# Psychologists reject "gay therapy". Two newpapers report it differently. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562 "2009-08-06T18:49:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/1 "2009-08-06T18:49:26Z")
Not exactly sure how to direct this debate as there are a number of points at issue. I guess I will toss out how two well known and generally well regarded papers reported the same news. I’ll leave it to Dopers to decide if this is just perfectly fine reporting from two different angles or if one or the other is intentionally misleading. Yes, they ultimately both get around to touching on the same points but the thrust of the articles is clearly different. > [@](#): > > **Psychologists Reject Gay ‘Therapy’** > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > Published: August 5, 2009 > > The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments. > > In a resolution adopted by the association’s governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change. > > SOURCE: [The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/06gay.html) And… > [@](#): > > **A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity** > _Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions_ > > The men who seek help from evangelical counselor Warren Throckmorton often are deeply distressed. They have prayed, read Scripture, even married, but they haven’t been able to shake sexual attractions to other men – impulses they believe to be immoral. > > \ > > The first thing he tells them is this: Your attractions aren’t a sign of mental illness or a punishment for insufficient faith. He tells them that he cannot turn them straight. > > But he also tells them they don’t have to be gay. > > \ > > But in a striking departure, the American Psychological Association said Wednesday that it is ethical – and can be beneficial – for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions. > > SOURCE: [The Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124950491516608883.html) Opinions? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/2 "2009-08-06T19:10:37Z")
Well, the first one is the AP, not the NY Times. They seem to have completely conflicting messages. Which one is closer to the actual APA report? Also, that is some odd writing for the Wall Street Journal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/3 "2009-08-06T19:23:04Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Well, the first one is the AP, not the NY Times. Fair enough but the NYT saw fit to print it in its entirety and even so I think we can say the Associated Press is in the club of respected journalistic institutions (despite their recent decision to charge $2.50/word to people who quote their articles…that’s another debate though). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/4 "2009-08-06T19:41:41Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Which one is closer to the actual APA report? They are both right although I think the WSJ article is only just barely technically correct and is misleading. From the APA website their press release says: > [@](#): > > “Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation,” said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force. “Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose. Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.” Glassgold added: “At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex.” > > Based on this review, the task force recommended that mental health professionals avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts when providing assistance to people distressed about their own or others’ sexual orientation. > > \ > > As to the issue of possible harm, the task force was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the efficacy or safety of any of the recent studies of SOCE: “There are no methodologically sound studies of recent SOCE that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom,” according to the report. > > “Without such information, psychologists cannot predict the impact of these treatments and need to be very cautious, given that some qualitative research suggests the potential for harm,” Glassgold said. “Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome.” > > As part of its report, the task force identified that some clients seeking to change their sexual orientation may be in distress because of a conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The task force recommended that licensed mental health care providers treating such clients help them “explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client’s religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life.” > > “In other words,” Glassgold said, “we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y](http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y) That last bit I think is where the WSJ article is hanging its hat. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/5 "2009-08-06T19:49:58Z")
Here’s the actual APA release: [http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y](http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y) I think the AP article was closer to that than the WSJ article. Again, I didn’t expect articles like that from the WSJ. ETA: you seem to agree. Sorry, didn’t see your post. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/6 "2009-08-06T20:16:02Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Again, I didn’t expect articles like that from the WSJ. The WSJ Op/Ed page has been a mess, well into the conservative deepend, for awhile but I too did not expect this as their reporting. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/7 "2009-08-06T20:28:14Z")
Their op-ed page was conservative before the Murdoch takeover. However, I thought this article was written for a Christian newspaper. This part of the headline: “…Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions” while sort-of accurate, seems to almost directly conflict with the APA press release. I know one of the WSJ editors – I’ll send him a note. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/8 "2009-08-06T20:38:04Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I know one of the WSJ editors – I’ll send him a note. If it does not break any confidences between you two I would be interested in his/her response (or the upshot of the response if you prefer). Surprised no one else here has chimed in. To me this seems to violate journalistic integrity. I might expect this from fringe publications that make no bones about catering to a specific audience but the WSJ? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/9 "2009-08-06T20:50:36Z")
Will do. I almost expect them to issue a correction – it seems that wrong to me. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/10 "2009-08-06T20:52:32Z")
I’d say that WSJ take on it is spinning pretty damned hard. If it had been on WND I wouldn’t have blinked, but I’ve always though that WSJ had a pretty decent core of reporting. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/11 "2009-08-06T23:34:07Z")
I read the Times one, and don’t have time to look at the real report. Both say that attempts to change are not effective, however the WSJ article buries this in the quote, while the AP one makes it the lead, which seems right. I could imagine something in the report saying that for people in committed heterosexual relationships who have homosexual longings might be counseled to resist them to preserve the relationship - no different really from trying to reduce a man’s straying eyes. Am I correct? That doesn’t sound like news to me. It would also have been more interesting if the WSJ had interviewed someone who was trying to change sexual orientation on others. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/12 "2009-08-07T00:01:15Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I’d say that WSJ take on it is spinning pretty damned hard. If it had been on WND I wouldn’t have blinked, but I’ve always though that WSJ had a pretty decent core of reporting. As has been discussed elsewhere on this messageboard recently, the WSJ _had_ a pretty decent core of reporting before it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News Network and The New York Post, among others. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/13 "2009-08-07T00:06:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I could imagine something in the report saying that for people in committed heterosexual relationships who have homosexual longings might be counseled to resist them to preserve the relationship - no different really from trying to reduce a man’s straying eyes. Am I correct? That doesn’t sound like news to me. It would also have been more interesting if the WSJ had interviewed someone who was trying to change sexual orientation on others. I think it’s more along the lines of, if a patient is gay, and is consumed with guilt over having gay sex, it’s reasonable to counsel him to stop having gay sex, since it’s clearly making him miserable. Although I’d hope that this would just be an interim step in getting the patient over his feelings of shame for being gay in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/14 "2009-08-07T00:56:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I read the Times one, and don’t have time to look at the real report. Both say that attempts to change are not effective, however the WSJ article buries this in the quote, while the AP one makes it the lead, which seems right. > > I could imagine something in the report saying that for people in committed heterosexual relationships who have homosexual longings might be counseled to resist them to preserve the relationship - no different really from trying to reduce a man’s straying eyes. Am I correct? That doesn’t sound like news to me. It would also have been more interesting if the WSJ had interviewed someone who was trying to change sexual orientation on others. I can’t disagree with you enough. The Times leads with a declaration that isn’t news at all. We’ve known for a long long time that gay therapy is bullshit. The Times chose to lead with one more affirmation of that fact. Big fucking deal. The WSJ leads with the real news, namely the psychologists have decided it is ethical and beneficial in certain cases to help reject gay sexual impulses. That is the big news as far as I’m concerned and by far the most significant outcome to report from this resolution. ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/15 "2009-08-07T01:44:14Z")
So does “you can’t turn straight” + “but you don’t have to be gay” = “here’s how to become asexual”? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/16 "2009-08-07T02:06:51Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > The Times leads with a declaration that isn’t news at all. We’ve known for a long long time that gay therapy is bullshit. The Times chose to lead with one more affirmation of that fact. Big fucking deal. > > The WSJ leads with the real news, namely the psychologists have decided it is ethical and beneficial in certain cases to help reject gay sexual impulses. > > That is the big news as far as I’m concerned and by far the most significant outcome to report from this resolution. Huh? We knew this all along? Guess no one told the American Psychological Association then. You could have saved them a lot of time and effort if you had just phoned them up and told them what we all already knew. :rolleyes: Yes the psychological profession has been creeping towards removing “being gay” as a disorder that needs psychological counseling. Nevertheless, as the NYT/AP article notes, a contingent of psychologists has remained that feels this is a disorder that needs fixing. The news here is the APA resolution passed by a 125-to-4 vote and based upon an examination of 83 studies done since 1960 that such therapy is mostly bullshit. If you read the APA press release linked above they pan the whole idea of treating someone for being homosexual except in one very narrow instance where their religious beliefs conflict with their sexual desire. It of course makes sense to treat someone for that because they are at odds with themself and need help in resolving an inner conflict. I would totally disagree with you though that “it is ethical and beneficial in certain cases to help reject gay sexual impulses.” Indeed the APA press release explicitly rejects that. > [@](#): > > As part of its report, the task force identified that some clients seeking to change their sexual orientation may be in distress because of a conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The task force recommended that licensed mental health care providers treating such clients help them “explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client’s religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life.” > > “In other words,” Glassgold said, “we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y](http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y) There is nothing there about rejecting gay sexual impulses and in fact tells therapists to avoid doing that. My opinion is their religious belief should be the thing that is modified. Religious beliefs are learned and not innate. It is possible to modify your religious beliefs to encompass being ok with being gay far more easily than it is to reject being gay. Indeed the report suggests that trying to get people to reject being gay is harmful to them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/17 "2009-08-07T03:31:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Huh? > > We knew this all along? Guess no one told the American Psychological Association then. You could have saved them a lot of time and effort if you had just phoned them up and told them what we all already knew. :rolleyes: > > Yes the psychological profession has been creeping towards removing “being gay” as a disorder that needs psychological counseling. Nevertheless, as the NYT/AP article notes, a contingent of psychologists has remained that feels this is a disorder that needs fixing. [Please do try to keep up.](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/APA-tdiw-0302100.php) Being gay as a disorder was officially rejected by the APA before you were born. > [@](#): > > In December 1973, the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM-II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness. > [@](#): > > The news here is the APA resolution passed by a 125-to-4 vote and based upon an examination of 83 studies done since 1960 that such therapy is mostly bullshit. Upon review I’ll accede that this resolution is the first official statement that claims reparative therapy does not work. I just assumed that the thousands of postings on this message board over the past nine years asserting that fact was based on accepted scientific evidence. > [@](#): > > If you read the APA press release linked above they pan the whole idea of treating someone for being homosexual except in one very narrow instance where their religious beliefs conflict with their sexual desire. They’ve panned the idea since 1998. > [@](#): > > In December 1998, the APA Board adopted a position statement on psychiatric treatment and sexual orientation which said in part: “…the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.” (See “Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation,” for complete text.) Several other major professional organizations including the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the American Academy of Pediatrics also have made statements against “reparative therapy” because of concerns for the harm caused to patients. > [@](#): > > I would totally disagree with you though that “it is ethical and beneficial in certain cases to help reject gay sexual impulses.” Indeed the APA press release explicitly rejects that. Careful please, I’m not making that claim. I’m reporting that the WSJ reports the APA is making that claim. Its quoted in the OP. Perhaps you could support your claim where the APA explicitly rejects “that” > [@](#): > > There is nothing there about rejecting gay sexual impulses and in fact tells therapists to avoid doing that. I’d cite the WSJ article but you won’t accept that. The best I can do is cite the NYTimes. > [@](#): > > The report breaks ground in its detailed and nuanced assessment of how therapists should deal with gay clients struggling to remain loyal to a religious faith that disapproves of homosexuality. Breaks ground detailed nuanced But for some reason we have to go to the WSJ for a better handle on the ground breaking details. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/18 "2009-08-07T04:46:48Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > [Please do try to keep up.](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/APA-tdiw-0302100.php) > > Being gay as a disorder was officially rejected by the APA before you were born. > > Upon review I’ll accede that this resolution is the first official statement that claims reparative therapy does not work. I just assumed that the thousands of postings on this message board over the past nine years asserting that fact was based on accepted scientific evidence. Well, as noted the APA saw fit to study this again and put out another finding on this. Further, I was born before 1973. On top of that, my ex-wife’s cousin was put in an institution for Gender Identity Disorder in the 1980’s. She even [wrote a book about it](http://www.amazon.com/Last-Time-Wore-Dress/dp/1573226963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619510&sr=8-1). For all that it was off the books it apparently was still deemed an issue and “treated”. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > They’ve panned the idea since 1998. Swell. Why did they see fit to initiate a new study then and vote on this again? I honestly do not know but I do find it odd they’d revisit this if was a decided issue to them. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Careful please, I’m not making that claim. I’m reporting that the WSJ reports the APA is making that claim. Its quoted in the OP. Perhaps you could support your claim where the APA explicitly rejects “that” The OP is about the WSJ making faulty or at the least misleading claims. Where in the APA press release does it say therapists can help patients reject gay impulses? Want me to support my claim? Easy (from the APA press release cited above…bolding mine): _“Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that **do not attempt to change sexual orientation** , but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome.”_ Have you read any of the cites? They are not that long. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I’d cite the WSJ article but you won’t accept that. The best I can do is cite the NYTimes. > > Breaks ground > detailed > nuanced > But for some reason we have to go to the WSJ for a better handle on the ground breaking details. The point is the WSJ article is misleading. They latch onto the issue of someone who is conflicted because they are gay and their religion clash in their head. As noted above the APA explicitly rejected changing sexual orientation. They merely acknowledge that someone might be conflicted and that status can benefit from counseling. If you think through it a bit this will almost certainly entail the patient adapting their religious views to become more tolerant of themselves. The APA noted that changing sexual orientation is, if anything, damaging to the patient. Nuance indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/19 "2009-08-07T05:04:24Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why did they see fit to initiate a new study then and vote on this again? I honestly do not know but I do find it odd they’d revisit this if was a decided issue to them. I’m guessing that they’re treating the issues of “Is homosexuality a mental illness?” and “Can therapy change sexual orientation?” as separate questions. This study was meant to answer the second question, not re-address the first. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562/20 "2009-08-07T05:08:19Z")
> [@](#): > > It is possible to modify your religious beliefs to encompass being ok with being gay far more easily than it is to reject being gay. Yes…there’s a ton of gay whatever religion you desire groups…PLUS, the Unitarain Church. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/psychologists-reject-gay-therapy-two-newpapers-report-it-differently/505562.md?page=2)