The APA's tast force statement on orientation change efforts

I read a few posts on Warren Throckmorton's blog recently, and I really enjoyed them. The commenters there seem very reasonable, and civil by conventional internet standards. I ended up reading bits of the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation based on Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion (although he calls himself Warren, so I'm probably going to call him by his first name).

My take?

The overall position is conservative in the sense that it avoids any definitive statement of efficacy or harm, admitting the paucity of evidence. What disturbs is the pervasive bias in the way the data is discussed, regardless of the final, almost reluctant, conclusions. This bias bleeds out as imprecision and equivocation most frequently, but occasionally as blatant inconsistency in the standards to which the evidence is being measured (or even examined at all).

I don't have the time to trot out a lot of examples (or even read every word of the document), but here are a few passages with comments.

We see this multiculturally competent and affirmative approach as grounded in an acceptance of the following scientific facts:

• Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

What the task force here calls "scientific fact" is actually consensus opinion, and there's a big difference. Many studies have defeated the long-prevailing belief that homosexuality is or is associated with mental illness. That much I can swallow (but only on a provisional basis). But, as I've mentioned on this blog before, it's odd to me that a discussion of "human sexuality" can so thoroughly and emphatically ignore reproduction as a significant part of the equation. If one assumes, as the task force apparently does, that ejaculating and having viable sperm is all that is necessary to give the thumbs up on normal reproductive capability, then perhaps their consensus statement (which is not a fact) is defensible. However, I beg to differ.

Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.

This is presented as another "scientific fact". What I think they meant to say was that these folks form said relationships at rates that are not statistically significantly different from heterosexual families in the essential respects that have been examined. This is not even close to the same thing. Maybe the studies satisfy non-inferiority criteria (that are subjectively assigned). Maybe there is statistical significance for the subjective answers to survey questions, but many "essential respects" are not so easily measured, and failing to show a difference is not the same as showing equivalence. They don't bother footnoting this statement, so there's probably some great quality data... but moving from great quality data to proclamations of unequivocal "fact" is a move I highly doubt I would support after reviewing the relevant literature.

...few studies on SOCE produced over the past 50 years of research rise to current scientific standards for demonstrating the efficacy of psychological interventions...

Few studies of anything produced more than a few years ago rise to current scientific standards. They still can inform, even if they can't prove. Because these studies weren't conducted as randomized controlled clinical trials, they can't show us what we'd like to know, but I don't think the task force is correct with: "there is little in the way of credible evidence that could clarify whether SOCE does or does not work in changing same-sex sexual attractions." The evidence that is presented is what it is. Just because it's not the kind of rigorous science that would demonstrate causality doesn't mean that it's not "credible"! If the researchers were found to have manipulated data there would be a credibility problem, but as the data is, it just gives us very limited evidence, albeit legitimate.

Interestingly, a footnote briefly mentions a Nicolosi study that was not included in the task force's consideration because it was published after the review period and "appeared" to be a reworking of an earlier study. I haven't read Nicolosi's 2008 study, but if it provided any new information that met "current standards" in a way that nothing else does, perhaps they could have gone ahead and extended the review period since the limited data is the whole point. And if it was a reworking of an earlier study, that's even more reason to suspect that it was specifically reworked to assuage criticisms of methodology or presentation. In other words, the task force laments having no "credible" data but can't be bothered to look at the most recent data, even when it was published a year in advance of this report.

White men continue to dominate recent study samples. Thus, the research findings from early and recent studies may have limited applicability to non-Whites, youth, or women.

This is certainly true. So is this: old people continue to dominate the cancer literature, so research findings may have limited applicability to young people. The trick is most people with cancer are old. Just like most people who seek out SOCE are white males. So it's okay to go ahead and accept that there's value in the data even if it's not completely generalizable. The population that has been studied happens to be the vast majority of those for whom this research will make any difference.

In general, the results from studies indicate that while some people who undergo SOCE do engage in other-sex sexual behavior afterward, the balance of the evidence suggests that SOCE is unlikely to increase other-sex sexual behavior.

Again, this is true. So is this: chemotherapy for breast cancer patients will not give any benefit to a majority of patients but will give toxicity to all of them. The trick is, I don't care what happens to the "majority," I want to know quantitatively whether there was a difference in the rate of other-sex behavior from the therapy (if not causally demonstrated, at least temporally). And it sounds like there was a quantitative difference, even a significant one. But I wouldn't know from this report as they just go ahead and stick with vague dismissals like the quote above.

Two participants reported experiencing severe depression, and 4 others experienced milder depression during treatment. No other experimental studies reported on iatrogenic effects.

Woah. Suddenly the fact that participants are experiencing things in association with treatment can be automatically causally linked. Well, hey, we moved on to harms, so the rules of scientific rigor have all changed. These cases of depression are "iatrogenic". Umm... how do you know? Although the task force does go on to admit that there is no causal attribution for harms or benefits, they go ahead and refer to "some evidence" of harm repeatedly through the report while adamantly holding that there is "no credible evidence" of benefit.

We recommend that APA take a leadership role in opposing the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations and in supporting the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias.

Ah. Here's something I totally agree with. I just wish they'd followed their own advice. I couldn't find it just now rescanning through, but there's a great gem in there where the task force refers to itself as an example of authoritative and reliable source of scientific information. Ha. Or... maybe individuals can actually go ahead and critically examine things for themselves since science isn't a religion and appeals to authority are both unnecessary and fallacious. A scientist ought to know that.

Crazy gays

I saw Forester's post today, and SG's comment, and some other posts that reminded me that I suspect gays are uncommonly crazy. Anecdotally, as I tally up the gays I know and the gays I know who have some sort of psychiatric problem (whether it be depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, etc...) it's a freaking lot. It's just plain huge.

So, if memory serves, Hooker's research was the first step in showing that homosexuality was not associated with intelligence or mental health. But, if memory serves, that study had an enormous selection bias / exclusion criteria (one that is ignored by all the same folks who spit on the ground every time Spitzer's name gets mentioned).

Conventional wisdom says that any difference in the prevalence of mental problems in gays is directly attributable to a hostile society and the unfriendly circumstances gays must live in. Which, I believe to an extent, but not to the extent of explaining all the mental illness I've observed.

There ain't nothin' morally wrong with being depressed or bipolar or whatever. I'm a big fan of mental illness not carrying stigma. I do wonder, though, why I get the impression that there's such a big correlation.

I don't believe being gay makes you depressed. So, I wonder what it means.

That's so gay

I'm irritated. I've tried not to be, but it doesn't seem to be working. Watching the polls and pre-pre-pre-election info for the presidential race, I've seen that quite a few more people are willing to support a gay president than a Mormon president (although this statement combines two polls that didn't have comparable questions). Personally, I'm offended that anybody wouldn't want either kind of president because I think you should elect an official based on their character, policy, and leadership ability not on some ridiculous non-issue like religion or orientation. But the comparison does underline that it's becoming mighty unpopular to be Mormon these days, and apparently increasingly acceptable to be gay.

Well, if I can't have everything, I'll just be glad for the increased tolerance for gays.

But then I had to read the story about the Mormon girl disciplined for saying "that's so gay" in response to being teased about having 11 mothers. So, she was being harassed for being a Mormon, used an inappropriate come-back and lands in the principal's office being disciplined for her crimes while her provokers got off scot free. Hmmm.... Lawsuits and crankiness all around.

I don't think her behavior is acceptable, but I do think it's more likely that she was not being deliberately offensive than it is that the kids who were harassing her were not being deliberately offensive. Basically, it seems that the school's policy is that insulting/harassing Mormons is just fine and dandy, but insulting/harassing gays is hateful and borders on criminal.

Stereotypes: true or false

Last week a maintenance guy banged on our door to warn us that "a couple black teenagers were just hanging around your truck and then I saw them put something shiny under their shirt and take off." While I appreciated the warning of suspicious activity, my first reaction was not to thank him but to ask "why does it matter that they were black?" But, I'm not the confrontational type typically (in person, anyway:-)), so I bit my lip.

It got me thinking though. I imagine that detail was relevant because of his experience. He does live in a neighborhood where a lot of crimes are committed by black teenagers. And the general stereotype presented in media is that teenage hoodlums, gang members, and thugs, are typically black. But, I have many close friends who are black who are wonderfully gifted, honest people who suffer from such stereotypes.

I see a lot of black people in our Emergency Department. I wish I could report that there was absolutely no difference between blacks and other races as they present in the ED, but there are. There have been some belligerent and unreasonable patients with a particular issue that have all been black. All. Without exception. Instead of accepting that association as a fact generalizable to all blacks, I consciously remind myself that it is NOT generalizable.

So how do I use such information? Very carefully, if I'm at my best. If I or my family have been burned for trusting in a particular set of circumstances, it would be foolish not for me to take caution when met with those circumstances in the future. And given how limited my own experience is, it's prudent to learn from the experiences of others. And that leads to judging individuals based on the most prevalent actions of a particular demographic. Racial profiling. Discrimination.

Although the popular notion these days is to be completely tolerant and non-discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc., I think that's way oversimplified. Sorry to say it, and I recognize the unpopular and vulnerable position such a thought places me in, but I'm learning and willing to take the hits if it teaches me something valuable. A more nuanced position is to minimize the harm. Sometimes minimizing harm will involve erring on the side of caution--being more careful in certain circumstances because of who someone is based on my experience, all the while recognizing that I could be completely safe and the person may be offended because of my caution. Other times I will have to play that against the harm experienced by a person who is not typical, who does not fit the data, who bucks the trends. Such people can be truly harmed by being treated differently for someone else's crimes.

Someone like me could be harmed.

So, yeah, I can see how a parent wouldn't want his daughter to marry someone like me based on the data. Based on conventional wisdom, he'd want his loved one to be safe from the nearly universal failure reported for mixed orientation marriages. But after getting to know me... after learning about my values and my integrity, I think I could demonstrate that I'm an exception.

Specifically, racism is a metaphor for generalizations about gays being promiscuous and mixed orientation marriages failing: two topics more close to home. I have a personal belief that the data presented on both of those topics is rapidly becoming outdated as society changes. It would be a terrible mistake to pronounce final judgement on individuals based on such stereotypes. Caution and respect are both necessary for understanding and acting on the data--the common, the uncommon, and the ideal.

The 11th hour

I sat down at the computer to e-mail my congressmen about the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment just one day prior to the vote. I knew it was the 11th hour and that my decision about what to write would reflect far more on myself than it would have any impact on what my legislators thought or voted. But church leaders had asked me to "express myself," and I've always been a sucker for the importance of participating in representative government.

I had come to the conclusion that gay marriage was a good thing based not only on what I know and believe about the social impact of gay marriage--that it would be an effective way to encourage gay folks to be committed and monogamous, to provide them the legal tools to properly participate in the domestic affairs of those with whom they had become domestic partners, to choose committed love as an ideal over adultery--but also because it just seemed right and fair in this diverse country to allow people to pursue the brand of happiness they find acceptable for themselves.

I had thought about it a fair amount. And all my reasoning (and the social data) seemed to indicate gay marriage would be a good thing, despite my acknowledgement others may easily come to a different conclusion.

I found loopholes and legalistic reasons why I thought my opposition to the amendment and support of gay marriage were not strictly inconsistent with the counsel of the church. But, some part of me knew that pharisaic approach wasn't going to work in the end.

I sat, thinking and uncomfortable. Fingers perched, ready to type some sense out of the confusion.

I remembered one of the many defining moments on my mission when I received a letter from my parents--both terrified that I was standing at the edge of apostasy's cliff, ready to jump. I had written them some snide comments about a few of our mission rules, and they had been horrified enough to immediately produce a long rebuke. It's one of the few times on my mission that both parents contributed substantially to a single letter.

I think the particular issue may have been my president requiring us to take daily herbal supplements--a position he crowed was backed by scientific evidence (and a position about which science has long since vindicated my skepticism). It didn't matter whether he was right or wrong, my parents said, it mattered that I trusted and obeyed. They weren't stupid. They knew how counter-intuitive that was, how cultish. But they also knew that there would be times in my life later when I would think I understood something better than my priesthood leaders and I would be wrong. Then, it might be on something that mattered. And ultimately, they knew the church was true and that while small injustices would come of trusting leaders (like choking back daily garlic pills), God wouldn't allow the prophet to lead the church astray. They believed, as I do now, that there is singular power in obeying every word of command with exactness. Curious power. And yes, when applied to false prophets, such trust is dangerous. You've got to be certain who you can trust, because ultimately you are responsible for your own decisions.

The final position I took with my congressmen was one of support for the amendment. I was true to myself in a strangely contradictory way. I know the church is true. I know prophets are real. So, when Elder Maxwell says,

"So it is that real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed! Such is the sacrifice unto the Lord of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, (D&C 59:8), a prerequisite to taking up the cross, while giving away all [our] sins in order to know God (Alma 22:18) for the denial of self precedes the full acceptance of Him."

I interpret that in one sense to apply to times like these. It's perhaps an application of a skill I've learned through my homosexuality--to believe that what feels right is not necessarily so. And that the balance due in confidence and affirmation for truly right decisions may come in unexpected ways.

At the same time I feel confused and sad. I feel a great desire to contact Scot and Chris and David and apologize. Sometimes having faith is hard, and not being ashamed of it is also hard.

Over-indulgence

It’s kind of surreal to read about yourself in the news. The comment banter weighing out your worth and wisdom is another experience altogether. I mistakenly thought that I would get lots more comments on my own blog after the Tribune article was published, but I’ve found most people come quietly to read and then go somewhere else to whisper their incredulous disbelief at the spectacle that is me.

But, folks, this is the good ol’ WorldWideWeb. I can hear you. I will now indulge in sarcastically responding to your stupidity.

Children

The unforgiveable part is the fact that they are *breeding*... I feel very, very sorry for their children.
-ortizzle

Excuse me, I was out for a moment beating my son. You were saying? Oh yes, discussing my breeding habits… like I’m a dog. Well, you’ll be happy to know that I’ve successfully avoided DHS for 2 years now. I’ll pass along your condolences to my brilliant and well-adjusted toddler.

If you are gay and must get married--have a vasectomy. Children should not be made to pay for the ups and downs of your personal fullfillment odyssey.
-lovestone

I certainly hope you will do the same. Children should not be raised by ignorant bigots with Hitler-like agendas.

It is something else entirely to gamble with the emotional well-being of the children who are brought into the situation.
-Diogenes

And yet I’ve seen in all the comments thus far not one shred of actual evidence that what we’re doing is bad for the kids. Even if the numbers were out there, it wouldn’t be a “gamble”. Where you fall in the distribution of a bell curve is not necessarily random.

The poor wife

This is a marriage that we know (and the partners know) is almost certain to fail.
-Diogenes

No, we’re quite confident that we won’t fail, actually.

And I thought the women who married death row prisoners were nuts. I can't imagine marrying a guy who is openly gay. I just can't.
-Jennifer in Ohio

Well, if being nuts is a requirement, you’re well on your way.

Essentially, these are marriages of social convenience….
Would you want your daughter to enter such a marriage?
-MikeInWeHo

No, Mike, I can only hope she’ll be lucky enough to find a death row prisoner instead.

Motivations

Ben in the article said he chose his heart over his libido. Sounds noble, sure, but it’s wishful thinking.
-slm

Following your heart… dreaming the impossible dream… such stupid concepts. Don Quixote is such an ass. I hope the windmill chops him in half. We realists know there are no happy endings ever.

I think that the folks who enter into these marriages are probably somewhat naive about what they’re dealing with.
-pjj

What the hell? I just married a straight woman? What was I thinking? Why didn’t I actually give this some thought and research a little bit first? Why didn’t I ask the advice of every cynic on the web first? Why, why, why???

There is conservative critique, and then there is moving into outright self-hatred manifesting as political expression.
-Jason Pitzl-Waters

Okay, this wasn’t about me, but it does show the profoundly stupid notion that anyone who feels anything less than disdain for ex-gay therapy is filled with self-hate. Please.

Church

Seriously, he's gay - great! He should live his life that way and not spend a life-time feeling guilty and trying to make it match what a man-made religion thinks he should be doing with his life. HIS life. Not theirs, as much as they make think so.
-Bea

Can you please highlight the part of the article that says that our church dictated anything, anything at all about our decision, and send it over?

Wow. Repression-o-rama. I can't imagine how hard it would be to be told that your natural, normal attractions are wrong, and immoral and you must (should?) marry someone contrary to that attraction. Sad for all involved.
-Heather

Again, highlighter? Must/should where? Just because we did something you don’t understand doesn’t mean we were coerced.

So I can understand why the two of them would want to try a mixed-marriage like this, but it was done "right" by the church for all the Wrong reasons.
-Eli

The wrong reasons being love and commitment? Cuz that’s where we started from.

The confused gay

Has it never occurred to you that God created you homosexual for a reason, perhaps to help others of His creation become more honest, more compassionate, and more loving? And that, by living your life either in control of your "same-sex attraction" and closeted, or "openly gay" yet married to someone of the opposite sex for the sake of procreation was actually living a life contrary to God's plan for you?
-Anon1

I sincerely hope that the road ahead for you is far less painful than the obvious mine field I see you've laid out for yourself. Remember, it's never too late to be true to your authentic self. And by doing so, only then will you be true to God's plan for you.
-Anon2

I'm always amazed at the silly argument that God created us this way for a reason. Did he create someone with six fingers that way for a reason? (They're in big trouble for lopping of the spare, first chance they get!) What about someone stupid, should they feel satisfaction at maintaining allegiance to their true ignorant self by trying not to open their mind to new points of view? Are they more "authentic" as a dumbass? Maybe what God wants us to learn from being gay is humility, not complacency and self-justification.

Eventually, these gay people who are married to straights will either decide to accept they are gay and leave their current relationships or be very miserable up to and including suicide.
-golexx

Says the Oracle of Delphi. I've seen examples of great mixed-orientation marriages, and I've seen the bad ones. But they're not me, and so really I have to go by the specifics of our situation, something you know nothing about. I have a healthy attitude toward counseling and professional assistance, as does my wife. Our marriage by every measure imaginable is more harmonious and nurturing than 99% of my coworkers and friends as near as I can tell. We’re both happy. We both laugh like hell. And I think we’ll be fine.

I acknowledge a lot of this is out of context, but it gives you a feel for the discussion. And it's been cathartic for me to indulge in a little sassiness directed at what I see occasionally as rancorous ignorance.

Perfect empathy

I’m fasting today. It’s nice. During the sacrament I shed a few tears when I thought about the Savior—about what He knows about me and how He is the perfect man.

When I posted a series on my beliefs, I never wrote about the Savior. I noticed it then, and I noticed again when I was putting together my blog index. I think I hesitated for multiple reasons, foremost among them that I had nothing to say that I considered to be particularly insightful. (Not that that’s stopped me most of the time!) It also seemed to be slightly inappropriate for some reason. But I’m not sure why.

In The Miracle of Forgiveness, President Kimball does not distinguish between same sex attraction and sin. I think this is why his writings there in particular have offended many men who struggle with this issue. I, personally, love President Kimball and his huge heart in encouraging us all to be repentant and receive the blessings of the atonement in our lives.

In that book though, he asks rhetorically if people can possibly believe Jesus was “that way”. He suggests it is abhorrent to even consider, but on a topic that is so important to me, I need to understand why. If, as subsequent church leaders have taught, the inclination itself is not a sin, then how do we know Jesus was not in fact inclined “that way”? I do not mean to be sacrilegious, but to contemplate whether those who agree with the brethren that the attraction itself is not a sin will find themselves balking at the suggestion that Jesus himself could have been sinless under just such circumstances. If you squirm, ask yourself, why? When the church can unflinchingly consider this, we will have grown remarkably in our tolerance, and there will be far less need for someone like me to be anonymous.

My impotence

My impression was that Drescher's opposition to reparative therapy centers around three main points

1. It doesn't work
2. It is unethical
3. It is harmful

However, when pressed, I think he would acknowledge that none of these are proven to be true.

It doesn't work
The efficacy of reparative therapy has never been shown in a scientifically rigorously way. Some have said (wrongly) that if change were really possible it would have been demonstrated long ago. I don't remember Drescher taking this stance, but he did criticize the theories and studies in support of reparative therapy. Perhaps the most widely known study is Spitzer's. Drescher edited an entire book of responses to Spitzer's work, all attempting to discredit the conclusions. Drescher's own opposition (again, based on my poor memory only) was centered around follow up and failure to document actual sexual orientation through objective testing. More specifically, these men who claimed to change orientation, did they stay changed or was it just temporary? Were they able to persist in their "new" orientation? Long term follow up was not measured, and that is a weakness in the conclusion that change is possible. However, to the extent that Spitzer acknowledged this limitation in his discussion, it doesn't make the study invalid, just limited. That's a big difference.

Drescher also asked Spitzer why he didn't verify orientation with plethysmography (what GayMormon calls a "boner-detector"), and he was unhappy with the candid answer Spitzer provided: he didn't have the funding. Drescher seemed to irrationally believe this was a personal failure on the part of Spitzer. I was quite confused. Again, plethysmography would have improved the study, but its omission does not make the study invalid.

It is unethical
You are probably familiar with the medical aphorism "do no harm." Doctors haven't done a very good job of following that advice without some regulation here and there. For example, regulation of research involving human subjects has greatly improved ethical practices. And "informed consent" is an important part of every medical or psychiatric therapy--research based or not.

Drescher had a list of 6 criteria that must be followed for a therapy to be ethical. I don't remember what they all were, but properly informing the patient about potential benefits and harms, respecting autonomy, etc., were central. Drescher went through the list point by point and made his case that reparative therapy did not meet the criteria. However, I was not convinced. I have actually been in reparative therapy sessions, and the way he described the dialog was simply not reflective of my personal experience. I was indeed given a thorough explanation of potential benefits and risks. My consent was documented carefully. Confidentiality and specific therapeutic goals were discussed. It was all quite professional. I wondered where Drescher was getting his information.

It is harmful
Drescher stated unequivocally that not a single reparative therapy book or practicing therapist was honest in disclosing the risks. Not one. My vast readership [hee] may remember a recent series of posts in which I reviewed a couple books on reparative therapy (Nicolosi and Parks). They were library books, so I can't go back to find pages, but I believe I recall a discussion of theoretical risks in both of them. Regardless, I know my therapist and I discussed the issue. Therefore, I had to restrain myself from standing up and calling Drescher a pig-faced liar. Actually, restraining myself wasn't hard, because the crowd had proven themselves to be completely tolerant of blatantly anti-religious hate-speech. I felt like a mole.

Despite the fact that his own handout specifically noted that the only data regarding risks in reparative therapy are anecdotal (i.e. not scientifically meaningful), he was standing there condemning anyone who would not discuss the harms as if they were real. His take became more and more clear: reparative therapy is an extension of conservative religious fanatics who speak of loving gays publicly, but call them an abomination privately. They have no interest in the individuals, only their own political agenda.

You can imagine how such generalized moral condemnation turned me off. But everyone else seemed to be eating it up. The picture was painted to show down-trodden gays hustled into therapy they didn't choose for themselves, psychologically abused by self-promoting "ex-gay for pay" quacks, and then condemned personally for any poor outcome. Such an exaggerated caricature was so far from my personal experience that I wondered if I would be able to tolerate the discussion. Had he cited examples as examples I would have had no objection, but vilifying an entire demographic whose views differs from your own? Generalizing motivations and unethical conscience?

If this is the national leader in opposing reparative therapy, I must admire the ingenuity of gay activists in getting medical professionals to swallow such swill. It was patently ridiculous. And I was impotent in commenting because of my concerns for personal privacy. It makes me rethink my desire for anonymity. But, not surprisingly, it did not make me rethink my decision to attempt reparative therapy.

And, no, I'm not worried about any other kind of impotence at the moment. :-)

Drescher

After reading a few books on reparative therapy by proponents, I asked my therapist whether he thought it would be a good idea to read books debunking the idea. I wondered if he would respond like a priesthood leader might if you asked about reading anti-Mormon literature after having just finished the scriptures, but he did not. He strongly encouraged me to read up on their arguments, to be as informed as I could about all sides of the issue, and to assess it all for myself. Who, I asked, would be a good author to start with? He promptly suggested Jack Drescher, the national leader in the psychiatric field in opposing reparative therapy.

As it turned out, I was able to not merely read something by Drescher, but to meet the man and hear him speak in person at a professional meeting not long afterward. Unfortunately, a few days later I moved across the country and have yet to find the handout and my notes from the presentation! So, regrettably, all I have to go by now is memory.

He introduced the science, the politics, and the history of reparative therapy. The interplay between homosexuality and medical and psychiatric scientists is pretty darn dramatic. Gay advocates got some traction from a gay psychiatrist who agreed to be part of a panel at a national psychiatric conference--as long as he could wear a rubber Nixon mask! Drescher discussed the remarkable way gay rights activists organized and started a cultural revolution of gay tolerance. They began framing homosexuality as an identity characteristic that requires non-discrimination protection under federal law. It was brilliant.

But alas, it wasn't long before Drescher began bashing. It always amazes me how people can become so committed to a worthy cause like opposing hate and bigotry that they then slip into allowing themselves to hate and be bigoted against those they see as enemies. Drescher sees nothing, nothing at all, redeeming about what reparative therapists do. He sees it as unethical. He sees it as harmful. And he sees it as something to spend a great deal of his time and effort to write and speak out against. I respect all of this. It's when he then falsely described the methods of reparative therapists, vilified the practitioners, and derisively described religious conservatives as hypocrites--not some, but all--that I started losing respect. He called NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) Narth Vadar. Clever. Especially if you're a propagandist. I expect something a little less sensational and perhaps respectful from a scientist.

Limitations of gay love

Each one of us, man and woman alike, is driven by the power of romantic love. These infatuations gain their power from the unconscious drive to become a complete human being. In heterosexuals, it is the drive to bring together the male-female polarity through the longing for the other-than-me. But in homosexuals, it is the attempt to fulfill a deficit in wholeness of one's original gender.
...
The inherent unsuitability of same-sex relationships is seen in the form of fault-finding, irritability, feeling smothered; power struggles, possessiveness, and dominance; boredom, disillusionment, emotional withdrawal, and unfaithfulness. As a result of this binding ambivalence, his same-sex relationships lack authentic intimacy.
...
Gay couplings are characteristically brief and very volatile, with much fighting, arguing, making-up again, and continual disappointments.... Research, however, reveals that they almost never possess the mature elements of quiet consistency, trust, mutual dependency, and sexual fidelity characteristic of highly functioning heterosexual marriages.
...
The results show that of those 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than five years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple that was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

It makes me chuckle when I see words like "authentic" used like swords--first the one side swings, then the opponent. Who gets to be acknowledged as really "authentic"?

And why exactly should I buy matter-of-fact statements about the unconscious basis for sexual drives? So, everyone everywhere is subconsciously trying to become a complete human being by filling up personal deficits or consuming "other-than-me" by having sex? I don't like unsupported assertions like that, but I suppose I find it plausible because it is consistent with my own experience--I want to have in a visceral way the object of my attraction. Even with that concession, it seems hokey.

Lastly, I don't buy the qualitative difference he suggests between gay and straight sex because two gay men have the same "deficits" and a man and a woman don't. This just all seems like what one of my psychiatry mentors calls "psychobabble". I try, I really try, not to think psychology is crap-science. But it's hard. :)

What I DO buy is the data about long term relationships. These couples had made a commitment of fidelity and the outcomes were measured by gay researchers. Lacking some other explanation for it, I suppose his theory takes on some credibility.

Sensitivity

Contributing to my retreat into homosexuality was that I was one of those sensitive, "artistic" children with neither the talent nor interest in any of the usual "masculine" pursuits. I hated physical activity--sports and games most of all--and when I would make an effort to be a part of the gang I would fail so miserably to perform well that for a long time afterward I would suffer from the shame of ineptitude.... I was a classic case in that I (later) felt out of place in a man's world, and comfortable and capable in a more esoteric environment.

Willam Aaron in his biography as quoted by
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

I got straight A's through elementary school except one C in gym. I embarrassed myself with regularity in P.E. during middle school and by the time I got to high school I was all sorts of enthusiastic to avoid P.E. altogether by being in the marching band. I hated church basketball and softball because I couldn't handle being the charity case. My mom always told me I had "thin skin" and I shouldn't worry so much about what other people think. I was too sensitive, she said. As an adult, I've been told I "throw like a girl". I hate it when conversations turn to sports or cars during social events--topics I know virtually NOTHING about.

Compare that with my less masculine abilities. I love performing in theater, singing, playing the piano, I'm quite a good artist, I have a great eye for design and photography, and I like cooking and gardening. I'm damn good at all that stuff and I know it. People respect me when I, for example, have my art in a professional show, and I'm proud of myself. So proud, I occasionally feel smarter and more sophisticated than the guys who woop at Monday night football and talk up Harley Davidsons. I find myself alternately disdainful and envious of them at odd times.

I just can't get myself to believe there is nothing to what Nicolosi is getting at. Sure, he presents his info in a way that bothers me (pretty much all social sciences do), but if I get past that, it compels me.

Gay marriage

Tomorrow, from what I understand, there will be a letter read in sacrament meetings asking church members to contact their senators regarding their opinions on the Marriage Protection Amendment. Specifically, the letter states that church leadership has repeatedly articulated their position "that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship." They quote the Proclamation on the Family wherein it says, "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." And they conclude by urging members to "express themselves" on the matter to their elected government officials.

One may believe, as do the folks who maintain the lds4gaymarriage site, that expressing oneself to government officials as being for gay marriage is inconsistent with having good standing in the church.

I don't see it that way.

If one believes, as I do (tentatively), that gay marriage will strengthen the family unit as the fundamental unit of society, then one can in clear conscience agree with the church's right to support the amendment while personally opposing it. The church statement says that straight marriage is the only "acceptable" kind, but does not elaborate. If one takes that to mean, "acceptable by God", then one can believe both that straight marriage is the only acceptable kind for bringing about eternal families but that gay marriage can be acceptable secularly in this free, non-theocratic society. The church's official statements "favor" a traditional marriage amendment, but stop short of proscribing such a view as the only acceptable view for members to hold. The church has greatly decreased its propensity to firmly dictate political positions (and parties) for their members since the 1800s. I don't personally know of any church discipline resulting from political views (only from doctrinal views), although it seems I've heard claims of such.

I'm very tentative in my views. I've heard claims of strong data supporting the equivalent (or even superior) child rearing capabilities of gay couples. I've heard claims of strong data denying that very thing. Basically, I respect the rights of people to believe the set of data that resonates with their gut. Which means I tolerate both folks who oppose gay marriage and those who support it. Unfortunately, I realize there are many gays who refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of any non-discriminatory rationale for opposing gay marriage. This is only a testament to their narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy. One view I find logically valid, non-discriminatory, and potentially true was expressed several months ago on NPR. And, of course, there are many religious folks who can't examine the gay marriage debate from any paradigm but their own, which is equally closed-minded.

So, my position is tentative. I remain a student of the issue. But so far:

• I DO believe it is fair to extend marriage or some legislative equivalent to gay couples,
• I do NOT believe it is a matter of civil rights,
• I'm not sure whether recognizing gay marriage will have positive or negative overall social consequences, and
  
• I DO believe that while the church "favors" societal institutions reflecting God's plan for the family, I can independently study it out and conclude for myself what to support as the best possible governance.