Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Conflict over ‘gay cure’ study

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What a bloody insult. Germany in the 1930′s all over again!

    1. They are killing the gays with AIDS not Zyklon B and the ANONYMOUS people are the brown shirts who are Catholics/Christians pretending to be for freedom, when they really want to destroy gays and anybody who is not a Catholic/Christian.

      1. “They are killing the gays with AIDS”

        Why do we have to be as insane as the religious are? Are we fighting fire with fire here?

        1. Jock S. Trap 7 Oct 2011, 2:55pm

          Indeed. I do wish people would educated properly on these serious matters, then out with the discrimination and in with some progress.

    2. You are right and they are killing gays with AIDS today and the ANONYMOUS people are really Catholics/Christians pretending to be something else.

    3. disgraceful

  2. concernedresidentE3 5 Oct 2011, 10:24am

    at the age of 19/20 as a closeted and very confused young gay man, I was “healed” three times by charismatic Christians. As I then went out with a woman I believe they thought I was “cured”. I wasn’t, and as soon as I left that city I finally came out as a gay man and reconciled myself to my identity whiile working hard to undo all the crippling damage they had done to my self esteem. I firmly believe that the state needs to ban ex-gay ministries and protect vulnerable young people from their machinations.

    1. concernedresidentE3 5 Oct 2011, 12:21pm

      I should stress that I am probably a very resilient personality. Many if not most people who endure such experiences will face lifetime damage because of it. thankfully I did not.

    2. Good for you exposing the corruption the Catholics/Christians are doing to gay men, women and children everyday, as if their hate campaign is not bad enough where they give millions of dollars to groups like NOM who stop gay marriage and would murder gays if they can get away with it and I am sure some do. It is time to demand that the legal system stops these quacks from doing more harm to more people by having them outlawed and arrested for their crimes against man and woman and children.

    3. couldn’t agree more. these ‘ministries’ are disgraceful and an insult to gay people and to the name of Christ.

  3. Anyone who bases a study on the ‘the healing power of Jesus Christ’ has no place being a scientist.

    Based on the huge weight of evidence I do not believe that sexual orientation can be changed by these kind of therapies. It is also clear that these pray away the gay ‘therapies’ can by psychologically damaging to their victims.

    Even if sexual orientation was a choice, it would be nobody’s business but the individual’s. Keep these god bothering fundamentalists from meddling in the private sex lives of everyone else.

    1. concernedresidentE3 5 Oct 2011, 10:35am

      if they were proper scientists they would have a control group receiving non-directive counselling and the sexual orientation would be measured with a plethysmograph that would measure penile circumference in response to pornographic images before during and after the therapeutic intervention and at 6 months post. When they do that study, I might take an interest but as it stands they have an extremely unethical treatment, no control group and no accurate metric to guage change. We demand far greater rigour when assessing pharmaceutical interventions – why not also for people screwing around with our minds?

    2. Staircase2 5 Oct 2011, 2:44pm

      I disagree with the idea that one shouldn’t base a study on ‘the healing power of Jesus’ – I see absolutely no reason why one shouldn’t.

      But in this case this is purely about using the ‘healing power of Jesus’ to justify personally held prejudices against a particular group of people – and I can’t see any justification for that at all. (In fact that is decidedly UN-Jesus)

      It bothers me greatly when people respond to this purely in terms of Religiophobia though.

      Personally I am not a fan of Religions at all – but that doesn’t mean that it’s ‘Religion’ which is solely to blame for its followers idiocy.

      There are plenty of religious LGBT people. If anything, the thing which annoys me is that we don’t get to hear the voice of those groups of people standing up and rejecting these idiotic notions which are spewed forth in the name of (in this case) Christianity.

      It could be argued that thats about the way Media ignores that voice but it needs to change.

      1. The effect of something that can’t be proven to exist is not going to stand up to scrutiny.

      2. Hi Staircase2 – I have been asking Pink News to cover Unitarian support for LGBT issues for months (in comments and tweets) and they finally covered our support for same-sex marriage (along with many other media outlets) in the last week or so.
        .
        Go figure…

    3. I have no problem in the theory of conducting research in this area, although I would be surprised if it would ever get ethical approval in the UK for randomized control trials – which are clearly controlled arenas with bias minimized and control groups. Given the risk of psychological damage to some of the participants, I can not see a medical ethics committee agreeing to this.

  4. and at what cost?? whom asks if the “healed” aren´t the ones whom seek sex in the bushes in ten twenty years. Another waste of time and money this so called Christian research.

  5. These idiots never learn. 60 years ago they were beating children for being left-handed.

  6. Christine Beckett 5 Oct 2011, 10:40am

    Snake Oil..

    1. More like a Witch Hunt or another Inquisition from the Catholic and Christian Churches. They really want or kill gays one way or the other, their HIV/AIDS plot to kill gays backed fired and are now killing the wrong people.

  7. Tony Gay Life Coach 5 Oct 2011, 10:41am

    Let them believe what they want. It’s opposed best by being sure of ourself, and celebrating that! http://bit.ly/of0sBj

  8. Jock S. Trap 5 Oct 2011, 10:45am

    Absolute load of b0ll0cks!
    -
    What right does religion have to ‘cure’ any other they deem not to be right. Of the way they were born? Note, They deem. What right from their chosen lifestyle over how we are born?
    -
    Who are they to do this to people when you know full well if a straight person asked to be ‘cured’ so they could be Gay they would use their prejudices against them to.
    -
    This is discrimintory, damaging and just unacceptable.

    Who is it for them to dictate who are born right or wrong? Esp through (as I say) their choice of religious lifestyle and bigotry.
    -
    This practise should be outlawed once and for all. The only reason people become unhappy about themselves is because of the way they are precieved and treated by these kinds of religions and it’s co-inhabitants.
    -
    What those people need is help to see that religious people (not all) are wrong in Their arguments, their bigotry and how best to get on with life learning to ignore the bigotted we seem to have to put up with.

    1. Staircase2 5 Oct 2011, 2:46pm

      PS You dont need to retype the word ‘bollocks’ – its not stopped by PN’s filters ….

      Go on – have a go – let the bollocks flow free! lol

      1. Jock S. Trap 6 Oct 2011, 9:59am

        But I like my version of it!! ;)

  9. There just may be some bias in a finding from an anti-gay christian institute that you can turn GLBT people straight. If exodus and their buddies want to study changing sexual orientation, they should cure self-confessed heterosexuals of their heterosexual tendencies. At least that way they are less likely to be open to experimenter bias.

    1. Yes, is a heterosexual who becomes celibate eg to become a priest any less ofva heterosexual? Of course not.

    2. great idea! :-)

  10. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the Ex-Gay Fundamentalist Christians to migrate to this thread, like wasps to a pot of jam so to speak

    1. Or flies to sh*t…..

      1. Lol
        .
        In preparation – I will be handing out fly swatters and fly-spray, to thwart them in their tracks.

        1. :D That and a pet tarantula maybe?

          Actually, they remind me a little of those poor dopey flies who buzz madly against the glass of the window even when you’ve opened it for them, or whizz around the room for no reason whatsoever. That is, they’re panicking about nothing and they’re so worked up they can’t see the obvious even when it’s right in front of them.

          Of course, flies don’t have a prejudiced, hateful agenda…

          1. Strangely flies are often attracted to piles of vomit as well as sh!t. Seems to me the subject matter is so psychologically damaging and evil in intent that its unsurprising they will be attracted in a similar way as to sh!t and vomit.

  11. You can’t cure something that isn’t an illness….

    1. Exactly, perhaps the corollary is saying there is a cure for life!

    2. Jock S. Trap 5 Oct 2011, 11:38am

      Exactly and the one thing they will forever choose to ignore. This just shows their complete disrespect and discrimination.

  12. Spurious results considering the fact that the 2 professors are also lovers.

    1. Funniest post I’ve read in a long while!

  13. Spiritbody 5 Oct 2011, 11:00am

    I think the question isnt so much ‘Can it be ‘cured’?’ but ‘Should it be ‘cured’? Even if it WERE possible to change your sexual orientation, people shouldnt be encouraged to do so. They should be encouraged to like and enjoy their sexual orientation the way it is. (If you want a religious slant on it- people should be encouraged to accept and love what God has given them)

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Oct 2011, 11:50am

      Trouble is their idea of a cure is usually through guilt, manipulation and intimidation into believing we are wrong in the first place and that is what they focus on to give that guilt extra volume. Surely a practise that has no place in modern society. Me being Gay is not an illness therefore how can you cure something that isn’t an illness but simply a normal fact of life.
      -
      Fact it is religious people (not all) that seem to think they can choose who is worthy of life when as if they have ultimate control. Well they don’t and the quicker they are put into their place the better.
      -
      Better still the quicker they become a thing for the history books…

    2. The belief in god and belief in knowing the will of god is the whole problem here.

  14. They never give up, do they? I do wonder what makes them so obsessed with other people’s business, particularly what they do in bed. It must be something playing in their mind over and over – suspiciously much.

    It’s a load of cr*p, and no matter how many times they say it, it’ll still be so. They’re upping their ante here because some fundies are desperate to perpetuate the idea that being gay is a behaviour – and a bad one at that. In order to ‘prove’ that, they have to ‘turn’ people. Whoever suggested they should try making straight people gay – good idea as that makes sense, but that wouldn’t fit with their bigoted, nasty message. Straight people are normal so don’t need ‘correcting’.

    Evil, false and transparently desperate.

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Oct 2011, 11:52am

      Well said, Iris!!
      -
      Sadly yet again, it will be for the modern Christian to take the brunt of this even though many will not agree with it.

    2. Iris, in case you missed my link further down, here’s a satirical report on an ex-straight ministry from the team behind “Mr Deity”… a neat way of highlighting the double standards involved -

      1. Thank you for that, Flapjack :D

  15. As far as I can tell, the authors were relying on self reporting of sexual behaviours. Can they honestly believe that individuals who clearly have enough self-loathing of their own homosexuality to enter into “re-orientation therapy” are going to reliably report their true sexual behaviours and attractions?

    And over a third of their sample dropped out of the study!

    The methodology of their study barely stands up to critique so their results are quite simply null and void.

    1. Absolutely, and their “study” would fail to pass the most basic of peer review processes and certainly would not qualify to be published. But they didn’t do it for academia, it was a paid study for an agenda and their ignorant sheep will now quote it incessantly because critical thought is a concept that eludes them. But as the quote goes – If you could reason with christians, there wouldn’t BE any christians.

      1. Unfortnately thier study did pass the peer review test, and was published in the reputable Journal, The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
        .
        http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04/study-supporting-gay-conversion-challenged/

        1. Biased peer reviewers?

          Where were the ethical controls?

          1. I find this disturbing as well. A glance at thier international editorial board reveals two academics from the uk.
            .
            http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0092-623X&linktype=145
            .
            Dr Cynthia Grahal, PhD
            Dr Alan J. Riley, MD

          2. Dr Cynthia Grahal is a misprint and should say Dr Cynthia Graham
            .
            Dr Graham is a clinical Psychologist working at Southhampton University UK
            .
            http://www.southampton.ac.uk/psychology/about/staff/cag1g11.page?
            .
            I think an e-mail to Dr Graham asking her why she is supporting reparative therapies is long over due!
            .
            Telephone: (023) 8059 3091
            Email: C.A.Graham@soton.ac.uk

          3. In her reply to me Dr Graham denies any knowledge of this study

    2. totally agree this study is very wobbely

  16. “of Regent University…”

    That told me everything I needed to know about the rest of the article. Regent University? Seriously?

    There isn’t a reputable professional in the world who takes ANYTHING that comes out of ANY “researcher” at Regent University seriously.

  17. This kind of therapy prays on the young, the weak and the vulnerable. People who feel they have no avenues left open to them other than to deny their own sexuality.

    What we need to do as a group is ensure that avenues remain open. That people feel they can go somewhere which isn’t likely to cause psychological abuse in the name of religion.

    We need organisations to open everywhere, more information on where to receive support and services and greater input form the LGBT community.

    We’re to blame partly. A lot of us have become apathetic and perhaps we need to be more vocal again – and more visible.

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Oct 2011, 11:54am

      “This kind of therapy prays on the young, the weak and the vulnerable. ”
      -
      But isn’t that just how religion in general works?

      1. No, not always.

        I’m not religious but I feel that many who are religious get a bad deal. I know lots of Christians for example who have no issue with sexuality. I think they would also take exceptional offence to be told that they prey upon the young, weak and vulnerable.

        I have no doubt that there are many people from many different faiths who also feel the same.

        Faith isn’t a bad thing. It can right many wrongs and make someone’s world much more enriched – who are we to deny someone else that, particularly when we ask for it ourselves.

        Religion in the hands of powerful and corrupt patriarchs who wield it to further their own beliefs is wrong. It’s destructive, violent and has led to many wars and evils. Herein lies the difference.

        Let’s face it, if there is an omnipotent being up in the sky I would hazard a guess that it has a lot more on its plate that afew gay men and women running around.

  18. Why don’t these scientists invest their time into finding a cure for something really hideous like cancer?

    1. I think it’s a gross insult to scientists to count people like this among their number. They’re not scientists, they’re bigoted ideologues trying to display the trappings of science to shore up their rotten bigotry.

  19. A link to CNN reporting of this case . . .
    .
    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04/study-supporting-gay-conversion-challenged/
    .
    Interestingly, or rather perversely, the research psychologists in this study were supported financially by the televangelist Pat Robertson.

    1. This is a worrying development becasue the study managed to be published in the reputable Journal, “The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.”
      .
      http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0092-623X&linktype=145
      .
      As you will see from their international editorial board, two of their academics are based in the UK: Dr Cynthia Graham and Dr Alan J. Riley. These people need to be contacted, and questioned as to why they are supporting a Journal which is involved on promoting gay cure therapies.
      .
      Dr Cynthia Graham is a UK Clinical Psychologist and works for Southampton University. She can be connected on her e-mail at C.A.Graham@soton.ac.uk
      .
      Dr Graham’s profile is below http://www.southampton.ac.uk/psychology/about/staff/cag1g11.page?

  20. Kim Berlin 5 Oct 2011, 11:32am

    Normally any experiment that is conducted has a baseline from which to work … can we assume that these organisations also convert the same percetage of hetrosexual males into homosexual males. If this was achieved then perhaps the experiment was a success.

    Until it is absolutely proved that you can change sexual orientation in both directions, the claims are not worth didly!

  21. These people are just liars! Me and my peers went through the ex-gay programme for years via True Freedom Trust and Courage. Of course the prayers for healing, the demon exorcism, and the reparative therapy just didn’t work and ended up just screwing us up mentally. The ex-gay ministry I was part of eventually changed its mind and is now pro-gay: http://http://www.courage.org.uk/

  22. Why would homosexuals want to change other than under social pressure to do so? Thankfully there is a more liberal attitude towards homosexuality in the west than when I was a teenager. As a guilt-ridden, ashamed, pale shadow of a person I sought psychiatric help and was given electric shock treatment (aversion therapy) to stop me from having a ‘maladaptive response’ and to change me into a heterosexual. I am glad it didn’t work. I gave it up in disgust at myself for falling into this trap in the first place. Had I met people with a more positive attitude to homosexuality none of this would have happened. I began to blossom later as a human being with the onset of the Gay Liberation Front who came out loud and proud about homosexuality.

  23. As someone who has worked as an academic – I am always very wary of how the word ‘study’ or ‘research’ is used. Unless this is a published and therefore peer-reviewed piece of research it has no significance as a contribution to the body of knowledge – I suspect that this is an attempt to pass off a bias as ‘scientific’. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not so discriminating when it comes to standards for good social research – sounds like something that the authors are relying on……

  24. I would suggess, maybe they could take a bisexual person and have them live one sexual orientation, but to claim to change a gay man to become completely hetro would be a miracle – (pun intended.) However, if they are correct and have done what they claimed, it would be possible to perform conversion therapy making hetrosexuals become gay. There is a positive here.

  25. Ignorant christofascist filth. I wonder if there is a cure for the insistence on believing on the dogmatic crap of bronze age desert tribes? All they do is shove people in the closet, and then contribute to either their suicide, or at least a life time of psychological distress. Or they end up toe-tapping in the men’s room and convincing themselves that they aren’t gay while they give strangers head. Either way, it is a dangerous damned lie.

  26. Here’s the flipside of the argument: Stick with it… it has its tongue planted firmly in its cheek ;)

    1. Brilliant – thanks!

  27. Further to my previous commment, if we can suspend reasonable belief and ‘just go with it’ for a second……

    less than one quarter were cured – what does this say for the effectiveness of Jesus Christ? Not very good at his job is he? (You’d think he’d know all about it having two dads!!) – not to mention the whole ‘all-knowing’ thingy…..

  28. Same old crap. The point is not whether I can change – the point is why the hell should I?
    Thanks for some of the moving personal testimonies about ‘ex-gay’ hocus-pocus and manipulation on here. A lot of it is blatant money-making fraud and needs more exposure. I remember a great story a few years ago about an American guy who went under cover to some ‘ex-gay’ convention and couldn’t move for other guys hitting on him. That would be fun if it weren’t based on such a screw-up.

    1. Riondo totally agree. bring this evil nonsense out into the light and lets expose it for the harmful, wicked rubbish it is. it does no good, for either the people who endure it, or for the name of Jesus Christ.

  29. I suggest, before you assert the healing power of Jesus you must be able to prove his existence and ability to affect in our lives.

    1. I have to question – if “Jesus” really has the power to cure us, why does he not get off is narrow sandy arse and cure cancer? Or do christian cancer sufferers just not BELIEVE hard enough?

      1. The fundies believe diseases like cancer are the result of sin and are divine punishment.

    2. I am pretty sure that he existed; it’s just that Christians believe a lot of towering bulls**t about him.

  30. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 5 Oct 2011, 12:26pm

    Yikes, reading that just made me feel like a character in the X-men films – ‘Are you gonna take the cure!?’ This isn’t science – it may have had a scientific aspect at one time, I’m sure – but this is Dr Mengele’s apprentices with the Inquisition paying the wages.

    What did the academics do to make these people hate themselves that only a romp with the as-god-intended, proper, opposite sex becomes the less painful answer?! A little electric shock on the genitals perhaps? Then the empowerment of a prayer-lust for the holy yeshua and some pussy?!

    I mean, wtf! What people do for a sex life isn’t for you or your god to care about. What is it with your consistent, pervy-interest in our sex lives? Science should benefit humans, not sit in judgement of it.

    The real shame here is that the academics probably just screwed over nearly 100 good gay people, whose only mistake appears to be to want to believe in the stupid myth of jesus.

  31. David Nottingham 5 Oct 2011, 12:32pm

    Well, there’s no surprise there, then. Regent University have institutionalised homophobia. Para 5.7.10 of their Student Handbook forbid “homosexual conduct” The scientific research community are never going to take this kind of irresponsible nonesense seriously

  32. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Oct 2011, 12:50pm

    “Two professors from American religious universities……”

    No need to read further.

    1. I would have to agree.
      What is worrying is that they managed to get their research published in a reputable journal i.e. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, in an attempt to raise the profile of reparative therapies, largely funded by the TV Evangelist “Pat Roberston”
      .
      http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04/study-supporting-gay-conversion-challenged/
      .
      http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0092-623X&linktype=1
      .
      Famously Pat Roberston said of Scotland that is was “Over run with homosexuals”

  33. As I understand it, within US jurisprudence, homosexuals could be considered a “suspect class” (a rather odd term, but not intended to be derogatory). Any legislation which affects a suspect class is subject to greater judicial scrutiny in order to prevent discrimination.

    One criterion which may cause a group in so classified is the possession of an immutable characteristic which leads to discrimination. I believe that in the minds of many American fundamentalists, if homosexuality can be “cured”, it prevents homosexuals from being a suspect class, and thus renders us more open to discriminatory legislation.

    Pity one cannot cure them of their fundamentalism.

  34. ‘The authors are both psychologists who work at religious universities. Stanton Jones is a psychology professor and provost at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, and Mark Yarhouse is a professor of mental health at Regent University, in Virginia Beach, which was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.’

  35. If the starting point of their claim is that 23% of 65/100 of their sample were successful, then that is actually 15% as a starting point, before you even get into the many reasons the whole thing is totally invalid.

    And what was the male / female ratio?

  36. Do they actually believe that someone would choose to be gay given the vast amount of discrimination, stigma and violence perpetrated against gay people around the world. They’re the ones who need reparative therapy, not us. They need to be cured of religious bigotry.

  37. Oh, please just shut up. Same crap, different year. No one with any sort of academic integrity is going to listen to this mindless claptrap.

  38. Father Jack 5 Oct 2011, 1:27pm

    I look forward to their study on the success rate of raising people from the dead in morgues (instructional video available for $$$).
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/04/37602

  39. William Fisher 5 Oct 2011, 1:54pm

    I don’t know why this has caused such a stir, or why it is being so triumphantly trumpeted by the “ex-gay” brigade. It is not a new study, but simply an update or refurbishment of a study which was originally published in 2007.

    The number who dropped out was in fact 37, so the 23% supposed successes were 14% of the original 98 subjects. The authors of the study admit that the new-found heterosexual orientation of those 14% was not “unequivocal and uncomplicated” and they describe them as “heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term”.

    Jones and Yarhouse claim that “The findings of this study appear to contradict the commonly expressed view that sexual orientation is not changeable.” I suggest that their findings confirm that sexual orientation is seldom changeable (celibacy is no evidence at all of change in orientation), and that when change does occur, it is to a heterosexuality which is, in the words of the psychologist Ronete Cohen, “not quite the real thing”.

    1. William, thanks for your clarity in this dessemnation of Jones and Yarhouse’s research

    2. Also the study group must hae consisted of people who for whatever reason believed they ‘needed’ or ‘wanted’ to be cured hence a bit more bias.

  40. Father Ted 5 Oct 2011, 1:57pm

    Father Jack, the 2nd linked video about going out, quite systematically, to different mortuaries, and having a really good time trying to raise the dead is unintentionally hilarious, and relentlessly optimistic, though they confess they haven’t had any successes yet, but no reason to stop trying! Totally totally hilarious.

  41. I can’t really be bothered commenting on misleading propaganda pumped out by the pseudo-religious, anti-gay and anti-science industry.

    1. Father Lazarus 5 Oct 2011, 2:26pm

      You just did ;)

      1. Yes, but I couldn’t really be bothered, it’s so boring refuting the repetitive homophobes.

  42. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Oct 2011, 2:06pm

    Who would want to be heterosexual anyhow.

    How boring would that be.

  43. “”I don’t think we have anything really new here,” said Coleman. “We have known for sometime that some people are able to shift their behavior and their perception of their sexual identity through these attempts at conversion.”

    Drescher said the majority of the existing scientific evidence doesn’t support the latest study’s findings.

    “I think the authors have a bias and I have a bias,” Drescher said. “Everybody has a bias. That’s why we have accumulation of data – and that doesn’t support their data.”

    “There are peer-reviewed studies in the literature and the sum of all the literature does not indicate these treatments are effective,” he said. “If one study comes out that seems to contradict the bulk of the scientific research that proves that people can change – that’s interesting, can they replicate it?”
    More:
    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04/study-supporting-gay-conversion-challenged/

  44. “American religious universities”

    Says it all. When religion supersedes the reason of science, then you just get garbage.

  45. Religious people are intrinsically bigotted.

    Therefore what these vile scumbags say is irrelevant.

    1. No, religious people are NOT intrinsically bigoted.

      There IS a strong correlation between fundamentalism and evangelicalism and bigotry, but even amongst evangelicals, there is a spectrum of views about LGBT people.

      The Unitarian church has been welcoming LGBT people since 1970, welcoming LGBT ministers since 1977, and is currently campaigning for same-sex marriage. We also campaigned against Clause 28 and for an equal age of consent.

      Quakers, Pagans, and Liberal Jews are all similarly inclusive, and have been for decades.

      There’s also the Metropolitan Community Church, which consists mostly of LGBT people – if they were inherently bigoted, they’d be very confused indeed.

  46. Father Lazarus 5 Oct 2011, 2:25pm

    LOL, Father Jack, it’d read like this:
    Two professors from American religious universities claim they have evidence to show that people can be raised from the dead. The study results have been contested by other academics, who say that while life may change, being dead remains the same.
    The religious academics followed 98 bodies at mortuaries. They say 35 of those dropped out by being cremated, but with some claiming they were cured of being dead. Of the 65 remaining, 15 became undead. 30% became less stiff, which the authors said was evidence of a reduction in being dead.
    “The findings of this study contradict the commonly expressed view that death is not reverseable,” the authors wrote. “I’d like to see mortuaries show greater respect for diversity for how a person chooses to live.”
    Other experts dismissed the findings. A professor at the Minnesota Medical School, said: “We’ve been through this over and over. You can get post mortem bodily changes, but that’s not life.”

    1. Brilliant. Thank you.

  47. Staircase2 5 Oct 2011, 2:35pm

    The words: ‘Evil’ ‘Ungodly’ & ‘Bastards’ spring to mind…

  48. Staircase2 5 Oct 2011, 2:36pm

    Oh yeah and: ‘Very’ ‘Very’ & ‘Stupid’…

    (…with a huge dash of ‘Probably’ & ‘Homosexual’…)

  49. soapbubblequeen 5 Oct 2011, 2:49pm

    Who the hell would want to be straight anyway? Bloody nutters. Should be locked away in a mental institution.

  50. They probably also have evidence to support the biblical theory that the world was created in 7 days. And that a man can return from death three days after he has died. And that Noah actually did save all the animals we see on the planet today in an ark.

    1. kyle, it really doesn’t help our cause just to throw silly insults around.

      1. So why tell me, and not leave the same comment for everyone else on this thread? Do you have some issue with me other than what I have said above?

  51. One of the things I learned when studying was to critically analyse academic research. To consider issues of bias from academic researcher, authors or sources of funding. To consider sample or study sizes. To consider if other variables may have interfered with the impartiality of the study. Then, further consideration of what other studies had said and the level of bias and concerns in those studies. Is this an honest appraisal or a rogue outcome?

    So lets think about this study:
    Bias – Two religious universities seeking to prove Christian “healing” … a blatant issue of bias, and thats without going into the backgrounds of the particular authors who have a plethora of reasons why there is clearly viewed bias, and indeed consideration of the funders of both the particular study and the universities themselves would suggest further bias.
    The sample size seems particularly small, so even if there were no bias would have to be taken with caution.

    This study is untenable.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Oct 2011, 3:12pm

      Precisely.

      They already had a basic premise and all of their work has been geared at meeting that premise.

      Not scientific at all.

      I also learned quite early on to research the backgrounds of anyone who publishes a scientific paper,
      and their are plenty of examples of these backgrounds colouring any resultant “research”

      1. Exactly – so to speak
        .
        However, I do think this is a worrying development becasue the study managed to be published in the reputable Journal, “The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.”
        .
        http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0092-623X&linktype=145
        .
        As you will see from their international editorial board, two of their academics are based in the UK: Dr Cynthia Graham and Dr Alan J. Riley. These people need to be contacted, and questioned as to why they are supporting a Journal which is involved on promoting gay cure therapies.
        .
        Dr Cynthia Graham is a UK Clinical Psychologist and works for Southampton University. She can be connected on her e-mail at C.A.Graham@soton.ac.uk
        .
        Dr Graham’s profile is below http://www.southampton.ac.uk/psychology/about/staff/cag1g11.page?

    2. William Fisher 5 Oct 2011, 5:02pm

      The sample size is indeed rather small, but it’s the best that they could do. They originally wanted 300 subjects to study but couldn’t find that number who were willing to participate, so they had to settle in the end for 98, of whom a third later dropped out. So their results don’t apply in general to those who go to “ex-gay” programs, but only to those who consented to take part in their study and who didn’t drop out. It should also be noted that one of the “successful” cases wrote to them, just before the study was published, admitting that he had lied both to himself and to them. He knew that they wanted to hear that he had “changed”, so he had told them what they wanted to hear, which was also what he wanted to believe – although, as he finally acknowledged, he was as gay as ever.

  52. Miguel Sanchez 5 Oct 2011, 3:10pm

    The mainstream mental health professionals know one’s orientation can’t be changed.

    Maybe (yeah, I know FAT CHANCE) these religious idiots will figure it out too.

  53. douglas in canada 5 Oct 2011, 3:22pm

    For me, the first red flag was the simplistic approach – the assumption that people are EITHER gay OR straight, as if those were the ONLY two options. We’ve been told too often, and the experiences are there, that sexuality is more fluid than that, that bisexuality is valid, and that some people are asexual.
    -
    I agree with those who want to prove the theory by taking a hetero and making them gay. If this research team is prepared to do that to prove their point, I’m ready to consider. Until then, let them go color pictures of jesus walking on water, and leave the rest of the world alone.

  54. I acted straight for 40 years but I was and am gay and would not wish on anyone the pain of suppression. I feel much happier for finally being my true self.

  55. Art Pearson 5 Oct 2011, 3:35pm

    And just what is their definition of ‘Straight’? I know many gay men and lesbians who have had straight sex but that doesn’t make them ‘Straight’.

  56. When one considers the horrendous stats on straight rape, the sexual abuse of young girls by their fathers and the domestic abuse of women by their male partners, the real question should be: is there a cure for heterosexuality? And, whilst we’re about it, is there a cure for homophobia?

  57. we are not sick we need no cure
    taught religious people are sick

  58. cool, this means that the straight guy we’re obsessing over can cross over…

    life is sweet.

  59. The ones who “changed” were probably bisexual to start with.

    As other commenters have pointed out, the damage done to LGBT people by fundamentalist and evangelical churches is immense.

    Why can’t they just stop?

  60. Homophobic abuse, me thinks

  61. The question that naturally follows this theory is how many straight people did they succeed in making them gay? If sexuality is maleable, then the same reverse change must be equally possible…. I imagine they didnt study that question though.

    1. Apparently someone thought of it ;)

  62. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad…

  63. ‘Gay therapy’ may change a person’s sexual conduct, but not their true sexuality. The quarter of people these people are referring to are nothing more or less than weak-willed, overly-religious LGBT’s.

  64. The STRAIGHT DUDE 5 Oct 2011, 10:34pm

    So this theory does prove that Homosexuality is by choice and not something you are born with……WOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW

    1. If you’re stupid, yes.

    2. Actually, ‘this theory’ and so-called ‘evidence’ can NOT be taken seriously, because it was undertaken by 2 religious professor’s who seemingly had biased agendas to influence their community and society (religious or not) to believe that a person’s homosexual orientation can & should be changed to a heterosexual orientation. They claim that their method’s to change a person’s sexual orientation have worked, but they will never be able to prove this, because as well as the fact that all they have is short term evidence (e.g. alleged, so-called testimonies of ‘cured’ patients), they will never have physical, emotional, psychological, biological & spiritual proof, because it does not & never will exist! How can there be any evidence of a change of an individual’s personal & unique sexual orientation when there is no genuine & clear method in distinguishing why, how & what affects a person’s own sexual dna blueprint?! These ‘scientists’ should be banned from propagating polarising myths!

      1. Also, the people who took part in this ‘research’ were not receiving genuine Christian support to cope with, understand & UN-conditionally question their perhaps unwanted homosexual orientation. As a Christian myself, I’m disgusted at the amount of so-called Christian’s who self-righteously & subjectively dictate & conveniently presume what they believe God would want them to do for society, rather than being loving, understanding & truthful with themselves & members of their community & society. The close-minded Christians who refuse to accept challenges to their faith are not as Christ-like as they’d like to believe! Jesus would listen, challenge & respect people, rather than judge, force change & reject them! Intolerance is Anti-Christian! Those who refuse to question bigotry & discrimination are not true Christians! I hope that this research is rejected & challenged to the highest level. If not, then further false research could further harm society & our LGBT community, worldwide!

        1. We need to hear moderate points of view from the major religions, and so do the extremists.

  65. I was up to there:

    “Yarhouse and Jones followed 98 patients who attended Exodus Ministries, which claims that “any individual can experience freedom [from homosexuality] through the support of caring individuals and the healing power of Jesus Christ”

    And when I read “healing power of Jesus Christ”, I could no read any further because it makes the whole article immediately become just hot air.

  66. Actually, ‘this theory’ and so-called ‘evidence’ can NOT be taken seriously, because it was undertaken by 2 religious professor’s who seemingly had biased agendas to influence their community and society (religious or not) to believe that a person’s homosexual orientation can & should be changed to a heterosexual orientation. They claim that their method’s to change a person’s sexual orientation have worked, but they will never be able to prove this, because as well as the fact that all they have is short term evidence (e.g. alleged, so-called testimonies of ‘cured’ patients), they will never have physical, emotional, psychological, biological & spiritual proof, because it does not & never will exist! How can there be any evidence of a change of an individual’s personal & unique sexual orientation when there is no genuine & clear method in distinguishing why, how & what affects a person’s own sexual dna blueprint?! These ‘scientists’ should be banned from propagating polarising myths!

  67. Also, the people who took part in this ‘research’ were not receiving genuine Christian support to cope with, understand & UN-conditionally question their perhaps unwanted homosexual orientation. As a Christian myself, I’m disgusted at the amount of so-called Christian’s who self-righteously & subjectively dictate & conveniently presume what they believe God would want them to do for society, rather than being loving, understanding & truthful with themselves & members of their community & society. The close-minded Christians who refuse to accept challenges to their faith are not as Christ-like as they’d like to believe! Jesus would listen, challenge & respect people, rather than judge, force change & reject them! Intolerance is Anti-Christian! Those who refuse to question bigotry & discrimination are not true Christians! I hope that this research is rejected & challenged to the highest level. If not, then further false research could further harm society & our LGBT community, worldwide!

    1. I agree, this is a worrying development becasue the study managed to be published in the reputable Journal, “The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.”
      .
      http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0092-623X&linktype=145
      .
      As you will see from their international editorial board, two of their academics are based in the UK: Dr Cynthia Graham and Dr Alan J. Riley. These people need to be contacted, and questioned as to why they are supporting a Journal which is involved on promoting gay cure therapies.
      .
      Dr Cynthia Graham is a UK Clinical Psychologist and works for Southampton University. She can be connected on her e-mail at C.A.Graham@soton.ac.uk
      .
      Dr Graham’s profile is below http://www.southampton.ac.uk/psychology/about/staff/cag1g11.page?

    2. Here is a link to CNN reporting of this case . . .
      .
      http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/04/study-supporting-gay-conversion-challenged/
      .
      Interestingly, or rather perversely, the research psychologists in this study were supported financially by the televangelist Pat Robertson.

  68. Really? this is just idiotic.

  69. I think you nailed it with that comment there Yaoi, totally!

  70. Why are people of religion SO obsessed with the subject? Shouldn’t they be out in Africa, helping to feed the starving? Isn’t that what their religion’s founder would have advocated instead of speding their (well-paid) lives concerned with what gay people get up to in the bedroom? Seems to me they are, perhaps, seeking answers to their OWN issues ……

    1. serious research shows that homophobes unconsciously are attracted to same sex individuals but are in denial. it’s defensive. sexual orientation is malleable. little kids in stocholm in the 1500s didn’t grow up with naomi campbell or beyonce as their ideal best friend forever. you grow up and have a need to be in conformity with social standards. some societies crave grubs and some see them as putrid. but they are good protein sources nevertheless. arab children think eating a dog or snake or alligator as disgusting. among the seminole they were delicacies. so malleable yes. but changeable no.

  71. Gay guy describes Conversion Therapy Torture he was subjected to by Southern Baptist parents as a young boy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046324/Victim-gay-conversion-therapy-describes-tortured-aged-12.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

  72. ‘Tiny needles were stuck into my fingers and I was electrocuted’: Victim of gay conversion therapy describes how he was tortured aged 12 after telling Baptist parents he was attracted to his best friend
    Beaten repeatedly by his father after innocently telling him, aged 12, that he was attracted to his friend
    Told he had AIDS, that he was the only gay person in the country and the government would kill him if they found out
    Hands burned and frozen with ice while he was shown images of men hugging
    Electrocuted for a month while shown explicit pictures of men
    Has since been excommunicated by his family and warned by his father that he will shoot him if he ever comes home

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046324/Victim-gay-conversion-therapy-describes-tortured-aged-12.html#ixzz1a58Nf1an

  73. yes i believe they went straight. i know they went straight. i went straight at age 18. again at age 27. again at age 40. now i’m 67 and since september 11th 2001, i’ve understood the futility meaninglessness self-abusiveness of going straight again. going straight is easy to do, especially if you are motivated. it doesn’t change anything at night in the dark when you are alone, lonely, and you are denying your inner self. for social acceptance.

  74. I am willing to bet that many of the “cured” gay people are, in fact, highly closeted bisexuals.

  75. Louezzeee Gurl 10 Oct 2011, 3:33am

    Why change yourself?

  76. I wish the earth would open up and swallow these bigots up and leave us alone! No matter how much you change someones behaviour they are and always will be gay! Just as much as they are always straight! You can’t make someone gay and if you can’t make someone gay you can’t make someone straight!
    My name is Mickie, I’m gay and VERY proud so bugger off!!!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all