HANDBOOK OF THERAPY FOR UNWANTED HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTIONS: A GUIDE TO TREATMENT, by Julie Harren Hamilton Ph.D (Editor), Philip J. Henry Ph.D. (Editor). Publisher: Xulon Press (May 18, 2009). Language: English. ISBN-10: 1607916010. ISBN-13: 978-1607916017.

  • Joseph Nicolosi, PhD.
  • A. Dean Byrd, PhD., MBA, MHP
  • Mary Beth Patton, MA, LPC
  • Janelle Hallman, MA, LPC
  • Esly Regina Carvalho, MS, LPC
  • Mike Rosebush, PhD.
  • George A. Rekers, PhD., ThD. [As of early May 2010, Rekers is embroiled in a sex scandal involving a male-homosexual prostitute. Whether or not the statements of people surrounding this are factual, other people cannot be painted with one brush. Each heterosexual is not responsible for the acts of every other heterosexual. The same applies for homosexuals.

    "But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." (Jeremiah 31:30).

    For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27).

    I, Tom Usher, agree with the sentiment there. Lumping all people together such as the racists do saying "all Blacks" this or "all Palestinians" that, as if all Blacks are responsible for what some Blacks do or all Whites are responsible for what some Whites do, is immoral. (* see: NARTH statement, below)]

  • Kimberly Barnett Oram, PsyD.

To obtain the book at a discounted price, begin by clicking on the book's image above.

Would it not be wise to go beyond "ministry and church leaders," "lay counselors and pastors," "Christian counselors," and such language by saying something akin to "lay and clerical religious leaders"? Aren't Muslim clerics, Jewish rabbis, Hindu priests and priestesses, etc., also in need of the tools? Does promoting the tools to them connote an abrogation of Christianity, or does it do the exact opposite? Christianity itself truly doesn't even "need" science, but here is a book that for those who reject the pure healing of faith in God will at least receive some direction, which if truly followed to the only logical conclusion, arrives at God. That does though necessitate knowing which paths and parts not to follow or to tread that deviate endlessly from the narrow way.

Also, I wonder about the term "Unwanted Homosexual Attraction" as opposed to just "Homosexual Attraction" or just "Homosexuality." It's too late for this particular printing/edition, but shouldn't great consideration be given to overcoming homosexuality regardless of the starting point with any individual or group?

How do older adults and parents and grandparents and others begin to deprogram/change the minds of youth who are really on a harmful ideological bandwagon the direct result of false advertising/proselytizing by libertines and hedonists promoting vice?

My concern is with making unnecessary and detrimental concessions. The use of the word "Unwanted," to my way of thinking, has the unwanted effect of allowing many to dismiss the larger issue of homosexuality simply by saying he or she or they "want" it. NARTH has shown that homosexuality itself is dangerous, risky, and damaging. When does anyone escape the harm without making a full recovery? If the issue here concerns not forcing therapy upon people and especially children because the greater mass of "scientists" right now claim that there is no harm in homosexuality or that treatment is more harmful than homosexuality or that homosexuality is not mutable by virtue of genetics or for some other reason, then why not dig in at a point much closer to the truth of the matter and stake out the language there?

When a brainwashed child says to a rightly concerned parent, "I want it," then this new book is doomed from its cover. The children have been fed reasons for "wanting" it. Adults have created the language that children apply to each other as peer pressure. Parents and others need the countervailing and correct language (the mental challenges and answers and refutations) concerning all of that peer-pressure language.

Parents and counselors don't need to be infallible in every aspect of their beings in order to demonstrate to youth that in the absence of parental and other guidance, youth would self-destruct in most cases — repeating all the mistakes down through history. Who teaches the child not to run out into the street without carefully stopping, listening, and looking both ways, etc.? Is the child or youth going to appreciate the truth of that lesson or not?

The answer to who teaches that lesson is the adults in the child's life primarily and also other children who have already been trained up correctly on the issue or who as suddenly wide-eyed children, who didn't know the rule or simply dismissed it or weren't sufficiently impressed or attentive, has experienced heart-stopping realization when faced with a panic-stopping driver.

Why should the youth disregard the stop sign place at homosexuality anymore than they should disregard the other warning signs?

Well, society has had self-placed, incorrect restriction before. The arguments against certain behaviors were specious. Prohibitive behavior was surrounded by overkill. I grew up with statements such as try it once and you'll be hooked for life rather than statements more akin to that it is better not to experiment because even one episode contains some degree of harm and it can and often does lead to a habit that can be and often is very difficult to break.

Youths say to each other, "Go ahead. It won't kill you." Some malignant cancers can take decades to kill. A child wouldn't know it on day one without being told by a rightly trusted source. Is homosexuality fatal? I understand that the book is dealing on the mundane, "scientific" level. Does an old homosexual finally die of "old age" or the cumulative effect of homosexual behavior and bent? It's a spiritual point that the testers of science can't answer from within their limited language. I won't press the issue here, even though I do advocate digging in at truth and not just closer to it. There does have to be bridging language constructed, and what I'm doing here is putting out a bridge the entrance to which is placed such that no ground must be retaken after the treatment of "Unwanted" homosexual attraction has been re-accepted in the main. I'm not interested in fighting a new war after that over just homosexual attraction. My point is that no one shouldn't be lead to falsely imagine that he or she wants it in the first place. Focusing upon and emphasizing "Unwanted" may appear the expedient thing, but it is not. It may take away some of the perceived ammunition of those who would fault a parent for removing a splinter from his or her child's foot even when no anesthetic is available. That though should not be conceded to them as any valid ammunition at all. Such false bullets should be given credibility in the first place, shouldn't even be allowed to leave the homosexual Pied Piper's non-gun.

*NARTH statement:


The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional scientific organization with hundreds of academic, research, and clinical members dedicated to assisting individuals dealing with unwanted homosexual attractions. While NARTH is focused on the science of homosexual attraction, personal controversies often deepen the existing cultural divide on this issue. Such is the case in the recent news stories concerning one of our members, Dr. George Rekers.

NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made,and we are currently attempting to understand the details behind these press reports. We are always saddened when this type of controversy impacts the lives of individuals, and we urge all parties to allow a respectful and thorough investigation to take place.

At this difficult time for the families and individuals involved, we extend our sympathies. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH.

NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client autonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.

The issue is over whether change is possible. If change is not possible, then don't attempt to break habits. Don't become a new person. If you steal, continue. If you lie, continue. If you do anything that you want to stop doing, don't attempt to stop. Don't stop. Continue with whatever it is you don't want because you have no choice. You are locked into whatever you've done. You are damned to repeat whatever things you've done.

Some may object that these things are not "genetic" and that homosexuality is genetic. However, lying and stealing and all other things are genetically allowed or they wouldn't happen. That's consistent with the "science."

Have you ever changed?


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.