Skip to comments.New Study: Sexual Orientation Can Be Changed
Posted on 07/07/2009 8:57:48 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
A new report in this month's issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation can be changed and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions is generally beneficial and that research has not found significant risk of harm.
The study, conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), examined more than 100 years of professional and scientific literature from 600-plus studies and reports from clinicians, researchers and former clients principally published in professional and peer-reviewed journals.
"This research is a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over the issue of homosexuality," NARTH President Dr. Julie Hamilton said. "It also confirms what we have seen evidenced in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from the help of NARTH therapists.
"We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life, and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs."
The survey, titled What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the American Psychological Association's Claims on Homosexuality, was assembled over 18 months by three of the leading academics and therapists in the field and under the direction of the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee. It confirms the results of a 2007 longitudinal study conducted by researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark Yarhouse that found that religiously mediated sexual orientation change is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm on average.
The last finding is important, because it directly refutes unsubstantiated claims made by some factions of the American Psychological Association (APA) and several other professional mental health organizations that it is unethical for therapists to assist patients to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.
"The APA's own Code of Ethics supports every client's rights to autonomy and self-determination in therapy and mandates that therapists either respect a client's practice of religion and sexual orientation or refer the client to a professional who will offer such respect," NARTH explains in the report. "Clients who are not distressed about their sexual orientation should not be directed to change by mental-health professionals. Conversely, clients who seek sexual reorientation deserve properly informed and competent psychological care from therapists who use interventions that have been scientifically demonstrated as helpful for achieving this goal."
Nicholas Cummings, a past APA president and author of Destructive Trends in Mental Health, concurred.
"This is a basic tenant of psychotherapy, that religion for most people is an anchor," he told CitizenLink. "To pull that out from under them is an egregious thing to do."
In finding that there is substantial evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through therapy, the study also found that treatment success for clients seeking to change unwanted homosexuality and develop their heterosexual potential has been documented in the professional and research literature since the late 19th century.
"We acknowledge that change in sexual orientation may be difficult to attain," NARTH says in the report. "As with other difficult challenges and behavioral patterns such as low-self-esteem, abuse of alcohol, social phobias, eating disorders, or borderline personality disorder, as well as sexual compulsions and addictions change through therapy does not come easily. Relapses to old forms of thinking and behaving are as is the case with most forms of psychotherapy for most psychological conditions not uncommon."
Nonetheless, the report continues, "we conclude that the documented benefits of reorientation therapy and the lack of its documented general harmfulness support its continued availability to clients who exercise their right of therapeutic autonomy and self-determination through ethically informed consent."
A third major finding of the study is that there is significantly greater medical, psychological and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.
"Overall, many of these problematic behaviors and psychological dysfunctions are experienced among homosexuals at about three times the prevalence found in the general population and sometimes much more," the report states. "Investigators using modern, state-of-the-art research methods have documented that many different pathological traits are more prevalent in homosexual than in heterosexual groups. We believe that no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology."
Among the scientific findings cited in the study:
Despite knowing the AIDS risk, homosexuals repeatedly and pathologically continue to indulge in unsafe sex practices.
Homosexuals represent the highest number of STD cases.
Many homosexual sex practices are medically dangerous, with or without "protection."
More than one-third of homosexual men and women are substance abusers.
Forty percent of homosexual adolescents report suicidal histories.
Homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have mental-health concerns, such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety.
Homosexual relationships are more violent than heterosexual relationships.
Societal bias and discrimination do not, in and of themselves, contribute to the majority of increased health risks for homosexuals.
Jeff Johnston, gender issue analyst for Focus on the Family, said these findings should have an impact on "those who claim to have the best interests of the gay community at heart."
"True social justice, compassion, concern and intellectual honesty," he explained, "dictate that men and women who want to pursue freedom from homosexuality whether because of their faith or because of the health risks associated with homosexuality should be afforded that opportunity by the mental health industry, including its associations and educational institutions."
Bugger them..... Oh, wait......
Uh-oh - the jig is up!!! (Or is saying that too gay???)
It was already clear that homosexuality isn’t genetic, since the adopted children of homosexuals are (IIRC) 70% more likely to be homosexual than the children of hetero parents.
That statistic (aside from the issues of abuse) is enough to warrant banning gay adoption, IMNSHO.
We’ll see how soon the MSM starts reporting any of the above...lol
Somebody’s going to re-education camp.
The entire goat population of Syria breathes a sigh of relief.
I don’t know anyone, that remembers the day they decided to become a heterosexual instead of a homosexual.
the homosexuals(not gay) will no doubt denounce this as they have done in the past .
I have said this all along that homosexuals do it because they like sex with the same sex and that is it.
Not about love because I love my kids, dog but feel no attraction to having sex with them.
It is all based on their sexual gratification and what turns them on.
One thing this study missed was the majority are like drama queens who feel that society owes them something when it does not.
They are most certainly paranoid and clearly need to seek mental help, the sad part is that some shrinks tell them that they are alright because they too are messed up and see other shrinks..
It should be the way it is and call it what it is.
a sexual perversion
Would you be pleased if your daughter married an ex-homosexual?
agreed but I will take further.
They want to be married,(small part of a big agenda) well if we base marraige on sexual pleasure (like MA, CT does) and that is what it is then all sorts of whacked out marraiges should be formed.
This is why they should not be married and marraige should be one man between one woman as it has been for generations and the birth of this country
Seems to me that in many cases homosexuality is one symptom (amongst many) of severe emotional trauma. It is a coping mechanism. Ergo, for society to normalize homosexuality and declare it to be healthy, wholesome, normal, and natural does the homosexual no favors.
This is perhaps the saddest aspect of the entire homosexual conflict. Homosexuals delude themselves that they are happy when they are not, and society reinforces their delusion. In the mean time, the underlying trauma is ignored for the sake of normalizing homosexuality.
By the way, the APS denies that homosexuals are more likely than others to experience other psychological disorders.
Nobody is doing homosexuals any favors by telling them they are okay and normal.
Anyone who advocates allowing those with same-sex attraction to adopt children is advocating child abuse.
If I had a daughter I’m fairly positive I wouldn’t want her marrying an ex-gay. Besides - most homosexuals won’t want to change their orientation through therapy and giving the state or any other authority to compel people to submit to therapy reassigning their sexual orientation is not something I want to see since heterosexual orientation can presumably be changed as well. Absent a state interest sufficient to compel somebody to undergo this sort of therapy I can’t see most people saying that any establish rights granted to gays should be revoked as it is now “merely” a choice.
The homos are simply being used by the anti-family forces of the left.
Yes, homosexuality is a perversion. And no one should be surprised when other mental illnesses and perversions (pedophilia) occur in homos more often than in the general population.
The interesting thing to me is that the militant homosexuals already know this. That is why they want in the schools, why they want to be Boy Scouts and youth group leaders etc. They are trying desperately to “make” more new homosexuals. If they can get to the children while they are young and seduce them and molest them and convince them it is cool and all right to be queer they can swell their ranks. This study proves that. If you can teach someone not be gay you can surely teach them to be gay.
Normally developed people don’t need to “decide” their sexual orientation. It grows in them naturally until it is fully mature. And it is unerringly heterosexual.
But if some trauma arrested a child’s sexual development before it had a chance to differentiate, the child may be (pathologically) homosexual. That is a mental illness and can be treated.
Having studied art and having worked in the arts in a large city (where everyone in the arts was acquainted with hundreds of gays), I saw many men make this decision back in the 80s, when AIDS started decimating their social group (I am a straight woman). As many as could, got out. Some got married heterosexually and had children. One of those couples whom I knew fairly well is still married today and has grandchildren.
As the article says, orientation recovery isn't an on/off switch, and some people who try may have relapses, like with alcoholism or other disorders. But I saw the change happen, among both men and women. It had to start with a decision to try.
Your post totally nailed it. (No pun intended.)
At age 7, I knew there was something repulsive about him, especially the way he talked....and at that age I knew nothing about the existence of homosexuals or anything like that.
A few years later, I noticed the same speech pattern in Charles Nelson Riley on "Hollywood Squares" and my friends began using the word "queer" and it all started adding up, but it was always repulsive instinctively I guess.
Nobody is talking about forcing anyone to accept recovery therapy -- far from it. The force is coming from the gay lobby, insisting that homosexuality is irreversible, and therefore they deserve not only gay marriage and adoption, but also to indoctrinate children to accept their lifestyle as "normal."
Homosexual advocates here in Maryland have tried to introduce a school curriculum that not only promotes a positive view of homosexual behavior; it named certain church denominations as "bigoted." Even in one of the most liberal counties, it was shot down, but they try again every year to ram it through. The extremist gay-favoring school board will not allow equal time for the message that change is possible; and have repeatedly rejected requests by groups such as Exodus or Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays to also take part in the curriculum.
In other parts of the country, Christians or others who believe it is possible to recover from same-sex attraction have been the targets of discrimination and expulsion from PhD programs in Counseling when they could not guarantee to affirm patients with gay orientation, and tried to find a gay-affirming counselor for them. Instead, persons of conscience were harassed and/or dismissed from their doctoral programs after years of work and effort. Lawsuits are ongoing. The gay lobby wants to set orientation in stone, with obvious advantages for them politically, regardless of the truth or the desires of those who may be in it only because they lost their way, took a wrong turn or were abused in childhood and are compensating with unhealthful behavior.
GSWarrior: “Would you be pleased if your daughter married an ex-homosexual?”
No more than if my daughter married someone who had been treated for schizophrenia. If someone grew up in the Mafia and committed a lot of crimes, but later in life renounced that - would you want your daughter to marry him? If not, does that mean you accept being in the Mafia as a genetic condition to be embraced?
Talk show host Roy Masters has a great article on the causes of homosexuality: http://www.fhu.com/articles/gays_in_society.html
TomOnTheRun: “I believe that people will increasingly treat it simply as a viable alternative orientation.”
I’m curious what your specific opposition to polygamy is then. Isn’t that also an alternative lifestyle as well as many others?
I find it particularly galling that liberal psychologists will never encourage/treat an unhappy homosexual toward heterosexuality, but will gladly assist someone who is unhappy with his/her gender “assignment” toward a new gender.
Just don’t pass the smell test.
Percy Dovetonsils (as played by Ernie Kovacs).
One of his famous odes:
Leslie the Mean Animal Trainer:
Leslie worked in a circus
he worked in a great big cage.
He smacked the lions
and beat the bears
and put them all in a rage.
He kicked the lions with iron sneakers
and rolled up army cots.
He put cleaning fluid on all the leopards
and sneered when they lost their spots.
But a chimpanzee got even with him...
Leslie got killed by some smells,
when he stuck his head the lion's mouth
He had liver smeared on his lapels.
I remember asking my Dad when I was probably 6yo what was wrong with him (Liberace)? LOL That’s funny I had forgot that.
Nothing about this article had anything remotely to do with compelling such therapy, so why repeat yourself? No one has even suggested it. Traditional family advocates are not playing an offensive game with the gay lobby, but a defensive one. They want to destroy us, not the other way around. Are we clear on that?
The reason this article is needed is not because anyone wants to force them to do anything, but because the gay lobby has tried:
to deny that recovery is possible,
to prevent recovery events from taking place, and
to exclude the testimony of ex-gays from any policy decisions.
You are absolutely correct. The “counselors” that “specialize” with LGTB issues will give a very cursory “let’s explore why you feel this way” and then it’s off to the races. It’s all about making sure the person getting therapy can affirm and justify their “alternative orientation”. Big time agendas in place.
Throughout the 80s and 90s, friends who went to marriage counselors complained of the same thing -- all the "support" was given to the one who wanted to break up the home, not the one who wanted to save the marriage.
Up is down. In is out. Bad is good. Good is bad.....
Wasn’t this a theme in Clockwork Orange? They tried to change the sado-masochistic sexual tendencies and fantasies of the main character through aversive therapy. Of course, that’s not what really happened, and in the end he was “cured.”
(And yes, I’ve seen the last chapter in the book, which gives a somewhat different slant on things).
I know the exact moment a biological switch clicked over, and that I was aware of my hetrosexual orientation, and I was suddenly and vividly aware of the mysterious attraction of the opposite sex - it was not something that "grew" in me gradually, it was a strong biological propensity that expressed itself dramatically and without previous evidence.
Some gays and lesbians I know report a similar experience of instantaneous and vivid experience of attraction to members of the same sex, and I've no reason to suspect that their experience was any less "authentic" than my own.
Your claim is just a tautology, by your definition anyone who makes the discovery that their desire is heterosexual is "normally developed", anyone who discovers the opposite is abnormal because you define normal are "unerringly heterosexual". But that's just your definition, and I doubt it would be remotely convincing to anyone who's made the discovery that they are "unerringly homosexual".
I think there are some “tweeners” that can, in fact, be changed, or whatever. On the other hand, I have know some gays who were simply gay from childhood. Physically even, as if it were some hormonal imbalance. As someone else said, I would not “trust” a former gay guy, a real swisher, to become straight, ESPECIALLY if that “Straightness” were religiously motivated, to be with my daughter. Some gays are just gays, more like transsexuals really. Just my opinion.
This is not like the choice of a Mazda vs a Honda. The things the state is on the fence about denying are special rights for GLBTs that trump the rights of citizens in general, such as the hate crimes proposals, making punishments for crimes against them more severe than for crimes against the elderly, pregnant women, children, or other much more culturally significant groups. Another of their special demands is marriage, even if it is motivated primarily by wanting to qualify for benefits funds, while having no intention of fidelity. And, the aforementioned shoehorning into all schools explicit instructions for how to live the way they do, paid for by the taxpayer, with no opt-outs allowed.
Other special rights are wanting to make it illegal for churches to read the Biblical warnings against homosexual conduct, and to fine and imprison pastors who do so, as their counterparts in Europe have already done. They want to be hired as workers and as teachers in religious organizations and then prevent "discriminatory" language at churches. They have shut down the Catholic adoption agency already in Massachusetts, because there, gay marriage is legal, but Catholics will not place children for gay adoption.
Their purpose in campaigning for marriage is not so much about marriage as it is for wanting the state to grant them an official stamp of approval for their behavior; and next on the list, as evidenced by lawsuits and journal articles, is to lower the age of sexual consent to 12, or to abolish it ocmpletely, giving them full access to sex with infants and children. Unchecked, their movement will destroy society, and any natural rights of pregnant women, natural mothers and natural fathers, just as the birth control movement disguised its true agenda: fascist eugenics.
I do follow your points and understand your worries but I wasn’t attempting to address those issues or worries in my original comment. I could be wrong but I believe we have been speaking at cross-purposes here.
I don't understand why folks are compelled to save gays from themselves. Contribute to the lives of those around you the best way you can and let God sort out the rest.
“A new report in this month’s issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation can be changed.”
Sure, butt to the North, butt to the South, get on their knees and take it in the...........Oh, they are not talking geographic orientation!
I suggest you look up the definition of the word “normal”. By that definition — which I did not create, by the way — deviance is not normal. Homosexuality is deviant, by definition. Therefore, my “tautology” is implicit.
You, on the other hand, attempt to win the argument by redefining the terms, and including a pathology under the definition of “normal”.
If your friends had felt a sudden and dramatic orientation toward murder, would that mean their behavior was any less aberrational? Frankly, I doubt the “epiphany” school of sexual development, but even if I concede that point arguendo, the result is the same. However quickly one arrives at the notion of one’s sexuality, there is a correct (i.e. normal) result and an abnormal or deviant result. Heterosexuality is the norm. Homosexuality is the deviation.
M. Dodge Thomas: “Some gays and lesbians I know report a similar experience of instantaneous and vivid experience of attraction to members of the same sex, and I’ve no reason to suspect that their experience was any less “authentic” than my own.”
I’m sure pedophiles claim the same thing - that they are genetically predisposed to desire little kids. Yet almost anyone with common sense would see it as an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.
“I don’t understand why folks are compelled to save gays from themselves.”
Ever hear of Jesse Dirkhising?
After a proven track record and sharing a lot of family interaction and inter-relational experiences with him - yes.
Sy Rogers (http://www.syrogers.com/biography/) was a confirmed homosexual, actually a "transsexual", who had begun the "transition" from male "to" female, short of surgery. He was as deep as you can get into this culture. When he had a transformative encounter with Christ, everything changed. He became deeply involved in a Church where he met his future wife Karen. Working and living together in a close-knit, spiritual community, you get to know each other on a much deeper level than in the secular world. Karen saw the ongoing transformation front row, and didn't have a problem with saying "yes" to Sy, even though he continued to exhibit a lot of effeminate mannerisms. Check out his website.
Would you say that monogamous homosexuality is more "objectively disoriented" then compulsively promiscuous heterosexuality?
"Objectively disoriented" is a pretty slippery concept.
The objection to pedophilia is not that it's an inherently "unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle", were it legal it might in some senses (for example, the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases) be a more healthy and less dangerous lifestyle for the adult participant than having sex with other adults.
The objection to pedophilia in our culture (and this is not apparent as a matter of "common sense" judgment in all cultures, BTW) - be it between members of the same of the opposite sex - is that it is impossible for children to give informed consent to participate in such behavior, the inherent power differences between the participants are too great.
In one sense this a tragic situation for the pedophile (if they act ethically, they will be in a state of constantly unfulfilled desire), but if they wish to be participants in our culture they have an ethical responsibility not to act on their desires no matter how great the temptation.
However this is just one example of many such constraints on sexual behavior related to great disparities in power, and in this regard the definition of ethical behavior is constantly evolving.
For example very few people would argue that a judge could ethically have a sexual relationship with the defendant appearing before her in a capital murder case, OTOH under what conditions sexual relationships are acceptable between people employed at different levels of the same organization is a question on which opinion is often uncertain and currently in a state of flux.
What is similar in the case of pedophilia and homosexuality is that part of many people's distress in encountering accounts of either is that they "cannot imagine" the mental state of one or both of the parties involved
What is dissimilar is that (at least to me) it's possible to imagine a homosexual relationship which would be ethically superior to its heterosexual counterpart, but I can't imagine any situation in which a sexual relationship between adult and someone with an absolute minimum age of 14 or 15 (and a few years older, in most cases) could be conducted in an ethical manner.
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.