A Catfight Between Peter LaBarbera and Warren Throckmorton

Over the years I've had e-mail correspondence and debates with both Peter LaBarbera and Warren Throckmorton. In my opinion, LaBarbera is a pathological liar who is bizarrely obsessed with male homosexuality. He engages in his so-called "undercover research" by attending raunchy gay leather events (which has earned him the moniker "Porno Pete") and disingenuously claims to not be aware of the debunking of the "experts" such as Paul Cameron even though they were discredited as much as a quarter of a century ago (I have an e-mail where he professes such ignorance). Nowadays, LaBarbera remains as anti-gay obsessed and dishonest as ever. In contrast, Throckmorton (pictured at right) - who unlike LaBarbera actually holds relevant training and a degree in the mental health realm - has evolved and changed his views on the changeability of sexual orientation as medical and mental health knowledge on sexual orientation has progressed. This evolution and acceptance of objective truth and fact amounts to heresy in LaBarbera's bizarre anti-gay world. Throckmorton responds to LaBarbera's attacks on his blog. Here are some highlights:

Yesterday, the information arm of the American Family Association, OneNewsNow published an article about my views on change of sexual orientation. The information on the matter came from Peter LaBarbera who said: “But in the last few years, he’s basically become a pro-gay advocate who discredits the idea of change for most homosexuals,” LaBarbera explains. . . . . So effectively, Warren Throckmorton has become a very useful advocate for the homosexual side because he can claim to be an evangelical and yet he’s undermining scriptural truth.” . . . . Christians know people can leave the lifestyle, and that through Christ, many thousands have. So he says Throckmorton’s message — that change is near impossible — is contrary to Christian thinking.

As I understand this argument, I am wrong to claim to be an evangelical because I believe that categorical change in sexual attractions, especially for men, is rare. In addition such a belief is in itself “pro-homosexual advocacy.” . . . . Here we have a test of orthodoxy – something that must be believed in order to be considered a Christian. . . . in the new orthodoxy of some in the Christian right, one must believe certain things about gays in order to be consider a Christian.

LaBarbera conflates behavior and inclination. He says I don’t think people can “leave the lifestyle” because I think categorical change of sexual attractions is rare and complex. While his description of behavior change is crude and stereotypical, I disagree with his assessment of me. I do believe that people change their behavior. They do so for a variety of reasons but in the context of this controversy, some do in order to seek conformity to their religious beliefs.

However, gay and bisexual people who change their behavior infrequently lose their same-sex attractions, no matter how earnestly they pray. . . . . My critics can keep on criticizing but they have not been able to address the evidence which does not cut in their favor.

If I need to apologize for something, it is that I misled evangelicals for several years on the matter of sexual orientation. I did not intend to do so. When I made the documentary I Do Exist, I really believed the stories told. I know the people making the video did as well.

I now think the culture war is a significant stumbling block for the church. . . . Who knows, maybe I will shift my views in different ways in the future. However, I hope it will be in response to evidence, not in order to fit into a man made definition of orthodoxy. In the mean time, I invite critics to simply deal with the evidence.

Kudos to Warren for accepting the facts and evidence as opposed to embracing lies and ignorance. Surprisingly, MARK YARHOUSE of Regent University comes to Throckmorton's defense in a comment on Warren's post:

I share your concern about conflating behavior change with change of orientation and then treating a commitment to change of orientation as a test for orthodoxy. . . . . it would seem that heightened expectations for categorical change increases the risk for disappointment, resentment, and shame for those who do not experience as many gains as they had hoped.

It is noteworthy that both Throckmorton and Yarhouse are moderating their past views that gays could "change." I suspect that in part it's due to advances in knowledge about sexual orientation. And also because they realize that if they persist in support for reparative therapy their licenses as clinicians could one day be on the line.