Monthly Archives: December 2013

Homofacism Strikes Again . . . Duck Dynasty Style

I freely admit, I have never watched a single episode of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Quite honestly, there is nothing about the show that appeals to me. I don’t like to hunt, I can’t relate to the Louisiana back-woods culture of the Robertson family, and the thought of wearing camouflage everyday, well, frightens me. But after A&E decided to suspend Phil Robertson for his comments on homosexuality in a recent GQ expose, I became troubled.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

and . . .

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men . . . don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Phil’s comments are ignorant, unintelligent, and quite honestly, stupid…AND…he has the right to say what he said and not lose his job. We live in a country where speech is protected, no matter how abhorrent or offensive someone’s opinion is, it must be allowed to be shared without fear of retaliation, or we turn into a fascist society, and that is exactly what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) want:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

duck-dynasty-gq-magazine-january-2014-01So let me get this right, GLAAD. You have recently publicly campaigned for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would protect the LGBT community from being fired from their jobs because of their sexual identity, but you encourage A&E to “reexamine” their relationship with Phil Robertson because of his Louisiana back-woods, Bible-thumping, red neck Christian identity? In other words, Christian employers must be tolerant of one’s sexual identity, regardless of whether it conflicts with their values and belief system, but A&E should fire Phil Robertson for his religious values?

Can someone say HYPOCRISY?

Phil Robertson went on to say that his family “really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around . . . we never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

We get it GLAAD. Phil Robertson’s comments are rather distasteful. Some might say HE is distasteful. But you can’t have it both ways. Tolerance is for everyone, not just some.

In the words of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content . . . how much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied.”

If you agree with me, here are three things you can do:

  1. Sign our petition and demand that A&E reinstate Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty
  2. Call or write A&E and demand they stop discriminating against Christian views on homosexuality
    A&E Television
    Networks, LLC
    235 E. 45th St.
    New York, NY 10017
    NY Tel. 212-210-1400
    Fax 212-210-1308
  3. Boycott A&E until they reinstate Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty

Christopher Doyle is the Co-Founder and President of Voice of the Voiceless, the only anti-defamation league for former homosexuals, individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions, and their families. For more information, visit:

Wayne “It’s Ok to Have Sex with Aids Infected Partners” Besen Launches Junk Science Website Reveals Just How Desperate Anti-Ex-Gay Activists Are to Hide the Truth About Homosexuality

Friday the 5th of December 2013 marked a new low in the pursuit of scientific research on LGBT issues. Wayne “It’s OK to Have Sex with AIDS-Infected Partners” Besen, the founder and creator of the hilariously named hate group Truth Wins Out, announced yet another creative effort to promote “scientifically proven truth” concerning LGBT issues. His new website,, also touts the “harmful” and “unscientific” nature of reparative therapies. Reparative therapies, also termed Sexual Orientation Change Effort (SOCE) therapy, is available for minors and adults who believe that, for them, homosexuality is not naturally inborn and that true change in sexuality is possible.

projectq_ex-gay_press_conference_(1_of_2)At face value, this is a laudable move for Mr. Besen. It is respectable that Mr. Besen has stated his efforts to present scientific evidence of LGBT and Reparative Therapy issues as he stated in his blog and in Championing valid scientific research in the field of sexuality has been a major goal of psychologists for many years. The largest professional organization that promotes and reports on the scientific, evidenced-based issues of homosexuality and change is NARTH, the National Association for the Research and Therapy for Homosexuality.

Within their website and during their yearly conventions, expert psychologists and therapists consistently promote and encourage sound research practices in the study of homosexual issues. These professionals strive to fulfill the fundamental principle of demonstrating unbiased research. Every true scientist knows that truth in research is best achieved through the ability of the researcher to be open to whatever results are discovered through evidence-based studies. NARTH seeks to remain open-minded to any result of homosexual research as long as it maintains ethical and sound practices.

Considering Mr. Besen’s stated efforts, it is astonishing that he and his researchers offer only one point of view on their new website. They appear to have made a common error seen in many overly biased research efforts. They only consider and promote research that concludes that sexuality is naturally inborn and unchangeable. Besen and his colleagues never once consider an opposite point of view, or the thoughts, beliefs, and feelings of ex-gay clients who have written many authentic testimonies of actual therapeutic change, not do they acknowledge the 100 years of scientific research that shows that some men and women do experience change, and that efforts to help them do not invariably result in harm.

Besen and his “researchers” violate one of the most fundamental and sacrosanct standards of truth in scientific research; the open-minded consideration of all sides of an issue and consideration of all applicable past and current evidence. In fact, they discount and condemn all research that does not align with their pre-existing conclusions. A credible researcher would equally consider both sides of an issue without forcing the goals of their agenda onto the scientific community or the public in order to arrive at preconceived conclusion.

I cannot help but be reminded of similar scientific errors within one of the world’s most prestigious professional organizations. The methods of represent exactly the kind of scientific performance that has become common within the American Psychological Association (APA).

The APA entered into a scientific blunder several years ago when attempting to consider evidence of the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). In their 2009 Task Force Report on SOCE, the APA selected task force committee members to evaluate all the research on SOCE over the past five decades. Every single one of these selected task force members were gay, (with the possible exception of one who is non the less a gay-affirmative therapist). By any scientific standard of sound research practices, this conscious disallowance of any committee member holding an opposite viewpoint represents gross bias, especially when considering such a significant and complex issue as sexuality. When this kind of research and reporting takes place, scientists become politicians with an agenda, and the science becomes mythology.

With Besen going on the record saying that it’s OK to have sex with AIDS infected partners as long as you wear a condom, even though the FDA has not approved a condom for anal sex, calling it “dangerous”, does really believe professionals and the public will view it as credible?

Can you imagine a committee of degreed scientific researchers who were selected to determine if cigarette smoking is injurious to the health of human beings…who were all smokers (extremely biased research was indeed promoted by the big cigarette companies in the 1960’s.)? Who would not agree that this was a dangerous and scientifically flawed study? Who would not agree that this kind of research and conclusions have no true credibility?

With this kind of research promoted by, I would suggest another name that might be more appropriate. How about, or, or LGBTBelieveEverythingThatWeConcludeOrElseYou’ Then again, we all make mistakes. I must admit something. I am completely biased for unbiased research.

David H. Pickup, M.A., LMFT, is the Vice-President of Voice of the Voiceless and holds a masters degree in psychology. He is licensed in California and Texas as a Marriage and Family Therapist. He is pursuing his doctorate in psychology at California Southern University in Los Angeles.


Christopher Doyle’s Talk with Dennis Prager: “Some Homosexuals Can Change, Including New York City Mayor’s Wife”


Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager

On November 22, Voice of the Voiceless Co-Founder and President Christopher Doyle called into the Dennis Prager Radio Show’s “Open Line Friday”. Prager is nationally syndicated radio talk show host that claims to be a social-conservative, but has recently made some comments about never having met a homosexual that changed. Prager and Doyle debated back and forth about the etiology of homosexuality, and at the end the segment, Prager acknowledged that despite the propaganda of gay activists, some people can and do change their sexual orientation, including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s wife, who is a former lesbian.

According to the ABC News Article:

De Blasio’s wife, writer and poet Chirlane McCray, was once a lesbian. McCray published a groundbreaking article in Essence magazine in 1979, titled “I Am a Lesbian,” heralded by Essence as “a revelation, perhaps the first time a black gay woman had spoken so openly and honestly about her sexuality in a black magazine.”

When recently asked how she went from being a lesbian to falling in love with Bill, she told Essence, “By putting aside the assumptions I had about the form and package my love would come in. By letting myself be as free as I felt when I went natural.” Bill says that both his family and her family were “more than surprised” by the marriage.

Click here to read the ABC News article

You can listen to the entire seven-minute segment by clicking below.

The Dark Shadow of Pedophilia

APA’s “Mistake” in Listing Pedophilia as a Sexual Orientation Has Far Reaching Consequences

dsm5Earlier this year the American Family Association shocked many people when they pointed out that in the new edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM V) from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) pedophilia was defined as an orientation. The classification was very tight and pedophilia, or pedophilic disorder as it was now called, would only be seen as an orientation if the client showed no remorse or felt no guilt over their feelings and there was no risk of anyone being harmed. When this news broke the APA quickly stated that they had made a mistake.

The blog said: APA has issued a statement acknowledging an error in the text of DSM-5 that involves the definition and diagnosis of pedophilic disorder. In a discussion, the text uses the term ‘pedophilic sexual orientation,’ but does not use the word ‘orientation’ in the criteria for pedophilic disorder. APA emphasizes that language in the discussion should have referred to pedophilia as a sexual ‘interest’ rather than an ‘orientation,’ an error that was simply overlooked by editors. In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual, the press release points out.”

The blog also said: The statement notes as well that APA stands firmly behind efforts to criminally prosecute those who sexually abuse and exploit children and adolescents. We also support continued efforts to develop treatments for those with pedophilic disorder with the goal of preventing future acts of abuse.”

All well and good, but what comes next, from a specific spokesman, is more worrying.

Psychiatrist Jack Drescher, M.D., a member of the DSM-5 Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, commented on the error to Psychiatric News, emphasizing that “the language used in DSM-5 does not represent any official position of APA that pedophilia is a ‘sexual orientation.’” He said that he interpreted the description at issue “as an alternative way of saying ‘pedophilic arousal pattern.’ The same could be said for other paraphilia that also are not considered to be sexual orientations.” He added that: “Making more of this issue than it actually means is simply a ‘tempest in a teapot.’

This is more worrying, not just because Drescher dismisses the concerns of others but because Dr. Drescher appears to see pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia as legitimate ways to have sexual feelings.

While the APA states the defining of pedophilia as an orientation as a “mistake” a DSM takes around 5 years to produce and goes through a large number of committees and editing processes.

So why was this mistake not picked up?

While Dr. Drescher, who was on the American Psychological Association’s committee that reported against sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and defines SOCE as “torture” (which raises questions about Dr. Drescher’s suitability to now be advising the World Health Organization on this issue), and other gay rights activists may not like it – the early years of the gay rights movement is intrinsically linked to pedophilia. Much of Alfred Kinsey’s research that created his two “ground breaking” reports on human sexuality included the abuse of children and the recording on film of that abuse as well as sexual activity between children which was also recorded. Early activists who have been exposed as predatory pedophiles include Harvey Milk, whose story was turned into a sanitized film by Hollywood. Amongst this rogues gallery of gay rights heroes are founders of pride marches, and even the UK’s Peter Tatchell who has written about the joys of inter-generational sex including with minors. But the gay rights movement refuses to acknowledge this murky past.

Alongside this is an ongoing effort to see pedophilia relabeled. The University of Toronto hosted a major conference with Jack Kinkaid, who has also addressed the pedophile rights group B4UAct who has the declared aim of helping pedophiles not get caught. Kinkaid wrote in his book Child Loving: If the child is desirable, then to desire it can hardly be freakish. To maintain otherwise is to put into operation pretty hefty engines of denial and self-deception.

In the Canadian Parliament Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem, retired professor who had previously been at the University of Montreal, and Dr. Vernon Qunisey, from Queen’s University in Ontario, stated that pedophilia should be seen as a sexual orientation. In the Netherlands two psychologists associated with hospitals in Amsterdam, Rik van Lunsen and Erik van Beek, stated that pedophiles should be given access to “virtual porn” (cartoons of child abuse rather than actual film footage) with van Beck stating:

“I think that repressing your fantasies can lead to frustration and ultimately, for some types of pedophiles, to a greater likelihood of doing something wrong. If you make virtual child pornography under strict government control with a label explaining that no child was abused, you can give pedophiles a way of regulating their sexual urges.”

So let’s now put this together and see the possible consequences.

A client is using virtual porn, so no child is being harmed, and has no shame or guilt about his or her sexual feelings. Under the new APA guidelines their pedophilic “sexual interest” does not meet the definition of a disorder so, just as Qunisey, van Lunsen, van Beek and Van Gijseghem want, the client could refuse to accept treatment for the perceived “disorder.”

With the various bans on SOCE therapy, the client could even attempt to sue the therapist for attempting to force a therapy onto them that they did not want.

Thanks to the “mistake” from the APA, we have now given power to the pedophile to legitimize their behaviour. Well done! (Note: a version of this article was first published at:

Phelim McIntyre, N.L.P.M.P. is a member of the Voice of the Voiceless Advisory Board. He is professional counselor and life coach specializing in issues concerning masculinity, including sexual orientation, based in the South of England. He is an ex-homosexual, having come out at the age of 13 and now overcoming SSA. He has now been straight for over 10 years.

Clients Rights and Clinical Credibility Sacrificed on Member of Parliaments’ Alter of Political Correctness

United Kingdom Parliament “Debate” Dismisses SOCE Therapy as “Voodoo”


parliament_000Last week (21st November) a “debate” took place in Westminster Hall in preparation for the Private Members “Counsellors and Psychotherapists (Regulation) Bill” which was due to have its second reading on 22nd (brought by Geriant Davies (Labour MOP for Swansea West). While this 2nd Reading has been postponed until the 24th January the so-called debate shows the situation that is faced by those who want to get help to overcome unwanted homosexual feelings and the uninformed opposition that exists.


Firstly, while this event was called a debate it was anything but. The free dictionary at defines debate as follows:


1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

As can be seen from the record of the event from Hansard (the official record of the Houses of Parliament) the only speakers were those against so-called gay-to-straight or reparative therapy (


This means that those MPs who spoke were able to speak unchallenged. But what did they say?


Well, Sandra Osborne (Labour MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cunnock) states “Conversion or reparative therapy is the attempt by individuals, often posing as professionals, to try to alter the sexuality of lesbian, gay or bisexual patients.” By this definition Nicholas Cummings, ex-president of the American Psychological Association, only poses as a professional because he has helped people go through this type of therapy. And what about Dr. Gerard van De Aardwerg, from the Netherlands, who has worked in this area for decades and has been a psychotherapist for the Dutch government or Dr. Paul Miller who was an officer in Northern Ireland for the Royal College of Psychiatrists and adviser on Mental Health to the Northern Irish government and was deliberately entrapped by the militant gay activist Patrick Strudwick? We can add to this the support for this type of therapy from the late Robert Perloff, past president of the American Psychological Association, and Rogers H Wright, a past member of the American Psychological Association’s Board of Directors. Are these people only “posing” as professionals?


Two MPs (Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) and Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) – a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative) both referred to this type of therapy as “voodoo therapy”. Yet the clinical evidence is anything but. In 2009 a Task Force at the American Psychological Association (APA) stated that “there is no enough evidence to claim that sexual orientation change efforts (their term for reparative therapies) work”. Just as importantly they stated that there is not enough evidence to say whether they are harmful or not – something that the MPs at last week’s “debate” have ignored. But when we read the biographies of those who were part of the Task Force we see that their report is anything but unbiased. Jack Drescher, who was part of the Task Force is on record as stating that sexual orientation change efforts are a type of torture. Put simply, Dresher and other read the research to find evidence of failure and harm, and when they did not they dismissed the research as not rigorous enough.


In the American Psychological Association’s statement of “Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts” they quote a number of pieces of research that show that “homosexuality is a normal and positive variation” of human sexuality. These are Bell, Weinberg, & Hammer-smith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach, 1951; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953. Kinsey’s research included, as exposed in the short-lived ITV series “The Sexual Revolution” the sexual abuse of children by Kinsey and his researchers with the recording of that on film. Yet the APA ignores this? Why? Because their arguments are founded on this research. Kinsey et al, Ford and Beach, Bell et al, and Bullough all recruited their subjects specifically to support their views – yet these are of a high enough standard to stand as are the studies that the APA quotes as saying that change is not possible (Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler, 1971; James, 1978; McConaghy, 1969, 1976; McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr, 1972; Tanner, 1974, 1975) none of which were done to the high standards required of modern psychological research. Similarly the research that claims harm (Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002) was often recruited by advertising specifically for those who were harmed by the therapy. In any other field this would raise warning signs, but not when dealing with sexual orientation? Again this is the American Psychological Association’s report was hijacked for the political agenda of Drescher and the others. The authors also dismiss the longitudinal study of Jones and Yarhouse ( as it does not have a control group, yet very little research into the effectiveness of a psychological therapy has a control group because of the ethical consideration of protecting the client. Yet again we see that Drescher and others apply one rule for the evidence that supports their agenda and another rule for the evidence that goes against what they want people to hear.


We also see this influence on the British Psychological Society’s statement against Reparative Therapy which states that this type of therapy is the sole preserve of those mixing a modern Freudian psychotherapeutic position with religious faith, quoting Dr. Nicolosi and Dr. Moberley, ignoring the Person-Centered Approach of Dr. Dean Byrd and David Pruden. Why this missing of Byrd and Pruden, the coaching modern of Mike Rosebush, the eclectic model of Richard Cohen or other non-Freudian models? Because there is the desire to dismiss the whole idea of sexual orientation change as outdated and driven by a Freudian fascination of sex, neither of which is true.


The APA report encourages therapists to use therapy to enable the client to accept their sexual orientation and lists a number of articles, all of which are chapters in books but are not original research! (Bartoli & Gillem, 2008; Brown, 2006, Beckstead & Israel, 2007; Glassgold, 2008; Haldeman, 2004; Lasser & Gottlieb, 2004). Of August 2013 the Sage Journal data base had 301 articles that referred to sexual orientation affirmation through therapy, often using the disputed term “internalized homophobia”. Of those 301 articles over 80% contained little or no reference to clinical studies. Of the other 15+% only one article was anything but a record of an individual therapists work with a client, the type of research that is recognized as the weakest, with that one article a PhD paper looking at a small number of testimonies. This means that the American Psychological Association is promoting a therapy for which there is no decent evidence to support is as either safe or effective. Again we see the “one rule for you, one rule for me” behaviour of the pro-gay lobby.


There has been one truly independent review of the evidence concerning sexual orientation change therapies. This was undertaken by Dr. Glynn Harrison, a member of the UK’s Royal College of Psychiatrists who was at the time professor of psychiatry at the University of Bristol and who has been an adviser to the World Health Organization on epidemiology. This review, undertaken for the Anglican Communion’s listening project on human sexuality, found that the success rate for reparative therapies to be no lower than other psychological interventions and, just as importantly, found the rate of harm to be equal to other psychological interventions. Dr. Harrison found, just as Drs. Cummings, Perloff and Wrighthad before him, that there were no ethical grounds to exclude sexual orientation change efforts as a theraputic option.


So, contrary to the claims of the MPs, reparative therapies are not voodoo.


Sharon Hodgson (Labour MP for Washington and Sunderland West) states that: “Pushing conversion therapy on people who are homosexual might not be on the same level as physical attacks on a member of the LGBT community, but it is certainly part of the wider problem of discrimination against them. That said, the psychological harm that medical professionals have recognized as a side effect of such attempts to change or tone down sexuality could well lead to the same end result.” Again these claims are false. No therapist who offers sexual orientation change efforts pushes therapy onto a client anymore than any ethical therapist would force a therapy onto a client for any other issue. Also, as already stated, there is no greater risk of harm in going through a sexual orientation change effort than in going through therapy due to bereavement. Mrs. Hodgson has been misled by the various “professional bodies” that have chosen to ignore the clinical evidence and to allow the gay rights lobby, most of whom have no problem with a therapist offering reparative therapy, to dictate their morals. Notice also that neither Mrs. Hodgson nor any other MP (including the Minister of State) were able to produce any evidence to support their claim that gay-to-straight therapy is harmful or a form of discrimination.


The voluntary register put forward by Norman Lamb (Minister of State, Department of Health) offers no hope to those who wish to change as the code of conduct is being dictated to by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), who have admitted that their ethical statement on this was written without reference to the clinical evidence, the British Psychological Society (BPS), who (as already pointed out) are deliberately misleading members on this issue, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP)who, in the trade journal, chose to ignore all the clinical evidence in an article on this issue, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists who – through Dr. Michael King – have dictated to the various bodies with Dr. King falsely claiming to be representing the wider College when he is only (as Dr. Harrison pointed out in his study) representing the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Special Interest Group which has not published an annual report in over two years, and did not hold an annual conference this year. These bodies have also been asked, led by the unscientific UKCP, to write a statement against this type of therapy. On the grounds of experience we can expect this to be false, to scare mongering and to promote as ethical the unfounded practice of gay affirmation through therapy.


Just as this statement from the “professional bodies” will be based on political correctness rather than clinical research, we can be sure that the Private Member’s Bill (just as the Early Day Motion before it) will be devoid of clinical foundation putting political correctness before the ethical and human rights of clients (note: this article was originally published at:


Phelim McIntyre, N.L.P.M.P. is a professional counselor and life coach specializing in issues concerning masculinity, including sexual orientation, based in the South of England. He is an ex-homosexual, having come out at the age of 13  and now overcoming SSA. He has now been straight for over 10 years.