Massachusetts News

September 2--In the confusing world of homosexuality, there are psychologists and psychiatrists helping those homosexuals who wish to change their lives. On the other hand, there are some people who believe that those homosexuals should not be allowed to have any professional help toward this goal. 

We present here the second part of our series from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH). These are the views of
professionals who work daily with many homosexual patients.

How did society’s beliefs about homosexuality change so rapidly?

First, because the gay movement argued its case with the same language that had stricken the nation’s conscience on racial injustice – describing objections to its arguments as "hatred," "bigotry," and "intolerance," which intimidated dissenters.

Second, because our society had come under the influence of the philosophy of relativism. We had lost the confidence to claim that any belief could be universally and objectively true. Both relativism and social justice seemed to demand that each individual be able to say, "This lifestyle is right and good for me." 

Third, in this same spirit of philosophical relativism, homosexuality was removed in 1973 from the diagnostic manual. Psychotherapists had begun to envision themselves not so much as authorities, but more as "guides" who would assist the client in fulfilling whatever lifestyle he thought would be his happiness. Gay activists picketed the American Psychiatric Association, insisting they were normal and healthy, and called for normalization of their condition. Lacking the will to contradict the gay person’s subjective experience of his behavior and identity, and acting in the spirit of the times, the APA complied. 

But if someone says, "Gay is who I really am," then how can you disagree?

We cannot assume any human desire or sense of identity is natural and good simply because some people who experience it claim it feels so. There must be an intervening evaluation – an objective analysis of what that feeling means. This is where psychology must invariably apply a philosophy.

Not surprisingly, gay advocates agree. They insist that we cannot take a dissatisfied homosexual’s assessment of his feelings and identity at face value, and they adamantly insist that "ex-gay" could never represent any man’s legitimate identity.

Gay advocates say that such a person’s feelings are not reflections of his true self, but were induced due to the self-hatred of internalized homophobia. They blame society and religion for such a man’s dissatisfaction with his condition.

With this justification, the gay movement has called for resolutions to discourage sexual-orientation therapy. Their efforts have succeeded within organizations such as the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations, and the American Counseling Association, which have each adopted anti-therapy resolutions in spite of the objections of dissenting factions of their membership. 

But how can a sexual-reorientation therapist impose his views and values on a client?

No ethical therapist will try to force his perspective on a client. If a person is happy being gay, he will be referred to a gay-affirming therapist, because effective therapy evolves from a shared value system between client and therapist. The problem occurs when gay activism labels the desire to change orientation illegitimate, and thus imposes its own views and values on a dissatisfied client.

As one respondent to NARTH’s 1997 survey said, 

"I wasted 14 years in therapy with therapists who had a ‘you’re gay, get used to it’ mentality – which I find incredibly unethical." 

Another said, 

"A lot of people think they are okay being gay. But I never had peace of mind until I started to change." 

Thus psychology has moved from the attitude of "Whatever makes you happy" to the idea, "You don’t really want to be heterosexual, and you’ll just hurt yourself if you try" – in flat contradiction to the statements of many men and women who testify to having achieved life-enhancing change. 

Why are some people dissatisfied as homosexuals, while others are "gay and proud"?

The main distinction is usually in the person’s view of human nature. The satisfied gay man would be inclined to say: 

"I won’t be limited by anyone else’s notion of ‘human nature’ or ‘appropriate’ expression of gender. My expressions of both gender and sexuality are normal and healthy examples of diversity."

But the homosexual struggler views the world differently.

Such a person would be inclined to say: 

"I was designed by my creator to be heterosexual. If I followed my feelings and celebrated my homosexuality, I would only be living out my brokenness."

Several respondents to NARTH’s 1997 Survey on Change explained their convictions, in their own words, as follows: 

"I believe we were designed and created to be heterosexual, and therefore I will never be truly satisfied with anything else."

"The truth must be shouted out, over the lie that there is no hope for change in the homosexual. I know so many without hope...who just give up."

"My desire to develop my masculinity was never realized. Since treatment, it has developed in its own way, resulting in tremendous personal transformation – an enormous increase in personal worth, self-esteem, and the ability to take action in my life."

But if society could just take away their guilt, wouldn’t such people no longer want to change?

Dissatisfied homosexuals are usually convinced, on some deep level, that what they are looking for in homosexual love is not a sexual experience, but same-sex nurturance and identification. Their issue is not socially-induced guilt, but a deep-seated sense of gender-identity deficit. One of the leaders of the ex-gay movement, Alan Medinger, speaks of this as a "deep brokenness." He says: 

"Somehow as a small boy, I had closed a door into my growth into manhood."

One man who had over 2,000 anonymous sexual contacts admitted that gay sex is "incredibly intense – no doubt the most pleasurable thing in my life." Yet he confesses that afterwards he is "wiped out, depressed, sad and discouraged," because sex with men has not given what he really wants and needs.

Every boy must develop strong fraternal bonds with same-sex peers in order to grow into full maturity. Without a strong father-son relationship and close male peers, the boy may fail to develop a secure gender identity. The same is true of girls, who similarly need female bonding and affirmation to mature normally. Otherwise, by the time of adolescence, sexual and romantic feelings will develop in response to the lost part of the self which is thought to be "out there" in the form of some "idealized other."

Some of NARTH’s 882 survey respondents explained as follows:

"Being a homosexual is the greatest displeasure in my life. This has caused me such pain that at times I’ve contemplated suicide."

"I am delighted to have found reparative therapy – it feels healthy, and I feel honest for the first time in my life. I know in my heart that this is the way for me, no matter how long it takes.

There may be those who are comfortable with being a homosexual – but I never was one of them."

But does being different really mean being bad?

A PBS television film on homosexuality ended its presentation with just this simplistic statement: "People need to learn that being different doesn’t mean being bad." Neither does being different mean being good. This statement is intended to make people feel guilty for seeing the homosexual condition as disordered.

Should society discriminate against gays?

Without question, society should protect every gay person’s civil rights. Harassment should not be tolerated. But in the areas of sex education and school counseling, marriage law, and adoption, for example, we must make some reasoned discriminations based on our conception of what is good for society. We must decide whether to affirm, to tolerate, or to discourage particular behaviors. 

The law already makes many such reasoned discriminations. It discriminates against polygamy, prostitution, neglectful parents, and religious proselytyzing in public schools, for example – all based on our shared vision of what is right and good.

In the case of homosexuality, our society is currently torn between the positions of tolerance and affirmation. The Ramsey Colloquium – a group of Jewish and Christian scholars – explains this reasoning well:

Gay and lesbian advocates sometimes claim they are asking for no more than an end to discrimination, drawing an analogy with the early civil rights movement. The analogy is unconvincing and misleading. Differences of race are in accord with – not contrary to – our nature... 

Certain discriminations are in fact necessary within society; it is not too much to say that civilization itself depends on the making of such distinctions...

"To endure (tolerance), to pity (compassion), to embrace (affirmation); that is the sequence of change in attitude and judgment that has been advanced by the gay and lesbian movement, with notable success. We expect that...what is truly natural will reassert itself, but this may not happen before more damage is done...to our common life."

The Ramsey Colloquium is a group of religious scholars. But how can psychologists speak about what is ‘good’?

Psychologists use scientific terms like "maladaptive," "disordered," and "dysfunctional," but those terms would have no meaning without reference to some philosophical conception of what is good. Unless psychology seeks the answers to larger questions as, "How shall we live? What is the good life?" it cannot formulate a conception of what is psychologically healthy. 

Unfortunately, because the public thinks the psychotherapy organizations represent a neutral science, there is a misperception that these groups can provide scientific authority on social issues without resorting to the bias of a theory or philosophy. But this is impossible. In fact, some groups such as the American Psychological Association are involved in social and political activism on behalf of their favored causes. The philosophies currently popular with the APA include radical feminism, sexual liberationism, and gay activism – while marginalizing philosophies that promote the traditional family and respect for religious tradition. The APA has even taken the position of encouraging its members to fight 

Defense of Marriage (DOMA) legislation – legislation that would preserve marriage as between one man and one woman – a political action on their part which would effectively usher in gay marriage.

Because the APA does not clarify that its positions represent social and political philosophies, the public is misled into thinking that its positions represent hard science.

Does that mean the psychiatric manual of disorders is not scientifically neutral?

The diagnostic manual is inevitably a mix of science and social values. As two social-work professors explain:

"Since there are no biological tests for the vast majority of mental disorders, the psychiatric association has tremendous leeway in what it chooses to classify or not classify as an illness. Unfortunately, there are few actions or traits that the association does not consider to be possible symptoms of some disorder

"Insomnia, worrying, restlessness, getting drunk, seeking approval, reacting to criticism, feeling sad and bearing grudges are all considered possible signs of psychiatric illness...The association is so eager to create and label disorders that it has...expanded [the manual] from 106 mental disorders in the first edition to more than 300 in the new one.

"These disorders and the criteria that describe them include the tragic, the strange and the ridiculous."

One is reminded of one cultural critic’s observation that our society has been defining serious deviance down–accepting what was once considered bad behavior–while at the same time, paradoxically defining trivial deviance up–focusing on relatively inconsequential behaviors to identify as the "new deviancy."

Most scientists know the diagnostic manual is a mixture of science and social values. But when the American Psychiatric Assoc-iation proclaimed homosexuality a non-disorder, the public believed that science had made a new discovery which the intelligent layman had no choice but to embrace. Many traditionalists are justifiably angry that a hostile value system is being imposed on them in the guise of science.

What about the ‘gay gene’ research?

Two decades after the APA normalization of homosexuality, studies carried out by gay-activist researchers seemed to prove that homosexuality was inborn. But this shift in opinion was based on a myth: homosexuals are not "born that way," and no leading researcher will claim that biology does more than set the stage for homosexual development. Nature and nurture, we know, work together. But this misperception has now become firmly entrenched in the public mind.

Ironically, however, two major gay-affirming groups now themselves publicly admit that homosexuality is not a simple matter of genetics. They are the American Psychological Association and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG). Both groups say that social, psychological and biological factors most likely work together to produce homosexuality. But such belated acknowledgment may have come too little and too late, to undo the widespread public misunderstanding.

But gay men say they’ve been attracted to males since their earliest memory.

The foundation for homosexuality is laid in early childhood. As far back as they can remember, gay men say they’ve felt an "excitement" around other men. But this excitement indicates a longstanding emotional deficit in their relationships with males, not an inborn homoeroticism. 

Why are gay-rights leaders so determined to find a genetic cause for homosexuality?

When homosexuality is seen as inborn, it is assumed that nature simply created another variant of human sexual diversity. When they are seen as "born that way," gays also have a stronger claim to special civil rights protection as a "people." 

We may indeed someday prove that certain individuals have a predisposition to homosexuality. But science has also shown that there is a predisposition to alcoholism, and it doesn’t mean we’ve called alcohol addiction good and given up attempts to treat it. When people see that alcoholism is destructive to their lives, they don’t say, "This is who I am," and stop trying to resist it.

Similarly, we know that other conditions are gene-influenced, such as schizophrenia, some types of cancer, and a tendency toward violence, short temper, obesity and learning disabilities. Yet no one considers these as "normal and natural parts of the human condition" in the sense that they are good and desirable. 

What is the significance of the term, "reparative therapy"? 

This term describes a form of psychodynamic sexual-reorientation treatment. It refers to the sexual attraction (reparative drive) experienced by a gay or lesbian person that interferes with same-sex mutuality and bonding. The gay man is wary of being intimately "known" by men because his developmental wounds have left him with a sense of same-sex defensive detachment.

When a man understands the underlying significance of his same-sex attractions as a reparative drive, he has a tremendous feeling of relief and freedom. He understands that he has a healthy, perfectly natural need for male affirmation and intimacy. This need has been sexualized because it was not met during the appropriate developmental period. Yet it is a need that can still be met within intimate and affirming same-sex friendships. 

Wouldn’t it be possible to view homosexuality as an alternative but normal mode of psychosexual development?

Gay advocates almost invariably say the cause of homosexuality is "a question not to be asked," or "I was born that way." 

One gay psychologist has delved into this question and proposed a different but purportedly normal developmental model which results in homosexuality. His theory is actually quite applicable to NARTH’s own psychodynamic model. It proposes that the prehomosexual boy lacks sex-typical maleness, which makes other boys seem "exotic" (different and exciting). Eventually what appears exotic in other males begins to feel erotic, and so the boy develops a romantic and sexual longing for members of the same sex.

However the originator of the theory does not acknowledge that this sense of differentness and estrangement from males originates from family problems or poor peer relationships. Instead his theory relies on the "born that way" myth; such boys were supposedly born less masculine, and their peer and family relationships had nothing to do with forming their sense of themselves.

Yet there is a body of evidence correlating male homosexuality with the following relational deficits:

• alienation from father, older brother and same-sex peers; 

• sense of inferiority in relation to other boys; 

• enmeshment with a close-binding mother, who interfered with individuation and masculine autonomy;

• fear of, and fascination with, other boys; 

• in adulthood, promiscuous and compulsive sexual behavior, with an inability to maintain long-term monagamous relationships.

Activists typically insist, "The family has nothing to do with making the child homosexual." Yet many describe the classic family and peer patterns in their own lives – but without granting those patterns any developmental significance.

Does NARTH’s developmental theory put the blame on parents?

It is the child’s subjective experience of the same-sex parent’s unavailability that would cause a developmental trauma. In reality, the father of a homosexual son may have been well meaning and loving. He may have also had other sons who were heterosexual. However, with this particular child, there was evidently an "emotional mismatch" which fostered the feeling of estrangement that resulted in a masculine identity deficit.

Other non-parental factors in male homosexuality include peer labeling due to timidity or poor athletic ability; a culture that leads a confused youngster into the gay community; and in the boy himself, a particularly sensitive, fragile, often passive disposition. Homosexuality appears to be vulnerable to a broad combination of genetic, intrauterine, social, psychological and lifestyle-choice factors. 

Some researchers have suggested a particular set of personality and temperamental factors that might make a boy more vulnerable to homosexuality. A boy who depends heavily on his parents’ approval (exhibits "high reward dependence") and tends to avoid risk and pain (exhibits "high harm avoidance") would likely be more prone to a gender-identity injury. 

Although a reparative therapist would not blame parents, still it is unrealistic to reassure parents, as does the gay organization P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), that they had nothing to do with their children’s homosexuality. This may "feel right," but it is an attitude that can exact a price. One NARTH member wrote to describe a P-FLAG meeting at which the mother of a 29-year-old, AIDS-stricken gay man– shared with great pride that the next night her son would be performing ‘drag’ for the first time at a gay bar near her city. She had obviously grown into this attitude of pride after months of being encouraged...by fellow group members who had ‘worked’ with her attitude...[about] her son’s ‘drag’ behavior."

Why do we rarely hear about homosexuals coming out of a gay lifestyle?

The media has promoted the idea that a self-accepting homosexual has only one valid choice in life – to "come out" and be liberated. 

If a person says, "I’ve been an alcoholic but I’ve been sober for two or three years," we say, "Congratulations, good for you!" Our culture has learned to respect that kind of struggle. But we have yet to acknowledge the struggle of the homosexual who is resolving his same-sex issues. 

One would assume the gay community’s attitude would be, "If another man wants to change, that’s his business," but there is actually great animosity in the gay and lesbian community against the ex-gay movement and the right to receive sexual-reorientation therapy of either a secular or a religious type.

Why do many male homosexuals have a childhood history of early sexual seduction?

When the boy is receiving sufficient love from his own father and affirmation from his male peers, molestation will have less emotional significance. But it will have a deeper emotional meaning to the boy who is experiencing a deficit in male attention, and such an experience could propel him into homosexuality. One NARTH survey respondent explains:

"My father’s passivity and lack of closeness made me vulnerable to sexual advances from adult men."

Another describes how molestation set his life on a disastrous course:

"I have had to heal my memories of adult men who sexually abused me. One man told me when I was 13 that I was ‘born this way.’ I was attracted to girls at the time and was very confused...This assault left me with a sense of powerlessness, defeat, guilt, and a whole lifetime of self-defeating [homosexual] behavior." 

What do ex-gays say about the process of change?

They say it is a long-term growth process, but one that is worthwhile because it is moving them forward in the right direction. As several NARTH survey respondents explained:

"I was deceived for a number of years into believing that there was nothing I could do to change my sexual orientation...I tried counseling, but was simply told to stop fighting the homosexual feelings and accept who I was. I became trapped in the compulsion of cruising, going to the gay bars, and getting involved in a number of empty relationships...The greatest freedom came when I discovered that I could move away from the addiction of homosexual behavior, and began to see myself differently."

"Throughout these 16 years since I chose to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle, the rightness of my choice has only been confirmed again and again. Pursuing homosexuality would have ruined me; pursuing heterosexuality has healed me. I feel whole and true to my real self."

"I realize that homosexuality was merely a crutch to help me bear the emotional pain I felt – the way some people use drugs, workaholism or alcohol." 

Said another:

"Armed with knowledge, hope and direction, change can be deliberate and planned. This is true for everyone and for any difficulty, not just homosexuality."

NARTH is a non-religiously-affiliated professional organization dedicated to research and treatment for homosexuality. We are a non-profit group of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, marriage-and-family counselors, educators, and interested laymen. Our website is www.narth.com. 
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE