Fathers, sons and homosexuality

Today, Crosswalk.com published my article, “Fathers, sons and homosexuality.” It is also up at the Christian Post blog and soon a few other places. In this piece, I examine Joseph Nicolosi’s reparative drive theory via a very specific claim made recently in London while speaking to the Anglican Mainstream conference, Sex in the City. In an interview with David Virtue, Nicolosi said:

In other words, that fact remains that if you traumatize a child in a particular way you will create a homosexual condition. If you do not traumatize a child, he will be heterosexual. If you do not traumatize a child in a particular way, he will be heterosexual. The nature of that trauma is an early attachment break during the bonding phase with the father.

Many straight New Warrior brothers will tell you that they had attachment breaks with their fathers during this period. In fact, many straight men go to men’s groups to address those matters. On the flip side, this article focuses on a father’s perspective on his relationship with his same-sex attracted son.

Fathers, sons and homosexuality
The causes of homosexuality continue to both fascinate and divide people. Recently, in London, a conservative group of Anglicans, called the Anglican Mainstream hosted a conference to discuss the causes of homosexuality and promote change from gay to straight. Featured at the conference was American psychologist, Joseph Nicolosi. Dr. Nicolosi stirred much controversy when he said, without research support, that most of his clients show some degree of change in their sexual orientation.
Nicolosi’s views regarding causes of homosexuality are also controversial. In response to a question about the existence of a gay gene, Nicolosi said:

In other words, that fact remains that if you traumatize a child in a particular way you will create a homosexual condition. If you do not traumatize a child, he will be heterosexual. If you do not traumatize a child in a particular way, he will be heterosexual. The nature of that trauma is an early attachment break during the bonding phase with the father.

In a popular book written with his wife, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Nicolosi pegs the “crucial period” for bonding between father and son at “between one and a half to three years.” Elsewhere, Nicolosi argues that fathers of homosexual sons are unavailable, detached and/or hostile. To fathers in London, he advised, “If you don’t hug your sons, some other man will,” suggesting that male homosexual attraction is a search for a father’s love.
The father-deficit theory is considered outdated by mainstream sexuality researchers, but is popular among conservative Christians. This evangelical acceptance has always puzzled me because Nicolosi’s statements regarding the origins of homosexuality can be discounted not only by research but by common experience. His theory is contradicted in at least two ways. The first way should be quite obvious to Nicolosi’s audiences: there are many men who experienced poor fathering not only during the first six years of life but throughout childhood and are nonetheless, exclusively heterosexual.
Since many in Nicolosi’s audiences are either unhappy with their homosexual attractions or do not know many secure gay people, the second problem might not be so clear. In contrast to Nicolosi’s depictions of the typical family of gay males, many such men experienced loving, close relationships with their fathers throughout childhood with no break in attachment. Listen to one such father who spoke to me recently about his gay son.

When my son was 18 months to 3 years old (and on into childhood), we enjoyed a wonderfully close relationship. We explored the world behind the YMCA and called it travelling, looking for creatures in nooks and crannies. When it would snow, we bundled up and follow the same path. We hunted for snakes together in the creek, built a swamp world for various amphibians and generally loved each others’ company. Wherever I was, there was my son; as my wife would say, we were like “Peel and Stick.”
As he got older our relationship changed, but in a way that it should change. It matured into a friendship as father and son. After our son came out to us, our relationship did not change.

Does this sound like an uninvolved, detached father? This man’s son concurs with his dad’s assessment of the relationship. They were and are close, with no breaks during the period Nicolosi theorizes should cause homosexuality.
Devout Christians, the family attended conferences put on by conservative Christians who believed parental deficits were responsible for homosexuality. The answers they heard were very much like what Dr. Nicolosi promotes. These parents also took their son to a reparative therapist (i.e., counselor who holds to Nicolosi’s theory) who evaluated the potential for sexual orientation change. The father reported that it wasn’t helpful.

Not understanding the nature of his condition, we did take our son to a counselor. After several weeks of “therapy,” our counselor told our son that he didn’t know what to do. None of the stereotypes fit. Our son told his counselor that he had a wonderful and close relationship with his father and mom.

Although the parents hold the traditional Christian, non-affirming view of homosexual behavior, parents and son have maintained their relationship. What they all do much less often now is become preoccupied over causes and self-blame. The father sees a bigger picture.

Dr. Nicolosi gets it wrong to reduce the thorns in our sides/lives to a human event where we have but one chance to get it right. Does that sound like the relationship we have with our heavenly Father? God has allowed all of us to experience thorns, some painfully obvious, others less so. No doubt the thorns God allows are refining our character and leading us back to Him.

In fact, sexual orientation is quite complex. Most likely, multiple pre-and post-natal factors are involved in different ways for different people. One size does not fit all. What this means for Christian groups, however, is the stuff of controversy. For some, it means that homosexuality should be affirmed and Scripture reframed. For others, it does not lead to a change of orthodoxy, but rather to greater humility regarding the need for spiritual support to live a different and often difficult calling. What is not needed is adoption of simple, but misleading, answers.

Prejean keeps crown; holds same position as President Obama

Must have been a heady moment to be with Donald Trump and keep her Miss California crown. Carrie Prejean reminded people that she and the President hold the same position on same-sex marriage…(well probably not exactly the same if you consider his approach to Prop 8).
And a nice trifecta today: keep the crown, hang out with Trump and featured guest again on the Focus on the Family radio show. All in all a better day than some of the last few.

Miss California officials accuse conservative groups of exploiting Carrie Prejean

The Miss California pageant held a news conference today on the topic of Carrie Prejean. Many reported in advance that her Miss California crown would be removed during the press conference today. However, according to Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, Directors of the Miss California pageant, a decision about firing Prejean will come tomorrow from brand owner Donald Trump. I wonder if Trump’s press conference will come from the boardroom.
It certainly sounded like the two directors recommended her release although they refused to make it explicit. Essentially, they said Prejean had skipped scheduled Miss California events and that she was only available through her “handlers.” They stressed that if she was dismissed, it would not be because of her views on marriage but how she had related to the pageant since Miss USA.
The harshest criticism however came from Keith Lewis and was aimed at Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage. Lewis claimed 42% of NOMs funds went to Gallagher and that NOM engaged in copyright infringement by using Miss California footage for a NOM ad campaign.
Lewis also addressed other unnamed Christian organizations saying, “Shame, shame, shame” for exploiting Miss Prejean and placing her in a situation where she had breached her contract. He accused these groups of encouraging her to speak on their behalf even though it meant she was at risk of losing her title.

Carrie Prejean's Miss Cali fate decided today; Dobson speculates she will lose crown

Lots of reporting out today on the subject; Prejean and her mother are featured today and tomorrow on Focus on the Family broadcasts.
During the opening of the broadcast, Dr. Dobson said Carrie would be stripped of her crown today. According to the Prejean camp, that is not known at this time. Prejean representative, Melany Ethridge emailed to say the pageant has not notified them of what will be announced.
Also, prior to the broadcast, Dobson mentioned the semi-nude picture of Prejean at age 17. That picture surfaced since the interviews were recorded. About that photo, he said,

We agree with you in the audience who oppose that kind of sensuality. Focus on the Family has been a strong supporter of modesty and righteousness in the culture for many years. And yet we have chosen to go ahead and air these two programs after Carrie explained that the pictures were taken when she was 17 years old; she’s now 21 and in fact will be 22 on Wednesday and she regrets doing it and said she would not do it again.

Prejean also said on Friday that she would not take some of the more recent work she has done as well.