Ex-Gay Hocus Pocus - Jones and Yarhouse continued

I have previously commented on the Exodus financed study entitled "Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation" by Dr Stanton Jones and Dr Mark Yarhouse. Mr. Yarhouse is a professor in the School of Psychology and Counseling department at Regent University and has written previous anti-gay materials, so his objectivity is way less than trustworthy. Some particularly nasty works appeared in the Spring 2002 issue of the Regent University Law Review under the collective heading "Homosexuality: Truth Be Told" which went to great lengths to build and foster the alleged "homosexual agenda." Even Yarhouse's courses at Regent are not objective since they inter fuse religion and science (e.g., http://home.regent.edu/markyar/sexuality.htm). It does not take much imagination to figure out which factor wins out.

At Ex-Gay Watch (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/01/dr-patrick-chapman-responds-to-drs-jones-and-yarhouse/#more-2759) Dr. Patrick Chapman, Ph. D, has further responses to Jones and Yarhouse's latest work which while detailed and technical is helpful in learning how Christianists create "research" to endeavor to bolster the "choice myth" which is so important to their anti-gay political agenda, not to mention their lucrative ex-gay treatment programs. As always, it is important to know the enemy's tactics so as to be able to rebut them. Here is a summary of the problems with this type of research when religious and political agenda are removed:

In science it is important to be precise, something the Jones and Yarhouse study lacks. The focus of my original critique was the sloppy and biased scholarship, demonstrated partly by imprecision. I highlighted that Jones and Yarhouse:

* reference the entire study as prospective when it is not;
* assert participants are at the start of the change process instead of just being at the start of the Exodus program, although even this is not entirely correct;
* assert the study cannot ascertain if permanent and enduring long-term change occurs, contrasted with their conclusion that change is possible;
* portray specific results as indicating change, specifically Tables 7.4 - 7.6, when those actual results do not support the conclusion;
* employ a moving target regarding what sexual orientation change entails;
* misstate the APAs’ position on the potential harm of reparative therapy;
* and have a moving target regarding if the therapy causes harm.