Category: sexual identity

Rev. Hutcherson plans (another) Day of Silence protest

The SnoValley Star reports that Rev. Ken Hutcherson plans to protest his daughter’s high school again next year on the Day of Silence.

At a May 8 school board meeting, the Rev. Ken Hutcherson vowed to continue to protest the Day of Silence in coming years if the Mount Si High School Gay Straight Alliance holds it during school hours.
In fact, Hutcherson, who led about 100 protestors during the annual event late last month, vowed an even larger presence in the future.
“As parents, next year, if you let this happen when school is happening, I’m going to have to organize well enough there will be no kids coming to school,” he said at the meeting.

Some opposed to the Day of Silence say it is disrupting to school for students to be silent during classroom breaks. How is a protest where no kids go to school an improvement?
I am aware that there are some people in this area that are already planning to be involved in the Golden Rule Pledge next year. Some may even remain silent. So I am pretty sure some kids will be in school. My hope is that some evangelical parents will be passing out Golden Rule Pledge cards where they are most needed – at the protest.

Misconceptions about the Sexual Identity Therapy framework

In the “reporting” by Gay City News regarding the now-cancelled APA symposium, a claim was made about the Sexual Identity Therapy framework. The symposium, approved by the APA program committee 7 months ago, was to include a presentation of this framework and related issues which would have allowed for questions and discussion.
The GCN said I am an advocate for sexual identity therapy and described it this way:
“Sexual Identity Therapy,” which he [Throckmorton] says he has successfully applied to help patients “alter homosexual feelings or behaviors” and live their lives “heterosexually” with “only very few weak instances of homosexual attraction.”
This is false. The article attributes to me claims about SIT I have never made. In fact, the SIT framework says this:

Prior to outlining the recommendations, let us define what they are not. They are not sexual reorientation therapy protocols in disguise.

The SIT framework, first contemplated formally in 2005, does not advance any means to do what the GCN article references (“alter homosexual feelings or behavior”), nor do they provide any reference for their assertion. Putting these phrases in quotes makes it appear that I have been quoted in reference to SIT when in fact that is not true. The SIT framework provides an ethical set of guidelines for therapists and clients pursuing a variety of goals but does not prescribe any specific goals. Some clients may wish to alter their sexual behavior but SIT does not prescribe this end unless it is the objective of an individual client.
The article said that there is no research support for the SIT framework and while it is true that we have no outcome studies as yet. It is misleading to portray it as being without research foundation. A review of the SIT framework will demonstrate that we have taken into account current research regarding sexual orientation, sexual identity and specify that clients should be informed about the positions of professional associations regarding homosexuality.
Those wishing to characterize the framework should read it first. Those with specific questions or criticisms, please alert either Mark Yarhouse or me.

APA travelogue

This will be short. This morning I spoke at the Christian Medical Society breakfast along with Dr. Al Mohler. We presented abbreviated versions of the remarks originally planned for the APA symposium. From there, I had conversations with several psychiatrists who were quite enthusiastic about the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework. Without naming names, I learned that there is a group of gay psychiatrists and observers who were not happy that the symposium did not happen.
Something I want to mention is that I presented a similar program regarding the SIT framwork at the American Psychological Association last August in San Francisco. At that meeting, there were no protests and few distortions of my views and work. Why the difference here? Part of it may have related to Dr. Mohler’s presence but I am struck by the extreme differences at this APA.
I enjoyed meeting the participants of the symposium and reflecting on the turn of events.

The APA symposium on homosexuality, therapy and religion has been cancelled

What a difference a day makes.

The American Psychiatric Association program Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension has been pulled by chair David Scasta. My understanding is that he was asked (by whom, I am still not clear) to pull the program because of increasing concerns about it. I am still hearing more about the reasons and hope to know something more clearly soon.

Dr. Scasta did tell me that the APA’s position is that the program was not pulled because gay activists were unhappy with it. At this moment, I am skeptical.

More to come…

On science and religion

In his book, Rock of Ages, Stephen Jay Gould has this to say about science and religion:

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain those facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve. Similarly, while scientists must operate with ethical principles, some specific to their practice, the validity of these principles can never be inferred from the factual discoveries of science.

I have been accused recently of being a religious bigot with an aim to furtively introduce religious dogma behind a scientific facade. In addition to making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims (“…[I] criticized NARTH in order to make way for his own version of reparative therapy by another name”), Peterson says I put religious beliefs before science in thinking about matters of sexuality. I have addressed these matters before but I want to do so again in a more general manner.

Briefly and generally, about science and religion, I suggest that science concerns itself with “what is;” while religion is more concerned with “what ought to be.” Science is descriptive, religion prescriptive. As Gould notes above, values cannot be reliably inferred from the factual discoveries of science. Einstein said similarly: “For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.”

For those who believe science directs moral choosing, I would be interested in hearing how individuals should gain their moral compass from a fact or finding of research.