Posted on 08/12/2009 8:55:35 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Toronto, Canada — A chorus of voices in the professional world today proclaims that it is impossible to change sexual orientation, particularly homosexual orientation, and that the attempt to change sexual orientation is harmful. A supposed consensus of science is invoked in support of such claims. For example, for many years the Public Affairs website of the American Psychological Association stated: “Can therapy change sexual orientation? No. . . . [H]omosexuality . . . does not require treatment and is not changeable.”¹
Psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse will announce on August 9, 2009, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association the newest results from their groundbreaking longitudinal study of a sample of men and women seeking religiously mediated sexual-orientation change through involvement in a variety of Christian ministries affiliated with Exodus International, results that challenge the supposed consensus. The presence of two former presidents of the APA, Dr. Nicholas Cummings and Dr. Frank Farley, to discuss these findings underscores the significance of the study.
This study meets high standards of empirical rigor. In other studies, in the words of the APA, “treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.”² Prior research has been criticized for
* failing to follow subjects over time (i.e., not longitudinal) * relying on memory rather than following change as it occurs (i.e., not prospective) * relying on therapist ratings rather than hearing directly from those seeking change * using idiosyncratic and unvalidated measures of sexual orientation
The Jones and Yarhouse study was designed to meet these empirical standards. The study is a rigorous, prospective and longitudinal quasi-experimental study of a respectably large and arguably representative sample of those seeking to undergo change in sexual orientation via religiously mediated means through Exodus ministries groups.
In essence, this study assessed the sexual orientations and psychological distress levels of 98 individuals seeking sexual-orientation change early in the change process, and then followed them longitudinally with multiple assessments, using standardized, respected measures of sexual orientation and of emotional distress to test the study’s hypotheses.
Jones and Yarhouse reported previously on the three-year outcomes of the study.³ That prior study found, at the three-year mark, that roughly one-third of those still in the study considered their outcomes a success, and roughly half of those reporting success experienced success in the form of successful “conversion” to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while the other half of the successes reported behavioral chastity and disidentification with homosexual orientation. Another one-third of the study’s subjects at three years had experienced some change and were continuing in the change process, while the remaining third had either returned to a full embrace of gay identity or had simply given up on change. In terms of the statistical significance of change and the magnitude of the effect sizes of these changes, the changes reported are not unlike the kind of results produced by psychotherapy interventions with the harder-to-change human conditions. There was no evidence on average that involvement in the change process was harmful.
This new report extends the findings out to between six and seven years for the subjects in the study. The specifics of those findings will be revealed August 9, and will continue to challenge professional opinions that change is impossible and the attempt harmful. The findings will directly contradict the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment that change of sexual orientation is impossible and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an effort.
Ex-Gays? In their 2007 book, Ex-Gays? (IVP Academic), Jones and Yarhouse discussed the implications of the findings of this study. Most importantly, the study suggests that since change seems possible for some, then all should respect the integrity and autonomy of persons seeking to change their sexual orientation for moral, religious or other reasons, just as we respect those who for similar reasons desire to affirm and embrace their sexual orientation. This requires that space be created in religious and professional circles for individuals to seek sexual orientation change with full information about their options and the potential risks of such attempts. We would do well to put as much information as possible in the hands of the consumer so that they are able to make informed decisions and wise choices among treatment options.
This study does not prove that everyone or anyone can change, but rather that some can. It does not prove that no one is harmed by the attempt to change, but rather that on average the attempt does not appear to be harmful.
They can overcome. Please help support the research and the researchers that the left has attempted to destroy and has malign or else you may not soon have a choice.
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality http://www.narth.com
Jews Offerring New Alternatives to Homosexuality http://www.jonahweb.org/
Family Research Institute http://www.familyresearchinst.org/
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality http://www.narth.com
Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality http://www.jonahweb.org/
Family Research Institute http://www.familyresearchinst.org/
Says a bunch of gay non-scientists.
It's pretty clear that Homosexual deviation CAN be changed, and has been in many many cases.
“The mind is a wonderful thing. I don’t think it will ever be able to figure itself out.” —Invasion of The Body Snatchers
A change in emotion has to follow a change in philosophy.
Am I the only one left who believes that God made Male and Female? That He knew/knows what He was/is doing? That no matter how many operations, that we are not God, thus, cannot change the person we are? We can cut off or make an opening, but that does not change who we are, the person that God made.
Am I the only one left who believes that God knows/knew what He was doing?
I hope these researchers are prepared for the nasty backlash by the pro-homo left.
Science is not consensus; and science based on consensus is not science, but propaganda.
I quit the APA in the early 1980’s due to their allowing politics to corrupt true scientific discourse.
The older schools of Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysts apparently had a fair amount of luck with such cases in spite of their utterly cockamamie worldviews.
Ever notice that lesbians mostly hook up with girls that look like men (not the TV fantasy), and Gay guys do basically the same, but in reverse?
Well that is the part that has always stood out as just a boldfaced lie. Another one is that molestation doesn’t play a role when the deeper one looks the more it is clear that it does. I know this because of a friend of mine who was molested by his gay uncle and today he identifies as gay. I do know he had normal interest in girls up till this event. Not all gays are but far too many have been and regardless of whether or not that is the case the behavior is simply incorrect and while people are free to do incorrect things the idea that the whole of society should be shaped to prop up a myth to service the egos of sexual activists is insane and hurtful to those who really do need help.
Oh, they know they are going into the belly of the beast.
"San Francisco gay penguin has change of heart"
yep... I have noticed that. They are pretending... it is so sad and disturbing IMO
“Shut Up”, explained the APA...
There are "same sex" relations based on love, but they can't really be called "homosexual" because there is no sex involved.
I know it and even secularist should believe it. There is no good rational reason to support homosexual behavior. Sometimes it is easy to get sucked in. Some here think because they have a relative or have shared a beer with a person who is gay that it means they must accept and promote gay activism which is irrational in itself. It is a pervasive acid of the soul and from a religious point of view it should be repugnant. Not because of Leviticus but because of the first commandment laid down by God at the foundation of the world. Evolutionists and biologists I would think would even be more alarmed about the inaccurate regressive ideas that come out of the homosexual movement but instead they allow their fear of religion trump everything even their basic reason. It isn’t a surprise that most scientists are liberal and it also isn’t surprised that most liberals don’t do well on basic science.
Those two facts alone should bring anyone to pause.
:) Unfortunate choice of words.
Ya but if homosexuals can be turned straight, then that means myself, Clint Eastwood, George Washington, George W. Bush could be turned gay-- and that is sooooooo sooooooooo not possible. I don't care if I was raised by Rosie O'Donnell I wouldn't be gay.
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.