One of the ministers who has been involved with three weeks of rigorous counseling for the disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard has announced that Haggard has emerged “completely heterosexual” from the therapy (“Minister: Haggard certain he’s ‘completely heterosexual’”). Rev. Haggard formerly led the National Association of Evangelicals, a collection of 45,000 churches which opposes same-sex marriage, until his sexual encounters were revealed by the former male prostitute he had engaged with. There is still debate between religious conservatives and ‘pro-family’ advocates on one hand – and gay rights activists and mental health professionals on the other - about whether homosexuality can or should be cured by various forms of therapy. Serious debate in the psychiatric community ended decades ago - the American Psychiatric Association concluded in 1973 that homosexuality is not a mental illness in need of ‘treatment.’ Still, many religious conservatives have supported therapies that they claim cure subjects of thoughts and behavior they deem to be sinful, though their results have been criticized for their lack of scientific methodology.
Do you think homosexuality is a behavior that can be learned and unlearned by people? Do your personal feelings differ from the policy of the American Psychiatric Association? Does the question of whether homosexuality is a chosen behavior affect whether you feel it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong?’
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Topic is a regular publication of the Gather Editorial Team. You can follow it everyday at Gather Daily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous Today's Topics on Homosexuality:
Massachusetts government tangled in 3-way brawl over same-sex marriage
Powerful Evangelical leader resigns over gay sex accusations
New Jersey court's landmark decision on same-sex marriage
Rep. Foley's impact on the Elections
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
Just like heterosexuality, homosexuality is something that a person is born to be. Have you ever met a heterosexual who decided to be a heterosexual and stayed that way for very long? It's the same way in the reverse.
You can choose your friends, but whom you love, is more fate than a choice. And if that person is of the same sex, you will still love him/her just like in a heterosexual relationship - I don't see how anyone could see it as a choice.
The thought that anyone can learn to be one way or the other doesn't make any sense - and no, I don't judge my friends based on their sexual preference. I try not to judge my friends at all.
Rev. Haggard may chose not to engage in homosexual activities, but only he knows if he is truly "cured".
Thanks, once against, Gather Editiorial, for showing the intelligence of a peanut.
He doesn't choose to engage now but life is a long process and something as innate as sexual orientation can't be ignored. Many have tried to ignore it but it isn't going away any time soon.
To think that being homosexual is like having the flu is insulting to the intelligence of most people, and ridiculous in the extreme.
Celebrities, government officials, anyone in the public eye--they're all running for rehab when something bad and/or embarrassing happens. They go to rehab, get "cured" and come out as a victim who kicked the demons' asses. Spin, it's more than a property of sub-atomic particles.
Otherwise known as B$**^#@T!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or would not do, that would or would not 'cure' him.
Ok, climbing back out of the gutter now.
I'll have to go to rehab for that.
Well, nobody addresses this part yet, so I will. It doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetically determined, learned in early childhood, or freely chosen in adulthood in terms of whether it is right or wrong. If it's between consenting adults, it's their business and nobody else's. No harm is being done to anyone, and that's what matters, not people's gut feelings or sacred books. If people want to marry, that's their business too, and what is wrong is complete strangers telling them they can't.
for example, a contemporary of Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe was what we would now call a "homosexual". he would engage in coitus with other men. Shakespeare, in some of his sonnets, even wrote what one may consider love notes to another man. very sexual love notes. yet, in their time, this wasn't much of an issue. it was simply sex. even monasteries at that time were notorious for their monks engaging in what we now call "sodomy." "homosexuality" was not the 'problem' for these monks. it was the fact that they were engaging in sexual behaviour aftering vowing not to.
modernism, with its labels, brings about precisely this type of debate. and unfortunately it brings about anger because we are discussing life behaviours, chosen or not.
and also, unfortunately, those who defend modernism's label of "homosexuality" have also fallen victim to it by acknowledging that label, embracing it, and thereby perpetuating those of whom they oppose. they argue vehemently against those with whom they disagree when no understanding of the opposing side exists at all. they base their opinion on ill-conceived notions, implying and explicitly stating the ignorance and foolish of the other side, closing themselves off the same way their opponents close themselves off.
it's all rather ridiculous.
Okay, I'm done. I'm not sure where the clouded part comes in....
So Steven. I don't think "sodomy" is particularly new term that "we" use. It seems to me it was those lucky people as yet unaffected by modernism who mostly did. I suspect they had a couple of other choice words, like also exist today, that were slang and did not get recorded for our benefit. But granted, the famous passages in the Bible that fundamentalists are enamored with do not use a specific word for homosexuality. Their circumlocution though works just fine, and they don't not fail, unfortunately, to tell us what some people, quite untainted by modernism, thought should be done "if a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman". Look it up.
My point is: people were certainly not more tolerant in the past, at least not in the Judeo-christian world. It's not true that people need a word for something to be able to think about it (which seems to be an assumption you make). And of course they did have words in the past: "homosexual" was coined exactly to replace them, at least in polite and scientifically-sounding discourse.
And while I realize this sentiment may not be popular with many GLBTQ activists, I say who cares of homosexuality can be learned or unlearned?! This biological basis thing, which I think is often and/or largely true, is a bit of convenience in our very screwy country for debating the issue.
I love whom I love; I'm attracted to whom I'm attracted to, and why should I denigrate my partners of any gender with "Oh honey, you're just biological destiny?" I believe in free will and the grace of my choices.
In other words I do not agree with the "brainwashing " description. Sorry Jim.
If he is truly concerned about God, and God's wishes, his free will should help him to turn from some of the sinful acts he has done, which I mentioned above. Notice I said nothing about being gay, becuase I am not going to go there.
TO you , I ask, when you are part of a police force, do you stop people to make your chief happy, or because they are breaking the law? That should answer the question why Hagard is trying.
As for homosexuality, well, its all about instinct isn't it... I mean why are straight people straight? Is there any way to explain why we are attracted to members of the opposite sex? How do we know? I guess this attraction is the same for homosexual people too. For them I think the connection is more emotional.
perhaps we need to free our minds of labels and assumptions and construct our beliefs based upon what we learn.
Which is actually good advice for both sides.
When people or a society try to stifle, contain or subvert sexuality it tends to create perversion. Hence the situation with Rev. Ted. Personally I think the Meth and the complete and utter hipocracy are more telling of who he is than the homosexuality.
I think it is ubsurd that these "good christians" continually preach hate. I truely do not think that was what Christ intended.
Once again, some people want to make everyone be the same. They want someone to "discover" some great detriment, and some great cure, for individuals' sexual identities when it doesn't line up with their religious dictum or personal mores. People ought to be left alone to figure out for themselves what they are, and we ought to be able to live a peacable life without interference from the moral police.
Once again, the religious come down on the opposite side from science. There is no science that says a person is any better or worse for society because of their sexuality, until it crosses the line and violates another's rights. Then, gay or straight or inbetween or multi, and only then, it's a crime, except if you live in a place where discrimination is still part of the legal code.
Once again, fear controls many people. Fear of accepting gays at the expense of one's image, fear of being touched by someone of the same sex in public, fear that one's children will grow up to be gay, fear of being ostracized, excommunicated, beaten, ridiculed, killed, abused, fear of letting down one's guard, fear of losing one's job, fear of being looked at in a locker room, fear of the wrath of God, or Dad, or Mom, or the circle you run with, all over what you, or someone else chooses for their own identity.
To end slavery and Jim Crow and all, and to give women equal rights, a lot of people had to change some tenets at the very core of their personal outlook or accepted societal norms. These changes are still ongoing. Everything changes over time, in light of new information and given time to percolate through society. I expect that in the case of sexuality, the same types of changes will take place, in time, and with good information based on scientific research.
Long live liberty, diversity, and tolerance.
Geoffrey, you said :
Actually, societies HAVE been much more tolerant in the past.
The Greeks of couse, saw nothing wrong with homosexuality during their Golden Age; and Greece still tends to be somewhat accepting of it in places. The Romans celebrated every kind of sexual deviancy during their Empire, and homosexuality was extremely common.
Yep, that's why I said "at least not in the Judeo-Christian world."
In Shakespeare's time and place, in Moliere's time and place, and during the Regency in England, homosexuality was tolerated.
In the sense that it was tolerated then, it is more tolerated now. In many places people can be openly gay and fear no reprisals, and we are discussing gay marriage. Hardly something that could have even been imagined in those days.
Granted, there are a couple of societies where things have gotten worse. Where, while in the past homosexuality was "tolerated" (mostly ignored, not made much fuss about), right now there is violent homophobic hysteria going on, and gay people face physical danger. I do know one such place very well, but I wouldn't say it's typical of what is going on in the world, especially the more developed part.
I think it is important to use the word "tolerated". Homosexuality has often been condoned so long as it was not too blatant; so long as it did not force society to directly face the issue... remember Oscar Wilde? Who around him did not know he was gay - and didn't care - until it became a national scandal...
Then society reacts very harshly...
My point exactly. When Oscar Wilde was "outed", he went to jail for "gross indecency", was ostracized, and died penniless soon after. Would that happen today to an English intellectual?
I'm hardly an optimist in most things, but I think in these issues we are actually making progress.
No, I do not KNOW that it would NEVER happen, and probably neither do you, unless you are a scientist that is familiar with techniques that can be employed to change the sexual orientation of someone. I do know, however, that we have nothing that can presently do this in the short term.
Umm...Pedophilia and homosexuality are two entirely different things. Pedophiles are attracted to children who haven't reached puberty. Most of them are incapable of having sex with sexually mature teens and adults. In interviews pedophiles have talked about being disgusted by pubic hair and other secondary sexual characteristics that arrive with puberty.
I don't discount the possibilty that Wilde had sex with teenaged boys. I have no idea whether he did or not.
In Classical Greece older men had young male lovers but it wasn't eight year olds. Think Socrates and Alcibiades and you're closer to the truth.
So far we've had zero success in changing people's sexual orientation unless you count the Evangelical attempts to "cure" homosexuality. I don't believe there's anything in the scientific literature substantiating the "cures."
You are correct that I used "know" and "never" vaguely, in an everyday sense rather than a scientific one. You are incorrect though that if I were a "scientist that is familiar with techniques that can be employed to change the sexual orientation of someone" I would then be able to make such an absolute statement. It is impossible to prove a negative, so there would always be a possibility that such a technique could exist. It would just not be very likely.
I responded the way I did because you seemed to assume that it was possible when you said It would take intensive therapy over a period of years to make me change my "preference."
Mr X:
Yes, that's possible. But the actual relationship that resulted in the trial was with Lord Alfred Douglas, who was 22 at the time they met. He was younger than Wilde, but definitely not a child. And Wilde was of course just as much convicted of writing about homosexuality as practicing it.
Just remember, and I have to remind myself of this often, "we're only human."
Peace!
Now I'll hush!
Peace
Kim J. - Not trying to single you out, just commenting on your post regarding the facts being "tossed aside". As Christians, we are not perfect, just forgiven.
Regarding the topic of homosexuality - While I am a Christian and believe it to be against Gods will, I don't not believe that it is a choice or a learned behavior. My youngest son has shown signs of homosexuality since the early age of 2. He is now 14 and has not admitted that he is homosexual, but I know without a doubt that it is just a matter of time before he identifies his outward self with his inward self.
I do not hold this against him nor do I feel as though he needs therapy for his "condition". As a Christian, I do not condone the actions but I am not to judge. We are instructed to hate the sin - not the sinner.
HAHAHA!!!!! I read your post while drinking my morning coffee and almost choked on it because I was laughing so much!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for Haggard, he does not need to be "cured" of homosexual inclination. What he really needs is to be cured of his Republicanism --- that, after all, is the biggest scourge in our society.
I do not believe that homosexual behavior per se is deviant, any more than hetro sexual behavior is deviate. There is nothing to cure. The behavior is very contextual.