Dave

“Yes, but they are not a scientific group. They are LDS, are they not? That opens the topic to spiritual concerns.”

however they are distorting scientific findings to bolster their claims. The issue here isn’t their religious beliefs but there distortion of scientific claims.

The group claimed in the Salt Lake City paper that science and religion were on the same page and used Francis Collins to bolster their case for science. This is what I object to. They claim to be a scientific group in their public statement but (mis)use science as a means of advancing an essentially religious perspective.

That is clear, Warren. I have not disagreed with you on that, have I?

Whatever those factors turn out to be does not mean that they are alterable.

The “factors” may or may not be alterable, but their outcome in one’s life is not predetermined or fixed. We are not exclusively at the mercy of our “wiring.”

Has anyone really tried to explain the differentiations in male and female homosexuality? Can they be explained?

Debbie, do you think it was a lot of consolation for her at that point to think, “Hey, at least it worked for a while?”

Probably not, but I hope she at least cherishes the memories of the life you made together.

It’s even more troubling that Foundation for Attraction Research is a project of Dean Byrd. There is no way that they are unaware of Collins’ slap-down of Byrd. He founded the group and is on their Board.

Just how do you define change? Are you referring to a complete change of orientation?? A lessening of same sex desire?? .. a change of behavior? .. a change to celibacy? Or something else??

Even Alan Chambers of Exodus admits that he still has same sex feeling at times … so if you are defining this as an absolute change you may have great difficulty finding people who testify to it. A more practical approach might be for you to explore the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework which was put together by Dr. Throckmorton and Dr. Yarhouse. See this link .. This therapy does not give false promises about change of feelings or attractions but instead allows the client to choose how they wish to identify. I believe the APA has shown a favorable response to this framework .. which I encourages the professional counselor to consider their client’s religious beliefs as being important part of their well being.

The basic problem with guaranteeing a change of feeling / attractions / orientation to a client or a brother or sister in Christ is that such a promise has very little grip on reality and is, in fact, dishonest .. Emotions and feelings are a barometer of the soul .. they give indication to what is going on inside of us … they cannot be “fixed”. We would not promise / guarantee someone on the apsergers / autism spectrum such a change. We would not guarantee / promise someone who is bipolar such a complete change. Nor would we guarantee / promise someone who is an extrovert that they could become an introvert or vice versa. So why would we guarantee / promise things here? I sense you are being influenced by something that I call the Galileo effect. The Galileo effect refers to the controversy that the church had with the science of Galileo. They were sure that the earth being the center of the universe was a biblical irrefutable truth and thus condemned his scientific findings (that the earth was not the center). In a similar way .. the Bible has nothing to say about a same sex orientation .. nor the things I mentioned earlier in this paragraph. So why insist on change when scripture gives no such guarantee? And why presume that psychology (APA) is wrong on the issue of orientation change especially when we recognize the validity of other traits or conditions a person may have?

Another problem that comes in with orientation change therapy is that it is often shame based. People are driven to it because they are ashamed of themselves for having these feelings. When / if change fails to occur they are left feeling unloved and ashamed .. ashamed of their own inability to change and (in their minds) unloved by God because they have same sex attractions. With such a heavy shame load and such an expectancy at times from the church for change .. it is easier for some folks to deny feelings and lie about their attractions rather than face rejection by the church and rejection (in their minds) by God. I suppose there are some who feel loved by God regardless of whether change occurs or not (which would be healthy) but this is often the exception .. not the rule. I personally think it is very difficult to honestly measure or prove that change has occurred especially when there is such a heavy weight of shame and expectation put on people in this area. This site tells the stories of many people who finally broke away from the self denial that they were in.

Having said all of this .. the presence of same sex feelings does not necessarily mean a same sex orientation. The same sex relationships that can occur in same sex prisons are indicative of this. This site tells the stories of many people who finally broke away from the self denial that they were in.

Having said all of this .. the presence of same sex feelings does not necessarily mean a same sex orientation. The same sex relationships that can occur in same sex prisons are indicative of this. This is often called “Situational Homosexuality” and can happen between straight people.

Additionally there may be some who have greater fluidity in this area than others .. in other words people who are bisexual may be able to focus themselves on the opposite sex and accomplish “change” easier than those who may be more hardwired in their attractions.

Folks in either of these two situations outlined above may call something “change” when it is actually a return to their true orientation or emphasis on one side of their (bisexual) orientation. Thus the difficulty of a one size fits all ideology.

I am opposed to orientation change therapy for several reasons one of which is the many self worth issues that can get wrapped up in it. For example .. I know of many gay Christians who believe a life of abstinence from same sex sex is the way to honor God. However .. for some / many of them .. their church and even their families reject this as not good enough .. and expect orientation change. Such a lack of acceptance does not .. IMHO .. create a good atmosphere for people to explore their feelings honestly.

It seems to me that the best approach for someone to take who is unhappy with their attractions would be to pursue a life in Christ first .. if they find issues in their life that require counseling then perhaps they should pursue that and resolve those issues. If their feelings and attractions change as a result .. then that’s OK. If they don’t .. then that’s OK too. God loves them either way.

Dave

P.S For a well written article on the broadness of experience in this area see this post by Wendy Gritter.

@Debbie: Why on earth would you need to ask me this? Who am I that you seek my approval? If there is something disordered about a gay person who chooses to live chastely or celibately, then we are all disordered since we all find we have to resist temptations of many kinds. The plain answer, in English, is “no.” That’s for Timothy’s benefit.

Bolding is my addition to the above quote. First, I wasn’t asking for your approval, Debbie. Second, your “NO” is not only for Timothy’s benefit; but, also for my own prior question to you.

The following, Debbie, is not meant to be a pain-in-the-neck to you; but, for my own reading purposes, your responses leave me bewildered and confused. Here’s what I think your beliefs are regarding homosexuality:

1. Orientation can be changed, if just enough prayer is done … e.g., your own self, which only you can be the judge of.

2. If your orientation doesn’t change, well you really haven’t done #1 correctly; but, in lieu of anything else, you’ll be sort of OK if you’re chaste … but, don’t mention the fact that you’re gay … because you’re really not, you’re a Child of God.

If I have misunderstood you, Debbie, I apologize. You’re free to correct me … in plain enough words.

I wonder though, Debbie, when you refer to yourself; you refer to yourself as a wife, mother, etc. Why don’t you leave all of that out of your story; and, simply refer to yourself as a Child of God?