Category: Religion and sexuality

APA brochure kerfuffle

The Southern Voice has an article regarding the recent breathless, echo-chamber enhanced series of articles from some conservative blogs and news services about changes in the American Psychological Association statement regarding sexual orientation.

As I noted here awhile back, the recent flurry was not new news. My first blog about it was when NARTH’s Dean Byrd produced an article for the NARTH website.

In the Sovo article, the APA’s Clinton Anderson seems bemused by the far right response to something they did over a year ago.

Clinton Anderson, director of the APA’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender concerns office, said the change was so subtle that “from our perspective, there really hasn’t been any change.”

But some conservative groups have hailed the wording change as apparent affirmation that sexual orientation is not genetically defined.

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, said the reason “so many people in the pro-family movement are delighted by this is that it seems to confirm our doubts that there’s a gay gene, that homosexuality is inborn.”

“A lot of gay activists have used the idea of genetic homosexuality as a convenient argument to further their case,” he said. “This makes it harder for them to do that, because they can chastise the religious right, but it’s harder for them to chastise the APA.”

I still wait for NARTH to issue a similar position statement regarding the nature of homosexuality – multiple factors, multiple pathways, we don’t know how any of this works very well, etc.

Instead NARTH trumpets a paper saying that research leads to a conclusion that homosexuality is not innate – despite the absence of any evidence to support the “conclusion” in the paper.

NARTH’s new journal is not a new study

Seeing some of the press out on the recent NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) monograph, one might think the paper is a new study which demonstrates something that was once unclear.

Not so. The first issue of the journal is actually a three part paper which reviews a variety of research studies mixed in with website postings and newspaper articles. There is no new research in the 121 page monograph. The three parts correspond to three claims the NARTH authors, James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, and Philip Sutton, attribute to the American Psychological Association. The claims are:

1. There has been no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.

2. Efforts to change sexual orientation are harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.

3. There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.

To achieve the stated purpose, one would need to limit the review to the highest quality research which directly address each of the points. Particularly on the first two points, the paper does not do this, but rather includes any paper, or even opinion piece which supports the claims. In a subsequent article, I will review the paper in a bit more detail. Suffice to say for now, that there is nothing new in this paper.

I will note one problem that jumped out at me immediately. The NARTH report begins with the claim that scientific evidence leads to

a singular conclusion: Homosexuality is not innate, immutable or without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health. (Emphasis in the original)

However, one aspect of this “singular conclusion” – the claim homosexuality is not innate – is not covered in the body of the paper. Despite the fact that NARTH concludes that homosexuality develops after a person is born, they provide no review of the evidence which addresses that topic. From this statement and others, one could get the impression that the conclusion was decided before the review took place.

Uganda soccer association plans anti-gay campaign

A Scottish soccer coach may have to choose between his job and his beliefs regarding homosexuality. The Ugandan campaign against homosexuality now spreads to a test of belief. Read on…

Uganda FA Plan Anti-Homosexuality Campaign

Published: 4 July 2009

A Scottish football manager could lose his job as manager of the Ugandan national team unless he signs a form condeming homosexuality.

Bobby Williamson (left), the former Rangers and West Bromwich Albion star who is now head coach of the Ugandan national squad, has been asked to take part in an anti-sodomy offensive in a country where homosexuality is illegal – Uganda.

Williamson, along with every other football coach in the country, must sign a code of conduct which “denounces any support or involvement in sodomy related acts”.

The game’s ruling body acted after Isaac Omalla, a player with Horizon FC, reported his manager, Charles Ayeko, to the police, claiming to have been sexually assaulted by the older man following a match during the inter-regional championships in Lira.

Ugandan newspapers have alleged there is a homosexual culture among some players. Williamson’s employers, the Ugandan FA (FUFA), have now launched a campaign against homosexuality, insisting that all coaches take part.

Code of Conduct

“We are going to address [sodomy] in the code of conduct,” said Stone Kyambadde, the vice-chairman of the Ugandan Coaches Association. “The code will denounce any support or involvement in sodomy-related acts.”

He was backed up by FUFA spokesman, Rogers Mulindwa. “We totally condemn it,” he said. “We want evidence to pin the people involved. It’s here that we will start the clean-up.”

Williamson, who has managed Kilmarnock, Hibernian, Plymouth Argyle and Chester City, replaced Hearts manager Csaba Laszlo in the Ugandan post last year. FUFA’s document represents something of a moral dilemma for the 47-year-old Scot, who has spoken out against discrimination during his managerial career.

He is very popular in Kampala, where he lead The Cranes to victory in the Cecafa Senior Challenge Cup in January, their first such success for six years.

Hypothetical

“Sodomy is a criminal offence over there but this is the first I’ve heard of any code of conduct,” he said. “Until FUFA speak to me about that it’s a hypothetical matter and I’ll reserve my views until I’m approached.”

Click the link above to read the rest. In addition to the threats experienced by gays, freedoms are being threatened for non-gays at this point. Recently, a government minister proposed a law which would criminalize free speech regarding homosexuality and now one’s job could be threatened if one refuses to be sufficiently anti-gay.

How ironic; in this country, conservatives worry that their rights to express a belief that homosexuality is wrong might be threatened by laws favorable to homosexuality. I believe people from all sides should stand together to support freedom speech and conscience — whether here or there.

The scandal of the public evangelical – Mark Galli

Good commentary today in Christianity Today from Mark Galli.

This comes near the end of the article – do read the whole thing.

Note how one writer put it in reflecting on the Gosselin debacle. (I’ll leave the writer anonymous, because my beef is not with her.) The sentiment expressed is widespread in our movement. After rightly suggesting that the flaws of Jon and Kate reflect our movement’s flaws, she says that we must do things differently: Find new role models, practice forgiveness better, and take marriage vows more seriously. Do, do, do. Then she concludes, “Then, and only then, will Christians have something to offer the world.”

The problem, of course, is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Christians will actually do these things consistently. Not private Christians. Not public Christians—it’s only a matter of months, maybe days (!) before another scandal will be revealed in the press.

Such moral exhortations are no doubt needed, but we must never believe that “then and only then” will we Christians have something “to offer the world.” What we offer the world is not ourselves or our moral example or our spiritual integrity. What we offer the world is our broken lives, saying, “We are sinners saved by grace.” What we offer the world is Jesus Christ and him crucified.

“Be a sinner and sin boldly,” said Martin Luther, “but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here, we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. … Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

Make no mistake, this is not cheap grace. Not cheap at all—it’s free. And it’s the most precious thing we have to offer the world.

I might add that winning the culture war won’t help much either…

UPDATE: A reader sent along this web page with quotes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship. Perhaps, this page balances Galli’s piece? Can these two approaches be compatible?