Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

(RNS) The suit is being brought by four young men and two of their parents, who claim that JONAH induced them to pay for services by making deceptive claims that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed.

11 Comments

  1. Sad news indeed. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s attitude toward ex-gays and ex-gay resource groups, is highly reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan’s attitude toward Black Americans and the NAACP. The hatred is no less palpable.

  2. There is NO SUCH THING as “ex-gay,” so anyone who makes wild claims about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “attitude” toward something that doesn’t exist is just spamming this board with more anti-gay propaganda. Hopefully, the courts will stop the con artist anti-gays from bilking people and hurting them.

    And how many times are anti-gays going to WHINE that their intended victims are “the real haters”? No one is fooled by that common anti-gay lie.

  3. This is my email/journal posting to myself today in regards to this article:

    http://www.religionnews.com/2013/07/18/jewish-ex-gay-group-faces-suit-for-consumer-fraud/

    Fascinating nuance here:

    While orientation is almost never chosen, it is always influenced.

    Of course the article doesn’t say that RHN (Restored Hope Network) started up 2 years ago.

    ‘falsely promising that it can help’ So, what does help mean? What does promising to help mean, as compared to promising to solve something?

    What is significant? What is significant harm? Harm like when you get an infection when you are in the hospital?

    Or, that sexual orientation can be changed. Lots of people who said their orientation was straight now say it is bisexual. Lots of folks who say their orientation was straight now say it is gay. Again, how do they know what orientation is, except by personal attestment – other than hooking you up to a plethysmograph.
    http://everything2.com/user/Pseudo_Intellectual/writeups/penile+plethysmograph and Washington State showed how often inmates there could trick its results.

    Your identity is always your choice. Your orientation of whether you are bisexual as opposed to whether, either, you say your orientation is gay or straight, is also primarily your choice. In our society and culture today this is because hardly anyone who actually is technically bisexual, claims that as their orientation. At least Angelina Jolie does. I appreciate her honestly.

    Hummmm, however, is Charles LiMandri talking about identity or orientation? Of course he is a lawyer. He should be able to use terms correctly…..

    Funny, because individuals who are Jewish would say God of the OT (as opposed to Christians who would say Jesus of the NT) is the one who actually does the changing.
    “This will very much depend on what the religious group said and what the SPLC is able to prove,” Laycock said. “To the extent that the prospect of conversion depends on religious faith, it’s going to be very hard to make a fraud claim.”

    Too bad that the JONAH folks didn’t talk about predispositions toward something, instead of only about learned behavior, because that would have made their, learned behavior, statement make more sense.
    JONAH, which was started in 1998 by two Jewish families, believes that “homosexuality is a learned behavior and that anyone can choose to disengage from their same-sex sexual fantasies, arousals, behavior and identity — if motivated and supported in that process,” according to its website.
    The APA followed what the APA (American Psychiatric Society) was saying.
    In a 2009 report, an American Psychological Association task force studying conversion therapy found that “enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation was unlikely” and “some participants were harmed by the interventions.”

    ‘unlikely’ is the same term doctors give to people who only have a small percentage chance of being helped, or we could say changed in some sense of that word, by what the doctor is doing. ‘some…were harmed’ is the same as what doctors would say about any treatment that they provide. Why do we hear all the disclaimers in TV ads about some can be harmed by all of the medical drugs being advertised these days? Even weight loss with or without medical treatment is unlikely not to harm some.

    No one is saying it will do harm to everyone. Some are harmed. Is it likely that some harm will happen to most everyone who seeks help? Yup, I think so. But there is harm to guys (and women too) who play football. Let’s take them off the field at least when we see that they do have a concussion.

    Sure any counseling treatment doesn’t work and thus harms some people. People would possibly say that the latest rehab treatment for Cory Monteith actually harmed him because he then had to act like things were better than they actually were for him deep within him. And his emotional release was to go to Vancouver. And we could say that because he had been away from drugs for a month or so his body was harmed in that it wasn’t as able to handle the same amount of either alcohol or maybe heroine as it could before.

    Amazing how folks don’t want to put things into context. Same for the Trayvon Martin trial. Charlie Rose did a great segment on this two days ago. And still Trayvon’s father is saying the one female jurist already had her mind made up before the trial started. I get why he is saying this. But he is really saying it’s about the law as is on the Florida books right now. All the folks on Charlie’s show said that by the law, this was the only verdict that could have been handed down.

    And there was no research to support why the APA (American Psychiatric Association) removed it in 1973. But that is very rarely brought up.

    Hummm, but now there are all kinds of debates about the changes to the APA DSM-V. With some saying we are all a bit depressed. http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/RecentUpdates.aspx

    Of course LiMandri has a point. The folks coming to JONAH probably also thought same sex sexual behavior, and possibly not same sex sexual orientation was sinful, or they wouldn’t have come. (unless they were forced to by others, yeah, I get that).
    So, the crime doesn’t begin until they decide to change their idea of what sin is.

    But then why does LiMandri go and say this?:
    “You don’t get to define what a sin is,” LiMandri said, adding that JONAH doesn’t force anyone to change their sexual orientation. “They just say if you want to change and bring your life into conformity with your own values, we’re they’re to help you.”
    He knows as this article states, that some Jews think it’s okay.
    He won’t even define what is changing….. Arg. What does, ‘bring your life’ mean? It can only be about either behavior or identity.

    All movements and positions are flawed if they won’t place position points on the Bell Curve, in order to show perspective.

    The banning therapy to minors is a real sticky one for me. It is really about if the minors feel they have chosen freely. What is parental role in these things? How does all of that change in one day when a child turns to whatever age that State’s age of consent is?

    What does ‘scientifically’ even mean?. I sure learned a lot about what this doesn’t mean when I read all of these research studies when I was in grad school. I discovered that science is closer to religion that I had previously thought.

    I even think the mirror approach could be okay at times. I’m amazed at what ends up being helpful to certain people.

    TJ Helmstetter has to use the term, so called, because JONAH doesn’t call it that. Like pro-gay therapists who want to force you to affirm a gay identity when you don’t want to is ethical either? Again, the difference between identity, orientation, attractions, behavior… And what those terms are heard to mean, as opposed to what they mean.

    But then LiMandri isn’t defining what ‘heal’ or ‘wounded’ means or even what ‘come to him’ means, especially when he is Jewish and is talking about the OT idea of God.
    But LiMandri said it’s not the SPLC’s role to tell people they can’t change; self-determination is up to individuals. He said that in the Judeo-Christian worldview, there exists the belief that people have a wounded nature, but “God can and will heal you if you come to him.”

    Whatever……

    Funny what Murray ends with saying.
    For Murray, it is problematic to say that people with same-sex attractions should seek reparative counseling.

    It didn’t change Steve Grand’s attractions, but it did help him, he says, in a lot of ways. But it still didn’t help him enough not to deceive people about who Nick Alan is to him in All-American Boy.

    The only way he could say this:
    “I think my challenge with that is the understanding that people believe that God did not make them correctly,” Murray said, “and that they actually believe that it is easier or better for them to have to change something about themselves than to come to an understanding that God made them and knows them and loves them as they are.”

    Would be by implying that you are not affected by family factors, environmental factors, societal factors, cultural factors, religious factors, peer factors, abuse factors, in terms of your sexual attractions. He has to hinge everything on the false idea that ‘orientation is inherent at birth’ with no scientific proof to support that – and tons of scientific proof to dispel it.

    Of course God loves them as they are, but then he says he wants them to keep changing, growing, maturing, unfolding….. So, again, Murray, doesn’t have the ability to speak clearly. Because God knows us, is precisely why he wants to keep changing us. The question is whether that is about attractions or behavior, identity or orientation. What our understanding of God is. If you take the Brian McLaren perspective, he would say he wants God to change folks with a gay orientation to not be sexual until they are in a gay Christian marriage.

    Alas…………

    Do you think if we were to get them into a room with me, for a few hours, and keep them there and press them on these things, we would get any different of a response? Or is it just the reporter, Corrie Mitchell, who is presenting things this way? The Corrie Mitchell hotlink name only gets you to the other articles that were posted by her at RNS

    Hummm. She is only an intern at RNS according to Linkedin. And only doing that since June of this year, it says.

    I’ve haven’t posted a comment to RNS before, but somehow I feel like I should now, so, here it goes….

    Mike Jones

  4. This is my email/journal posting to myself today in regards to this article:

    Fascinating nuance here:

    While orientation is almost never chosen, it is always influenced.

    Of course the article doesn’t say that RHN (Restored Hope Network) started up 2 years ago.

    ‘falsely promising that it can help’ So, what does help mean? What does promising to help mean, as compared to promising to solve something?

    What is significant? What is significant harm? Harm like when you get an infection when you are in the hospital?

    Or, that sexual orientation can be changed. Lots of people who said their orientation was straight now say it is bisexual. Lots of folks who say their orientation was straight now say it is gay. Again, how do they know what orientation is, except by personal attestment – other than hooking you up to a plethysmograph.
    http://everything2.com/user/Pseudo_Intellectual/writeups/penile+plethysmograph and Washington State showed how often inmates there could trick its results.

    Your identity is always your choice. Your orientation of whether you are bisexual as opposed to whether, either, you say your orientation is gay or straight, is also primarily your choice. In our society and culture today this is because hardly anyone who actually is technically bisexual, claims that as their orientation. At least Angelina Jolie does. I appreciate her honestly.

    Hummmm, however, is Charles LiMandri talking about identity or orientation? Of course he is a lawyer. He should be able to use terms correctly…..

    Funny, because individuals who are Jewish would say God of the OT (as opposed to Christians who would say Jesus of the NT) is the one who actually does the changing.
    “This will very much depend on what the religious group said and what the SPLC is able to prove,” Laycock said. “To the extent that the prospect of conversion depends on religious faith, it’s going to be very hard to make a fraud claim.”

    Too bad that the JONAH folks didn’t talk about predispositions toward something, instead of only about learned behavior, because that would have made their, learned behavior, statement make more sense.
    JONAH, which was started in 1998 by two Jewish families, believes that “homosexuality is a learned behavior and that anyone can choose to disengage from their same-sex sexual fantasies, arousals, behavior and identity — if motivated and supported in that process,” according to its website.
    The APA followed what the APA (American Psychiatric Society) was saying.
    In a 2009 report, an American Psychological Association task force studying conversion therapy found that “enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation was unlikely” and “some participants were harmed by the interventions.”

    ‘unlikely’ is the same term doctors give to people who only have a small percentage chance of being helped, or we could say changed in some sense of that word, by what the doctor is doing. ‘some…were harmed’ is the same as what doctors would say about any treatment that they provide. Why do we hear all the disclaimers in TV ads about some can be harmed by all of the medical drugs being advertised these days? Even weight loss with or without medical treatment is unlikely not to harm some.

    No one is saying it will do harm to everyone. Some are harmed. Is it likely that some harm will happen to most everyone who seeks help? Yup, I think so. But there is harm to guys (and women too) who play football. Let’s take them off the field at least when we see that they do have a concussion.

    Sure any counseling treatment doesn’t work and thus harms some people. People would possibly say that the latest rehab treatment for Cory Monteith actually harmed him because he then had to act like things were better than they actually were for him deep within him. And his emotional release was to go to Vancouver. And we could say that because he had been away from drugs for a month or so his body was harmed in that it wasn’t as able to handle the same amount of either alcohol or maybe heroine as it could before.

    Amazing how folks don’t want to put things into context. Same for the Trayvon Martin trial. Charlie Rose did a great segment on this two days ago. And still Trayvon’s father is saying the one female jurist already had her mind made up before the trial started. I get why he is saying this. But he is really saying it’s about the law as is on the Florida books right now. All the folks on Charlie’s show said that by the law, this was the only verdict that could have been handed down.

    And there was no research to support why the APA (American Psychiatric Association) removed it in 1973. But that is very rarely brought up.

    Hummm, but now there are all kinds of debates about the changes to the APA DSM-V. With some saying we are all a bit depressed. http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/RecentUpdates.aspx

    Of course LiMandri has a point. The folks coming to JONAH probably also thought same sex sexual behavior, and possibly not same sex sexual orientation was sinful, or they wouldn’t have come. (unless they were forced to by others, yeah, I get that).
    So, the crime doesn’t begin until they decide to change their idea of what sin is.

    But then why does LiMandri go and say this?:
    “You don’t get to define what a sin is,” LiMandri said, adding that JONAH doesn’t force anyone to change their sexual orientation. “They just say if you want to change and bring your life into conformity with your own values, we’re they’re to help you.”
    He knows as this article states, that some Jews think it’s okay.
    He won’t even define what is changing….. Arg. What does, ‘bring your life’ mean? It can only be about either behavior or identity.

    All movements and positions are flawed if they won’t place position points on the Bell Curve, in order to show perspective.

    The banning therapy to minors is a real sticky one for me. It is really about if the minors feel they have chosen freely. What is parental role in these things? How does all of that change in one day when a child turns to whatever age that State’s age of consent is?

    What does ‘scientifically’ even mean?. I sure learned a lot about what this doesn’t mean when I read all of these research studies when I was in grad school. I discovered that science is closer to religion that I had previously thought.

    I even think the mirror approach could be okay at times. I’m amazed at what ends up being helpful to certain people.

    TJ Helmstetter has to use the term, so called, because JONAH doesn’t call it that. Like pro-gay therapists who want to force you to affirm a gay identity when you don’t want to is ethical either? Again, the difference between identity, orientation, attractions, behavior… And what those terms are heard to mean, as opposed to what they mean.

    But then LiMandri isn’t defining what ‘heal’ or ‘wounded’ means or even what ‘come to him’ means, especially when he is Jewish and is talking about the OT idea of God.
    But LiMandri said it’s not the SPLC’s role to tell people they can’t change; self-determination is up to individuals. He said that in the Judeo-Christian worldview, there exists the belief that people have a wounded nature, but “God can and will heal you if you come to him.”

    Whatever……

    Funny what Murray ends with saying.
    For Murray, it is problematic to say that people with same-sex attractions should seek reparative counseling.

    It didn’t change Steve Grand’s attractions, but it did help him, he says, in a lot of ways. But it still didn’t help him enough not to deceive people about who Nick Alan is to him in All-American Boy.

    The only way he could say this:
    “I think my challenge with that is the understanding that people believe that God did not make them correctly,” Murray said, “and that they actually believe that it is easier or better for them to have to change something about themselves than to come to an understanding that God made them and knows them and loves them as they are.”

    Would be by implying that you are not affected by family factors, environmental factors, societal factors, cultural factors, religious factors, peer factors, abuse factors, in terms of your sexual attractions. He has to hinge everything on the false idea that ‘orientation is inherent at birth’ with no scientific proof to support that – and tons of scientific proof to dispel it.

    Of course God loves them as they are, but then he says he wants them to keep changing, growing, maturing, unfolding….. So, again, Murray, doesn’t have the ability to speak clearly. Because God knows us, is precisely why he wants to keep changing us. The question is whether that is about attractions or behavior, identity or orientation. What our understanding of God is. If you take the Brian McLaren perspective, he would say he wants God to change folks with a gay orientation to not be sexual until they are in a gay Christian marriage.

    Alas…………

    Do you think if we were to get them into a room with me, for a few hours, and keep them there and press them on these things, we would get any different of a response? Or is it just the reporter, Corrie Mitchell, who is presenting things this way? The Corrie Mitchell hotlink name only gets you to the other articles that were posted by her at RNS

    Hummm. She is only an intern at RNS according to Linkedin. And only doing that since June of this year, it says.

    I’ve haven’t posted a comment to RNS before, but somehow I feel like I should now, so, here it goes….

    Mike Jones

  5. SPLC is not suing JONAH. The four men who were victims of JONAHs disgusting highly-sexual therapy and two of their mothers are suing JONAH for fraud. All of the plaintiffs come from religious backgrounds so the claim that SPLC is attacking religious freedoms is a blatant lie.

    The ex-gay therapist involved had men stand naked infront of him fondling their genitals for his own sexual gratification disguised as treatment.

    Limandri should be ashamed of himself for protecting these therapeutic sexual predators.

  6. MarcoD is referring to point #9 in the legal document linked to in this article. I’ve worked through the first 32 of the 116 points in that document for your review and consideration. So as not to use up further space here, please see: http://ethnologystudy.blogspot.com/. The Google Blogger blog post there is entitled, “RNS article on JONAH lawsuit.”

  7. “EX-Gay” this word is so ridicules . Im 60 year old , i had been travel all over the world ,making friends ,study different culture ,have fun …I meet so many different people,diversity of society but i never meet EX-Gay :) …I meet bi sex,trans people ,hetero,asexual,pansex, etc… BUt never ex-gay …Because the world Ex-Gay is made up from some religion groups , etc.. But is not really exists ,,,so i was wondering could be so many other think what are not exists but silly people still believe !!!??? People are born with high IQ but we are force ,or brain wash from educational system ,religion , law etc… to believe in something what some other wants we to believe …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.