of "former gays"?

Ha! That's exactly my point. There is no such statistic because there is no real definition of a "homosexual."

Does a "former gay" include someone like me who had sexual fantasies with homosexual content but never acted on them?

Does a "former gay" include one of the thousands or possibly millions of people who had one or two homosexual affairs as a teenager or young adult and then left it behind and dated members of the opposite sex and married?

Does a "former gay" include ANYONE who at ANY POINT in their life experienced a homosexual thought or feeling (by that definition, the recidivism rate will be low indeed!)

Even if you only count as "former gays" people who publicly identified with the "Gay" lifestyle (out of the closet) and then later joined groups labeled as "ex-gay," you would never be able to determine the recidivism rate. Most people who leave the homosexual lifestyle behind don't go around broadcasting their past. For one thing, they have their spouse's amd children's feelings to consider.

But if one man has successfully left homosexuality behind, married and found happiness, I believe society should encourage it (or at a minimum not discourage and allow for change). Because of the potential for sparing people needless unhappiness, illness and premature death.

Forgive me for being a crusader, I watched my best friend from college who I loved (not a physical relationship, as a friend and brother) decide he was "Gay" and die from the fatal three letters (HIV) before he was thirty because of what would prove in my life to be a bunch of meaningless lies. I am a crusader on this topic because of him.