I post often about causal factors in sexuality; such factors are puzzle pieces that interest me (along with other human traits and variations). In addition, the intersection of personal values and sexuality ratchets up the interest level. Thus, the recent article, “Respecting Ex-gays”by John Corvino is a must read.
Corvino wants to take a live-and-let-live approach. He ends his piece with a familiar, but altered soundbite:
So when ex-gays announce, from billboards and magazine ads, that “Change is possible,” I say: Possible? Maybe. Likely? No. Desirable? Not for me, thanks.
He is fine with being gay and wants ex-gays to respect him in the same way he wants to respect their right and responsibility to steward their lives according to conscience.
He notes three problems he perceives among ex-gay ministries in general that will lead me to the next part of this post. First is “their tendency to promote myths about the so-called “homosexual lifestyle” by generalizing from some people’s unfortunate personal experiences.” He notes that testimonies of promiscuity and unhappiness do not describe his life and should not be taken as true of all same-sex attracted people. Next, he laments ”the ex-gay ministries’ abuse of science” saying, “Ex-gay ministries tend to lean on discredited etiological theories—domineering mothers, absent fathers, and that sort of thing.” Finally, he says, ”The third and related problem is that many ex-gay ministries promote not merely a ‘change,’ but a ‘cure.’ ‘Cure’ implies ‘disease,’ which homosexuality is not.
Although I might quarrel with degrees, I essentially agree with Corvino’s assessment here. Along with the recent shifts in Exodus away from promoting public policy stances, I am hopeful that the issues of research and use of science will be vigorously addressed as well.
On the point of shifts in views of causation, Dean Byrd at NARTH has an article on the NARTH website giving some cautious kudos to the APA for a revised pamphlet regarding sexual orientation. The subtitle of his article is “The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known: that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.”
Contrasting the original edition of the pamphlet with the new one, Byrd believes the current statement is more accurate. The new statement reads,
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
In response, Byrd opines:
Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to “prove” that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, and Friedman and Downey, were correct: a bio-psycho-social model best fits the data (italics in the original).
My first thought after reading this paragraph was that those I know who are researching pre-natal factors have not concluded any such thing, reluctantly or not. Furthermore, the lack of current evidence for biological theories does not disprove a potential, now-unknown biological influence, nor does lack of strong evidence for general inborn factors prove true a bio-psycho-social model. Next, I wondered what that model looked like. As far as I can discern, all bio-psycho-social really means is that there are many factors and we do not know how they interact to yield adult sexual orientation.
Then I wondered when NARTH would make an APA-like statement about theorized environmental factors such as child abuse and same-sex parenting deficits. What if NARTH acknowledged “what most scientists have long known: that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data?” Wouldn’t there be a need for a statement cautioning readers of their materials that evidence for parenting playing a large or determining role is meager? Paralleling Dr. Byrd’s assessment of the APA pamphlet, shouldn’t NARTH say with italics, “There is no homogenic family. There is no simple familial pathway to homosexuality.” Appeals to those theories criticized by Corvino would be less frequent, right? Hey, changes are happening all over, why not this?
I wrote Dean and asked him about NARTH’s stance. He answered for himself by saying,
I think that the bio-psycho-social model of causation makes it clear that there is neither a simple biological or environmental pathway to homosexuality.
While I think NARTH should go much further, this statement may be the start of a more nuanced position from them. I would not go so far as Corvino did and say that familial factors have been discredited. On point, this is not what the APA said at all. What we should be saying is that there are many lines of research open with many factors under investigation. It appears pre-natal and post-natal factors play different roles for different people. Beyond that, the subject is still under study.
Would this change be so hard?
Mary: I have said this many times over, but will say it again. I am strongly opinionated, but I am not trying to mandate or impose my definitions on others. I know that people have their own individual definitions — and that language is very personal. That’s fine. I am not insisting that everyone mean the same thing when they use the same word.
I am just asking that people on all sides of this very important issue explain what they mean — particularly if they are using a word in a way that is different from the standard definition or the way most folks understand a term. Otherwise, you might as well be speaking Russian while I am speaking Spanish. We are back at Babel and the Humpty Dumpty dilemna.
And as for “Gays having their definitions of things” — I can tell you that gays are just as apt to misunderstand each other as anyone else. We are human. We often have to explain what we mean, too.
Michael,
You can rationalize it any way you want, however it was still very uncool – if attacking someone on a personal level instead of attacking the problem satiates you, then do what you need to – it would seem your heart would be a little unsettled for doing so though.
Ann: I am not attacking Alan on a personal level or rationalizing. I am sure he is a good husband and father, that he really wants to help people and that he truly loves the Lord. But, how can I “attack the problem” — the pervasive perception that EXODUS is lying to the public — without mentioning the person that I think is most responsible for that problem and perception? How can one criticize the current administration without mentioning Bush?
Alan is EXODUS — in the sense that he, as its president, has a responsiblity to very clear in his public discourse and to actually keep the promises he makes. I guess I could say “EXODUS leadership” and not mention “him” by name. Would that be better?
Alan is EXODUS — in the sense that he, as its president, has a responsiblity to very clear in his public discourse and to actually keep the promises he makes. I guess I could say “EXODUS leadership” and not mention “him” by name. Would that be better?
You are right Michael, and you’re not the only one that has problems with Exodus or Alan – gay people, straight people and ex-gay people have criticized Alan for being misleading on several occasions. He absolutely needs to – in fact he has a responsibility to – make himself clear – for the good of the organization he helps lead and for the good of anyone who might want to join.
Maybe, according to his own personal definitions of the words, he really thinks EXODUS is “out” of politics in the same way that he is a “former” homosexual.
Michael,
The first part of this sentence is about how Alan oversees Exodus which may require constructive criticism – the second part is attacking him on a very personal level – Very uncool.
I suggest to all that the reason the definitions are different to us is because we have all had differing experiences is our lives. Some may have positive experiences with their acceptance of their homosexuality while others may have had very negative experiences. Some may look at the positive side of a gay life and ignore the negative characteristics and effects while for others they may be focusing on all of the hurts and deception they have seen presented in the one aspect of the gay life. Is one wrong and one right? Who is telling the truth and who can best judge what that truth is? Is it you Michael? What you have been telling us here has not been my own experience. Am I wrong or are you?
Our view of God likely differs in a similar way. For some we find that God offers us love and encouragement, while others may see God as judging and harsh. Why the difference, is there not just one God? My experience of God is that he loves me more than I can imagine as a human person, however, he knows that there are things that I can do to myself that can be extremely damaging to me. Is this God still loving towards me if he fails to warn me of the potential harm that I may be doing to myself. In any case it is still up to me to decide to follow his direction or ignore it or say it is not relevant to me. I suspect in time the relevance will be revealed whether I am ready to accept it or not.
Ann: “Uncool” or not, I strongly object to Alan, as EXODUS’s leader, calling himself a “former homosexual” — because it gives the (false) impression that he is now “straight” — and that that is what EXODUS can deliver.
I object to Alan using “former homosexual” for the very same reasons I object to “ex-gay” — a term that even Alan admits has been misleading. What’s the difference between an “ex-gay” and a “former homosexual”?
I also object strongly to Alan making a very public announcement that EXODUS is getting “out” of politics and then announcing that he and EXODUS will continue to be members of a very political group. He has not explained the apparent contradiction. By using “former” in a different way, and “out” in a different way, he gives the impression of lying. Until he clears things up, my criticism of him, as EXODUS’s leader, stands.
I guess I could say “EXODUS leadership” and not mention “him” by name. Would that be better?
Michael,
Mentioning his name and putting responsibility on him as the leader of Exodus is all very fair – resorting to how he defines himself and being sarcastic about it at his expense is not only irresponsible but diminishes the very important things you want to say.
Remember, when you said in another post on this thread in referring to what Alan/Exodus should do – “it is the Christian thing to do”? I responded by saying “God has provided everyone with the ability to do the right thing – I don’t think it is exclusively “the Christian thing to do”. Being cognizent of doing the right thing, regardless if the other person is or not, is indeed impressive and does not need a label or word or term – it just speaks for itself and people will notice.
I strongly object to Alan, as EXODUS’s leader, calling himself a “former homosexual” — because it gives the (false) impression that he is now “straight” — and that that is what EXODUS can deliver
These are two separate issues and they are being combined. As a public figure representating an organization, Alan can refer to himself anyway he wants as long as his representation has integrity with how he lives. As to what Exodus can deliver to each person and their individual set of circumstances is a whole different issue – and one that should be articulated in the most cautionary manner. I think probably the most important thing to realize for their members (not sure if this is the correct term) is that SSA does not have to equate to same gender sexual relationships if the person doesn’t want them to. Their story can and will unfold from there.
A few days ago on the previous thread when I called on Alan to make a front page statement and to consider having Wendy draft it, Michael was totally with me because I supported his agenda. Today, I’m a villain because I reacted to his taking my words out of context and suggested that perhaps he’d done that all along. I’d have to do some digging here on the blogsite, but I know that I confronted Michael about using my words out of context and promised that I would be quick to challenge when and if he did.
Naturally, Jayhuck was there to jump in saying “that Eddy likes to blame others”. Considering the source, that was my best chuckle of the day. (BTW: Jayhuck, even though I like the name “Jay”–it’s my middle name–I refer to you as Jayhuck because you do. In a later post, you referred to me as “Ed”; it was probably just a slip, but please let’s stick with “Eddy”.)
On occasion, I continue to challenge Michael especially when he’s pointing out the inconsistencies in other people’s words because, as Concerned pointed out, Michael wasn’t exactly the model of consistency. He was already married to a woman while Exodus was still trying to figure out what it wanted to be. He was one of the founders, one of the leaders. It would seem that at least some of the notions he blames Exodus for were notions he adopted prior to Exodus’ influence. To top that off, and I’m not revealing any secrets here, that while a leader and while a married man, he began his relationship with Gary…I can’t seem to get the timeline nailed down. But it doesn’t seem that he left either the ministry or the marriage right away. This suggests he was leading a ‘double life’ and was capable, for a time at least, of deceiving Exodus, Exit and his wife.
If he and Gary had put their budding relationship on hold until they found a way to step out of the ministry and Michael’s marriage (I don’t remember if Gary was married or not.) then I’d trust him a bit more.
Finally, consider all the posts recently that we had where we wanted to question or ‘therapize’ those with unwanted SSA…justifying this because they might have come to this conclusion out of weakness or a response to church or societal pressure. If we can see that potential for a person to be self-deceived, why don’t we recognize that getting saved, baptized in the Holy Spirit, getting married, becoming a minister, having a child, embarking on a relationship with a fellow minister, –and then leaving all but the latter all in the course of a few years–why can’t we acknowledge that those circumstances would or could cloud a man’s perceptions?
Therapize? Whose the scoundrel that wanted to therapize someone? LOL
On occasion, I continue to challenge…
And that, Eddy, is MY biggest chuckle of the day
Jayhuck–
Re ‘therapize”….I believe you were the scoundrel.
Re your attempts at zingers….they’re coming across rather weak…especially since I just cited an occasion in a previous post (the one about Alan’s thread on XGW) where I did support Michael. Shall I link it or quote it for you or can you find your way there? I’m not sure you blogged in that thread but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Things that you don’t personally experience often still exist on another plane.
Oh Eddy I knew who you were referring to
As for things that I don’t personally experience still existing – I had no idea, but appreciate you enlightening me 
Jayhuck–
Don’t know what I did to make it all come out in a block like that…thankfully it’s brief enough that the message will still get through.
Can’t play anymore right now. Perhaps I’ll come back when there are people discussing.
Eddy,
I know our online “relationship” is a terrible one, and this might be the worst possible time to say something like this in the midst of our snarky posts – but whether you believe it or not I have learned many things from you – about ex-gay issues and about myself – some of it has been very humbling, but it has been good. I’m not gonna pretend that we’re going to ever have a good online relationship, I’ve sort of given up on that, but for what its worth (and in your eyes that may be little – and I’d understand that) you have enlightened me.
In fact, there are only a few people on here that I haven’t learned something positive or worthwhile from. I’m opinionated, sometimes too set in my ways, but am painfully aware I am far from being perfect, and that there is always room for improvement.