Skip to comments.It really is elementary: Ex-gays exist (Great Read!)
Posted on 10/01/2004 7:48:55 PM PDT by wagglebee
A 22-year-old man stands before a classroom of middle schoolers, describing how he came out as a homosexual and going so far as to declare, "there are gay students in this classroom."
The young man is Noe Gutierrez, Jr., and the scene is one from "It's Elementary," an award-winning 1996 video (widely aired in 1999) which aims to give "practical lessons on how to talk with kids about gay people."
You won't find that scene in Gutierrez's latest video, however. Although he requested permission to use it, producer/director Debra Chasnoff turned him down. Apparently, she doesn't want schoolchildren knowing what's happened since then.
You see, Gutierrez is no longer gay.
Neither are the four others -- three women and one man -- featured in the new video "I Do Exist."
A 52-minute documentary, "I Do Exist" utilizes the stories of those five ex-gays to demonstrate that change is possible for those with same-sex attractions.
The video also includes remarks from 2 psychologists -- Dr. Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College (the video's producer) and Dr. Mark Yarhouse of Regent University -- who challenge the popular misconception that homosexuality is hardwired.
They do so by citing a seemingly unlikely source -- an American Psychiatric Association (APA) fact sheet on sexual orientation:
Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime... To date, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology (meaning cause), of homosexuality.... Similarly, no specific psychosocial (or life circumstances) or family dynamics cause for homosexuality has been identified.
Declaring that the cause of homosexuality is therefore "something of a scientific mystery," Throckmorton contends that "homosexual attractions are caused by different factors for different people."
Yarhouse gets more specific, crediting a "weighted interaction" between genetics, prenatal hormonal mechanisms, parent-child relationships, childhood sexual abuse, and disinhibition about sexual relationships.
He also details five stages that mark the emergence of a gay identity and argues that experiences of same-sex attraction do not mean a person is gay.
These somewhat academic explanations are interspersed with comments from the five ex-gays portrayed, whose experiences illustrate the points made.
To make its primary point -- that gays can change -- the video then adds psychiatrist Robert Spitzer of Columbia University to the mix.
Dr. Spitzer, who is well known as one who originally got homosexuality removed from the APA's list of mental disorders in 1973, has since conducted research convincing him that people can change from gay to straight -- "more than how they view themselves, but in their fantasy and their arousal."
While the video continues with further anecdotes and assertions regarding the possibility of change for homosexuals, it notably makes no suggestion that homosexuals should change. Instead, it simply argues that they can if they wish to.
In this, one might falsely assume they have a message that is inoffensive to the gay community. Spitzer, however, describes the severe criticism his study faced and attributes such reactions to gay activists who feel that their political goals are threatened by any suggestion that homosexuals can change.
This video is extremely informative, but therein lies its biggest problem. The video simply tries to do too much.
Its primary point is simply that ex-gays exist -- that change is possible for those who wish to do so -- and it does present this effectively.
Beyond that, however, it makes various tangential points which, while individually important, seem intended to address too many audiences. Indeed, the video's insert recommends it for such disparate audiences as college classes, ex-gay support groups, seminaries, youth groups, and diversity awareness workshops.
A more narrowly tailored focus would have been to its benefit.
Despite these disappointments, however, this documentary is the best of its kind, simply by virtue of the fact that it's the only one of its kind. It merits watching if only because its message is not one you'll hear elsewhere.
The existence of ex-gays remains one of the biggest untold stories today. Generally ignored by the media, ex-gays are often shouted down by gay activists when they try to raise their voices.
They are misunderstood by both a secular society that largely accepts homosexuality and a religious world that largely doesn't.
But they won't remain closeted forever. This documentary is simply chapter one in a story that's just beginning to unfold.
The problem is that the left wants as many homosexuals as possible, it helps promote their secular agenda.
hmm..what does he mean by 'genetics'?
Of course they exist, one of my best friends from high school thought she was a lesbian and even involved herself seriously w/other women. Few years later and maturity came upon her, and the thought of other women was inconcievable to her. She is now happily married to a MAN and never looks back.
I read a few years ago that a prominent Psychiatrist was ostracized by his peers for claiming that homosexuality is actually a treatable psychosexual disorder. Will try to track that down and post it here.
Of course ex-gays exist. Two current terms on college campuses are "LUG"- Lesbian Until Graduation- and "Hasbian"- someone who was Lesbian but went back to liking guys.
If it weren't for offended Christian morality, the whole gay/straight thing would be a non-issue.
He probably means a genetic predisposition that has to be potentiated by exposure to abuse. There doesn't seem to be much basic research on this subject, b/c it's too politically weighted.
I guess one could argue that if a gay guy experiences an instance of attraction involving a woman, that wouldn't make him straight. The problem is, I think most straight men have a gag reflex when it comes to how they see other men. It doesn't matter how "attractive" another guy may be, your brain just kind of retches before it can ever entertain the thought.
I saw a guy I thought was sexy once, but then was relieved to realize it was my own reflection in a window.
I am still waiting for someone to reconcile the idea that "sexual orientation is innate" with the idea of darwinism. How could homosexuality evolve through the inexorable process of "natural selection," which is so powerful that all of our ancestors who had, e.g., the relatively minor comparative disadvantage of lacking fingerprints were unsuccessful competitors for survival (once in a while they lost their grip on the liana they were using to swing through the jungle)?
Yet most of the people who believe that homosexuality is innate also believe in darwinism. "Cognitive dissonance"?
There is tenure waiting for the associate professor who can spin a plausible fable within the framework of evolutionary theory explaining the persistence of homosexuality. (Since evolutionary theory can hardly explain the origin of sexual reproduction, its explanation of homosexual reproduction is bound to be entertaining.)
They are secularists who will believe ANYTHING which will lead to the destruction of Judeo-Christian society. It's just like the fact that nearly all pro-abortionists are anti-capital punishment.
I read that homosexuality is reversible. It is in Encyclopedia Americana and Britannica. Britannica mentioned about it and it had a success rate of 72 percent. It was a secular setting.
Bingo, we have a winner!!! You get a star and get to go to the head of the class!
In the last days, this sort of thing will determine who gets seperated into the "sheeps and the goats", if you catch my drift.
Those results were from a five year study done by Masters and Johnson in the 70's. The homo-fascists were not impressed with Masters and Johnson and were quite vocal in their consternation.
At a non-Christian school, of course.
I don't know. Among the gay people I've known, the men have expressed no doubt about their sexual identity. The women I've known, except for one, chose to live this way. All, except for one, had experienced some kind of sexual abuse at the hands of men and were afraid of men. The one woman who I had no doubt had NO sexual attraction towards men was a 'stereotypical' lesbian: mullet hair, enormous shoulders and chest, short legs and a very mean, nasty attitude. Too much testosterone in the womb.
This sounds flippant, I suppose. Do you know what? I don't care. Consenting adults and all that. What I don't like is an expectation that society must embrace their lifestyle. I don't mean 'tolerate'; again, I don't really care. What many gay people seem to expect is that society must 'celebrate' them, for some reason.
Key point is that "they can change if they want to."
But didn't Jesus say "he who commits sin is the slave of it?" Paul's letter to the Romans contains the means and method to change sinful habits if one wants to have victory over those habits.
However, to the secular leftists, Jesus and St. Paul are about as revered as Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon.
I am not surprised by that reacion. Yes, I believe that research was it.
You're absolutely right about that, but they will be called to account for their lives and actions before Jesus anyways.
Now that's a tragedy. Power of free will.
With that you have hit upon the fundamental flaw in the secular lefts mindset. They are absolutely certain that if they don't believe something, IT ISN'T TRUE.
Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Baker Books. 1996.
You can get it from Amazon for around $5.00 at the moment.
Absolutely recommend this book.
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)|
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0)|
|Homosexual Keyword Search|
That was Dr. Paul Cameron. You can find everything here:
The same from NARTH.com?
That is the PROBLEM!!!! When people don't "care", then that gives these vermin the green light! When you profess to be morally adrift, it gives them all the ammo they need!
You need to choose sides more diligently.
Thanks! Got wrapped up in the voter fraud threads and didn't get back to this. I appreciate it!
Maybe they are trying to FORCE persecution, so they can, like the Jews, scream "I was at Auschwitz!"? Just a hunch.
Actually, if you accept the Gnostic Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is feminine, our beliefs aren't all that different.
Your triniy is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
My Trinity is the Lady, the Lord and the One.
To you, homosexuality is wrong because God says it's wrong.
To me, homosexuality is wrong because certain practices are unhealthy, and because Gay culture is as messed up as Black culture- and I had to work that out for myself.
Two ways to resolve homosexuality with Darwinism:
1. Genetic variation- every so often a person is born with a genetic combination that predisposes to homosexuality. While these particular individuals are out of the gene pool, the genes (in other combinations) continue to survive in the species.
2. The Rat City experiments (where the government spent tons of money to prove that, if you shove too many rats in a cage, they go crazy) showed that when overpopulated, rats started buggering each other. Possibly a species response to overpopulaton?
"If you put too many rats in a cage, they go crazy. Man is the only animal that willingly does this to himself."
Au contraire, if it weren't for the aggressive homosexual agenda including heavy propaganda, inifiltration in many insitutions up to and including the Catholic church and schools, and leftist judicial activism, this would be a non-issue.
The only reason the "gay" agenda has achieved the power it has is because people of faith and conviction have NOT had any guts.
That's easy. If a tendency towards homosexuality is a recessive trait, it can persist at a low % of the population forever.
I hate to use the term...but I think the vast majority of "gays"...simply find it as a fetish, and its draw on their mind is of a limited time period. It might be six months...it might be five years. But I will bet that the vast majority of people who said they were gay in 1995...are today non-gay. Once the public accepts this fact...and calls it a fetish, then the media attention drys up quickly. Thats the real story here.
If the recessive trait confers a competitive disadvantage, I don't think that darwinists would agree.
2. Homosexuality may be a behavioral adaptation to overcrowding, but it is obviously not a necessary adaptation.
I'm not particularly a Darwinist, but the way I learned it in school, each individual has a unique genetic makeup. Sometimes, this genetic pattern results in a fatal genetic disease; sometimes it results in an adaptation that provides a competitive advantage. Wether or not it is an advantage depends on environment; hence, Northern Europeans evolved with light skin (produces more vitamin D in low light conditions) extra body hair (for the cold) and they retain the ability to digest milk as adults;
Africans evolved darker skin (for UV protection.)
I kind of fall in the middle on the whole creation/evolution debate; I tend to think that God set the works of Creation in motion, and now just sits back and adjusts the machinery from time to time.
Would you mind explaining to this Old Cracker what you mean?
First of all, America is a Christian nation- for the simple reason that (for the moment) a majority of Americans just happen to be Christian. And Christian doctrine teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuals are (as one poster on this thread put it) "damned to hell."
Christians being human, and the old fella with the horns and tail being in business as usual, in my experience quite a few Christians are led astray into hatred and intolerance.
That's probably the easiest way for Old Scratch to lead a Christian astray- make them think they're on the side of right and truth. That led to nonsense like the Spanish Inquisition.
As a historical tie-in: the derogatory term "fagot" for a homosexual dates back to the middle ages. In plain English, a fagot is a bundle of small sticks gathered for firewood. During the witch frenzy, when a 'witch' was going to be burned at the stake, the good Christian townsfolk would throw a homosexual or two on the fire first to get it going- hence the term "fagot."
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.