'Ex-gay' Exodus International pretty much gives up.

[afleitch]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/07/07/leader-of-reparative-therapy-group-exodus-says-gays-cant-be-cured/

"The leader of global ‘gay cure’ church Exodus International has declared that gays cannot be turned straight and that so-called ‘reparative therapy’ may be dangerous.

Exodus president Alan Chambers is said to have shocked the ‘ex-gay’ movement with his volte-face and is facing accusations of heresy, the New York Times reports.

Speaking at the group’s annual meeting last week, he said homosexuality cannot be “cured” and that people can be damaged by therapy designed to turn them heterosexual.

Mr Chambers is said to have repeated his views in a number of public statements.

In January, he told a told a Gay Christian Network conference that “99.9 per cent” of gay people going through the controversial therapy had not experienced any change in their sexual orientation. He also apologised for the “ambiguity” of the group’s former slogan ‘Change Is Possible’.

Speaking to the New York Times this week, Mr Chambers said that while the Bible condemns homosexuality, he believes that gay people who continue to have gay sex can still go to Heaven.

He said: “I believe that any sexual expression outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is sinful according to the Bible.

“But we’ve been asking people with same-sex attractions to overcome something in a way that we don’t ask of anyone else [with other sins].”

Mr Chambers, who says he used to be gay, added that he was happy in his heterosexual marriage."

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Chambers is in the 0.1% who were "cured?"

[Holmes]

You can't "cure" it, you can unhealthily repress it to a point where you're under the illusion that you're cured. Mr. Chambers might be happy in his marriage, who knows, but it'll come out again. He's lying to himself and he knows it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does this mean Mr. Bachmann will have to find a new line of work?

[Torie]

Does this mean Mr. Bachmann will have to find a new line of work?

That assumes that you can't make a living hawking something that has no efficacy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does this mean Mr. Bachmann will have to find a new line of work?

That assumes that you can't make a living hawking something that has no efficacy.

Whether or not something actually works has nothing to with whether you can sell it, just whether people believe it works.  So to paraphrase, will this cause enough target consumers of this particular brand of snake oil to lose faith in it and thus not pay for it?

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Chambers is in the 0.1% who were "cured?"

It doesn't say he was "therapized".

[Torie]

Does this mean Mr. Bachmann will have to find a new line of work?

That assumes that you can't make a living hawking something that has no efficacy.

Whether or not something actually works has nothing to with whether you can sell it, just whether people believe it works.  So to paraphrase, will this cause enough target consumers of this particular brand of snake oil to lose faith in it and thus not pay for it?

Because one guy flips? No, not "enough," and maybe not any, but in all events no more than a few. Folks who have an interest in "curing" homosexuals these days, tend to be pretty hard wired on the topic, and more and more out of the mainstream. More and more in the mainstream is who gives a F whom consenting adults play with?  The fixation is frankly ludicrous - just ludicrous.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So I guess they'll shut down soon. What does this mean for the few success stories?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You can't "cure" it, you can unhealthily repress it to a point where you're under the illusion that you're cured. Mr. Chambers might be happy in his marriage, who knows, but it'll come out again. He's lying to himself and he knows it.

I find it ironic how many supporters of gay rights are convinced they can categorize other people's sexuality into tidy boxes.

[Holmes]

You can't "cure" it, you can unhealthily repress it to a point where you're under the illusion that you're cured. Mr. Chambers might be happy in his marriage, who knows, but it'll come out again. He's lying to himself and he knows it.

I find it ironic how many supporters of gay rights are convinced they can categorize other people's sexuality into tidy boxes.

Hi, I'm Holmes. I'm gay so I understand homosexuality a little more than you do. Even if a man is bisexual at "best", the attraction to men will still be in there, no matter how deep you bury it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You can't "cure" it, you can unhealthily repress it to a point where you're under the illusion that you're cured. Mr. Chambers might be happy in his marriage, who knows, but it'll come out again. He's lying to himself and he knows it.

I find it ironic how many supporters of gay rights are convinced they can categorize other people's sexuality into tidy boxes.

Hi, I'm Holmes. I'm gay so I understand homosexuality a little more than you do. Even if a man is bisexual at "best", the attraction to men will still be in there, no matter how deep you bury it.

You understand your experience of homosexuality better than I do, yes.

[Mercenary]

Indeed you cannot "cure" it. And I agree attempting to do so would be harmful.
If one wants to promote something to those who have such attractions, lifelong abstinence is all you can really promote. You cannot help what you feel, you can only choose how you act on it. I certainly don't even anyone who has to deal with this issue.

Ideally I think people in such a situation should choose to devote their life towards helping others, I think that could help fill the void of the lack of a spouse. Or actually, even have a same sex spouse who you simply don't engage in sexual activity with. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I realize desires are strong and I wouldn't fault someone who submits to them, just as I am not going to ridicule someone who engages in heterosexual activity prior to marriage either. I do not think it is a good thing to do, but it doesn't make the people bad or anything and we shouldn't judge them for it. Rather we should focus on a positive message of what is good to do instead of what is bad to do.

[afleitch]

You can't "cure" it, you can unhealthily repress it to a point where you're under the illusion that you're cured. Mr. Chambers might be happy in his marriage, who knows, but it'll come out again. He's lying to himself and he knows it.

I find it ironic how many supporters of gay rights are convinced they can categorize other people's sexuality into tidy boxes.

Really? I mean given that it's an LGBT movement then we seem to be embracing of a variety of sexual preferences. It's those that classify sexuality into 'normal/exclusive' and 'deviant' that seem to be the ones putting things into little boxes.

Ideally I think people in such a situation should choose to devote their life towards helping others, I think that could help fill the void of the lack of a spouse. Or actually, even have a same sex spouse who you simply don't engage in sexual activity with. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I realize desires are strong and I wouldn't fault someone who submits to them, just as I am not going to ridicule someone who engages in heterosexual activity prior to marriage either. I do not think it is a good thing to do, but it doesn't make the people bad or anything and we shouldn't judge them for it. Rather we should focus on a positive message of what is good to do instead of what is bad to do.

So gay people shouldn't have sex? Why exactly. Why should they refrain from something that is psychologically and emotionally fulfilling?

[Mercenary]

So gay people shouldn't have sex? Why exactly. Why should they refrain from something that is psychologically and emotionally fulfilling?

I personally think it would be better if they didn't, but I can understand that they have desires and that resisting them is both physically and emotionally difficult. I won't fault them for giving in, I wouldn't judge them for it. But on the other hand I will instantly have respect for someone who refrains from it, just as I will have respect for anyone who chooses to wait until marriage to have sexual relations. However, even as with heterosexual relations, I think homosexual relations too, if they are going to engage in sexual activity, is best to wait until they are a committed relationships and that is one of the reasons I changed my position in favor of state recognition of their marriages.

[afleitch]

So gay people shouldn't have sex? Why exactly. Why should they refrain from something that is psychologically and emotionally fulfilling?

I personally think it would be better if they didn't, but I can understand that they have desires and that resisting them is both physically and emotionally difficult. I won't fault them for giving in, I wouldn't judge them for it. But on the other hand I will instantly have respect for someone who refrains from it, just as I will have respect for anyone who chooses to wait until marriage to have sexual relations. However, even as with heterosexual relations, I think homosexual relations too, if they are going to engage in sexual activity, is best to wait until they are a committed relationships and that is one of the reasons I changed my position in favor of state recognition of their marriages.

Then I ask you, who would it be better for? How does how I express my love for my partner affect you in any way that it motivates you to say 'I'd rather you didn't?'

I'm in a long term relationship. I'd be grateful for you to elaborate why it would be better if I didn't make love to my partner. How would it be better if I didn't kiss him, hold him, stroke his head at the hospital or show him romantic affection.

[Brittain33]

So gay people shouldn't have sex? Why exactly. Why should they refrain from something that is psychologically and emotionally fulfilling?

I personally think it would be better if they didn't, but I can understand that they have desires and that resisting them is both physically and emotionally difficult. I won't fault them for giving in, I wouldn't judge them for it. But on the other hand I will instantly have respect for someone who refrains from it.

Please understand, nearly every gay person will value their own emotional well-being and independence over this form of respect.

[© tweed]

Does this mean Mr. Bachmann will have to find a new line of work?

That assumes that you can't make a living hawking something that has no efficacy.

Whether or not something actually works has nothing to with whether you can sell it, just whether people believe it works.  So to paraphrase, will this cause enough target consumers of this particular brand of snake oil to lose faith in it and thus not pay for it?

yeah but it seems unlikely that insurance companies will pay for this at any time in the near future... unlike 12-step 'treatment' for substance use problems, which is the most markedly successful snake oil of the past 100 years, and the Gold Standard for any aspiring salesman.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So gay people shouldn't have sex? Why exactly. Why should they refrain from something that is psychologically and emotionally fulfilling?

I personally think it would be better if they didn't, but I can understand that they have desires and that resisting them is both physically and emotionally difficult. I won't fault them for giving in, I wouldn't judge them for it. But on the other hand I will instantly have respect for someone who refrains from it, just as I will have respect for anyone who chooses to wait until marriage to have sexual relations. However, even as with heterosexual relations, I think homosexual relations too, if they are going to engage in sexual activity, is best to wait until they are a committed relationships and that is one of the reasons I changed my position in favor of state recognition of their marriages.

Then I ask you, who would it be better for? How does how I express my love for my partner affect you in any way that it motivates you to say 'I'd rather you didn't?'

I'm in a long term relationship. I'd be grateful for you to elaborate why it would be better if I didn't make love to my partner. How would it be better if I didn't kiss him, hold him, stroke his head at the hospital or show him romantic affection.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but he did say it's best to wait until you're in a committed relationship, which you obviously are.

Speaking of Michael and the hospital, when's he getting out? Or did he already?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You can't "cure" it, you can unhealthily repress it to a point where you're under the illusion that you're cured. Mr. Chambers might be happy in his marriage, who knows, but it'll come out again. He's lying to himself and he knows it.

I find it ironic how many supporters of gay rights are convinced they can categorize other people's sexuality into tidy boxes.

Really? I mean given that it's an LGBT movement then we seem to be embracing of a variety of sexual preferences. It's those that classify sexuality into 'normal/exclusive' and 'deviant' that seem to be the ones putting things into little boxes.

my point is that it exists on both sides of the debate but in different ways.  Anti-gay people have a narrow view of what is normal, natural and moral.  The mainstream gay rights movement tends to essentialize a person's sexuality as belonging to categories which are genetically determined and unchanging throughout one's life, and so claims of change are lies and cannot be tolerated.

[afleitch]

You can't "cure" it, you can unhealthily repress it to a point where you're under the illusion that you're cured. Mr. Chambers might be happy in his marriage, who knows, but it'll come out again. He's lying to himself and he knows it.

I find it ironic how many supporters of gay rights are convinced they can categorize other people's sexuality into tidy boxes.

Really? I mean given that it's an LGBT movement then we seem to be embracing of a variety of sexual preferences. It's those that classify sexuality into 'normal/exclusive' and 'deviant' that seem to be the ones putting things into little boxes.

my point is that it exists on both sides of the debate but in different ways.  Anti-gay people have a narrow view of what is normal, natural and moral.  The mainstream gay rights movement tends to essentialize a person's sexuality as belonging to categories which are genetically determined and unchanging throughout one's life, and so claims of change are lies and cannot be tolerated.

That's not true. Bear in mind that there is no evidence (by which I mean peer reviewed study) to suggest that you can change your sexual orientation; sexuality is a broad prism and is not as clear cut as homosexual/heterosexual. The LGBT movement accepts that. So people can have a variety of different sexual partners of various genders throughout their life. What we don’t accept is someone claiming to have ‘prayed to Jesus’ and magically became straight/not gay. We don’t accept it because it goes against the understanding of sexual orientation and because many people who used to claim just that now say it didn’t happen and they made themselves believe something that wasn’t true.

A bit like Scientology; no one believes it works (and there is no evidence to suggest that it does) except those who subscribe to it. Those who leave the organisation then confirm that it was all hokum.