Box Turtle Bulletin

I become greatly incensed that anyone can truly believe that any other person is “undeserving of protection or equality”. We are all created in the image of God and therefore, we all are deserving of tribute. Even Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, recognized that “all men [and women] are created equal”.

Are we or are we not “a nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”? And if so, then why do people like Throckmorton believe that some people are created more equal than others?

Todd

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147

I have often wondered about the whole use of “homosexuality is a choice”. I could use Throckmorten’s quote about how his religious belies “do not seem like a choice” to him and apply the same to my feelings about homosexuality. I struggled for 38 years with my sexuality growing up in the LDS church. I lived faithfully the teachings including serving a 2 year mission and marrying in the Temple. I was faithful and very active in teaching, scripture reading, and church and temple attendance. In some ways, no matter how much I prayed and fasted, I could not change. I was referred to numerous therapists and counselors for help by my bishops and went through the work they felt would help me change. I never had false assumptions andhoped for nothing more than to be attracted to my beautiful wife. I hoped for a lessening of my attraction and feelings towards men, but did not beleive that would ever change. My sexual orientation is what is true to me. It makes sense and feels right and comfortable.

I have been very interested recently in research that is ongoing in searching for a gene that contributes to a person’s religious behavior.

Religion for me truly is a choice. Many people change or adopt different religious beliefs throughout their lives. The need for some to believe is definetly greater in some than in others. I am not one to say that this is a defect or abnormality, I see it as a better way to see people and understand their choices. In some things, like eye color, genes are obviously a determining factor. In other areas, genes may decide degree or inclination, but may not be the one deciding factor.

homer

Religion is a choice. If it isn’t why to churches invest so much time indoctrinating children (e.g. summer bible camps).

David

There is a huge flaw in Throckmorton’s hypothesis.

Data.

There is precious little substantiated data indicating that anyone has changed their sexual orientation from gay to straight. What little does exists suggests instead that some bisexual people can sufficiently focus on the heterosexual component of their sexuality to function heterosexually.

However, people have been changing their religious beliefs for as along as religions have existed. Christianity exists because of the premise that Jews could change from one covenant with God (through Abraham) to a new covenant with God through Christ, and Christians have been actively converting people to Christianity – changing their religion, ever since.

And within Christianity, each of the denominations reflects some significant change in religious belief, often one that was radical and challenging at the time.

Nor is Christianity alone in its history of conversion, whether peaceful or coerced.

Throckmorton has employed a form of dishonesty to defend an intrinsically dishonest industry.

Willie Hewes

I do kind of agree that you can’t just decide what you want to believe, and I’m sure Throckmorton is correct when he says most of his patients don’t feel like they choose their religious beliefs.

That said, I know a hell of a lot more ex-Christians than I know ex-gays.

The issue of ‘change’ is entirely irrelevant to the hate crimes issue. Hate crimes target and effect a community of people, and do damage and harm far beyond what is suffered by the victim. This is why they are punished more heavily. This completely applies to the gay community, and would even if sexual orientation was a simple mental switch you could turn on and off.

They need to stop pretending the change issue has anything to do with whether the GLBT community deserves this protection. Gays are a community. They are targeted by hate crimes. Ergo, they deserve and need the same protection other groups already have.

David et al — My point is not to say religion is immutable so change sexual orientation instead. That would indeed be a silly argument and one that I do not make.

The point is not to draw an either-or; I am actually arguing against a polarized treatment of sexuality and religion. My whole point is that for some people changing religious beliefs is not easy, even when faced with realities about themselves that are in conflict with their religious beliefs. Some (Wayne Besen and Michelangelo Signorile are two I have run into recently) seem to argue that the issue is a no-brainer since religion is a choice and sexual orientation is not. I am only arguing that religion functions as a core personality variable for some folks and to just say “change is possible” (recognize that?) is a naive view of how religion functions for those people.

RE: Data — some people have claimed to have changed aspects of sexual orientation (behavior, intensity of desire). I do not know of a way to invalidate their individual reports, do you?

Mike Airhart

Sorry folks…

While I agree with Jim Burroway and Wayne Besen that superficial religious “belief” is voluntary, I also agree with Warren Throckmorton to some extent.

I believe certain forms of religious belief are superficial reflections of deeply ingrained emotional and psychological inclinations toward certain methods of reason (or lack thereof), socialization, and religious practice.

For example, through GayChristian.net and Ex-Gay Watch I have met some exgay and antigay absolutists who became gay absolutists — either fundamentalist or atheist, but still absolutist. Their material beliefs change in a superficial literal sense, but their underlying METHOD of belief (which I consider more important, and reflective of a person’s soul) does not.

Similarly, I have seen supposedly gay ultraconservatives such as Anthony Falzarano become exgay ultracons. Again, such people may proclaim radical change, but in fact their philosophy and overall behavior have changed very little. Both before and after the supposed change, some people exhibit an evangelical sort of political/spiritual pride, a hasty judgmentalism toward others, and an unchanged spirit of partisan conflict.

That’s probably not what Throckmorton meant, but I still maintain that the inclinations that underlie an individual’s religious belief can, in some cases, be very difficult to change.

Some people simply seem deeply incapable of recognizing ambiguity, complexity, and diversity around them.

David Roberts

It seems to me that the entire premise is moot. The issue is one of free will. For some people, altering their faith for any reason other than a more perfect understanding of the Truth (the search for which was stated as a basis for faith) is simply not going to happen. These people have that right and excising it does not diminish those who chose otherwise. Could they? Well of course. I could cut off my left arm if I felt it necessary, but that’s my choice.

What bothers me about the things I have heard recently is that we appear to be imposing a position which devalues some people’s faith in the same way that Exodus, et al, have asked us to devalue our sexual nature. Neither is appropriate to me. I hope that everyone can come to an understanding which allows them to be true to themselves and their faith as have I. But outside pressure during my own struggle to do that was extremely counter productive and so I feel obligated to give everyone the chance to decide when and if they can do that themselves. It would be arrogant to do otherwise, or so it seems to me.

As for changing ones attractions, good luck with that.

WJZ

>> I suspect that the particular belief is not as important to the well being of individuals as is the notion that one is right. Oneâ€™s innate drive is to pursue that which is true: the hidden reality as expressed by and through the gods; and that which is good: the commands and requirements of the gods. Those who claim that people of faith adhere to their beliefs solely to avoid â€œeternal punishmentâ€ do not understand this concept. It is not to appease an angry deity that draws adherents, but a desire to know the great unknown and to be seen as â€œgoodâ€ in its sight.

WJZ

Oops. My reply to that quote got lopped off by the HTML filter:

You can’t entangle the concepts of “being right” and “dogmatic adherence.” The only way that one can be convinced of his “rightness” is if his conduct is known to him to be inline with god’s desires as expressed by the dogma and precepts of his religion. The appeasement of an angry god (which is, often, the foundation of the belief that homosexuals must be eradicated) and the graceful expression of a loving god’s love are both “right” as long as the actor remains true to his particular notion of “the correct path to eternal reward and away from eternal punishment.”

Jim Burroway

Mike,

Timothy wrote this piece, not me. I do think however that he raises some good points, as you do as well. It’s in interesting observation about beliefs changing but the method of belief remains the same.

—-

The error, I think, is when questions of the mutability of faith are placed on a parallel to the mutability of sexuality. I just don’t see the parallels at all. By framing the discussion as faith vs. sexuality, it implies some sort of duality or similarity of quality.

It would be like having an argument of faith vs. perfect pitch in music or faith vs. left-handedness, and how one might investigate changing one to accommodate the other. But in reality, the two have no basis for comparison.

But if one were to look for evidence for the mutability of faith, I would say that the example of so many ex-Catholics among Baptists, ex-Baptists among Methodists, ex-Methodists among Mormons, and ex-Mormons among Scientologists shows some pretty good evidence for such mutability — as well as the success for the “ex-nonBaptist”, “ex-nonMethodist,” etc., organizations which facilitate such change.

Emproph

As far as the importance of beliefs go, can we all agree that we all have a human need to find meaning?

And that for some, this need to find meaning, means the need to find that homosexuality itself is without meaning.

Granted, there is a universe of grey area, but isn’t that ultimately what this conundrum comes down to?

Jim – Speaking descriptively now, for many, sexual behavior versus religious belief is hardly akin to sexual behavior versus perfect pitch. You may prefer or even believe that these elements are not in conflict in fact, but for those who believe certain sexual behaviors are wrong, the urge to engage in them creates dissonance. I feel like I must be missing your point because this seems quite obvious.

How one resolves the experienced conflict is highly variable and may involved deciding there was no need for dissonance in the first place. However, for some, the decision is to modify in some manner one aspect of personality or another.

Jim Burroway

Where I was starting to go with it — and I admit it’s not a thought that’s fully developed — is that of course there is no conflict between perfect pitch and religious beliefs. And I didn’t mean to say that no such conflicts exist between religious beliefs and sexuality for some as a starting point. But I believe the assumption ought to be challenged nevertheless.

And the reason I think the assumption ought to be challenged is that I don’t really think that religious beliefs can be separated from broader cultural assumptions very well. And we are perfectly comfortable challenging them — in fact, that’s often an important function of religion.

We can all well remember the slavery question, where we as a national finally decided not to hold one set of religious on the issue sacrosanct. One set of religious values was ultimately trumped by another set of values, which too, were often argued on the basis of religion.

There are several lines of thinking I’m trying to bring into coherence, and I’m trying to do it while being distracted by too many other side projects. So naturally, I’ve failed. I guess that’s why Timothy wrote this post before I could write one. ;-)

But here goes anyway:

1) People on both sides talk about the conflict as though they were equal qualities, and that one must give way towards the other. I posit that they are not, and in fact, I actually believe that most people, probably even you, agree with me. I think that people more often resolve the issue through a process of synthesis rather than a shaving some weight off of one quantity in order to allow the other to come into balance. But the language we’re using often tends to frame the problem that way. And this is true for “both sides.” I don’t know how to reframe the debate, but I think the fundamental assumption ought to be challenged more rigorously.

2) By challenging these assumptions, some sacred cows, so to speak, ought not be left off-limits. Everyone, of course, decides for himself or herself how to conduct one’s sexual affairs and relationships according to one’s values. I do find it suprising sometimes that this is controversial. But I don’t believe that it is necessary to put “religious values” in a tent and say that they are more or less “core” to ones being. They’re not any more “core” than any other set of assumptions, biases, worldviews, or experiences — including experiences of homophobia, bullying, etc. and the lessons (correct or otherwise) the individual draws from those experiences.

Fundamentally, I think the way we frame the debate is a little off-kilter, and I’m struggling to find a different way to articulate it. Obviously, as I re-read this particular comment in handy-dandy preview mode, I’m still not there yet.

Nice lead in to one of the reasons why we wrote the sexual identity therapy framework, Jim.

Whereas I believe the debate is going to be framed with different terms depending on the community debating, the framework attempts to move beyond polarization (one way to see it, sides, religion or sex, etc.) and toward idiosyncratic synthesis. We say that synthesis will look different for different people. The standard of success for those in conflict is not change of orientation nor gay identification but satisfaction with the process and mental health improvement. In other words, a reduction in conflict. We do not prescribe the outcome. This is what makes the accusation by some that I propose an either-or baffling to me.

Michael Hamar

Throckmortonâ€™s observations are a bit disingenuous in my opinion. As one who has freely changed religious denominations myself, which religion one decides to subscribe to is clearly voluntary â€“ or at least once is of legal age and not subject to parental dictates. That being the case, if one uses the Christianist â€œchoiceâ€ basis as opposition to adding sexual orientation as a protected class, then a case has likewise been made removing religion as a protected class. Something is either a choice or it is not. If it is a choice, the Christianist logic, to be consistent, would require that religion be removed as a protected class. That the Christianists apply the choice standard only to sexual orientation shows their hypocrisy.

Personally, I am all in favor of religion being a protected class. Likewise, sexual orientation should be a protected class. Any characteristic that subjects a citizen to attacks, bigotry or discrimination not founded on a legal basis should be a protected class.

Timothy Kincaid

Thanks everyone for the great comments here – much to think on. And I almost didn’t post this, thinking it too speculative and tentative.

I do wish to make one clarification – when I discussed those who use mutibility of orientation as an excuse to deny equalities I was not intending to imply that this is Dr. Throckmorton’s method or motive. In reviewing the way it is written, and seeing in some comments that assumption, I see that this was not clear. I apologize.

David

“RE: Data â€” some people have claimed to have changed aspects of sexual orientation (behavior, intensity of desire). I do not know of a way to invalidate their individual reports, do you?”

Conversely, do you know of any way to validate their reports? Have you made any effort to develop a means of validating their reports? Why are their reports used to invalidate the reports of millions of other GLBTQ people?

I have serious ethical concerns about the practice of any “therapy” that cannot be validated or confirmed.

In the absence of any way to validate reparative therapies, doesn’t that put them on the same level as astrology and tea-leaf reading, magnetism treatments, etc.?

Of course, reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries have the additional complication of reports of damage and harm done to patients.

I’m just struggling with the whole process of justifying how one puts people in harms way by applying a therapy whose benefits one cannot confirm or validate.

So I guess the answer is no, you cannot offer a way to invalidate their reports.

I do not have a problem believing people who say they were harmed. This however, does not mean that some people benefit from efforts to bring their behavior and beliefs into harmony. Some may describe this as a change in their sexuality. From a scientific point of view, I would have to have a valid way to assess or measure sexual orientation in order to say whether it could change or not. We do not as yet have that. We may soon with brain scans but we do not as yet. We are left with self-report by and large.

Having said all of the above, sexual identity therapy does not aim for sexual orientation change.

Sorry – this “This however, does not mean that some people benefit from efforts to bring their behavior and beliefs into harmony.”

Should have read:

“This however, does not mean that some people do not benefit from efforts to bring their behavior and beliefs into harmony.”

Awkward way of saying that some people report benefit and some report harm. I believe both groups.

John

Warren Throckmorton’s Sexual Identity Therapy does include sexual orientation change as a goal of therapy. It is right there in his guidelines.

Timothy Kincaid

John,

Please specify exactly where.

Possibly what John is referring to is a quote from Douglas Haldeman, Division 44 (APA, GLBT Division) luminary. We include this quote on page 7 of the framework. Forgive the lengthy quote but it seems necessary in light on ongoing distortions:

We must respect the choices of all who seek to live life in accordance with their own identities; and if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged. It is their choice, in consultation with their therapists and/or pastoral care providers, to develop goals in treatment as they see fit, without undue interference from the practitioner. These goals may amount to attempting to change sexual orientation outright, aspiring to celibacy, or managing homoerotic impulses and feelings in the context of a heterosexual marriage (previously referred to as sexual identity management) (p. 263). Haldeman, D. C. (2002). Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 260â€“264.

We continue in the framework:

Although, as we have noted, these recommendations are not
treatment protocols for reorientation therapy, they can provide guidance for practitioners who work with clients who adopt a variety of objectives that address sexual and religious identity
conflict.

In short, the recommendations do not presume outcomes for same-sex attracted clients who experience religious conflict. The recommendations support client exploration that may lead to
varying degrees of change in one or more of the foundational aspects of personal identity. The recommendations seek to minimize social pressure from any direction thus allowing clients to set a therapeutic course consistent with their own values and beliefs. We believe therapeutic support can provide an invaluable component in finding resolution to conflicts surrounding sexual feelings and religious belief.

APA leader Haldeman suggests that even sexual orientation change could be a reasonable goal. We, however, say that SIT does not make such change a criteria for success of SIT. Some people may think they have changed, some may not. We take seriously the reports of clients but the framework does not rise and fall based on client perceptions of sexual orientation change.

Randi Schimnosky

Mr. Throckmorton said “some people have claimed to have changed aspects of sexual orientation (behavior, intensity of desire). I do not know of a way to invalidate their individual reports, do you?”.

You’ve missed the obvious, lie detectors and penile plethysmographs.
While not perfect they certainly would give a general indication of the truth of subjects when taken over a large number of subjects and tests. The fact that no “exgays” have ever been willing to submit to such testing strongly suggests they’re lying and they know it.

John

The section that Warren quotes is one of the parts of the SIT that include sexual reorientation as a goal. There is also a cautionary statement about therapeutic boundaries in reorientation therapy with a referrence to Cohen on page 19.

In my reading the guidelines, if a client wanted to pursue reorientation therapy that would be supported by the therapist following these guidelines. Yes, other outcomes or goals are also noted, but reorientation is also a goal that a client would very likely aspire to.

If a therapist is going to support the client in their goal of sexual reorientation, I am not sure how else the therapist is going to accomplish that goal without engaging in reparative/reorientation therapy.

I am not sure why pointing out the obvious seems so threatening to supporters of SIT. Warren Throckmorton has repeatedly stated that he believes those who claim to have changed orientation, and any statement to the effect that people can’t change their sexual orientation is immediately jumped on by Warren. It’s ok if he believes in sexual reorientation, I just don’t know why he is also running away from it.

If I follow John’s method of reading documents, I might say he advocates change since he talks so much about it. His cautions and disclaimers are irrelevant. He mentions it in his comments, so obviously he promotes it.

Saying I am unclear about how to measure sexual orientation and being open to client report is not the same as promising or advocating for sexual orientation change as a therapeutic objective. It is very clear that some people live different lives in response to religious motivation. Some of them say they have changed orientation while others frame it differently. I am honest enough to recognize that the social sciences are pretty divided on the subject so to be honest with clients, we must tell them the whole story which is: some people say they benefit, some people say they didn’t. We do not know very much about what led to either outcome. Our research is pretty inadequate to make authoritative statements. If something that occurs in therapy bothers you or leads to more distress, then let’s stop doing it.

Again, I invite folks to read the framework and form their own conclusions. I am done spelling out the obvious.

John

Warren,

If a patient is seeing you within your SIT framework and the patient decides that he/she wants to pursue sexual reorientation, do you support them in their goal by engaging in reorientation therapy?

David

“So I guess the answer is no, you cannot offer a way to invalidate their reports.”

There is a problem with guessing, but then, someone who is in the business of endangering others with a theory he admits he cannot test, might not care.

Several methods for invalidating their reports exist – and one is already at work

the testimony of millions of GLBTQ people who have tried to change their sexual oreintation, without result.

Additionally, galvanic skin response tests, plethysmographs, and thermography offer ways of quantifying if any change has occurred. To date, ex-gay ministries, reparative therapists, and “Sexual Identity” therapists have yet to provide any data to validate their work.

I find the phrase ‘sexual identity’ an interesting choice, one that goes hand in hand with identity fraud, and identity theft. We are all well aware that people can claim any identity for themselves, the question is whether or not they are what they claim to be.

The question remains, for therapists who are unware of any means of testing the efficacy of their product, what really is the difference between their “therapy” and astrology, tea-reading and numerology?

Timothy Kincaid