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.
You caught that huh? lol
That would scare even the most flamingest of faggots straight.
And no, that doesn't mean Clint Eastwood, you or I can be turned gay. Something triggers a child early in development, around the time they become sexually aware to be gay. Trama, via molestation is identified as one cause, or it could be a simple as a small child dressing in his mothers clothes at that critical moment and getting aroused, and a stupid parent encouraging it because it's cute, not realizing whats happening.
The exact moment isn't in the persons memory, but it's there subconsciously. And it could be any of a number of things that are happening around that critical time.
These days, more and more it's conditioning. A child can be brainwashed into thinking that sexual deviancy is normal in preschool and kindergarten years, and that's exactly what the gay movement is trying to do. Then sexual deviancy and actual homosexual tendencies becomes blurred.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior and is engaged in as part of a mental illness. None, not one shred of any evidence suggests otherwise. It was removed from the DSM because of political reasons, not because of any scientific breakthrough. In fact every valid scientific study done on the topic shows its a mental disorder.
The people who need help for their mental problems the most are the members of the American Psychological Association.
Yes they do. Far too many in high places are homosexual.
“Science is not consensus; and science based on consensus is not science, but propaganda.”
Stealing this for my tagline. Thanks!
One of the most important thing I learned when getting my degree in psychology.
Okay. Makes sense.
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.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
They better have ten bus loads of riot police scheduled to be there, with the heaviest possible weaponry available.
Dear Leader and his minions don’t know what “angry mob” means. Of course, the minions of the same “angry mob” are those who brought out the APA’s groundless ruling that homosexuality was NOT a disorder many years ago. That was based on thin air alone, and was instead a result of years and years of lobbying, protesting and violent activities at APA meetings, and was simply a concession by the APA to try to gain control over their events.
It is amazing how long ago those of us with a thinking brain in the head on our shoulders left these leftist organizations. It seems some of them may finally be discovering that a good portion their memberships are very opposed to their proselytizing.
Recently: APA, here. American Chem Ass’n (Chem & Eng’r News), Amer. Physics Ass’n, a raft of scientists in the Nat’l Academy of Sci., significant scientists whose research was part of the IPCC reports including lead researchers, AARP, and dare I say, the GOP?
Perhaps we’re finally getting through to them.
Get an “Orientation Therapy Subsidy” amendment smuggled into ObamaCare and the whole bill will be dead in 10 seconds.
You have that right. lol
All leftist pap is presented as settled science, just like global warming. That is supposed to stifle discussion where the idea is sure to fail.
I’m flattered!
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.