[quote]forlife wrote:
(Note to Zeb: The Surgeon General is part of the government just like the CDC!)[/quote]
Oh darn you forgot to read the commentary on the Surgeon Generals report.
Should I be charging you for this education?
Naw…
You see (as you know but try to hide from the readers of this thread) there are two very conflicting thougts on “change” and how it can be achieved.
"Sources for the Satcher Report
The paragraph in the Satcher report on homosexuality includes a number of references which give the impression that the assertions are supported by “valid scientific evidence.” But the articles referenced do not contain “scientific evidence” in any data-driven form, but are instead opinions characterized by attacks on religion and conventional morality. Four of the references used in the Surgeon General’s Report are analyzed below.
- Haldeman, D. (1994) “The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62, 2: 221-227.
The Haldeman article was used as a reference for the Surgeon General’s claim that change of sexual orientation is not possible. Haldeman reviews and critiques the literature reporting change of orientation, impugning the integrity of therapists and the honesty of clients who report themselves as changed. Haldeman did no original research; he did not interview clients or therapists. In 2001, Dr. Robert Spitzer did conduct a survey of men and women who claimed to have experienced change of sexual orientation. He found that while the extreme change of his subjects had been very difficult to achieve, the claim that change was impossible could not be sustained.
A look at Haldeman’s article shows that Haldeman does not (as the citation in the Surgeon General’s report implies) claim that change of sexual orientation is impossible. Although Haldeman thinks–in a very strange twist of reasoning–that spontaneous change of orientation does occur in many people but therapeutically assisted change somehow does not, he writes:
“For many individuals, sexual orientation is a variable construct subject to changes in erotic and affectional preference, as well as changes in social values and political philosophy that may ebb and flow throughout life. For some, ‘coming out’ may be a process with no true endpoint. Practitioners assessing change in sexual orientation have ignore the complex variation in an individual’s erotic responses and shifts in the socialcultural landscape.” (Haldeman 1994)
Haldeman objects to therapy directed toward change not because there are no reports of change (in fact, he references numerous studies which reported change), but because: “Psychotherapeutic approaches to sexual reorientation have been based on the a priori assumption that homoeroticism is an undesirable condition.”
But this charge ignores a number of studies in which the therapists proceeded from a neutral point of view as to outcome. We can look to the work of Elaine Siegel, author of Female Homosexuality: Choice without Volition-- A Psychoanalytic Study (1988). Because of her strong support for feminism, Siegel was asked to provide therapy for several lesbians. When the therapy began, Siegel did not view lesbianism negatively and the goal of therapy was not to change the women’s sexual orientation. Nevertheless, as the clients addressed underlying conflicts, in many, same-sex attraction disappeared.
Haldeman challenges the landmark study by Bieber et al (1962) for basing outcomes on “subjective therapist impression, not externally validated data or even self-report,” and because some of the subjects were probably bisexual. He dismisses many other studies because the outcomes were based on “patient self-report,” but he offers no proof for his contention that the subjects must have been self-deceived or even lying.
Haldeman reports on the early failures associated with a number of religious ministries to persons involved in same-sex activity, such as Homosexuals Anonymous and Exodus. He fails to mention that these groups addressed these problems and are still functioning–and that these groups do not claim that change of orientation will ever be easy–or even absolutely complete. For most people, these groups admit, some temptations will recur throughout their lives.
Haldeman insists “If a cure is offered, then there must be an illness” and that there is no evidence that homosexuality is an illness:
“Were there properties intrinsic to homosexuality that make it a pathological condition, we would be able to observe and measure them directly. In reality, however, there exists a wide literature indicating just the opposite: that gay men and lesbians do not differ significantly from heterosexual men and women on measures of psychological stability, social or vocational adjustment, or capacity for decision making.” (Haldeman 1994)
This conclusion, of course, is outdated. New research – three well designed studies (Herrell 1999, Fergusson 1999, and Sandfort 2001) which have been reported previously by NARTH- conclude that persons classified as homosexual do have a higher prevalence of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.
In contradiction, gay affirming therapists argue both sides of this issue–saying on the one hand that gay men and lesbians have no more problems than heterosexuals, and on the other that gay men and lesbians DO have many more problems but they are all caused by societal oppression.
Haldeman’s main objection to therapy directed toward change is that the availability of therapy perpetuates the “stigma” associated with homosexuality and thus is in his view unethical. Haldeman’s strong anti-religious bias can be seen in his quotation of T. Murphy (1992):
"There would be no reorientation techniques, were there no interpretation that homoeroticism is an inferior state, an interpretation that in many ways continues to be medically defined, criminally enforced, socially sanctioned, and religiously justified.
And it is in this moral interpretation, more than in the reigning medical theory of the day, that all programs of sexual reorientation have their common origins and justifications."
To which Haldeman adds: “This morality is at work in all aspects of homophobic activity, from the alarming increase in violent hate crimes against gay men and lesbians to the political and legislative agendas of anti-gay organizations.” (Haldeman 1994)
In his conclusion, Haldeman writes: “Homophobic attitudes have been institutionalized in nearly every aspect of our social structure, from the government and military to our educational systems and organized religions. … The appropriate focus of the profession is what reverses prejudice, not what reverses sexual orientation.” (Haldeman 1994)
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the so-called “stigma” associated with same-sex behavior is rooted in unchangeable facts, such as: Two persons of the same sex cannot conceive a child that is biologically the product of their love; Major religions hold as unchangeable the teaching that all sexual activity outside marriage between a man and a woman is objectively wrong. Haldeman’s anti-religious attitude should not be supported in a government document such as the Surgeon General’s Report.
- Herek, G. M. (1993) “The Context of Anti-Gay Violence: Notes on Cultural and Psychological Heterosexism,” in Garnets L.D., Kimmel, D.C., editors, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Male Experiences. NY: Columbia U. Press.)
In this article also referenced by the Surgeon General’s Report, Herek blames violence against homosexuals on “heterosexism,” which he defines as follows:
"Heterosexism is defined here as an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community. Like racism, sexism, and other ideologies of oppression, heterosexism is manifested both in societal customs and institutions, such as religion and the legal system (referred to here as cultural heterosexism) and in individual attitudes and behaviors (referred to here as psychological heterosexism)… Heterosexism derives in part from cultural negativity toward particular forms of sexuality. (Herek 1993)
Herek offers as his example of heterosexism a (now deceased) psychoanalyst’s statement that normal sexuality “should ideally be heterosexual, marital, monogamous, reproductive, and non-commercial. It should be coupled, relational, within the same generation, and occur at home. It should not involve pornography, fetish objects, sex toys of any sort, or roles other than male and female.” (Rubin, 1984)
According to Herek, gay sexuality is radically different from Rubin’s idea of healthy sexuality. It “is not reproductive by definition, and not marital by status. Many gay relationships are not sexually exclusive. Some homosexual men have staked out ‘cruising areas’ for sexual behaviors that are semi-public.” It would seem, then, that Herek would not be satisfied that heterosexism was eliminated until there was also an elimination of shame and guilt over promiscuity, anonymous sexual encounters, being treated and treating others as mere sexual objects, public sexual activity, and infidelity. In other words, getting rid of heterosexism–the valuing of heterosexuality over homosexuality–would require a complete overhaul of centuries-old morals.
Apparently, there will never be an end to hate crimes until this overhauling has been accomplished:
“Eradicating heterosexism, therefore, inevitably requires confronting violence against lesbians and gay men. Eliminating anti-gay violence, in turn requires an attack upon heterosexism.” (Herek 1993)
It is clear that Herek’s goal (and the goal of the Sexual Liberation movement) is for “heterosexism” to be categorized as an “ideology of oppression” --that is, made equivalent to racism.
The Surgeon General’s use of Herek as a source- referencing the very same article in which Herek lays out gay activism’s strategy for stigmatizing people of faith - by implication, puts Satcher’s government office on the side of anti-religious bias. For this reason, religious leaders across the country should demand that he be relieved of his position.
Warnings about the dangers posed by the demands of the gay movement have in the past been dismissed by many as an overreaction. Given the recent attacks on the Boy Scouts, the marginalizing of the Salvation Army, and now the latest Surgeon General’s report, should not those concerns now be recognized as warranted?
- Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982) “The Use of Diagnostic Concepts in Working with Gay and Lesbian Populations,” in J.C. Gonsiorek, editor, Homosexuality and Psychotherapy: A Practitioner’s Handbook of Affirmative Models. NY: Haworth.
The Surgeon General’s report claims that “anti-homosexual attitudes are associated with psychological distress for homosexual persons and may have a negative impact on mental health.” In support of this claim, it references an article by John Gonsiorek.
The article, however, offers no convincing evidence that the many psychological problems experienced by homosexuals and reported by Gonsiorek in some detail are directly caused by anti-homosexual attitudes. What the article does provide is ample evidence that behavior engaged in by homosexual men is sufficient cause for the problems they experience, as the following quotation demonstrates:
“Consider the following scenario: A gay man begins to frequent back-room bars, baths, public restrooms, parks or other public places for anonymous sex. He, on occasion, does have anonymous sex, which may be reinforcing and perceived as a boost to self-esteem. On another level, it may elicit a variety of guilt and self-recrimination responses if the individual has beliefs that sexuality, or same-sex activity, or some forms of sexual activity in which he has been engaging are wrong, immoral , improper, etc…Also, lack of success at sexual conquest may elicit feelings of poor body image, low self-esteem and others.” (Gonsiorek 1982)
Would it not seem reasonable that a person engaging in sex with strangers in public places–risking infection, assault, arrest, or public humiliation–might feel that what he was doing was “wrong, immoral” or at the least “improper”? Wouldn’t trying to rationalize this behavior as acceptable put a strain on his psychological health?
- Berrill, K. T. (1992) “Anti-Gay Violence and Victimization in the United States: An Overview,” in Herek, G. M., Berrill, K.T., editors, Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence against Lesbians and Gay Men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 19-45.
This book is part of massive publicity effort directed toward one end: linking hate crimes committed by hooligans against homosexuals with religious teachings that proscribe sexual activity outside of marriage. The authors do not prove that the hooligans who attack homosexuals outside gay bars spend their spare time reading the Scriptures, attending religious gatherings, or studying pronouncements from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Neither do they offer evidence that people of faith who believe that the moral law on sexuality is God-given and unchangeable in fact “hate” homosexuals. But by repeating that claim, they plant this idea in the public’s mind: homosexuals would be safe if only people of faith would affirm homosexual behavior.
Why do gay activists insist that religious teachings are the root cause of their higher level of psychological problems?
It may be that they are trying to convince themselves that what they are doing is acceptable, when in their hearts they have serious doubts. In 1994, Ariel Shidlo published the results of a study on “internalized homophobia” among homosexual persons. He reported that a significant percentage of homosexuals he surveyed held negative attitudes toward their own homosexuality and toward other homosexuals.
For example, 53% of homosexuals agreed with the statement “Homosexuality is not as satisfying (good) as heterosexuality,” while 37% agreed that “Homosexuality is a sexual perversion.” (Shidlo 1994)
Is this the voice of individual conscience, recognizing something inherently wrong with gay life? If so, then these men and women are not likely to find peace, even if people of faith are forced to recant.
The above analysis has dealt with only one paragraph of the Surgeon General’s report. The rest is equally flawed. It is not a enough for the Bush administration to push the report under the rug and wait for Satcher’s term to end. The entire piece must be exposed and condemned.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2000) “Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies.” Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Bell, A.P. et al. (1981) Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana U. Press.
Berrill, K. T. (1992) "Anti-Gay Violence and Victimization in the United
States: An Overview (in Herek, G. M., Berrill, K.T., editors, Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence against Lesbians and Gay Men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 19-45.
Bieber, I. et al. (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. NY: Basic.
Coleman, E. (1978) “Toward a New Model of Treatment of Homosexuality: A Review.” Journal of Homosexuality 3, 4: 345 - 358.
Coleman, E. (1982) “Developmental Stages of the Coming-out Process,” in Paul, W., Weinrich, J., Gonsiorek, J., Hotvedt, M. , editors, Homosexuality: Social, Psychological and Biological Issues. The Final Report of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Task Force of Sexual Orientation. Beverly Hills: Sage, 149 - 157.
Fergusson, D. et al. (1999) “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry. 56: 876-880.
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982) “The Use of Diagnostic Concepts in Working with Gay and Lesbian Populations” in Gonsiorek J.C. editor, Homosexuality and Psychotherapy: A Practitioner’s Handbook of Affirmative Models. NY: Haworth.
Greene, B. (1997) “Ethnic Minority Lesbians and Gay Men: Mental Health and Treatment Issues,” in Greene, B., editor, Ethnic and Cultural Diversity Among Lesbians and Gay Men. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Haldeman, D. (1994) “The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62, 2: 221-227.
Herek, G. M (1993) The Context of Antigay Violence: Notes on Cultural and Psychological Heterosexism," in, Garnets L.D., Kimmel DC, editors, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Male Experiences. NY: Columbia U. Press.
Herrell, R. et al. (1999) “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality: A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56: 876- 880.
Murphy, T. (1992) “Redirecting Sexual Orientation: Techniques and Justifications.” Journal of Sex Research 29: 501-523.
Remafedi, G. et al. (1998) “The Relationship Between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population Based Study.” American Journal of Public Health 88, 1: 57-60.
Ross, M.W. (1985) “Actual and Anticipated Societal Reaction to Homosexuality and Adjustment in Two Societies.” Journal of Sex Research 21, 1: 40-55.
Ross, M.W. (1990) “The Relationship Between Life Events and Mental Health in Homosexual Men.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 46: 402- 411.
Rubin, G. (1984) “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” in Vance, C., editor, Pleasures and Danger:Exploring Female Sexuality. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 267-319.
Sandfort, T. et al. (2001) “Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study NEMESIS.” Archives of General Psychiatry 58: 85-91.
Satcher, David (2001) “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior.” Downloaded from the Surgeon General’s website.
Shidlo, A. (1994) "Internalized Homophobia: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, in Greene, B., Herek G, Lesbian and Gay Psychology. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage, 176-205.
Siegel, E. (1988) Female Homosexuality: Choice Without Volition-- A Psychoanalytic Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Spitzer, R. (2001) “200 Subjects Who Claim to Have Changed Their Sexual Orientation From Homosexual to Heterosexual.” Presentation at the American Psychiatric Association Conference, May 9.
Wetzstein, C., and Duin, J. (2001) “Sexologist Behind Report.” Washington Times. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010630-98876967.html."
