Just came across this post which reviews the new book, Destructive Trends In Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. The authors argue that, rather than being guided by science, groups like the APA are being guided by political pressures, among other things. And while not from the conservative right, they seem to want to protect psychology from the undue political pressures, mostly from the left. Here are some interesting quotes on my favorite subject, gay recovery therapy:
“In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA [American Psychological Association] have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate “gayness” on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree are termed homophobic. Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient’s right to therapist and determine therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so.” (From the introduction, page xxx, emphasis added).
“Although the APA is reluctant or unable to evaluate questionable practices and has thus avoided addressing the issue of best practices, this did not prevent its Council of Representatives in 2002 from stampeding into a motion to declare the treatment of homosexuality unethical. This was done with the intent of perpetuating homosexuality, even when the homosexual patient willingly and even eagerly seeks treatment…Vigorously pushed by the gay lobby, it was eventually seen by a sufficient number of Council members as runaway political correctness and was defeated by the narrowest of margins…Although the resolution was narrowly defeated, this has not stopped its proponents from deriding colleagues who provide such treatment to patients seeking it.” (From Chapter One, by Nick Cummings and William O’Donohue, pp. 17-18).
Be sure to read the entire review at crosswalk.com.
It's funny, this blogsite is supposed to be about Christian perspectives on stuff, but, with seeker, it has devolved into an anti-gay propaganda site.
As to the above post, of course any opposition to the anti-gay "science" of the reparative crowd is just "political correctness" and any evidence to the contrary is politically motivated. It's a laugh that you assume that your side has no political ax to grind. There's no real hard evidence that gays can be turned into heteros through therapy or prayer; at most, they will suppress their urges and try to live as heteros. Just like the two co-founders of "Exodus," the xtian gay conversion group: they finally admitted reality and left their families for each other. Science is increasingly finding that sexual orientation is fixed at a very early age, probably before 3 years or even in the womb (as a result of genetics and hormones). I've been doing some reading and research which demonstrates the bad science being done in this area and the real motivation behind it. It's clear that the christianists start with the assumption that homosexuality is bad and then design their "studies" to prove that assumption (eg, surveying gays in mental hospitals and medical clinics to prove that they are mentally unstable and diseased, thus ignoring the vast majority who live normal lives unencumbered by such disorders). It's pure politics. Sure, there are some gays eager to change and willing to spend the thousands of dollars to under a course of "therapy." But the question must be asked: why are they so eager? Why are they so terrorized that they want to change? Could politics and religious bias have anything to do with it? And what about long-term studies which follow those purported to have changed? Are they really now hetero or are they just acting hetero? And how many give up and return to their gay relationships?
When you charge "politics," it goes both ways.
On another, though related topic, Andrew Sullivan has a fascinating analysis on the motivations behind the xtian right today:
They are now using arguments about gays – that they are diseased, and spread literal and figurative poison throughout society – that were once echoed almost exactly by the most vicious anti-Semites against Jews:
Their passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself.
Ah, yes. The danger of the Jews/Gays spreading their disease throughout society, their enormous power despite tiny numbers, their ability to pass, their threat to children, their flaunting of their disagreement with the New Testament. It's all so familiar. I think the arguments now made by some Christianists are replicas of the old anti-Semitism, peddled by so many Christians in the past: that Jews are to be loved, but loving them is dependent on their conversion to Christianity; that you can love individual Jews while disdaining Judaism; that Jews' stubbornness in resisting conversion is evidence of their inherent evil; that such evil, at some point, has to be segregated from mainstream society as much as possible. Gays are not the new blacks. They're the new Jews. And the Church, in both Catholic and Protestant variants, is dredging up its old anti-Semitism in new guises. The GOP is along for the ride. http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
Nothing like Godwin showing up again.
Let me specify that by Godwin I do not mean Louis, but Louis' argument. I want no confusion on that point. I always welcome and enjoy having you comment here Louis, but honestly you have to move beyond the Christians = Nazis meme that permeates the left these days. You are more intelligent than that. You are capable of thinking on your own.
Disagree with seeker that is fine. Both of you are big boys and can handle a disagreement, but the constant barage of "bigot" "gay-hater" "Nazi" "Jew-hater" etc. grows weary and loses any type of effectiveness in a civil debate.
Since we're concentrating on arguments instead of personalities, let me make this perfectly clear: I don't think "Christians=Nazis." My observation is that certain elements of christianity (what I, and others, refer to as "christianism") share certain disturbing beliefs with those who preceded the nazis. No, I'm not accusing them of being nazis. However, it is a FACT that christian anti-semiticism – centuries of it beginning with, and following, biblical anti-jewish sentiment – led to modern day anti-semitic movements, which incuded nazism. In that light, christianism shares the guilt with absolutist movements in modern-day (and older) pogroms.
Which leads to Sullivan's comments. Neither he, nor I, am accusing christians of being nazis. However, he is pointing out that there is a disturbing parallel between classic anti-semitism and right-wing christianist anti-gay rhetoric, belief, and action. Just look at seeker's stated ideology (with which you, Aaron, apparently have no argument): gays are pathological perverts who pose a danger to America and, in particular, the families and children of America. We should "get lost" (ie, go away, disappear, go back into the closet, turn into straights, die). We are "sinners" – abominations and cannot really be christians. He supports "therapy" to "convert" gays to straights. Here, a tiny minority with little power, poses an outsized threat to the vast hetero majority far beyond reality. Gays are scapegoats for the ills straights and their families are experiencing. This all sounds very similar to the arguments of anti-semites in the past (and present), including the interesting parallel with efforts to convert the Jews. Add to this the pseudo-science associated with conversion (parallels nazi pseudo-scientific theories on race) and we do have something quite disturbing.
Actually, this blog can be about anything it wants to be. My areas of interest are gay and masculine recovery, evolution/creation, cult recovery, islam, worship and the arts, and small groups.
You are right about conservative politics also influencing psychotherapy – but the book's author was only using attacks on ex-gay therapy because at this time, they are the underdogs being beaten back by pro-gay apologists. I think he decries all such efforts at politicizing science.
Science is increasingly finding that sexual orientation is fixed at a very early age, probably before 3 years or even in the womb (as a result of genetics and hormones).
Actually, gender identity forms at that time as a result of psychosocial development, i.e. external social factors. The influence of hormones and genes has no scientific data to support it at this time, unless you can show me a study.
Why are they so terrorized that they want to change?
I agree that they probably feel social pressure to change. But the converse is also true – why are we (you) terrorizing those who want to change? Why not allow them to be self-determining, as the author says? Based on little or no scientific data at all, you are negating an entire field of research based on your unsupported presuppositions. That's oppression. Just because some practitioners of reparative therapy have made mistakes, or have been overly religious in their approach, does not negate the science behind the ideas. We need to more closely study, practice, and eventually standardize and regulate reparative therapy so that it is "safe and effective" ;)
"underdogs beaten back by pro-gay apologists."
HA! They are "underdogs" because they are dogs: their "science" is no science at all. The APA has repudiated them. And not because of "politics," but because their cause has no scientific basis. The internet is replete with studies: google it for yourself.
"external social factors"
Please provide scientific (not religious) studies to prove this.
"why are we (you) terrorizing those who want to change?"
I am not terrorizing anybody. I have already stated here that people should be able to do whatever they damn well please. However, I still maintain that it is a fact that certain sectors of this society (ie, mainly the religious right) terrorize gay people, presenting them with the choice: "get lost" or get straight. This is indisputable.
"little or no scientific data" – "negating an entire field of scientific research" – "unsupported presuppositions" – "oppression"
HAHAHA!! This is what is known as the "big lie." I have the entire scientific community behind me. I also have personal knowledge. I also have access to large amounts of anecdotal info. It's YOU who are promulgating pseudo-science based on a purely religious bias. Nice try though.
"Reparative therapy" is oppression. It is the violent, pseudo-scientific weapon religious homophobes hide behind to disguise their bigotry. It is the active voice of the patriarchal hegemony. It is the jack-boot applied to gay people's necks – particularly young gays. It is evil.
Perhaps you could present a few representative studies supporting your claims that
– homosexuality is hormonal and genetic
– studies that prove that reparative therapy does not work. By the way, can you compare it's recidivism rates to other recovery programs?
I have provided links before, but let me repeat:
Gender Identity Disorder leads to homosexuality
"…detached-hostile father, for example, was deemed relatively characteristic of 52% of white homosexual men and 37% of white heterosexual men–a finding quite similar to the overlap in the Bieber et al. (1962) "
Childhood Abuse Affects Sexual Orientation
"A 2001 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior utilizes a non-clinical sample of 942 adults to compare rates of childhood molestation between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals.
The authors found that 46% of homosexuals and 22% of lesbian women reported homosexual molestation in childhood. This compared to childhood homosexual molestation rates of only 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women."
Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy
"The study has attracted particularly attention because its author, a prominent psychiatrist, is viewed as a historic champion of gay activism. Spitzer played a pivotal role in 1973 in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
…
As for completely reorienting from homosexual to heterosexual, most respondents indicated that they still occasionally struggled with unwanted attractions–in fact, only 11% of the men and 37% of the women reported complete change. Nevertheless this study, Spitzer concludes, "clearly goes beyond anecdotal information and provides evidence that reparative therapy is sometimes successful."
I suggest you get and read the book, "Anything But Straight" by Wayne R. Besen which examines and details the ex-gay movement, it's phoney studies and its extensive ties to extreme xtianism. Until then, impass.
So, until i read the book, you have no data to offer? Nice dodge. But I'll add it to my amazon wishlist – you wanna buy it for me? :D
I see that, as expected, the reviews on amazon of this book range from "awesome" to "anger and agenda, not fact driven". I find this review interesting:
"As an expose of the ex-gay movement, this book is one of a kind – hopefully the first of many books on the subject. That alone makes it required reading for anyone with an interest in homosexuality, reparative therapy and the role the religious right has played in making ex-gays a political force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, Besen lets his anger get the best of him. His cause would have been better served by a dispassionate survey of the facts, because they speak for themselves. What he's written is often shrill and vitriolic which undermines the validity of his work."
Yes, he's angry. It's not a scholarly work, but a work of muck-raking journalism. He personally went into the field and observed first-hand what's going on. He talked directly to many in the anti-gay conversion field, including their leaders. He documents its beginnings and discusses the studies it made. I don't think the validity of his findings is in any way invalidated by his passion regarding the subject matter. I haven't seen anyone else make any effort nearly as thorough as his in examining this shady field. So many on the right just quote these "studies" as if they have perfect legitimacy without examining how they were conducted or the agendas of those conducting them. And no one in the gay conversion movement has much to say about either the long term efficacy of their therapies or the negative effects on their participants. It's really kind of a joke.
Anyway, it's not a dodge. It's quite clear that NOTHING I say will change your homophobic pogrom. So what's the point? Your position is basically irrational (ie, faith-based).
Again, I am asking for real data that you find convincing. Put up or, well, you know the rest ;) I understand if you feel like you are wasting your time with me, but what about others who are watching? I'd say you aren't making your case at all for them.
Pointless.
One last thought here, to Aaron: your use of "Jew-hater," "Nazi," "gay-hater" is wrong: I never used those terms (cf, your use of quotations) that I can recall. You are deliberately misrepresenting my posts. Also, since you have NEVER demurred from seeker's extreme comments regarding gays despite my implied invitation to do so, I can only assume you agree with him. Thus, unless you reject them, I must inform you that I've lost all respect for you and your standards of fairness. Of course, my comment "pointless" above just about covers it all: I despair. Christianism, despite its trumpetings to the contrary, is not about love and reconciliation, but about judgement and condemnation and power. And I reject it.
Granted, some of the quotes should not have been there. But you did insinuate the Nazi thing with the Sullivan quote. And some of the others may not have been used in the current post, but they have been used in the past in other posts. The Nazi and Jew hater things were mainly your comparrison of seeker or Christians in general to Nazi Germany and their treatment of Jews.
As to seekers thoughts, they are his own. I agree with him on some things, I disagree with him on others. (just as I do with you Louis.) I will let him defend his own beliefs. He is capable of doing that.
One thing I do agree with you on is rejecting a Christianity that is all about judgment, condemnation and power. I have no desire for any of those or to enforce those on any one else.
How many times do I have to say that I think Christianity in general focuses too much attention on gays and gay marriage, instead of dealing with the devil in our midst with adultery and divorce? Any kind of sin is sin and is an affront to God and is caused by the root of all sin – pride. Our demanding that God accept our own standard of right and wrong, while ignoring His perfect standard.
That being said I do not want a Christianity based solely on "love and reconciliation." Such a beliefs system is not grounded in reality. I want my Christianity based on the Bible and what it has to say about human nature and God's nature. My Christiantiy is about the balance between grace and justice; love and holiness, forgiveness and a perfect standard.
Focusing on either side too much presents a warped and incomplete view of God and Christianity. I would agree with you that too often those on the right side (by that I mean conservative) of Christianity focus exclusively on justice, sin, judgment, etc. But the reverse is also true. Too often those on the left side of Christianity ignore everything that isn't "God is love."
God is not some one sided being we can shove in our own box to fit our own needs. He is above that. He can be both love and justice. He can and does both accept people into His heaven and allow people to choose to go to hell. He can and does both love everyone from the worst sinner to the best sinner and hate sin so much that He will not allow it in His presence.
That is the God that I cling to. He does not fit into all my ideals or my notions of what He should be. I'm sure He doesn't fit yours either. But He makes the most sense (partly because He is reality).
My job in life is not to have anyone respect me or my "standards of fairness." My job in life is to bring glory to God. I would hope that by doing that I could earn the respect of others after they see that I have no intention of attacking or harming them personally and I that I honestly do attempt to love everyone I come in contact with. But I have no grandious vision that everyone will understand me or respect me. Jesus said that He was persecuted and hated and so would His followers. I can only pray that my life is characterized by trying to live up to His standards, not my own or anyone elses.
God and perfectionism. I was once afflicted with the curse of perfectionism and know all too intimately just how devastating it can be. When Jesus demands that we "be perfect as our father in Heaven is perfect," I am repulsed because I know that such a standard is impossible and, for those who believe him, psychologically destructive. We are human beings, we are not gods, or robots. And, it is so convenient for the power structure of the churches to have this standard with which to judge and control us, isn't it? I am not interested in perfectionism; I am interested in what it means to be human. I don't have a theologian's temperment, but an artist's.
As to the rest of your reply: I'm glad, for you, that you know yourself and the world so well that you have it formulated to a "t." Of course, you fit in quite well. To those of us for whom the current structures and arrangements weren't form-fitted, we don't have things quite as easy. It's convenient to be "perfect" when your default settings accord with those of your culture and religion. I agree that God cannot be forced to fit into any ready-made box of our devising, which is why I cannot believe that God can be forced into any single book or religious group either. As I told a friend the other day, I may believe in "God" (whatever that is), but I cannot and do not believe in religion. Which is why I am a Zen Buddhist, a philosophy and a practice which seeks to see directly into reality, bypassing thoughts and forms and religious beliefs. The more I learn about xtianity, the less I find I can believe it (and not just because of the gay "thing" either). I can still revere Jesus (mostly) without believing all the extra baggage loaded on him over the past 2 millennia. I don't "cling" to any "god." Instead, I seek the Truth, and if that means destroying icons, so be it.
Seek and you will find Louis. We are closer in many veins than what you think.
You are very correct in that we cannot be perfect. I lived most of my life under the weight of that burden. I tried to do what i thought would please God, would make Him happy with me, would make others happy with me. I spent too many years chasing the dream of perfection and having God totally happy with me.
He finally taught me the Truth and the lesson I was missing. Perfection is the standard, but I can't meet it (I had already found that out), but there is one who did and He wants to give you His perfection. When I finally understand what Paul meant when he said "I am crucified with Christ, yet nevertheless I do not live, but Christ lives in me" and "I die daily," I was released from the bondage I had placed myself under.
Christ came to sets us free not to make us slaves again. He gives us the freedom to know that we don't have to do all the right things and live a perfect life to gain God's acceptance. We just have to admit that we don't have all the answers and rely on Jesus and His finished work, His perfect life, His perfect sacrifice.
You missed my point if you think God fits me to a "t" or vice versa. There are many things I don't understand, but I simply accept them as part of His mystery and part of what I will understand some day. My life is by no means perfect or "form-fitted" to my view of God. I struggle with things. I wrestle with notions.
In your own ideas of not putting God in a box, you have placed Him in one that says He cannot operate within something that you don't agree with. You will not allow for the fact that God has revealed Himself in Jesus and the Bible, that does not fit in your box.
I said we cannot shove God into a box, but in some ways He has placed Himself in a box. He cannot operate contridictory of Himself. Can God be both monotheistic and polytheistic Can God be both the sacrificial lamb of Jesus and the bloody-thirsty Allah of radical Islam?
If you revere Jesus, study His words, forget everything else. Ignore the rest of the Bible, ignore Christians. You want Truth, seek after Him. He called Himself, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I have no problem with you destroying icons or religion, Jesus liked that too. I have enough confidence in Jesus that if you study Him enough, He will prove Himself to you. Seek Truth, not your idea of it or my idea of it, but simple Truth and you will find what you are looking and longing for.
Thanks for the sermon.
btw: I believe you are sincere. But you can also be sincerely wrong. I'm tired of god-talk. It's time for life.
If you are a zen buddhist, you should check out M. Scott Peck's Further Along the Road Less Traveled, in which he describes his conversion from Zen to Christianity. Not that you are interested in such a journey, but his journey is notable.
I'm familiar with Peck. In fact, I like his first "Road" book. My journey, so far? Agnostic existentialist to zen Buddhist to liberal xtian to moderate/conservative xtian and now to zen Buddhist again. I had to have the experience of xtianity to really know how much I disagree with it.
Well, there is much to like about Buddhism, though I think it has limitations.
As does everything. The limitations lie within us.