What a load, lets not pretend Exodus is some lone crusader. Alot of people have stock in their ‘science’, people like Focus on the Family and their $100 million+ budget. Of course thats the entire reason they don’t have hard numbers, they don’t want hard numbers. They aren’t idiots, they know they never sat down and chose to be straight, they know no amount of prayer could ever make them gay, they don’t seriously think it works for gays but not them. As long as theirs no real numbers you can claim it to be wildly successful, which helps it succeed at the real goal of this ‘research’, reassuring bigots that its okay to treat gays like crap because they chose to be gay.
PS: what about the hundred or so years between the founding of psychology and homosexuality being removed as a mental illness? No one managed to get the time or money then either?

My guess is that if you asked the people at Exodus if there’s a difference between “ex-Gay” and “ex-homosexual,” the answer would easily be YES.

Interesting. “Ex-homosexual” and “post-homosexual” would imply an ex-”temptation” / post-”temptation” status. Hmm…

Those of us who are well-adjusted and comfortable with our sexuality, who might read Advocate or post comments to Joe.My.God might identify ourselves as “Gay” or “Lesbian” or “LGBT.”

Exodus and other conservative Christian organizations don’t like the term “Gay.” They see it as too culturally and politically charged. To them, someone who identifies as “Gay” is someone who takes inordinate pride in his or her sexual identity. Such groups much prefer the term “homosexual,” since it’s much more pathological-sounding … as in, “Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, I’m afraid your son has been diagnosed as a HOMOSEXUAL.”

Then there is that subset of conservative Christians who claim that there is really no such thing a “homosexual” per se. They insist that everyone is heterosexual, but certain wicked people succumb to the temptation to have sex with people of the same gender … and if they can just get people to stop doing that, everything is hunky-dory.

Those of us who are involved in HIV education and prevention use the term “MSM” (meaning men who have sex with other men). This has less to do with emotion and cultural identity than it does with specific behavior. But many self-identified Gay men object to this term. Once, at a Gay Men’s Health Summit in Boulder, Colorado, I heard one participant say, “I am a proud Gay man, and if I hear one more person refer to me as an MSM, I’m going to fucking EXPLODE!”

How one defines “Gay” or “homosexual” for statistical purposes makes all the difference in the world. Alfred Kinsey might focus purely on sexual arousal and aesthetic appeal, in which the percentage of people who are of a homosexual orientation might be ten percent (if not considerably higher, depending on the number of beers consumed). But if Exodus’ definition is based purely on being out of the closet and marching in Gay Pride, the number will probably be significantly smaller.

My guess is that if you asked the people at Exodus if there’s a difference between “ex-Gay” and “ex-homosexual,” the answer would easily be YES. Exodus may succeed at changing a person’s behavior; certainly you can get a person to do or not do ANYTHING if you succeed at threatening them with the fires of Hell. And if you are convinced that it is pleasing to God to engage only in heterosexual behavior, however much you have to suppress your own impulses, that belief will probably exert it’s own unique power over your identity.

But as long a some male executive at Exodus admits that another handsome man will occasionally cause his head to turn, in my opinion nothing has really changed.

Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30-50% are not unusual, although “success rates” vary considerably and the measurement of change is problematic.

Oh man, if that isn’t a great example of Exodus-Speak. Then they use an awful piece written by George A. Rekers and posted on the NARTH website to explain the “nuance” of these study results. Rekers testimony on these matters was found to be hopelessly biased and unusable by two different judges in two separate trials. Exodus paid $100K for the Jones and Yarhouse study, I suppose they need to make sure no genuine experts foul up whatever mileage is left in their investment.

After all that we now know concerning “change” it is beyond irresponsible and bordering on fraudulent that Exodus would place this on their website. One wonders how much liberty is taken with the facts during their closed events, including the future all-Exodus LWO conferences. The truth is obviously not their goal as they have had so many chances to align themselves with it and still do not.

What is your success rate? The answer never really was a WHAT.

In that case it’s not an answer to the question, but simply an evasion – exactly the same sort of evasion that we hear almost daily on radio and television from politicians who want to dodge the interviewer’s question.

As the BBC’s Eddie Mair so often says, “Forgive me, but do you think you could answer the question?”

Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30-50% are not unusual, although “success rates” vary considerably and the measurement of change is problematic.

They then cite the Jones and Yarhouse study. And despite the qualifier in regard to “measurement of change,” I think that 30-50% would sound pretty encouraging to someone who’s desperate for “change” (or anything else), Which, as David Roberts said:

they have simply rephrased the meaning of change. Now it is so vague that it can mean anything.

And isn’t that the whole point of their political mission, to dupe an unsuspecting public into voting thinking that same-sex attraction is a choice?

Clearly, the ambiguity of terms is intentional, or their political power would be negligible.

“Change” implies gay to straight.
“Temptation” implies 100% heterosexuality with bouts of same-sex attraction.
“Struggle” implies an attainable goal.
“Leaving homosexuality” implies entering heterosexuality.

When pressed, the truth begrudgingly comes out, but even then it requires a discerning mind to understand the “nuance” meaning behind their language.

Alan Chambers calls our relationships “a counterfeit,” and says, paraphrased: “And as we all know, counterfeit money spends for years.”

Code-speak for our love is fake, which implies that we’re too stupid to realize it, which further implies that our long-term relationships are just extensions of that stupidity.

They must think that since our love is fake, so too is our sorrow in its absence.

Conscience clear (*smacks hands*).

Nobody would buy a car or a house this way, but they expect you to sign something even more precious to them–your very life–based on nothing. And the sadder part is, people do it. Emily, what you said about the “heterosexual lottery?” People do at least win the lottery occasionally, and the state lottery officials have to share hard numbers.

Much less than 1%.