More PROOF that EX-GAY Minstries DON't WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Der Alte]

. . .[SIZE=-1]But you cited MacIntosh…who made claims without anything to support them.

And FYI…while Spitzer’s assistants talked to those claiming to have changed he included individuals employed by ex-gay ministries…people whose income depends on claiming to have changed sexual oriention

And the Spitzer study failed its peer review BTW[/SIZE]. . .

Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation? Anything but your unsupported assumptions and presuppositions? Someone keeps going on and on about "peer reviewed" studies, where is your evidence?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I have found that it is helpful to actually read what somebody has said before replying. You don't even know what preceded this so you don't have a clue what the comments you misquoted out-of-context even mean.

Just for you, here is exactly what I said. I omitted NOTHING. The discussion you are misquoting deals with the irrelevant opinions of organizations which signed the "resolution" that are not mental health agencies, highlighted below. Since all of the cognitive dissonents here cannot understand what I said. Here is the obverse.

The ONLY signers of the APA resolution whose opinions on the efficacy of reparative therapy are those which are mental health professionals, i.e. the American Psychological Association, and National Association of School Psychologists. All the others are NOT mental health professionals and their opinions about any mental health trreatment is no more valid than that of the NRA or NASCAR.

In Appalachia, in many churches, there is a quaint practice known as “snake handling.” Those who participate in this, believe that if their faith is great enough they can “take up the serpent” and, even if bitten, it will not harm them. Although this is an exclusively religious practice, it is illegal under state laws.

In the western U.S. there are religious groups which practice plural marriage. This “religious” practice has also been declared illegal under U.S. and state laws.

Two exclusively religious practices, which have been prohibited by law because of the “potential harm” they may do.

In 1997, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued a resolution stating, in part, “the . . . potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation.” This was followed, in 1999, by a similar joint “document” issued by the AAP, ACA, AASA, AFT, APsyA, ASHA, IAH, NASP, NASW., and NEA.

Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media (Davison, 1991; Haldeman, 1994; Wall Street Journal, 1997);

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Counseling Association (ACA), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Psychological Association (APsyA), American School Health Association (ASHA), Interfaith Alliance Foundation (IAH), National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and National Education Association (NEA) jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation."[sup]3[/sup] They:
. . .
Condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or no effectiveness​

This seems impressive, but the opinions of educators, administrators, theologians, etc., who are not mental health professionals, such as the American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association are no more authoritative regarding the subject of faith based homosexual ministries, than the opinions of the National Rifle Association or National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing.

It has been thirty four years since homosexuality was removed from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and it has been ten years since the APA resolution, referenced above. In all that time, how much, if any, actual, vs. alleged “potential” harm, by faith based treatment programs, has ever been studied or documented, by any qualified mental health professional or organization? I submit there have been zero studies, and zero documentation.

If all those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of APA “mental health professionals,” including, arguendo, the signatories of the 1999 joint paper, are truly concerned about the “potential harm,” as alleged, why, in the past 10 – 30 years, have NONE of them ever conducted a professional study to document and evaluate any such alleged harm?

I have seen several studies by “professionals,” with PhDs behind their names, posted here, all touted as “proof” that homosexuality is genetic, inborn, inherited, unchangeable, etc., etc., etc. If there is so much “potential harm” in faith based ministries and programs, as alleged, why haven’t the APA, and other, “experts” taken aggressive, positive legal steps to have those programs declared unlawful, by the courts, as was done with other “potentially harmful” religious practices, i.e. “snake handling” and “plural marriage?”

It would seem that “professionals,” will spend millions trying to “prove” homosexuality, undoubtedly including their own, is inherited, genetic, unchangeable, etc. but have not, will not spend one dollar studying any alleged “potential harm” to homosexuals seeking treatment, “paying” scant lip service to it in obscure non-binding “resolutions.” Their actions, rather lack thereof, clearly show how little the APA, and all the other “professional” organizations, really care about the alleged “potential harm.”

That raises the question why, would professional mental health organizations and practitioners be opposed to alternate treatment programs, alleging these programs are potentially harmful, yet after 10-30 years never supporting those claims? Several answers present. The first is, perhaps many of those “professionals” are not Christian and are opposed to any Christian ministry, whether it is related to mental health or not.

The $econd an$wer i$ al$o a very real po$$ibility. P$ychatri$t$ and P$ychologi$t$ charge large fee$, a$ much a$ $100 +, per hour. I $uppo$e it could be “potentially harmful” if a P$ychiatri$t or P$ychologi$t wa$ forced to mi$$ a few weekly golf $e$$ion$, becau$e $ome potential patient$ are $eeking help from relatively inexpen$ive faith based ministries.​

Yay for copy and paste esssays. Source? This article sounds like a bunch of bull tonk written by someone who knows very little but their own opinion. And before you try it, I did read it. It doesn't provide anything but "oh well it could happen".

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Yay for copy and paste esssays. Source? This article sounds like a bunch of bull tonk written by someone who knows very little but their own opinion. And before you try it, I did read it. It doesn't provide anything but "oh well it could happen[/SIZE]".

The 2 paragraphs I quoted from the APA are clearly identified, the rest is my own writing. If you had read this, you would know that

I have heard your same argument on a lot of playgrounds, "Did not!" "Did too!" "Nu huh!""Nuh huh!" Let me know if you ever have a cogent, relevant, well thought out reply to anything. Meanwhile reruns of Gilligan are more interesting.

 

[MercyBurst]

So where are they?

Would you be glad if someone left the gay lifestyle? As a christian you should be.

Where are all these wonderful studies documenting how ex-gay ministries have changed tens of thousands of homosexuals into heterosexuals?

In the Lord's BOOK OF LIFE.

What peer reviewed journals do they appear in?

The same peer reviewed journal that Jesus appears in.

Here's a quote from it:

1 Corinthians 6:11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

So do you believe God or a bunch of atheists that work for the APA?

Actually in social science it does make a difference.
Hen discussing drug related crime today no one uses statistics form 1962.

I guess Jesus being a messiah from 2000 years ago makes Him totally obsolete using your rationale.

When making a point about the effectiveness of modern anti-psychotics we don’t cite hospital inpatient days form 1962

How about conversion through the Holy Spirit? What kind of data do you use for that? I guess social science, being the humanist philosophy, has no place for God.

But you cited MacIntosh…who made claims without anything to support them.

I also cited the apostel Paul from the bible -- you know -- before anybody ever heard of therapy.

And FYI…while Spitzer’s assistants talked to those claiming to have changed he included individuals employed by ex-gay ministries…people whose income depends on claiming to have changed sexual oriention.

And those that challenge the study -- they have GAY POLITICAL INTERESTS at stake.

And the Spitzer study failed its peer review BTW

But it made it to a peer reviewed journal. Here is the abstract:

Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation
Author: Spitzer R.L.1
Source:Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 32, Number 5, October 2003 , pp. 403-417(15)
Publisher: Springer

Abstract:
Position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States state that there is no scientific evidence that a homosexual sexual orientation can be changed by psychotherapy, often referred to as “reparative therapy.” This study tested the hypothesis that some individuals whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexual can, with some form of reparative therapy, become predominantly heterosexual. The participants were 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) who reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years. They were interviewed by telephone, using a structured interview that assessed same sex attraction, fantasy, yearning, and overt homosexual behavior. On all measures, the year prior to the therapy was compared to the year before the interview. The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year. Reports of complete change were uncommon. Female participants reported significantly more change than did male participants. Either some gay men and lesbians, following reparative therapy, actually change their predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominantly heterosexual orientation or some gay men and women construct elaborate self-deceptive narratives (or even lie) in which they claim to have changed their sexual orientation, or both. For many reasons, it is concluded that the participants' self-reports were, by-and-large, credible and that few elaborated self-deceptive narratives or lied. Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.

Translation: reparative therapists, ex-gay ministries and their kin can’t back up their lies with evidence.

How about the apostle Paul, is he a liar too?

The KKK and the Nazis are still around too

So are screaming gay activists, so whats' the point? They were around for the APA coup d'etat in 1974.

Think about it….hmmm…maybe people really don’t like to lie about “changing”

hmmm think about it -- God is ALL ABOUT CHANGE.

Actually Schroeder and Schidlo found that once people left ex-gay ministries, confronted the lies of these ministries and got some legitimate help…they became much happier.

Schroeder and Shidlo are both gay. There is nothing like an "objective perspective." Oh, and by the way, they had to change the name of their ex-gay bashing study when they found people benefit from reparative therapy.

Lies like those created by ex-gay ministries will be with us for some time...sadly

and you claim the name of christ. These are people that sincerely serve the Lord -- but to you they are liars. Sadly, that says something about your own spiritual condition.

 

[Everlasting33]

Exactly. MINORS.

I want to major in psych and even become a criminal psychologist one day. I spend my free time studying the field. Either way, both of those organizations, and I have heard of both, concentrate on forwarding their research without bias opinion which you insist is present when it obviously isn't. Your list merely proves MY point. I don't really see what you were getting at with that post.

Well,I have a bachelors in psychology and I still believe homosexuality is abnormal.

 

[MercyBurst]

Here's a nice write-up I got from a therapist friend (let's call him John) regarding the day the APA lost touch with reality:


As to both guilds (both "APA"s) "positions one MUST examine the methods and reasoning (or lack thereof) that led each to "take the positon" in this matter. A close examination of this clearly shows it for what it is and science and experience do not play a part in it whatsoever.

Unfortunately in a profession that is SUPPOSED to be basing it's "positions" upon science this is not and has not happened for in excess of 30 years, andit's not confined to this issue. The designation was dropped due to the guild being taken over by radicals, to whom science was an inconvenience. It has never
recovered. The term "taken the position" does not include the path of science, experience or reason it is merely the path of political correctness.

When confronted with the FACTS they are always either mute or merely recite the same shopworn statements such as you quote below without any rational basis to support their position. We know that prior to the removal from the DSM, there had been numerous cases of ssa clients, whom, when treated for other, non related challenges, having addressed these issues, spontaneously reverting to heterosexual ideation (absent counseling for same) over differing periods of time. The success rates for those that are motivated to change are comparable to
the rates for other issues unrelated to the instant topic. I have seen enough of them myself that to even question this fact is beyond reason whatsoever.

It is (the profession) mired in a drug induced (and mind induced in that the very words have lost their meanings) haze, expanding the diagnostic parameters of dysfunction to the point that they find easy justification in drugging virtually the entire population for one malady or another, whilst actual dysfunction (as in the instant topic) is, for sheer policital correctness, utterly ignored and worse. The basic understanding of the scientific method is
now virtually lost, even on college campuses, where you would expect to be the last bastion of reason. The attempt to circumvent patient determination of the therapeutic path is wholly unethical in the extreme. Don't expect either guild to awaken anytime soon. Few within them have the courage of conviction.

I can see the possibility of large scale law suits being focused upon practitioners that have told people seeking change to "accept it", and thereafter coming to grave physical harm (as in contracting a deadly disease) suing the quacks (translation: those who place their beliefs and political correctness ahead of the patients desires and well being and with an utter disregard for science) and winning in court. The public is not stupid, they may be in a mild trance, but can easily be awakend from it with the guidance of real professionals in a court of law. Can one envision these "experts" whom adhere to the "one can't change" theory being cross examined by anyone with even a modicum
of intelligence in this matter. I think I could do it, cold turkey and without any notes or preperation whatsoever...that is how far from reality their position has become. It's one thing to mouth off in a public venue where no one dares to bring the light of reason to bear upon ones statements, it is quite another in a court of law, under oath and in a decent cross examination. I would relish the sight of these "experts" twisting in the wind attempting to support their fantasy.

In fact, if anyone you know has had this happen to them let me know I am SURE I can find a good legal counsel for them to pursue that path. The legal reasoning is sound. The patient presents with something that is harmful and wants to change...the therapist insists they accept the pain and they subsequently come to harm by following the therapists unsupportable "advice".

The profession has abandoned reason and science in large part and not only on this issue but many others. Most psychiatrists have become nothing more than glorified drug reps and nothing more, having lost touch with the art of counseling and therapeutic interaction. One such practioner told me the other day "you know therapy can be dangerous"...my answer was "yes, that is possible, but don't you agree that the capacity to write prescriptions for powerful psychotropic drugs, many of which we have little understanding of their long term effects is far, far more dangerous ?" She was dumbstruck and had to answer in the affirmative. The fact that this is precisely what she herself was engaged in caused visible consternation in her and she removed herself from the conversation post haste. She does not use any form of counseling, she writes prescriptions.

Pathetic is a grand understatement. Dangerous is a more fitting word.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Ex-gay ministries are still going strong.

Wayne Besen and all his ex-gay watch-whiners can't shut them down.

awwwww tisk tisk TOOOO BADDD

I actually asked Dr Throckmorton via a blog whether there wiould be a peer reviewed study in the near future. he replied, "probally not"
Here is a quote from Dr Spitzer

They have a choice whether to go into therapy, about whether they adopt a gay lifestyle, whether they tell their friends and their family. They don’t have a choice as to whether their basic sexual orientation is gay or straight — that they don’t have a choice about.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I actually asked Dr Throckmorton via a blog whether there wiould be a peer reviewed study in the near future. he replied, "probally not"
Here is a quote from Dr Spitzer[/SIZE]

You keep demanding peer reviewed studies for anything, anyone says, but we have to take your word for all this. Yeah, right! Koolaid, anyone?

 

[DMagoh]

I actually asked Dr Throckmorton via a blog whether there wiould be a peer reviewed study in the near future. he replied, "probally not"
Here is a quote from Dr Spitzer

Quote:
They have a choice whether to go into therapy, about whether they adopt a gay lifestyle, whether they tell their friends and their family. They don’t have a choice as to whether their basic sexual orientation is gay or straight — that they don’t have a choice about.


They also have a choice about whether to sin or not. I choose not to.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Quote:
They have a choice whether to go into therapy, about whether they adopt a gay lifestyle, whether they tell their friends and their family. They don’t have a choice as to whether their basic sexual orientation is gay or straight — that they don’t have a choice about.


They also have a choice about whether to sin or not. I choose not to.

I have no problem with that. But my point was that Dr Spitzer made a quote and the usual suspects go into denial mode. Being a person with same sex attractions, would you agree with the opinion of Dr spitzer that you had no choice in your attractions?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I have no problem with that. But my point was that Dr Spitzer made a quote and the usual suspects go into denial mode. Being a person with same sex attractions, would you agree with the opinion of Dr spitzer that you had no choice in your attractions[/SIZE]?

You post an alleged quote from Dr. Spitzer, and if someone doesn't respond within 10 nano seconds you claim they are all in denial.

Not denial, kemo sabe, just asking you to put up the same kind of evidence you demand. Back it up, or pack it up.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

You post an alleged quote from Dr. Spitzer, and if someone doesn't respond within 10 nano seconds you claim they are all in denial.

Not denial, kemo sabe, just asking you to put up the same kind of evidence you demand. Back it up, or pack it up.

Whats with the racist Indian jokes? but anyway, No I won't. you know Dr Spitzer made the quote, you never back up your cut and paste quotes, neither will I. But, for a small price i might

 

[DMagoh]

I have no problem with that. But my point was that Dr Spitzer made a quote and the usual suspects go into denial mode. Being a person with same sex attractions, would you agree with the opinion of Dr spitzer that you had no choice in your attractions?

I did NOT choose to be attracted to other men. Why would anyone choose to be hated, despised, and ridiculed by others? Anyone who says any differently has no idea what they are talking about.

However, whether I was born with it, developed it, or what, doesnt matter - the Bible says it is sin. To think because something is desirous makes it okay is not correct. If a certain thing was not tempting, it would not be a temptation would it?

I absolutely did NOT choose it - but I CAN choose not to sin.

 

[MrPirate]

translation, they don't have to. Success is self-evident.

The only thing evident is their failure and the desperate attempts to pretend otherwise.

So when someone thinks just maybe they are really straight instead of gay they are lying to themselves. Why can't it be the other way around?

The lies that reparative therapist tell their clients:
That being gay is a mental disorder
That sexual orientation can be changed

Those lies

OK, you are comparing a political organization to therapy. It's difficult for a rational mind to make sense of your analogy. So would they be called political therapists???? Now that's a classic.

Actually I think the KKK is far more honest than ex-gay ministries

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I did NOT choose to be attracted to other men. Why would anyone choose to be hated, despised, and ridiculed by others? Anyone who says any differently has no idea what they are talking about.

However, whether I was born with it, developed it, or what, doesnt matter - the Bible says it is sin. To think because something is desirous makes it okay is not correct. If a certain thing was not tempting, it would not be a temptation would it?

I absolutely did NOT choose it - but I CAN choose not to sin.

I understand. thanks for your response.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Here is a link to a video by Dr Spitzer stating that focus on the family totally misinterpeted his results and that change is quite rare.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/02/video-dr-spitzer-speaks-out-about-distortion-of-his-work/

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Whats with the racist Indian jokes? but anyway, No I won't. you know Dr Spitzer made the quote, you never back up your cut and paste quotes, neither will I. But, for a small price i might[/SIZE]

I ALWAYS cite my sources. And I usually cite primary sources, most folks here don't have a clue the difference between a primary source and Andrea Nonnymuss' same old, lame old opinions from one of the many homosexuals-я-us.com® clones online.

How is anybody supposed to "know" who said what you allegedly quoted? You could have made the whole thing up.

How is Kemo Sabe a racist joke? It supposedly means "trusted companion" in a native American dialect. There may be jokes around which use that term, but I have never heard one.

 

[MrPirate]

I have found that it is helpful to actually read what somebody has said before replying. You don't even know what preceded this so you don't have a clue what the comments you misquoted out-of-context even mean.

Just for you, here is exactly what I said. I omitted NOTHING. The discussion you are misquoting deals with the irrelevant opinions of organizations which signed the "resolution" that are not mental health agencies, highlighted below. Since all of the cognitive dissonents here cannot understand what I said. Here is the obverse.


The ONLY signers of the APA resolution whose opinions on the efficacy of reparative therapy are those which are mental health professionals, i.e. the American Psychological Association, and National Association of School Psychologists. All the others are NOT mental health professionals and their opinions about any mental health trreatment is no more valid than that of the NRA or NASCAR.

In Appalachia, in many churches, there is a quaint practice known as “snake handling.” Those who participate in this, believe that if their faith is great enough they can “take up the serpent” and, even if bitten, it will not harm them. Although this is an exclusively religious practice, it is illegal under state laws.​

In the western U.S. there are religious groups which practice plural marriage. This “religious” practice has also been declared illegal under U.S. and state laws.​

Two exclusively religious practices, which have been prohibited by law because of the “potential harm” they may do.​

In 1997, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued a resolution stating, in part, “the . . . potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation.” This was followed, in 1999, by a similar joint “document” issued by the AAP, ACA, AASA, AFT, APsyA, ASHA, IAH, NASP, NASW., and NEA.

Whereas the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media (Davison, 1991; Haldeman, 1994; Wall Street Journal, 1997);​

In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Counseling Association (ACA), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Psychological Association (APsyA), American School Health Association (ASHA), Interfaith Alliance Foundation (IAH), National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and National Education Association (NEA) jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation."[sup]3[/sup] They:​

. . .​

Condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or no effectiveness​

This seems impressive, but the opinions of educators, administrators, theologians, etc., who are not mental health professionals, such as the American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association are no more authoritative regarding the subject of faith based homosexual ministries, than the opinions of the National Rifle Association or National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing.

It has been thirty four years since homosexuality was removed from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and it has been ten years since the APA resolution, referenced above. In all that time, how much, if any, actual, vs. alleged “potential” harm, by faith based treatment programs, has ever been studied or documented, by any qualified mental health professional or organization? I submit there have been zero studies, and zero documentation.

If all those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of APA “mental health professionals,” including, arguendo, the signatories of the 1999 joint paper, are truly concerned about the “potential harm,” as alleged, why, in the past 10 – 30 years, have NONE of them ever conducted a professional study to document and evaluate any such alleged harm?​

And it has been 35 years since ex-gay ministries were founded.

In all that time these organizations have yet to produce any evidence to support heir claims of efficacy and safety.

I have seen several studies by “professionals,” with PhDs behind their names, posted here, all touted as “proof” that homosexuality is genetic, inborn, inherited, unchangeable, etc., etc.,

You made this claim before…yet when asked of evidence you couldn’t provide anything more than an internal CF link to a thread about an op-ed piece in the New York Times. And in that thread you complained about how the newspaper article wasn’t filled with facts.

It would seem that “professionals,” will spend millions trying to “prove” homosexuality, undoubtedly including their own, is inherited, genetic, unchangeable, etc. but have not, will not spend one dollar studying any alleged “potential harm” to homosexuals seeking treatment, “paying” scant lip service to it in obscure non-binding “resolutions.” Their actions, rather lack thereof, clearly show how little the APA, and all the other “professional” organizations, really care about the alleged “potential harm.”

It would seem that these ex-gay ministries have no problems bilking people out of money and catering to those who have chosen to hate people who are different…but are unwilling to spend any money showing that what they engage in is effective and safe. this rasies the question of why...



Obviously there is big money in lying
​

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I ALWAYS cite my sources. And I usually cite primary sources, most folks here don't have a clue the difference between a primary source and Andrea Nonnymuss' same old, lame old opinions from one of the many homosexuals-я-us.com® clones online.

How is anybody supposed to "know" who said what you allegedly quoted? You could have made the whole thing up.

How is Kemo Sabe a racist joke? It supposedly means "trusted companion" in a native American dialect. There may be jokes around which use that term, but I have never heard one.

here is some more sourced evidence showing that Narth misused and misquoted evidence in the national genome study. I can go all night with evidence to show the lies and distortions. here is a part of it.

Francis Collins is a respected geneticist most recognized for his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He has championed the free, open access of genomic information to the worldwide scientific community so that as many minds as possible can work on solving the connections between genes and disease. He envisions a world where disease can be prevented and citizens of even the least developed nations can benefit from that work.
Dr. Collins recently published a book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” As a man of faith, he rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design, but instead sees evidence of God in boundless scientific discoveries. His own understanding of the nature of life and the universe is called Theistic Evolution. It is an approach I find intriguing and refreshingly honest.
Knowing something of the character of this man, I was confused to find the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH) prominently displaying an article on their website titled, “Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project. It was written by A. Dean Byrd, president elect of NARTH. My first scan of the article left me further confused, as it did not strike me as something Dr. Collins would endorse.
After a more careful reading, it became apparent that Dr. Byrd had written his article around a few short, general quotes from Dr. Collins, such as:

“there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive…”
“Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us.”
​

To those Dr. Byrd added more opinionated blurbs from others and, of course, himself. With this he was able to create an article in which it appears that Dr. Collins shares his view that homosexuality is not inborn and can therefore be changed. Dr. Byrd is able to make his claims appear more credible by borrowing credibility from a respected scientist.
I decided to contact Dr. Collins and ask him to read the NARTH article and offer his comments. He replied with permission for me to share the following here.

It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not​

​

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]The only thing evident is their failure and the desperate attempts to pretend otherwise. [ZERO! NONE! NADA! Evidence!]


The lies that reparative therapist tell their clients: [Baseless accusation! No evidence, now or ever!]
That being gay is a mental disorder
That sexual orientation can be changed

Those lies [More of same!]


Actually I think the KKK is far more honest than ex-gay ministries[Who cares what you think!][/SIZE]

Anybody can make unfounded, unsupported, unsubstantiated accusations. Now be a mensch and support them.