Ex-Gay Therapy Doesn't Work, I Tried It

CONTACT: media@exgaywatch.com

I'm Daniel Gonzales, a former patient of "ex-gay" therapist Joe Nicolosi. At age 18 I tried to "cure" myself of my gayness and only succeeded in spending thousands of dollars and losing my faith in the process. This is my story of reparative therapy.

Cinematography by Esteban Rael

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Daniel
• Gonzales
• former
• homosexuals
• truth
• afa
• Exodus
• International
• ex-gay
• exgay
• reparative
• therapy
• Nicolosi
• gay
• exodus

[TheLogicalPosition]

@skywize Who conscientiously chooses to be attracted to one sex over the other? You need to realize you completely dethroned the platform of "born this way" with that statement. Secondly, you are not addressing the need to clarify the use of the word "gay", which is what needs to be done in order to no loner embed non-truth.

[NYerintransit]

Homosexuality is not bad for society. Atheism is.

[skywize]

@TheLogicalPosition Fine. To clarify, some people have the choice to be attracted to the opposite sex, and some do not. For the sake of the argument, the latter is what I refer to as gay. Very few people would ever choose to be known as gay without actually being gay, because morons who think it's unnatural, or immoral litter this planet. Most of the time, if someone says they are gay, it is because they are naturally attracted to the same sex.

[TheLogicalPosition]

@skywize And the APA, nor any LGTBQQ groups or even the mainstream media makes any form of clarification. Thus, NONE of those positions are capable of teaching or reflecting the fullness of truth. This is so because in their respective points of view, washed together as non-distinct items are the elements of "specific conscientious choice", and "the absence of conscientious choice". Saying that someone "is gay" is a statement that embeds this corruption. It needs to be clarified.

[TheLogicalPosition]

@skywize You contradict yourself by saying one can identify by whatever they want, but in the next sentence saying you ARE either heterosexual or homosexual. The underlying problem is that in the word homosexual (or gay or lesbian), you have both the attraction and the identity described, but NOT differentiated, but Identity = CHOICE, while attraction = NOT CHOICE. Those two contradictory characteristics cannot both be housed under one word. There needs to be clarification.

[skywize]

@TheLogicalPosition Eating ones offspring WOULD be justified if it is a natural occurrence. Don't mistake justification with morality. In fact, calling it 'justification' isn't correct either. It's either natural or it's not. You can 'choose to identify as' whatever you wish, but you are either heterosexual... or you are not. You can 'decide to be gay'... that does not mean you are. Gay people are permanently gay.

[TheLogicalPosition]

@MamaMario13 Furthermore, blindly trusting the APA? The APA does not even separate the difference between homosexual life-identity (conscientious choice) and homosexual sexual attraction (absence of conscientious choice). Washing together contradictory terms under one word will NEVER lead to truth. The APA position is founded on a corruption of truth from the very start. I refuse to accept it as truth, but you do. Therefore, your position is also corrupt.

[TheLogicalPosition]

Here is why they lose their minds: Because I am taking the homosexuality out of the center of my identity. I don't deny it is there, but now in my life search for purpose and meaning, I do not involve the element of pro-homosexual activism. Why? Because the homosexual attraction DOES NOT define me as a human being. Activists lose their minds over this because when this happens, they LOSE strength. If people only KNEW that they did have a CHOICE, poop would hit the fan; lies exposed.

[TheLogicalPosition]

U contradict yourself. If its up2u how u shall identify, then Im able to identify as "a human being with homosexual attraction". By the elements, that is the same as calling myself a "homosexual person". In both life-identities, the humanness and the sexual attraction are both accounted for, but the latter life-ID is not centered on sexuality. And that's the one I CHOOSE. Considering I don't deny my attraction, why do LGTBQ activists lose their minds when I suggest this identity?

[TheLogicalPosition]

@skywize All the speicies in the world can practice homosexuality, but it doesn't change the point that I can choose to identify as "a human being who experiences homosexual attraction" instead of a "homosexual" or a gay person. Note: If occurance in nature = justification, then eating our offspring is also justified. Your logic cannot be applied in only one way. REGARDLESS, it misses the point: Human beings have free will to choose their identity. The LGTBQ pushers tell us we don't.