Banning Gay-Lifestyle-Change Therapy

My Response to Someone in Favor of Banning this Therapy:

If I believed as you do that that gay-lifestyle-change therapy (GLCT) was so destructive, forbidding it might make far more sense to me, or at least publishing something about the dangers or possible guidelines.

However, much of this kind of therapy is merely supportive of gays trying to leave a lifestyle that is highly self-destructive, according to all of the stats. (Perhaps the reported negative consequences gays have experienced in GLCT were not due to GLCT, but to the dangers inherent in this lifestyle.)

I certainly agree with you that some of our deepest inclinations are difficult or even impossible to change. Some require a miracle. Consequently, maturity is often a matter of learning how to live with our self-destructive impulses – and I certainly have my share – rather than eradicating them. If some therapists have subjected their clients to extreme measures, like shock therapy, to eradicate these impulses, I would certainly join you in questioning their usefulness.

However, I would remind you that extreme measures have been used – and they are still used – in treating depression. However, would you ban ALL therapies for depression because of these aberrations? Certainly not, and no one else suggests this extreme course of action. Why then do we find this extreme reaction in regards to GLCT?

I think that the answer is one of politics, pressure groups, peer-intimidation and political correctness. In this regards, please see: http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/03/politically-correct-american.html

Nevertheless, I have met many ex-gays who have been helped with their same-sex attraction (SSA) through counseling. Some even have subsequently married. Some admit that they still struggle with SSA, while others claim that they are no longer troubled by SSA. Should we believe their testimonies? Why not! All of the studies gauging therapeutic success rely upon self-reporting. Why then just call self-reporting about SSA into question? I think that this reflects the bias of those who oppose this form of therapy.

Sex-Change Therapy vs. Sex-Reorientation Therapy

What would you think about legislation that would prevent you from seeking psychotherapeutic counseling for gambling or porn addiction? Wouldn’t you think it absurd to legislate against this kind of help in light of the fact that psychotherapy is supposed to be a helping profession? You would therefore ask, “How can you turn me away when I come to you for help?” However, this is just what a new bill before the California Senate is proposing:

• A California Senate committee today advanced SB 1172, a bill that would help protect citizens from harmful, ineffective ex-gay therapy. The law does not outright ban all ex-gay therapy, but it does prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from undergoing sexual orientation change efforts

“Ineffective?” I know many people who claim to have profited from sexual-reorientation counseling. Some have even gone on to marry. The gay community and its promoters can only claim that it doesn’t work by denying the many findings that contradict their claim. And this is the very thing that they have done. They have silenced the voices of groups like Parents and Friends of ex-Gays (PFOX) and have successfully prevented them from even running ads by charging that they are disseminating “hate-speech.” Ironically, it is the gay lifestyle promoters who are the bullies and the haters.

Instead, there is a wealth of data in favor of ex-gay therapy. Just check out NARTH.com. However, even if there wasn’t, who should blame or withhold help from those who want to flee or at least resist a lifestyle associated with so many well-established personal costs – severely heightened rates of suicide, depression, mental illness, substance abuse, and greatly diminished life-spans, even within those nations most favorably disposed to homosexuality!

This bill would be more acceptable if it addressed moral wrongs. If instead, it prohibited supportive counseling for those seeking supportive counseling to enable them to have an adulterous affair, this would be understandable. In such a case psychotherapy would serve to promote societal ills.

Likewise, if this bill prohibited supportive counseling for an adolescent who wanted a sex change, it could more easily be justified. Sex change is radical, almost-irreversible, long-term effects are questionable, social consequences are considerable, and it violates the natural - our DNA. However, California is willing – even clamoring – to promote physical sex-change. Ironically, the California legislature is entirely in favor of “choice” in this regard, but not when a child wants to exercise choice to deal with same-sex attraction (SSA)!

Although this proposed bill doesn’t prohibit adults from receiving counseling to deal with SSA, it coerces the potential client to endure waves of propaganda:

• It also requires that any prospective patient sign an informed consent form that includes the following disclaimer: Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.

However, this disclaimer should also specify the same risks for those who remain in the gay lifestyle: “The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.” By refusing to see that these same risks are endemic to the gay lifestyle, whenever the gay person experiences negative consequences, the fault is attributed to ex-gay therapy without any consideration that the consequences might have stemmed directly from the lifestyle.

Nevertheless, I think that we need to be sensitive and compassionate with gay people. They sincerely believe that their problems are the result of an ever-shrinking band of religious fundamentalists who do not approve of their lifestyle, instead of their own God-given conscience not approving. As such, their battle is not against the “Fundies” but essentially against themselves.