Ex-Gay Watch

A 2007 study of sexual orientation change is back in the news following its publication in a scientific journal. But despite conservative Christians’ championing of the research as proof that gays can change, the article presents nothing new.

Stanton L Jones of Wheaton College, IL, and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, VA, followed 61 subjects over about seven years of ex-gay therapy to assess whether homosexuals could change.  It was published by Inter-Varsity Press in 2007 as Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.

Interested readers can revisit Dr Patrick Chapman’s three-part review of the study to see clearly why it fails — there’s no need to rehearse the flaws again, because what’s presented in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy (Volume 37) is essentially the same. Its negligible results offer little hope for gay Christians who want to do anything more than change their behaviour

The conservative Christian LifeSiteNews.com has already latched onto this old news with the grossly misleading headline “Major Study: Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible,” but even the authors’ own press release downplays this claim:

In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some.

To bolster its optimism, LifeSiteNews.com also throws in mention of NARTH’s 2009 report on sexual orientation change, a mere literature review falsely touted as a new milestone study. Robert Spitzer also gets a nod for his 2003 study, which has been used to prop up an ex-gay, anti-gay message, but the article fails to mention he has since denounced conservative abuses of his findings and says orientation change is rare.

An increasingly desperate Christian Right will try to milk this latest publication for all its worth, but don’t be fooled: Same study, same results, same flaws.

Update: Warren Throckmorton reminds us to mention Mark Yarhouse’s other recent study, which demonstrated that “ex-gay” men in mixed-orientation marriages change their behaviour but not their sexual orientation. Ex-Gay Watch also commented on this here.

Last month, we reported that Willow Creek Community Church, the Chicago evangelical megachurch, had cut ties with ex-gay organization Exodus International. Today, Christianity Today reported the story with reaction from Exodus President Alan Chambers.

Predictably, Chambers makes the break all about Exodus, revealing an attitude we’ve seen before:

The choice to end our partnership is definitely something that shines a light on a disappointing trend within parts of the Christian community, which is that there are Christians who believe like one another who aren’t willing to stand with one another, simply because they’re afraid of the backlash people will direct their way if they are seen with somebody who might not be politically correct. … I really do think decisions like this, ultimately, highlight a reticence in the church to stand up for biblical truth, and they’re coming at a time when we’re going to have to stand up for what we believe.

As far as Exodus is concerned, if you reject the organization, its message and its methods, you’ve rejected God’s truth. Chambers added:

Biblical truth is unpopular, and when you’re supporting unpopular truth, you are unpopular too; which means, some days, getting upwards of 10,000 phone calls and emails, and it can be overwhelming.

(We found the 10,000-a-day claim as risible as Truth Wins Out did, by the way.)

Willow Creek’s response indicates it may be indeed be pursuing a softer approach to the issue of homosexuality:

Willow Creek has a whole host of ministries for people dealing with these issues, and we would never intend for them to feel sidelined. All we’ve changed is how we’ve gone about inviting them into the church, which is the primary issue here.

CT notes that the church’s founder and senior pastor, Bill Hybels, met with pro-gay Christian activist group Soulforce a few years ago.

Mark Yarhouse, however, a conservative Christian social scientist whose revealing research into ex-gay marriages we reported on earlier this week, also chimed in on news of the split. CT writes:

Mark Yarhouse, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity at Regent University, agrees that the primary issue in the split is not abandonment of the gay community but simply a shift in tone toward gays.

“Churches are realizing that while there is a small contingent of the gay community responding to language like ‘freedom from homosexuality’ or ‘freedom is possible,’ the vast majority strongly disagree. They’re angry and they believe it’s impossible to change, and to hear this is so offensive that they will have nothing to do with Christians. So I think churches, in response to that vast majority who say, ‘We’re not interested,’ have decided to look at other approaches in an attempt to connect with the gay community on at least some level. That doesn’t mean that churches disagree with the language of ‘freedom from homosexuality’ doctrinally; they’ve just found that it doesn’t work on a social level.”

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan, of PFOX, present a litany of myths and half-truths in this AFA Radio interview:

But one particularly prominent and consistent theme in the segment, as Jeremy Hooper at Good As You points out, is the PFOX claim that “ex-gay” is an orientation comparable to gay or straight. The primary reason for this bizarre notion is that anti-gay, ex-gay activists like Quinlan and Fischer want to claim that ex-gays are victims of hate crimes on account of their orientation, and therefore if anyone deserves so-called “special protection,” it’s ex-gays.

This is familiar territory. In 2010, PFOX tried to coerce the Walt Disney Company into including ex-gays in its anti-discrimination policy. I concluded:

If it were about sexual orientation, PFOX would have to concede that ex-gays are already protected. Are ex-gays same-sex attracted? Then they are homosexual, and are therefore protected. Have they overcome same-sex attractions to become opposite-sex attracted? Then they are heterosexual, and are therefore protected. Do they now have heterosexual relationships? Marriages? Then they have the same rights as every other person in a heterosexual relationship or marriage. Do they have no sexual relationships at all? Then they have the same rights as every other celibate person.

What unique attraction or relationship is the ex-gay trying to protect by insisting he be included in a sexual orientation policy?

But that was over a year ago. Since then, research has suggested that men in mixed orientation marriages — that is, married ex-gays — remain just as gay in orientation. And the data comes from an unlikely source: Mark Yarhouse, a social scientist at Pat Robertson’s Regent University and one of conservative evangelicalism’s foremost researchers into sexual orientation change.

Yarhouse, best-known for the 2007 Jones-Yarhouse study with Stanton Jones, drew his latest conclusions from a survey of 106 husbands and 161 wives in mixed orientation marriages. The men had an average age of 45 and had been married 16 years. Conservative Christian therapist Warren Throckmorton summarizes the findings for us:

[The data] demonstrates that the Kinsey scores shift more toward the heterosexual side when the participants were asked about their sexual behavior but when asked about their attractions, fantasies, and emotional attachments, there was no change. The Kinsey Expanded scale included an average of participant Kinsey assessment of behavior, attractions, fantasies and emotional attachments. … At any rate, the results are consistent with what I am finding as well. People adapt their behavior to their beliefs and commitments but their orientation does not shift, on average.

This is consistent with what we’ve seen and claimed here at Ex-Gay Watch, too. Sexual orientation cannot be made to change; behavior can. (Incidentally, Throckmorton says his own research suggests that men in mixed-orientation marriages actually tend to become more gay over time.)

The honesty of this research is welcome. It does, however, raise an ethical issue for Yarhouse, according to Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin. Yarhouse is something of a darling of the Christian Right for his previously published studies on sexual orientation change. So will he let himself continue to be used as a propaganda tool for anti-gay religious conservatives like Fischer and Quinlan? Or will he speak unambiguously to such ideologues about the reality of ex-gays and the myth of “change”?