Researcher apologizes for study of gay therapy

[ringil]

Certainly, a “cure” may be possible, once the genesis of same sex attraction is determined. Whether it is a genetic, hormonal or psychological genesis, there will be a way to treat it. First, however, you have to recognize that it is a disordered desire. That recognition is what many, Catholics included, are trying to “prevent.”

There isn’t a single “cause” or “genesis” of homosexuality. This state, like all psychological aspects of the self, is a complex interplay of the bio-psychosocial and spiritual realms.

Homosexual desires are not disordered in a psychological sense. They are not characterised by neurosis and homosexuality itself doesn’t negatively impact inter- or intra-psychic funtioning.

In a Catholic moral understanding, engaging in homosexual activity is sinful, but that’s not what we are talking about here.

Therapists, well ethical ones anyways, don’t seek to impose their personal theological or moral convictions on clients.

We are having the same conversation over masturbation. No it isn’t psychologically or physically harmful in and of itself, and research shows us this, but theologically and morally, it is wrong.

Apples and oranges. It’s all about the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[ringil]

I also see it as “natural”–meaning, God created it and made it so and every gay person I know feels it deep in their DNA and heart, so it is God’s will.
Why would you want to change God’s will?
.

But here you are talking theology.

As fallen men (and women) we are tempted to do many things which are wrong. Heterosexuals are tempted to have sex outside of marriage and to masturbate. Are these natural urges? Certainly! In a sense, I suppose these are disordered urges, I guess.

Still, God has illumined a way to live fully and doing that can entail us resisting things which are natural, which seem right as rain.

Homosexuality is natural but homosexual acts are against the natural law, thus those who are gay are called, like all us, to chastity. This has to be ENORMOUSLY difficult for gay folks- I really can’t imagine how difficult, but that’s the cards they were dealt.

For a person with diabetes eating a cupcake could be a serious sin. For a smoker suffering from lung cancer- that cigarette may be the same.

So it sucks- I get that.

But all of this relates to Catholic theology and moral teaching, not psychology, as I have said earlier.

 

[rlg94086]

There isn’t a single “cause” or “genesis” of homosexuality. This state, like all psychological aspects of the self, is a complex interplay of the bio-psychosocial and spiritual realms.

Homosexual desires are not disordered in a psychological sense. They are not characterised by neurosis and homosexuality itself doesn’t negatively impact inter- or intra-psychic funtioning.

In a Catholic moral understanding, engaging in homosexual activity is sinful, but that’s not what we are talking about here.

Therapists, well ethical ones anyways, don’t seek to impose their personal theological or moral convictions on clients.

We are having the same conversation over masturbation. No it isn’t psychologically or physically harmful in and of itself, and research shows us this, but theologically and morally, it is wrong.

Apples and oranges. It’s all about the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Oh, really? So, the genesis of same sex attraction is a known certainty? That is news to me. Can you provide some definitive links to these findings? Btw…I never said it is a psychological disorder. I said the attraction is disordered. This is what the Church teaches. I would agree that masturbation is the same as same sex attraction (a disordered desire), but you won’t find many gay rights activists who agree with you on that.

Then again, there are many, Catholics included, who will tell you that sexual addictions (same sex desire, masturbation, at least) are not disordered. They, of course, draw the line at other disordered desires, but the line keeps moving.

 

[rlg94086]

I also see it as “natural”–meaning, God created it and made it so and every gay person I know feels it deep in their DNA and heart, so it is God’s will.
Why would you want to change God’s will?

Being that Pedophilia is “natural” and pedophiles also “feel it deep in their DNA and heart,” you would also have to claim that is God’s will. Your reasoning on the matter is emotion, not logic. What you are saying is contrary to Church teaching, so I can understand why you don’t claim to be Catholic.

 

[exnihilo]

Before I address the remainder of your post, an argument that includes statements like “I don’t know,” and comes up with conclusions other than “I don’t know,” are committing a logical fallacy called an “Argument from Ignorance,” or sometimes also called, “Argument from Personal Incredulity.”

I’m not making an argument from ignorance. I’m claiming that attraction is an immaterial thing, something that occurs in the mind. I don’t think we need to cover all that has been said in defense of this belief. If you have evidence that I can observe attraction, not just physical reactions caused by attraction, then please reveal this to me. I’m sure you know if we assert man is just a physical creature, and not also immaterial, then this conversation is pointless since there is no proper, improper, right, wrong, or even rational thought.

It’s a similar deal with sexual orientation. Sexual orientation used to be measured by invasively measuring the blood flow in the genital area. Now it can be assessed much less invasively by closely tracking a person’s eyes for subtle movements and differences in reaction during showing him/her non-pornographic images of people he/she may or may not be attracted to. Just like anxiety, they didn’t simply assume the actions are due to what they were trying to measure, they did carefully set up studies with controls.

Now we’ve gone from attraction to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a theory, and a bad one at that, which imagines that everyone is inclined to be exclusively sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or less commonly, the same sex. This theory can not account for so called bisexuals nor so called transgendered. What is most interesting about this theory is it makes the quick move away from empirical science and back to immaterial feelings. It also can not account for the high incidence of homosexual sex in places lacking in men. Either homosexuals are particularly criminal or many incidents of homosexual sex are opportunistic.

Again I don’t doubt we can observe physical responses which suggest an attraction. But those responses are not the attraction. And they might not even be reliable for attraction. If a person could learn to beat the test that would indicate the test is not reliable. I am interested to know if they have tried to get someone who is good at controlling their own mind, which the average American is certainly terrible at, to beat their tests.

But we don’t reject it because it fails alot of the time.

This is an excellent point. The same could even be said of attempts to help the poor and homeless. The success rate of helping many of those is very low. According to this standard promoted regarding homosexuality we should abandon helping the poor and homeless. But since the argument is ad hoc the promoters never want to follow their own logic.

I’m also aware that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn’t hurt anyone else.

I’m also acutely aware that you cannot logically compare homosexuality with mental illness or pathological disorders like pedophilia, as some do in these discussions.

It is interesting that we have limited our morality to nothing more than that which doesn’t hurt someone else. Such a morality is rid of ancient ideas like duty to oneself and community. Even the pagans had a higher morality. And it does not escape my notice the duplicity of this standard. In the west we have huge governments that regulate all manner of human behavior and interaction that does not hurt anyone. So I know promotion of homosexuality is not based on any libertarian principle the people have.

People usually do not compare homosexuality and pedophilia. They point out that if you say that any desire you have is good simply because you have it then you can’t say the desire of pedophillia is bad. And that is simply inescapable logic.

Murdering someone or raping a child…the consensus is that those actions are wrong because they hurt innocent people. I think it would be rare to find someone who thinks otherwise.

I agree. And this is so because we live in a post-Christian society. The Christian Faith instructed people in these moral truths and the residual of these teachings remains. Since we know from history that people have not always had such strong prohibitions on these activities, at least regarding those they considered not part of their own group, we know that man can descend back to the depths of the brute.

 

[rlg94086]

No, I’m trying to look at it logically.

Of course, all sorts of “bad” things feel “natural” to the person who is feeling them, including the desire to murder or hurt someone.

But we as thinking, rational adults must be able to use our best judgment to discern what is actual mental illness and/or harmful to society and what is not. We can use our own minds as smart adults and come to collective, universal understandings and decisions.

Murdering someone or raping a child…the consensus is that those actions are wrong because they hurt innocent people. I think it would be rare to find someone who thinks otherwise…even though that one character in the bible (Abraham?) was ready to sacrifice his own son to be murdered. Using that very bible example, you could argue that an adult today who kills their child heard God’s voice telling her to do so, and it would be okay to do.

But we, as thinking, discerning adults, understand today that it would be wrong to take our child to be burnt offerings at a human sacrifice, so we don’t allow it. We all agree on that.

We do not all agree on the gay issue. And many, many people have come to the conclusion that a gay person loving or marrying another gay person does not hurt or kill anyone else and it is wrong to try and stop it.
Sure, you can say it is not “ordered” to the usual, biological way of procreation. But a gay married couple can still be loving parents, just like a hetero, infertile couple who adopts children can–so they all find another route to helping the human race thrive and grow with love.

We are not born all the same and we have to allow a little latitude, within healthy reason, for a variety of people in this world.
That is logic.

Ah…but now you are talking “consensus” rather than “God’s plan” based on something occurring naturally and the individual feeling it deep in their DNA and heart. Consensus is changeable. There are absolute, God-given truths which Catholics believe in, rather than the fickle senses of mankind. Otherwise, you would have to agree that the prior consensuses were also “true.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Homosexual desires are not disordered in a psychological sense. They are not characterised by neurosis and homosexuality itself doesn’t negatively impact inter- or intra-psychic funtioning.

Therapists, well ethical ones anyways, don’t seek to impose their personal theological or moral convictions on clients.

We are having the same conversation over masturbation. No it isn’t psychologically or physically harmful in and of itself, and research shows us this, but theologically and morally, it is wrong.

Apples and oranges. It’s all about the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Homosexual desires are not considered disordered in a psychological sense because the DSM has removed it from the list of psych disorders, whereas it was there before. It’s a bit like redefining “marriage”. If you shift the meanings of words, you can change the understanding of concepts.

Doubtless therapists don’t seek to impose their personal theological convictions on clients. But if a client wants to be cured of homosexuality, is it right for the therapy world to condemn the therapist who wants to help, and consign the person wanting relief from it to despair of such relief?

It isn’t correct to say homosexuality brings with it no physical or psychological harm. There are a number of conditions of which the occurrence is far greater among male homosexuals, at least, than among heterosexual males. As to the psych ones, they’re always blamed on “society”, but the physical ones are largely due to the fact that the human body just isn’t built for some of the activities.

Possibly masturbation is harmless, but I have at least seen it opined that psychologically, it, and the fantasization or use of pornography that accompanies it, contributes to unrealistic expectations of the opposite sex and tends toward a kind of social isolation.

We should probably be careful about consigning things to the “moral only” world. Many of the moral strictures of the Judeo-Christian heritage have very useful purposes to them. The utility of the “wisdom of the ages” ought not to be readily discarded just because we have electric lights and computers and think we’re smarter in everything because of it.

 

[ringil]

Oh, really? So, the genesis of same sex attraction is a known certainty? That is news to me. Can you provide some definitive links to these findings? Btw…I never said it is a psychological disorder. I said the attraction is disordered. This is what the Church teaches. I would agree that masturbation is the same as same sex attraction (a disordered desire), but you won’t find many gay rights activists who agree with you on that.

Then again, there are many, Catholics included, who will tell you that sexual addictions (same sex desire, masturbation, at least) are not disordered. They, of course, draw the line at other disordered desires, but the line keeps moving.

I never said that the genesis of same sex attraction is known. It could very well be possible that it cannot be known. The cause of heterosexuality isn’t known either.

Heck, neurologists, biological psychiatrists, psychopharmacologists, and the more clinical folks know only a bit of how the brain and mind work in the development and maintenance of most psychological functions.

 

[rlg94086]

I never said that the genesis of same sex attraction is known. It could very well be possible that it cannot be known. The cause of heterosexuality isn’t known either.

Heck, neurologists, biological psychiatrists, psychopharmacologists, and the more clinical folks know only a bit of how the brain and mind work in the development and maintenance of most psychological functions.

The cause of heterosexuality.

 

[ringil]

The cause of heterosexuality.

Yes, sure.

 

[fix]

Homosexual desires are not disordered in a psychological sense. They are not characterised by neurosis and homosexuality itself doesn’t negatively impact inter- or intra-psychic funtioning.

In a Catholic moral understanding, engaging in homosexual activity is sinful, but that’s not what we are talking about here.

Therapists, well ethical ones anyways, don’t seek to impose their personal theological or moral convictions on clients.

We are having the same conversation over masturbation. No it isn’t psychologically or physically harmful in and of itself, and research shows us this, but theologically and morally, it is wrong.

Apples and oranges. It’s all about the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The problem is how pathology and health are defined. That is not simply a scientific issue but also a philosophical issue.

 

[rlg94086]

The problem is how pathology and health are defined. That is not simply a scientific issue but also a philosophical issue.

He’ll get back to you on that, as soon as he’s finished determining why children are born with the ability to see, hear, have 2 arms and 2 legs, etc. It’s important we figure out what causes such normality.

 

[fix]

He’ll get back to you on that, as soon as he’s finished determining why children are born with the ability to see, hear, have 2 arms and 2 legs, etc. It’s important we figure out what causes such normality.

Yes, and direct abortion is therapeutic, direct sterilization is reproductive health, IVF is fertility treatment. On and on. The problem is not true science.

 

[ringil]

The problem is how pathology and health are defined. That is not simply a scientific issue but also a philosophical issue.

It is complex.

Speaking as a therapist the morality of a given act needs to be seen in the context of a client’s world view.

It’s pretty complicated. But long story short a therapist should “start where the client is.” ALWAYS.

You work with someone in THEIR OWN worldview and moral compass- not your own. For instance a therapist wouldn’t say it’s OK for a married man to cheat on his wife- if he is keeping it secret from her- as this is objectively disruptive to their relationship.

It’s not that “everything goes”. It’s more complicated than that.

Psychotherapuetic approaches would really need it’s own thread- also knowing that I’m not super-expert on the matter.

 

[ringil]

He’ll get back to you on that, as soon as he’s finished determining why children are born with the ability to see, hear, have 2 arms and 2 legs, etc. It’s important we figure out what causes such normality.

That’s a bit impolite rig. I would like to think I haven’t taken this tone with you.

 

[ringil]

Yes, and direct abortion is therapeutic, direct sterilization is reproductive health, IVF is fertility treatment. On and on. The problem is not true science.

um, it seems that you are linking your post to rig’s, which links back to me. I do not assent to what you have written. I find it a bit offensive.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s a bit impolite rig. I would like to think I haven’t taken this tone with you.

There is no need to be oversensitive.

 

[ringil]

There is no need to be oversensitive.

Emotions are neither right nor wrong they just “are”. I can be a “softy” though.

I am speaking from my field, though, So I don’t like being insulted as I am careful in posting accurate information.

Well, in some threads anyways.

 

[fix]

It is complex.

Speaking as a therapist the morality of a given act needs to be seen in the context of a client’s world view.

It’s pretty complicated. But long story short a therapist should “start where the client is.” ALWAYS.

You work with someone in THEIR OWN worldview and moral compass- not your own. For instance a therapist wouldn’t say it’s OK for a married man to cheat on his wife- if he is keeping it secret from her- as this is objectively disruptive to their relationship.

It’s not that “everything goes”. It’s more complicated than that.

Psychotherapuetic approaches would really need it’s own thread- also knowing that I’m not super-expert on the matter.

I am sorry but that does not address my point. I am saying that the norms we look to from professional organizations need to be evaluated.

 

[ringil]

I am sorry but that does not address my point. I am saying that the norms we look to from professional organizations need to be evaluated.

Research is ongoing and clinical implications are applied to ensure effective treatment.

Professional licensing boards ensure quality clinical practice based onn valid and reliable research. It’s an exaustive process.

Accusations of a 'gay element" that shaped the APA’s development of the DSM is erroneous and conspiratorial.