False Hope and Gay Conversion Therapy
February 2, 2013
Joshua Gonnerman
In any discussion of homosexuality from an orthodox perspective, the question of reparative therapy is in the background. It seems to me that our response to this question cannot be a straightforward “yes” or “no,” but must be carefully nuanced. Such treatment can have positive effects, but at the same time, many Christians have promoted these therapies (and allied themselves with their practitioners) with an alarming degree of enthusiasm and lack of subtlety, overlooking the dangers in this response to the pastoral questions of homosexuality.
A number of people I’ve known have spoken of the positive effects it has on their lives. Reparative therapy can help people who have difficulty relating to those of the same sex by providing more confidence and social ease. It can help render more robust the masculine or feminine identity of those who feel their gender identity is in some way deficient. Moving to a heterosexual identity (even in the face of continuing same-sex attractions) can also provide greater self-esteem and a more coherent sense of self to those struggling very deeply with their sexuality. Sometimes, even, people seem to achieve a real change in orientation.
The most prominent recent study, Ex-Gays? by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, offers promising figures for success, and is often cited by people and groups interested in promoting orientation change. But close examination of the study reveals a more problematic picture.
Out of ninety-eight original subjects, sixty-one were able to be categorized at the end of the study. The other thirty-seven either explicitly refused or were regarded by Jones and Yarhouse as passively refusing through non-communication to continue. Of the final sixty-one, just eleven subjects (18 percent of completing subjects, 11 percent of beginning subjects) were registered as “Success: Conversion,” while seventeen (28 percent of completing subjects, 17 percent of beginning subjects) were registered as “Success: Chastity.” (As a chaste man who is also gay, I am inclined to dispute categorizing chastity as a success for orientation change.)
When we look more closely at the success stories, the picture becomes even more complicated. Out of the five examples of conversion given, two describe themselves as either “heterosexual” or “primarily heterosexual by definition of who I have sexual activity with,” while at the same time frankly admitting to ongoing homosexual attractions.
Even more striking is the complete about-face by one man who ranked as a conversion success, but retracted his responses, and embraced a full gay identity and lifestyle after the book had been essentially completed, as the authors themselves note. That he was registered as a conversion success but quickly went to the opposite extreme deeply compromises the meaning of “success” in these efforts and sheds doubt on the reality of the other successes. (Similar “success stories” are not difficult to find, Gabriel Arana being a recent example). Moreover, when several of the respondents who reported as conversion successes readily admit to ongoing same-sex attractions, the definition of “heterosexual” is rendered highly ambiguous.
So, what are we to make of this study’s results? We need not absolutely reject orientation change. But it is frequently presented as a strong hope, an ideal to be striven towards, with good chances of success. For a person who is deeply struggling with her sexuality, who desperately wants, as many people do, and as I once did, not to be gay, the ready offer of orientation change can become an object of fixation, even an idol in which all of one’s hope is placed.
There are distinct power dynamics at play in orientation change that demand reflection. Because a homosexual person generally discovers his sexual orientation in puberty, the offer of the hope of change either comes during adolescence (if he grows up Christian), or in the early stages of religious faith (if he comes or returns to Christianity later in life). In both cases, the person is generally looking to religious leaders as a neophyte looks to the trusted guardian of the faith. What he receives from them is received as the authentic expression of the faith—which makes the possibility of its failure all the more damaging.
Too often, I have seen people who placed their hope in orientation change in this way come crashing down when they realized it wasn’t working. On a psychological level, it can lead to depression, to self-loathing, to suicidal tendencies. The message that the absence of successful change makes one a lesser Christian or some kind of failure is always present, either explicitly or implicitly. There is an undertone of condescension in the way some religious leaders promote orientation change, while magnanimously allowing that not every Christian is required to pursue it.
On a spiritual level, this failure to change sexual orientations can easily shatter someone who placed her hope in heterosexuality, leaving her extremely vulnerable to throwing off the faith entirely. Those who offered a hope that proved false render themselves complicit in the damage it can do to a soul.
Given orientation change’s low rate of success, and the apparently precarious status of that success (on exhibition in the about-face from “Success: Conversion” to “Failure: Gay Identity” in the study), the odds of eventual failure are far, far too strong. Our response to homosexuality is playing with souls: surely, we should play the game that has most hope, rather than the one that seems more neat and tidy?
Of course, there are dangers in celibacy, as well. People do take up the “celibacy/singleness” approach, only to discard it later when the burden becomes too heavy, and we must not examine celibacy through rose-tinted glasses, either. But we should be much more hesitant to propose orientation change.
By promoting celibacy, we are simply promoting what the sexual ethic of the churches demands. But by promoting orientation change, we are promoting a shift far deeper, far more rooted in someone’s particular personhood. In pressing for this “extra mile,” we incur a certain moral connection to the result. If it succeeds, well and good. But if it does not, great damage can be done, and we can end up implicated.
It seems to me to be far more fruitful to simply promote chastity. Like any risky therapy, orientation change should be recommended only in strictly defined circumstances where success seems more likely or where a risky treatment is the only chance for hope. The path of celibacy, in the end, is really dependent on our struggles for Christian virtue, rather than struggles for a heterosexual functioning. As a goal, heterosexual functioning may remain elusive despite our best efforts, and is too often ephemeral even when it does seem to have been achieved for a season.
Joshua Gonnerman lives in Washington, D.C., where he is a doctoral student in historical theology at the Catholic University of America. This piece is adapted from a post at spiritualfriendship.org.
RESOURCES
Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse
“My So-Called Ex-Gay Life,” Gabriel Arana
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.1.2013 | 4:39am
OrthoDude says:
The numbers discussed seem to me to be on par with any successful drug treatment program. I don't hear anyone calling for the closure of Alcoholics Anonymous because "It doesn't work!". The evidence for alcoholism being genetic and "inherent" is far greater. Some alcoholics are "cured" in that they no longer are tempted to drink, some are "chaste" - they would like to drink but don't, and a whole lot of people aren't cured at all.
The tolerant left want to hold reparative therapy to a much higher standard and then say, "See. It failed. Now, let's make it illegal." Any behavioral scientist will say that changing behaviors is very hard.
The tolerant left want to hold reparative therapy to a much higher standard and then say, "See. It failed. Now, let's make it illegal." Any behavioral scientist will say that changing behaviors is very hard.
2.2.2013 | 8:30am
A.M. says:
Is the failure, as hinted @Marcus , in digging waterless cisterns !
Seems the Chritain truth and power , in any struggles in the area of the flesh, such as in practice of Natural Family Planning , is to be taken up, in union with The Lord and His Passion !
Seeing oneself and the other , even generations past, who ever is/has been the the cause of the temptaion , being at the pillar , with The Lord , at the scourging , allowing the Precious Blood to flow in , to be strenghtend in The Spirit , to be set free from enemy claims - awareness of the power of such for the millions would be what brings the abundant life, to families and keep up the dignity and sacredness , at all levels !
Seems the Chritain truth and power , in any struggles in the area of the flesh, such as in practice of Natural Family Planning , is to be taken up, in union with The Lord and His Passion !
Seeing oneself and the other , even generations past, who ever is/has been the the cause of the temptaion , being at the pillar , with The Lord , at the scourging , allowing the Precious Blood to flow in , to be strenghtend in The Spirit , to be set free from enemy claims - awareness of the power of such for the millions would be what brings the abundant life, to families and keep up the dignity and sacredness , at all levels !
2.2.2013 | 10:39am
maineman says:
As a psychotherapist, I have to say this is a wonderful article, and both of the first two comments are very much on target.
The thing that seems to have been left out of the discussion is the problem of the surrounding culture, which now encourages sexual acting out of all varieties and argues against repression of many impulses that once contributed to clear interpersonal boundaries and more ordered behavior. All I am pointing out is that many of the "failures" of such treatment may be the product of returning to a less healthy milieu than that which existed while intensive treatment is going on.
That being said, there is also the problem of a secular model of treatment that has often raised hopes and then left them shattered at the end of the day. The last half century in this country is largely the story of "I'm okay, You're Okay" and how it failed miserably.
After many years of practice, I have come to the conclusion that therapy, when effective at all, is a way of helping people to be less miserable. If the process of eliminating obstacles to true growth - as opposed to simple adaptation to the world and the sin and death that are its essence - can clear the way for real therapy of a Catholic/Christian nature, then it can assist in bearing the greatest fruit.
But that Catholic therapy itself is very different and consists simply of prayer and fasting.
The thing that seems to have been left out of the discussion is the problem of the surrounding culture, which now encourages sexual acting out of all varieties and argues against repression of many impulses that once contributed to clear interpersonal boundaries and more ordered behavior. All I am pointing out is that many of the "failures" of such treatment may be the product of returning to a less healthy milieu than that which existed while intensive treatment is going on.
That being said, there is also the problem of a secular model of treatment that has often raised hopes and then left them shattered at the end of the day. The last half century in this country is largely the story of "I'm okay, You're Okay" and how it failed miserably.
After many years of practice, I have come to the conclusion that therapy, when effective at all, is a way of helping people to be less miserable. If the process of eliminating obstacles to true growth - as opposed to simple adaptation to the world and the sin and death that are its essence - can clear the way for real therapy of a Catholic/Christian nature, then it can assist in bearing the greatest fruit.
But that Catholic therapy itself is very different and consists simply of prayer and fasting.
2.2.2013 | 11:15am
MWorrell says:
I used to smoke. Now I don't. Frequently I want to; does this mean I'm a failure or that something is wrong? Hardly.
2.2.2013 | 11:20am
Supertradmum says:
Your use of language regarding the life of chastity and virtue seems to be more of a protestant one of struggling and striving, rather than that of an on -going relationship with Christ, which takes the "struggle" into the area of intimate friendship. The reason I mention this is that this very relationship is one of the bases for reparative therapy, that is, realizing that one can be in a real loving relationship without sexual desires. This may be a question of healing and spiritual growth.
If Christ is the center of one's entire personhood, one can have intimate relationships which are chaste. If one makes a celibate commitment to Christ, that changes the entire perspective for intimate relationships. One is precluded from this is the Church for very good reasons, of course. Therefore, chastity is the answer, not celibacy.
Perhaps reparative therapy fails because it is not based on the spiritual, but merely the physical, separating a person's being, which of course, would cause stress and the failure of breaking away from an attraction which is unnatural.
If Christ is the center of one's entire personhood, one can have intimate relationships which are chaste. If one makes a celibate commitment to Christ, that changes the entire perspective for intimate relationships. One is precluded from this is the Church for very good reasons, of course. Therefore, chastity is the answer, not celibacy.
Perhaps reparative therapy fails because it is not based on the spiritual, but merely the physical, separating a person's being, which of course, would cause stress and the failure of breaking away from an attraction which is unnatural.
2.2.2013 | 12:13pm
Daniel says:
OrthoDude makes a point I hadn't heard before, so I did some light research (ie, Google) and found this article: http://www.thefix.com/content/the-real-statistics-of-aa7301 While I can't vouch for the article, if it is accurate, it validates OrthoDude's point about effectiveness.
The main difference between gay conversion and AA, I think, is that for "the tolerant left," homosexuality is not a pathology. Alcoholism is.
The main difference between gay conversion and AA, I think, is that for "the tolerant left," homosexuality is not a pathology. Alcoholism is.
2.2.2013 | 12:49pm
Art Deco says:
Mr. Gonnerman,
It is not going to be much of a surprise to most people who have been through counseling and psychotherapy that it is usually ineffective. That is just the way talk therapies are.
I would suggest you finish your degree, work at whatever seasonal and auxilliary employment you currently have, find permanent employment, and stop making an exhibit of yourself as regards your disfigured inner life. The confessional has the architecture it does for a reason.
It is not going to be much of a surprise to most people who have been through counseling and psychotherapy that it is usually ineffective. That is just the way talk therapies are.
I would suggest you finish your degree, work at whatever seasonal and auxilliary employment you currently have, find permanent employment, and stop making an exhibit of yourself as regards your disfigured inner life. The confessional has the architecture it does for a reason.
2.2.2013 | 4:52pm
Gil says:
"So, what are we to make of this study’s results?" That the researchers and practically everyone else in the social sciences insist on the gestalt of sexual identity, whether homosexual, heterosexual, trans-gender, or whatever, is itself a serious problem. I can see how the pathology of this matrix attracts mostly everyone in a now highly sexualized culture, the result of a successful sexual revolution, but for an orthodox Christian, the answer should be easy enough: the gestalt of sexual identity is a lie, that a "sexual identity" speaks zilch of "particular personhood".
In other words, the problem is solved when a person takes on a Christian identity, the fullness of personhood in Christ, where one focuses on one's calling and mission, or, to echo Batman, "It's what I do that defines me.” Who among the original 12 apostles and Paul had any concern with their sexual orientation and whether they were able to have a “fulfilling sexual lifestyle”? It was all about mission, as is the case with any person who hasn't bought into the delusional matrix of fundamental option.
So I agree with Marcus above, and reiterate: "The solution to homosexuality, I think, is simple. Repent of your lust, ask God for help a lot, and get plugged into a church where you can be loved on, especially by people of your own gender. I think ultimately whether or not orientation change eventually happens is irrelevant."
The problem with aberrant sexual desire in Christians, fixed or not, in any of the orientation categories, is not the desire itself, but living an abstract Christian life instead of being one with Christ body and soul. Living the life that is Christ is the answer to every problem, sexual or otherwise.
In other words, the problem is solved when a person takes on a Christian identity, the fullness of personhood in Christ, where one focuses on one's calling and mission, or, to echo Batman, "It's what I do that defines me.” Who among the original 12 apostles and Paul had any concern with their sexual orientation and whether they were able to have a “fulfilling sexual lifestyle”? It was all about mission, as is the case with any person who hasn't bought into the delusional matrix of fundamental option.
So I agree with Marcus above, and reiterate: "The solution to homosexuality, I think, is simple. Repent of your lust, ask God for help a lot, and get plugged into a church where you can be loved on, especially by people of your own gender. I think ultimately whether or not orientation change eventually happens is irrelevant."
The problem with aberrant sexual desire in Christians, fixed or not, in any of the orientation categories, is not the desire itself, but living an abstract Christian life instead of being one with Christ body and soul. Living the life that is Christ is the answer to every problem, sexual or otherwise.
2.2.2013 | 5:05pm
David Nickol says:
Daniel (and OrthoDude),
The comparison between AA and "reparative therapy" is not helpful, if by "reparative therapy" one means therapy directed at changing those who are same-sex attracted to being opposite-sex attracted. Success in AA is remaining sober. If you make an analogy between alcoholism and homosexuality, then the equivalent of sobriety of homosexuals is celibacy (or chastity). AA doesn't claim to "repair" whatever it is that causes people to become vulnerable to alcohol addiction. It enables them to live with whatever that is while avoiding alcohol.
I have not read Jones and Yarhouse, but Joshua Gonnerman's analysis, as well as one other I have read, make it clear that their book contains little if any credible evidence that reparative therapy does what it is claimed to do—change same-sex attracted persons to opposite-sex attracted persons. As Gonnerman points out, "When several of the [eleven] respondents who reported as conversion successes readily admit to ongoing same-sex attractions, the definition of 'heterosexual' is rendered highly ambiguous."
A claimed success rate of 18% is impressive, and even in the case of "success," reparative therapy seems to change same-sex-attracted homosexuals into same-sex-attracted "heterosexuals"—whatever that means.
Of course, for those gay people who are unhappy with their orientation, if some form of therapy enables them to suffer less distress, refrain from compulsive behavior or behavior they later regret, and so on, then it certainly must be considered beneficial. But if the stated goal is to stop experiencing same-sex attraction, and "convert" to experiencing opposite-sex attraction, then there is little or no evidence that reparative therapy actually does what it claims.
The comparison between AA and "reparative therapy" is not helpful, if by "reparative therapy" one means therapy directed at changing those who are same-sex attracted to being opposite-sex attracted. Success in AA is remaining sober. If you make an analogy between alcoholism and homosexuality, then the equivalent of sobriety of homosexuals is celibacy (or chastity). AA doesn't claim to "repair" whatever it is that causes people to become vulnerable to alcohol addiction. It enables them to live with whatever that is while avoiding alcohol.
I have not read Jones and Yarhouse, but Joshua Gonnerman's analysis, as well as one other I have read, make it clear that their book contains little if any credible evidence that reparative therapy does what it is claimed to do—change same-sex attracted persons to opposite-sex attracted persons. As Gonnerman points out, "When several of the [eleven] respondents who reported as conversion successes readily admit to ongoing same-sex attractions, the definition of 'heterosexual' is rendered highly ambiguous."
A claimed success rate of 18% is impressive, and even in the case of "success," reparative therapy seems to change same-sex-attracted homosexuals into same-sex-attracted "heterosexuals"—whatever that means.
Of course, for those gay people who are unhappy with their orientation, if some form of therapy enables them to suffer less distress, refrain from compulsive behavior or behavior they later regret, and so on, then it certainly must be considered beneficial. But if the stated goal is to stop experiencing same-sex attraction, and "convert" to experiencing opposite-sex attraction, then there is little or no evidence that reparative therapy actually does what it claims.
2.2.2013 | 7:24pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
Joshua Gonermann has written an excellent essay. And he's certainly correct to show scepticism concerning so-called "reparative therapy.'' True, it's possible that it may work for some, but considering its profoundly abysmal success record, I think that one would be entirely justified, at least on pragmatic grounds, for rendering it a failure, and something to be repudiated. The vast majority of psychiatrists, psychologists, neuroscientists, and other professionals in this area have concluded that reperative therapy is unsound. Arguments from authority cannot be considered valid inherently, but in conjunction with the paucity of empirical evidence in its support, reperative therapy should be (to borrow from Pres. Reagan in an obviously totally different context) to the "ash heap of history.'' So-called "reparative therapy'' is analogous to other ideas that, while seeming to possess superficial plausibility, upon comprehensive examination contain very little empirical evidence or valid deductive arguments in their favor, such as young earth creationism, Intelligent Design, or Freudian notions of the mind.
I think that Joshua Gonnerman is correct that chastity is a proper goal. But why can we not consider monogamy, or faithfulness to one partner the way to go, here? Certainly we rightly consider monogamy between heterosexuals to be the proper moral standard, why not with homosexuality as well? Granted, the Christian tradition possesses a plethora of examples condemning homosexual practices, (e.g., Paul, Thomas Aquinas), but can this condemnation be coherently applied to those who are committed, to a monogamous relationship to another adult person of the same gender?
I think that Joshua Gonnerman is correct that chastity is a proper goal. But why can we not consider monogamy, or faithfulness to one partner the way to go, here? Certainly we rightly consider monogamy between heterosexuals to be the proper moral standard, why not with homosexuality as well? Granted, the Christian tradition possesses a plethora of examples condemning homosexual practices, (e.g., Paul, Thomas Aquinas), but can this condemnation be coherently applied to those who are committed, to a monogamous relationship to another adult person of the same gender?
2.2.2013 | 9:11pm
Anonymous says:
The recidivism rate for gambling addicts is near 100%, or so I've been told be a psychotherapist who specializes with Catholic ministers.
That makes gay therapy look like a whopping success. It makes one want to take up smoking, just so he could quit, and join a large group of quitters.
No one has it easy, maybe that's the lesson here.
That makes gay therapy look like a whopping success. It makes one want to take up smoking, just so he could quit, and join a large group of quitters.
No one has it easy, maybe that's the lesson here.
2.2.2013 | 9:39pm
ol' Bob says:
The issue here is pretty simple, in my view: Is a homosexual sex act, or lusting for homosexual sex, a sin? Is it a sin, or is it not a sin?
If the answer is that it is a sin, and I think it is, the answer is in the Eucharist, as we "truly and earnestly repent our sins" and express our intent "to lead a new life".
The answer is in Scripture and at the Eucharistic Altar.
If the answer is that it is a sin, and I think it is, the answer is in the Eucharist, as we "truly and earnestly repent our sins" and express our intent "to lead a new life".
The answer is in Scripture and at the Eucharistic Altar.
2.3.2013 | 12:54am
Robert Oscar Lopez says:
I am bisexual and married to a woman. Dated a lot of guys in my 20s then fell in love with a woman. It's hard for me to understand this issue, though I have tried, because I have always looked at people as people, not as genders or sexual orientation labels. I suppose I am lucky that when I was in the gay scene, I wasn't bothered by it, so I wasn't so fixated and neurotic as many people in the ex-gay movement say they feel. My sense is that these labels are suffocating all of us. If we could just forget trying to announce that we "are" straight or gay, then it wouldn't be so crucial to prove that we have "converted." We can just live our lives and do what we need to do in the service of God and the people we love. Voltaire said it best: Tend to your garden. Don't worry.
2.3.2013 | 12:55am
Don Roberto says:
MWorrell, if you let yourself fantasize about smoking, lulling yourself to sleep at night by picturing the drug and imagining the flavor of your favorite cigar, that would be bad—you wouldn't be able to get over the desire. But if you go long enough without indulging in the bad habit, even in fantasy (I have gone almost three decades w/o smoking, myself), you will think of it less and less (I only dream of it very rarely at this point). You will have rewired your brain.
Bret, yes we should indeed accept the condemnation to be found in the Holy Bible, and in the writings of the Church Fathers; not the applause to be heard from the libertines in Hollywood and academia. And you should not put so much faith in psychologists and other professionals. They are mostly pseudo-atheists who teach that we need to "be ourselves" rather than to imitate Christ (i.e., that evil is good). Telling people they're sinners and need to go and sin no more would be bad for business. Much wiser (in the way of the fallen world) to say "go and don't let yourself believe that your sin will have consequences."
Bret, yes we should indeed accept the condemnation to be found in the Holy Bible, and in the writings of the Church Fathers; not the applause to be heard from the libertines in Hollywood and academia. And you should not put so much faith in psychologists and other professionals. They are mostly pseudo-atheists who teach that we need to "be ourselves" rather than to imitate Christ (i.e., that evil is good). Telling people they're sinners and need to go and sin no more would be bad for business. Much wiser (in the way of the fallen world) to say "go and don't let yourself believe that your sin will have consequences."
2.3.2013 | 2:17am
David Nickol says:
OrthoDude and Daniel,
Alcoholics Anonymous and "reparative therapy" are very different. AA doesn't claim to "repair" whatever it is that predisposes alcoholics to drink. It simply seeks to help them resist drinking. The goal is sobriety, and the analogous goal for those who consider a homosexual orientation an affliction would be celibacy or chastity. But the goal of "reparative therapy" is to take someone with a homosexual orientation and turn him into someone with a heterosexual orientation. Joshua Gonnerman makes a very good case that "the most prominent recent study, Ex-Gays? by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse," actually shows "reparative therapy" to be a failure in the majority of cases, and does not succeed in demonstrating convincingly that such therapy actually transforms homosexuals into heterosexuals in *any* of the cases it considers successes. That is, "reparative therapy" has not been shown to transform men who experience same-sex attraction into men who experience opposite-sex attraction, as evidenced by the fact that men who claim to be heterosexual acknowledge that they still experience same-sex attraction.
Alcoholics Anonymous and "reparative therapy" are very different. AA doesn't claim to "repair" whatever it is that predisposes alcoholics to drink. It simply seeks to help them resist drinking. The goal is sobriety, and the analogous goal for those who consider a homosexual orientation an affliction would be celibacy or chastity. But the goal of "reparative therapy" is to take someone with a homosexual orientation and turn him into someone with a heterosexual orientation. Joshua Gonnerman makes a very good case that "the most prominent recent study, Ex-Gays? by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse," actually shows "reparative therapy" to be a failure in the majority of cases, and does not succeed in demonstrating convincingly that such therapy actually transforms homosexuals into heterosexuals in *any* of the cases it considers successes. That is, "reparative therapy" has not been shown to transform men who experience same-sex attraction into men who experience opposite-sex attraction, as evidenced by the fact that men who claim to be heterosexual acknowledge that they still experience same-sex attraction.
2.3.2013 | 8:24am
A.M. says:
Our alienation from God and eah other , through the Fall , as we all know has wounded us all and leads to its manifesting in very many difft. ways .
Beauty of the New Covenant is , through the gift of The Holy Spirit , earned for us , through The Passion of The God- Man, with its infinite merits and strenght and timelessness , gives us the grace, to repent on behalf of all , for closer unity with all, all the way to our first parents - Adam and Eve.
The same Spirit gives us the grace ,to bring ourselves and others, into mercy of The Passion , esp. the hour of scourging , to set us free from deep or even hidden enemy holds of hatreds , fears , family bondages etc .too ; all such in turn , to make our lives fulfilling and strong , along with uniting the strengt of fastings , to that of The Lord , to allow The Father Love to take hold , at ever deeper levels , to drive away destructive lonliness !
Hope the author would be at the forefront of being able to experienece and help many who are afflicted , esp. in the realm of the flesh , which , in turn could have wide impact in all other areas too, such as in helping marriages, by promoting Natutral Family Planning and so on !
God Bless !
Beauty of the New Covenant is , through the gift of The Holy Spirit , earned for us , through The Passion of The God- Man, with its infinite merits and strenght and timelessness , gives us the grace, to repent on behalf of all , for closer unity with all, all the way to our first parents - Adam and Eve.
The same Spirit gives us the grace ,to bring ourselves and others, into mercy of The Passion , esp. the hour of scourging , to set us free from deep or even hidden enemy holds of hatreds , fears , family bondages etc .too ; all such in turn , to make our lives fulfilling and strong , along with uniting the strengt of fastings , to that of The Lord , to allow The Father Love to take hold , at ever deeper levels , to drive away destructive lonliness !
Hope the author would be at the forefront of being able to experienece and help many who are afflicted , esp. in the realm of the flesh , which , in turn could have wide impact in all other areas too, such as in helping marriages, by promoting Natutral Family Planning and so on !
God Bless !
2.3.2013 | 10:08am
Lawrence Rountree says:
Ortho Dude is right on everyone has a world view and the media does not appear to have very many pro Christianity followers
2.3.2013 | 1:41pm
Joe says:
"...Can this condemnation be coherently applied to those who are committed, to a monogamous relationship to another adult person of the same gender?"
Yes. The question is: What does Scripture condemn, promiscuity or same-sex relationships?
The honest if difficult answer is: both.
If book and tradition are so wrong on such a basic issue, Christianity is more e religion of preference and sentiment than religion, and the essential facts become inescapably blurred. Inadvertently the issue cuts to the core of the viability of the Church.
Yes. The question is: What does Scripture condemn, promiscuity or same-sex relationships?
The honest if difficult answer is: both.
If book and tradition are so wrong on such a basic issue, Christianity is more e religion of preference and sentiment than religion, and the essential facts become inescapably blurred. Inadvertently the issue cuts to the core of the viability of the Church.
2.3.2013 | 3:47pm
David Nickol says:
Anonymous,
The question here is not whether therapy can help same-sex-attracted people. It is whether therapy can transform same-sex-attracted people into opposite-sex-attracted people. As Joshua Gonnerman demonstrates, the claimed success rate is low, and it is very doubtful that even those put forward as successes have actually "converted" from being attracted to the same sex to being attracted to the opposite sex. Based on the evidence, extreme skepticism that "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy" actually work is warranted.
For a rigorous evaluation of conversion therapy, there would at minimum have to be a control group of equal size undergoing no therapy or therapy with a different approach, so conversion therapy could be *compared* to something. Also, in my opinion, there would have to be some objective, physiological measure of sexual response. Before therapy, subjects would have to be exposed to both heterosexual and homosexual stimuli, and their responses measured. Then after therapy, the same would be done. If there was no change, it would be clear that—no matter how much the therapy may have helped the individuals—it did not succeed in its aim to change them from same-sex attracted to opposite-sex attracted.
The question here is not whether therapy can help same-sex-attracted people. It is whether therapy can transform same-sex-attracted people into opposite-sex-attracted people. As Joshua Gonnerman demonstrates, the claimed success rate is low, and it is very doubtful that even those put forward as successes have actually "converted" from being attracted to the same sex to being attracted to the opposite sex. Based on the evidence, extreme skepticism that "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy" actually work is warranted.
For a rigorous evaluation of conversion therapy, there would at minimum have to be a control group of equal size undergoing no therapy or therapy with a different approach, so conversion therapy could be *compared* to something. Also, in my opinion, there would have to be some objective, physiological measure of sexual response. Before therapy, subjects would have to be exposed to both heterosexual and homosexual stimuli, and their responses measured. Then after therapy, the same would be done. If there was no change, it would be clear that—no matter how much the therapy may have helped the individuals—it did not succeed in its aim to change them from same-sex attracted to opposite-sex attracted.
2.3.2013 | 8:42pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
Hi Don Roberto & Joe, I see what you're saying, and I respect it. But The Bible is subject to interpretation. And although one can see passages that, based on a reasonable statndard of interpretation one can conclude that they repudiate homosexual activity that's not in a committed monogomous relationship, I cannot think of one passage where homosexual relationships ithin the context of pure monogamy are condemned. And just because the Bible has endorsed a particular view, this in no way implies that the Church, or anyone else should endorse it. For example, in the Old Testament, homosexuals are to be "put to death'', but no reasonable, moral person, and no Christian Church advocates this (thank God!). Also, Thomas Aquinas, who's rightly considered a giant in the Catholic Church, had many of his views condemned by the bishop of Paris and the pope, in 1277. I think we can say that the pope and bishop were wrong here.
Certainly most Christian thinkers,and the Church, prior to Darwin, believed that God directly created all species, in their present form. Certainly, if evolution is true, which it seems to be, all of these Christian thinkers, and the Church were wrong. Similarly, the Church could be wrong on the issue of homosexuality. This would in no way imply that Christianity is false. It's just that the Church is composed obviously of individuals, who, despite their best intentions, can get certain things wrong, but we don't have to assume that because of this, Christianity must be false, so to avoid this conundrum, we must conclude that everything that the Church has made pronouncements on, are true. This is an intellectual straightjacket that must be avoided.
Certainly most Christian thinkers,and the Church, prior to Darwin, believed that God directly created all species, in their present form. Certainly, if evolution is true, which it seems to be, all of these Christian thinkers, and the Church were wrong. Similarly, the Church could be wrong on the issue of homosexuality. This would in no way imply that Christianity is false. It's just that the Church is composed obviously of individuals, who, despite their best intentions, can get certain things wrong, but we don't have to assume that because of this, Christianity must be false, so to avoid this conundrum, we must conclude that everything that the Church has made pronouncements on, are true. This is an intellectual straightjacket that must be avoided.
2.3.2013 | 10:33pm
yan says:
Very good article and very good discussion. Thanks to all who have contributed.
As ol'Bob says, I think it is important to ask if lusting after strange flesh is a sin. I have to think that it must be. At the same time, those inflicted with this unnatural temptation are usually not much to blame for having it. Thus their culpability is not great.
Since it is a sin, I had always assumed that removing the condition giving rise to the sin ought to be some sort of priority. I think the article makes a good argument that this should not always be the case.
However, that doesn't mean it should never be the case. We don't want to turn people away that want to change with the help of therapy just because there is a good chance of being let down by the failure to change.
As ol'Bob says, I think it is important to ask if lusting after strange flesh is a sin. I have to think that it must be. At the same time, those inflicted with this unnatural temptation are usually not much to blame for having it. Thus their culpability is not great.
Since it is a sin, I had always assumed that removing the condition giving rise to the sin ought to be some sort of priority. I think the article makes a good argument that this should not always be the case.
However, that doesn't mean it should never be the case. We don't want to turn people away that want to change with the help of therapy just because there is a good chance of being let down by the failure to change.
2.4.2013 | 6:37am
David Nickol says:
Don Roberto,
Your notions about sexual orientation are so foreign to my own experience, the experiences of those I have personally discussed such matters with, and anything I have ever read on the topic that I am not even going to attempt to respond to them. I just want to point out that you said:
--------------------
The author says "...the definition of “heterosexual” is … highly ambiguous..." and I think so, too.
--------------------
That is serious distortion. What Joshua Gonerman said is the following:
--------------------
Moreover, when several of the respondents who reported as conversion successes readily admit to ongoing same-sex attractions, the definition of “heterosexual” is rendered highly ambiguous.
--------------------
He is not talking about the actual definition of "heterosexual." He is talking about Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse's implied definition of heterosexual in their book. If subjects who claim to have successfully made a change from homosexual to heterosexual then acknowledge that they are "same-sex attracted," what in the world do they mean by "heterosexual"? "Same-sex attracted heterosexual" is an oxymoron.
Your notions about sexual orientation are so foreign to my own experience, the experiences of those I have personally discussed such matters with, and anything I have ever read on the topic that I am not even going to attempt to respond to them. I just want to point out that you said:
--------------------
The author says "...the definition of “heterosexual” is … highly ambiguous..." and I think so, too.
--------------------
That is serious distortion. What Joshua Gonerman said is the following:
--------------------
Moreover, when several of the respondents who reported as conversion successes readily admit to ongoing same-sex attractions, the definition of “heterosexual” is rendered highly ambiguous.
--------------------
He is not talking about the actual definition of "heterosexual." He is talking about Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse's implied definition of heterosexual in their book. If subjects who claim to have successfully made a change from homosexual to heterosexual then acknowledge that they are "same-sex attracted," what in the world do they mean by "heterosexual"? "Same-sex attracted heterosexual" is an oxymoron.
2.4.2013 | 7:51am
Jacob says:
The person who commented about AA hit the nail on the head.
No one talks about shutting AA down "because there's only an 11% success rate so it's a failure".
This world has gone absolutely bonkers. Secular people can destroy the whole country and no one says a word, but if religious people aren't utterly flawless in every way they're completely demonized.
(It reminds me of the "sex abuse crisis" where all the hypocrite demons lined up to call Catholics evil despite all their own institutions having far greater rates of abuse. Nothing could prove Catholic cosmology more thoroughly than the way these people waste their whole lives conspiring to attack the followers of Christ..)
No one talks about shutting AA down "because there's only an 11% success rate so it's a failure".
This world has gone absolutely bonkers. Secular people can destroy the whole country and no one says a word, but if religious people aren't utterly flawless in every way they're completely demonized.
(It reminds me of the "sex abuse crisis" where all the hypocrite demons lined up to call Catholics evil despite all their own institutions having far greater rates of abuse. Nothing could prove Catholic cosmology more thoroughly than the way these people waste their whole lives conspiring to attack the followers of Christ..)
2.4.2013 | 10:03am
David Nickol says:
Jacob,
You say: "No one talks about shutting AA down 'because there's only an 11% success rate so it's a failure'."
You are missing the point of Joshua Gonnerman's critique of the book Ex-Gays? by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. It does not convincingly demonstrate *any* success of "conversion therapy." That is, there is NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE that reparative therapy "converts" same-sex-attracted individuals into opposite-sex-attracted individuals, which is what it is claimed to do. Helping those same-sex-attracted individuals who want to remain celibate to do so may be a worthy goal, but it is not the goal of "conversion therapy."
Not that demonstrating that "conversion therapy" is efficacious requires more than accepting a person's self-evaluation, putting him through "conversion therapy," and then accepting his self-evaluation again. If I offer a 4-week course of therapy to cure the common cold, I will have a 100% success rate. Anyone entering the program with a cold will be cured of that cold within 4 weeks. That will prove nothing about the therapy I provide.
Another problem is that there is no agreed-upon form of treatment called "conversion therapy," which makes it very difficult to test it!
You say: "No one talks about shutting AA down 'because there's only an 11% success rate so it's a failure'."
You are missing the point of Joshua Gonnerman's critique of the book Ex-Gays? by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. It does not convincingly demonstrate *any* success of "conversion therapy." That is, there is NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE that reparative therapy "converts" same-sex-attracted individuals into opposite-sex-attracted individuals, which is what it is claimed to do. Helping those same-sex-attracted individuals who want to remain celibate to do so may be a worthy goal, but it is not the goal of "conversion therapy."
Not that demonstrating that "conversion therapy" is efficacious requires more than accepting a person's self-evaluation, putting him through "conversion therapy," and then accepting his self-evaluation again. If I offer a 4-week course of therapy to cure the common cold, I will have a 100% success rate. Anyone entering the program with a cold will be cured of that cold within 4 weeks. That will prove nothing about the therapy I provide.
Another problem is that there is no agreed-upon form of treatment called "conversion therapy," which makes it very difficult to test it!
2.4.2013 | 12:17pm
Guest says:
IMHO Darryl Bem's theory that the Exotic Becomes Erotic sounds most plausible. We know that GIDs is a very good predictor of later life gay identity so I suspect that Bem's theory will prove very useful.
But changing it? Well it would be very very strange if we could somehow change our gender yet still remain biologically one sex or the other and yet couldn't change our attraction to align with our physical sex. Is it probable for even a minority of people, probably not. Although I also suspect and this is something the gay activists don't want people to think about, that attractions are alot more fluid than both sides want to admit. How else do we explain people who later in life suddenly go one way or another? Were they really gritting their teeth all those years? Sure some but all, no way. And especially women who are way more flexible it seems.
But yes chastity is for everyone, our culture needs it badly.
But changing it? Well it would be very very strange if we could somehow change our gender yet still remain biologically one sex or the other and yet couldn't change our attraction to align with our physical sex. Is it probable for even a minority of people, probably not. Although I also suspect and this is something the gay activists don't want people to think about, that attractions are alot more fluid than both sides want to admit. How else do we explain people who later in life suddenly go one way or another? Were they really gritting their teeth all those years? Sure some but all, no way. And especially women who are way more flexible it seems.
But yes chastity is for everyone, our culture needs it badly.
2.4.2013 | 1:30pm
yan says:
Guest,
EBE is interesting but it poses chicken-egg questions which have not been answered yet. Probably there are genetic and pre-natal factors which affect development so that there is an overlap between the observation of preferred activities and sexual orientation. Rather than one thing causing the other, it could be that both things have the same cause or are related to the same family of causes.
Thus for instance, a pre-natal hormonal exposure might tend to cause both increased verbal fluency in men, leading them to feel different and adopt non-conforming gender roles in childhood, and same-sex inclinations at the same time. The adopted role in that case would not be the cause of the inclination; instead both would be part of a family of consequences of the prenatal exposure.
Just a thought. As the catechism says, the etiology of same sex attraction is complex and still largely not understood.
EBE is interesting but it poses chicken-egg questions which have not been answered yet. Probably there are genetic and pre-natal factors which affect development so that there is an overlap between the observation of preferred activities and sexual orientation. Rather than one thing causing the other, it could be that both things have the same cause or are related to the same family of causes.
Thus for instance, a pre-natal hormonal exposure might tend to cause both increased verbal fluency in men, leading them to feel different and adopt non-conforming gender roles in childhood, and same-sex inclinations at the same time. The adopted role in that case would not be the cause of the inclination; instead both would be part of a family of consequences of the prenatal exposure.
Just a thought. As the catechism says, the etiology of same sex attraction is complex and still largely not understood.
2.4.2013 | 3:15pm
Don Roberto says:
Yan, beware of negating free will. Chickens cn't resist their inclinations or sculpt their own souls, but man has been gifted by God with these abilities.
"For we can cut off our unruly desires when they are newly born ... it is one thing to uproot a blade of grass, another to uproot a tree...So it is with our evil desires: insofar as they are small to start with we can, if we want to, cut them off with ease. If we neglect them as mere trifles they harden ... But if they grow to any degree of maturity inside us, we shall no longer be able to remove them from ourselves no matter how we labor unless we have the help of the saints in interceding for us with God." —St. Dorotheos of Gaza
"For we can cut off our unruly desires when they are newly born ... it is one thing to uproot a blade of grass, another to uproot a tree...So it is with our evil desires: insofar as they are small to start with we can, if we want to, cut them off with ease. If we neglect them as mere trifles they harden ... But if they grow to any degree of maturity inside us, we shall no longer be able to remove them from ourselves no matter how we labor unless we have the help of the saints in interceding for us with God." —St. Dorotheos of Gaza
2.4.2013 | 3:26pm
Guest says:
Great point yan.
This whole discussion sometimes reminds me of traditional dancing. Have you ever noticed how much they reinforce traditional gender roles? From China to Ukraine to Greece they all seem to have that among other things in common. I wonder how much of that is just experience telling groups of people that hey gender roles are important and if we experiment with them too much we'll end up with some odds and ends so to speak. And maybe back in agrarian times it helped small groups to have everyone reproduce and have babies but now that alot of people lives in cities that pressure is gone and is now in fact in the opposite direction sometimes. My point in all this is I bet the genetic or epi-genetic factor is actually very very small and that it's almost all up-bringing and personal experiences.
Here's another thought: what is it that makes 98% of people straight? Is it genetic? Well, if anything is it's that but I bet it's also mainly personal experiences. I think 99% of straight guys say to themselves ugh I don't want what I have already, it's gross to me because it isn't exotic to me, it's me. Not intellectual but that's kind of the strangeness, why would someone want to be with what they are? Well I'll end it there but this I also suspect is the another source of the power of this particular inclination. There's a reason so many young men fantasize about 2 women and it ain't got nothing to do with genetics!
This whole discussion sometimes reminds me of traditional dancing. Have you ever noticed how much they reinforce traditional gender roles? From China to Ukraine to Greece they all seem to have that among other things in common. I wonder how much of that is just experience telling groups of people that hey gender roles are important and if we experiment with them too much we'll end up with some odds and ends so to speak. And maybe back in agrarian times it helped small groups to have everyone reproduce and have babies but now that alot of people lives in cities that pressure is gone and is now in fact in the opposite direction sometimes. My point in all this is I bet the genetic or epi-genetic factor is actually very very small and that it's almost all up-bringing and personal experiences.
Here's another thought: what is it that makes 98% of people straight? Is it genetic? Well, if anything is it's that but I bet it's also mainly personal experiences. I think 99% of straight guys say to themselves ugh I don't want what I have already, it's gross to me because it isn't exotic to me, it's me. Not intellectual but that's kind of the strangeness, why would someone want to be with what they are? Well I'll end it there but this I also suspect is the another source of the power of this particular inclination. There's a reason so many young men fantasize about 2 women and it ain't got nothing to do with genetics!
2.4.2013 | 7:30pm
Makemeaspark says:
Dearest Guest I find your remarks unutterably sad. That you have no clue who made you or why. The reason for your existence is seems so cloudy to you that you no longer understand that you were made is the image and likeness of God. sigh
I would postulate that, like other addictive behaviors, homosexual orientation will only be overcome with the power of God. Secular programs have had very little success with drug addiction and other addictive behaviors. If you have read about Pastor David Wilkerson's success in the 60's with drug addicts in the inner cities, you will know that he found much greater success when the lifestyle of the addicts was completely altered. And their minds renewed by the Holy Spirit. I suspect that homosexual orientation is very similar.
I would postulate that, like other addictive behaviors, homosexual orientation will only be overcome with the power of God. Secular programs have had very little success with drug addiction and other addictive behaviors. If you have read about Pastor David Wilkerson's success in the 60's with drug addicts in the inner cities, you will know that he found much greater success when the lifestyle of the addicts was completely altered. And their minds renewed by the Holy Spirit. I suspect that homosexual orientation is very similar.
2.4.2013 | 7:55pm
A's Letters says:
I'd recommend an openness in watching and listening to those who have experienced healing of SSA, www.voices-of-change.com.
2.4.2013 | 8:06pm
Rick Fitzgibbons says:
We can learn a great deal from Spitzer's study of recovery from SSA that was critically reviewed and published in an important peer reviewed journal. His later rejection of his own research has also been critically reviewed, www.mercatornet.com/articles/.../frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes.
Dr. Spitzer wrote, “Depression has been reported to be a common side effect of unsuccessful attempts to change orientation. This was not the case for our participants, who often reported that they were ‘markedly’ or ‘extremely’ depressed [prior to treatment] (males 43%, females 47%), but rarely that depressed [after treatment] (males 1%, females 4%.). To the contrary, [after treatment] the vast majority reported that they were ‘not at all’ or ‘only slightly’ depressed (males 91%, females 88%).”(1.)
In addition participants in Spitzer’s study were presented with a list of several ways that therapy might have been “very helpful” (apart from change in sexual orientation). Notable were feeling more masculine (males) or more feminine (females) (87%) and developing more intimate nonsexual relations with the same sex (93%).(57)
1. Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:p.412
2. Ibid. p.412
Dr. Spitzer wrote, “Depression has been reported to be a common side effect of unsuccessful attempts to change orientation. This was not the case for our participants, who often reported that they were ‘markedly’ or ‘extremely’ depressed [prior to treatment] (males 43%, females 47%), but rarely that depressed [after treatment] (males 1%, females 4%.). To the contrary, [after treatment] the vast majority reported that they were ‘not at all’ or ‘only slightly’ depressed (males 91%, females 88%).”(1.)
In addition participants in Spitzer’s study were presented with a list of several ways that therapy might have been “very helpful” (apart from change in sexual orientation). Notable were feeling more masculine (males) or more feminine (females) (87%) and developing more intimate nonsexual relations with the same sex (93%).(57)
1. Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:p.412
2. Ibid. p.412
2.4.2013 | 10:16pm
James Phelan says:
The author's point about the value of chastity is well taken. In fact, reparative therapy is very supportive of chastity, but the potential value is even higher as it seeks to assist in understanding root causes of same-sex attractions and provides much greater hope for change. The author's notion that the stakes are high for harm resulting from reparative therapy failure is not well supported by research, rather stems from anti-reparative therapy propaganda.
2.5.2013 | 1:01am
yan says:
A survey of conversion therapies reveals that from Freud to the present time, attempts of various kinds to analyze homosexual behavior and to change it have not addressed any of the insights derived from recent discoveries in the areas of brain and neuroscience which show a range of differences in the physiology and development of homosexuals.
Perhaps conversion therapy should take more of an organic approach. We do this with every other kind of behavior and neurosis these days. Why must we approach conversion therapy by addressing only the free will of the patient?
So many of the behavior modification techniques of the 20th c. have fallen into disuse; many I think are barbaric. Yet it is the same old ideas and therapies mixed with religion that comprise the elements of conversion therapies.
Perhaps some kind of drug and hormonal therapy will be a large part of the answer to this problem in the future. At that time perhaps homosexuality will once more be viewed as a species of neurosis and yes, psychosis, as it was formerly. As with schizophrenia, it seems to have a very strong biological component.
Perhaps conversion therapy should take more of an organic approach. We do this with every other kind of behavior and neurosis these days. Why must we approach conversion therapy by addressing only the free will of the patient?
So many of the behavior modification techniques of the 20th c. have fallen into disuse; many I think are barbaric. Yet it is the same old ideas and therapies mixed with religion that comprise the elements of conversion therapies.
Perhaps some kind of drug and hormonal therapy will be a large part of the answer to this problem in the future. At that time perhaps homosexuality will once more be viewed as a species of neurosis and yes, psychosis, as it was formerly. As with schizophrenia, it seems to have a very strong biological component.
2.5.2013 | 4:26am
Philip M. Sutton, Ph.D. says:
For persons who have develop same-sex attractions, thoughts, sexual gratifying behaviors and/or identities, any change – including growth in chastity is more like using a “dimmer” than an “on/off switch.” I am a clinical and Board member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and I strongly advise readers to review the entire 2012 NARTH Statement on Sexual Orientation Change (http://narth.com/2012/01/narth-statement-on-sexual-orientation-change/), portions of which are quoted below:
…When change is viewed in absolute terms, then any future experience of same-sex attraction (or any other challenge), however fleeting or diminished, is considered a refutation of change…. What needs to be remembered is that the de-legitimizing of change solely on the basis of a categorical view of change is virtually unparalleled for any challenge in the psychiatric literature. For example, applying a categorical standard for change would mean that any subsequent reappearance of depressive mood following treatment for depression should be viewed as an invalidation of significant and genuine change, no matter how infrequently depressive symptoms reoccur or how diminished in intensity they are if subsequently re-experienced. Similar arguments could be made for any number of conditions, including grief, alcoholism, or marital distress. The point is not to equate these conditions with homosexuality, but rather to highlight the inconsistency of applying the categorical standard only to reported changes in unwanted same-sex attractions.
…NARTH believes that viewing change as occurring on a continuum is a preferable therapeutic approach and more likely to create realistic expectancies among consumers of change-oriented intervention. With this in mind, NARTH remains committed to protecting the rights of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions to pursue change as well as the rights of clinicians to provide such psychological care.
…When change is viewed in absolute terms, then any future experience of same-sex attraction (or any other challenge), however fleeting or diminished, is considered a refutation of change…. What needs to be remembered is that the de-legitimizing of change solely on the basis of a categorical view of change is virtually unparalleled for any challenge in the psychiatric literature. For example, applying a categorical standard for change would mean that any subsequent reappearance of depressive mood following treatment for depression should be viewed as an invalidation of significant and genuine change, no matter how infrequently depressive symptoms reoccur or how diminished in intensity they are if subsequently re-experienced. Similar arguments could be made for any number of conditions, including grief, alcoholism, or marital distress. The point is not to equate these conditions with homosexuality, but rather to highlight the inconsistency of applying the categorical standard only to reported changes in unwanted same-sex attractions.
…NARTH believes that viewing change as occurring on a continuum is a preferable therapeutic approach and more likely to create realistic expectancies among consumers of change-oriented intervention. With this in mind, NARTH remains committed to protecting the rights of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions to pursue change as well as the rights of clinicians to provide such psychological care.
2.5.2013 | 9:31am
David Nickol says:
yan,
Can you provide evidence that homosexuality was classified as a psychosis? I don't believe it ever was, but *if* it was, certainly it was before "psychosis" had its contemporary meaning. Freud certainly did not consider homosexuality an illness. Here is the first paragraph from his famous "Letter to an American Mother":
********************
I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you, why do you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis. . . .
********************
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/freud1.asp
Can you provide evidence that homosexuality was classified as a psychosis? I don't believe it ever was, but *if* it was, certainly it was before "psychosis" had its contemporary meaning. Freud certainly did not consider homosexuality an illness. Here is the first paragraph from his famous "Letter to an American Mother":
********************
I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you, why do you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis. . . .
********************
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/freud1.asp
2.5.2013 | 12:30pm
Doughlas Remy says:
These discussions about conversion therapy are taking place in an echo-chamber that is hermetically sealed to exclude the consensus opinions of health and social welfare professionals on the subject of homosexuality and its discontents. I searched both the article and the comments and found not one mention of them.
Are you not aware that every major professional association of doctors, psychologists, pediatricians, and social workers in this country has unequivocally declared there to be nothing disordered about homosexuality? The World Health Organization has also made this very clear. Practitioners who ignore the consensus are usually motivated by religious teachings that have no basis in evidence.
Are you also not aware that there are millions of “out” LGBTs who do not struggle with either their orientation or their identity and who have done a complete “end-run” around all the problems that you seem to think inhere in homosexuality?
A British Medical Journal editorial almost ten years ago put it very succinctly:“In spite of every mental health and medical association in the U.S. stating unequivocally that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a disorder, many religious organizations continue to declare homosexuality or homosexual behavior as sinful and immoral. This creates spiritual crises for many people who have grown up within anti-homosexual religious families and communities.”
It seems to me that the Church is far more interested in showing that homosexuality is a disorder than it is in helping homosexuals, whose path to psychological health will never, in the long-run, be through either celibacy or reparative therapies. And it will not result from the ministrations of the pious folks who have caused the very problems they are trying to cure.
Are you not aware that every major professional association of doctors, psychologists, pediatricians, and social workers in this country has unequivocally declared there to be nothing disordered about homosexuality? The World Health Organization has also made this very clear. Practitioners who ignore the consensus are usually motivated by religious teachings that have no basis in evidence.
Are you also not aware that there are millions of “out” LGBTs who do not struggle with either their orientation or their identity and who have done a complete “end-run” around all the problems that you seem to think inhere in homosexuality?
A British Medical Journal editorial almost ten years ago put it very succinctly:“In spite of every mental health and medical association in the U.S. stating unequivocally that there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a disorder, many religious organizations continue to declare homosexuality or homosexual behavior as sinful and immoral. This creates spiritual crises for many people who have grown up within anti-homosexual religious families and communities.”
It seems to me that the Church is far more interested in showing that homosexuality is a disorder than it is in helping homosexuals, whose path to psychological health will never, in the long-run, be through either celibacy or reparative therapies. And it will not result from the ministrations of the pious folks who have caused the very problems they are trying to cure.
2.5.2013 | 12:35pm
Howard Kainz says:
@David Nickol: Freud's letter that you cite does not indicate that he thought homosexuality normal. In his General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, he writes: "It is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently.... [Such activity] is called by the unhonored title of “perversion” and as such is despised."
2.5.2013 | 1:05pm
anon says:
Douglas,
The world is full of credentialed misfits. The truth is same sex acts are deviant regardless of how many credentialed people claim otherwise.
The world is full of credentialed misfits. The truth is same sex acts are deviant regardless of how many credentialed people claim otherwise.
2.5.2013 | 1:43pm
David Nickol says:
Howard Kainz,
You say: "Freud's letter that you cite does not indicate that he thought homosexuality normal."
Of course, I did not say or imply that Freud considered homosexuality "normal." He says right in the letter, "[W]e consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development." The point I was addressing was not whether homosexuality was "normal" or not, but whether it was considered a "psychosis."
Have you ever come across evidence that anyone at any time classified heterosexuality as a psychosis? I certainly haven't.
You say: "Freud's letter that you cite does not indicate that he thought homosexuality normal."
Of course, I did not say or imply that Freud considered homosexuality "normal." He says right in the letter, "[W]e consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development." The point I was addressing was not whether homosexuality was "normal" or not, but whether it was considered a "psychosis."
Have you ever come across evidence that anyone at any time classified heterosexuality as a psychosis? I certainly haven't.
2.5.2013 | 2:50pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
The problem with human sexuality is humans. We are a mess. As Christians and religious Jews would see it, we are fallen creatures. So the reality of homosexuality cannot be seen in definitive terms. There are plenty of homosexuals I am sure who have no qualms about and are perfectly happy. Fine. I personally think they aren't as happy as they think, because I am a Christian and believe they are living a disordered life apart from God's design for them. And I like most other Christians have no desire to judge them or belittle them in any way. Nonetheless we believe a homosexual lifestyle is wrong and sinful by our lights, definitely an anti-PC view nowadays.
There are also plenty of folks who have homosexual desires who wished they didn't, or are not fulfilled, or are not happy, or who hate themselves, who know they are doing wrong, but can't help it, etc. The ideologically committed secularist progressive types can't admit these people exist (a perfect example seems to be Mr. Remy), because it will mess up their fictitious worldview that sexual orientation is hard wired into us never to change.
One day, hopefully, modern liberals may actually become liberals and be willing to live and let live, to admit sexuality is a lot more malleable than they thought, and accept that a more complicated view exists. Maybe they’ll also become more tolerant of people who have different views from them, and stop demonizing Christians as bigots and haters. Oh well, one can always hope.
There are also plenty of folks who have homosexual desires who wished they didn't, or are not fulfilled, or are not happy, or who hate themselves, who know they are doing wrong, but can't help it, etc. The ideologically committed secularist progressive types can't admit these people exist (a perfect example seems to be Mr. Remy), because it will mess up their fictitious worldview that sexual orientation is hard wired into us never to change.
One day, hopefully, modern liberals may actually become liberals and be willing to live and let live, to admit sexuality is a lot more malleable than they thought, and accept that a more complicated view exists. Maybe they’ll also become more tolerant of people who have different views from them, and stop demonizing Christians as bigots and haters. Oh well, one can always hope.
2.5.2013 | 2:53pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Anon, the medical and social welfare associations that I am talking about have well over a million members all told, and they represent many more millions of practitioners and researchers. I would not dismiss them lightly. These are the people you go to when you have a medical or psychological issue. If you are going only to your priest with such issues, then you are denying yourself competent and qualified care. The Church has no expertise in mental health and it cannot give accreditation or certification in medical fields. Instead, it has a set of doctrines to which it gives absolute priority over any fact-based source of understanding or treatment. The closed nature of the system poses real dangers to those who get drawn into it. This is just as true of Catholicism as it is of Scientology or the Mars Hill Church, and among those most at risk in this current political climate are homosexuals. What particularly alarms me is to see “out” gays and lesbians turning to Church teachings for guidance. This is exactly the wrong thing to do, and I would urge them to “break the spell” and break out of the closed system of Catholic thought on this subject.
2.5.2013 | 3:10pm
Doughlas Remy says:
David and Howard, why are you even concerned about what Freud thought of homosexuality? As the founder of psychoanalysis, he was a hugely important figure, but he was wrong about almost everything, and his theories were based on very limited numbers of case studies and were unfalsifiable. For the latest and greatest on homosexuality, you'll need to look to sciences that didn't even exist in Freud's time, starting with neuroscience. There's an abundance of reliable information out there. You could start with the APA. Or you could just google a few terms and be careful to avoid any so-called "studies" that emanate from religious institutions, because they are likely to be biased. Remember: religion starts with conclusions; science starts with data.
2.5.2013 | 3:25pm
David Nickol says:
Doughlas Remy,
You are, of course, correct. The consensus about homosexuality among psychiatrists and psychologists, and the agreement of the AMA and almost all other medical associations counts for almost nothing in discussions about homosexuality here. However, studies that purport to show negative aspects of homosexuality or gay people are accepted without question.
You are, of course, correct. The consensus about homosexuality among psychiatrists and psychologists, and the agreement of the AMA and almost all other medical associations counts for almost nothing in discussions about homosexuality here. However, studies that purport to show negative aspects of homosexuality or gay people are accepted without question.
2.5.2013 | 3:27pm
yan says:
To all,
Regarding the classification of homosexuality as a psychosis, I mistakenly inferred it from Albert Ellis in his 'Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy' wherein it is stated that "fixed homosexuals in our society are almost invariably neurotic or psychotic:... therefore, no so-called normal group of homosexuals is to be found anywhere." P. 242.
Since the coincidence of homosexuality and psychosis is not the same thing as saying that homosexuality is in itself a psychotic state, I apologize and retract my statement that it has been considered to be a psychosis. Because it has indeed considered a neurosis, I jumped too quickly in my reading to conclude that it also was sometimes considered to be a psychosis.
That aside, the apparently frequent coincidence of homosexuality and psychosis, if true, is a noteworthy fact.
Regarding the classification of homosexuality as a psychosis, I mistakenly inferred it from Albert Ellis in his 'Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy' wherein it is stated that "fixed homosexuals in our society are almost invariably neurotic or psychotic:... therefore, no so-called normal group of homosexuals is to be found anywhere." P. 242.
Since the coincidence of homosexuality and psychosis is not the same thing as saying that homosexuality is in itself a psychotic state, I apologize and retract my statement that it has been considered to be a psychosis. Because it has indeed considered a neurosis, I jumped too quickly in my reading to conclude that it also was sometimes considered to be a psychosis.
That aside, the apparently frequent coincidence of homosexuality and psychosis, if true, is a noteworthy fact.
2.5.2013 | 7:12pm
yan says:
Douglas R,
How can you possibly quote approvingly the BMJ statement that there is no basis in evidence for homosexuality being a disorder? What about all the evidence that made the profession almost universally conclude that it is was a disorder prior to 1973? Did this evidence disappear? Has all the evidence stopped coming in?
What both you and the BBC statement do is conflate evidence with a conclusion based on the evidence. What has changed is the conclusion from the evidence, not the evidence itself. It is fair to observe that this conclusion is what most of the smart people think and to give it the weight due to the opinion of smart people generally. But it is also fair to observe that previously most of the smart people thought the opposite.
When you say there is no evidence, that is shorthand for saying, 'don't argue with me. My mind is made up.'
Apparently you have no use for Church teaching in this regard. However, it is not right to say the Church has no competence in the area of mental health. Psychology is the study of psyche, the soul. The Church has deeply concerned itself with the health of the soul for 2000 years. You should acquaint yourself with some of the treasures it has accumulated in that regard over these past 2 millennia.
How can you possibly quote approvingly the BMJ statement that there is no basis in evidence for homosexuality being a disorder? What about all the evidence that made the profession almost universally conclude that it is was a disorder prior to 1973? Did this evidence disappear? Has all the evidence stopped coming in?
What both you and the BBC statement do is conflate evidence with a conclusion based on the evidence. What has changed is the conclusion from the evidence, not the evidence itself. It is fair to observe that this conclusion is what most of the smart people think and to give it the weight due to the opinion of smart people generally. But it is also fair to observe that previously most of the smart people thought the opposite.
When you say there is no evidence, that is shorthand for saying, 'don't argue with me. My mind is made up.'
Apparently you have no use for Church teaching in this regard. However, it is not right to say the Church has no competence in the area of mental health. Psychology is the study of psyche, the soul. The Church has deeply concerned itself with the health of the soul for 2000 years. You should acquaint yourself with some of the treasures it has accumulated in that regard over these past 2 millennia.
2.5.2013 | 7:28pm
Don Roberto says:
Mr. Remy, the millions of professionals make money by soothing their customers consciences. (They also tell them that killing their unborn babies and breaking solemn marital vows are okay, if it "feels right.") It is bad for business to tell your customers they're crazy or that they're being immoral.
Catholics believe Faith and reason do not contradict each other. Reason says that "gays" cannot (easily) procreate, and they experience depression and STDs at high rates (even now after the terrible AIDS epidemic has reduced their numbers and altered their behavior to some degree), and the powerful immunodeficiency drugs they often have to take long-term because of their behavior are beginning to serious health damage. Sin has real, measurable costs, whether you believe in God, or that the universe created itself from nothing.
Catholics believe Faith and reason do not contradict each other. Reason says that "gays" cannot (easily) procreate, and they experience depression and STDs at high rates (even now after the terrible AIDS epidemic has reduced their numbers and altered their behavior to some degree), and the powerful immunodeficiency drugs they often have to take long-term because of their behavior are beginning to serious health damage. Sin has real, measurable costs, whether you believe in God, or that the universe created itself from nothing.
2.5.2013 | 11:12pm
Tim says:
@Art Deco,
How helpful of you to make life suggestions to someone who never asked you for them. I'm sure the author is going to write you a nice thank you note in a year telling you how you saved his life. Here's a suggestion for you. Try not to be an ass in public. If you want to address the content of the article, than go for it. You went straight to attacking the author's character. That is unChristian in the extreme, and since you seem to know what a confessional looks like, I hope you head there pronto.
How helpful of you to make life suggestions to someone who never asked you for them. I'm sure the author is going to write you a nice thank you note in a year telling you how you saved his life. Here's a suggestion for you. Try not to be an ass in public. If you want to address the content of the article, than go for it. You went straight to attacking the author's character. That is unChristian in the extreme, and since you seem to know what a confessional looks like, I hope you head there pronto.
2.6.2013 | 3:35pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, you ask why I discount pre-1973 science about homosexuality? It’s for the same reason that I discount pre-1973 science about aeronautics, cancer, electronics, climate change, the effects of smoking, and just about everything else. Science progresses. Why look to Kepler for information about the stars when you can visit the NASA website?
And no, the evidence hasn’t stopped coming in about homosexuality or about climate change. But we do know that homosexuality is not a disorder and that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.
I maintain that the only real purpose of these bizarre, evidence-free discussions about homosexuality is bias-confirmation. You and other bloggers here are studiously avoiding the scientific consensus about homosexuality because you are committed to upholding the Church’s teachings, which, in your view, will always trump any amount of science.
What is dishonest about these discussions is that they pretend to respect science when they don’t. To maintain this pretense, they will draw support in the form of “scientific” studies that are in fact only junk science pumped out in support of foregone conclusions about homosexuality. This is not science. It is the antithesis of science.
What would it take to convince you that homosexuality is NOT a disorder? I maintain that nothing could convince you, because you’re not honestly interested in evidence.
And no, the evidence hasn’t stopped coming in about homosexuality or about climate change. But we do know that homosexuality is not a disorder and that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.
I maintain that the only real purpose of these bizarre, evidence-free discussions about homosexuality is bias-confirmation. You and other bloggers here are studiously avoiding the scientific consensus about homosexuality because you are committed to upholding the Church’s teachings, which, in your view, will always trump any amount of science.
What is dishonest about these discussions is that they pretend to respect science when they don’t. To maintain this pretense, they will draw support in the form of “scientific” studies that are in fact only junk science pumped out in support of foregone conclusions about homosexuality. This is not science. It is the antithesis of science.
What would it take to convince you that homosexuality is NOT a disorder? I maintain that nothing could convince you, because you’re not honestly interested in evidence.
2.6.2013 | 3:52pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Don Roberto, your view of medical professionals is curious in view of the fact that you probably consult them from time to time. I am very skeptical about the services offered by priests, but I do not go to them for help of any kind.
Your view of homosexuality is based on generalizations and stereotypes, which add up to prejudice. Whether or not gays have higher rates of any given medical condition is completely beside the point. What if the reverse were true? Would you conclude that heterosexuality is disordered? Do you have any idea how many straight men regularly view pornography, cheat on their wives, and abuse their children? Have you not heard about violence against women and sexual harassment at the workplace? Do you know what the divorce rate is among straight couples? What do you think was the sexual orientation of the five hooligans who recently gang-raped a young lady on a bus in India and shot her boyfriend? Go to your nearest supermarket and look at the magazine rack near the check-out counter. Then come back and tell me how badly-behaved gay men and lesbians are.
Your view of homosexuality is based on generalizations and stereotypes, which add up to prejudice. Whether or not gays have higher rates of any given medical condition is completely beside the point. What if the reverse were true? Would you conclude that heterosexuality is disordered? Do you have any idea how many straight men regularly view pornography, cheat on their wives, and abuse their children? Have you not heard about violence against women and sexual harassment at the workplace? Do you know what the divorce rate is among straight couples? What do you think was the sexual orientation of the five hooligans who recently gang-raped a young lady on a bus in India and shot her boyfriend? Go to your nearest supermarket and look at the magazine rack near the check-out counter. Then come back and tell me how badly-behaved gay men and lesbians are.
2.6.2013 | 4:09pm
Don Roberto says:
Art Deco was harsh, because the author recognizes the problem; however, I worry insofar as this kind of essay (especially from a good publisher like First Things) helps perpetuate the idea that "gayness" is innate. The brains of mature people are indeed different, but correlation is not causation. Epigenetic change is influenced by environment and experience, but humans have a significant ability to shape their own character/ destiny. This happens when we make decisions that become habits. Play the piano long enough and your finger coordination will improve. Jog for a few weeks and it will get easier, and you will not want to stop (and you will become more fit). Eschew cheeseburgers and bacon for a couple months and they will no longer be as palatable.
Telling the world that one is "gay" inevitably makes it seem okay. This is a very bad message for society, especially young people, who are most likely to still have the neuroplasticity to forge a different (better) path—one that unfortunately will not be as realistic for many people once they reach maturity. So, with all due respect, one should avoid repeating what Hollywood and the professional psychologists (relatively few of whom hold Judeo-Christian beliefs) have already managed to convince all too many people of.
Telling the world that one is "gay" inevitably makes it seem okay. This is a very bad message for society, especially young people, who are most likely to still have the neuroplasticity to forge a different (better) path—one that unfortunately will not be as realistic for many people once they reach maturity. So, with all due respect, one should avoid repeating what Hollywood and the professional psychologists (relatively few of whom hold Judeo-Christian beliefs) have already managed to convince all too many people of.
2.6.2013 | 5:34pm
don Roberto says:
Mr Remy, I believe in sin. And I am especially concerned when people teach the innocent that there is no such thing. As for med professionals, especially psychologists, they should be approached with caution. (My doctor wanted to put me on anti-cholesterol meds: I declined his advice and lowered my cholesterol through diet. There was a story in the papers yesterday about a med student who died from the prescriptions he was given for a mind-enhancing drug.) Anyway, you and I disagree to some degree on these subjects. But perhaps we do agree that pornography is bad. I take it you are a non-believer? Are you a scientific materialist? If so, I am interested to know *why* you think pornography is bad. I know it is, on both Biblical and purely logical grounds. I think it diverts the minds of users away from productive relationships and hurts their ability to bond.
2.6.2013 | 6:13pm
yan says:
Douglas,
The Church and professional psychiatry use the word 'disorder' in different ways so that it is possible to affirm the conclusions of both, in theory. The Church means by 'disorder' that from the standpoint of moral theology the homosexual act does not attempt to achieve the goal which the natural law determines for it. That is almost the same understanding Freud had when he used the term 'perversion.' There is no conflict between these 2 understandings in that particular case.
The Church's definition of disorder is therefore of a different kind than that put forward by the psychological profession. Since I am not a psychologist, I don't know what the criteria are for designating a condition to be a disorder. Certainly it is different than the criteria used by the Church? The Church is referring to acts, and insofar as the act is disordered, the proclivity to do such an act would also be disordered. That doesn't mean you cannot have a valid and different definition of the word for the sake of your profession, so that homosexuality would not be considered a disordered condition.
But I hope you understand the scepticism of many, including me, toward the profession in this regard, when it is a matter of history that these categories often change at least in part in deference to, and under the influence of, political pressure groups. To baptize these conclusions as 'scientific' after the fact is a bit suspicious.
If you say: 'human sexuality has an observable range of tastes and flavors. We can statistically predict the frequency of their occurrence. They are associated with every kind of person and trait. Thus, there is no reason to say that the manifestation of these different tastes is in itself evidence of disorder,' then I can understand why the profession doesn't call homosexuality a disorder and I would agree that, in that sense, it is not a disorder. Is that what the profession means?
The Church and professional psychiatry use the word 'disorder' in different ways so that it is possible to affirm the conclusions of both, in theory. The Church means by 'disorder' that from the standpoint of moral theology the homosexual act does not attempt to achieve the goal which the natural law determines for it. That is almost the same understanding Freud had when he used the term 'perversion.' There is no conflict between these 2 understandings in that particular case.
The Church's definition of disorder is therefore of a different kind than that put forward by the psychological profession. Since I am not a psychologist, I don't know what the criteria are for designating a condition to be a disorder. Certainly it is different than the criteria used by the Church? The Church is referring to acts, and insofar as the act is disordered, the proclivity to do such an act would also be disordered. That doesn't mean you cannot have a valid and different definition of the word for the sake of your profession, so that homosexuality would not be considered a disordered condition.
But I hope you understand the scepticism of many, including me, toward the profession in this regard, when it is a matter of history that these categories often change at least in part in deference to, and under the influence of, political pressure groups. To baptize these conclusions as 'scientific' after the fact is a bit suspicious.
If you say: 'human sexuality has an observable range of tastes and flavors. We can statistically predict the frequency of their occurrence. They are associated with every kind of person and trait. Thus, there is no reason to say that the manifestation of these different tastes is in itself evidence of disorder,' then I can understand why the profession doesn't call homosexuality a disorder and I would agree that, in that sense, it is not a disorder. Is that what the profession means?
2.7.2013 | 2:26pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, Thank you for explaining what “disordered” means in Catholic theological parlance. I am happy to see that your use of the word bears no relation to the consensus scientific understanding of the term.
You write, “[The Church’s teaching] doesn’t mean you cannot have a valid and different definition of the word for the sake of your profession, so that homosexuality would not be considered a disordered condition.” It’s very generous of the Church to permit sharing of the term.
The problem, in my view, is that most Catholics don’t seem to understand this. Neither do non-Catholics when they hear Catholics describe homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered.” In fact, you are the only Catholic I have ever known to explain the Church’s privileged understanding of the word “disordered” in this way. (I have been blogging with Catholics about it for many years.)
I think a great deal of confusion and ill-feeling could be avoided if the Church could make it absolutely clear that it is not using the term “disordered” in the accepted scientific sense and that there is no overlap between the two uses of the term.
I notice that you seemed to backtrack a little when you expressed your skepticism of the psychological professions. You are certainly entitled to that skepticism. I share it only to a very small degree.
You asked what mental health professionals mean by “disorder.” I found the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) definition to be extremely helpful in understanding why homosexuality is not a disorder. I’ll post it in a separate comment.
You write, “[The Church’s teaching] doesn’t mean you cannot have a valid and different definition of the word for the sake of your profession, so that homosexuality would not be considered a disordered condition.” It’s very generous of the Church to permit sharing of the term.
The problem, in my view, is that most Catholics don’t seem to understand this. Neither do non-Catholics when they hear Catholics describe homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered.” In fact, you are the only Catholic I have ever known to explain the Church’s privileged understanding of the word “disordered” in this way. (I have been blogging with Catholics about it for many years.)
I think a great deal of confusion and ill-feeling could be avoided if the Church could make it absolutely clear that it is not using the term “disordered” in the accepted scientific sense and that there is no overlap between the two uses of the term.
I notice that you seemed to backtrack a little when you expressed your skepticism of the psychological professions. You are certainly entitled to that skepticism. I share it only to a very small degree.
You asked what mental health professionals mean by “disorder.” I found the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) definition to be extremely helpful in understanding why homosexuality is not a disorder. I’ll post it in a separate comment.
2.7.2013 | 3:56pm
Gil says:
Don Roberto,
Your input on the subject of "gayness" is invaluable, and thanks for the persistence, especially since, as you write, "I worry insofar as this kind of essay (especially from a good publisher like First Things) helps perpetuate the idea that 'gayness' is innate." Yes--I've read essays in First Things where apparently "orthodox" Christians imply that there is ontological depth to "being gay", and this caused me to end my subscription as a protest.
As time moves on, you will no doubt become more and more the odd man out. But please don’t allow this to discourage you. Your voice, no doubt informed by the Holy Spirit, is so vitally needed by so many lost in the chaos of sexual liberation.
Your input on the subject of "gayness" is invaluable, and thanks for the persistence, especially since, as you write, "I worry insofar as this kind of essay (especially from a good publisher like First Things) helps perpetuate the idea that 'gayness' is innate." Yes--I've read essays in First Things where apparently "orthodox" Christians imply that there is ontological depth to "being gay", and this caused me to end my subscription as a protest.
As time moves on, you will no doubt become more and more the odd man out. But please don’t allow this to discourage you. Your voice, no doubt informed by the Holy Spirit, is so vitally needed by so many lost in the chaos of sexual liberation.
2.7.2013 | 5:38pm
yan says:
Gil,
Even though the term 'ontological' may be unfortunate to the extent that it may cause some confusion, I would imagine that Sartre at least could easily use the term to describe a gay existence. The Church does not have sole rights to the use of the word 'ontology.' Just because we believe that essence precedes existence, doesn't mean that others must agree with us. If FT didn't publish and consider opinions which are not endorsed by Catholic theology now and then, it could not engage the world for evangelistic purposes.
Furthermore it would be untrue to think that our philosophical concepts are static. After we had existed for 1000 years we decided to embrace Aristotle. Pope JPII introduced personalism, which is a sort of baptized child of existentialism, into our philosophical thinking. In engaging with the world, we carefully use the concepts of the world, reforming them, informing them, purifying them. Even as the deposit of faith never changes, we think about it and talk about it in both old and new ways. But we also listen before we talk.
Is there a danger of losing the faith that we must guard against? Always. But we should not prematurely reject the thinking and understanding of others which is different from our own. Sometimes there is a baby in all that nasty bathwater.
Even though the term 'ontological' may be unfortunate to the extent that it may cause some confusion, I would imagine that Sartre at least could easily use the term to describe a gay existence. The Church does not have sole rights to the use of the word 'ontology.' Just because we believe that essence precedes existence, doesn't mean that others must agree with us. If FT didn't publish and consider opinions which are not endorsed by Catholic theology now and then, it could not engage the world for evangelistic purposes.
Furthermore it would be untrue to think that our philosophical concepts are static. After we had existed for 1000 years we decided to embrace Aristotle. Pope JPII introduced personalism, which is a sort of baptized child of existentialism, into our philosophical thinking. In engaging with the world, we carefully use the concepts of the world, reforming them, informing them, purifying them. Even as the deposit of faith never changes, we think about it and talk about it in both old and new ways. But we also listen before we talk.
Is there a danger of losing the faith that we must guard against? Always. But we should not prematurely reject the thinking and understanding of others which is different from our own. Sometimes there is a baby in all that nasty bathwater.
2.7.2013 | 6:27pm
Anna Williams says:
Reminder: As recently mentioned on our blog (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/16/commenting-policy/), we do not permit multiple-part comments or comments over 300 words. That is why some comments on this thread have not been posted even though they are civil, relevant, etc.
2.7.2013 | 9:29pm
yan says:
Douglas,
I suppose you had tongue-in-cheek when you complimented the Church; but really, the moral theology of the Church existed before Freud or his antecedents took up the term 'disorder' for their own use and purposes.
Perhaps I should await your definition of disorder before 'backtracking' any further, but I am going to continue by assuming that my definition was good enough for starters.
The Church's competence, if it has any, is in matters of faith and morals. Morals of necessity involve human acts. Since the subject of human acts is the domain of psychology, then to the extent that the Church's competence touches on moral acts, it must to some extent involve itself in the domain of psychology as well.
The Church's moral theology is linked to its ontology, in which man is created with a certain end in mind: to see God forever. In order to achieve this end, man must live his life on earth in a manner pleasing to God. Thus the extent to which he does this is the extent to which he is healthy, in the most profound sense of that word.
A homosexual act, as I explained, is an act that is intrinsically disordered in the understanding of moral theology. Thus, it is an act that does not, and cannot, by virtue of the act itself, lead man to beatitude. Thus, the act is not healthy, as the Church understands health.
Words like ‘perversion’ and ‘disorder’ originally have moral overtones. Psychology may use and define them as it wishes. But we may also use them and mean them in the sense that those words were used and meant before psychology took them up.
We mean that a homosexual act is immoral. The competence of psychology to dispute that with the Church is minimal.
I suppose you had tongue-in-cheek when you complimented the Church; but really, the moral theology of the Church existed before Freud or his antecedents took up the term 'disorder' for their own use and purposes.
Perhaps I should await your definition of disorder before 'backtracking' any further, but I am going to continue by assuming that my definition was good enough for starters.
The Church's competence, if it has any, is in matters of faith and morals. Morals of necessity involve human acts. Since the subject of human acts is the domain of psychology, then to the extent that the Church's competence touches on moral acts, it must to some extent involve itself in the domain of psychology as well.
The Church's moral theology is linked to its ontology, in which man is created with a certain end in mind: to see God forever. In order to achieve this end, man must live his life on earth in a manner pleasing to God. Thus the extent to which he does this is the extent to which he is healthy, in the most profound sense of that word.
A homosexual act, as I explained, is an act that is intrinsically disordered in the understanding of moral theology. Thus, it is an act that does not, and cannot, by virtue of the act itself, lead man to beatitude. Thus, the act is not healthy, as the Church understands health.
Words like ‘perversion’ and ‘disorder’ originally have moral overtones. Psychology may use and define them as it wishes. But we may also use them and mean them in the sense that those words were used and meant before psychology took them up.
We mean that a homosexual act is immoral. The competence of psychology to dispute that with the Church is minimal.
2.8.2013 | 1:32pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, I’ll have to leave it to you to locate the DSM-IV definition of “mental disorder” that I tried to post. (See the site editor’s comment, above). The gist was that behavior that deviates from political, religious, and sexual norms is NOT disordered unless that behavior entails distress or disability. All the mental health associations in this country have stated very explicitly that homosexual behavior is not disordered. That is a strong current to swim against, and I don’t think the Catholic Church is going to be up to it.
You write that “the Church’s competence, if it has any, is in matters of faith and morals.” That is quite a claim. I am not naive about Church history, and images from Alex Gibney’s documentary “Mea Maxima Culpa--Silence in the House of God” are still fresh in my mind after Monday’s HBO broadcast. The SF Chronicle called the film “devastating.” It was indeed. Cases of sexual abuse and cover-up go all the way back to the 4th century Church.
I would like to get into the Church’s teachings on witchcraft, slavery, and Jews, but I would quickly bump up against the word limit.
In short, I don’t see that the Church has much moral credibility left. Why anyone would believe the Church’s teachings about homosexuality is beyond me.
You write that “the Church’s competence, if it has any, is in matters of faith and morals.” That is quite a claim. I am not naive about Church history, and images from Alex Gibney’s documentary “Mea Maxima Culpa--Silence in the House of God” are still fresh in my mind after Monday’s HBO broadcast. The SF Chronicle called the film “devastating.” It was indeed. Cases of sexual abuse and cover-up go all the way back to the 4th century Church.
I would like to get into the Church’s teachings on witchcraft, slavery, and Jews, but I would quickly bump up against the word limit.
In short, I don’t see that the Church has much moral credibility left. Why anyone would believe the Church’s teachings about homosexuality is beyond me.
2.8.2013 | 4:52pm
yan says:
Douglas,
There is so much to respond to in your post. I will have to limit myself to a couple things.
The Church's teaching on homosexual and other unnatural acts briefly: from the observation of nature we may conclude that a penis is made to go into a vagina. When it comes to sex, they are made solely for each other. A penis is not made to go into another orifice or my hand. A vagina is not supposed to entertain things other than a penis. They are not made to be used for sex until people reach a certain level of biological maturity. When these norms are violated, humans violate natural law and sin. I honestly don't see what is so unbelievable about that. It seems pretty obvious and sensible to me.
The DSM: Since it is obvious from the occasion for this discussion [the merits and demerits of conversion therapy] that many homosexuals experience distress as a result of their behavior, I do not understand why it cannot be considered to be a disorder, unless moral distress alone cannot constitute a sufficient basis for distress. But that would be importing a naturalistic system of morals into the profession and imposing it by telling people that it is their morals, which are different from yours, which are to blame for their distress. The presupposition of a naturalistic system of morals is warranted by a philosophy of naturalism or materialism, not science. This imposition is a violation of human dignity and unworthy of the profession.
Furthermore, it is not even the case that the elimination of moral distress would remove all personal distress of homosexuals caused by their acts.
Thus, the criteria for defining a disorder and its application in regard to homosexuality are very problematic.
There is so much to respond to in your post. I will have to limit myself to a couple things.
The Church's teaching on homosexual and other unnatural acts briefly: from the observation of nature we may conclude that a penis is made to go into a vagina. When it comes to sex, they are made solely for each other. A penis is not made to go into another orifice or my hand. A vagina is not supposed to entertain things other than a penis. They are not made to be used for sex until people reach a certain level of biological maturity. When these norms are violated, humans violate natural law and sin. I honestly don't see what is so unbelievable about that. It seems pretty obvious and sensible to me.
The DSM: Since it is obvious from the occasion for this discussion [the merits and demerits of conversion therapy] that many homosexuals experience distress as a result of their behavior, I do not understand why it cannot be considered to be a disorder, unless moral distress alone cannot constitute a sufficient basis for distress. But that would be importing a naturalistic system of morals into the profession and imposing it by telling people that it is their morals, which are different from yours, which are to blame for their distress. The presupposition of a naturalistic system of morals is warranted by a philosophy of naturalism or materialism, not science. This imposition is a violation of human dignity and unworthy of the profession.
Furthermore, it is not even the case that the elimination of moral distress would remove all personal distress of homosexuals caused by their acts.
Thus, the criteria for defining a disorder and its application in regard to homosexuality are very problematic.
2.8.2013 | 5:50pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, the view that our organs have “purposes” is great Aristotelianism but lousy Darwinism. Teleological explanations for the phylogenetic characteristics of organisms are simply incompatible with modern evolutionary theory. The human eye did not develop “so that” you could see. Light-sensitive cells had a selective advantage, and the rest is history. If you tell me that the penis is not made for the hand, I must inform you that the nose and ears are not made for resting glasses on.
Regarding the DSM, many homosexuals do feel distress about their homosexuality, but you are mistaken in concluding that their homosexuality has in any way “caused” their distress. There is no reason why homosexuality should cause distress. What does cause such distress is social stigma, bullying, ostracism, and fear. The mental health community has warned again and again that negative religious teachings are a major source of these problems. The Catholic Church has ignored these warnings because it is ideologically committed to a worldview that selectively repudiates modern science.
Regarding the DSM, many homosexuals do feel distress about their homosexuality, but you are mistaken in concluding that their homosexuality has in any way “caused” their distress. There is no reason why homosexuality should cause distress. What does cause such distress is social stigma, bullying, ostracism, and fear. The mental health community has warned again and again that negative religious teachings are a major source of these problems. The Catholic Church has ignored these warnings because it is ideologically committed to a worldview that selectively repudiates modern science.
2.9.2013 | 1:28am
yan says:
I see. Science has proven that all distress experienced by homosexuals is entirely the result of the fault of other people. If they experience distress, dammit, it is their own fault for believing in a morality which science has also proven is incompatible with what evolutionary theory demands that we believe about moral norms. There are no exceptions.
I'm afraid your glasses analogy is inapt. An improvement is not analogous to a perversion.
Douglas, there are many intelligent people in the world that do not agree with you that Darwinian evolution and teleological ethics are fundamentally incompatible. Furthermore there are many intelligent people in the world that do not even accept that what you believe to be the incontrovertible reality of Darwinian evolution has actually occurred and is responsible for the diversity of creatures. And, shocking to say, many of both kinds of people are scientists.
I expect you will next tell me that all such people that disagree with the sum total of what the mainstream of contemporary science tells us about the origins of the universe, the nature of man, and his eternal destiny are deluded, cranks, and/or irrational because they begin with a priori assumptions about God, religion, and so on.
Douglas, the world is wider than you imagine it to be. There are many possible conversations we could have here. It's too bad this article is not a proper occasion to have them. But at least we have laid bare some of the real bases for our disagreement over homosexuality.
Cheers, friend.
I'm afraid your glasses analogy is inapt. An improvement is not analogous to a perversion.
Douglas, there are many intelligent people in the world that do not agree with you that Darwinian evolution and teleological ethics are fundamentally incompatible. Furthermore there are many intelligent people in the world that do not even accept that what you believe to be the incontrovertible reality of Darwinian evolution has actually occurred and is responsible for the diversity of creatures. And, shocking to say, many of both kinds of people are scientists.
I expect you will next tell me that all such people that disagree with the sum total of what the mainstream of contemporary science tells us about the origins of the universe, the nature of man, and his eternal destiny are deluded, cranks, and/or irrational because they begin with a priori assumptions about God, religion, and so on.
Douglas, the world is wider than you imagine it to be. There are many possible conversations we could have here. It's too bad this article is not a proper occasion to have them. But at least we have laid bare some of the real bases for our disagreement over homosexuality.
Cheers, friend.
2.9.2013 | 2:55pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, I did not say that “all distress experienced by homosexuals is entirely the fault of other people.” I don’t know how you could possibly have construed my words in that way. I said that “there is no reason why homosexuality should cause distress.” Big difference there.
Homosexuality is no more “disordered” than heterosexuality. But if you (presumably a heterosexual) were made to feel so deeply ashamed of your orientation that you could not even acknowledge it to yourself, the cause of your distress would not be your orientation but the way you are treated because of it. Understanding this only requires a little empathy--putting yourself in another’s place.
Re: Science. A priori assumptions are in fact antithetical to scientific modes of inquiry. You are perfectly entitled to make such assumptions, but I believe it is foolish to pretend that they are compatible with science. Doing so only betrays a lack of faith and shows that you are already beholden to values of the modern world.
Homosexuality is no more “disordered” than heterosexuality. But if you (presumably a heterosexual) were made to feel so deeply ashamed of your orientation that you could not even acknowledge it to yourself, the cause of your distress would not be your orientation but the way you are treated because of it. Understanding this only requires a little empathy--putting yourself in another’s place.
Re: Science. A priori assumptions are in fact antithetical to scientific modes of inquiry. You are perfectly entitled to make such assumptions, but I believe it is foolish to pretend that they are compatible with science. Doing so only betrays a lack of faith and shows that you are already beholden to values of the modern world.
2.9.2013 | 7:03pm
maryh says:
Douglas said: you ask why I discount pre-1973 science about homosexuality? It’s for the same reason that I discount pre-1973 science about aeronautics, cancer, electronics, climate change, the effects of smoking, and just about everything else. Science progresses. Why look to Kepler for information about the stars when you can visit the NASA website?
You're kidding. No one in aeronautics or astronautics discounts pre-1973 science about aeronautics. They still use Kepler's equations in orbital mechanics. You don't discount science based on age, you discount it based on new evidence or a grounded reason to reinterpret old evidence. And I have yet to learn what new evidence or reasoning lead to the change in the DSM. BTW, I worked at NASA for 4 years and my husband is aeronautics engineer.
You're kidding. No one in aeronautics or astronautics discounts pre-1973 science about aeronautics. They still use Kepler's equations in orbital mechanics. You don't discount science based on age, you discount it based on new evidence or a grounded reason to reinterpret old evidence. And I have yet to learn what new evidence or reasoning lead to the change in the DSM. BTW, I worked at NASA for 4 years and my husband is aeronautics engineer.
2.9.2013 | 10:40pm
yan says:
Douglas,
That science operates under a priori assumptions about the nature of the universe has been observed by many different kinds of critics of the scientific enterprise. I agree with at least some of those assumptions. An assumption is not necessarily a bad thing.
You said: "There is no reason why homosexuality should cause distress. What does cause such distress is social stigma, bullying, ostracism, and fear." Since "social stigma, bullying, ostracism, and fear" are all caused by other people, I concluded that in context you meant that only other people cause distress to homosexuals. What else then besides other people causes them distress? Their morals? Which they often learn from...other people?
I have to agree with maryh that medical evidence has not been presented as to why homosexuality should have been de-listed as a disorder from the DSM. It seems more likely that this de-listing simply reflects the preferred moral judgments of those that have written the DSM. To dress up a foregone conclusion as 'scientific' in order to silence those with different moral judgments is very much a bad faith argument.
If a disorder is not a disorder unless it causes personal distress, and, that distress must not be based upon the personal morals of the person that needs help, then, I would presume that the new evidence of science is that homosexuals never experience personal distress as a result of their condition.
Certainly there must exist reports, summaries, statistics, to support this conclusion? That's how science, in this instance, should work; correct? Or are they simply making an a priori assumption that it does not cause distress--thus, observed distress just doesn't count as distress?
Apparently they didn't ask Joshua Gonnerman. Not that it would seem to matter.
That science operates under a priori assumptions about the nature of the universe has been observed by many different kinds of critics of the scientific enterprise. I agree with at least some of those assumptions. An assumption is not necessarily a bad thing.
You said: "There is no reason why homosexuality should cause distress. What does cause such distress is social stigma, bullying, ostracism, and fear." Since "social stigma, bullying, ostracism, and fear" are all caused by other people, I concluded that in context you meant that only other people cause distress to homosexuals. What else then besides other people causes them distress? Their morals? Which they often learn from...other people?
I have to agree with maryh that medical evidence has not been presented as to why homosexuality should have been de-listed as a disorder from the DSM. It seems more likely that this de-listing simply reflects the preferred moral judgments of those that have written the DSM. To dress up a foregone conclusion as 'scientific' in order to silence those with different moral judgments is very much a bad faith argument.
If a disorder is not a disorder unless it causes personal distress, and, that distress must not be based upon the personal morals of the person that needs help, then, I would presume that the new evidence of science is that homosexuals never experience personal distress as a result of their condition.
Certainly there must exist reports, summaries, statistics, to support this conclusion? That's how science, in this instance, should work; correct? Or are they simply making an a priori assumption that it does not cause distress--thus, observed distress just doesn't count as distress?
Apparently they didn't ask Joshua Gonnerman. Not that it would seem to matter.
2.10.2013 | 3:54am
yan says:
Don Roberto,
I think you are missing 2 points in comparing homosexuality to alcoholism or drug addiction. The activities are similar in that homosexuality and chemical addictions are abusive to the person, addictive, and sinful. You are correct to point that out. But there are important differences between these behaviors which should lead us to approach them with different kinds of compassion and treatment.
First, homosexual acts involve a perversion of one of our most fundamental human desires, while drug and alcohol abuse merely involve excessive use of substances which are morally licit to use in many circumstances. That is why homosexual acts are so much more serious a sin. But it also goes to show how rooted it may be in the fibers of a person's being.
Second and following from this point, the analogy of changing homosexual activity with treating an addiction only extends to the addictive aspects of the activity. On the other hand, changing the ORIENTATION of a homosexual is not analogous to changing addictive activity. It is in many cases more analogous to changing a left-hander into a right-hander. This is something far more difficult and different, even if the approach to change would involve doing some of the same things that are done to treat addiction. Depending on the causes of the behavior, and on how ingrained it is, in some cases it just may be impossible to change.
If you are left-handed, imagine that every time you used your left hand, you had committed a grievous sin. Now you are the doctor that has to treat the left-hander. Do you treat him the same way you treat a drug addict? What are the chances of a left-hander relapsing? Would you evaluate a relapse purely as a failure of the will to be holy?
I think you are missing 2 points in comparing homosexuality to alcoholism or drug addiction. The activities are similar in that homosexuality and chemical addictions are abusive to the person, addictive, and sinful. You are correct to point that out. But there are important differences between these behaviors which should lead us to approach them with different kinds of compassion and treatment.
First, homosexual acts involve a perversion of one of our most fundamental human desires, while drug and alcohol abuse merely involve excessive use of substances which are morally licit to use in many circumstances. That is why homosexual acts are so much more serious a sin. But it also goes to show how rooted it may be in the fibers of a person's being.
Second and following from this point, the analogy of changing homosexual activity with treating an addiction only extends to the addictive aspects of the activity. On the other hand, changing the ORIENTATION of a homosexual is not analogous to changing addictive activity. It is in many cases more analogous to changing a left-hander into a right-hander. This is something far more difficult and different, even if the approach to change would involve doing some of the same things that are done to treat addiction. Depending on the causes of the behavior, and on how ingrained it is, in some cases it just may be impossible to change.
If you are left-handed, imagine that every time you used your left hand, you had committed a grievous sin. Now you are the doctor that has to treat the left-hander. Do you treat him the same way you treat a drug addict? What are the chances of a left-hander relapsing? Would you evaluate a relapse purely as a failure of the will to be holy?
2.10.2013 | 2:40pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, a priori assumptions are sometimes the best we can do, but they are pre-scientific. The business of science is to question assumptions, not to begin a line of inquiry with them.
Regarding distress: There is absolutely nothing about homosexuality in and of itself that should cause emotional distress. When a homosexual says he is distressed about his orientation, it is only internalized homophobia that is causing that distress, not the homosexuality itself. This is why the so-called “conversion therapies” are exactly the wrong approach. They reinforce the individual’s low self-esteem and set up impossible goals for him. If you are told your whole life, by everyone who matters to you, that your innermost desires are disordered, you will be in a constant state of distress and anxiety over it. We know for a fact that such negative self-perceptions can lead to substance abuse and suicide. This is why it is so important for the Church to immediately change its teaching about homosexuality.
The scientific community---all the major health and social are associations---have not made any a priori assumptions about homosexuality. There have been thousands of studies supporting what is now the consensus view.
My own case is typical: I was raised in Texas as a fundamentalist and later spent over a decade in a Middle-Eastern country. I was extremely distressed about my sexual orientation during those years because I could not even reveal it to anyone for fear of ostracism, job loss, rejection by my family, and even imprisonment (abroad). Around age 45 I began figuring it out. I moved to Seattle, where I was surrounded by people who accepted me as I am. I stepped into the sunshine.
Regarding distress: There is absolutely nothing about homosexuality in and of itself that should cause emotional distress. When a homosexual says he is distressed about his orientation, it is only internalized homophobia that is causing that distress, not the homosexuality itself. This is why the so-called “conversion therapies” are exactly the wrong approach. They reinforce the individual’s low self-esteem and set up impossible goals for him. If you are told your whole life, by everyone who matters to you, that your innermost desires are disordered, you will be in a constant state of distress and anxiety over it. We know for a fact that such negative self-perceptions can lead to substance abuse and suicide. This is why it is so important for the Church to immediately change its teaching about homosexuality.
The scientific community---all the major health and social are associations---have not made any a priori assumptions about homosexuality. There have been thousands of studies supporting what is now the consensus view.
My own case is typical: I was raised in Texas as a fundamentalist and later spent over a decade in a Middle-Eastern country. I was extremely distressed about my sexual orientation during those years because I could not even reveal it to anyone for fear of ostracism, job loss, rejection by my family, and even imprisonment (abroad). Around age 45 I began figuring it out. I moved to Seattle, where I was surrounded by people who accepted me as I am. I stepped into the sunshine.
2.10.2013 | 2:52pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Maryh, I will defer to your expertise about astronomy and aeronautics. Those are areas where past knowledge was not wrong but simply incomplete. Still, no current-day astronomy student would study only Kepler, and no student of aeronautics would study only the Wright Brothers. Furthermore, if there were a contradiction between Kepler’s understanding of the stars and ours, I believe Kepler’s would be discounted.
Scientific understanding of smoking, cancer, and climate change are better analogs for homosexuality. In those cases, the earlier information was not only incomplete but wrong and--in two of those cases--deliberately distorted.
You write that you “have yet to learn what new evidence or reasoning led to the change in the DSM.” As a scientist, you should know that there is a good way to find out. Just do some research.
Scientific understanding of smoking, cancer, and climate change are better analogs for homosexuality. In those cases, the earlier information was not only incomplete but wrong and--in two of those cases--deliberately distorted.
You write that you “have yet to learn what new evidence or reasoning led to the change in the DSM.” As a scientist, you should know that there is a good way to find out. Just do some research.
2.10.2013 | 4:06pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, regarding your response to Don Roberto: Homosexuality is in no way like chemical addiction, and it is not abusive to the person. Some behaviors that are common to both homosexuals and heterosexuals may fit your description, but not the orientation itself. A couple of weeks ago, TV star Jim Nabors married his partner of the last 38 years. I don’t think it’s very “compassionate” to characterize their relationship as abusive or their love for each other as “addictive.” I believe your “compassion” has gone completely off the rails. I myself have been with my partner for 13 years and we will be married in July. We are devoted to each other and there is nothing “abusive,” “addictive,” or “perverted” about our relationship. We work, we love, we play, we have many friends and a very supportive family, and we’ve raised a child together. Why should you assume that we are somehow defective? Well, again, I think I know the answer, and it goes back to your “a priori” approach to knowledge. It is Plato saying you don’t need to observe the heavens to understand the movement of the planets. (And he never understood their movement). No amount of evidence will ever change your mind because you have started with a dogma that must not be challenged.
Why would anyone want to change a left-hander into a right-hander? I realize parents and teachers used to try, just as reparative therapists are now trying to change sexual orientation. You can imagine the psychological distress that either effort must cause. Please don't tell me that being left-handed "causes" the distress. My partner is left-handed, and it is not an issue for him because it was never an issue for his parents or teachers.
Why would anyone want to change a left-hander into a right-hander? I realize parents and teachers used to try, just as reparative therapists are now trying to change sexual orientation. You can imagine the psychological distress that either effort must cause. Please don't tell me that being left-handed "causes" the distress. My partner is left-handed, and it is not an issue for him because it was never an issue for his parents or teachers.
2.10.2013 | 8:24pm
yan says:
Douglas,
"When a homosexual says he is distressed about his orientation, it is only internalized homophobia that is causing that distress, not the homosexuality itself." What is your or the DSM's offer of scientific proof to support this categorical statement?
I quite agree that homosexuality as an orientation is unlike addictions in most respects. That is what I intended to say. However, some behaviors which frequently accompany a homosexual condition can be treated in a manner similarly to how we treat addictions, and these treatments are also in part applicable to homosexuality [in a way similar to how we treat heterosexual sex and love addiction.] But these treatments are not sufficient to treat a homosexual ORIENTATION.
I wouldn't want to change a left-hander into a right-hander. Because I believe that homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral, however, I would want to be able to change a homosexual condition, IF POSSIBLE. My point to Don in analogizing homosexuality to a species of left-handedness was to show that changing homosexuality is very difficult and cannot in the usual case involve SOLELY things like prayer, fasting, abstinence, taking the sacraments, and behavior modification therapy. There is something organic, similar to handedness, in the condition of many homosexuals.
Douglas, I don't mean to judge you. I am only a sinner and perhaps a worse one than you, God knows. I have no idea if your relationship is abusive or addictive. I don't know that a homosexual relationship has to be those things, though they seem to occur more frequently in homosexual than heterosexual relationships. But any sex act done with a person of the same sex is obviously perverted, as even Freud understood, even if he did not attach any moral opprobrium to that observation.
God bless and take care; your partner, too.
"When a homosexual says he is distressed about his orientation, it is only internalized homophobia that is causing that distress, not the homosexuality itself." What is your or the DSM's offer of scientific proof to support this categorical statement?
I quite agree that homosexuality as an orientation is unlike addictions in most respects. That is what I intended to say. However, some behaviors which frequently accompany a homosexual condition can be treated in a manner similarly to how we treat addictions, and these treatments are also in part applicable to homosexuality [in a way similar to how we treat heterosexual sex and love addiction.] But these treatments are not sufficient to treat a homosexual ORIENTATION.
I wouldn't want to change a left-hander into a right-hander. Because I believe that homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral, however, I would want to be able to change a homosexual condition, IF POSSIBLE. My point to Don in analogizing homosexuality to a species of left-handedness was to show that changing homosexuality is very difficult and cannot in the usual case involve SOLELY things like prayer, fasting, abstinence, taking the sacraments, and behavior modification therapy. There is something organic, similar to handedness, in the condition of many homosexuals.
Douglas, I don't mean to judge you. I am only a sinner and perhaps a worse one than you, God knows. I have no idea if your relationship is abusive or addictive. I don't know that a homosexual relationship has to be those things, though they seem to occur more frequently in homosexual than heterosexual relationships. But any sex act done with a person of the same sex is obviously perverted, as even Freud understood, even if he did not attach any moral opprobrium to that observation.
God bless and take care; your partner, too.
2.11.2013 | 12:49pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, you asked for “proof” of my claim that there is nothing about homosexuality in and of itself that should cause anyone distress. With a 300-word limit, I can only suggest you conduct your own search at sites for the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Sociological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the World Health Organization. Or just google a question like “Is homosexuality a disorder” and follow ONLY those links that take you to scientific organizations, not religious ones.
You can drill down into details if you want to, but the consensus opinion is what really matters, just as it does about climate change, smoking, and evolutionary theory.
The World Health Organization issued a lengthy statement saying, essentially, that homosexuality is not a disorder. One of their recommendations is that “professional organizations should ... call for the de-psychopathologization of sexual diversity and the prevention of interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation.” Other health organizations have issued similar statements.
What is your basis for thinking that abuse and addiction occur more in homosexual than in heterosexual relationships? How can you look at the heterosexual world around you and say that so confidently?
You mentioned Freud. Yes, astonishingly, even he thought that homosexuality was perverted. But he was also totally wrong about the causes of homosexuality.
You can find more info at my site, thebentangle dot wordpress dot com.
You can drill down into details if you want to, but the consensus opinion is what really matters, just as it does about climate change, smoking, and evolutionary theory.
The World Health Organization issued a lengthy statement saying, essentially, that homosexuality is not a disorder. One of their recommendations is that “professional organizations should ... call for the de-psychopathologization of sexual diversity and the prevention of interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation.” Other health organizations have issued similar statements.
What is your basis for thinking that abuse and addiction occur more in homosexual than in heterosexual relationships? How can you look at the heterosexual world around you and say that so confidently?
You mentioned Freud. Yes, astonishingly, even he thought that homosexuality was perverted. But he was also totally wrong about the causes of homosexuality.
You can find more info at my site, thebentangle dot wordpress dot com.
2.11.2013 | 1:37pm
yan says:
Douglas,
I do not think it is splitting hairs to distinguish between what we have loosely been referring to as a priori assumptions on one hand, and insights of human reason on the other. The insight that homosexual acts are perversions is a product of the latter category. It is not as if Catholicism invented insights such as that from whole cloth. It simply ratified an already existing natural law tradition in philosophy and culture which existed in Western thinking.
Even scientific positivism rests upon the foundation [which may descriptively be called logically a priori] that data may correlate in a manner such that we may reasonably infer causation, and that Reason itself therefore underlies the disparate data of the universe.
If it were not so, the predictive power of math could not exist.
I do not think it is splitting hairs to distinguish between what we have loosely been referring to as a priori assumptions on one hand, and insights of human reason on the other. The insight that homosexual acts are perversions is a product of the latter category. It is not as if Catholicism invented insights such as that from whole cloth. It simply ratified an already existing natural law tradition in philosophy and culture which existed in Western thinking.
Even scientific positivism rests upon the foundation [which may descriptively be called logically a priori] that data may correlate in a manner such that we may reasonably infer causation, and that Reason itself therefore underlies the disparate data of the universe.
If it were not so, the predictive power of math could not exist.
2.11.2013 | 2:30pm
yan says:
Douglas,
No one has yet definitively established the 'causes' of homosexuality. That is one reason why it is so disturbing that the DSM should feel justified to precipitously de-list it as a disorder.
Freud's opinion is based upon the same reasoning that the Church uses to say that it is 'disordered,' which is that the obvious purpose of the sexual organs is for the reproduction of the species. There is nothing remotely 'astonishing' about such an observation. How anyone can deny this most obvious truth is to me an illustration of John Senior's great saying, 'the best of us are prone to sophistry when an obvious truth contradicts a strong desire.'
That abuse and addiction occur more often among homosexuals and in their relationships is a well-established fact based upon the statistical evidence.
I will investigate the statistical evidence that homosexuality per se never causes personal distress, even though I don't see any possibility of proving it without first demonstrating, at a minimum, that every person that ever sought to change his or her sexual orientation did so for some reason other than that homosexuality caused the person personal distress. If the profession has proved this, then and only then is the DSM justified from removing homosexuality from the category of disorder, using their definition of disorder.
No one has yet definitively established the 'causes' of homosexuality. That is one reason why it is so disturbing that the DSM should feel justified to precipitously de-list it as a disorder.
Freud's opinion is based upon the same reasoning that the Church uses to say that it is 'disordered,' which is that the obvious purpose of the sexual organs is for the reproduction of the species. There is nothing remotely 'astonishing' about such an observation. How anyone can deny this most obvious truth is to me an illustration of John Senior's great saying, 'the best of us are prone to sophistry when an obvious truth contradicts a strong desire.'
That abuse and addiction occur more often among homosexuals and in their relationships is a well-established fact based upon the statistical evidence.
I will investigate the statistical evidence that homosexuality per se never causes personal distress, even though I don't see any possibility of proving it without first demonstrating, at a minimum, that every person that ever sought to change his or her sexual orientation did so for some reason other than that homosexuality caused the person personal distress. If the profession has proved this, then and only then is the DSM justified from removing homosexuality from the category of disorder, using their definition of disorder.
2.11.2013 | 8:54pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, invoking the natural law tradition only muddies the waters. Philosophers and theologians have disagreed about almost every aspect of it since it was first articulated, probably by Empedocles. They even disagree about when it began (Plato? St. Thomas?) and who best represents it (Hobbes? Augustine?).
Empedocles believed natural law forbade the killing of animals. Augustine of Hippo believed it had only been possible in our prelapsarian state. Gratian thought that it was the same as divine law, while St. Thomas believed the two were different. (St. Thomas did not believe slavery was evil, by the way.) According to the definition offered by Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, natural law requires us to worship God and to reproduce, so Buddhists and Catholic priests would be in violation. Sir Edward Coke (early 17th cent.) believed natural law required allegiance to the reigning king. Hobbes believed natural law could only prevail if men submitted to the commands of the sovereign. (Um, that’s Obama in this country.) He also said that the first-born (son) should inherit things which cannot be held in common. Hugo Grotius (17th cent.) believed that even God was bound by natural law. Pierre Charron (1601) said that “the sign of a natural law must be the universal respect in which it is held.” Catholic theologian John Wijngaards does not believe natural law applies to specific points of sexual ethics (e.g., contraceptives and homosexual unions). St. Thomas summed up natural law as follows: “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.” This is about as useful as Mark Twain’s stock-picking advice: “When the price is low, buy the shares. Sell them when the price rises. If the price doesn’t rise, then don’t buy the shares.”
It appears that natural law can mean anything we want it to mean.
Empedocles believed natural law forbade the killing of animals. Augustine of Hippo believed it had only been possible in our prelapsarian state. Gratian thought that it was the same as divine law, while St. Thomas believed the two were different. (St. Thomas did not believe slavery was evil, by the way.) According to the definition offered by Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, natural law requires us to worship God and to reproduce, so Buddhists and Catholic priests would be in violation. Sir Edward Coke (early 17th cent.) believed natural law required allegiance to the reigning king. Hobbes believed natural law could only prevail if men submitted to the commands of the sovereign. (Um, that’s Obama in this country.) He also said that the first-born (son) should inherit things which cannot be held in common. Hugo Grotius (17th cent.) believed that even God was bound by natural law. Pierre Charron (1601) said that “the sign of a natural law must be the universal respect in which it is held.” Catholic theologian John Wijngaards does not believe natural law applies to specific points of sexual ethics (e.g., contraceptives and homosexual unions). St. Thomas summed up natural law as follows: “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.” This is about as useful as Mark Twain’s stock-picking advice: “When the price is low, buy the shares. Sell them when the price rises. If the price doesn’t rise, then don’t buy the shares.”
It appears that natural law can mean anything we want it to mean.
2.11.2013 | 9:48pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Jan, I have no problem with inferring causation where the inference is warranted. But there are a number of logical fallacies that seem to result from our tendency to look for confirmation of our biases. One famous example is the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy: “After this, therefore because of this.” (Because lightning struck St. Peter’s in the evening after the Pope’s resignation speech--which it in fact did--God does not like the Pope.) Another is “cum hoc ergo propter hoc,” which finds causation where there is only correlation. You claim to have found correlation between homosexuality and sociopathic or psychopathic behaviors. It doesn’t even matter whether or not there is in fact such a correlation. The important question is whether there is causation, and there is clearly is not, because I am gay and I exhibit none of these behaviors. If I did, you would have noticed them by now, even in my words. I have more than once detected clear signs of paranoia, fixation/obsession (on sex and body parts) and coprolalia (involuntary and obsessive use of obscene language) in comments left by Catholic bloggers, but I don’t think for a moment that either their Catholicism or their heterosexuality accounts for these behaviors. Were I to claim that Catholicism “causes” coprolalia and paranoia, you would be right to challenge me. Please be so kind as to grant homosexuals the same courtesy.
2.11.2013 | 10:19pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, regarding the “causes” of homosexuality: Your comment reveals that you do not understand how science works. For one thing, scientists do not like the word “definitive.” If there’s a one-percent chance that their theories are wrong, they will tell you about the 1%, not the 99%, because--at least ideally--they are philosophically committed to the value of doubt. It just goes with the territory; it’s the way they’re trained, and it’s very hard to get through that training without acquiring that habit of doubt. To acknowledge that we don’t know exactly how life began or what the causes of homosexuality are does not entail acceptance of young-earth theory or, in the case of homosexuality, Freudian theory. Scientists who study homosexuality know vastly more than Freud did, and the bottom line seems to be that about 30% of the variation in sexual orientation is genetic, and that the rest is epigenetic and hormonal. Freud had no idea about any of this, because he lived before modern methods of detection were available. Citing Freud is a big mistake, much like citing Franz Gall on phrenology.
One point that I cannot seem to make you understand is that homosexuals---especially young ones---usually do not understand the causes of their distress. They listen to family and priests, who also do not understand the causes of their distress. They are told that they are disordered, and they must seek conversion therapy. So the conclusion that you and their parents and their priests draw from this is that they have sought therapy because they are distressed about their homosexuality, when in fact their homosexuality has not caused the distress. The message that they’ve heard from their parents and priests have caused the distress.
One point that I cannot seem to make you understand is that homosexuals---especially young ones---usually do not understand the causes of their distress. They listen to family and priests, who also do not understand the causes of their distress. They are told that they are disordered, and they must seek conversion therapy. So the conclusion that you and their parents and their priests draw from this is that they have sought therapy because they are distressed about their homosexuality, when in fact their homosexuality has not caused the distress. The message that they’ve heard from their parents and priests have caused the distress.
2.12.2013 | 1:45pm
yan says:
Douglas,
You are correct to point out as a general proposition that there are difficulties in applying natural law theory. However, please show me an example of a natural law theorist that stated that homosexual acts were not contrary to the natural law. That they are is obvious and irrefutable.
I do understand your point about distress being caused by disapproval of homosexuality/homosexual acts. It is valid as far as it goes. It is an observation that is much in fashion now. However, we can no more refrain entirely from commenting upon the immorality of homosexual acts to our youth, or anyone else, than we can refrain entirely from commenting upon the immorality of any other immoral act. This responsibility is all the greater at this time, when the immorality of the act is being disputed and denied by many people.
It is the grave responsibility of those in charge of educating children to correctly inform their consciences. That this responsibility and that morality itself should of necessity oppose themselves to an inclination which is so strongly felt, is so difficult to alter, and for which the person who has the inclination has so little responsibility in most cases, is indeed a tragedy which calls for a great deal of compassion and understanding in particular cases.
That it is foreseeable that such teaching will cause distress in individual cases does not make it entirely avoidable. That such teaching is the SOLE cause of distress, so that homosexuality should not be classified as a disorder by the DSM seems to me to be unwarranted by the evidence. While there is good evidence that such teaching causes distress, there is evidence that other sources cause distress as well. The DSM at this time has chosen to ignore them.
You are correct to point out as a general proposition that there are difficulties in applying natural law theory. However, please show me an example of a natural law theorist that stated that homosexual acts were not contrary to the natural law. That they are is obvious and irrefutable.
I do understand your point about distress being caused by disapproval of homosexuality/homosexual acts. It is valid as far as it goes. It is an observation that is much in fashion now. However, we can no more refrain entirely from commenting upon the immorality of homosexual acts to our youth, or anyone else, than we can refrain entirely from commenting upon the immorality of any other immoral act. This responsibility is all the greater at this time, when the immorality of the act is being disputed and denied by many people.
It is the grave responsibility of those in charge of educating children to correctly inform their consciences. That this responsibility and that morality itself should of necessity oppose themselves to an inclination which is so strongly felt, is so difficult to alter, and for which the person who has the inclination has so little responsibility in most cases, is indeed a tragedy which calls for a great deal of compassion and understanding in particular cases.
That it is foreseeable that such teaching will cause distress in individual cases does not make it entirely avoidable. That such teaching is the SOLE cause of distress, so that homosexuality should not be classified as a disorder by the DSM seems to me to be unwarranted by the evidence. While there is good evidence that such teaching causes distress, there is evidence that other sources cause distress as well. The DSM at this time has chosen to ignore them.
2.12.2013 | 2:03pm
yan says:
Douglas, it is very bad science to argue from anecdotal evidence, especially of our own behavior, to a general proposition. Just because you do not self-diagnose yourself as having psychopathological behaviors does not mean you do not evidence them. I presume most such people would deny the evidence of their own psychopathological behaviors.
But even assuming arguendo that your self-diagnosis were correct, the failure to exhibit such behaviors in your particular case would not prove that homosexuality does not cause such behaviors, anymore than the lack of cancer in a particular smoker proves that smoking doesn't cause cancer. There may be other things about you which prevent symptoms from manifesting in your case. The failure of logic in this case is yours, I'm afraid.
Cheers. And no, I haven't seen much evidence that would lead me to believe you exhibit any psychopathological symptoms. But perhaps you just hide it well. : )
But even assuming arguendo that your self-diagnosis were correct, the failure to exhibit such behaviors in your particular case would not prove that homosexuality does not cause such behaviors, anymore than the lack of cancer in a particular smoker proves that smoking doesn't cause cancer. There may be other things about you which prevent symptoms from manifesting in your case. The failure of logic in this case is yours, I'm afraid.
Cheers. And no, I haven't seen much evidence that would lead me to believe you exhibit any psychopathological symptoms. But perhaps you just hide it well. : )
2.12.2013 | 3:55pm
yan says:
Douglas,
I did not infer that ignorance entails that we must accept a pet theory of origins. I just said that the mainstream opinion of science does not necessarily PRECLUDE such theories from also being true.
In respect to Freud, I just said that his understanding of the activity which led to him calling it a perversion is the same as is used by the Church. My point was simply that the reasoning process in both cases was the same, is obvious, and is eminently undeniable. Additionally, my point is that one does not need to be religious to see this.
I have not seen any study that has claimed to exhaust, even tentatively, the etiology of homosexuality. We are still in the evidence gathering stage. Your claim that we have arrived at a 'bottom line' is extremely premature. We have observed some correlative factors; that is all. We don't even have the slightest idea how those factors 'cause' a person to experience a predominant attraction to his own sex, or even IF those factors acting alone are the cause, or are instead a result of, other factors that also cause homosexuality.
One day we may find the precise causes to the extent that such causes do not derive from human freedom. At that time, the logic and insight which leads us to understand that a homosexual ACT is unnatural and immoral will remain completely untouched.
I did not infer that ignorance entails that we must accept a pet theory of origins. I just said that the mainstream opinion of science does not necessarily PRECLUDE such theories from also being true.
In respect to Freud, I just said that his understanding of the activity which led to him calling it a perversion is the same as is used by the Church. My point was simply that the reasoning process in both cases was the same, is obvious, and is eminently undeniable. Additionally, my point is that one does not need to be religious to see this.
I have not seen any study that has claimed to exhaust, even tentatively, the etiology of homosexuality. We are still in the evidence gathering stage. Your claim that we have arrived at a 'bottom line' is extremely premature. We have observed some correlative factors; that is all. We don't even have the slightest idea how those factors 'cause' a person to experience a predominant attraction to his own sex, or even IF those factors acting alone are the cause, or are instead a result of, other factors that also cause homosexuality.
One day we may find the precise causes to the extent that such causes do not derive from human freedom. At that time, the logic and insight which leads us to understand that a homosexual ACT is unnatural and immoral will remain completely untouched.
2.12.2013 | 4:56pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, In alluding to my personal experience, I was not arguing from anecdotal evidence but from my own lived knowledge of myself. From your point of view, however, that evidence can only be anecdotal since you do not have it first-hand. So, yes, you’re right that I could be a psychopath---one very skilled in denying his condition to himself and others. (But I’m not. ;-)
Do you really believe that homosexuality is like smoking, which causes cancer in some people? If so, you would need to amend your earlier proposition to something like, “Homosexuality is perverted for some people.” Or, “Some homosexual acts are perverted.” But whether the problem is with “some” homosexuals or “all” homosexuals, you would still need to show that this is true, and the World Health Organization doesn’t think you can do it. Neither do I.
You see, you are not the one with the evidence. As much as you esteem the rules of argument, you’ve got a blind spot when it comes to evidence, which is an essential component of argumentation.
We have to face the fact that the Church has never welcomed evidence when it threatened the Church’s teachings. And the Church has not developed systems for gathering and evaluating evidence, as science has done. We don’t go to the Church for reliable, up-to-date information about health care (including sexuality), and yet the Church continues to make pronouncements that presume authority about it. This is because, in matters pertaining to sexuality, the Church is mired in pre-scientific modes of thinking.
Do you really believe that homosexuality is like smoking, which causes cancer in some people? If so, you would need to amend your earlier proposition to something like, “Homosexuality is perverted for some people.” Or, “Some homosexual acts are perverted.” But whether the problem is with “some” homosexuals or “all” homosexuals, you would still need to show that this is true, and the World Health Organization doesn’t think you can do it. Neither do I.
You see, you are not the one with the evidence. As much as you esteem the rules of argument, you’ve got a blind spot when it comes to evidence, which is an essential component of argumentation.
We have to face the fact that the Church has never welcomed evidence when it threatened the Church’s teachings. And the Church has not developed systems for gathering and evaluating evidence, as science has done. We don’t go to the Church for reliable, up-to-date information about health care (including sexuality), and yet the Church continues to make pronouncements that presume authority about it. This is because, in matters pertaining to sexuality, the Church is mired in pre-scientific modes of thinking.
2.13.2013 | 3:42pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, you asked for an example of a natural law theorist who does not repudiate homosexual acts. One of them is John Wijngaards, and you can google his name + “homosexuality for Catholics” to find some others.
But it wouldn’t matter even if there 100% unanimity, because a consensus about an unfalsifiable claim is about as meaningful as a lack thereof.
I recognize your use of the word “fashion” as code, and I understand it that you are invoking 2000 years of tradition. But as one accustomed to argumentation, you must know that your implied “argumentum ad antiquitam” is no better than its opposite, the “argumentum ad novitam.” My observation about homosexual distress was based on science, an enterprise not dedicated to either novelty or tradition.
Regarding youth: If homosexual acts are immoral, then we should protect our children from them. But you have not established that these acts are immoral. I find no reason to think they are, unless they are manipulative, dishonest, or unloving.
Considering the obvious negative consequences of telling gay children they are “disordered,” or that “they have no purpose in life,” which an Indiana school teacher was quoted as saying a few days ago, I should think these kinds of messages would be “immoral” by anyone’s standards, because there is real harm in them.
You think that such teaching is “unavoidable,” but it is not. The public schools and universities in my city (Seattle) have very firm policies opposing any attempts to characterize gays as “disordered.” I would assume Seattle is not alone in this regard.
Have you yet actually read any of the DSM material or done any research on this? I sense that you’re setting up straw men with your allusions to “other sources” of distress. What sources do you mean?
But it wouldn’t matter even if there 100% unanimity, because a consensus about an unfalsifiable claim is about as meaningful as a lack thereof.
I recognize your use of the word “fashion” as code, and I understand it that you are invoking 2000 years of tradition. But as one accustomed to argumentation, you must know that your implied “argumentum ad antiquitam” is no better than its opposite, the “argumentum ad novitam.” My observation about homosexual distress was based on science, an enterprise not dedicated to either novelty or tradition.
Regarding youth: If homosexual acts are immoral, then we should protect our children from them. But you have not established that these acts are immoral. I find no reason to think they are, unless they are manipulative, dishonest, or unloving.
Considering the obvious negative consequences of telling gay children they are “disordered,” or that “they have no purpose in life,” which an Indiana school teacher was quoted as saying a few days ago, I should think these kinds of messages would be “immoral” by anyone’s standards, because there is real harm in them.
You think that such teaching is “unavoidable,” but it is not. The public schools and universities in my city (Seattle) have very firm policies opposing any attempts to characterize gays as “disordered.” I would assume Seattle is not alone in this regard.
Have you yet actually read any of the DSM material or done any research on this? I sense that you’re setting up straw men with your allusions to “other sources” of distress. What sources do you mean?
2.13.2013 | 11:14pm
yan says:
Douglas,
I think you should understand by now that my primary problem with homosexuality is not that it may cause other neurotic or psychotic behaviors. The high correlation is suspicious, as is the fact that immoral behaviors in other circumstances also seem to slide inevitably into unhealthy behaviors.
Unhealthy behaviors correlating with, or perhaps caused by, homosexuality, might be important in deciding to classify homosexuality as a disorder by the DSM's definition of disorder, but they are irrelevant in determining whether or not the act is perverted.
The basis for calling homosexuality a perversion is that it is an unnatural act. Homosexuality is a desire to use sex for an end that is not intrinsic to the objective nature of the sexual act. This insight has nothing to do with scientific evidence, as I have explained now several times. The fact that 2 and 2 make 4 does not need to await a study by the WHO before we can agree that it is true. Nor does it does not take a degree in psychology or religion to see that a penis belongs in a vagina and nowhere else when it comes to sex.
In regard to the evidence that homosexuality is a disorder by the DSM standards, from what I have seen and read, it was premature to conclude homosexuality is not a disorder. It seems that the evidence is less than unequivocal, that homosexuality per se NEVER causes distress to an individual.
Finally, I want to say that the DSM standard itself is open to much criticism. Its definition of what constitutes a disorder is not written in stone, and the definition has been different in the past. If tomorrow the DSM changes its definition so homosexuality is disordered again, will you accept the DSM?
I think you should understand by now that my primary problem with homosexuality is not that it may cause other neurotic or psychotic behaviors. The high correlation is suspicious, as is the fact that immoral behaviors in other circumstances also seem to slide inevitably into unhealthy behaviors.
Unhealthy behaviors correlating with, or perhaps caused by, homosexuality, might be important in deciding to classify homosexuality as a disorder by the DSM's definition of disorder, but they are irrelevant in determining whether or not the act is perverted.
The basis for calling homosexuality a perversion is that it is an unnatural act. Homosexuality is a desire to use sex for an end that is not intrinsic to the objective nature of the sexual act. This insight has nothing to do with scientific evidence, as I have explained now several times. The fact that 2 and 2 make 4 does not need to await a study by the WHO before we can agree that it is true. Nor does it does not take a degree in psychology or religion to see that a penis belongs in a vagina and nowhere else when it comes to sex.
In regard to the evidence that homosexuality is a disorder by the DSM standards, from what I have seen and read, it was premature to conclude homosexuality is not a disorder. It seems that the evidence is less than unequivocal, that homosexuality per se NEVER causes distress to an individual.
Finally, I want to say that the DSM standard itself is open to much criticism. Its definition of what constitutes a disorder is not written in stone, and the definition has been different in the past. If tomorrow the DSM changes its definition so homosexuality is disordered again, will you accept the DSM?
2.14.2013 | 9:33am
Anna Williams says:
Again, as we've stated, we do not allow multiple-part comments, though some have slipped through moderation. We will not post multiple replies between one reader and another.
2.14.2013 | 1:53pm
Doughlas Remy says:
Yan, you seem to be abandoning your earlier presumed science-based claims and are now trying to fall back on Church teaching and natural law (whatever that is). If you just keep incanting what seems “obvious” to you--i.e., that homosexual acts are unnatural and perverted and that penises belong only in vaginas--then at least you yourself may continue believing it. But many people, including myself, do not agree with you, so you are reduced to proclaiming that we are simply wrong by virtue of your own conception of what constitutes common sense.
Your formulation that “the basis for calling homosexuality a perversion is that it is an unnatural act” is circular. The words “perverted” and “unnatural” are nearly synonymous. You presume to know what the “objective nature of the sexual act” is, when you view that act through a very constricted Catholic lens. If you go to my blogsite, you’ll see a map of the world as seen by a New Yorker (posted just last week). This is the way you see human sexuality, I’m afraid.
Regarding the DSM: Of course the DSM standard is open to much criticism, because there are lots and lots of very conservative Catholics and evangelicals out there. Remember the resistance to evolutionary theory, climate change science, and tobacco research?
You asked if I would accept a reversion to the old DSM definition of homosexuality as disordered? Probably so, unless it were ordered by a totalitarian government. You may remember that I accepted the old DSM definition for most of my life.
Your formulation that “the basis for calling homosexuality a perversion is that it is an unnatural act” is circular. The words “perverted” and “unnatural” are nearly synonymous. You presume to know what the “objective nature of the sexual act” is, when you view that act through a very constricted Catholic lens. If you go to my blogsite, you’ll see a map of the world as seen by a New Yorker (posted just last week). This is the way you see human sexuality, I’m afraid.
Regarding the DSM: Of course the DSM standard is open to much criticism, because there are lots and lots of very conservative Catholics and evangelicals out there. Remember the resistance to evolutionary theory, climate change science, and tobacco research?
You asked if I would accept a reversion to the old DSM definition of homosexuality as disordered? Probably so, unless it were ordered by a totalitarian government. You may remember that I accepted the old DSM definition for most of my life.
2.16.2013 | 2:44am
Don Roberto says:
Mr. Remy, it does appear you are interested in materialistic reasons to eschew homosexual behavior. This and any other fixation on the frequent stimulation of nerves for pleasure with no connection to any other benefit, despite the costs associated with the activity (e.g., hemmorhoids and STDs), are akin to gluttony or sloth. Gluttony damages the body; sloth is the waste of time that could have been used for good. Now if that appears circular, maybe this is because to the materialist, "good" is a relative term. If you are a true materialist, you should be like Mr. Spock, and only consider things good insofar as theylead to an increase in material wealth. If you are in fact a neo-pagan pleasure worshipper, then you can say gluttony, sloth,or tickling ones pleasure spot are good (because they make one feel good). I would like to suggest, however, that feeling good is not the path to long-term happiness. Consider Viktor Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning." What will be pleasurable to thuink back upon when you are bedridden at 80? The number of times one tickled one'spleasure spot? Or the children one had/taught, the bridges one built, etc?
2.28.2013 | 3:50pm
Robert says:
Thank you, Joshua, for writing this insightful and well-written article. Thank you as well, David Nickol, for reminding us of the crucial point of this article: conversion therapy has not done in considerable numbers what it has primarily claimed to do, which is change orientation and not merely behavior.
The biggest problem is that the goal isn't to honor Christ, but to become straight, and it puts up a false idol to attain.
Now I did gain a better sense of my masculinity from reparative therapy, because of the activities I did and the therapy I participated in, so God definitely used it for something good. But I definitely could have also had male bonding time with solid, Christian brothers and achieved the exact same effect.
The solution to homosexuality, I think, is simple. Repent of your lust, ask God for help a lot, and get plugged into a church where you can be loved on, especially by people of your own gender. I think ultimately whether or not orientation change eventually happens is irrelevant.