Commentary's Homophobia

The lengths that some people go to make a smear never ceases to amaze me.  If Michael Weiss or anyone else has some kind of a problem with people with unwanted attractions seeking a remedy--why not just say it?  NARTH has treated hundreds of people successfully--what kind of bizarre intolerance would condemn a group seeking to help people?

Many people struggle with all kinds of ailments that are incredibly hard to fix and they are correct to search for help.  In many cases, a "cure" is impossible but it can be manageable.  My father smoked cigarettes for 20 years and then stopped easily and quickly--while others are so hooked they do not quit when doctors say they are going to die and even if someone paid them a ransom to stop.  Some people beat alcoholism easily--others give up everything positive in their lives--knowing all the while what is happening--and cannot stop.  Have some compassion, Michael.  Homosexuality for some is a very fluid choice and many women go from straight to gay on a whim.  For some men, it is also a fluid choice, determined by environment and made compelling by early experience that makes the attraction habitual so that it seems natural.  And there are some men who feel so "hard-wired" in their same-sex attraction, it seems that nothing could shake it from them.  What if one of these men hate the attraction and they desperately want to change-- who among us really want to say to their face--stop looking for help!!  Get used to it!

Is that really your position, Michael?

"Commentary's long descent into madness".  NPod's homophobia is just a symptom, as is it's utter refusal to include even any words that may oppose its increasingly extreme points of view.  I naively subscribed 3 years ago, thinking this was a magazine full of ideas and concerned with Judaism.  Ha!  It is a bullhorn for the Christian Right, masquerading as a Jewish voice.  A Jews for Jesus of the Opinion Journals.

I prefer the Jewish version, Jonah, mostly for its name -- see, they're bravely protecting seamen from getting swallowed by whales.

It looks like JONAH is bravely protecting semen from getting swallowed by males.

"Creepy but also amusing". Only poseurs write that way. It's an ad, and it's a free country. Don't be such a righteous Stalinist yourself. You'd be better off if Jewcy edited your irritating and unwitty snark.

"Homophobia"? For accepting an advertisement???

Oh, please.

The APA (American Psychiatric Association) recently gave its approval to NARTH upon hearing the positive testomonies of its patients. I agree with Mr. Friedman that if someone is miserable being gay and wants to try to change their sexual orientation, NARTH should be allowed to help them. But this organization, along with Exodus (another ex-gay group) is closely aligned with the Christian Right. And what they don't mention is that the vast majority of their clients fail to alter their sexual orientation. They may no longer have gay sex, but essentially still have same-sex attractions.

And I can't speak for lesbians, but I've never once met a gay man who told me he "chose" his sexual orientation. The fact is, there is no "cure" for homosexuality, just behavior modification. And comparing it to an addiction like alcoholism or tobacco  makes no sense unless one concedes that sexuality in general, and not homosexuality specifically, has the potential to produce addictive behavior.

If a gay person is miserable being gay, I think he or she should have the NARTH option. Just don't use this person's misery as an excuse to rationalize anti-gay legislation, because the truth of the matter is that most gay people are well-adjusted, contributing members of society.

 

 

The question remains--who is exploiting misery in this instance?

Accusing a magazine of homophobia is quite a sick accusation.  The point about smoking and alcoholism is that these are trivial by comparison and yet for some people, incredibly hard to break.

Further, it is a clear victory for those with unwanted sexual attraction to not be involved with those relationships.  To repair a person completely to be turned on by the opposite can take time and training and it is worth it for those who want that life for themselves.

The APA and the gay lobby have been vitriolitic in their oppostion to NARTH and any other orgabization seeking to help people.  If the APA is more positive now--that is quite a reversal and don't count on the Human Rights Campaign to follow suit anytime soon.

To help people in this instance is to "exploit their misery"  and to ignore them and force them to deal with a life they loathe is someohow positive and affirming?  I don't think so.

The APA (American Psychiatric Association) recently gave its approval to NARTH

That is a lie.  Where is your source?

 

 

gentile seems to be thinking of a 2006 statement made by American Psychological Association president Gerald Koocher that NARTH and Exodus Ministries seized on and tried to spin, misleadingly, as a statement of support.  In response to their BS, Koocher released a public memo to clarify what he'd said.  The issue at hand was that therapists are ethically required to consider the desires of their clients, even when the client desires something that's not going to help.  Thus, there are limitations on what a therapist can do to dissuade a client from seeking useless treatments like NARTH promotes.  According to Koocher's memo, one of the things a therapist should communicate to a client in such a case is:

"Patients must understand the potential consequences of any treatment, including those intended to modify sexual orientation. Patients must understand that such treatments lack a validated scientific foundation and may prove psychologically harmful."

 I dunno, doesn't sound like he's "giving his approval to NARTH" to me.

Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association support "reparative therapy," and the reason why is simple: there isn't any peer-reviewed evidence that it works, and there IS peer-reviewed evidence that sexual orientation is stable throughout adulthood in men.  Peer-reviewed evidence is what scientific organizations have to work with so you don't have to run with gay-therapist-cabal conspiracy theories to see why "reparative therapy" isn't supported by either APA.

If the gay lobby is vitriolic against NARTH, it's because NARTH is a peddler of false hope to the young, ignorant, and recently out, and robs people of happiness by encouraging them to waste their lives in a self-constructed closet.  If the APA is vitriolic against NARTH, it's because NARTH tries to smuggle a religious agenda into the domain of mental health caregiving under a cloak of feigned scientific professionalism.  NARTH attracts vitriol because NARTH hurts people.

If you're not familiar with this bunch of fine scientific professionals, here's the flavor:

"What psychology really needs for its advancement is not another study, but a more accurate worldview. That worldview must take into account our creator's design, which inevitably involves gender complementarity."

- Joseph Nicolosi, past president of NARTH 

Pinnownocheez is correct--the APA is never going to tip its hat to NARTH.  The APA wants NO support for homosexuals with unwanted same-sex impulses.

Joseph Nicolosi's statement is perfectly fine and politics has turned the APA from a group strongly convinced that homosexuality was a condition into a lobby group convinced that homosexuality is universally a blessing.  Nicolosi is pointing out two things:  1) once you begin to systematcially ignore all the facts and the evidence--yet another phony "study" hardly proves anything excpet that the group is universally convinced of its own agenda. 2) once you see that there is value in complimentary genders--it is easy to value those who want a higher lifestyle instead of dismissing them.

As I suggested earlier, if there are thousands of people convinced they cannot stop smoking cigareetes or beat alcoholism or sexual addiction--there are easily people who believe they cannot beat back unwanted same-sex attraction.  Similarly, in the same way we would never tell people who struggle for years in battle with alcoholism--why should we tell people who do not want same-sex attraction to not even try?

Now we have the repeated on this blog the lie that trying to help HURTS people!!! In the face of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been helped--help is not wanted by these vaunted liberals.  Liberalism once stood for live and let live.  Now--those who want another life are being tolded to forget it--don't try. < Enjoy something that you hate since it is best to give in to those particular feelings!!  However, if you lust for my wife--I'll punch your face off and if you lust for my kids, I'll lock you up for life.>  Does this line make any sense?  One set of rules for one favored group and another for everyone else?    

Sleeping in the garage does not make you a Chevy.

 http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, August 29, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) –President of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Gerald P. Koocher, broke with the APA’s long-held stance against homosexual re-orientation therapy earlier this month, saying the organization would support psychological therapy for those experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions, the National Association for the Therapy and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) report Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/aug/06082905.html To finehoe: I don't appreciate being called a lying gentile any more than you would appreciate being called a lying Jew. Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism or drug addiction is only valid if you are miserable being gay. And if refraining from homosexual behavior is a "victory", then who is the victor? The patient or homophobic conservatives?

"Once you see that there is value in complimentary genders--it is easy to value those who want a higher lifestyle instead of dismissing them."

A higher lifestyle? How bigoted is that? One could just as easily make the argument for the value of similar genders.

"Now we have repeated on this blog the lie that trying to help HURTS people."

Reparative therapy runs the real risk of irreparable psychic and emotional harm for those homosexuals who don't respond to it. The suicide risk for patients who fail is quite high and quite real.

That the APA has shown its willingness to meet NARTH half-way shows how much more open-minded it is than its detractors.

The suicide risk for homosexuals as a group is much higher than the general population.  It might be "gay" for Ellen but it is not for others.

Is there no compassion for people any more?

Overcoming any psychological issue requires work and when work fails, more is required.  This is the nature of anything in life which is worthwhile--we work, fall down and then we must keep working.

 

 

Excuse me, but what makes you the expert on reparative therapy? Are you a homosexual who has undergone this procedure? Are you also against civil unions for gay people, gay adoptions, and equal visitation rights for gay patients?

Compassion for people can also mean trying to make a gay person more comfortable in his own skin when reparative therapy does not work. The mental health of the patient is more important someone else's conservative agenda.

I suspect you are of the mind, as most conservatives are, that there are no homosexuals, just straight people who choose homosexuality. If this is indeed your belief, then you are in denial of virtually every professional study that has ever been conducted on the subject.

Some helpful info, if you choose to avail yourself of it:

http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html

Another website which shows the actual truth about the effectiveness of reparative therapy:

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/therapy-reparative.html#effectiveness

gentile, I'm not sure what you intended by your "Deal with it!" post, and as far as I can tell, we're pretty much on the same side of this thing.  But the article you link to and quote from is a good example of how ex-gay movement proponents misleadingly presented Koocher's statements.  Anyone who follows the link should note that the story is bylined as Lifesitenews.com original reporting, that Lifesitenews.com is an advocacy site for conservative social issues, and that in the story there is one, single quote from Koocher:

"APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction."  

 I really can't see that as an endorsement of Narth/reparative therapy, but if you read the rest of the article, consisting entirely of artful spin, you could easily come away with the idea that its utterly false headline, "APA President Supports Therapy Treating Unwanted Homosexual Tendencies," is what really happened. That the story was both false and repeated throughout social conservative media is likely what prompted Koocher to issue a clarification memo in which he said:

"I affirmed during the Town Hall discussion, and I will always affirm, the crucial importance of providing our services with careful attention to patients' wishes.

BUT, and this is absolutely essential, especially when dealing with sexual orientation, the therapeutic responsibility, in strict accordance with APA guidelines, MUST also include the following considerations:

"One: The therapist has an obligation to carefully explore how patients arrive at the choices they want to make. Therapists must determine whether patients understand that their motives may arise purely from the social pressures of a homophobic environment. No type or amount of individual therapy will modify societal prejudices.

Two, informed consent: Patients must understand the potential consequences of any treatment, including those intended to modify sexual orientation. Patients must understand that such treatments lack a validated scientific foundation and may prove psychologically harmful.

Finally, I would add that our patients ought to know from the very start that we as their therapists do not consider homosexuality a mental disorder. In fact, the data show that gay and lesbian people do not differ from heterosexuals in their psychological health."

http://wthrockmorton.com/2006/08/15/apa-president-koochers-statement-about-therapy-same-sex-attraction/

 

This isn't nearly the repudiation of reparative therapy that I'd LIKE to have seen from Koocher, but my point is that it's far from a "reversal on the APA's long-held stance" against it.  The APA needs to reject reparative therapy,  because reparative therapy isn't evidence-based.

 The piece linked at logcabin is a good one, btw.  

Therapy for people interested in changing is vital, Gentile.  To tell them, up front that therapy will not work is not compassionate.  The power of motivation is key and it is not your cause nor mine--it is for those people who are interested to explore.

Is it compassionate to support someone to be gay when they do not want to be?  No.  Making an exception for gay people is hardly compassionate--it is merely convenient.  For any other malady--the prescription is clear--get help.  If help is not working--get more help.  If it is difficult--try again.

Telling someone who has same-sex attractions that because the path towards THEIR GOAL is difficult--don't try--what kind of condescending remark is that?  Perhaps this is why the same people tell those with terminal illnesses to just go ahead and die or mothers with babies with Down's Syndrome or special needs to just have an abortion to save the trouble.

What an easy test of moral action.  If you had a son with unwanted same-sex attraction--you would tell him to embrace those feelings and make those feelings a part of his life--is this right?   By contrast, I would send him to JONAH.

http://www.jonahweb.org/index.php

I appreciate your input, piminnowcheez. I stand corrected on my assertion that the APA supported reparative therapy. Thank you.

Mr. Friedman, I think we can both agree that the needs of the patient are of primary concern to any therapist, regardless of the type of therapy chosen.

I'd like to thank you both for your input into this subject. I feel I've gained some insight into this topic.

Best Regards.

gentile

To tell them, up front that therapy will not work is not compassionate.

 It is if the therapy won't work, and pursuing it comes at the expense of therapy that does work.  Reparative therapy doesn't work.  Aside from any psychological harm that might come from the therapy itself, the argument against reparative therapy is straightforward:

1) Life is short

2) Love is good

3) Reorientation therapies waste people's time, encouraging them to deny their capacity to express love.  That's immoral.  So is peddling false hope, and preying on the vulnerable.

For any other malady--the prescription is clear--get help.  If help is not working--get more help.  If it is difficult--try again.

Mr. Friedman's endless specious analogies between homosexuality and sickness, addiction, etc. tell the story here: to him, it's a sickness, but the costs of curing it are "externalized" as they say in economics.  You can say "keep trying" because it's not YOUR life that's being wasted.   Prolonging anyone's time in the closet is a terrible, compassionless thing to do to them.

It might be flattering to say that some people can be stubborn but I feel obnoxious is more apt of a description.

To be plain, all therapy fails to cure everyone and in fact, most therapies have a greater fail rate than success rate--it all depends on how one defines successs. Further, a gay man who resents his activity and has hundreds of sexual encounters with men in his past is going to be very hard to steer away from his demonstrated pattern.  A young man with scarcely any encounters can be brought close to his goal with therapy.  

Advocates need to at least acknowledge the hundreds of people who have changed their orientation--otherwise, they are at liberty to keep telling people who are in agony that there is no way out and they should be happy with the impulses that are registering.  This kind of attitude ignores the real pain people face and I simply cannot believe there are people who can be so cold that they would not offer their own child help, if they had the circumstance of having a very unhappy teenage son with homosexual feelings.

On the other hand, if the same son said that he would be happy to defend America and join in on the efforts in Iraq--those same people--against the will of the child--would be offered immediate emergency therapy! 

"...most therapies have a greater fail rate than success rate..."

Citation, please?

On the other hand, if the same son said that he would be happy to defend America and join in on the efforts in Iraq--those same people--against the will of the child--would be offered immediate emergency therapy! 

Wtf? 

 

Actually, I suppose I do understand where this is coming from. David N. Freidman is doing an excellent job, for anyone who might be reading this thread, of illustrating what drives proponents of reorientation therapies; he hits all the themes:

a gay man who resents his activity and has hundreds of sexual encounters with men in his past is going to be very hard to steer away from his demonstrated pattern.  A young man with scarcely any encounters can be brought close to his goal with therapy.   

  -- failure to understand the distinction between behavior and orientation

 Advocates need to at least acknowledge the hundreds of people who have changed their orientation

 -- failure to understand the difference between empirical and anecdotal data

 if there are thousands of people convinced they cannot stop smoking cigareetes or beat alcoholism or sexual addiction--there are easily people who believe they cannot beat back unwanted same-sex attraction.  

-- unfamiliarity with existing research on the neurobiology of addiction vs.  that of sexuality 

To repair a person completely to be turned on by the opposite can take time and training and it is worth it for those who want that life for themselves. 

-- contentment to have others pay the cost of conforming to their expectations

yet another phony "study" hardly proves anything excpet that the group is universally convinced of its own agenda 

 -- anti-empiricism and projection of their own inability to see anything except in political terms

 ... and in this last one, you can see where David's random comment about Iraq came from.  All of this talk about compassionate treatment is, at its heart, motivated not by care or expertise in mental health, but by a political world view, and sometimes it gets hard to keep the different parts of that worldview compartmentalized.

Do you understand that there is a science of human behavior, David?  Do you understand the significance of peer-reviewed empirical studies?  Do you know what evidence-based treatment is?  Do you know that the agenda of some mental health professionals is... mental health? 

Listen up--can you understand pain or not?  Do yoiu have the nerve to approach a person with unwanted same-sex attraction and tell them to their face to buck up and forget about living the life they want instead?  What kind of gall do you have?  You have never said that you would tell your son to go date a man when he felt conflicted about it--go ahead and say it--I can't believe people can be so cold, so cruel. 

The science of human behavior and sexuality demonstrates that sexual attraction is not at all fixed for most people. If you are for empiricism--why not look at the real lives of hundreds of people who have changed their unwanted sexual attractions.  Have you interviewed anyone at JONAH?   Have you looked at studies that show contrary evidence?  If you are "empirical" please tell me about all the evidence that is contrary to the gay lobby --do you even acknowledge that there is another side?  "Impossible" to change--huh? 

What is it about "unwanted" you do not understand?  Might you condemn rape victims for having unwanted sexual conduct?  How far will you go to throw out a person's plea for help?  Little wonder that many reparative therapies are ineffective since they are under constant assault, are inadequately funded and are attacked by people who WANT the victim to not find relief.

When people simply cannot put their politics aside--there is no honest discussion.

"Do yoiu have the nerve to approach a person with unwanted same-sex attraction and tell them to their face to buck up and forget about living the life they want instead?"

Yes, the same way I have the nerve to tell someone with a chromosome configuration of XY that they can never be pregnant, no matter how much "therapy" we give them.