American Psychiatric Association to host symposium on religion, therapy and homosexuality

The American Psychiatric Association will host a symposium called “Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension” at their annual meeting in Washington DC on May 5, 2008. I will be on the panel along with David Scasta, MD, Rev. Albert Mohler, Bishop Gene Robinson and moderator, John Peteet, MD. Dr. Scasta is past-president of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists (AGLP); Dr. Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a candidate for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bishop Robinson is the first openly gay Bishop in the Episcopal Church and Dr. Peteet is Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard, Medical Director (Psychiatry), Adult Psychosocial Oncology Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Chair of the APA Committee on Religion, Spirituality & Psychiatry.

An extensive background article by David Scasta about the symposium can be found on page 10 in this month’s newsletter of the AGLP. An excerpt:

Could we ever get a group of scientists and clinicians on both sides of the religious divide to seek common ground while committed to honesty in the scientific research about homosexuality – no matter what the outcome? While I can plead that most gays are not dead by their mid 40s and that those conclusions come from a distorted, blatant attempt to discredit gays, Christian conservative groups will dismiss my ranting out-of-hand. However, when someone like Dr. Throckmorton makes the same conclusions, these groups reluctantly listen. By the same token, when Dr. Throckmorton states that an assertion in our film [Abomination] is not supported by the data, AGLP ignores him. But if someone from AGLP makes that assertion…I decided to talk with Dr. Throckmorton.

The symposium will be held between 2:00-5:00 pm in lecture halls 159 A & B in the Washington DC Convention Center and include the following components:

Practice Framework for Managing Sexual Identity Conflicts

Warren Throckmorton, PhD

The Psycho-Social Bases of Theologies that Compel Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation: The Psychiatric Ethical Response

David Scasta, MD

A Pastoral Approach for Gay & Lesbian People Troubled by Homosexuality

Bishop Gene Robinson

A Pastoral Approach for Gay & Lesbian People Troubled by Homosexuality

Rev. Richard Albert Mohler, Jr., PhD

Discussant, Dr. Peteet, Chair of the APA Committee on Religion, Spirituality & Psychiatry.

I want to thank David Scasta and John Peteet for taking the initiative in making this symposium a reality. I look forward to the meeting, the give and take and opportunity to bring the discussion of sexual identity issues to this forum.

131 thoughts on “American Psychiatric Association to host symposium on religion, therapy and homosexuality”

  1. The quotes are all from Jayhuck:

    Eddy,

    Judging by how well you write and how thoughtful and intelligent many of your posts are, I would have guessed that you had some graduate or professional degree. However you received your education it was obviously a good one, and I mean that. I’m sorry we keep butting heads.

    Eddy,

    Your bitterness is showing – and I’m not sure how great it is that you speak through other people and use other people’s issues to voice problems of your own.

    Eddy,

    Or that you seem to be trying to couch your issues in other people’s issues and then try to pass it off as some sort of empathizing.

    Please forgive me if I’m wrong about all this, but you seem to be directing some of your words at me. I am sorry if I’m wrong and just being overly sensitive, but trying to discuss things with you and being criticized at every single turn for nearly a year has sort of made me that way. For being someone who doesn’t enjoy having their words spun and who doesn’t like people telling them what they are thinking, you SURE seem to be alright with doing that to other people.

    Sure is hard keeping up with who and what I am and what I’m doing and why I’m doing it. I’m sure Jayhuck will have more clear insights later.

    If I’m correct, the last two argumentative charges are in response to my responding to Mary’s frustration…a frustration I share. It’s one of a very few places where I said much other than ‘thank you’ to someone who shares my views and suddenly “I seem to be using other peoples issues to advance mine”. What happened to my right to communicate a shared feeling with one of the bloggers? When I do, am I always just advancing my own cause…using the situation…how do I learn the difference.

    The funniest one though was attacking me for acknowledging that Ann, Mary and I are in agreement a few things. So Ken goes after Concerned while skipping right by Jayhuck who’s used some of the same terminology. And, in his attack on me, and my ‘teaming up’, Jayhuck doesn’t just mention Ken but he brings up David Roberts…one of ‘his team’ who isn’t even in the conversation. Perhaps you’re hypersensitive to people ‘teaming up’ because you always thought it was exclusively your territory.

  2. Take care all – I have to be up and at the hospital in 6 hours and I really need some rest. Mary, I’m honestly glad we had that talk, I hope we’ll be able to have better and more respectful conversations in the future!

  3. Mary,

    I don’t think the writer of that passage would disagree that the spiritual heart can’t affect the body in a physical way – in fact, that is what he was saying when he called the brain an organ that expresses and elaborate the “thoughts” of the spiritual heart – but, this concept is covered in an entire book and I definitely don’t think that everyone is going to agree with it, and I really don’t trust my own ability to explain it since I’m still grappling with aspects of it myself. Anyway – its out there 🙂

    Warren,

    I hope you got my message about the show Taboo on the NatGeo channel!

  4. Since meditating can be measured, elctronically pictured, and can influence breathing, pulse, blood pressure and such….

    I am of the thought that spirituality really does exist in the mind. For myself, I have to set my mind on something, then focus, meditate on it , let it dwell in me and as more experiences during the course of my hours and days come to pass, they comingle. New thoughts and different understandings and meanings come to “mind”. Thus changing my feelings. It is all in my mind as in brain.

  5. Warren,

    What I was talking about is something of a spiritual heart – I’ll just give you a quote out of one of my favorite books – if you want to take this offline that’s fine 🙂

    “Every man has two hearts. One is the body’s heart. The other is the soul’s heart. The good or bad condition of both of our hearts is very important. If something happens to either one, then we have heart problems and our life is in danger, whether it is the life of our body or the life of our soul. Unfortunately, many Christians, both clergy and laity still don’t understand this. And although they take great care to appear externally good, decent, honest, consistent, religious and loyal people, unfortunately they care very little, if at all, or almost at all, about having a clean, good and holy heart.

    Someone might object saying that the mind can’t be the heart (spiritual). When we say mind we usually mean our brain. However, according to our Holy Fathers, our mind is found in the heart and uses the brain as an organ to express itself….thoughts therefore which we would justifiably say are born in our mind are truly born in our mind. This mind however is located in our heart and not in our brain. The thoughts then come out and go to our brain for screening and elaboration ”

    There’s more to it and I’ve probably already shared more than I needed to, but this is the basis for my comment 🙂

  6. Ken and Jayhuck,

    All I will say is that I am Catholic with an education in Biology. I have listened to biologist knock the church for years. I have just heard as much of it as I would care to hear, because I have not experienced what many of them claim to be the root of their issues with the church. By the way I have also been very involved with ecumenism and have many friends in various denominations. I find things that I love very much in many different traditions, but I also find much that I cannot agree with.

  7. Warren,

    My mistake – I was talking about Faith. 🙂

    Mary,

    I will stop that – I actually didn’t even realize I was doing that, and I darn sure never meant to. I still believe that for most people, their concerns over their sexuality are mostly spiritual, and I think if we look at the numbers of people seeking such help over their sexuality the numbers of people would bear that out – However, I will work to make sure my words never suggest such a thing for you again. I hesitate to say I’m sorry because others have called my apologies insincere – but, I am!!!!! I won’t promise I’ll be perfect, I am only a, forgive the cliche, “work in progress”, but I’ll hope that you call me out on it when I start doing something like this again. 🙂

  8. jayhuck – you wrote “Psychology IS the study of the mind – I don’t really believe that BELIEF is centered in the physical mind though – I believe there is a spiritual heart where belief is centered but that is dealing more with theology and I don’t want to go down that road .”

    This sounds like a kind of dualism of mind and spirit that I am unfamiliar with. In my view belief is built into our brains. We believe things all the time that have nothing to do with religion. I believe blogging helps create tolerance (wow, what faith I have!) but I really do think that belief is involving neural pathways involving the frontal cortex and the amygdala. Science is a way of finding out and religion is a way of gaining a sense of order and predictability. But I do not see the evidence for segmenting a kind of thought out of the brain and into a something ethereal.

    Help me understand if I am reading you right.

  9. To be clear Jayhuck, stop telling me that my sexuality and my concerns over it are only spiritual. Had that been the case for most of humanity we would not have science classes on sexuality.

  10. Mary,

    I really think many of our communication problems are coming from having to read text and not actually talking to the other person. SO MUCH of communication is missed, especially when people have differing viewpoints, in text messages.

    I do think I have a problem making myself clear and voicing my own opinions without hurting others sometimes – so I’m willing and open to hearing how I can better myself in this area. I am obviously only having this problem with people I disagree with because others who share more of my opinion are not expressing these same issues. Please do tell me how I can improve my communication with you. I’m not perfect and I am well aware of that – I’m painfully aware of my own faults but I don’t want us to continue to have such an online relationship. 🙂

  11. Mary,

    All I’ve ever done is told you that I don’t agree with you. We both have come to realize we’ve had different experiences that have led us down different paths. I’m not now, nor will I ever suggest that your experiences are less or worse than mine. I’ve either not made myself clear, or we just simply stopped really listening to what the other was saying some time ago.

    I have always believed in your freedom to pursue your bliss in whatever way you see fit – but that is not going to stop me from sharing my opinion on things. We may never agree, but I believe we can definitely and harmoniously co-exist.

    Personally, I think Eddy’s issues with me run much deeper and they are things that will probably never be settled on this blog.

    Please tell me how I can best express my opinions and my disagreements with you without making you feel that I am somehow demeaning your own experience?

  12. Wow Eddy – you support Mary and Ann and Concerned, who believe as you do, but not Ken or I who have different opinions? – what were David Robert’s words months ago – Totally gobsmacked I am 😉

  13. Jayhuck,

    The sentiment Eddy feels is one I have felt with you also.

    I speak of my experiences and you continue without ceasing to say that that is not so. IE: that my sexuality and christianity is only a christian issue and not one of science. My scientific inquest of my sexuality is very tied to my belief system. I see God in the order of the universe. Galileo Galilea did, too. So did Einstein, Newton, and others….(You can now stop reading the entire post as you will want to hurry up and tell me that I am wrong about myself again)

    I am floored each time you tell me what is my experience and what is my sexuality. Amazing. You don’t even realize how much you do this.

  14. Eddy and Ken,

    When I was using the words “the Church”, I was speaking about the entire Body of Christ. FYI 🙂 I realize all churches have different beliefs but in the past it has been the priest/pastor that has dealt with spiritual issues.

  15. Eddy,

    I’m just curious – were you really OK with Ann’s use of the word “smug”??? Or did you not see that earlier?

  16. Eddy,

    I’m just curious – were you really OK with Ann’s use of the word “smug”??? Or did you now see that earlier?

  17. Eddy,

    Or that you seem to be trying to couch your issues in other people’s issues and then try to pass it off as some sort of empathizing.

    Please forgive me if I’m wrong about all this, but you seem to be directing some of your words at me. I am sorry if I’m wrong and just being overly sensitive, but trying to discuss things with you and being criticized at every single turn for nearly a year has sort of made me that way. For being someone who doesn’t enjoy having their words spun and who doesn’t like people telling them what they are thinking, you SURE seem to be alright with doing that to other people.

  18. Mary and Eddy,

    The audacity of someone telling me what I should or shouldn’t feel, where I should or shouldn’t seek help, what level of help I should settle for ‘because I’m a Christian’, presuming to know what I think or feel, suggesting that I’m one brick shy of crazy, taking regular slams at ‘them’ when I know they’re counting me among ‘them’ and, worse yet, the insincere apologies that usually follow…only to be followed by a fresh batch of the same old, same old within hours or days. I keep hoping I’ll wake up from the nightmare.

    Who is doing these things to you? I personally believe a person should seek help wherever they want to seek help, and they should have the freedom to seek whatever help they deem necessary. In fact, all of us already have that freedom

    Eddy,

    Your bitterness is showing – and I’m not sure how great it is that you speak through other people and use other people’s issues to voice problems of your own.

  19. Eddy,

    Thanks for understanding. I must be in a festive mood or a beligerent one – here goes a frivilous expenditure of my blogging budget…

    Zing! Zap! Zowey! Caio! LOL.

  20. Ken–

    Jayhuck has been making statements about the divide between science and Christians, science and the church for much of this thread. Why do you save the question about the meaning of ‘the church’ for Concerned? Did you know what it meant when Jayhuck said it? Did you lose the interpretation when Concerned did?

  21. Jayhuck-

    I did catch your last comment. Don’t worry about me. I’ve managed to have a few hopeful exchanges tonight and I’ll find a way to have others in the future. I’m not at all worried about what others might say; it’s a time and focus issue with me.

    There’s enough people blogging here that we should both be able to survive quite nicely. And, I’m personally convinced that once we break the ‘one note/one slant’ tone of the blog, others might actually stop in for an open-minded discussion.

    Ann, Mary–

    Please realize that there’s no blog rule saying you have to answer or even acknowledge a direct question. I’ve got at least 3 questions that I’ve asked and repeated on other threads and they’ve gone ignored. (LOL. That’s an answer in itself.) So far, I’ve been involved in two threads where one or more of the participants have stormed out in mid-conversation…only to come back, deliver another zinger or two…and then leave again. The refusal to talk with someone you find to be argumentative and the refusal to answer a question that you feel is either inappropriate or ‘loaded’ pales by comparison.

    And Mary–

    I truly do feel the frustration and outrage in your last statement. The audacity of someone telling me what I should or shouldn’t feel, where I should or shouldn’t seek help, what level of help I should settle for ‘because I’m a Christian’, presuming to know what I think or feel, suggesting that I’m one brick shy of crazy, taking regular slams at ‘them’ when I know they’re counting me among ‘them’ and, worse yet, the insincere apologies that usually follow…only to be followed by a fresh batch of the same old, same old within hours or days. I keep hoping I’ll wake up from the nightmare.

    Ann–

    I think I speak for both Mary and myself that we appreciate your genuine concern and compassion. I’m so glad that you’ve found Warren’s ‘little corner of the world’.

    (I’ve been pushing chores back all week meaning my day off on Friday will probably be a fun catch-up day.) NIght all–past my bedtime!

  22. Concerned said in post 89788:

    I have seen science often defame the Church because of the positions it holds on a number of issues. From where I am sitting today I am very glad that the Church has not budged on its position on sexuality. The science is still learning from the studies being carried out. I suspect, eventually the science will come to see that what the Church has been teaching all along is much more loving than their own approach to this issue.

    Can you be a little more specific? For example which church are you referring to when you say: “the church“. Because there are a lot of churches with a wide range of positions on sexuality, from the Westboro Baptist Church to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

    Further, science is not an entity that is capable of defaming anything. So, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by “I have seen science often defame the Church … ” by giving some specific examples.

  23. Ann,

    All I’m saying is how can you know a therapist is being smug when they tell a client something like that. How could you know what a therapist was thinking or feeling. I was trying to show you earlier that a therapist might tell a client something like that for a variety of reasons, and they wouldn’t have anything to do with making him feel smug.

    Mary,

    yes – Sexuality is a biological and sociological process – but the desire to alter it is usually a religious one. In the past it has been the Church that has dealt with this issues – sometimes successfully. Will a psychologist really be any better, I’m not sure and I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

    I hope you’re not taking my comments to be saying your experience is somehow wrong – or that I’m whitewashing something.- was that directed at me?

  24. You were being presumptuous when you called a therapist smug simply because they were gay-affirming. If I misread you please tell me.

    This is so untrue – I said they were smug when they told a client they had no choice except to accept their unwanted feelings and live accordingly – the therapist can walk away with and the client is left devastated.

  25. Sexuality, the development, expression, experience etc… is studied as a subject in college. It has many physical components – arousal, blood flow, blood pressure, pupil dilations, nerve endings through out the body … etc.. It develops over time as a person matures and their brain signals hormonal changes, recieves sensory input etc… And my life impresses on me as I move through those stages. Ah – the intersection of nature and nurture.

    Breaking that down with an experienced, trained scientist is my basis for putting together an understanding of my sexuality and the development there of. Working that out with a pastor is not going to cut it when his expertise is of spiritual matters and sexuality (as it is limited by the bible).

    Sorry but any more comments that tell me I am wrong about my experience and white wash it – are going to be heretofore dismissed.

  26. Ann,

    You were being presumptuous when you called a therapist smug simply because they were gay-affirming. If I misread you please tell me.

  27. Mary,

    I think properly trained priests and pastors could deal with this issue – In fact, they have been dealing with this issue for decades. This is really a religious issue though when you get right down to it and I’m just squeamish about involving too much religion in science or vice versa – I know I’ve hammered that issue into the ground on other threads.

    That said though, I think the issue has been taken up enough now by the field of psychology that its inevitable Psychologists and Psychiatrists will have to deal with it on some level. How psychologists and psychiatrists – a primarily secular field of study is going to deal with religious “issues” is going to be interesting – especially one this complex. I do think we’ll see them grappling with this more and having to deal with it somehow – I’m just not sure how. Perhaps the symposium will help us get that ball rolling 🙂

    Psychology IS the study of the mind – I don’t really believe that BELIEF is centered in the physical mind though – I believe there is a spiritual heart where belief is centered but that is dealing more with theology and I don’t want to go down that road – we have plenty to talk about the way it is 🙂

    Eddy – I’m sure you won’t read this but if you can’t have a conversation with someone on this thread because you’re worried about getting into another “frustrating entanglement” with me, I’m not sure how other threads are going to be different for you. I encourage you to talk to people without worrying what other people say if that’s bothering you so much.

    Concerned – I’m enjoying talking to you and while we don’t always see eye to eye, I think there’s enough common ground for us to have good conversations 😉

  28. I think its a little presumptuous to assume any therapist is smug when we don’t understand the situation

    Jayhuck,

    Presumptious? I don’t think so based on the scenario I presented – no therapist has to tell a client to accept that which they do not want and that there are no other options available and to just accept this as “who they are”. What is right about that for the client? Nothing – it is devastating.

  29. I find it absurd that psychology couldn’t effectively assist a person based on the individuals religious beliefs. Psychology is, after all, the study of the mind and that’s where belief is centered.

    Eddy,

    Count me in on this too – I completely agree!

  30. Me too, Eddy. I deal with many different kinds of people. I am amazed at how really knowing someone from their perspective is soooo…. energizing and valuable. (folks sorry for my spelling – I just don’t care that much to go back anc check)

  31. Evan–

    Thanks for your input. Didn’t think you were pushing for credentials, BTW! And, LOL, I’ve never been much for them. If it’s truth, it ought to ring as truth no matter who speaks it and regardless of what their ‘credentials’ are. I’ve appreciated many of your insights.

    Concerned–

    Good to hear from you also. I appreciate your compliments and take courage from them. I do note that Jayhuck responded to your post to me before I could and that you’ve now had several exchanges. I honestly don’t see how I can avoid another frustrating entanglement with him if I respond to you. Perhaps we’ll catch up to each other on another topic in the near future.

    Jayhuck–

    You and I may converse again on another thread sometime but I stopped reading your responses to me up around 89623…somewhere around the time the thread got closed and reopened again.

    Ann and Mary–

    Your earlier comments were more brief but I appreciate your hopefulness tempered with the right amount of caution. Can’t wait for May to see how this actually plays out.

    Mary–

    I think you, more than most, share my distaste for the divide that says that Christians ought to get their help from the Church. I find it absurd that psychology couldn’t effectively assist a person based on the individuals religious beliefs. Psychology is, after all, the study of the mind and that’s where belief is centered. As a minister, I found I could help and assist people who weren’t religious…by connecting with their beliefs…with ‘what makes them tick’; I really can’t see why psychologists couldn’t do the same in reverse. It feels like someone keeps drawing a line of divide that isn’t really there.

  32. I disagree that it is just a spiritual issue and strongly urge that counselors be able to help people with this issue. Had I just been turned over to a priest or pastor – they are not equipped with the expertise to delve into the subject matter – and my concerns (and theology) would have been dismissed. Remember a pastor or preist has a specific set of belief statments that he must believe and accept to keep his job at the church. I needed to recieve counsel from a person who has experience with human sexuality (in a greater perspective than just what the church is talking about), allowing me to express and live my own theology, and someone with a large pool of resources to pull from. In fact, when interviewing people – I was adamant about the education criteria, licensing, experience, gender, and age of the counselor. I needed and wanted an expert and a professional.

  33. Ann,

    I think its a little presumptuous to assume any therapist is smug when we don’t understand the situation, and its very hard for a therapist to help a client who is sure they want to deal with their attractions in a non-affirmative way because there is no protocol for that therapist to go by – where do they refer the client ethically – how do they know which organizations are good or bad? When the problem the client has is not a disease how does a therapist in good conscience deal with that.

    There are just too many problems with the system right now for ANY therapist to be able to deal with this situation – of course the client can always try things out on there own – there are plenty of resources available to anyone who can do a Google search – but whether these will be good or effective is up to debate.

  34. The problem isn’t with gay affirmative therapy though – the problem lies in those therapies that seek to try and help people deal with their “unwanted” same sex attractions.

    Jayhuck,

    There is a problem with gay affirming therapy if the client doesn’t want it and is being told there is no other option. The consequences are devastating. While the therapist walks away with their smug opinion, the client is left shattered. What is right about any of that?

  35. Concerned,

    What you describe is also at the heart of what is known in the church as spiritual direction which is meant to allow the person to discover for themselves what they are being called to.

    Absolutely – You’ve hit on something that I agree with. I would take it a step further and say BECAUSE this is such an issue of religion, that counselors – especially the APA, should stay out of the mess as much as possible and let priests and pastors deal with this issue – let the Church deal with this since it is a spiritual issue. IF the person has other issues than bring in a counselor, but don’t permit a secular organization – any of them – be the ones to primarily deal with this issue. – Just my opinion though

  36. Ann,

    The problem isn’t with gay affirmative therapy though – the problem lies in those therapies that seek to try and help people deal with their “unwanted” same sex attractions. Because there are so many groups that are unlicensed or that promise things they can’t deliver – because people have been deeply harmed by engaging in certain therapies – It isn’t just about some organizations hurting people by saying you didn’t try hard enough, its because there isn’t a coordinated effort to develop GOOD therapies that might help those that have unwanted attractions in an ethical way. Warren’s SIT comes closest, but there are still things that need to be ironed out.

    I think these things will resolve over time, but this one symposium isn’t going to change anything in a drastic way – but it may help all of us move to that point that Eddy talked about earlier.

  37. Jayhuck,

    What you describe is also at the heart of what is known in the church as spiritual direction which is meant to allow the person to discover for themselves what they are being called to. As I see it today the biggest part of the problem I am having is the way the media, be it conservative or liberal media, reports on and attacks the opposite side of this issue. I believe that this is the greatest force that is stifling open and honest dialogue and so often it is simply poor or biased journalism.

  38. I can’t imagine a therapist operating any other way – this is the heart of what therapy is about anyway

    Jayhuck,

    I cannot imagine a therapist operating any other way either but unfortunately some do. Just as some organizations have caused hurt by saying the person hasn’t tried hard enough to change, there are many who have been hurt by a therapist telling a person they have no choice but to accept these unwanted feelings because they have no hope of feeling any other way. Just think of the despair and injuries incurred by both scenarios – it is staggering.

  39. Ann,

    Third would be the commitment not to push an agenda or be influenced by any group of people or an organization – just to listen to each client as an individual and then together come up with a viable way to proceed.

    I can’t imagine a therapist operating any other way – this is the heart of what therapy is about anyway 🙂

  40. Concerned,

    I think the big difference between the APA and the other organizations out there is that the APA, the group that defines such things, says that being gay is NOT a disease – many of these other organizations treat it as such, even if they don’t say it outright. The thing that makes Warren’s SIT different is that it does not view homosexuality as a disease (per se).

    To be fair, I’ve also seen the Church defame science and try to control it – making it over into what the Church wants it to be as well. That’s why I think it would be a good thing someday to have a discussion on the merits of both science and religion, their respective strengths and weaknesses, as well as what each one can tell us and what it cannot. They are both, I believe, tools (in a sense) from God for us to use for our benefit, but we often don’t understand the limitations of each.

  41. Best case scenario (if I make typos – oh well!) That people come away understanding that there is still more to learn and that clients are allowed a choice in the matter as to how they will pursue their happiness. Worst case – ( I cannot even tell you what goes through my mind – we are already at that place)

    Mary,

    Your best case scenario is the heart of the matter – I really hope this is the foundation the panel and attendees can build from and/or return to when there is contention or dissent. Your worse case scenario is something, if acknowledged and remembered throughout the symposium, could really bring out the best in everyone there and just imagine the possibilities that could come from that!

  42. Jayhuck,

    Regarding the symposium – I agree. To me the most important thing that can come out of it is for all the panel members and attendees to realize and acknowledge there are no blanket answers – that each person comes to therapy with their own story and to make as many options available to them as possible, including incorporating religion into their therapy if that is what the client desires. Second to that would be the commitment to have ongoing discussions about new developments that could benefit their clients and educate the public. Third would be the commitment not to push an agenda or be influenced by any group of people or an organization – just to listen to each client as an individual and then together come up with a viable way to proceed.

  43. Thank you Evan for the explanation – I was wondering about the terminology because sometimes they are blended and that leads to assumptions about interpretation.

  44. Jayhuck,

    Caution! Definitely, but what I have seen in the APA over the past few years comes across as controlling and dictating not caution. It is true there are many organizations out there to help individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction, some are good some not. It is unfair to paint them all with the same brush or to paint them in a negative light simply because they do not follow your particular way of dealing with this issue.

    I have seen science often defame the Church because of the positions it holds on a number of issues. From where I am sitting today I am very glad that the Church has not budged on its position on sexuality. The science is still learning from the studies being carried out. I suspect, eventually the science will come to see that what the Church has been teaching all along is much more loving than their own approach to this issue.

  45. Eddy,

    Regarding something you said earlier about being in gay-affirmative therapy made me think that that kind of therapy can also work for people struggling with their same-sex attractions. Just because a person is struggling with their orientation doesn’t mean they necessarily want to try and change it or resist it, perhaps they only want help understanding it and accepting it!?

    My apologies if I misread what you wrote above or am spinning this in some way – I really am not meaning to do that.

  46. Jayhuck,

    I know for myself the greatest level of harm has come from those who insist that there is no change that is possible and that if you do not change 100% then you fail. Those voices are out there and they are not being respectful of those who wish to attempt change. To me this is simply manipulation. I do not want to get into this issue again as I am sure it will simply go around in another circle argument. What I would like to see is for all of us to be more willing to accept where people are at and allow them to grow from that point based on their motivations and not someone elses. My own experience has been that I have been moving against the current of present day thinking on how to deal with my same-sex attraction, but as I am becoming more open about my struggles I am finding that deep down many do not really agree with the idea that total acceptance is the best way to deal with this. For those who find it is possible to live a chasted life that is a sufficient level of change from promiscuous sex or constant emotional turmoil for not living according to their value system. Anyone who tries to say that it is their value system that is faulty is simply not showing respect for where the person at.

  47. Eddy,

    I appreciate your views on this site. I have a Bachelors Degree in Science (Zoology) and work in an Education setting in Biology. I find myself agreeing more and more with your view point as I begin to understand what Biology really says about my own same-sex attraction. What I have discovered is that it says much less about the genetic contribution to this than is often being presented here. Some would like us to ignore social influence because it is more difficult to understand. I find that others like myself are unable to ignore these influences. The science has being pointing out for some time now that it may infact be a combination of both biological and social factors. Having gone through my science education in the late seventies and working in the area throughout the eighties and nineties I can understand where the push for the genetic influence has come from, but I have also seen many of my collegues move beyond this.

    There is still a great need to accept people where they are at but to insist that nothing can be done to change ones orientation is simply close-mindedness and an attempt to place others in the boxes that we create ourselves.

  48. Ann,

    Best case scenario (if I make typos – oh well!) That people come away understanding that there is still more to learn and that clients are allowed a choice in the matter as to how they will pursue their happiness. Worst case – ( I cannot even tell you what goes through my mind – we are already at that place)

  49. Eddy,

    You said:

    …I’ve studied people all my life. Interpersonal dynamics all my life. … Thoroughly fascinated by what makes people tick…the different things that make people tick…sometimes for a season…sometimes for their whole lives. LOL! I’ve never stopped asking ‘why?’

    Same here. I am very interested in human motivation and behaviour in general, and particularly in what makes people have certain sexual attractions, emotions etc. More deeply, I study how people deal with their “animal” side against what they claim to be human in them. I find this inexhaustibly fascinating.

    As for credentials, I only mentioned that part to make a point about what I thought being a scientist is — most of us here are not professionals in the field of psychology or biology, but we are interested in related topics and we are more informed than the average layman you mentioned. Being a professional in these fields requires a lot more “weight”, in information, method and judgement (acquired by training, experience and research). In this respect, we have a lot more freedom to speculate. 🙂

    I really appreciate your posts on this blog; you have a way with words, have interesting and clear arguments and show significant experience in this area. I’m sure you can always contribute with your theological background and your Exodus experience a lot more than I could on related subjects, so there’s no reason to worry about credentials.

    It’s great that we get to know a bit more about the people here.

  50. Evan–

    Most everyone here has me ‘out-credentialed’. I see myself as the layman’s voice. My only degree is an Associates in Practical Theology (APT–you’re apt to do most anything.) I’ve got two other years of college where I focussed on English/Speech and switched to Psych.

    But I’ve studied people all my life. Interpersonal dynamics all my life. LOL! I had to to survive. (At 5’1″, I’m the middlest and littlest of 7 boys. 3 older, 3 younger, all short, me shortest.) I’ve ‘interviewed’ people all my life. Thoroughly fascinated by what makes people tick…the different things that make people tick…sometimes for a season…sometimes for their whole lives. LOL! I’ve never stopped asking ‘why?’

    I have approximately 10 years as assistant director/co-director/director of an Exodus member agency…way back in the ‘formative years’.

    Over the course of my lifetime, I’ve known and been friends with far more gay people than ex-gay. And, currently, besides my best friend, I also have about a half dozen more ex-ex-gay friends. There are a few ‘why’ questions that are off limits but we all appreciate the level of knowing that we do have.

  51. Eddy,

    I have a Master’s degree and some other post-graduate studies but I don’t consider myself a scientist, inasmuch as I did not participate in any published original work (I was proposed to participate, but I eventually declined). My background is in political and social sciences, but lately I have been considering a shift in my area of interest. Yes, I grew a bit disillusioned with those topics. 🙂

    [/off-topic]

  52. Ann,

    My apologies – I tried leaving a message here for you much earlier but I got the message that this thread was closed for comments. I will try again now,

    Re: Worst case scenario, I think that the symposium could simply lead to nothing – no more dialogue, and worse possibly even more tension between the two sides – although with the panelists that are lined up and the kind of group that is meeting, I highly doubt something like this would happen.

    The best kind of outcome that I can foresee for the symposium is further dialogue and coming to some kind of mutual respect. I have other hopes for the symposium but will wait and see what happens with this initial encounter.

    Overall, I hope that good things will come out of this meeting for all concerned parties 🙂

  53. Ann,

    To address your question regarding the differences between the “sexual identity” and “gender identity” terms. — Sex is considered a much more restrictive term, because it is more biologically differentiated (males and females) than not (intersexuals). Gender refers to differences between sexes, such as we can see in typical traits or social roles. Gender identity usually refers to how a person identifies himself/herself with a particular gender (male or female), considered apart from what their sex is.

    How sex is determined is a bit more complicated, but we can say, for the sake of simplification, that if a person is born having one sex, but identifies with a different gender, it’s a case where gender identity and sexual identity do not match.

    If your question also referred to what the term “sexual identity” is taken to mean in the formula “sexual identity therapy”, I think the term is used in relation with issues of identity regarding sexual orientation, and secondarily in relation with any deficiency to identify with one’s inborn sex. Perhaps (and Dr Wthrockmorton can confirm this or not) the term “sexual identity” was used in the “sexual identity therapy” formula to include a larger array of problems regarding both sex and gender, but the more general term of “sexual” was preferred to that of “gender”, because the problems of gender identity are more specific to certain categories, like the transgendered. So, I deduce that “sexual identity” was used as an umbrella term for both issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

    In practice, sexual orientation problems are more numerous than gender identity problems, but the latter, as far as I know, are more difficult to deal with. You could have, for instance, the case of a person who was born as a man, but who identifies as a woman. His sexual orientation might be gay if he identified as a man, but if he changes sex he might identify as a heterosexual (trans)woman. I have heard of people who also changed sexual orientation after changing sex, so they eventually transitioned from a certain sex to the opposite and from a sexual orientation to another (a man identifying with the female gender, who changes sex and has women as preferred sexual objects and/or partners).

    I hope my answer clarified your inquiry.

  54. Ann–

    Please forgive me if I opt out of discussing the potential bad outcomes. There are some but we honestly don’t know enough to consider whether they have merit. I really want to hang on to the fact that all those coming together have recognized a value in the others. How did he put it….”if I say something about thus and such, the conservative church just dismisses it but if Warren says the same thing, they listen.” Total paraphrase but I think you catch the essence. 1) They can see that he doesn’t fit the caricature Conservative Christian image 2) They appreciate that he’s been willing to speak the truth even when it’s embarrassing to ‘his side’.

    It’s not all “peace, love and brotherhood” but it’s a glimmer of hope. Anyway, if those impressions are genuine from all sides, then I see no possibility for a bad outcome at all.

    As for good outcomes, there are the two possibilities I cited earlier up with the ‘happy dance’. But what I’d really like to see is for the walls to come down and for all to see how much they actually have in common. Consider their clients. Are they really that different? Why couldn’t something Warren learned in his experience benefit them? Why, in turn, couldn’t Warren learn from theirs?

    Getting nitty gritty practical here. If all the person was going to therapy for was to hear that ‘it’s okay to be gay”, what would the need be for any followup sessions? People are in therapy usually for some sense of disharmony in their lives. Guilt feelings over homosexuality would only be one of many reasons a person might go for counseling. Even if that was their primary reason, other disharmonies are often what keeps them in the therapeutic relationship. What differs the person in SIT who is struggling with compulsivity or self-esteem issues (to name only 2 possibilities of many) from the person seeing a therapist from the other extreme? My hope is that these individuals would one day engage in ‘shop talk’ and actually forget which one is the conservative Christian therapist and who holds to which theological (or not) perspective.

    LOL! Once we get there, I’ll permit myself to dream more….

  55. Eddy,

    If you want to have a discussion with Evan then have a discussion with Evan. Don’t blame your inability to do that on me. Evan keeps engaging me Eddy and as long as he does that I will engage him. I’m sure he’s capable of talking to both of us at the same time – In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen him do that with other people on other threads. At least I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

  56. BTW, when I said “on here”, I was referring to this particular thread, not the blog in general.

    frustrating little dance.

    Now there’s something we CAN agree on!

  57. Eddy,

    I never said I was trying to clarify YOUR words – I said I was trying to clarify MINE.

    They get caught in a dead end conversation with you. I’ve been there and I’ve tried to escape. I’ve tried addressing my comments to specific individuals other than you only to have you reply anyway

    You think far too little of other people then if you think one, that they all must be like you when it comes to having discussions with me, and two, that they somehow don’t have the willpower to decide what they can and will discuss on this blog. Some of the discussions I’ve had on here have been initiated by other people. I made a few comments that OTHER PEOPLE decided to respond to. If you are getting caught in some nasty loop that you feel you can’t escape from Eddy, then don’t jump in there.

  58. Jayhuck–

    First, your science credentials are better than I thought but I, personally, would reserve the title ‘scientist’ for someone who is at least Masters level. But, again, your credentials are better than I thought.

    It’s fine for you to have a general discussion of science and religion but when a comment doesn’t go to either, you need to respect the fact that that individual is trying to discuss something else. There is no written or unwritten blog rule that says we all have to participate in the same vein. You can talk to Ann about science and religion and allow others to pursue a different track inspired by the same topic.

    My issue with you is that you seem compelled to respond to everyone’s comments and then, you hold on tenaciously, and don’t allow them to pursue the particular course they want to as long as yours is on the table. They get caught in a dead end conversation with you. I’ve been there and I’ve tried to escape. I’ve tried addressing my comments to specific individuals other than you only to have you reply anyway…often before the person they were addressed to even has a chance to answer. In this particular thread, I took great pains to focus simply on the historic coming together and it’s potential in a fight against polarization and I addressed my comments specifically to Warren, yet you still wanted to fit them into your conversation.

    I wasn’t talking therapy, I wasn’t talking SIT, I wasn’t talking reparative therapy, I wasn’t defending Christianity, I wasn’t attacking science…yet you kept trying to put my comments into that discussion that you were having. It’s like you felt that my comments had to connect with yours. I maintain that I can and should follow another conversation track as long as it’s related to the topic. I believe I should be able to carry that conversation on with someone other than you if that’s my choice. If you don’t like what direction I’m heading in, say so…once. There is no need to keep stepping into that conversation with your objections. Assume that your objections were noted but that we still felt like we had things to discuss anyway. And, if that other direction just doesn’t interest you, then don’t feel compelled to chime in with that. (I’ve wanted to have a chance for meaningful dialogue with Evan ever since he arrived a few months back but I rarely find a comment by him that hasn’t turned into a Jayhuck debate.)

    There’s a difference between being self-policing and being a moderator, BTW. You said something to the effect that you were trying to clarify my words for the others who were reading. I maintain that 1) it was a task that didn’t need doing and 2) if my words needed clarifying, you weren’t the one to do it.

    That’s all I have to say–probably for the week–I’ve used up almost all my blog budget in this frustrating little dance.

  59. Not sure what else can be said for the symposium

    🙁

    Can some of my questions be answered before we conclude the thread?

  60. Well, this is fun 🙂

    Not sure what else can be said for the symposium; I will keep everyone posted regarding the event, including whether it will be taped or open to the public.

  61. Of course, Warren wasn’t really OK with the whole tangential discussion on Evolution, but I can hardly blame him for that 🙂

  62. Eddy,

    Just so you know, I wrote to Warren privately asking him how to handle issues that surround specific topics on “HIS” blog – I was also expressing similar sentiments about the purpose behind this thread and he basically said he had really just meant for this thread to be more informative and that he agreed we would have more to talk about once the symposium was over. He also said that a general discussion of science and religion was alright.

  63. I earned a Bachelors of Science in Biology Eddy. I’m not sure what your criteria for being a scientist is – I might be considered more of an “armchair” scientist now, but apart from all the work I did for my degree, I did work for a summer with a Professor helping her with her research on muscle cells by fusing a specific type of muscle protein with a glutathione enzyme in a specific strain of E. Coli cells – cells I was also responsible for growing. I’ve been a fan of the natural sciences for many years, a tutor of the sciences and now I’m working in an industry governed by scientific principles. I would just look in the dictionary at the different definitions of scientist if you want some hard and fast definitions 🙂

    As for being criticized for being a site moderator, I think that’s awful hypocritical of you. Weren’t you the one in threads back months ago who, without apparently talking to anyone else, offered to have everyone self-police the site? Haven’t you also been one to criticize others for doing on a site things you yourself have done. In the comments that Warren erased, you had criticized me for leading everyone off-topic when you yourself had participated in that discussion.

    I’m not sure that you see just how presumptuous you often can be Eddy.

  64. Eddy,

    Do we need to count the times you have played site moderator???

    I was clearing things up that *I* had said Eddy. I frequently don’t always make myself clear and often find the need to clarify what I am saying. Please try and understand that the assumptions you are making about me and what I’m doing are also fairly presumptuous.

  65. Dr. Throckmorton,

    I see you have sexual identity in the title of your blog. Is this the same as gender identity or is there a difference?

  66. What is the worst case scenario that can come from this symposium and how would it affect everhyone involved? Also, who are involved? If there were a best case scenario, what would that look like to everyone involved?

  67. Jayhuck–

    If Warren has set you up as site moderator, please accept my apologies for my response. If he hasn’t, please consider how presumptuous you are being by setting yourself up in that position. Also consider how unqualified you are. You frequently misunderstand me and others and you claim you’re only trying to clear things up for ‘the others’. Consider that ‘the others’ are adults. If they need something cleared up, they can ask. (The comment that you kept trying to reinterpret was directed specifically to Warren.)

    Consider also that you’ve gone to greater lengths responding to and reinterpreting my comments to Warren than you have to comments I’ve made directly to you. For example, I’m not satisfied that you meet any currently accepted definition of ‘scientist’ when you call yourself one. You managed to leave out any degrees you earned in your reply.

  68. Jayhuck,

    Yes, I understand – thank you for the clarification. The more we can distinguish between those who are content and those who are not, regardless of the reason, the more we can advance to support both.

  69. Ann,

    I was only saying that because there are people who have done just that. I’m also saying that because I’ve talked to therapists who have clients who fit into that second group. I was just stating the three groups as I see them, the therapist would have to be the ones to figure out where their client fits in the scheme of things – does that make sense? I didn’t just make those three groups up.

  70. Jayhuck,

    Thanks for the clarification – I really appreciate it. I was basing my response to this comment you made

    That second group is not desiring change because of some internal/personal values, they are doing it because of peer/societal pressure

    How can such a statement be made, and considered true, about anyone without your personal knowledge of them? Anything less is only an assumption. When an individual’s well being is at stake I don’t think we should be making any kind of assumptions or statements about them.

  71. Ann – sigh – I don’t think I’ve been making myself clear – What I’m saying is the THERAPIST has to research where there client is coming from. A therapist can find out this information and discern whether the client has these feelings because of others or because of some internal values system. That’s the therapists job and one that needs to be done when dealing with unwanted SGA. I wasn’t talking about me 🙂

  72. I disagree – That second group is not desiring change because of some internal/personal values, they are doing it because of peer/societal pressure and I don’t know any therapist worth his/her salt who would say those types of unwanted feelings should be validated.

    Jayhuck,

    How in the world do you know this with any kind of certainty? How can you even come close to discerning with any kind of accuracy what is in each person’s heart and mind? Really, how can you make such generalities when we are talking about an individual’s well being that you know nothing about? That seems dangerous to me.

  73. Ann,

    I disagree – That second group is not desiring change because of some internal/personal values, they are doing it because of peer/societal pressure and I don’t know any therapist worth his/her salt who would say those types of unwanted feelings should be validated.

    At least we can agree that the symposium is a good thing 🙂

  74. Jayhuck,

    I see it as only two groups of people – those who are content with their desires and attractions and relationships with the same gender and those who are not. The later consider these desires and attractions unwanted, cumbersome and a burden to the life they want to live and do not want to act out on these desires. The reasons for both scenars are personal and should not to be generalized – they should be respected. I believe the breaking down into further catagories should be left to the therapist and client. Nothing we say here or on any panel will ever fully express each individual’s story or motivation to enter therapy.

  75. Eddy,

    I have also been responding to and trying to clarify positions for other people. That’s fine if you don’t want to talk about specific therapies, but some of the rest of us actually have been doing just that. I’ve repeatedly said that I’m excited and happy about this symposium, I worked to show how you and I have somewhat similar feelings where this symposium is concerned, but all I keep getting from you is your own spin on my spin and I’m getting dizzy.

  76. Good grief Eddy – what do you mean by my “spin”. If I took your words out of context or spun them I’m terribly sorry – not my intention. I was trying to state my own opinion and give my own response to things you had said – not just for you, mind you – but for others who might be reading our ramblings. If you’re tired of my “spin” stop responding to it! I think that’s pretty simple

    I’ve dealt with your own personal take on things/spin over and over again myself.

    I’ve agreed with you that this symposium has some ground-breaking elements in it, but I think the goal is to start a dialogue, not necessarily to find common ground – not yet anyway. Open and respectful dialogue is exactly what I’ve been talking about Eddy – I’m sorry if you missed that.

  77. Jayhuck–

    Please stop! My words are my words. They are in response to the entire symposium. That is clear in their context. It frustrates me greatly that you can’t understand them but it frustrates me even more that you keep trying to fit them into your particular spin. I’ve said my piece (peace). Take it. Don’t take it. Accept it. Reject it. But please stop trying to reword it or trying to fit it into the your spin.

    People–both lay and professional–have been caught up in a polarized mindset that has blinded them to anything of merit that those with ‘the opposing view’ might have. I didn’t bring up specific therapies because I’m talking larger than that…just open and respectful dialogue for a start. Both sides and some folks in the middle to boot! My words went to Point Of View not Therapy Model. My dreams went to mutual professional respect and teamwork. They have little to do with what you’re talking about.

    That’s why I tried to clarify that you’d allow others to discuss anything other than your spin on the topic. I am not interested in discussing your spin at the moment. I feel like I discussed it yesterday, and the day before and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that.

    Instead I see a historical ground-breaking symposium that brings opposing voices together with a goal of finding some common ground. So forgive me, if just this once, I don’t want to go down your negative trail.

  78. Ann,

    One is revelent and one is not. We are only talking about the one that is revelent – those individuals who have unwanted same sex/gender attractions that are inconsistant with their values and/or religion. I think it is very important that the panel come from this place rather than talk in generalities.

    I’m not quite sure I understand what you are saying, but I’ll tell you how I view this issue and the groups of people I see and maybe we can go from there:

    There are 3 groups of gay people where this issue is concerned – at least as far as I can tell:

    – There is the majority of gay people who are not unhappy with their orientation

    – There are those with unwanted same-sex attractions, but they are unwanted because others (society, parents, friends etc) are telling them they shouldn’t have them/shouldn’t be gay and the unwanted feelings aren’t coming directly from the person them-self

    – The last group are those with unwanted same-sex attractions that conflict with their religious/core personal values

    The latter is the group that would probably need some kind of SIT, especially if they’ve tried going the affirmative route already and that just didn’t work for them. But even the latter group needs to be made aware that there are different groups of Christians and other faiths that believe vastly different things.

    Remember, even the SIT framework starts with the idea that being gay is NOT a disease. As such it is not in need of therapy – therapy is only sought when a person’s core/religious values are being affected

    This is just the way I see the situation and divide people up!

  79. Jayhuck,

    Why should there even be sides if there is a distinction? One is revelent and one is not. We are only talking about the one that is revelent – those individuals who have unwanted same sex/gender attractions that are inconsistant with their values and/or religion. I think it is very important that the panel come from this place rather than talk in generalities.

  80. Eddy,

    I realize that you were probably talking about Warren’s position above and not about Reparative Therapy – I’m sorry if what I said above implied otherwise 🙂

  81. Ann,

    Really, those that are content are not what this is about

    Absolutely 🙂

    Eddy,

    When I say ‘people’ I mean ‘people’. If I meant to emphasize or de-emphasize either therapists or lay people, I would have qualified my statement.

    I just doubt that “people” haven’t really looked at this issue. I mean, Reparative Therapy has been discussed and researched for decades now and it has been rejected by all professional organizations. Warren, thankfully, offers something different than Reparative Therapy – and when it comes to his SIT framework, that seems to be something that many people don’t know much about and why this discussion will be a good thing overall. Heck, I’ve read the SIT framework several times now and still have many unanswered questions – but it is a good place to start when it comes to finding common ground

    I personally don’t think this is going to lead to to mainstream psychology embracing the SIT framework, but I do think it will help build a bridge between the two sides!

  82. Regarding that earlier statement, I was really just thinking out loud how this isn’t going to affect most gay people. Sometimes I get caught up in thinking that it is but we really are talking about a subset of the gay population who have certain types of unwanted attractions.

    Jayhuck,

    In my opinion this is such a substantial statement and one that can diminish much of the contention that is demonstrated between groups of people – including religious groups. Really, those that are content are not what this is about – it is about those who consider their SSA cumbersome and a burden that they are not able to reconcile with their values and /or religion. There is a huge difference and if the distinction can be acknowledged and referred to in any discussion regarding this, I think there would be a higher level of respect and understanding. It is when it is blended together by assumptions (labels, etc.) that defensives go up and the divide becomes more profound. If this one small distinction could be made when referring or discussing homosexuality I really believe it would make a very big difference.

  83. Jayhuck–

    When I say ‘people’ I mean ‘people’. If I meant to emphasize or de-emphasize either therapists or lay people, I would have qualified my statement.

  84. Eddy,

    Due to the incredible polarization, most people just haven’t looked closely at the opposing points of view and what aspects of legitimacy they might have.

    When you say “people” are you talking about therapists or lay people? I think there’s probably some truth to this for people on both sides of the issue.

    Regarding that earlier statement, I was really just thinking out loud how this isn’t going to affect most gay people. Sometimes I get caught up in thinking that it is but we really are talking about a subset of the gay population who have certain types of unwanted attractions.

    Ann,

    It would be both the therapist AND the client as long as the client understood everything and was making a rational choice based on the evidence. If the client was making his/her decision based upon some unrealistic ideal or for bad reasons in general, then the therapist, in good conscience/ethically, wouldn’t be able to support it.

    Eddy and Ann,

    I’m not gonna dust off my dancing shoes just yet, but I am excited 🙂

  85. If they said “Hey, let’s talk some more….I think we have some common ground”, know that I’ll be dancing in the streets.

    And I’ll be dancing with you 🙂

  86. Jayhuck:

    You said:

    “This is probably something everyone on here already knows, but we are only talking about gay people who are having problems specifically with “unwanted” attractions – we aren’t talking about the majority of gay people who are in therapy for reasons other than this.”

    Was the ‘we…talking’ just you and Ann? Or are you suggesting that that is now the topic?

    Warren:

    One of my life’s goals for the past 30 some years has been to see psychology just step back, take a breath and look at the big picture. Due to the incredible polarization, most people just haven’t looked closely at the opposing points of view and what aspects of legitimacy they might have. I see the potential for enrichment all around. (W.B. will probably always consider you a ‘quack’ but it will be interesting to see how these professionals perceive you and your POV after the talks.) I hope that you’ll take full advantage of being in such a group and get some learning not just from the symposium but from some more informal chats as well.

    When it’s all done, if all the participants were able to say “Hey, he’s not a lunatic” regarding all the others, that would be one blow to the polarization! And, can I dream? If they said “Hey, let’s talk some more….I think we have some common ground”, know that I’ll be dancing in the streets. (I’m excited enough that I actually want to be there… but I can dance here too.)

    I

  87. The therapist would be the person who would decide if gay affirmative therapy or some kind of SIT therapy would be best to deal with the unwanted SSAs.

    Jayhuck,

    I agree, with the caveat, that it should be both the therapist and the client who make this determination based on all the information gathered and after all the available options are discussed. The last thing any of us want is for a client to leave a therapist’s office in despair thinking they have no options or hope because the therapist has a personal agenda instead of the individual’s well being.

  88. This is probably something everyone on here already knows, but we are only talking about gay people who are having problems specifically with “unwanted” attractions – we aren’t talking about the majority of gay people who are in therapy for reasons other than this.

  89. Ann,

    The whole reason behind figuring out the motivation behind someone’s problem with their SSAs isn’t to impose our will onto there’s, its to figure out the best way to deal with the problem. If the problem is just because someone feels that in order to be “normal” or OK, they have to do what everyone else is doing, or what the majority of people are doing, than that would be a bad thing.

    The reasons they have these unwanted feelings/desires and consider them cumbersome is for them and their therapist to figure out and then how to proceed with the threatment they agree upon.

    This is ALL I was saying above Ann – I think you might have read more into what I was saying. The therapist would be the person who would decide if gay affirmative therapy or some kind of SIT therapy would be best to deal with the unwanted SSAs. Maybe I should have just said it like this to begin with – sorry for any confusion 🙂

  90. Jayhuck,

    I really don’t think you or I or anyone else have the right to impose our will or opinions on what kind of therapy a person wants for their unwanted same sex attractions. The reasons they have these unwanted feelings/desires and consider them cumbersome is for them and their therapist to figure out and then how to proceed with the threatment they agree upon.

  91. Warren,

    What relevance, if any, will those remarks have for psychiatry?

    I’m not sure if they will really change anything or not. You’re going to have Christians saying two different things for people – if anything, it should let gay people – specifically those who are struggling with religious convictions and their sexuality – know that there is a wide array of religious views out there on the topic of sexuality and orientation and that they have choices – but this has always been true and I think most people know it – I may be wrong though.

    I’m not sure its going to do much to change the field of psychiatry. I think we also have to ask ourselves what role religion should and shouldn’t play in the field of psychology itself. Can psychology really deal with religious aspects such as a person’s values or not?

  92. David,

    If that’s what your original response was mean to say then that’s fine, but it was vague and too much could be read into it. You also talked about Christians but seemed only to use your own definition of what that meant when you say “they” are wary. There are all sorts of Christians most of whom don’t often agree with others – sometimes on fundamental things. To say that SOME Christians might be wary, would have been better

  93. Evan,

    I think the problem is with WHY someone is struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions. I think Warren’t SIT acknowledges that people may have unwanted same-sex attraction for all sorts of reasons, but that doesn’t mean that they should seek some sort of change-therapy for them. Affirmative therapy can also help out with many people who have unwanted attractions when those feelings are associated with societal pressure to be or act a certain way – and this would include the feelings of getting married, etc. My understanding is that the main reason someone would consider SIT is ONLY if their unwanted attractions are sparked by religious beliefs of some sort and not because society or its many institutions or the media says they should be a certain way.

  94. What exactly will the debate be – their personal thoughts and beliefs or what is the most effective course for their clients who wish to have their religious or non-religious beliefs be part of their treatment?

  95. First of all, the divide between some people in the panel is extraordinary! I wonder what concessions can Bishop Gene Robinsons and Rev. Albert Mohler make to each other for the benefit of people who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, since the former contended that Jesus was gay. This is going to be one interesting debate.

    I hope invited scientists will take more seriously and acknowledge that faith is a fact, it’s out there, and they should not expect people to fall in line with belief in science if that’s what their hope is. I know that would disappoint some people in their views on what worth is science and how relevant it can be to their lives. This is not a zero-sum game between the neutrality of science and the respect for religious faith, we have people losing.

    After all, the issue in debate is far from having reached consensus, but scientists act and motivate policies as if the problem of homosexuality has already been thoroughly explained and clarified. We know that it has been explained away and defined in terms of what is not, so let’s see some responsible and compassionate answers from members of the scientific community. If they cannot give their profession a fully supporting stance on the issue for all people, it will say a lot about what outlook science can project on society. People are not just facts.

    As I said, I am truly looking forward to seeing a fruitful debate there, one that will focus much more on people who need support and less on whatever disputes some parties may have to settle.

  96. On topic…

    My original response to this article was meant to acknowledge that all parties participating in the symposium have been wary of the abuses of others of both facts and religion.

    Regarding theological perspectives of homosexual behavior or homosexual identity or SSA…

    My guess is that Bishop Robinson will argue for a hibrid form of morality applied to sexuality in general, that it be loving and monogomous. He will see this as the essential calling for God regarding sexuality in general. My guess is that he will assert that God is not concerned with the specifics of sexual orientation, seeing diversity in God’s creation as also being evident in sexual attraction.

    I think this is on topic

  97. Al Mohler and Bishop Robinson are going to suggest very different theological perspectives on homosexuality. What relevance, if any, will those remarks have for psychiatry?

    It seems that this will be an acknowledgement and evidence that there are differing opinions on theological perspectives, representing the fact that others, including clients will have these differing opions as well. It should be an indicator that the APA must include both positions in their guidelines to give the client the choice of the best treatment available, meeting their individual needs.

  98. I have deleted all comments relating to the off topic nature of comments regarding evolution, etc. (comments about comments).

    If you had comments deleted, don’t take offense, I just want to avoid getting further sidetracked. Now back to the regularly scheduled post…

    To focus, here is a question, let me ask this – Al Mohler and Bishop Robinson are going to suggest very different theological perspectives on homosexuality. What relevance, if any, will those remarks have for psychiatry?

  99. Warren,

    To be fair, I don’t think there’s anyone on this blog who doesn’t take religion seriously, and while it is definitely your prerogative to set limits on who says what on a thread, I don’t think its COMPLETELY off base to talk about religion and its sordid past with science.

    That being said though, I’m definitely looking forward to this symposium – it is a little hard to discuss something that hasn’t taken place yet. IMHO, as long as everyone understands the limits and strengths of both science and religion and what they both can do and can”t do, it should be a great thing 🙂

    I’m sincerely sorry for my part in getting us off topic. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin???? Hmmmmm 🙂

  100. Step away for a day or two and the train goes right off the tracks…

    Let’s keep comments on the topic of the symposium. Debating evolution or how good/not good religion is doesn’t address this topic. The people involved all take religion seriously and the point of the symposium is that religious belief is a critical element of identity. So start there without need to debate about religion or evolution or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Thanks.

  101. Jayhuck,

    I do not think it is the faith itself that is the problem, but the flawed and sinful human beings who are often at its helm.

    If you only wrote this sentence, it would have all been perfectly clear. It was the point I was making — there’s no need to lay the blame on Christian faith for whatever reprobate deeds may have been done by some. That’s what I was getting from your messages and I considered it to be prejudiced against Christian belief. I’m glad we agree at least on this point.

    You aren’t supposed to judge it by its yield – this isn’t a contest of quantity, you are supposed to be able to judge Christianity by the fruit it bears – and that includes its people.

    English is not my native language, so in my mind “yield” was intended to mean “what is produced or the act of producing by cultivation”. I was not aware that there is a strict quantitative connotation to it. I actually meant it to be understood qualitatively, as fruit and whatever life is in that seed. Oh, well, I have to manage another second language — French — in this country, so I might make some original associations across languages sometimes. 🙂

  102. hello jayhuck,

    you didn’t answer my 2 questions regarding your Christian belief:

    1) do you believe in the full divinity of Christ?

    2) what is your estimation of the Bible?

    NEXT: i’m well aware of everything you’ve said on the evolutionists/theistic evolutionists/intelligent designists, etc etc. I’m very aware of the widespread generally accepted claim for evolution. What I disagree with you on is your assessment that the non-evolutionists consist of “a few Christian evangelicals”, as you said a few posts back. That is simply not true. As I said already, there are multitudes of scientists, secular and spiritual in various degrees, who contend in some(or all) degree that evolution is an explain-all to origins. Without going too deep into the subject itself, the simple point I’m making is that your assessment of the numbers and depth of the non-evolutionism movement is grossly inaccurate. The mainstream media doesn’t give a lot of space to it except when there’s some big news story, but it’s very alive and well, and it won’t be going away anytime soon either.

    Your assessment of the recent FL school board decision seems to be another one of your rubber-stamp categorized statements. FL is NOT like Kansas, but is more diverse ethnically and less evangelical. If you read some of the articles on it, you’ll see that the 7 school board members invited speakers from both sides, they listened to the facts, and they made a neutral, down-the-middle decision that neither side was completely happy about – they simply said evolution’s not a proven fact, and therefore cannot be taught as such. It was a rational, researched decision, so don’t just lump it with the Kansas episode.

    ALSO- the court decisions that forbade Intelligent Design from being taught in public school had nothing to do with the merits of the ID subject itself, but the judge ruled against it because he saw it connected with creationism, which he claimed was a violation of church-state. The arguments that ID makes in terms of biological origins are very thought-provoking and worthy of consideration, and the court rulings had nothing to do with the substance of ID’s ideas.

    Finally, I do indeed want you to answer my first 2 questions, especially because of your closing remarks on Bishop Robinson. I guess this brings us back to the original theme of this blog. Based on what your answers to the 2 questions will be, I then want to know how you feel homosexuality is compatible with true Biblical Christianity.

    Sincerely,

    NovaAurora

  103. I’m pretty excited that Bishop Robinson will be at the symposium. I don’t belong to his denomination, but it will be interesting to see a respected and controversial gay man of the cloth speak at such a symposium 🙂

  104. LOL! Why are we focussing on the things that divide us in a thread whose topic is a historic coming together?

  105. Evan,

    You aren’t supposed to judge it by its yield – this isn’t a contest of quantity, you are supposed to be able to judge Christianity by the fruit it bears – and that includes its people. I know for a fact that Christianity has helped with tolerance, I ALSO know that it has been used to further intolerance as well.

  106. Evan,

    Don’t misjudge Christian belief based on what some people claimed to have done in its name. You can judge the seed by its yield.

    I AM a Christian! I’ll say this as many times as I need to, but I have seen firsthand the good AND the bad that has been done in the name of Christianity. I think I’m pretty safe in saying that people often use religion as an excuse to further bigotry – I’m pretty sure history would back me up on this. What Locke says and what has actually been done are two different things. Although, I’m not saying that religion, and especially Christianity, hasn’t brought much good into the world – but its also brought a good deal of pain and suffering as well. I do not think it is the faith itself that is the problem, but the flawed and sinful human beings who are often at its helm. Religion, and specifically Christianity’s proponents and critics BOTH have cases to make.

  107. Its also worth mentioning that the Catholic Church’s position on Evolution has moved to one of “acceptance”. There are many scientists who are also devout Christians who ascribe, as I do, to a concept of Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism. I don’t have time to go into it, but anyone who wants to ‘Google’ the term will find out more than they probably ever wanted to know 🙂

  108. Eddy and Nova,

    Nova, your statements against mine are no more original than the ones I raised myself. Eddy, these are old points and old arguments. The FACT of the matter is that the VAST, and I mean VAST majority of scientists ALL around the world agree that Evolution is happening. The fact is also that Intelligent Design has been struck down by the courts, by MOST scientists and by other Christians who are scientists. This is the fact of the matter. That there is a school in Florida that won’t allow Evolution to be taught as fact shouldn’t come as a suprise to anyone that understands the political makeup of Florida – it isn’t that much different than Kansas in many respects and there is a similar law in my home state of Kansas about teaching Evolution.

    Evolution can’t be proven without a doubt, HOWEVER, neither can gravity. Gravity is also a theory. What many people don’t understand is how science understand the word Theory – here is an article that talks about this very matter:

    Evolution Article

    Eddy – my first love has always been science – my degree is in the natural sciences and even though I find myself draw into the medical field now, I still, at heart, consider myself a scientist even if I don’t hold down a traditional scientific-type job. I think I’ve mentioned this before 🙂

  109. Jayhuck,

    My mention of Christianism did not refer to Christian dogma or Christian confessions or churches. The Christianism I had in mind was more of the belief. Christian belief may have inspired some to commit things that put to shame the churches themselves, sometimes even those churches supported political (human) dealings that lead to reprobate deeds, judged by today’s mindset.

    But Christianism’s valuing of the person and its capacity to attain salvation is what lead to the first ideas about tolerance, of creating a space in which anyone should be able to exercise his/her free will. Just to get an idea of its inception, you can read John Locke’s ‘A Letter Concerning Toleration’ and see how Christian values have nurtured the modern mindset of tolerance towards people of different persuasions.

    Don’t misjudge Christian belief based on what some people claimed to have done in its name. You can judge the seed by its yield.

  110. Jayhuck-

    NovaAurora raises some good points. Beyond those, I also have another.

    This is the first time that I can recall that you’ve referred to yourself as a scientist. Can you elaborate?

  111. jayhuck,

    you spout quite a bit of rhetoric but much of what you say is baseless-maybe you’re just misinformed–first of all, Christianity is a big word – there are many so-called Christian beliefs under the umbrella of Christianity – but not all are necessarily “Christian” – for example, many people say they’re Catholic, yet they don’t believe in the divinity of Christ – thus. according to the Apostolic/Nicene Creed, the Bible and the first 400 years of Church Fathers’ writings, such a person cannot be Christian, since belief in Christ as God is necessary. Secondly, all those wars started by religion that you mention( a knock against “Christianity” which I’ve heard time and time again, which only makes me think that you’re just a parrot of what you hear) were almost always the Catholic church/kings seeking to snuff out the countries/kings that had “rebelled” against the One True Church. There is a difference between Apostolic Christianity, Catholicism, Protestantism, and various modern movements. But if you rely on National Geographic, Oprah WInfrey, The History Channel, The Da Vinci Code and similar others, you’ll just be another ignoramus grouping them all together and satisfied to smugly look down upon them in your humanistic tendencies. Why don’t you see if there’s a good Bible Institute in your area and take a semester course on Church History?? I think it would clear up a lot of your confusion. Chances are good that there’s one in your area, since this is the USA, a country started by simple Christian folks who were fleeing Europe’s Catholic/State Church-sponsored persecution and wanted to establish a genuinely free society where folks could read the Bible without fearing for their lives. While they were at it, they inspired the blueprint for the American version of civil rights, they instituted a genuine free-market economy that grew so quickly it stunned the European powers of their day, and when non-Christian Anglo-Saxons came along and started the slave trade, they fought to the death to end it.

    Lastly, you make some very erroneous comments about evolution and Intelligent Design. “A few evangelical Christians” don’t believe in evolution. What a bozo statement that is. There’s at least a few 10’s of millions, I would say, including secular scientists who do not believe that evolution is all-explanatory. A board of educators, apart from religious reasoning, just ruled in FL that public schools cannot teach it as fact, but only as theory, because contrary to more of your parrot-speech, it isn’t proven. Furthermore, there are numerous entities out there that provide scientifically-based materials that disprove much of what evolutionists try to propagate about the origins of the universe, earth , etc. One is creationontheweb.org – again, instead of just being a puppet-sponge of what you read and hear, why don’t you go to the source and check some things out for yourself?

    you also say that you’re a scientist AND a Christian- i’d like to ask you what kind of Christian? Do you believe in the deity of Christ? What’s your estimation of the Bible?

    Next – if you were indeed both, then you should be aware of the multitudes of scientists who are either non-evolutionists, creatonists, or “Intelligent-Design-ists” – certainly more than “a few evangelical Christians” – as well as the multitudes of well-informed laymen who don’t buy the packaged baloney that “science” tries to sell, but get solid, rational, scientific information that helps us to know better. Whether you are what you say you are, this statement shows that you are out of touch with the true depth and numbers of people who are in this movement.

    NovaAurora

  112. Warren–

    This symposium is the kind of dialogue I’ve always dreamed of and, honestly, never thought would happen. Congratulations on having a role in it!

  113. David, you said:….they rightly fear advocacy masquerading as science..

    Hm… “advocacy masquerading as science….” Are you speaking of NARTH?

  114. Evan,

    I am a scientist and a Christian so I’m not saying that you cannot be both.

    As for:

    He told me many insider’s facts about how political is science today and how many tricks are used to promote one thing or another or to play with your statistics.

    That may be true for some areas of science just as it is for all areas of human endeavor, however you have to be careful when religious people make such accusations. I tend to side with the vast majority of scientists on issues. I’ve heard some Christians make the claim that your friend made, but it is usually because science is saying something they don’t like or don’t want to believe – so is science the problem or is their faith and their beliefs getting in the way of good science – I know for a fact that this happens as well.

    When it comes to science though, as I said above, I side with a vast majority of scientists on issues, and I’m always wary of anyone who wants to make science over so that it fits their religious beliefs.

    Take for example Evolution – An overwhelming amount of evidence and scientists agree that this happens, however, you have a few Evangelical Christians who cannot agree with this. Some have even gone so far as to try and create a new theory called Intelligent Design, which has been shot down by most scientists, the courts and even other Christian scientists.

  115. Jayhuck,

    I don’t have the time to explain all the details, but we’re talking about faces of the same coin in all these issues.

    If you want to see how is this possible, you can check Fracis Collins’ work and public profile as a man who reconciles faith with leading-edge research. So it is possible to have a high-profile scientist and a firm believer. It’s just as outrageous for fellow scientists as was Galileo Galilei’s position more than four centuries ago, when science was banned from the realm of dogmatic faith.

    I have a friend who is a chemistry researcher. Guess what? He is a fervent Christian. He told me many insider’s facts about how political is science today and how many tricks are used to promote one thing or another or to play with your statistics. It looks like some scientists cannot just believe in science, precisely because they know better what science is and can do. But you can go on and build a life based on present scientific consensus. You have all their support.

  116. Science and religion may very well meet again, but it won’t be Evangelical Christians and science – the two have already parted ways 🙂

  117. Evan,

    I don’t know what Christianity you are talking about, but Christianity has been used to subjugate all manner of people including women, blacks, and gay people throughout the ages – you said nothing that negated this.

    Christianity did have a big part in the beginning to move women from being property to something more human, but you cannot ignore its power to create bloody and terrible wars.

    For someone who purports not to be a Christian, you seem to claim to know quite a bit of history.

  118. Jayhuck

    Religion, primarily Christianity, played and continues TO play a big part in bigotry towards women, blacks, and gay people – and often anyone who doesn’t agree with a particular theology or those of another faith.

    I’m not a practicing Christian, but I think you ignore how thankful those categories of people should be to Christianism for the role it played in the development of human rights. You know, human rights were developed based on Christian values, neither Taoist, nor Buddhist, nor scientific. Even the concept of humanity is Christian. Before Christianism, people thought that those outside their community were aliens, barbarians, demons etc. What underlies discrimination against gays is older than Christianism, and is not based on ideas, concepts and sometimes not even on beliefs.

    People have used at different points in time different beliefs and ideas present in society to express their dispositions or dislikings. Whatever Christian tenets have been used to chastise gays were also used to embrace them for their possible salvation. But the cause of people taking distance from homosexuality is not in a particular belief. I give you an example: Romans despised men who were sexually passive with other men. It comes from a very distant past and it’s still here. And it’s not Christian, but it may be voiced or recognised as such.

    Science and religion went hand in hand for many centuries. They became disconnected because church leaders made the mistake to stifle ideas that they thought would endanger church dogma. I think science and religion will meet again and it’s a good thing that this type of dialogue is already taking place for the benefit of people too.

  119. Until we develop a scientific test to determine if there is a God it’s all up to the individual.

    I’m not a religious guy but I believe that it is a safe bet that there is a God and an afterlife.

    What its all about I dunno… I guess I’ll find out when I get there someday. Hopefully many decades from now. 😎

  120. Hopefully the symposium will give more than a passing nod to religious beliefs that support honesty, respect, and conflict resolution between people who do not agree on beliefs about sexuality.

  121. David,

    Religion, primarily Christianity, played and continues TO play a big part in bigotry towards women, blacks, and gay people – and often anyone who doesn’t agree with a particular theology or those of another faith.

    Religion in general has sparked some of the worst and bloodiest wars we have ever seen.

    Religion TOO often gives support, intentionally or unintentionally, to the worst in people – their fears, their prejudices, who they see as their enemies. The sad thing is that even though it is often people who are abusing religion, the religion often does little to curb its abuse.

  122. David,

    Often, bigotry is so tied into religion that its almost impossible to distinguish between the two. Where does most bigotry come from anyway?

    You could have fooled me when it comes to Christians fearing science – they have down through the ages and continue to do so. Just look at evolution today and some Christians reaction to it.

  123. Christians have nothing to fear from science….they rightly fear advocacy masquerading as science.

    Secularists have nothing to fear from religion…they rightly fear bigotry masquerading as religion.

Comments are closed.