It has been brought to my attention that various homosexual websites have reproduced at least portions of the email below by Dr. Nicolosi to Alan Chambers.
In endeavoring to understand how that is the case yet no homosexualists have even attempted to leave a comment here on this from July 15 through the time of this update (3:53 PM Pacific Time, July 22, 2012), I entered the following in Google's search engine from the first line of the email: "It has been brought to my attention that you have posted the following comments on Facebook". Google return two sites: This one and two Facebook posts by the same entity. Finding that curious, I then entered the next line of Dr. Nicolosi's in order to rule out people only discussing Alan Chambers' comments on Facebook about Reparative Therapy (RT) for unwanted Same-Sex Attraction (SSA), which SSA can and has often arisen as a direct result of homosexual rape and abuse of theretofore exclusively heterosexually "oriented" youths. It was then that I found homosexual websites had indeed used the email but obviously not in its entirety and certainly not within the full context of my post below, which affords others the opportunity to hear Dr. Nicolosi in depth on the subject of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) and primarily, if not exclusively, RT.
As usual, the homosexual sites have spun and cropped the story for false-propaganda purposes. An email of the length below is certainly not able to be exhaustive or able to qualify everywhere to preempt others distorting a complete therapeutic method or, in this particular case, Dr. Nicolosi's exact position concerning all people who have ever had same-sex attractions.
Much is being made of Dr. Nicolosi writing to Alan Chambers that he, Dr. Nicolosi, has said that he can't "cure" anyone of same-sex attraction. That is not to say that Dr. Nicolosi is saying that he has never treated anyone the results of which have been to-date arriving and remaining where the client is no longer sexually aroused by those of the same sex.
How could he though say that he can guarantee no backsliding, no new or returning confusion, no forgetting on the parts of all clients on how to think about the origins of their SSA, no lack of vigilance on the part of every client, or any single client, for all time going forward? That's the context, not as the homosexualists are couching it by patently unfair insufficient consideration.
If Dr. Nicolosi can't guarantee no temptation ever again, that does not destroy Reparative Therapy, per se, at all. If it were to, then most all of medicine and psychology would have to be thrown out, which of course, would be stupid.
The homosexualist psychologists attempting to get clients to be happy in their condition without ever having examined the causes do not guarantee that doubts will never arise again, do they? If they do, they're more confused than their pro-homosexuality positions alone indicate.
Therefore, the homosexualists' double-standard here is on full display and certain homosexualists deliberately collude to avoid making prominent the original source of this story (this post) or engaging in intelligent dialogue on the subject with Dr. Nicolosi or others who support RT and SOCE, including me.
You will note that this site is under a copyright that requires those who reproduce the contents here to give proper attribution the form of which is also clearly stated for all those who would undertake such reproductions. I was given leave to reproduce Dr. Nicolosi's email. Those others are legally and ethically constrained from reproducing it from here without full attribution. This also holds for any Facebook sources that haven't received authorization in their cases. Consider those who have reproduced without bothering with authorization or attribution.
When a doctor says he or she can or cannot cure something, it is folly to take that little bit and apply it in blanket fashion to all circumstances, which the homosexuals have done here. The proper approach is to inquire as to the context of the statement and the other contexts in which it could be mistaken by those who will and in this case have, jump to false conclusions and wittingly so for effect: to deceive. Oh, it is such a habit with them that they are on automatic pilot. In their hyperactivity, they rush out in front to distort and to lead the parade of those who want to engage in male anal intercourse regardless of whether children who have been homosexually raped and abused will be allowed to legally seek Dr. Nicolosi's wanted help for their SSA. The homosexualists will scream about homosexuals (the vast majority of who are the result of neglect, smothering, and various abuses, not the least of which is, as I said, homosexual rape) being bullied but then leave the homosexually raped child to fend for himself. Obviously, I'm discussing male homosexuals here. Female homosexuality is also discussed by Dr. Nicolosi.
The doctor cannot say in all cases that SSA thoughts or temptations will never arise again for someone who undergoes RT. That is a proper statement for him, just the way it is proper for any doctor to say that he or she cannot guarantee treatments where the results have not proven 100% and permanent for everyone. The honest mind will immediately allow for this concerning Dr. Nicolosi and will allow for the doctor to not have exhausted the subject in the email and qualified to preclude even the most blatant twisters/abusers.
The fact is that Dr. Nicolosi has said the following:
Nicolosi: Andy, as you know, there has been a lot of controversy lately about the reality of absolute sexual-orientation change. The debate seems to be between two groups: psychotherapists, many of whom are in NARTH, vs. some spokesmen in the ex-gay movement who deny complete change. In your forty years experience, do you believe anyone can be completely free of homosexuality?
Comiskey: I have heard people report that.
Nicolosi: There are men that I've worked with who have said, "I have no more homosexual desire." In our final sessions, they may consciously try to conjure up the old gay fantasies, the porn images, whatever, and it's just nothing: "That's it. Finished." I tell them, "I'm sorry to have spoiled your fun." (source: "An Interview with Andrew Comiskey," by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.)
That statement and Dr. Nicolosi's statement in his email to Alan Chambers are not irreconcilable. It is merely a matter of full context regarding all clients and the whole of Reparative Therapy. People with short attention spans and/or hyper activity and/or un analyzed Same-Sex Attraction, will find it exceedingly difficult to focus long enough to allow for the whole truth. The last of those who are literally afraid of the implications concerning their own histories concerning which histories they are in denial, will scramble wildly to head people off from delving deeply where those delvers may, and I say will if they persevere, find great and even complete relief.
Many homosexuals want people to believe they are no different from non-homosexuals. At the same time, they want those same people to believe that homosexuality is some special case where change is not possible or where only zero twinges from decades of the habit, the addiction, must be the case before any success is to be acknowledged. It's utterly ridiculous on the homosexualists' part, and they know it and fear it and suppress and censor it because they don't care about the truth but rather maintaining their falsehoods.
End of July 22, 2012, update
Original post follows:
I believe the following email was made public on Wednesday, July 11, 2012.
It is Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's response to certain statements made by Alan Chambers of Exodus International regarding Reparative Therapy, concerning which therapy, Dr. Nicolosi is one of the leading experts, if not the leading expert, in the world:
It has been brought to my attention that you have posted the following comments on Facebook:
"As for Reparative Therapy, I do not support it. I don't think it's 'fine'. They use pornography as a means of making people "100% straight". We stopped allowing Joe Nicolosi to teach because he encouraged attendees to pick up heterosexual porn to encourage heterosexuality. Also, he and others have said that they can "cure" people 100% of SSA."
"Joe Nicolosi and a few others are on record in workshops and other places saying that they employ pornography. We do not wish to slander Joe, but it is important for people to know that this is a part of the RT practice even if it wasn't used in your therapy. This is a fact."
Alan, what you are saying is untrue. I have never said I could cure someone completely from homosexuality. All my books make it quite clear that homosexual attractions will persist to some degree throughout a person's lifetime.
Furthermore, I do not use heterosexual pornography with my clients. I do ask them (if they wish to do this; some clients do not, and I never expect my clients to do anything they do not wish to do) to bring up a compelling image from gay porn that they wish to reduce the power of, and we work on diminishing its power (a technique with which we have had considerable success).
However, I do not use straight porn; I use pictures of women they find attractive in mainstream magazines and we work on developing a physical attraction to them, through their imagination, while looking at these non-pornographic pictures.
I would like you to set the record straight on this. You have been publicly denigrating reparative therapy and misleading people about its nature.
If homosexual acts truly constitute sin, as you say you believe, then people deserve to be able to avail themselves of all reasonable therapeutic tools to diminish unwanted SSA and explore their OSA potential. You are discouraging them from having such tools, and also as a Christian, you are reassuring them that they are OK whether they "fall" or not, which gives people very little reason to struggle against a condition which has very deeply negative implications for both themselves and for our culture.
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
This link contains a portion where Dr. Nicolosi explains the use of "porn": http://josephnicolosi.com/storage/shameNEW3.mp3
His approach is quite involved and deserves to be fully heard rather than summarily condemned by those who know little to nothing about it. Dr. Nicolosi does not claim that the treatment is finished such that new things will never be discovered. If you will take the time to listen to him, you will find that the treatment has been developed over an extended period and that new pieces and approaches have been added, which is not unusual in psychology or many other fields for that matter.
Now, I want to say that even if at some point, he "encouraged attendees to pick up heterosexual porn to encourage heterosexuality," I would reserve judgment concerning that. I certainly wouldn't conclude that the whole of Reparative Therapy should be thrown out over it. Also, if this was Alan Chambers' view, why didn't he ask Dr. Nicolosi about it and request that the doctor simply not do it and give the reason why?
The following videos explain how Reparative Therapy works according to Dr. Nicolosi. Not one aspect of it puts me off. The only thing I can say about it is that I'm sure that other unstated factors (but factors allowed for by Dr. Nicolosi) go into the creation of the male homosexual condition for some people:
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)