What a difference a day makes.
The American Psychiatric Association program Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension has been pulled by chair David Scasta. My understanding is that he was asked (by whom, I am still not clear) to pull the program because of increasing concerns about it. I am still hearing more about the reasons and hope to know something more clearly soon.
Dr. Scasta did tell me that the APA’s position is that the program was not pulled because gay activists were unhappy with it. At this moment, I am skeptical.
More to come…
I read that God created Man — Adam — and told him how to be heterosexual.
I’m still looking for God’s instruction to Adam on how to be homosexual. We’re told that it’s soooo important, and, yet, there’s no mention. Heh.
You’d think that, they way those who claim to be homosexual are talking, such instruction would be as important as God’s instructions to Adam. But no.
Also, I’m trying to find a sign of the starter homosexual, the homosexual Adam, the Genesis homosexual, the homosexual genesis.
I can’t find any of this.
Michael–
With one big exception:
I drew these conclusions from this statement that you posted earlier in this thread.
1) A goal of heterosexuality is not an option.
2) I respect a person’s right to choose celibacy but I don’t think it’s healthy (‘supress their natural sexual orientation’)
3) It would be unethical for me to therapeutically support gays who choose celibacy.
4) I don’t think the psychological community at large needs a program that tries to address those needs. (SIT Guidelines)
So, if Mary or I became your patients you’d ‘respect our right to choose our own path’ but you’d no longer treat us. That’s been our point all along. If your viewpoint is pretty much a global viewpoint in the psychological community, then we’d get a boatload of professional ‘respect’ but no one would consent to treat us. Those therapists who would treat us would be branded as ‘quacks’. You, yourself, don’t even see the need for therapists who would step in and offer us that support.
I honestly don’t see the respect in that.
Eddy: Let me respond to each of the assumptions you make about what I believe:
(1) A goal of heterosexuality is not an option. — I agree. I don’t see this (a true change in sexual orientation from gay to straight) as a viable option because I don’t see any real evidence that it is possible. It would be like trying to help a client who didn’t want to feel hunger any more. Even you, Eddy, have admitted that this was never the intent or goal of ex-gay therapy. Some may be able to make some sort of hetersexual adaptation and keep a marriage together, but I don’t know how to help them change their basic sexual orientation — and neither does anyone else.
(2) I respect a person’s right to choose celibacy but I don’t think it’s healthy (to supress their natural sexual orientation’) Not exactly. Celibacy may just be the best choice for some people. It’s just that I don’t know how to do that. I know the limits of my skill and knowledge. If a client wanted advice on how never to act on their homosexual orientation, and supress it for a lifetime, I would not be the right person to tell them how.
(3) It would be unethical for me to therapeutically support gays who choose celibacy. NOPE. Never said that and don’t believe that. I myself have chosen to remain celibate at various times in my life. I just don’t know how to counsel a person to manage that for a life time. The ETHICAL thing to do would in that situation would be to refer the patient to some other clinician who might know how. Do you know of any?
4) I don’t think the psychological community at large needs a program that tries to address those needs. (SIT Guidelines). You are right here. I think the ethical guidelines are already in place — if someone asks for something that you either do not know how to do or prefer not to do, you refer. There is absolutely nothing unethical about that. In fact, that’s the right thing to do. If a therapist wants to learn how to do ex-gay, change or reparative therapy as a speciality, I suppose they can go to NARTH — heaven forbid.
5) So, if Mary or I became your patients you’d ‘respect our right to choose our own path’ but you’d no longer treat us. I would treat you for as long as you found our sessions helpful. But, honestly Eddy, would you really want me to? Do you think all therapists should adopt an ex-gay approach? You seem to be suggesting that a truly ethical therpist should try to do whatever the client requests.
Come on. Would you treat someone who wanted advice on how to abandon their faith or adopt Satan worship as a lifestyle? I highly doubt it. That’s not the way I was trained. You work within the limits of your own training, expertise and values. I don’t try to do something I don’t believe in, that I believe may be harmfull to a patient — or that I do not know how to do. That would be unethical.
Eddy: Let me give you a real case example (some details changed for confidentiality). I had a client who came to a local AIDS services center who was HIV postive, addicted to drugs, very depressed and wanted to become heterosexual. I helped him with the first three issues — because I have the training and experience to do so.
Regarding his request that I help him become straight, I was honest with him and told him I did not know how to make him straight. I was honest with him and told him that there did not seem to be any credible, scientifically established means of doing this.
During our sessions together, he decided to follow his MD’s advice on managing his HIV — and his health improved significantly. He began medication for depression and our counseling sessions helped to greatly improve his overall mood. He stopped drugging and drinking, joined some support groups and is still clean and sober.
He reconnected with his church. He decided to remain celibate — even though he continued to hope that God would do a miracle. I did not try to discourage this. In fact, I supported his return to his faith. I never told him about my history as an ex-ex-gay. I helped him to the extent that I had training and expertise. Can you think of something else I should have done?
Michael,
You are right. Some gay people blame personal problems on their sexual orientation. A person does not treat a sex addiction by trying to switch from homosexual to heterosexual. There are plenty of heterosexual sex addicts.
Some on the religious right also confuse sexual orientation [an inborn trait] with sex addiction [a destructive behavior].
Eddy,
If I were Michael I would not treat you or Mary anymore than I would be Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon. It would be unethical b/c it would be based on a lie and an unhealthy desire to change ytour inborn sexual orientatrin.
The ethical and healthy choice is to accept your inborn sexual orientation and to behave in a responsible way in therms of your sex lfe or remain celibate if you choose.
Trying to change someone’s inborn sexual orientation b/c they cannot or will not accept it is unethical. An ethical therapist treats the issue of acceptance.
Roberto,
What can I say except you represent the mentality of religious fundamentalists – islamic and christian.
You need to respect facts and not mindelssly repeat stories in centuries old religious texts as if they are the facts. You are not a child – you need to stop thinking like one.
Roberto,
I do blame the people not the bible – the bible is full of metaphors and is an attempt made centuries ago to explain the mysteries of life.
It has been misued throughout history – just like it is today to lie about the biological basis of sexual orientation.
Roberto,
The majority of Americans will put a stop to it. If you continue to cram your fundamentalism down our throats – you will be stopped. We are fighting religious fundamentalismin the Middle East and we can fight it here too.
Lee,
Suppose a person came in to see you as a client (and you are a therapist) and they did not like the way they acted around women (your client is a man) He is gay and is uncomfortable with his sexual arousal around women. What do you do?
Lee,
I have another question for you.
Suppose a friend of yours ise really angry with someone and wants to kill them. But since they have no religion for rules and they are not a citizen of the country they live in, they do not feel bound to the laws of the land. What do you advise your friend to do?
Michael,
My take on what you say is this:
You have the right to seek any therapy you want.
Therapist have the right to seek to help you change or deal with your gay sexuality
No such therapy exists
Therefore – it is unethical for a therapist to employ any tactics to help you
—————————————————————————————————–
And then you campaign against anyone trying to develop therapies or new ideas.
It is sort of like when my older brother used to say I could have the ball (in his hand ) if I could get it. But he deliberatly kept it out of reach by holding his arm up and then jumping when I jumped to reach it.
Mary,
To your first question – I would say that he is really not gay – or is at least bisexual – if women turn him on sexually.
I would ask him why that bothers him and try to help him accept his bisexuality of heterosexuality.
To your second question – I find it interesting that you equate religion with morals. I see no coorelation – in fact religion is often used to justify immorality.
I have a code of ethics based on my sense of what is right and wrong. I know when I violate those principles and I take steps to make sure I don’t repeat mistakes. Killing another person is clearly wrong and that has nothing to do with religion – although religion has often been used to justify killing others.
I would advise him to deal with his anger in a responsible and constructive way and if can’t do that on his own I would get him help.
Mary: You partly understand what I am trying to say. Yes, I believe a person has the RIGHT to seek any therapy they wish. I have NEVER said that you do not — and wish you would quit accusing me of saying it — or implying that I am saying it. Once again, just so there is no confusion: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. Have I made that clear enough?
Therapists also have the RIGHT to offer any therapy they feel is helpful — as long as it it not harmful or unethical. Therapists also have the RIGHT, no — more than that — the RESPPONSIBILITY to say: “As far as the current research goes, there do not seem to be any reliable and verifiable, scientifically established therapies that have been proven to actually change a person from gay to straight.” That’s a FACT — and therapists have a RESPONSIBILITY to TELL THE TRUTH.
That being said, if a client and therapist want to TRY, they both have that RIGHT. I personally don’t believe in those “therapies” so I do not offer them. It would be highly unethical for me to pretend that I do. If another therapist does, good for them. If a client wants to see me anyway, that’s OK too. We can focus on what I can do — and I can refer them if I don’t feel qualified. Do you think I should be REQURIED to provide a therapy I do not believe in and do not know how to do?Any ideas where I might refer them?
And by the way, it is not true that I am “campaigning against anyone trying to develop therapies or new ideas.” On the contrary, I sure hope that therapists keep trying to develop new strategies to help people. That is their responsibility and it is also their RIGHT.
I just don’t happen to agree with the idea that gays are broken or disordered. But other therapist have every RIGHT to disagree with me and to try to develop whatever therapies they think may be helpful to their clients.
How can I make this any more clear to you? I am not trying to deprive you or anyone of the RIGHT to seek any sort of help they may seek. But, like you, I have a right to criticize and disagree. And I also have the RIGHT and responsibility to conduct my practice in accordance with my own training and values. Every therapist does. So, please lay off this “you don’t want other people to have the RIGHT to seek the kind of help they want”. It simply is not true.
Therapists also have the RIGHT to offer any therapy they feel is helpful — as long as it it not harmful or unethical. Therapists also have the RIGHT, no — more than that — the RESPPONSIBILITY to say: “As far as the current research goes, there do not seem to be any reliable and verifiable, scientifically established therapies that have been proven to actually change a person from gay to straight.” That’s a FACT — and therapists have a RESPONSIBILITY to TELL THE TRUTH.
Amen Michael – AMEN!!!!!!!!!
Roberto –
You are deluding yourself. Do you really think the rights are equal when a straight person can marry the consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying, person they love and gay people cannot??? This is an argument that some conservatives must have to tell themselves at night so they can sleep.
Mary and Eddy: Since you both seem to think I am being unethical and unreasonable in my approach, tell me:
How should I respond to a client who says “I am here because I want you to help me become heterosexual”. Do either of you know how to do that? If not, is it fair to criticize me for telling a client that I don’t know how?
Michael,
If you would look into the therapies that are being used instead of criticising everything and perhaps developing some yourself??
One more time – with feeling
Therapists also have the RIGHT to offer any therapy they feel is helpful — as long as it it not harmful or unethical. Therapists also have the RIGHT, no — more than that — the RESPPONSIBILITY to say: “As far as the current research goes, there do not seem to be any reliable and verifiable, scientifically established therapies that have been proven to actually change a person from gay to straight.” That’s a FACT — and therapists have a RESPONSIBILITY to TELL THE TRUTH.
Lee,
First question: So you are saying that you have decided (not him) that he is bisexual or heterosexual. That sounds like a judgment call since he considers himself gay.
Second question: You have decided that your morals are correct and the other person’s moral are incorrect and needs help. That’s an arbitrary call based on your code of rules – don’t you think?
Mary: I have absolutely NO interest in developing therapies to help gay people become straight. I am too busy helping the ones who have been seriously hurt by attempts to change their normal sexual orientation. Leave “developing new therapies” to the folks who think that gays are broken, sinful, diseased and disordered. Count me OUT.
Answer my question: What should I say to a client who says “I am here to change my orientation from gay to straight”. I don’t know anyone who knows how to do that. What do YOU think I should do?
Michael,
You sound like that guy at the patent office back in the early part of the 20th century who said that they might as well close the patent office since everything had already been invented.
Everytime there is research on the topic or anything – you pooh -pooh it. You discount everything that would permit another person to change. You have thus far in your blogging talked about all the harm that therapy for sexual conflict resolution has caused and that accepting ones gayness is the best option. Sorry to say but you’re a little old and outdated – alot has changed since your day and if you spoke to more people who were outside of the EXODUS or some other ministry arm who have found happiness and success – well – you would not see things differently. You want to see things as you do to justify yourself.
And yes, there need to be more research and therapuetic developments in the area of sexuality. It’s not over – we don’t know everything.
Mary,
That’s not true – very little has changed. AND, as Michael has repeatedly said, there is not verifiable, scientifically proved way to change orientation – once again you fail to completely read another’s posts.
I also find it highly unlikely that a man as educated as Michael, who knows a great deal of past AND present reparative therapies and who helps clients undoing their damage everyday, isn’t aware of what’s going on.
Your your-outdated argument is very telling.
I disagree with you Jayhuck. He does not keep current on sexuality issues. He’s been pretty adamant that he’s seen it all and knows it all and there’s no better answer.
He refuses to admit that people who have changed (not by his standards ) but by the standards that are good enough for the client – are beneficial. He calls that a fraud. I call that a succesful client.
Call it what you want Jayhuck – but the post was directed to Michael and my conversation will only be with him on this post from here on out. He’s an adult and can write for himself.
Seems pretty funny that more than one person sees his bias.
Seems pretty funny that more than one person sees his bias.
More like predictable Mary – I’m not really surprised that people who don’t agree with him call him biased.
You are right though – Michael can speak for himself!
Michael,
You should refer those clients out and let them know what your opinion about such therapies are.
You cannot help them.
If I walked into your office my life would be a mess right now. Your ill advice, disregard for the accounts of others (mine included), and self hatred for the things you used to believe (that you would go to hell for being gay – btw, I don’t believe that) lead into a direction that is not unbiased. that is a idsservice to your clients.
Mary,
Why would your life be a mess right now? What does your orientation have to do with your life being a mess? I’m just curious? Does it have something to do with your religious feelings?
A therapist is a sort of scientist, always looking for better ways to treat people.
That you have chosen not to look for better ways has to leave me with serious questions about your competence.
You gotta understand that “therapists” also may have an agenda, too.
In his case, he chooses not to counsel against the choice of the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option. That has the effect of reinforcing the patient’s choice of it, going along with it and furthering it. It’s a value judgment on the part of the “therapist” who becomes an agenda counsellor.
Sooo, you DO make value judgments. We understand.
Uhhh, YOU’re s’posed to be the therapist who up to date on these things.
In other words, it’s ethical for a therapist to say, “It’s ok to have chosen to go homosexual,” but not to say, “It’s not ok to have chosen to go homosexual,” is THAT it???
Soooo, you feel just comfy cozy telling the therapist to fashion, to engineer his therapy according to the homosexual agenda, to support the choice of the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option. We see.
The fact is that the therapist is not there to be a cheerleader, motivating the patient in whatever the patient chooses to think and do. He is in the wrong place to enlist support for the agenda.
The therapist is there to tell the patient the way it is, and, if the patient is reluctant and wants to do what he wants to do, he shouldn’t be seeking therapeutic help anyways, just go on doing what he wants. He should vacat the couch and let somebody in there who wants help.
Yet, you still blame the Bible.
Those who believe get it, and those who don’t don’t.
And, yet, the Truth remains, and some get It.
Jesus said that only a few will make it through the Gate. Those are the few who get It.
Then stop doing it.
That’s what the PR says, anyway.
All men may marry the person of the opposite sex they love.
No man is required to marry.
All women may marry the person of the opposite sex they love.
No woman is required to marry.
All men are prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex they say they love.
All women are prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex they say they love.
All are treated equally and equitably.
That’s pretty big talk.
How do YOU suppose THAT’s gonna happen when the majority of Americans, in general, believe ther is God and trust in Him?
What’s the mechanism we’re using to “cram” it down your throat??? Free speech??? Imagine that!
Soooo, you can’t tell the differnce???
“However,” therapists who are in sympathy with patients who say that they are homosexual should add, “the fact is that many, many have changed cuz-a competent therapies, but I choose not to use them.”
Then, how do those who claim to be homosexual procreate if women don’t turn them on???? Do ALL of them go directly to the test tube???
So, you would bring your agenda into the therapy. We see.
What kinda Science is THAT???
Of course you don’t.
If Morals is the jurisdiction of the individual, the individual can justify doing anything.
However, the individual who understands that there is a Morals Judge outside himself, will do otherwise.
That’s the fault of the indibvidual, not the faith. God gives us the dignity of choice.
So, you are the judge of your own behavior. Convenient.
So, YOU get to make up “those principles,” and YOU get to judge. What you’re not telling us is that you also get to change “those principles” to your liking, depending on the circumstances, and, since it’s YOU who get to judge, you’re never guilty. Nice.
Who says, in YOUR “morality”?
As you say, it has to do with whatever YOU think is “moral” at any, given, changing time. Does that system apply to me, too??
Men do that. Blame them.
This is the point. They have nothing but corrupt speculation.
Without God, how do YOU know this??? After all, without God, all things are permissible.
Yeah, but what about this:
http://www.narth.com/docs/study.html
Those who claim to be homosexual, having made themselves in tgheir own image to be “homosexual,” can choose again, this time to change back to what God chose to make everybody.
Roberto,
NARTH is not a trustworthy organization.
Wow – and i thought I was prolific – LOL
Especially for those who claim to be homosexual, their supporters and activists. I can understand why they wouldn’t trust it.
Jayhuck,
Unlike you , I do not believe that the history of my sexuality and my development is mostly biological. Yes, there is a biological aspect to the history of my sexuality – but environment and my interpretation of that has had much to do with my development. And I believe (in my personal relationship with God) that God wants me to (and I am not talking about anyone else) to follow my hetersexuality. This is not about biblical interpretations of the bible, nor influences from friends and family (if you knew them you would know that for sure) nor anything else. It is between me and God. And yes, I would feel that I was not following a direction that he wants me (not talking anyone else here) to go. My life would be in defiance of that instruction.
Granted, I do many things that are not what God wants me to do. I am not as gracious as I should/can be, I can be impatient, etc…. All things that I work on. And again – that is between me and God.
Can you imagine me walking into MIchael’s office and have him start telling me what God means to him and how that is supposed to equate what God also means to me??? Nowhere in his writings do I see him acknowledge that people have different personal relationships with God. It’s as if his conclusion is to be the final word on sexuality. I wholly disagree with him.
This — http://www.hetracil.com/ — can also help those who know that change is possible from their choice of the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option back to God’s choice for Man: Heterosexuality.
Well, we know that God made Adam and, out of him, Eve, and He programmed their spirits in heterosexuality.
There isn’t anywhere in the Word of God where God says He programmed the spirits of Man in homosexuality. There is nowhere in the Word of God where God approves of the same-sex sexual relationship. In fact, His approval is directed exclusively at and for the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. In the same-sex so-called “marriage,” who would be the husband and who would be the wife??? After all, as I say God says, the only godly union is that of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.
You would think that, if homosexuality were so important, God would have programmed the spirits of Man equally in heterosexuality and homosexuality. But no. It’s all heterosexuality. And God goes on to condemn what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination.”
Roberto,
While I respect your opinion, there are people who interpret God and his word differently. Even I, an ex gay, who is a christian, do not totally agree with your perspective. As far as homosexuality being a choice – I don’t think it is. It is a complex series of events and biology and psychology that is not so easy for people to walk away from. Just saying that it is not what God wants is not the answer. Even for yourself – you know – you do things and think things that God does not want for you and yet, you do so.
God does give a choice as to whether or not we will follow him – and I am honestly sure that we all will fall short of that. Homosexuality (in your book) should be nor greater nor lesser sin than the ones you commit.
Have you ever had any homosexual feelings?
Roberto,
The only people who respect NARTH, even a little bit, are people who have an agenda to push. The VAST majority of the scientific community has shunned them – they have misrepresented data and research to further their own ends – don’t drink their Kool-Aid.
NARTH is nothing but a fringe psychological group.
Jayhuck,
I respect NARTH on some aspects but not all. While they are definitely slanted, there is still some value to their website. I look in on it from time to time as well.
Just so you know – I really don’t care for their political biases and other slants.
Mary,
First let me say I understand and respect your decisions – however, I don’t get that from Michael’s writings at all.
I don’t see Michael trying to suppress anything – he is honest with his clients, as all therapists should be. Sure he can refer them to someone who may work in such therapies, but he also has an obligation to tell the client that there IS NOT VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC METHOD FOR CHANGING ORIENTATION – that is a fact and a truth that must be communicated to the client – along with the potential risks.
Mary,
If you respect NARTH even a little, you might want to check out the most recent article about them on BoxTurtlebulletin:
NARTH inserts foot in mouth again
Jayhuck,
His honesty is very different than the honesty I recieved from someone else (my shrink). And I do get that he is very biased and has negative experiences and transmits those into his therapy and practice. And the fact is – here I am as proof.
Unfortunately, politics and funding for research has made getting proof difficult. Also, therapy and techniques have improved. I seriously doubt that electric shock is till being used or aversion therapy. And the hocus pocus pray away the gay thing is well – his experience and certanly not mine. And the S & J research that came out last year shows proof. I read the findings differently than gay activists do. And I would certainly give a client both interpretations of those findings. Michael has consistently said that there is no proof. I disagree. I see the world differently – my bias.
So – you see – with his bias – had I walked into his office – I would have been given a very grim outlook and discouraging (biased) news. As it was, I was given lots of resources to read, check out and evaluate. Both sides. I have been able to make my own conclusions – not my shrinks.
Jayhuck,
This is a clients view – and that client has a right to that view. He cannot be challenged by his shrink since that shrink is obligated to an ethic of confidentiality. And as I said – I do not respect everything about NARTH. You are picking and choosing. That is not something I am going to get into a long discussion with you about. I, too, pick and choose and respect some of what NARTH says and does – not all.
Mary,
Did I ever say anything about electric shock – regardless of the proof or the difficulty in getting it the fact still remains that THERE IS NO VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out there and clients need to know that.
When I talk about harm Mary, I’m not talking about therapies that were done some 30 years ago, I’m talking about Ex-Ex Gays, some that have just come out of therapy in the last 5 years who are talking about the harm that was done to them.
I see little bias in Michael and a great deal of honesty. It would be dishonest and agenda pushing NOT to share such information with a client.
No.
NARTH has done nothing to win itself respect within the scientific community – in fact they have embarrassed themselves and their profession too many times for them to be taken seriously anymore. You may find value in their site, I see absolutely nothing except an organization built on falsehood and misrepresentation.
Jayhuck,
I am so sorry for ex ex gays who have been harmed. But they are adults and could have walked out of therapy at anytime. And I am glad they finally did so and found peace with their sexuality. And I am glad they are speaking out. People need to hear both sides of the story. I read Peter Toscano’s blog regularly. He is very intelligent and gifted man. What insight and compassion he has! I think he adds so much to the the gay experience that cannot and should not be overlooked by anyone. As well as Christine Blake’s story. Very powerful and honest and thoughtful. Everyone should be familiar with her story as well.
You are picking and choosing to listen to a subset of people. That is fine. and I believe those people were harmed and could have avoided a lot of pain and angst. I do agree with you but not entirely.
You are right it would be dishonest not to share with someone those stories and aspects of the experience. But it would be equally dishonest and biased not to share the other perspective. Or to share that side with discouraging footnotes.
That’s what anybody who claims to be homosexual, a supporter and/or an activist must say.
You must be talking about the “scientific” information coming from the homosexual community.
Dismissing information that would defeat your cause is something that we’ve come to expect from the community of those who claim to be homosexual.
Is Roberto still talking?
Roberto,
Since you have never had homosexual feelings – can I make a suggestion? Get to know peole who have. It is a difficult life – one that if you are going to preach on – should be understood from the level of the person. Jesus spoke to those at their level of understanding – how can you expect to speak to someone if you do not understand them?
I agree with you Mary
All I need to know is what God says about it. It’s not about what other things they do, but, rather, what they do that defies God, and I don’t need to know any more about it than that.
To what end?
Understand what that God hasn’t told me already about it?
Roberto,
Gay people in this country are well aware of what the bible says about homosexuality.
It is difficult to be treated without love and respect in a society. It is difficult to be told everyday by so many people that your life is not good, that your feelings are wrong, and that you are not with God.
There is no sure fire therapy that will gaurantee a change of one’s sexual and romantic interest. And many, many people with all earnest heart’s have prayed and prayed a thousand hours everyday just to feel heterosexual (or not feel gay) just for a moment. It is tremendously difficult to feel in conflict everyday, all the time, without relief.
Your comments are simply more of the same that has come from blank and empty hearts that have no compassion for those who suffer.
You sound like a man with some knowledge of the bible but who has no love. You and the words you speak are nothing without love.
Thank you Mary
They have not delved deeply enough into the Word of God, except to find things to twist to suit their agenda.
The Call of God is to declare the Word of God.
There are no guarantees in/of anything. So what? We don’t try?
(Jas 4:3) Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
Biblical compassion is unselfish concern for those who will die without Christ.
Biblical love is unselfish concern for the Salvation of others, at least as much concern for their Salvation as you have for your own.
What you advocate is worldly love. The kind of love that shuts up. Biblical love speaks up, even at the expense of friendship which is not as important as saving someone’s life.
To Word — –> The Word
Out of the entire world, God saved eight. Did He do that out of love? Of course He did.
Where Jesus says that those who are not born again are condemned, did He say that out of love? Of course He did.
Where Jesus calls other people names, did He do that out of love? Of course He did.
God, through Jesus, says that it doesn’t matter what others think about the declaration by those who are born again of the Word of God; God says that those who are born again are to declare the Word of God and ignore the philosophies of men. He says that people will get angry but that so what.
Remember that they hated Jesus before they hated me.
The bottom line is that it’s THEIR choice. When, on Judgment Day, they stand before the LORD, they won’t be able to blame anybody else for the choices they made.
When it comes to what it takes to obtain Salvation, the only thing that matters is that that person understands God’s point of view. It’s not necessary for God to understand the person’s point of view. He already knows that men’s hearts are wicked. That’s all He needs to know.
Roberto,
Have you ever considered your own heart wicked – that which condemns others without first taking a look at yourself?
The Greatest Gift
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
You have become a clanging cymbal
Shall I now begin to judge you, chastise you, demand of you to obey all of God’s instructions for your own salvation? No. No one can. And since the sure observer knows the hearts of all men – I assume he knows the hearts of gay people alot better than do you. Nuf said. Go judge yourself if you feel so compelled to bring salvation to someone.
“Suffer” from what??
Did Jesus enable and empower those who “suffer” to go on suffering?? Of course He didn’t.
Worldly compassion is interested in solidarity with those who suffer, enabling and empowering them to go on suffering. The sufferer wants somebody to suffer with him. That’s not what Jesus was about. That’s not what He is about.
I don’t know – Jesus suffered a lot for me. I don’t understand why you say the same thing that people have heard a so many times and think that it is going to be different when you say it. Especially when you have not taken the time to understand what a gay person goes through. Jesus did understand all things – but I don’t think that you do. Acting as if you do is sort of boastful and prideful – don’t you think?
Why don’ t you know any gay people? Do you not engage in fellowship with them – or do you simply make demands and quote the bible? Do you get to know the hearts of those who suffer or do you just tell that to knock it off? God has heard our hearts – yours too. Have you ever suffered greatly, been lonely beyond your threshold, lost your innocence in a stark and glaring way, been betrayed, found guilty (even if just by you), craved for someone to understand you?
Mary,
I hope you don’t mind this advice – but you’re not going to win this argument with Roberto – he’s a man with an agenda and no pleas for compassion or understanding are going to sway him. If I were you I’d just save my time and effort for other things
Thank you for your words though
Jayhuck,
I know. But everytime someone starts in the way he does – people like that need to hear from an exgay who is a christian. And gays and ex gays need to hear someone stand up without fear of retribution from some group. It’s not so much for Roberto’s sake – as I know he cannot hear – but for those who live in fear of some group that might chastise them for being gay or those who are exgay and are afraid of being sympathetic to gays and how it might look. Someone without an agenda, without an alliance to some group, someone who does not recieve a paycheck for their opinions needs to speak up. Roberto’s words were said with coldness and without love. Christians do not act like that – at least from the book I read.
Eddy said in post 99011;
(I realize this is a bit old, but I’ve been busy and people mis-representing the facts about the APA’s removal of homosexuality from the DSM is a pet-peeve of mine).
There’s ‘an intensive review by experts lasting more than a year’. Really, a whole year?
Yes, actually 2 years. The NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality was appointed in 1967 and produced its final report in 1969. Although I suspect Jack was referring to the APA committee the followed up on the Task force report and eventually removed homosexuality as a disorder.
Did these experts suspend their lives, their practice, their other duties so they could all gather together and review intensively?
while I don’t know for sure, I’m fairly certain the answer to this question is ‘no.’ However, I would add that that there would have been no need for them to “suspend their lives, their practice, their other duties ” to review the literature. These are unreasonable criteria you have placed on the requirements of an “intensive review.”
Did they poll the psychiatric community for case studies?
Yes they did, and I suspect they relied heavily on the task force’s reviews as well.
The APA’s decision has been discussed before and it is clear you followed that discussion because you made a comment about spelling in it here: 70742
The entire tone of your post indicates you aren’t really interested in getting the facts about the decision. However, if you are interested in more information on it and not just posting sarcastic comments to promote your own biases about the decision, you might try reading the Task Force’s final report, You can get a (rather poor) copy of it here: Task Force Final Report there is a link to the pdf file at the top of the page.
Mary: You said: ““You should refer those clients out and let them know what your opinion about such therapies are. You cannot help them. If I walked into your office my life would be a mess right now. Your ill advice, disregard for the accounts of others (mine included), and self hatred for the things you used to believe (that you would go to hell for being gay – btw, I don’t believe that) lead into a direction that is not unbiased. that is a disservice to your clients.”
Mary, first of all, I don’t get requests like yours. But if you had walked into my office, I would have been as truthful and compassionate and professional as I know how. I would not preach to you or lay my beliefs on you. That would be a disservice. I would try to help you make whatever changes might make your life more satisfying for you. I just don’t know how to make a gay person straight.
On the blogs, I am a private citizen and professional stating my own, very strong, opinions. In therapy, the session is about the patient, not me — so I keep those to myself. I have told a few (straight) clients who asked what science has to say about an actual change in orientation, but that’s about it.
As a Marriage and Family Therapist, almost all my clients are heterosexuals with marriage or parenting problems, so the issue doesn’t come up. If it did, Wendy Gritter (in Canada) is the only person I would trust as a referral.
BTW: I do not hate myself — as you seem to assume. Used to, but not now.
You and Eddy seem to be suggesting tht it is somehow unethical, cruel or uncaring for me to not personally provide (or now how to do) ANYTHING a client asks. I should try to make them ex-gay — even though I am not convinced such a thing is possible and that such attempts are often psychologically and spritually harmful..
According to you, I should refer them (if not to EXODUS or NARTH) to someone (Who? Where?) who does know how to help a client lead a lifetime of celicacy or try to become straight — even though I have serious scientific, Biblical and moral objections to their teachings and approach.
In my mind, a therapist must do what they (1) know how to do (2) what they believe is helpful and (3) that which is backed up by sound scientific research regarding its efficacy. If I don’t believe as you do and do what the client demands, then I am a bad therapist?
Well, at least you would refer to someone. It is too bad that you don’t know anyone – partly because of the political pressure put on therapists to be gay affirming only. The one I see does not advertise on NARTH nor EXODUS and it is not her main focus of her practice.
It is sort of the double bind that people set up for themselves. You can’t refer somoone out because you don’t know anyone. Those who are practicing don’t advertise it because of the political pressure not to do such therapy. Hence – Michael you are kept safely in your convienent world of not knowing anyone.
Although, like you I would not refer someone to NARTH or EXODUS but I do have a couple of names that I would refer someone to.
I mean legitimate, licensed, ethical practioneers who have all their credentials don’t advertise.
Also, I meant to to say most do not advertise
IN addition to which, anyone who starts a research gets blasted from gay activists – which I do understnad – but it stops all the wheels of progress.
Mary: If you or Warren or Eddy or Wendy or anyone else knows where these therapists who are (1) afraid of advertizing and who know how to do the type of therapy wou are suggesting that I should do – please tell me. Otherwise, please lay off.
I have asked for this repeatedly — and you seem upset with me that I don’t know any. Is it my fault they don’t advertize? I don’t even get requests from clients to find such therapists. It is my job to put together such a list?
Michael,
Unfortunately, I cannot give out the name of mine. Of those that I feel comfortable with that are public are Warren, and Janelle Hallman for women and that’s about it. And I would use these two people for further referrals.
Like you I would not suggest that there is any gaurantee, that different therapists have different approaches and to look into those.
Like I said – it is a double bind created by political pressure.
Michael–
Please forgive me. I was not trying to question either your therapy or credentials but I can see how it looked that way. I was mostly going after that piece of your comment where you said you didn’t see the need for groups like SIT since all the guidelines are already in place. But then you admitted that you couldn’t assist people like Mary or myself and you didn’t know anyone who could.
So, for purely selfish reasons, my discussion was motivated by the realization that I’m still out in the cold. If I sought counseling through my church wanting to explore whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong…I can’t get that. They don’t want me to question it. But, if I go to a therapist wanting to explore whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong…I can’t get that. They don’t want me to question it either. It seems both sides either want me to see it their way from the start or want it understood that the only reasonable outcome is that I learn to see it their way. For a question of such significance, I’d hope to find a counselor/therapist who could at least pretend not to have a pre-conceived conclusion. That’s sounding more and more impossible.
Ken–
Thanks for some direction and clarity on the mechanics behind the reclassification. The link says the materials are no longer available online but even the knowledge of the 2 year prior study is more than I had before. I’ll see what I can do about getting access to that pdf.
The declassification happened during my post high school and college days back when I was quite a social activist. (Anti-war, racial equality, and gay awareness were my principal causes.) Anyway, I recall that we celebrated the declassification as a political victory but I can see where that could have been our own ignorance. (Something happens that fits with your agenda and you take it on investing it with your own particular spin…sometimes with little or no regard for the original process and purpose.)
(That, BTW, is pretty much what I think Focus on the Family did with the news of the symposium.)
I’m not sure where you are getting that the report is no longer available online. Here is a link directly to the pdf file (note for those who would rather not download the whole thing, you can read the 1 paragraph abstract in the previous link I gave, at the top of the page is a link to the Full Text)
Task Force report – Full PDF Text
Ken–
Many, many thanks! This link worked and I was able to read the entire document. LOL. I’m doing mandatory overtime this week…and it’s all proofing scanned documents. I’ve saved a copy to review more deeply after the work crunch is over.
Thanks again for the link. I’m a books/library kind of a guy…the computer only became part of my personal life about 5 years ago…I’ve learned to google and even to do some selected searches but some things are still way beyond my scope. This link is much appreciated!
Ken–
Just from the read I did, it’s clear that the task force agenda was not exclusively political but the entire ‘social issues’ area could/would be interpreted as political. But, in reading the language and some of the incidental concerns they brought up, these seem to be entirely realistic and valid concerns. The psychological community’s motivation for speaking to the ‘social issues’ was directly related to concerns for mental health. So, currently I’m at “partially political but, understandably so, and not insidious.”
Just reading it–some of the language and phrasing–is taking me back to that time. I do want to review it again when I can be more reflective.
Mary: you said : Michael you are kept safely in your convienent world of not knowing anyone. Me not knowing anyone? Heck, you can only think of two — and one is too scared to step forward and make herself known.
Where are the rest of them? Hiding in closets for fear of the dreaded gay activists? If they realy know truth that can actually set people free, don’t thet have a moral obligation, as a Christian, to make themselves known?
Contrary to what you are implying, I am not afraid of knowing someone who knows how to do the therapy you and Eddy are promoting. I would really and sincerely like to meet one. I have no need for a “convenient world” where everyone agrees with me.
My eyes are open here. So I repeat: If someone — anyone — knows who these therapists are, I repeat: PLEASE TELL ME. I would love to meet them. So far, Wendy Gritter is it — and not everyone can go to Canada to see her.
Michael,
Hope this gets through – it is about the third time I have tried.
As to your request. I would refer anyone to Warren who has more contacts and connections than do I. For women, I would refer them to Hallman, as she has also more contacts and connections as well. Both are different kinds of therapists with different views on the development of sexuality. But – niether do they suggest to anyone that they impose their views on to their clients. They both have specifically said that they work with a certain client (not all kinds of homosexuals) and that the decision for the outcome of therapy is theirs.
I cannot give the name of my personal therapist – as this has been discussed on this blog before. Some people have families to protect. And yes – some gays have been very active in seeking these people out and calling much attention to them. That is repressed expression. Not everyone wants to be highlighted, and some just do not have the time nor energy to deal with the onslaught of gay activists in their e-mail, at their office, in their mail box, or bothering the people around them etc…
There are a lot of posts in this comment thread. If it hasn’t been stated earlier, the APA has been changing its stance and saying now that any biological component in minimal and enivironmental influences are more of a component.
Tim – You have the wrong APA – you are referring to the psychological group.
And the APA did not say environmental influences were more of a component. Please see this recent post here:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/05/14/worldnetdaily-suddenly-finds-year-old-narth-article-newsworthy/