Ex-Gay Watch

In an ironic twist, a priest in Latvia tells of his efforts to become ex-gay and how after they failed he found acceptance from God.

I was born in a communist family. When I was 12, I recognized that I was gay and I tried all sort of therapy to change my sexual orientation. I visited several psychiatrists and psychologists in six different countries!

When I was 17, after I tried a lot of doctors who did not succeed in changing me, I became Christian. At that point, I understood that if people cannot accept me, and I cannot accept myself, then God will accept me. Finally, I became Christian only because I was homosexual.

We wish Rev. Maris Sants all of God’s grace and protection in his plans to hold a service at the Anglican church after the gay human rights march in Riga on Saturday. The Latvian population is harshly anti-gay and the marchers do so under the threat of violence from Christian conservatives, nationalists and neo-Nazis.

UPDATE

About 50 people attended the service. Several hundred anti-gay skinheads and Russian Orthodox gathered outside. Although some worshipers were able to leave by the back door, some were pelted with excrement and eggs when they left. The police were reported to have watched and done nothing. A taxi with Swedish gays heading to the airport after the event was also attacked and anti-gays tried to run it off the road. Latvian police later arrested 14 people (13 of them on non-criminal administrative charges) related to the attacks.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19878988-1702,00.html

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/15944/

On July 8, David Clarke Pruden, the executive director of Evergreen International, an ex-gay group for Mormons, wrote an opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune in which distorted the results of several studies to claim that there is “no scientific basis for ‘born gay’ theory”.

We pointed out several inaccuracies here.

On Sunday, the Tribune published a rebuttal by Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and leading researcher in the study of sexual orientation and its origins. LeVay is clear in exposing the deliberately deceptive nature of Pruden’s opinion piece.

Employing a turn of phrase calculated to confuse any reader, Pruden writes that a recent genetic study from the University of Illinois “reported that there is no one gay gene.” That’s correct – it reported evidence for three! How does finding three “gay genes” rather than one show that the born-that-way theory of homosexuality has “no basis in science,” as Pruden argues?

LeVay also seems annoyed that Pruden distorted and misreported LeVay’s opinion.

Pruden grossly misrepresents me as someone who has abandoned or disproved the biological perspective. He quotes me as saying that my 1991 study, by itself, didn’t prove whether gay people are “born that way.” That’s true, but the totality of the available evidence points strongly in that direction.

LeVay is a scientist and researcher and, as such, has been hesitant in the past to make rash claims. He has often pointed out the limitations in his own work and cautioned against overreading his results. So it is not hyperbole, political hype, or exageration when LeVay says about the cumulative evidence found in his and other studies

collectively these have greatly strengthened the general conclusion that I drew 15 years ago: Biological factors – including prenatal brain development, hormones and genes – exert a powerful influence on the direction of a person’s sexual attractions.

(hat tip to howler)

Yes, NARTH has entered the blogosphere. Alas, there’s still a long way to go before they truly enter the 21st century.

When Focus goes after transgender issues it’s both sad and comical how little they appear to know. This time they’re all worked up about a transgenderd 5 year old beginning kindergarden in Broward County, Florida. From Family News In Focus on 7/11/06:

(To be clear, Family News in Focus is a radio broadcast. I just took the audio and added a photo montage.)

First let’s have some fun with Paulk’s statement. I’m not sure what testosterone has to do with anything. Does Paulk think testosterone is an exclusively male hormone? If that’s what he was implying then he’s wrong, testosterone is present in both sexes. Here’s a handy diagram that should clear things up:

Paulk predicts the child will only become more and more confused. Perhaps Paulk should actually read the DSM:

Only a very small number of children with Gender Identity Disorder will continue to have symptoms that meet criteria for Gender Identity Disorder in later adolescence or adulthood.

What really bothered me about Focus’ broadcast is how they would have you believe the APA’s “treatment” is some sort of “fix” that magically makes people folk fall back into line on gender conformity. Sorry but that’s not the case. First, host Bob Ditmer makes a comment about “gender dysphoria” and then plays a clip of Warren Throckmorton talking about “gender identity disorder.”

Note to Bob, those are not the same thing. Here’s a little history on the current revision of the DSM.

Gender dysphoria alone isn’t the same as being diagnosed with GID according to the DSM. Gender identity disorder has two two primary criteria for diagnosis; 1) a persistent cross-gender identification and 2) the resulting dysphoria or mental discomfort.

The standards of care outlined for childhood GID by the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care dictates therapy should focus on:

Reducing distress the child experiences from his or her gender identity problem and other difficulties. The child and family should be supported in making difficult decisions regarding the extent to which to allow the child to assume a gender role consistent with his or her gender identity.

Contrary to what Focus would have you believe, the accepted treatment sides with the child being able to express their gender in a way which will reduce the child’s dysphoria or mental discomfort. I somehow doubt that’s the treatment Family News in Focus listeners had in mind.

Read more…

I’m currently exploring my options for moving to a gay-friendly city with more affordable housing than exists in southern California.

Cities must have at least half a million residents and the median home price must be near or below a quarter million dollars.

Government recognition of partnerships is not required but non-discrimination laws at either the state or local level are.

Hot is preferred to cold.

Thoughts anyone?

(And it’s kind of funny that Exodus’ hometown of Orlando now almost fits the bill.)

Athletes from around the globe are converging on Chicago for Gay Games VII. But they will not be alone. Also in attendance will be ex-gays to share their message.

The Truth and Love Offensive will be headed up by Peter LaBarbera, president of Illinois Family Institute. Peter has joyously shared his views on gay employment:
Read more…

Borndifferent.org is seeking to let Colorado Springs meet Norman, a dog that says “Moo”. It’s part of an effort to encourage discussion about the biological bases for sexual orientation.

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, they are running ads on television and have banners around town featuring Norman and have information on their website.

The facts they quote on their site, particularly about twin studies, are overly broad and may be outdated, but their purpose is to initiate dialog, not “offer conclusive scientific proof one way or the other”.

Of course Focus on the Family was ready to downplay the scientific community’s position, change the subject, and play the marriage card:

Even if the ads aren’t supposed to start technical, scientific discussions, a psychologist for Focus on the Family said the campaign gives the false impression of a consensus among experts. Bill Maier, vice president and psychologist in residence at Focus, said scientists have reached no conclusions on a biological basis for homosexuality.

Maier said he suspects the campaign is a cloaked effort to advance political agendas such as legal gay marriage.

“What saddens me the most about this is that gays and lesbians themselves are being kept in the dark about the true nature of sexuality,” he said.

Is that what saddens you most, Bill? Somehow I doubt it. If you really cared about gay people being told the “true nature” of sexuality you wouldn’t try to spin, twist, or deny the results of scientific studies such as those about a mother’s chromosomes or the orientation of younger brothers. If the interests of gays and lesbians themselves were that high of a priority to you, Bill, you wouldn’t lobby for legislation that makes their day to day lives more difficult or takes away their health care.

I think you are just trying to say something that will sound sympathetic in the press but which you don’t really believe. Old-fashioned conservative folk like me have a name for that.

People Can Change, a seminar series that purports to help people reorient, has polled participants on their website. Although only a small percentage took the poll, People Can Change has released their results claiming that contrary to “conventional wisdom” people do not seek to become heterosexual out of internalized homophobia or societal pressure. They list the top ten responses of their respondents, most of which relate to religious belief or stereotype.

Jim Burroway has observations on the survey here.

I want to address only one of the top ten reasons that these SSA strugglers listed for undergoing reorientation therapy:

7) Family (85%): “I want to have a wife and children, or I want to hold together an existing marriage and family.”

Even Exodus’ most optimistic claims of “success” caution against assuming that their programs will make someone heterosexual. The current language of ex-gay groups is that a heterosexual relationship is not the goal; rather, a relationship with God is the goal.

I would imagine that most of those taking the poll would admit that they have been told that “a wife and children” cannot be guaranteed and that they are aware that most people in reorientation therapy will never become completely heterosexual, or even attracted enough to the opposite sex to allow for a fulfilling marriage.

We are not told how many of those taking the poll have an existing marriage and how many are just dreaming of one. Yet it’s fair to say that even after all of the ex-gay disclaimers a large number of these respondents still have “becoming straight and getting married” as one of their motivations.

It might be tempting to think these strugglers are illogical. But we all act on our expectations, even when we realize that they may not happen. We go to the store for milk, knowing that sometimes the milk will be sold out. We even buy lottery tickets knowing that the odds are almost certain that we will not win.

Why do we go to the store for milk knowing it may not be there? Because most of the time there is milk and if we miss it this time, we’ll get it the next. Yet if we went day after day and there was never milk, we’d stop going to that store.

Why do we buy lottery tickets knowing that we won’t win? Because if we do defy all the odds and win, our lives are changed completely. And because what we are giving up is not much of a sacrifice in comparison to the possible winnings.

There is nothing wrong with spending a dollar on a lottery ticket. But if you are going without food or missing a mortgage payment to buy tickets, then you have a problem. The sacrifices you are making are not justified by the odds of success.

This, I think, helps illustrate why some people stay in ex-gay ministries and others abandon such efforts.

Some people will find that the other benefits of being ex-gay – resolution of religious conflict, a stronger spirituality, a self impression of masculinity or normalness – outweigh any loss they may experience from giving up their orientation. Some would say that their lives have become more meaningful, regardless of any change in their attractions. And these people, for a while at least, stay ex-gay.

But for some, if not most, the real goal is becoming a heterosexual. And it is their response that is most interesting.

Some have experiences that mirror a store without milk. They try and try and don’t find themselves becoming a heterosexual and so they give up on the store. Like many who read this site, they go on to find meaningful and happy love-filled lives that are consistent with their orientation.

Others look at what they’ve sacrificed – the possibility of a life-long loving committed same-sex relationship – and the odds of achieving their goal of heterosexuality (almost nil) and eventually decide that they’ve wasted enough on the long-shot odds.

However, for some the possible payout is too great not to play. The idea of being a “normal heterosexual man with a wife and kids” is as alluring as the idea of winning millions and no amount is too much to gamble. It is for these ex-gay strugglers that I am saddest. Most of them will never achieve their goal.

My hope is that they will find the other benefits of being ex-gay to be adequate to bring them peace and satisfaction or that they will give up their gambling addiction and find resolution with the orientation that they have.

As I detail in my bio I saw Joe Nicolosi for exgay therapy during my freshman and sophomore years of college. Both years I had the same roommate in the dorms, Mike Sullivan. Mike wasn’t out freshman year but came out sophomore year and seemed to think I was ready to come out with him. I’ll save that story for another day.

Mike was recently featured on Kathy Griffin’s My Life on the D-List generally being himself. The Malcontent has video. God bless them.

Also on a personal note, I’m back from vacation. The Chihuly show at the New York Botanical Garden is phenomenal.

Christian Right Wrong On Gay Marriage in Massachusetts:
Mass Likely To Retain Lowest Divorce Rate Spot In 2005,
States Hostile to Gay Marriage Lag

by Bruce WIlson, Talk To Action

Excerpt:

“….Over two years have passed now since same sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, and data from all of 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 are now available. Emergent trends in Massachusetts amount to a stark indictment of those dire claims about sex marriage cited earlier in this article.

Divorce rates are commonly used as a key measure of marital and family health. US states, including Massachusetts, submit monthly summaries of vital statistics on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces to the US Center For Disease Control’s National Center For Health Statistics ( NCHS ). The NCHS then compiles publicly available monthly and yearly reports of this data. The following statistics are based on that NCHS material.

Divorce rates in the US have been declining steadily since the the early 1980′s. Massachusetts has shared in the trend and traditionally has had a divorce rate considerably lower than the national average. In fact. for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union.

In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the US national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000. Indeed, it was lower than the national average rate for 1950 (2.6 per 1,000) and even approached the national rate of 1940 (2 per 1,000).

In 2003, total divorces in Massachusetts declined 2.1% relative to 2002.
But in the first two years of legal same sex marriage in the Bay State, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline and will very likely hold on to its title as the US state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The field is hotly contested — divorce rates have fallen dramatically in the last few decades.

The institution of marriage in Massachusetts, as measured by the rate of divorce, has not been healthier in at least half a century regardless of dire predictions of Christian Right leaders and Catholic Bishops. But the states that have taken aggressive action against same sex marriage, have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same sex marriage in Massachusetts.

The preliminary data from 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 — from the 17 US states which have provided data on divorce for 2004 and 2005 and whose voters also passed state constitutional amendents prohibiting same sex marriage — presents a striking picture : the group of US states arguably most hostile to divorce, those which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same sex marriage friendly states.

Among those US states that have no laws on the books specifically prohibiting same sex marriage or civil unions — WY, NM, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, VT — the average divorce rate drop ( unadjusted for population changes ) was -8.74%. No states in this group had divorce rate increases in 2004 and 2005.

Among those US states that are most opposed to same sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period — ( alaska ? ) AR, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, ND, OH, OK, OR, UT, TX — the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the US during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005.

( states in the second group may have on average a higher population growth rate but that will not change the almost 10.5% gap between the two groups more than a few percentage points )

Meanwhile, the one state in the United States Of America that has legal same sex marriage, Massachusetts, will be among the top ten states – or better – with the largest drop in divorce rates in America during 2004 and 2005.

Wilson provides divorce statistics for every state except Indiana, and for years going back to 1910, to substantiate his case.