Randy Thomas: Gayest Ex-Gay Ever

It always cracks me up how incredibly gay many ex-gays come off as...

Indiana Anti-Equality Representative Phillip Hinkle Caught Cruising Craigslist M4M Section

First and foremost, I think there is an object lesson to be learned in the story of Rep. Phillip Hinkly, who was recently caught trying to pay an 18 year old young man for sex. That lesson is one for those Christians on the traditionalist side who are convinced that the healthiest and holiest thing any homosexual can do is ignore their feelings and try to live a heterosexual life, essentially to live in the closet. Rep. Hinkle's life and behavior provide a telling glimpse into that closet.

Many gay men and women will talk about how awful being in the closet is from the perspective of the damage to the self, the self-loathing, depression, loneliness and isolation. These are all valid points, but to my Christian friends I would like to point out one other aspect of the closet, abject immorality. You know that image of the gay man on the prowl in the park, bathroom or bathhouse that the right enjoys holding up as normative for the gay community so much? Those men are almost always closet cases. The ones who are not generally picked up the habit during their time in the closet.

As I've noted before, no amount of prayer or therapy will make the need for intimacy go away. That deep seated desire to hold and be held by someone you truly love, are truly attracted to, doesn't go away. And when that desire is sublimated, ignored or repressed it tends to come out in destructive ways. Many on the traditionalist side of this debate argue that our sexual passions are an incredibly powerful thing, that we ought to heed God's will for them lest they run rampant in our lives, controlling us and eventually destroying us. And I absolutely agree with this assessment. That is why I find it so important to consider the fruit produced by what we do and say, how we live our lives, especially when it comes to something as important as ones sexuality.

Below you will see an example of the fruit produced by the closet. You will see what happens when one attempts to hide, deny or otherwise repress their natural, God-given sexuality. You see the closet is a place of darkness where the light of God and the church cannot shine. It is a place lacking entirely in integrity because it is a place of deception and obfuscation. And in this place of darkness patterns of sin can, and usually do, emerge. Patterns that can lead an outwardly upstanding, Christian man to send the following emails to an 18 year old teenage boy...

"Cannot be a long time sugar daddy, but can for tonight. Would you be interested in keeping me company for a while tonight?"

"I am an in shape married professional, 5'8", fit 170 lbs, and love getting and staying naked."

"How about $80 for services rendered and if real satisfied a healthy tip? That make it worth while?"

"Final for the record, for a really good time, you could get another 50, 60 bucks. That sound good?"

"If u want to consider spending night u might tell ur sis so she won't worry. Would have u back before 11 tomorrow. No extra cash just free breakfast and maybe late night snack."

Now Rep. Hinkle's story is blowing up because he is an anti-gay politician who has now been caught soliciting an 18 year old for gay sex. But don't kid yourself, this kind of thing goes on in the lives of regular people all the time. The ex-gays rarely hold on to that "ex" part, and those who do are still often caught "relapsing" at least once in their lives. And as any addict can tell you, for every time someone "relapses" publicly, there are certainly numerous times they've gotten away with it.

The closet, whether in its original incarnation or when gone back into after going the ex-gay route, is place lacking entirely in integrity. It is a place into which no light can shine, and thus a place in which all manner of evil can thrive.

Journey Into Manhood Shows Off Ex-Gay Weidrness

Journey Into Manhood, run by Rich Wyler, is back in the news after NPR covered the program in response to the Bachmann fiasco. The retreat, which is pretty fringe even among ex-gay advocates, employs controversial "touch therapy" techniques. Apparently what men with unwanted same-sex attractions need is some alone time in the woods to cuddle with one another...

The bit at the end with the wife was probably the saddest. She clearly sees how much her husband is still attracted to men, she also clearly believes what her Church has told her, specifically that if they are faithful he will change. How much destruction will she have to witness in her life when that promise doesn't come through?

Peterson Toscano Recalls Exercism of Anus Dwelling Demons...

In the wake of recent media attention given to Ex-Gay therapies due to the Bachman controversy  Toscano has posted a great article about his time in one such program. Here's the money quote:

"I attended L.I.F.E in NYC back in the early 1980′s as a young person looking for answers about my sexuality and faith. In addition to meeting some new friends, having raucous praise times, receiving Bible lessons, and sharing spaghetti dinners with fellow strugglers, I also got tangled up with an exorcist who tried to extract demons of homosexuality from my anus. She suggested they crawled up there during a sex act. Really I’m not making this up. I was desperate to try anything, but soon after the session started, I felt so uncomfortable I aborted the procedure. Likely the “therapist” assumed it was the demons in my anus who were making a fuss and influenced me to shut it down."

Go read the full article here.

Ex-Gay Cliches

These two mostly come off as a bit disjointed and unhinged. It may simply be the editing or lack of time, but they were all over the place. I would like to look at the typical Ex-Gay cliches he uses though (which rarely apply to most gay men) and compare them to the homosexual I know best, myself:

"My father sucked" - personally I happen to have been very close with my father and resent those who led him to believe he'd failed me somehow;

"I was an addict" - I never touched drugs and alcohol until after I had been pushed out of my church and faith because of my sexuality, and even then I never engaged in any substance abuse that wasn't normative for my circle of friends and most others at Indiana University, where I was studying at the time;

"I was a slut" - I've never been particularly promiscuous, and frankly my straight friends in college were far more promiscuous then myself;

"I was molested" - While I actually can relate to this bit of his testimony, my experience came after I had realized I was attracted to other boys and my inhibition in stopping or reporting the abuse stemmed from the shame I felt because of those attractions. Essentially I knew I was gay, and thought that the abuse was God's way of punishing me for having been attracted to and 'experimented' with other boys before;

"I was a sissy" - While I may have had some stereotypical gay traits (I like musicals and a good tear wrenching drama), I was mostly your typical boy. I loved video games and movies, the more violent the better, played army with my friends and spent most of my time stomping around outside in the woods.

And unfortunately Joy Behar doesn't ask the most important question: Are you still attracted to men? Has this man actually changed his sexual orientation, or has he, like most ex-gays, changed his behavior and identity? These are two fundamentally different things and are incredibly important in the on-going ex-gay debate, as well as the wider debate surrounding homosexuality in society.

Focus on the Family Defines Change

I stumbled across an article titled "What Do We Mean When We Talk About Change?" written by ex-gay activist Jeff Johnston over at CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family affiliate. The idea of "change" is pivotal in this debate, and opinions about it are strongly correlated with opinions about homosexuals in general. According to a Pew Forum survey of opinions regarding homosexuality:

"Belief that homosexuality is immutable is strongly associated with positive opinions about gays and lesbians – even more strongly than education, personal acquaintance with a homosexual, or general ideological beliefs. For example, about two-thirds of people who think homosexuality can be changed (68%) have an unfavorable opinion of gay men. By contrast, nearly six-in-ten (59%) of those who think homosexuality cannot be changed have a favorable opinion. This pattern holds even among groups of people who are similar in religious beliefs, partisan affiliation, and other factors."

So it is important to tackle this issue head on. In particular we need to address what groups like FotF claim about change given their prominence, popularity and perceived respectability. So what does FotF say about change?

The article discusses several aspects of change, many of which are rather vague. One such change is a "[c]hange in motivation," in which Johnston at least admits that most men who pursue change, "are initially motivated to seek change from homosexuality by fear, shame or guilt." He also mentions a "[c]hange in identity" in which he claims that all people are born heterosexual and that, "the Bible says that we humans are made male and female in the image of God – reflecting a heterosexual intent in our design – and that homosexual temptations do not define anyone." Johnston also seems to imply that most gay men, "feel victimized and rejected" but downplays the role of societal condemnation of homosexuality in such feelings.

In a particularly insulting section covering "[c]hange in relationships with men and women" Johnston mentions several "relational sins – often connected with the homosexual struggle" which include:

"o Lust – desiring to use another man for one’s own pleasure and fulfillment;
o Envy – wanting to own another’s masculinity, wanting to possess another person’s attributes;
o Contempt – looking down on “straight” men or women, despising men who are unattractive, old, or effeminate, or fearing and hating women;
o Control – wanting to control another’s behavior, affections, time, or thoughts; and,
o Lying – not telling the truth about what one thinks or feels in order to maintain a relationship, not being honest about thoughts, feelings, behaviors or attitudes."

 He of course cites no research that would support the idea that gay men are generally lusting, envious, contemptuous and controlling liars, he simply asserts it as fact. I for one do not seek to "use" other men (can one assume then that all straight men seek to "use" women?), nor have I ever felt envious of any of my boyfriends' masculinity. The idea that gay men "[fear] and [hate] women" seems particularly ridiculous. I suppose I can be a bit controlling, and years in the closet have certainly left me often feeling all too comfortable with lying to protect myself, but neither of these issues seem particularly relevant to my sexuality.

Now that we have an idea of how FotF and Johnston see homosexuality and, more importantly, how they believe men must change to even begin a 'journey to healing', let's take a look at what 'healing' actually means to them. Citing ex-gay author Joe Dallas Johnston writes:

"For many, same-sex attractions do change dramatically, and attractions for women develop. In his book, Desires in Conflict, Joe Dallas describes the reasonable expectations that many have experienced: 

o change in behavior;
o change in frequency of homosexual attractions;
o change in intensity of homosexual attractions; and,
o change in perspective – homosexuality is no longer a life-consuming or dominating issue. 

He goes on to write that many men also move into healthy other-sex relating. Although not everyone experiences this type of change, it doesn’t mean that it can not happen or hasn’t happened for many. There are myriad testimonies of men who have moved out of homosexual behavior and into healthy God-honoring heterosexual relationships."

I appreciate Johnston's honesty in mentioning that, "not everyone experiences this type of change," but let's be honest, that is not the part most people struggling with this issue will notice. What they will be drawn to is the claim that "reasonable expectations" involve "chang[ing] dramatically, and attractions for women develop[ing]." And further that, "many men also move into healthy other-sex relating," which of course implies heterosexual attractions. But are these claims honest? Do "many men" in these programs report "chang[ing] dramatically"?

There are two studies most commonly cited as proving change is possible, the Jones & Yarhouse study from 2007 (updated in 2009) and a 2003 study from Robert Spitzer. I want to look solely at the Jones & Yarhouse study because they are admittedly coming from a conservative Christian perspective. Not to mention Spitzer has claimed several times that his research has been misused by ex-gay advocates.

First I think it is important to define sexual orientation change. There is no doubt that some people engage in sexual behavior contrary to their sexual orientation. It is entirely possible for a homosexual to reject those feelings and engage in heterosexual behavior. But heterosexual behavior does not make someone heterosexual any more than homosexual behavior makes someone homosexual. Prison inmates who engage in homosexual behavior are certainly not homosexually oriented and will return to heterosexual behavior as soon as they are able to. So how should we define change in orientation? I would suggest that sexual orientation change would consist of the reduction, if not eradication, of homosexual feelings and the emergence of heterosexual feelings. Is that what Jones & Yarhouse found?

(Much of the information below is drawn from a critique of the Jones & Yarhouse study at Ex-Gay Watch. You can also find the authors' response there.)

First it is important to note that Jones & Yarhouse worked directly with and were funded by Exodus International, a Christian ex-gay group that promotes reparative therapy, to gather their sample. Further, while they claim that their study is longitudinal and prospective, which is to say that they followed participants from the beginning of their therapy and performed follow ups, in fact over 50% of their participants had sought treatment outside of Exodus for any number of years prior to their involvement with the organization. This is an issue because researchers acknowledge that past recollections are often inaccurate. A perfect study of sexual orientation change would measure participants orientation at the time they began attempting change, rather then asking them to recall 'how gay' they were when beginning therapy after having spent several years in that therapy. Unfortunately such studies are difficult and, to my knowledge, do not exist. And while Jones & Yarhouse did their best to overcome this problem, they tend to overstate their success in doing so.

Nevertheless Jones & Yarhouse's findings are interesting and informative. Of the 98 participants 11 claimed to have changed, with one recanting that claim later. That even one of their successes recanted is important to note given that this was not a long-term study and the authors admit the possibility that more of their successful cases could potentially recant later. And how do the authors define change? Well of the 10 successful cases (I'm not counting the one who recanted) one admited to still having unwanted homosexual attractions and another claimed to still have homoerotic dreams. Jones & Yarhouse also counted 23 individuals who had committed themselves to celibacy as successes, even while admitting that they had not experienced any “strong movement toward heterosexual attraction." It also has to be noted that those involved in ex-gay ministries and programs are potentially motivated to misrepresent their condition, possibly skewing the data further. And finally Yarhouse himself, in a recent edition of Edification: The Transdisciplinary Journal Of Christian Psychology, wrote:

"If attractions do not necessarily signal an identity, it became clear that there was an important distinction to be made between sexual attractions, a homosexual orientation, and a gay identity (Yarhouse, 2005). This “three-tier distinction” moves from descriptive to prescriptive, by which I mean that talking about same-sex attractions is a descriptive account of a person’s experiences: “I experience sexual attraction to the same sex.” Personal identity is still subject to further reflection. 

[...] 

From my perspective, a focus on orientation can mistakenly assume that the traditional Christian sexual ethic in some way hinges on the causes of homosexuality and whether a homosexual orientation can change. Sexual identity, in contrast, focuses the discussion on an endpoint by bringing to the foreground patterns of behavior and an identity that reflects that over time. 

[...] 

It may be helpful, then, to distinguish between what is in a person’s effective will. The experience of same-sex attraction is not in a person’s effective will, at least not in the same way as behavior and identity is. Most people I have met who are sorting out sexual identity questions find themselves attracted to the same sex; they did not choose to experience same-sex attractions. What they are choosing is whether or not to integrate their experiences of attractions into a gay identity."

Here Yarhouse is admitting what many gay activists have long claimed, ex-gays do not change their core sexual orientation, rather they alter their behavior and identity. This is not at all the kind of 'change' promised by Johnston and FotF. And furthermore Jones & Yarhouse, in their 2009 update to the study, offered this cautionary statement:

"[W]hile we found that part of our research population experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) “conversion,” our evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated, dichotomous and unequivocal reversal of sexual orientation from utterly homosexual to utterly heterosexual. Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at T6 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and they did not report their heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated."

Stanton Jones has been quoted as having said the following:

"A typical hetero male finds himself attracted to a wide range of females. But among the successful people who reported conversion the typical response was 'I'm very happy with my sexual responses to my wife, but I don't experience much hetero attraction to other women.' Also, when asked and pressed about whether they still find attraction to men, they will say: ‘Yes, if I let my mind go in that direction.' "

So it would seem that clients of reparative therapy programs do remain homosexual, even if they alter their identity and/or behavior. Again, this is not even remotely the kind of dramatic change promised by FotF in Johnston's article. And given that true sexual orientation change is likely impossible, and even 'conversion' as Jones & Yarhouse define it is rare, one must ask whether such therapies are actually worth undertaking. In particular it is important to know whether those who do not 'succeed' (i.e. the majority) at such conversion attempts are harmed.

Jones & Yarhouse actually researched the potential for harm from such programs in their study. While the authors claimed that no such harm was found, the testimony of their subjects said otherwise. Some participants claimed to experience feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, frustration, loneliness and emptiness. Others claim that their faith was damaged and that they felt like they had wasted an enormous amount of their lives. The authors themselves even admit to knowledge of anecdotal evidence of individuals committing suicide after failing to change. This all begs the question, how many 'success stories' are required to come out of these programs to outweigh the worse case scenario of suicide? How many ex-gays are worth the life of one such 'failure'?

*For a comprehensive review of the literature on reparative therapy see the American Psychological Association's report 'Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation'.

Hate the Sin AND the Sinner? More on Albert Mohler's Reparative Therapy Article.

I wrote about Southern Baptist Convention President Albert Mohler's recent article responding to the media's coverage of the reparative therapy issue a few days ago. In that article I noted that Mohler's basic suppositions, that homosexuality is emphatically rejected by the Bible and no "real" Christian can affirm homosexuals, underpin the entirety of his, and many conservatives', view of this issue. But there was something else notable about what he wrote that I didn't pick up on at first.

If you are gay, or have talked about LGBT issues with a conservative Christian, you have almost certainly heard the phrase 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. The entire point of this line is to defend those who oppose homosexuality against accusations that they really just dislike, or even hate, homosexuals. While it might be a trite line, it accurately represents many Christians' attitudes towards gay people. As these people and organizations have turned to ex-gay therapies as the solution to the 'homosexual problem' they have also been forced to admit that a homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not sinful. It is, they would argue, the actual behavior that is sinful. So if you are a homosexual, and ex-gay therapy does not result in the development of heterosexuality (which, arguably, it never does), then you can simply live a life of celibacy without worrying about whether any of those thoughts or desires are damning you to hell.

I bring up all this background in order to point out how significant it is that in his article Mohler states this, "the Bible speaks rather directly to the sinfulness of the homosexual orientation — defined as a pattern of sexual attraction to a person of the same sex." He goes on to argue that, in his interpretation of Romans 1:24-27, "Paul identifies the sinful sexual passion as a major concern — not just the behavior." Finally he concludes that, "[t]he New Testament reveals that a homosexual sexual orientation, whatever its shape or causation, is essentially wrong, contrary to the Creator’s purpose, and deeply sinful."

So in Mohler's view clearly one cannot hate only homosexual behavior, but must detest even homosexual feelings. He admits that therapy to change those feelings has been rejected by every major medical association, but goes on to claim that, "we will hold little hope for any secular therapy to offer more than marginal improvement in a sinner’s life." This is a truly bizarre statement given that virtually all ex-gay and reparative therapy programs are deeply rooted in a religious, and generally Christian, world view (hence the somewhat derogatory phrase "pray away the gay" used by many gay activists) and decidedly not secular. I know of almost no prominent therapists advocating for reparative therapy who are not Christians. That being the case, we're still left wondering why these programs never seem to actually work as intended.

What I find most insulting about this is the way it ignores the experience and witness of the vast majority of gay Christians. Having grown up in a devoutly religious Christian home, I can tell you that I spent countless hours in prayer agonizing over my sexual orientation. I begged and pleaded with God to change me. I pursued reparative therapy with a Christian counselor. And yet, nothing happened, God chose not to change me for some reason.

Mohler says that, "Christians cannot accept any argument that suggests that a fundamental reorientation of the believer’s desires in a way that increasingly pleases God and is increasingly obedient to Christ is impossible." I actually agree with him. Through Christ all things, at least those which are pleasing to Him, are possible. And yet you won't find a single person who has gone through reparative therapy and come out completely heterosexual. At best you will find ex-gays who have learned to reject what "comes naturally", as the famous ex-gay Alan Chambers put it, in order to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle or, as is more often the case, a life of celibacy. Why is that? If the desires themselves are sinful and disordered, then it would follow that God would remove those desires from a faithful believer. Even if we're talking about demanding celibacy of gay people, one would expect God to honor such faithfulness with the removal of homosexual desires, if not the emergence of a heterosexual orientation.

So if a "fundamental reorientation of the believer's desires" cannot be "impossible" as Mohler claims, then why is it? Why has God not fundamentally reoriented the desires of the millions of gay men and women who have gone through Christ-centered reparative therapy programs? I'd argue that it's because God never intended for us to change to begin with. He made us just the way we are and the only thing that would be "deeply sinful" would be to reject that, to look up at the potter and demand He make us as we want to be.