[EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is an updated version of the Nov. 30 article "Plaintiff Seeks to Block California Law Banning 'Reparative' Therapy for Minors."]
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Throughout adolescence and much of college, Aaron Bitzer did not openly acknowledge his sexual attraction to men, and when in his 20s he finally revealed the truth to a church minister, he found it tough to get the support and guidance he needed.
Ultimately, Bitzer was helped by one form of “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, designed to change or reduce unwanted same-sex attraction, and now hopes to be trained to provide this service for others.
He is one of three plaintiffs who have challenged a new California law that prohibits licensed mental-health professionals from offering any form of reparative therapy to minors. On Dec. 3, U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb in Sacramento, Calif., granted a temporary injunction that offers a reprieve to the plaintiffs, two of whom are licensed therapists.
The lawsuit filed by the Pacific Justice Institute, a California-based public interest group, alleges that the banning of “sexual-orientation-change efforts” for minors, irrespective of their wishes or beliefs — or those of their parents or of their chosen therapists — constitutes a violation of constitutionally protected free speech, religious freedom and the right to privacy.
However, in a separate legal challenge to the law, another federal judge concluded that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prove that it violated their civil rights, and that the law should take effect as planned Jan. 1. That Dec. 4 ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller, in response to a lawsuit filed by Liberty Counsel, another public interest group. Liberty Counsel immediately announced that it would appeal that decision.
In the first ruling, Judge Shubb found that the law infringed on the free-speech rights of mental health professionals.
“Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech,” Judge Shubb wrote.
Not a Final Ruling
Matt McReynolds, the Pacific Justice Institute attorney who represented the plaintiffs, applauded Judge Shubb’s decision.
“The issue is whether the state was trying to target a particular message or viewpoint and the court agreed with us that that seemed to be the case,” said McReynolds.
He noted, however, that the decision was “not a final ruling,” and that the preliminary injunction only applied to the three plaintiffs in the case, at least for now. He invited other mental health professionals in the field of reparative therapy to join the legal challenge.
The ruling was a blow to supporters of the California law, who have argued that it will save lives and prevent “dangerous” sexual-orientation-change efforts that can foster depression and self-hatred in young people struggling with homosexual inclinations.
“The state has the right and obligation to protect young people from this psychological abuse, which can lead to depression, substance abuse, self-harm and even suicide. We know this law will save lives,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, in a published statement.
However, Judge Shubb’s ruling expressed skepticism about the California Legislature's finding that sexual-orientation-change efforts were dangerous. The evidence cited to support such assertions, he wrote, included “questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.”
Broader Debate
California is the first U.S. state to ban reparative therapy. A similar bill will soon be introduced in the New Jersey Legislature, and, on Nov. 27, Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., announced that she had proposed a resolution asking Congress to denounce “sexual-orientation-change efforts.” The congresswoman said she would also investigate whether Medicaid funds were being used to reimburse therapists that provide such treatment.
To some extent, the debate over the efficacy and potential harm of sexual-orientation-change efforts serves as a placeholder for the broader, more passionate debate about the origins of same-sex attraction and also about whether social affirmation of homosexual behavior will heal the wounds of ostracism and self-hatred or leave serious emotional issues unresolved.
If same-sex attraction is inborn, therapy designed to overcome such inclinations could be counterproductive and deeply destructive. But if sexual orientation may be strongly influenced by external factors, including family dynamics and childhood sexual abuse, then the treatment could help individuals distressed by their condition.
Catholic Position
The California Catholic Conference opposed passage of the state law, though it played no role in the Pacific Justice Institute lawsuit. “We opposed the law because it constituted an infringement of parental rights. This bans reparative therapy for minors, even if the minor themselves or the parents want the therapy,” said conference spokeswoman Carol Hogan.
She noted that the law offered no exemption for clergy, religious or spiritual counselors who are licensed by the state.
Father Paul Check, executive director of Courage International, an apostolate for Catholics with same-sex attraction, viewed California’s law with dismay, and said that “people who are suffering” should not be denied “assistance.” Father Check invited those seeking help to contact Courage, and directed Catholics to a Vatican document, “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education in the Family.”
Issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family in 1995, the document states, “If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behavior in their children during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.”
The point, Father Check said, is that the Church is concerned for the whole person. “And in the mind of the Church, the psychological sciences, in accord with Christian anthropology, are not considered separate from pastoral care, but rather integral to it.”
Coercion?
Opponents of sexual-orientation-change efforts have suggested that minors who undergo such therapy are often compelled to do so by family members, abetted by renegade therapists. However, Matt McReynolds, the Pacific Justice Institute attorney, challenged that assertion.“Most people who work in reparative therapy are adamant that they don’t try to change anyone who doesn’t want to change,” said McReynolds.
Aaron Bitzer echoed that point: “I voluntarily signed up for treatment. I never felt more free to be myself,” he told the Register.
People who join support groups or seek one-on-one therapy are often motivated by a desire to square their sexual desires with the precepts of their faith, he said. They need licensed therapists who share or at least respect their religious beliefs.
The lawsuit names as defendants California Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the bill in September, and more than 20 other state officials, including members of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences.
Professional organizations, including the California Psychological Association, also backed the bill, and advocates of the measure frequently cite a 2009 American Psychology Association study on “sexual-orientation-change efforts (SOCE),” which noted that for some individuals undergoing this treatment “[d]istress and depression were exacerbated.”
But while members of the APA taskforce expressed clear discomfort with the aim of reparative therapy, their actual findings were inconclusive: “There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation.”
Arguments against reparative therapy will receive a full hearing as the case moves forward, but McReynolds believes that opponents of the state ban will prevail.
“It is likely that we will ultimately succeed,” he said, citing supportive comments from Judge Shubb’s ruling. “In the meantime, our clients will not have their free-speech rights put on hold.”
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.
Tim Drake: How Barack Obama Betrayed the Civil Rights Movement
Comments
Post a Comment
We are very happy with the outcome of this ruling. Here is a link to Pacific Justice Institute’s press release, and a video about one of the plaintiffs who has experienced this therapy: http://www.pacificjustice.org/ssa.html
It’s all political. The same people support minors rights to contraception, abortion, and on & on.They only restrict a minor’s right to what’s not politically correct.
The reporter in this article speaks of the need to help people who are
suffering, and people are certainly question. There is a question that
needs to be asked and that queston is whether homosexuality is the cause
of the suffering or whether the profound social stigma created in
part by religious teaching. Can we simply dismiss this question as a
matter of faith? Or is this just more shunning behavior aimed at homosexual people. George Bernard Shaw once wrote that “all great truths
begin as blasphemies.” The truth is that the very large mainstream
organizations in both psychiatry (APA) and psychology completely reject
“reparitive therapy.”
Reparative therpay is the realm of quacks, con artists, thiefs, charlatans, snake oil salesman. The ruling was resounding defeat for those who support this kind of abuse of minors as the injuntions applies to only con artists peddling their psuedo-science tot he gullible.
Good point, Kathleen.
A bit of correction to my post above: The ruling was resounding defeat for those who support this kind of abuse of minors as the injuntions applies to only THREE con artists peddling their psuedo-science to the gullible.
Not supporting reparative therpay is not about being “politically correct”. Its about not supporting thieves and con artisits, Its about not supporting the coercion and mental/ psychological abuse of minors. Its about not supporting fear and bigotry. “Reparative therapy” is a scam sold to parents who ae gullible about the non-existent science of this scam and/or who buy into the biogtry that still exists in our society re gay people.
Proposition 8, when it is unraveled in the courts (and it will)and
after its postmortem is writtem, will show that the time of religion
commanding a privileded and determinitive status in American law and
social policy has come to and end. One simply cannot declare a behavior
to be an “instrinic moral evil” and use said declaration to control, and some would say diminish, the lives and standing of millions of people
without expecting a thorough cross-examintion in court. Religious freedom
does not mean the right to strip millions of their rights - like it or lump it.
Lisa,
There was no need to correct your post. What you’ve written above is assertion and name-calling, neither of which constitutes an argument. Try logic.
I thought Courage chapters no longer supports Narth. There are a number of orthodox gay Catholics who are faithful to the church’s teachings, have come out against Narth too.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217934/homo-no-mo/eve-tushnet
http://richardsrambings.blogspot.ca/2006/11/my-return-to-faith-of-my-youth.html
Why should the government be allowed to dictate to parents and/or minors what form of therapy they choose to avail themselves of?
The link above is to an interview with Aaron Bitzer, the plaintiff in the case who claims to have undergone reparative therapy with much success. I found it to be a very interesting interview, and I wish Mr. Bitzer all the best in his quest for equal treatment.
Lisa and Frank,
What would be your advice to someone who experiences same-sex attractions (or any other sort of disordered attraction), finds them undesirable, and would like help dealing with them? Should they be restricted to support groups like Courage? Or should professional help be available to them?
From the APA’s Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbance: Proposed Change in DSM-II, which is the document in which they removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses:
“When all of the arguments are carefully examined, a few simple statements can be made with which hardly anyone can disagree.
3. A significant proportion of homosexuals are quite bothered by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. There is debate within our profession as to why this is so. Some argue that it is an inevitable result of the underlying conflicts that cause homosexual behavior in the first place, while others argue that it is derived from a host of social and cultural pressures that have been internalized. Nonetheless, some of these individuals come voluntarily for treatment, either to be able to accept their sexual feelings towards members of the same sex, or to increase their capacity for sexual arousal by members of the opposite sex.
4. Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so. At the same time, homosexuals who are bothered by or in conflict with their sexual feelings but who are either uninterested in changing, or unable to change, their sexual orientation can be helped to accept themselves as they are and to rid themselves of self-hatred.”
Lisa,
Can you name those three individuals you describe as con artists?
Thanks.
How fun it will be to see the law suits that force the Obamastration to provide reparative therapy under the ObamaDontCare Law to those who want it. This is just as much [actually more] “health care” as is the provision of taxpayer-funded elective abortions to minors without their parents [ie the unborn child’s grandparents’] knowledge or consent.
Dennis,
So you support criminals who knowingly and deliberately steal from people in the name of psuedo-science???? You support criminals who knowlingly and deliberately are committing fraud by peddling a scam to people???
Let’s name this “reparative therapy” for what it is” a scam, a con game, theft, farud.
Sorry for the length and I’m sure I will be pilloried for the comments, but as a psychologist I felt the need to respond.
There are many types of paraphilias and fetishes. Prior to the 1970’s, homosexuality was listed as a paraphilia along with all the rest. Then the gay rights movement began. Individuals with paraphilias or fetishes report the “feeling” that they can’t help themselves. Most individuals who suffer from paraphilias and fetishes would describe themselves as “always being that way from their earliest memories”. We treat many of those who suffer from paraphilias and fetishes with about the same level of success as we treat any compulsive behavior, e.g., if the patient really wants to change and is willing to persist in struggling with the post-treatment latent urge, there will be treatment success. If the patient is only marginally committed to change, treatment will utterly fail.
Please be aware, contrary to all you have heard over the past forty years, there is no genetic cause of same-sex-attraction. In effect, people are not born homosexual. The first evidence debunking the pervasive but false claim that same-sex-attraction is a genetic condition is based on the fact that the human genome has now been mapped, and there are no same-sex-attraction genes; none! When looking at the genome for heterosexuals versus homosexuals, there is no difference; none!
A second, very simple debunking of this claim is based on a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory as it pertains to biogenetics: If no reproduction occurs or reproduction is markedly curtailed for multiple generations (as is most certainly the case with those who are exclusively same sex involved) the trait dies out. Exclusively same-sex-attracted individuals do not reproduce. After one generation, let alone after thousands of generations, same-sex-attracted individuals could not exist if the condition is genetically based because there is no reproduction of those genes. Note that this explicitly clear, yet blatantly simple explanation has been systematically ignored by university professors who are evolutionary Darwinists.
Who else, if not Darwinists, should have been able to immediately point out that, without reproduction, homosexuality cannot be genetically based? Is it possible there was some ulterior motive for their acclaiming as true, a falsehood? How could Ph.D. level Darwinists give an erroneous answer to a junior high school biology exam question? The transmittal of any and all inherited traits (except, that is for homosexuality, as per our esteemed professorial Darwinists) requires reproduction. It is interesting to note that university policies against professor-student sexual liaisons are a very recent development and as yet, not universal. Call me paranoid, but I think the reason for that may be attributed to the fact that for many decades, at least some professors with overactive sexual appetites have had much to gain by encouraging sexual license of all types.
That is not to say that there is no genetic basis for many traits that may play into someone becoming, or self-identifying as, same-sex-attracted. For example, merely being of slight physique and having effeminate traits (in boys) or being muscular and having masculine traits (in girls) often results in peers identifying those children as homosexual and subsequently socially ostracizing them, thus leaving them with no other peer identity group than other similarly identified peers. For anyone who realizes that peer influence can lead children to abuse drugs, commit violent crimes, run away from home, become sexually active and even commit suicide, it is no stretch of the imagination that when all your peers label you a certain way (and the behavior, once engaged in, is highly pleasurable) your behavior may begin to reflect that label. Let’s be candid, any and all forms of sexual activity, regardless of the gender of the partner’s body, is still physically pleasurable. With more than sixty years since Kinsey promulgated his false findings, and the media trumpeted his findings, and the academics adopted his findings as fact, and the legal system legitimized his findings as “human rights”, and the school systems began teaching that all sexual behavior is good and healthy, and society began proclaiming that the only evil is to judgmentally declare something as being wrong, it is no surprise that we have so many people accepting said activity as normal. It is only normal in the same manner as any paraphilia or fetish is normal.
Our modern sexualized society has trumpeted same-sex-attraction as normal and school children are being encouraged (no, not encouraged, forced) to accept same-sex-attraction as normal and as of equal (or in some school systems) even a greater good than opposite sex attraction. In our public school system a student will be disciplined and teachers will be fired for voicing disagreement with the same-sex political cause. Children are even being encouraged to experiment with both before determining whether they are straight, gay, bisexual or some other permutation. The new mantra is that sex is not two opposites, it is a continuum.
Our culture has also exposed children to highly sexualized material via all media outlets and explicit pornography, let alone 15% to 20% of children who are molested by adults or introduced to sexual activity by an older peer. Once an appetite as powerful as sex is triggered, (whether by visual or real events) that appetite keeps the individual seeking to be satisfied.
Of note is the following interesting statistic. The incidence of exclusive same-sex-attraction in the general population ranges from about 1.5% to possibly as high as 3% (not the 10% or 20% intentionally and falsely proffered by Kinsey and upon which all of our supposed proof for homosexuality from birth is based). However (and here is the interesting point) teen children in same-sex parent families are reporting an 8% rate of same-sex-attraction. That is up more than two or three times the normal rate. That leaves only one explanation, socialization. There were many studies that pointed to socialization as the primary cause of same-sex-attraction. Those studies were published prior to the advent of political correctness and are no longer allowed to be cited in any peer review publications except for the purpose of mocking them. Socialization (i.e., life experience) is the same mechanism driving all types of paraphilias and fetishes. Let me suggest that same-sex-attraction is no different from any paraphilia or fetish. Same sex attraction is an acquired sexual appetite.
From a more social-philosophical perspective, referring to a certain subpopulation of society as “Homosexuals” suggests that all that those individuals are; that all that they will ever do; that all that they will be valued for; is colored by their sexual orientation. To be labeled or to self-label as “homosexual” is to suggest an intrinsic difference from all others who are not “homosexual”. The label “homosexual” suggests that a person is first and foremost a function of their sexual orientation and secondarily a function of all else. Consequently a person becomes: a “homosexual mayor”; a “homosexual baseball player”; a “homosexual war hero” rather than being a mayor, a baseball player or a war hero who happens to have same-sex-attraction.
Our sexual attractions, our “philias”, whether to kittens, women’s shoes, our mother’s underwear or to the opposite or same sex, are sexual appetites and are not the entirety of our being. We are first, human; second, male or female; third friend or relative; fourth…, fifth… etc., and somewhere, far down the line, we have appetites. Those appetites do not define us, but do require us to manage/tame them; even the ordinary and most certainly the inordinate ones. Currently society has latched onto the practice of celebrating license for sexual expression so, ipso facto, all sexual expression is glorified and any overt rejection of sexual “rights” is labeled fascist at best; Catholic or fundamentalist at worst.
“Same sex attraction” is the appetite; “homosexuality” is the behavior. The Church does not ask the same-sex-attracted individual to deny or reject his/her personhood any more than the individual with a multiple partner appetite is being asked to deny his/her personhood. Both are being asked to subdue an inordinate appetite for their own eternal benefit. To be consistent, if one’s identity is best described by his/her sexual appetite, then we need to create many new labels: canine-fur-sexual, feminine-shoe-sexual, mother’s-old-dress-sexual, Frotteurism-sexual… Get the point. Someone’s sexual appetite defines one thing a person does; it does not define the person. Same sex attraction develops during life experience by socialization. Same-sex attraction is not a trait one is born with.
Recently a well-known actress declared that she was so pleased that political changes now made it possible for her to “choose” to become lesbian. She was immediately attacked by the LGBTQ community because, according to them, she was undermining the political foundation they had established, i.e., the claim, “We were born this way”. That claim gave the LGBTQ community legal cause to push for constitutional recognition as members of a minority group. So regardless of whether we have always “felt” we were something (feelings, it should be noted, are fickle and we are not good historians about when feelings began), feelings do not, and never can, tell us the truth. We may claim we couldn’t help it. We may claim, because God made our appetites, our priest should just bless those God given appetites. We may reject the idea that we should have to confess for something we “feel” we didn’t choose. But, as most of us are only too well aware, we choose, and know we choose, all our sins. I had a client who believed she was a wolf, really. I’m not kidding. She believed she was a wolf because she “felt” like a wolf. I don’t know what a wolf feels like, but apparently she did. But I know she wasn’t a wolf trapped in human form.
Interestingly, virtually all the lesbian clients I have seen over the years have not been exclusively same-sex-attracted. Most were exclusive to the flavor of their temporary choice. That is, when in relationship with a male they viewed themselves as heterosexual; when in relationship with a female they viewed themselves as homosexual. Most had a number of flip-flops in orientation. Many of the male same-sex-attracted clients have actually lived for many years in a heterosexual marriage while enjoying side benefits. I have even had clients who believed and viewed themselves as homosexual for all their lives until they finally took the plunge and discovered, to their revulsion and many HIV tests later, that they weren’t. Just like no one is born with an appetite for or against beans; for or against baseball; for or against gambling… no one was born with an appetite for homosexual sex. Everyone was born with an appetite for sexual pleasure. What their upbringing, life experiences, personal areas of exploration, role-models, peer experiences, etc. caused them to identify with, is socialization. It is rather peculiar that the outspoken same-sex-attracted individuals always declare, “I knew I was different (or gay/lesbian) since the time I was five years old. Why five? All the rest of society has memories ranging from 2½. Why five? It sounds like a devised party line. If multiple witnesses to an accident or crime all give the same testimony, exact in all details, they have colluded. Why age five? Because age five is old enough that all of us can accept as credible having a memory from that age, but age five is also young enough to support the claim of being born that way. Age five is a manufactured age, it does not reflect reality. How many heterosexuals do you know who have ever said, “I knew when I was five, I was heterosexual?”
The jury is still out on whether same-sex-attraction is reasonably treatable. The jury will be out for many decades to come because, right now, anyone foolish enough to do a valid study will lose their teaching position, never get a teaching position or lose their license for mental health practice because the political climate is very hostile to research that might undermine any politically correct position on sexual orientation. But while the jury is out, there are plenty of people who have chosen to leave same sex relationships and are now living in traditional marriages. One of them writes for National Catholic Register. Needless to say, those individuals are not popular with the LGBTQ community.
KATHLEEN,
Anyone who purposts to practice the psuedo-science of “reparative therpay” is a con artist, a criminal, and is perpetrating fraud.
Lisa,
Again, might you please name the 3 practitioners you believe are criminals?
It’s interesting to see so much politically driven energy to rid California of quackery.Of all places, CA must rank in the top percentile for fad-health gurus & quack therapies.Only one therapy here is singled out.Why?
Jan,
No one is trying to dictate anything. The idea here is that what is called “reparative therapy” is not backed up by any science, by any evidence that it is effective. It is psuedo-science, a con, a scam, a crimianl act, a fraud.
It is time to call a halt to silliness, and to kindly stop confusing religion with science. There is no reputable medical society which would endorse the myth of reparative therapy…there is no such thing. To do so, only deflates the reputation and good will of religion.
A Psychologist,
It seems you may be out of the loop in th issue of gay people reproducing. Gay people do have biological children. Some have been in “tradtional” marriages and have biolgical children from those marriages. I have even known male/female couples, both gay, who for various reason, entered into a “traditional” marriage with each, and had children. So those children have genes from both gay parents. Some gay women get pregrnant using donor sperm. And when they choose they may ask a gay male friend to be the donor. So in that case, the child has the genes from both gay parents. And that may occur even if the donor is unknown to the gay woman using the services of a sperm banks.
Also, the genetic basis of being gay may arise ofrom a gene mutation. So yes, biology may be invovled with being gay.
Dear A Psychologist, Many thanks for the “long” response. In many ways I am inclined to evil [see most of the 10 commandments] although I doubt these inclinations are genetic, and I have, over my life, acted on those inclinations and sinned. As I overcome self-deception and realize that the inclinations exist, I try not to act on them, try to align my will with God’s will, try to choose good, and pray I may get to heaven someday. Guy McClung
Kathleen,
The California court’s decision singled out “reparative therapy” becasue a someone brought a lawsuit agains the such a quack. So the subject of the civil lawsuit is “reparative therpay”. The plaintiff did not bring a alawsuit against other kinds of practitioners. In the article above, it is noted that the court’s decision applies to 3 “reparative therapists”. Please read the court’s decision. You may find the names in the court’s published decision.
This not a matter of “political energy”, its a matter of civil lawsuit brought by at least one private individual seeking damages agaisnt a practitioner the plaintiff alleges harmed the plaintiff.
Lisa,
Yes, some same-sex attracted individuals have passed on their genetics to the gene pool. I mentioned that most the SSA patients I have seen have been in traditional relationships, however, for a biological trait to persist it must be passed on at a relatively high rate, not at the rate represented by the small percentage of LGBTQ population that actually does reproduce. The modern practices of a few in recent years does not explain the existence of a biological predetermination of same-sex attraction. Now, if you can demonstrate that all sexually obsessive behaviors (masturbating with mother’s underwear, touching women in public, use of feces during erotic activities, etc.; in fact all objects of compulsiions) are pre-programmed at birth, then it would also be reasonable to accept that same-sex attraction is the same.
A pyschologist,
Being straight or gay IS a matter of biology. It is inaccurate to compare being gay to"sexually obessessive behaviors”. Being gay is NOT a sexually obsessive behavior. . It is a sexual oreintation, the same as being stright is a sexual orientation.
An interesting point of view;
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/499483/study-male-genetic-homosexuality/?mobile=nc
Lisa,
Thanks. I had to search around online but did find that one of the therapists involved is Dr. Joseph Nicolosi.I haven’t read too much about him lately, but my impression from years ago was that he was a respected, Catholic psychologist.
I disagree about the lack of political agenda behind the CA legislation.Legislation needs political energy behind it to be successful.
A psychologist ,
Thank you!
I’m no psychologist but have thought many of the same things you state.
Thank you for your post.
A psychologist,
Being gay or being stright is a matter of biology. It is inaccurate to compare being gay to the “sexually obessessive behaviors” you listed above. Being stright is not a sexually obsessive behavior. Being gay is not a sexually obsessive behavior. They ar both sexual orientations.
Jesuitical graduate of Boston College,
if homosexuality were part of the genetic pool. It would not make a difference, since adultery is also part of the human genetic pool. Science gives us data, but does not tell us if actions are moral or not. This is outside the scope of their field.
Lisa, The term “sexual orientation” is a very recent, post sexual revolution, social construct that is utterly artificial. It is a a label given to a wished for status. The fact is that all humans are born with a capacity for sexual arousal. They are not born with an orientation to any specific object. What object of sexual arousal becomes significant for any individual is dependent upon that individual’s socialization process, not some biologically predetermined state. Any of us could have been socialized into enjoying and desiring same sex activity. Having been molested as a child by an older, same sex individual, I know at least a little bit about what I am presenting.
Kathleen,
You are right re the CA legislation (sorry for some reason I thought this was civil lawusit by a plaintiff alleging injury. The law restrict this kind of quackery being offered to minors because it is psychological abuse. And it is psuedo-science. And for those reasons, those who want to “practice” this sort of thing are con artists, frauds who take peoples’ money under false pretenses. So bravo for CA for protecting minors for this sort of abuse and coercion.
The issue here is not whether or not reparative therapy is potentially helpful for some people, the issue is whether or not conversion therapies (a broad category of which includes reparative therapies) should be accessible to minors. The problem is that these therapies are often offered by unlicensed therapists, and they range from moderately effective to downright abusive—with the worst abusive practices almost invariably being inflicted on young people who do not have the independence necessary to refuse treatment if they are subjected to unethical practices. Sadly, there are parents out there who are so desperate to stop their kid from being gay that they won’t withdraw their son or daughter from treatment even if the methods used are harmful or even immoral.
+
Lisa, If no one is trying to dictate which forms of therapy parents of minors or minors themselves may avail themselves of, why the CA law? The law is yet another attack on parental rights, albeit less serious than the horrendous abortion without parental notification / consent laws in existence. You may believe reparative therapy is a scam - others do not. So I say to you - don’t try it, and to others who want to try it, do.
A psychologist, what we label is always a construct and as such is artificial. Stating such is artificial is not saying anything of substance. The reductionist clause that sexual arousal is ‘dependent up socialization’ and not any biological factor is pseudoscience.
Jan,
“Repartive therapy” is psuedo-science, it is NOT legitmate therapy, it is a fraud, a scam, a con game. And it is right for CA to outlaw it.
Jan, your statement; “...don’t try it, and to otheres who want to try it,do.” If only, it were that easy. If scientist deem such pseudo-therapy deleterious, it is no longer a matter of ‘want to try it, do’...any more than if you want to try poison, do it.
Savvy, “since adultery is also part of the human genetic pool” Where did you get that one from…are you stating that man is naturally polygamous.
Jesuitical graduate of Boston College, I have already spoken to the fact that there are biological factors involved but there is nothing to suggest that SSA is any different than any other arousal pattern. It is evident that humans may develop any number of arousal patterns to any number of objects. SSA proponents are claiming a special biological basis for a cluster (LGBTQ) of conditions. Such has not and been demonstrated, though your site above is interesting, I’m not ready to accept the report of an obvious advocate for one position. The findings of that study are far too ambiguous to consider suggesting what the SSA advocates want the study to demonstrate.
Jesuitical graduate of Boston College, Your last question to Savvy makes my point exactly. Yes, humans are genetically programmed to derive pleasure from stimulation to certain bodily regions. In effect, all a human needs to do is image an activity, try that activity and the result will be either enjoyment or distaste. Morality merely tells us whether the activity fits within God’s plan or not. There are no limits to what permutation of pleasurable activities humans can devise. Have you ever been aware of the polymorphous perversity displayed in a child who was the victim of sexual abuse? Even young children can display erotic arousal to multiple forms of activity including OSA, SSA, bestiality, masochism, etc. We learn our objects of desire and pleasure. We are not born with those objects predetermined.
Jesuitical graduate of Boston College,
I am stating that , man is prone to all kinds of things. The distinction that needs to be made is between genetic pre-disposition (what one experiences ) and genetic determinism (what one does).
I do agree that reparative therapy does not address this. It seems to be bent on treating a determinism that has not been proven.
Catholic teaching on homosexuality could change if it was proven that same-sex attracted individuals are a different species of human with just respect to sex, or that they have a pre-determined normative attribute or mechanism that always leads, in a pre-determined way, to specific, stereotyped behaviour (sodomy, fellatio, etc.).
As long as free-will exists it will not.
+
Lisa and “Jesuitical graduate” - In your opinions, reparative or conversion therapy is not helpful. For others, it has been / is helpful. God has given parents the right and responsibility to raise their children - He has not given that right and responsibility to the government. You are supporting government intrusion on parental rights. I will not support that. You are also supporting the embrace of an immoral lifestyle which in the end is / will be destructive for all who practice it, just as adultery or any form of sin is destructive. We are blessed in that God has shown us the way to Life for those who will accept His love and guidance. But He does not force anyone to love / follow Him. Please do not try to force others to follow your mistaken views of the human being, who is created by God to know, love and serve Him - the only route to our happiness and fulfillment. God bless you both.
Jan,
You think its OK for parents to have the absolute right to dao anything to their children? Do you think its right for parents to give their children posion? If the government outlaws—that is an unjustified intrusion into parental rights?? Poison is exactly what so-called “repartive therpay is. No one is FORCINC or trying to FORCE anyone to beleive anything. Comments do not constitute force or coercion.
I am sorry you support farud, con artists, scams, instead of legitimate practitoners who help people. “Repartive therapists” are thieves, liars, criminals. They psychologically abuse children and aprents who force their children into the office of thse con artists are also guilty of psychological abuse. Bravo to CA for outlawing such scams.
+
Lisa - there is no comparison to a parent giving a child poison and taking them to therapy in hopes of steering them in a morally upright direction. In your opinion, reparative/ conversion therapy is a poison. It is not the opinion of all people that this is so. Just because the CA legislature is trying to outlaw assistance for those who struggle with same sex attraction does not mean the government is correct in its determination. The same government has told us it is morally acceptable to kill completely innocent, unborn children at any stage of their development, for any reason. Don’t you think we’d be wiser to listen to God, who after all is the One who made us out of and for love, as to what is best for all human beings, rather than the government?
God bless you,
Jan
Lisa, you comparison is somewhat exaggerated. The law outlaws any and all therapy to orient a child’s sexual preference when the object of desire is the opposite sex. Would you say parents have no right to seek therapy that would redirect a child’s sexual preference if the object were sadistic behaviors, toward an animal, toward much younger children, etc?
Just so you don’t need to, let me finish with your mantra: “Bravo to CA for outlawing such scams.” “Bravo to CA for outlawing such scams.” “Bravo to CA for outlawing such scams.” “Bravo to CA for outlawing such scams.”
Is that enough so you don’t have to type it again?
A psychologist,
There is legitimate therapy and and there quacks. Reparative therapists are quacks. If a child is having psychological problems of any kind, there are legitmate therapists/therapies. “Repartive therapy” is not legitmate, it si not backed by any evidence that it works. It is psychological abuse. So Bravo to CA for outlawing such scams!
Apparently Lisa missed this the first time I posted it, which is from an APA document published in the 1970’s:
“Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so.”
Kevin,
ARe you serious??? An APA document from the 1970s??? And you think this is still the APA’s position??? Are you trying to fool people into thinking that the APA still maintians this stance??? From the APA in 1997:
Chicago, August 14, 1997). The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has passed a resolution affirming four basic principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation, so-called conversion or reparative therapies.
These principles are:
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and the APA opposes all portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as mentally ill and in need of treatment due to their sexual orientation;
Psychologists do not knowingly participate in or condone discriminatory practices with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients;
Psychologists respect the rights of individuals, including lesbian, gay and bisexual clients to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and autonomy;
Psychologists obtain appropriate informed consent to therapy in their work with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients.
The resolution further states that the APA “urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientation.”
Supporters of the resolution, which passed the APA Council overwhelmingly by a voice vote, believed that it was critical for the Association to make such a statement due to the questions of the ethics, efficacy and benefits of conversion therapy which are now being debated within the profession and within society as a whole.
Kevin,
ARe you serious??? An APA document from the 1970s??? And you think this is still the APA’s position??? Are you tring to fool people into think that that 1970s statement is still the APA stance??? From the APA in 1997:
Chicago, August 14, 1997). The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has passed a resolution affirming four basic principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation, so-called conversion or reparative therapies.
These principles are:
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and the APA opposes all portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as mentally ill and in need of treatment due to their sexual orientation;
Psychologists do not knowingly participate in or condone discriminatory practices with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients;
Psychologists respect the rights of individuals, including lesbian, gay and bisexual clients to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and autonomy;
Psychologists obtain appropriate informed consent to therapy in their work with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients.
The resolution further states that the APA “urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientation.”
Supporters of the resolution, which passed the APA Council overwhelmingly by a voice vote, believed that it was critical for the Association to make such a statement due to the questions of the ethics, efficacy and benefits of conversion therapy which are now being debated within the profession and within society as a whole.
Kevin Rahe,
Are you serioulsy trying to convince people that the APA maintains this stance from the 1970s??? The statement you posted from the APA is waaaay out of date and has cahnged. From APA in 1999:
January 15, 1999: APA Maintains Reparative Therapy Not Effective
The APA Board of Trustees endorsed a position statement at its December meeting that opposes therapeutic techniques some psychiatrists and mental health professionals claim can shift an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.
The Board acknowledged that there is no evidence that these so-called “reparative therapies” have any efficacy in converting someone from one sexual orientation to another.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/should-the-church-preemptively-withdraw-from-the-civil-marriage-business#ixzz2EgQK5JDe
Kevin Rahe,
January 15, 1999: APA Maintains Reparative Therapy Not Effective
The APA Board of Trustees endorsed a position statement at its December meeting that opposes therapeutic techniques some psychiatrists and mental health professionals claim can shift an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.
The Board acknowledged that there is no evidence that these so-called “reparative therapies” have any efficacy in converting someone from one sexual orientation to another.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-warner/should-the-church-preemptively-withdraw-from-the-civil-marriage-business#ixzz2EgQK5JDe
Kevin Rahe,
The APA cahnged ist postion in 1999 and declared “repartieve therapy” to be ineffective and ethically questionable. You can Google that if you wish. But the statement you posted from the 1970s is outdated.
Kevin Rahe,
And from 1999:
January 15, 1999: APA Maintains Reparative Therapy Not Effective
The APA Board of Trustees endorsed a position statement at its December meeting that opposes therapeutic techniques some psychiatrists and mental health professionals claim can shift an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.
The Board acknowledged that there is no evidence that these so-called “reparative therapies” have any efficacy in converting someone from one sexual orientation to another.
In 1998, an APA pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality” indicated that, “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
Their current pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” however, takes a much more conservative track: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
So the net takeaway from all this is that it’s pretty much anyone’s guess where the APA is going to come down on a particular issue from one decade to the next. It may very well shift in any direction based on exactly what I’m not quite sure, hence its positions make a pretty poor foundation for public policy. I’m glad the Catholic Church is not like that.
Kevin,
The takeaway is that the APA’s 1999 statement says that “reparative therapy” has no basis in science and is ethically questionable.
The RCC’s positions is consistent: the attempt to spread hate and bigotry toward gay people, an illogical, irrational, unscientific view of marriage equality; a consistent un-American effort to enshrine hatred and bigotry in US law, a consistent attempt tp impose RC teachings upon all US citizens, consistently spending millions of dollars to to unsuccessfully stop marriage equality. Yes, stuff the RCC should be proud of.
Lisa Kaiser said,
That was 1999. Given the change in their stance on the genesis of same-sex attractions themselves since that time to allow for a greater influence of environment, it would not be at all surprising for the APA to next year update their position on reparative therapy to also reflect that shift in understanding.
Kevin, You are being bullied by a troll. That is why she repeatedly used your name, just to intimidate you. You would be wiser to use a name that doesn’t allow the bullying to go too far. As I mentioned in my response above, this is a political movement and anyone who disagrees with the politically correct position will be pilloried. Lisa doesn’t seem to recognize that if the APA could be so wrong in the 70’s they could be just as wrong in the 12’s. In one area she is correct, SSA is not a mental illness any more than any sin is a mental illness. It is a highly complex behavioral pattern that is, ultimately, a choice. Kevin, if you are still following this line of responses you will see that I will get attacked next. Lisa seems to have a fetish with having the last word. Lisa, even though you will probably gag on this and request that we stop, every day, some Catholics, somewhere, pray for you and all those trapped in destructive sins.
+
Lisa,
If individual Catholics have expressed hatred and bigotry toward people who experience same sex attraction, I apologize for them, but those attitudes are far from what the Catholic Church teaches. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church on chastity and homosexuality:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
The Catholic Church recognizes marriage as an institution that from the beginning of civilization recognizes the unique relationship of one man and one woman coming together to create children - the family - the building block of society.
The Catholic Church stands for the rights of children to have a mother and a father.
It is not the Catholic Church that is trying to impose its views on all U.S. citizens - U.S. citizens are having the views of homosexual activists forced upon us and upon our children.
God bless you,
Jan
Jan,
You stated, “It is not the Catholic Church that is trying to impose its views on all U.S. citizens - U.S. citizens are having the views of homosexual activists forced upon us and upon our children.”
This is the same arguement used by those who opposed racila integration—that it was bing forced upon them.
Wht is happening is a postivie evolution in thinking about gay people and the about the Constitutional rights of gay Americans. Same-sex marriage will have NO negative consequences on society—just as racial integration in schools, interracial marriage, etc ahd no negative impact on society.
What the RCC in the US is doing is spending millions of dollars to enshrine hatred, discrimination & bigotry into US law. Just as some opposed equal rights for ethnic and racila minorities, so the RCC opposes equal rights for gay Americans. The RCC in the US is seeking to undermine the US Constitution.
But since the US Supreme Court has accepted two cases related to the issue of same-sex marriage, we will all have to wait to see what the Court decides by June 2013 (at the latest).
A psychologist,
No one is bullying Kevin. My posts showed up several times via a glitch at the NCR side of things. And certainly it was not my intention to “bully” any one, but thanks for assuming the worst and calling me “troll”.
Today, on several reputable news sites is the report that researchers at the Unviersity of California Santa Barbara have pinpointed a biological origin of homosexuality. Its not inherited like eye color, for example, but has to do with the way genes operate during gestation and is linked to father to daughter genes and mother to son genes (if I understand the news report correctly).
So given that, it would seem that “repartive therapy” is indeed totally useless. that being gay is an “an immutable biological characteristic” (like race or gender), and that it is not a choice. Yes, the RCC still says that gay people should be cahste. But happily, the RCC cannot and does not control gay people and gay people go on to live happy, well adjusted normal lives with partners and families.
So if this research holds up to expert scrutiny, it looks like the APA will have to change its position on same-sex attractions once again. If the cause of homosexual attractions has been isolated, it’s inevitable that someone will try to devise a treatment to avoid them (or worse, a test to discover them in utero). I wonder how the mainstream media will react to that. Finally, professional theories about the origin of pedophilic attractions have heretofore been rather similar to theories about the origin of homosexual attractions. I wonder if this research will shed any light on the former as well.
“Yes, the RCC still says that gay people should be chaste.”
And what is wrong with this? Chastity is a spiritual gift that can be acquired. You have not proven that pre-determined inclinations always lead to pre-determined actions. Making this a choice.
One is also not responsible for another’s mental state. All human beings experience varying degrees of afflictions. It’s not unique or special. It’s called life.
A psychologist,
The APA also calls beastiality a normal sexual orientation. The distinction between genetic pre-dispostion and genetic determinism needs to be made.
+
Lisa,
Homosexual activity deals with behavior, not ethnicity. The Civil Rights movement had God and God’s laws at its core. Blacks believed in the Civil Rights movement because it stood on God’s truth - and the truth sets you free!
It is not up to human beings to redefine what God has put in place. He created us as man and woman, created us to pair as man and woman, and the Church recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman. We can’t change that by a vote!
Because the Church teaches a Truth that you do not agree with does not mean the Church teaches hatred, bigotry, etc. The truth DOES set people free - we would be negligent in our duty to charity if we pretend homosexual activity is o.k. for people, that homosexual so-called “marriage” would not be harmful. Just as it would be untruthful and uncharitable for us to pretend that adultery is not harmful, that sex outside of marriage is not harmful, that co-habiting is not harmful.
By the way, as you are aware I am sure, it is not just the Roman Catholic Church that opposes homosexual behavior. Christians of other denominations, Latter Day Saints, Muslims and Jewish people, as well as people of no faith, see homosexual behavior as harmful and immoral.
Re: the Santa Barbara study you mention is only in its infancy - nothing has been proved, nothing has been tested: “We’ve found a story that looks really good,” he says. “There’s more verification needed, but we point out how we can easily do epigenetic profiles genome-wide. We predict where the epi-marks occur, we just need other studies to look at it empirically.” http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
God bless you Lisa!
Jan
Lisa,
I apologize for calling you a troll if you are not trolling, but it certainly appeared as such. The report of one study by “several reputable news sites” does not provide any additional proof. There is one study. You may have missed the rather shocking anthropological study reported in the Atlantic Monthly regarding two African cultures that neither have any homosexual individuals nor do they have any concept for SSA, and cannot even comprehend what they are being asked about regarding SSA. Biology must have skipped those cultures. If “gay people go on to live happy, well adjusted normal lives with partners and families” why do they continue to have such a high suicide rate even in Denmark where the issue of any discrimination has been effectively and virtually eliminated? Why do they have higher rates of emotional distress for children raised in those homes? Why do they have such unstable relationships? Why do researchers get harassed when they have findings that doesn’t support SSA as a healthy lifestyle (see what happened to Mark Regnerus, Ph.D.)? What about Robert Oscar Lopez’s insights (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065)? One study of highly complex and ambiguous results does not provide any proof.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.