Effectiveness of reparative therapy

[blessedtoo]

IF 100% effective reparative therapy were available, it is obvious that someone who refused it WOULD be choosing SSA.

The OP refuses to address this, just as he refuses to respond to

if there were a button that individuals who experience same-sex attractions could press which would re-orient their desires instantly, painlessly, and ethically, would they be morally obligated to press it? I would have to say yes, they would be.

Instead he says

One would hope that even if the therapy were perfected noone would ever be required to walk the path.

and

I know if society or God were to give me an honest chance at a homosexual relationship (all diseases aside) I could enter one with complete commitment the same way straight people enter marriages.

In other words, the OP is completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that he has a disordered inclination and refuses to consider even proven treatment that might reverse this inclination because he doesn’t have to in order to remain chaste.

However, if the Church or “society” (?) were to give him permission to act on his inclination, that would be grand.

Forget using analogies. Forget attempting to explain the meaning of “disorder” and how it is the result of the fallen human nature. Forget trying to “relate” by sharing personal stories of how we all struggle with some kind of human disorder.

The OP has consistently asserted the same mantra for as long as I can remember (not even sure why this thread was started - provocation?). It’s just okey dokey to have a homosexual orientation as long as you don’t act on it. In fact, it’s so okey dokey that the OP prefers to hang out with other gay people over the judgemental heteros.

There is no sin. Better make sure I say that. However, who knows the grace that is thwarted by the oh so obvious refusal to admit that one is (like every other human) subject to human failing and disordered drives.

I would ask the OP what does he think God would wish for him? If such a therapy, or even a cure were to be discovered, would God want you to be freed of the bondage of SSA and able to participate in marital love or would He simply tell you to struggle on your own for the rest of your life?

 

[goofyjim]

The OP refuses to address this, just as he refuses to respond to

Instead he says

and

In other words, the OP is completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that he has a disordered inclination and refuses to consider even proven treatment that might reverse this inclination because he doesn’t have to in order to remain chaste.

However, if the Church or “society” (?) were to give him permission to act on his inclination, that would be grand.

Forget using analogies. Forget attempting to explain the meaning of “disorder” and how it is the result of the fallen human nature. Forget trying to “relate” by sharing personal stories of how we all struggle with some kind of human disorder.

The OP has consistently asserted the same mantra for as long as I can remember (not even sure why this thread was started - provocation?). It’s just okey dokey to have a homosexual orientation as long as you don’t act on it. In fact, it’s so okey dokey that the OP prefers to hang out with other gay people over the judgemental heteros.

There is no sin. Better make sure I say that. However, who knows the grace that is thwarted by the oh so obvious refusal to admit that one is (like every other human) subject to human failing and disordered drives.

I would ask the OP what does he think God would wish for him? If such a therapy, or even a cure were to be discovered, would God want you to be freed of the bondage of SSA and able to participate in marital love or would He simply tell you to struggle on your own for the rest of your life?

God wishes for me to be happy with myself not the way everyone else wants me to be. I don’t struggle on my own. I have friends and family who also accept me just as I am. The only ones who are convinced that SSA is a bondage must believe that SSA in and of itself is a sin. It is not. Not everyone is called to marriage. Those with SSA are simply not called to marriage.

 

[goofyjim]

Okay let’s try a little gospel comparison. Does anyone remember Matthew 19 and the story of the eunuchs? This could apply to those with SSA as well. He is talking figuratively though of those who do not have sex. Somef reely choose, some are inhibited by other people from ever pursuing it and some are just born unable to have it for whatever reason. Since those with ssa are not permitted sex with their own gender which I do not dispute they do fit the bill of being unable to have sex with the opposite gender. So it is a disorder. It is not an evil one. It is not freely chosen. It is does not need to be corrected anymore than any other disorders otherwise there is some requirement that we all be perfect in every way.

 

[Mirdath]

Since blessedtoo seems to be getting antsy over this (the two are pretty much the same question, but I’m going with this for the image)…

This is a difficult question. Let me begin here: if there were a button that individuals who experience same-sex attractions could press which would re-orient their desires instantly, painlessly, and ethically, would they be morally obligated to press it?

No. Universalize the problem: ‘if there were a button which, when pressed, forever removed an individual’s inclination to sin and do wrong, should everyone line up and press it?’ In other words, are we morally obligated to sacrifice our free will?

Catholics believe we have free will for a reason: so we can choose to love and serve God. He doesn’t want to make us love him. Negate free will, and you go against God’s purpose in granting it.

 

[Bennie_P]

Since blessedtoo seems to be getting antsy over this (the two are pretty much the same question, but I’m going with this for the image)…

No. Universalize the problem: ‘if there were a button which, when pressed, forever removed an individual’s inclination to sin and do wrong, should everyone line up and press it?’ In other words, are we morally obligated to sacrifice our free will?

Catholics believe we have free will for a reason: so we can choose to love and serve God. He doesn’t want to make us love him. Negate free will, and you go against God’s purpose in granting it.

That is one of the major problems with society is everyone wants an “easy” button, an easy fix, instant pleasure, and if you noticed it wasn’t a “rose” Garden in which Christ shed tears mixed with blood the night before he was crucified. To be one in Christ is to bear one’s cross, not to look for the easy fix. To bear one’s cross takes courage, courage which only comes by trusting in Chirst by the Grace that comes from Christ’s love.

 

[Sure]

Okay let’s try a little gospel comparison. Does anyone remember Matthew 19 and the story of the eunuchs? This could apply to those with SSA as well. He is talking figuratively though of those who do not have sex. Somef reely choose, some are inhibited by other people from ever pursuing it and some are just born unable to have it for whatever reason. Since those with ssa are not permitted sex with their own gender which I do not dispute they do fit the bill of being unable to have sex with the opposite gender. So it is a disorder. It is not an evil one. It is not freely chosen. It is does not need to be corrected anymore than any other disorders otherwise there is some requirement that we all be perfect in every way.

But, let’s admit the possibility that for some correcting a disorder (even though it is not morally evil) can be a very good thing. Many people have surgery to restore use of limbs that previously could not be used. Some people have cochlear implants in order to restore hearing. Some people with SSA can benefit from reparative therapy. Let’s make sure that everyone knows their options, because right now we live in a society that does NOT present the option of reparative therapy to those afflicted with SSA.

 

[Abigail]

Dear Blessedtoo:

It would seem that if Jim keeps posting on this subject, he is truly struggling to understand himself better. It may be frustrating to some people that he doesn’t seem to understand what the Church teaches and why, but respectful and charitable discussions may help him and others reading this thread as they continue their journey toward God. It is clear that Jim is interesting in pleasing God to the best of his ability. It is MUCH easier to refrain from sin when one understands why it is a sin. By remaining chaste, Jim is taking a huge leap of faith in obeying God in a very difficult way even though he doesn’t understand WHY what he is giving up is a sin. This is what the Church calls us to do - to have faith in the Church’s teachings even when we don’t understand them. Our Lord cannot help but reward Jim for that kind of faith, and to gradually make clearer what is now dark. We need to encourage him and pray for him, not get frustrated at him!

 

[Sure]

Dear Blessedtoo:

It would seem that if Jim keeps posting on this subject, he is truly struggling to understand himself better. It may be frustrating to some people that he doesn’t seem to understand what the Church teaches and why, but respectful and charitable discussions may help him and others reading this thread as they continue their journey toward God. It is clear that Jim is interesting in pleasing God to the best of his ability. It is MUCH easier to refrain from sin when one understands why it is a sin. By remaining chaste, Jim is taking a huge leap of faith in obeying God in a very difficult way even though he doesn’t understand WHY what he is giving up is a sin. This is what the Church calls us to do - to have faith in the Church’s teachings even when we don’t understand them. Our Lord cannot help but reward Jim for that kind of faith, and to gradually make clearer what is now dark. We need to encourage him and pray for him, not get frustrated at him!

In defense of Jim, it seems to me that he DOES understand what the Church teaches on the subject. It seems that, perhaps because of his own situation, he does not see the value in presenting the option of reparative therapy to those afflicted with SSA.

 

[Mirdath]

In defense of Jim, it seems to me that he DOES understand what the Church teaches on the subject. It seems that, perhaps because of his own situation, he does not see the value in presenting the option of reparative therapy to those afflicted with SSA.

Or maybe because the AMA, the APA, the other APA, and several other medical and psychological/psychiatric organizations variously contraindicate, oppose, and condemn it? Might that have just a little to do with Jim’s position on the matter, that the entire American medical establishment is against ‘reparative’ therapy?

 

[Bennie_P]

What I don’t understand just becuase some don’t want to change why they want to deny that possibility to those that do?
Talk about bigotry:shrug: narth.com/docs/repair.html

Non-Gay Homosexuals: Who Are They?Much has been written in recent years about embracing the gay lifestyle and “coming out of the closet.” “Coming out” is said to mean throwing off the burdens of fearfulness and self-deception to embark on the road to freedom and personal integrity.

Yet there is a certain group of homosexual men who will never seek fulfillment through coming out into a gay identity. These men have chosen to grow in another direction.
The word “homosexual” names an aspect of such a man’s psychological condition. But he is not gay. “Gay” describes a contemporary socio-political identity and lifestyle which such a man will never claim. Therefore, I call him a “non-gay homosexual.”
The non-gay homosexual is a man who experiences a split between his value system and his sexual orientation. He is fundamentally identified with the heterosexual pattern of life. The non-gay homosexual feels his personal progress to be deeply encumbered and by his same-sex attractions. He usually holds conservative values, is identified with a religious tradition, and holds no deep resentments toward Judeo-Christian teachings on homosexuality. In fact he most likely finds them reinforcing and supportive of his struggle.
Before the gay liberation movement, such a man was portrayed in psychiatric literature in a one-dimensional manner from the perspective of his “medical condition.” **Now the gay movement has encouraged new research, often conducted by gay researchers, to shed long overdue light on the personal and relational issues of the gay experience. **
With the help of these studies, men can now decide whether they want to embrace the gay lifestyle, or to take the road that leads to growth out of homosexuality. It is my hope to help illumine the latter road–the one which leads toward wholeness.
A sixteen-year-old young man came into my office, concerned that he must be homosexual. I told him that if he was, he could choose Gay Affirmative Therapy, or he could seek to grow out of homosexuality. I then proceeded to tell him about the men in therapy with me.
At first he seemed confused and then after some consideration said: “Oh, you mean they’re not yet out of the closet?”
The young man had been confused by the popular rhetoric which assumes that if you are homosexual, then the only honest response is to live out the gay identity. Believing this, he was surprised to hear that there are men who out of the fullness of their identities, choose a different struggle.
Those who seek reparative therapy do not blame social stigma for their unhappiness. Many have looked into the gay lifestyle, have journeyed what became for them a “via negativa” and returned disillusioned by what they saw. Their definition of self is integrally woven into traditional family life. They refuse to relinquish their heterosexual social identity. **Rather than wage war against the natural order of society, they instead to take up the sword of an interior struggle. **

 

[Mirdath]

What I don’t understand just becuase some don’t want to change why they want to deny that possibility to those that do?
Talk about bigotry:shrug:

If you look, I think you’ll find that nobody’s saying people shouldn’t be able to try to ‘become straight’. You can probably find someone to perform a lobotomy or trepanation on you too! Does that make it a good idea to do so?

The focus here is not ‘should it be allowed?’ but ‘should we be doing this?’. If one pays any attention to doctors and psychs, the answer to the latter question is an emphatic no.

 

[Bennie_P]

Or maybe because the AMA, the APA, the other APA, and several other medical and psychological/psychiatric organizations variously contraindicate, oppose, and condemn it? Might that have just a little to do with Jim’s position on the matter, that the entire American medical establishment is against ‘reparative’ therapy?

If the entire medical establishment did agree, then there would be no discussion of this topic.

Myths and Misconceptions
About Behavioral Genetics And Homosexuality
Douglas A. Abbott Ph.D.,* July 2007

In summary, there is no undisputed evidence that same-sex behavior is hard-wired in the brain. Genes are

complex strands of DNA that through the processes of transcription and translation, direct the synthesis of
amino acids into larger proteins that influence cell structure and functioning (How Genes Work, 2007;
Schwartz & Azar, 1981). Complex social activities such as sexual behavior cannot be directly traced to
the activity of a single gene (Parens, Chapman & Press, 2006; Peele, 1995; Rutter, 2006).
Many uninformed people take a simplistic view of behavioral genetics: they believe that one gene
controls and determines a specific behavior. This is true for a very few, abnormal physical conditions
including Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, PKU, and achondroplasia (Dwarfism). This fact has led
some to believe that there is an alcoholic gene, a manic-depression gene, or a gay gene. However, “Genes
do not act as master puppeteers within us. They are chemical structures that control the production of
proteins; thereby indirectly affecting behavior…Genes do not determine one’s destiny” (Plomin et al.,
1990, p.13). “It is an oversimplification to say that any gene is ‘the gene for a trait’. Each gene simply
specifies one of the proteins involved in the process [of gene-environmental interaction], notes Hubbard
(Hubbard & Wald, 1999, p. 44).
Complex psycho-social behaviors such as sexual preference are not determined by a single gene, but by a
gene-environmental process involving possibly hundreds of genes acting through complex environmental
factors (Rutter, 2006). “The fact is that so far, scientific research has not confirmed any one-to-one
correspondence between a gene and a [complex psycho-social] behavior. Behavior results from the
activity of multiple genes amidst the influence of multiple environmental factors” (Baker, 204, p. 18).
Figure 1 shows how complex and convoluted is the interplay between genes, environment and behavior
(Diagram adapted from Plomin et al., 1980, p. 7). Full Paper

Consider the recent example of Michael Glatze, founder of

Young Gay American Magazine, film
producer, pro-gay lecturer and author, and well-recognized leader in the gay movement. At age 14 he
believed himself to be “gay,” but at age 30 he “seriously began to doubt” what he was doing (Moore,
2007). He explains:
Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God…It
became clear to me that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true selves…I was leading a
movement of sin and corruption…Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography
wrapped into one. I’ll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise…Healing from the wounds
caused by homosexuality is not easy—there’s little support. In my experience, coming out from
under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing
things I’ve ever experienced…I believe that all people, intrinsically know the truth. I believe that
is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all
possess. Conscience tell us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become
stronger and freer human beings (in Moore, 2007, p.3-5).

 

[Mirdath]

If the entire medical establishment did agree, then there would be no discussion of this topic.

You’re veering offtopic. The basis of homosexuality is not what is under question. Sure, there’s a debate among respected researchers on that topic – but the only debate about therapy’s utility in making people straight is between those researchers and doctors on one side, and NARTH/Exodus on the other.

 

[Bennie_P]

You’re veering offtopic. The basis of homosexuality is not what is under question. Sure, there’s a debate among respected researchers on that topic – but the only debate about therapy’s utility in making people straight is between those researchers and doctors on one side, and NARTH/Exodus on the other.

The bases of your argument is that change can’t happen because people are hardwire to SSA, so therapy will not work, so you are the one that opened the can of worms concerning the basis of homosexuality. Michael Glatze “Gay activist” says you are wrong. He is one of the ones that use to state your argrument but now opposes it, or at least doubts it.

 

[Mirdath]

The bases of your argument is that change can’t happen because people are hardwire to SSA, so therapy will not work, so you are the one that opened the can of worms concerning the basis of homosexuality.

Have I said therapy absolutely positively undeniably completely won’t work on anyone and everyone? No.

Have I said that mandating therapy is immoral? Yes. Have I said I don’t trust it? Yes. Have I said that my opinion is backed up by various medical organizations? Yes. That’s all.

Michael Glatze “Gay activist” says you are wrong. He is one of the ones that use to state your argrument but now opposes it, or at least doubts it.

Glatze’s statement said nothing about the basis of homosexuality. The only conclusion that can be drawn from your quote is that he thinks it’s a sin. Nothing original or startlingly new there.

On the other side, here’s Michael Bussee, founder of Exodus International:

My name is Michael Bussee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to tell my story. Thirty years ago, I helped create EXODUS International. Today, I am here to apologize. Today, I am a licensed Marriage and Family therapist, a father, a born-again, evangelical Christian—and a proud gay man. But thirty years ago, I was not so proud.

…

I need to say that some had a positive, life-changing experience attending our Bible studies and support groups. They experienced God’s love and the welcoming fellowship of others who knew the struggle. There were some real “changes”—but not one of the hundreds of people we counseled became straight.

…

Since then, I have remained one of EXODUS’s most persistent critics – not because I want to “deny hope.” On the contrary, I want to affirm that God loves every person—and that God’s love and forgiveness does indeed change lives. It has certainly changed mine. It just didn’t make me straight. I have found harmony between my sexuality and my spirituality—and I am hopeful that others can do the same. Everyone’s journey is different. My own private exodus has been an incredible journey.

…

And I have hope. I believe that we are making headway. Groups like EXODUS will go out of business when people no longer feel that they must deny who they really are, to attempt to become what they really are not.

Until then, for those wonderful people, (gay, ex-gay and ex-ex-gay) who have blessed my life and enriched my journey, I am truly thankful. And to those I may have harmed by my involvement in EXODUS, I am truly sorry.

 

[Sure]

Or maybe because the AMA, the APA, the other APA, and several other medical and psychological/psychiatric organizations variously contraindicate, oppose, and condemn it? Might that have just a little to do with Jim’s position on the matter, that the entire American medical establishment is against ‘reparative’ therapy?

So, according to you we should never try to “fix” SSA, an admitted (by Jim at least) disorder? Why should we stop trying to find a remedy?

Now you are starting to remind me of the deaf people who are opposed to other deaf people getting cochlear implants to cure their deafness. Why would you stand in the way of someone else seeking a cure? Why would you demand that a potentially (even if not proven or “recommeded”) beneficial therapy be hidden away from those who might need it?

 

[Mirdath]

So, according to you we should never try to “fix” SSA, an admitted (by Jim at least) disorder? Why should we stop trying to find a remedy?

Read the above. Those who wish to change their sexuality, whether for religious or other reasons, have my best wishes – but not my collusion. Trying to ‘cure’ it smacks overmuch of eugenics to me: it’s saying ‘you’re not good enough, and unless you let us mess with your head, you’ll never be good enough’.

And for reference, I do not consider homosexuality a disorder, mental, moral, or otherwise. Jim, of course, is a good Catholic, and so must – but I am not so bound.

Why would you stand in the way of someone else seeking a cure?

I do not stand in their way – in point of fact, I get out of it as fast as I can for fear they’ll try to take me along!

Why would you demand that a potentially (even if not proven or “recommeded”) beneficial therapy be hidden away from those who might need it?

It is not that this ‘therapy’ is unproven, or that it is not recommended: it is specifically contraindicated and condemned by the medical and psychological/psychiatric establishment. Abhorred, even: they will have no truck with it and issue statements against it. The doctors have said ‘this is actively harmful’. Isn’t that a good reason to at least take a real close look? Don’t we trust doctors to know what’s beneficial and what’s harmful? Isn’t that the point of being a doctor?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It is not that this ‘therapy’ is unproven, or that it is not recommended: it is specifically contraindicated and condemned by the medical and psychological/psychiatric establishment. Abhorred, even: they will have no truck with it and issue statements against it. The doctors have said ‘this is actively harmful’. Isn’t that a good reason to at least take a real close look? Don’t we trust doctors to know what’s beneficial and what’s harmful? Isn’t that the point of being a doctor?

Keep in mind that the psychiatric community has also said that there is nothing harmful with actually practicing homosexuality, and has adopted much “softer” statements about whether a sexual attraction to children is disordered. The APA’s change from the long held opinion that homosexuality was sexually deviant behavior was changed in the absence of research to justify the change but in response to considerable political pressure to do so, much like the ACOG’s decision to redefine conception and pregnancy to open the door to the legal distribution of the low-dose birth control pill was made without any groundbreaking research on embryology to justify the change but when there was considerable political pressure to find a way for the “safer” low dose pills to be legally marketed despite their abortafacient properties. Many of the shifts in the position of the medical establishment regarding sexuality since the 1960s has been based on PC politics rather than medical fact, and in those instances, no, I don’t trust the reasons for the shifts.

 

[Sure]

Read the above. Those who wish to change their sexuality, whether for religious or other reasons, have my best wishes – but not my collusion. Trying to ‘cure’ it smacks overmuch of eugenics to me: it’s saying ‘you’re not good enough, and unless you let us mess with your head, you’ll never be good enough’.

And for reference, I do not consider homosexuality a disorder, mental, moral, or otherwise. Jim, of course, is a good Catholic, and so must – but I am not so bound.

I do not stand in their way – in point of fact, I get out of it as fast as I can for fear they’ll try to take me along!

It is not that this ‘therapy’ is unproven, or that it is not recommended: it is specifically contraindicated and condemned by the medical and psychological/psychiatric establishment. Abhorred, even: they will have no truck with it and issue statements against it. The doctors have said ‘this is actively harmful’. Isn’t that a good reason to at least take a real close look? Don’t we trust doctors to know what’s beneficial and what’s harmful? Isn’t that the point of being a doctor?

Thank you. The fact that you don’t view SSA as a disorder is enlightening. Of course, if you view SSA as “normal” you would resist any movement by anyone to change it. Your statement about “good enough” doesn’t really apply here. No one who is attempting to correct a defect does it on the basis that the person is not good enough. When a deaf person undergoes surgery to restore hearing it is not because others view that person as not “good enough”. It is because they view that person’s hearing as defective. The person’s hearing or lack of hearing does not define their worth as a person. Neither does a person’s sexual attraction define a person’s worth.

I am curious to see some references for this massive scientific data that indicates that reparative therapy is contra-indicated or actively harmful. Although, even if such information exists I wouldn’t put a lot of weight behind it. There are many psychiatrists who believe that sex between adults and children is healthy. There are doctors who proclaim that killing unborn babies is a good thing.

 

[Mirdath]

Your statement about “good enough” doesn’t really apply here. No one who is attempting to correct a defect does it on the basis that the person is not good enough. When a deaf person undergoes surgery to restore hearing it is not because others view that person as not “good enough”. It is because they view that person’s hearing as defective. The person’s hearing or lack of hearing does not define their worth as a person. Neither does a person’s sexual attraction define a person’s worth.

When people say ‘you can’t go to heaven unless you get fixed’, as happens all too frequently, my statement about ‘good enough’ is entirely applicable.

I am curious to see some references for this massive scientific data that indicates that reparative therapy is contra-indicated or actively harmful. Although, even if such information exists I wouldn’t put a lot of weight behind it. There are many psychiatrists who believe that sex between adults and children is healthy. There are doctors who proclaim that killing unborn babies is a good thing.

In convenient list/timeline form, with references!