The APA symposium on homosexuality, therapy and religion has been cancelled
Posted on May 1st, 2008 by Warren
What a difference a day makes.
The American Psychiatric Association program Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension has been pulled by chair David Scasta. My understanding is that he was asked (by whom, I am still not clear) to pull the program because of increasing concerns about it. I am still hearing more about the reasons and hope to know something more clearly soon.
Dr. Scasta did tell me that the APA’s position is that the program was not pulled because gay activists were unhappy with it. At this moment, I am skeptical.
More to come…
Warren is continuing to describe this as an “APA symposium”, but the Blade article made it clear that it was not an official APA event, but rather an outside-organized panel timed to line up with the APA conference. Warren provided a link from October 2007 listing the panel on the APA’s program, so the status of this (now-cancelled) panel seems murky.
Warren’s comment: “Dr. Scasta did tell me that the APA’s position is that the program was not pulled because gay activists were unhappy with it.”
Question: How come we never hear of straight activists? How come when a gay person expresses disapproval or takes a stand which is gay supportive that person gets labeled “activist” — and it always seems to have a negative feel to it?
At least he’s not calling them “homosexual activists”, like he used to (see, e.g., http://www.americandaily.com/nucleus/plugins/print/print.php?itemid=6722 ).
Kevin - Do you believe the Blade over the APA program from their website? There is nothing murky about it.
Michael - I was relaying what David Scasta, a gay man, related to me.
Jack Drescher has an excellent letter-to-the-editor here: http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19652714&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=569329&rfi=6
The APA is hosting another symposium on homosexuality and therapy called “Stop It: You’re Making Me Sick Revisited: Landmarks in the Struggle to Normalize Lesbian and Gay Lives”:
1. How It All Started Franklin Kameny, Ph.D.
2. From Disorder to Dystonia: DSM-II to DSM-III Richard C. Pillard, M.D.
3. Strike While the Iron Is Hot! Science and Social Forces and Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality Robert P. Cabaj, M.D.
4. Sexual Orientation and Psychiatric Diagnosis: Current Issues in DSM-IV and Moving Toward DSM-V Benjamin H. McCommon, M.D.
5. Eliminating Anti-Gay Diagnoses in WHO’s International Classification of Disorders (ICD) Gene A. Nakajima, M.D.
All scientific evidence to date [not to mention empricial data] strongly indicates that people with an homosexual sexual orientation have brains that are biologically different from heterosexuals.
Who takes issues with this? 99% of the time it is people whose religious beliefs conflict with scientific knowlegde.
This is nothing new folks - has been going on for centuries.
:(.
Good
It is sad that people who have a religious fundamentalist agenda [whether christian or islamic] are in denial about the biological basis of sexual orientation.
Approx. 5% of the population are born with an homosexual sexual orientation and ancient religious texts do not change this fact.
You know what is so sad - is that thirty some years ago we knew far less than we do today about pyschology/psychiatry and science has come very far. New techniques, new medications, new understandings about the origins of behaviors and the brain. And yet, we have gay people vehemently holding on to old ideas - as if nothing has changed - in the fields of mental health - unless of course it is pro gay. Some people will never be satisfied with a homosexual orientation and I’m glad that a few courageous health practitioners still value the individual over the day’s popular beliefs. Yes, there are some misguided people who practice “ministry” to “change” people because of the “immorality” of homosexuality. But there are many legitimate counselors and doctors who also help people resolve the conflict that is suitable for the client and that won’t always jive with the gay community.
But anyhow - I suppose we will have to listen to those who say there is nothing but gay affirmations for people who want a different life. Too bad - mob rule.
How does this sound - if you feel gay feelings you must be gay and act on those gay feelings to have a fullfilled life.
Or maybe this sounds better - if you have gay feelings you must stop having them and never act on those gay feelings to have a fulfilled life.
Or the third option - what would you like to do about your gay feelings - and then do it.
Oh yeah - and if you change your mind - that is good too.
Mary,
Why are people not able to accept themselves as having been born with an homosexual sexual orientation? Why are they “dissatisfied”
The Church, classmates, society at large, family, and friends who are ignorant and in denial - stereotype, discrimminate, demonize, etc., etc. gay people.
Do you suppose that has anything to do with it? Do you think those things also have anything to do with gay youth suicides? Or contributing factors re: drug and alcohol and sex addictions?
In a just, moral, and intelligent society it would be a non-issue.
If you consider the quest for truth to be clinging to old beliefs - than yes I am - and I will always seek the truth.
PS Mary,
A sexual orientation is not just “feelings”. Minimizing the role sexual orientation plays in a person’s life is another strategy the religious right uses.
You may consider sexual orientation to be just a “feeling” - but I consider it an important part of EVERY person’s life - it impacts who they love and express that love with, the family they build for themselves and companionship. That is a huge part of life - as big as productive work.
I have said it before and will continue to: religious fundamentalism - christian or islamic - will destroy our society unless we put a stop to it.
Mary,
Do you think anyone is listening and/or understanding? What you are saying makes complete sense but it is being silenced and that is very sad.
LOL. And one of the presenter’s at the symposium that will be allowed at this year’s conference is ‘a former gay activist’…again, identified that way by Jack Drescher not Warren.
Jack made the following statement in response to right-wing accusations that the declassification of homosexuality was a response to political pressure.
Forgive me, but I must read between the lines. There’s ‘an intensive review by experts lasting more than a year’. Really, a whole year? Did these experts suspend their lives, their practice, their other duties so they could all gather together and review intensively?(If they all worked at the same place, there would have been the danger of unnatural bias or influence so I’m assuming they were experts from across the country.) And just what is it that they reviewed? Did they poll the psychiatric community for case studies? Or did they review the popular social commentary of the time? LOL. It sounds impressive til you think it through. What they reviewed will answer whether or not there was political motivation.
Mary,
Post ‘005′ (with ‘007′) was beautifully stated. Thanks!
David,
I couldn’t agree more.
Mary’s message is right to the point.
Science should support all parties, be they gay, ex-gay or any people who have difficulties in relating to their feelings. I don’t see why science should dictate on what is acceptable for someone to live. It is well outside its jurisdiction. Even if they define ‘gay feelings’ to be normal (that is, not dysfunctional) they should also support people who are troubled by their feelings, simply because no one should be left out. It’s really sad that such representative body in the psychological profession slams the door shut in the face of some of the most vulnerable people. Historically, this general attitude of partisanship and rejection will be recorded as a great error and a shame.
Ann
I think that gay activists will do anything to silence this message. They are using an old archaic approach to community and health. They are basically marketing a belief system. Sort of like the old conservative christians of the 80’s and 90’s. I think someday cooler heads and better community involvment will allow reason to prevail. Just from what we have seen with the younger generation - they are just as tired of the old gay and christian evangelical rhetoric as we are. The younger generation is not as easily fooled by what others say because it is said by someone who is “cool”. They demand more documentation and more conversation about topics than the old - “Oh - you’re like me so you’re on my side” program without thinking.
I was in the freedom fight as a lesbian and still in it as a christian and ex gay (for lack of a better word) . I did not switch or change allegiance - the message is still the same. Individuals have the right to health care of their choosing, housing, jobs, love of thier choice - and the right of marriage, etc…
Eddy,
Thanks. I was getting snarky and am frustrated with the bishop’s misinformed thinking and judgment. He is basically saying to all of his laity that their sexual morality is immoral if it does not agree with his. How’s that for a chruch leader?
One more comment about the bishop. I was disappointed in his recent actions because they smack of the same bigotry and discrimination of the christian evenagelical some decades ago. How can a so called man of God be so manipulated and puppeted by the string of remarks made by others?
He knew of the symposium months and months ago. He backed out at the last minute because of media flurries - and no other reason. It would have been better for him to attend and then make a comment. It would certainly have given more credibility to his judgment and words. As it seems, the bishop got bullied and backed down.
Evan,
This has always been my concern. It is so critical that the APA recognize and support those individuals who are not happy and content with their orientation and recognize that they are completely different from those that are content. It is such an individual thing and yet, it is being dismissed as if it was frivolous. I do not support or endorse quack therapy or organizations that promote quick fixes and promises, etc., however, most individual therapy is not like that and yet it is clumped in with it. It is really so cruel - I don’t know how they can live with themselves.
Mary,
Yes and this is not a moral issue - it is an equal rights issue and should be treated as such by law.
There is a movie out now called Expelled and it describes the pernicious effect of what happens to a society when discussion of is shut down or silenced. It illustrates the extent some individuals/groups will go to stop any exchange of ideas, particularly when their belief system is being challenged.
Eddy,
We’ve been over this before. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM did not happen overnight due to pressure from gay activists as many anti-gay activists like to try and claim - even Warren himself has said as much.
Evan,
Science should support all parties, be they gay, ex-gay or any people who have difficulties in relating to their feelings.
That is not true. Science should NOT support all parties - science has never supported all parties. Should science both support Evolution and Creationism, even though the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming? Science should be true to itself and its methods - nothing more. Science cannot deal with issues that are primarily religious in nature - which the Ex-Gay issue is
We need to be careful when religion starts meddling in science to further its own ends. Science has no responsibility to support others religious motivations.
That said though, I think there should be counseling made available to those who want it. I also think the APA will have to address this issue at some point - what has happened today is only a temporary setback for a discussion that has been a long time coming.
Jayhuck–
First, I don’t appreciate the attitude of “We’ve been over this before.” If you and I have been over this before, then feel free to jump past my comments. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re saying that you’re done with this topic and everyone else needs to get up to your speed.
Second, even if we have, my comments make it obvious what my objections still are to your take on things. If I’m not persuaded, then there are likely to be others and we won’t be dismissed by “we’ve been over this before.”
Third, you brought up Warren’s opinions on the matter as if his opinion alone is supposed to change mine. I’ve never lived by pack mentality and don’t plan to start now.
Fourth, you managed to overlook the only thing I really asked for: What is it that the experts reviewed for that year? What was the scope of their review that led to such a dramatic shift? I’ve been asking for years; I really do want to know.
Is this the normal level of discussion on this blog? Broad generalizations (”I think that gay activists will do anything to silence this message”), complete conjectures presented as statements of fact (e.g., “He backed out at the last minute because of media flurries - and no other reason”), and bizarre rhetorical questions (e.g., “There’s ‘an intensive review by experts lasting more than a year’. Really, a whole year? Did these experts suspend their lives, their practice, their other duties so they could all gather together and review intensively?”).Not one of you (Ann, Eddy, Mary) has taken seriously the criticism levied by Robinson and Drescher against the panel (including Warren, who dismissed it saying “activists can make anything out of anything”) — instead, you’ve resorted to statements about the impartiality of science that miss the point.
Kevin,
Do you really mean to direct this kind of comment after the posts I have written regarding this subject?
Kevin–
1) I’ve been following this story since it first developed. Why would I take Robinson’s report (which isn’t published here) and Drescher’s (which I read) over Warren and David’s? Remember Kevin, they are responding to something that hadn’t yet happened and presume to know the motivations. I’d give Robinson’s words the same weight as Warren’s but I’d want to ask a few questions too.
2) My question was meant to be a bit ‘out there’ but it was by no means rhetorical. A year is a very short amount of time for an issue so large to not only be examined but then decided with no option for appeal. And I wanted people to see the spin value of phrases like ‘extensive review by experts’. You almost get a picture of a group huddled in a library poring over manuscripts for hours on end–but it wasn’t that. I think it’s an extremely fair question to ask how extensive this review was and what was reviewed.
3) In your criticisms of the terrible blogging habits of Mary, Ann and myself, you forgot Michael checking in to challenge Warren for using the term ‘gay activist’ and how it sounds so negative when he says it…only to discover that it was David’s term…a gay man and former activist. (I don’t know if that knowledge makes the negative vibe disappear–or maybe it’s the way Warren typed it–probably transferred some inborn anti-gay negativity through his fingertips.)
Eddy: (1) Robinson and Drescher levied the criticism that the panel would be used as fodder in the PR campaigns of Focus on the Family, etc., in an attempt to claim mainstream support for their views about “overcoming” homosexuality. That is the reason Robinson gave for backing out. And, in fact, Focus on the Family has already done so (see link I provided earlier). No one on this board has attempted to respond to that criticism in any substantive way.
(2) Extended research reviews happen all the time. If you want the details of what materials they looked at, you’re perfectly free to contact people in the know directly via email. I suspect if you poke around on Google Scholar you’ll find some journal articles discussing it in detail. Demanding details from commenters on a blog won’t get you many answers.
(3) Warren has a long history of using the phrases “gay activists” and “homosexual activists.” Michael’s question was a legitimate one.
A year is a very short amount of time for an issue so large to not only be examined but then decided with no option for appeal.
A year is a short time according to who? How long should they have met to discuss this issue Eddy?
If you are really interested to know exactly what went on at that meeting then why don’t you do some research?
Kevin–
My only responses to hearsay are either to ignore it or start asking questions. The spin that Focus on the Family put on the symposium was most unfortunate. I compared it to the spin that Wayne Besen put on it back when he first learned of the symposium. Both statements are weighted more by individual agendas than they are by the actual facts. Since your reports of Robinson’s reactions indicate that he’s responding to what he’s been told the symposium was really all about…it’s hearsay.
BTW: I love the homework assignment you gave me. I’ll take it as proof that you accepted the ‘extensive review’ without question and don’t really know how valid the review was. And, I’ll decline the assignment. I was an adult already when the review and declassification happened and I asked the questions then too. It seems those answers aren’t as forthcoming as you suggest.
I don’t get your issue with his use of the phrases ‘gay activists’ and ‘homosexual activists’…they seem a whole lot more specific than the term ‘conservative Christian’. It would seem that Warren’s areas of professional interest and the discussion on this blog would warrant a word that expressed the direction of a person’s activism…and, in my mind, the ‘activists’ are those who are ‘active’…those who are rallying, blogging, organizing, whatever….as opposed to those gays who are quietly leading their lives. So, yeah, it seems natural that those phrases would pop up a bit.
Jayhuck–
Yours came in while I was answering Kevin.
Five at the least–especially when you factor in the ‘no appeal’. And I see you don’t know the answer either. Funny, ‘we’ve been over this’. It would seem that the declassification is almost foundational to your point of view and yet you haven’t got a clue as to the process that went on.
LOL! I should have gone singing. Night all.
Good night Eddy - thank you for the responses - very well said
Jayhuck,
We’ve been over this before - people are human beings of a variety of perspectives. Your’s is not the only one and that you have consistently for several months over several different topics injected your perspective as being the only one that is right for ALL people (that psychologists should not try to help a person change or resolve their conflicts) is just damn tiring.
You have no right to determine for me what is right! Science has helped me tremendously to understand myself. How DARE you say otherwise - that science has no place in this human’s realm. (That is what you say to people like myself when you say that science has no place in sexuality)
And for the record - you cannot compare evolution vs creation with an as yet open science that is yet filled with discovery - that being sexual behavior.
We get it. You - YOU - not me - not others - BELIEVE - believe is the operative word that YOU were born gay and gay you will stay gay for ever and ever. WE GET IT!! But damnit that does not mean it is the same for me and that I do not have a right to pursue counseling for help. Everytime you start down that road of saying that science has no place, no right, no purpose in such a place - you are dead wrong. Evidently - it has helped a lot of people - otherwise counselors would be out of business.
And you can replace homosexual feelings with just about any feeling (or in your case ) inborn trait that you want.
Because guess what - it is an inborn trait to respond to negative situations in certain ways and alot of us go to counselors to change. Replace inborn trait with - defensiveness, fear, humor, overcompensation etc…. And some of us believe (BELIEVE) that sexual feelings can change, too. Please - remember that you are not totally right nor totally wrong but you are wrong to say that science has no place in my bedroom. You are dead wrong to continue to make those broad statments.
Kevin,
I read gay blogs as a general practice to maintain a current perspective. You may read them, too and will discover that my statments were not broad generalizations. And only after activists and other media commentaries in gay rags ie: Wahington Blade, etc… had posted on the bishops actions did we next hear from the bishop who then declined to the symposium. So - I made some conclusions.
And the criticism is clear - the bishop was manipulated. On his own he decided to attend the symposium. And then all of a sudden and within about a week - he pulled out.
You are free to read the online gay blogs and papers as you wish.
It reminds me of when I was gay. Back in the day, christians were afraid to meet with us gays because others mught think it gave us gays credibility. Now - that role has been reversed and the gay bishop is doing exactly what happened to his community decades ago. I find that shameful it the most deliberate way.
Those who have forgotten history??? Or perhaps don’t know it or didn’t live it.
Your’s is not the only one and that you have consistently for several months over several different topics injected your perspective as being the only one that is right for ALL people (that psychologists should not try to help a person change or resolve their conflicts) is just damn tiring.
What is damn tiring Mary is your constant haranguing of my posts. If you read my posts carefully you would know that I don’t believe mine is the only perspective that is right. You constantly accuse me of things I haven’t done or ignore the times when I’ve made it abundantly clear I am only stating my opinion. Please read more carefully in the future Mary and maybe we can all avoid this episodes.
From your most recent rant it is clear you don’t understand my position at all
Eddy,
I read about the DSM issue years ago. I’ve done my research. I’ll say it again - if you really cared to know the information you’d stop leveling accusations at people and go do some research. I’m starting to get the idea that real information isn’t what you are after here.
LOL - 5 years - where did that arbitrary number come from?
Mary,
You are free to do whatever you want. You are obviously getting the counseling you feel you need so I don’t understand the anger you are leveling at me. Nothing about the status quo has prevented you from seeing a counselor that meets your needs. All I’m saying is just don’t expect mainstream science to give you its blessing.
I do expect science to give me it’s blessing. I do expect you are looking for the nod that it is okay to have a gay relationship. thus your constant refusal to accept science in total and your pick and choose mentality.
And BTW, it’s not just about me - what about others. However - I can only speak for myself when I read your closed ended posts.
And science may well give you, and others, its blessing at some point down the road.
Mary - I’m sure there are some people who see my posts as you do, but I know for a fact that there are those who don’t. All I’m asking if that you don’t pre-judge a post simply because you see it is from me, and give me just a little benefit of the doubt.
No Jayhuck. I am tired of your consistent blending of your opinion with “true” science.
I am certain, that science will show us that homosexuality, like any other trait, is a product of nature and nurture (and I even agree with Michael - part spirituality). Just because some people cannot change (and I am not demeaning those who have tried and not had any change - it is not anyone’s fault) or that there are residual feelings (that do not pervade a person’s thoughts or life) does not mean that homosexuality is inherent. It means that we do not understand everyone and how the portions of each contribution work or how to unwind it (should a person decide to).
I am tired of your oversimplifications and non-comprehensible comparisons ie: evolution vs creation theories as evidence that science knows as much about human behavior, the mind and it’s interaction with the body, our environments etc…the two studies just aren’t alike in anyway.
You have convinced yourself that you are gay and unchangeable. Sounds like you want someone to tell you to act on your feelings??? I’m not sure. Please find peace with yourself.
Actually, Jayhuck, I feel that providing real information isn’t your goal here. You are the one who came on strong suggesting that the whole declassification issue was old news (”we’ve been here before”)…you make a loud point, an insistent point, but for some reason you feel that, in this instance, you don’t need to back up your claims. You’ve always seemed more than willing to educate us with your scientific knowledge. It’s very telling when, on such a major point, your only advice is “look it up”.
Since you’re usually quick with a rebuttal of some form, the fact that you can’t shed a bit of light on how that review process happened despite my annoying harangues…that reveals a lot. And I’m glad for the opportunity to expose where the answers are missing or have been glossed over.
Re the 5 years. You asked how long I thought would be appropriate. I think 5 years is much more complete than 1 year and not as grueling as 10. It’s an opinion…it’s my thought…that’s what you asked for. You obviously disagree…that’s your privilege. But to call my figure ‘arbitrary’ while holding fast to your own ‘arbitrary’ one year…it simply doesn’t advance the discussion.
Jayhuck,
I don’t think you got my point. Science is not some pontifical practice working in a celestial realm of ideas. Nor should be one that only works for politically promoted categories of people. I was talking about individual people, concrete individuals who have an array of problems, without identifying them under an ideological banner. If they are unhappy with their unwanted feelings, science should work towards helping them, not telling them they either accept what they cannot live or hit the road. I mean, is this the kind of understanding that people should get from the science that claims to take care of people’s emotional problems? If that is the trend coming into force, I see a sort of sexuality Nazism developing in the gay camp using all sorts of means to impose on how other people should live their lives. I said it before: it is not about science adjudicating who is right or wrong, it is about science reaching out to all people, supporting them in the way they want to live their life in integrity. If integrity is measured in gut feelings, so much for what science can do for society…
Jayhuck,
Until there is true and genuine concern and recognition for the individual or individuals who have unwanted same gender attractions and their place in being treated equally within the scientific and theraputic arenas, as well as being accepted within the community, there will always be contention. The human spirit cannot be limited or stifled. They can not live within the walls that others arrogantly construct for them. They want to live by their own values and want and need support for that. Can you tell me what the resistance is to this?
I used to read this site regularly and comment at times. When I revisit now, I find it completely become dominated by three or four individuals shouting the same thing over and over. I see that a thread has 43 comments and think, “Oh, this one must be a lively discussion.” Then I find that once again it’s just Mary, Ann and Eddy arguing against Jayhuck.
Keep it up guys. You’ve chased everyone else away.
Bottom line. No reputable scientific organization will ever endorse “change”, “ex-gay”, “reparative therapy” — or whatever title you choose to apply to efforts to re-direct or suppress homosexual attractions. Never.
And that’s not because those nasty “gay activists” are trying to promote theiir terrorist agenda or exert mob rule. It’s because it’s not an illness. Gays are not “broken” or “disordered” — no matter how much somoe folks may have been brainwashed to think so.
NARTH and other groups and individuals — motivated more by religion and personal prejudice than by science — will continue to whine about it. But it won’t do any good. Reason will prevail.
Michael,
What then to we say to the individual who cannot live in harmony with their same gender attractions? What rights and considerations do they have in this world? Can they be dismissed as though they do not matter? The tide is turning in a very positive way for the individuals who can and want to live in harmony with their orientation and I am grateful for this. What about the other individuals though - where do they fit in and how can we extend ourselves to them in the same way?
Ann asked: “What then to we say to the individual who cannot live in harmony with their same gender attractions? What rights and considerations do they have in this world?”
Nobody is talking about depriving people of their rights — I wish people would quit framing it this way. They have every right to live in accordance with their beliefs and values — no one is suggesting otherwise.
If you are asking what I, as a therapist, have to say to such a person, I start by exploring their personal history, beliefs and values to try to understand why they are having so much trouble.
Are they depressed? Treat the depression. Are they addicted to a series of meanlngless sexual encounters? Dependent on drugs or alcohol to numb their inner confluct? Treat the addiction. Do they want to “change” because they feel society or family expects them to do so — and will reject them if they do not? I would work on assertion and self-esteem issues — and helping the person to build a more satisfying support system.
I do not try to make them accept being gay. I try to understand why they don’t want to be. If they, for religious or personal reasons, decide that they want to remain celibate, I would certainly respect their choice — although I have to admit I don’t have any training on helping people to suppress their natural sexual orientation to live a sexless life. I don’t know how to do that — and it would be unethical for me to try.
Mary,
Mainstream science will never give you its support b/c you are dealing with a scientific issue [sexual orientation] and treating it as a religious one.
People have used the bible for centuries to deny Truth and science - in fact - the bible was used to ban interracial marriage, support segregation, burn “Witches” in Salem, Kill people during the Spanish Inquistion….the list goes on.
I recommend that you read “Saving the Bible from Fundamentaliism” written by a Bishop. It is a great book that demonstartes how the bible cannot be read literally b/c many of the things in it have been disproven by science. The bible was never intended to be taken literally but the beautiful metaphors therein have been lost on some people.
The problem some people have is that you cannot see the portion of the brain that regulates sexual attraction like you can skin color or eye color. That does not make it any less real or anyless biological.
Sexual orientation is a scientific and biological issue not a religious or political one - that is a mistake that some people make.
However, with that said - you can do and believe whatever you want - that is your right - but you can’t pass it off as the truth - that is immoral.
Ann,
Why do those people have unwanted same sex attractions. That is the issue behind gay political activism.
People born gay should not have to feel ashamed or rejected or afraid b/c they were born with an homosexual sexual orientation.
Fortunately our society is changing and young people who aree born gay will not have the same kinds of pressures to not accept themselves and their differences as they mature into adults.
The most important word in the english language is WHY.
Ask yourself why one’s biological and god-given sexual orientation is unwanted.
gang - comments defending the APA for cancelling this program over concerns about reparative therapy are a distraction and off the mark.
If you oppose this program you do so because you want no high level conversation among mental health professionals about how to work with clients who object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds.
The SIT framework is honest about the science on cause and change, it respects gay affirming views, respects the client’s valuing process, amd recognizes the role of social pressure. This what I was going to present.
Those who really think this program would have benefitted reparative therapy should ask why NARTH did not promote this program.
Ann,
I think Michael said it better than I could.
Evan,
Science is not some pontifical practice working in a celestial realm of ideas.
I never once suggested it was.
Nor should be one that only works for politically promoted categories of people. I was talking about individual people, concrete individuals who have an array of problems, without identifying them under an ideological banner. If they are unhappy with their unwanted feelings, science should work towards helping them, not telling them they either accept what they cannot live or hit the road.
I disagree with you. Science should not cater to politics OR religion - science should be true to itself and its methods. Science has no responsibility to offer help if that help involves methods or procedures that may be damaging or that have little or no scientific basis for their use.
I suggest you read Michael Bussee’s comment 99053
Eddy,
Once again you’ve proven my point that you would rather argue with me, or accuse me of doing something rather than doing research to obtain your information. There is a great deal of information out there on this subject - I don’t care to go into it again, and I don’t care to take your bait and launch into some extended defense of why I am not going to help you with your research.
I’ll say it again - if you REALLY CARED about finding out this information, you’d do it - to date you have not.
Sorry Nick - I’m beginning to feel that I’m simply a scapegoat for their respective frustration and anger.
Warren: With all due respect, I think the APA keeps backing away from this issue because it has NARTH’s stink on it. It’s not that they don’t want a “high level conversation among mental health professionals.” They just don’t want guilt by association.
You will have to work long and hard to convince the APA that SIT has nothing to do with NARTH, Focus on the Family, Joann Highley, , Cameron, Berger, Schoenewolf, Cohen, Sally Kern, EXODUS, etc.
You, and other SIT promoters will have to convince them that you have never been part of these individuals or groups, have never supported their work and that none of the SIT supporters are currently affiliated with these groups or individuals in any way. Can you do that?.
I suspect that they suspect that you are really trying to get backdoor approval for reparative therapy. You have to start by convincing them that you are not associated with these groups in any way — and that your intiatives are only — and I mean only — “about how to work with clients who object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds“. I don’t think you can do that. The damage has been done.
Lee,
No - I am not mixing religion with science. Psychology will always be about what a person thinks and feels and how to address those issues.
Lee,
Just in case you have not read all the threads on this blog - I am ex gay and became so before becoming a christian. I became a christian and then started having same sex feelings again (not over another person). I sought help from a licensed, well educated (not in christian only colleges - but ivy league) couselor who is a christian and I have found much understanding that resonates with me (maybe not you or anyone else - since your not in my therapy nor really my concern.) I also support gay rights and have gay friends whom I love dearly. And no I do not preach to them as my understanding of the bible is that God loves everyone and it is a personal relationship between each person and their God.
Having said that, the brain does change and can change over a lifetime. No one has found exactly wherein lays our motives, our intentions, our memories etc… That is an ongoing discussion. That others seem to separate out unwanted same sex feelings as being excluded from all of that seems - well - arbitrarily decided. Not you nor I can tell anyone where and how sexuality begins in the body and brain. We have clues that point in several directions.
Lee,
Fortunately our society is changing and young people who aree born gay will not have the same kinds of pressures to not accept themselves and their differences as they mature into adults.
Thank you for that!
Mary,
Sexual orientation IS NOT psychological. It is biological. Your entire premise is wrong.
Mary,
It is untrue that the clues point in several different directions.
All credible scientific studies to date point in one direction - that it is innate - not psychological but biological.
Mary and Warren,
You don’t get to have a different set of facts just b/c your religion does not allow you to accept the facts.
Lee,
I think its pretty well-established at this point that sexual orientation - gay, straight or bisexual - has both biological and environmental components. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a scientist that could link any of our complex traits solely to biology.
Research does seem to point to a strong biological component, but we still can’t rule out other factors!
Lee,
With all due respect - I am not imposing my religion onto you (as you have to me by telling me to read the above mentioned book) I accept that you see only a biological connection. But the science also reads that there is an environmental part of the equation - that goes for straight as well as gays. And just so you - I have no opinion about the morality of being gay for other people. And I support gay rights.
When I was gay, I used to believe that it was all and only biological. Experience has shown me (not you and I am not talking about anyone else but myself here) that environment has also played a role in my sexual attractions - gay and straight.
As much as you do not like the fundamentalist christian telling you that your experience is wrong and incorrect - I too don’t like having someone make assumptions about my lifestyle.
Having said that - in a world of 6 billion people - I’d bet that there are other people who have experienced their sexuality in similar ways as I have and as you have. That makes both of our experiences valid.
You may feel that your sexuality is only biological. And biology may play a bigger role in your sexuality than in mine. It would be strange to assume that your life is exactly the same as mine - don’t you think?
Lee,
Also, I think God loves everyone and that each person has their own personal relationship with God. It is not my place to impose my interpretations for myself onto others. And I’m pretty liberal once you get to know me.
Well said Mary
Lee - I have no idea what you talking about.
If you have something that proves homosexuality is biological and prenatally determined, then produce it.
No one knows what causes homosexuality or heterosexuality. No one should assert that they do. It just could be that it isn’t really biological or environmental. Maybe something else “causes” it. The universe is full of possibilities and variations — and neither science nor religion can claim absolute certainty.
Warren: Could you explain why we need SIT guidelines in the first place? Why is this issue so important to you? Don’t clients already have the right to follow their own beliefs? Don’t therapists?
Isn’t this really just a veiled attempt to validate some form of “reparative therapy” — even if it is not called that and even if re-orientation is not the primary goal?
I have been in this field for over three decades and I am not aware of any laws of rules of my profession that would prevent me from helping a client to live in accordance with his or her faith.
As far as I know, I couldn’t lose my license if I was supportive of a patient who wanted to remain celibate or chose to identify as ex-gay — for whatever reason. Aren’t current laws and standards of our profession enough?
Warren: The Blade article says the panel was to include “Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who was quoted as saying he would support prenatal treatments to convert the expected sexual orientation of unborn children.” If that is true, that is reason enough for any sensible person to back out. Is it true?
You might want to do some homework Ann. In the 2005 Dover trial Michael Behe, who wrote one of the foundational Intelligent Design texts, admitted that ID is as scientific as astrology, that so-called “irreducibly complex” systems could have evolved over time with no supernatural involvement and that the evidence does support evolution. As such, it is not surprising that when crackpots try to teach it as if it were science that they get reprimanded or have difficulty finding work. You see, when the leading ID people say it isn’t science and that there is no evidence to support it, the rest of the scientific community is under no obligation to treat it as if it is legitimate. Unfortunately, because so many Christians suffer from a persecution complex, when they make “documentaries” about how persecuted they are for their beliefs, people eat it up. However, their unscientific beliefs have no place being treated on par with real science. Reparative therapy, creation science, intelligent design - we are still waiting for the actual evidence for any of these. As it stands at the moment, the evidence is overwhelming against all three.
Nick,
Taking ID or creationism and expanding that to sexuality, it’s origins, development, and manipulation is stretching things a bit. Not all christians believe in creationism or ID the way it is defined by most.
For example, I do believe that God designed the universe (ID) - with rules that are quantifiable. But that belief that God did it - is that - a belief. But irregardless - the rules do apply whether I am an atheist, agnostic, or believer. Now, how I view the purpose of those rules - well that is another story.
Michael,
In regards to your question about SIT - maybe it’s like those who are either jungian, freudians, or practice cognitive therapy. Different therapuetic techniques work differently for different clients. And SIT has it’s merits, too. It provides guidance for both client and therapist through a difficult maze. I doubt you have ever practiced such in your career?
Oh - and Nick just so you know - I don’t believe the earth is only 6 thousand years old. And I’m not sure how to interpret the story of Adam’s creation - or Eve’s.
Michael Bussee:
I see the following problem with your argument: you reject any attempt at allowing people to get professional support for unwanted same-sex desires because you consider those desires to be natural; at the same time you acknowledge that you don’t know how these feelings are formed. OK, you can theoretically claim that they are both ‘natural’ and unchangeable, but since you don’t really know how sexual orientation comes into being how can you deny some people’s efforts at working around their SSA problems with professional help? It’s not an issue of treating an illness, it’s about helping people who want to have a choice in this matter, that’s all. (Is shyness a disease? What if people want to be able to receive professional help because they want to be more assertive? What about sexual orientation, then, if some people want this type of option, of dealing with their unwanted sexual attractions?)
Isn’t this where many gay people panic at the thought that giving an option (even if it were an uncertain one only for those willing to take that challenge) to some same-sex attracted people might weaken the gay cause? Is it that some gay people want to block other people’s options for the security of their own cause? Is other people’s well-being so undeserving of attention that it can be easily ignored for the security of the gay cause?
[…] The symposium has been cancelled. There is more information at Warren Throckmorton’s blog, but apparently Gene Robinson withdrew from the scholarly event due to perceptions shaped by gay […]
Evan,
No one is denying anyone anything. People can already pursue therapy that aligns with their beliefs and values.
No ones’ blocking anyone from doing anything - I think you missed that crucial piece of Michael’s post
Warren,
To think that something as fundamental and basic as who you are sexually and romantically attracted to is due partly to environment is ludicrious.
What type of environment effects one’s sexual orientation? Why are so many boys raised by single mothers heterosexual yet all of my closest friends who are gay were raised by a Mother an Father [who are still married]. I have always had a great relationship with my father and he is an ex-Marine - I am not and never have been romantically or sexually attracted to women. Forunately my father is intelligent and accepts me for who I am - as opposed to a religious nut like Alan Keyes who has rejected his daughter b/c she was born gay. Tragic does not begin to explain the damage done to families and people by the religious right.
Scientific evidence that it is biologiocal? There is a Mountain of it. And it grows every year. See Wayne Besen’s list of research.
Warren - you compromise scientific inquiry b/c of your religious beliefs - that is unethical.
Let me guess - 100 years ago you would be zapping left handed people - claiming that being left handed is against God’s plan?
Oh my goodness - environment has nothing to do with who we are attracted to??? Really, if I was raised in an all black culture (I’m white) I’d bet I would be primarily attracted to black men even when I left that culture. Or—- I have a tendency to be attracted to people who hold the same values and traditions as I do (I was raised with certain values and traditions) such as being Jewish or Catholic??? The biological argument for attraction seems to break down when we look at it from another angle.
And the environmental angles you wrote of are not entirely agreed on by everyone nor does anyone (that I can think of) think that sexuality is originated in a vacuum of biological factors (except some extreme gay people). You are picking and choosing from a list that was handed to you (rather than researched out) Hallman has recently published a book on female same sex attraction and her evaluation of the environment is different than the simplistic view you have been fed. BTW, she also agrees that sexuality is both nature and nurture.
So, I’m not sure Lee, where you have learned your information. If it was through the grapevine of others who are paid to be political activists then I would suggest and it is only a suggestion that you do some of your own footwork.
My what a busy, busy day.
I think I’ll go with the last comment by Lee:
He followed by asking “What type of environment effects one’s orientation”. In answer, every example is parental. No mention of siblings, relatives, community (including subgroups: grown-ups, kids, sports teams, youth clubs…), school (again, with it’s subgroups), church, the media–all a significant part of the environment of a child. All are teachers along with the physical environment that a child learns from every day.
To take Evan’s example of shyness a step further: Not everyone is shy for the same reason. Not everyone is the same degree of shy. Some find ways to integrate it and live very fulfilled lives. (My closest brother is such a person. Happily retired. Wife, family, a few grandchildren. –They worked at the same place. My future sis told her friend to tell my bro that if he asked her out, she wouldn’t say no. The rest is history.) Others get glimpses of where their shyness came from and seek to resolve those areas and issues.
Prior to the time of the reclassification and pretty much since, the potential impact of these areas has not, IMHO, been adequately studied. (Sorry for the abrupt conclusion…karaoke called and needs me to co-host…lol…I’m a star!)
It does take a Village
You wascally wabbit!
Mary,
A black male is still a male. A white female is still a female. Environment does not effect the SEX of the person you are attracted to.
And what on earth does shyness have to do with sexual orientation?
The theories presented by the religious right crowd is comical and always goes back to the same old thing - sexual orientation must be a choice b/c the bible says its wrong.
Sexual orientation is not a religious issue - just like the earth being round as opposed to flat is not a religious issue - it is a scientific one.
I hope we as a nation save ourselves from religious fundamentalism - christian or islamic.
Mary,
The arguments of the religious right ALWAYS break down under the weight of reasoning and intelligence - ALWAYS.
I have seen seen an instance where it does not. The very basis is faith - the suspension of reason and rationality.
Religion is what has keep entire societies in the dark ages - it is trully tragic. Just look at what religion has done to the Middle East today. I am very passoniate about this topic - not just because I am an homosexual - but because of what others have suffered over the course of centuries due to religious fundamentalism. It almost makes you lose faith in mankind.
Lee,
Suppose you are totally right that sexuality is only biological. What would you tell the person (homosexual) who said - I understand that but I want to mate with the opposite sex anyhow?
Would you tell them they were wrong for wanting that?? (No religion involved)
Lee wrote:
Is it scientific to over generalize the views of your opponents? You must know this is spin on your part. You offer Wayne’s list as your evidence? Wayne delights in degrading his opponent’s scientific credentials but does not point out that he has none. He has a video of Jack Drescher saying we do not know what causes sexual orientation to take the direction it does. Are you now saying Jack Drescher is ludicrous because he doesn’t say sexual orientation is exclusively biological? To be consistent, you would have to.
You keep making claims that anyone familiar with the literature on the subject knows is activism and spin. Either provide some primary sources for your claims or stop making them. I am patient with commenters, especially new ones but you are wearing out your welcome fast. You have shown no indication that you are here to discuss or find common ground. So far you have lectured and belittled others. So I say again, provide some primary sources, discuss with respect for opinions you disagree with or stop commenting.
[…] Warren Throckmorton Blog post […]
Lee:
That was an example of a trait that some people might have problems with and seek therapy to learn to overcome it by adaptive behaviours, although shyness is not an illness (neither are low levels of novelty seeking, aggressivenes etc). If so, I argued, why not people be allowed to have this option of dealing with sexual attractions they find to be discordant with their past life history (I know some people who were exclusively attracted to the opposite sex until the end of puberty then they started having same-sex attractions), their values or their actual preference (moral or physical)?
I can understand the insecurity that some gay people may feel about creating this type of opening for some SSA-ed people, but we need to overcome past politics and take a step in new directions, without losing what was already gained (gay acceptance). No one should be left out in difficulty, that is what I am saying. Do you agree with that?
Lee ~ May 1, 2008 at 6:02 pm wrote:
^^Why are people not able to accept themselves as having been born with an [sic]homosexual sexual orientation?^^
Cuz they are not born homosexual. They choose the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option. God made all of us heterosexual. Some choose to go homosexual, rejecting God’s instructions.
Lee wrote, “It almost makes you lose faith in mankind.”
Which is it? Which is responsible? Religion, or Mankind???
Lee wrote, “Sexual orientation is not a religious issue - just like the earth being round as opposed to flat is not a religious issue - it is a scientific one.”
A round Earth is observable and testable. We can measure it.
All we have is somebody SAYING they “are” homosexual. We don’t know it.
Lee wrote, “Scientific evidence that it is biologiocal? There is a Mountain of it. And it grows every year. See Wayne Besen’s list of research. ”
HA! That’s a joke.
Besen is a so-called “homosexual Rights advocate.” Hardly unbiased.
Michael Bussee ~ May 2, 2008 at 1:58 pm
99080
No one knows what causes homosexuality or heterosexuality.
=====================================================
Yes, we do.
God caused Man to be heterosexual. Choice caused some to go homosexual. It’s THAT simple.
Lee ~ May 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm
99000
All scientific evidence to date [not to mention empricial data] strongly indicates that people with an homosexual sexual orientation have brains that are biologically different from heterosexuals.
==============================
Not true.
Recent information shows that the apparent differences can be traced to any number of factors not connected to claims of being” homosexual.
So, at birth, they STILL cannot tell us who is homosexual and who isn’t.
Lee ~ May 1, 2008 at 6:06 pm
99009
… religious fundamentalism - christian or islamic - will destroy our society unless we put a stop to it.
================================
“Put a stop to it”??????
Who’s gonna be the first to step forward and try to do this??
Lee ~ May 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm
99072
Mary,
Sexual orientation IS NOT psychological. It is biological. ===========================================
Then, point to the place where the homogene — the one that you would have to believe causes homosexuality — is.
If it is hormonal, give us the name of the hormone that causes it.
Give us the scientific, unbiased, uncorrupted evidence.
Evan asked:me: “Since you don’t really know how sexual orientation comes into being how can you deny some people’s efforts at working around their SSA problems with professional help?”
Evan, both you and Mary seem to keep beating this same drum. I have never said that people should be denied anything. On the contraty, I have said repeatedly that people have every right to live in accordance with their beliefs.
Lee ~ May 2, 2008 at 10:57 am
99054
People have used the bible for centuries to deny Truth and science - in fact - the bible was used to ban interracial marriage, support segregation, burn “Witches” in Salem, Kill people during the Spanish Inquistion….the list goes on.
===============================================
Blame the people, not the Bible.
Lee ~ May 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm
99073
All credible scientific studies to date point in one direction - that it is innate - not psychological but biological.
=========================================
Not true.
All the “studies” so far are corrupted by agenda, and nobody has found any sign of what it is that YOU say is innate that YOU say “makes” one homosexual.
Michael Bussee ~ May 2, 2008 at 10:37 am
99053
Nobody is talking about depriving people of their rights — I wish people would quit framing it this way. They have every right to live in accordance with their beliefs and values — no one is suggesting otherwise.
=====================================================
All men, heterosexual and homosexual, may marry heterosexual, or homosexual women. That is equal protection.
All women, heterosexual and homosexual, may marry heterosexual, or homosexual men. That is equal protection.
No man, neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, may marry another of his own sex. That is equal protection.
No woman, neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, may marry another of her own sex. That is equal protection.
Nobody is getting more than the other. That means there is no discrimination.
Mary ~ May 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm
99077
…God loves everyone and that each person has their own personal relationship with God.
=========================================
God is the same for everybody. He cares whether we do what He tells us to guide us through this wilderness. He won’t let one off the hook while holding another to His Standard.
His love, however, won’t preclude His justice toward the disobedient.
Mary asked: “I doubt you have ever practiced such in your career?” No. I have never practiced the SIT guidelines. I really don’t understand the need for them. I feel comfortable with the legal and ethical guidelines that already exist for my profession — and I trust my own ability to treat all my patients with dignity and compassion, respecting their right to choose their own path.
I read that God created Man — Adam — and told him how to be heterosexual.
I’m still looking for God’s instruction to Adam on how to be homosexual. We’re told that it’s soooo important, and, yet, there’s no mention. Heh.
You’d think that, they way those who claim to be homosexual are talking, such instruction would be as important as God’s instructions to Adam. But no.
Also, I’m trying to find a sign of the starter homosexual, the homosexual Adam, the Genesis homosexual, the homosexual genesis.
I can’t find any of this.
Michael–
With one big exception:
I drew these conclusions from this statement that you posted earlier in this thread.
1) A goal of heterosexuality is not an option.
2) I respect a person’s right to choose celibacy but I don’t think it’s healthy (’supress their natural sexual orientation’)
3) It would be unethical for me to therapeutically support gays who choose celibacy.
4) I don’t think the psychological community at large needs a program that tries to address those needs. (SIT Guidelines)
So, if Mary or I became your patients you’d ‘respect our right to choose our own path’ but you’d no longer treat us. That’s been our point all along. If your viewpoint is pretty much a global viewpoint in the psychological community, then we’d get a boatload of professional ‘respect’ but no one would consent to treat us. Those therapists who would treat us would be branded as ‘quacks’. You, yourself, don’t even see the need for therapists who would step in and offer us that support.
I honestly don’t see the respect in that.
Eddy: Let me respond to each of the assumptions you make about what I believe:
(1) A goal of heterosexuality is not an option. — I agree. I don’t see this (a true change in sexual orientation from gay to straight) as a viable option because I don’t see any real evidence that it is possible. It would be like trying to help a client who didn’t want to feel hunger any more. Even you, Eddy, have admitted that this was never the intent or goal of ex-gay therapy. Some may be able to make some sort of hetersexual adaptation and keep a marriage together, but I don’t know how to help them change their basic sexual orientation — and neither does anyone else.
(2) I respect a person’s right to choose celibacy but I don’t think it’s healthy (to supress their natural sexual orientation’) Not exactly. Celibacy may just be the best choice for some people. It’s just that I don’t know how to do that. I know the limits of my skill and knowledge. If a client wanted advice on how never to act on their homosexual orientation, and supress it for a lifetime, I would not be the right person to tell them how.
(3) It would be unethical for me to therapeutically support gays who choose celibacy. NOPE. Never said that and don’t believe that. I myself have chosen to remain celibate at various times in my life. I just don’t know how to counsel a person to manage that for a life time. The ETHICAL thing to do would in that situation would be to refer the patient to some other clinician who might know how. Do you know of any?
4) I don’t think the psychological community at large needs a program that tries to address those needs. (SIT Guidelines). You are right here. I think the ethical guidelines are already in place — if someone asks for something that you either do not know how to do or prefer not to do, you refer. There is absolutely nothing unethical about that. In fact, that’s the right thing to do. If a therapist wants to learn how to do ex-gay, change or reparative therapy as a speciality, I suppose they can go to NARTH — heaven forbid.
5) So, if Mary or I became your patients you’d ‘respect our right to choose our own path’ but you’d no longer treat us. I would treat you for as long as you found our sessions helpful. But, honestly Eddy, would you really want me to? Do you think all therapists should adopt an ex-gay approach? You seem to be suggesting that a truly ethical therpist should try to do whatever the client requests.
Come on. Would you treat someone who wanted advice on how to abandon their faith or adopt Satan worship as a lifestyle? I highly doubt it. That’s not the way I was trained. You work within the limits of your own training, expertise and values. I don’t try to do something I don’t believe in, that I believe may be harmfull to a patient — or that I do not know how to do. That would be unethical.
Eddy: Let me give you a real case example (some details changed for confidentiality). I had a client who came to a local AIDS services center who was HIV postive, addicted to drugs, very depressed and wanted to become heterosexual. I helped him with the first three issues — because I have the training and experience to do so.
Regarding his request that I help him become straight, I was honest with him and told him I did not know how to make him straight. I was honest with him and told him that there did not seem to be any credible, scientifically established means of doing this.
During our sessions together, he decided to follow his MD’s advice on managing his HIV — and his health improved significantly. He began medication for depression and our counseling sessions helped to greatly improve his overall mood. He stopped drugging and drinking, joined some support groups and is still clean and sober.
He reconnected with his church. He decided to remain celibate — even though he continued to hope that God would do a miracle. I did not try to discourage this. In fact, I supported his return to his faith. I never told him about my history as an ex-ex-gay. I helped him to the extent that I had training and expertise. Can you think of something else I should have done?
Michael,
You are right. Some gay people blame personal problems on their sexual orientation. A person does not treat a sex addiction by trying to switch from homosexual to heterosexual. There are plenty of heterosexual sex addicts.
Some on the religious right also confuse sexual orientation [an inborn trait] with sex addiction [a destructive behavior].
Eddy,
If I were Michael I would not treat you or Mary anymore than I would be Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon. It would be unethical b/c it would be based on a lie and an unhealthy desire to change ytour inborn sexual orientatrin.
The ethical and healthy choice is to accept your inborn sexual orientation and to behave in a responsible way in therms of your sex lfe or remain celibate if you choose.
Trying to change someone’s inborn sexual orientation b/c they cannot or will not accept it is unethical. An ethical therapist treats the issue of acceptance.
Roberto,
What can I say except you represent the mentality of religious fundamentalists - islamic and christian.
You need to respect facts and not mindelssly repeat stories in centuries old religious texts as if they are the facts. You are not a child - you need to stop thinking like one.
Roberto,
I do blame the people not the bible - the bible is full of metaphors and is an attempt made centuries ago to explain the mysteries of life.
It has been misued throughout history - just like it is today to lie about the biological basis of sexual orientation.
Roberto,
The majority of Americans will put a stop to it. If you continue to cram your fundamentalism down our throats - you will be stopped. We are fighting religious fundamentalismin the Middle East and we can fight it here too.
Lee,
Suppose a person came in to see you as a client (and you are a therapist) and they did not like the way they acted around women (your client is a man) He is gay and is uncomfortable with his sexual arousal around women. What do you do?
Lee,
I have another question for you.
Suppose a friend of yours ise really angry with someone and wants to kill them. But since they have no religion for rules and they are not a citizen of the country they live in, they do not feel bound to the laws of the land. What do you advise your friend to do?
Michael,
My take on what you say is this:
You have the right to seek any therapy you want.
Therapist have the right to seek to help you change or deal with your gay sexuality
No such therapy exists
Therefore - it is unethical for a therapist to employ any tactics to help you
—————————————————————————————————–
And then you campaign against anyone trying to develop therapies or new ideas.
It is sort of like when my older brother used to say I could have the ball (in his hand ) if I could get it. But he deliberatly kept it out of reach by holding his arm up and then jumping when I jumped to reach it.
Mary,
To your first question - I would say that he is really not gay - or is at least bisexual - if women turn him on sexually.
I would ask him why that bothers him and try to help him accept his bisexuality of heterosexuality.
To your second question - I find it interesting that you equate religion with morals. I see no coorelation - in fact religion is often used to justify immorality.
I have a code of ethics based on my sense of what is right and wrong. I know when I violate those principles and I take steps to make sure I don’t repeat mistakes. Killing another person is clearly wrong and that has nothing to do with religion - although religion has often been used to justify killing others.
I would advise him to deal with his anger in a responsible and constructive way and if can’t do that on his own I would get him help.
Mary: You partly understand what I am trying to say. Yes, I believe a person has the RIGHT to seek any therapy they wish. I have NEVER said that you do not — and wish you would quit accusing me of saying it — or implying that I am saying it. Once again, just so there is no confusion: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. Have I made that clear enough?
Therapists also have the RIGHT to offer any therapy they feel is helpful — as long as it it not harmful or unethical. Therapists also have the RIGHT, no — more than that — the RESPPONSIBILITY to say: “As far as the current research goes, there do not seem to be any reliable and verifiable, scientifically established therapies that have been proven to actually change a person from gay to straight.” That’s a FACT — and therapists have a RESPONSIBILITY to TELL THE TRUTH.
That being said, if a client and therapist want to TRY, they both have that RIGHT. I personally don’t believe in those “therapies” so I do not offer them. It would be highly unethical for me to pretend that I do. If another therapist does, good for them. If a client wants to see me anyway, that’s OK too. We can focus on what I can do — and I can refer them if I don’t feel qualified. Do you think I should be REQURIED to provide a therapy I do not believe in and do not know how to do?Any ideas where I might refer them?
And by the way, it is not true that I am “campaigning against anyone trying to develop therapies or new ideas.” On the contrary, I sure hope that therapists keep trying to develop new strategies to help people. That is their responsibility and it is also their RIGHT.
I just don’t happen to agree with the idea that gays are broken or disordered. But other therapist have every RIGHT to disagree with me and to try to develop whatever therapies they think may be helpful to their clients.
How can I make this any more clear to you? I am not trying to deprive you or anyone of the RIGHT to seek any sort of help they may seek. But, like you, I have a right to criticize and disagree. And I also have the RIGHT and responsibility to conduct my practice in accordance with my own training and values. Every therapist does. So, please lay off this “you don’t want other people to have the RIGHT to seek the kind of help they want”. It simply is not true.
Therapists also have the RIGHT t