Posted on 05/05/2006 12:43:11 PM PDT by DBeers
“Steve,” a married 48-year-old Orthodox Jew from Jerusalem with six children, is proud of his success: After 18 months of counseling, he has restricted his sexual encounters with other men to only once in the last four months. Steve, who is not — in his words — “a biological homosexual,” attributes his restraint to a therapy group that uses religious values as part of the treatment.
As someone who until recently had a long-term male lover and regularly engaged in casual gay sex, Steve — who asked that his real name not be used — says that a few years ago he would not have thought he could stop having sex with men altogether. Now, though, he considers it a goal that is “absolutely in my reach.”
Steve’s therapy group is one of many around the world that aims to help people cope with unwanted homosexual inclinations. Such treatment — known as reorientation, reparative or conversion therapy — has been severely criticized by gay-rights activists and many mental-health professionals who say sexual orientation is generally unchangeable. At best, the therapy is unsuccessful, activists say. At worst, it is harmful.
The scriptures of all three major monotheistic religions — as understood by many in those traditions — condemn homosexual behavior, leaving Christians, Jews and Muslims who have same-sex attractions to choose between their religious values and their sexual orientation. The dilemma has led some psychologists, psychiatrists and religious leaders to break off from predominant psychological thinking and swim against the current of political correctness in their attempt to induce change in patients with unwanted sexual attractions.
The American Psychiatric Association, or APA, removed homosexuality in 1973 from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM. In May 2000, the association stated: “Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of ‘cures’ are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.”
But in 2001, a new wrinkle was added. Robert Spitzer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who had helped spearhead the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, presented a study at an APA conference concluding that “there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.”
In his research, Spitzer found that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had achieved “good heterosexual functioning,” and that 11 percent of the men and 37 percent of the women reported being entirely free of homosexual feelings. His research was based on telephone interviews with 200 people who reported a five-year change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction. Spitzer also found that the vast majority of the interviewees were religious and “highly motivated” to change their sexual orientation.
The study, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior in October 2003, was criticized by some of Spitzer’s peers for using biased respondents. Specifically, 65 percent of the participants had been told of the study by the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a secular group supporting the right to pursue change of sexual orientation, or by therapists and ministries devoted to encouraging homosexuals to abandon gay lifestyles. Critics also faulted the report for relying on self-reports and being inapplicable to society at large. “As scientists, we must disbelieve Spitzer’s data because they are so compromised by subject selection bias as to raise serious objections to any claims Spitzer might make about their meaning and generalizability,” wrote Kenneth Cohen, a counselor at Cornell University’s Gannett Health Center, in Archives of Sexual Behavior. Moreover, psychologists Michael Schroeder and Ariel Shidlo presented data at the same APA meeting contradicting Spitzer’s results. Their five-year study on the effects of homosexual “conversion therapies” found that 178 of their 202 subjects failed in such therapies and that most reported suffering mental stress or emotional pain from the treatment.
One of the key problems in determining the efficacy of reorientation therapy is that there is no single definition of sexual orientation.
“Whether one can say that sexual orientation is being changed depends on how narrowly one defines sexual orientation or if it can be defined at all,” wrote Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, in a 1998 article in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling.
Most members of NARTH share the view that homosexuality is a developmental disorder. Adam Jessel, a NARTH member and therapist who has treated Steve, has said he tries to help his clients control their same-sex attraction, rather than to “cure” them. But Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have diverging doctrine on whether homosexual is an actual disorder and what its causes are.
Several respected scientific findings point to at least some involvement of biology in homosexuality. Among them is a 2005 genome study conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago that found about 60 percent of gay brothers shared four stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation. The findings first appeared in the March 2005 issue of Human Genetics. Brian Mustanski, a psychologist in the university’s department of psychiatry and lead author of the study, found the DNA stretches on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male. “There is no one gay gene,” said Mustanski. “Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it’s not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression. Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.”
Such findings have been used to argue all sides of the issue. Norman Goldwasser, an Orthodox Jewish psychologist who treats patients with unwanted homosexual inclinations at his Florida clinic, said he sees homosexuality as a result of traumatic experiences or dysfunctional family dynamics but also believes that biology can play a role. Goldwasser said homosexual tendencies can be modified or healed “just as other biologically oriented issues [can].” In short, he said that people’s biology need not become their destiny
But while some Orthodox rabbis have characterized homosexuality as a disease for at least some people with same-sex tendencies, the heads of the Conservative and Reform rabbis in Israel reject the concept of homosexuality as a psychological problem subject to change. “Jewish law clearly prohibits eating pork; no one would suggest that someone who has an inclination to eat pork has a psychological difficulty,” said Rabbi Andrew Sacks, director of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
Not all Jews share the same viewpoint. “We don’t see it as a disease,” said Rabbi Kinneret Shiryon, chairperson of the Reform movement’s Israel Council of Progressive Rabbis. “There’s nothing to cure.”
The Roman Catholic Church, in a 1986 letter approved by Pope John Paul II, refers to homosexual inclination as an “objective disorder.” Some Catholics say, however, that the church’s reference to a disorder is meant in the philosophical, not psychological, sense. The letter rejects the “demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive,” said Father John Francis Harvey, author of the 1996 book The Truth About Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful.
Harvey is the founding director of a Catholic support group called Courage, which enlists a 12-step program similar to the one used by Alcoholics Anonymous, or AA, to help people with homosexual inclinations be chaste. By modeling its program after AA, Courage draws a comparison between homosexuality and alcoholism that is widespread among supporters of reorientation therapy. Just as alcoholics can conquer their addiction through will and effort, so too — Courage’s argument goes — can people with homosexual inclinations bring their desires under control.
Similar to the way other organizations look to treat homosexuality, Courage refers to its clients as “people with same-sex attractions” in an effort to portray homosexuality as one of many possible personal problems rather than as a description of identity. “We changed the terminology,” said Harvey, who has a master’s degree in psychology and a doctorate in theology. “We don’t like ‘gay,’ ‘lesbian’ or ‘homosexual.’ We see these as labels.”
Among some major Protestant denominations, including the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches, there is a split over whether homosexuality really is a psychological problem and whether it can — or should — be treated.
“It’s not viewed as a disorder by the majority of the church,” said the Rev. Jan Nunley, communication deputy at the Episcopal Church, which consists of 2 million to 3 million worshipers in roughly 7,500 congregations across the United States. She added, however, that some member churches do attempt to treat people with homosexual inclinations. The church’s official position is that any religious or psychological treatment for sexual orientation must not be coercive or manipulative.
The Presbyterian Church sees the issue of whether sexual orientation can be chosen or changed as a matter of crucial significance, but says it is a question yet to be settled. However, the pastoral guide for OneByOne, a Presbyterian organization that helps churches reach out to people “struggling with homosexuality,” said that “the homosexual orientation is not chosen and, therefore, is not sinful in and of itself.”
There has not been a lot of reorientation therapy in the Presbyterian Church, said Kristin Johnson, executive director of OneByOne. The conservative wing has largely sufficed with voicing negative views of homosexuality, while the liberal wing sees no reason to advocate changing a drive it sees as “healthy and normal,” she said.
The Southern Baptist Convention rejects biology as a possible factor in the formation of homosexuality, instead pointing to environmental factors such as family dynamics and sexual abuse. Citing NARTH President Joseph Nicolosi, it says that because homosexuality is a condition — not an identity — that a homosexual person simply does not exist.
Muslim theologians, meanwhile, tend to see homosexuality as environmental, although some Muslim and Arab medical professionals are open to the possibility of biological factors.
While homosexuality is not a “normal behavior,” its causes have yet to be determined with certainty, said Dr. Hossam E. Fadel, chairman of the Islamic Medical Association of North America’s ethics committee. Fadel said some Muslim clinicians in North America provide reorientation therapy. But in other parts of the world, Muslims and Arabs may be too frightened to either come out as gay or seek treatment to reduce their same-sex attractions.
It is quite rare for Arabs to seek treatment for homosexuality, said Dr. Issam Bannoura, director of the Bethlehem Mental Hospital in the West Bank. Bannoura classified homosexuality as untreatable abnormal behavior but not a disorder. “For such cases they don’t go to doctors in Arab society. It’s a great stigma for them,” he said.
Regardless of whether religious leaders and mental-health professionals view homosexuality as biological, genetic or both, those who support reparative therapy all agree on one thing: Some people can alter their sexual orientation.
As for “Steve,” he said that while he doesn’t know if he will be able to completely stop his homosexual behavior or come to terms with his attraction for men, he continues to believe that change is possible. “The will is greater than anything else in the world.”
Not to mention "disorder" implies that homosexuality is abnormal.
First, "sexual orientation" is not a behavior -as such, I would suggest your amazement to be unfounded. Second, I assume your anecdotal and stereotypical assumptions support at least one point; however, the point eludes me... Maybe if you would just cut to the chase e.g. "sexual orientation" is not a scientifically identified "trait" OR "sexual orientation" is a controversial subject?
Stereotypical male and female behavior? Conservatives think it's inborn while liberals think it's cultural.
Let me add that scientists have proved actual physical inborn differences between males and females -no speculation or critical thinking necessary. Oddly enough, human beings observed that are physically females tend to exhibit female traits while human beings observed that are physically males tend to exhibit male traits -they have even done statistically significant repeatable studies on this stuff...
Violent criminals? Conservatives want to lock them up because they can't be rehabilitated while liberals believe they can be rehabilitated.
I don't know what you are attempting by adding this stereotype into the mix? Are you suggesting that conservatives tend to feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior WHILE at the same time suggesting that liberals do not feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior YET think rehabilitation is necessary? Regardless my correct or incorrect assumptions as to your implied point(s), please elaborate specifically in regards to the homosexual condition -what point are you making specifically?
And so on.
Well, I would suggest you have not yet laid a foundation with which to "And so on" from...
Is consistency really that difficult to ask for?
I would suggest you might now have a better feel for where many apparent contradictions originate -garbage in, garbage out... I suggest you question your assumptions again...
Yes, I know these issues can be different but if you can imagine sex roles being biological, is it that difficult to imagine that sexual orientation might also be biological, or vice versa?
As stated prior -male and female are physically observable commodities -innate realities with many traits scientifically proved predominantly correlated to each sex exclusively. Sexual orientation at this time is but a leftist construct with no physical measurable scientific basis. Sexual orientation lacks ANY physical reality with which science might possibly even begin to associate any roles or traits to -sexual orientation at this time is ALL imagination...
There are all sorts of them, from a possible genetic component to addictions like alcoholism to minor mental defects ranging from functional autism and people who, for example, don't experience fear. Take a good look at all of the oddball human defects out there. There are plenty of very narrow ones.
You are splitting hairs. It's a mental preference that leads to certain behaviors.
Second, I assume your anecdotal and stereotypical assumptions support at least one point; however, the point eludes me... Maybe if you would just cut to the chase e.g. "sexual orientation" is not a scientifically identified "trait" OR "sexual orientation" is a controversial subject?
Do you think that women are naturally specifically attracted to men and not to women and that men are naturally specifically attracted to women and not men or do you think that men and women are blank slates that that learn to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. If you think that men and women can be born with an attraction to a specific (opposite) sex, then it's possible for a person's brain to be (mis-)wired to attract them to the same sex. Either sexual attraction is learned, inborn, or some combination of the two. If it has an inborn component, then that inborn component can be wired wrong.
Let me add that scientists have proved actual physical inborn differences between males and females -no speculation or critical thinking necessary.
Yet as critics of nature will tell you, scientists also have proven that there is a range of inborn behavior such that some women can be very butch and masculine and some men very wimpy and feminine. And, oddly enough, gay men are often considered effeminate and lesbians are often considered butch.
Oddly enough, human beings observed that are physically females tend to exhibit female traits while human beings observed that are physically males tend to exhibit male traits -they have even done statistically significant repeatable studies on this stuff...
I'm not disputing that. But look at the word you are using -- "tend". Most "tend" to. Some don't. Most women tend to be attracted to men and vice-versa. That does not mean that some men and women can't be wired the wrong way. We all start out as a sperm and egg and are built in the womb to be one way or the other. And don't think mistakes (some mighty big) don't happen during human development.
I don't know what you are attempting by adding this stereotype into the mix? Are you suggesting that conservatives tend to feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior WHILE at the same time suggesting that liberals do not feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior YET think rehabilitation is necessary? Regardless my correct or incorrect assumptions as to your implied point(s), please elaborate specifically in regards to the homosexual condition -what point are you making specifically?
I think that at least some conservatives believe that classes of criminals, including sociopaths and child molesters, are mentally defective and can't be fixed. Further, I think at least some conservatives accept that some people are born this way, though you would be correct to point out that others don't.
As stated prior -male and female are physically observable commodities -innate realities with many traits scientifically proved predominantly correlated to each sex exclusively.
Again, look at your words. To "predominantly correlate" is not an absolute correlation. That means that some men or women can fall outside of the norm -- like being attracted to the wrong sex.
Sexual orientation at this time is but a leftist construct with no physical measurable scientific basis. Sexual orientation lacks ANY physical reality with which science might possibly even begin to associate any roles or traits to -sexual orientation at this time is ALL imagination...
It's clear that men and women are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex and normally are. Why is it impossible to believe that if a brain can be programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex (or better at language or math or whatever) that it can be misprogrammed since we all start out physiologically unisex and develop into a male or female? You are aware that children are born with indeterminate physical sex and all sorts of other odd defects, right? If a person's physical development can go wrong, why can't their mental development? And, by the way, yes, they've noticed structural differences in gay brains, too.
Please note that I'm not claiming the biological tendency must be followed. I do think that people have some choice in the matter, too.
Actually no -I am simply telling you the bald headed man has no hair regardless the various toupees you might introduce for discussion...
Society legislates activities, scientists measure physical realities... I will consider it amazing if anyone finds a way to objectively predict mental preferences without at least one physical attribute to associate and correlate the preferences with (science) rather than depending upon (faith) subjective self declaration e.g. "feelings"...
Scientists can no more identify a Christian as they can identify a homosexual UNLESS they correlate to an activity and make assumptions e.g. an individual states they were born a Christian, or states they prefer to go to church, or is seen in a church etcetera... NOTHING innate about that -the mental preference is ASSUMED to exist...
Either sexual attraction is learned, inborn, or some combination of the two. If it has an inborn component, then that inborn component can be wired wrong.
As to the debate regarding homosexual activity being disordered -some specific cause of sexual attraction not yet found only matters to homosexual activists...
I myself do not concern myself with the homosexual elusive IF because homosexual activists' faith in the orientation "missing link" is not relevant to a debate of facts. So, why bring it up?
Homosexual activists attempt to prove homosexual activity normal while heterosexuals do not need to prove heterosexuality is normal because it is objectively obvious -there are males and females & procreation populates the species...
Conversely, homosexual activity is objectively disordered - regardless the unhealthy issues inherent to the disordred activity, a population that practiced homosexual sex would become extinct -again, no proof is necessary...
Yet as critics of nature will tell you, scientists also have proven that there is a range of inborn behavior such that some women can be very butch and masculine and some men very wimpy and feminine. And, oddly enough, gay men are often considered effeminate and lesbians are often considered butch.
LOL -where exactly is this proved research? You seem to have skipped a step and fell back into false premise land. Let me reitterate the hurdle you consistently ignore: Sexual orientation lacks ANY physical reality with which science might possibly even begin to associate any roles or traits to -sexual orientation at this time is ALL imagination...
I'm not disputing that. But look at the word you are using -- "tend". Most "tend" to. Some don't.
I am glad you concede it is not possible to dispute reality. As to the term "tend" -you understand that there are exceptions that deviate from the norm e.g. abnormal e.g. homosexual activity. A man that is driven to have sex with another man is deviating from the norm NOT creating a new norm with no scientific basis!
Again, look at your words. To "predominantly correlate" is not an absolute correlation.
Yes! You are correct -so what! I just pointed out above WHY this is a reality not relevant to the discussion...
And, by the way, yes, they've noticed structural differences in gay brains, too.
Stop the presses -THERE IS NO "GAY" BRAIN. Again it appears you have skipped a step and fell back into false premise land. Now what do you really mean -- Do you mean the brains of men who have engaged in homosexual activity over a certain duration of time have changed as a result of the activity or some unknown factor X - OR - do you actually suggest that infant brains can be measured at birth and homosexual activity can be predicted e.g. the "GAY" BRAIN?
Please note that I'm not claiming the biological tendency must be followed. I do think that people have some choice in the matter, too.
Actually people can ALL choose to engage in or not engage in sexual activity unless they are raped -WHATEVER their tendency...
Maybe it's nature's way of reducing the population growth a bit. Other techniques used in the past include wars, famines, plagues, floods, and so on. Perhaps this is just another self-regulation being done.
>>There is nothing that will change my sexual attractions. Gay sex is gross, and the gay Vito theme on the Sopranos makes me cringe. Do you honestly think that a normal straight guy would just decide he wants a man?<<
That makes sense to me.
I have not studied this so I just have my layman's reaction.
I'm quite sure I did not choose to be straight - it just came naturally - its a part of who I am - what makes "Me." So it does not not seem strange to me to think that gay people don't choose that either.
Now, I've known girls who had gay flings but I know other women who find that idea as offensive as I would find trying to sleep with a man (I'm in the "I would probably prefer to just die instead" category).
I don't think the women who won't sleep with other women are simply making a choice - I think they are in some way different from women who are able to enjoy that.
That is not the point I argue -society can not legislate feelings as society can not read minds. People may feel compelled to do any number of things; however, action involves choice OTHERWISE people would never be guilty of crimes...
Heres how I can prove that no matter how someone gets their sexual orientation, it is set;
It is your belief that there is some innate physical entity separate from the objectively obvious and undeniable physical sexual attributes exclusively male and female called orientation -a belief that scientists have not proved. Not able to prove something even exists HOW can one claim it to be "set"? Sexual organs are set -"orientation" is a construct that in the case of homosexuals has no physical premise...
Without physical premise it was at one time theorized that disordered sexual orientation was a mental condition; however, the APA recently based upon no science declared this not to be the case.
If orientation is not mental OR physical it should necessarily follow that there is no such animal unless one claims belief in an innate unprovable mystical premise for sexual orientation... Regardless, the approach there is no proof of an innate "set" sexual orientation - there is ONLY belief... Promoting such a belief is in essence promoting homosexual agenda propaganda...
Amen to that. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. My wife and I waited until after marriage as well. We are so completely grateful that we did.
There may be ways to control or modify the behavior (psychology) BUT the APA has decreed this approach a sacred cow to be avoided at all costs.
A physical "cure" would first require scientifically identifying the innate exclusively homosexual "thing(s)" or causes of objective conditions that some belief exist but science has yet to find.
Either way -not much happening now regarding help for those suffering the homosexual disorder -the leftists apparently like it that way -less homosexuals = less votes?
Recommeded read: A wonderful book, summarizing how this terrible politically driven tragedy came to be, robbing gender confused indivuals from any hope of help: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by Harbard professor Jeffrey Satinover.
As a result of the horrible decision of the ALA, today therapists can lose their licences if they are "caught" treating people who want to stop their deleterious homosexual encounters.
Recommeded: Do a good dead and let all the young people you know who have been brainwashed into homosexual behavior know they do have choices, despite the APA having done its best to rob such people of a choice for the past 30 years. Direct them to: www.Jonahweb.org and www.NARTH.org.
I think the most indicative research into what's really going on is the twin study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard that showed 52% of identical twins shared being gay, 22% of fraternal twins shared being gay, and 5% of non-related adopted brothers shared being gay. That's exactly what you'd expect if it was a combination of nature and nurture because other separated twin studies have shown similar correlation for other tendencies including political beliefs. In other words, genetics give people a tencency to be a certain way but they have the ability to change and choose differently. If it were 100% genetic or inborn, you'd expect 100% of identical twins to share the same sexual orientation. If it were non-genetic, you'd expect that 5% number (which, contrary to Kinsey's 10% and the 2% given by some anti-gay activists, is what marketing types assume as the percentage of gays and it's their business to get that right without politics getting in the way). The ~50%, ~25%, and ~5% is exactly what you'd expect if genetics were about half of what determines whether a person will be gay or not. But it also means that a person can also decide what they want to be or be persuaded to be something different than their natural tendency. And, no, that's not the absolute either-or choice that advocates on both sides of the debate are looking for. It means that a person can have a tendency to be gay or lesbian but it also means that people can be shifted from one side to the other.
good post
also, I'm 25 y/o male, and share your same sentiment about the sanctity of the marriage bed. In December, my wait will be over. HOORAY. I'll have to catch up on missed time, but I encourage you to stay committed as it will all be worth it eventually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.