Reviews, Interviews, News, Commentaries, Excerpts, My Top 5 Books, Wilson's Bookmarks, Book AwardsThe Best Research Yet
When Stanton Jones first began to study psychology, homosexuality was a malady, listed and described in the official "diagnostic Bible," the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In 1973, that diagnosis was dropped. Now the American Psychological Association's official website states, "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." The website warns that "conversion therapy" is poorly documented and could cause potential harm. The American Psychiatric Association's website adds, "[T]here is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior."
What to make, then, of the apparently sincere personal testimonies of people claiming to be ex-gay? Longtime Wheaton College professor of psychology and provost Jones, working with Regent University professor Mark Yarhouse, found an anomalous situation. Professional opinion made unusually absolute statements of the impossibility of change, considering older studies of homosexuals under treatment that showed substantial evidence of change. Critics of the older research noted shortcomings but offered no better evidence in support of the contention that change is impossible, even dangerous.
Jones and Yarhouse address this lack of good evidence in their book, Ex-Gays?: A Continuing Study of Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change in Exodus Participants. By taking a sample of people entering ex-gay programs under the Exodus umbrella and following them with detailed questionnaires over several years, Jones and Yarhouse ...
This article is currently available to CT subscribers only.
To continue reading:
or
Star Trek Into Darkness
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 1–3 of 10 comments
See all comments
Benjamin Clark
This study was rigged to achieve the desired results. It conveniently was not even peer reviewed. This is called junk science. Take a look at this link for more details: www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/09/ex-gay-study-rigged-to-achieve-desired-results/
Matt
It is well known that Stan Jones is not well-liked among the APA. It is also well-known (or should be) that the spokesmen for an organization don't always accurately represent those for whom they are speaking. There are several individuals at those "fundy" institutions who wholeheartedly disagree with Stan Jones. However, my guess is that you don't hear about these individuals because of the possible consequences of doing so. Many people neglect two facts: 1) for some homosexuals, it really is something that developed later in life and 2) being a "developmental" cause does not preclude that it is also a biological cause. From my experience, I believe that "reparative therapy" can help- but only an infinitesimal percentage of homosexuals. We will have to accept that the rest really have born to be attracted to members of the same sex, and that reparative therapy will only do more damage than good. I hate to end on that note, but I've run out of room.
Deacon Steve
As an educator, I have dealt with too many students whose 'Christian' parents threaten to disown them if their parents ever found out about their sexuality. The comment by Will above, is as outrageous and false now as it was in the 90s. Christy Tucker's and John's comments sum it up, I'm afraid. Institutions strain their credibility with such junk science. Let's get on with preaching the Gospel.