On Robert L. Spitzer's Apology to What He Calls the "Gay Community"

Robert L. Spitzer's 2012 statements about his 2001 paper, "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?":

Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: "can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?" Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, "how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?" – a not very interesting question.

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several unconvincing reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject's reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject's accounts of change were valid.

via Robert Spitzer psychiatrist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Question: How do studies of those who claim they cannot change meet that standard? How do homosexual-affirming psychologists or psychiatrist prove those homosexuals' statements are "credible and not self-deception or outright lying"? Answer: At this point, they cannot.

Nevertheless, they go on relying upon their equally limited studies while only trashing studies on the other side and trashing all of the people who openly testify that they have changed, per the Spitzer paper and many, many other reports. It's called hypocrisy -- the double-standard -- and it's evil.

Homosexuality is Not Immutable! Press Release: Voices of Change


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.
    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      "Question: How do studies of those who claim they cannot change meet that standard?"

      We don't need studies of those who claim they cannot change (and I can't offhand think of any, only studies of those who have tried to change, and not very many of those) to disbelieve in "conversion therapy", any more than we need studies of sick people who claim that Christian Science cannot cure them to disbelieve in Christian Science. The lack of convincing evidence for the efficacy of "conversion therapy" is sufficient reason for disbelieving in it. 

    • Homosexual-affirming therapists go by the anecdotal self-reporting of self-identified homosexuals to denounce that change is not only possible but happens. You claim that that standard is not acceptable when used by Reparative Therapists in supporting the efficacy of the treatment they offer. As I said, that's a double-standard.

      In addition, the homosexual activists at the APA cite Alfred Kinsey's work in support of the activists' view while Kinsey himself wrote that same-sex attraction is fluid, which view is widely still accepted within all of the major psychological and psychiatric associations.

      I am completely convince that RT works. There are thousands and thousands of people who have hugely diminished their same-sex attraction and have enhanced their opposite-sex attraction. Many over time have arrived where they report no same-sex desire or arousal, etc., at all. I know a number of them. That's good enough for me. If you can't accept it, that's your problem.

      The evidence offered by Reparative Therapists is every bit as valid as that offered for numerous other therapies accepted by the same homosexual activist who denounce RT. Are they prepared to turn and now denounce all therapies where the evidence is based upon self-reporting? They are not.