In a Feb. 15 American Family Association article that is reprinted as a Feb. 18 press release, exgay umbrella group Exodus accuses unnamed "homosexual activists" of intolerance toward Focus on the Family’s "Love Won Out" exgay road show this weekend.
Chambers quotes no actual gay activists; instead, Chambers offers strawman arguments, claiming that unidentified gay people view Focus on the Family’s ideology as "hateful" and alleging that "many people involved in or supportive of the homosexual lifestyle don’t want the truth to be told."
But Chambers offers no evidence of an effort to obstruct the event. He seems unable distinguish between repressive intolerance — what Exodus practices when it promotes discrimination and opposes free speech for tolerance advocates in the schools — and principled public disagreement, which is what the Houston Voice reports finding among pro-tolerance advocates protesting "Love Won Out."
It turns out that many of the "homosexual activists" are Christian church-goers. Far from obstructing the event, many of them plan to quietly engage event attendees in discussion about moral alternatives to exgay ideology, while others will stand peacefully at a distance.
Chambers claims in the article to have left "the homosexual lifestyle" in 1991. But his lifestyle wasn’t "the" homosexual lifestyle back then, nor does Chambers live a heterosexually charged lifestyle now — his marriage, unfortunately, is infertile, and awaiting an adopted girl.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Focus on the Family spokesman Christopher Norfleet believes the conference will help teach people "to interact with the gay community." But Chambers’ rant suggests that Exodus is a poor resource for constructive communication. And activist Ray Hill asserts that the event instead drives an unnecessary wedge between gay people and the conservative Christians — mostly antigay parents — who attend "Love Won Out."
Mike Haley, who is both Exodus board chairman and a policy wonk employed by Focus on the Family, says the event simply promotes freedom of choice. But, as it happens, both Exodus and Focus on the Family support legal bans on private homosexual behavior and public discrimination against gay people in housing, employment, and family law. Haley’s idea of "choice," in other words, is the choice to either adopt Focus on the Family’s ideology — or be fired, evicted, and separated from loved ones.
Addendum: Regarding Chambers’ infertility and adoption:
I believe it is Chambers, not I, who made his sex life an issue when he frankly discussed his unsuccessful struggles to conceive last year in Exodus publications — while at the same time Chambers was using the Exodus soapbox to lobby Florida to ban gay adoption.
Given the following:
- Chambers’ public disclosures about infertility,
- his refusal to clearly define "change" (and its scope, or lack thereof),
- his broad insinuations about the "lifestyle" of gay people as a class, and
- his opposition to adoption by any gay individual or couple, no matter their values or qualifications,
I believe that that the procreative capacity of Chambers’ marriage is on-topic, as is his level of sexual arousal during intercourse. To what extent has Chambers "changed" since leaving "the" homosexual lifestyle, and to what extent can his marriage generate the children that he understandably believes are essential to marriage? These are pertinent questions, in my opinion.
Also on-topic: A comparison of the welfare of children raised under intolerant and sexist branches of fundamentalism, with the welfare of children raised in households that are tolerant of religious and sexual differences of opinion. Chambers wants states to ask subjective questions such as this one, when granting adoption. So, by all means, I say, let’s ask the question.
To repeat: It is Chambers who has linked his "lifestyle," his claim to have changed, and his marriage’s procreative capacity to his right to adopt.
At the same time, I realize that I may sound unreasonably harsh or intrusive, and some readers may support a selective right to intrusion — that is, fundamentalists are entitled to intrusive politics but not may not be questioned in return.
I welcome feedback about whether I have been unduly intrusive or rude toward Chambers, and whether it is appropriate to respond to fundamentalist intrusions of others’ privacy with pointed, on-topic questions about the intruder.
And… they (Exodus, Focus) are doing it (their advocacy work, not the conferences) with our tax money, according to The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
Truly disgusting – George W. Bush’s faith-based breach of the wall of separation.
This quote from the Chambers and the Exodus press release:
“The Exodus International spokesman says homosexual activists do not want others to know that change is possible because that fact invalidates their experience and infringes on their ability to promote their agenda in society. “If one person can change,” he asserts, “then their story and their lifestyle comes into question.””
Sounds pretty disimilar from the Love Won Out speaker that says if you are gay, that is fine, they just want gays to realize there is a choice.
To me, it sounds like Alan Chambers is saying that the fact that just one gay person can change means that all should.
“But Chambers offers no evidence of an effort to obstruct the event. He seems unable distinguish between repressive intolerance … and principled public disagreement …”
It seems Chambers has some dramatic tendencies. Although there is valid argument that some gay supporters play the “homophobia” card too often, he should be more specific in his accusations. Certainly, there is no advantage to telling conservative Christian readers that many gay supporters disagree based on moral principles.
Speaking of baseless accusations, Mike Haley was quoted in an article in The Galveston County Daily News as including gays as suspects vandalizing one of his billboards with gay slurs. It seems absurd that a gay activist would risk life and limb to add gay slurs to an already anti-gay Christian billboard in the South.
From my experience, I think many Christians *need* to feel persecuted and victimized so they can identify with Jesus. Simple disagreements or alternative viewpoints must be characterized as persecution resulting from the forces of evil or the Devil.
Norm!
On another note- since this was taking place in my hometown, I did hear some buzz about it. I know PFLAG and a couple of local churches were planning a demonstration ACROSS THE FREEWAY (on the other side) from the church where the conference was held. The fliers I saw were advocating very peaceful demonstrations. I am not sure how chambers can speak in favor of people like Marcavage (where he went into an event in an attempt to completely disrupt it), but be opposed to peaceful protesters that weren’t within 200 yards of the actual event in question here.
nor does Chambers live a heterosexually charged lifestyle now — his marriage, unfortunately, is infertile, and awaiting an adopted girl.
This is odd. One would suppose from this that Chamnbers and his wife had never heard of in-vitro fertilization (IVF), a procedure that has been used to produce human embryos for at least 30 years. And that could–presumably–be used to produce embryos–that could be implanted in a compliant Mrs. Chambers–using her egg and his sperm.
There is something very–odd–about this. I hesitate speculating as to what, lest I be whacked by the webmaster.
On the other hand, one might recognize that Pat “Bucky” Buchanan, the ueber-Catholic pundit on myriad right-leaning talk shows, as no children, either–natural or otherwise. I doubt that Bucky blames his deficiency on an injury from “the war.” I doubt that Mr. Chambers does either 😉
Re: “This is odd. One would suppose from this that Chambers and his wife had never heard of in-vitro fertilization (IVF)”
Actually, it’s not so odd at all. IVP involves the harvesting and insemination of dozens of eggs, only a few of which, if I recall, are re-implanted in the uterus. The rest are destroyed, which is anathama to those who hold to a pro-life viewpoint. I don’t know the Chambers’ opinion on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were pro-life.
Believe me, I am the last person on earth who would want to defend Alan Chambers on anything at all. I’d rather stick hot pokers in my eye. But I have to say that the odd assertion that the Chambers’ desire to adopt reflects a a lack of a “heterosexually charged lifestyle” mars an otherwise excellent artice.
I don’t know or care to know the state of the Chambers’ sex life, their health, their desire to undergo childbirth, or their motivations for wanting to adopt. People choose to adopt for a large number of reasons, and thank God for it. But that decision is between them and them alone.
That said, I would hate to see a child brought up in that mess. But unfortunately, nobody asked me.
Let me ammend what I said.
When I said that I don’t care to know about the Chambers’ sex life, I would only care if we were to encounter another John Paulk situation. That would be completely different! 😉
Please see my addendum above.
Ben from Scattered Words comments that this post is “rife with negative generalizations.” I’d be interested for him to point out any of these “negative generalizations.”
Interestingly, it seems that the Scattered Words blog has moved from a young person struggling with dealing with same sex attractions to one that is interested more in attacking any positive gay blog activity the author can find. I find it sad that Ben has decided to veil his endless political commentary and debate with a blog of his struggles, especially when he has effectively limited (through bans and threats) dissenting views, no matter how well-intentioned or politely they are articulated.
Actually, it’s not so odd at all. IVP involves the harvesting and insemination of dozens of eggs, only a few of which, if I recall, are re-implanted in the uterus. The rest are destroyed…
The typical IVF procedure is the harvesting and insemination of a number of eggs simultaneously, but that is not required in the IVF procedure. It is possible to, for example, harvest a number of eggs, and inseminate them one-by-one, implant each as it is inseminated, and see what happens. If an inseminated egg “takes,” the others would not be inseminated–unless the parents want additional children. Alternatively, it is certainly possible to harvest eggs individually, fertilize them individually, implant them individually, and see what happens. Both would be more expensive than harvesting and inseminating a number of eggs simultaneously, but it is certainly possible to do so. It is only a matter of money.
It is not necessarily the case that “the rest (of the inseminated eggs) are destroyed” during the IVF procedure. Indeed, it appears to be that, in many cases, the rest are frozen, and they could remain frozen indefinitely. One of the things that has arisen lately is that they might be “adopted” by people who would object if an inseminated egg was destroyed–i.e., thawed and implanted in a willing female.
I don’t know or care to know the state of the Chambers’ sex life, their health, their desire to undergo childbirth, or their motivations for wanting to adopt.
I wouldn’t care about the state of the Chambers’ sex life, except for the fact that Chambers has made a profession of it, and in that regard is trying to deny me equal rights because of my sex life. The Chambers’ sex life is most definitely an issue. And he made it an issue.
Personally Mike, when I first read what you wrote, I saw it as a low blow. Your argument about private intrusion doesn’t really cut it.
You state: “Chambers’ public disclosures about infertility, his refusal to clearly define “change” (and its scope, or lack thereof), his broad insinuations about the “lifestyle” of gay people as a class, and
his opposition to adoption by any gay individual or couple, no matter their values or qualifications”
I don’t see this as a private intrusion in the sense that you seem to. Your idea of private intrusion is questioning an individual’s sex life and his inability to concieve. While on the other hand, Alan Chambers is throwing out stereotypes (which I agree are black and white and not necessarily correct) about people in general, not individuals in question. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him make personal comments along the lines of “Wayne Besen’s apparent trips to the STD clinic seems to seems to contradict the notion that gays are not promiscuous.” See the difference? By the way, the Wayne Besen example was totaly made up by me to illustrate a point.
“I believe that that the procreative capacity of Chambers’ marriage is on-topic, as is his level of sexual arousal during intercourse. To what extent has Chambers “changed” since leaving “the” homosexual lifestyle, and to what extent can his marriage generate the children that he understandably believes are essential to marriage? These are pertinent questions, in my opinion.”
Your first question, regarding how far he has changed, is certainly valid. Ex-gays seem to promote the idea that gay people can be cured, their gayness wiped out, and become totally straight. They don’t seem to understand that change is a subtle tumbling down the kinsey scale that only SOME people–not all, as they assert–can achieve.
However, your second assumption seems to be that only by bearing children can one prove one’s heterosexuality. We all know that this is a false premise…there are plenty of gay men who’ve fathered children, and plenty of straight men who adopt.
Therefore, an appeal to his inability to father children does no good here, and can only be seen as an underhanded attack.
respectfully,
Nave Cee
What have Christian theologians said about couples who can not conceive? I would suspect there are centuries of commentary on this subject, just as there are on gay people. Perhaps Chambers should be judged in accord with these thoughts since he judges gays with the same sort of thing.
Mike.
I appreciate your addendum which places your original comment in context. And I agree with about 90% of what you have clarified.
Re: “I believe that that the procreative capacity of Chambers’ marriage is on-topic, as is his level of sexual arousal during intercourse. ”
I agree with the first part wholeheartedly, as many opponents to gay marriage place their opposition in the context of procreation (I presume Chambers does so as well, although I don’t know for certain).
As for the second part:
While the Chambers’ infertility *may* offer a tantalizing clue as to the extent of his “change” (which as you point out, the ex-gay movement is famously skitish about nailing down what “change” means), we don’t know that this is true. If we knew this were true, then it is clearly relevant given the claims of the most visible proponents of the ex-gay movement that attraction can change. But we don’t know and cannot know — unless one of them admits it — whether their infertility has anything to do with a lack of arousal.
Besides, sexual arousal has at least two components: the attraction that one has for another, and the physical response. These two components are not necessarily dependent on one another. After all, we know that physical arousal can happen in the absence of attraction, and can happen even under the most adverse conditions. This fact is often the source of deep shame and humiliation for rape and torture victims.
It is certainly true, as unpleasant as it is to contemplate, that a man can successfully complete a conjugal act with a woman he is not attracted to. Frankly, (and maybe I’m only speaking for myself here) we men are such pigs that I think we could get it on with just about anything once we put our minds to it.
Besides, since I’m feeling especially snarky today, I’d say ask any longtime married man on the street — he’d tell ya. 😉
But back on a more serious note, given the numbers of gay men who were at onetime married and have fathered children, sex (and procreation) do not require that the gender of one’s partner matches one’s orientation.
So I’m sure the Chambers can manage things with reasonable competence whenever they put their minds to it. And like I said, unless one of them cops to a different story, the cause of their infertility is likely a different matter altogether.
All I want to say is this…
in a Perfect World: gays will assert that
“yes, some gays can and do change. I respect the rights of gays who wish to change. Nor will I judge their choice to always be a sign of charater weakness/homophobia. Nor will I make any political effort to block scientific research into the science of sexual-re-orientation.”
And, people like Alan Chambers will assert:
“even though some gays can change, it cannot be seen as a complete cure. Instead, we should look at it as a subtle change in Kinsey rating, that happens over a long time. Furthermore, we do not believe that therapy is appropriate for everyone. some people are better off living their lives as gays, while other may need to seek Heteroseuxal path to happiness. Moreover, we respect the civil rights of gays and will come down upon any institution that promotes homophobia”
Of course, the above is just wishful thinking of my part.
Good post, Nave.
There are a few on both sides of the spectrum that fall into the categories you mention above. And, I think each side stereotypes the other as being as far to the right/left as they can possibly be.
I personally am happy having gays try to change. But, I do wish they would be fully informed about their options and not pressured into changing just to appease someone else. I know I looked at change as something I prayed for for years, and if it would have worked then, I would have gone for it.
Today, though, I am happier with where I am when I was then. Accepting my attractions did more good to me than I could have imagined. Denying and hiding them was causing only strife, isolation, and secrecy that was greatly harming my personal relationships just a few years ago.
Moreover, TA, I tend to believe that there are some gays who may never be happy doing therapy in an effort to become heterosexual.
By the same token, there are some gays who may never be happy being gay, no matter how many gay-affirmative therapists they see (to tell them that gay is who they are, that it is okay).
Both types need to be accounted for in a responsible manner.
The efficacy of gay affirmative therapy, contrary to popular belief, is just as UN-established empirically as the efficacy of reparative therapy. I know some who’ve engaged in reparative therapy who ended up more depressed. But I’ve also heard stories about people becoming suicidal when a gay-affirming therapist told them that “gay was who they are,” and that change was impossible, when clearly, psychological literature seems to indicate that a degree of real change is possible for some people.
I guess I tend to see things beyond the usual black and white.
“Mssg to Nathan.
Do you actually KNOW any gay parents?”
Actually, no. What is the intent of the question? If it is to say that I don’t know what I’m talking about, let me assure you that I’m quite certain a great many parents with same-sex attractions do a terrific job of raising their kids to the best of their ability, just as a great many single parents, grandparents, foster parents and guardians do. I would never dream about trying to separate such a parent from their child. A great many of the children I teach have divorced parents, and I can see how much it messes up their lives.
Nave Cee | February 22, 2005 05:53 PM
nave cee | February 23, 2005 12:46 AM
Were it not for the fact that some “ex-gays,” such as Chambers, and some organizations who purport to support “ex-gays,” such as Focus on “the” Family, American “Family” Association, and so forth, actively lobby against gay people and equal civil rights for gay people, it is doubtful that particularly many gay people would give “ex-gays” and their purported supporters much thought. If someone wants to “change” (whatever that means) from gay to straight, he or she should feel free to do so. I’ve known people who have “changed” from gay to straight. I’ve known people who have “changed” from straight to gay. I’ve even known people who have “changed” from straight to gay to straight to gay–my first boyfriend was one such person. They didn’t need any therapy to accomplish it–they just did it–but if someone believes that therapy will make them what they believe they want to be, as far as I’m concerned, fine*. As I’ve said, the problem that I have is the “ex-gays” and their purported supporters who actively work to deny gays equality.
*Well, “fine,” as far as I’m concerned. It would be nice if therapists would provide their clients information as to the likelihood of change–some statistics regarding prior work, and so forth. And as to potential repercussions of failed therapy. It’s my impression that the therapists don’t provide such information, and some of the clients for whom therapy fails apparently become quite depressed. In my opinion, that would be the analog of the kind of information that a surgeon, for example, would have to provide in order for “consent” to surgery be “informed consent.”
Nave- I would agree with that post also. I think “responsible” is the key word in all of this. Right now the issue is so political (and both sides want so badly to be right), responsibility seems to be left on the wayside.
To tell someone that really wants not to be gay that being gay is the only option may not be the correct answer for that person, I agree. But, I think if that person is seeking reparative therapy, he/she should be told how low the chances of change may be.
I think reparative therapies and gay affirming therapies should be completely open about options. There’s always the celibacy that many ex-gays have moved towards after not being able to effectively changed, so that should be brought up as an option also.
just came in today and have not been familiar with this Chambers person and i could’nt care less of his sex life,I am familiar with ‘focus on the family and Dobsons hate filled rhetoric of the gay life style , i would just for one c like to hear what the gay lifestyle is. what are we as gay people supposed to be doing wrong? ytesterday i woke up , made coffee , read paper went tpo work , picked up dry cleaning , came home cooked dinner we had friends over for dessert and coffee, thyennwe watched the news, read some, and went to bed? exciting? no but just real life
I agree Raj. I have no problem with someone going to reparative therapy or doing what they feel is best for them. What I do have a problem with is not therapy–I have problems with the politicization of the process. Rather than being a personal issue, it becomes something that is used in political discussions, lawmaking, and as a dangerous wedge. The exgay side is disingenous and will actively use people in cruel ways.
regan,
I should add though that I think there IS something in the idea that it may not necessarily be best for a gay couple to seek to have children, just as it may not be best for a single parent to do so.
TA,
“But, I think if that person is seeking reparative therapy, he/she should be told how low the chances of change may be.”
Only problem is, no long term study has been done on the efficacy of sexual re-orientation therapy. We only have anecdotal evidence from the past 80 years. There has never been a long term study done. APA refuses to assist NARTH in carrying out such a study (for fear of the truth, maybe? Who knows).
Remember, sexual re-orientation therapy is a broad umbrella term that encompasses many different psychological approaches. There are Cognitive approaches, behavioral approaches, and psychoanalytic approaches, etc etc. Each one reporting a varying level of success.
The faith based, Christian approach to therapy championed by James Dobson and Exodus is only one form. The Christian approach is the one that the media reports upon most often. As a result of this, when lay people think of sexual re-orientation, they tend to have a picture of bigotted Christians forcing gay people into electro-shock therapy (not exactly a fair impression of Christians)
Moreover, it is my humble opinion that the Christian approach, despite good intentions, relies on watered down versions of sound psychological theories. Furthermore, disturbingly, many of the leaders of ex-gay change ministries are not real psychologists, have never had psychological training, and probably learned about psychological principles via some 40 minute “reparative therapy workshop.”
Having said that, how about the other approaches? In general, having looked at the literature (many of them coming from reputable journals), I can conclude that sexual re-orientation does work sometimes. How much is “sometimes?” Like I said before, we need to do a long term longitudinal study to find out once and for all.
Let’s look at one such study. In 1994, a survey conducted by Houston Macintosh was done among 700 members of the APsA (American Psychoanalytic Association, a prestigious organization in its own right). As a group, they reported a 25% success rate.
Is this high or low? Depends on how you look at it. Considering that the survey was done during an age when sexual-reorientation was discouraged BY the APsA due to the prevailing view of sexual orientation being purely genetic, these results are quite remarkable to me, to say the least.
But to end this long winded post, I do feel that the Religious Right’s incorporation of (mainly) Freudian theory into their agenda is dishonest, and misleading at worst.
I’m sorry…the Houston Macintosh study is NOT a long term longitudinal study. After re-reading my post, I realized that I made a grammatical mistake that might have mislead people into thinking this.
the Houston Macintosh study is merely a survey with its focus being report of success.
Hi Nave,
I agree with that, for the most part. I think one reason that anyone is willing to help with Re-Orientation therapies is because they are afraid of what the right may do with the findings. Just look at how they twisted the Spitzer survey. The answer wasn’t, “look, some gays can change, but not all.” The response from the right was mostly, “this study claims that gays can change, so they should.” I’ve even seen reported change as a reason why gays shouldn’t get rights like marriage or adoption.
Also, though, if NARTH were really as concerned about real science as they say they are, I would think they would go out and conduct real, scientifically reproduceable, peer reviewed studies on the subject. Their whole organization is designed around changing sexual orientation, so I dont think one study would be too much to ask.
TA sez: “The response from the right was mostly, “this study claims that gays can change, so they should.” I’ve even seen reported change as a reason why gays shouldn’t get rights like marriage or adoption.”
That is exactly the point Focus et al. take. The “possibility” of “change” is their battle-cry.
Nathan sez: “I should add though that I think there IS something in the idea that it may not necessarily be best for a gay couple to seek to have children, just as it may not be best for a single parent to do so.”
Whoa! Are you giving a pass to heterosexual couples? Unmarried het couples? Re-married het couples? These are all a priori better than a gay couple?
My opinion, like that of the APA, and a raft of other professional organizations (bar associations and psychological / health / pediatric) is that it makes NO difference. There are NO studies that indicate it makes a material difference.
Fact is, there are good het parents and good gay parents; and, couples of both orientations that should never have children. The discriminator is not orientation!
Shame on you 🙂 but at least you are honest.
RE: “…the Christian approach, despite good intentions, relies on watered down versions of sound psychological theories”
Actually, it does not rely on psychological theories at all. If it did, there would be no attempt to try to “cure” homosexuality, because the APA came to a determination some 34 years ago that there is nothing to cure.
Instead, conversion therapy depends mostly on psychoanalytical theories, most of them quite old, untested (and untestable) by proper scientific methods. You’ve heard these theories about abuse as a child, dominant mothers, distant fathers, etc… the same inconsistent and sometimes contradictory theories used to explain everything from homosexuality to schizophrenia. Most of these theories have been pretty much consigned to the “ashheap of history” by the larger psychological profession simply because they have been superceeded by better research and experimentation in other fields of psychology.
As psychology and psychiatry continue to explore the interrelationship between biology and the mind in such areas as depression, bipolar disorder, and especially schizophrenia (which is now understood to be a neurological rather than psychological disorder, leaving those poor mothers completely in the clear finally) psychoanalysis remains destinied to be further irrelevant as a science, moving instead more into the realm of philosophy.
Consequently, there has been much wailing and knashing of teeth among psychoanalysts in the professional literature about the “decline of psychoanalysis”. It is widely recognized within the profession that psychoanalysis has not risen to the challenge of proving its theories experimentally.
By the way, when I said, “psychoanalysis remains destinied to be further irrelevant as a science, moving instead more into the realm of philosophy”
I should say that for countless people, psychoanalyisis has proven to be extremely valuable as a philosophy. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Just ask Plato.
But to use it to try to cure something that is not an illness, well that’s outright abusive.
Hiya!!
“Actually, it does not rely on psychological theories at all. If it did, there would be no attempt to try to “cure” homosexuality, because the APA came to a determination some 34 years ago that there is nothing to cure.”
This logic is seriously flawed. First of all, most Modern-Conversion-Therapists no longer look at therapy matter in terms of “cure.” To see it in such a way sets up an unrealistic black and white dichotomy (i.e. cured versus diseased) that does not reflect what actually goes on. Instead, therapists look at it more as subtle CHANGE (rather than cure) that happens over a long period of time. Second, an implication of your assumption is that in order for there to be a sound psychological theory about homosexuality, it absolutely has to be in accordance with a political decision made by the APA. Remember, even several years after the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality, 70% of the APA members felt homosexuality was still a disorder. This is a testament to the fact that majority clearly did not rule in the making of the decision. Not to say that I believe homosexuality to be a disease ( I don’t), but I’m just saying that the decision wasn’t necessarily based on a purely scientific inquiry.
Furthermore, you seem to state that psychoanalysis is not psychology. You say that the christian approach does not rely on psychology, yet it relies on psychoanalysis.
Last I checked, psychoanalyis was listed AS a branch of psychology in my college intro to psych text book, as well as in various others. There is a reason why Freud is called the Father of modern psychology.
“Most of these theories have been pretty much consigned to the “ashheap of history” by the larger psychological profession simply because they have been superceeded by better research and experimentation in other fields of psychology.”
I’m not too sure about the accuracy of your last statement. There’s been very few new psychological theories of the etiology of homosexuality, that does not rely heavily on genetics/biological studies. And, many of the recent genetic studies have not been replicated and are seriously flawed (more on this at another time). Realize though, I’m not denying the fact that homosexuality probably does have a biological component(like many other human behaviors)
Lastly, this might surprise you, but the few “new, cutting edge” psychological theories of homosexuality are heavily rooted in psychoanalysis. You might have heard of Richard Isay and Jack Drescher. Both are prominent psychoanalysts who have a strong voice in the gay community and APA, and they posit psychoanalytical theories regarding homosexual development/etiology.
-Nave
PS: the APA bascially says that homosexuality is due to nature and nurture. But this is what Freud said 80 years ago!! And he’s a psychoanalyst by the way.
Hi TA,
You said: “Also, though, if NARTH were really as concerned about real science as they say they are, I would think they would go out and conduct real, scientifically reproduceable, peer reviewed studies on the subject. Their whole organization is designed around changing sexual orientation, so I dont think one study would be too much to ask.”
The only problem is that people have a pre-conceived notion of the organization being homophobic and evil, and hence, even if they do come up with a scientifically rigorous study, it is going to be pushed to the side and disregarded. The APA disagrees with NARTH’s fundamental premise, therefore no matter how good their studies are, the APA would see it as immoral/reprehensible to publish their studies in their journals.
What most people don’t seem to know is that: even within NARTH, there are wildly divergent opinions on homosexuality.
All members agree on one thing: homosexuality is changeable to a degree and that sexual orientation is much more fluid and flexible than the mainstream seems to think. Therefore, treatment should be a valid option for those unhappy being gay.
However, members seem to disagree on whether or not homosexuality should be seen as a disorder. Since after all, a personality trait does not need to be classed as a disorder in order for a person to want to change the trait in question.
Some, like Mark Stern, council member for the APA’s humanistic psychology division (he’s also a NARTH member)does not see homosexuality as necessarily problematic. However, he sees strong evidence for the possiblity of change, and so he promotes the patient’s right to self determination to walk that path if he so wishes.
Joseph Nicolosi, on the other hand, sees homosexuality as a developmental disorder that is fundamentally pathological.
Mark Stern disagrees with Nicolosi. Mark Stern’s view would probably sit much better with LGBT people than Nicolosi’s. However, both are NARTH members.
I believe that NARTH should adapt a more morally neutral attitude towards homosexuality a la Freud or Mark Stern. Nicolosi is a conservative catholic, and often times HIS beliefs give a somewhat misleading view of the beliefs of the entire organization. Chalk it up to him being the current president.
As for ur last statement where you wish NARTH would come up with one “scientifically reproduceable, peer reviewed studies on the subject,” Realize that peer reviewed does not go hand in hand with quality and/or scientific reproduceability.
So far, all of the studies done trying to show that gayness is genetic/inherited (in the same way as eye color) have all failed to be scientifically reproduceable, and have been quietly discredited by the academic community. Yet, all the studies have been peer reviewed, and trumped up in the media at one point and time. So as you can see, there is more to the whole situation when you peak behind the curtains….
sincerely,
Nave
Nave Cee sez: ‘when lay people think of sexual re-orientation, they tend to have a picture of bigotted Christians forcing gay people into electro-shock therapy (not exactly a fair impression of Christians)’
What is unfair about this? The image seems to conform to the activities of a great many christians, at least the ones gay people seem mostlikely to run into. It may surprise you to discover that for many gay people, the most prominent christian they have ever encountered is Fred Phelps or one of his innumberable imitators. Who appear throughout our republic, in ever increasing numbers. Just look at the websites praising the Philidelphia group, an obvious Phelps knockoff.
“Whoa! Are you giving a pass to heterosexual couples? Unmarried het couples? Re-married het couples? These are all a priori better than a gay couple?”
I’m not giving a “pass” to anyone. I have no authority to do so. It is my OPINION, however, that the ideal situation for the raising of children is with two biological progenitors, one representing each sex. But even this is not enough. I am even more convinced that the reason for the failure of our picket fence, nuclear family approach (whether with gay or straight “parents”) is the isolation of said nuclear family from vibrant multi-age communities (ie. tribes, community groups, sport groups, church groups, etc.), where young people can readily experience positive role modelling from elders and socialising with peers.
dalea,
“What is unfair about this? The image seems to conform to the activities of a great many christians, at least the ones gay people seem mostlikely to run into”
So therefore, if a great many of the homosexuals I meet turn out to be snobbish, promiscious, and all around assholes, then it wouldn’t be unfair of me to generalize and say that all gays are that way? c’mon now…
also, you mention “great many christians.” To me that sounds like a baseless generalization, considering that there are many christians who are not bigotted. You fail to realize that it is the bigotted minority who have the loudest voice, hence misrepresenting the essence of christianity (which you clearly don’t understand) at large.
Nave.
Hi Jim, in reference to ur statement above
“But to use it [psychoanalysis] to try to cure something that is not an illness, well that’s outright abusive.”
First of all, something need not be an illness to be treated by psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is a tool that can help people learn about themselves and possibly fullfill their potential. Therefore, one need not see his sexual orientation as an illness to want to change/expand it.
For example, one can easily imagine an introverted person seeking a psychologist because he wants to become more extraverted. Last I checked, introversion was not an illness, and it is a natural variant of human personalities. Would this then, constitute abuse?
Or, are you talking about coercion on the part of the psychoanalyst? A significant number of psychoanalysts will collaborate with a patient to make sexual orientation modification, but only if the patient himself really wanted it.
Point is, what’s really “abusive” here is when people take psychological/scientific studies and distort their results to suit their agenda.
And believe me, both sides (religious right/gay rights movement) are guilty of this.
Hi Nave,
Thanks for your response. I’m enjoying this discussion. I don’t know a whole lot about the individual members of NARTH, but what I see on their website is more Nicolosi’s approach (I am familiar with him) than the approach of the other person you mentioned. If there is such diversity of opinion at NARTH, I applaud that, and I do tend to agree that if someone is fully informed about success/failure/possible risks involved with reparative therapy, they should have the option to explore that path.
But, for organizations to say that change is possible for everyone is misleading. The first thing many religious people (gays, gay parents, and even the general community) hear that gays can change, their first reaction is- great, now you can change! That is a problem because it is not as easy as it sounds. And, there are still many ex-gays and some ex-gay organizations that do not say that change may not occur, may only be slight, or may take decades. Alan Chambers’ wife (I believe) changed in a matter of months. Stephen Bennet’s slogan is 100% change is 100% possible, or something to that effect.
Then there is the whole politicization of the ex-gay movement working against any perceived gay rights, but that is a different story.
If ex-gay groups were honest that being gay doesn’t involve promiscuity, drugs, destruction, etc. as a part of what it is, that would be a start. If they would say they don’t believe homosexuality is morally right, etc., but then acknowledge that lots of things in our country are allowed by law, but not biblically moral (divorce, remarriage, etc.) and thus not fight against gays to do things like teach, adopt, have civil unions, even, then I would be ok with that.
So, my biggest problems with ex-gay groups are 1). They nearly always equate homosexuality with other pathologies (drug abuse, promiscuity, mental disorders, etc.) and rarely to never admit that some gays are well-adjusted, healthy members of society.
2). They politicize the possibility that some can change and send the message that all should change. Or, at the very least they fight against gay rights through law as a way to stop the spread of homosexuality.
3). They are not completely honest about the possibility of change, the possible ramifications, etc.
Back to point on NARTH- I agree that any studies they would do about change may come under fire. But, I don’t see why that should stop them. If this is the premise of their entire organization, shouldn’t they at least try to prove it, in spite of any ramifications? Spitzer managed to give it a try (even if half-hearted). I think it is worthy noting that it took Spitzer several years to get just a couple of hundred volunteers for one 45 minute phone interview.
I should clarify some things:
First, I didn’t intend to imply that psychoanalysis was separate from psychology. But I’m afraid that it may have been the impression I left.
Psychoanalysis is a branch of psychology, or more accurately, a method of psychology. But it is not synonymous with all of psychology in toto. Psychoanalysts are psychologists; not all psychologists are psychoanalysts. And some psychologists are quite dismissive of psychoanalysis, for good reasons and for ill-informed reasons both.
Secondly, let me repeat what I said, and emphasize the operative word: Cure.
“”But to use it [psychoanalysis] to try to cure something that is not an illness, well that’s outright abusive.”
I also said that much of psychoanalysis is becoming more useful as philosophy than science. Let me illustrate.
Through psychoanalysis, (as well as through other philosophical endeavors) I can learn insights into my life which may have lead me to be more (or maybe less) of an introvert, even though there is nothing to “cure”. And that is certainly not an abuse. And if I wanted to see if, on my own volition, if it were possible to uncover occurences in my childhood that may have lead to my present sexuality, well that is not an abuse either.
But what I do with those insights are mine and mine alone to use. When the therapist (who, by the way, is called an “analyst” for a reason) becomes an advocate for me to change my behavor, it must only be done in the context of my wanting to try to change my behavior. But even there, it is not the behavioral change that is the goal nor the measure of success.
Psychoanalysis, properly done, is not geared towards a specific outcome in terms of behavior. It is geared towards insights, towards the patient (called the “analysand” (sp?), implying a partnership in a 2-way relationship) and his ability to live a more rich, fulfilled, and integrated life. Behavioral change is not necessary for this to happen.
The introvert does not need to become an extrovert in order for the psychonalaysis to be successfull. Becoming an extrovert should not be the goal, although it may be a possible by-product. Being an introvert is not necessarily a bad thing once you’ve come to terms with the role it plays in your life.
But when an analyst starts touting cures and saying that because “change” may have occurred in a very few cases (and I am still waiting after many decades of debate for a consistent definition of “change”), “change” is desirable in the many then the relationship is abusive, regardless of whether we’re talking about homosexuality or introversion. And too much of psychoanalysis still speaks of cures, not insights.
Almost all of the ex-gay “cure” techniques are rooted in current psychoanalytical techniques, combined with outdated psychoanalytical theories. Ironically, some of these practitioners are psychologists who are not trained or certified psychoanalists.
Those who advocate “cures” of homosexuality need to remind themselves of what that first psychoanalist, Sigmund Freud, once said to a worried mother of a gay son: there is nothing wrong with him.
Hi TA, thanks for having a balanced, non-reactionary perspective on these issues.
I agree that the religious right seems to simplify sexual orientation into something that easily be changed, and that SHOULD be changed, and that change can occur in ALL people. This seems to be a scientifically unwarranted claim that is not backed up by evidence. furthermore, it is a shame that they seek to infringe upon the specific lifestyles of a group of people who, as research shows, are not necessarily inherently diseased (in the same way as a schizophrenic is).
We can compare the religious right’s claims to the gay rights movement’s counter claim: that sexual orientation doesn’t change, can’t be changed, and remains fixed over a person’s life span
Both claims have not been conclusively substantiated by evidence…i.e. long term longitudinal studies done on sexual orientation over a human being’s life span. All we have are anecdotal evidence regarding whether or not people can change, whether or not it was harmful or beneficial, etc. etc.
As for your last statement:
“I agree that any studies [NARTH does] about change may come under fire. But, I don’t see why that should stop them.”
Well, it does stop them. In order to get your studies published, recognized by reputable organizations/journals, they first have to approve of your study, and this entails an inquiry into your ethical/philosophical motivations for the study. Clearly, NARTH is out of the mainstream, so it highly unlikely that organazations like the APA will even consider allowing the study to be published, let alone even read it. And, it seems most people have already made up their mind about NARTH being a bunch of redneck/homophobic quacks (like Wayne Besen does) without closely studying the organization, or the membership roster (many of which have held or currently hold prestiigious positions on the APA, ACA, APsA etc.)
“If this is the premise of their entire organization, shouldn’t they at least try to prove it, in spite of any ramifications?”
Believe me, they’ve tried. They’ve tried to get the APA to help them conduct a long term longitudinal study on whether psychological therapy is successful in changing sexual orientation, to settle the matter once and for all. The APA refuses.
And, they’ve been wanting to challenge the APA to have a scientific debate, where both sides lay out all the scientific evidence on the table.
The debate was going to happen, but again, the key members of the APA, both homosexual, dropped out at the very last moment, citing the “homophobic” overtones of the debate. I’m sorry, but I smell a serious whiff of bullshit here.
“Spitzer managed to give it a try (even if half-hearted). I think it is worthy noting that it took Spitzer several years to get just a couple of hundred volunteers for one 45 minute phone interview.”
TA, most people don’t understand the Spitzer study. The goals of his study did NOT include the following:
1) to find out once and for all whether or not reparative therapy is a key causal factor in sexual orientation change.
2)to find out what percentage out of a general population of people can change. Therefore, the fact that he had a hardtime finding test subjects is IRRELEVANT to the goals of his studies, since he wasn’t concerned with the actual numerical percentage of people who can change.
Instead, he wanted to find if sexual orientation change IS possible at ALL. Thus, from the Spizter study, all we can conclude is that some people can and do change. this was his goal from the very start, to see if people can change, not how many people in general can change, nor whether or not reparative therapy is the definitive causal factor in initiating the change. Most people grossly misundersand these last points, and hence miss the whole point of the study. This study was not meant to be in support of reparative therapy, although the religious right jumped all over this study and misused the Hell out of it.
Spitzer investigated the veracity of those who claimed to have changed. And his scientific conclusion was that, due to the gradual, un-exaggerated reports of these people, their assertions can be accepted as truthful, and not made up. He also concluded that sexual orientation change seems to happen gradually, as a subtle down shift in Kinsey rating.
Well, we didn’t really need the Spitzter study to show that some people can change. From the bisexual community, there are plenty of anecdotal stories regarding a fluid sexual orientation (of course, the bisexual community is far from the religious right, for very obvious reasons).
I’ve heard and read stories about gays turning straight, straights turning gay, gays turning bisexual, bisexuals turning gay, bisexuals turning straight, etc. etc. This seems to happen naturally without any therapeutic intervention.
So, it would be safe to assume that orientation can change over a person’s lifespan. What percentage of people change? We don’t know yet. Why do people change? We don’t know yet.
The next step, in my opinion, is to assess whether or not therapuetic intervetions can manipulate this natural change process that seems to occur in some people. If one day we do find ways to manipulate/modify sexual orienation, we also concurrently need to come up with a whole new moral ethical view on the entire matter which does not include marginalizing gay people, who’ve clearly proven that they can be productive members of society.
Nave
Hi Jim, thanks for clarifying your seemingly incoherent previous post
“And too much of psychoanalysis still speaks of cures, not insights.”
I’m not too sure about this statement. Not even Joseph Nicolosi (arguably the most right leaning, religious psychoanalyst) speaks of therapy in terms of “cure.” In fact, he has an entire book discussing why it is counterproductive to look at the entire matter in terms of disease vs. cure. Instead, he looks at the matter in terms of gradual change in sexual orienation over a long time.
“Almost all of the ex-gay “cure” techniques are rooted in current psychoanalytical techniques, combined with outdated psychoanalytical theories. Ironically, some of these practitioners are psychologists who are not trained or certified psychoanalists.”
My sentiments exactly. None of these people seem to be psychoanalytically informed, and rely on watered down versions of Freudian theory. There is a lot of potential to do more harm than good because of this.
“Those who advocate “cures” of homosexuality need to remind themselves of what that first psychoanalist, Sigmund Freud, once said to a worried mother of a gay son: there is nothing wrong with him.”
Yes, Freud asserted that the son was not inherently diseased. But in the same letter, he also asserted that sexual orientation change was possible for some people, and that he’d work with the son in bringing about change ONLY if the Son himself wanted to change.
Freud’s position still seems to be the most balanced one, even by today’s standards.
The APA asserts sexual orientation to be a product of nature and nurture. Funny that this was also what Freud said 80 years ago.
Nave
>I’ve heard and read stories about gays turning >straight, straights turning gay, gays turning >bisexual, bisexuals turning gay, bisexuals >turning straight, etc. etc. This seems to >happen naturally without any therapeutic >intervention.
Not quite. There have been studies regarding male and female sexuality. Female sexuality is thought to be much more fluid than males. Males, overall, tend to have very fixed sexualities. THe only homosexuals that I have ever heard turned straight are lesbians. I have known some males who tried but were never successful. The only straight people who became gay were women (again females have more fluid sexuality) and males who told people they were straight until they came out (I was one of them). Many bisexuals do have preferences, and some male homosexuals use bisexuality to become more comfortable with their homosexuality (I am not saying all bisexuals are as such–I am just saying that I think true bisexuality is an orientation). I have also noticed more successful exgays are women. So maybe it is about gender more than anything.
BTW, based on an earlier thread, I had in my reparitive therapy hypnosis, aversion therapy, drug treatment, prayer, sports therapy, and electroshock therapy (offered, not taken)–all under a Fruedian umbrella. It is being done by Christian and secular psychatrists.
Nave says: ‘You fail to realize that it is the bigotted minority who have the loudest voice, hence misrepresenting the essence of christianity (which you clearly don’t understand) at large.’
My experience is that this so called ‘minority’ in fact represents the actual ‘essence of chrisitanity’. The rest are simply deluding themselves.
On the change therapies, it seems to me one interested party to take into account would be insurance companies. Without firm proof of effectiveness, how will this therapy be paid for? And without insurance money, how do reparative therapists remain in business? Just a thought.
Hi,
“Not quite. There have been studies regarding male and female sexuality. Female sexuality is thought to be much more fluid than males. Males, overall, tend to have very fixed sexualities.”
I’m not sure what studies you are referring to. However, I suspect that you are referring to the JM Bailey study from NW university that shows that straight and lesbian women are sexually aroused by the same type of pornography, while straight men are only aroused by straight porn, while gay men are only aroused by gay porn. Yet, based on this conclusion, to say that sexual orientation in men is fixed would be a huge leap. Narrow spectrum of arousal sources does NOT necessarily equal fixed sexuality.
If you are referring to another study, please send me a link to the study and/or give me the author and the name of the study so I can research it. thanks.
“The only homosexuals that I have ever heard turned straight are lesbians.”
I don’t particulary care about whether people turn straight per se. I’m more interested in whether change (of any magnitude) can take place. My original post was about how we should conceptualize change…as a subtle change on the Kinsey scale that happens over time, something that can potentially happen to both women and men(as a bisexual, I’ve felt it myself, and I’ve also witnessed it in others).
“I have known some males who tried but were never successful. The only straight people who became gay were women…and males who told people they were straight until they came out (I was one of them).”
Again, your last assertion here sounds pretty dogmatic. I have a friend who was rampantly heterosexual in Taiwan. Thought of gay sex repulsed him. Thought of being gay never crossed his mind. He absolutely loved women and desired them like crazy. While in Taiwan, he identified as totally straight (Kinsey 0). Yet, when my friend moved to America, he became incredibly depressed, due to his inability to speak english and lack of a stable job. He reached a point where he was genuinely depressed and close to suicide. Then one day, a gay man showed him kindness. My friend was touched to the heart, and the two of them hooked up. My friend has had several gay relationships since the first one. He currently identifies as a bisexual, with equal preference for both. He also told me that he felt that he “became gayer” in America due to his circumstances.
Now, would you be so arrogant as to assume that my friend was really gay/bisexual the whole time and that he was only hiding it? Given his past history (including sexual fantasies AND sexual behavior) and his current viewpoints, it would seem a more likely explanation to assume a Queer Theory social constructionist perspective on what happened. i.e. My friend’s sexual orientation shifted due to external factors.
“Many bisexuals do have preferences, and some male homosexuals use bisexuality to become more comfortable with their homosexuality (I am not saying all bisexuals are as such–I am just saying that I think true bisexuality is an orientation).”
I don’t doubt that some homosexuals use bisexual as a very temporary crutch, nor do I doubt that many bisexuals indeed lean a certain way. However, this lean does and can change over time. I’ve known many bisexuals who, although remaining near the middle of the Kinsey scale, tend to flip flop between preferring men or women.
This is not to say that they become totally straight, at any time, but merely that there is a fluid quality that allows for change, albeit temporary. For example I myself will oscillate between being a Kinsey 2 and a Kinsey 4, depending on my state of mind, mood, and other mysterious factors that I MAY NEVER KNOW ABOUT. When I’m feeling confident and at peace with being a man, my desire for women shoots up. However, when I’m feeling tired or stressed, I have a desire to be held and “fathered” by another man. Of course, I can only speak for my own experience, although it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that there might be others like me.
Lastly, I leave you with a study that I encourage you to check out. It’s not available online, but if your interested, you can do a search at a campus library or something:
“If You Seduce A Straight Person Can You Make Them Gay?”
By Dr. John De Cecco
Dr. Cecco (who is homosexual by the way) concludes that IT is possible, and that life-long, exclusive homosexuality is not as common as most people think, since sexual orientation is fluid and subject to outside influences.
Of course, as you may have guessed, the Religious Right has already cited this study as proof that gayness is a choice (it’s not), and that gayness should be changed, and blah blah blah blah.
How unfortunate.
respectfully,
Nave
Hi Dalea,
“My experience is that this so called ‘minority’ in fact represents the actual ‘essence of chrisitanity’. The rest are simply deluding themselves.”
With all due respect, you are wrong, and exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the Christian faith, and what it’s all about. Even gay Christians would disagree strongly with you.
The essence of Christianity is love, forgiveness via Faith in Christ, and living a life as Christ would, which clearly did NOT involve homophobic rants/actions.
regan,
I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree with some of your assertions.
“Your PREJUDICE is showing.”
Whatever. I know nice gay people, and I know not-so-nice gay people. I was talking about ideals, which are OBVIOUSLY not always (not even usually) practical. We must make do with what we can, and many people do a sterling job at that. You seem to think that anything but a recanting of all my ideas shows my “prejudice”.
“GROUPS don’t and shouldn’t get credit as being the ideal anything for raising a child.
However, a good parent-single, married or BOTH, a good parent will have a network of competent people around them to support good child raising entirely.”
Hangon, so first you’re saying that groups don’t get credit, and now you’re saying a good parent WILL have a network of competent people. Maybe I’m a bit slow, but isn’t a network of people otherwise called a group? You seem to have an individualistic prejudice, Regan. It’s showing.
“And there’s no restrictions or punishment for heteros who DO conceive irresponsibly and make the rest of us pay for it.”
Are you proposing that we should have these restrictions? I’m not imposing restrictions on gay people having sex. I never claimed to have.
Hi Nave,
I agree with your comments to me. Good post.
Well, it does stop them. In order to get your studies published, recognized by reputable organizations/journals, they first have to approve of your study, and this entails an inquiry into your ethical/philosophical motivations for the study. Clearly, NARTH is out of the mainstream, so it highly unlikely that organazations like the APA will even consider allowing the study to be published, let alone even read it. And, it seems most people have already made up their mind about NARTH being a bunch of redneck/homophobic quacks (like Wayne Besen does) without closely studying the organization, or the membership roster (many of which have held or currently hold prestiigious positions on the APA, ACA, APsA etc.)
This is an interesting discussion, but I have a real problem with some of what is being said.
The APA is a professional organization whose main clinical role is to maintain the classification of mental/behavioral illnesses – the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM). They do not control research, and do not control pulibcations, which have their own peer review processes which studies must pass before publication. Certainly biases as to theory can and do pose challenges for publication of radical ideas, but that is not the fault or responsibility of the APA.
The APA’s decision to drop homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not “political.” In fact, in 1973, the political zeitgeist was to consider gay people as sick and depraved. The decision to de-list homosexuality was simply because homosexuality cannot and does not fit any definition of “mental illness.” The primary goal of DSM-III, which came out in 1973, was to actually define mental illness and bring the DSM into line with that new clinical structure and rigidity. Because there were, and are, healthy, happy, homosexual people living decent and fulfilling lives, homosexuality in and of itself cannot be considered a mental illness.
Now, as for research into “changing” sexual orientation, there has never been a valid, scientific study, of which I am aware, that has ever claimed any level of true change in sexual orientation. The Spitzer survey of “success cases” from “ex-gay” ministries defined “change” as any 10-point movement on a 100-point scale (0=purely het, 100=purely homo) – if you look at true self-reported heterosexuality among Spitzer’s subjects, you find that the “change” largely disappears (e.g., about 1/5 describe themselves as fully het at the end of “treatment”, but about the same percentage reported no homosexual activity prior to entering “change” therapy).
It is completely possible, in this day and age, for brain and nervous system activity to be measured. No one has ever demonstrated that these physical structures (and therefore basic biological sexuality) can be altered by any “reparative therapy.” More importantly, no fully straight person has ever been made gay, and for these theories to work, it cannot be limited to only one direction. Without such data, it can never be stated that sexual orientation can be changed.
It is entirely possible, and we have all seen it anecdotally, for individuals to experience sexual arousal, and even romantic attraction, to both or either gender at different times. However, no one has ever documented an actual change in the physical/biological processes that govern sexuality and emotion for these people. It is entirely plausible, and quite probable, that the basic orientation of these people did not change – they were always bisexual to some degree (as a Kinsey 7.5 myself – on a scale of 1 – 6, I tend to disagree with the “everyone is bisexual” notion, as I have never had any feelings for a woman, and find the entire idea of heterosexual intercourse to be repulsive, but I do believe bisexuality exists). Changing sexual behavior, but not orientation, is an issue for philosophy or religion, but not science, as it imposes value judgements that should not cloud scientific investigation.
I think a lot of the problems NARTH faces is that the organization appears to be following the homosexuality=illness model that has already been refuted. Not to mention, many of the psychiatrists that began NARTH, like Socarides, were leaders in the “treatment” of homosexuality, and their professional reputations (never mind the $$ they were making treating a non-existent disease) were damaged after the 1973 decision, so we cannot discount ego in the organizations’ public stances.
By very often refusing to acknowledge the reality of healthy, well-adjusted homosexuals in our society, NARTH completely undermines any professional respect they might expect otherwise. True scientific theories must explain observable phenomena first, and the illness model of homosexuality does not succeed there.
Have Cee—
Thanks for your resonse. This is fun and informative.
I can’t wait until the next time I get to the University of Arizona library to look up:
“If You Seduce A Straight Person Can You Make Them Gay?”
By Dr. John De Cecco
The title, just by itself is a kick! It ranks right up there with another favorite article I ran across:
“The relationship between sexual orientation and penile size”
Bogaert, Anthony F.; Hershberger, S.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1999 28(3):213-221
By the way, I read that article and wasn’t impressed. But it sure was fun.
Okay back on topic — sort of…
I had to think about what you said overnight, re: “Not even Joseph Nicolosi (arguably the most right leaning, religious psychoanalyst) speaks of therapy in terms of ‘cure.'”
And you know, I suspect you’re right. They’re professionals. After all, licenses are at stake.
And yet, the language they use clearly imply “cure”. Madison Avenue has shown us long ago that us can hear what they want us to hear without them actually saying it. It’s not that difficult to do.
The American Psychiatric Association said in 1973 that Homosexuality is not a disorder, and removed it from the DSM. But when we hear grumbling from some quarters that it was a political decision, it leads to the suspicion that the person doing the grumbling still holds it as a disease. And an aweful lot of very vocal and prominent people continue to grumble about this.
So with that grumbling, combined with massive billboards saying “I changed, so can you” well, I hear “cure”, and I don’t think I’m alone. When I came otu to what was once a very close friend (she cut the contact, not me), she pleaded with me, brochures in hand, saying “but they can cure this!” She’s college educated, very inteligent, and I have always know her to choose her words very carefully. She’s not a raver. Yet she fell into the same terminology. My gay friends also all hear “cure”, which is why we respond the way we do.
I don’t think this is unintentional.
Pharmaceutical companies are required to put disclaimers in their ads, which often include the phrase “Propecia is not for everyone”. Where is that disclaimer in the billboards? Where is it in the literature? Where was it in Houston? (Yay! We’re back on topic!!!)
By the way, Have Cee, these questions are rhetorical. I’m not trying to put you on the spot. My point being, yes, you’re right. They don’t use the word “cure” and they may even disavow the notion of cure when pressed. But they continue to gruble about the APA’s stance of 1973, with all of the implications behind that grumbling. The idea of “cure” is out there, and I don’t think it arose spontaneously.
In the popular mind, “treatments” lead to “cures” and “therapies” lead to “normal” function. If diseases are “treated” and injured psyches undergo “therapy” and the “patient” is homosexual, well, the obvious desired outcome of all of that is a “cure”. Maybe not so in clinical circles, but that is the language in the popular culture. And clinicians are not separate from culture.
By the way, for historical context, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, and the American Psychological Association passed a similar position on homosexuality in 1975. The American Psychoanalytic Association has a position published at:
https://www.apsa.org/ctf/cgli/position.htm
This is dated May 1991, amended May 1992. Perhaps someone can help me with this: Was there an earlier statement than 1992? I certainly hope they didn’t wait 18 years before acting! Please fill me in!
Nave Cee–
Sorry I got your name wrong… That tiny type following the “Posted by” tag is aweful hard to read.
And sorry for the misspellings and typos in my post. The coffee hadn’t quite kicked in yet.
Just another example of why those involved in “ex-gay treatment” have credibility problems – an interview with Jeffrey Santinover (who interestingly supposedly teaches constitutional law at Princeton part-time, despite not having a law degree) in “World” magazine, which was linked by Lou Sheldon’s “Traditional Value Coalition” – which is dedicated to the destruction of the gay community in this country.
Dr. Santinover, supposedly an expert, tells out right lies in the interview – for example By the early ’70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA’s list of disorders. Funny, according to the gay history accounts I have read, the groups protesting the APA meetings were the same groups protesting the media and religions for their false assertions about gay people, and certainly did not have anyone’s permission for their “zaps” in 1970 and 1971.
Santinover also attacks the reputation of Evelyn Hooker, who did the ground-breaking work on homosexuality, but is no longer able to defend herself – In 1957, with quiet political support largely from the prominent UCLA psychiatrist Judd Marmor, Evelyn Hooker, an experimental psychologist (her expertise was with mice, not people) at UCLA, published a scientifically bogus paper that supposedly showed no differences in the psychopathology of homosexual and heterosexual males. Notice, he does not provide any evidence of the supposedly “bogus” nature of Hooker’s work – because he can’t. It was both deceptively simple and impressive in its day. What Hooker proved was the psychiatrists could not distinguish between gays and straights based on measures of psychological health. This means that all homosexuals cannot be considered “mentally ill,” because they can and do score very highly on measures of psychological health.
Now, it has to be mentioned that the 1973 decision was not based solely on Hooker’s work, and the decision was backed up with the first-and-only APA referendum on the matter (one demanded by the NARTH-type people, because they were so appalled at losing their area of expertise).
The whole article can be read here:
https://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=10331
Hi CPT Doom,
Thanks for responding. My sincerest apologies if what is being said poses any “real problems” for you.
“The APA’s decision to drop homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not “political.”
I only said that I felt it was political because the majority clearly didn’t rule in the making of the decision—even a few years after the decision was made, more than half the members considered homosexuality to be abnormal, and treatable to a degree.
I don’t disagree with the APA’s decision by any means. Homosexuality in of itself is not pathological, although it can be, but the same can be said for heterosexuality (just look at Ted Bundy).
“Now, as for research into “changing” sexual orientation, there has never been a valid, scientific study, of which I am aware, that has ever claimed any level of true change in sexual orientation.”
I take issues with this statement. There have been numerous studies from the past 80 years that demonstrate that some sort of orienation change is possible in some people. And many of these studies have been published in reputable journals/books. Now, you are right in a way—no long term longitudinal study has ever been done on the change of sexual orientation. The studies that I referenced are only anecdotal reports of individual people making changes, thus we cannot make any broad generalizations based on these report as to how many people can change, what kind of people can change, etc. etc.
We can only conclude that some people can and do change. That’s ALL we know. And this statement alone doesn’t justify the suppression of homosexual civil rights.
Incidentally, a lot of homosexuals have told me that they felt that sexual orientation can change over time, but that the magnitude of the actual change varies from person to person, with women reporting a larger magnitude. Even Jack Drescher, a prominent homosexual psychiatrist of the APA and APsA, asserts that some people can change. Douglas Hadelman, another prominent homosexual psychologist, asserts that some gays who possess a degree of heteroeroticism can build upon their heteroeroticism and diminish their homoeroticism. Even though Hadelman doesn’t explicity state it, this seems like subtle sexual orientation change to me. Both psychologists, however, would disagree with the religious right as to the frequency of change and whether or not people should change.
The Spitzer survey of “success cases” from “ex-gay” ministries defined “change” as any 10-point movement on a 100-point scale (0=purely het, 100=purely homo) – if you look at true self-reported heterosexuality among Spitzer’s subjects, you find that the “change” largely disappears (e.g., about 1/5 describe themselves as fully het at the end of “treatment”,
What do you mean by “change largely disappears?” This doesn’t make any sense to me.
“But about the same percentage reported no homosexual activity prior to entering “change” therapy).”
Any homosexual/bisexual will tell you that behavior alone doesn’t dictate whether someone is straight/gay. Therefore, the argument that the people who changed were heterosexual to begin with—because they reported no homosexual activity—falls apart.
“It is completely possible, in this day and age, for brain and nervous system activity to be measured. No one has ever demonstrated that these physical structures (and therefore basic biological sexuality) can be altered by any “reparative therapy.”
I strongly disagree with the first part. So far, there has been NO CONCLUSIVE biological/hormonal/physiological/chemical test that can distinguish between gays and straights. Sure, you can dangle a naked woman in front of the two and measure who gets turned on and who doesn’t, but this clearly isn’t what you are referring to. Furthermore, you talk about “basic biological sexuality,” but it seems as if you’re speaking of Chimeras, because even the gay researchers themselves deny finding any conclusive biological determinant of sexuality. Even Dean Hamer himself asserts that sexual orientation has a strong environmental component, and cannot be said to be “biologically determined.” Even Simon Levay, who most cite as the person who found a “physical” difference between gays and straights, denies finding THE DEFINITIVE physical structure for gayness.
So, in answer to your second statement regarding reparative therapy, it logically follows that no research has been done regarding the modification of the “physical structures” of sexual orientation, because people still are yet to find these physical structures, if they exist at all.
“More importantly, no fully straight person has ever been made gay.”
Again, this seems like quite a bold statement. Can you back it up beyond anecdotal experiences? For all we know, an assertion like this might be just as misleading as saying “NO GAY PERSON HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED NORMALITY/HEALTHY FUNCTIONING,” because as Hooker pointed out, you only need to find one example that contradicts the bold claim, and the entire claim explodes. And, I’ve known fully straight people who’ve moved significantly up the Kinsey scale (from a 0 to about a 3-4). Of course, if by Gay you mean Kinsey 7.5, perhaps it is highly uncommon given the large amount of “space” a Kinsey 0 would have to transverse to become fully gay.
“However, no one has ever documented an actual change in the physical/biological processes that govern sexuality and emotion for these people.”
Again, you mention physical/biological processes, but no one has ever conclusively demonstrated what these things are, or whether or not they exist at all. So the veracity of this statement is seriously in question.
“It is entirely plausible, and quite probable, that the basic orientation of these people did not change – they were always bisexual to some degree (as a Kinsey 7.5 myself – on a scale of 1 – 6, I tend to disagree with the “everyone is bisexual” notion, as I have never had any feelings for a woman, and find the entire idea of heterosexual intercourse to be repulsive, but I do believe bisexuality exists).”
I agree with the first part. Bisexuals tend to report a higher degree of fluidity. Therefore it is probable that those with a bisexual orientation might be more responsive towards change therapies. Now, what exactly is “basic orientation?” Again, it sounds like your making a reference towards sexual orientation as a mysterious, essential essence that is unchangeable—a physical structure (that science is yet to discover) perhaps?
I’m a bisexual. Like I said in a previous post, I feel my sexual orientation subtly change depending on my circumstances, mood, and current mental state. When I’m on the straight side of the Kinsey scale (2), thoughts of being with men do nothing for me. When I’m on the gay side of the scale (4), women hardly do a thing for me. My orientation clearly changes the direction of its compass. Any talk of rigidness here doesn’t seem to apply, at least to me. Furthermore, in my previous discussion, I mentioned a friend from Taiwan who went way up the Kinsey scale when he came to America. Based on his past history/sexual fantasies/erotic attractions, to say that he’s always been bisexual seems like a strong cop out.
“Changing sexual behavior, but not orientation, is an issue for philosophy or religion, but not science, as it imposes value judgements that should not cloud scientific investigation. ”
I have a serious problem with this…So you believe that science, with its objective tools, should not involve itself with sexual orientation to decide once and for all this whole matter of change/therapy etc. etc.? Furthermore, you really believe that this should be an issue for philosophy and religion? To take your advice would be to throw all scientific objectivity, and perhaps the scientific truth, out the window. So far, sexual orientation change HAS mostly been an issue for philosophy, religion, and most importantly, POLITICS. And sadly, these 3 have super-ceded science, adding their own biases to a matter that should have been a purely scientific inquiry from the beginning. Hence the glut of militant gay activists and homophobic religious zealots, both of which are guilty of misusing scientific studies in an effort to achieve their respective aims.
It is NOT science that imposes value judgments. Science is DEAD, in the sense of being morally neutral. It is politics/philosophy/religion that breathes LIFE to science, not the other way around, as you believe.
Sincerely,
Nave
Hi Jim. Thanks for responding. You show valid concerns regarding the religious right’s ridiculous “advertisements” and billboards. What they’ve done is trivialize a very very complicated phenomenon–sexual orientation–giving lay people the impression that it is something that can be easily changed–like clothing–by everyone.
“The American Psychiatric Association said in 1973 that Homosexuality is not a disorder, and removed it from the DSM.”
I believe that the deision made was the correct one, but I still hold it to be somewhat political in nature, given that majority did not rule. It clearly was not purely scientific, since Hooker’s study did not answer deeper questions about sexual orientation. What her study served to do was explode the statement that
“all homosexual people are essentially diseased.”
All she had to do was find ONE (even though she found more) homosexual who demonstrated normal functioning, and the statement crumbles to pieces. Yet, her study doesn’t tell us whether most gay people are normal, or if its only a few, etc. etc. Nor does it say anything about the innateness or rigidity of sexual orienation (more on this later). But that is okay for the purposes of debunking an erroneous belief.
“…billboards [say] “I changed, so can you” well, I hear “cure”, and I don’t think I’m alone.”
Valid concerns. My only hope is that someday we will be able to look at sexual orientation as a morally neutral matter. Perhaps this is wishful thinking. But once we attain this, we will see that science clearly does not the support the notion of “cure”, in the strictest sense of the word. Rather, we really should look at it in terms of a subtle tumbling down the Kinsey scale. This would explain why some ex-gays, despite developing heteroeroticism, retain their homoeroticism (they may not have “tumbled” down all the way)
“Pharmaceutical companies are required to put disclaimers in their ads, which often include the phrase “Propecia is not for everyone”. Where is that disclaimer in the billboards?
Where was it in Houston? (Yay! We’re back on topic!!!)”
I agree. Psychologists SHOULD make it clear that Change is NOT for everyone, that NOT everyone can change, and that SOME are better off living as openly gay individuals. In fact, Joseph Nicolosi, in his book “Reparative Therapy of the Male Homosexual,” states that his therapy is not for everyone, that those happy being gay need not apply, and that those who do not fit his clinical profile of a “heterosexual with homosexual problems” also need not apply.
“yes, you’re right. They don’t use the word “cure” and they may even disavow the notion of cure when pressed. But they continue to gruble about the APA’s stance of 1973″
The grumbling is due mostly to the corollary of the decision, that “sexual orientation is rigidly fixed, innate and NEVER CHANGEABLE.” This statement is manifestly false, because again, as in the Hooker study, you only need to find one person who has demonstrated ANY degree of sexual orientation change (does not even necessarily need to go from gay to straight…gay to bisexual is good enough) to explode the entire statement. And, there has been plenty of anecdotal evidence from reputable journals from the past 80 years.
“In the popular mind, “treatments” lead to “cures” and “therapies” lead to “normal” function. ”
Good point. The American public, in my opinion, is deeply, deeply confused on the matter. They look at it in terms of black and white, disease/cure dichotomies. There is a serious problem with this.
Nave
Hi CPT,
“Now, it has to be mentioned that the 1973 decision was not based solely on Hooker’s work, and the decision was backed up with the first-and-only APA referendum on the matter.”
So Hooker’s work, along with a few othes, rested upon the APA referendum. But then what was the APA referendum based on, if not on Hooker’s study along with a few others? This would seem to make the whole situation circular.
“What Hooker proved was the psychiatrists could not distinguish between gays and straights based on measures of psychological health.”
This part is true. She sought out homosexuals who she felt were normal, and studied them. They turned out to be pretty normal. Therefore, we can no longer make general claims about the mental disease state of homosexual people. To do so would be scientifically incorrect to say the least, insulting and psychologicaly damaging to say the most.
“This means that all homosexuals cannot be considered “mentally ill,” because they can and do score very highly on measures of psychological health.”
This conclusion here is false. Her study did not rely on a random sample. She did not sample a huge, random population of homosexuals. Therefore, from a scienftic standpoint, her study says absolutely nothing about Gay people in GENERAL i.e. we cannot make generalizations from this study. “All we can say is that some gays can and do score high on measures of psychological health.” It would be as if I sought out ten six feet tall women, and concluded from that that ALL women were six feet tall. Rather, I can only conclude that it is possible for women to be six feet.
Yet, this alone is, in my humble opinion, enough to depathologize homosexuality, and rightly so.
Hi CPT, This is the same exact post from above. I’m only reposting it because the way I spaced the paragraphs makes it hard to tell who said what.
Hi CPT Doom,
Thanks for responding. My sincerest apologies if what is being said poses any “real problems” for you.
“The APA’s decision to drop homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not “political.”
I only said that I felt it was political because the majority clearly didn’t rule in the making of the decision—even a few years after the decision was made, more than half the members considered homosexuality to be abnormal, and treatable to a degree.
I don’t disagree with the APA’s decision by any means. Homosexuality in of itself is not pathological, although it can be, but the same can be said for heterosexuality (just look at Ted Bundy).
“Now, as for research into “changing” sexual orientation, there has never been a valid, scientific study, of which I am aware, that has ever claimed any level of true change in sexual orientation.”
I take issues with this statement. There have been numerous studies from the past 80 years that demonstrate that some sort of orienation change is possible in some people. And many of these studies have been published in reputable journals/books. Now, you are right in a way—no long term longitudinal study has ever been done on the change of sexual orientation. The studies that I referenced are only anecdotal reports of individual people making changes, thus we cannot make any broad generalizations based on these report as to how many people can change, what kind of people can change, etc. etc.
We can only conclude that some people can and do change. That’s ALL we know. And this statement alone doesn’t justify the suppression of homosexual civil rights.
Incidentally, a lot of homosexuals have told me that they felt that sexual orientation can change over time, but that the magnitude of the actual change varies from person to person, with women reporting a larger magnitude. Even Jack Drescher, a prominent homosexual psychiatrist of the APA and APsA, asserts that some people can change. Douglas Hadelman, another prominent homosexual psychologist, asserts that some gays who possess a degree of heteroeroticism can build upon their heteroeroticism and diminish their homoeroticism. Even though Hadelman doesn’t explicity state it, this seems like subtle sexual orientation change to me. Both psychologists, however, would disagree with the religious right as to the frequency of change and whether or not people should change.
“if you look at true self-reported heterosexuality among Spitzer’s subjects, you find that the “change” largely disappears (e.g., about 1/5 describe themselves as fully het at the end of “treatment”
What do you mean by “change largely disappears?” This doesn’t make any sense to me.
“But about the same percentage reported no homosexual activity prior to entering “change” therapy).”
Any homosexual/bisexual will tell you that behavior alone doesn’t dictate whether someone is straight/gay. Therefore, the argument that the people who changed were heterosexual to begin with—because they reported no homosexual activity—falls apart.
“It is completely possible, in this day and age, for brain and nervous system activity to be measured. No one has ever demonstrated that these physical structures (and therefore basic biological sexuality) can be altered by any “reparative therapy.”
I strongly disagree with the first part. So far, there has been NO CONCLUSIVE biological/hormonal/physiological/chemical test that can distinguish between gays and straights. Sure, you can dangle a naked woman in front of the two and measure who gets turned on and who doesn’t, but this clearly isn’t what you are referring to. Furthermore, you talk about “basic biological sexuality,” but it seems as if you’re speaking of Chimeras, because even the gay researchers themselves deny finding any conclusive biological determinant of sexuality. Even Dean Hamer himself asserts that sexual orientation has a strong environmental component, and cannot be said to be “biologically determined.” Even Simon Levay, who most cite as the person who found a “physical” difference between gays and straights, denies finding THE DEFINITIVE physical structure for gayness.
So, in answer to your second statement regarding reparative therapy, it logically follows that no research has been done regarding the modification of the “physical structures” of sexual orientation, because people still are yet to find these physical structures, if they exist at all.
“More importantly, no fully straight person has ever been made gay.”
Again, this seems like quite a bold statement. Can you back it up beyond anecdotal experiences? For all we know, an assertion like this might be just as misleading as saying “NO GAY PERSON HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED NORMALITY/HEALTHY FUNCTIONING,” because as Hooker pointed out, you only need to find one example that contradicts the bold claim, and the entire claim explodes. And, I’ve known fully straight people who’ve moved significantly up the Kinsey scale (from a 0 to about a 3-4). Of course, if by Gay you mean Kinsey 7.5, perhaps it is highly uncommon given the large amount of “space” a Kinsey 0 would have to transverse to become fully gay.
“However, no one has ever documented an actual change in the physical/biological processes that govern sexuality and emotion for these people.”
Again, you mention physical/biological processes, but no one has ever conclusively demonstrated what these things are, or whether or not they exist at all. So the veracity of this statement is seriously in question.
“It is entirely plausible, and quite probable, that the basic orientation of these people did not change – they were always bisexual to some degree (as a Kinsey 7.5 myself – on a scale of 1 – 6, I tend to disagree with the “everyone is bisexual”
Good point. Bisexuals tend to report a higher degree of fluidity. Therefore it is probable that those with a bisexual orientation might be more responsive towards change therapies. Now, what exactly is “basic orientation?” Again, it sounds like your making a reference towards sexual orientation as a mysterious, essential essence that is unchangeable—a physical structure (that science is yet to discover) perhaps?
I’m a bisexual. Like I said in a previous post, I feel my sexual orientation subtly change depending on my circumstances, mood, and current mental state. When I’m on the straight side of the Kinsey scale (2), thoughts of being with men do nothing for me. When I’m on the gay side of the scale (4), women hardly do a thing for me. My orientation clearly changes the direction of its compass. Any talk of rigidness here doesn’t seem to apply, at least to me. Furthermore, in my previous discussion, I mentioned a friend from Taiwan who went way up the Kinsey scale when he came to America. Based on his past history/sexual fantasies/erotic attractions, to say that he’s always been bisexual seems like a strong cop out.
“Changing sexual behavior, but not orientation, is an issue for philosophy or religion, but not science, as it imposes value judgements that should not cloud scientific investigation.”
I have a serious problem with this…So you believe that science, with its objective tools, should not involve itself with sexual orientation to decide once and for all this whole matter of change/therapy etc. etc.? Furthermore, you really believe that this should be an issue for philosophy and religion? To take your advice would be to throw all scientific objectivity, and perhaps the scientific truth, out the window. So far, sexual orientation change HAS mostly been an issue for philosophy, religion, and most importantly, POLITICS. And sadly, these 3 have super-ceded science, adding their own biases to a matter that should have been a purely scientific inquiry from the beginning. Hence the glut of militant gay activists and homophobic religious zealots, both of which are guilty of misusing scientific studies in an effort to achieve their respective aims.
It is NOT science that imposes value judgments. Science is DEAD, in the sense of being morally neutral. It is politics/philosophy/religion that breathes LIFE to science, not the other way around, as you believe.
Sincerely,
Nave
Regan,
“Nathan, you really don’t get it. No, a network of people who help raise a child is not a ‘group’ in the sense of being exclusively ONE kind of person, or ideology.”
I apologise. I thought your group comment was a rebuttle to my comment about the absence of multi-age communities beyond the “nuclear family”.
“Piety doesn’t make you a good person or necessarily someone you can trust with children.”
I couldn’t agree more! Not sure if you intended it, but this is an excellent summarisation of one of the main points of Jesus’ teachings, in my opinion!
“This is making orientation a right to parent with impunity. And this regardless of just how incompetent and horrible heterosexuals are as parents, even as two parent opposite gender couples.”
Not at all. I never said, “this straight couple is always better than this gay couple”. Do you think I’m not aware of the enormous number of straight parents that don’t exactly do an excellent job of raising their kids? I’m a school teacher!
“YES, should, as part of the punishment for such criminality should lose their fertility.”
My goodness. I have to say, seriously, I hope I never live in your society. This is frightening. So, will you push for these reforms after you get adoption for gay people?
Nave Cee tells me: ‘With all due respect, you are wrong, and exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the Christian faith, and what it’s all about. Even gay Christians would disagree strongly with you.’
Since I tend to find that ‘gay Christians’ are at an awareness level equal to ‘Jewish Nazis’, this does not suprise me. My understanding of the Christian faith comes from many years of experience with its adherents. Somehow, I have lived to tell of this.
Re: “Since I tend to find that ‘gay Christians’ are at an awareness level equal to ‘Jewish Nazis’ ”
Dalea, I have to strongly disagree. And as very much out, proud, gay activist who is also a gay Christian, I take the most profound and personal offense at your outrageous comment.
That’s a fine way to try to bring someone over to your way of thinking. No wonder our side is losing the debate in the popular opinion.
You understanding of the Christian faith may come from may years’ experience from some who call themselves Christian, but it does not come from those of us who are live the dictum, “Let not the left hand know what the right hand is doing.”
“The APA’s decision to drop homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not “political.”
I only said that I felt it was political because the majority clearly didn’t rule in the making of the decision—even a few years after the decision was made, more than half the members considered homosexuality to be abnormal, and treatable to a degree.
Ah, the standard kvetch that the APA’s 1973 “decision” removing “homosexuality” from its DSM was political, not based on scientific evidence.
One of the issues that is usually ignored by the kvetchers is what scientific evidence the APA had when it originally assumed that homosexuality was pathological and listed it in their holy book–the DSM. The obvious answer is, that it had none. The paper at https://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm gives a short but succinct history, and it is clear that the only evidence that the APAers had when they originally considered homosexuality to be pathological was nothing more than what they obtained by investigating their nether regions.
I could continue at length with descriptions showing that psychiatry as it was then practiced was ascientific and that psychoanalysis was nothing more than mumbo-jumbo, but I’ll refrain.
“WHY someone is here is beside the point.
How they are to be treated…and if it’s well or badly, certainly.”
Regan,
For some people, these two are inextricably linked. I’m saying that, logically, some people need to have some idea of the WHY before they can honestly decide how to treat people. I, for one, can’t stand the idea of a “can’t we just all get along?” philosophy, with nothing else behind it, no explanation for WHY we should all just get along. That’s why people’s right to examine different religions haven’t been curtailed.
Obviously we should also ask why women and gays are targets of oppression, etc. In my opinion, the answers are not difficult. The man, being generally physically stronger and/or more aggressive than the woman, has throughout history taken away her freedoms in unacceptable ways. (Incidentally, my understanding of the Bible is that this sad situation is predicted, though not celebrated.)
People with same sex attractions are targets because they are different, and/or because they present a challenge to people with already-weak and confused gender identities.
Regan Du Casse wisely says: ‘The abuses by religion isn’t discouraged, even though in America, only TWO groups most often suffer major consequences from it.
Women and gay people.’
Interestingly, adding up these two groups, for simplicity counting lesbians among ‘women’, I come to a startling conclusion. Women and gay men who make up the majority of the existing human race are oppressed by a minority of the human race: straight men. This is ineresting. And I wonder how they pull this off.
Generally it is minorities that are oppressed. How can a smaller group dominate and control a larger one? I believe this discourse is about ‘patriarchy’.
And as Lesbian Spirituality teacher Z Budapest ends her prayers: May Patriarchy Fall.
“Generally it is minorities that are oppressed.”
Really? When I look at history, and indeed world demographics today, I consistently see a smaller class of individuals (eg. nobility class, modern developed nations) living off the backs of a larger, relatively disempowered group (eg. the “vulgar” class, the rest of the world). The pattern is regrettable, but hardly unusual. The difference in number between [men who do not experience dominant same-sex attractions] (say 47%) and [women + men who do] (say 53%) is actually quite mild in comparison.
“Gay kid’s educations destroyed by isolation and abuse, even by school authorities. Their parents not held in contempt by the state for abusing them or isolating them.”
Regan, the problem with this is that ALL kids’ educations can be destroyed by isolation and abuse. You don’t have to be gay. Everyone knows about the unpopular or segregated kid in the class. I would hazard a guess that most of those kids are not gay, but have other issues [too nerdy, too weird, too fat]. Some are integration students with mental or physical disabilities.
You would also be aware that recently we’ve come to see that our current education system is failing not just a lot of girls, but a lot of boys too. Not only do boys successfully suicide much more frequently than girls, but we are facing the prospect of a large and dangerous underclass of unmarried, poorly-educated men, detached from any heterogenous community and surviving off two or more casual or part-time jobs.
Many schools are doing all they can to address issues, along with offering support and counselling to kids who think they might be gay.
And what do you mean by parents not being held in contempt by the state for abusing and isolating children? Do you see a policeman driving around to every house to check that no parent ever calls their child a nerd, or denigrates their body image, or tells them they’re a little dumb?
Can you tell me how settling for a civil union, being afforded all the tax breaks and inheritance benefits of any other couple considered united by the state, is “cruel and unusual punishment”?
Nathan,
Re: “Can you tell me how settling for a civil union, being afforded all the tax breaks and inheritance benefits of any other couple considered united by the state, is “cruel and unusual punishment”?
Since “cruel and unusual punishment” is not my phrasing, I’ll leave that to someone else. But “settling” for a civil union has become precicely the issue now.
Earlier (I can’t find the post off-hand) I believe you articulated an idea for decoupling religion from marriage and putting the government in the civil union business for gays and straights alike. I like the idea in principle. When I think back to how thrilled we all were when Vermont enacted Civil Unions, I think that if you had asked us at that time if that was good enough for us, a large plurality (maybe even a majority) would probably have been perfectly happy with it.
But when you look at the state constitutional amendments that passed last November, with most of them closing the door not only on marriage, but civil unions and even domestic partnerships and all other “incidents of marriage”, it is clear that the proposal that many offer (including George Bush) of possibly considering civil unions is completely unrealistic in today’s political climate. And for some folks (not you, Nathan), it has unfortunately become a blatently cynical political tactic.
I was talking to a local activist just last weekend about this. He said that this time last year he would have been perfectly satisfied with civil unions. But after last summer and fall, all bets are off. I’m sure this has now become the dominant opinion in the GLBT community.
And besides, since we see so few straights offering take the further step of decoupling religion from marriage and “settling” for civil unions, why should we?
regan,
Quite right. The other side (by which you presumably mean people without dominant same-sex attractions) should also settle for civil unions, and a religious or traditional marriage if appropriate.
But I still don’t know why civil unions aren’t equal. Aren’t you getting all the things you’re campaigning for? Why should it matter to you that some people think their “civil marriage” is superior to your “civil union”? They’re obviously the ones with the issue, not you. Going after nothing other than the title of “marriage” is about changing the (often faith-based) values of a large number of people. It is no longer simply a social justice issue.
re: children, I guess I’m a bit naive and idealistic. I’ve just never seen the kind of isolation and you describe, nor have I seen a teacher EVER force a kid to read Romans 1 or the big bad Leviticus laws (opening a Bible in front of a kid would probably get you in serious hot water at my school). What I see is a swathe of government programmes aimed at enhancing awareness of same-sex attracted youth, discussions and guest speakers on homosexuality in non-religious Personal Development curricula (parents are not informed, and have to call my school in order to ask that their child not be included in some of these lessons, and some have, only to be labelled homophobes by my fellow staff), and social service offices on every public school campus with rainbow signs up so there’s no mistake about who is welcome to go in there.
The thing is, I don’t see that any of this is making much of a difference to students. They still tease eachother by calling eachother “gay”. In fact the more awareness there is of homosexuality, the more the term has become a catch-all expression for any indictment of inadequacy or unsuitability (eg. that ruler is gay, this course is gay). Bookish kids are no longer “bookish” – they’re “gay”. Effeminate boys are no longer “sissy” – they’re “gay”. Any solution to this issue has to go further than bandaid homophobia programmes and vague “tolerance” sessions. An examination of gender culture and its interpretation by young people needs to form the basis of an integrated diversity component in curriculum, from early to middle to late school. This would NOT, in my opinion, require teaching about homosexuality itself to young kids.
I must admit that I find it difficult to relate to a family where a parent would bully or abuse their child just because he/she has attractions to the same sex, since it’s so completely opposite to the way my own parents would react. I guess it must happen, but it makes me very sad.
Hi Nathan- I know you are speaking from your experiences in Australia, but my experience growing up here (in the US) just a few years ago, and the experiences my teacher friends here have is not really the same was what you describe here…
“What I see is a swathe of government programmes aimed at enhancing awareness of same-sex attracted youth, discussions and guest speakers on homosexuality in non-religious Personal Development curricula (parents are not informed, and have to call my school in order to ask that their child not be included in some of these lessons, and some have, only to be labelled homophobes by my fellow staff), and social service offices on every public school campus with rainbow signs up so there’s no mistake about who is welcome to go in there.”
My highschool had zero awareness meetings of gay people or homosexuality. There was no GSA (to date my inner city HS in a major city still doesn’t have one). None of my health or sex ed classes growing up ever addressed the issue. A friend of mine was just “outed” by some of his students (they found his name online with a Pride organization). The school responded very positively to him, but he was worried for a while because his school does nothing to address the issue of homosexuality.
I do agree, i as of yet, am not sure how successful these “tolerance” programs are, so I’m not up in arms mad that these aren’t taking place (or didn’t), but I hear all of the time from US right wing members how gays are taking over the schools, and I just don’t see it. I’m not denying that it is happening where you are, but it isn’t as predominant as I am lead to believe by the Exodus groups of the world, the Rush Limbaugh’s etc. I kind of feel like they are the ones trying to rally troops by playing the victim card.
The sad thing is, the ones that lose in this type of politization are the gay kids out there who feel left behind by the rhetoric of many on the right.
As for civil unions vs. marriage- I tend to agree with you. I think it is absurd for people to claim the religious authority of the word marriage (that doesn’t include religions that allow gay marriages). But, I think it is not worthwhile to fight for the word itself. The protections should be more what we are after.
My highschool had zero awareness meetings of gay people or homosexuality. There was no GSA (to date my inner city HS in a major city still doesn’t have one). None of my health or sex ed classes growing up ever addressed the issue. A friend of mine was just “outed” by some of his students (they found his name online with a Pride organization). The school responded very positively to him, but he was worried for a while because his school does nothing to address the issue of homosexuality.
Well, it’s been more than 2 decades since my experience in junior high school and high school, but sadly enough TA’s experience was still 1000% better than mine. Not only was I physically assaulted (actually ambused by 4 – 6 kids) in a junior high corridor, the administration did NOTHING to try and catch the kids who did it (they came from behind me, so I never saw them) – even though there were witnesses, and this was during a school day (incidentally, only one teacher even bothered to help me). The ONLY thing my school did was honor my wish not to tell my parents.
By the time I was in high school, at a Catholic institution, it was in some ways worse, because in that school being outed=being expelled. That’s how they handled gay kids in my day – simply kicked them out without a single thought.
Given the national polls of teenagers in this country, I don’t really think it has gotten better, except that some schools finally have parents, administration and teachers who MAY consider fags and dykes human beings, but even that is still rare.
Kevin Jennings, who founded GLSEN, wrote a truly eye-opening book called “Telling Tales Out of School” about the experiences of gay and lesbian kids in high schools over the last 1/2 century or so – it is truly sad to see how cruel and horrible adults can be to kids who are different.
Okay, Mike et al:
Unfortunately I had to search ex-gay watch today for an old response I wrote from a time when I used to waste time reading and responding to your rantings. And, I ran across this tabloid worthy commentary on me, my wife and our inability to conceive.
Here’s the scoop:
1. I have talked openly about my sex life both before and after marriage. I agree, it’s fair game.
2. For those who are interested in hearing about Leslie’s and my brief intercourse woes during the first few months of marriage you can buy the tape from my workshop: Pursuing Marriage: The Jump, The Jitters and The Jive, by calling Exodus: 407-599-6872. It is interesting but you won’t find anything about being unable to be aroused, just a bit of info on two inexperienced heterosexuals who had no clue about vaginal dryness and its affect on successful penetration. Sorry to disappoint.
3. I have low sperm count, low sperm morphology and low sperm motility. They call this condition sub-fertal. Leslie has some uterin issues that coupled with my sperm issues made it impossible to conceive naturally. Believe me, we had a lot of love making trying to conceive for more than 5 years.
4. We went through 2 rounds of IVF and one round of artificial insemenation to no avail.
5. Today we love that we were left with no other alternative but than to adopt. We adopted one month ago and today we wouldn’t trade anything for what God has blessed us with.
Hope that clears up some of your speculation and misinformation.
Alan
Thanks for clearing things up. I admit, Mike A’s underhanded swipes at your sex life and infertility showed that he lacked class.
Don’t be bitter Alan, most of us are more concerned about how you make a living.
As a California resident, it bugs me more that you stick your Florida nose into California court cases (sorry it didn’t go your way).
I could care less how many “swimmers” you have.
Although, less a chance of another Alan Chambers is a good thing in my book.
Alan Chambers | March 17, 2005 04:34 PM
This is a joke, right? I suppose that I would also have a low sperm count in regards someone for whom I had no sexual attraction.
BTW, does anyone know how much Chambers is being paid to be an “ex-gay”?
“does anyone know how much Chambers is being paid to be an “ex-gay”?”
Probably a lot. After all, he is an ex-gay activist, much like Wayne Besen is an anti-ex-gay-activist, and both are payed to engage in activism. And we know that activism often involves involves spin/rhetoric of all kinds.
Personally I can care less for these two individuals. They can both die in each other’s arms for all I care.
Jackie | March 18, 2005 04:46 PM
I tend to doubt that Besen is being paid to say that he’s gay.
But he is paid to denigrate the ex-gay movement at whatever cost it seems…but I’m not saying that Besen is evil and Chambers is not.
Hey Alan, if God can heal those who can’t conceive (hey, it’s in the Bible, so therefore infertility healing is *entirely* possible with God) then I think you should have just tried a little harder or had more faith. Obviously you did something wrong if you weren’t able to conceive naturally or if God didn’t “heal” you and Leslie. After all, adoption just can’t be “natural,” right?
(for those who are sarcasm impaired, I’m making a point between what Exodus et. al. says about gays who haven’t been able to change – “God *can* do it, so if it doesn’t happen, there must be something *wrong* with you!” and what some might cruelly say about people with infertility issues.)
I fail to see how comments like “less a chance of another Alan Chambers is a good thing in my book” serve any constructive purpose. They just fuel Chambers’ victimology — the far-right political myth that gays are afraid of fluidity in sexual orientation.
As for Chambers’ dismissal of my post: I asked questions that were pointed and relevant, given Chambers’ campaign to add political litmus tests to adoptions nationwide. If Chambers demands to know the private sexual details of would-be adoptive parents, then it is appropriate to demand that Chambers answer the same questions.
If Chambers is really concerned about tabloid journalism, then I direct him back to his organization’s tabloid, exodus.blogs.org, which offers no help at all to struggling exgays.
The Exodus tabloid once had the potential to help heal wounded souls through daily advice about the struggle to be ex-gay. Instead, the Exodus blog is consumed by embittered and sadistic rants by paranoid political wingnuts.
If I may say so… Exodus would benefit from a religious conversion — from its current false religion of political warfare, moral relativism, and blind animosity toward same-sex-attracted people, to legitimate Christianity.
Legitimate Christians exemplify the values of cooperation, charity, community, modesty, humility, honesty, openness, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, sound sexuality, and dialogue with fellow people of faith.
These values are unfortunately not very evident at Exodus at this time.
Mike A,
You say:
“Legitimate Christians exemplify the values of cooperation, charity, community, modesty, humility, honesty, openness, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, sound sexuality, and dialogue with fellow people of faith. ”
Suppose Exodus changed their beliefs to be in line with what you described. But suppose that they continue to assert that “SOME people can and do change their orientation to certain degrees, and we would like to help those who want to change change.”
Would you still frown upon Exodus? Hopefully the answer is no.
Jackie | March 18, 2005 10:02 PM
>But he (Besen) is paid to denigrate the ex-gay movement at whatever cost it seems
If a “movement” was trying to deny me equal rights under law, I’d denigrate it, too.
Oh, wait. There is such a “movement.” It’s the “ex-gay” “movement.”
I still wonder how much Chambers is being paid to say that he’s an “ex-gay.” How much was John Paulk paid before he was found out? John Paulk. Remember him?
Actually, I’ve been wondering just how much Chamber’s complaint of “low sperm count” holds water as the reason that he’s adopting. It doesn’t take thatmany swimmers to fertilize an egg. Actually, it takes just one. Unless Chambers is a castrati or a eunuch, he probably could produce more than a few swimmers, even if he has a “low sperm count.” And they could be implanted in the various eggs in an IVF (in vitro fertilization) procedure. Chambers’s explanation strains credulity. It strains credulity so much that one might wonder whether, if he and his wife were actually actually to go to an IVF clinic and get a few eggs fertilized, it might not be reasonable to conclude that Chambers was unable to have “normal” heterosex with his wife. Which, in turn, would suggest that he isn’t as “ex-gay” as he suggests. So Chambers adopts, and people forget to wonder whether he was unable to have “normal” heterosex with his wife.
NB: Let’s be clear. Chambers made his sex life a public issue when he went to work for an “ex-gay” operation and started bashing equal rights for gay people.
Jackie | March 20, 2005 02:25 AM
>Suppose Exodus changed their beliefs to be in line with what you described. But suppose that they continue to assert that “SOME people can and do change their orientation to certain degrees, and we would like to help those who want to change change.”
I’m not sure why you pose such a question, since it is clear that Exodus since the 1970s has evolved into nothing more than another fund-raising operation for political religious right operations such as Dobson’s Focus on (some peoples’) Family. As I’ve said here before, I’ve known people who have changed their outward appearing sexual orientations have shifted between straight and gay more times than I care to count. That didn’t particularly bother me.* And they didn’t need a religious operation to do the conversion. But the people who changed their outward appearing sexual orientations didn’t do what Chambers, Paulk, Randy Thomas and others did. They didn’t denigrate equal rights for gay people. They didn’t go to work for an operation that denigrates equal rights for gay people. And they didn’t earn money denigrating equal rights for gay people. That’s the difference between the people I know and people like Chambers, Paulk & Thomas. And I’m sure that it’s a difference that even you can understand.
*Well, it’s not entirely true that it didn’t particularly bother me. It didn’t bother me as long a they weren’t screwing over someone who had reasonably been led to believe that he or she could rely on the other person for companionship. But that’s a different issue. And, by the way, yes, I do have a problem with someone–a male, for example–who comes out at 40 and divorces his wife because he discovers he prefers having sex with men.
“The happiest couples…gay or not, are the ones who choose not to have children.
Getting an IVF boost from your physician WAS unnatural.
Trying to make heterosexuals from homosexuals is also unnatural.”
I don’t see how you can back up any of these three statements, Regan. The last one is especially scary, and suggests that you want nothing more than to divide the human race into “gay” and “straight” roles.
Frankly, it’s pretty obvious to me that the tone of the reply comments you guys have given to Alan’s post are not putting you on the moral high ground.
The only exception would be Mike’s comment, with which I wholeheartedly concur. There actually used to be some positive and helpful articles on Exodus’ site. Now it’s turned into another political blog.
Jackie: “Suppose Exodus changed their beliefs to be in line with what you described. But suppose that they continue to assert that “SOME people can and do change their orientation to certain degrees, and we would like to help those who want to change change.””
The problem here, Jackie is two-fold. First, I don’t see Exodus saying that SOME people can and do change their orientation. The message from Exodus, especially the one given in their seminars, conferences like “Love Won Out” (which many of their leaders speak at), etc. is that gays (not some, but the general) can change and should change. Their political message when they give testimony is not that some gays can change. It is resoundingly that they have changed, hence gays can change, hence gays should not get any marriage, adoptive, etc. rights. Their option is to change or not receive these rights.
As for Mike’s comment on the Exodus blog, I agree. The blog does nothing more than link to articles that by and large “build up” ex-gays and denigrate gays. I’ve never seen any article on that blog say one positive thing about gays, but I have seen many say some very negative things about them.
In answer to your question, Jackie- if Exodus’ message were “some gays can change, and we want to help those that would like to try, but we realize some cannot change,” I would have much less of an issue with them.
TA,
I’d have to agree with you here. If Exodus would tone down their message, both philosophically and politically, people would have much less of a problem with them.
Some people ARE able to experience changes in inner sexual orientation (with or without therapy). I know a few of these people, and they were happy, openly gay men who for whatever reason, started experiencing subtle changes in inner orientation, moving them from totally gay to bi. These people perhaps have a more malleable/flexible sexual orientation than others. A lot of other people have a much more rigid sexual orientation that basically stays the same throughout most of life.
This being said, I’ve read many horror stories about those with a rigid sexual orientation undergoing therapy, and after failing to experience ANY degree of change, however small, fall into a deep depression and resort to suicide. This truly breaks my heart.
Exodus seems to be misleadingly optimistic about what can or can’t be done. Obviously, this is deadly to a person’s well being.
Regan writes:
“Methinks you doth protest too much!
You having to assert yourself where no one really WOULDN’T CARE unless you were so insecure you just HAD to let us all know.
Just how much of a heterosexual you are these days.
YUCK, EEEUUUUWWW!
Too much information Alan. And unless you’re really trying to say it’s just so great to be heterosexual and finally with children.”
To be fair, I think there have been plenty of comments in this thread and others that show that actually people do care how much of a heterosexual he is. While I don’t think sperm count or adopting or whatever have anything to do with heterosexuality (look at all the gays and lesbians with kids from heterosexual sex!) the fact is that people want to know, and certain insinuations about his heterosexuality (or lack) have been made on this and other sites.
I also don’t think it’s gross or too much info to talk about matters of sexuality (even vaginal dryness). It’s life and the traditional Christian mode of anything-having-to-do-with-sex-is-gross-and-dirty had done way more harm than good in this world.
My $.02 even though I never thought I’d find myself defending a post by Alan…
“My $.02 even though I never thought I’d find myself defending a post by Alan…”
Annika,
There’s nothing wrong with being reasonable and refraining from needless hostility.
The last post makes it fairly obvious that this “jackie” is nothing more than a troll.