Reparative Therapy

The Texas Republican Party Platform explicitly recognizes “the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle…”
Also, Gov. Rick Perry just compared alcoholism (that can be a product of genetic predisposition) to homosexuality. His logic seems to be that if he has genes that predispose him to alcoholism, but he doesn’t drink, then homosexuality, being a product of one’s genes, doesn’t mean that one must or should engage in homosexual behavior.
In fact, he is clearly promoting the idea that homosexuality is a disorder that can and should be treated (since that is how we view alcoholism).
Most licensed practitioners, have ethics that prohibit their engaging in such “reparative” therapies.
But of practitioners who are not bound by such ethics, it occurs to me, if they offer reparative, aka conversion treatments for the small subset of homosexuals who want to escape their lifestyle, should they not also provide reparative/conversion treatment for the small subset of heterosexuals who don’t want to be limited by their heterosexuality (i.e., to help them become bisexual so as to increase their chances for finding prospective sexual partners)? (In essence, heterosexuality could be viewed as a self-limiting disorder.) For that matter, shouldn’t such practitioners also offer treatments to help homosexuals who want to convert to bisexuality, or to bisexuals who want to convert to either heterosexuality or homosexuality, if they are some how at odds with their established sexual orientation?

Just to be clear, however, re: my own stance, I think that it is absolutely unethical to attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation. Treatment professionals who work with persons who have difficulties with their sexual orientation, should confine their treatments to helping individuals come to terms with and function most effectively with whatever their sexual orientation happens to be.

The Texas Republican Party Platform explicitly recognizes "the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle..." Also, Gov. Rick Perry just compared alcoholism (that can be a product of genetic predisposition) to homosexuality. . .
Does that mean that heterosexuality can be compared to teetotaling? Lois

Nah, Lois. It means that just as one can be a social drinker, in Texas, one can engage in homosexuality only at social events and not too often. :lol:
Occam

Hi Tim,
Very nice post. Just what I’m writing about in my school setting, sort of. - I heard about the Perry comment today. Your post is pretty hilarious, but actually pretty much to the point.
Here’s my opinion:
John Perry is an idiot, but that’s just my view. On his comment about homosexuality, however, I have more disagreement with the therapy thing it boils down to than with what he actually said, that is human beings have the power to choose.
To attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation is utterly unethical. It’s brainwashing to the highest degree with no other outcome than sending individuals back into society “afterwards” who are nothing more than screwed up.
This sort of BS has crossed my path all my life, as I come from a very religious background. Either it’s demon possession or sickness, but either way IT MUST BE STOPPED! - Honestly, the only really sick people in my mind are those obsessed with this madness. You can’t argue with them or talk to them or reason with them. It plainly doesn’t matter. You’re labeled as incompetent to understand the things of God and therefore whatever you say is pretty much talking to a wall.
I’m not gay, but I am transgender. I’m bi, just to put this into perspective what I’m saying now. Most gay people I know were very well born that way, and to “re-arrange” them is nothing short of the most despicable degradation a human being can face, in a psychological sense. (Of course there is torture, etc. which is a whole different level of inhumanity…) And most TG’s I know are either born transwomen / MTF (male to female) or transmen / FTM (female to male). - My point, however, is that there’s another category when it comes to either gender identity or sexual attraction. An environmentally or socially conditioned one. Some don’t agree with this view and find it harmful to LGBT causes. Well, it’s my view, and the essay I’m writing is just the first. I don’t write for politics, I write for reality.
Anyway, Perry might be right in saying that some people, “who wish to leave the homosexual lifestyle”, have the power to do so. I don’t even disagree with that statement, no matter how tasteless and otherwise misinformed, but it’s my point to take that statement and say, “so what?”.
It seems to be the idea among Judeo-Christian circles that unless it can be proven that gender identity or sexual attraction is inborn then it can’t be right, because “God doesn’t make mistakes”. And many LGBT people buy into this philosophical reversal of common sense. - First of all, it’s “nature” that has a problem, according to theology and when it comes to the stain of sin all over. Secondly, “God” makes mistakes all the time when you consider children born not in the most healthy state of being. Thirdly, isn’t “going beyond nature” the whole point of this superstitious nonsense? And if so, then don’t argue that homosexuality is unnatural. You’re destroying your own freaking position, you moron.
I’d love to see some therapy groups opening around here, helping heterosexual Christian couples to fulfill their God-given gay or bisexual potential. After all, they’re stuck in this natural, or unnatural?, state and it would help immensely to go beyond it. Teach your husband to suck a dick! And if he doesn’t want to, he needs to be gently guided… Or simply free him from this obsession with the female body. Only guys from now on. … Wonder how screwed up he will be after that?
I do agree that there might be individuals who have problems with their sexual orientation, and that counseling in those cases is very helpful. Mostly however, but I’m guessing as I’m obviously no psychologist, I think these “problems” result more from societal pressure than the orientation. Yeah, there probably are many guys feeling shitty that they’re gay, wishing they weren’t, as it would indeed make things easier in a bigoted society that might hang them if they could. Now what’s the best way to deal with that then? Turn him onto women, or tell that society to get their shit straight?
Oh my, babbles upon babbles, I hope at least I said something slightly meaningful.
Peace.

Nah, Lois. It means that just as one can be a social drinker, in Texas, one can engage in homosexuality only at social events and not too often. :lol: Occam
;)
...Perry is an idiot, but that's just my view. On his comment about homosexuality, however, I have more disagreement with the therapy thing it boils down to than with what he actually said, that is human beings have the power to choose...
I have a slightly different take on his statement: He was spreading the false idea that homosexuality is a disorder like alcoholism. As lies are more believable when sprinkled with truth, he added in 1) the relative truth that homosexuality is largely a product of genetic predisposition, and 2) the relative truth that humans are capable of choosing what they do. From my perspective, Republicans are often extraordinarily successful liars. The above is a relatively sophisticated tactic for them. More often they may simply keep repeating a falsehood so often and so steadfastly, that it comes to be believed, or at least, comes to be considered as a possible truth.
... Most gay people I know were very well born that way, and to "re-arrange" them is nothing short of the most despicable degradation a human being can face, in a psychological sense. (Of course there is torture, etc. which is a whole different level of inhumanity...) And most TG's I know are either born transwomen / MTF (male to female) or transmen / FTM (female to male). - My point, however, is that there's another category when it comes to either gender identity or sexual attraction. An environmentally or socially conditioned one. Some don't agree with this view and find it harmful to LGBT causes...
I worked as a Behavior Analyst for much of my professional life, and I have no doubt about your view, that for, at least, some individuals, to some degree, sexual orientation is to some extent a product of environmental and social conditioning. That this view might be detrimental to what LGBT persons want to achieve, has no relevance as to its accuracy.
Just to be clear, however, re: my own stance, I think that it is absolutely unethical to attempt to change someone's sexual orientation. Treatment professionals who work with persons who have difficulties with their sexual orientation, should confine their treatments to helping individuals come to terms with and function most effectively with whatever their sexual orientation happens to be.
Yea, if those folks pushing this would spend half as much effort on themselves, as they do on trying to 'fix' others, the world would be a much better place.
...I do agree that there might be individuals who have problems with their sexual orientation, and that counseling in those cases is very helpful. Mostly however, but I'm guessing as I'm obviously no psychologist, I think these "problems" result more from societal pressure than the orientation. Yeah, there probably are many guys feeling shitty that they're gay, wishing they weren't, as it would indeed make things easier in a bigoted society that might hang them if they could. Now what's the best way to deal with that then? Turn him onto women, or tell that society to get their shit straight?...
Unfortunately, societies have a way of not getting "their shit straight" very rapidly. So, some persons might find a therapist helpful in coming to terms with their sexual orientation, with a goal of decreasing or eliminating emotional conflicts about it, despite the pressures of living in a bigoted society. But a therapist who would attempt to help a client change their sexual orientation, would be, I think, a therapist that should (almost without exception) be avoided.
Nah, Lois. It means that just as one can be a social drinker, in Texas, one can engage in homosexuality only at social events and not too often. :lol: Occam
That's funny. It brings to mind a guy wearing a cowboy hat and an enormous belt buckle, saying "Hey, I'm no queer! I only suck dick socially."

They are simply trying to get the LGBT community to engage in their drama to endear themselves with whack nuts that really this this shit is a God given treatment to save homosexual souls. It’s just hyperbole. This stuff, like revenge is better served cold. Let some time pass and when they are clearly on the wrong side of history, rub it in their faces!

They are simply trying to get the LGBT community to engage in their drama to endear themselves with whack nuts that really this this shit is a God given treatment to save homosexual souls. It's just hyperbole. This stuff, like revenge is better served cold. Let some time pass and when they are clearly on the wrong side of history, rub it in their faces!
I'm not a member of the LGBT community, and from my perspective, this Republican B.S. is, already, clearly on the wrong side of history, so I guess I am free to, figuratively, rub their current nonsense in their faces.

I meant when “they know” they’re on the wrong side of history. But, go ahead rub away, it’s fun.

I don’t know if anybody would be interested in this, but I wrote an editorial about titled “Why isn’t “conversion therapy” a form of child abuse?” for Question It! Magazine, an ezine I’ve started. If you want, you can read it here:
http://www.thewhymovement.org/question-it-magazine/why-shouldnt-congress-outlaw-juvenile-conversion-therapy-as-a-form-of-child-abuse

..."Why isn't "conversion therapy" a form of child abuse?" ...
It is a good question. And the easy answer is that it very well could be a form of child abuse. The not so easy answer (when it comes to making laws about such things) has to do with the fact that we are all subject to the potential influences of dogma, propaganda, and attempts at indoctrination -- Children being, generally, more vulnerable to such influences as they are more formative. But children are also subject to being exposed to what their parents believe is in their best interests. When the parents' beliefs are so extreme as to subject their child to clear and imminent threat, our society will sometimes step in. E.g., When parents refuse to accept life saving medical care for their child, due to their religious beliefs - social systems sometimes over-ride the parental rights. I suggest that something as common as children being exposed to sermons of "hell-fire and damnation" may be a form of child abuse. But due to Constitutional protections of freedom of religion, that is not likely to ever be legally restricted. Still, I think, the least we should do, is get the message out to parents that they, most likely, would be subjecting their child to more harm than good by subjecting them to "conversion therapies".