This apology is a really big deal.
Thank you, Mr. Chambers, for having the integrity to _not_ play the oppressive, manipulative "we've always believed this way" card popular among accountability-avoidant PR departments. Thank you for making efforts over the last year to shed or distance yourself from the disingenuous and serpentine wordcrafting popular among certain of your peers.
I don't have any illusion that Chambers is moving towards embracing same-sex relationships as a spiritually ideal, Biblically approved option, and I still disagree with some fundamentals of his views, but I very much respect his persistent efforts to build his organization's integrity despite some very harsh criticism from those who have been his associates and fellows.
I heard him speak at a conference in Salt Lake almost 7 years ago now, and his rhetoric and tone seem to have shifted towards greater authenticity and frankness since then. He recently had the courage to admit, after years of evasive wording about "change", that few if any people actually change their orientation, at least not to the point of eradicating same-sex attractions. I believe many stick with the "change" angle with the intent to offer possibly life-saving hope for another way a few seeking souls may not have considered, downplaying or omitting the phenomenon of persisting same-sex attraction as irrelevant to their success in living according to their religious paths. But it's not irrelevant when heroes and careers are made or broken by a standard that was more slick marketing than human reality, or when an intensely conflicted young gay man can't understand why he hasn't had enough faith or put in enough effort to achieve what so many supposedly have, and he feels like a failure or loses all hope for happiness as he perceives it. Chambers' admission was not a hair-splitting, nit-picking quibble that cowed to some "gay agenda": it's a paradigm-shifting, potentially life-saving truth. He also announced Exodus would be dropping sexual orientation change efforts as a focus of their ministry, either de facto or explicit.
He isn't changing his personal, religious beliefs, as far as I can tell, and he may well intend for all of this to better position him and others to coach those desiring paths they believe to be Biblically congruent. Nonetheless, he offers many vulnerable apologies to a wounded and potentially unforgiving audience, such as the following:
"I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly 'on my side' who called you names like sodomite—or worse...
"I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine...
"And then there is the trauma that I have caused. There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions..."
Those, I believe, are the words of someone who knows what it means to be a true man.
Showing posts with label Exodus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exodus. Show all posts
20 June 2013
11 April 2012
Please do not hinge your hope on "change"
When the researcher admits validity of criticism and expressly requests to retract his former conclusions, it's time to reconsider: http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/04/11/robert-spitzer-retracts-2001-ex-gay-study/.
I've noticed a subtle and gradual (if not somewhat disingenuous-seeming) shift in the usage of the word "change" in organizations like Evergreen and Exodus, apparently to sidestep or move away from discussion of reversing orientation, as more voices come out in testimony that few if any people actually change in the way the word has traditionally been used in that setting. There are still organizations like NARTH which endeavor to amass evidence in support of eradicating "sexualized" same-sex attraction in favor of an emerging heterosexual orientation, so it's not like this was the last leg, as some are claiming, but when foundational voices are retracting their conclusions, it certainly raises questions.
None of this should change your freedom to choose how to respond to your attractions, but my direct observation of and personal conversations with dozens and dozens confirms what a long-time ex-gay leader recently said about the popular claim among certain organizations and groups that "change is possible": http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/10/10/former-love-in-action-director-i%E2%80%99ve-never-met-a-man-who-experienced-a-change-from-homosexual-to-heterosexual/.
I've noticed a subtle and gradual (if not somewhat disingenuous-seeming) shift in the usage of the word "change" in organizations like Evergreen and Exodus, apparently to sidestep or move away from discussion of reversing orientation, as more voices come out in testimony that few if any people actually change in the way the word has traditionally been used in that setting. There are still organizations like NARTH which endeavor to amass evidence in support of eradicating "sexualized" same-sex attraction in favor of an emerging heterosexual orientation, so it's not like this was the last leg, as some are claiming, but when foundational voices are retracting their conclusions, it certainly raises questions.
After about eight years involved in support groups and gay Mormon social circles, the only two people I've met who claim to have changed from homo- to heterosexual are Journey Into Manhood founders, and I haven't sat down for a real, personal conversation with them to find out if that's even what they really mean when they say they "identify as a straight male", though they know very well how vulnerable, conflicted men will hear it and yearn for it. The claims of those I know of but haven't met are such that any retraction from them would mean loss of therapy fees, book royalties, speaking fees, and the public pride and championing of activist loved ones, so I see a strong incentive for them to convince themselves and others. But I have little or no justification to claim they're just bald-faced liars, and if I could sit down with one, I would listen and try to understand what they mean or have experienced. They might mean that when the temptation to look at erotic images arises, the images tempting them are of women. Maybe they mean men are no longer interesting to them, and they feel magnetically drawn to women now. They might mean they're attracted to men primarily but express that attraction in only friendly ways and deny or refuse to entertain, in any way, the romantic or sexual yearnings that occasionally arise, or call them something else. They may mean they have directed, suppressed, and "re-framed" their attractions to such an extent that they genuinely hardly think about it anymore and live a contentedly "straight" life. But even if they mean the latter, I know few, if any, who achieve that stably before marrying a woman, or before their early thirties, so I'm left wondering how much of that is personal effort and how much is decreased libido and more present priorities and stresses. Unfortunately, those who claim to have changed are understandably guarded, having been verbally assaulted and publicly mocked, so I don't expect to be able to sit down with one.
Some people I personally know have temporarily claimed, in snapshot testimonials, to have eradicated most or all of their same-sex attraction while increasing opposite-sex attraction. But they later privately admitted they'd over-interpreted a decrease in overall sex drive, or increased opposite-sex curiosity or openness (not attraction), or behavioral changes and relationship improvements. They'd mistaken relative absence of obsession and impulsion for lack of same-sex attraction. Nonetheless, saying I've never seen anyone actually change from homosexual to heterosexual is not the same as saying it's absolutely impossible. And I can only speak from my own experience and what others have told me about theirs. I just have never seen anyone "change" in the popularly understood and deliberately intended marketing use of the word, and others who have been on the front lines of larger efforts have periodically made public admissions of similar observation.
Those who speak out in support of "change" use such cleverly crafted wording to make the intended meaning of "change" so nebulous as to obscure any distinction between their change and the sexual, spiritual growth of my straight friends. Heterosexual friends have, seemingly likewise, reached points in their lives when they were no longer troubled by thoughts contrary to their belief system and dominated by obsessive drooling. They've learned emotional intimacy and authenticity and learned not to act on every sexual urge. They're no less "straight": they just...matured.
I don't point this out to keep people from taking a path I chose not to take or to defend my own. I don't point this out to slander individuals. I don't point this out to push legalization of marriage for same-sex couples. I point this out because I've watched friends repeatedly engage in an exhausting effort to change their orientation which led to isolation, depression, emotional dishonesty and detachment, all of which they were convinced would be worth it. But they haven't changed in the ways they hoped, even if they denied they hoped it. I point this out also because I personally know what it's like to see no good to be gained from casting doubt on an ideal goal just because I and everybody I knew hadn't reached it, when in reality nobody among us had reached the legendary goal. I point this out because I believe getting caught up in the ideal of being "fully released from the temptation of same-sex attraction" completely distracts from the truer, more practical and helpful discussion of "whether or not it ever changes, what now?"
If hope is only found in eradication of same-sex attraction, then I know nobody who has real hope. I concede in a theoretical way that it can possibly change for some, but if so, it's very, very few. Not one person among the dozens I know has changed their orientation, not after Journey Into Manhood, years of therapy, years of quietly doing their own thing, or years of being married to a woman. You might want hope it can change. But for most of you, even among those who believe you must never engage in same-sex romantic or sexual relationships, it just won't. Other things will change. Your ability to cope. Your openness to a relationship without the sexual chemistry you yearn for. Your openness to finding real attraction with just the right person to make it work. Your emotional stability. Your social network and support system. Your religious beliefs. Your communication skills. Your relationship intimacy. Your emotional intelligence. Your decisions. Your goals. There's a lot of hope to be found in those kinds of changes.
Maybe one day, someone will figure out a reproducible way to eradicate erotic, romantic, or sexual same-sex attraction, and political pressure will not stifle it. Maybe some day, neurology will advance enough to re-wire anyone for heterosexuality for those who want it (I wonder how many people would choose to become bisexual to increase their options...huh...oh, right: topic at hand). It's conceivable that there will be a way to turn same-sex attraction into opposite-sex attraction. But today, it's just not happening for at least most people, probably all but a very select few, and possibly not for anyone. Maybe a few have changed. Maybe they're more righteous and hard-working. Maybe they wanted it more. Maybe they had just the right combination of therapy, support, desire, belief, chemistry, diligence, divine intervention, and experience. Or maybe they're just an anomaly who understandably think their coincidental effort and desire earned or caused the change. Maybe they're more adept at self-deception or repression. Maybe they're twisting words to make a buck. I don't know, and I don't much care. I just know my friends--the people I personally care about--haven't experienced the coveted 180 degree orientation change...or even 100. And I gave up on assuming it might be due to their supposed "lack of" anything.
Hope, I believe, is not found in the message that your "orientation" can and must "change", or that you can and should attempt to eradicate your same-sex attraction or even make opposite-sex attraction stronger than your same-sex attraction. I believe hope is found in being told you are free to choose to live what you believe and want and that there are ways to make the best of a difficult situation. Hope is found in recognizing the challenges ahead and trusting that you have the strength and support of people who care, not only to endure but to find fullness and joy in life. Hope is being assured you are not a simpering victim of the lions of gay corruption or religious tyranny. My hope was found in facing a tough probability or potential reality--that this might not completely change--dealing with it head-on, being open to what changes might be possible, and refusing to hinge my happiness and spiritual confidence on a specific kind of change that frankly does not come to most despite years of effort. Try to change, if you feel you must, but please, please do not hinge your success, happiness, or self image on eradicating all homosexual feelings.
Change or not, you can do this, and you can find truth and happiness. Something may have to give. You may have to reevaluate the way you look at some things, what you believe to be true, what challenges you're willing to take on, how you see yourself, what attachments you might need to let go of, or what you most want. But hang in there, and know that no matter if you're celibate, married in the temple, adopting children with your same sex partner, an all-around slut, or anywhere in between, you're in really good company if you still and always will most often feel something more instinctual and attractive for a hottie of the same sex walking down the street than a hottie of the opposite sex.
12 October 2011
Conversion therapy's elusive unicorn
From Facebook:
----------------------
In response to comments in a previous post, this describes my experience and perspective well.
O-Mo Whatever the cause of homosexuality/same-sex attractions, whatever the life choices, and whatever the malleability or future possibilities of change through therapy techniques and neuroscience yet to be discovered, the reality of _today_, as I see it, is that people do not change from mostly same-sex attracted/gay to mostly opposite-sex attracted/straight. Some claim to have changed but later recant, and a few have staked their income and reputation in the claim and persist in it. But when pressed, I have found more wordsmithing and perspective reframing for functional/behavioral change or cognitive adjustment than actual change in attractions. Still, I don't believe this should be used as ammunition to shoot down someone's personal, honest, carefully considered direction for their life in congruence with their beliefs, values, desires, and goals.
Guy1 People make this so damn complicated.... :-P for me it all boils down to what gets you off. ;) I've never had a conflict of faith and sexuality, of course, so I don't really understand the intricacies involved...to me, it seems like a simple no-brainer.
O-Mo Afterthought: While my observation matches his, I would not say, as he does, that "none of this can occur with homosexuality" with a more accurate, "I have never seen it occur."
Gal1 I agree... This brings up some very intruguing differences between attraction and behavior. Attraction - well, there's no need to "repent" of that, since it's something you can't change. Behavior, however, is something you are always accountable for. People will try to reason their way out of a lot of things, but ultimately you are the one in control of your actions.
I also like the point made toward the end of the article, that it is possible to be in love with someone you are not sexually attracted to. It's an interesting thought, in a culture that overexaggerates the importance of sexuality. When it really comes down to it, there is SO much more to love, true love anyway. If it's just sexuality involved, that is lust. Big difference.
O-Mo Yeah, Guy1, I've run into that same confusion with others who either were not raised in a homosexuality-shunning church or left at an early age. I don't know how to convey it. But even without religious conflicts, I've known some to struggle with what they really want.
Guy2 This is some good stuff O-Mo. I've actually had a lot of these thoughts on my mind the past few days. I have found so much peace and happiness finally in my life doing exactly what I have always been taught was wrong. Letting go of that "battle" between good and evil and just following what I feel is right in my heart has been such a blessing for me.
Guy1 I grew up in small-town mid-america. I never knew what gay was until I got online at the age of 15... I always knew what I found attractive, though. Perhaps it was because I grew up with such a streak of individuality that being gay never really bothered me, even though family and friends spoke ill of it once it started hitting popular culture. My mom tried to get me to go to church and her side of the family is pretty religious, but it never stuck with me. I only went for the grape juice and crackers. I was never able to think of any of the stories as literal...they just seemed like good stories and I enjoyed reading all sorts of books back then.
I was certainly a prude throughout my teen years and the first couple of college, but that wasn't because I thought I should be with girls! :) They never did anything for me...
O-Mo Gal1, I want my spouse to be passionate with me, and even...dare I say...lusty. ;-) I don't care to downplay sexuality as part of a whole relationship because I really do value it, particularly as an intimate and bonding (not to mention certainly fun!) experience between partners built on trust, familiarity, and mutual investment. But I also know that if I _had_ to choose between sexual passion and, say, open communication or tender affection, sexual passion does not win out as a highest priority. I just hope I don't have to choose. ;-) Incidentally, I do know some guys who, despite still being primarily attracted to men, quite enjoy sexual intimacy with their wives, even if it's often not to the same level as it had been with men. Beliefs, choices, priorities...
O-Mo More on this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/10/37766
Guy1 It's certainly not unheard of to have an open relationship wherein there is emotional intimacy with your primary partner and then the allowance of both parties to have physical intimacy with others outside of the partnership. This happens in many relationship regardless of whether the couple is same orientation or mixed orientation.... Sometimes people love each other deeply and want to build a life together but don't click physically. Certainly isn't a reason to give up the relationship if both parties want to stay together.
I think if more people accepted the idea of "nontraditional" relationships, there would be less of a problem with divorce and you'd see more families sticking together (and being stronger). Just my opinion, of course. :)
O-Mo Ha, true. But again: religious or personal conflicts can prevent that from being considered an option. But that's why I have always found strength in remembering that I am imposing some of my own restrictions and therefore am not merely a victim.
Guy1 Sometimes we must work through conflicts for the betterment of ourselves and our relationships. ;) Flexibility in life is a good thing! Flexibility and conflict...always makes for a good story.
O-Mo It does, indeed. But can you stretch too much too fast and end up spraining something? ;-) Or bend something not meant to be bent and break something you shouldn't have broken? Heh.
Guy1 TIme and lube. Everything's possible with time and lube. (per Dan Savage) :-P
O-Mo NARTH has responded to this notion without actually mentioning it at all: http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/. I see problems in such follow-up studies, mainly that I have known guys who would have put themselves in the "Success: conversion" category who, when I pressed, conceded that their new attraction to women was more a curiosity and 'openness to the possibility' than an actual drive, but since that was more than they'd ever known, they considered it an 'increase in heterosexual attraction'. And...let's just say you needed only watch their eyes at a party to see which sex caught their inadvertent gaze more often. ;-) I also wonder how many respondents are married and therefore are not only self-limited in their life choices and self-identification but are measuring their progress not by generalized attraction but by attraction to their wife, specifically. Increased heterosexual function and intimacy with their spouse is wonderful and should be acknowledged rather than dismissed for political agenda, but I just don't see it as the same thing as 'becoming heterosexual'.
NARTH » Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
narth.com
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Eviden...See More
O-Mo Let me clarify one point in my last paragraph: "appropriately and understandably self-limited". :-)
Gal1 You can be just as much a victim of your own "self-limiting" choices as you can from others'... just sayin' :P
----------------------
In response to comments in a previous post, this describes my experience and perspective well.
Former Love in Action Director: I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual
John Smid was once the director of Love in Action a longtime Exodus International affiliate based in Memphis, TN. I have always found John’s candor refreshing. My first contact with John was at an Exodus meeting where he questioned the slogan, “change is possible.”
O-Mo Whatever the cause of homosexuality/same-sex attractions, whatever the life choices, and whatever the malleability or future possibilities of change through therapy techniques and neuroscience yet to be discovered, the reality of _today_, as I see it, is that people do not change from mostly same-sex attracted/gay to mostly opposite-sex attracted/straight. Some claim to have changed but later recant, and a few have staked their income and reputation in the claim and persist in it. But when pressed, I have found more wordsmithing and perspective reframing for functional/behavioral change or cognitive adjustment than actual change in attractions. Still, I don't believe this should be used as ammunition to shoot down someone's personal, honest, carefully considered direction for their life in congruence with their beliefs, values, desires, and goals.
Guy1 People make this so damn complicated.... :-P for me it all boils down to what gets you off. ;) I've never had a conflict of faith and sexuality, of course, so I don't really understand the intricacies involved...to me, it seems like a simple no-brainer.
O-Mo Afterthought: While my observation matches his, I would not say, as he does, that "none of this can occur with homosexuality" with a more accurate, "I have never seen it occur."
Gal1 I agree... This brings up some very intruguing differences between attraction and behavior. Attraction - well, there's no need to "repent" of that, since it's something you can't change. Behavior, however, is something you are always accountable for. People will try to reason their way out of a lot of things, but ultimately you are the one in control of your actions.
I also like the point made toward the end of the article, that it is possible to be in love with someone you are not sexually attracted to. It's an interesting thought, in a culture that overexaggerates the importance of sexuality. When it really comes down to it, there is SO much more to love, true love anyway. If it's just sexuality involved, that is lust. Big difference.
O-Mo Yeah, Guy1, I've run into that same confusion with others who either were not raised in a homosexuality-shunning church or left at an early age. I don't know how to convey it. But even without religious conflicts, I've known some to struggle with what they really want.
Guy2 This is some good stuff O-Mo. I've actually had a lot of these thoughts on my mind the past few days. I have found so much peace and happiness finally in my life doing exactly what I have always been taught was wrong. Letting go of that "battle" between good and evil and just following what I feel is right in my heart has been such a blessing for me.
Guy1 I grew up in small-town mid-america. I never knew what gay was until I got online at the age of 15... I always knew what I found attractive, though. Perhaps it was because I grew up with such a streak of individuality that being gay never really bothered me, even though family and friends spoke ill of it once it started hitting popular culture. My mom tried to get me to go to church and her side of the family is pretty religious, but it never stuck with me. I only went for the grape juice and crackers. I was never able to think of any of the stories as literal...they just seemed like good stories and I enjoyed reading all sorts of books back then.
I was certainly a prude throughout my teen years and the first couple of college, but that wasn't because I thought I should be with girls! :) They never did anything for me...
O-Mo Gal1, I want my spouse to be passionate with me, and even...dare I say...lusty. ;-) I don't care to downplay sexuality as part of a whole relationship because I really do value it, particularly as an intimate and bonding (not to mention certainly fun!) experience between partners built on trust, familiarity, and mutual investment. But I also know that if I _had_ to choose between sexual passion and, say, open communication or tender affection, sexual passion does not win out as a highest priority. I just hope I don't have to choose. ;-) Incidentally, I do know some guys who, despite still being primarily attracted to men, quite enjoy sexual intimacy with their wives, even if it's often not to the same level as it had been with men. Beliefs, choices, priorities...
O-Mo More on this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/10/10/37766
Guy1 It's certainly not unheard of to have an open relationship wherein there is emotional intimacy with your primary partner and then the allowance of both parties to have physical intimacy with others outside of the partnership. This happens in many relationship regardless of whether the couple is same orientation or mixed orientation.... Sometimes people love each other deeply and want to build a life together but don't click physically. Certainly isn't a reason to give up the relationship if both parties want to stay together.
I think if more people accepted the idea of "nontraditional" relationships, there would be less of a problem with divorce and you'd see more families sticking together (and being stronger). Just my opinion, of course. :)
O-Mo Ha, true. But again: religious or personal conflicts can prevent that from being considered an option. But that's why I have always found strength in remembering that I am imposing some of my own restrictions and therefore am not merely a victim.
Guy1 Sometimes we must work through conflicts for the betterment of ourselves and our relationships. ;) Flexibility in life is a good thing! Flexibility and conflict...always makes for a good story.
O-Mo It does, indeed. But can you stretch too much too fast and end up spraining something? ;-) Or bend something not meant to be bent and break something you shouldn't have broken? Heh.
Guy1 TIme and lube. Everything's possible with time and lube. (per Dan Savage) :-P
O-Mo NARTH has responded to this notion without actually mentioning it at all: http://narth.com/2011/10/2061/. I see problems in such follow-up studies, mainly that I have known guys who would have put themselves in the "Success: conversion" category who, when I pressed, conceded that their new attraction to women was more a curiosity and 'openness to the possibility' than an actual drive, but since that was more than they'd ever known, they considered it an 'increase in heterosexual attraction'. And...let's just say you needed only watch their eyes at a party to see which sex caught their inadvertent gaze more often. ;-) I also wonder how many respondents are married and therefore are not only self-limited in their life choices and self-identification but are measuring their progress not by generalized attraction but by attraction to their wife, specifically. Increased heterosexual function and intimacy with their spouse is wonderful and should be acknowledged rather than dismissed for political agenda, but I just don't see it as the same thing as 'becoming heterosexual'.
NARTH » Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
narth.com
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Eviden...See More
O-Mo Let me clarify one point in my last paragraph: "appropriately and understandably self-limited". :-)
Gal1 You can be just as much a victim of your own "self-limiting" choices as you can from others'... just sayin' :P
15 November 2010
Ted Cox presentation on JIM and ex-gay movement
I've found this presentation by Ted Cox, a straight, ex-LDS writer who went to a JIM weekend undercover and shares his experience and interpretations, pretty interesting, although he does tend to fall into the tendency to dismiss ideas based on personal choices of certain of those who espouse and promulgate them, and he clearly has a bias. But so do the creators of JIM, so...y'know. One thing I find interesting is that I've found myself nodding at many points but saying, "Eh, now wait a minute, that's not entirely on-point," at others.
If you're uncomfortable with some crude language and humor, you might want to skip over the first 2 1/2 minutes. In fact, up until about 4:45 of part 1 is just intro stuff that's not necessarily relevant. There's incidental language throughout the rest, but nothing too in-your-face, from what I've seen in the first 6 parts so far. To get to the rest of the parts, either watch this until the end and follow the links in the video, or click on the video to bring up a YouTube page with some of them listed on the right.
If you're uncomfortable with some crude language and humor, you might want to skip over the first 2 1/2 minutes. In fact, up until about 4:45 of part 1 is just intro stuff that's not necessarily relevant. There's incidental language throughout the rest, but nothing too in-your-face, from what I've seen in the first 6 parts so far. To get to the rest of the parts, either watch this until the end and follow the links in the video, or click on the video to bring up a YouTube page with some of them listed on the right.
25 October 2010
The pitfall of dismissiveness
Observation: talk to any random person on the street, and they don't know anything about Evergreen, Exodus, Love Won Out, or reparative therapy. Never heard of it. Talk to a gay person about them: some have heard, but the vast majority haven't even given it a second thought and chalk it up to bigots and self-loathers who would strip them of the happiness they've found in learning to accept themselves and learning that God accepts them. Talk to an LDS or formerly LDS gay person who was in the church in the last ten years but is same-sex dating, and they've most likely heard of it, and many of them have some strongly worded opinions about them, but relatively few of them have ever been to an Evergreen Conference or read a book by or been counseled by a reputable reparative therapist (now now, don't jump on the 'oxymoron' jokes). Generally, they're completely dismissive of efforts to live a heterosexual lifestyle as "lying to one's self", and they're confident those who promote reparative therapy or a self-denial approach have all been long-since debunked as a bunch of quacks, and only desperate people could want to try to live the heterosexual lifestyle.
THE DISMISSAL GAME
It's a classic error, really, in any society or group: the lack of effort to really explore the assertions made because...hey...it's obvious it's all bunk because look: an authoritative organization says it's often harmful, and I know tons of people who tried it and thought they were changing but ultimately decided they were fooling themselves and are happier since "accepting themselves". Of course, they don't think about the fact that OF COURSE that's who they know. Are they really going to run into the people who are still at it and purposefully and mostly happily living the way they believe they're supposed to?
Others have said, "Every gay guy I know who got married did OK for a while but just couldn't sustain it and either suffered through a lonely, awful marriage or he eventually broke it off, often after there were kids involved, and was happier overall but carried the regrets of a broken home. Every one." I've asked them, "Did any of them openly discuss their homosexuality with their wives beforehand?" The answer? Nope. And again, what of the guys who have had successful marriages? Do they run in gay social circles? They do exist, you know. Do I think they're much rarer than the more tragic stories? Yes, I do, but they exist, and perhaps in increasing numbers as they find healthier ways to live their alternative-alternative lifestyle.
WON'T THEY BE SURPRISED?
But here's the problem: when the whole argument is based on, "No gay guy can really marry a woman and stay happily married very long," or, "It's so tragic when people can't accept who they are and live miserable, self-loathing lives," guess what happens when the people who've heard that and nothing else about reparative therapy go to a conference like Evergreen's or Love Won Out, and they personally meet dozens of people who seem completely genuine and sincere and say, "I do exist, and there are increasingly many of us," and they are presented with statistics and theories which fit the patterns in their own lives. Suddenly, it becomes clear to these newcomers that the outspoken gay people had no idea what they were talking about, and the reparatives are not only disarmingly charming but are surprisingly intelligent. Suddenly, everything they've heard before may feel like a big lie, designed to deceive them from giving these good people a chance to show them a better way...
IF I CLOSE MY EYES, YOU'LL GO AWAY
Of course, I've seen this same phenomenon everywhere, particularly in politics and religion. I think sometimes we think that to actually address an "opponent's" arguments would be to validate them, so it's more convincing to just dismiss them and scoff at their claims or satirize them while knocking down straw men. But when someone investigates and finds validity in their arguments, and sees that nobody has bothered to refute those arguments on their logical merits, they are likely to draw the conclusion that nobody has refuted them because there is no refutation.
Maybe it's because opponents' claims are actually complex, and the refutation even more complex, and it's easier to say, "Trust us, they're not right," than to say, "Fine, here's the evidence and analysis, and certain things they're saying are rational, but their conclusions are drawn way beyond what's supported by research," or whatever. Goes for people on both sides of most issues, as far as I can tell.
ARE THERE RATIONAL RESPONSES?
So setting aside the emotion-charged rhetoric and attacks on ex-gay crusaders who go on vacations with RentBoys, where are the rational responses to the claims made at an Evergreen Conference, for example, or Joseph Nicolosi's methods? I do know there are some responses to their claims because I've found some, but they're not the arguments you typically find, and it seems a bit subjective as to whom you believe or which scientific, replicable studies you glean statistics from and how you interpret the numbers and personal stories of people who say, "I don't know about the numbers, but X worked for me, and I'm happy."
There's no Anti-Evergreen conference where you can go get charged up and hear it all packaged in an organized response, buoyed by the sense that you've found rational arguments nobody else has bothered to piece together and enjoy the fellowship of others who are in the know. There are few web sites, if any, dedicated to responding to the claims of ex-gay ministries or reparative therapists on the merits of their foundational theories and statistical support rather than relying on emotionally-charged rhetoric and exposing supposed hypocrisy of their promulgators.
I have my own theories about certain things, and I want to know how to find out if studies have been done along the lines of my questions but haven't found anything researched. Is that because nobody gives their claims enough credibility to bother investing money for research to refute them? Is it because the research has been done and is old news and I just don't know where to find it? Is it because it's just a barely newborn field of research, wide open for real investigation to test claims and better understand the human psyche?
LOGIC ASIDE, THERE'S SOMETHING LARGER
Of course, there's another facet to this on top of any rational approach: Evergreen offers shining faces and happy countenances, a grand battle cry to join the army of God and press forth to Celestial Glory and eternal joy. What does "being gay" offer that can compare to that grandeur and "larger than myself" "eternal glory" sense of mission and purpose?
LET THE QUESTIONS FLY
Maybe if those who do not agree with Evergreen were a little less stubbornly zealous, there might be fewer who are surprised when they discover Evergreen to consist of some apparently very good, intelligent, self-determined people, which has made it easier for presenters to say, "See? The gay people who want you to be miserable like unto them have lied to you about who we are, so what else have they been lying about to spread their dogma?" I know you may not believe it's worth the effort, but I kind of wish more people had been to Evergreen and could witness how reasonable they are in so many ways, even if you disagree with their interpretations of data or underlying theories and the way they connect them to the data.
So, in the interest of finding out which ideas are straw men and which are critical points of discussion, or addressing the issues in a rational way rather than foolishly thinking so many chumps are "duped" by "stupid" theories and mirages of happiness, let's address not just our emotional reactions or dogmatic adherence to gay-influenced APA committee edicts but address the actual issues, ask the critical questions, respond to the science and psychology, and risk being wrong or escalating and accelerating the intellectual arms race.
...Tomorrow or the next day, 'cause I'm tired now.
THE DISMISSAL GAME
It's a classic error, really, in any society or group: the lack of effort to really explore the assertions made because...hey...it's obvious it's all bunk because look: an authoritative organization says it's often harmful, and I know tons of people who tried it and thought they were changing but ultimately decided they were fooling themselves and are happier since "accepting themselves". Of course, they don't think about the fact that OF COURSE that's who they know. Are they really going to run into the people who are still at it and purposefully and mostly happily living the way they believe they're supposed to?
Others have said, "Every gay guy I know who got married did OK for a while but just couldn't sustain it and either suffered through a lonely, awful marriage or he eventually broke it off, often after there were kids involved, and was happier overall but carried the regrets of a broken home. Every one." I've asked them, "Did any of them openly discuss their homosexuality with their wives beforehand?" The answer? Nope. And again, what of the guys who have had successful marriages? Do they run in gay social circles? They do exist, you know. Do I think they're much rarer than the more tragic stories? Yes, I do, but they exist, and perhaps in increasing numbers as they find healthier ways to live their alternative-alternative lifestyle.
WON'T THEY BE SURPRISED?
But here's the problem: when the whole argument is based on, "No gay guy can really marry a woman and stay happily married very long," or, "It's so tragic when people can't accept who they are and live miserable, self-loathing lives," guess what happens when the people who've heard that and nothing else about reparative therapy go to a conference like Evergreen's or Love Won Out, and they personally meet dozens of people who seem completely genuine and sincere and say, "I do exist, and there are increasingly many of us," and they are presented with statistics and theories which fit the patterns in their own lives. Suddenly, it becomes clear to these newcomers that the outspoken gay people had no idea what they were talking about, and the reparatives are not only disarmingly charming but are surprisingly intelligent. Suddenly, everything they've heard before may feel like a big lie, designed to deceive them from giving these good people a chance to show them a better way...
IF I CLOSE MY EYES, YOU'LL GO AWAY
Of course, I've seen this same phenomenon everywhere, particularly in politics and religion. I think sometimes we think that to actually address an "opponent's" arguments would be to validate them, so it's more convincing to just dismiss them and scoff at their claims or satirize them while knocking down straw men. But when someone investigates and finds validity in their arguments, and sees that nobody has bothered to refute those arguments on their logical merits, they are likely to draw the conclusion that nobody has refuted them because there is no refutation.
Maybe it's because opponents' claims are actually complex, and the refutation even more complex, and it's easier to say, "Trust us, they're not right," than to say, "Fine, here's the evidence and analysis, and certain things they're saying are rational, but their conclusions are drawn way beyond what's supported by research," or whatever. Goes for people on both sides of most issues, as far as I can tell.
ARE THERE RATIONAL RESPONSES?
So setting aside the emotion-charged rhetoric and attacks on ex-gay crusaders who go on vacations with RentBoys, where are the rational responses to the claims made at an Evergreen Conference, for example, or Joseph Nicolosi's methods? I do know there are some responses to their claims because I've found some, but they're not the arguments you typically find, and it seems a bit subjective as to whom you believe or which scientific, replicable studies you glean statistics from and how you interpret the numbers and personal stories of people who say, "I don't know about the numbers, but X worked for me, and I'm happy."
There's no Anti-Evergreen conference where you can go get charged up and hear it all packaged in an organized response, buoyed by the sense that you've found rational arguments nobody else has bothered to piece together and enjoy the fellowship of others who are in the know. There are few web sites, if any, dedicated to responding to the claims of ex-gay ministries or reparative therapists on the merits of their foundational theories and statistical support rather than relying on emotionally-charged rhetoric and exposing supposed hypocrisy of their promulgators.
I have my own theories about certain things, and I want to know how to find out if studies have been done along the lines of my questions but haven't found anything researched. Is that because nobody gives their claims enough credibility to bother investing money for research to refute them? Is it because the research has been done and is old news and I just don't know where to find it? Is it because it's just a barely newborn field of research, wide open for real investigation to test claims and better understand the human psyche?
LOGIC ASIDE, THERE'S SOMETHING LARGER
Of course, there's another facet to this on top of any rational approach: Evergreen offers shining faces and happy countenances, a grand battle cry to join the army of God and press forth to Celestial Glory and eternal joy. What does "being gay" offer that can compare to that grandeur and "larger than myself" "eternal glory" sense of mission and purpose?
LET THE QUESTIONS FLY
Maybe if those who do not agree with Evergreen were a little less stubbornly zealous, there might be fewer who are surprised when they discover Evergreen to consist of some apparently very good, intelligent, self-determined people, which has made it easier for presenters to say, "See? The gay people who want you to be miserable like unto them have lied to you about who we are, so what else have they been lying about to spread their dogma?" I know you may not believe it's worth the effort, but I kind of wish more people had been to Evergreen and could witness how reasonable they are in so many ways, even if you disagree with their interpretations of data or underlying theories and the way they connect them to the data.
So, in the interest of finding out which ideas are straw men and which are critical points of discussion, or addressing the issues in a rational way rather than foolishly thinking so many chumps are "duped" by "stupid" theories and mirages of happiness, let's address not just our emotional reactions or dogmatic adherence to gay-influenced APA committee edicts but address the actual issues, ask the critical questions, respond to the science and psychology, and risk being wrong or escalating and accelerating the intellectual arms race.
...Tomorrow or the next day, 'cause I'm tired now.
08 August 2009
Thou Shalt Not Change! ...Or Something.
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING
Well, here it is, folks. The APA has released conclusive, indisputable proof that you can't pray away the gay. I guess it's time to just go find myself a boyfriend and stop being all angsty now that the APA has come to the rescue. ...or is it?
There's more to this story than meets the eye, methinks. For a spin you might not have seen in most of the popular media, check out The Wall Street Journal's report, which emphasized the APA's acknowledgement that people should be supported in fostering their whole identity, including (not scrapping) their faith or belief system. You can also get the actual APA report straight from the horse's mouth if you're not keen on letting biased reporters filter it for you and have the energy to wade through over 100 pages.
You can even check out a response from Exodus. They seem...undeterred. Surprised? I hope not.
Addendum (16 Aug 2009): NARTH also released a study they say refutes many of the APA's claims over the years.
Despite the hard-line interpretation most people seem to take of the review as a final nail in the ex-gay coffin, and despite some whiff of political timing, I do see a concession in their comments which I appreciate, encouraging therapists to take into account a person's whole self, including beliefs about homosexual behavior, in helping them find healthy acceptance and decisions with how to deal with their own situation, rather than just telling them they're queer and should find a partner. Kudos on that front. I've always said, when people tell me to be true to myself, that I have a lot more than hormones to be true to, and I expect people to respect my choice to be true to myself, my whole self.
In relation to all of this, I'm going to ramble for a while. Follow along if you will:
EX-GAY SCHMEX-GAY?
Nonetheless, I do tend to shake my head and raise an eyebrow at organizations and individuals who hyper up into defense mode by shouting, "What do you mean people don't change?! Don't I exist? Am I invisible?! What do you mean it's harmful to use therapy to promote change? I've changed. Look at me. I've been married for years and made babies. Lots of them. And we practice just for fun." Good for you and your "tens of thousands" of cohorts (see the CNN report), but I don't see the evidence that such is the case for even a large minority of subjects who undergo therapy of homosexuality in that way.
Pardon my skepticism, but I have my doubts about actual "sexual orientation change" and tend to think of "change" more as a shift in thought processes and training the brain to think in less sexual and more relational terms, a change which I think is healthy but which I don't think is the "I'm hetero now" one-eighty ex-gay advocates' language tends to portray, even though they sometimes claim that's not what they mean. But alas, some people say they've changed from homo to hetero, and I'm in no place to call them liars, so I believe they've possibly changed as they say or believe they have, but I have some deep-seated skepticism based on my direct experiences with friends who have publicly claimed similarly but, over time, confess (intentionally or not) in private conversation that they aren't exactly hetero and explain what they really mean when they say they've "left homosexuality" or "changed their orientation". Who knows, right? I can't get into someone else's psyche enough to presume to know. Some of it may come down to semantics. I just know a lot more people who have tried it and were quite unchanged as far as attractions go (though often better at dealing with the emotions around it and controlling behavior and impulsive habits or thoughts), sometimes (not always) being quite discouraged as a result.
HAVE YOU REALLY TRIED?
Granted, you have to want change when it comes to any psychological re-programming or treatment of disorders, and you have to have solid motivation for wanting it, and you have to be willing to do what it takes. You also have to have the skills and tools to cope and process, which most often requires a really solid therapist/counselor and a solid support and accountability system. From my observations, relatively few people fit those criteria all together, which may account for much of the "failure" of treatment. I'll acknowledge that.
"IT COULD HAPPEN!"
(see this link, at :43, for the ultra-obnoxious, outdated reference)
I mean, I often defend the whole "change is possible for at least some" theory. Why reject it if people say they've experienced it? To satisfy some lustful need to make in genetic or biological? To justify demanding legal equality? To liberate myself from the expectations of friends and family that I might, someday, become straight and fulfill their dreams for me? I've considered the possibility of accepting "change", myself, if it were to come after years of emotional healing and growth and accountability and thought processing. The theory behind "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever you call the process of bringing homosexual thoughts, behaviors, and desires under control or even dissolving most (even all?) of them while possibly magnifying heterosexual inclinations is, I believe, more complex than most people give it credit for. And most people won't give it a fair hearing because the APA, for example, has said homosexuality is not a disorder or the result of any psychological problems, and that's the end of that discussion because to imply anything else is destructive and bigoted. Bah. Dogma.
YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH
But whether or not homosexual inclinations or feelings change in any given individual, I try to sympathize with the emotional trauma and hopelessness of putting one's faith in a mentor or therapist who promises something that doesn't happen and then being told it was one's own fault for not committing to the process enough. And I have my own suspicions and skepticism of the motives of those who are crusaders on the "change" battlefront. They, like their opponents, are invested. They stand to lose not only credibility but money and clients if they somehow confess they have homosexual thoughts sometimes (nevermind what they do with those or how well they "control" them).
EX-GAY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN NOT ATTRACTED TO MEN
For example, the NPR report references someone citing the numbers of those who change from "self-identifying" as homosexual as if that means they have changed their orientation. But I know several guys who have publicly renounced "homosexuality" and say they flatly reject identifying themselves as "gay" but who, when you have a private conversation with them or you observe their eyes in the gym, prove to be quite attracted to men in a more-than-straighties-are-attracted way and quite less interested in women sexually, even if they proclaim they want a relationship with a woman and are convinced that's where their happiness will be found. Identifying as gay has little to do with whether manflesh turns you on more than womanflesh.
WHAT HAPPENED TO LIVE AND LET LIVE?
My question to those who would denounce the entire ex-gay movement is this: what happened to "let me live my life as I choose"? Whether to identify as gay or whether to marry someone of the opposite sex is each person's decision to make, and as long as they're honest with their potential mates, let them choose how they want to live their lives and pursue the greatest happiness they know how. I hear cries from gay people everywhere for validation of their relationships against the moral judgement of others, and then they turn around and decry the morality or ethics of someone who chooses a "traditional" marriage and loudly proclaim such to be liars and self-deceived. It doesn't make sense to me.
Whether or not so-and-so ever looks at another member of the same sex with some "hubba hubba", or whether or not their spouse is the only member of the opposite sex that will ever turn them on, or whether or not they even have a sex life with their spouse, or whether they actually love and adore and enjoy physical intimacy with their spouse in a mutual and fulfilling way, or whether they really did shift from primarily homosexual to primary heterosexual attraction, it's their decision to make, both the "SGA" party and the straighty they're forming the relationship with.
Why does that threaten you as a gay man or woman, to have other gay men or women (who often prefer, for their own reasons, to refer to themselves as something less stigmatized) choosing alternative lifestyles? Sure it makes life harder for you when people say, "Well so-and-so married a woman, and they seem happy," but buck up and deal with it. You don't need anyone's validation to make your own choices.
BUT DO I HAVE THE ENERGY OR INTEREST TO LIVE THAT WAY?
I look around, and I personally know several who seem to be living traditional heternormative or "single" lives, many with opposite-sex partners and children or who are totally non-dating and single and truly working towards such future marriage and family. I respect these men and women and their sense of mission. I appreciate their drive to live true to their beliefs and principles. And by and large, they are respectful of the decisions of others, despite proclaiming that there are other options for those who want them, even if they regard some of those decisions as immoral or against God's will. My hesitation in wanting to follow in their footsteps is that they seem to have something in common: they seem, at least, to live and breathe the process. They may say homosexuality is incidental to their lives. They may say it's just one small part of who they are and doesn't define them. But they chair Evergreen committees, mentor others, hold seminars and speak on panels, attend and speak at conferences, write essays and books, manage web sites and discussion groups, hold firesides, attend experiential weekends over and over... I just wonder if I'd rather stay single and go about my other interests, if living a more heteronormative way comes with all of that.
But then again, I recognize that even if I'm not doing all of those things, the topic is going to be on my mind probably as much or more as it is for them. And I realize I am blogging about the topic all the time, so how can I think I'm really any different right now? At least they're framing their thoughts and focus on the issue in ways that help them live the way they want to. I have more thoughts developing on that but will save them for a later post.
OK, BACK TO THE POINT
What right does a therapist have to try to promote a person to adopt a gay-affirming perspective if the client has expressed belief against such? I do agree they should be very up front about the success rates, what "success" means, and the possibility that they can work through their questions and turmoil in the meantime, choosing a fulfilling life congruent with their most valued beliefs. I'm glad the APA is coming out in support of therapists backing off a bit and allowing their clients to determine who they want to be, helping them to process it all healthily even if they choose a sort of alternative-to-alternative "lifestyle". At least, I hope that's what they're doing.
Update: interesting analysis of the report from another blogger here.
Well, here it is, folks. The APA has released conclusive, indisputable proof that you can't pray away the gay. I guess it's time to just go find myself a boyfriend and stop being all angsty now that the APA has come to the rescue. ...or is it?
There's more to this story than meets the eye, methinks. For a spin you might not have seen in most of the popular media, check out The Wall Street Journal's report, which emphasized the APA's acknowledgement that people should be supported in fostering their whole identity, including (not scrapping) their faith or belief system. You can also get the actual APA report straight from the horse's mouth if you're not keen on letting biased reporters filter it for you and have the energy to wade through over 100 pages.
You can even check out a response from Exodus. They seem...undeterred. Surprised? I hope not.
Addendum (16 Aug 2009): NARTH also released a study they say refutes many of the APA's claims over the years.
Despite the hard-line interpretation most people seem to take of the review as a final nail in the ex-gay coffin, and despite some whiff of political timing, I do see a concession in their comments which I appreciate, encouraging therapists to take into account a person's whole self, including beliefs about homosexual behavior, in helping them find healthy acceptance and decisions with how to deal with their own situation, rather than just telling them they're queer and should find a partner. Kudos on that front. I've always said, when people tell me to be true to myself, that I have a lot more than hormones to be true to, and I expect people to respect my choice to be true to myself, my whole self.
In relation to all of this, I'm going to ramble for a while. Follow along if you will:
EX-GAY SCHMEX-GAY?
Nonetheless, I do tend to shake my head and raise an eyebrow at organizations and individuals who hyper up into defense mode by shouting, "What do you mean people don't change?! Don't I exist? Am I invisible?! What do you mean it's harmful to use therapy to promote change? I've changed. Look at me. I've been married for years and made babies. Lots of them. And we practice just for fun." Good for you and your "tens of thousands" of cohorts (see the CNN report), but I don't see the evidence that such is the case for even a large minority of subjects who undergo therapy of homosexuality in that way.
Pardon my skepticism, but I have my doubts about actual "sexual orientation change" and tend to think of "change" more as a shift in thought processes and training the brain to think in less sexual and more relational terms, a change which I think is healthy but which I don't think is the "I'm hetero now" one-eighty ex-gay advocates' language tends to portray, even though they sometimes claim that's not what they mean. But alas, some people say they've changed from homo to hetero, and I'm in no place to call them liars, so I believe they've possibly changed as they say or believe they have, but I have some deep-seated skepticism based on my direct experiences with friends who have publicly claimed similarly but, over time, confess (intentionally or not) in private conversation that they aren't exactly hetero and explain what they really mean when they say they've "left homosexuality" or "changed their orientation". Who knows, right? I can't get into someone else's psyche enough to presume to know. Some of it may come down to semantics. I just know a lot more people who have tried it and were quite unchanged as far as attractions go (though often better at dealing with the emotions around it and controlling behavior and impulsive habits or thoughts), sometimes (not always) being quite discouraged as a result.
HAVE YOU REALLY TRIED?
Granted, you have to want change when it comes to any psychological re-programming or treatment of disorders, and you have to have solid motivation for wanting it, and you have to be willing to do what it takes. You also have to have the skills and tools to cope and process, which most often requires a really solid therapist/counselor and a solid support and accountability system. From my observations, relatively few people fit those criteria all together, which may account for much of the "failure" of treatment. I'll acknowledge that.
"IT COULD HAPPEN!"
(see this link, at :43, for the ultra-obnoxious, outdated reference)
I mean, I often defend the whole "change is possible for at least some" theory. Why reject it if people say they've experienced it? To satisfy some lustful need to make in genetic or biological? To justify demanding legal equality? To liberate myself from the expectations of friends and family that I might, someday, become straight and fulfill their dreams for me? I've considered the possibility of accepting "change", myself, if it were to come after years of emotional healing and growth and accountability and thought processing. The theory behind "reparative therapy" or "conversion therapy" or whatever you call the process of bringing homosexual thoughts, behaviors, and desires under control or even dissolving most (even all?) of them while possibly magnifying heterosexual inclinations is, I believe, more complex than most people give it credit for. And most people won't give it a fair hearing because the APA, for example, has said homosexuality is not a disorder or the result of any psychological problems, and that's the end of that discussion because to imply anything else is destructive and bigoted. Bah. Dogma.
YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH
But whether or not homosexual inclinations or feelings change in any given individual, I try to sympathize with the emotional trauma and hopelessness of putting one's faith in a mentor or therapist who promises something that doesn't happen and then being told it was one's own fault for not committing to the process enough. And I have my own suspicions and skepticism of the motives of those who are crusaders on the "change" battlefront. They, like their opponents, are invested. They stand to lose not only credibility but money and clients if they somehow confess they have homosexual thoughts sometimes (nevermind what they do with those or how well they "control" them).
EX-GAY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN NOT ATTRACTED TO MEN
For example, the NPR report references someone citing the numbers of those who change from "self-identifying" as homosexual as if that means they have changed their orientation. But I know several guys who have publicly renounced "homosexuality" and say they flatly reject identifying themselves as "gay" but who, when you have a private conversation with them or you observe their eyes in the gym, prove to be quite attracted to men in a more-than-straighties-are-attracted way and quite less interested in women sexually, even if they proclaim they want a relationship with a woman and are convinced that's where their happiness will be found. Identifying as gay has little to do with whether manflesh turns you on more than womanflesh.
WHAT HAPPENED TO LIVE AND LET LIVE?
My question to those who would denounce the entire ex-gay movement is this: what happened to "let me live my life as I choose"? Whether to identify as gay or whether to marry someone of the opposite sex is each person's decision to make, and as long as they're honest with their potential mates, let them choose how they want to live their lives and pursue the greatest happiness they know how. I hear cries from gay people everywhere for validation of their relationships against the moral judgement of others, and then they turn around and decry the morality or ethics of someone who chooses a "traditional" marriage and loudly proclaim such to be liars and self-deceived. It doesn't make sense to me.
Whether or not so-and-so ever looks at another member of the same sex with some "hubba hubba", or whether or not their spouse is the only member of the opposite sex that will ever turn them on, or whether or not they even have a sex life with their spouse, or whether they actually love and adore and enjoy physical intimacy with their spouse in a mutual and fulfilling way, or whether they really did shift from primarily homosexual to primary heterosexual attraction, it's their decision to make, both the "SGA" party and the straighty they're forming the relationship with.
Why does that threaten you as a gay man or woman, to have other gay men or women (who often prefer, for their own reasons, to refer to themselves as something less stigmatized) choosing alternative lifestyles? Sure it makes life harder for you when people say, "Well so-and-so married a woman, and they seem happy," but buck up and deal with it. You don't need anyone's validation to make your own choices.
BUT DO I HAVE THE ENERGY OR INTEREST TO LIVE THAT WAY?
I look around, and I personally know several who seem to be living traditional heternormative or "single" lives, many with opposite-sex partners and children or who are totally non-dating and single and truly working towards such future marriage and family. I respect these men and women and their sense of mission. I appreciate their drive to live true to their beliefs and principles. And by and large, they are respectful of the decisions of others, despite proclaiming that there are other options for those who want them, even if they regard some of those decisions as immoral or against God's will. My hesitation in wanting to follow in their footsteps is that they seem to have something in common: they seem, at least, to live and breathe the process. They may say homosexuality is incidental to their lives. They may say it's just one small part of who they are and doesn't define them. But they chair Evergreen committees, mentor others, hold seminars and speak on panels, attend and speak at conferences, write essays and books, manage web sites and discussion groups, hold firesides, attend experiential weekends over and over... I just wonder if I'd rather stay single and go about my other interests, if living a more heteronormative way comes with all of that.
But then again, I recognize that even if I'm not doing all of those things, the topic is going to be on my mind probably as much or more as it is for them. And I realize I am blogging about the topic all the time, so how can I think I'm really any different right now? At least they're framing their thoughts and focus on the issue in ways that help them live the way they want to. I have more thoughts developing on that but will save them for a later post.
OK, BACK TO THE POINT
What right does a therapist have to try to promote a person to adopt a gay-affirming perspective if the client has expressed belief against such? I do agree they should be very up front about the success rates, what "success" means, and the possibility that they can work through their questions and turmoil in the meantime, choosing a fulfilling life congruent with their most valued beliefs. I'm glad the APA is coming out in support of therapists backing off a bit and allowing their clients to determine who they want to be, helping them to process it all healthily even if they choose a sort of alternative-to-alternative "lifestyle". At least, I hope that's what they're doing.
Update: interesting analysis of the report from another blogger here.
19 August 2008
Don't Feed Me Lines
Another beef: when I hear some people (especially of the Evergreen, JIM, Exodus, etc variety) claiming that they don't think everyone can or should "change" or get married, I really question it. What I often hear is, "No, not everyone can or should because many of them don't want it enough or aren't willing to do what it takes. Not everyone should get married because they don't want to get married, and it would be a disaster if they did so just because they're supposed to." The subtext is, "But IF someone wants it badly enough and does it for the right reasons and is willing to put the time and energy into the process, yes, they can and should diminish their homosexuality, magnify their heterosexuality, and marry and have children, thereby filling the measure of their creation."
Similar to seeing through the "tolerance" speech of gay activists, in which "tolerance" often means embracing and affirming and cheering, many also see through the tolerant rhetoric of opponents of homosexual living. There seem to be few (though I believe there ARE a few) who fully mean what they're saying and can defend it when questioned or examined.
I mean, whether you stay single or find a same-sex partner, your eternal destiny as a sealed husband and father and your covenant right to the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom are forfeit for this life, at least. You've been defeated, at least for now, by this condition which has perverted your natural affection for members of the opposite gender. When you get very technical about it, that's the doctrinally logical conclusion, isn't it?
Or is the gospel a little more nuanced and liberal than that? Can it be? Is there room for grey? And if so, how many people truly see it that way and are fully honest when they say they don't think you have to change as long as you live the gospel principles the best you can? Or how many are giving the politically correct speech to appease the masses? How many are saying it ignoring the doctrinal framework that requires the union of man and woman for greatest progress and glory, let alone the nuances that may allow for some exceptions?
Maybe it doesn't matter. But it still bugs.
So don't feed me lines to appease.
Similar to seeing through the "tolerance" speech of gay activists, in which "tolerance" often means embracing and affirming and cheering, many also see through the tolerant rhetoric of opponents of homosexual living. There seem to be few (though I believe there ARE a few) who fully mean what they're saying and can defend it when questioned or examined.
I mean, whether you stay single or find a same-sex partner, your eternal destiny as a sealed husband and father and your covenant right to the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom are forfeit for this life, at least. You've been defeated, at least for now, by this condition which has perverted your natural affection for members of the opposite gender. When you get very technical about it, that's the doctrinally logical conclusion, isn't it?
Or is the gospel a little more nuanced and liberal than that? Can it be? Is there room for grey? And if so, how many people truly see it that way and are fully honest when they say they don't think you have to change as long as you live the gospel principles the best you can? Or how many are giving the politically correct speech to appease the masses? How many are saying it ignoring the doctrinal framework that requires the union of man and woman for greatest progress and glory, let alone the nuances that may allow for some exceptions?
Maybe it doesn't matter. But it still bugs.
So don't feed me lines to appease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)