FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » OSC opinion on homosexuality (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: OSC opinion on homosexuality
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And by the way, that ISN'T what I said. I very clearly said: "this is what I think those people should be doing, according to scripture," and then I said, "or they could be doing this, or at least this," giving room for a couple of different interpretations.
I was responding to this quote:

quote:
Mormons should not be eating meat, according to Doctrine, or should be eating it sparsely, or should only be eating it during "lean" times.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholar
Member
Member # 9232

 - posted      Profile for scholar   Email scholar         Edit/Delete Post 
Orincoro- I am actually really disappointed in your science teacher. The situation (genetically) is analagous to sickle cell (most people know the sickle cell story, so while an x-linked disease would be better, better to go with the most well known). Sickle cell is in the population at a very high frequency even though it is clearly detrimental to procreation. This is because carrying one copy of the gene does not give you an ill effects and makes you more likely to survive malaria. So, nature has 2 forces- one that says everyone should have one copy conflicting with the one that says 2 copies kills you. This basically ensures that you are not going to breed it out of a population (unless you eliminate the threat of malaria, but even then it will take a very long time to die). So, studies show sisters of gay men have a higher fecundity (fertility) than the normal population. They have extra kids to make up for their brother not. Since it is believed that the "gay" gene (simplifying here) is located on the x chromosome, the sisters would have one normal copy, one mutant, while the gay men would have just the mutant. So, their kids will keep the gay gene in the gene pool forever. But since half their sons will not be mating as frequently, the gene will stay in balance. If you want to get even more complicated you can do mathematical models to figure out rates and stuff.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I remember reading a story by a gay latino author about his childhood, in which he uses an extended metaphor of race to describe the "darkness" of homosexuality in himself.

Fascinating post. What story are you describing here? I am particularly interested in English language stories by latino authors.

-o-

Good post on the choice versus genetics issue. That Catholic stance that you referenced, while I disagree with it in the particulars, is exactly why the question of homosexuality being a choice seems irrelevant to me. Because all you have to say is that all people face different sorts of temptations to different degrees, and you are still expected to fight it. If someone could prove that pedophilia was genetic and that pedophiles could not help being attracted to children, would that make Christians decide that pedophilia was not a sin? Of course not. Therefore, proving that it is genetic doesn't really prove anything. On the other hand, if it's a choice . . . so what? Lots of things are choices that are not sinful. I suppose I have some control in whether I prefer blondes or brunettes. I may be predisposed to one or the other, but I could certainly choose to stick to one type of woman in particular if my religion told me I had to. Does that make preferring one or the other sinful? No. So how does homosexuality being a choice prove that it is a sin? See . . . irrelevant.

-o-

That's fascinating, scholar. How does lesbianism fit into the picture? Are brothers of lesbians somehow more virile?

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
I have always had a great deal of difficulty with Mr. Cards beliefs on the subject, as do I with others who hold the same view, including those who are "members of my faith."

I have often expressed the view, which I believe to be backed up by logic and precedent, that Sola Scriptura theology is not a valid analysis of human existence.

It is difficult for me to be polite here, but remember that I bear no ill will either to Mr. Card or to any other person over this issue.

However, I contend that Sola Scriptura theology is an anti-intellectual tradition which undermines human dignity and has disastrous potential.

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
OSC doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TL
Member
Member # 8124

 - posted      Profile for TL   Email TL         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I was responding to this quote:
quote:
Mormons should not be eating meat, according to Doctrine, or should be eating it sparsely, or should only be eating it during "lean" times.
I know. But you were ignoring the context in which it appeared. And I'm still not sure why.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholar
Member
Member # 9232

 - posted      Profile for scholar   Email scholar         Edit/Delete Post 
I actually have heard very little on the science behind lesbianism. I am not sure why that is. The feminist in me says that science always studies male stuff more than female stuff. Or it could be that male homsexual behavior is less complicated and therefore easier to study. Or it could be that the lesbian stuff gets less publicity or is published in lower journals or something (I didn't actually do any research on the topic, just the normal keeping up with my field-genetics). Oh, the model is still debated obviously since people still aren't convinced about the whole genetic thing (and with human genetics, it is almost impossible to prove anything to the point where you can't still debate).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
MrSquicky, Sola Scriptura theology is the only religious argument against homosexuality. Well, there is another one based on Church tradition, but I do not think that is at all common outside of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Pel,
I'm more than passably familiar with both Christian theology and the arguements against homosexuality and to me your statement doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you could explain what you mean there?

OSC belongs to a religion that believes in continuing revelation, which is in direct opposition to Sola Scriptura.

[ September 30, 2006, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Icarus:
[QB]
Good post on the choice versus genetics issue. That Catholic stance that you referenced, while I disagree with it in the particulars, is exactly why the question of homosexuality being a choice seems irrelevant to me. Because all you have to say is that all people face different sorts of temptations to different degrees, and you are still expected to fight it. If someone could prove that pedophilia was genetic and that pedophiles could not help being attracted to children, would that make Christians decide that pedophilia was not a sin? Of course not. Therefore, proving that it is genetic doesn't really prove anything. On the other hand, if it's a choice . . . so what? Lots of things are choices that are not sinful. I suppose I have some control in whether I prefer blondes or brunettes. I may be predisposed to one or the other, but I could certainly choose to stick to one type of woman in particular if my religion told me I had to. Does that make preferring one or the other sinful? No. So how does homosexuality being a choice prove that it is a sin? See . . . irrelevant.
[QUOTE]

I think I know the book it's in, but it isn't here now. Its probably at my parents house, so I'll have to see about it when go home next.

Your point about the idea of choice- I suppose that leads me to the obvious question: why is a homosexual relationship analogous in so many arguments to pedophilia? I realize it's a functional comparison, but its also loaded with unintended implications. I would ask this: if you accept that homosexuality is not a choice, and that homosexuals will never form meaningful relationships with women, that they will not be ideal parents or members of a nuclear family, then why this last reservation. The question then, is about the person's happiness and ability to form meaningful relationships. The really extreme protestors I have seen in San Francisco deride gays and call upon them to feel shame for their lifestyles, but I've always wondered how they could be sure it didn't feel exactly right to be gay. If it did feel exactly right for that person, and a another gay person was needed to have a relationship where both partners were fully comfortable, then I didn't get the beef. It seemed that the protestors were not proposing any workable solution ot the problem they raised; they were saying: stop having relationships, stop finding what is natural for you, because you are naturally wrong. I could accept that if you were talking about a pedophile, because a pedophile hurts people and destroys families, but a gay person isn't going to wreck a family just for being gay. If there was a religious argument against it, I the wanted to know the function of that argument, and how it could be justified and meaningful or good, for a society. I've haven't seen that reasoning yet from any religion, and it leads me to question motives.

I know that there is a visceral, natural human response to acts of homosexuality. Scans of the heterosexual brain reveal threat reactions to homosexual imagery, something like an instinctual response to the invasion of one's privacy, or territory. This makes sense to me, and I can accept the fact that, for me, the "threat" of homosexuality is as meaningless in my everyday life as the lingering reptilian instinct to jump off of tall buildings. As long as you don't let your fear rule you, you're fine.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
I no next to nothing about Mormonism in particular, but am more than passably familiar with religion in general. Sola Scriptura theology is probably the most common school of theology in the world, being very common in Christianity and Islam. It is what Hans Küng calls the Protestant school. The Second school, what Dr. Küng calls the Orthodox school, appeals to tradition and is common in Eastern Orthodoxy within Christianity and within several schools outside Christianity, notably Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. There is then a school which argues for authority by command, only present in the Roman Catholic Church and some very small fringe religions, for which reason Dr. Küng calls it the Catholic school.

Any of these schools would allow for the exclusion of homosexuality. Dr. Küng and I both regard all of these schools as being woefully inadequate.

There are two other schools, not mentioned by Dr. Küng, the Liberal Protestant school favored by some Methodists and Anglicans and the Quaker school. The Liberal Protestants believe in the role of reason in shaping theology, rejecting the idea implied by Augustine that human reason was too limited for such a task (ah, Augustine, a man who did more damage to western thought than any thinker except perhaps for Nietzsche.)

The Quakers, of course, believe in the inner light that enlightens men.

These two schools do not exist in any degree of isolation but complement each other perfectly. Both allow for Homosexual relationships.

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
The comparison to pedophilia only works, as when it was used here, when arguing why folks against an act would still consider it wrong even if a predeliction towards such behavior was found to be genetic in origin. I'd prolly use premarital sex as a comparison instead, since it doesn't carry the same implications. What if it turned out that some people naturally had a more powerful sex drive in their teen years? (Something that wouldn't surprise me in the least; we don't expect people to be the same in any other respect, why do we expect everyone to have the same sex drive?) People who considered premarital sex to be wrong would still believe it, even if avoiding it was more difficult for some.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Pel,
I think you may have neglected a few religious traditions from your analysis. To wit, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Taosim, Jainism, and Sikhism, among others.

Within the three Levantine religions you did touch on, there are plenty who have serious problems with homosexual relationships that don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Included in these (although, it's a debatable point that it's actual Levantine), as I mentioned, is LDS, which is directly opposed to it through its belief in continuing revelation. Even among the Methodists and Anglicans that you mentioned, there are plenty who consider homosexual relationships as sinful for valid religious reasons.

I don't think you completely understand what Sola Scriptura means and doesn't mean. Basically, it means that they consider that the Bible or equivilent set of scriptures is the only inerrant source of religious truth. That's basically it. There's nothing preventing people who don't believe this from still regarding the scriptures as their primary guide (Prima Scriptura) or as a valid source of faith and morals.

There are extra-scriptural theological arguments as well. Check out what Thomas Aquinas had to say for an example of these.

Or, one aspect of many traditions that is opposed to SS is belief in revelation. Some religions, LDS included, have prophets whose instructions they consider come from a divine source. In LDS, as I understand it, their prophets and scripture have laid out a theology that does not embrace homosexual relationships.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Wow. Listen to Squicky, Pel. The statement "Sola Scriptura theology is the only religious argument against homosexuality," even with the Orthodox/Catholic caveat you added, is just plain wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
Orincoro, I don't quite follow what you're asking me there. I'll try to reread it a little later and see if my brain is functioning better then. Keep in mind, though, that I actually support legalization and recognition of SSM, and I don't believe that homosexuality is sinful. I made the comparison as an exercise in trying to see things from the other point of view, and there is only so far I can carry an argument I do not believe in.

I hope it's clear that I do not equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I made the comparison because both behaviors are believed by some to be compulsive. I do not believe that the compulsion to premarital sex is as strong. I've been give to understand that if you're attracted to children, you can't really be cured of that attraction, though you can choose not to act on it. I've heard some people argue that if you're born homosexual, you cannot choose not to be, you cannot be "cured" of your homosexuality. Naturally, not all people agree that this is the case for homosexuality. My point was that even if it was, there was already an example of a compulsive attraction we all expect people to repress. I believe pedophilia, loaded as it is, is the best example of a compulsion we insist that people resist, since I don't believe the compulsion to premarital sex is as strong, and other compulsions, such as drugs, masturbation, etc., are not compulsions we all agree people should refrain from indulging. In other words, I could compare it for masturbation for teenage boys, but the same people who believe homosexuality is not immoral tend to believe that masturbation is not either, and so that argument would carry little water. Pedophilia works precisely because we all agree its a compulsion that should be restrained.

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that the analogy is functional to your argument. I only worry that you didn't, (or I should say, that most people don't), then do the mental acrobatics and remove the victimization connection. You obviously are capable of that, but I don't trust most people with loaded comparisons- because they usually shoot themselves or others with them. [Wink]

I don't think the homosexual urge is comparable in any really accurate way to any undesireable behavior- mainly because I don't think its wrong. The danger in that is that it shuts down any possible comparison or rationalization you can make or use to explain how certain people feel. In a way I think this is fine, because I think homophobia is irrational, like racial bigotry and sexism. In an effort to understand why people feel the way they do often feel about homosexuality, (and I am not gay, simply someone who isn't bothered by it), I try these analogies myself, and notice their fatal flaws. The flaws in these analogies should be enough, imo, to give anyone pause when considering their beliefs. If you can't adequately express the reasons for your beliefs in a practical way, then I am of the mind that they are not very sound beliefs. That's just me, but when I hear an argument like that of the catholic church against homosexuality, needing to be based completely on faith and ancient tradition, I laugh at the naiveté. That people believe this is one thing, but that they think they can convince others by claiming the reasoning to be mystical and removed from ordinary human experiences is too much for me to bare.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.
But, things are different. Many gay people have wrote about their experiences. Science has shed a lot of light on things as well, which helped a lot of people who were just suffering more than people can believe. You're talking rejection from the family, being used as a scapegoat for all that is wrong in society because of deviating from a norm. In New York, ages ago these women who were butch so they would dress like men were often harassed and even raped by cops, Why? It makes no sense. A lot of the people who have religious objections to homosexuality are not like this, would not do things like this, but it is still hurtful, especially the statements from OSC on the first page because it shows a total lack of understanding of what homosexuality is and what it's like to be gay.
There are quite a few gays that are completely deviant and anti-society, but you cannot really blame them under the circumstances. I fail to see how society can be hurt by people failing to follow the so-called norm. The concept of normal to me needs to be expanded to include more people and so we can really learn to see these issues clearly a nd see how much more damaging certain attitudes against gay people are than gay people themselves.
Take some of these ex-gay websites. They will talk about how gays and lesbians are depressed, and how many of them are suicidal or dabble in substance abuse. What would cause that? Life-long rejection? It's an external problem that becomes internal. Society's attitude towards gayness contributes to this behavior and not gayness itself. I question the ex-gay movement because I wonder how content are they? Back in the past they'd attach electrodes to people (Read Stranger at the Gate by Mel White) and shock them when they looked at same-sex images. It didn't work, it did more damage.
But, I don't expect things to change in terms of conservatism, especially when folks believe that such a change would cause their world to fall completely apart, but this isn't really the case. Television didn't replace radio. Radio didn't replace books. Allowing women to have the vote didn't cause the country to implode. And civil rights, again, these sort of changes, guarded by intelligence and clear insight can only help society. Homosexuality to me seems to be the final frontier. One of the last socially accepted prejudices. We don't need them. Even if the church states it because of years of tradition, it still has to be questioned, even if one has to be very gentle and delicate about it so as not to hurt people too much. (But I still find those statements on the first page to be so hurtful, because it's really a case of not seeing this issue clearly. If you cannot put yourself in the position of gay people enough to understand the pain they go through in order to build a relationship so much is against, it's just not right to make those sort of statements because it doesn't show complete and total empathy...)

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.
This opening bloc doesn't suggest to me that you want to understand the other side.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I agree that the analogy is functional to your argument. I only worry that you didn't, (or I should say, that most people don't), then do the mental acrobatics and remove the victimization connection. You obviously are capable of that, but I don't trust most people with loaded comparisons- because they usually shoot themselves or others with them. [Wink]
Thank you for adding the parenthetical and the second sentence. [Smile]

quote:
I don't think the homosexual urge is comparable in any really accurate way to any undesireable behavior- mainly because I don't think its wrong.
I agree, actually, but I'm playing devil's advocate. (Not to say that people who believe that homosexuality is sinful put it on a par with pedophilia, because I do not believe that they do, in general. But to establish the precedent of legally requiring people to fight their compulsions.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.
This opening bloc doesn't suggest to me that you want to understand the other side.
I was on the other side. When I was younger, I was pretty conservative about most things, especially about gayness. When I was a teenager I found out the Indigo Girls were lesbian and got a bit squicked, but put a lot of thought into that...Scripture is one aspect of the picture, not the whole thing, and it can be taken out of a historical context...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Ic, a somewhat less loaded analogy is kleptomania.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
quidscribis
Member
Member # 5124

 - posted      Profile for quidscribis   Email quidscribis         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think a lot of people simple do not understand about gay people or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat, or even hide behind the scripture which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.
It's possible to understand and still believe it's a sin. It's possible to understand and still disagree with you.

Or it could be said...

quote:
I think a lot of gay people simply do not understand about people who believe it's a sin or want to. It's easier to stereotype and scapegoat and cry "Homophobia!", or even hide behind the gay lifestyle which represents just one aspect of how to look at things and not the whole experience.

Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Ic, a somewhat less loaded analogy is kleptomania.

Since kleptomania is similar to obsessive-compulsive dissorder, I would just go with OCD as an analogy. Its even better, because OCD people aren't inclined particularly towards hurting people, and their compulsions seem natural and completely rational to them (so I hear). Now imagine if your religion said that OCD people were sinning. In fact I have no doubt that an OCD person might have been labeled "posessed" in centuries passed. Now that you understand the nature of the person's behavior, you can easily see that it is not possession, but genes- a natural irregularity in the person's make up. Why do you think that ideas of posession have fallen so far out of common experience in modern times? We understand ourselves better, and we don't need to rely on faith to tell us why certain people "just aint right."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
Except that most religions don't say that an OCD person is sinning.

The thing is that there is nothing wrong with the analogy I used; the potential problems we're talking about avoiding are problems with the reader, where the reader infers an equivalence I have not implied. (And nobody here has actually done so, we're all just talking about the fact that one could.) So why should I change what is actually a good analogy (not of homosexuality, but of a compulsion we all agree should be repressed) because some people (not in this thread) don't pay attention when they read?

[ October 01, 2006, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post 
I quite agreed with Icarus when it was suggested that the government call every societal "joining" a "civil union" and leave marriage for the churches. Sounds like an excellent plan to me! It sounds like the most fair way to preserve everyone's interests.

I believe gay rights are simliar to civil rights. Being "gay" is hardly a sin, even if homosexual relations are. However, there are a whole lot of sins in the world, and that shouldn't effect anyone's rights in the world. Furthermore, "no fault" divorce is an impossibility in a Christian definition, but we don't treat divorced people like second class citezens. We even allow them to remarry in most churches, and certainly in the eyes of the law. Furthermore, we'd like people who were divorced to re-marry other people too, so that the children do not grow up in single parent homes. To me it is disastrous for us to deny stable homosexual couples the same rights, in terms of being forster and adoptive parents. Two "no fault" divorcees marrying are just as sinful as two homosexuals. It may not be right in the eyes of God, but that is between the sinner and God. For the children, having a stable home is more important than the gender of the parents. I've known several people who grew up with homosexual parents, and none of them are worse off than kids who grew up in divorced families, and from what I can tell they're much better off than the few kids I've known who grew up in the "system" spending most of their adolecent years in "children's homes".

Maybe I have not read enough of OSC's articles, but from what I recall, he mostly talks about how he feels about homosexuals relating to the church. From his writing, he seems to feel homosexuality is wrong, but that redemption is still possible at any stage of the game, as long as they "repent" from it. Does he ever specifically say what his societal viewpoints are?

As far as why homosexuality is seen as so different from other sins in US culture, I think it is mainly fear and misunderstanding. I know that personally I felt... less... the first time I found out a boy I had really really liked didn't like me back because he was gay. It seems like it would be easier to take than an explaination of me being too fat (which is also a sin) or too ugly or too anything... but it wasn't. I felt inherantly cheated by knowing I never stood a chance with him. It was scary to have something that was so ingrained into me, boy meets girl, challenged in such an irrevocable way. As time progressed though, the fear obviously lessoned. The boy and I stayed friends for a good while after that, and he changed alot of my views on the issue. I still don't think it's "right", but I respect the struggle alot more. David didn't LIKE the way he was, he even TRIED to like girls, but it just didn't work for him. He hid it for a very long time, even after I knew, and I saw his struggle in college with keeping himself from his roomates, and with acting out societal norms. He eventually could not do it anymore and "came out of the closet" so to speak. It may be a weakness and it may be a sin, but so is me being fat, and so are the hundreds of thousands of extra-marrital couplings that take place ever saturday night after a night at the bar. To me, it is something we should be conscious of. you don't have to believe it's right, but you still do have to respect the people. We also do need to focus more on how it damages society compared to other equivilant sins.

People were talking about how it was important for congress because things like rape were already crimes. Well, used to, extra-marital sex was ALSO a crime, as was adultery. If you want to talk about something that is DESTROYING our society, those two things are doing much more damage to our future, to our children, than the gays or lesbians. Perhaps we should discuss some new implementations of fidelity laws as well...

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
"Even among the Methodists and Anglicans that you mentioned, there are plenty who consider homosexual relationships as sinful for valid religious reasons."

No, I am sorry you misunderstood me. There are plenty who consider homosexual relations sinful for invalid religious reasons.

All religions are valid only in as much as the uplift the human spirit. Religion is the desire and courage to be in the face of non-being, as is humanism. Humanism, or Liberalism, for the two are inseparable.

Humanity— seeing the earths volcanos which spewed fire; the seas' tempests which cast feeble rafts onto mighty shoals with waves so high that the sand was visible in the chasms between them; and seeing also the hatred present in the eyes of warriors; seeing even that in nature the hawk preyed upon the field mouse— seeing these thinks men created a being and called him Demonic, and they were right to do so.

This human demon is ever with us, dividing humanity. The house of humanity cannot stand divided. The separation of brothers is sin. Is it not taught in every Sunday school class in America that sin is separation from God, an idea now so orthodox that it surprises many to believe that Paul Tillic was called a radical even fifty years ago?

We teach that this is sin, and we warn against, but we continue to sin.

The original sin was not disobedience but hatred. Division itself divides man from the divine.


Courage then and onward!

And may we have mercy upon ourselves.

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lynn johnson
Member
Member # 9620

 - posted      Profile for lynn johnson   Email lynn johnson         Edit/Delete Post 
One thing not mentioned thus far is whether psychotherapy helps. Apparently it does help, both in the sense of reducing self-hate (self acceptance) and in changing one's orientation. I am not suggesting it is wildly successful. There is a low rate - I believe it was much less than 50%, maybe more like 30%, of successful, long term change from homosexual to heterosexual. It has been a while since I read up on it.

There are some groups advocating an open discussion about the advantages of trying to change via therapy. Other groups almost violently oppose the very discussion.

I am personally in favor of choice. If one is primarily homosexual, one might reflect on heterosexual men in prison who enter into homosexual relationships rather than live a chaste life. They have enough flexibility to do that, so there would be a likely flexibility among the other side. So one might have more choice than might be suspected.

Most research on nature/nuture seems to suggest that things like intelligence, happiness, extraversion, and so on, are about 50% inherited and about 50% under environmental influence. One is born, for example, with a given level of happiness, and it tends to remain stable. If one wins a fortune in a lottery, one is happy for a few months, perhaps as much as a year, and then one returns to the set point of happiness.

Yet we can change the happiness set point, the weight set point, the extraversion set point, and so why not the sexuality set point?

Finally, to repeat myself, I agree with DDDaysh that heterosexual unfaithfulness is a far greater problem.

Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
All religions are valid only in as much as the uplift the human spirit.
This really depends on your definition of 'uplift' doesn't it?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian J. Hill
Member
Member # 5346

 - posted      Profile for Brian J. Hill   Email Brian J. Hill         Edit/Delete Post 
Most of the "harsher" OSC quotes towards homosexuality were written in the early- to mid-80s. His later writings reflect a more reasoned tone, which I would ascribe to his ever-evolving thought patterns. I would also point out that in the 80s, there wasn't much open discussion on homosexuality, much less actual constructive dialogue. Both sides were extremely polarized, with radical gay groups opposing radical anti-gay groups. There is still a lot of polarization, but there has emerged more honest and constructive dialogue as well, as this thread has demonstrated.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
OSC's argument has been that the polarization has increased.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
"This really depends on your definition of 'uplift' doesn't it?"

I would think it is determined by many other things before that, such as the definition of "human spirit."

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
If one is primarily homosexual, one might reflect on heterosexual men in prison who enter into homosexual relationships rather than live a chaste life. They have enough flexibility to do that, so there would be a likely flexibility among the other side. So one might have more choice than might be suspected.

Yes, if a homosexual was placed in confinement in a stressful situation with only the opposite sex available, that homosexual might turn to heterosexuality as a stopgap measure. I'm not sure where that helps, though.

OK, I'm being flippant. I do think that therapy can help people who are genetically disposed to heterosexuality but are orientated towards the same sex for reasons of upbringing, trauma, confusion, etc. I also think that such therapy for someone genetically and socially orientated towards the same sex is harmful and unnecessary. Any success rate reported would of necessity only be a percentage of the number of homosexuals who sought therapy (or were forced into it), not a percentage of all homosexuals.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
... OCD people aren't inclined particularly towards hurting people, and their compulsions seem natural and completely rational to them (so I hear).

It is true that OCD does not seem generally to be accompanied by violent impulses. However, OCD is generally quite distressing to those who have it. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the disorder.

"Natural and completely rational" is more an opposite than an accurate portrayal. Still, there is bound to be a spectrum of experience. [/aside] [Smile]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
One thing not mentioned thus far is whether psychotherapy helps. Apparently it does help, both in the sense of reducing self-hate (self acceptance) and in changing one's orientation. I am not suggesting it is wildly successful. There is a low rate - I believe it was much less than 50%, maybe more like 30%, of successful, long term change from homosexual to heterosexual. It has been a while since I read up on it.
I'd be interested to see where you got that information from lynn. As far as I know, the only people who maintain that there are reliable numbers for this are ex-gay activists. The various professional organizations who study this (besides NARTH, which kind of fits the criteria) have condemned conversion therapy for being both ethically unsound and unsubstantiated by any valid peer-reviewed studies.

Of success rates, here's a summary I could find:
quote:
Conversion rate estimates:

Unfortunately, as of 2001-MAY, no study of conversion therapy has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Those studies that have been conducted have many deficiencies. Often complete data has been withheld. This makes the "conversion rate" impossible to estimate accurately. However, a few studies have uncovered sufficient information by which we may be able to make a very crude estimate of the conversion rate:

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual. Subsequent to the study, two of the male founders of Exodus fell in love and were united in a union ceremony. They claimed that the Exodus program was "ineffective...not one person was healed." The conversion rate, based on the study is 3 in 800, on the order of 0.4%

Masters and Johnson (1979): This study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 50 to 60% which was maintained for 5 years after treatment. Unfortunately, only five of the 67 participants (7%) began the study with a homosexual orientation. From the available data is quite possible that none of these five converted to heterosexuality. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

NARTH (1997): They studied 860 clients whose data was sent by 200 therapists who were members of the organization. When the subjects entered therapy, 68% identified themselves as totally or almost exclusively homosexual. It is not clear whether this referred to sexual behavior or sexual orientation. The actual percentage of homosexuals was not reported; most of the subjects might have been bisexual. When they left therapy, 33% said they were exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual. Again, it is unclear whether this refers to behavior or orientation. Again, the percentage of heterosexuals is unknown. Unfortunately, 63% of the subjects were still undergoing therapy at the time of the survey. Of greater interest would be the percentage of subjects who entered with a homosexual orientation, converted to bisexuality or heterosexuality, and were able to sustain their sexual orientation for, say, two years following therapy. The NARTH report did not track the results of those clients after therapy. It is possible that none of the subjects who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation was able to change their orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Schroeder & Shidlo: This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 202 people who have undergone conversion therapy. Eight of their subjects reported a change in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, seven of the eight were ex-gay counselors or leaders who statements may have been false. They are fairly certain that one of the 202 was able to change his/her sexual orientation They reported a conversion rate of 0.5%.

OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites' content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.

Exodus International (2000): On 2000-JAN-21, the board of directors of the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement which condemned all therapies which attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. Exodus International (EI) offered a rebuttal to that statement. In his rebuttal, Bob Davies, North American director of EI wrote that:

Over 250,000 individuals have contacted various EI offices inquiring about a sexual orientation change. This includes "gays, lesbians, family members, friends, counselors and pastors."
bullet Thousands of men and women have stopped homosexual behavior. That is, they have decided to become celibate. These are now "in the process of seeking deeper change in their sexual feelings and attractions."

Unfortunately, he does not estimate how many of these thousands of clients have actually changed their sexual orientation. On 2001-MAY-14, we Emailed EI asking for additional information. Davies does mention that some "are now happily married and raising children." However he does not give estimates of their number, nor does he indicate how many were entered EI as bisexuals and have remained with that sexual orientation. No estimate of the conversion rate can be obtained from this study.

Spitzer (2000): Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study of 143 "ex-gays" and 57 "ex-lesbians" who had reported that they had become "straight." In fact, the data shows that few are now heterosexual. He reported that 89% of the men and 63% of the subjects emerged from therapy still having feelings of attraction to persons of the same-sex. 16 (11%) of the men and 21 (37%) of the women report that they now have a heterosexual orientation. Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals.

A total of 86 of the 200 subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in homosexual ministry; NARTH referred 46 subjects; other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexuals or a bisexual orientation. The 46 subjects from NARTH might have been chosen as the most successful patients from as many as 250,000 individuals who entered therapy. Unfortunately, no data has been reported about the total number of persons from whom the 200 carefully selected patients were provided. Assuming that only 100,000 subjects were involved -- a VERY conservative figure, then 37 "success stories" represents a conversion rate of 0.04%

Nicolosi (2005): Dr. Nicolosi, the founder of NARTH who coined the term "reparative therapy" said in an interview with the Washington Post that of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,

One third experience "significant improvement -- they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control." However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior.
bullet Another third are "cured;" they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.

The other third fail to change.

It would seem that he is admitting that reparative therapy has a nearly 100% failure rate in terms of converting persons with a homosexual orientation to heterosexual. He does imply that some of his second group may become either asexual -- suffer a complete loss of sexual desire -- or successfully decide to remain celibate. All or almost all of his clinic's patients retain same-sex desires; they remain either with a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

Conclusion:

From the available data, four studies reported a "success" rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study. Considering the anecdotal data which indicates a large percentage of extremely depressed and suicidal clients emerging from conversion therapy, it would appear that this form of therapy is worthless. It my well result in the death by suicide of more gays and lesbians than it "converts" to a heterosexual orientation. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain of this. The quality of the studies is extremely poor.

Jack Drescher is a New York psychiatrist and chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues told a Washington Post reporter in 2005: "There are probably a small number of people with some flexibility in their sexual identity who can change. Out of the hundreds of gay men I've treated, I've had one." If we assume that his term "sexual identity" is a synonym for "sexual orientation," and that Dr. Drescher has treated 200 gay men, then he would seem to estimate that about 99.5% of gay men have a fixed sexual orientation, and that only about 0.5% can change their orientation.


Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Pel,
I've got no problem with saying that "There are plenty who consider homosexual relations sinful for invalid religious reasons." I have a problem with your statement in that the context that it surrounds it makes me think that what you were trying say is that any people who consider homosexual relations sinful do so for invalid religion reasons. That's simply not true, even by your assertion masked as a definition that religion is about uplifting people.

You didn't establish that thinking homosexuality is a sin is inconsistent with uplifting people nor that it was necessarily based in hatred.

Leaving that aside, religion is about the relationship of humans to the divine and vice versa. To claim to know the only way it can be valid is to claim to know the nature and intentions of the divine. I'm not willing to grant you that.

I may regard religions as evil, but I've got no grounds for saying that they're invalid.

---

I'm kinda wondering what you have to say about the various previous inaccuracies I pointed out.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Some quotes from OSC, not dealing with his religion nor from the 80s:
quote:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

quote:
And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.
quote:
So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

quote:
The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
quote:
"I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts. Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Doesn't OSC watch Queer as Folk?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I can't help thinking that statements like the ones OSC made up there are what really keep gay people out of the "mainline of human life." Can I help being annoyed by that? That's why gay people have to practically start "families" of their own consisting of members of the so-called gay community and understanding friends...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian J. Hill
Member
Member # 5346

 - posted      Profile for Brian J. Hill   Email Brian J. Hill         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Some quotes from OSC, not dealing with his religion nor from the 80s
The first quote was from an essay called "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" which was written in 1990, so while technically being not "from the 80s" it definitely reflects OSC's thinking during that period. It was also published in a magazine specifically directed towards a Mormon readership, so I consider it's arguments to be in a religious context.

I can't find to sources of all the other quotes, except for two from "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization" which I agree come from his modern, secular thinking on the issue.

Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Brian,
You said:
quote:
Most of the "harsher" OSC quotes towards homosexuality were written in the early- to mid-80s. His later writings reflect a more reasoned tone, which I would ascribe to his ever-evolving thought patterns.
1990 isn't anywhere close to this.

The statement comes from an essay that OSC has not repudiated and is posted on an official OSC website without comment or emmendation. This statement, though taken from an essay written for a primarily LDS audience, is definitely talking about his opinion of secular treatment of homosexuality, and helps to address this:
quote:
Maybe I have not read enough of OSC's articles, but from what I recall, he mostly talks about how he feels about homosexuals relating to the church. From his writing, he seems to feel homosexuality is wrong, but that redemption is still possible at any stage of the game, as long as they "repent" from it. Does he ever specifically say what his societal viewpoints are?
For that matter, the more recent quotes do not seem to me to reflect a more reasoned tone, Calling them children laying dress up? Saying that they are pursuing something that will gain them nothing and that what they are really attempting is to strike a death blow at the protected state of marriage? Propogating false stereotypes with the "dark secret" assertion? Postulating a fantasy world of all out persecution? These are reasonable statements to you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lynn johnson
Member
Member # 9620

 - posted      Profile for lynn johnson   Email lynn johnson         Edit/Delete Post 
MR. Squicky asks about sources. It looks like they are similar to the material you quoted. What I notice is that there is a heavy-handed editorialising going on. The site is called "religious tolerance" but it is not tolerant.

I found a more extensive discussion of Spitzer's survey here: http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm

Rather than insert it, those interested can read it. Some of the comments in your download are clearly wrong, when we review the actual paper. There are pretty good descriptions of how many people were exclusively homosexual and how many bisexual, contrary to where your review says, "Again, it is not known how many entered therapy as bisexuals or as homosexuals." To me this indicates serious bias and since they distort that fact, they presumably will distort all facts not in agreement with their notion that change is impossible.

The review I cite above says, "Of the 200 subjects, 27 males and 6 females were considered extreme on combined homosexual indicators. For them, the following was true:

* No opposite-sex attraction as a teenager or in the year before the change effort
* Never heterosexual sex with excitement
* No heterosexual fantasies during masturbation in the 12 months prior to change effort
* Attraction was 95 or greater (scale of 1-100; 100 = exclusively homosexual).


They could probably be classified as exclusively or predominantly homosexual before change.

17 of these 27 men and 3 of these 6 women had good heterosexual functioning (as defined above) in the 12 months prior to the interview. More would need to be known about their current (viz., 12 months before the interview) same-sex attractions, fantasies, and behaviours in order to determine where they rate on a Kinsey-type scale of sexuality.

Thus, 20 people who were extreme on combined homosexual indicators before change, now have good heterosexual functioning. This at the least is a change in heterosexual behaviour (namely, they began being involved in heterosexual sexual behaviour) and a change in heterosexual attraction."

So that flatly contradicts your authority, and thus we see the typical response of those who don't think reparative therapy is possible, that no matter what the facts, they are not facts. Spitzer is not without detractors. It looks like his article has generated much heat.

Admittedly the research in this area is not very extensive. Having published peer reviewed research myself, and also having been a peer reviewer for a couple of well respected journals, I can tell you that it is very difficult to get controversial material into them. So in this area (outside of what I am interested in, and not my area of expertise, I realize), I must have compassion for those who are trying to do reparative therapy. I feel compassion for how difficult it is to publish their work. (Nicolasi's article in 2004 was peer reviewed.)

Finally, as I research this it would appear it is silly to say people are born that way or that it is all in their environment. The truth seems to be that we just don't know. It would appear that some people have successfully changed. I personally know one person who has maintained that change for over ten years.

Others don't change. They shouldn't be forced to. But the anti-reparation propaganda seems to say that no one should try to change, which I find disrespectful and insulting, as well as quite anti-scientific.

Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
lynn,
I don't think you understand the flaws or implications of the Spitzer study.

First off, I should mention that neither I nor the APA has ever said that it is impossible for someone to change their sexual orientation from homsexual to heterosexual. Instead, I said that there have been no peer reviewed articles that I was aware of that established that it was effective and that I found your numbers to be suspect.

Second, the Spitzer survey relied on a single telephone interview with people selected, by themselves and the ex-gay therapy and advocacy organizations as "sucesses". The content of these interviews was in large part retrospective in nature, asking about what people remember. This is not a reliable or valid method (in the technical meaning of those terms) to assess something like this.

Third, even granting that Spitzer's subjects were accurately representing reality, claiming that his study was an analysis of the success rate of ex-gay therapy is a complete misrepresentation. To analyze the success of a form of therapy, you take a random sample of people going in and then see how the therapy affects them.

What Spitzer did is interview some 200 people who were referred to him by the ex-gay movement to assess whether the claim that reparative therapy works at all could be supported by the evidence. The numbers you gave were for his findings on this selected group. It's not out of the people who went through therapy or a random sample thereof but rather out of the 200 people it took NARTH and other ex-gay groups around 16 months to help him find.

It is absurd to claim that these numbers represent how effective reparative therapy is. Or perhaps I should let Dr. Spitzer say it(from here):
quote:
While Nicolosi and others frequently cite the study as proof reparative therapy works, Spitzer said his results have been misrepresented. "It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right," he said.

"What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare," he added, noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious.

It's ethically bankrupt behavior like misrepresenting the conclusions of studies like this that has gotten many of the various leaders of the ex-gay movement sanctioned and often ejected from the professional organizations that they used to belong to. Perhaps in your mind this makes them victims. I have a somewhat different view.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lynn johnson
Member
Member # 9620

 - posted      Profile for lynn johnson   Email lynn johnson         Edit/Delete Post 
Spitzer finds that some people have made dramatic changes from being exclusively homosexual to being fairly well adjusted heterosexuals. That is an amazing finding. I think that is what is being suggested here. How common is it? I don't think we know. I don't know how Spitzer knows that change is pretty rare.

Nicolosi and others may be representing his numbers accurately, he may not. There is his meta analysis in Psychological Review that I just found that seems to suggest that therapy with homosexuals has about the same impact as therapy for any other condition.

----------------
Title A meta-analytic review of treatment of homosexuality.
Abstract Examined and synthesized studies of treatment of individuals identified as homosexual using meta-analytic technique. 146 evaluating treatment efficacy were identified, most published prior to 1975 and 14 of which met inclusion criteria and provided statistics that could be used in a meta-analysis. These 14 outcome studies were published between 1969 and 1982 and used primarily behavioral interventions. Analysis indicated that treatment for homosexuality was significantly more effective than alternative treatments or control groups for homosexuality, and significant differences were found across pre- to postanalysis. In other words, the average patient receiving treatment was better off than 79% of those in the alternative treatments or as compared to pretreatment scores on the several outcome measures. This meta-analysis of 14 studies provides empirical support for a group of 146 studies which have narratively suggested that treatment for homosexuality is effective. Variables related to treatment efficacy are examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)
Authors Byrd, A. Dean; Nicolosi, Joseph
Affiliations Byrd, A. Dean: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, Encino, CA, US
Nicolosi, Joseph: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, Encino, CA, US
Source Psychological Reports. 90(3,Pt2), Jun 2002, 1139-1152.
------------------------

But it would appear that Nicolosi does have some success, and the material you cite above, Drescher saying .5% change, is misleading. Would it not be ethically bankrupt to generalize from a single person citing a ballpark figure that hasn't been peer-reviewed?

Nicolosi also published his own survey research:
------------------------
Title Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients.
Abstract Presents the results of a survey of 882 dissatisfied homosexual people who were queried about their beliefs regarding conversion therapy and the possibility of change in sexual orientation. There were 70 closed-ended questions on the survey and 5 open-ended ones. Of the 882 Ss, 726 of them reported that they had received conversion therapy from a professional therapist or a pastoral counselor. Of the participants 779 or 89.7% viewed themselves as "more homosexual than heterosexual," "almost exclusively homosexual," or "exclusively homosexual" in their orientation before receiving conversion therapy or making self-help efforts to change. After receiving therapy or engaging in self-help, 305 Ss (35.1%) continued to view their orientation in this manner. As a group, the Ss reported large and statistically significant reductions in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies that they attributed to conversion therapy or self-help. They also reported large improvements in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being. These responses cannot, for several reasons, be generalized beyond the present sample, but the attitudes and ideas are useful in developing testable hypotheses for further research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)
Authors Nicolosi, Joseph; Byrd, A. Dean; Potts, Richard W.
Affiliations Nicolosi, Joseph: National Assn for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, Encino, CA, US
Source Psychological Reports. 86(3,Pt2), Jun 2000, 1071-1088.
------------------------
I think I must have read that and the 1/3 significantly improved number stuck in my mind. He is pretty conservative, saying this is just a report designed to foster research, findings cannot be generalized, but it does support the Spitzer outcomes, finding some people make fairly dramatic changes.

In therapy, the therapist is the active ingredient. Given ten therapists of the same school, using the same techniques, the outcomes vary widely. Nicolosi may be particularly talented at helping homosexuals to change - if that is what they want - while Drescher may be unusually deficient. It would be unethical to tout the Drescher figure without providing Nicolosi's figures also. We don't see that, of course, which means the scientific dialog is being corrupted by agendas on both sides. This is truly unfortunate.

I am not sure what you mean by various leaders being sanctioned and often rejected from professional organizations. Who, and from which? They may be victims. I don't have an opinion about that.

What I do know is that the religious tolerance material you cited is pretty harsh. If the same standards they want to apply to change in homosexuality were applied to depression or anxiety, there would be no justification for any treatment. The idea that a change is total and without relapse is not reasonable. Depressed people who are successfully treated will sometimes relapse. Some studies found 1/3 or so within two years.

So that review is too harsh about the Nicolosi articles. They have an ax to grind. I would think that your indignation might also be directed at that. But let's be real. No one would be kicked out of APA or anywhere else for taking a public position that homosexuals cannot change, regardless of what the data say.

Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't trust NARTH. They have these Freudian laced theories that are just so outmoded.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
lynn,
I'm waiting for a defense or retraction of this comment by you:
quote:
One thing not mentioned thus far is whether psychotherapy helps. Apparently it does help, both in the sense of reducing self-hate (self acceptance) and in changing one's orientation. I am not suggesting it is wildly successful. There is a low rate - I believe it was much less than 50%, maybe more like 30%, of successful, long term change from homosexual to heterosexual. It has been a while since I read up on it.
It appears to me as if you changed your stance on this, which was our point of contention, onto something else without acknowledging it. I don't have a problem with entertaining other related issues, but I think we should resolve the initial one first.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
"You didn't establish that thinking homosexuality is a sin is inconsistent with uplifting people nor that it was necessarily based in hatred."

The belief that homosexuality is a sin is as inconsistent with meaningful and valid religion as the belief that being Asian is a sin, and based in the same belief, the belief that The Other is seperated from the God with whom we are united.

"Leaving that aside, religion is about the relationship of humans to the divine and vice versa. To claim to know the only way it can be valid is to claim to know the nature and intentions of the divine. "

That rather depends upon your definition of the divine, doesn't it? The divine is, to me, inseparable from the human.

Anyway, religion is at least as much about the interaction between human beings as between humanity and a distant divinity.

"Though mankind is stricken with wonder at its own discoveries and its power, it often raises anxious questions about the current trend of the world, about the place and role of man in the universe, about the meaning of its individual and collective strivings, and about the ultimate destiny of reality and of humanity. Hence, giving witness and voice to the faith of the whole people of God gathered together by Christ, this council can provide no more eloquent proof of its solidarity with, a, well as its respect and love for the entire human family with which it is bound up, than by engaging with it in conversation about these various problems....Therefore, this sacred synod, proclaiming the noble destiny of man and championing the Godlike seed which has been sown in him...."

Gudiam et Spes, official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The belief that homosexuality is a sin is as inconsistent with meaningful and valid religion as the belief that being Asian is a sin, and based in the same belief, the belief that The Other is seperated from the God with whom we are united.
No, it's not. The sin of homosexuality is not generally being homosexual, but engaging in homosexual acts.

---

quote:
"Leaving that aside, religion is about the relationship of humans to the divine and vice versa. To claim to know the only way it can be valid is to claim to know the nature and intentions of the divine. "

That rather depends upon your definition of the divine, doesn't it? The divine is, to me, inseparable from the human.

No, whether the divine is a separate, distant (whatever that means) transcendent deity or an immanent deity/force or some combination of the two, I don't think you can reasonably claim to encompass its aspects in human reason.
quote:
Anyway, religion is at least as much about the interaction between human beings as between humanity and a distant divinity.
Only if the interactions between people contain an aspect of the divine. If it's separate from any consideration of the divine, then it's not religion, by definition.

---

And I'll note again that you've yet to answer much of the previous places where you've made claims I've disputed.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Damien.m
Member
Member # 8462

 - posted      Profile for Damien.m   Email Damien.m         Edit/Delete Post 
Im new to this thread and scanned over it in about twenty minutes so im sorry if i say something that offends or contradicts.

I am 16 and gay so this thread is of particular interest to me.On the subject of gay marriages i cannot see how they can possibly harm society. However I completly agree that a religion that disagrees with homosexuality is under no obligation to perform same sex marriages nor should this be forced on them. I believe however, that 'civil unions' should be legalised. When I fall in love I want to be able to have my husband(?) regarded as my next of kin.I want us to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple,maybe not in the eyes of the church but certainly in the eyes of the government.

This is where my views could be particularly disagreed with(again having only read parts of this thread i may have misinterpreted some views): I simply cannot listen to one more person deeming homosexuality as 'an urge', to be placed under the same category as rape or murder. I have no sexual desire towards women and nothing will change that. it is who i am. i have no idea if it is nature or nurture but i can say this: it is not something i can or wish to change about myself. I could if i wish, marry a woman, have kids and obey the church. But i would not be happy. Homosexuality is not a simple sexual desire that im urged to fulfill it is a way of life. it is who i will fall in love with and that love will be every bit as real as heterosexual love.

Sorry for rambling....

Posts: 243 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 7868

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius           Edit/Delete Post 
"The sin of homosexuality is not generally being homosexual, but engaging in homosexual acts."

The sin of Judaism is generally not considered being born Jewish but attending Temple.


"Only if the interactions between people contain an aspect of the divine."

Which, according to almost any theologian, they do.

Jesus spent at least as much time in the Gospels discussing humanity as he did divinity. I seem to recall Mohammed and the Buddha being rather interested in human relations as well. And, of course, Judaism is at least as much about the Jewish people as anything else.

Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
"The sin of homosexuality is not generally being homosexual, but engaging in homosexual acts."

The sin of Judaism is generally not considered being born Jewish but attending Temple.

Wha? I get that you are attempting an analogy, but I don't understand what it is you think you are saying. A few problems with your metaphor:

  • Being Jewish actually is defined by your birth, more than any action (with the exception of conversion). A Jew who never once steps foot in any house of worship is no more or less a Jew than I am.
  • There was a Temple (two, actually), and we await the building of the next one. The majority of Jewish houses of worship are called synagogues (or shuls, if you prefer), not temples.
  • The heart of Jewish belief, faith, and practice is the home, NOT a house of worship.

You may now return to your pointless debate with Squick on the nature of "valid religion" (whatever THAT means).

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2