One of the reasons I’m so opposed to the work of these groups is the many (MANY!) inaccuracies (Yes, you are welcomed to read that as “lies”) I’ve seen over the years.
Below are some that I’ve put together. (If you can think of more, I welcome your input!)
1. The Myth of Change. Of course, one of my primary complaints with this movement is the very basis of their existence—the assertion that homosexuals can (and by extension, should) change. In spite of evidence to the contrary, regardless of the overwhelming statistics of their ineffectiveness, and the mounting indications of the damage these programs cause, they stubbornly hold to their dogma and plow forward with their crusade.
In 2009, The American Psychological Association released the results of a study that strongly refutes the harmful practices of these groups. The APA's report reputed the effectiveness of reparative (or “ex-gay”) therapy. They examined 83 studies on sexual orientation dating back to 1960 and found no substantial evidence that homosexuality can be cured through therapy or any other means…contrary to the promise of ex-gay ministries. The APA report urged mental health professionals not to advise clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.
Author’s Note: As I written and spoken on this topic over the years, I generally get a question at this point about all those people who claim they’ve been “cured” or changed. Often, there’s the implied (or stated) concern that I’m calling these folks liars. That is not exactly the case, though I realize the end effect is the same. For that reason, I’ve put together some possible explanations.
2. The Myth of Choice. The reason (according to them) that we can change is because homosexuality is a choice. If we choose to be gay, then we can choose not to be gay. But apparently, the choice to be gay is very complex; it’s not like deciding what to watch on TV or what shirt to wear. This “choice” is rooted in many factors, many which were beyond our control or possibly dating back to when were children. (How that’s seen as our choice gets blurred at this point.) And even though we made this choice (or had it imposed on us), the choice to not be gay is also not as easy as picking out that shirt. It could take years…or a lifetime…to reverse this choice. (Confused? Join the rest of us!)
3. The Myth of Cause. Closely related to the idea of choice comes this one: how did we become gay? If you spend any time reading the ex-gay material, you will become as confused as a drunk on a Tilt-A-Whirl.
Some still hold to the outdated notion that it’s as simple as an absent father, or a smothering mother, or some kind of sexual abuse as a child. NARTH (we’ll discuss them later) incorporates all these into an article on The Causes of Male Homosexuality. There is not a new idea in the entire discourse, nor is there one scientifically proven fact!
Example: On the (mis)informational website Conservapedia, (Yep, it really is a website.) they repeat this well-worn axiom: “The…warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice…and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.” The site also lists the tried-and-true explanations of parental relationships and sexual abuse, adding the interesting “educational indoctrination” as another cause. (i.e., I’m gay because I was taught to be gay?)
On the Exodus International—the umbrella group of religious-based ex-gay programs around the world—website* they go into great depths—a six-part series—to essentially say that no one knows.
So what we have are all these various groups, programs and ministries treating people’s homosexuality...when none of them can agree on the actual cause. But most of them still promote their group, tout the success and promise a cure.
4. The Myth of Success. It’s difficult to get actual numbers from these groups, and when we do, it never easy to interpret because the way the statistics are gathered is unknown and the way it’s released to the general public is a bit speculative. I’ve read many numbers, depending on the group.
Example 1: I read a comment by Americans For Truth (a fanatically anti-gay organization) president Peter LaBarbera, where he made this assertion: “Christ has helped set free thousands of people (emphasis mine) from this destructive lifestyle…”
Here’s my questions: Where did he get those numbers? What is meant by “set free?” Does it only include those with some kind of “destructive” behavior? What methodology was used? How do we know they were “free?” Where are the “free” people now?
Example 2: One study that gets lots of mileage in ex-gay circles—and parroted by conservative media and religious leaders—is by Stanton Jones of Wheaton College and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, authors of the 2007 book Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Their study followed 61 participants in ex-gay therapy over the course of six or seven years, and (according to them) found that 23 percent reported a “successful conversion to heterosexual attractions” while another 30 percent said they were able to remain celibate.
But even with their results–which is suspect–that means that the majority were not cured (77 percent). In addition, of those involved, 30 percent contend they were able to remain celibate. Was that the goal of the program? (The title of their book and the marketing literature for the retreat says otherwise!) Was that the “cure” these 30 percent wanted?
Author’s Note: I’ve seen this study mentioned on numerous occasions, but it’s always interesting to see the way it’s touted. One religious site had this as the first paragraph: “53 percent of subjects in a new seven-year study reported successfully leaving homosexuality and living happily as heterosexual or celibate persons [emphasis mine].” To me, that takes the statistics (which I question anyway) and adds subjective (i.e., happily?) interpretations. It’s like the old saying from Mark Twain: “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.”
Example 3: Another study was done using the men’s program “Journey into Manhood.” (This program promises that for $650 and a weekend, they can “diminish or remove homosexual feelings.” That’s like offering “instant heterosexuality” to those struggling with their sexual identity!) According to their results, four out five of the participants reported “reduction in unwanted homosexual attractions.”
But as the ex-gay watchdog site, Truth Wins Out shows, the results are flawed. Of the 615 participants, only 224 responded to the survey. That means 63.6 percent of those who attended did not respond. Why is that? To me, it says something significant when the majority of those attending the workshop didn’t get enough out of it to respond. It also makes the impact of the actual results much more suspect—reducing the actual number of participants who were helped. (In other words, that “4 out of 5” would be drastically reduced if we take into account the entire group of participants, not just those who filled out the survey!)
I’ve seen statistics where Exodus International boasts a 50 percent success rate (better than the odds in Vegas?), and I’ve seen it as low as 15 percent. (That would mean 85 percent fail, if you’re keeping count.) I’ve also read articles where they deflect any assertions about success rate, telling the “seeker” that it’s not about success, but hope.
Recently, Exodus International has begun to side-step the issue. They tell participant it’s not about orientation, but about holiness. (Yep, that’s nothing more than double talk!)
This is from the Exodus blog on the subject of What is the Success Rate?:
“I had to realize the REAL question… was not ultimately about success rates, but about hope. [Really? How does he know what I really wanted to know when I ask that question?] Can I change? Can things be different? Can I live a normal life? Can I have hope? We’re all looking for certainty, but faith is based on more than just clinging tightly to right information.” [Do you know any more now?]
Not long ago, I read a thoughtful article in the Columbia Missourian, discussing how Christians and churches are dealing with the issue of homosexuality. In the article, one woman just blatantly stated that their ex-gay ministry had a 90 percent success rate. (Without being challenged by the reporter, I might add!). And in case there was any doubt as to what success meant, she expanded: “success being measured by a person’s ability to live a normal heterosexual lifestyle.”
Author Note: Is there a difference in living a heterosexual ‘lifestyle’ and actually being a heterosexual? Would that ‘lifestyle’ include having heterosexual attractions and desires? This is another way these groups hype, market and promote—with innuendo, double-speak, generalities, vagueness and exaggeration.
Finally, consider this: Even the person holding the highest office in the ex-gay movement cannot claim this change in his own life. In an article in the LA Times, Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, admits that he still struggles with same-sex attraction. He states, “By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete.”
Change that’s not complete? What would that look like? I’m sure this is not on the marketing brochure sent to frightened parents, wondering what to do with their gay kid. And it’s probably not included in the fundraising presentations given to churches across the country.
I promised to renovate your house, but you come home to find I’ve only rearranged the furniture. Have I kept my promise? They promise change…but it’s a myth. At best, what they deliver are tools/techniques for denying the reality of sexual orientation, feigning opposite-sex attraction or living a life of celibacy.
5. The Myth of Biblical Interpretation. The foundation of most ex-gay groups (indeed, all those from a religious perspective) is the idea that the Bible (and God) condemns homosexuality. Their entire identity is build on the premise that since God says it’s wrong, then change must be possible.
Author’s Note: Again, time and space doesn’t permit full examination of the passages used for this claim, but I do deal with these few verses here.
Granted, these groups are not unique in this understanding of Scripture; they are part of the conservative segment of Christian faith who also espouse this interpretation. But like most Fundamentalists, they will be quick to cite one of the verses (out of context) as proof for their preconceived premise about homosexuals, but they are unwilling to look honestly at other possible explanations.
And while they will utilize a strict interpretations of those FEW passages–without regard to possible cultural or historical contexts–they would scoff if someone suggested that rebellious teenagers be killed, that women remain silent in church, that slavery is a commendable life-situation, that rich people should sell all their possessions in order to follow Jesus or that a widow without children should be required to marry her brother-in-law. And yet, all these scenarios come with clear biblical commands.
6. The Myth of a Scientific Foundation. Every reputable medical and mental health organization has gone on the record that homosexuality is not something that needs to be “treated.” This includes the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of Social Workers and the Royal College of Nursing. They agree that it’s not a mental illness, a disorder or an abnormality. And, as mentioned earlier, the scientific research shows that efforts to cure don’t work (cf: American Psychological Association).
Instead of accepting the results of these prestigious, respected organizations, the ex-gays conduct their own studies (which we’ve discussed) and form their own organization to promote their agenda and support their preconceptions. One such organization is The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). This “professional” group considers homosexual orientation to be a mental disorder. And with that presupposition firmly in place, they enlist others with compatible prejudices, then they conduct (and report) biased research and promote spurious (and often ludicrous) theories about cures.
Example: To put this in perspective, consider an analogy. Fit as a Rock is a health drink, which contains vitamins, minerals and supplements. They claim that drinking their concoction three times a day will help an overweight person lose weight. By also taking their specially formulated capsules before bedtime, muscle is built while the person is asleep. Neither the drink nor the capsules are drug, so they are not required by the FDA to list all of the ingredients nor to proof the claims.
In their marketing, on their website and in their commercials, they show exquisite specimens of fitness and physique. These “after-the-program” people talk about how happy they are now. They allude to how this program has not only helped them look better, but they now have better job, better friends and their love life (code for sex) is tremendous.
The product becomes a bestseller. But suddenly, there are people claiming that using the products have caused them medical problems. It’s been reported that a few people have died because of the combination of ingredients.
To combat the negative press, Fit as a Rock creates their Research Organization. It is not directly tied to the FAAR company, but it’s funded by them. Within weeks, the shadow Research Organization is coming out with statistics, and studies, and testimonials. Fit as a Rock will now cite the research to “prove” their products are safe and effective.
On their website, NARTH claims to be a secular organization, but they regularly participate in ex-gay events conducted by an array of right-wing, anti-gay religious organizations, such as Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out seminars. You cannot read ex-gay (marketing) material without seeing NARTH mentioned as proof and validation.
NARTH believes that reparative therapy is effective and safe. They push theories about the causes of homosexuality, as well as treatments that other professional associations have rejected. In fact, in 2006 the American Psychological Association issued a statement that expressed concern about NARTH, their beliefs and their therapy.
“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH…is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH…create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”
NARTH is becoming widely accepted among conservative and fundamental Christian ministries and groups, mainly because of their presuppositions that homosexual orientation is a disorder (i.e., not God’s design), that it is chosen (therefore sin), and that it can be changed through effort (or repentance). In other words, NARTH validates all their presuppositions.
Author’s Note: If you want to learn some of the bizarre facts about NARTH, I encourage you to check out 13 Key Facts to know about NARTH on the Truth Wins Out website.
7. The Myth of the “Gay Lifestyle.” The majority of the rhetoric we hear from ex-gay groups is about the evil “lifestyle” of the average homosexual. They casually and conveniently lump all homosexuals into this conglomerate—albeit, nebulous—designation. Sometimes, they will offer made-up statistics about thousands of sexual partners, drugs, pornography and alcohol. Or they will give generalities about immorality and promiscuity. There are even those who will equate homosexuality with pedophilia, child abuse, bestiality, hedonism, sadomasochism, etc.
Author’s Note: If they ever need ammunition, they will use footage from gay pride parades as proof. I typically tell these folks that a gay pride parade no more represents the ‘lifestyle’ of a gay person than Mardi Gras is indicative of the ‘lifestyle’ of a straight person.
There is no such thing as a “gay lifestyle.” Gay people are as diverse and different in the way they live their lives as straight people. It’s hateful terminology used to add emphasis to their argument, to disgust people who will support the ex-gay ministries and to scare those who are dealing with same-sex affections into the programs. It is primarily designed to give the impression of choice.
Side Note: By the way, an extension of this lie is the one that references some kind of universal “gay agenda.” Time and space doesn’t permit additional rants on this one, but it’s the same principle…designed to instill fear. There is no gay agenda, unless you consider our general desire for respect and equality.
It’s a myth to use a simplistic description for a large, diverse segment of the population. That’s the worst form of bigotry, akin to any slur attributed to other groups. (e.g., All Jews…All Polish people…all blacks…all women, etc.)
8. The Myth of Methodology. Here’s a shocking piece of information: there is no uniform consensus among the ex-gay groups on how to treat homosexuality. There are probably many reasons for this, but let me share a few of my thoughts:
(1) Many of the groups are built around one person and that person’s experience of change. They are the leader of the organization, as well as the “poster child” for the cure and the personality for the program. So, the experience of that person will permeate the group. If they were cured by drinking Gatorade (don’t laugh, that’s one of the suggestions from NARTH), then you can be sure the clients of that group will be consuming lots of the sports drink. If the leader was healed by having demons cast out, then exorcisms will be routine. Add to this mix the theological beliefs of the leaders, and you’ll get even more variations. Those from a Pentecostal background will approach treatment much differently than someone who comes from a Fundamentalist Baptist background. Some ex-gay groups are very emotional; others are methodical.
(2) There is no external oversight. Every major helping profession has a corresponding organization/entity designed to look out for the interests of the industry as well as protect the clients (e.g., the medical professional has the American Medical Association, psychiatrists have the American Psychiatric Association, etc.). These nonprofit organizations…usually an Association…promote industry standards of practice and ethics.
But those working in ex-gay groups answer to no one. They can do whatever they think is right, with no one to monitor them, correct them, censure them or reign them in. That’s why you can have such bizarre treatments as hug therapy, nude massages and genital touching. (Yes, there are documented cases of this kind of crap!) We’ve also seen everything from the extreme (shock treatment and aversion therapy) to make-up classes (i.e., how to look pretty) for lesbians or butch classes for sissy boys.
Author’s Note: Aversion therapy has been employed for years, especially in addiction, but its use for the treatment of homosexuality is a violation of the professional guidelines of both the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association. Regardless, it’s a known fact that many ex-gay/reparative programs have used it for the (mis)treatment of homosexuals.
(3) Since there’s no agreement on the cause of homosexuality, there is disagreement on the cure. If you think being gay is caused by choice, you will treat it differently than if you think it’s caused by demonic influence. The truth is, when you build on a faulty premise (i.e., that homosexuality can be cured), you will always come up with faulty practices.
9. The Myth of Leadership. While these ex-gay groups will hype the reality of change and promise results, history has shown they have a horrible track record…even from their own leadership. Consider just the following examples:
- Two of the original founders of Exodus International were Gary Cooper and Michael Bussee. After several years in the movement, they finally admitted they had not changed. They also acknowledged they were in love with one another, divorced their wives and eventually held a commitment ceremony. (Early 70s)
- John Evans was a co-founder of Love in Action, considered one of the first ex-gay ministries. But when his best friend committed suicide over not being able to change his sexual orientation, John realized it was fraud. He now condemns the program as potentially fatal.
- In 1979, Colin Cook founded the 12-Step program called Homosexuals Anonymous (HA). He was considered the “golden child” of the movement at the time, appearing on national television as the ex-gay spokesperson. But in 1986, it was revealed that he was giving his clients nude massages. After “repenting,” he worked with Focus on the Family’s ex-gay outreach, but in the early 90s, he was accused of having phone sex with clients.
- Jeremy Marks formed Courage, the first ex-gay ministry in London. But after years of not seeing real change in himself or his clients, in 2001, he renounced reparative therapy and Exodus.
- One of NARTH’s architects and leading “scientific” sources, Dr. George Rekers (who was also a founder of the anti-gay Family Research Council) was caught in a “rent-boy” scandal (he hired a male prostitute to go on an extended vacation with him). He resigned his position with NARTH, and has since been virtually removed from their website; a search of the site reveal nothing! (I guess that’s one way to handle moral failure by those who promote morality to others.)
For more on George Rekers, here’s a bio from Truth Wins Out
- Another “badge of honor” for the ex-gay movement was John Paulk. He was featured on the cover of Newsweek magazine as one who had left homosexuality and become straight. The (then) board chair for Exodus International was photographed in a gay bar in Washington, DC. He said his only intention was to use the bathroom, but one bar patron who recognized him engaged him in conversation, even asking if he was gay, to which John replied “Yes.” Exodus removed him from his position.
We could also talk about Arthur “Abba” Goldberg, co-founder of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexual (JONAH), who was shown to be a convicted felon. Later, one of JONAH’s workers was found to be engaged in bizarre, nude therapy with two young Orthodox Jewish men. We could mention Chris Austin, who has spoken at NARTH conferences. He was convicted of sexually assaulting a client. And there’s Alan Downing, one of the “life coaches” for International Healing Foundation. He was found to be using sexually inappropriate therapy techniques. He asked two male clients to undress in front of a mirror and fondle their genitals while he watched, telling them it would help them affirm their masculinity.
The reality is: if their leaders can’t walk the walk, then their talk is a myth!
10. The Myth of Either/Or. One of the most insidious aspects of the ex-gay treatment programs is their insistence (subtle or obvious) that you are either seeking treatment for your abnormality (sin) or you are subject to the evil of the “gay lifestyle.” This is particularly prominent in the Christian groups, who say if you are not actively seeking to change and eradicate these evil desires, you are rejecting the teachings of the Bible, the Church and your faith. It is little more than manipulation, designed to instill fear and increase guilt. It’s about control—they want to scare people into staying in the program!
Conclusion: Leaders seducing clients, exaggerated claims of success, phony methods, unfulfilled promises, large-scale failure. Taken together, these myths paint a less-than-flattering image of these groups. Unfortunately, not enough to put them out of the business. They still flourish, and continue to make inroads into mainstream faith communities and right-wing political agendas. Their rhetoric—gay is not good, gay is not from God—contributes to the prevailing mentality of hate and hostility against GLBT people today. Their methods and message (e.g., eternal damnation) damages the faith and self-esteem of individuals who struggle with their sexual identity, often leading to drastic and tragic actions.
Jesus said “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) Ironically, many of these groups use that statement as their marching orders, but as we’ve seen, when you look carefully, they don’t deal in truth. This is the myth of the ex-gay movement! They peddle lies, misinformation, deception, manipulation, dishonesty, and fraud.
And it’s something we must continue to expose!
If you can think of more myths/lies, I welcome your input. Use the Feedback Form, and I’ll post them on our Interaction Page.
Ten Myths of (so called) “Ex-Gay” Programs
* I am very hesitant about providing the links to these dangerous websites, but feel it’s important to be transparent about where this information comes from.
