Praise: Interview of Dr. Robert Spitzer

From Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out:

In 1973, Dr. Robert Spitzer led the charge to successfully have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), which is its list of mental disorders. This was a major victory and remains one the gay movement's signature achievements.

Given his stature and key role in declassifying gay people as sick, it was quite a surprise when Dr. Spitzer published a non-peer reviewed 2001 study in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior that claimed some "highly motivated" gay people could become straight through prayer and therapy. The study said that some gay people could reach their "heterosexual potential."

When he announced his work at the 2001 APA meeting in New Orleans, it created a media sensation. An Associated Press story called his findings "explosive."

In 2012, Dr. Spitzer recanted in the American Prospect magazine. In a letter obtained by Truth Wins Out and sent to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Dr. Spitzer asked that his study be retracted.

TWO went to Dr. Spitzer's home in Princeton, NJ and interviewed him. He not only repudiated his study, he also apologized to the LGBT community. He told anti-gay organizations -- such as NARTH, Focus on the Family, and the American College of Pediatricians to stop promoting his invalid study. He even told Parents and Friends of 'Ex-Gays' (PFOX) to take a video they have posted of Spitzer off their website.

With Dr. Spitzer's renunciation of his study, a crowning achievement in efforts to promote sexual conversion has been reduced to a crown of thorns. Now that Spitzer has revealed the truth, perhaps anti-gay and "ex-gay" organizations can begin to abandon the harmful practice of reparative therapy.

As we continue on the path to equality, Dr Spitzer was an early important player.  Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out is among those who have been at the forefront of these recent battles for civil rights.

That so-called clinics and defenders of religion continue to use Dr. Spitzer's flawed and now renounced study is shameful and harmful to those who are drawn in to their fake therapies.  As Mr. Besen keeps saying, truth wins out and the truth from Dr. Spitzer is important information.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

History: 1973 and the APA Changes the DSM

One of the assumptions that some people are making about me as the author of this blog is that I have spent my life as a homosexual activist.  While I have been a quiet supporter for equal rights for all of my adult life, I have not been an activist.  The research that I do as part of writing here has me learning about homosexuality all the time.  I was recently challenged in a private dialogue regarding the change in 1973 of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of the American Psychiatric Association to no longer list homosexuality as a disease.  The challenger, prominent in one of the hate groups that I sometimes rail against, claimed that the change was fraudulent, brought about by homosexual activists without any science behind the change.  So, it was time for me to learn about what happened before and during 1973.

The best single resource I found is a 2002 episode of This American Life, titled 81 words.  If you have an hour to listen, I would encourage you to enjoy the entirety of it.  Based on this and a few other references that I will link in, I think I have a better understanding of the history of the change and why it is correct.

Prior to the 1973 change, most psychiatrists based their treatment of homosexuals on the works of a medium size group of experts, among them Edmund Bergler, Irving Bieber, Sigmund Freud, and Charles Socarides, all of whom had a significant flaw in their methodologies.  The homosexuals that these doctors studied tended to come from either prisons, those released from the military dishonorably, or men who hated their sexuality enough to seek treatment to change who they are.  There were no well-adjusted, normal, gays among those studied.

There were two researchers before 1973 who studied homosexuals with less or different bias.  The better known is Alfred Kinsey, who released a report in 1948 that was incredibly controversial.  The most controversial aspect was, perhaps, that he found that 37% of men had experimented with sex with other men and is the source for the claim that 10% of the population is homosexual.  It is, of course, more complicated.  Far more complicated because the two largest groups of participants in the Kinsey studies were prison populations, similar to the studies by Dr. Bergler and the others cited above, and a second group being male prostitutes.  Like those who found homosexuality to be a pathological condition, Dr. Kinsey used biased samples, not quite as normal as one might have hoped.

The second researcher was Evelyn Hooker, who wrote a paper in 1957 based on homosexuals who were functioning in ordinary society.

She administered psychological tests to groups of self-identified homosexuals and heterosexuals and asked experts, based on those tests alone, to select the homosexual people. The experiment, which other researchers subsequently repeated, demonstrates that most self-identified homosexuals are no worse in social adjustment than the general population.

This experiment was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and was probably the first study of homosexuals conducted without obvious bias.  In blind studies, researchers found an equal percentage, about two-thirds, of homosexuals and heterosexuals to be well-adjusted.

Dr. Hooker and Dr. Kinsey provided the foundational science behind the activists who did disrupt APA meetings in the early 1970s.  Disruption tends to alienate, not to attract allies.  So, claiming that the change was forced by disruptions alone is absurd on its face.  There was also first person testimony from a gay psychiatrist, John Fryer.

Dr Fryer's speech started with the words "I am a homosexual. I am a psychiatrist" and continued to describe the lives of the many gay psychiatrists among the American Psychiatric Association who had to hide their sexuality from their colleagues for fear of discrimination, and from fellow homosexuals owing to the disdain in which the psychiatric profession was held among the gay community.

A year after Dr. Fryer spoke under the pseudonym Dr. H. Anonymous, the change was made.  Homosexuality was no longer considered an illness.  Other medical organizations studied the change in policy at the APA and made changes to their policies over the following twenty years. 

81 words, which I cited near the top, is by the granddaughter of John Spiegel, who was president-elect of the APA at the time of the change.  His granddaughter, Alix Spiegel, bases her piece on an interview of her grandfather and she also interviews many of the major players.

My conclusion is that there was a great deal of activism in the early 1970s, without which the studies of Dr. Hooker and Dr. Kinsey would not have been considered.  There was also a generational change in progress, with younger psychiatrists who had other concerns than the status of homosexuality challenging the older conservatism.  Science traditionally changes slowly and painfully, as seen from Galileo Galilei to Charles Darwin to Hooker and Kinsey.  That people are upset by the changes does not make the science wrong.  In this case, the APA was correct to change.

Let me conclude by personalizing this.  I have never been incarcerated and am honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy.  My relationship with my parents is fairly normal.  I was neither excessively beaten as a child nor was I overly coddled.  I have never been raped and never been molested (other than by the TSA, as is the case for many when flying these days).  Most people passing me on the street would probably guess that I am straight as I don't tend to lisp or swish or any of the other stereotypical behavior associated with homosexuals.  I was born under Eisenhower, thus I have well exceeded the life expectation of disproven studies like that of Paul Cameron.  Neither my partner nor I have any sexually transmitted diseases.  We have been together since 2005. 

In other words, the reasons to consider homosexuality a pathological condition are not apparent in me, in my partner, or in any of our friends.  The only problems with our relationship as I type this are that we cannot be recognized legally.  The problem is discrimination, not who we are.

Praise: Sean Chapin on Ex-Gay Therapy

The music is not exactly to my taste, but the message is solid.  Ex-gay therapy, also known as conversion therapy or reparative therapy, does not work.  It is against the ethical codes of the National Assocation of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and nearly all other medical professional organizations.

FollowUp 1: 100 Orthodox Rabbis Against Same-Sex Marriage

On 12 December 2011 the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the largest organization of American Orthodox rabbis, published five points that clarified their positions on homosexuality, same sex marriage, and so-called reparative therapy.

1. The Torah and Jewish tradition, in the clearest of terms, prohibit the practice of homosexuality. Same-sex unions are against both the letter and the spirit of Jewish law, which sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.

The wording here is very precise.  There are two lines of Torah that prohibits homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.  As I discussed previously, many, including Rabbi Steve Greenberg, believe that these are specific references to anal sex, not to homosexuality in general.

Jewish tradition is not limited to Jewish law, so the rest of what is written is completely accurate.

2. Attempts to ritualize or celebrate same-sex unions are antithetical to Jewish law. Any clergyman who performs or celebrates a same-sex union cannot claim the mantle of Orthodox Judaism.

Better phrasing would be that the RCA does not recognize those marriages as Orthodox Jewish marriages and they denounce those who claim to be Orthodox Jewish rabbis, specifically Rabbi Greenberg, who perform such weddings.  There is not hierarchical organization to Judaism and the RCA cannot and does not speak for all Jews, not even for all Orthodox Jews.

3. While homosexual behavior is prohibited, individuals with homosexual inclinations should be treated with the care and concern appropriate to all human beings. As Rabbis we recognize the acute and painful challenges faced by homosexual Jews in their quest to remain connected and faithful to God and tradition. We urge those Orthodox Jews with homosexual tendencies to seek counsel from their Rabbis. Equally, we urge all Rabbis to show compassion to all those who approach them.

Very big of them. 

4. On the subject of reparative therapy, it is our view that, as Rabbis, we can neither endorse nor reject any therapy or method that is intended to assist those who are struggling with same-sex attraction. We insist, however, that therapy of any type be performed only by licensed, trained practitioners. In addition, we maintain that no individual should be coerced to participate in a therapeutic course with which he or she is acutely uncomfortable.

This is an interesting statement.  Those who seek so-called reparative therapy are those who are struggling with who they are, struggle because of pressures from society to be other than who they are.  Pressures from those like the RCA who make homosexuals feel less than whole and less than welcome.  Licensed counselors who practice reparative therapy are doing so despite the ethical codes of the National Assocation of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychological Association, the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and nearly all other medical professional organizations.

5. We pray that God will ease the way for all who struggle with a full heart to feel His presence in their lives.

The prayer would be less necessary if the RCA were not creating a greater struggle for gays.

The RCA has its opinion, succinctly written and published.  I support their right to deny marriage to anyone they wish, including myself.  As a patriotic American, I embrace the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  If my partner and I wed, we will seek a officiator who welcomes us, not one who merely tolerates and "shows compassion" of us.

They still do not get to decide that someone who is a rabbi loses that status.  A rabbi may be unwelcome in their group, but that rabbi is still a rabbi.

Maybe one day the RCA will be enlightened and see the errors of their decisions, but I do not anticipate it within my lifetime.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

6 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

Repudiation: Peter Heck Linking Bestiality, Pedophilia, and Homosexuality

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Repudiation: FRC's Fake Quiz

The Family Research Council has put together a "Quiz on Defending Family Values", complete with answers that do not agree with facts.  Sorry if you wanted to play their game, but I going to refute each of the supposed answers here and now.  Each of the five questions are supposed to be answered with a True or False.

1. Due to religious exemptions, same-sex “marriage” would not harm the rights of parents, schools, churches, or religious ministries.

Of course the answer should be true.

False. In Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” was legalized, public school children as young as first grade are taught that homosexuality is morally good, and parents are prohibited by court order from opting out their children or even being informed of when the “instruction” will occur. Further, when Catholic Charities of Boston’s adoption services refused to place children with homosexual couples, the large and respected ministry was forced to shut down. Family Research Council experts are making Congress and the public aware of such dangers, as homosexual activists work to impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire nation.

Sexuality of any nature is a fact.  For those who are heterosexual, heterosexuality is morally good.  For those who are homosexual, homosexuality is morally good.  To act differently than we are created by God would be morally offensive.

Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced to shut down.  Catholic News Service wrote at the time, Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.
It was their own choice ... they were not forced.

2. Science indicates that homosexuality is likely inborn and unchangeable.

Again, the answer should be true.

False. The U.S. Justice Department recently claimed that homosexuality is unchangeable and thus refused to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. Yet the best science actually refutes this assertion. The handful of small studies that purport to show a “gay gene” have been widely discounted by the majority of the scientific community. On the other hand, decades of sociological and psychological research indicate that same-sex attraction is not inborn but is likely a product of external factors. And leading psychologists have affirmed the existence of thousands of people who changed from homosexual attractions to heterosexual. FRC is exploding the myths and making sure that lawmakers, judges, and the public know the facts.

So, why did the Justice Department make this claim?  Because major health organizations say so.  The immutable nature of sexuality is part of the statements of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and others.

The same documents indicate that the full nature of sexuality is not known.  Claiming that "same-sex attraction is not inborn but is likely a product of external factors" cannot be shown at this point in the research into the nature of sexuality. 

The claim that people change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction is fiction.  I discussed the liars behind "reparative therapy" in a recent posting.

3. Homosexual activists have grossly overstated the number of homosexuals in the population as being 10%, when surveys actually show it is only half that number, at about 5%!

This is an area where a definitive true or false cannot be stated.

False. It’s even lower! The vast majority of recent surveys put the figure at about 2%–3%. In other words, the Left is demanding that parents be forced to allow their children to learn that homosexuality is healthy and moral . . . that the 5,000-year-old-plus definition of marriage be abolished . . . that religious adoption agencies violate their beliefs or close down . . . to accommodate the behavior of 2%–3% of the population. FRC experts are forcefully making the case to Congress that this demand is unreasonable and unjust.

The origin of population estimates of homosexuals goes back to the studies of Dr. Alfred Kinsey who, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, determined that approximately ten percent of the population is homosexual.  (Really it was more complicated, but that is the simplified answer).  There are many recent studies that find between two percent and thirteen percent of the population identifies as homosexual or bisexual.  There are numerous reasons why there may be such disparity in the numbers.  Among these reasons are how the question is posed, who is posing the question, and what assurance there is that the answer will not be used against those responding to the question.  Many gays and lesbians are in the closet.  We cannot at this time know a certain number.

Perhaps more important is that the Family Research Council thinks that a smaller minority is more deserving of discrimination.  That flies in the face of fairness and decency. 

4. Members of Congress from both parties support a pro-homosexual law that could force Christians to remove family photos from their workplace.

This is absurd on its face.  False.

True. The proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)—co-sponsored in the Senate by two Republicans and two Democrats—would force most employers to ensure a workplace free of “discrimination” against homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people. When such a policy was imposed at Sandia National Laboratories, many employees were ordered to take down Bible verses from screensavers and remove photos of their “traditional” families because homosexual employees found the images to be demeaning. FRC is in the trenches in Washington exposing the proposed law.

Absurd.  The 2009 ENDA is online.  It includes nothing about limiting family photos.  If the Bible verses on screensavers on work computers are discriminatory, then that might be limited.  In my search online for the basis of the allegation that Sandia National Laboratories forced employees to remove family photos, every source cited Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council.  There may be more evidence, but I did not find it.

5. The proposed federal ENDA law would force all employers to hire transsexuals, cross-dressers, and “drag queens” and “drag kings” for any job—including customer service jobs and ones with children, such as teachers and day care workers.

If the people are the most qualified, then they should not be discriminated against and kept from holding jobs.  This is probably the only quiz question when I have any agreement with the answer.

You are correct!True. This radical bill (H.R. 1397 and S. 811) not only mandates acceptance of all “sexual orientations,” but also of all “gender identities.” “Gender identity” is defined in the bill as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” In other words—the individual does not have to undergo “sex change” surgery. He or she does not even have to present the same “gender identity” consistently—it could change from day to day. And for employers covered by the bill, NO occupations or job positions are exempted. FRC experts are making sure that members of Congress are aware of this threat.

The threat of treating all American citizens equally.  The language that FRC uses is designed to evoke fear.  The truth is that a person's sexual orientation and gender identity do not cause them to be better or worse employees.  The truth is that FRC's campaign of fear to maintain discriminatory laws is based on lies.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Repudiation: Liars and "Reparative Therapy"

This is a little complicated.  First, we need to start with a group called the International Healing Foundation (IHF) founded by Richard Cohen to counsel homosexuals and do "reparative therapy" to convert them to heterosexual.

Before going further, let's be clear that this does not work.  The American Psychiatric Association has taken a strong stand against reparative or conversion therapy because

Firstly, they are at odds with the scientific position of the American Psychiatric Association which has maintained, since 1973, that homosexuality per se, is not a mental disorder.  The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15).  In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18).

The earliest scientific criticisms of the early theories and religious beliefs informing "reparative" or conversion therapies came primarily from sexology researchers (19-27).  Later, criticisms emerged from psychoanalytic sources as well (28-39).  There has also been an increasing body of religious thought arguing against traditional, biblical interpretations that condemn homosexuality and which underlie religious types of "reparative" therapy (40-46).

Further, the American Psychiatric Association is concerned about potential harm from such therapies.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.  Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction.  The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Similar positions have been taken by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

In late October, IHF issued an "apology" to the LGBTQ community.  The wording is

IHF apologized to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) community for years of unknowingly fueling anti-gay sentiment by simply stating, “Change is Possible.”

“We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community,” said IHF founder and director, Richard Cohen. “I apologize and ask forgiveness to those who were hurt by our message.” Cohen, a leading expert in the field of sexual orientation and married father of three, knows first-hand how it feels to be ostracized having lived a gay life.

Perhaps I am missing something, but it looks like the apology is only for the wording of their message, not for the message itself.  The websites that IHF, either under its old name or its new, do not appear to be a real change.  The apology is offered at www.changeispossible.com which maintains the line for which the apology is offered.  Weird at best.

Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor, wrote a blog article giving me the heads up about the new face of IHF and expressing some additional opinions.  While Dr. Throckmorton is dubious, he seems to be giving Mr. Cohen some room for real change.

To be frank, I don't trust that Mr. Cohen has changed anything other than his marketing.  He has a long history of being part of the religious establishment that makes homosexuals doubt their self-worth as part of trying to get them into lucrative, for the "therapists", conversion programs.

Peter LaBarbera, head of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), a group recognized for its anti-gay propaganda by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has now asked Professor Throckmorton to apologize.  Let's break down his letter to the Professor.

I certainly don’t think Richard Cohen or anyone needs to apologize for stating the obvious truth that “Change [away from and rejecting homosexuality] is possible.” If we were to apologize for everything that “offends” hardened LGBT activists, we’d be apologizing 24/7.

What offends us are lies that you tell and perpetuate.  Stop lying and there is no need for apologies.  As indicated above, written by the American Psychiatric Association, that change, in the form of so-called therapies, can be harmful.  That's the problem and it must stop.  Apologies are in order.

The question is, when will YOU apologize for affirming homosexuality as an acceptable (or innocuous) identity — while claiming (falsely) to uphold biblical orthodoxy? When will YOU repent for working hand-in-hand with “gay” activists who are diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview on homosexuality as an overcomable sexual sin (and an abomination) — by actively discrediting the need AND potential for wholesome change away from same-sex behavior and indulging same-sex desires?

Homosexuality is acceptable because that is how God created a minority of the population.  One does not choose to be homosexual any more than one chooses to be heterosexual.  There is more than one way to interpret the Bible.  It is a shame that Mr. LaBarbera is so limited and bigoted.

You should either publicly apologize for undermining Scriptural (and observable) Truth — or renounce your claims to be faithful to historic Christian sexual teachings. This request is made more urgent by your employment with an evangelical institution, Grove City College, which purports to be “authentically Christian” — something few biblically-faithful observers of your recent flirtation with pro-”gay” advocacy would accuse you of being.

The scriptures say many things.  I doubt that Mr. LaBarbera follows all of the tenets of the Bible.  Some are impossible and most are disregarded by those who pick and choose which are most important to them.  Regarding "observable" truth, one only needs to look to nature to see that homosexuality is natural in hundreds of species.

I can document all the above statements concerning your conduct and “gay”-affirming advocacy, which has caused widespread consternation and confusion in Christian circles, and within the pro-family movement. You (or anyone) may publish this if you wish.

Mr. Cohen and Mr. LaBarbera are both liars about the nature of change of sexual behavior.  To put this in religious terms, they are bearing false witness (the 9th of the Ten Commandments).

Regarding Dr. Throckmorton's conduct and advocacy, given Mr. LaBarbera's focus on Christian teachings, may I suggest that Mr. LaBarbera read Matthew Chapter 7.