One of the more curious ironies of the ex-gay movement is how it has helped popularize the theories of Sigmund Freud among conservative Christians, who for many decades viewed his work with skepticism if not open hostility. As it became increasingly untenable for thoughtful Christians to dismiss homosexuality as some sort of conscious, perverse choice, they discovered a new ally in a man otherwise considered (even by himself) an enemy of the faith. With the help of his theories they could acknowledge that people (with perhaps a handful of exceptions) don’t choose their sexual attractions, yet still reduce homosexuality to nothing more than daddy (or mommy) issues that could be reversed with proper treatment.
Although they are now beginning to recognize that they must concede that homosexuality is far more complex than Freud once speculated (and at least partially if not primarily biological in nature), the Freudian works of Elizabeth Moberly, Leanne Payne, Joseph Nicolosi and others remain popular in ex-gay and evangelical circles. Even at the last ex-gay ministry I attended – whose program more closely resembled Wendy Gritters‘ nuanced and grace-oriented approach than your average Exodus affiliate – Moberly’s text topped the recommended reading list and was frequently quoted in talks and group sessions.
The fruits of that commitment to Freudian thought are evident in the wedge that reparative therapy often drives between a patient and his or her parents. Christine Bakke has posted a new essay at Beyond Ex-Gay that examines the harmful effects that Freudian-based therapy has had on many former ex-gays, including herself. While ex-gay therapy can help resolve genuine relational issues (both with parents and with others who may have caused emotional injury), it can also become a “fishing expedition” that seeks to turn even the smallest problem into a life-shattering event – or occasionally even to fabricate them entirely.
While there is certainly a place for ministries that offer practical support to individuals who believe that acting on their same-sex attractions would be contrary to the will of God, the ex-gay movement would be doing everyone that they serve a favor by retiring the misguided theories of Freud and his disciples.
As a psychology student and now a counsellor, it has astounded me how the ex-gay movement has latched on to Freud… when so much of his work is discredited by “Christian” psychologists, why does the ex-gay movement insist on continuing to spin the myths Freud started?
I had a similar experience to Eugene: in one of my first ex-gay meetings under Wendy Gritter’s ministry here in Canada, the work of Elizabeth Moberley was held up as authoritative. I quickly expressed the fact that I found it hard to identify with Moberley’s Freudian theories, and it was never brought up again. (I still have great respect for Wendy and her team!)
I agree – it is indeed time to retire Freud’s misguided theories. In fact, Freud himself eventually concluded that homosexuality was not a disorder to be treated.
“In fact, Freud himself eventually concluded that homosexuality was not a disorder to be treated.” Rlly? I remember some ex-gay proclaimed freudian expert establish that even though he wasnt anti-gay he did consider it as some kind of disease, something wrong.(not his words but that the concept i rememebr out of what he said).
In his letter to an English woman, Mrs. N, dated by the 9th of April, 1935, Freud writes: “There is nothing shameful in homosexuality, it is not a vice or humiliation, it cannot be treated as a disease, we count it to be a variety of the sexual function…”
… produced by certain arrest of sexual development.
Here is the entire letter. I’m not sure why anyone looks to Freud for accurate answers on this stuff, he had some pretty wild ideas all around. It seems to me his greatest contribution was simply to get us thinking about the mind and human behavior in a different way, creating a new area of study which has evolved greatly. But even Freud understood that the biggest issue for the son in the letter was to understand that his homosexuality was not a disease, nothing to be ashamed of or treated, and thereby aleviate the conflicts associated with those beliefs.
Essentially, Freud should have agreed fully with the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM and treat only the issues of shame and guilt that may interfere with normal life.
The mistake that these “ex-gay Freudians” make is a common fallacy of reasoning called “reification of the concept” — making the theory “king” as though it were fact. They confuse map and territory.
Reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity.
Theories are stories. They are not the “thing” — they are guesses about the thing being studied. Theories serve two main purposes — to explain and to predict. That theory is best which does both of these things well.
The trouble with “ex-gay Freudian” theory is that it is indeed a “hunting expedition”. You assume homosexuality is bad and that bad parenting must have “caused” it. Then you do some psychological archaeology to find examples.
Problem is, everyone can find examples of how their parents failed. To blame gayness on these parental short-comings is another fallacy of reasoning called “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Leanne Payne? There’s an ex-gay character you don’t hear about. She’s said some pretty wild stuff.
I don’t like the argument implied in this post. No doubt the ex-gay psych theories are bogus, but they’re not bogus merely by association with Freud’s other bogus ideas. In science, only the idea matters, not the person behind it. That’s an ad hominem argument and it’s not even hypocritical. I believe in Luther’s idea that the Pope is not infallible without embracing his ideas about Jews. I believe in Pythagoras’s idea that the Earth is spherical without his other ideas about physics. I do think it’s interesting the Religious Right is getting cozy with Freud, but I don’t hold it against them.
Far more damaging than Freud’s theories was their development by his psychoanalytic successors. In his book A Natural History of Homosexuality (1996) the psychiatrist Francis Mark Mondimore wrote that it was difficult to find a book that had caused more unnecessary heartache and misery than Irving Bieber et al.’s Homosexuality (1962). He noted that, as a result of the theories in the latter book, “For decades, parents were told to blame themselves for their children’s homosexuality – causing cycles of blame and guilt and shame within families which tore many apart completely.”
I believe Freudian theories manifests itself into general public’s minds too. Being branded a homosexual (even though I am not), church members that regularly visited my home always questioned the way my parents raised me. I do not believe they directly blamed my parents, but they do believe my parents are accountable for raising me until I became this way, and that my parens should be responsible for my “behaviour”.
Ephilei, you are exactly right when you say that it is the idea that matters, not the person behind it. The real problem here is that Freud’s ideas about the etiology of homosexuality have very little empirical support. The religious right should be held accountable for teaching as fact ideas that contradict the empirical evidence.
William said
Just because you feel bad they blamed themselves and were enveloped in shame does not somehow dismiss any accountability they might’ve had in the first place. That shoots me as someone robbing something and then feeling guilty about it. Deal with the consequences, however harsh they might be! There are parents that blame themselves but also know what to do and look for places like Exodus/Richard Cohen to support and fix whats broken.
wjc said
If theres so much contradicting empirical evidence… why does the religious right still proclaim such things? I’m of the opinion that their really isn’t such contradicting empirical support… but its just a bold claim to undermine the religious right. Also… i certianly dont believe the religious right is out there to LIE about everything, specially so when its one of the ten commandments. In support of my opinion, my aunt gives conference about homosexuality at head start and the concept that its BECAUSE of a distant father is pretty much alive even in the not so religious(even secular maybe) right. Not to mention i broke all ties with her BECAUSE of the too closely related mother(or someone who takes her place, in this case my aunt) figure. PLZ… unless you can provide this contradicting empirical support, dont just say something because it goes with the flow.
Just because freud, in his opinion, didn’t view homosexuality as a disorder, make it so. Specially when this “few” empirical evidence illustrate ever so clearly that one is not gay unless one had a defectous childhood. Defectious = in need of fixing.
Richard Cohen, seriously? Mr. Holding therapy? Mr. hit a pillow with a tennis racket? Oh lordy, I’d say they’ve discredited him here, but that would be a half-truth. The truth is he discredited himself on national television (thank you Comedy Central!) and people run away from him like he’s made of anthrax.
And where would that empirical evidence be?
Perhaps he could fix the broken string on one of my tennis raquets.
“Specially when this “few” empirical evidence illustrate ever so clearly that one is not gay unless one had a defectous childhood. Defectious = in need of fixing.”
You can’t be serious! What about all the people who had “defectious” childhoods who aren’t gay? What about the gay people who did not have “defectious” childhoods? I knew a gay man who was very close and out to his father, but in the closet and not close to his mother. So much for the empirical evidence of the distant father, suffocating mother.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Period. You can’t heal what isn’t sick. You can’t fix what isn’t broken. If you strip away the bigoted, irrational, unfounded idea that homosexuality is sick, wrong, etc., then any attempt to define it as such and to “fix” it is exposed for what it really is – bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, hatred and fear.
Joel,
You’ve asked for the empirical evidence against the old views, so here’s the basics.
1) a negative condition of itself: see from Ford and Beach (1952) onwards. It is “negative”, only if it is viewed as negative. It is a culture that can shame, and heap on stigma, but of itself homosexuality gives no cause for alarm.
2) a result of poor parenting/childhood disruption etc: in 1952, let alone 1973, it was obvious even in clinical studies that it wasn’t difficult to find patients that did not have any of the history assumed by the “theory”. When you looked more widely — outside the clinic — the assumptions were even more plainly wrong. Gay men and women come from all types of families, and cut across any socio-ethnic boundaries.
Bell & Weinberg (1978, 1981) performed a pathways analysis, and the “theories” failed utterly; even on their sample. The families of gay men and women were as varied as would be seen with a sample of heterosexuals. ie most good, some bad.
3) psychoanalysts knew the subject, and in a scientific way: see Hooker (1957). Although often re-told as if it was study about homosexuals, the most important of her findings IMO was that “the experts” performed no better than chance. In reading the expert’s notes etc, it is also very obvious they were grossly biased at those times when they knew the subject was either homosexual or heterosexual.
4) the dismal performance of psychoanalysis et al: the track record, even on their own terms was one of embarrassment. Even taking their highly biased or irregular clinical samples at face value (eg samples that mixed homosexual with bisexual, or neglecting to also mention all their failures, or presenting co-morbid issues as an aspect of homosexuality). They treated, but did not cure; and arguably often made things plainly worse for the client or added disfunction to their lives.
5) sexual orientation provides no predictions about the life of a gay individual: whatever else may be said, the vast majority of gay men and women enjoy fulfilled, productive and complex personal, social and professional lives when they are not persecuted: ie just as with their straight brothers and sisters. To deem something a pathology of itself you’d really need to show otherwise.
OK — them’s the basics. These findings have only been strengthened over the years.
Now… please feel free to present the same type and level of empirical evidence to support the ideas behind Freudian psychoanalysis, or neo-Freudian ideas.
(And, no, saying “But I know a gay man who had an awful mother” is not empirical evidence : that’s anecdotal, possibly even hearsay. Nobody doubts that some people have crappy childhoods — what we want is evidence how that results in homosexuality.)
grantdale,
I’ve read this one a couple times: I don’t quite get it. I’m not disagreeing — I just don’t think I understand what you’ve written here. If you could elaborate, demonstrate, give me a link, do a puppet show—I’d appreciate it.
Allow me, Grantdale.
In the 50’s, Psychoanalysts were claiming that gay people, particularly gay men, had a series of traits INHERENT to them that would make them identifiable to a knowing analyst using current tools.
Holy St. Evelyn, blessed be she, decided to test the premise. she presented these “ducktors” with the results of those current tools for a group of gay men and a group of straight men who were otherwise matched except for the issue of orientation. They were supposed to quack straight or gay, based upon their analysis of the results of the tests.
ThoughI don’t remember the actual results, basically they labelled half of the gay men straight, and vice versa. They could easily have flipped a coin and come up with the same results.
Quack. Quack. quack.
Alternatively, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a psychoanalyst who confuses his own biases with objective truth,
so the patient doesn’t fit the “symptoms”.
When I worked tech-support for an online college, some of the dumbest and rudest people on the planet called in for help. We reminded each other daily that the people who called in weren’t representative of the entire student body.
I would think a therapist knows that already. People who seek help represent only the people who seek help, not everyone else from that category.
Yes, Ben, that’s fairly much it. Jason, try here for a summary.
As always… we suggest actually getting hold of the original paper, but prior to any of this type of work it was assumed that there was no such thing as a “normal” homosexual. Hooker not only found some, but had that confirmed in blind tests. These were a non-clinical sample (ie not patients), and the comments of the experts about the test results often showed gross bias depending whether the subject was assumed to be gay or straight.
Yeah, “normal homosexuals” — the very idea.
It seems laughably ignorant to think otherwise, today, and… well… it is!
Joel,
When testing of a hypothesis, the method is to look for proof against rather than proof in favor.
For example: If I were to test the hypothesis that icebergs are caused by penguins, I would not look for icebergs that contained penguins; I would look for those that do not. If I find adequate penguin-free icebergs then my hypothesis does not hold up. The fact that some penguins may be on some icebergs is shown to be coincidental.
So too, if I were to test the hypothesis that homosexuality is always caused by distant father/smothering mother, I would look for exceptions. And if I found adequate exceptions then I would know that the hypothesis does not hold up.
Exceptions to that notion are abundant. All over the place. So it therefore must be true that not all homosexuality is caused by Freud’s hypothesis.
And we must remember that this is not just some benign theory that has no bearing on our lives like, say, penguins and icebergs.
No. Belief in this notion by Freud (and Dr. Dobson) can have a harmful impact in our daily lives. For example, your relationship with your aunt has been impacted negatively by your choosing to beleive this false idea.
grantdale, ben, good points.
I read up on Hooker and I noticed she has her critics (who doesn’t these days?) they did mention that she carefully selected her homosexual subjects for the research she did. She excluded “unstable” homosexuals.
This rememinded me of the Jones and Yarhouse study (and other studies) where they got success stories from exodus (and other ministries) directly and didn’t follow up with those that left the program (and by extension, the study as well).
My thought was that she was testing the premise that homosexuality is a mental disorder, by finding homosexuals who were, in fact, well-adjusted, functioning members of society —but again, that runs into the ex-gay research that shows a bunch of “success” stories.
See what I’m getting at?
With those similarities, what do you guys think? Are there links refuting the claims that say Hooker’s research was, well, bunk?
Define ‘unstable’…
Either way, her study proves that not all homosexuals are ‘unstable’. Thus there is no direct link between what a homosexual should be from what it really is. Unless.. of course, these critics just wish to prove that these symptoms can be linked to MOST homosexuals… even though there are some exceptions(like the ones from Hookers experiment).
And..aren’t her nonclinical studies FAR from being representative. Wasnt it around some 60ish subjects.
Where can i find “Bell & Weinberg (1978, 1981)”. Could it be accesible as going to the nearest public/private library.
impacted negatively, according to u?… She understands.. i understand… now we both know what we should do(and as obligation to myself to fix me). It only is inherently ‘negative’ if you imply that the end is not justifiable. Sacrifices… life is full of them. Some we embrace. Since its a two way relationship… i agreed with my aunt to do so, she did not oppose. Being gay is worse than mantaining a relationship with her, we both understand this. We view this not as negatively… but healthy and benial. How long it will take… we don’t know, but im working on my father so we have a closer bond too. Once that is achieved, we believe i will heal… and I finally dont have to carry around this environmentally construed social wrong(specially anatomically).
Where are the ex-gays/anti-gays to refute you guys when you need them. I hope their not banned… cause its just sad if you have.
Jason,
I don’t think that one need link to a special paper or site to refute those claims. Just look at the study again. Those who have qualms with the results of the research because Hooker chose well-adjusted homosexuals are missing the point. The point was to find homosexuals who are “normal,” group them with heterosexuals who are just as “normal,” and test whether so-called experts on the “pathology” of homosexuality could tell the difference.
The claims made against ex-gays are that their sexual orientation has not changed, only their behavior has changed. The claim is not that they’re pathologically different from ex-ex-gays, bisexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc… I’m sure if that premise were tested, the same results would be reached: That in terms of pathology, ex-gays are no different than other types of humans. It’s two different kinds of claims.
Joel,
nobody gets banned unless they are extremely disrespectful to the members and commenters at XGW. Differing opinions are not what gets someone banned. Alan Chambers, president of Exodus no less, comments here every so often.
And what exactly needs refutation? That gays are people who are just like every other human being, except that they fall in love with different people?
Joel,
I’m sorry if I mistated the nature of the relationship you discribed:
I would find it sorrowful to have to break all ties with someone I loved.
While I know you believe this to be for the best, from listening to others that have taken such drastic steps I fear that you will come to regret and resent this decision. Nevertheless, the decision is your own and I hope it brings you the freedom you seek.
Emily,
Thank you. I try my best to get my head around all the experts on both sides so that I don’t accidentally reference the research of someone who is known for flaws in their methodology. I don’t want to quote the gay version of cameron, cohen, or dobson — Not even sure if such people exist.
I recall someone once saying that anti-gay advocates say homosexuality was taken out of the list of mental disorders without reason. The reply was that it was put in that list of disorders without reason in the first place.
Joel said
Be careful of falling into an “ends justifies the means” philosophy. It’s logically and ethically unsound.
It’s a two-way relationship, so what is she giving up? I would question any relative of mine who thinks the gender (not the character) of the person I am involved with is up for debate, approval, or criticism. Certainly I rely on my friends and family to let me know if they believe my partner (or other friends, associates) are abusive and or self-destructive. But disqualifying someone based on hair, skin, weight, ethnicity or gender — not so cool to me.
Interesting, my life went a different way. My relationship with my father is 100 times better than it was before I Came Out to him. Not immediately, but 7 years later, we are a lot closer than I ever expected us to be.
Not sure what that means.
Jason — fear not, you’re not going to find a “gay Cameron” out there.
You’ll see more than enough stupid, vapid, irrational and plain ridiculous pass you by if you stand on the side of the road long enough, but you won’t find someone making a living out of the deliberate butchering studies with the aim of promoting hatred. Especially after being booted from the APA on an ethics violation. Dobson is a business man and a politician; he’s not a researcher. He pays people to (mis)use the work of others in the same way a drunk uses a lamp-post — for support, rather than illumination.
And Cohen… well Cohen is just Cohen: a unique kind of menacing strange. A vulture.
But it’s good to see you wanting to know the topics more deeply. There’s many here who are very familiar with all the usual suspects, and more than happy to help out 🙂
—————————————-
Joel — Hooker wasn’t testing the subjects, she was testing the theories (and the experts).
That is why I placed her in #3; rather than #1, #2 or #5; and made the comments I did.
She gathered 30 subject pairs (a remarkable achievement in itself in the 1950’s), carefully matched for age, education, careers etc, and then ran the standard tests. She handed over the results to a panel of experts, and asked them to comment on the subjects (who they never met). They were asked to assess the gay from the straight. They failed. Badly.
In fact, despite being supposed experts, they got no better result than if they had let a chicken peck away at the decks. Pure, random chance.
All homosexuality was assumed to be pathological, and it was assumed that all those 30 gay men would display the signs of being mentally ill. Hooker tested those assumptions and found them wanting. The past 51 years of research has only strengthened her findings, as the APA recognised (see the quote above).
While you remain at liberty to believe anything you wish to, please at least be aware that the basis for those beliefs has been destroyed over the past half-century. There remain residual attempts to make them fit by a small minority, but the professions have abandoned them.
More importantly for yourself… if those beliefs — mental illness & cure — are what sustains your efforts at the moment, I fear you will be in for great dissapointment in the future.
The tiny minority of therapists who stick to those discarded theories are notorious for ultimately blaming their clients for “non-performance”. It will never be their ideas that are wrong, it’s always because you didn’t put in enough effort. This blaming and shaming can be enormously harmful to a client.
I’m not sure how you’ll rationalise things over the years, or what decisions you’ll make, but please do keep yourself safe and well in the meantime. Keep an open mind to whatever your therapist is saying (if you have/get one) and don’t be afraid to ask them to explain the why. If they are evasive, or nonsensical, or abusive — find another therapist.
(you should find B&W’s books in any University library, or a good public one. Your local library may also be able to secure one for you on an ILL.)
Joel,
I really feel for you and your aunt. It would break my heart if the child that I raised told me that he had to break off our relationsihp in the hope off attaining something as unlikely as a change in sexual orientation.
As a parent, it would be about the most painful thing that I can imagine having to endure. Life is short. We need to keep that in mind when making such drastic and absolute decisions.
I sincerely wish you both the best of luck, and hope you can find peace.
Yes, but to most of those seeking orientation change, they see it like this: “Life is short – but Heaven is forever. And you can’t get there if you’re gay.”
EMily, if your indirectly assuming im a christian… im not.
Although many closest to me.. do. I know many ex-gay testimonies, first-hand, hearsay, or written. And it is EXTREMELY contradicting to the ‘no ex-gays exist’ notion that this sight pretty much upholds and defends tooth and nail. That being said… even if homosexuality is not a disease/sickness/confusion, in and of itself, it is considered traditionally and culturally by many around me. Straight > gay, and its pretty obvious, specially when the peek of a relationship is socially marked by marriage and gays are not considered to carry that quality of a relationship, thus the gay marriage cause is SRSLY rebuked by so many here. Now… do i think its wrong to be a homosexual? NO. Do i think its better to be straight? YES. Call me a coward if you must… but in order to be in this peace everyone looks for, being straight is worth fighting for. Again… the end will justify the means. (I believe this unsound reasoning stems, in part, from the bible. Example: Explicitly killin the innocent first born in order to prove a point so, in the end… Israel might be free.) Nevertheless, this i believe is about personal sacrifices being the means, thus making it quite sound.
Environmentally construed(my bad, replace construed with shaped). THis means its not unarguably inborn, like say, being black. Social wrong meaning that its not socially accepted(maybe tolerated, but like a fart, meaning… do it once, i forgive you, do it twice,*silence* AND PLZ DONT DO IT AGAIN). The in paranthesis, “specially anatomically” means that socially, more than just being a wrong for ‘being a wrong’ sakes it is considered a wrong for various reasons. One of them being that when a gay relationship is consentualizing sodomy it is naive to believe that it is somehow anatomically cohesive. Sure it can fit… but the anatomic purpose of it is definately not for that, why do you think one needs lubricant?(assuming you dont want to risk any higher chances of fissures). This turns out to be a fact… and an ally fact to support the ‘its wrong’ notion. I could’ve just said gay… but this way was more meaningful imho.
It’s not so much that they don’t exist. I’ve gotten the very distinct impression from my time on this website that Ex-gays exist, but the definition of “ex-gay” and “change” do not mean what most people would expect them to mean, and that the ex-gay industry trades on the confusion.
But the people around you are not the ones who get to define what is a disease/sickness/confusion. That is left up to scientists/doctors/psychiatry. Popular opinion is not the same as fact. A disease has certain characteristics, as does sickness, as does confusion. If it were acceptable for laymen to determine those definitions, we would not need the licensing, certification, and professional associations at all.
If you accept it, then perhaps it is. but remember, it was less than a century ago that “White >Black” and “Man>Woman” were also widely accepted as true. Straight > gay is true only if you accept that as true. I don’t accept it, thus I live in accordance to that belief.
Interesting choice of words “fighting for”. I’m sure you know that as a gay man who accepts his gayness, I too am “fighting for” something. It would appear that in both situations we are fighters. We have just chosen different battlefronts.
Perhaps your decision is sound, but if it can only be justified through Machiavellian argument, then it really isn’t.
For the time being. Would your attitude change if we did come forth with evidence of it being pre-determined by say womb environment or some other naturally occuring phenomenon?
Depends on where you are. (And it’s interesting that you chose an involuntary bodily function that cannot be controlled as a comparison) Also depends on what you do. It was less socially acceptable 30 years ago than it is now. It changed do to people “fighting for” that change. Socially acceptable is more or less dependent on public opinion, which can and does change. There is that old saying “if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?”
Anal sex is not the defining characteristic of a homosexual relationship. Just ask a lesbian. You will find that not all gay men engage in anal sex, some prefer frottage or other activities. Some outright refuse to have anal sex at all. Homosexuality is not defined by anal sex, as anyone with an anus can have anal sex regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
The mouth was probably not designed for it either, nor were the fingers or other parts of the anatomy that couples of any orientation employ as part of sexual activity. You would have to believe in a “designer” in order to suggest that body parts have only one function. The liver has more than one function. Additionally some women produce little to no fluid, does that mean their sex lives are less because they need lubricant?
I realize, Joel, that I’m not going to change your mind, I do wish you the best. I just wanted to challenge you a bit on some of your reasoning and beliefs. Take it for whatever worth you find in it.
Heh.. ty for takin the time to sift through what might just stand out as garble.
I would just like to respond to one of your ideas.
Not really.
As i tried to state, you can use em for different things, but its not necesarly why we need them. We need the mouth in order to eat, or talk.. or taste. We can use it for a thousand diferent OTHER things though…
Same with say, the woman G spot carrier. It serves the necesarry function of procreation…
And an anus serves the function of disposal.
My point is that, homosexuality=/=heterosexuality because homosexuality serves no anatomical purpose. And it does correlate with ‘gays do no exist(or simply wrong)’ notion.
Joel,
Yes, I’m sure we’ve all heard that before in one way or another; but it’s ultimately post hoc reasoning. Finding a point of difference does not provide much explanation.
It would be like saying women shouldn’t be permitted to drive because they have breasts. (Breasts that stick out, I mean.) I can find a point of difference, but, so what?
There’s one very solid response to that opinion: what anatomical/procreative purpose does celibacy serve? Answer: Obviously none.
Yet… this is the recommended solution for non-procreative homosexuality???
I’d also point out that if we were actually “designed” for procreation, the designer must have been drunk at the time. Procreation, human style, is terribly inefficient and rather dangerous. It always was… until we started intervening with science.
(As a species we’re past our design limits… due to the ever increasing size of the head of the human baby. If we were to go back to the drawing board we’d be putting much wider, deeper hips on women. And doing without that bendy, twisty stage during birth).
Sexuality is more than procreation. At least, it is for humans; gay or straight.
You need the list? 🙂