1. says


    the aspect of the ex-gay clinics that continues to be ignored, for obvious reason, is that the reason these men want to no longer be gay is that it’s been made clear to them all that they will not be loved, accepted or embraced for being gay.

    that’s why it’s an “unwanted” thing. these are not gay people from gay-supportive places or communities. these are people for whom being gay will mean permanent ostracizing.

  2. HillBilly says

    While I do respect Dr. Spitzer a great deal, and more so now, I still have to question his ability to draw any conclusions from his original study.
    One, there was no long-term follow-up. Seven years later, how many of those 200 subjects have maintained their “conversion”?
    Two, he admits that the subjects were “highly motivated” to change. Did Spitzer’s conclusions take into account that men who are that motivated to change will lie about achieving that change, even to themselves?
    And three, sexual orientation is not an extreme “one or the other”. How many of those men who were able to change their attraction started out in the bi-sexual middle of the spectrum?

  3. says

    i’m always puzzled, however, by the religious side of it. every cognitive mind (ha!) knows orientations cannot change – yet we get ‘religious’ people who say that their orientation has changed.
    that’s called a lie. and lying is breaking the 9th Commandment.

    why break the 9th commandment? to appease not God, but simple lowly mortal beings who falsely think they’re “pleasing God” by being anti-gay. so it’s not actually about Honouring God, but avoiding prejudice from humans.

    one of those distinctions the religious right seems incapable of understanding.

  4. Jack M says

    It doesn’t seem as though Spitzer made a big effort to publicize his changing viewpoint on the study. If it bothered him so much, why didn’t he speak up a little louder and sooner?

  5. Andrew says

    There’s a really great This American Life episode called “81 words” about the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-V that is worth a listen for anyone who’s gay. It covers this guy quite a bit. It’s REALLY good radio, find it!

  6. says

    thing is – the anti-gay sides continue to promote discredited and disproven things about gay people. why? it’s all they have.

    it’s like anti-gay “Christians” that cite passages from the old testament that, if one knows anything about theology, are negated by “Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross”

  7. QJ201 says

    FYI, the current editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior is Kenneth J. Zucker…who specializes in treating “gender variant children.” He is roundly despised by many trans (and LGB) people.

    Not a shock that he refuse to reply.

  8. Ricco says

    The man was supposed to be an academic. He enjoyed years of respect afforded to those who aspire to the level of academia where he is part of that system of peer reviewed studies, as well as enjoying the societal benefits of position, and monetary gains derived from being benefits of being a respected psychiatrist, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association, and now because he penned and affixed his name and reputation to an irresponsible study, wants to be patronized, rather than respected, have everyone hit the rewind button and say: okay we will give you a pass on this one specious study, that you are now saying was really just a passing curiosity . . . even though you used your influence to publish it in legitimate journals?

    I feel bad for him, but to hit the rewind button in an attempt to safeguard someone’s legacy, when the safeguarding of one’s legacy is the sole responsibility of the individual just as the individual is the sole beneficiary of his/her legacy, would not only serve to nullify the legitimacy of the one work he wishes to forget and distance himself from, but cast a pall upon his entire body of work.

    If the rewind button could be hit for Dr. Spitzer, why should we respect or listen to anyone who would say: “I am an expert in the study of human behavior. Listen to what I tell you.”

    We can forgive him for his ridiculous study, to which he affixed his name, and which he backed with the reputation of HIS legacy at that juncture in his career so others would listen to his thoughts on his passing fancy of reparative therapy; and we can even forgive him for the adverse affect his study had on countless lives, but we can no more hit the rewind button and undo the hurt this study has done to his reputation, than we could hit the rewind button on those innocents whose lives were devastated by Dr. Spitzer’s words.

    Sorry, Dr. Spitzer. Unfortunately, life does not work that way. But if it is any comfort to you, as one who was affected by your study, your words, your reputation, I forgive you.

  9. jack says

    “Christs sacrifice on the cross” is just more religious B.S. The entire bible is a collection of myths, fake history, contradictions, and evil deeds attributed to the Israelite tribal god yahweh that make Mao, Stalin,Hitler et al seem like choir boys. Shake that nonsense out of your head and be truly liberated.

  10. jack says

    Spitzer says OOPS, i was wrong. Oh yea, I guess I did help destroy tens of thousands of lives in the process. Oh well, we all make mistakes. This is where arrogance leads.

  11. anon says

    Groups like NOM will not stop using the article even if disowned by the author because they have no incentive to do so. Only if the press holds them accountable will they stop. But why would the press do this either? (Actually, NOM itself probably does not care about the ex-gay movement, but they are allies with people who do.) In recent years the ex-gay movement has essentially gone bankrupt because few men in their 20’s are paying for the ‘treatments’ anymore and it’s only the parents of gay teens that continue to seek out ‘cures’. The two groups don’t use the same facilities, so the whole self-identified ‘ex-gay’ world is collapsing while the more fundamentalist and church driven ‘reparative therapy’ crowd keeps going.

  12. says

    my point is that expecting cohesive logic and reason from the religious right is fruitless. they don’t actually know what they’re talking about – it has less to do with trying to please god and more to do with trying to please a culture that thinks pleasing god makes one “better”

    these are the same people who ignore every scientific shred of evidence in order to favor “God made it. in 6 days”

    they don’t “follow the bible”. they “follow” parts that they think don’t apply to them, and even though only barely.

  13. jack says

    Everbody uses the bible as a cafeteria. It is a collection of myths and tales written by scores of individuals over many centuries. You can find all sorts of contradictions and just plain nonsense in it. It should be in museums like the Codes of Draco and Hammurabi and not something that rational 21st century people use as a serious guide to their lives.

Leave A Reply