Ex-Gay Watch

NARTH’s new peer-reviewed study is not new, is not peer-reviewed and is not a study – flaws even one of its authors admitted to Ex-Gay Watch.

CitizenLink, the news arm of Focus on the Family, made much of the paper’s appearance earlier this week, faithfully reproducing the immodest claims of NARTH’s press release:

A new report in this month’s edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation is not immutable and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions is beneficial and poses no significant risk of harm.

This study is … a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over the issue of homosexuality.

The report itself is even bolder, announcing that its results prove the following “singular conclusion”:

Homosexuality is not innate, immutable or without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health.

Exodus Vice President Randy Thomas was quick to champion the claims. Other conservatives, such as the ex-gay supportive Dr Warren Throckmorton, were not convinced. UK “post-gay” Peter Ould found it positively embarrassing.

And they are right to be embarrassed, for this supposedly new, peer-reviewed study is nothing of the sort.

First, it is far from new. By NARTH’s own admission, it is merely a survey of 100 years of literature.

That it is a survey means that, second, it is not a study. Jones-Yarhouse, for all its flaws, was a scientific study. NARTH’s paper, written by James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, and Philip Sutton, simply collates a century’s worth of material that (they think) supports the pro-reparative therapy position. It contains no new or original research whatsoever.

Jim Phelan confirmed both of these things directly when XGW spoke to him last year. Phelan said clearly the report was “a literature review – no new science [italics ours].  The data is presented more comprehensively than before.”

Third, that it is peer-reviewed is a sadly risible claim. It appears in Volume I of the Journal of Human Sexuality, a publication produced by NARTH. In other words, NARTH has reviewed its own paper for inclusion in a volume that appears to have been created specifically as a vehicle for NARTH’s views. The “peer review” therefore means next to nothing. In theory, I could rehash a few bits of other people’s work, get my XGW chums to look it over, and then publish it in a new magazine I’ve called the Journal of Ex-Gay Studies and claim it as a peer-reviewed milestone study. The problem is glaring.

Again, on this point, Phelan told XGW that the paper was “to be reviewed by members,” confirming that the peer review was nothing more than an internal review by like-minded NARTH members.

These are three massive obstacles even before we reach the content of the paper itself – of which we at XGW look forward to hearing more in Dr Throckmorton’s promised analysis.

The publication, titled What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Associations Claims on Homosexuality, is a clear sign (again, an impression we also gained from Phelan) that NARTH is getting nervous as the APA prepares to revise its position on reparative therapy. This dishonest regurgitation of old material in the guise of new research is a grasping at straws that tells us less about human sexuality and more about the desperation of NARTH and its allies in the ex-gay movement.

A couple of generations have passed since Stonewall, and more and more people are acting upon Harvey Milk’s declaration that the closet is the biggest enemy to the queer community. This not only includes those who are gay and lesbian, but those who are children of gay and lesbian couples.

A recent article interviews several of these children, now adults, and how their family structure affected their childhood and well-being.

Opponents claim that raising a child in a home lacking in a parent of either gender will cause the child to become psychologically damaged, experiment more with their sexuality, and grow up “missing” the parent of the gender not present in their lives. They even go so far as claiming that gays and lesbians who adopt children are engaging in a selfish act; treating their child as a “trophy.” The members of the LGBTQ community have long spoken out against such claims, and indeed no mainstream medical organization in America can point to definitive proof that such negative consequences occur with same-sex parenting. But it isn’t just members of the gay community that are fed up with such questions: the children themselves are tired of it.

While many grew up hiding the families they dearly loved from bullies at school, they are now writing memoirs and speaking out about their experiences. It turns out that the children of gay parents are as varied as the children of straight parents. Jesse Levey, a heterosexual republican who believes in “family values,” is fighting for his lesbian moms’ right to marry. Growing up he did not feel sexually confused; nor did he miss having a dad in his life. He was never lacking in male role models, and his mothers were able to provide all the typically “male” activities their son loved, such as hiking or having a catch.

As acceptance grows for gay couples and more and more people personally know someone who is gay, so too is acceptance growing for the children of those couples. Waning are the stereotypes of the damaged, confused child of gays.

Some children of same-sex couples say their upbringing actually makes them psychologically stronger.

Abigail Garner, author of “Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It is,” calls her upbringing a “fabulous gift.” She is the daughter of two gay dads and a straight mom.

She says her interviews with other children of gay or lesbian parents showed that those who shared her upbringing tend to be more empathetic and unafraid to take unpopular stands.

In fact, the ones making children sexually confused are those seeking to spread misinformation and stereotypes about gays:

Some of the same children, though, face more difficulties dealing with questions about their sexual orientation. Garner, 37, who identifies as heterosexual, says some repress their sexuality because they don’t want to give ammunition to their parents’ critics.

“I know story after story of children who started to question their sexuality but stayed quiet about it out of fear that the truth would reflect poorly on their parents,” Garner says.

So those seeking to “protect the children” are in fact harming them with their rhetoric. Such children bare the brunt of sexual confusion because they are trying to protect the parents they deeply care for.

The only negative voice in the article is that of Dale O’Leary, a Catholic who believes children can only be raised healthfully in a one-man-one-woman marriage. Not surprisingly, she admits that she does not personally know any same-sex couples or their children. O’Leary spouts off the same tired stereotypes about the children of gay couples, but tides are turning for the side of the LGBTQ community.

…according to COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere). At least 10 million people have one or more lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender parent.

And more and more people are getting to know those couples and children.

A survey has found that 17 percent of therapists in the UK have offered a client therapy to “reduce” same-sex attractions. Four percent said they would try to “change” a patient’s sexuality if asked.

The findings are from a study carried out by a team at University College London, whose ongoing research into conversion therapy is being documented online at www.treatmentshomosexuality.org.uk.

The reseachers, led by Dr Graham King, questioned 1,400 mental health professionals. They described the number willing to offer help for gays to become straight as “a significant minority,” and concluded that the lack of evidence for change made such therapy “unwise or even harmful.”

The study was published in the journal BMC Psychiatry, and is available to read online in full.

Danish researchers are to publish a study whose findings will challenge the claims of anti-gay propagandists Paul (pictured) and Kirk Cameron.

Epidemiologists Morten Frisch and Henrik Brønnum-Hansen will publish “Mortality Among Men and Women in Same-Sex Marriage: A National Cohort Study of 8333 Danes” in the January 2009 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. The study finds that since 1996 the mortality rate among gay men in same-sex marriages has been virtually equivalent to that of heterosexuals.

Their conclusions directly contradict the Camerons, whose notoriously flawed study claimed that gay males had an average lifespan of 42 years. True to the Camerons’ intentions, the results have been used to bolster the arguments of anti-gay groups eager to portray homosexuality as a destructive “lifestyle.”

Evidently not one to mince his words, Frisch earlier told ex-gay-supportive Warren Throckmorton that Cameron’s report was “agenda-driven, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook,” and that its “methodological flaws are of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication.”

I remember reading a long time ago about those who appear to be naturally immune to infection.  We often hear of breakthroughs that may lead to a vaccine or effective cure.  As incredible as that will be, I suspect it will only be the beginning of unimaginable possibilities to come in this new era of medicine.  We are on the precipice, who can guess what’s next?

Source: Winnipeg Sun

The story is a familiar one. A young man is found by family to be sexually attracted to men and coerced through a fear of hell to seek “therapy” to go straight. This is the story that led a young Canadian man to seek out the help of Terrance Lewis, a minister and (former) counselor at Providence College and Seminary.

The man said Lewis started a program of “touch therapy,” which included the two kissing and fondling each other and engaging in sexual roleplaying.

“He said I was to tell no one about it because no one would understand,” the man testified.

During “touch therapy” sessions in Lewis’ car, Lewis asked him to masturbate, the man said. Lewis also admitted to fantasizing about him, the man said.

Many ex-gay therapists have practiced what they call “touch therapy,” including Richard Cohen, who extends this from touching to hugging or even cuddling on the couch. Dr. Chris Austin carried touch too far and was convicted of sexual assault, as was Terrance Lewis in the story above. While certainly not all ex-gay therapists go to this extreme, starting with the premise that sexual orientation should, or even can, be changed has led to unorthodox and at times, illegal “therapy.”

Those who insist that professional, medical organizations must accept these as effective and therapeutic do so because they defend their “world view.” Everyone has the right to see the world as they like, but should an entire science be held responsible for maintaining that view? At what point is it the responsibility of the therapist to acknowledge that even a deeply held belief can lead one to seek help which is not — helpful.

Frank Lockwood at the Bible Belt Blogger seems to think Surgeon General appointee Dr. James Holsinger is preparing for a recess appointment. Lockwood reports that Holsinger has just resigned from the board of trustees of Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Ky, and has mentioned the recess appointment plans to others.

Holsinger’s nomination, opposed by several leading Democrats, has stalled in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. But Holsinger is telling people the president plans to appoint him to the post anyway once the Congress goes into its holiday recess, a well-connected Wilmore source says.

Jim Burroway at the Box Turtle Bulletin has more.

The long and winding runway that PFOX and its allies have traversed with the Montgomery County School Board at the expense of their taxpayers finally reached a straitaway and green light earlier this month. The controversial curriculum was approved by a Maryland Circuit Court judge on October 10.

PFOX remains unhappy and intends to “keep up the good fight”. While the curriculum addresses sexually transmitted disease and condom use, PFOX insists that specific statistics regarding homosexuality and AIDS be noted, assuming, I suppose this will scare some students into pursuing opposite sex attractions. Continuing with that logic, if you’re going to end up with a sexually transmitted disease, just make sure you get it while practicing straight sex so you’ll go to heaven when you die from it. As always, PFOX persists in their folly of insisting that ex-gay constitutes a third orientation, as if we need another one, and are either hell-bent or heaven-twisted in their demands that it be included as part of the lessons.

Jim Kennedy of TeachtheFacts had this to say regarding the ruling:

“You have to figure, the county-level school board and superintendent approved it, and then it was appealed to the state, and the state school board and state superintendent separately approved it, and then they tried to appeal that, and now the court has said no — they declined to issue a stay,” he said.
“So what is that? About five strikes?”

Mike Airhart made a great point in the comments of the article about Dr. Austin.

XGW did not decide Austin was guilty; a Texas jury did…

David Roberts made another interesting observation.

I continue to be amazed at the Svengali like ability Mr. Austin seems to have over some people.

As a former client, I have some thoughts I would like to present regarding Dr. Austin’s conviction. First, I’ve had nothing but wonderful experiences with therapy under his care. People are consistently amazed by the perseverance and grace I’ve demonstrated during and after my marriage to Tdub. I say this not to boast, but as a direct compliment to Dr. Austin, who was instrumental in bringing me to such a place. He helped me maintain that demeanor over the course of several years; he is a gifted therapist.

However, I’ve come to realize that Dr. Austin is a very confused man, and I wonder privately if there may be more going on there. I’ll not make any wild claims about his state of mind, but I’ve seen the “Svengali” at work over a long period of time, and I’ve been friends or acquainted with many of his ex-gay clients. Our home was once a popular location for the ex-gay barbecues we sometimes joke about here at XGW. Because of those sorts of relationships, formed outside the realm of the counseling center, I was privy to a bit more of the inner-workings and dynamics of the group. I believe Dr. Austin is a master manipulator; gifted therapist, most definitely – master manipulator, unfortunately so.

It’s taken me quite some time to believe it, but the final “nail in the coffin” came after the break-up of my marriage to Tdub. One of our first concerns was appropriate therapy for our sons. We initially believed that Dr. Austin would be a good choice to help the boys through the transition of our family break-up as well as Tdub’s coming out. This is when we began to learn just how manipulative he had been. For reasons I won’t detail, and by people I won’t name, we were strongly cautioned against allowing our boys to enter therapy with him. We received this information from individuals with first-hand experience, and telling us placed them at great personal risk by also divulging their dalliances with Dr. Austin. To my knowledge, none of these particular indiscretions have been part of any of the trials or investigations to date.

I think it important to realize that one’s experience and level of trust with a man like Dr. Austin can only be used to evaluate one’s own relationship with him. It says nothing about his overall capability for damaging the lives of others. I personally have nothing against him. Even Dr. Austin’s extremely unorthodox practices, detailed in Part II of my series on ex-gay therapy, weren’t harmful to me. On the other hand, the fact that he pushed the boundaries of whatever guidelines may exist, either written or unwritten, among ex-gay therapists, certainly doesn’t improve my view of him at this point. The bottom line is this; I’m not going to abandon common sense and sound reason just because I wasn’t victimized by him myself.

If by some incredible long shot Dr. Austin was wrongly convicted, I feel confident he’ll be fine. He did, after all, instruct me in all sorts of Biblical truth which continues to sustain me during desperate times. I wish him Godspeed, either way.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays has joined forces yet again with Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and Family Leader Network in opposition to the Montgomery County School Board in Maryland. PFOX and its allies were unsuccessful in their efforts to stop the piloting of what they deem a “controversial” sex and health curriculum last fall, and they’ve recently petitioned the Maryland State School Board to block the full implementation of the lessons in all Rockville, Md.-area middle and high schools for the coming school year. The coalition threatens to sue the county school system if they don’t get their way, claiming that the school system released factually inaccurate information, did not put out material for public review before approval, and violated students’ constitutional rights including freedom of speech and the right to freely exercise religion.

A federal judge ruled in May 2005 that the curriculum’s teacher resource materials singled out specific religions for condemnation of homosexuality. The curriculum has been completely overhauled since that time.

The entire health unit is written to be delivered over a 12-day continuum in 45-minute sessions. However, it is the two-session piece of the whole titled “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality Lesson” that is the focus of the coalition’s efforts. I took the time to print out and read through the Grade 8, Lesson One and Lesson Two portions of the curriculum and, surprise, surprise, I’m just not finding the “controversy”. The coalition’s concerns are detailed at the CRC website and one of their biggest problems with the eighth-grade lessons is a supposed inconsistency. The curriculum states:

“Sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one’s personality.”

and then in a later paragraph,

“What causes sexual orientation? Almost certainly there is no single reason why some people are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental, and biological factors.”

The coalition says that these two statements are inconsistent and a significant portion of their threatened lawsuit is based on these grounds. I don’t agree. We are, after all, innately sexually oriented, and the causes of which orientation we become are many and varied. What’s inconsistent about that? The curriculum could possibly do a better job at segueing those concepts, but I don’t find them difficult to reconcile. It’s not lawsuit difficult.

Read more…