Dr Paul Sullins (a retired professor of sociology from the Catholic University of America) has recently published research on the harm of SOCE amongst those for whom it has not had the desired effect.

The overall conclusion of this research is:

‘Despite higher exposure to factors predicting behavioral harm—minority stress, childhood adversity, and lower socioeconomic background—sexual minority persons who had undergone failed SOCE therapy did not suffer higher psychological or social harm. Concerns to restrict or ban SOCE due to elevated harm are unfounded. Further study is needed to clarify the reasons for the absence of harm from SOCE.’

In an interview with Ian Paul, Dr Sullins explained almost all previous research on SOCE is based on the premise that homosexual orientation is fixed, and that any attempt to change it must therefore be self-deceptive and productive of psychological harm.  Stories abound of of LGBT persons become suicidal after undergoing SOCE.

The very process of peer review of research on same-sex issues has become highly politicised, resulting in studies that reflect the prevailing narrative being given undue prominence, while those which challenge it being suppressed.

Previous research almost always focusses on those for whom SOCE was unsuccessful.  ‘This is like evaluating marriage counseling by getting reports only from couples who subsequently divorced.’  The experiences of those who, after SOCE identify themselves as heterosexual or ex-gay are largely ignored.  It is reasonably to suppose that many such would give a more positive account of SOCE.

In Britain, more people have left same-sex partnerships and taken up heterosexual partnership than have remained in the former.  Among men, ‘while 8% of currently sexually active British men have ever had a same-sex partner, only 2.6% have done so in the past five years.’  Among women, the corresponding figures are 11.5% and 3.2%.  ‘But,’ asks Dr Sullins, ‘have you ever heard even one popular media story of a happy ex-gay who is thankful for his SOCE experience? We are only getting one side.’

Another indication of bias in previous research is the lack of attention to the outcomes – especially the negative outcomes – of gay-affirming therapy.  But we know that affirmation same-sex attraction or gay identity can be harmful for some people.  Suicide attempts among LGB persons increased by 45% between the 1960s and the early 2000s, even though society has become much more affirming of homosexuality during that period.

In his own research, Sullins finds no difference in terms of benefit and harm between LGB persons who have undergone SOCE and those who have not.

What, then, of those previous studies that report significant harm (especially increased suicidal behaviour) following SOCE?  According to Sullins, even the best-designed of these studies failed to distinguish suicidal behaviour before  and after SOCE.  He found that such behaviour was, in fact, much higher before SOCE (perhaps prompting the individual to seek therapy) but not after it.  Contrary to what is usually claimed, suicidal behaviour is significantly reduced following SOCE.

As for the unhappy statistic that the suicide rate for LGB persons is over five times the rate for the general population, Sullins questions the prevailing ‘minority stress theory’ according to which problems experience by LGB persons are largely due to societal stigma.  It is quite possible that this assumption is clouding the issues involved, and inhibiting attempts to uncover other, and perhaps more significant, ways of improving health and well-being.

Dr Sullins concludes:

‘I think the most important result of my research for ministry is that it confirms that what the Bible teaches about homosexuality is true. Isolation, struggle, the importance of men and women for each other and for their children, the power of the truth of the body and consequences for rejecting it, all are highlighted both in scripture and in the empirical data. We are bombarded with so much propaganda to accept homosexuality as normal, even benevolent, for persons who experience it. In many settings there are calls for the Biblical understanding to be “updated” with a supposedly softer approach to homosexuality that does not see it as sinful. My research confirms the idea that this is actually more harmful to homosexual persons, whether struggling or not, than the Bible’s account of sin, grace and redemption. If I don’t think my sin is really sin, then I am stuck in it forever, but when I learn the truth, even hard truth, I can be set free. I recently saw a sign at a church that says it well on this point: “Don’t change the message; let the message change you.”’