At the very least, there are many who question the fully cognizant ability of an adolescent to take on an identity based on a sexual orientation recognition. In all of the confusion and floundering associated with adolescence, it must be conceivable that some will go through a homosexually attracted phase, even finding it pleasurable and gratifying to a high degree, but be in fact responding to unresolved emotional issues and to pleasure and/or orgasm.

Advocates of ‘homosexuality as a norm’ continually point out how much it actually has in common with heterosexuality. Wouldn’t those things in common also make it more likely that a person could be confused for a time? “Wow, I can’t begin to describe how it felt to be in the arms of someone who knew me, loved me, and accepted me for all that I am.” A powerful and gratifying experience. But, does the fact that it first happened with a same sex individual mean that it couldn’t happen with an opposite sex person? ‘ When we accept the label, the identity, the condition known as orientation, we mentally rule out that possibility.

You said:

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. When using a psychological definition of ‘disorder’, truly, homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The tendency to want to tell a lie is not a disorder either. Because something is not a mental disorder does not automatically mean that it’s right, good or sanctioned by the creator.

Actually I am non-religious myself, so what Christians believe God sanctions or prohibits is not something that is of much concern to me, or relevant to the point I was trying to make in my response to Mr. Kisekka.

I’m in complete agreement with you that thousands of therapists agree on the notion they’ve termed ‘sexual orientation’. Many, however, believe that this was not in response so much to science as to lobbying pressure. We invented the concept of ‘the condition of being attracted to one’s own gender’ and then needed a name for that condition and ‘sexual orientation’ surely fits.
But consider that every child alive has a ‘lying orientation’. No one has to teach a child how to lie; it seems to come automatically. “Did you put those toys in the toilet?” “NO!” (A few classics on Funniest Home Videos come to mind. In one, a young girl is still covered in mom’s lipstick and makeup but when mom asks if she was using mommy’s make-up, a wide-eyed innocent ‘NO’ response.) What makes something a condition other than that we’ve felt the need to categorize it for some purpose?

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. When using a psychological definition of ‘disorder’, truly, homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The tendency to want to tell a lie is not a disorder either. Because something is not a mental disorder does not automatically mean that it’s right, good or sanctioned by the creator.

I agree that forced reparative therapies have not proven particularly successful; i sumbit though that the jury is still out on the success of voluntary reparative therapy. There’s what we call a ‘sticky wicket’ though. If we go back to point one…about that ‘condition’ or ‘orientation’. The thinking regarding that concept seriously alters the definition of success. If you think of it as ‘a condition’, then success is a change in the condition…you once had strong same sex attractions; you now have strong opposite sex attractions. Some go so far as to say that even if a so called ‘ex-gay’ enters into a happy and sexually satisfying marriage, if they still have occasional homosexual attractions, they are not a success.

I’ll go back to the lying example (not comparing gays to liars…using lying because it’s probably the one universal sin of all humans). Now, if we thought of our attraction to telling untruths as a ‘lying orientation’, then success would be a strong desire for telling the truth and the absence of even considering lying again. I daresay that success rate would by similarly abysmal.

Regrettably, conservative Christians are responsible for adding to this confusion. Many, in their attempt to appear credible to the scientific community, adapted the scientific lingo not being particularly attentive to the concept of ‘a condition’…using the word ‘homosexuality’ instead of ‘homosexual behavior’ or ‘homosexual attractions’. This means that when they mixed in terminology that had Christian overtones, it muddied the message. The words ‘change’ and ‘freedom’ are the prime example. If you think in terms of a condition, both change and freedom mean a change of the condition and freedom from it. If you think in terms of behavior or attraction, change and freedom mean a difference in the way that you respond to the attractions and (hopefully) a definite change in behavior. Change and freedom, in that context, also applies to the frequency and potency of the attractions but does not mandate that they be totally eliminated.

According to the Bible, it is quite natural for humankind to be attracted to pleasure. According to the Bible and to basic human understanding, if you once found something pleasureable, you’re likely to be drawn towards it again. According to psychological understanding, stress, isolation, depression, and other emotional factors can increase a drive towards gratifying pleasure. Combining all those factors, I totally reject the notion that success is the total absence of homosexual attraction. I believe amnesia (forgettting that we once found pleasure or comfort in an area) IS a mental disorder.

One final word about ‘reparative therapy’. The term is similar to our word “Kleenex”…a word commonly substituted for tissue. Kleenex is actually a distinct brand name and there are many tissues out there, some better…some worse which some mistakenly call Kleenex. Or just as some parts of our country tend to call all colas “Coke”. (My head bobbed in awe the first time I heard someone say “I’ll have a Pepsi-coke”.) Anyway, there is a lot going on in the world of ‘ex-gays’ that does not fit the ‘reparative therapy’ model. ‘Reparative Therapy’ is actually the brand name of a very specific therapy model but it is certainly not the only model being employed. I do believe, though, that it’s the one that is most visible to the psychological community and is likely the chief proponent in appealing to that sense of condition as opposed to behavior and attraction.

I admit that I’m not a professional psychotherapist or anything like that, but as I understand it, the major professional organisations (representing tens of thousands of certified psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, and pediatricians) engaged in peer reviewed studies on this subject have at least established that:

1. Sexual orientation is not a choice
2. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder
3. Forced reparative therapies have not been demonstrated to work, and in fact are known to be harmful to those subjected to it.

Do you dispute these conclusions? Or am I wrong in stating that this is the prevailing consensus?(I hope I have not opened a Pandora’s box here. I have heard this is a sticky subject on this blog)

If the above 3 points are true, then my point would still stand. Most Ugandans have NO IDEA of the kinds of studies that have been undertaken to investigate sexual orientation. You sound as if you are suggesting that psychologists are just as clueless on the issue as the Ugandan populace. If that is what you mean, I must say you’ve kind of lost me.

I’d appreciate some clarification from you.

Thanks.

on the basis on sexual orientation (a subject they do not understand)

.
While it may be fair to criticize the unenlightened population of Uganda for not understanding ‘sexual orientation’, I believe it’s fair to say that even the enlightened psychological community doesn’t fully understand it. The concept of sexual orientation was first presented in the last century primarily to describe the condition of being attracted sexually to one’s own gender. Natural course then applied orientation to the opposite gender and there isn’t much being clearly said about an orientation towards both genders. So, to pretend that others are woefully misinformed seems to imply that we are far more informed than they are. Beyond having labels and calling it a ‘condition’, though, I’m not sure that we know all that much.

As a Ugandan myself let me inform you that homophobia is intellectually indefensible. It is the product of ignorance, and a skewed brand of religious fanaticism.

Ugandans are a by and large an illiterate and uneducated bunch. You know this very well. You and your compromised parliament have done little, if anything to change this. So appealing to the emotions of an uneducated populace as justification of discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation (a subject they do not understand) is not very impressive, I must say. They don’t know any better, and have been blindly incited to hate homosexuals by certain religious leaders and opportunistic politicians who have INTENTIONALLY conflated homosexuality with defilement of children. Sensible people know that this is ridiculous.

It is good that pressure is being applied to Uganda by the international community with regard to the bill. You will recall that the Southern States in America also had to be ‘pressured’ to free SLAVES and to DESEGREGATE their schools and public facilities. South Africa also had to endure sanctions while they still practiced apartheid. It is this pressure that brought liberty to blacks in all 3 cases. (Hmm..should those societies have been left to practice their ‘sovereignty’ and be left to keep slaves and/or segregate? You get the drift)

These examples clearly show us that where an injustice is being manifested in any way, applying pressure is not only justified – but is also morally obligatory.

Bravo USA and the international community..and the few Ugandans that are standing up to this most egregious bill and the homophobia driving it.

Some will take comfort in knowing that you find the pressure ‘unnerving’ as that was it’s intent.

Even the conservatives among us find the suggested penalties too severe and some of the peripherally attached issues counterproductive. I have no problem with you finding homosexuality appalling as long as you are likewise appalled by all the other things that religion calls sin or abomination. “Lying lips” are an abomination. Why does homosexual behavior between consenting adults merit death or life imprisonment? What is your punishment for “lying lips”?

I firmly believe that singling out one behavior called ‘sin’ over others actually works counter to the intent of the Gospel…it drives the needy away rather than drawing them to Christ. I’m not sure, but I think that may be the primary reason behind many of the American conservative Christian voices who have joined in the campaign to impact the passage of this bill.