CONVERSION THERAPY: BANNED, BIASED OR ESSENTIAL

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York just announced a series of measures intended to eliminate so-called conversion therapy:

• Mr. Cuomo’s plan relies on economic incentives meant to discourage conversion therapy’s use on young people. Insurers in New York, for instance, will now be prohibited from covering the cost of such therapy for anyone under 18.

• That action… would prohibit the use of Medicaid to pay for conversion therapy. Centers overseen by the State Office of Mental Health would also be barred from providing conversion therapy to minors, according to the governor’s office.

How does Cuomo justify prohibiting the free choice of both parents and their children from seeking counseling for their unwanted same-sex attraction? Cuomo charges:

• “We will not allow the misguided and the intolerant to punish L.G.B.T. young people for simply being who they are,” 

Are the parents and their adolescent-teenage children “misguided?” Does Cuomo think he knows what is best for them? The horrific consequences for this lifestyle are undeniable – highly elevated levels of suicide, mental illness, depression, STDs, domestic violence, shortened life, and substance abuse. Could any therapy incur worse results!

Cuomo claims that those who administer such treatment are “intolerant to punish L.G.B.T. young people for simply being who they are.” But how does Cuomo know that they are “intolerant” rather than compassionate. He doesn’t. Instead, he has employed the carefully honed rhetoric of manipulation – tarring the opposition as “intolerant” or just haters.

Besides, are these youth really gay or are they simply going through a period of identity confusion? They is a lot of evidence that sexual attraction is quite fluid, rather than settled, at these ages. Why try to lock them into a lifestyle that dooms them to a life of self-destruction! It would seem that, in light of the horrific consequences, that almost anything should be tried to channel the youth into more a salutary lifestyle.

If there have been some therapeutic interventions that have been found to be unproductive or harmful, then make their failures known and explore or promote other more promising forms of therapy.

Instead, our pundits have condemned all forms of conversion therapy. It would be like condemning all forms of bipolar therapy because of the failure of one particular intervention. The fact that Cuomo wants to ban all forms of conversion therapy demonstrates, not a concern for the youth, but an entrenched political agenda. Instead, he should fund other more hopeful ways to address this horribly self-destructive lifestyle.

Cuomo’s sexually indulgent approach is also the approach of the Feds:

• Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, described its [conversion therapy] “potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.”

Their approach is to damn anything that might have the promise of helping youth to avoid a life of despair.

Last year, the New York State Assembly labelled conversion therapy a form of “professional misconduct that could put medical licenses at risk.” But is it misconduct or is it professionally responsible to help youth overcome what they regard as a problem? There are many indications that such therapy can be effective:

• There are two major studies most often cited to support the potential benefits of reparation [conversion] therapy. One, originally published in book form in 2007, was conducted by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. A follow-up to the study, which appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy in 2011, concluded not only that it was possible to change one’s homosexual orientation, but also that psychological harm was unlikely to result from the effort. (Salvo, Issue 22,34)

The Robert Spitzer study, published in 2003 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, also offers promise:

• After studying efforts on 200 volunteers who had experienced predominantly homosexual attractions for many years before beginning therapy, Spitzer found that, for all subjects, “there was a marked reduction [of homosexual tendencies]…not only on the three measures of overt behavior and sexual orientation self-identification…but also on the seven variables assessing sexual orientation itself.” (34)

Had Cuomo and others, who want to ban all forms of supportive therapy for those who have chosen to resist same-sex attraction, merely publicized against those interventions associated with negative outcomes, they might be more credible. However, they are not taking the middle road. Nor are they asking for further research to identity interventions that offer the most promise. Instead, they seek to ban all forms of such therapy, thereby revealing their own intolerance and disregard for the struggles of these youth.

Sex, Drugs, Rock-and-Roll, and Banning Reparative Therapies

Our government is now telling us what kind of lifestyles we should embrace and what we shouldn’t embrace. It is one thing when government bans a clear evil like murder. However it is entirely another thing when government directs us to live out a life that is not of our choosing:

.

• A U.S. congresswoman [California Rep. Jackie Speier] is calling on Congress to denounce therapies designed to help clients overcome unwanted same-sex attraction [SSA]. 

Government is now declaring “no exit!” if you are a homosexual. If you have SSA, you’re stuck with it. I know that this analysis sounds overly critical, but please notice – government is not saying, “Well, we think that this particular form of SSA therapy can be harmful, and so we recommend that perhaps other SSA therapies be considered.” Instead, government is now in the process of indiscriminately banning all SSA therapies, whether these therapies attempt to change SSA or merely support the individual who wants to leave this unwanted lifestyle. All are equally verboten!

California has led the way passing a bill that bans SSA therapies for minors who want to change or at least resist SSA. But why? Those who are now pushing bills to ban  “reparative therapies” (RT) claim that they all cause damage – depression and sometimes suicide. Speier’s bill reads:

• Efforts by mental health practitioners to change an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression are dangerous and harmful and should be prohibited from being practiced on minors…[Various psychological organizations] have not found ‘‘conversion’’ or ‘‘reparative’’ efforts to be effective and have found evidence that they are harmful. 

However, there are good reasons to challenge the bill’s claim that RT is ineffective:

• There are two major studies most often cited to support the potential benefits of reparation therapy. One, originally published in book form in 2007, was conducted by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. A follow-up to the study, which appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy in 2011, concluded not only that it was possible to change one’s homosexual orientation, but also that psychological harm was unlikely to result from the effort. (Salvo, Issue 22,34)

The Robert Spitzer study was published in 2003 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

• After studying efforts on 200 volunteers who had experienced predominantly homosexual attractions for many years before beginning therapy, Spitzer found that, for all subjects, “there was a marked reduction [of homosexual tendencies]…not only on the three measures of overt behavior and sexual orientation self-identification…but also on the seven variables assessing sexual orientation itself.” (34)

In light of the bill’s sweeping condemnation of all SSA therapies, it would seem as if they’ve found that all forms are “harmful?” However, there is no mention of specific methodologies, and no investigations of specific interventions. Instead, they are all indiscriminately damned! The bill cites another study that claims:

• ‘‘As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice. Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.’’

It is clear why they seek to ban all forms SSA therapy. Anything that would suggest that there might be something wrong or pathological with homosexual sex has become taboo. No criticism allowed! Treatment for SSA, whatever that treatment might be, suggests that there is something wrong with SSA and its lifestyle. Such a suggestion is no longer permissible, even if it undermines our freedoms of speech and religion.

The study claims that “Psychoanalytic technique [should] not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” In other words, “Don’t tamper with sexual orientation!” However, this is the very thing that psychotherapists do and the time, and the courts have been complicit, sentencing rapists and pedophiles to psychotherapy in an attempt to modify “sexual orientation” and its “expression.”

What is the damage done by SSA therapies? According to this study and the consensus of gay advocacy groups, these therapies “result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.” In other words, they suggest that there is something wrong with the homosexual lifestyle.

Even if this is the case, this suggestion also pertains to anyone who goes for psychotherapy. Anyone who pursues psychotherapy acknowledges that they have a problem, whether it’s OCD, depression, or pornography, and the therapist, simply by receiving the client for treatment, affirms this. Wouldn’t this also reinforce damaging internal attitudes - that the client is “mentally ill” or damaged merchandise?

I certainly had felt this way when I was seeing psychotherapists. In fact, many have complained about the uneven relationship endemic to psychotherapy. The therapist is healthy and has the answers; the client is unhealthy and needy. Perhaps all psychotherapy should therefore be banned? After all, is it any more stigmatizing to seek treatment for OCD than for SSA?

This study should also rule against those seeking help for pornography addiction. Wouldn’t therapy imply that there was something the matter with porn addiction and stigmatize the client in the same way that it is alleged that SSA therapies stigmatize and damage their clients?

While those who report damage from SSA therapy are cheered, there doesn’t seem to be any more rationale to charge “abuse” for this kind of treatment than for treatment for depression.

Citing another study, the bill claims:

• Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks and that such youth were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, and 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection…

I certainly do not want to minimize the dire picture that these stats present or the very heavy costs endemic to the gay lifestyle, however these statistics raise several questions:

1. What does “family rejection” actually mean? The fact that the parents regard the homosexual sex as sin but continue to try to have a relationship with their child? I have yet to talk to any parents who have rejected their child simply because they have SSA. We all struggle with many sins! However, I know of several homosexual youth who have rejected their parents simply because of their point of view.
2. Perhaps the parents understandably put their child out of the house for repeatedly breaking house rules.
3. Perhaps these elevated levels of suicide attempts, depression and drug use are better understood as the inherent cost of this lifestyle?
4. In fact, studies show that these same dismal stats are found among homosexuals in cultures where they are not only accepted but congratulated for their courage for coming out.
5. Perhaps instead of going with the secular flow of accepting this costly lifestyle, parents need to learn how to be more transparent about their own failures and more accepting of themselves and the struggles of others? The love of Christ has taught me a lot about self acceptance and the acceptance of others.
6. If the parents must accept the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate, why should they stop there? Wouldn’t follow that they would also need to accept lying, stealing, bullying, and any other anti-social behavior, lest their child might feel rejected?
7. It would seem that this same logic could just as easily be used against the church’s teachings against certain sins. It could also be used against the Bible for stigmatizing certain sins. In fact, this is already happening! The Bible is often termed “homophobic.”

The bill also includes Congressional encouragement for:

• Each State to take steps to protect minors from efforts that promote or promise to change sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, based on the premise that homosexuality is a mental illness or developmental disorder that can or should be cured.

Does this mean that the bill intends to silence any criticism of the gay lifestyle? It certainly sounds that way. Well, what then of diversity of opinion, freedom of speech and religion? It seems that our society is moving from democracy and freedom to totalitarianism. Perhaps Radical Secularism represents the new State religion.  .

At a press conference announcing the bill, its author, Speier, said:

• “Let’s get this straight. Being gay, lesbian [or] transgender is not a disease to be cured or to be treated.”

If this was only her opinion, there would be little problem. People disagree all the time about what is a mental “disease.” However, this is more than an opinion. It represents a ban, which prevents any minor seeking help from finding it. It would be one thing to warn the client of the dangers of SSA therapy and how it might reinforce the idea that there is something wrong with the homosexual lifestyle – and indeed, the identical “dangers” are inherent in all psychotherapy and psychiatry! However, it is another thing to ban all such SSA therapies, condemning those with unwanted SSA to a lifestyle that automatically strips 20 years from the average lifespan.

It is ironic that the same people who are pro-choice when it comes to taking the life of the not-yet-born are anti-choice when it comes to allowing someone to exit a highly self-destructive lifestyle.

Who is Saved: The Unrepentant?

 

There has been a lot of flap over reparative therapy (RP). Can it take away same-sex attraction (SSA)? Recently, the president of Exodus International, a ministry that helps Christians leave the gay lifestyle, has expressed his doubts about the effectiveness of RP in removing SSA. Alan Chambers instead prefers Christian discipleship programs focused on helping Christians resist various temptations.

No problem there. I too have my doubts about RP’s effectiveness in eliminating SSA. Although our Lord can easily remove our various temptations and weaknesses, He often leaves them for us to struggle through them (2 Cor. 12:9-10). However, this is no reason to dismiss Christian counseling. It might be helpful to understand the connection between their SSA and their early childhood influences.

However, knowledge doesn’t equate with cure. Through therapy, a female friend saw the connection between being repeatedly sexually abused by her father and her SSA. This understanding made her hesitate before plunging into the homosexual lifestyle. However, she still had the SSA and plunge she did. Consequently, she cut me off. (Despite all of the propaganda about Christian families cutting their children off as they take this plunge, I have no knowledge of such a family. Those Christian parents that I know have tried desperately to maintain a loving relationship with their wayward children. Instead, in every case of which I am aware, it is the children who reject their parents.)

However, Chambers, speaking at the Gay Christian Network, a group that supports this lifestyle, stated “we’re Christians, all of us,” and “we all love Jesus,” despite the fact that he continues to maintain that homosexuality is a sin. (World, August 11, 2012, 13)

This is truly problematic. While we all sin, repentance (along with faith) and confession are central to forgiveness and a relationship with Christ. According to Him, without repentance, we can only expect judgment:

• Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Rev. 2:5, 16)

• Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. (Rev. 3:3)

Jesus explained that without repentance, there could be no basis for eternal confidence. His disciples asked why tragedy had befallen a certain group of Galileans. Jesus answered:

• "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Luke 13:2-3)

Consequently, we have no Scriptural authorization to assure the unrepentant kidnapper or pedophile that they are Christians or that they are going to heaven as long as they merely profess a faith in Jesus. This isn’t a saving faith. It’s delusion. A faith that saves is a faith that repents. I cannot claim that I am trusting in Jesus if I refuse to do the things He tells me to do. This isn’t trust. If I trust in my doctor, I will do what he tells me to do. If I don’t do them, I really don’t trust him.

Although Chambers’ assurance to the Network was inclusive, it left God and His Word out of the picture. Sometimes love requires a warning and not a false but soothing word.

Chambers made a serious but common mistake. I pray that he will see that the approval of God is more important than the approval of men and that he will confess his mistake.