96 of 140 people found the following review helpful
Best scientific study available on sexual re-orientation,
This review is from: Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Paperback)
This is clearly the best scientific study yet conducted on change of homosexual orientation and on the question as to whether attempts at such change are inherently harmful. My academic peer review found this investigation to be the most rigorous, well-designed empirical study to date on these questions. This study meets the high research standards set by the American Psychological Association that individuals be validly assessed, followed, and reported over time with a prospective, longitudinal outcome research design.
Using well-accepted, standard psychological measures, Jones and Yarhouse found solid evidence that homosexual orientation can be significantly changed. And their careful scientific search found no evidence that spiritual or psychological harm directly results from attempting such change. Because so many secular psychologists and psychiatrists mistakenly assumed the opposite of these clear scientific findings, this groundbreaking scientific study sets a new landmark in the field of therapeutic change for unwanted homosexual orientation.
Given the practical constraints facing any scientist for these research questions Jones and Yarhouse employed a prospective and longitudinal research design that measures up to widely-accepted professional standards. This study's authors are cautious, basing their conclusions only on systematically gathered and appropriately analyzed scientific data. Jones and Yarhouse assessed individuals who met fairly rigorous standards of "homosexualness," using every established measure of sexual orientation that has empirical support in past scientific research as well standard psychological measures of distress and spirituality that are among the best currently available.
This study demonstrates with convincing scientific evidence that the Christian ministry interventions of Exodus International produced strong and clinically meaningful changes in homosexual orientation in a large percentage of individuals. Furthermore this careful clinical research investigation of a significant number of individuals yielded no evidence to support the common assumption that attempts to change sexual orientation causes harm or psychological distress.
--George A. Rekers, Ph.D., FAACP
Distinguished Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus
University of South Carolina School of Medicine
Tracked by 7 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 48 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 24, 2007 2:24:04 PM PDT
MI Law Student says:
Check out what the (granted, notoriously liberal) ACLU has to say about Reker's "objetivity" and motives, before putting too much stock in his opinions. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/12401r
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2007 6:00:30 AM PDT
Dale V. Wayman says:
Check out the "objectivity" & motives of the ACLU before you put too much stock in their opinions.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 30, 2007 6:39:17 PM PDT
All one has to do is ask if the APA agrees with Rekers' description of the "high research standards." If not, then fine: Rekers is hot air. If the APA agrees, then his remarks are authentic. Rekers isn't any less objective than the ACLU or anyone else who disagrees with his position.
Posted on Oct 2, 2007 12:59:56 PM PDT
I am a statistician. I have a 99% confidence that this study is pure garbage. I don't know if it is worthy for me to spend $20 to prove it. All I know it's that you can't use the statistical science to establish a normative rule. Any attempt to do that is against any scientific logic, plus it might result in very harmful, hitlerian, treatments.
Posted on Oct 4, 2007 7:03:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 4, 2007 7:07:55 PM PDT
It always amazes me that studies are done, and then debated, over something about which any person remotely familiar with the issues already knows. The anecdotal evidence is utterly overwhelming: precious few individuals are able to change their behaviorial lifestyles enough to assimilate a different orientation, and nobody ever changes sexual orientation itself to any meaningful degree. There remains no documented case in history of anyone changing from a basically gay orientation to a basically straight orientation. Straight people do not have to spend the rest of their lives battling temptations to fool around with gay sex! Like I say, gay or "ex-gay" or straight, we all know how it is (if we're the least bit aware), and we all know what drives this effort to claim gays can change. But we'll go on reviewing studies as if we really need them to know what is the reality.
Posted on Oct 17, 2007 6:03:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 17, 2007 6:11:03 AM PDT
Jefferson Smith says:
There is subjectivity and objectivity involved whenever a person or people attempt to put forth a position. However, the truth can still be known to a certain degree.
That brings me to Mick's comment--do you think they're attempting to come up with a normative rule based on statistical research? To quote you, "All I know it's that you can't use the statistical science to establish a normative rule." I'd give you more than that generally, but when it comes to this book, that is all you know. Try reading it first...but that may not prove anything since your hasty 1% window, as we both know, is so negligible as to be effectively nothing.
Oh, and ChicagoLarry, the reason studies are done is that there are people who actually say they have experienced change. See http://www.drthrockmorton.com/idoexist.as
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2007 1:42:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 25, 2007 1:54:46 PM PDT
D. Dittmer says:
Thanks for the link. I was not aware he is a Southern Baptist Minister and founder of the Family Research Council. And the fact that he bases his research on Paul Cameron's work says it all. Cameron was discredited for manipulating his research. The author Stanton Jones is associated with Wheaton College - an Evangelical College. Not much objectivity there.
Posted on Oct 25, 2007 1:42:48 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 25, 2007 1:43:19 PM PDT]
Posted on Oct 26, 2007 12:47:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 26, 2007 1:08:21 PM PDT
Just me says:
A few points- NOTICE HOW SOME COMMENTS WERE DELETED BY THE AUTHOR????
THIS STUDY IS BOGUS AND HERES WHY...
-Its is abundantly clear that both researchers are biased in thought and opinion and therefore unable to reach a balanced conclusion(read quotes below)
-The methodology of the study (self reporting) is the least reliable research method. Self reporting was conducted by a participants filling out questionnaires and mailing them back as well as follow up phone calls every 6 months.
- The research was funded by Exodus international and the participants were paid by Exodus international as well.
- A LARGE number of participants dropped out without explanation
-Asexuality/celibacy was considered a "success"
- Mark Yarhouse is a Professor at Regent University which was founded by Pat Robertson who is also the President. Marks sexual identity institute is funded by Regent University.
- Jones is a professor at Wheaton College - an Evangelical College
-They are both members of NARTH- look it up they're scary and members have made racist comments as well- Google Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD
-10 major medical and mental health organization (including the APA) oppose the use of reparative therapy because of its damaging effects, and because they do not believe one should "fix a problem that doesn't exist". Look at he link below
-It is highly unlikely that both researchers would jeopardize their relationships with Regent, NARTH, or Exodus. Nor would they allow the findings of their study contradict years of claims made by themselves and others.
-THEY PROCLAIM THIS TO BE A "SCIENTIFIC STUDY" THAT WAS PRINTED BY A CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY - RATHER THAN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A PEER REVIEW!!!
BIASED VIEWS OF AUTHORS
Indeed, a devout Christian can decide that "Christ, or God, has a pre-existing claim on their sexuality" that trumps same-sex attractions, Yarhouse said.
Vegh, Steven "Some groups offering gays opportunities for "recovery". The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)14 September 2004.
Psychologist Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton, Ill., said those who support ordaining homosexuals are trying to "to normalize a pattern which is destructive and abnormal."
Cornwell, George. "Debate Over Sexuality Fails To Resolve Issue Of Ordaining Homosexuals". Associated Press. 15 July 1991.
Posted on Oct 26, 2007 12:50:37 PM PDT
Just me says:
Heres WHY REKERS is biased
George A. Rekers
Background- Resigned from APA in Protest of deleting homosexuality from the Association's compendium of psychiatric disorders.
Whatever biological component there is to having homosexual urges, homosexual behavior is a "preference," not an "orientation," he said -- in short, a matter of choice. It's a choice Rekers clearly considers deeply wrong: As a Southern Baptist, he told the commission, he believes that God destroyed the city of Sodom for allowing homosexuality, as an example to mankind, and that active homosexuals face "eternal separation from God" -- in Southern Baptist parlance, the fires of hell.- George Rekers
Thompson, Tracy. "Scouting New Terrain." The Washington Post. Washinton, DC. 2 August 1998.
Sounds like a man who couldn't deliver a balanced review on this with a scale!