Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
And, if I reject the essential nature of activity for straights, I also do so for gays.

---

Ah, therein lies the difference between us. I do not think that promiscuity is part of the 'essential nature' of sex. Promiscuity represents a distortion of that, thoroughly good, nature - as generally, sin is not essential to humanity, but is a diminishing of humanity. Sex belongs in loving relationships, for gay and straight people alike, and there are many excellent examples around of people living loving and faithful relationships which find sexual expression.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

My concern was with the position in our society that says unless you are sexually active from about the age of 13, doesn't matter with whom or how often, you are somehow falling short of being really who you are.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I think the real problem with views such as this[A NAMBLA article is quoted] and the false application of "inclusion-speak" to child abuse stems from a failure to understand the unique and important state of childhood.

It is not just about purity and protection, folks, it is about the development of a human being at a time of enormous neurological, psychological, and social developement

From birth to adolescence (and particularly between the ages of 0-8) the human brain goes through a cataclysmic series of developmental upheavals.During this time, and carrying on through adolescence , when the changes are more psychological and social, it is vitally important that a growing human be surrounded by people who require nothing from that child other than their saftey, their well-being, and their growth. They need to be surrounded by people who love them unconditionally and can be trusted to guide them toward adulthood.

When an adult forms a sexual relationship with a child, this completely fucks the whole paradigm up.

Sexual abuse of children takes away a child's abitlty to view themselves as intrisically loveable as a child of God; it becomes much easier for the child to view his/her worth on the basis of how much pleasure he/she can give another,and submarines their ability to trust.While the damage need not be irreprable, it makes growth that much harder and more painful for the person who ahs been exploited.Physical abuse aside, it is a form of psychological and spiritual rape.

What makes me angry is when people use inclusion speech to justify abusing children. It makes me equallly angry when people use pedophilia to compare with acts between consenting adults.It is completly off-the--charts inappropriate

(gee, thanks for reminding me , I should copy this to the appropriate dead horses thread)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egeria:
John said:

quote:

---

My concern was with the position in our society that says unless you are sexually active from about the age of 13, doesn't matter with whom or how often, you are somehow falling short of being really who you are.

---

This is a position not held by huge numbers of people in our society. Especially the parents of young teenagers.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tina:
So no gay priests in Forward in Faith then?

---

Clearly not otherwise they wouldn't have a double-entendre laden title like new directions.

Have you seen the colour of the web pages, every one is some bright garish eugh. Using blink tag over vast sections of it, shudder!

R

Posted                      

quote:

---

My personal opinion is that "gay", "straight", and "bi" all mean the same thing, but with different emphasis.
I don't see sexuality as distinct steps - I see it as a very large scale, with people sitting at any point along it that they wish. I would also go as far as saying that those people who claim to be at either extreme of the scale are in fact closer to the middle than most, and are forcing themselves to adopt this binary attitude to sexuality in order to cover this up.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Neil I'm perfectly aware of NARTH and their poor professional reputation within their own field. They claim to base their work on psychoanalysis but they are disowned by the American Psychoanalytic Association

The same letter also notes:

quote:

---

Increasingly, NARTH seems to be attracting membership and financial support from members of the radical religious right, who use their pronouncements as "scientific" backing for their bigoted anti-homosexual activities.

---

(This letter dates from 1997 and pre-dates the research by Shidlo and Schroeder in 2002 on the ineffectiveness and harmfulness of reparative therapy)

NARTH completely contradict statements by all other professional mental health organizations on this subject. The fact that they may have some non-conservative religious members hardly turns them into a disinterested professional group. They exist solely to push an agenda on homosexuality which has been long rejected by the major professional bodies.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Sean, I discussed NARTH earlier on this thread in a reply to Faithful Sheepdog - they haven't a shred of scientific credibility. I've quoted the relevant bit for you

---

Louise, at least you're consistent - I see that you haven't lost your touch for extreme dogmatism. Not even a "shred" of credibility. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I'm under no illusions about the highly politicised nature of the various American mental health bodies cited. This is not disinterested science, if indeed there is such a thing. It's no different in my own professional field - nuclear safety.

Sean, you'll find that no-one is neutral about NARTH. Do your own studies and make up your own mind. Here is a link to their webpage on the Spitzer study on reorientation therapy published in a standard journal. Spitzer's views are probably far removed from NARTH's, but here is a quote from his conclusions:

quote:

---

Is reorientation therapy harmful? For the participants in our study, Spitzer notes, there was no evidence of harm. "To the contrary," he says, "they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself." And because his study found considerable benefit and no harm, Spitzer said, the American Psychiatric Association should stop applying a double standard in its discouragement of reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy to confirm and solidify a gay identity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

<snip>

Yeah, all professional mental health bodies are 'highly politicised' because they don't adhere to certain religious views of yours.


<snip>

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rex Monday:
In a case like this, where FS is proposing a course of action that is known to be actively harmful to others, you have to be persistent...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
Oh. And to add to this (I was wondering where to bring this in)....

Courage Trust, who used to be part of Exodus and the ex-gay movement, have separated from them, saying that

quote:

---

"experience has proved this ["coming out" of homosexuality] to be a counter-productive approach. The result of seeking the mind of Christ for this area of ministry in the light of many years experience, together with further bible study, has been to see that God recognises and supports sincere committed relationship between gay people where there is no likelihood of the possibility of marriage."

---

They've also parted company from the Evangelical Alliance, because of this view that lesbians and gays have the same need for intimacy in relationships as anyone else.

And three cheers for them in my book, for finally being honest and admitting that for the vast majority of people, their sexual orientation cannot be altered, no matter how hard you pray.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inanna:
I do also believe that God can change some people who are deeply unhappy with their sexuality.

I was part of an online community debating the whole issue of Christianity and homosexuality, with the aim of "bridging the divide" and enabling good honest communication with people on both sides of the issue. (It's at Bridges Across if anyone wants to check it out)

And I met people there who claimed that God had healed them, and who had families etc to back up their evidence. And could show God at work in their lives, and told of how deeply unhappy they were with their sexuality prior to healing.

I also met people like myself for whom God's healing had taken the form of helping us to accept both our sexuality and our faith.

I don't believe we can limit God. I do believe that the former instance - the true "ex-gay" is incredibly rare, and that for many people, the ex-gay ministries have caused an awful lot more emotional damage than they were trying to heal.

And this even applies to its founders - the two men who ran the ex-gay group Courage (I /think/ it was that one) are now living together in a committed Christian partnership, and have apologised for the damage that their ministry caused.

It's a tough area. But I don't want to deny what God is doing in other people's lives. I also would like other people to respect what that same God is doing in mine, and how I am "working out my salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is working in me."

Peace,
Kirsti

---

quote:

---

There will always be such resilient people in any situation, and I’m even willing to bet that if Shidlo and Schroeder had had a true random sample of reparative therapy clients the percentage of resilient people would have been a bit higher. But the harm suffered by the other 155 failures of reparative therapy was often grievous. Many reported an increase in depression and guilt because of beliefs that they had somehow chosen to be especially sinful. Some developed an obsessive concern with their masculinity or femininity; some reported broken relationships with parents who they had been taught to blame for their sexual orientation. Many had increased feelings of alienation and loneliness, both from their loss of friends in the “ex-gay” community and the belief that they could never fit into society anywhere. Many had low self-esteem from believing the false information about gay and lesbian life that they had been taught. Perhaps most important for this audience, many of the two thirds who described themselves as religious suffered spiritual harm, such as loss of faith, or anger at and inability to trust God and the church.

Some of this harm was related to practices of some reparative therapists that Shidlo and Schroeder found to be unethical. These included telling patients that since they were straight-acting or religious they had to be successful; telling them that high motivation and hard work would always result in success, [list cut for brevity] and in a few cases encouraging clients to heterosexually marry as an aid to change. Perhaps one of the worst ethical violations was the giving of false information about gay and lesbian lives. Joseph Nicolosi [of NARTH - L] and his followers in particular tell their clients that gay relationships are invariably either volatile immature infatuations, or are open relationships where the partners have more sex with strangers than with each other, and that gay relationships can never possess the consistency, trust, mutuality, and sexual fidelity of heterosexual marriages.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
A Christian friend I love dearly was nearly destroyed by attempts to change his sexuality by the sort of analytic therapy NARTH espouses.

---

quote:

---

Louise said:
These 'therapies'/ministries do a disproportionate amount of damage and many act unethically which is why no reputable mental health body will touch them with a bargepole.

---

quote:

---

There are many analysts, psychiatrists, and psychologists that would like for our organizations to declare this "conversion" or "reparative" therapy unethical. However much some of us might feel this to be true, it also raises questions of state control over freedom to practice therapy and is hampered by lack of valid statistical data to prove that overall the treatment is harmful. We have anecdotal evidence, but not yet statistical data.

---

quote:

---

Louise said:
To go back to something I said on another earlier thread the response of some black people to apartheid was to use damaging skin-lightening creams to pass for white. This is in effect what these 'therapies' are offering to gay people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
A Christian friend I love dearly was nearly destroyed by attempts to change his sexuality by the sort of analytic therapy NARTH espouses.

---

This proves nothing. A few years ago my Dad nearly died on the operating table. His heart stopped twice and he lost umpteen pints of blood due to a massive haemorrhage. Was it a hellish experience? Yes. Were the surgeons right to operate? Yes. How is my Dad today? Irrepressible and, due to my ME/CFS, far healthier than I am. Just because a medical procedure is painful and difficult doesn't mean it is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

But don't take my word for it. What I've also seen is the studies which show the amount of harm these therapies do in contrast to their meagre results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog

quote:

---

Louise said:
These 'therapies'/ministries do a disproportionate amount of damage and many act unethically which is why no reputable mental health body will touch them with a bargepole.

---

Here's a quote from the letter from Ralph Roughton of the American Psychoanalytic Association, to which you linked earlier:

quote:

---

There are many analysts, psychiatrists, and psychologists that would like for our organizations to declare this "conversion" or "reparative" therapy unethical. However much some of us might feel this to be true, it also raises questions of state control over freedom to practice therapy and is hampered by lack of valid statistical data to prove that overall the treatment is harmful. We have anecdotal evidence, but not yet statistical data.

---

Clearly in some circles this form of therapy is viewed with considerable distaste. It is also equally clear that it is not unethical at present. NARTH reports a continuing demand from clients for this kind of therapy.

The psychology of abusive situations is something that I have studied. Abuse occurs in all kinds of environments reflecting all viewpoints, when the rights of a person are disrespected and ignored. Reparative therapy is no more inherently abusive than any other kind of therapy.

---

quote:

---

(This letter dates from 1997 and pre-dates the research by Shidlo and Schroeder in 2002 on the ineffectiveness and harmfulness of reparative therapy)

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog

quote:

---

Louise said:
To go back to something I said on another earlier thread the response of some black people to apartheid was to use damaging skin-lightening creams to pass for white. This is in effect what these 'therapies' are offering to gay people.

---

You're piggy-backing on the racial issue here, which is a separate subject altogether. There is no parallel betweeen the racial civil rights struggles earlier in the 20th century, and the homosexual morality issues discussed on this thread.

Race is a genetically fixed and immutable feature with no inherent moral characteristics. Homosexual behaviour, and sexual behaviour in general, is something quite different. We all have a moral choice here.

Neil

[edited for spelling]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Sometimes people in the despised group suffer so much that they will seek out any means - however damaging - in order to conform and put themselves through all kinds of cruel 'therapies' in order to be accepted, that does not let the people who advocate these cruel measures off the hook.

Here you leave the realms of 'I think its sinful and people ought to abstain' and get into promoting a psychological branch of pseudo-science which has caused great cruelty to many people.

---

quote:

---

The difference in the outcomes of Shidlo and Schroeder and Spitzer (2003) is all about sampling. Shidlo and Schroeder advertised on the Internet and other places, specifically looking for people who felt harmed by attempts to change sexual orientation. Spitzer was looking for people who felt they had changed and were happy about it. Both studies were convenience samples, meaning the authors deliberately sought a certain type of participant. Nothing is random about either study so individually they say nothing about how likely or not change is to occur.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Louise, when will you get it into your head that I do not "despise" homosexuals per se. From a Christian perspective I consider such sexual activity to be immoral behaviour. Is that such a difficult concept for you to get your head round?

All I am saying is that some people will benefit from this type of therapy and that it should be available to an informed client. At no point have I advocated that anyone should be subject to hateful, cruel or violent treatment. Your misrepresentation of my views here is beginning to get very tiresome.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
What about the cultic sexual activity that is forbidden in Leviticus and to which Paul alludes to in Romans 1?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

In his proponent testimony, Dr. Warren Throckmorton spoke to you about what he
purported are the views of the mental health community and the results of the scientific study of homosexuality. These views are neither mainstream, nor well informed, nor based in good science, nor representative of the views of organized psychology. As an Ohio Psychologist, I come to you today to present and clarify the professional and scientifically based views of the mental health community, with the hope that your vote on this bill will be based.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Callan said:
You say that homosexuality is immoral from a Christian perspective. Fair enough. But you also think that some homosexuals will benefit from therapy which will change their orientation. However it is by no means clear that their orientation can be changed and those groups offering such therapy tend to be Christians who see homosexuality as a condition which can be fixed or cured.

This is problematic because if homosexuality is not a condition and cannot be fixed then, effectively, groups offering such therapy are encouraging gay people to undergo a species of 'therapy' which cannot deliver what is advertised and does violence to them, in the sense that it attempts to change something which is not susceptible to change.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Callan, there is an unfortunate confusion in your post. It is partly caused by the wide semantic range of the word therapy, and also by the wide range of the word ex-gay, especially when the latter is used pejoratively.

---

Which is why I put 'therapy' in quotes and didn't use the word 'ex-gay'.

The groups you cited such as TfT and EnCourage are the sort of thing I had in mind when I suggested encouraging people to live out celibate lives and manage their sexual desires. It is the second class of intervention which is more problematic as there is a tidy body of evidence which suggests that such intervention can do more harm than good.

Whilst there may be evidence that some people change (I'll have a decko at the book you mentioned, should a copy fall into my hands - I've got both Holloways on the bookshelf, so I think I can cope. ) it would appear that success in such an enterprise is by no means guaranteed and you yourself concede that damage could be done by an abusive or incompetent practicioner. It therefore seems to be the case that the TfT/ EnCourage model is going to be more helpful than any attempt to change a persons orientation. The data on orientation change seems too ambiguous to suggest anything else.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
How many straight people posting on this thread seriously think their heterosexual orientation can be reversed via psychotherapy?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It is immensely complex and infinitely variable.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seán D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
What about the cultic sexual activity that is forbidden in Leviticus and to which Paul alludes to in Romans 1?

---

This is what he is alluding to in your opinion. This is hardly a proven fact.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
How many straight people posting on this thread seriously think their heterosexual orientation can be reversed via psychotherapy?

Suppose the worst paranoid fears of Fred Phelps and co turned true, and society and churches started persecuting straight people.

L.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Leviticus holiness code is preceded by 'don't do what the Canaanites and Egyptians do' Paul is writing about idol worship in Romans 1, and one of its consequences is mentioned. It isn't just opinion, it is opinion based on the material.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
It's like telling someone who is ambidextrous that they must only use their right hand or they will be committing some great sin and that they need therapy to suppress the urge to carry out some tasks left-handed.
L

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

There is of course a difference between being forced into therapy with a therapist who has an agenda and a gay or bisexual person choosing therapy not in order to change but in order to come to a more self-aware and healthy understanding and acceptance of themselves, and I do know people in the latter group who have experienced varying degrees of "change" in their sexual feelings as a result of this.

---