Haggard scandal renews controversy on sex therapy debate

[Riley259]

The following article in the Boston Globe talks about the recent admission by the pastor Ted Haggard about his apparent struggle with same-sex attractions. The thrust of the article tackles the issue of whether reparative therapy is a valid solution for persons with same-sex attractions. There is a clear bias, however, towards dismissing this type of therapy as “fringe”. Although there is mention of some therapists who advocate reparative therapy (most prominently Joseph Nicolosi), most of the comments and quotes are from gay activists or pro-gay professionals who think that this therapy is dangerous and harmful. I guess I should expect no less from this liberal rag.

boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/16/haggard_scandal_renews_sex_therapy_debate/

 

[braddock]

The following article in the Boston Globe talks about the recent admission by the pastor Ted Haggard about his apparent struggle with same-sex attractions. The thrust of the article tackles the issue of whether reparative therapy is a valid solution for persons with same-sex attractions. There is a clear bias, however, towards dismissing this type of therapy as “fringe”. Although there is mention of some therapists who advocate reparative therapy (most prominently Joseph Nicolosi), most of the comments and quotes are from gay activists or pro-gay professionals who think that this therapy is dangerous and harmful. I guess I should expect no less from this liberal rag.

boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/16/haggard_scandal_renews_sex_therapy_debate/

I suspect the problem thje homosexual community has with reparative therapy is that undermines their claim that homosexuality is akin to race and is not a choice. The fear they have of cases like Harggards is they know it does work and know that if it gets publicity it will hurt their cause.

 

[dapper]

The following article in the Boston Globe talks about the recent admission by the pastor Ted Haggard about his apparent struggle with same-sex attractions. The thrust of the article tackles the issue of whether reparative therapy is a valid solution for persons with same-sex attractions. There is a clear bias, however, towards dismissing this type of therapy as “fringe”. Although there is mention of some therapists who advocate reparative therapy (most prominently Joseph Nicolosi), most of the comments and quotes are from gay activists or pro-gay professionals who think that this therapy is dangerous and harmful. I guess I should expect no less from this liberal rag.

boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/16/haggard_scandal_renews_sex_therapy_debate/

“Pro-gay professionals/activists” such as the APA? I would think that they were looking at this more scientifically than your comments suggest.

If one chooses to have this therapy, great. It is socially more difficult to live as an openly gay man than a heterosexual. I would think that with any treatment such as this, one should understand the possible side effects. I think that is medically sound advice.

 

[Riley259]

“Pro-gay professionals/activists” such as the APA? I would think that they were looking at this more scientifically than your comments suggest.

If one chooses to have this therapy, great. It is socially more difficult to live as an openly gay man than a heterosexual. I would think that with any treatment such as this, one should understand the possible side effects. I think that is medically sound advice.

The two prominent names were Wayne Besen, described as a “gay rights activist” and Clinton Anderson, the director of the APA’s Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns office. How else would you describe these two men other than as a gay activist and a pro-gay professional?

 

[dapper]

The two prominent names were Wayne Besen, described as a “gay rights activist” and Clinton Anderson, the director of the APA’s Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns office. How else would you describe these two men other than as a gay activist and a pro-gay professional?

I understand your point, but would think that the APA professional would be looking at this more scientifically and not “pro” anything- as the APA is charged to do.

The APA has spoken to the risk/possible side effects of attempting to change your sexual orientation through such means. Instead of writing it off as “pro-gay,” I look at this as more of a scientific stance and less as propaganda.

Psychologically speaking, I can see why trying to change your sexual orientation for mere social acceptance could weigh rather heavily on the mind especially when it will most likely lend itself to failure.

Overall, I think that for the APA to say such a thing is responsible, seeing what their role is as an organization.

To say things like “repulsive, evil, dark…” in reference to your same sex attraction is pretty distorted. If I set the stage that “if I have a same sex attraction, that makes me evil, dark repulsive”…and then I try to change it or reverse it (which the probablility is pretty weak) I am setting myself up for some pretty big disappointment. This could be mentally taxing to anyone.

 

[Riley259]

I understand your point, but would think that the APA professional would be looking at this more scientifically and not “pro” anything- as the APA is charged to do.

The APA has spoken to the risk/possible side effects of attempting to change your sexual orientation through such means. Instead of writing it off as “pro-gay,” I look at this as more of a scientific stance and less as propaganda.

Psychologically speaking, I can see why trying to change your sexual orientation for mere social acceptance could weigh rather heavily on the mind especially when it will most likely lend itself to failure.

Overall, I think that for the APA to say such a thing is responsible, seeing what their role is as an organization.

To say things like “repulsive, evil, dark…” in reference to your same sex attraction is pretty distorted. If I set the stage that “if I have a same sex attraction, that makes me evil, dark repulsive”…and then I try to change it or reverse it (which the probablility is pretty weak) I am setting myself up for some pretty big disappointment. This could be mentally taxing to anyone.

The Catholic church would never refer to someone with same-sex attraction as evil and repulsive. Having a same-sexual attraction isn’t in itself sinful but the acts are what make it disordered. There is alot of controversy regarding the rationale for taking homosexuality off of the DSM - Robert Spitzer and other gay activists had an influencial role in doing this in 1973. The same Dr. Spitzer now feels that there is good evidence to suggest that reparative therapy can be very effective for some individuals with same-sex attraction. I think that Nicolosi has alot of research to back his theories regarding homosexuality and it’s origins and treatment and to call it “fringe” is a disservice to his work. Please refer to the NARTH website for more info and evidence to back up his findings. Having said that, even Spitzer acknowledges that 30% or more will likely not ever be helped by reparative therapy but it’s unclear if the reason for that is lack of motivation or just simply something just too powerful to overcome.

 

[dapper]

The Catholic church would never refer to someone with same-sex attraction as evil and repulsive. Having a same-sexual attraction isn’t in itself sinful but the acts are what make it disordered. There is alot of controversy regarding the rationale for taking homosexuality off of the DSM - Robert Spitzer and other gay activists had an influencial role in doing this in 1973. The same Dr. Spitzer now feels that there is good evidence to suggest that reparative therapy can be very effective for some individuals with same-sex attraction. I think that Nicolosi has alot of research to back his theories regarding homosexuality and it’s origins and treatment and to call it “fringe” is a disservice to his work. Please refer to the NARTH website for more info and evidence to back up his findings. Having said that, even Spitzer acknowledges that 30% or more will likely not ever be helped by reparative therapy but it’s unclear if the reason for that is lack of motivation or just simply something just too powerful to overcome.

I know that the Catholic Church does not consider SSA in and of itself as wicked or repulsive but many (such as Haggard) set the stage as such - as he mentions in the article. Then, in an effort to try and “repair” this, they can (and most likley will) fail. This could be pretty depressing. Correlating these strong words with homosexuality is a bad place to start. Failing at trying to “undo” their SSA, in effect, trying to become “not evil and not repulsive” --this could be even more depressing, I’m sure. Again, I think it to be a responsible for the APA to warn one about attempting such a feat.

I am assuming you are a straight man. I am gay. If you are straight, imagine trying to muster up sexual attraction for a man. Pretty hard to do I am sure. I honestly don’t think one can “overcome” this. I can certainly see why one would want/try to. Being gay is not easy, socially, ecoomically, within your family et al. But I have found more happiness in it than I ever did in the closet, which is essentially living a lie every day and trying to hide the lie which becomes increasingly harder as time goes by. I am so glad that I chose to not hide it anymore and live the way I do.

 

[Riley259]

I know that the Catholic Church does not consider SSA in and of itself as wicked or repulsive but many (such as Haggard) set the stage as such - as he mentions in the article. Then, in an effort to try and “repair” this, they can (and most likley will) fail. This could be pretty depressing. Correlating these strong words with homosexuality is a bad place to start. Failing at trying to “undo” their SSA, in effect, trying to become “not evil and not repulsive” --this could be even more depressing, I’m sure. Again, I think it to be a responsible for the APA to warn one about attempting such a feat.

I am assuming you are a straight man. I am gay. If you are straight, imagine trying to muster up sexual attraction for a man. Pretty hard to do I am sure. I honestly don’t think one can “overcome” this. I can certainly see why one would want/try to. Being gay is not easy, socially, ecoomically, within your family et al. But I have found more happiness in it than I ever did in the closet, which is essentially living a lie every day and trying to hide the lie which becomes increasingly harder as time goes by. I am so glad that I chose to not hide it anymore and live the way I do.

I’m not sure that Haggard was exclusively singling out his same-sex attractions as evil and repulsive per se but I think he was referring to his utter failure to be faithful in his marriage and within the confines of his ministry. I’m sure he equated his failures as sinful and a direct turning away from something he truly believes in i.e., God and his own leadership in ministry. I respect your honesty and candor in regards to your own situation and I subjectively are certainly not in a position to judge anyone but on the other hand, I am a faithful Catholic and I do believe that the Church speaks the truth when it describes same-sex attractions as disordered and homosexual actions as sinful. The Catholic church does not require or even necessarily advocate reparative therapy for the faithful with same-sex attractions - they just require that they be chaste. In the end, this is the only authentic way for one to live who is in this situation - unite yourself to Christ and trust in His guidance and grace and you’ll find true happiness. I’d recommend visiting the Courage website if you’re at all interested. Give it a chance. I’ll pray for you.

 

[goofyjim]

Like I keep saying, why must we use the term disordered for something that may be natural for some of us. Sexuality is a gift adn this includes homosexuality as an orientation. It enables alot of us to see the disadvantaged in a whole different light.

 

[Riley259]

Like I keep saying, why must we use the term disordered for something that may be natural for some of us. Sexuality is a gift adn this includes homosexuality as an orientation. It enables alot of us to see the disadvantaged in a whole different light.

The person isn’t disordered but the orientation itself - by disordered, the Church means not ordered to the natural law. It may seem natural to you but it isn’t in an overall objective sense -In other words, even though something occurs (same-sex attractions), it doesn’t mean that it ought to occur. I sincerely mean no disrespect in that last sentence. I have friends and co-workers who are gay and I admire and respect them as fellow human beings and children of God…but, I don’t endorse their sexually active lifestyles. I think you can separate the two without being mean or bigoted. This next bit of info may seem irrelevent but stay with me. I’m a mild stutterer. The latest theories behind stuttering is that there tends to be a predisposition for those of us who become chronic adult stutterers and if certain environmental factors (strong reactions from family members and friends, etc) come into play not long after a child starts speaking, then those who are predisposed become chronic stutterers. However, if those same type of predisposed kids are given speech therapy early enough (before age six) then there’s a good chance that they won’t become chronic stutterers. I think there’s a remarkable parallel between stutterers and people with same-sex attractions. I know my stuttering is not natural and is disordered (clinically labeled speech disorder) but I personally am not disordered. I can relate somewhat to your statement about your homosexuality being a “gift”. I sometimes consider my stuttering a gift for similar reasons - through the pain and burden of it I have become a stronger person who is sensitive to the plight of others. However, all things being equal I’d definitely would rather be a completely fluent speaker. I know that the parallels aren’t exact but I think your homosexuality could be a gift if it helped to draw you closer to Christ by following His will for you to be a chaste person. God Bless, my friend.

 

[HoppityRedux]

The person isn’t disordered but the orientation itself - by disordered, the Church means not ordered to the natural law. It may seem natural to you but it isn’t in an overall objective sense -In other words, even though something occurs (same-sex attractions), it doesn’t mean that it ought to occur. I sincerely mean no disrespect in that last sentence. I have friends and co-workers who are gay and I admire and respect them as fellow human beings and children of God…but, I don’t endorse their sexually active lifestyles. I think you can separate the two without being mean or bigoted. This next bit of info may seem irrelevent but stay with me. I’m a mild stutterer. The latest theories behind stuttering is that there tends to be a predisposition for those of us who become chronic adult stutterers and if certain environmental factors (strong reactions from family members and friends, etc) come into play not long after a child starts speaking, then those who are predisposed become chronic stutterers. However, if those same type of predisposed kids are given speech therapy early enough (before age six) then there’s a good chance that they won’t become chronic stutterers. I think there’s a remarkable parallel between stutterers and people with same-sex attractions. I know my stuttering is not natural and is disordered (clinically labeled speech disorder) but I personally am not disordered. I can relate somewhat to your statement about your homosexuality being a “gift”. I sometimes consider my stuttering a gift for similar reasons - through the pain and burden of it I have become a stronger person who is sensitive to the plight of others. However, all things being equal I’d definitely would rather be a completely fluent speaker. I know that the parallels aren’t exact but I think your homosexuality could be a gift if it helped to draw you closer to Christ by following His will for you to be a chaste person. God Bless, my friend.

And here is the crux of the problem. There is disagreement about natural law. Lots of disagreement.

 

[urban-hermit]

The following article in the Boston Globe talks about the recent admission by the pastor Ted Haggard about his apparent struggle with same-sex attractions. The thrust of the article tackles the issue of whether reparative therapy is a valid solution for persons with same-sex attractions. There is a clear bias, however, towards dismissing this type of therapy as “fringe”. Although there is mention of some therapists who advocate reparative therapy (most prominently Joseph Nicolosi), most of the comments and quotes are from gay activists or pro-gay professionals who think that this therapy is dangerous and harmful. I guess I should expect no less from this liberal rag.

boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/16/haggard_scandal_renews_sex_therapy_debate/

Actually the article is better than I expected. At least now the APA is listening to Joseph Nicolosi and the growing number of other psychologists who actually want to help their clients live the best lives possible.

Alan Chambers is another man I respect. I have never met him personally but I am acquainted with other men who have similar experiences. So to the Seattle psychologist quoted in the article who said “nothing good can come of reparative therapy”, I say Alan Chambers is now a married man who has overcome same-sex attraction to have a family - a wife he’s faithful to and children of his own. That’s something good! Maybe he still experiences an occasional homosexual temptation. That might just be his cross to bear. If he bears it with dignity and perseveres in what he has promised to do, he might just have a happy family for the rest of his life and be an example and give hope to others with unwanted homosexuality. He might find increasing happiness in living heterosexually as time goes on. The nay-sayer’s try to make those men who fall into sin the “proof” that “nobody can change”. Well that’s getting more and more obviously not true.

 

[urban-hermit]

And here is the crux of the problem. There is disagreement about natural law. Lots of disagreement.

Well, for us to have meaningful communication, we must define our terms. We must know what we are trying to say to one another.

Although natural law can also be thought of as the sum of the physical laws of natural matter, the Catholic Church means by the term Natural Law, that law which relates specifically to the nature of Man.

Man’s nature in this physical world is a uniquely rational nature, since only Man amongst all the animals has the ability to reason.

Here is an article on Natural Law in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
…and another from good ol’ Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers fame:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010bt.asp

Since this is a Catholic forum, and we are presumably striving to understand issues from a Catholic perspective, perhaps it is better and less confusing to substitute the phrase “The Law of Reason” when we speak about Natural Law and what the Catholic Church means by it. I recently heard a bishop define Natural Law this way in his homily, which was mandated to be listened to on tape throughout his diocese, so this is not just my own idea.

With regard to sexual activity, “The Law of Reason” tells us - we can see for ourselves - that the genitals of the male fit together with the genitals of the female to fulfill the purposes of sexual union. No homosexual activity can possibly do this. Homosexual activity - i’m sorry to say it this way and you are sorry to read it this way but as a homosexual myself I say to you let us look honestly at what we’re actually talking about - homosexual activity is a misuse of sex. It is a perversion of sex.

Once we have defined our terms - i.e. we understand what the Church is actually trying to tell us - I think it is pretty hard to disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching that homosexual activity goes against Natural Law. The only way to do it is to misconstrue what is being meant by “Natural Law”, thereby sabotaging communication.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Well, for us to have meaningful communication, we must define our terms. We must know what we are trying to say to one another.

Although natural law can also be thought of as the sum of the physical laws of natural matter, the Catholic Church means by the term Natural Law, that law which relates specifically to the nature of Man.

Man’s nature in this physical world is a uniquely rational nature, since only Man amongst all the animals has the ability to reason.

Here is an article on Natural Law in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
…and another from good ol’ Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers fame:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010bt.asp

Since this is a Catholic forum, and we are presumably striving to understand issues from a Catholic perspective, perhaps it is better and less confusing to substitute the phrase “The Law of Reason” when we speak about Natural Law and what the Catholic Church means by it. I recently heard a bishop define Natural Law this way in his homily, which was mandated to be listened to on tape throughout his diocese, so this is not just my own idea.

With regard to sexual activity, “The Law of Reason” tells us - we can see for ourselves - that the genitals of the male fit together with the genitals of the female to fulfill the purposes of sexual union. No homosexual activity can possibly do this. Homosexual activity - i’m sorry to say it this way and you are sorry to read it this way but as a homosexual myself I say to you let us look honestly at what we’re actually talking about - homosexual activity is a misuse of sex. It is a perversion of sex.

Once we have defined our terms - i.e. we understand what the Church is actually trying to tell us - I think it is pretty hard to disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching that homosexual activity goes against Natural Law. The only way to do it is to misconstrue what is being meant by “Natural Law”, thereby sabotaging communication.

I was not precise. There is great diasgreement about 1) the existence of natural law regarding human behavior, and 2) the discernment of that law if it exists.

I will stipulate homosexual behavior violates the official Catholic Church discernment and understanding of natural law. This definition would suffice if one were interested in the official Catholic Church position and were limiting the scope to activities within the Church.

However, if we stop with that definition, there is nothing left to discuss. Since there are millions of Americans who disagree with the Church position, we see social attitudes changing very quickly. This makes the question a cultural one in which there is no single definition that can be used as a reference.

Each side accuses the other of being closed minded, misconstruing, failing to see the truth, bigotry, and sabotage. That’s what makes for such a lively and vibrant discussion. In the meantime, we see the gay agenda changing attitudes at a rate I would not have thought possible. That in itself deserves a great deal of attention.

 

[Riley259]

I was not precise. There is great diasgreement about 1) the existence of natural law regarding human behavior, and 2) the discernment of that law if it exists.

I will stipulate homosexual behavior violates the official Catholic Church discernment and understanding of natural law. This definition would suffice if one were interested in the official Catholic Church position and were limiting the scope to activities within the Church.

However, if we stop with that definition, there is nothing left to discuss. Since there are millions of Americans who disagree with the Church position, we see social attitudes changing very quickly. This makes the question a cultural one in which there is no single definition that can be used as a reference.

Each side accuses the other of being closed minded, misconstruing, failing to see the truth, bigotry, and sabotage. That’s what makes for such a lively and vibrant discussion. In the meantime, we see the gay agenda changing attitudes at a rate I would not have thought possible. That in itself deserves a great deal of attention.

The Law of Reason encompasses way more than just what the Church teaches - it is universal and frankly just plain common sense. Unfortunately, sin can and apparently has darkened the intellect of many. I applaud urban-hermit for his courageous and common sense assessment of homosexuality. The truth is staring us right in the face.

 

[HoppityRedux]

The Law of Reason encompasses way more than just what the Church teaches - it is universal and frankly just plain common sense. Unfortunately, sin can and apparently has darkened the intellect of many. I applaud urban-hermit for his courageous and common sense assessment of homosexuality. The truth is staring us right in the face.

That is one point of view among others. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, just that it shares the stage with others.

Is it possible to have an honest disagreement without being infected with sin or attempting to sabotage communications? Such disagreements occur all the times in many areas of human endeavor. Why can’t they occur in these areas? Do matters of religion demand less critical thought than, say, school vouchers? Is it possible that common sense may lead two people to different conslusions?

I applaud anyone who makes an honest and forceful presentation of his position. We need more of that. However, I dismiss the argument that anyone with an opposing opinion is operating in bad faith.

 

[urban-hermit]

I was not precise. There is great diasgreement about 1) the existence of natural law regarding human behavior, and 2) the discernment of that law if it exists.

If you could be a bit more precise, more specific, that would be helpful.

I am a Catholic, so when you say “natural law” I think “The Law of Reason”.

Substituting that into your statement produces an interesting result:

…There is great disagreement about 1) the existence of the law of reason regarding human behavior, and 2) the discernment of that law if it exists.

 

[HoppityRedux]

If you could be a bit more precise, more specific, that would be helpful.

I am a Catholic, so when you say “natural law” I think “The Law of Reason”.

Substituting that into your statement produces an interesting result:

…There is great disagreement about 1) the existence of the law of reason regarding human behavior, and 2) the discernment of that law if it exists.

That is interesting, but those are your words, not mine.

 

[urban-hermit]

I apologize if I came off as sarcastic. My request for a more specific expression of your thinking on this was real - I am interested.

I am assuming you are operating in good faith, and here to engage in dialog, which is the purpose of this forum.

 

[HoppityRedux]

I apologize if I came off as sarcastic. My request for a more specific expression of your thinking on this was real - I am interested.

I am assuming you are operating in good faith, and here to engage in dialog, which is the purpose of this forum.

Sarcasm is an art. Feel free to express yourself.

Most discussions I have seen about natural law limit it to human behavior. One could take an expansive view and say it encompasses all the natural sciences, too, but I’m not sure that would be helpful in the context of behavior.

Some say there is a natural law that defines acceptable human behavior. Then they define criteria for natural. Then they clasify behavior as in compliance or not. This notion turns on the discernment of the nature. Where there is disagreement on the nature, there is disagreement on the derivative natural law. Where there is disagreement on the derivative law, there is disagreement on behavioral compliance.

So, multiple interpretations coexist within the community that accepts the existence of natural law.

Others do not accept the existence of natural law. They do not accept that human nature is limited by anything other than the human imagination and do not accept that humans can corral it into a tidy set of behavioral laws.

Define the set of natural laws one is positing, and one can say if behavior is in compliance. Define another set and the exercise can be repeated. The same behavior is in compliance with one set, and out of compliance with another.

These few sentences are a gross disservice to the issue, leave out much which needs to be said, and only touch the surface of complex question. But I think they give an shallow overview of how disagreements about natural law can exist in our society, and how men of good will can have opposing views on controversial social issues.