- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Posts
- 2,308
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
"Shot down," huh? That could only happen if you're flying without adequate defenses, huh?
a
First, let's look at a recently published snippet from the websight of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Here's the link, so you can go look for it yourself, and if anyone wants to go gather "support" for reparative therapy, I've just given you the weblink for that! Can't launch any accusations of "withholding evidence" here!
http://www.narth.com/docs/weakfather.html
Study Supports the "Weak Father"
Theory of Homosexuality
Reviewed by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D.
In a just-published study of Roman Catholic seminarians in Canada (Seutter & Rovers, 2004), the authors report that 24 respondents who were self-identified as homosexual had a significantly lower mean level of intimacy with their fathers than did 130 heterosexually identified respondents.
The study did not find significant differences between these groups for 1) intimacy with mother; 2) a sense of intimidation in relationship with father; or 3) a intimidation with mother, although the latter comparison approached significance, with homosexual seminarians reporting greater mother intimidation.
Seutter and Rovers make several observations about their results. While strongly supportive of a multi-factorial, interactionist perspective on the cause of same-sex attractions, the authors observe that
"These findings can be seen to be compatible with the hypothesis of the father-son unit as the basis for analysis of homosexuality. These results are also consistent with family-of-origin theory, which emphasizes the centrality of the child-parent relationship, such as the male child's [lack of] relationship with his father....
"The point is that the father-son relationship is an essential place for therapeutic investigation, and therapists might be leaving pieces of unfinished business if they shy away from it." (pp. 46-47)
They caution that their results should not be taken as an unequivocal indication that addressing father-son issues with the homosexual male will influence the client's experience of same-sex attraction.
The authors further note that their findings suggest the value of a male therapist when working with a male homosexual client who has unfinished emotional issues with his father.
Reference
Seutter, R. A., & Rovers, M. (2004). Emotionally absent fathers: Furthering the understanding of homosexuality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 43-49.
(Yeah, I put it in "comic sans" on purpose!
)OK, now that we have that on the table, I want to mention these other sources.
There are two books from the '90's that I have found to be very helpful, by a psychiatrist named Richard Isay: *Being Homosexual* and *Becoming Gay.* Dr. Isay argues that "homosexuality" is a more of an internal condition, and that "gay" is more of a social identity. One of the things he suggests in "Being Homosexual" is that the so called "weak father" hypothesis turns things on it's head. It's not that fathers and sons don't bond because there is something "missing" in their relationship due to a father's being "absent" or "weak," but that homosexual sons and straight fathers often do not bond because, from the emergence from the womb, homosexual sons do not have interests and aptitudes that are typically "straight"/heterosexual, and that the father, kind of confused about this, has nothing to "bond" *with*.
So, instead of:
a "weak relationship with father causes homosexuality" hypothesis,
we have
a "attributes of a homosexual (or pre-homosexual) son leads to a weak relationship with the father" hypothesis.
Now, both of these are hypotheses -- that is, we should now go out and gather data that allows us to support or disprove this hypothesis.
The study announced on the NARTH websight tests 1/2 of the hypothesis, the "weak relationship causes homosexuality" hypothesis. It doesn't mention hypothesis two. Not having read the study, I might at least guess that their data does nothing to answer the question, "which of these hypotheses is closer to 'true,'" but would probably actually support either hypothesis equally.
For NARTH, or James Dobson, or any of the other voices who promote the 'weak father relationship causes male homosexuality" hypothesis, without mentioning the other possibility seems to me, at the least, to be intellectually dishonest. It's also in my opinion very pernicious, because IT CONTINUES TO HEAP SHAME AND GUILT ON GAY MEN AND THEIR FAMILIES AND SUGGEST THAT IF THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT YOU MIGHT CHANGE, THEN IT'S YOUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP TRYING (AND IF YOU'VE TRIED AND FAILED, IT'S CAUSE YOU'RE WEAK AND YOU HAVEN'T PRAYED AND TRIED HARD ENOUGH YET!)
I have to note, at this point -- and I say "have" to because I want to make certain kinds of arguments, and that requires that I hold myself to a certain level of discourse -- that the NARTH people are making a lot of ballyhoo about a couple of studies that apparently show that, for some people in "i don't want to be gay" therapy, it actually helps them change and doesn't emotionally damage them. I haven't read these studies myself, so I don't have a fully formed opinion about them yet. However, I note a couple of things about the way NARTH promotes these findings.
From http://www.narth.com/docs/yetanother.html
Here:
Specifically, the Spitzer study tested the hypothesis that some individuals whose orientation is predominantly homosexual can become predominantly heterosexual following some form of reparative therapy.
And to his surprise, the answer was "yes."
According to Spitzer, many of the participants "...made substantial changes in sexual arousal, and fantasy--not merely behavior." Even subjects who made less substantial changes believed therapy to be extremely beneficial.
Spitzer's research does not lend support to the gay agenda, an agenda whose foundation is based on innate-immutable theory of homosexuality. The Spitzer study essentially re-opens the debate on the malleability of homosexuality. With the re-opening of the debate in the academy comes the permission to conduct research.
And, here:
Science Supports The Malleability Of Homosexuality
The current volume on ex-gay research, without the political commentary, adds to the growing body of studies which point toward the fluidity of non-heterosexual expressions of human sexuality. From the recent research by Diamond, Schechter and others, one can only conclude that sexual orientation is far from fixed in those individuals who are not exclusively heterosexual.
OK, note: This analysis is political, not scientific, and again, not intellectually "complete"(which in my eyes means, "intellectually dishonest.") Of course, the cry that NARTH is raising is that "political correctness has stifled discussion on this important topic, BUT:
The identification of the "gay agenda" as being one in which the homsexual condition is innate and immutable. The Spitzer study suggests that the homosexual condition is not 100% innate and immutable.
The question, "to what "percent", in what individuals, is a homosexual condition mutable?" Humanely: What percentage of "homosexual" men and women are in situations that are not "mutable"?
Also, it's stated on that webpage "one can only conclude that sexual orientation is far from fixed in those individuals who are not exclusively heterosexual". Again, what about this reply?: You really mean *all* of them? It sure sounds like you mean *all* of them!" And also: you mean you are making the assumption that people who's orientation is "exclusively heterosexual" have behaved that way because their "orientation" IS "immutable"? AND FURTHER -- you're putting everybody who has not been "exclusively heterosexual" into ONE BIG CATEGORY? Hmm, what kind of conclusions does that method of categorization lend itself to?
SO: I think these guys are being political. And I think it's important because when someone says "there's evidence that a weak relationship with the same sex parent and being the victim of sexual abuse can lead to homosexuality," they oughta kind of know that there are lots of folks with training, who are not particularly "political," who think that that evidence is weak, and accounts for a very small amount of the "homosexual orientation" that we see.
(On sexual abuse and homosexual behavior: the research that supports this particular link includes statements to the effect of "this influence on sexuality accounts for a tiny tiny tiny amount of overall expressed homosexual behavior.)
So, I don't know if I've shot you down, or not. I mean, ultimately, we're all going to "choose" what we believe, aren't we?
Here's what I believe about my "gayness": I believe I am way way more emotionally and physically attracted to men than to women. I believe that for me to partner with a woman in any attempt to "change" would be dishonest, and an... abuse of her. I believe that I chose NOTHING about these two conditions! I believe that there is no good reason for society to ask me to forego having sex because I want to have sex with men, not one that "holds up" under scrutiny. So, I CHOOSE to act on these. I could, for some perverse reason, decide that it would be better for me to never ever have a sexual relationship with a man, as well as "choosing" to not have sex with women, and maybe then I might not actually call myself "gay," but I don't think I'd be straight, and I don't think I could "choose" to be straight.
So, for all my fellow souls who are unhappy with being sexually attracted to other guys: Make yourself happy. I hope you make your choices with integrity and freedom.
(And yeah, I've got issues with "reparative therapy!"
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
)
