Overcoming same-sex attraction

[Agnostic75]

In another thread, nekoboy posted the following link:

Amazon.com: Born That Way?: A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction With Insights for Friends, Families, and Leaders (9780875798356): Erin Eldridge: Books

So-called "reparative therapy" attempts to basically turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. Perhaps the leading exponent of reparative therapy in the U.S. is NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuals).

I will present some of my arguments against, and for reparative therapy.

Arguments against reparative therapy

Argument #1

Reparative therapy is criticized by virtually all leading medical organizations.

Argument #2

It has been proven that at least on some occasions, reparative therapy has harmed some individuals.

Argument #3

Even some opponents of homosexuality, who support reparative therapy, including Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, and Paul Cameron, Ph.D., psychology, have admitted that reparative therapy generally works only about 30% of the time, and most frequently by far among religiously motivated homosexuals. If statistics were only for homosexuals who were not religiously motivated, the 30% statistic would be much lower.

Argument #4

Many supposedly "cured" former homosexuals have admitted that many of the old urges are still there.

Argument #5

In a case where reparative therapy does not work for John Smith (hypothetical person), John has at least two options, to continue to have gay sex, or to practice celibacy for life. In some cases, attempts to give up sex for life result in serious physical and emotional harm. That is understandable since the desire to have sex is generally very strong in humans. In such cases, it is not reasonable to practice celibacy for life.

Arguments for reparative therapy

Argument #1

Some homosexuals (usually religious homosexuals) who have tried reparative therapy have become able to have children, and claim that they are much happier than when they were practicing homosexuals. With a supposedly angry God for motivation, that is not surprising. Still, it is better to be happy than to be sad, so in those cases, I believe that it is appropriate for homosexuals to try reparative therapy. But, since the results of reparative therapy cannot be known in advance, I actually only approve of it in cases where it ends up being successful in the opinions of homoseuxals who try it.

Additional comments:

If a God exists, why would he oppose homosexuality, but cause over 1500 species of animals and birds to practice homosexuality? Almost all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual.

I find it to be quite odd that a God would have a book of rules published by human proxies who presume to speak for him. First of all, the rules could only be helpful for people who knew about them. Many millions of people have died without ever having heard about the Bible.

Second, which group of Christians properly interprets the rules? Even Christians within the same denomination sometimes disagree, and split into two different denominations.

Third, even if a God inspired the original Bible, what evidence is there that he preserved most of it, including the parts about homosexuality?

Fourth, no book of rules could ever be large enough to cover all possible situations.

 

[connermt]

People are afraid of what they don't understand. We understand more about the moon than human sexuality. So it stands to reason that some people will go to any extremes to try to eliminate what they don't understand (in this case homosexuality).
The therapy is likely damaging in the long run. But people are so desperate to "fit in" and be "status quo" that some will do anything - including this and even worse, suicide.

Religion fosters and breeds ignorance. This is just another example that even if it's not faith based, the faithful will jump on the bandwagon to "rid the world of these sinners".
It's a sad, sad day when this type of bunk can be considered beneficial therapy.
Sad indeed.

 

[Quintessence]

It's a sad, sad day when this type of bunk can be considered beneficial therapy.
Sad indeed.

Why? Isn't all psychological therapy at some point rooted in cultural norms? Shouldn't the stick of measure be "does it help the patient lead a happier life?" instead of "I think there's something wrong with this and it shouldn't be practiced!"

 

[connermt]

Why? Isn't all psychological therapy at some point rooted in cultural norms? Shouldn't the stick of measure be "does it help the patient lead a happier life?" instead of "I think there's something wrong with this and it shouldn't be practiced!"

Help in a positive way....? Indeed it should. But does it?
Not that I have seen.
What benefits the individuals I've associated with is, so long as it doesn't harm themselves or anyone else, an acceptance of their self as they are, and liking who they are.
This type of therapy teaches "be what others want you to be" not "be who you are".
Big difference.
Beyond that, there's a chance that they are trying to change the nature of an individual. Again, if the individual's nature isn't harming anyone, or a negative affect on society, there's no need to change it.

 

[sojourner]

You left out the most important argument:
Assuming that something is drastically and fundamentally wrong with the person and taking invasive steps to change that "fundamental wrongness" is dehumanizing.

 

[Quintessence]

quote="connermt"]Again, if the individual's nature isn't harming anyone, or a negative affect on society, there's no need to change it.[/quote]

Yeah, I agree with the sentiment of that, but it's a hard line to establish. What is "harm" for example? It seems to me that certain religious groups try very hard to make the case that homosexuality "harms" society somehow. They truly believe that this is true. It is, for better or worse, relatively easy to take anything perceived as "deviant" and claim it's something that ought to be corrected.

You left out the most important argument:
Assuming that something is drastically and fundamentally wrong with the person and taking invasive steps to change that "fundamental wrongness" is dehumanizing.

Isn't this what mental health evaluations do in general, though? Where do we draw the lines with these things? We currently like to draw them based on cultural norms and normative values, but neither of these are indicative of "fundamental wrongness."

I know I'm being a little over-critical here. I do have strong respect for the field of clinical psychology and therapy, but I also appreciate honesty that it is grounded in subjectivism.

 

[Asking]

It's important to differentiate between deviations from cultural norms which are harmful to the individual and others and those which aren't. Mental health problems when not managed can be harmful to the individual and others but homosexuality doesn't cause any harm to the individual or others. It makes me wonder if they've ever met a person suffering from severe mental health problems which isn't being managed. I would hope that if they did they would perhaps realise the difference between a deviation from the cultural norm which is a problem and one which isn't.

There are many other examples beyond homosexuality of people deviating from the cultural norm but we don't normally vilify these groups and offer programmes to 'fix' them. Train spotters aren't particualy common and many people consider them to be a bit weird but I've yet to see anyone selling a book on how to rehabilitate them back into society and away from their deviant ways.

Incidently I have nothing against train spotters.

 

[no-body]

Sad. Such individuals always turn out to be indulging in homosexual acts in private so much so that even when they are caught in the act they deny it.

There is no "therapy" though if you are confused and/or bisexual it might seem possible to "turn" particularly if you have a history of sexual abuse.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why would God help some people overcome same-sex attraction, but never give any amputee a new arm or leg? Why would God discriminate against amputees?

 

[Father Heathen]

Why would God help some people overcome same-sex attraction, but never give any amputee a new arm or leg? Why would God discriminate against amputees?

Or why would he make them gay to begin with. I fail to see why homosexuality would even be a concern outside of the arbitrary cultural norms of ancient, primitive societies.

 

[connermt]

Yeah, I agree with the sentiment of that, but it's a hard line to establish. What is "harm" for example? It seems to me that certain religious groups try very hard to make the case that homosexuality "harms" society somehow. They truly believe that this is true. It is, for better or worse, relatively easy to take anything perceived as "deviant" and claim it's something that ought to be corrected.

I don't see it as a hard line to establish at all.
In the US, being gay:
doesn't physically hurt the innocent
doesn't degrade society in any tactile way
doesn't cause pedophiles to kidnap more children
doesn't cause the price of gas to go up
doesn't cause military uprisings....
As is typical with christianity, they point to things that can't be proven and ignore (or simply don't provide) data/facts to their point.
Beyond that, they should be concerned with the souls/spiritual side of individuals. Making gay marriage illegal won't make gay people stop being gay and won't cause sinners to stop sinning.

 

[connermt]

Why would God help some people overcome same-sex attraction, but never give any amputee a new arm or leg? Why would God discriminate against amputees?

Obviously you've never read the bible. :tsk:
God did miracles similar to "growing of a new leg": he healed the lepper, raised the dead, etc.
So were are these wonderous miracles these days? Wait, isn't that one over....no sorry. Just a 'living tree'.

 

[connermt]

Gays would probably have an easier time if they stopped imposing themselves on established culture. The fact is they are defined by having sex and most people see this as an offensive threat.

Gay would have an easier time if people accepted that not all people are the same.
Having sex is an offensive threat....?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Gays would probably have an easier time if they stopped imposing themselves on established culture. The fact is they are defined by having sex and most people see this as an offensive threat.

Yes. Best not to bother the fragile egos of the general public with things like equal rights. Just play your role and accept your inferiority and sin.

 

[Agnostic75]

Obviously you've never read the Bible. God did miracles similar to "growing of a new leg": he healed the lepper, raised the dead, etc.

I meant today.

I was a conservative Christian for over 30 years, and I know the Bible pretty well, but not from a scholarly perspective.

 

[connermt]

I meant today.

I was a conservative Christian for over 30 years, and I know the Bible pretty well, but not from a scholarly perspective.

I was trying to be sarcastic....:sorry1:

 

[cablescavenger]

In another thread, nekoboy posted the following link:

Amazon.com: Born That Way?: A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction With Insights for Friends, Families, and Leaders (9780875798356): Erin Eldridge: Books

So-called "reparative therapy" attempts to basically turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. Perhaps the leading exponent of reparative therapy in the U.S. is NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuals).

I will present some of my arguments against, and for reparative therapy.

Arguments against reparative therapy

Argument #1

Reparative therapy is criticized by virtually all leading medical organizations.

Argument #2

It has been proven that at least on some occasions, reparative therapy has harmed some individuals.

Argument #3

Even some opponents of homosexuality, who support reparative therapy, including Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, and Paul Cameron, Ph.D., psychology, have admitted that reparative therapy generally works only about 30% of the time, and most frequently by far among religiously motivated homosexuals. If statistics were only for homosexuals who were not religiously motivated, the 30% statistic would be much lower.

Argument #4

Many supposedly "cured" former homosexuals have admitted that many of the old urges are still there.

Argument #5

In a case where reparative therapy does not work for John Smith (hypothetical person), John has at least two options, to continue to have gay sex, or to practice celibacy for life. In some cases, attempts to give up sex for life result in serious physical and emotional harm. That is understandable since the desire to have sex is generally very strong in humans. In such cases, it is not reasonable to practice celibacy for life.

Arguments for reparative therapy

Argument #1

Some homosexuals (usually religious homosexuals) who have tried reparative therapy have become able to have children, and claim that they are much happier than when they were practicing homosexuals. With a supposedly angry God for motivation, that is not surprising. Still, it is better to be happy than to be sad, so in those cases, I believe that it is appropriate for homosexuals to try reparative therapy. But, since the results of reparative therapy cannot be known in advance, I actually only approve of it in cases where it ends up being successful in the opinions of homoseuxals who try it.

Additional comments:

If a God exists, why would he oppose homosexuality, but cause over 1500 species of animals and birds to practice homosexuality? Almost all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual.

I find it to be quite odd that a God would have a book of rules published by human proxies who presume to speak for him. First of all, the rules could only be helpful for people who knew about them. Many millions of people have died without ever having heard about the Bible.

Second, which group of Christians properly interprets the rules? Even Christians within the same denomination sometimes disagree, and split into two different denominations.

Third, even if a God inspired the original Bible, what evidence is there that he preserved most of it, including the parts about homosexuality?

Fourth, no book of rules could ever be large enough to cover all possible situations.

So they could talk me into finding women unattractive and turn me on to goats if they wanted to? Where do I sign?

 

[Agnostic75]

Gays would probably have an easier time if they stopped imposing themselves on established culture. The fact is they are defined by having sex and most people see this as an offensive threat.

What impositions are you referring to?

When the U.S. was founded, native American Indians, black people, and women were not allowed to vote. As American history progressed, those groups of people imposed themselves on established culture, and were initially considered to be an offensive threat.

Do you have any objections to same-sex behavior, and to openly homosexual peole serving in the military? If you had a son who turned out to be gay, how would you treat him?

 

[Sunstone]

An argument in favor of Reparative Therapy:

It's a great way to meet future same sex partners. After their therapy and your therapy fails, what's stopping you from dating?

 

[nekoboy]

Argument #2

It has been proven that at least on some occasions, reparative therapy has harmed some individuals.

That depends on the method. Are you using cruel means to do it, or are you sincerely doing your best to not do any damage? There is a difference between doing something out of hate, and doing something out of sincere love.

Argument #3

Even some opponents of homosexuality, who support reparative therapy, including Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, and Paul Cameron, Ph.D., psychology, have admitted that reparative therapy generally works only about 30% of the time, and most frequently by far among religiously motivated homosexuals. If statistics were only for homosexuals who were not religiously motivated, the 30% statistic would be much lower.

It doesn't work for everyone, but what truly matters is if they do their best.

Argument #4

Many supposedly "cured" former homosexuals have admitted that many of the old urges are still there.

The mere fact that the old urges are still there doesn't condemn them. There are many things that are a life long struggle, and having urges doesn't make anyone a bad person. If it did, everyone, including myself, has a one way ticket to hell.

Argument #1
If a God exists, why would he oppose homosexuality, but cause over 1500 species of animals and birds to practice homosexuality? Almost all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual.

If an animal does it, it is ok. That is a terrible argument, as many animals practice cannibalism, infanticide, rape, and many disgusting acts that would never be condoned in human society. Animals are not children of God, so they don't obey any moral law, and they have no chance of becoming like our Heavenly Father. To compare humanity to animals to make any moral argument is disgusting.

I find it to be quite odd that a God would have a book of rules published by human proxies who presume to speak for him. First of all, the rules could only be helpful for people who knew about them. Many millions of people have died without ever having heard about the Bible.

Which is why my church performs ceremonies for people who are dead, by proxy, to give the dead a chance if they were never given one in this life.

Fourth, no book of rules could ever be large enough to cover all possible situations.

True, but it does cover a lot of it. Come to think of it, I have yet to see exceptions.