Gay_unhappy_t250

Psychology Association Gives Nod to Gay Change Therapy?

Opinion by Baptist Press
(August 09, 2009) in Society / Gay Issues
TORONTO -- In a report that has resulted in widely differing interpretations, a 130-page paper from an American Psychological Association task force Wednesday concluded there is little evidence that "gay-to-straight" therapies work, but -- in a nod to Christian conservatives -- said religious individuals who desire to leave homosexuality should be assisted in doing so.

The report from the APA's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Homosexuality was much-anticipated and was presented to the body's annual convention following a two-year study in which the task force examined 83 studies on the issue, most of them conducted before 1978.

Many conservatives were left wondering exactly what the paper said, and they weren't alone. The Associated Press and CNN.com ran stories largely focusing on the paper's critique of reparative therapies -- "Programs to change gays to straights don't work," CNN's headline read -- while the Wall Street Journal focused on what it saw as the APA's "striking departure" from its past liberal positions on homosexuality.

In truth, the report had something for both sides of the issue.

For those who say homosexuality is an unchangeable characteristic, the report said, "[T]he results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]." It also affirmed APA's position that homosexual attractions are "normal and positive variants" of human sexuality.

For those who believe homosexuality can be changed, the report concluded, "The appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek [sexual orientation change efforts] involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients ... without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome." Although such a sentence may not sound significant, it actually is: It gives the patient the ability to decide his or her direction in the therapy. Conservatives feared the APA not only would call such attempts unethical but also conclude that patients who desire to change should not be assisted. In another possible nod to Christian conservatives, the report concluded, "[W]e take the perspective that religious faith and psychology do not have to be seen as being opposed to each other."

Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and the representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals, said "the report was much better than I had expected" and that it had "enough to give anyone who read it some support." But he, like other conservatives, was frustrated with much of the report.

"There are thousands of people who can say with the man born blind in John 9, 'I once was blind but now I can see,'" Stith told Baptist Press, pointing to passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 where Scripture declares that homosexuals can change.

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, is one such former homosexual. Exodus is a Christian ministry that assists homosexuals who want to change.

"Optimistically, I think that this is gradual change [at APA], and we believe that gradual change is better than no change at all," Chambers told BP. "So, for the APA to come out with some nod toward religious folks who are conflicted about these issues, it's a good sign. What's not good is that they deny the truth of my story and the truth of the story of tens of thousands of other people like me that have experienced not only significant but real and lasting change.

"The APA has said that their psychologists and counselors need to respect a client's religious beliefs," Chambers added. "... That's the first time they've ever acknowledged anything of that nature."

Part of the divide between the APA and the Christian community, Chambers said, could be attributed to what is and is not considered change. For instance, the report criticized recent studies that conservatives have touted as supporting their position. APA brushed off those conclusions by noting the study's subjects "became skilled in ignoring or tolerating their same-sex attractions." The APA considers such a person a homosexual. But Chambers and others like him believe that, biblically speaking, the APA is simply describing former homosexuals who are resisting temptation. In other words, those former homosexuals -- according to Christian theology -- are winning their battle with sin.

"We all have something that we're called to give up," Chambers said of Christians. "... It's hard with a secular organization like the APA to help them grasp what we as Christians know to be true, and that is that there's all sorts of change that happens when someone submits their struggles to the lordship of Jesus Christ."

Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College, a Christian school in Ohio, agreed and said the APA believes if there hasn't been a change in what Christians would call "temptation," then there hasn't been true change.

A former homosexual is "tempted in ways that I as a straight man would never be tempted," Throckmorton said.

Although Throckmorton had disagreements with parts of the paper, he was overall pleased with it. In fact, he said some of the paper's conclusions are what conservatives have been urging the APA to conclude for two-plus years. He said conservatives have long urged the APA to respect "religious clients' right to define themselves the way they want to." Such patients, he said, come in all forms.

"We're talking about people who are married and happily married and who stay married," he told Baptist Press. "We're talking about deacons in churches. They feel that their faith is more vital to them. Instead of saying no to their faith they're going to say no to their sexual attractions."

The paper, he said, affirms self-determination, a psychological term meaning that the patient determines their path.

The report was released days before psychologists Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse release their next set of data in a longitudinal study that is following people who are trying to change. In the last set of data from 2007, 38 percent of the subjects followed in the study said they had successfully left homosexuality, while an additional 29 percent said they had had only modest successes but were committed to keep trying. That data was published in a book, "Ex-Gays?" Their newest data is set to be released online this weekend.

Chambers said the debate over whether homosexuals can change is at the heart of Christian theology and practice.

"If this isn't possible, then nothing else with regards to addition or life-dominating issues is possible," he said.

Copyright Baptist Press 2009

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • angelmama
    Very nice!

    To have the APA understand that you can leave homosexuality , because its a behaviour and behaviour can be modified and with routine habitual modification even changed completely, is momentous, superb!
    I went to narth to see what they had to say and it too was quite encouraging and here is a small quote:
    In What Research Shows, we offer a landscape review of more than one hundred years of experiential evidence, clinical studies, and research studies that demonstrate that it is possible for men and women to diminish their unwanted homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential; that efforts to change unwanted homosexual attractions are not generally harmful; and that homosexual men and women do indeed have substantially greater experiences of and risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population. Based on our review of 600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients—primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals, we conclude that reorientation treatment has been helpful to many and should continue to be available to those who seek it. Further, mental health professionals competent to provide such care ethically may do so.
    Can you hear the angels singing?

    - angelmamaUS August 10, 2009 1:17PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • hallelujahchorus
    Praise the Lord!

    Finally an inch, lets take it slow, praise God!In time well show them that homosexuality is a choice and no one should suffer for making a choice in life, wether for or against homosexuality.

    - hallelujahchorusUS August 10, 2009 1:43PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Babaroni
    A choice?

    "Homosexuality" is only a CHOICE for people who are bisexually oriented. Such people can be "cured" of their " homosexuality " by groups like NARTH, and then paraded around as "proof" that "homosexuality is curable." Bologna.

    As poster Rice klowN ably illustrates in the comments following the piece posted on this site about the "study" referenced in the last few paragraphs above, the "statistics" referenced are drastically skewed. Not only do the "statistics" exclude all the many people who dropped out of the study in the 6 years prior to its completion (who should be classified as "failures," in the study's lingo, and who dramatically increase the percentage of that group), but it claims as "successes" those who have sworn off of loving, committed, intimate relationship altogether. The majority of those referenced as "successes" have simply sublimated most or all of their natural desires for loving, intimate relationship with another human being in favor of a life of repression and self-hatred. That's not healthy, and it's most CERTAINLY not a "successful outcome" in my book.

    You people who think swearing yourself to a life of perpetual celibacy and aloneness, because someone says you are a pervert, is so great, try it for a few years, and then talk about how "successul" it is. In fact, try it for 40 or 50 years until you are old and weary and alone, with no spouse to grow old with, no children to look in on you now and then, no grandchildren to keep you interested in life. Really. The idea that anyone would seek to impose such a life on someone ELSE, would try to convince someone else that this is "what God requires of them," is beyond my comprehension. God made us and loves us. God does not punish us for being the persons were were created to be.

    - BabaroniUS August 12, 2009 1:44PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • jaker277
      actually my aunt did it

      Although there was nevere any question of her being completley heterosexual. She lived to be 90 never married never had children and wa quite happy.

      Now when did celibate mean alone?

      And in fact if it weren't for adoption or invitro then gay couples would never have children to look in on them every once in awhile.

      Rice klown is borderline illiterate and can't even transpose numbers on the same page.

      What you espouse as self loathing or hatred is more likely self love knowing that the matters of this life are not wholly physical.

      God does love us and doesn't want to see us damage our minds or our anus or our health with the follies of a homosexual lifestyle.

      - jaker277US August 13, 2009 9:25AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Babaroni
        Sure

        Sure, some people choose a life of celibacy for themselves. Some people never marry because "the right person never came along." Some people, I believe, have a genuine calling to celibacy (though not nearly as many as the Roman Catholic Church would have us believe). That does NOT mean, however, that every gay person is temperamentally, emotionally or psychologically suited to adopting such an austere way of life (and I'm not talking just monastic celibacy, here -- a commitment to lifelong celibacy is, in itself, very much an austerity). Nor does it mean that celibacy is a healthy or happy state of being for every person who finds him or herself in the position of being without a partner in life.

        Incidentally, gay people are as capable of having children as straight people. We use the very same medical interventions relied upon by straight infertile couples, and have our own children very nicely, thanks very much. However, the fact that many gay couples adopt unwanted children, and often adopt the most unadoptable children that most straight couples wouldn't dream of adopting, should be a source of gratitude from the community at large, not a slap towards gay parents, as you attempt to make it, here.

        You and I will have to differ on the question of the motivations behind gays who vow celibacy simply because they cannot accept themselves as gay, but your last comment is ridiculous. Being gay does not damage our minds or our health . Promiscuous behavior damages minds and bodies, whether the practitioners are having sex with persons of their own gender or the opposite. There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about being gay (nor is it a "lifestyle," as you so coyly term it).

        What IS unhealthy, is trying to force oneself to be something one is NOT. It would be just as unhealthy for me to try to pretend I was straight as it would be for you to attempt to "become gay" (assuming, for the sake of discussion, that you are straight, rather than a gay person who has not been able to come to a place of self-acceptance).

        - BabaroniUS August 13, 2009 11:17AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • jaker277
          I don't want to get too graphic here,

          but taking it in the arse is damaging. The anus is not a reproductive organ.
          Not to mention reports like these:

          http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/600

          Did you read what I said?

          "And in fact if it weren't for adoption or invitro then gay couples would never have children to look in on them every once in awhile."

          I am not saying that you are not capable of child rearing, I said you are not capable of child bearing. It is not a natural state. But, now I am supposed to thank you for expanding what I feel is immoral for the sake of a few orphans.

          Anyways, my point was that someone CAN lead a life of celibacy and be perfectly happy. Someone can modify their behavior and be happy. No matter the obvious problems with this study the fact remains that all sought out the treatment and some were successful.



          - jaker277US August 15, 2009 5:11AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Babaroni
            Why would you assume...

            Why would you assume that I, as a gay person, "take it in the arse," as you say? How ridiculous. And how many straight women in their private sexual encounters with their husbands, choose to engage in anal intercourse? Let me tell you. Lots. Why is it more damaging for same-gender partners than for opposite-gender partners? Again, clearly, it is not being gay which is, as you originally claimed, "damaging" or "unhealthy," but rather, it is sexual promiscuity, or the choice of various sexual behaviors, which are common among both heterosexual persons and homosexual persons. You certainly cannot condemn ME for something my straight neighbors engage in, which I have never done in my life. What's "unhealthy" or "damaging" about ME being gay? Nothing.

            You certainly are callous towards the many "orphans" currently being raised by thousands of gay and lesbian-parented families across the united states. And those raised by such families over the course of many decades, who, according to every major scientific study, are equally as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as their straight-parented peers.

            And this phrase of yours:
            "I am not saying that you are not capable of child rearing, I said you are not capable of child bearing."
            That is patently false. The proof is in the two children sitting on my couch munching on cereal and watching an opera on TV at this very moment. I am both capable of child-bearing AND child-rearing. And my children are healthy, happy, and well-adjusted, as much so as their straight-parented peers.

            You state: "Anyways, my point was that someone CAN lead a life of celibacy and be perfectly happy."

            "Someone?" Your aunt, apparently. Are you aware that I never disputed the fact that SOME people ARE perfectly capable of living their entire life in a solitary, celibate manner and being completely happy and fulfilled? Just as some people are bisexually-oriented and are capable of leaving a same-gender relationship and entering an opposite-gender relationship and being perfectly happy and fulfilled, so some people are innately well-suited to lives of solitude and celibacy, and can adopt such a life without serious psychological consequences.

            This does not imply, however, that the entire human race is well-suited a life of celibacy and solitude, any more than it implies that we are all equally capable of being happy and fulfilled in sexual relationships with any person of any gender.

            You claim that your aunt's life was not lonely or unfulfilled in any way. I'd like to hear that from her in her own words, were that possible (I get the impression that she has died, so I'm sure that's not possible). If you honestly believe that even the best-suited person who chooses a life of celibacy does not experience this as a singular and intense solitude and even loneliness at times, I think you are sadly misguided. You might want to talk honestly and openly with some lifelong celibates who have reached at least the age of 40 before so blithely dismissing the sacrifices and struggles such people face, even when their choice of celibacy has been completely voluntary, not thrust upon them by a society or religion which cannot accept their sexual orientation.

            If you think that a celibate woman does not long for and grieve the children she will never bear, go to any convent and talk with the women there. If you think that celibate men and women do not experience deep loneliness and sometimes even desperation, even when living in close-knit communities, I urge you to do a little research.

            Adopting a life of celibacy, with no "other" to whom one is primarily attached and devoted at one's inmost core, is at times painfully challenging to the most dedicated and voluntary of celibates. For someone not called or suited to a life of celibacy, it can be torturous to the point of suicidality.

            I think you may be either very young, or lacking in real empathy for the people you are discussing. Either some life experience of your own with deep, long-term aloneness, or some empathetic thought and extrapolation in your heart and mind, could bring you to some different conclusions.

            In any case, whatever age you are, it is probably time you learned that it is not appropriate to attempt to dictate how others should live and experience their lives. I would no more tell you that you ought to marry or become a celibate than I would tell you what profession you should adopt or how long you ought to live. It's none of my business. Nor is it yours to suggest that I "ought" to be able to find a lifetime of celibacy and loneliness and solitude "fulfilling." I'm surprised you cannot understand how deeply offensive that is.

            - BabaroniUS August 15, 2009 11:40AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • jaker277
              Justifying your immoral act

              with others immoral acts is an absurd argument.

              Where did I try and tell anyone how to live? Do whatever you like, dude. Suck a penis. Rail your lover or get railed. I am really not interested in the details. Maybe, I'm missing something, are you not gay but maybe a lesbian?

              The only point I wanted to make is that there are legitimate alternatives and people do change!

              "The proof is in the two children sitting on my couch munching on cereal and watching an opera on TV at this very moment. I am both capable of child-bearing AND child-rearing"

              So you bore these children? Even if you are a chick then like I said before either it was invitro or adoption .

              It's a free country, I am allowed to be calloused towards all those orphans. I may feel just a little for the ones whose parents died but as for the rest well that is a whole different debate.

              - jaker277US August 19, 2009 9:14PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Babaroni
                Apparently you didn't bother to read...

                Apparently you never really bothered to read my comments to which you purported to be responding, since you completely missed the fact that I am a woman.

                And many, many straight couples also conceive their children by means of donor sperm/in vitro, or adopt them. You discount those millions of parents when you suggest that there is anything less valid about the parental relationship to adopted children or donor-gamete children vs children being raised by both biological parents.

                I would suggest that before you go about trying to tell others how they should live their lives and express their love for their spouse, you might want to pay more attention to your own life. Claiming that universal celibacy for all gay people is a "legitimate alternative" to allowing people to simply live their lives within the bounds of their legitimate and inborn sexual orientation is callous and shows a complete lack of empathy or concern for your fellow human beings.

                - BabaroniUS August 20, 2009 5:51PM

                Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...