Dr. Joseph Nicolosi remains one of the most controversial figures in modern psychological discourse—not because he was hateful or coercive, but because he dared to ask whether same-sex attraction in men could be understood, and even redirected, through therapeutic means. At a time when culture insists that sexuality is fixed, identity-based, and beyond question, Nicolosi offered an alternative rooted in clinical observation, developmental psychology, and compassion for the wounded male soul. This article explores his life, his model of Reparative Therapy, and the cultural hostility that seeks to erase not only his legacy but the stories of countless men who once believed they were born gay—and discovered they were not.
Why examine male homosexuality in isolation?
Male homosexuality and lesbianism are often grouped under the umbrella of LGBTQ+, but Dr. Joseph Nicolosi insisted that such generalization overlooks critical psychological distinctions. According to Nicolosi and other clinicians, male homosexuality exhibits specific developmental, emotional, and behavioral patterns that are not necessarily present in female homosexuality. For this reason, the present article confines itself exclusively to male homosexuality—a subject Dr. Nicolosi spent decades researching and treating.
Men and women, generally speaking, do not experience same-sex attraction in identical ways. The psychological roots, the intensity, the comorbid pathologies, and even the sexual expressions differ significantly between male homosexuals and lesbians. Male homosexuality is often accompanied by identity issues centered around masculinity, paternal attachment, peer rejection, and early sexualization—particularly through abuse or premature exposure to sexual stimuli. Lesbianism, while not immune to these factors, frequently presents a different cluster of contributing influences, such as maternal over-attachment or trauma from male figures.
By narrowing the focus, we aim for clarity rather than universality. And in the spirit of clarity, we turn now to the man who did more than perhaps anyone else in the modern era to explore, understand, and attempt to treat male homosexuality from a clinical standpoint: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi.
Who Was Dr. Joseph Nicolosi?
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi (1947–2017) was an American clinical psychologist best known for his advocacy of Reparative Therapy—a psychological treatment aimed at reducing or redirecting unwanted same-sex attraction in men. He co-founded the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in 1992, a professional organization committed to offering support for individuals who desired to change their sexual orientation or understand its origins.
Born in New York City and raised in a Catholic home, Nicolosi earned his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology. He later served as the director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California. His work, though professionally situated in secular psychology, was often informed by traditional Judeo-Christian values, particularly the belief that sexual behavior should be consistent with moral order and natural design.
Although he was not a theologian or clergy member, Nicolosi viewed his work as morally responsible, defending the freedom of individuals to pursue psychological treatment aligned with their personal values. His most widely known works include Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (1991) and A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality (2002). Both were controversial upon publication and remain banned in some jurisdictions today.
The Controversy and Cultural Rejection of Nicolosi’s Views
In today’s cultural climate, Nicolosi’s approach to homosexuality is considered not merely controversial but, in many quarters, dangerous. His practice of Reparative Therapy has been labeled “conversion therapy” by critics—a term employed more for rhetorical effect than clinical precision. To many on the political left and in mainstream psychological organizations, such therapy is seen as pseudoscience, even abuse.
The opposition is not merely academic. It is deeply ideological. The dominant sexual ethic in the West has shifted dramatically over the past half-century. Where once homosexuality was viewed as deviant or disordered behavior, it is now celebrated as a normal, healthy, and morally neutral (if not superior) form of love. The mantra “love is love” has become the battle cry of a movement determined to eradicate all distinctions in sexual morality. According to this worldview, sexual orientation is innate, immutable, and morally inconsequential. Any attempt to modify or critique homosexual desires is therefore perceived as hateful, repressive, or psychologically damaging.
This ideological rigidity leaves little room for nuance, let alone dissent. Nicolosi’s clinical conclusions—drawn from decades of patient interactions—do not align with the cultural script that frames homosexuality as an identity rather than a set of behaviors or desires. In consequence, Nicolosi’s work has been vilified, banned in certain jurisdictions, and removed from platforms like Amazon. In some circles, merely citing his research invites accusations of bigotry.
Yet the question remains: What if Nicolosi was observing real patterns and treating real pain? What if he wasn’t the oppressor—but the therapist listening to the wounded voices that today’s culture would rather silence?
Legal Prohibitions, Hate Speech Laws, and the Suppression of Dissent
In recent years, Western governments have increasingly legislated against any attempt to question or alter same-sex attraction. Laws banning so-called “conversion therapy” now exist across the United States, Canada, and much of Europe. These laws typically criminalize therapeutic practices that aim to change a person’s sexual orientation, particularly when directed at minors—but in some jurisdictions, even adult clients cannot legally seek out such help.
In the United States, states such as California, New York, New Jersey, and Oregon have passed laws forbidding licensed therapists from providing conversion therapy to minors. California’s SB 1172, passed in 2012, was among the first and most sweeping. The law not only barred licensed professionals from engaging in Reparative Therapy with minors but helped solidify the public narrative that such therapy is inherently abusive. Several of these laws have been upheld in federal court, often on the grounds that the state has an interest in protecting minors from “psychological harm.”
Canada went even further. In 2022, Canada passed Bill C-4, which criminalizes conversion therapy for both adults and minors. The language of the law is so broad that it could be interpreted as outlawing even voluntary conversations in which someone expresses a desire to change their sexual behaviors. Counseling, sermons, and even parental guidance could fall under its purview. The Canadian government justified the bill by declaring that conversion therapy causes “harm and trauma,” but failed to provide longitudinal, peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that harm, especially among clients who willingly sought treatment.
In Europe, similar prohibitions are in place. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have either passed or are considering bans on conversion therapy, with pressure from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups driving much of the legislative agenda. Ironically, many of these laws lack precise definitions of what counts as “conversion therapy,” leaving therapists and even pastors vulnerable to legal persecution for simply affirming traditional sexual ethics.
This legal framework exists within a broader cultural project: the moral rebranding of homosexuality from a disordered passion to a core identity. The attempt to question or redirect same-sex desires is now framed not as a matter of clinical judgment or moral concern, but as hate speech. Those who affirm the biblical view of sexuality—that God created man and woman for lifelong, covenantal, fruitful union—are increasingly marginalized, not only in secular spaces but even in some religious ones.
These legal maneuvers do more than protect the LGBTQ+ community; they actively suppress those who dissent. Counselors, clergy, and even parents must now operate in fear of fines, license revocations, or imprisonment—not for harassing or harming others, but for helping individuals pursue their own convictions about sexuality and identity.
Comorbidities and Patterns Observed in the Gay Male Community
Dr. Nicolosi believed that homosexuality was not an innate identity but a symptom—an adaptation to early relational wounds. His clinical work consistently revealed a set of recurring comorbidities and patterns among men who experienced same-sex attraction, particularly those who did not want to act upon it.
One of the most common factors he observed was a problematic relationship with the father. In many cases, the father was distant, emotionally cold, critical, or completely absent. This paternal void left boys without a model for masculine identity or affection. At the same time, the mother was often described as overbearing, enmeshed, or emotionally dependent upon the child. The combination of a weak father and an overly involved mother created a relational imbalance—leaving the boy emotionally estranged from masculinity and unable to identify with male peers.
Second, Nicolosi observed that many same-sex attracted men had experienced rejection from male peers during childhood or adolescence. They were the boys picked last in sports, mocked for being sensitive or artistic, and excluded from “boy culture.” This peer rejection solidified their sense of “otherness,” deepening their alienation from the male world they longed to be part of. Over time, this alienation was sexualized, often subconsciously. The adult same-sex attraction, Nicolosi argued, was an attempt to repair a lost or denied masculine connection.
Third, childhood sexual abuse was disproportionately represented among Nicolosi’s clients. While not all gay men were sexually abused, a significant number reported early sexual encounters—often exploitative—with older males. These experiences were formative, not merely in a behavioral sense but in a neurological and emotional one. The child’s brain, still developing and highly impressionable, could conflate arousal with male intimacy. Nicolosi argued that this “sexual imprinting” short-circuited natural sexual development and anchored sexual desire in trauma rather than in normal male-female bonding.
Other comorbidities included:
- Poor body image: Many clients felt physically inadequate or unattractive compared to other men. Small, obese, and unathletic men and boys are particularly susceptible to this. Their same-sex attraction was often bound up in envy and a desire to possess qualities they felt they lacked.
- Anxiety and depression: Nicolosi noted high rates of general mood disorders in men with same-sex attraction, especially among those who lived openly gay lifestyles. He believed this was not merely the result of “societal rejection” but reflected a deeper, unresolved emotional pain.
- Addictive behavior: Pornography, substance abuse, and compulsive sexual encounters were often used as a means of self-soothing or escape. These behaviors frequently reinforced the same emotional emptiness they sought to fill.
Nicolosi emphasized that these patterns were not moral condemnations but clinical observations. He saw same-sex attraction not as a choice—but as a symptom. He sought not to shame his clients but to understand them, and more importantly, to help them heal.
The Physical and Social Consequences of Male Homosexuality
While cultural elites insist that homosexuality is simply a matter of identity and personal expression, the medical and behavioral data tell a different story—especially when it comes to male homosexual behavior. Far from being a benign variation of sexual expression, male homosexuality is frequently associated with physical risks, emotional instability, and relational patterns that diverge significantly from the heterosexual norm. These realities, though often suppressed by media and academia, must be acknowledged in any serious discussion of public health, psychological well-being, or sexual ethics.
This section is not based on Dr. Nicolosi’s works. He was more concerned with the psychological and developmental issues. However, this information is important to demonstrate the significant risks that homosexual activity brings to the individual and society in general.
1. Medical Dangers of Anal Intercourse
The human body is not designed for anal penetration, and this reality is reflected in the disproportionate rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among homosexual men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), men who have sex with men (MSM) account for the overwhelming majority of new HIV infections in the United States—even though they represent a small fraction of the population. The same demographic experiences far higher rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis B and C, and HPV (human papillomavirus).
HPV, in particular, leads to grotesque conditions such as anal warts (condyloma acuminata)—fleshy, cauliflower-like growths that can multiply, bleed, and obstruct normal bodily function. Left untreated, they can require surgical removal or cauterization, often followed by recurrence. HPV-related anal cancer is also significantly more common among homosexual men than heterosexual men. The rectal lining lacks the protective mucosal tissue found in the vagina and is far more prone to tearing, allowing pathogens to enter the bloodstream easily. This creates what medical professionals describe as a “high-risk vector” for infection.
Sex partners often conceal their health issues, too. Some intentionally infect others with deadly diseases.
2. Elevated Number of Sexual Partners
One of the most consistent findings across decades of research is the dramatically higher number of lifetime sexual partners among homosexual men. While the average heterosexual man may have six to eight partners across his lifetime, various studies—including those cited in the Journal of Sex Research and Archives of Sexual Behavior—indicate that many homosexual men report dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of lifetime partners. In some subcultures, anonymous or semi-anonymous encounters are not only common but valorized. Bathhouses, online hookup apps, and “circuit parties” foster a culture of compulsive, non-committal sex that reinforces emotional detachment rather than intimacy.
This pattern is not universal, of course—there are exceptions—but the statistical average remains: male homosexual behavior is characterized by an extremely high partner count compared to heterosexual norms. From a public health perspective, this not only increases the spread of disease but undermines the stability of personal relationships.
3. Relationship Instability and Emotional Turmoil
Contrary to the popular media narrative of idyllic same-sex “marriages,” research shows that homosexual male relationships are far less stable than heterosexual ones. A well-known study out of the Netherlands—long cited as a model of LGBT acceptance—revealed that the average duration of a male homosexual relationship was just 1.5 years. Even among partnered or “married” gay men, non-monogamy is often not the exception but the expectation. A 2010 study published in The New York Times reported that many gay couples define their relationship as “open,” even while publicly identifying as “committed.”
These patterns of instability are frequently accompanied by emotional distress. Higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation are well-documented within the gay male population. Activists often blame “societal stigma,” but the correlation between high-risk behavior and emotional dysfunction cannot be so easily dismissed. The culture of impermanence, sexual excess, and emotional detachment does not nourish the soul—it depletes it.
4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Challenges
Statistical reviews from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and various psychological associations consistently show elevated rates of drug and alcohol abuse among homosexual men. Methamphetamines, in particular, are associated with so-called “party and play” scenes—where drug use facilitates prolonged sexual activity with multiple partners. These settings often blur the lines between pleasure and pathology, with participants cycling through highs, emotional crashes, and increasing psychological dependence.
From a Christian worldview, drug abuse could be an attempt to medicate and deaden the inevitable guilt feelings that a moral creature experiences when engaged in sinful activity.
While addiction is a human problem, not an exclusively gay one, the specific subcultures within the male homosexual community often encourage—and even ritualize—substance abuse. The link between such lifestyles and suicidal ideation is deeply troubling. A 2022 meta-analysis published in Psychiatry Research found that homosexual men were significantly more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers—even in affirming environments. This suggests that the problem is not merely external oppression but internal dissonance.
5. Public Health Costs and Societal Burden
The medical consequences of homosexual behavior carry not only personal but societal costs. HIV and AIDS treatments are lifelong and expensive, with many patients dependent upon government-subsidized healthcare. According to the CDC, over $20 billion is spent annually in the United States alone on HIV-related care. While compassion demands we care for all patients, prudence demands we acknowledge behaviorally driven risk factors. In the name of affirmation, public health officials have often refused to speak plainly about the consequences of male homosexual behavior—especially when it comes to school-based education or community outreach.
6. Moral and Cultural Degradation
Finally, male homosexuality—particularly as normalized and glamorized in modern culture—often serves as a gateway for broader moral deconstruction. The rejection of male-female complementarity, the celebration of sexual licentiousness, and the redefinition of marriage all erode the moral and cultural capital upon which civil society depends. As C.S. Lewis once warned, you cannot mutilate the moral order and expect human flourishing to continue. The embrace of homosexuality as a cultural good rather than a behavioral disorder is not simply a shift in taste—it is a repudiation of natural law, biblical revelation, and human design.
Nicolosi’s Basis for His Position on Homosexuality
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s views on homosexuality rested on a developmental and clinical framework rooted in decades of therapeutic work. He did not believe that homosexuality was an inborn, immutable identity, but rather the result of early relational deficits, emotional wounds, and trauma that could, under the right therapeutic conditions, be addressed and in many cases redirected.
Nicolosi’s therapeutic model assumed that human beings are born with a heterosexual potential that can become distorted due to various environmental and emotional factors—especially during critical stages of development. He called his approach Reparative Therapy, not because he believed homosexuality itself was evil, but because he believed that same-sex attraction often represents a psychological effort to “repair” unmet needs from childhood. His clients were not forced into therapy; they came voluntarily, often distressed by their attractions and desiring change consistent with their values, religious beliefs, or longings for traditional family life.
His conclusions were largely drawn from clinical experience and were supported by patterns he repeatedly saw in thousands of cases: a distant or critical father, overbearing or emotionally enmeshed mother, peer rejection by other boys, sexual abuse, or some combination thereof. The male child internalizes these wounds, resulting in a sense of masculine inferiority or alienation. Over time, that longing for male connection—when not fulfilled in healthy relational ways—can become sexualized. What the young man truly seeks, Nicolosi argued, is male affirmation, identification, and love, but it is misdirected into eroticized expression.
For Nicolosi, same-sex attraction was not a cause to be mocked or feared, but a symptom to be understood. His clients were not simple immoral degenerates, but broken men looking for hope, healing, and wholeness. That distinction is critical, and it underscores his compassion even amid his controversy.
Mental Health of Older Homosexual Men: A Neglected Dimension
One area of concern that aligns with Nicolosi’s clinical outlook—though not addressed directly in his writings—is the emotional and psychological state of older homosexual men. While mainstream LGBTQ+ advocates often highlight stories of young people “coming out” and embracing their identities, far less attention is paid to the aging process within the gay male community.
A consistent observation, both anecdotally and in research literature, is the emphasis on youth and physical attractiveness in gay male culture. This prioritization often leads to a harsh experience of aging. As homosexual men grow older, many report decreasing desirability, increased loneliness, and depression associated with being pushed to the margins of a culture that prizes youthful appearance and sexual novelty.
Older gay men often feel “invisible” in social settings once celebrated in their youth. According to a 2024 study published in the Journal of Aging and Mental Health, internalized ageism, coupled with loneliness, was one of the most reliable predictors of depression among older gay men. Other studies from the Williams Institute at UCLA and various European public health agencies corroborate this trend: the gay community’s youth-centric values create mental health pressures distinct from those experienced by older heterosexual men.
Why the fixation on youth? One credible hypothesis is that many younger gay men present in more androgynous or feminine ways—so-called “twinks.” These traits may unconsciously mimic certain features associated with women, reinforcing the erotic appeal in a subconscious approximation of female softness or vulnerability. As aging occurs, these features fade, and many men feel discarded.
Some older men respond to this loss of desirability by resorting to hired sexual partners, often young male prostitutes. This behavior, reported both in personal testimonies and in confidential therapeutic settings, may serve as a desperate attempt to retain the sense of affirmation once gained through youth-based desirability. One older homosexual in a “marriage” candidly admitted that his partner insists on hiring younger men for threesomes, though he himself finds the practice emotionally distressing and morally troubling.
While Nicolosi may not have documented this particular pattern in his books, it aligns perfectly with his overall thesis: that the drive for same-sex intimacy, when unexamined and untreated, often becomes compulsive, hollow, and ultimately alienating—especially with age.
The men who sought counseling from Nicolosi were not necessarily monsters, although some homosexuals are definitely abusive and predatory (“chickenhawks”), but these individuals were human beings longing for dignity, affection, and belonging. In Nicolosi’s view, the tragedy is that the culture affirms their behavior while ignoring their pain.
Nicolosi’s Therapeutic Model for Treating Same-Sex Attraction
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s approach to therapy was rooted in the conviction that men experiencing same-sex attraction (SSA)—especially those distressed by it—deserved professional support, not ideological coercion. His clinical method, often referred to as Reparative Therapy, aimed not at forcing change but at addressing the unresolved emotional wounds and developmental failures he believed were at the root of the attraction. His practice emphasized patient autonomy: no man was coerced into therapy; all came because they wished to understand or diminish their unwanted desires.
At the core of Nicolosi’s model was the belief that homosexuality is not about sex, but about unmet emotional needs—especially those involving masculine identity. His treatment sought to meet those needs through healthy, non-sexual male bonding, emotional validation, and identity formation.
Key elements of Nicolosi’s therapeutic model included:
1. Building Male Identity Through Affirmation
The therapy often began with establishing the patient’s sense of self as a man among men. Many clients struggled with internalized feelings of inferiority, weakness, or shame concerning their masculinity. Nicolosi worked to normalize the man’s experience, affirm his legitimate needs for male affection and affirmation, and help him see that those needs did not have to be sexualized. Group therapy sessions often emphasized male bonding, role-modeling, and the rebuilding of confidence in masculine identity.
2. Exploring the Origins of Same-Sex Attraction
Nicolosi helped clients trace their SSA to its emotional roots. These could include distant or rejecting fathers, lack of bonding with male peers, early sexual trauma, or experiences of shame and isolation. Clients were encouraged to tell their life stories in detail, often revealing patterns of loneliness, unmet emotional needs, or premature sexual experiences. The goal was to remove the mystery and fatalism surrounding SSA and replace it with understanding and agency.
3. Nonsexual Male Bonding
A major goal of therapy was to facilitate non-erotic male relationships—whether with friends, mentors, or group therapy members. Nicolosi believed that healthy male intimacy, when appropriately channeled, could help “de-eroticize” the craving for male affection and restore the natural drive toward heterosexuality. This process was not mechanical or guaranteed, but over time, many clients reported experiencing a diminishment of SSA and a reemergence of opposite-sex desire.
4. Boundaries and Self-Control
While Nicolosi’s method was emotionally affirming, it was also morally anchored. He encouraged clients to establish behavioral boundaries—not just to avoid temptation, but to reinforce the man’s sense of agency and dignity. This included abstaining from pornography, casual encounters, and environments that reinforced SSA. In his view, discipline was not repression but a necessary part of personal integrity and self-respect.
5. Family Work and Healing the Father Wound
When possible, Nicolosi involved family members, particularly fathers, in the therapeutic process. Healing the father-son relationship—or reframing it when reconciliation was impossible—was critical. Men who had grown up feeling dismissed or belittled by their fathers often carried those wounds into adult life and sexuality. By confronting this pain, expressing it, and reinterpreting it in a more compassionate or truthful light, many clients experienced breakthroughs that affected not only their SSA but their overall emotional well-being.
6. Realistic Goals
Contrary to media caricatures, Nicolosi did not claim that every client would become fully heterosexual or marry. Some experienced partial shifts; others gained emotional healing and self-control without a change in orientation. The goal was never perfection but progress: increased self-understanding, emotional wholeness, and alignment with the client’s values and life goals. For many, that included reducing or eliminating homosexual behavior and developing interest in heterosexual relationships over time.
In all this, Nicolosi emphasized respect for the client’s will. Unlike the modern LGBTQ+ orthodoxy—which demands affirmation regardless of individual values—Nicolosi supported the freedom of men to pursue healing and growth on their own terms.
Nicolosi’s Views in Relation to Biblical Christianity
Though Dr. Joseph Nicolosi was a Catholic and his clinical work was conducted in a secular, therapeutic context, his understanding of male homosexuality often ran parallel to biblical principles—especially regarding the created purpose of sexuality, the need for inner transformation, and the possibility of change. At the same time, Nicolosi’s model was not identical to biblical Christianity, and key distinctions must be acknowledged.
Areas of Alignment with Biblical Christianity
- Sexuality Has Meaning and Moral Order
Nicolosi rejected the modern view that sexuality is morally neutral or purely self-expressive. He believed, in agreement with Scripture, that human sexuality is designed with intrinsic purpose. In his view, homosexual behavior is a deviation from that purpose—an attempt to meet legitimate emotional needs through disordered physical means. While Nicolosi did not frame this in terms of sin, his belief that homosexuality was not what the body and psyche were made for echoes the biblical affirmation that God created male and female to complement each other sexually, emotionally, and spiritually.
- Brokenness is at the Root of Sinful Behavior
The biblical worldview affirms that human beings are born in sin (Psalm 51:5), and that desires—especially sexual ones—are often twisted by the Fall. Nicolosi’s clinical framework, though not couched in theological terms, implicitly agreed with this: he saw same-sex attraction as a misdirection of deeper emotional longings. In his eyes, these desires were not arbitrary, nor were they genetically predetermined, but they stemmed from a fallen world in which fatherhood fails, peer bonds are broken, and sexuality becomes detached from love and covenant.
- Change is Possible, Even If Difficult
The Christian gospel promises that sinners can be transformed—not necessarily to sinless perfection in this life, but to increasing degrees of holiness and freedom (1 Corinthians 6:9–11). Nicolosi likewise emphasized that men with unwanted same-sex attraction could experience real change—whether that meant a reduction in SSA, the development of heterosexual feelings, or the strength to remain celibate and emotionally healthy. His approach, based on patient stories rather than theological doctrine, reinforced the idea that people are not slaves to their desires.
- Human Dignity and Compassion
Biblical Christianity calls for compassion without compromise. Nicolosi embodied this balance in his therapeutic work. He did not demean his clients or treat them as deviants. He sought to understand, affirm, and assist men who were often traumatized, confused, and hurting. Like Christian counselors such as David Powlison and Paul David Tripp, Nicolosi believed that those struggling with sexual sin—or sexual pain—deserve grace, not contempt.
Areas of Tension or Difference
- Sin vs. Symptom
Nicolosi did not describe same-sex attraction in terms of sin. Instead, he framed it as a maladaptive symptom of deeper psychological needs. While this is partially true—many sins do have emotional roots—biblical Christianity goes further. Scripture teaches that desires themselves can be disordered and sinful (Romans 1:26–27, James 1:14–15). While trauma may explain sin, it does not excuse it. Christianity demands repentance not only from actions but from the idolatry of desires that contradict God’s design.
- Therapeutic vs. Regenerative Transformation
Nicolosi believed that change was possible through therapeutic means—talk therapy, cognitive reframing, emotional healing, and community support. Christianity agrees that these are helpful, but it places ultimate confidence in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. While therapy may correct broken patterns, only grace can raise the dead. The Bible teaches that no one can truly escape the bondage of sin without being born again (John 3:3, 2 Corinthians 5:17).
- Goal: Heterosexuality or Holiness?
Nicolosi’s ultimate goal was the reduction or transformation of same-sex attraction, ideally into heterosexual functioning. This is not inherently wrong, but biblical Christianity aims higher. The goal is not merely heterosexuality, but holiness—sexual purity in thought, word, and deed. A Christian may struggle with SSA throughout life, yet honor God through celibacy and obedience. Transformation may include marriage and family, but it must begin with a desire to glorify God, not simply normalize one’s sexual experience.
The Biblical Design for Sexuality
Scripture is clear: God created human sexuality for covenantal union between one man and one woman. Genesis 2:24 states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Jesus reaffirms this in Matthew 19:4–6. The Apostle Paul calls marriage a picture of Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:25–32).
This union is not merely for companionship, but also for the production of godly offspring (Malachi 2:15). The biblical purpose of sexuality is procreation, sanctification, and mutual delight—within the bounds of God’s design. Homosexual behavior, regardless of one’s level of emotional sincerity, cannot fulfill that design. It is sterile in nature, unstable in structure, and unfruitful in terms of kingdom legacy.
Dr. Nicolosi’s work overlaps with this vision at many points. His compassion and clarity brought hope to many who had only known confusion and shame. But Christianity goes further: it declares that true identity is not found in one’s sexuality, but in union with Christ.
Other Scholars, Christians, and Counselors Who Align With Nicolosi’s Views
While Dr. Joseph Nicolosi was perhaps the most well-known clinical psychologist advocating for the treatment of unwanted same-sex attraction, he was by no means alone. A number of scholars, Christian counselors, theologians, and even former LGBTQ+ individuals have echoed similar concerns about the affirmation-only model of sexuality and have offered alternative frameworks for understanding and addressing homosexual behavior—especially among men.
1. David Powlison (1949–2019)
A leader in the biblical counseling movement and longtime director of the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation (CCEF), David Powlison emphasized the importance of addressing the heart in all struggles, including same-sex attraction. While not aligned with Nicolosi’s clinical vocabulary, Powlison believed that SSA was symptomatic of deeper desires—idolatry, longing for identity, relational brokenness—and that Christ offered the only true path to freedom. His essay, “Idols of the Heart and ‘Vanity Fair,’” remains foundational in understanding sin as a worship issue, not merely a behavior to be managed.
2. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon
Perhaps the most prominent biblical scholar on the topic of homosexuality, Dr. Gagnon is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, a rigorous and uncompromising defense of the traditional biblical sexual ethic. He argues not only that homosexual practice is sinful, but that it represents a distortion of God’s created order rooted in rebellion. Gagnon supports the right of individuals to seek counseling to overcome SSA and has defended Nicolosi’s work in academic and public forums.
3. Rosaria Butterfield
Once a tenured English professor and lesbian activist, Butterfield experienced a dramatic conversion to Christianity. In her testimony, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she explains how the love of Christ and the community of the church helped her abandon a lesbian identity and embrace biblical womanhood. While her background is different, her story confirms Nicolosi’s claim that people are not fixed in their sexual desires—and that healing involves addressing deep emotional and spiritual wounds.
4. Christopher Yuan
A former drug dealer and promiscuous gay man, Christopher Yuan encountered Christ while in prison and now teaches at Moody Bible Institute. His book, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, affirms the traditional Christian teaching on sexuality while emphasizing that the call of the gospel is not to heterosexuality, but to holiness. He critiques both the affirming church and the moralistic approach that promises marriage as a reward for obedience. Yuan’s story adds further credibility to Nicolosi’s argument that same-sex desire can be addressed—though Yuan focuses more on discipleship than therapy.
5. Becket Cook
A former Hollywood set designer who lived an openly gay lifestyle for decades, Becket Cook encountered Christ and abandoned his former life. In A Change of Affection: A Gay Man’s Incredible Story of Redemption, he explains how the gospel didn’t merely redirect his desires—it gave him a new identity. Cook, like Nicolosi, stresses that homosexuality is not a core identity but a behavior shaped by a broken world. He now speaks and writes as a Christian apologist.
6. Paul David Tripp and Heath Lambert
Both Tripp and Lambert—well-known biblical counselors—have addressed same-sex attraction in their broader work on human behavior. Lambert, in particular, has written about the Christian’s ability to experience progressive sanctification in areas of sexual sin. While not therapists in Nicolosi’s clinical sense, both affirm the possibility of change and the need to understand sexual desires as morally significant and spiritually addressable.
7. The Restored Hope Network
Formed in response to the collapse of Exodus International (an ex-gay ministry that eventually capitulated to cultural pressures), the Restored Hope Network continues to offer support to men and women seeking to overcome same-sex desires through Christ-centered discipleship. While some within the network incorporate therapeutic elements, the foundation is biblical: sin can be resisted, desires can be transformed, and identity is found in Christ, not sexual behavior.
8. NARTH (Now the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity)
Though Nicolosi co-founded NARTH, many psychologists and psychiatrists have remained involved in the rebranded organization following his death. These professionals, both religious and secular, maintain that therapeutic interventions should be available for those who seek help for unwanted SSA. They continue to defend the rights of clients and clinicians against what they see as political interference in science and therapy.
These voices represent a broad coalition of agreement: that same-sex attraction, particularly in men, often reflects deeper psychological and spiritual issues; that change is possible; and that individuals should be free to seek support without coercion or censorship. Their testimonies and research echo the very heart of Nicolosi’s work: compassion without compromise, and truth with grace.
A Culture Captured, and a Call to Compassion
In the years since Dr. Joseph Nicolosi began his clinical work, the cultural tide has shifted dramatically. What was once seen as a psychological disorder—male homosexuality—is now not only normalized but celebrated. The reigning dogma insists that all sexual identities are morally equivalent, and that love—however defined—is its own justification. Under this view, there is no longer room for dissent. “Love is love” functions not as a plea for tolerance, but as a coercive creed that punishes deviation from sexual orthodoxy.
This ideological transformation did not happen overnight. It was the result of strategic activism, legal pressure, media manipulation, and the deconstruction of traditional norms. The sexual revolution of the 1960s laid the groundwork; queer theory and identity politics built the framework; and postmodern relativism sealed the structure. Today, the individual’s internal feelings are sovereign, and biology, morality, and even theology must bow before the throne of self-identification.
It is within this environment that the left has waged an aggressive campaign against what it calls “conversion therapy.” But this term is a deliberate misrepresentation. It conjures images of electroshock and abuse, when in reality, many forms of therapy are simply talk-based interventions—compassionate, voluntary efforts to help individuals who want to live in accordance with their beliefs, values, or faith. For daring to offer such help, therapists like Nicolosi have been smeared, censored, and, in some cases, legally silenced.
The net effect is chilling. In the name of tolerance, we have created new taboos. In the name of liberation, we have imposed new chains. A man tormented by same-sex attraction and seeking peace through counseling may now be told by law: “You are not allowed to want that.”
This is not progress. It is tyranny masked as compassion.
But even in this climate, we must not respond with hatred or bitterness. As Christians—or as people of conscience—we must grieve for a culture that tells broken men their only option is to affirm their brokenness. We must mourn for the boys growing up without fathers, bullied by their peers, abused by predators, and then recruited into a sexual identity that offers pleasure but not peace. We must feel sorrow—not smugness—for the older men whose lives are haunted by loneliness, disease, and regret, while society feeds them lies about “authentic living.”
Nicolosi’s legacy, whatever one thinks of his methods, was grounded in a deeply humane conviction: that people deserve to be understood, not labeled; to be helped, not herded; to be loved, not used.
Ultimately, this is not a story of enemies, but of lost men. Men who, in their search for affirmation, have found themselves enslaved by impulses that cannot satisfy. Some want out. Others don’t know how to ask. A society that truly cared about its citizens would make room for their stories. A Christian church faithful to its calling must offer not condemnation, but Christ—who alone can redeem not just behavior, but the heart.
As we reflect on Nicolosi’s work, we must remember that our goal is not merely to win a debate, but to win a soul. Truth matters—but so does tone. Let us speak the truth in love, neither flinching from biblical conviction nor forgetting that behind every behavior is a person made in the image of God.
The culture has indeed been captured—but Christ is still King. And His truth sets men free.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.