Homosexuality and the Truth

by Elizabeth Moberly

It’s not that unusual a sight: demonstrators gathered outside a meeting hall, protesting the treatment of homosexuals. The curious thing about the protests at the American Psychiatric Association’s 1994 meeting in Philadelphia, however, is that the demonstrators were a group of ex-gays, demanding that the delegates recognize the right to therapeutic help for those who wish to cease to be homosexuals.

During the early 1970s, gay activists had made a number of disruptive demonstrations at professional meetings, placing considerable pressure on psychiatrists to revise their designation of homosexuality as a disorder treatable by psychiatry. In 1973, the board of the American Psychiatric Association voted to change the classification of homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The members of the APA who specialized in treating homosexuals protested the board’s decision, but immediately before a general referendum on the issue, a letter went out in the name of the board, urging APA members not to reverse the board’s decision. It was not known until after the vote that this letter was in fact written and paid for by the National Gay Task Force, and the final tally in the referendum upheld the board’s decision to reclassify homosexuality. The 1973 decision was based not on any advance in scientific or medical knowledge. It occurred instead as a result of successful gay lobbying—and a considerable body of psychological data on homosexuality was dismissed as no longer relevant.

There is a certain irony in the fact that gay activists and their supporters now often claim the authority of the APA for the view that homosexuality is not a psychological problem. Michael Vasey, for instance, in his new work, Strangers and Friends, insists that the reclassification was “not the result of some ‘liberal’ conspiracy,” but instead “represents the recognition that there is nothing intrinsic to a homosexual orientation that makes it psychologically disordered.” On both points he is mistaken. The APA decision was in fact far from unanimous, and it was arrived at largely on sociopolitical grounds.

This pattern of pressuring institutions and researchers to produce results favorable to homosexuals and then claiming the results as objective evidence occurs again and again in pro-gay literature, and is perhaps one of the most curious features of scholarship in our times. Vasey acclaims, for instance, the late John Boswell, who suggested in his work Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe that Christian liturgies once included rites for the celebration of same-sex unions. Despite their dismissal by serious historians (see Robin Darling Young, “Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History,” FT, November 1994), Boswell’s conclusions are often cited in pro-gay circles, where they are proclaimed as evidence of longstanding Christian endorsement of homosexual relationships. The material on which Boswell built his case is the little-known “sacrament of brotherhood” of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which provides a blessing of friendship for persons of the same sex or opposite sexes. Of course, by declaring the persons to be siblings, the ritual actually succeeds in prohibiting sexual contact as incest. But neither accuracy nor logic is much the point of a book like Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. Boswell’s revisionism was driven first by a desire to find the acceptable result, and has been subsequently proclaimed as independent proof—even by someone like Vasey, a tutor in liturgical studies who ought to know better.

One place to go for help in sorting out the good scholarship from the politically driven is Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover. Satinover wisely distinguishes his reaction to homosexual politics from his reaction to homosexuals, who require compassion in their emotional pain and their loneliness. In gay politics, however, Satinover sees “disregard for others and disregard for the truth.” He asserts that “too often gay activism follows the dictum that desired ends justify all means,” as even conscientious disagreement with the claims and tactics used by gay activists is dismissed as “homophobia.” On three particular propositions of the gay activists—that homosexuality is biologically innate, psychologically irreversible, and sociologically normal—Satinover concentrates his attention.

Recent claims for a biological origin of homosexuality essentially began in the summer of 1991, with Science magazine’s publication of Dr. Simon LeVay’s study of variations in the brains of deceased homosexuals. LeVay’s work received enormous attention, even though the prevailing scientific view had been against a biological origin. (The sex researchers Masters and Johnson declared in 1979 that homosexuals are “homosexually oriented by learned preference,” adding in 1985, “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today.”) Satinover notes that LeVay’s conclusions are far from substantiated. The fundamental criticism is of LeVay’s methodology in classifying his dead subjects, for, as Satinover rightly points out, cadavers cannot be interrogated about their prior sexual activity. Satinover might have made the point even more forcefully by observing that LeVay had no way even to know that the heterosexuals in his control group were in fact heterosexuals. In an endnote, LeVay admits as much: “They are assumed to have been mostly or all heterosexual on the basis of the numerical preponderance of heterosexual men in the population.” But much popular and even scientific reporting of LeVay missed the point. (As it was also missed in reporting about a second brain study in 1992 by Allen and Gorski, who themselves noted of their study, “Heterosexual orientation was only assumed, rather than specified. . . . Clearly, subjects who were classified as heterosexual may not have been.”)

Similarly, Satinover shows the flaws in recent studies that claimed a biological origin for homosexuality by analyzing the behavior of twins. He points out the obvious shortcomings of Bailey and Pillard’s 1991 and 1993 studies of twins: the identical environments in which the twins were raised, the unrepresentative sample, the fact that the sexual orientation of the nonrespondent twin was often assessed by report of the sibling, rather than by self-report. Even the results that Bailey and Pillard reported—an approximately 50 percent concordance for homosexuality in identical twin pairs, when genetic characteristics in monozygotic twins would seem to require a 100 percent concordance—means that media accounts were seriously exaggerated. The 1992 British study of King and McDonald found even lower rates of concordance, and Satinover notes their conclusion that “genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation.” King and McDonald’s work suggests the importance of early experience and subsequent repetition, especially childhood incest, in fostering later homosexuality.

Satinover offers analysis of many other points relevant to the biological debate on homosexuality. His book is a fine resource for all who wish to assess and respond to the claims made by “gay science.” He does perhaps rely too much on the argument which suggests that if it can be shown that homosexual orientation is not innate, then it must be a choice. Satinover is aware of the alternative view that homosexuality is a non-innate development, caused by early trauma and the breakdown in bonding between the child and the same-sex parent in the early years of life. But he does not distinguish it sufficiently from homosexuality as chosen.

It seems inappropriate to speak of choice for a child hurt by early abuse or emotional rejection. A two-year-old boy who loses his father, or a five-year-old boy who is molested, will carry his unmet need for masculine love and affirmation into his adult years. With biological maturation, this need for love may be inappropriately eroticized—with a pre-adult developmental lack carried into adulthood and inappropriately met with sexual activity. The adult homosexual does, of course, have choices—to remain celibate, to engage in sexual activity, or to seek therapy to resolve the unfinished business of childhood. But the homosexual orientation itself, though not innate, remains something the adult may not have chosen.

Beyond his biological discussion, Satinover has much to say about secular and religious treatments for homosexuality, reporting that the rate of success in treating homosexuality is comparable to the rate in treating every other psychological condition. There is good (if somewhat incomplete) discussion of such organizations as Homosexuals Anonymous and Exodus International, and of the courageous work of Andy Comiskey and Leanne Payne. He includes a welcome chapter on homosexuality and Judaism, and a lengthy concluding discussion of values and society, with a particular contrast between ethical monotheism and the contemporary resurgence of paganism—which affects so much in our society besides the issue of sexuality.

A hero of the ex-gay movement is Father John Harvey, author of The Truth about Homosexuality. A Roman Catholic priest for over fifty years, Fr. Harvey is the author of an earlier book, The Homosexual Person (1987), and the founder of Courage, a steadily growing support group for Roman Catholic homosexuals. With a primary focus on abstinence from sexual activity (rather than change of sexual orientation), the meetings of Courage are heavily imbued with Catholic spirituality, with prayer, sacraments, and spiritual direction of great importance.

With some supplementary material by other contributors, Fr. Harvey’s latest work is a helpful resource for understanding the various issues involved in ministries to homosexuals. Excellent appendices were prepared by Drs. Maria Valdes and Rick Fitzgibbons, both of whom have many years of experience in helping homosexual clients. A chapter by Father Jeffrey Keefe—critiquing recent biological studies on homosexuality and outlining some of the psychodynamic factors in homosexuality—emphasizes that hundreds of mental health professionals continue to believe that homosexuality is a condition of emotional woundedness that deserves and responds well to voluntary therapeutic intervention.

Fr. Harvey’s book surveys the work of various lay counselors and Christian therapists. The two most prominent ministries to homosexuals—Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship Services, Box 7881, Reading, PA 19603 (610-376-1146) and Exodus International, Box 77652, Seattle, WA 98177 (206-784-7799)—are both nationwide networks of Christian ministries to homosexuals. The book is a veritable roll-call of those involved in ministry to homosexuals. The Dutch psychologist Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg focuses on issues of self-pity and feelings of inferiority. Dr. George Rekers comments on childhood gender nonconformity. Mention is made of Drs. Ismond Rosen, Charles Socarides, Joseph Nicolosi, and Lawrence Hatterer. Within the Christian community, there is Leanne Payne, who utilizes healing prayer for homosexuals; William Consiglio, who shows how homosexuals may respond to emotional triggers and set-ups; and Exodus leaders such as Bob Davies, Lori Rentzel, Joe Dallas, Frank Worthen, and Alan Medinger.

Fr. Harvey’s otherwise admirable work emphasizes the Roman Catholic view that homosexual orientation itself is “objectively disordered,” which may strike non-Catholics (such as the present reviewer) as an unfortunate blurring of the distinction between conditions and behaviors. But his book remains enormously helpful for anyone interested in the topic, covering in encyclopedic fashion many issues of homosexuality—devoting, for instance, a chapter to women’s issues, critiquing pro-gay authors and studies, dismissing Boswell as having only a “facade of scholarship,” and discussing important issues of religious freedom.

A recent evangelical contribution to the homosexual debate is Thomas E. Schmidt’s Straight and Narrow? Schmidt’s opening chapters in particular are marked by his deep concern and empathy for the human beings caught in homosexuality, avoiding the judgmentalism that sometimes mars evangelical perspectives. He makes a credible attempt to do justice to pro-gay arguments, while clearly disagreeing with them.

Schmidt gives helpful critiques of Boswell and the revisionist view of the Sodom story (making the rounds in theological circles) that sees inhospitality—not attempted rape—as the sin involved. (As one commentator tartly remarked in a midwestern radio interview, it certainly is inhospitable to rape one’s guests—but the issue is still rape, and not just lack of hospitality.) He comments on the mistaken Kinsey statistics, promiscuity and health problems, theories of biological causation, and offers a limited survey of recent Christian literature on homosexuality.

When Schmidt comes to discuss the recruitment of homosexuals, he correctly identifies the influence of values and culture. He relies too heavily, however, on the fact of childhood molestation. Molestation may add to the development of a homosexual orientation, but the primary factor seems to be rather the relation to the father. For instance, child molesters are known to have a flair for picking out children who are lonely and hungry for affection, and a boy with an inadequate relation to his father is thus vulnerable to molestation. But in these cases the breakdown in the father–son relation precedes the molestation, and the molester’s recruitment of the child is secondary. The question of “recruitment,” I believe, tends to be raised on the basis of inadequate information-and sometimes as a deliberate scare tactic by unscrupulous anti-homosexual activists. If the possibility of homosexuality appears when the boy’s early relationship with his father breaks down, there will be those who (as a result of their own condition) try to take advantage of the situation by molesting the child. But this does not constitute a deliberate attempt at recruitment, and it is addressed not by attacks on homosexuals but by strengthening the bonds of the family.

Subtitled “A psychoanalyst answers 1,000 questions about causes and cures and the impact of the gay rights movement on American society,” Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far is the latest work by the distinguished psychoanalyst Dr. Charles Socarides. Socarides’ outstanding contribution is in the area of the politics of homosexuality, the politics that has moved us, as he mordantly observes, “from the love that dare not speak its name to the love that can’t shut up—in barely twenty-five years.” Socarides is able to give a detailed and insightful discussion of gay politics, and his book stands as a must-read resource for everyone concerned with the homosexual issue.

Offering his insights into the impact of homosexuality on education, AIDS, the military, and much else besides, Socarides naturally has a great dealt to say about the origin and treatment of homosexuality. His analysis, however, remains a little disappointing, for his views have remained largely unchanged since the 1960s. Like other earlier clinicians, he focuses primarily on the mother–son relationship of the male homosexual: “Their unconscious fears are fears of women”; “An obligatory homosexual has a deep fear of women, fears of engulfment by his mother’s body”; “So many of my patients had over-controlling, suffocating mothers.”

Socarides does acknowledge that “given a good father–son relationship, no boy develops a homosexual pattern.” But he settles for an essentially secondary role for the father: “If the father is around and asserts himself, that will inhibit the influence of an over-controlling mom.” More recent therapists working in the field have made a major shift of emphasis away from the “mother fixation” of standard psychoanalytic theory from Freud onwards. The mother–son bond is what is left when the father–son bond has been disrupted. But the disruption of the father–son bond is what results in homosexuality.

Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far has a similarly old-fashioned understanding of “reparative therapy,” which strictly speaking should only be applied to therapy based on the belief that same-sex love is an inherent reparative drive and that a same-sex therapist should focus on same-sex issues to resolve the underlying gender identity conflict. Socarides tends to apply the term more loosely to any form of therapy that seeks to modify a homosexual’s sexual identity. In general, however, his book remains an interesting and helpful guide to the conflicts between the (somewhat dated) views of the psychoanalytic establishment and the gay activists who brought their political muscle to bear on them.

Brief mention should be made of another helpful and sensitive Christian study: Unwanted Harvest? by Mona Riley and Brad Sargent. It takes its stand on “compassion without compromise,” and offers encouragement and helpful guidelines for Christians to reach out to persons with homosexual concerns. Insisting that the nature of one’s response is “critical to encouraging their healing and walk with God,” it is a valuable addition to any library on homosexuality.

I want also to mention a book—Craving for Love, by the New Zealand writer and journalist, Briar Whitehead—that appeared in England in 1993 and never found an American publisher. Standing head and shoulders above many other recent works on homosexuality, it is indispensable reading for anyone concerned with the homosexual issue, and should be brought back into print as soon as possible, especially in North America.

Homosexuality continues to be one of the major issues of the late twentieth century. We have a number of valuable contributions to the debate, but I wish to challenge everyone concerned to ground their analyses on two essential principles: respect for truth and respect for people.

By “respect for people,” I mean the refusal of vilifying or demonizing. People on both sides of the debate need to make strenuous efforts to defuse their hostility and to demythologize their understanding of each other as “hate-filled bigots.” This implies no loss of moral seriousness. It is entirely likely that major disagreements will remain. But the atmosphere of the debate urgently needs to be imbued with a deep respect and concern for all the people involved.

By “respect for truth,” I mean that the debate must consider truth a higher principle than politics or expediency or fashion. Neither side should make inflated claims or distort data. Both sides need to be frank about their own shortcomings. Truth-seeking also implies an essential concern not to misrepresent others, and not to withhold research grants or publication from persons who hold other views. Genuine and principled disagreement needs to be respected, not dismissed as homophobia or bigotry. This debate is not an easy one. But if we all seek to act with integrity—if we promote truth-seeking and show real respect for those with whom we disagree—then we may realistically hope for the future.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Elizabeth Moberly is retired from ministry to homosexuals as Director of Psychosexual Education and Therapy for BCM International. She is the author of Psychogenesis and Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Dr. Moberly is currently working full-time in cancer research.

YouTube-David Kyle's Testimony

YouTube-David Kyle's TestimonyWatch the story of a former Hollywood actor who lived a double life asa male prostitute while starring in films and television beforefinding God on a trip to Israel.

The APA's Pro-Gay "River of Denial"

By Debbie Thurman


Along with ex-gays, will we soon have a network of ex-APA members? The American Psychological Association grows more and more uncomfortable with those in their ranks who counsel homosexual clients seeking to change their sexual orientation. Will these members soon be forced to leave APA?

A six-member APA Task Force has been formed to address the therapeutic interventions used to change same-sex attraction. They will be updating the 10-year-old guidelines for such therapies.

If the APA decides to ban such therapy, not only will it disregard empirical evidence, but it will also close itself off to recognition of the fourth realm (in addition to the bio-psycho-social) where change has been shown to be especially effective -- the spiritual. This defines the work of counseling ministries for ex-gays in recovery, more properly referred to as "discipleship." And that omission would, most assuredly, "do harm."

I can count myself among the growing numbers of men and women who have overcome a significant struggle with same-sex attraction. While our stories and the degree to which we have found wholeness may be different, the central themes are often similar. Frequently, you will find we came from broken homes, were alienated from one or both parents, were sexually abused as children, are sensitive by temperament, and suffered from depression.

Preservation of a Marriage

I raise my hand to all of the above. In fact, I fought a 10-year, life-and-death battle with major depressive disorder. Were it not for my faith and loving, nonjudgmental people coming alongside me -- in addition to wise counsel from professional therapists -- I might be living in a very different place today. Instead, I am with my husband of 26 years in a marriage that tottered on the brink of failure because of my quest for what I perceived as self-fulfilling wholeness with other women -- a "need" that had plagued me since my youth.

Remember the story about a scene in hell where people are trying to feed themselves with spoons that are too long to reach their mouths? That about sums up the state of desperately needing -- but never finding -- nourishment through a self-destructive, counterfeit version of love. That's why so many of us seek help in changing.

Yet, I have had gay activists virtually tell me to my face that I -- as I define myself -- simply don't exist. Will the APA, too, simply choose to "poof" me away? If so, they'd better think again. The elephant in the living room is getting larger.

Just as many gays remain closeted, so do a number of ex-gays. Not all of us are going to be front and center in discussing our journey. Most of us have no interest in going on the Oprah Show. It's painful for most people to disclose their personal struggles. The time has come, however, when more of us are realizing the need to stand up and be counted. We have watched pro-gay sentiment, based on lots of raw emotion and little fact, win the day in the court of public opinion as reflected through the established pillars of society -- the medical/mental health fields, public education, the mainstream media and, to a growing extent, even the church. This has all been the result of a 30-year, concerted gay propaganda effort. We have drawn the final straw, as far as I am concerned.

Disrespect for the Ex-Gay Experience

In order for gay activists to disparage the very possibility of change in one's sexual orientation -- and convince the mental health establishment to do the same -- they generally must engage in the predictable ploy of ad hominem attacks on ex-gays, and the process by which many claim to have achieved -- or be in the process of achieving -- stability and meaning in their lives.

It's not a black-and-white process, of course. "Change" covers a range of acceptable degrees for those who have long been unhappy living as homosexuals. No, they are not unhappy because of a society that discriminates against them. Their misery lies much deeper. I believe it is an instinctive recoiling against the new, man-created image of human nature that bears so little resemblance to the divine image we are meant to reflect. Humanity will never be able to draw what it needs from its own shallow, self-contained wells. The most effective therapists are the ones who understand human nature in this way.

Why is this plain and simple, counterfeit quality of homosexuality so hard to see? On an elemental level, two negative or two positive poles simply cannot be united. Neither can two locks ... or two keys. For a person to accept a gay identity, he or she must deny the fundamental truth that we are created for gender complementarity. Deny something long enough, and you may actually believe you are happy in your delusion. Is it ethical for a therapist to facilitate that "happy" delusion? It's certainly the popular path of least resistance. I believe that ultimately, this "swimming-downstream-with-the-crowd" strategy will ultimately fail for both gay activists and the APA.

Isn't it significant that highly respected studies (Laumann, et al)[1] have shown homosexuality to be an unstable trait that can change over time, rather than the immutable identity gay activists insist that it is? Show me just one other instance where the "proof" needed to declare a behavior or trait as in-born boils down to "But it feels like it's so!"

Many self-proclaimed lesbians, in particular, have long admitted to choosing their gay orientation as an act of feminist solidarity. Bisexuality is en vogue among women, particularly teen girls. It is something they simply put on or take off at will, in many cases. It's a dangerous game, of course. Suicidal depression rates are unusually high among young women who are sexually confused, as shown in a study headed by Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc at the University of British Columbia's McCreary Centre Society, reported in 2006.[2]

Sticky problems arise when a number of those who have "always felt" homosexual begin moving along the continuum of feeling less so, and at the same time, actually begin feeling better about themselves. How dare we forsake the gay cause c・ebr・/em>? Like crabs trying to escape from a bucket, gay activists begin dragging us down.

Detractors insist that measurable results must be quick, and that change "isn't change" if it requires a long process. These same people generally see life as a continual "journey" in all other respects. But if someone gives up during the long process, that is somehow "proof" that change is a sham. Never mind that overeaters, alcoholics or drug addicts fall off the wagon every day. The standard for sexual identity change remains "all or nothing"!

So where are the mental health professionals who will stand up and challenge these untruths? Why do they allow the APA to hijack the truth?

APA Refuses to Meet with Leaders
Holding Dissenting Worldviews

The APA recently dismissed a group of conservative religious leaders and counselors who were requesting input into the proceedings of APA's new Task Force, denying the group's request for a meeting.

"Church denominational leaders, practicing psychologists, counselors and organizations dedicated to assisting individuals who want to change their sexual orientation requested to meet with the task force to share their understanding of the issue," according to a Baptist Press story.[3]

But the APA cited its need "to keep the emphasis on the science" and maintain their distance from advocacy groups, according to a Sept. 7 letter sent to the conservative coalition.

That "distance from advocacy groups" that the APA said it needed, apparently did not refer to pro-gay groups. Clinton Anderson, director of an APA committee on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) concerns, met with Ron Schlittler, former assistant director of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), prior to the forming of the Task Force, according to bloggers at Ex-Gay Watch. The meeting between Anderson and Schlittler was to discuss the "aggressive promotion of 'reparative therapy' by right-wing groups," according to Ex-Gay Watch.[4]

"We cannot take into account what are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexuality -- they don't fit into our worldview," Anderson is reported to have said.[5] Anderson further insisted that the new APA Task Force "would base its findings on research, not ideology."

But "the concern about 'worldview' didn't stop them from including Dr. Jack Drescher in their Task Force," says Rev. Bob Stith, head of the Gender Issues Office of the Southern Baptist Convention. "He [Drescher] just happens to be the editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy."[6]

If the panel adopts a position that such therapy is unethical, therapists who offer help to homosexuals wishing to change could be censured or lose their licenses to practice.

All this politicization of science is the reason I have chosen to remain a layperson in my own mental-health advocacy and recovery work. I simply refuse to bow to that kind of politically correct pressure. I'll take the freedom to work outside the politicized APA umbrella, over the prestige of having professional credentials, any day. And, I am joined by an entire "army" of similar volunteers.

A new book by Dr. Stanton Jones and Dr. Mark Yarhouse, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, concludes that there is little risk of harm from therapy willingly sought by individuals seeking to change their same-sex attraction, and substantiates that change (either the ability to maintain celibacy, or a shift toward satisfactory heterosexuality) does occur in a significant percentage of people, at a success rate at least equivalent to treatment for depression.[7] This study, combined with the growing numbers of people drawn to ex-gay conferences sponsored by Exodus or Focus on the Family, has greatly agitated the gay-activist community.

"The APA said it would consider alternate viewpoints, but totally shunned nationally recognized therapists who treat those wanting to leave homosexuality," said Stith. "I wonder why, if they're so committed to 'science,' they would be afraid to hear an alternate viewpoint."[8]

Stith received a letter earlier this year from Dr. Gerald Koocher, a former president of the APA, in which Koocher stated, "Obviously, some people change their sexual orientation: they change from straight to gay and from gay to straight. What has never been shown is that therapy of any type is effective in changing sexual orientation."[9]

"The interesting thing is that he says, 'it has never been shown that therapy is effective.' All of this sounds a lot like Orwellian doublespeak," Stith said. "As I expressed in a letter to Dr. Koocher, I think at some point, rank-and-file Americans are going to lose confidence in therapists because more and more of them are going to see the living proof of that which the APA says 'doesn't happen.'"[10]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debbie Thurman, award-winning columnist and author of such books as From Depression To Wholeness: The Anatomy of Healing, and Outsmarting Depression: Surviving the Crossfire of the Mental Health Wars, is the founder of Family Mental Health Advocacy. She is a former recovery ministry lay counselor/group facilitator. This article is inspired by a forthcoming book.

Alberto Testimony

Hillsong United / Point Of Difference

Out of the Alternative

By Susie Magill, as told by Yvette Schneider


Emotional dependency led Yvette Schneider to spend most of her life trapped in a homosexual lifestyle…until her encounter with Christ. Part one of a two-part series on homosexuality in sports.

I grew up in a family where there wasn’t any hope that life was good. There was no confidence that our lives had meaning, or that there was purpose for our being here on earth.

I was very distant from my parents. My dad spent all of his time sitting in a chair reading the newspaper, and my mom screamed and yelled constantly about anything and everything. I was terrified of her, but at the same time, I wanted love and affirmation from her. I did great in sports and even competed in nationals for swimming, but nothing I did seemed to make my mom like me.

I felt so unlovable. When I was at home, I spent most of my time alone in my room. I thought surely there had to be more to life than this.

I started to have same-sex attractions when I was 11 or 12 years old.I would have crushes on women or girls that would turn into obsessions. During high school, I had a best girlfriend, and for the first time in my life I felt loved and appreciated for who I was. It was great. Suddenly my life
was completely transformed. Finally, it had meaning.

So I didn’t care when my mom sat me down and told me that she and my dad were getting a divorce. But I did care when my mom sat me down and asked me if my friend and I were having a homosexual relationship. I was devastated. How could my mom think that of me? But I had to admit to myself that deep down inside I wished we were having a homosexual relationship because then she would never leave me, and I would always feel the way I did then.

After high school, I attended the University of California at Irvine. I excelled academically, was president of my sorority pledge class and editor-in-chief of the yearbook my freshman year, yet I still felt empty and unfulfilled. My dissatisfaction with life was starting to get to me. I needed a
change, so I applied for the University of California’s Education Abroad Program at the University of Delhi in India so I could study Hinduism and Buddhism for a year. I thought that maybe I could find some meaning to life


During my time in India I befriended my Hindi teacher. After several months the relationship became physical at her initiation. The next day I was horrified by what I had done. This couldn’t be who I was. I spent the day walking through the foothills of the Himalayas. From where I was, I could see the majestic snow-covered peaks up above and a tiny ribbon of water below that was the Jammu River. I felt so small and insignificant in comparison. But at the same time, I was consumed with inner turmoil. I didn’t want to identify myself as a lesbian. But I was feeling loved and appreciated by this woman, and I couldn’t walk away from that. Somehow I had to reconcile the fact that I thought homosexuality was wrong with the fact that I was getting my emotional needs met through a homosexual relationship.

I finally decided that the only reason I thought homosexuality was wrong was because that was what my oppressive, controlling Judeo-Christian culture had taught me. So I determined that once I got back to California, I would fight the oppressor. And in my mind, the oppressor was society.

When I returned, I met another girl and soon began an emotionally dependent relationship with her. My mom kicked me out of the house due to my lesbian lifestyle, so I moved in with my girlfriend. But it wasn’t long before we became jealous, obsessive and possessive. My girlfriend became violent with me, but I couldn’t leave. She was beautiful and popular, and I wasn’t. Because my mother was inaccessible, I was attracted to women who were emotionally unavailable. I needed to obsess over someone who was mysterious.

As my relationship grew worse, I became more militant in my gay activism. I fought with the Christians who would carry their 1 Corinthians 6:9 signs saying how homosexuals would not inherit the Kingdom of God. And every time I argued with them, I tried to get at least one of
them to yell at me. When I did, I knew that I had won.

After college, I got a job with a law firm in downtown Los Angeles and worked with a young man named Jeff who was a notorious Christian. Jeff talked about God constantly and would even go as far as telling me what God was doing in his life. Sometimes I found it interesting. I never knew the Bible said practical things about how to live life. But, of course, I never shared any of those thoughts with Jeff.

Jeff could back up what he believed by quoting the Bible. I couldn’t back up what I believed at all. I would go home at night and look over my books on Eastern Mysticism, but I couldn’t give one practical answer for daily living, and Jeff could.

I tried to find another job so I could get away from Jeff and even reported him for proselytizing in hopes of getting him fired, but nothing worked. One morning Jeff came to work and put a cup down on my desk. I couldn’t believe it. He had bought me a cappuccino. Most people wouldn’t get off the freeway in L.A. in the middle of rush hour traffic for a friend, let alone an enemy. I almost started crying out of frustration. There is no defense for genuine love and kindness with no strings
attached.

Meanwhile, I was seeing a clairvoyant healer once a week. At the same time, I started experiencing dizziness several times a day. My palms were always burning. I had difficulty breathing and swallowing. One day at work, I started to feel dizzy, shaky and panicky in the middle of a big meeting. Afterward, I told Jeff what had happened. He asked if he could pray for me. I was so sick and scared that I let him. I felt better immediately. But, of course, it wasn’t long before the symptoms returned.

One Saturday morning I woke up and saw a vision of eagles and hawks swooping down at me. I felt like I was going crazy. As I was lying there I said, “God, You have to help me. I have no idea who You are. I’ve been trying to figure it out for years, but I feel like I’m farther away than ever. If
I’m ever going to know who You are, You’re going to have to reveal Yourself to me.” Just then, across the room, I saw Jesus standing there with His arms outstretched. Then He was gone.

I wasn’t surprised that I had seen something. I had been seeing things for months. But why Jesus? Why didn’t God come to me in a form I could relate to, like something Eastern or Native American?

There was no way I was going to tell Jeff that I had seen Jesus. All he would do was invite me to church again. I started to believe that Jesus might be the hope I was looking for, but I didn’t want to go to church. I thought I would be rejected. I didn’t want to put myself in that situation. But I thought about what Jeff had said. “You can’t be a Christian on your own. The enemy will easily
pick you off if you’re separated from the flock.”

So after working with Jeff eight hours a day, five days a week for two years, and hearing him talk
about God every day, I finally went to church. When I stepped inside I could feel the presence of God so strongly that I couldn’t even stand up during worship. I just sat there with my head in my hands.

After church, the girl sitting next to me asked if I wanted to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I did, and a huge weight was lifted off my shoulders. I experienced joy and peace for the first time in my life. But most of all I experienced the thrill of hope—the assurance that life did
have meaning and purpose.

It took me three years to even begin to feel that I had made any progress at all out of the world of same-sex attractions. It was an addiction I had to overcome. But through self-discipline, spending time in God’s Word, prayer and developing healthy same-sex friendships, those same-sex
attractions started falling away. And now I have a great husband and two wonderful daughters.

Since the major root of lesbianism is broken relationships with parents and peers of the same sex, we as Christians have a responsibility to step out of our comfort zones and to establish healthy friendships with those involved in homosexual lifestyles. As someone who was difficult
to reach out to and share the Gospel with, I beg you not to grow weary in doing good and reaching out to the people around you. In due time, you will reap, and the people you reach
will be eternally grateful.

Pull quotes: “Somehow I had to reconcile the fact that I thought homosexuality was wrong with the fact that I was getting my emotional needs met through a homosexual relationship.”

“‘ God, You have to help me. I have no idea who You are…If I’m ever going to know who You are, You’re going to have to reveal Yourself to me.’ Just then, across the room, I saw Jesus standing there with His arms outstretched. Then He was gone.”

Schneider retired from Family Research Counsel in 2001 and is currently a stay-at-home mom for her two girls. With the help of her husband, she leads Living in Victory Ministries to reach those dealing with homosexuality. Schneider continues to share her story of redemption with many churches, high schools, colleges and FCA/AIA conferences.

You can reach Schneider at yvetteschneider@hotmail.com or purchase her book Bridging the Gap at www.regenbooks.org.

For speaking engagements visit www.exodus-international.org.

Gay Christian Movement Watch

Gay Christian Movement Watch is a nondenominational ministry whose mission is to monitor, analyze and publish (MAP) the activities, leaders and public positions of the gay christian movement.

GCM Watch acts as an educational and empowerment tool for Christian academia desiring to better equip students and faculty to appropriately respond to the new face of doctrinal fallacy championed by homosexual religious groups and their allies.

GCM Watch seeks to facilitate intelligent discussion regarding the gay christian movement and enlighten the broader Christian constituency through careful research and examination of movement’s various adherents.

Our foundational text is the Bible and our worldview is balanced between the traditional scriptural understanding where applicable and progressive revelation where applicable. We believe that, where applicable, reason, logic and evidence is to be used to defend the faith given by Jesus Christ and recorded by holy men of God who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/about/