| Homosexuality:
Views and analysis by Jeff Lindsay |
|
This page is for people who don't want to be gay. If you are gay and don't want to change, please don't let me bother you. But there may be a tiny handful of people out there who do want to change and wonder if it's possible. The information presented below suggests that for some, real change is possible. It won't work for everyone, perhaps not even for most, but there is help available and hope when change is sincerely sought.
In recent years, it has become difficult to have serious discussions of the facts about homosexuality. Because of the intense politics associated with homosexual issues, people are afraid to challenge "politically correct" sentiments on the topic. I can understand the anger that some of you feel when reading that change is possible. Please recognize that I do not mean to discount the reality you perceive or the sincerity of your position. This page is not meant to preach and convert you, but only to reach a few who may wonder if there might be more options than they have considered so far. Are there alternatives for those who sincerely wish to change? In my opinion, the answer is yes, and I'd like to share some things that have helped a few others. If you are comfortable with your orientation and feel that it is truly who you are, please don't be offended. In fact, don't even bother reading further. This page is not for you. Please don't feel that I am denying who you are or condemning you or that I hate or fear you. There are some truly wonderful gay people in my circle of family, friends, and acquaintances, and I have deep respect for who they are and for the goodness they bring to this world. I am proud of so much about them and their accomplishments. It pains me to think that some would misunderstand and think that I am filled with fear or hate of gays. But I also know of the pain that some have felt who incorrectly thought that they were trapped in a gay life that they did not want, who took years to discover that there is hope when change is truly desired. For some seeking change, though perhaps a minority, change may be possible. And that can be incredibly good news for those who seek something different.
It's time to see past the propaganda - not to evoke hate or intolerance, but to foster reason and knowledge. I urge all people to be genuinely kind and loving toward each other, regardless of lifestyle, appearance, orientation, religion, race, etc. We can and must love those with whom we disagree, while still holding to truths that others may not accept. We should be civil and even cautious in how and where we express our opinions. A note on the issue of hate: I am absolutely opposed to hate. Sadly, I find myself accused of hate for stating my view that homosexuality can be changed, at least in some cases. Please, there is a difference between disagreeing and hating! Many activists choose to ignore the distinction. Debate and honest discussion have been shut down by name calling and the tactics of intimidation. That is wrong, but it's inherent to "political correctness." For example, one well educated man contacted me and accused me of hate. I asked for an explanation and asked if explaining the harms of a behavior was tantamount to hate. His response: "Yes, it is hate to say that being gay is harmful and can be treated. Because of people like you, too many people who are gay get the message that they are dirty and that being gay is wrong. Get a life!"Humans are not animals - we can change and control our behavior, at least to some degree. People have a choice about their sexual activities, in spite of the desires and temptations they face. Solid evidence shows that change is possible. For those who don't want to change, OK. But there are some who do, and some who aren't sure if they are gay. They don't need to feel like there is nothing they can do. My message is intended to be one of hope, with absolutely no hate. It will offend nonetheless, but I would ask the offended parties to deal with this intellectually rather than turn to name-calling and angry replies. I know wonderful people in the homosexual community - kind, warm people whom I respect and admire in many ways. Some are happy where they are, but others would have benefited years ago if they had known that there are alternatives. Again, disagreeing with a behavior should not lead us to dislike or belittle the person. | |
Many former homosexuals have learned that change was not just desirable, but entirely possible. It wasn't easy, but it was possible. Read their stories, understand their reasons, and know that the propaganda against change is not completely honest. |
Spitzer found what many former homosexuals have already demonstrated: homosexuals can change. That orientation is not necessarily innate and unchangeable.
Many former homosexuals know that homosexuality can be treated. The National Association for the Recovery and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) offers valuable resources and information at their Web site Narth.com, including a discussion of the work by Robert Spitzer, and analysis of prior failed attempts to prove that homosexuality is innate.
Another resource on this topic is the work of Dr. Warren Throckmorton, whose Website provides valuable information on the ability of gays to change and on the same-sex marriage debate. Also see his documentary, "I Do Exist," which shows that ex-gays actually do exist, contrary to allegations of gay activists. Here is some of the publicity for this excellent production:
The documentary, I Do Exist, is not an attack on gays. Rather, it is aimed at those who are gay but wish to change. Rather than shouting them down or pressuring them to give up and remain gay, denying the possibility of change, Dr. Throckmorton appeals to case studies and scientific evidence that affirm an important and objective truth, verified by research: change is possible. Those who deny it are simply wrong."Produced by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, I DO EXIST is a documentary about homosexuals who have changed their identity to one that is heterosexual. The documentary explores the different types of homosexuality from the people who dabble in it and people who adopt a gay identity... The most important part of the documentary is interviews with people who had identified as gay for many years and decided to change... This is a wonderful and necessary video to dispel some of the confusions of our age, and it is highly recommended by MOVIEGUIDEŽ."
-Ted Baehr, PhD, Publisher of MOVIEGUIDEŽ and MOVIEGUIDE.ORG
Sadly, the climate in academic circles today has become decidedly hostile toward research involving treatment of homosexuality, for "political correctness" is dominant, especially in the American Psychiatric Association, and those suggesting homosexuality is something to cure may be treated as pariahs. While investigations into treating homosexuality have suddenly become rare in light of a politically correct chill effect, a significant body of work demonstrates that homosexuality can be treated successfully - with success rates well above those for treating alcoholics. Secular treatment of homosexuality using psychotherapy or psychoanalysis has been reported in a variety of studies, beginning with Freud himself, who reported a 50% success rate in treating 8 homosexuals (A. Freud, "Some Clinical Remarks Concerning the Treatment of Male Homosexuality," The Intl. Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30, p. 195, as cited by Satinover, p. 185). Satinover summarizes additional published studies on treatment of homosexuality with psychotherapy (mostly) and psychoanalysis, having a composite success rate of 52% in treating a total of 341 homosexuals (p. 186). The most recently cited study (G. van den Aardweg, On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation, Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1986) reports a success rate of 65% in treating 101 people. "Success" in these studies is defined as "considerable" to "complete" change. Though the nine studies listed by Satinover have small sample sizes, the results still contradict gay propaganda by showing that homosexuality can be treated. The data demonstrate that change is possible.
In addition to the 341 subjects mentioned above, a separate 1976 study on treating homosexuality (conducted before the APA made it risky to conduct such work) found excellent long-term success in the treatment of 49 homosexual patients:
Of 49 patients ... 31 (63 percent) were contacted for follow-up. The average period since the end of treatment was 4 years. Nineteen subjects (61 percent [of the 31 contacted]) have remained exclusively heterosexual, whereas nine (29 percent) have had homosexual intercourse. Heterosexual intercourse was reported in 28 (90 percent), including the previous nine subjects. Three (10 percent) have had neither homo nor heterosexual intercourse.A study by Masters and Johnson, one of the nine studies with a composite of 341 subjects mentioned above, reported a success rate of 65 percent in a five-year follow-up study of treated homosexuals (M.F. Schwartz and W.H. Masters, "The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 141, pp. 173-181, 1984, as cited by Satinover, p. 186). The abstract of this article, available online, describes the treatment process as a short-term, intensive program to overcome maladaptive belief systems and to help the patient foster a positive self-image.
(A. Cantom-Dutari, "Combined Intervention for Controlling Unwanted Homosexual Behavior," 1973, as cited by Satinover, p. 187.)
Satinover further explores some intriguing but preliminary results in which medication appeared to have promoted change. The advent of the chill effect on research into treatment of homosexuality roughly coincided with advances in psychiatric medicine that offer many new avenues for helping people deal with biochemical imbalances and internal stresses that may, in some cases, be part of the many factors associated with the abnormal condition homosexuality.
While many pastors and ministers have experienced the positive role that religion can play in helping homosexuals change their lifestyles and their personal orientation, many would be surprised to know that this effect received at least a small amount of attention in the professional psychiatric community. A small 1980 study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry reported that religious influence had helped some homosexuals lose their homosexual identity and become heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" (E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," Amer. J. Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980). This work dealt with only 11 former-homosexual males who claimed to have become heterosexual through participation in a Pentecostal church. Though minor in scope, it again hints at the possibilities for overcoming homosexuality.
In spite of the evidence that homosexuality can be treated and that at least some former homosexuals have changed, gay activists such as Brian McNaught still boldly proclaim that science teaches that orientation is innate and unchangeable, that "no one has ever changed their orientation," that some babies are born "hardwired" to be gay, and that homosexuality cannot be cured ("Gay Issues in the Workplace," presentation by Brian McNaught to Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Neenah, Wisconsin, Oct. 30, 2001). That position will not change, I suspect, in spite of abundant evidence, because it seems to be a critical premise in the quest for legitimacy and especially in the quest for financial benefits for domestic partners. If homosexuality is as innate, as natural, and as unchangeable as gender, then shouldn't a homosexual union be condoned and provided with all the benefits afforded to traditional marriages?
Writers who have written for years, or even decades, without ever mentioning homosexuals have been denounced for "homophobia" because they began to write about the subject after the AIDS epidemic appeared and did not take the "politically correct" position on the issues. How can someone have a "phobia" about something he has scarcely noticed? Many people never knew or cared what homosexuals were doing, until it became a danger to them as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Whether those people's reactions were right or wrong is something that can be debated. But attributing their position to a "phobia" is circular reasoning, when there is no evidence of any such phobia other than the position itself. Like so much in the vocabulary of the anointed, it is a way of avoiding substantive debate."Homophobia" is an epithet to stop argument. Name-calling can carry the day when reason and facts aren't with you. There certainly are bigots that need to be stopped - but the media and the gay lobby is quick to label anyone as homophobic who does not agree with their political agenda or with their lifestyle. But the issue of homosexuality needs thoughtful consideration and debate - not just name calling to force a politically correct decision.Among the writers who took non-"politically correct" positions on AIDS was the late Randy Shilts, whose best-selling book And the Band Played On is a chilling exploration of the political irresponsibility, based on fears of offending the organized gay lobby, that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths before the most elementary public health measures were taken to reduce the spread of AIDS. No doubt he too would have been called "homophobic" if he were not himself an avowed homosexual who later died of AIDS....
While many specific sexual sins are mentioned only a few times if at all, a perceived silence on specifics cannot hush the clear voice of God on sexual morality. Christ and many of the prophets and apostles taught that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and that sex outside the bonds of marriage is wrong. In teaching sexual morality, Christ even went beyond the principles of the Mosaic Law, adding that even to lust after a woman (or, obviously, a man) is a sin.
The Biblical principles of sexual morality and the sanctity of the traditional family leave no room to condone homosexual activity. Furthermore, the Bible has specific condemnations of homosexual activity in the books of Genesis (the story of Sodom and Gomorra in chapters 18 and 19, for example), Leviticus (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13), Deuteronomy, 1 and 2 Kings ("sodomites"), Romans (esp. chapter 1), 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:9-11), 1 Timothy, and Jude. Negative references to Sodom were also made by many other writers and by Christ. I believe that the Bible clearly shows that homosexual activity was understood to be a serious sin by its inspired authors. In general, any sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual, outside of marriage should be considered sinful from a Biblical perspective. It was a sin anciently and is still a sin today, in my opinion. But to identify a behavior as a sin is no excuse for anger or hate. We are all sinners before God, and all need to repent and come unto Christ - again, that's my opinion.
For those who doubt that homosexual behavior was viewed as a sin in the Bible, here is a particularly clear example from the Bible, taken from Romans 1:24-32:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:It is often assumed that anyone opposed to homosexual behavior is hateful. Those who teach hate are far from God - but hate is rarely the message when Christian ministers speak out against sin. For example, many ministers, including myself, strongly oppose alcoholism, yet we feel no hate for alcoholics and value them as brothers and sisters struggling with a heavy burden. Indeed, for a minister to condone alcohol abuse as just another lifestyle would be a grave disservice to his flock and to alcoholics in particular. Compassion is needed, for many alcoholics suffer greatly and feel that they have little choice in the matter. Ultimately, though, all of us can gain self-control over our bodies with the help of God. But the alcoholic must know that his or her behavior is wrong, regardless of mitigating factors. Fortunately, Christ does more than simply define what is right and wrong. Christ offers the power to change. His love leads to newness of life as we follow Him, empowered by His grace.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Some ministers feel they stand on higher moral ground by accepting the gay/lesbian lifestyle. However, they must understand that condoning sin does not liberate souls nor bring them to Christ. We love sinners most fully when we teach them the hope that Christ offers to overcome sin, including destructive sexual sins. As sons and daughters of God, we are happiest and most free when we follow Him, even when great personal sacrifices are required along that truly straight and narrow path.
I was also asked why one should oppose homosexuality when it occurs in every species of animal (or at least every mammal) - doesn't that mean it's there for a purpose? This question was posed to me by the famous gay advocate, Brian McNaught, in a friendly question-and-answer discussion at the end of a recent lecture he gave at my workplace on Oct. 30, 2001. (More on Brian below.) First of all, apparent homosexual acts have been observed in a variety of species, but not all. But more importantly, animal behavior is a poor guide for acceptable human behavior. For the vast majority of species, homosexual behavior is abnormal. But even if it were the norm for many species, how does such behavior in animals justify homosexual behavior in humans? If we look to animal behavior to guide human morality, disaster will ensue. Male lions may kill and eat their young if the mother is not watchful. Grizzlies don't floss. Thousands of species abandon their young as soon as they hatch, and few animals offer decent examples of responsible fatherhood. And even our closest relatives, the primates, tend to urinate in public, litter recklessly, and even belch while dining. I'll look elsewhere for guides to acceptable behavior.
By the way, I enjoyed listening to Brian McNaught and appreciated the perspectives he brought in helping us to better understand the challenges gay people face. But I strongly disagree with his strongly stated claim that no homosexual has ever changed - a claim that he quickly revised when I asked him about Robert Spitzer's work and related studies. His original statement that "no homosexual has ever, ever, ever changed" became converted to a rather circular argument wherein he stated that those who are 100%, totally homosexually cannot become 100%, totally heterosexual - which is essentially true by definition, since someone probably wasn't 100%, totally homosexual in the first place if they switched to being completely heterosexual. Though he has some valuable things to share, I found several extreme statements from him to be unsupportable propaganda.
While I get a lot of very angry "hate mail" from people who read this page and disagree, I've had some eloquent and thoughtful responses. Here is an excerpt from one of the better examples, received Nov. 2004:
I recently came across your website devoted to "curing" gay people. I know you get a lot of angry e-mails, and this is not meant to offend you. I understand that your intentions are good and that you believe you are helping people. However, by including links to unscientific articles and cruel parodies, and by dismissing respect as "political correctness," you send a contradictory message.Here is my response:Everyone has the right to his or her own religious beliefs; I am certainly not questioning that. But you claim not to hate while you mock and belittle. There is no such thing as "political correctness" -- there is only respect and lack of prejudice. You may think you "hate the sin, love the sinner," but to those of us who believe in the rights of all people of all faiths, colors, and sexual orientations to live in equality and mutual respect, your website is indeed hateful.
Thanks for a polite and eloquent message. I wish more people could disagree so civilly. But I also suspect that may be missing the core of what my page is about.To me, there is a simple scientific question that can be resolved objectively, without relying on faith and beliefs and propaganda. That question is this: "Is change possible for a gay person who does not wish to be gay?" There are scientific studies and case studies that clearly say "yes," though it's not necessarily easy and may not work for everyone. Those who deny this, those who say that gays cannot ever change, are telling a lie and they are doing it for political and selfish reasons.
How is it hateful to tell those who want to change that change is possible?
Can you clarify what you meant about "unscientific studies"? Numerous scientific studies by experts in the field indicate the possibility that those who do not want to be gay CAN change. And as the "I Do Exist" documentary shows, there is undeniable evidence that at least some gays have changed. Robert Spitzer, M.D., the prominent psychiatrist who helped remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic Manual's list of disorders in 1973, recently gave a presentation to the APA presenting results of his study demonstrating that some homosexuals can change their desires to heterosexual. This surprising development, reported on May 9, 2001 at the annual APA convention in New Orleans, represents a scientific effort by a non-right-wing, non-anti-gay person with a great deal of credibility in the scientific community and in the gay community. Carly, change is possible, and for those who want change, the most loving, non-hateful thing we can do is to affirm the possibility of that which they desire. They need to be encouraged, not shouted down as lunatics.
The National Association for the Recovery and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH)
PeopleCanChange.com - an excellent resource about the reality of change for homosexuals. The silent minority of recovered homosexuals share their experiences and reasons for change at this site. There is hope for those who wish to change.
The Anti-Smokophobia Page - Those who oppose smoking suffer from smokophobia, a mental illness remarkably similar to homophobia. Notice the amazing similarities on this parody page from JeffLindsay.com.
Can Homosexuals Change? - from Homosexuals Anonymous
The Attack on Paul Cameron - I've been criticized for citing Paul Cameron, since he has been renounced by several organizations. Is this an attempt to shoot the messenger and send a warning to those who expose politically correct myths?
Gay Priests and Gay Marriage by anthropologist Stanley N. Kurtz.
Kinsey and Our Culture - A 1999 article at CWFA.org (Concerned Women for America).
Review of Studies Claiming Genetic Links to Homosexuality
Boy Scouts Discriminated against as Judges in California
Surveys of Psychiatrists on Homosexuality - the 1973 APA decision did not reflect what those skilled in psychiatry really thought. It was a political decision.
The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage" by Dr. Timothy Dailey.