We all have, for example, varying needs for “clear explanation” of things that are inexplicable. Human beings seem to be uncomfortable with the unknown, and are often willing to substitute the unknowable in its place to provide some sort of articulate explanation.

What disturbs me about Dr. Throckmorton’s description here is what appears to be the application of the gay/lesbian sexual orientation narrative being applied to religion. I believe such an approach is doomed to a variety of failures, in part because it ultimately depends on the existence of logical equivalences that likely do not exist.

It’s rather like various feminist rantings I’ve read (e.g. Butler, Fausto-Sterling, or more recently Bindel) who keep trying to apply a “lesbian-feminist” narrative to the experience of transsexuals. What appears to be a reasonable bit of reasoning at first turns out to be based on assumptions of equivalence (and connections) that are suspect at best, downright wrong in many cases.

I’m also cautious about confusing religiosity (as in the prediliction to believe in a religious tradition), with following a specific religion. Specific religious belief is likely some kind of intellectual construct within the mind, and the sense of need that different people experience for a connection to a religion is going to vary.

There are some people like you say where they have found a place where their christianity (religious belief etc…) can blend with their homosexuality.

And I think – trying to be more clear – what I was trying to say is that through SIT a person who is predominantly religious over his/her sexuality will either change that perspective on their religion and evaluate the meaning, teachings etc… differently and find a religion/sexuality that works for them or they will blend not evaluate that perspective on their religion it’s meaning, teachings etc differently and they will still find a religion/sexuality that works for them. In the later that sexuality may not be expressing homosexuality to the same degree that others might.

Not a dichotomy to them if they say so. But it could be described as a dichotomy to someone else who evaluates the same things differently.

And keeping in mind that psychology is still rather young compared to other sciences and as we have seen new information is always correcting previously known information.

And the point is yes, beliefs can change. You seem to change frequently while others may be different and decide not to.

Hey, I passed a karaoke bar the other day and thought we had not much of you here. Glad to see you.

Right now, I could choose to be Buddhist meaning I am free to do this. But do I want to? Could I do it now, given that it makes no sense to me? In a way, I am able and in another way I am not.”

Here is the key difference: A person who grows disillusioned with his faith, really does have the option of becoming a Buddhist.

On the other hand, *most* unhappy gay people can not just discard their sexuality. They can pray and pray and pray, waste vast amounts of productive energy and time, without ever becoming straight. From Iran to Mississippi, this is true.

—-

To be fair… I admit to somewhat trivializing the ease of eradicating religous hang-ups. The ghostly tentacles of one’s upbringing can last a lifetime. Just see Michael Glatze or Charlene Cothran.

But just as ex-catholics have to deal with catholic guilt, or ex-Jews still have to deal with the Jewish mother syndrome (“you never call!”), it’s doable.

As you may know, it is found in much pesonality psychology research that there is some heritability to religious beliefs…as we might say with sexuality.

Mary –

“And client centered therapy should I assume help a person come to the conclusion with satisfaction which of the two – religion or homosexuality – is going to take precedence.”

I really don’t understand why you keep putting religion at one end of the spectrum and homosexuality on the other. People can be gay AND christian.

Please stop making these false dichotomies.