Thank God that poor child is out of the hands of that Evangelical hate preacher.
did i read right? it looks like it says this seven year old shares her mother’s views on homosexuality! What have they been teaching this poor kid?
Seems like a reasonable decision.
Forcing her religious beliefs on her child is tantamount to child abuse. And parents who abuse their children do not deserve custody.
The child will be in a far safer and healthier environment with her adoptive mother than with her mentally ill, abusive birth mother.
I am inclined to agree with you, Simon. The judge has ruled correctly. Question is, what will happen if the religious mother doesn’t hand over the child. I can see her becoming a cause celebre for Christian Right. “God-fearing, church-going mother protecting her child from heathen lesbian monster woman and the cold, unfeeling church…..” It’s the stuff of a mid-afternoon TV movie with a couple of minor soap stars in the lead roles.
And it appears that the custody/visiting rights agreement was breached by Miller. So for that reason also (using her child as a weapon and not acting in the best interests of that child by honouring her right to have contact with her other parent) the judge was right to transfer custody.
When I first read the headline, I was shocked that a baby could be taken away from the birth mother.. (just as a birth mother is favoured in heterosexual custody cases). But reading the full article, I agree 100% with the ruling. This is a common sense ruling which shows the validity of their legal union, and what happens when you ignore court rulings…
“God-fearing, church-going mother protecting her child from heathen lesbian monster woman and the cold, unfeeling church…..”
Well considering the birth mother is a lesbian herself (despite her claims to have been ‘cured’) I think she is not going to be a cause celebre for her evil church.
People who have been ‘cured’ of their homosexuality are desperately unstable, messed up people. That obviously makes her suitable to be a member of her church. But if they make her a martyr then it will backfire drastically on them.
I agree that the biological mother is essentially abusing her child and the child would be better off with her other mother.
Ah, but Simon, she’s been purged of her sin. she’s an example of a born again non-lesbian!
Great decision! The article states that the adoptive parent is more willing to share and let the mother have visitation rights. I would just make sure those visitations are monitored until the child is a teen ager.
Hey Simon, you said, “People who have been ‘cured’ of their homosexuality are desperately unstable, messed up people.”
That’s a powerful statement. I’d like to see your research/study
reference that shows your statement to be factual.
It’s not as simple as it seems. On the face of it, the birth mother placed her own religious beliefs above the child’s welfare which was better served (as it generally is) by having equal access to both of her parents; and by not having her young mind warped by irrational religious and homophobic beliefs.
However, it’s hard to see how placing the child with the other parent, who is gay, can be reconciled with her (the child’s) belief that lesbianism is wrong. I suppose it can be argued that if a child can be taught that lesbianism is wrong, then it can also be taught the reverse.
The question about whether people who have “cured of homosexuality” were unstable already anyway, or rendered unstable by the “cure”, is a fascinating one and I hope to learn more about it as this discussion unfolds.
No 11 Hank: You say:
“Hey Simon, you said, “People who have been ‘cured’ of their homosexuality are desperately unstable, messed up people.”
That’s a powerful statement. I’d like to see your research/study
reference that shows your statement to be factual. ”
Well it’s a given (by all medical and psychological and psychiatric bodies – and I don’t mean those funded by the churches – accept that sexual orientation is not a choice. I did not choose to be gay in the same way that Iris Robinson did not choose to be straight.
So for any person or group to say that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ is to say that it is a choice.
If someone wilfully ignores medical science in favour of half-baked, nonsensical religious dogma, then I think it is entirely reasonable to regard such a person as deeply unstable.
Simon…you’re evading my question, “I’d like to see your
reearch/study reference that shows your statement to be factual.”
Now you say, “Well it’s a given (by all medical and psychological and psychiatric bodies”
So you say….you still haven’t given me anything about “all
medical and psychologica and psychiatric bodies”….who and where
are these references that I can read for myself. Please just
give me the references…you don’t have to go into detail about
it….I’ll do my own reading.
Don’t make strong statements that can’t be checked by scientific
Hey Kitty….I’ll get back to you with a comment soon…the topic
could turn out to be extremely interesting/controversial…etc.
hank, I think you’re being excessively pedantic. People can have opinions whether or not they are aware of scientific studies that reach the same conclusions they have.
Simon’s statement might be strongly worded but the American Psychological Association, among other bodies, has consistently come out against ex-gay therapy which they have defined as potentially damaging for those undergoing it, who are taught to ignore, or deny their same-sex attraction.
In light of this, it is fair to assume that someone who has undergone such “damaging” therapy and swears by it might be assumed to be in denial about themselves, possibly sustained by a great deal of self-loathing.
I think it is fair to assume that some of these people might not be the most stable individuals you’ll find.
I’m sure many would disagree with this assumption but that’s why it’s called an opinion and we’re all allowed one.
Nevertheless, I do think that there is probably literature about this fascinating topic (cure for homosexuality) and that it’s worth looking it up and finding out what others have discovered. The literature may or may not be scientific, it might be anecdotal (i.e. informal, but still informed). Definitely worth a discussion topic within myPN.
Funny how Stewart shuts up and Hank starts. Like the weather people.
I think that the best decision has been made, one that is in the iterests of the child. I would probably consider therapy for the girl after being with her supposedly “ex-gay” biomom. I remember hearing about this a bit back and wondered how it turned out. Maybe the kid can have a happy, healthy childhood instead of one being beaten over the head with the Bible. And what in the world was her mother doing involving a child that young in her problems with being a lesbian?! I mean shouldn’t kids be out having fun with their friends, going to school-yanno, kid stuff?
Kids are such uncritical sponges for information. This little girl will truly believe that she has been captured by The Devil, and will be terrified.
One hopes that this transfer includes an immediate intervention by a qualified counselor.
And yes, no doubt the religious right will attempt to make a martyr of the mother. They will trim away all that is unsavory about her and will spin what is left, and trot out a very compelling new “victim” of the homosexual agenda.
Truth will not be a factor.
I know you’re trying to defend Simon’s statement, but even you’re not being at all factual, or objective
You’ve used the word assume, assumed and assumption 3 times in your comment:
The dictionary says, assume. “To take for granted….supposed something to be a fact”
But Simon made a declarative statement… “ Well it’s a given (by all medical and psychological and psychiatric bodies ….” Is Simone stating a fact or his opinion? No, I’m not letting it go without his giving me PROOF OF HIS SO-CALLED FACTS unless he restates it as his opinion and not a proven fact.
Valerio, you say…”hank, I think you’re being excessively pedantic…Simon’s statement might be strongly worded but the American Psychological Association, among other bodies, has consistently come out against ex-gay therapy which they have defined as potentially damaging for those undergoing it, who are taught to ignore, or deny their same-sex attraction.”
My comment: Are you saying that no homosexual has ever received proper therapy and has had their life changed so that they’re now not physically living and emotionally thinking about continuing in their old homosexual lifestyle/behavior? That they are living a heterosexual life?
You say, “In light of this, it is fair to assume (?) that someone who has undergone such “damaging” therapy and swears by it might be assumed(?) to be in denial about themselves, possibly sustained by a great deal of self-loathing.
My comment: We need a couple of conditions to be aware of: First, was this person truly unhappy with their homosexuality and wanted deeply to change?
Second, did they receive qualified, expert therapy to help them change their entire being to overcome homosexuality? I’m not speaking about some fringe, psychological, spiritual, esoteric workings that do cause more damage than by doing nothing? I’ll give you some factual references that homosexuals can indeed change out of their lifestyle and be happy.
You said, I think it is fair to assume that some of these people might not be the most stable individuals you’ll find.
Of course….just as we’d find unstable homosexuals living unhappily…human nature can be very complex, especially when dealing with major personality isses/problems.
I’m sure many would disagree with this assumption but that’s why it’s called an opinion and we’re all allowed one.
I agree…this site is for expressing onself…to see how others think about things.
Hank, no homosexual who has received so-called ‘therapy’ and ‘become’ a heterosexual is telling the truth. They are either outright liars to themselves and others or brainwashed dupes. That’s the truth. This woman who has filled her child with lies and made her hate somebody who loves her just as much as a biological parent is one or the other. And you, Hank, or possibly Stewart, possibly one of several other psuedonyms, make me sick with your propogation of the same lies.
By the way, as everyone knows here, I’m a practicing Christian. I believe in a loving God who sent his only son to redeem sinners – like hypocrites such as YOU and Stewart, not these good people who live according to the nature God gave them.
Now, shut up and stop boring us with your falsehoods.
meanwhile, lets get back to the facts of THIS case. The biological mother has broken the terms of the custody settlement. She has possibly gone on the run, refusing to hand the child over. That’s a felony, I believe. I’m not completely familiar with US Law, but I think it’s actually considered abduction. She is a completely unfit mother on those grounds.
Hey Rose, you said, “Hank, no homosexual who has received so-called ‘therapy’ and ‘become’ a heterosexual is telling the truth. They are either outright liars to themselves and others or brainwashed dupes. That’s the truth”
Again Rose is that your opinion, or is a provable fact with
studies/research/papers showing this to be factual? I think
you’re emotionally confused when you want to make your point.
Later on I’ll submit results from some qualified professionals who have shown that homosexuals can indeed change their lifestyle.
By the way, who is Stewart? I don’t hide under other names than
Rose, you say, “By the way, as everyone knows here, I’m a practicing Christian.”
Good for you and I hope you’re “born again,” as that’s the only
way you’ll ever see Jesus Christ — if you read about that in the Holy Bible.
By the way, I study the Holy Bible, read articles on the Holy
Scriptures 2-3 hours daily, have trusted Jesus as my Lord and
Savior 10 years ago, and I too believe in a God who is “a loving God but also is one who punishes sin.”
I can’t comment on the law and this case as I don’t know many facts only a few news items, which many times are full of error
“Are you saying that no homosexual has ever received proper therapy and has had their life changed so that they’re now not physically living and emotionally thinking about continuing in their old homosexual lifestyle/behavior? That they are living a heterosexual life?”
Abstaining from sex with people of the same gender does not make a person heterosexual, in my opinion. In any case it is the APA, not I, that states that there is no evidence showing that so-called reparative therapy is effective. Obviously I have not spoken to every person in the world who has undergone such treatments so I must rely on the conclusions of professional bodies on this matter.
@Hank “I can’t comment on the law and this case as I don’t know many facts only a few news items, which many times are full of error
@Hank.. and furthermore, if ‘Hank’ is so keen on finding out this information…Might I suggest GOOGLE???
i would think that someone who calls themselves heterosexual is. therefore, someone who has undergone ‘treatment’ and feels that it has worked could be considered straight. its nothing but a label, after all.
Hank, got any relationship going there with Sapphire ??
“was this person truly unhappy with their homosexuality and wanted deeply to change? Second, did they receive qualified, expert therapy to help them change their entire being to overcome homosexuality? ”
Your question contains the root of the problem, in my opinion. Why would somebody be “unhappy with their homosexuality” and want “deeply to change”? Why should people feel they have to “change their entire being to overcome homosexuality”? It is obvious that people who choose to undergo therapy to change have somehow internalised the message that there is something wrong with being who they are and have experienced pressure to change who they are. (We do not hear of heterosexuals who are unhappy as heterosexuals and need therapy to become gay. Have you asked yourself why that is?)
If people are under pressure to change who they are, if they want so “deeply” to change, then we must beware of taking at face value their statements when they say that they HAVE changed. Especially when so many make these claims but then experience same-sex attraction again later in life.
I repeat what I have said before: it is the APA’s conclusion that no evidence exists to support the validity of reparative therapy or whatever you wish to call it.
Hey Valerio, you said, ” so I must rely on the conclusions of professional bodies on this matter.”
Don’t put all your belief and faith on what professionals say, do
or promote. They’re not above being biased, prejudiced and
incompetent. Psychiatrists can be ineffective in treating patients and for that reason I would have to see a detailed report
on how many homosexuals they “treated” “what modality they used”
“for the length of time of reparative treatment” etc. — and many more factors that are significant in treating a homosexual who
wants to change.
Look at just a few items I found about how “good” a psychiatrist
might or might not be dealing with patients before I accept their version of success or failure.
Barriers to mental healthcare for psychiatrists
A White, P Shiralkar, T Hassan, N Galbraith, R … – Psychiatric Bulletin, 2006 – RCP
The stigma associated with mental illness remains prevalent among the psychiatric profession and may prevent those affected from seeking adequate treatment and support.
It has been often reported that medical students and doctors undergo severe stress and fall victim
to mental ill health. A number of medical professionals develop serious mental illnesses during their career and may either leave practice altogether or are compelled to limit their practice.
Psychiatrists Not Immune To Mental Illness—or Stigma:
Psychiatrists may be more cognizant than most people of the devastating effects of stigmatizing the mentally ill, but that does not prevent them from suffering its consequences when they develop a mental illness.
When those psychiatrists are also members of a minority group,
(perhaps homosexuality?) coping with and overcoming the effects of stigma add difficult, and often unexpected, challenges to the recovery process.
Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, M.D., is also familiar with the devastating effects of stigma, having had bipolar illness so severe since she was a child that she has had several psychotic episodes. After the birth of her third child, she told the workshop audience, she experienced a period of catatonia.
Now medical director of a consumer-run mental health center in Beaver, Pa.,
Vogel-Scibilia stressed that psychiatrists who are minority-group members can in fact confront a triple stigma—that of being a minority, a person with mental illness, and, in some communities, a psychiatrist.
Too many physicians, and particularly psychiatrists, are convinced they’re immune from mental illness, she said. When it strikes, an additional source of stigma often keeps psychiatrists and mental health professionals from acknowledging it and getting treatment.Vogel-Scibilia calls these psychiatrists who have or have had mental illness “prosumers”—a blend of providers and consumers—and urged them to look for support in several arenas
Doctors are more at risk of mental ill-health than the general population.
1 The risk of suicide is higher than the general population, especially among GPs, anaesthetists, and psychiatrists.
2 Studies from North America suggest that 8–18% of doctors will be affected by drug or alcohol abuse during their lifetime.
3 So the way that doctors do or don’t access health care is important — for them, their families, their colleagues, and ultimately, for their patients.
There’s a great deal more to be examined before a definitive
statement can be made about psychiatrists, their treatment
protocol before I accept how they categorize homosexuality.
Hey Simon, you said,” Forcing her religious beliefs on her child is tantamount to child abuse”
How do you view doctors who have a positive view on religious and
spiritual belief in a person’s life as stated below? Are doctors
promoting some sort of abuse activity?
Most U.S. doctors agree that religion and spirituality have a significant effect on a person’s health, according to a new survey on doctor’s spiritual beliefs.
But doctors who themselves are religious or spiritual are more likely to see the impact of religion or spirituality on personal health as positive and believe it strongly influences health.
Researchers say the findings support recommendations that doctors recognize how their own beliefs influence how they provide care.
“Physicians’ notions about the relationship between religion and spirituality and patients’ health are strongly associated with physicians’ own religious characteristics,” write researcher Farr Curlin, MD, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
“Consensus seems to begin and end with the idea that many [if not most] patients draw on prayer and other religious resources to navigate and overcome the spiritual challenges that arise in their experiences of illness,” write the researchers
“Controversy remains regarding whether, to what extent and in what ways religion and spirituality helps or harms patients’ health.”
Doctors’ Spiritual Beliefs Affect Care
In the study, researchers mailed surveys to a random sample of 2,000 U.S. doctors from all specialties. Participants were asked to estimate how often patients raised religious or spiritual issues, how much religion and spirituality affect health, and how the influence of religion and spirituality is manifested.
Among the more than 1,100 doctors who returned the survey, the results showed that 56 percent believed religion and spirituality had much or very much influence on health
As bad idea as feeding trolls is, I googled “reparative therapy unhealthy studies” and found this on the first page:
It’s a brochure meant to be given to adults that work with teens (teachers, therapists, etc). It’s endorsed by the American Association of Pediatrics and the American Psychology Association.
“The terms reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy refer to counseling and psychotherapy aimed at eliminating or suppressing homosexuality. The most important fact about these “therapies” is that they are based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental health professions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,6 published by the American Psychiatric Association, which defines the standards of the field, does not include homosexuality. All other major health professional organizations have supported the American Psychiatric Association in its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.”
^Basically, the credo of these “therapies” is medically flawed. Homosexual orientation is not a mental disorder and so cannot be cured. You can’t fix something that isn’t broken. I don’t have any specific studies that prove that homosexuality isn’t a mental illness onhand, that would be another internet search.
It’s hard to cite specific studies on SOCE (sexual orientation change efforts) because /very/ few nonbiased studies have been done on them and none, to my knowledge, have been replicated. Determining the success of these “therapies” is difficult in and of itself because of the confusion surrounding “sexual orientation.” It’s a complex range of things, not just limited to sexual arousal, and impossible to really measure or quantify in scientific terms. The SOCE’s idea of “success” isn’t so much a change in one’s entire sexual orientation as a change in how much one suppresses or acts on sexual arousal for the same gender. Their idea of “success” is questionable to start with.
“In many of these behavior-change techniques, “success” has been defined as suppression of homoerotic response or mere display of physiological ability to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Neither outcome is the same as adopting the complex set of attractions and feelings that constitute sexual orientation.
Many interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation have succeeded only in reducing or eliminating homosexual behavior rather than in creating or increasing heterosexual attractions. They have, in effect, deprived individuals of their capacity for sexual response to others.”
^found at http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html It doesn’t cite a specific example, but I think if you looked into any of these SOCE efforts on the internet you would find that their way of judging “success” fits under the standards described here. That webpage is a summary of all the studies done on SOCE, you might find it interesting.
Factual enough for you, or do you want me to get more specific?
And just something else I wanted to add–personal accounts are the exact opposite of facts. They are not “informal information”, they are a person’s version of the past and present. In the case of SOCE “conversion stories” they are someone’s opinion on what has happened to them and their current sexual orientation. There are a million and one things wrong with taking them as true–even if you do believe that the statement isn’t fabricated, and the person honestly believes what s/he is saying. If someone honestly believes that being gay will send them to hell, makes them less of a person, whatever, they are going to want to believe, more than anything, that they can and have been cured. They have every motivation in the world to think that the SOCE’s are effective and to look at the facts in a slanted way.
To those who think spirituality and religious beliefs are signs of mental illness – you’re the ones who should rethink the significance of religious and spiritual parts of life.
Psychiatrists: Least Religious but Most Interested in Patients’ Religion
• Mental health and Psychiatry news • Dec 10, 2007
Although psychiatrists are among the least religious physicians, they seem to be the most interested in the religious and spiritual dimensions of their patients, according to survey data published in the December issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry.
This report found that although they may be less religious than other physicians, psychiatrists appear to be more comfortable and have more experience addressing religious or spiritual concerns in the clinical setting.
“Recent efforts have begun to bridge the divide between religion and psychiatry,” said study author Farr Curlin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “In the past, manuals of psychiatry tended to identify religiosity with mental illness. Now they distinguish normal religious and spiritual ideas and behaviors from those that result from mental illness.”
“Moreover,” he added, “several recent studies have found that religiosity is often associated with IMPROVED MENTAL HEALTH outcomes such as quicker recovery from depression. Now most training programs teach developing psychiatrists about the POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE of religion and spirituality on patients’ mental health.
Nowhere in the article does it say that Miller identified as a lesbian. Miller may be rejecting same sex partner options now, but that doesn’t mean she’s ex-gay any more than being with Jenkins made her ex-straight. She could easily be bisexual. Some conservative churches acknowledge the permanence of same sex attractions but say that it shows spiritual strength to resist that desire, like an alcoholic can resist the desire for alcohol. I think its misguided and not honouring God to deny valid feelings, but it doesn’t automatically make her crazy. Preventing their daughter from being with her other parent who she would have known and loved from birth to the age of? four or older is what show’s Miller is acting in an unbalanced and cruel way.
The studies and references you mentioned – I read parts of them and they are very limited in going beyond the scope they “locked into” from the beginning.
There weren’t any specific examples of any of the people/organizations going beyond the “reparative therapy” examination. It seems that they’re focused too narrowly.
For some very brief examples (I’ve omitted most of them because of length)– but opn needs to see what “religious belief” can do.
Below are some types of items that need to be examined by your groups/organizations for a more definitive report.
Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their Christian faith.  (References shown below)
Peter LaBarbera is the President of Americans for Truth which is a organization which counters the homosexual agenda. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
“ Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals DO NOT LINGER in “reparative therapy” programs, NOR PARTICIATE IN THEM AT ALL. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin. ”
Peter LaBarbera’s statement above concerning overcoming homosexuality certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals “without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy” through their participation in a Pentecostal church.
Dr. Neil Whitehead is a research scientist and biochemist from New Zealand and his wife Briar Whitehead is a writer. Dr. Whitehead coauthored a book with with his wife entitled My Genes Made Me Do it – a scientific look at sexual orientation which argues that there is no genetic determinism in regards to homosexuality (homosexuals are “not born that way”) and that there is abundant documentation that individuals are able to leave homosexuality and become heterosexuals.
Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state in their aforementioned book the following regarding studies involving homosexuals becoming ex-homosexuals:
“ The sexology literature reports a huge number of examples of change of all degrees from homosexuality to or toward heterosexuality. These studies have been so numerous that West (a gay man) in 1977 took an entire chapter in his classic book, Homosexuality Re-examined, to review them, and commented: “Although some militant homosexuals find such claims improbable and unpalatable, authenticated accounts have been published of apparently exclusive and long-standing homosexuals unexpectedly changing their orientation.”
West mentions one man who was exclusively homosexual for eight years, then became heterosexual…
Another well known author in the field, Hatterer, who believes in sexual orientation change, said, “I’ve heard of hundreds of… men who went from a homosexual to a heterosexual adjustment on their own.” ”
Female homosexuals and male homosexuals who leave homosexuality and become ex-homosexuals are often referred to as “ex-gays” and the ex-gay movement became well known in the United States in the 1970s.
1.1 Testimony of Charlene Cothran
2 2006 Survey Finds Men Seek to Become Ex-homosexuals Often Do So to Heal Emotional Pain or For Spiritual Reasons
3 Reparative Therapy
3.1 Conservative Criticism of Reparative Therapy
4 Oprah Winfrey and the Claim of “Born Gay”
5 Ex-Homosexuals and Former Sexual Abuse
6 Religious Liberty Versus Exgayphobia
7 Ex-Homosexuals and the Documentary “I Do Exist”
8 Supporters of Homosexuality Are Doing Harm
9 Regarding Ex-Homosexuals Falling Back Into Homosexuality
10 Hostility Towards Ex-Homosexuals and Ex-Homosexual Groups
10.1 Matt Ott
10.2 Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) – Arlington County Fair Incident
10.3 Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) – Virginia School Counselors Incident
11 Existence of Ex-Homosexuals is an Argument that “Gay Rights” Does Not Achieve Civil Rights Status
12 Senator John Kerry Comment Insults Ex-Homosexuals
13 Judge Prohibits Public Schools from Implementing Anti-ex-homosexual Curriculum
14 See Also
I came out of homosexuality after a powerful encounter with Jesus Christ and a desire to serve and obey Him. I can say with complete honesty that I NEVER have homosexual desires of any sort – physical or emotional. – Ex-lesbian Yvette Cantu Schneider
In regards to female homosexuals leaving homosexuality, below is the testimony ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran:
“ Over the past 29 years of my life I have been an aggressive, creative and strategic supporter of gay and lesbian issues. I’ve organized and participated in countless marches and various lobbying efforts in the fight for equal treatment of gay men and lesbians. I have kept current on the issues and made financial contributions to those organizations doing work about which I was most passionate.
As the publisher of a 13 year old periodical which targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.
But now, I must come out of the closet again. I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ. As a believer of the word of God, I fully accept and have always known that same-sex relationships are not what God intended for us.
2006 Survey Finds Men Seek to Become Ex-homosexuals Often Do So to Heal Emotional Pain or For Spiritual Reasons
A 2006 survey finds men seek to leave homosexual lifestyle to heal emotional pain and for spiritual reasons rather than outside pressure. In addition, there is other data that supports the above 2006 survey findings.
There have been several studies regarding homosexuals becoming ex-homosexuals. For example, on September 13, 2007 Christianity Today published an article entitled An Older Wiser Ex-Gay Movement and below is an excerpt from that article which focuses on reparative therapy:
“ Since its beginnings in the 1970s, the ex-gay movement has engaged gay advocates in a battle of testimonies. Transformed ex-gay leaders are the best argument for their movement. Likewise, those who’ve left the ex-gay movement in despair and disgust are the best counterargument. The debate continued this June, when Exodus International held its 32nd annual conference in Irvine, California, featuring dozens of speakers and seminar leaders who have quit homosexuality. Down the road outside the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, a news conference featured three former Exodus leaders saying “ex-gay” is a delusion.
New research may change the terms of debate. Psychologists Stanton Jones of Wheaton College and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University released today a book detailing their findings from the first three years of an ongoing study. They are investigating participants in 16 different ex-gay programs associated with Exodus, the largest ex-gay ministry group.
The study started out with 98 people with 72 of them being men and 26 of them being women. Some of the participants quit the study because they believe they had positively changed and didn’t see a need to continue while others quit because they decided they didn’t want to change from a homosexual to a ex-homosexual.  As a result, 73 subjects completed the study.
According to the Baptist Press, here are the results: 15 percent of subjects experienced substantial change; “23 percent said their conversion was successful and that homosexual attraction was either missing or “present only incidentally or in a way that does not seem to bring about distress.” They were labeled “success: chastity.”; 29 percent of subjects experienced modest success; 15 percent of subjects experienced no change and were undecided about what to do next; “4 percent had not changed and had quit the change process, but had not embraced the “gay identity.”; “8 percent had not changed, had quit the process and had embraced the “gay identity.”; and malfunctions in the taping of the interviews accounts for the remaining 5 percent. 
There are numerous examples they need to be closely examined to
get the fullest meaning from dealing with homosexuality.
Its very sad to see something like this happen..
I completely agree with the ruling, but what saddens me is that this pseudo-christian mother is seemingly injecting her poisonous words into their child… I cannot stand it when religious parents superimpose their beliefs on their children and shape them into a mini-me version of themselves.
We have enough of this poisonous hate in the world without “caring” parents injecting notions that homosexuals are out to destroy the world and turn everyone gay and to teach their children that everyone will be burning in hell if they don’t do what they say.
Hank, don’t push your poison onto me. I know where to find Jesus. He knows where to find me. You are a hypocrite who will be rejected by God on the Last Day, along with all of your sort.
Homosexuals are a part of God’s diversity, made in His image like every other Human being. Homosexuality is a part of their being just like blue or green eyes or blonde or black hair, various shades of skin colour, are all a part of the same wonderful diversity. We are all wonderful, unique beings and all part of His plan. When you wake up to that truth and stop trying to persecute homosexuals you will be a better man and a REAL Christian.
Meanwhile, I only pity those mixed up souls who think they must go against the nature God gave them in order, ironically, to be accepted by God according to the narrow definition of His will espoused by flawed men calling themselves God-fearing and good. They need rescuing from such heresies. We need therapy for ex-gays to embrace their true and proper nature again.
And that includes this confused woman, Miller, who has been driven to break the law because she has been fed false ideas about God and made to reject her real nature and bring her child up in bitterness and closed-minded prejudice.
To be honest, I skim read your post. I’m not sure what you mean by being “locked into”. Do you mean that they just focused on reparative therapy? That was all that they were focused on, not the larger issue of whether sexual orientation is changeable. That’s too complex an issue to determine in an individual study. I wasn’t trying to say that sexual orientation is permanent and never changes, just that reparative therapy doesn’t work.
Just some things I noticed from your post:
“15 percent of subjects experienced substantial change; “23 percent said their conversion was successful and that homosexual attraction was either missing or “present only incidentally or in a way that does not seem to bring about distress.” They were labeled “success: chastity.”
This actually just reinforces what I cited before, that these organizations define “success” as a repressing of homosexual desire, not a change in sexual orientation. Chastity is not the same as heterosexuality, and being able to maintain a chaste lifestyle does not make a person an “ex-gay.” It just makes them sexually inactive.
The sources you cite to say that homosexuality is changeable—the only study in all of it was a 1980 one that reported 11 men that changed their orientation. The study wasn’t named, and a quick google search didn’t bring it up. Any study of just 11 people is questionable. Where’s the control group? It’s unfair to say that all Christian sources are unreliable just because they take their positions based on dogma, but the majority of the references of the quote you gave were anti-gay articles, not actual studies or statements from a medical organizations. That’s a little too questionable for me to take seriously.
As to sexual orientation being genetic and unchangeable: that is up for debate in the scientific community. It has been proven that sexual orientation is not exclusively genetically determined–identical twins do not always have the same sexual orientation. But all of the empirical studies have shown a much higher rate of similar orientation in identical twins than in non-identical twins.
As for the “ex-gays” that you mentioned–again, I skim read this so if I am missing something I apologize, but it seemed to me that their definition of “ex-gay” wasn’t necessarily that they were once exclusively homosexual and were now exclusively heterosexual, but that they were once living an active homosexual lifestyle and were now celibate. That is not changing one’s sexual orientation, that’s just repression of sexual desire. Which may or may not be unhealthy.
And even if a few of them now manage to maintain heterosexual relationships–that doesn’t make them straight. It just means that they are physically acting in a hetero way. It is possible for a gay to repress his/her sexual desire and live a heterosexual lifestyle. They are still gay. They are just acting contrary to their biology. Unnaturally (to steal a term from the right), even. Sexual orientation is not defined by someone’s outward actions, it based on biology and psychology. Someone can act against their orientation, whether gay or straight.
But the latest studies all show that homosexuality, whether or not there is a specific “gay gene”, is not a learned behavior. The AAP summed up all the studies backing this in their report for pediatricians. http://tinyurl.com/d4tnjs (the URL leads to the AAP website. I shortened it because it was rather long.)
Some of the more recent studies, the ones that have been hitting the news:
Scientists have found a gene that controls sexual orientation in fruit flies, called GB (genderblind). The gene works by influencing synapse strength–high strength resulted in homosexual behavior. Scientists who influenced the synapse strength of non-mutated fruit flies independantly of the GB gene were able to turn their mating behavior gay, and then with the reduction of synapse strength, straight again. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm)
Granted humans are not the same as fruit flies, but. Still an interesting study.
As for studies on the human brain itself. I don’t know about every one, but http://tinyurl.com/ykq6vz4 and http://tinyurl.com/ydc3m9e (links redirect to FOX News) both found that same-sex arousal is biological and rooted in hypothalmus. It noted some interesting differences to lesbian and gay male biology. Not that that’s relevant to what I’m saying. But.
BUT this discussion has nothing to do with the news article about the custody battle, and probably shouldn’t be continued here.
You’re right, Briar, it shouldn’t be continued here. But Hank will be back and it will be.
Does anyone know if the child WAS handed over? Does this story have any further developments?
Being Gay is not something that one can choose to be or not to be, if you think you are not gay, don’t act gay. Obviously, when one needs to brainwash oneself to become ‘ex-gay’ that inmediately screams hate of oneself’s ‘uncontrollable urges’. Hating yourself is a sure way to live a really sad life. I am sorry about these ex-gay people, you must definitely go to therapy, but to a therapist that introduce you to loving yourself and others. Jesus loves gay people, he wouln’t want us to be miserable. I’m sorry for this poor kid, who instead of loving both her patents is being taught how to hate. Once more religion is used as an excuse to be an homophobe. God doesn’t do hate, get over it already!
Hello, Sam. It’s nice to feel I’m not the only one trying to say that.
please don’t feed the trolls! Hank is an adept at derailing a thread to his agenda.
We are gay, lesbian, bi…..
we don’t need excuses, or reasons to live our lives as we wish. If it is a “choice” whose business is it except ours and our pertner(s)? Why should a god-botherer feel he or she has the right to poke its nose into my life? THAT is the bottom line!
So please, stop trying to justify ourselves: we are here, as much as blue eyes or daffodils; once you engage you get sucked into trying to find all the arguments and are continuously stymied bby Hank’s responses. He doesn’t want an answer he wants to proseletyse, or self justify. If he’s ex-gay he wants everybody else to be as he is, as a self-justification
good point mihangel. i just get fed up of the trolls thinking they have the last word on Christianity.
“Don’t put all your belief and faith on what professionals say ”
LOL, so who should we rather listen too? Random guys on online forums? The point is clearly not to listen to one single professional but when you look at the positions of a body of professionals, you certainly get the statistically more accurate conclusion. And currently that seems to be that reparative theory is ineffective and potentially harmful to those undergoing it and, in my opinion, to society at large.
Hey Valerio, you said, ” LOL, so who should we rather listen too? Random guys on online forums? The point is clearly not to listen to one single professional but when you look at the positions of a body of professionals, you certainly get the statistically more accurate conclusion”
And statistically, it’s scary what professionals can do to cause
almost as much harm as to do good. Just because they are considered to be “experts and qualified, etc.” doesn’t make their
statements absolute truth. Just look at the following and see
how wrong their judgements, decisions, practices can be.
According to the groundbreaking 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs. Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, 783,936 people in the United States die every year from 1. conventional medicine mistakes. That’s the equivalent of six jumbo jet crashes a day for an entire year. But where is the media attention for this tragedy? Where is the government support for stopping these medical mistakes before they happen?
According to a 1995 U.S. iatrogenic report, “Over a million patients are injured in U.S. hospitals each year, and approximately 280,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. Therefore, the iatrogenic 1. death rate dwarfs the annual automobile accident mortality rate of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other accidents combined.” This report was issued 10 years ago, when America had 34 million fewer citizens and drug company scandals like the Vioxx recall were yet to occur. Today, health care comprises 15.5 percent of the United States’ gross national product, with spending reaching $1.4 trillion in 2004.
August 12, 2004
An average of 195,000 Americans died annually in 2000, 2001 and 2002 because of potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors, according to a study of 37 million patient records conducted by HealthGrades, a healthcare quality company.
You can’t simply trust a “professional or expert” just because
he/she/they think they have the best knowledge to treat you.
“You can’t simply trust a “professional or expert” just because
he/she/they think they have the best knowledge to treat you.”
I’ll repeat, since you seem to have missed the point:
We’re not talking about A professional, we’re talking about the educated opinion of the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field.
If you get sick, I’m sure you’ll still go and see a doctor.
Interestingly you advocate therapy, a supposedly scientific form of treatment, but still advise against listening to expert practitioners because they make mistakes.
So basically therapy is good, just not any that is endorsed by recognised medical bodies. Is that your point?
Hank 46. Please stop. We’ve all spent hours – even days – explaining and discussing bits of the Bible with you. We can’t make you believe something that you’re determined not to. It wouldn’t matter what studies, what proof, what facts we came up with. I know you’re man enough to answer questions and reply with courtesy to those who disagree with you, and I know your mind isn’t completely closed. But sometimes it does get tiring repeating the same old things, so forgive me if I sound a bit jaded.
The sections of the Bible you quote could also be used to prove that gay reparation therapy is wrong. Can’t you see that the piece you quoted isn’t about LGBT people, it’s about STRAIGHT people going against their natural inclinations and entering same sex relationships. It is NOT about people who are naturally gay. I and many, many other people who aren’t total atheists, believe that it’s just as wrong for GAY people to turn against their natural order, the essence that is god-given, to try to be straight. As Rose said, God loves LGBT people just as much as straight people. I don’t care how many times you say it, NOTHING will convince me that my innate sexuality is a sin.
And that isn’t just my own personal opinion or something I try to convince myself for my own convenience, I GENUINELY believe that God, if he or she exists, thinks that too. I would also think that if I was straight.
Hank, I read the same testaments you do. I see a loving, inclusive God. You see a condemning one. You are a hypocrite because you don’t remove the plank from your own eye before reaching to wipe the mote from your neighbour’s. You are a hypocrite because you see fit to speak for God in condemnation of people who have done no wrong. You are a hypocrite for assuming you know more of God’s teachings than me and think you can tell me I am wrong and you are right. And Jesus detested hypocrites such as those who questioned him in the synagogue and tried to make him condemn himself with their trick questions.
I repeat. Homosexuality is part of God’s diversity of Humanity. Its time you accepted that and stopped trying to force people to act against their nature. Those poor dupes who have been led astray by the likes of you need help to return to their proper nature.
And by the way, Hank, Jesus is everywhere and in every thing. I see and hear him in ordinary everyday kindnesses by decent people. And in surprising places. I see him in a legless man completing a marathon, a blind man working for a homeless charity. i even see him in the work I do and the people I work with. I see him in the hamper of food delivered to me the week before Christmas when I was short of money becaused of a clerical error at the bank and a missed salary payment. This hamper came from the gay couple who run the Parish Centre at my local church, and who clearly know the true nature of Christian kindness.
Where else should I find Jesus? In the dry pages of a book written 2,000 years ago? Yes, of course. Jesus’s life on Earth as a Human being is recorded there. But I see him in all those other places, too. Where do you see him?
Hey Valerio, you say,” We’re not talking about A professional, we’re talking about the educated opinion of the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field”
OK…my question is regarding all those professionals who have
theories, beliefs about homosexuality….how many of them have
had adequate/detailed training/schooling dealing with the specialty of homosexuality….and how many of them are qualified
to give treatment to homosexuals who request it?
Since the study of homosexuality is complex and relatively new
in scientific/medical research, it deserves exceptional concern in its understanding and treatment, and much research is yet needed.
I would guess that a majority of the “professionals” who comprise the mental health/counseling business have questionable
or light training to handle the complexities of homosexuality.
It wouldn’t surprise me if a majority of those professionals
go with “group thinking” because of peer pressure, and would not
voice any opposing viewpoint for fear of the reaction of others.
There’s much that we don’t understand about the human mind,
personality development and even more about human sexuality,
so I would think the “door is wide open” to much more study of human behavior — even in the area of religion and spiritual beliefs which you people disregard entirely.
Hey Iris…OK…I get your point about my comments, so I respect
your wishes and will drop this subject now.
By the way, I do hope you’re living a happy and fulfilled life
as I respect you as a loving, caring human being, even if we
have differences in some areas.
I wish you a Happy New Year Iris.
Since the study of homosexuality is complex and relatively new
in scientific/medical research
No it isn’t. Not by a long shot. It’s been studied for almost as long as the science of psychology has existed. Psychology may be a relatively new scientific study, but if you disregard its findings on sexuality, you may as well disregard its findings on anything.
Also, stop with the spurious insistance that conversion therapy needs to be more closely examined before it can be dismissed. You have it backwards: it needs to give us solid proof before it can be taken seriously. Replicable, peer-reviewed studies, with follow-ups, carried out by psychologists who aren’t already practicing conversion therapy. The mainstream mental health organisations regard it as being about as real as a seance.
conversion therapy needs to be banned.
You said: “I would guess that a majority of the “professionals” who comprise the mental health/counseling business have questionable or light training to handle the complexities of homosexuality.”
You disapprove of other people’s assumptions but are quite happy to present your own “guesses” as though they had any validity. While I have argued the reasons for my assumptions, I see no reason to share your “guess” that a body of professionals consists of people who have only received “questionable or light training”. It’s probably quite the opposite, in fact. It would be like “guessing” that judges and lawyers have received questionable and light training in issues pertaining to the law. I don’t see why I should indulge this kind of far-fetched guess.
Sexual orientation has been and is still studied at great length. A number of studies exist that do not encounter the ridicule of the scientific community. It is a shame you don’t seem to be as familiar with those as you are with reparative therapy.
You said: “I would think the “door is wide open” to much more study of human behavior — even in the area of religion and spiritual beliefs which you people disregard entirely.”
The door is already wide open but new theories still need to be backed up by scientific evidence which is meagre in the case of reparative therapy.
With regard to the field of religion and spirituality, it is not a field I’m interested in particularly but I respect the fact that it is for some people. However, when spirituality is brought into a discussion about science I am prone to suspect that all logical avenues have officially been exhausted.
Ah, Valerio, you forget, Hank gets his information directly from God, and therefore it is beyond contestation! (Note sarcasm)
Hank – thank you and I wish you a Happy New Year too. At least, you have some understanding and some empathy unlike other fundies that appear here, although I don’t agree with many of your opinions.
I hope you can enjoy your life and not worry about LGBT people ‘recruiting’. As I promised you before, we’re not – it’s not possible and we don’t need or want to. You don’t need to worry about our welfare either. It’s up to each person to square themselves with god, if he/she exists.
Finally, don’t worry so much about the end of the world that you forget to live for the now too. Life is good – in all its wonderful variety – so enjoy it while you can.
Thanks for spending time with us, Hank.
Happy New Year 2010!
I hope the child at the centre of the article this discussion is attached to will have a good 2010 and a good life starting from today when her mother obeys the court ruling.
And I think Ms Jenkins has no right to be anywhere near the kid . She is not the mother . As far as I know there was no adoption . So this is like forcing a biological mother to hand over her child to an ex boyfriend who is not the father of the child . I’d be on the run too.
Rubbish, Hannah. This is a case where the child in question was conceived with the agreement and co-operation of BOTH parents, and who grew up considering them both her parents – yet has been deprived of contact with Ms Jenkins because of, in my opinion, the spiteful, manipulative nature of Ms Miller, who has refused to allow visitation as granted by the Courts on NUMEROUS occasions. I also find it sinister that she has brainwashed their daughter to consider homosexuality a sin. This case is no different to a child conceived by a straight couple using sperm donation. BOTH parents have rights, and the child has a right to maintain contact with them both. I detest it when heterosexual couples use their children as weapons to hurt the other parent, and it’s depressing to see lesbian couples doing the same.
The Judge granted custody to Ms Jenkins because she would allow the correct visitation rights to Ms Miller, and allow their daughter to grow up with a proper relationship to both parents.
And as a further example, my cousin married a man who wasn’t the father of her very young child, and who consequently adopted that child. Sadly, they divorced 8 years later. She wouldn’t dream of depriving him of contact with ‘his’ son.
This mother is using her child as a mascot for her religion and her homophobic beliefs, in my opinion. There’s no reason why her ex-partner and co-parent can’t maintain contact with this child. Note how Ms Miller is suggested to have brainwashed the poor girl already. Whatever Ms Miller’s beliefs are, it’s bl**dy sick to enforce them on a young child and to try to create a atmosphere of hate between that child and it’s other parent.
In case anyone remembers a previous mention of them on Pink News, Ms Miller accepted pro bono representation from the Liberty Counsel, a Christian group ‘promoting the traditional family’ who are linked with Jerry Falwell.
Hannah, I don’t know where you live but in many jurisdictions if a married couple have a child through artificial insemination because the husband is sterile, he is nonetheless considered to be the father of the baby and has parental rights and responsibilities without the need for an adoption. These 2 women were joined in a civil union when they chose to have a child together so both are legal parents.
It has gone 1pm Friday in the USA, hasn’t it? Does anyone know if the mother complied?
Rose, I believe she didn’t. Not that I’m too surprised. As I understand it, she’s still on the run with their child and has missed the deadline to hand her over to her other parent.
She’s become a figurehead for the Christian Right (who are neither). Will they help her stay hidden? It seems the Law doesn’t apply to them…
Then this goes on. Am I right in thinking this now becomes a federal crime? She has disobeyed a court order, after all? The Christian Right or ‘UnChristian Wrong’ will be breaking the law by protecting her.
Where will this end?
I think it’s currently considered a civil matter, but it’s up to the state to determine if a crime has been committed. Something like Parental Kidnapping was mentioned. If the state decides to do so, I believe it could issue a warrant for Ms Miller’s arrest.
All very, very sad. All Ms Miller had to do was maintain the visitation she and Ms Jenkins had agreed to and she would have kept custody. But she chose to breach that. No doubt ‘god’ told her to do so, as that’s the impression she gives in the few interviews and quotes I’ve read.
I hope she wakes up and realises that the Liberty Counsel are using her. This Declaration has been mentioned in relation to this case:
Sorry – that link didn’t appear. Copy and paste this if it still doesn’t work:
Oh good grief! These people! They drive me nuts. Not only because of their narrow views. But because, as a Christian, I again feel I am swimming against the tide of narrow minded bigotry disguised as religion. And on top of that, LGBT friends feel I’m betraying them by calling myself a Christian.
Don’t worry, Rose. All your friends here know you’re a good person and nothing like those bigots who masquerade as Christians. I’m an agnostic but their gall at implying God sanctions their lunatic hate annoys me too. The problem isn’t Christians, it’s bigots.
Obviously, I read things online knowing they may not be wholly accurate, but I understand that Ms Miller was a more moderate Christian until she joined a evangelical church. In my opinion, religious extremists (of ALL religions) are attracted to such organisations because of their own unresolved issues. They are lost and they think they’re grabbing a lifeline, but they’re not. Hate and fear is no way to live.
You can look all over the internet and see signs of ‘christian’ bigotry and downright madness, but the fact that it’s ‘christian’ is irrelevant. They just use that as a convenient label. If they were in another country/culture, they’d use something else to legitimise their hate. If I were a Christian it would p*ss me off too.
I hope Pink News keeps us updated on this case. It’s wrong to use a child in this way and to deprive them of a parent who loves them.