I was reading up on one of my favorite subjects, reparative therapy of homosexuality, when I came across a decent introductory article on the subject at Parents and Friends of EX-gays (PFOX). The author evaluated the many therapeutic approaches to gay recovery therapy, and found the following six factors as critical to success:
1. Personal choice and motivation to reorient is necessary This sounds like a no-brainer, but it’s not. Until I seriously want to change something in my life, I’m just going to fail.
2. A detailed history is important This is to overcome using an oversimplified model like “all gays are that way because they had a bad father.” People fail in gender identity formation for a lot of reasons, which need to be explored in therapy.
3. The belief that change is possible This is why many people, like the author of Cheated by the Affirming Church, get mad at those who misinform the public saying that you can’t change your same-sex attraction.
I feel cheated. Cheated by those who say that they love me and are trying to help me. Yet, if things were left up to them, I would still be in a prison of my own making, enslaved by homosexuality and without hope.
Keep it up, you're doing great!
1. Personal choice and motivation to reorient is necessary
This sounds like a no-brainer, but it's not. Until I seriously want to change something in my life, I'm just going to fail.
Umm. Or maybe they're born that way because God designed it to be that way….nah.
Seeker,
New question – WHY is the reparative therapy of homosexuals one of your favorite subjects? Do you have gay brothers or sisters? Why is homosexuality of SUCH importance to you?
Sam,
See my comment in Am I Far Right?
Stewart: How come your web address is the same as Sam's (insulted.org)?
Louis: You are right – if people are "born that way" then wanting to change may not do them any good.
But if they are NOT born that way, wanting to change is essential.
Seeker,
Stewart designed Insulted.org, and was the person who had the idea in the first place. He wanted me to provide content, because when it comes to impassioned swearing, he knew I was his man.
Not in a gay way though.
EVEN IF someone is born that way (of which there is no credible evidence) , that does not make a behavior desireable. ADD, depression, and a whole host of other "behavioral/ emotional disorders" are recognized as damaging to individuals, as hurdles to relationships, and as sometimes physically dangerous. Do we say "Let the suicidal person go" ? "Let the kids with ADHD run wild in the classroom" ? Something being genetically predisposed (like alcoholism) does not necessarily make resulting behavior NECESSARILY positive.
We are ALL predisposed to sin, that does not make any of the sin acceptable to God. So EVEN IF there was a God allowed predisposition to homosexuality, it would fall in with prediposition to alcoholism, or whatever other sinful pattern mankind in subject to. So God would not be being meaner to those folks than to the porn addict, the drug addict or the habitual liar.
Seeker,
That was a quiz. I know where you are socially and politically.
For me, when it comes to issues of children, I have always been impassioned, but my stand on child abuse, and the hypocrisy of those that claim to care about children, is a direct result of the children that I work with.
What I'm asking is why this particular issue – reparitive gay therapy – so moves you?
Corey,
I agree. As I commented in Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone:
1. Just because something is genetic does not make it natural, or intended by God. Some things are natural, some are disease. The "if it's genetic or seen in nature it must be good" reasoning is overly simplistic – it's like those who say "we see homosexuality in nature, so there!" – the response to this simplistic argument is "we see parents eating their young in the wild also."
We've had years of sin and environmental toxins and viruses to pollute our genetic code – it started out perfect, but scripture reports that sin and death came in via mankind.
Your theology may say that if something is genetic, then it was intended by God – but xian theology does not.
2. Every malady or condition has both genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors. Some conditions are more of one than the other. Determining the relative proportion of the individual contributions does not help us determine if they are natural or not – it only teaches us how to treat them.
In the case of homosexuality, I suspect that both are contributing factors, though my bias is towards a larger contribution from the environment. At the very least, there is a growing amount of data regarding the reversal of same sex attractions. To date, there is not a shred of good science supporting a gay gene. But again, even if there is some genetic contribution, this does not mean that homosexuality is ok any more than genetic aggression or promiscuity is ok. It just means we need to treat it with virtue, therapy AND medication if necessary.
Most interesting. I have to thank you seeker for helping me understand my deepening alienation from and revulsion towards christianity and all its works. It seems that I have a great respect for reality, for truth, for reason, and you are providing more and more evidence that christianity (and most religions, for the matter) are almost completely divorced from anything resembling those qualities. It's as if you guys live in a zone 90 degrees from the real world, making up your own science and your own worldview out of some distorted version of things. And, of course, you insulate yourselves by claiming the rest of us because we're too "worldly"! Well, thank goodness for that, I say. The points you list above would be funny if they didn't snare so many people in your web of deception. The perfect cult.
Pardon me while I return to a reality-based life.
Wow. How could you, a heterosexual with no experience in therapy, possibly hope to comment authoritatively on this subject? I fail to understand your motivation.
Ok Seeker and Corey,
1. No Evidence.
2. None.
3. And certainly none from the thousands of gays who haven't been sexually abused and who claimed to know at a very early age that they were gay…or at least, different.
Finally, Corey – you're comparing ADHD and suicide with homosexuality. ADHD is not chosen, but medicine can be taken to calm its effects. Suicide is chosen, but only by those who are at their most desperate. Homosexuality is evident, often from birth, and unlike the other two, ISN'T A DAMNED PROBLEM. Honestly, you Christians and your "We Love Everybody But Fags" argument is getting incredibly tiresome. You compare homosexuality to anything but heterosexuality because you believe it to be so vastly different, which of course it isn't. How you can continue to delude yourselves into hating your fellow man is simply beyond me.
Josh is right. Seeker, you have the nerve to claim that Sam's point is unsubstantiated by science, but you're more than happy to yelp about your personally theories of "damaged masculinity", and "predisposing factors". Where is the standard, exactly, or do you not have one?
You sound like an ashamed closet-case, trying to claw your way into good-graces with the overbearing religious dogman you were raised on.
Josh:
Actually, I have about 30 hours of Master's level study in Counseling (did not finish due to life changes etc), in which I maintained an A- average.
I have taken advantage of therapy, both personal and marriage, for many years.
I have done my own masculine identity recovery work and inner child work.
I read books. Lots of books.
Sam:
1. Christians don't say "we love everyone but fags."
They say what the scriptures have always said – God and those who follow him should love people, forsake their own sins, and encourage others to do the same. Homosexuals are no better or worse than other sinners, nor are the esteemed or loved less by God nor should they be by his followers. Xians, being human, have not loved perfectly, and have made many mistakes in their approach to gays. Derision is wrong. Calling homosexuality sin, with as much humility as one can muster, is not.
In fact, Jesus, who loved to take down the religious hypocrites of his day, once told his disciples that, despite the pharisees hypocrisy and bad motives, when they taught the truth, these things ought to be obeyed because they are true, regardless of the motive of the messenger.
2. Animal Evidence
As I said, just because animals do it does not mean that humans should. Maybe you should eat your young? Or have a harem of females like lions do? Or kill anyone who challenges you to a female?
As for evidence, there is little conclusive evidence that genes cause homosexuality. And there is growing evidence against that position. Here's a small smattering:
Links from narth.org.. Follow the link to read these and many more articles:
– Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy
– Should Reorientation Therapy Be Available? — APA Journal Article Says Yes
– Attempts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues
– Rationale for Sexual Reorientation Therapy Supported in Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
– Study Supports the "Weak Father" Theory of Homosexuality
– Treatment of Male Homosexuality: A Cognitive-Behavioral and Interpersonal Approach
– New Evidence for Biological Influence on Gender
Refutation of Twins Studies:
The Importance of Twin Studies
Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524-536.
Refutation of Gay Gene Conclusions:
Is there a gay gene?
New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory
A master’s degree in Counseling doesn’t make one an expert in therapy or gender construction. Many MAs don’t require extensive independent research or clinical practice; also, Counseling varies widely as a concept depending upon the school one attends. Christian schools and seminaries approach counseling with different assumptions than secular institutions.
Most sociologists I’ve conversed with view gender as a social construct, sex is biological. They are two different concepts. My personal deduction is that sexual orientation is a combination of elements of both gender and sex, and that societally driven decisions can lead to only a partial alteration of sexual orientation. This begs the question, should it matter? I see nothing in the Christian faith that justifies the judgementalism inherent in advising gender therapies. If someone who is gay wants to do so, that should be their prerogative. However, this “therapy” is no cure-all and never can be. Many Christian commentators throw it around as a solution to the “gay” issue, while ignoring the judging that they’re not supposed to do. In short, it’s like their crap don’t stink, so to speak. Remove the board from your eye, then worry about specks elsewhere.
Sam,
I never said, nor do any of my christian friends , that we hate anybody, nor do I hate homosexual behavior any more than any other sin, many of which I commit myself, so it is dishonest of you to throw that around because you lack arguements. I will compare homosexuality to hetero for your benefit. It is the same as adultery, pedophilia, sex before marriage, it is ALL outside God's plan for mankind.
Also, the point with ADHD and suicidal tendencies is that there can be genetic predispositions as well as environmental factors that bring about these conditions. Depression can be a biochemical imbalance, or it can be strictly emotional. Yes suicide itself is a choice, but the seratonin breakdown that many depressives face is not within their control. The same correlation for homosexuality has not been found.
If you expect people to listen and hear your viewpoint, you should really listen to what they say, not put them in a preconceived box.
As for genetic evidence, it simply is not there as a cause. The gene study was biased from conception, the gay gene study has been refuted by it's own researchers, and gay animals, I agree with seeker that animal behavior should not be our standard for conduct.
I guess we could fire web pages back and forth, but in the end, people will believe what they want and the level of this discussion has obviously gone past a healthy discussion to name calling. Too bad.
"If you expect people to listen and hear your viewpoint, you should really listen to what they say, not put them in a preconceived box."
A bitter irony.
Dan,
1. I did not attend a Christian psychology program.
You are correct, however, in saying that a Master's Degree does not make one an expert (in anything ;), especially in such a specialized subject. However, the school I attended, Santa Clara University, is a Jesuit type of school – but their counseling faculty and curriculum are almost purely secular. The classes I took covered most of the accepted approaches, including behavioral, cognitivie, and my favorite, object relations therapy.
However, my combination of education, personal experience and observations, and self-education do give me some license, I feel, to broach my ideas. I am not standing on my own opinion alone, but leveraging the work of people who DO have PhD's in this subject, and who write on the subject. In one sense, I am merely communicating their ideas out to a general public who does not read their work.
Funny thing, in one of my Object Relations therapy classes, we had to read Being and Loving, an excellent text by Althea Horner. In that book , she mentions, in the context of her general suppositions which are generally accepted, that same sex attraction (SSA) may be based in gender identity malformation. I brought this up in class, mentioning that I liked it. Our lesbian teacher remarked that Horner was probably mistaken on that point! Heh!
2. We should understand the difference and interplay between societal gender roles, biological gender, and gender identity.
While gender roles are a societal construct, they are not totally subjective. In fact, they ought to be based on the foundation of biological and psychological gender, which is objective.
What I mean is that, the more a society's gender roles conflict with or diverge from the average gender tendencies and truths about human nature, the more problems we will have.
For example, biologically, men are usually stronger than women. Also, psychologically, due to testosterone and other factors, they are more given to physical battle. Is it any surprise that most societies have a male gender role that expects the ability to fight and defend?
Again, these are general tendencies, and there are always individuals who don't fit the average. These people will have trouble with societal gender roles, and this may in turn affect their gender identity.
However, as I argued in the first two parts of the series (which I have not finished) on Healing Injured Masculinity, there is a true masculine, apart from gender roles, that young men ought to use as a template for gender identity. It is based on the biology and psychology of men, not on religion or social construct. At least, that is the idea. I'm sure some social constructs may have slipped in.
other than laughter, what retort do you have for your professor's point about Horner's work? Does your prof have empirical evidence for her critique, or do you dismiss it as not conforming with your views?
Also, you have yet to address the judgmentalism inherent in advocating therapy for those parts of gender identity that are sociological and partially biological. I have serious problems with your conceptualization of a "true" masculine. Ideal types rarely meet tests of reality, therapies aren't the answer for an incongruence of this sort.
Fellas,
If you were actually being honest about this "no sin is different" line that you're trying with me, then some of you wouldn't try to so aggressively promote anti-gay legislation (banning gay marriage, for instance).
Instead, will of the same vigor, you'd address the issues of ADULTERY, which has cause infinitely more divorces than homosexual marriage has. But no, we go on and on and on and on and on and on about homosexuality. Meanwhile, the sins of straights – sins you claim to care about JUST AS MUCH – are routinely ignored.
This doesn't happen by accident. This happens because you care far more about the lives and alleged sins of homosexuals.
interesting tangent here: to what extent is Adultery a choice, and to what extent is it biologically driven? I've heard debates about it before, but I'm curious as to why it's being brought up in this context. adultery is a sin that can lead to a divorce; it is entirely irrelevant to this debate over therapy for gender issues. just a sidebar…
Dan:
I had no retort for our teacher – she was very butch and intimidating ;) Actually, the book's author is an established author, moreso than my teacher was. I chalked it up to her bias and moved on. It wasn't a discussion – she just asked what we liked about the book, and that was one of many things I love about that book (it is a classic). She did not present contrary evidence, while the book made a good stab at explaining its position, so I didn't need to defend my agreement w/ the book.
I don't think it is judgemental to advocate therapy for conditions that are both envirnomental and biological – we do that for depression. Your problem with my approach is just that you think homosexuality to be a normal variation, while I do not.
Sam:
Actually, adulterers are not seeking legal sanction for their actions as gays are. If gays want less "persecution" from conservatives, they need to stop trying to normalize and mainstream their perversion through legislation, and be happy with the fact that they have the freedom to practice without persecution. If they wanted to fight nature and those who think homosexuality is a sin, then they need to live in the kitchen in which they stoked the oven. Louis calls this perspective "blaming the victim," but in this case, I call it "blaming the instigator."
And I think promiscuity is more of a problem than homosexuality, which is why I also am interested in thwarting the permissive Planned Parenthood approach to sex education in schools, and why I have written and will write about the ABC method (Abstinence, Be Faithful to one partner, use Contraception if you lack the virtue to do the first two) that has worked so well in Uganda.
We all have our hierarchies of value, and work on what we think is meaningful. Don't expect me to adopt your priorities just because of your superior attitude :p. You can make an argument that adultery is more detrimental than homosexuality, but if that's your conviction, YOU put that first, and if I find your argument convincing, maybe I'll change my efforts too.
BTW, regarding adultery, there are many ministries devoted to strengthening marriage and helping couples avoid or recover from divorce. But they are not as visible because we don't need to fight in the public arena against people who want to legitimize it. In fact, there are many more xian ministries devoted to marriage than to gay recovery or fighting gay public policy.
your scholarship seems to stop where it ought to start, at the point where there are two conflicting theories, both with "evidence" to back them up. instead, you seem to choose the author whose ideas mesh most with your world view; social science calls that cognitive dissonance. Everyone is guilty of it to some extent, but when you combine it with Christ, it can affect your witness negatively.
ah, public policy, now we're getting somewhere I'm more familiar with. How can public policy be gay or Christian? How can state actions ever be confused for sacraments?
Seeker,
Gays live in America Seeker, which is where I'm fairly sure is where you live. They don't have to be grateful for being allowed to live here, or for being allowed to do as they please. We should all be so lucky.
Your attitude seems to suggest that gays have already gotten enough, and the desire to be legally recognized is just forcing their sexuality in your face. As if somehow YOU'RE the victim. We're the ones who can go out and marry anybody we don't care about and divorce them the next day, no problems. Gays have access to none of that. Furthermore, adultery, unlike sexuality, IS A CHOICE. And unlike adultery, homosexuality CREATES NO VICTIMS.
Honestly, why you don't move to Iran where you can get together with the crazed Muslims and stone gays, I'll never know. They really seem like your sort of people.
Finally, don't accuse me of not having virtue because I have contraception. That's so far outside of the realm of decency that I can't even believe it. You're suggesting that you're somehow the world's moral superior because of the sexual decisions that you make.
I have been debating in my mind that exact point – the argument that homosexuality hurts no one. That is a good point which I don't have an answer to – yet.
You are reading my attitude correctly – because homosexuality is in a moral and perhaps ethical gray zone, they should not expect to have the full recognition of monogamous hetrosexuals. To ask for more DOES victimize the rest of us by pushing their twisted morals upon our kids in schools, and by polluting our society with the lie that this perversion is OK.
However, you are again mistaken in thinking that this position is synonymous with the Muslim criminalization of homosexuality. As I said, that is the other extreme. I wish you would stop purposely confusing the two – it makes your arguments sound like the unthinking blather of a fanatic who can't understand the differences.
I'm not saying that use of contraception is lack of virtue. I'm saying that if you can't stay sexually pure until marriage, and stay faithful once you are in marriage, you lack virtue. Now me, I definitely lacked such virtue in the past before being married, and paid a price for it. The bible calls such activities SIN for a reason.
If that offends you, just remember that God is offended by our sin and our defense of it – but if we repent, we will find grace and forgiveness. But if we harden our hearts and fail to repent (admit our failing and guilt), the scriptures say that the anger of God is stored up for us for the day of judgement. And in the meantime, our sins are hurting ourselves and others.
Again, you argue that homosexuality is not a choice and that adultery is. I say, some people are driven by their needs and don't choose adultery – they just can't stop. And as I said, the whole "choice" argument is a false premise. Whether or not you feel you can choose your orientation does not make it right.
Just because you formed reactive patterns of homosexuality as a youth does not excuse you from those patterns as an adult. You may not have chosen to be gay, but you can choose to get therapy and help to leave homosexuality. THAT choice makes you culpable.
I didn't choose to be a sinner when I was born, but my life afterwards eventually proved that I was one. I didn't choose it, but I did choose to admit it and become a new person who is growing in my relationship w/ Jesus. And by THAT choice, I am no longer guilty. Homosexuality is just another deeply rooted sin that must be admitted, forsaken, healed, and left behind in one's walk w/ Christ.
Judge not…etc. If we are sinners then why is it our job to point out what is sin and what isn't for other people?
Why are you guys continuing to argue with this guy? Hasn't it become abundantly clear that his prejudice against gays is so deep-rooted that no amount of reasoning can extirpate it?
And, really, who the hell cares? I mean, why should gay people care what the bigots think anyway? seeker and his ilk have no power over me other than the diffuse power of the ballot-box.
And, I've been thinking about the "holy" institution of marriage. I think gays should have all the legal protections afforded heteros – civil unions. But who the hell wants that dissolute, outdated, corrupt institution of marriage anyway? That paragon of hypocrisy? Oh, how moral straights are, how superior! They have god on their side, blessing the adultery, abuse, divorce, lies, hatred, rape, loneliness, etc., etc., ad nauseum! Who wants it, anyway? Let 'em have it. Just look at seeker – why would anyone want to emulate him? Even if I had the right of marriage I wouldn't take it. I wouldn't want the stain. I want honesty and integrity and equality and reality, not the hypocrisy I see all around me. Straights think they are so wonderful that they invented a whole religion organized around how great heterosexuality is. I want nothing to do with it.