COMAR, Right and Wrong, and the New Curriculum
I don't usually do this, but I'm going to blog twice about this article, just because the stuff at the start and end and the stuff in the middle are different, and equally important.
The Washington Post this morning had an article about the new Montgomery County sex-ed curriculum, and how it met state requirements, and what they do in other places. Maryland state law, called COMAR, says that schools should teach about "sexual variations," but it doesn't really say what that means. Every place decides for themselves. Montgomery County decided that "sexual variations" really meant "sexual orientation," and they went with that.
FYI, here's what COMAR says:
OK, back to The Post:
At present, Montgomery County schools don't say anything at all about the topic, and teachers are instructed to give a "perfunctory" answer if a student asks about it.
I didn't really have the feeling that MCPS went ahead with this curriculum because they had to, but because it's the right thing to do. The curriculum needed to be improved after so-many years of the same thing, while the world changed around us. There's no point in keeping kids in the dark about their sexual orientation, and in fact it makes a lot of sense to get the facts out in the open.
Last night my daughter was looking around MySpace, and she came across the site of another friend who has announced he is gay. Usually it's not a surprise, but she was surprised by this one, a kid in the neighborhood. Look, there're lots of gay people out there, in the real world and in the classroom. They're going to ask about it.
That "expected legal challenge" is bizarre, isn't it? Like, the question is, what will be the grounds of the "expected legal challenge?" We know the suers are going to complain, but what are they going to complain about? --You'd think the horse would come before the cart, that something would bother them and then they'd sue. But no, they decide to sue first, then find something to sue about. What a wild and wacky world we live in.
We remember the CRC strategy discussion, 'way back in January 2005, where they said: "Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis." There ya go, they just want to sue, for suing's sake.
Toward the end, this article reviews policies on teaching about sexual variations in neighboring counties, which is interesting in an academic way, but I hardly think Montgomery County needs to try to be like other places. We are a prestigious place to live, a place that leads. Let's continue to support doing the right thing.
The Washington Post this morning had an article about the new Montgomery County sex-ed curriculum, and how it met state requirements, and what they do in other places. Maryland state law, called COMAR, says that schools should teach about "sexual variations," but it doesn't really say what that means. Every place decides for themselves. Montgomery County decided that "sexual variations" really meant "sexual orientation," and they went with that.
Montgomery County's overhaul of its sex education curriculum, which has inspired a lawsuit, petition drives, national news coverage and the formation of fiercely polarized community groups, was itself inspired by two words buried deep within the regulatory code of Maryland, which advises school systems to teach "sexual variations."
The county school system invoked those regulations in defense of disputed new lessons that introduce students to sexual orientation and transgenderism in grades eight and 10.
Neither Maryland nor Virginia requires school systems to teach about sexual orientation, state officials said. Maryland's stipulation that schools teach sexual variations as one of several "areas of emphasis" in health classes is open to broad interpretation.
FYI, here's what COMAR says:
The following areas of emphasis shall be included in each program of the local school system:(i) Maturation;
(ii) The reproductive process;
(iii) Sexual variations;
(iv) Contraception;
(v) Premarital intercourse;
(vi) Marriage and family responsibilities;
(vii) Family planning; and
(viii) Sexually transmitted diseases.
OK, back to The Post:
Montgomery's new curriculum, approved last week for field tests this spring, goes deeper into sexual and gender identity than most other Washington area school systems have dared, judging by an informal survey. Some Northern Virginia systems don't teach about sexual orientation, and Maryland systems generally broach the topic in less detail or at the request of a curious student. Information from D.C. schools was not available. Wide Berth Allowed on Teaching About Homosexuality
At present, Montgomery County schools don't say anything at all about the topic, and teachers are instructed to give a "perfunctory" answer if a student asks about it.
I didn't really have the feeling that MCPS went ahead with this curriculum because they had to, but because it's the right thing to do. The curriculum needed to be improved after so-many years of the same thing, while the world changed around us. There's no point in keeping kids in the dark about their sexual orientation, and in fact it makes a lot of sense to get the facts out in the open.
Last night my daughter was looking around MySpace, and she came across the site of another friend who has announced he is gay. Usually it's not a surprise, but she was surprised by this one, a kid in the neighborhood. Look, there're lots of gay people out there, in the real world and in the classroom. They're going to ask about it.
"Everyone's watching Montgomery right now, in no uncertain terms," to see whether the new curriculum survives an expected legal challenge, said Jean-Marie Navetta, spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national nonprofit organization. If the lessons emerge intact, they could be replicated.
That "expected legal challenge" is bizarre, isn't it? Like, the question is, what will be the grounds of the "expected legal challenge?" We know the suers are going to complain, but what are they going to complain about? --You'd think the horse would come before the cart, that something would bother them and then they'd sue. But no, they decide to sue first, then find something to sue about. What a wild and wacky world we live in.
We remember the CRC strategy discussion, 'way back in January 2005, where they said: "Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis." There ya go, they just want to sue, for suing's sake.
Toward the end, this article reviews policies on teaching about sexual variations in neighboring counties, which is interesting in an academic way, but I hardly think Montgomery County needs to try to be like other places. We are a prestigious place to live, a place that leads. Let's continue to support doing the right thing.
posted by JimK at 10:42 AM
35 Comments:
"I didn't really have the feeling that MCPS went ahead with this curriculum because they had to, but because it's the right thing to do."
Well, in the past, your propaganda line has been that it was required by COAMR.
The curriculum is the wrong thing to do. It paints a fanciful and unrealistic portrait of the homosexual life.
"The curriculum needed to be improved after so-many years of the same thing, while the world changed around us."
That's true. The old curriculum was written in the midst of the sexual revolution. We've since become more conservative as a society and realize the consequences of licentiousness. The curriculum should reflect that. Abstinence programs run by private groups have reduced teenage pregnancy. We should incorporate them.
"There's no point in keeping kids in the dark about their sexual orientation, and in fact it makes a lot of sense to get the facts out in the open."
We can tell them what we know, which is not a lot. We do know about the associated consequences though.
"That "expected legal challenge" is bizarre, isn't it? Like, the question is, what will be the grounds of the "expected legal challenge?"
Good try. No one is going to give MCPS any advance help defending this egregious proposed propagandistic curriculum.
"Toward the end, this article reviews policies on teaching about sexual variations in neighboring counties, which is interesting in an academic way, but I hardly think Montgomery County needs to try to be like other places."
This debunks another TTF propaganda point though- that their viewpoint is mainstream.
They actually represent the lunatic fringe.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful analysis, Anon.
JimK
Anonymous said "The curriculum is the wrong thing to do. It paints a fanciful and unrealistic portrait of the homosexual life."
The right thing to do would be to include the APA's statement that being gay is not a disease or a choice and that attempts to change orientation have great potential for harm and little potential for success. The curiculum doesn't portray gay life at all, it merely mentions gays exist. The people with the "fanciful and unrealistic" portrait of gays are PFOX and their "exgay" propoganda.
"The right thing to do would be to include the APA's statement that being gay is not a disease or a choice"
These are scientifically validated so they won't be there.
"and that attempts to change orientation have great potential for harm"
No evidence of that.
"and little potential for success."
For those motivated, the prospects are good to excellent.
"The curiculum doesn't portray gay life at all, it merely mentions gays exist. The people with the "fanciful and unrealistic" portrait of gays are PFOX and their "exgay" propoganda."
Come now. let's be truthful.
"The right thing to do would be to include the APA's statement that being gay is not a disease or a choice"
These are not scientifically validated so they won't be there.
"and that attempts to change orientation have great potential for harm"
No evidence of that.
"and little potential for success."
For those motivated, the prospects are good to excellent.
"The curiculum doesn't portray gay life at all, it merely mentions gays exist. The people with the "fanciful and unrealistic" portrait of gays are PFOX and their "exgay" propoganda."
Come now. let's be truthful.
"and that attempts to change orientation have great potential for harm"
No evidence of that...Come now. let's be truthful.
You should follow your own advice and be truthful yourself. Here's what Dr. Warren Throckmorton, the CRC's guest speaker at their November 2005 public meeting, has said about harm from conversion therapy:
"I noted in my article the study done by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder that documented harm experienced by some people who sought reorientation counseling. The truth is we do not know how often harm is experienced by people seeking sexual reorientation. I do agree however, that there are harmful things done in the name of reorientation counseling."
Aunt Bea
Anonymous pontificated:
""and that attempts to change orientation have great potential for harm"
No evidence of that."
Boy, the stories I could tell you.
rrjr
Well, Beatrice and Robert, let's hear some stories.
Anonymous,
I hesitate to tell you all of what I experienced on a public blog, in part because some of it was so embarrasing that I wouldn't want everyone to know, and in part because if CRC and PFOX got hold of it, it might be used against me in some other context (much as CRC took my communication with Regina Griggs years ago in an email that I have bipolar disorder, and tried to use that to discredit my testimony at the TTF forum.
Jesus, thinking about this stuff gives me a massive stomach ache. It was truly aweful.
Anyway, we all often downplay the importance of anecdotal evidence (story-telling). In fact some of my friends who were involved in ex-gay therapies (ex-ex-gays, or Dos Equis)found them helpful to a degree, in dealing with other issues, or as a sort of "half-way house" to fully coming out. Certainly the defining moment in my own coming out experience was with a pastoral counselor whose original purpose was to change my sexual orientation.
Seems to me that most people on this blog prefer studies that they can reference. Let's see if I can find some:
Here's a report about a report: Youth in the Crosshairs (a report by the NGLTF, admittedly a source with a predictable opinion on the matter). I'm not able to find a full copy of the report, but if you google the title you find all sorts of references. I've met one of the authors, Jason Cianciotto.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs
I'm sure you've read Shidlo and Schroeder, but here they are again:
2001: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7d3o35RKFQcJ:psyweb2.ucdavis.edu/Herek/courses/Library/Shidlo-Schroeder%25202001.pdf+Shidlo+and+Schroeder,2001
There seems to be a 1998 book by Shidlo, Schroeder and Drescher (Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical, etc.) that perhaps we should all read.
That's all I can find in 5 minutes. If you want juicy stuff, maybe I can find material on all the shock treatment, aversion therapy stuff that NARTH and Exodus disavow now).
rrjr
Gotta go. Talk to y'all later
Robert
What ministries did you get involved with when you were seeking change?
Dos Equis. Gotta remember that one. Love it.
JimK
Here is Haldeman's review of conversion therapy studies and more detail from Shidlo and Schroeder's study:
"Early behavioral work in conversion therapy operated on the rationale that if certain predetermined (homosexual) behaviors could be extinguished, and if "adaptive" (heterosexual) behaviors could be substituted, the individual's sexual orientation would change. Such early behavioral studies primarily employed aversive conditioning techniques, usually involving electric shock or nausea-inducing drugs during presentation of same-sex erotic visual stimuli. Typically, the cessation of the aversive stimuli would be accompanied by the presentation of opposite-sex erotic visual stimuli, to supposedly strengthen heterosexual feelings in the sexual response hierarchy. Some programs attempted to augment aversive conditioning techniques with a social learning component -- assertiveness training, how to ask women out on dates, and so on (Feldman & McCulloch, 1965). Later, the same investigators modified their approach, calling it "anticipatory avoidance conditioning," which enabled subjects to avoid electrical shock when viewing slides of same-sex nudes (Feldman, 1966). One wonders how such a stressful situation would permit feelings of sexual responsiveness in any directions; nevertheless, a 58% "cure" rate was claimed. Again, however, the outcome criteria were defined as suppression of homosexuality, and an increased capacity for heterosexual behavior. It is not uncommon for homosexuals who have undergone aversive treatments to notice a temporary sharp decline in their homosexual responsiveness.
As with aversive techniques, the “covert sensitization” method calls for the use of noxious stimuli paired with same-sex erotic imagery. In this procedure, however, the subject does not actually experience the electric shock or induced vomiting, but is instructed to imagine such stimuli (Cautela, 1967). Outcomes here are limited to single-case studies, and are not generalizable.
More recent studies suggest that aversive interventions might extinguish homosexual responsiveness, but do little to promote alternative orientation. One investigator suggests that the poor outcomes of conversion treatments are due to the fact that they “disregard the complex learned repertoire and topography of homosexual behavior” (Faustman, 1976). Other recent studies echo the finding that “aversive therapies in homosexuality do not alter subjects’ sexual orientation, but serve only to reduce sexual arousal” (McConaghy, 1981). This pattern is reflected in yet another study suggesting that behavioral conditioning decreases homosexual orientation, but does not elevate heterosexual interest (Rangaswami, 1982). In fact, such methods applied to anyone else might be called by another name: torture. Individuals undergoing such treatments do not emerge heterosexually inclined; rather, they become shamed, conflicted, and fearful about their homosexual feelings."
Haldeman, D. (1991). Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination. In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. pp. 149-160. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
"In 2002, researchers Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder recruited 182 men and 20 women for a study on the negative effects of reparative therapy. They found that 176 subjects said reparative therapy was harmful, while 26 said it was successful."
http://washtimes.com/metro/20050926-095613-8795r.htm
Psychological Harm
Participants reported perceiving the conversion intervention as harmful in the following areas:
Depression, suicidal ideation and attempts. Many participants spoke of depressed feelings resulting from the conversion intervention. Some attributed the negative effect to the event of having being told by the therapist—and their believing—that they had chosen a homosexual orientation:
I felt more depressed after I did the therapy. The negative aspect was that I really felt it was all up to me, a choice I had made, and because of that choice I was condemned to being in this pain forever. This need for unnatural affections.
Other participants said that they tried not to be homosexual, and when change failed to come or they experienced a resurgence of same-sex desire, they then became depressed. Some participants spoke of suicidal ideation and attempts:
I wanted to die. I felt as though I would never change and be “cured.” It harmed my self-esteem very much. I wanted to die. I felt as though it [the conversion therapy] took away who I was. . . . It took away my dignity.
One female participant described her experience of conversion therapy as an experience akin to being killed:
I attempted suicide with pills. I just wanted to die. Part of it had to do with the feeling that I was dying already because of what the nun [conversion therapist] was doing to me. It felt like she was killing me, trying to rid me of my lesbian self.
In examining the data, we distinguished between participants who had a history of being suicidal before conversion therapy and those who did not. Twenty-five participants had a history of suicide attempts before conversion therapy, 23 during conversion therapy, and 11 after conversion therapy. We took the subgroup of participants who reported suicide attempts and looked at suicide attempts preintervention, during intervention, and postintervention to see if there was any suggestive pattern. We found that 11 participants had reported suicide attempts since the end of conversion interventions. Of these, only 3 had attempted prior to conversion therapy. Of the 11 participants, 3 had attempted during conversion therapy.
Self-esteem and internalized homophobia. Many participants linked the iatrogenic effects of conversion therapy on their self-esteem to the therapist’s intervention of devaluing their homosexual orientation and providing defamatory and false information about gay and lesbian persons, and their lives, relationships, and communities (see Schroeder & Shidlo, 2001). This is consistent with the portrayal of lesbians and gay men in the conversion therapy literature (cf. Nicolosi, 1991, 1993, 2000; Socarides, 1978, 1995). It seems incontrovertible that an intervention that frames a homosexual orientation as undesirable, sick, and evil, when applied to individuals who fail to change their homosexual orientation, will have iatrogenic effects by virtue of exacerbating self-hatred, poor self-esteem, and internalized homophobia. One participant reported:
I think it harmed me. . . . It reinforced all my own negative stereotypes about homosexuality and my being a failure and an inadequate human being.
Distorted perception of homosexual orientation. We found that some conversion therapists and patients appeared to attribute, without substantiation, many—sometimes all—negative traits and life events to a homosexual orientation. For many of our participants, homosexuality became a receptacle of all that was dysfunctional and undesirable. This created unrealistic demands that a change of sexual orientation would resolve unrelated personal and interpersonal problems.
Intrusive imagery and sexual dysfunction. A group of participants who underwent cognitive behavior therapies, especially those who had aversive conditioning, reported long-term harm as indicated by the intrusion of disturbing images formed in conversion therapy. Some male participants also complained of sexual impotence:
In a sex act, I can imagine . . . my wife . . . and I find that disturbing, because it doesn’t belong there. He [the psychologist] taught me to do that a long time ago. The first time I attempted to have anal intercourse with my lover, I couldn’t because I would get flashbacks of my life. The same way when I was in the behavior mod program, when I was in the relationship with that guy, my therapist would have me envision [wife’s name] there, versus the guy being there; I was to envision her, not him, while having sex with him. That was a mind bender. . . . I still have it with me sometimes. Not as bad as I used to, but I still get a flashback; either it takes away from the moment or destroys the moment. . . . When I’m involved in a sex act, sometimes I really have to try to push out thoughts in my mind that he planted, or I will not be able to achieve an erection or ejaculation.
Unanimously, participants reported that aversive conditioning had especially destructive effects. They experienced aversive conditioning as punitive and degrading, and they responded with fear and shame:
It was a pretty humiliating experience. It was sitting in somebody’s office and unzip your pants and strapped to electrodes. And [then] walk out to the waiting-room with burn marks in my arms—the size of quarters. Being in his presence [and] having to look at these pictures [pornographic images]. It was embarrassing.
Monitoring of gender-deviant mannerisms. Some respondents spoke about an increase in worrying that they appeared “gay-acting.” This is not surprising, as a central component of some conversion therapies is to increase stereotypically gender-appropriate behavior. Some participants reported hypervigilance over displaying incongruous gender traits, resulting in an increase in paranoid-like worries and fears that they would not “pass” as being heterosexual.
Social and Interpersonal Harm
Many participants spoke of having experienced significant harm in their relationships and social functioning in the following areas:
Family of origin. Many respondents reported that conversion therapy significantly harmed relationships with their parents. These participants reported that they were instructed to blame their parents for their homosexual orientation and were taught to identify failures in parenting as causal to their sexual orientation. Participants spoke of anger, alienation, hatred, and other negative emotions toward their parents as results of the conversion therapy:
I really wanted to believe . . . [my therapist about the cause of my homosexuality]. So for a while, it added to my hatred of my father. . . During that period I broke off relationship with my father to get away from that influence.
Alienation, loneliness, and social isolation. Many participants complained of experiencing social isolation and loneliness as a consequence of conversion therapy. This occurred even in individuals who had many ex-gay or heterosexual social supports. Participants attributed their loneliness to hiding that they were still homosexual:
[The conversion therapy] made me feel like a freak. Made me feel about it even worse than I did before [the conversion therapy]. Consequently, I couldn’t reach out to anyone about it. . . . I had no one to talk to, and didn’t feel I could be open with that therapist.
Interference with intimate relationships. This included loss of same-sex partners or missed opportunities to commit to long-term relationships with same-sex persons whom participants were in love with. Some therapists advised their clients to break off intimate relationships with same-sex partners. Long-lasting exacerbation of shame about sexual orientation interfered with lesbian and gay relationships after treatment failure:
It changed my sexual life as well. . . . I feel that it has been a very slow process to having a normal sexual life as a gay male. Subconsciously or consciously I still view being gay as bad, or something you should be guilty about. . . . I think it made me less of a sexual homosexual.
Loss of social supports when entering and leaving the ex-gay community. Upon entering ex-gay support systems, many participants were instructed to distance themselves from lesbian and gay friends. A converse loss occurred when leaving the ex-gay community; many reported being rejected for abandoning the struggle against homosexuality.
Fear of being a child abuser. Some male participants reported that conversion therapy created in them a fear of becoming child abusers and subsequently interfered with their relationships with children:
It really screwed me up, because these thoughts were put in my head that I was attracted to little boys, and I’m not. I was very angry at that... I had very young nephews, I was afraid to be around them, afraid to play with them.
Delay of developmental tasks due to not coming out as gay or lesbian earlier. Many participants reported that the years invested in conversion therapy (over a decade for some) delayed opportunities to have intimate relationships and develop social skills. They complained of difficulties in distinguishing between intimacy, friendship, sex, and love:
It delayed my being a gay man once again. It preserved the false notion that sexual orientation could be changed and added more years to my time in the closet. I lost a lot of my life as a result of this.
Spiritual Harm
The majority (66%) of our sample was religious. Many who considered themselves to be treatment failures reported experiencing a negative impact on their religiosity. We identified several negative outcomes in this group: (a) complete loss of faith, (b) sense of betrayal by religious leaders, (c) anger at clinicians who introduced punitive and shaming concepts of God, and (d) excommunication.
I had this spiritual foundation that therapy fXXXed up. God became this very punishment. In church you get homophobia twice a year, in therapy it was every week. God was a punishing-homophobic figure, and I became an evil sinner every time.
http://tinyurl.com/ytopyx
Aunt Bea
I sought therapy through a pediatric psychiatrist, a psychiatrist, two psychologists, a group through my church, and a number of pastoral counselors. I don't know what groups they were associated with. I didn't care at the time.
Robert
I was wondering because I met some people from Exodus who say their program has had success. Any experience with them?
What was your church?
Anonymous at
January 17, 2007 12:01 AM said of attempts to change sexual orientation "For those motivated, the prospects are good to excellent."
You couldn't be more wrong about that.
Shidlo and Shroeder studied 202 people who had undergone conversion therapy. Eight of their subjects reported a change in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, seven of the eight were ex-gay counselors or leaders who statements may have been false. They are fairly certain that one of the 202 was able to change his/her sexual orientation They reported a conversion rate of 0.5%.
Robert Spitzer studied 200 people merely claiming to have changed sexual orientation. 46 of the subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved -- a VERY conservative figure, then 37 "success stories" represents a conversion rate of 0.04%
Spitzer himself said:
"Our sample was self-selected from people who already claimed they had made some change. We don't know how common that kind of change is. . . . I'm not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it's quite unusual."
"I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation."
"...the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]... "[only] a small minority -- perhaps 3% -- might have a "malleable" sexual orientation."
He expressed a concern that his study results were being "twisted by the Christian right."
He told the Washington Post in 2005 that supporters of reparative therapy have misrepresented the results of his study. He said:
"It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right...What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare."
He noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious. He calls as "totally absurd" the beliefs that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
yawn...
What a novel response, Anon. You don't like the data; well, why not just take a nap. Sleep through the 21st century while you're at it.
You can probably search and find Randi's posted the same stuff virtually verbatim repeatedly. It's a little old. He's really invested in this worldview.
A baptist church in Richmond.
When I talked to the Exodus people in Maine, they said I could expect some change, but that I would always have same-sex attractions. I wasn't interested. I wanted to be totally straight.
rrjr
Randi has told you repeatedly she is a she, yet your boring, boorish behavior continues. It takes a real coward to hurl insults from the shadows of anonymity. Thanks for this clear demonstration of how your faith teaches you to treat people who are different from you.
Pat Tipton
I'd like to thank Randi and other commenters on this blog for patiently and repeatedly reporting the facts presented in the research, facts that are always ignored by radical religious right jihadists who cherry pick only selected findings from the research on conversion therapy, especially the Spitzer study. If you keep asking the same questions over and over Anon, like you did when you said "let's hear some stories" about "attempts to change orientation [that] have great potential for harm," and especially if you continue to lie and say there's "No evidence of" harm caused by attempts to shove LBGT people into the closet, you're going to get the same answers. Spitzer's quotes are real. Ignoring them or yawning at them will not make them less real. The fact that you have no response to Shidlo and Schroeder's findings as well as Spitzer's findings and subsequent public statements is telling.
I hope readers will note how Anon and the rest of the radical right lunatic fringe choose to ignore all the data that doesn't fit with their myopic worldview.
PTA
Thank you Pat and PTA.
Anonymous keeps repeating the lie that motivated people have good to excellent prospects for changing orientation and then bitches that its being exposed as an untruth is repetitive. Here's a thought, if you're tired of having your lies debunked then stop lying.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon, you're a pitiful failure of a person. I'm sorry for you.
Go away.
JimK
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon, it's time for you to find something to do.
As it is, it's going to take a lot of Lysol to get rid of the smell around here.
JimK
Bravo!
Aunt Bea
So change is posible. if one wants to change. what is the big deal.
The big deal is that most people who undergo conversion therapy report being harmed by it.
most people who go to conversion therapy are drama queens
"most people who go to conversion therapy are drama queens"
How do you know? Are you speaking from personal experience or blowing it out yourear again? The way these ministries market their dross is to claim their clients are religious people trying to reconcile their behavior with their faith.
Nice design of blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home