Joseph Nicolosi, 2

Motivation to change has repeatedly been found to be a primary predictor of success in treatment. Motivation means the client is unambivalent in rejecting a homosexual identity and is striving toward heterosexuality. Other indicators of favorable prognosis are lack of indulgence in self-pity, a positive sense of self, and the ego-strength to tolerate stress and frustration. Heterosexual fantasies and dreams are also strongly favorable. Also the stronger family relationships the client has, the better his prognosis.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

Is change something I really want? Not always, to be honest, but it's something I want to want. Premish recently got me thinking about desire to change. I've thought about it before in a more broad sense: when I'm hungry, would I rather be fed or just have the hunger eliminated altogether. Logically, they result in the same thing, satiety. But when I'm hungry, I don't WANT to have the hunger simply removed, I want it to be gratified. I suppose there's something psychological about that, but I'm far from insightful enough to realize what it is and if someone were to try to tell me I would most likely laugh them off.

Well, maybe I'll give it a try. Maybe there's something deep down that recognizes that a hunger has its basis in a real need--that just removing the hunger doesn't fill the need for sustenance. And my sexual hunger is reflective of a real need that will never be satisfied by castrating myself emotionally or physically, figuratively or literally. Further, in the case of sexual desire, the physical itch can be gratified without ever touching the underlying need for companionship and intimacy. That, I believe, is why I believe sexual and emotional needs cry to be met and it's hard for me sometimes to even WANT to change.

And I suppose that's why I find Nicolosi's theories so compelling. I'm as prone as the next person to label a person or his work as categorically good or bad, right or wrong, treasure or trash, but that's a lazy generalization. When I give him a charitable read, I realize that despite a number of flaws, I have much to learn from this man and his research. The etiology he suggest fits with my concept of neither sufficient nor necessary causes for homosexual orientation, and matches surprisingly well with events and conditions in my own past. My sexual, emotional, and intimacy needs can be met without behaving in a way contrary to what I know God expects of me. How to manage it is the game currently afoot. A game I think I'm winning, I might add.

A line at the beginning of the treatment section of the book made me stop in my tracks. He said, "I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation." I found it to be repulsive on the surface. After a moment I realized that he means merely to conclude from his psychological work that homosexuality is a symptom of other identity and developmental problems that prevent complete well-being. From a secular point of view, I don't think he has sufficient data to conclude that, nor does his theory seem to require it. But, do I really believe that is true? I surprise myself by resisting the idea pretty strongly. Why should I resist, when that is exactly the core reason for church doctrine on the subject? If I believe the Proclamation on the Family (and I do), then I can't avoid drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is an obstacle to true peace. I feel almost like I need to apologize to my gay friends for believing this, but I suppose that's my strong-willed personality traits coming through (stumbling all over myself trying not to offend, to get everyone on the same page... well you can see that I've managed to survive a number of failures on that front in the past!).

Other than my fantasies and dreams, I think I've got some pretty good prognostic indicators in my favor. I look forward to loving more, believing in myself more, and struggling for lofty goals.

Index of Joseph Nicolosi posts:
Joseph Nicolosi, 1
Sensitivity
Limitations of gay love
Causes
Affirmative therapy
Self-acceptance
Joseph Nicolosi, 2

Self-acceptance

According to popular gay rhetoric, if a man attempts to resolve his homosexuality, he must be unable to accept himself as he is. Even popular psychotherapies promote this false dichotomy.

Critics of reparative therapy suspect that it is primarily guilt that keeps clients coming to treatment. Although guilt may have been a strong motivator that originally propelled the client into therapy, it is never the foundation for successful treatment. In fact, after some months in therapy, the client typically reports a diminishment of guilt. What has diminished here is not actually valid guilt, but the excessive guilt he has felt so long that it feels natural.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

I can only speak for myself in terms of self-acceptance, guilt and my motivation for reparative therapy.

Guilt isn't much in play at this point. I still have some guilt when I look at porn, but never from being attracted to men. And whether for better or worse, I have less guilt from the porn too. I think it's just that I'm not as fatalistic about it. Sometimes I feel guilty for not feeling guilty, but porn seldom takes centerstage anymore--I just acknowledge it and move on. So, the point is, guilt isn't my motivation for wanting to change my orientation.

As for self-acceptance. It almost makes me smile at the suggestion that a desire to change shows a problem with self-acceptance. So, studying for school, getting a haircut, working on my tennis backhand (if I played tennis--haha), and lifting weights are all symptoms of my inability to accept myself the way I am. If we're talking about personal worth, I have all the self-acceptance that I need and I don't think changing my orientation will make me any more of a human being. If we're talking about self-improvement, I'm afraid I have to concede that I consider self-acceptance to be antithetical to my goals. Even having goals is antithetical to self-acceptance. :)

Ultimately, I wonder if the problem with the "self-acceptance" argument is that it ends up being an authoritative person telling some other person that they are living a lie--that the authoritative person allegedly knows more about their character and identity than they do themselves. Therapists and activists (and for that matter, church leaders) all assert with ostensible authority what parts of a person's character are necessary. Who's a person to believe? As I've said before, I don't buy that my sexual orientation is a necessary part of my character.

Affirmative therapy

While support of the gay man in adjustment to his life challenges is a worthy [Gay Affirmative Therapy (GAT)] goal, we take issue with GAT's assumptions.

At the foundation of those assumptions is the intractable conviction that homosexuality is a natural and healthy sexual variation. With this a priori assumption, GAT then proceeds to attribute every personal and inter-personal problem the gay person develops to social or internalized homophobia. GAT's theoretical model frames the life experiences of the client in the context of victimization, inevitably setting him against conventional society and disenfranchising him from family and even ethnic identity...
...
Ironically, GAT and reparative therapy agree on what the homosexual man needs and desires: to give himself permission to love other men. However, GAT works within the gay ideology of eroticization of these relationships. We believe this sabotages the mutuality that will lead to bonding.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

I particularly like this part (except the last sentence). Mainly, because I absolutely love the idea of giving myself permission to love men. It feels right. And yet, I think the common view of reparative therapy is that it attempts to instill an aversion to men. Hence the misguided sentiment I've seen on other blogs that reparative therapy isn't desirable because the writer doesn't want to lose the will to love.

And then, of course, there's the debate about whether homosexuality is normal. Insert political hot-button here. But, hey, I'll be honest (after all, I'm pseudo-anonymous here and I doubt any of you will come throw eggs at my house). I believe it is not normal. [gasp!] I've compared it in the past to obesity in that it is a physiological adaptation that carries risks but is itself normal, but even that is pandering a bit. Because when it comes down to it, I think it might fit better with my concept of disease--a condition of abnormal functioning. And of course, I think that deserves no more derision or discrimination than any other disease (so don't even go there that I'm phobic or prejudiced or something.) Sure, a gay person can live a normal and happy life (so can a person with 6 fingers, but that doesn't make it less an abnormal condition). It's not about prevalence or social function, or any other host of reasons why I've heard people declare with absolute disdain that no reasonable person could consider it a disease. It's about sexual function. And sexual function from a physiological perspective is much more than putting a smile on your face. It's primarily about babies, folks. Nicolosi thinks it's a disease because it is pathological. Others think it's a disease because it's abnormal. I think they're both reasonable conclusions, but so is the conclusion that it is an uncommon normal variant. Semantics.</digression>

Nicolosi goes into a lengthy discussion about how therapists are guilted into not offering reparative therapy (afraid of making themselves vulnerable to homophobic charges) even though there are folks like me who WANT the therapy and will make the attempt with or without a professional there to minimize the risks. Like the woman who will perform an abortion on herself with a coat hanger if she doesn't get one from her medical provider, a gay man hungering for reparative therapy should not be turned away by any decent therapist. I believe the ethical position of the APA is lamentably wrong. But, I'm not going to stand up in their House of Delegates to testify on the subject either. So it's no wonder gay advocates carry the day in organized medicine.

All in all, this was an interesting chapter.

Causes

Scientific evidence has confirmed that genetic and hormonal factors do not seem to play a determining role in homosexuality (Birke 1981, Perloff 1965, West 1977). However there continue to be attempts to prove that genetics rather than family factors determines homosexuality. These continuing efforts reflect the persistence of gay advocates to formulate a means by which homosexual behavior may be viewed as normal.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

I don't think it's entirely fair to criticize a 10 year old book in terms of today's scientific knowledge, but it certainly underlines why one should cautiously if ever claim that scientific evidence has "confirmed" anything. That's not really how science works. Depending on the skill of the scientist, the structure of the experiment, and the power of the data one can get a very good idea about whether or not some observation is random or not. How you interpret it will weigh in just as heavily (probably more) in how the "scientific" results are reported. In this case, new methods like new genetic technologies have completely changed the playing field.

Regardless, I disagree with the logical progression he reports for gay advocates. Genetic causality alone doesn't make something normal. Huntington's disease is genetically determined, but it's far from normal. In my view, it's usually an ill-conceived effort to try to ascertain whether homosexuality is genetic or developmental in cause. Nicolosi has based his therapy on the developmental hypothesis. Some gay advocates decry anything but an acknowledgment that orientation is innate and immutable. I think these people are grossly oversimplifying. I doubt there is a universally necessary cause for something as complex as sexual orientation (unlike chicken pox, for example, where the pathogen is always the same... and no, I'm not comparing homosexuality to a disease... right now). It's certainly not a matter of choice. At least, not in any definitive sense. Reparative therapy may be one choice that can influence orientation, and I suppose that's one reason many people hate it so vehemently.

When I first began this book, I thought Nicolosi's main flaw was that he believes one-size-fits-all despite his somewhat frequent (but seemingly contradictory) admissions that there are exceptions. Toward the end, though, he finally explicitly acknowledged limitations of his therapy:

Another type of client who does poorly is the one who does not fit the syndrome decribed in this book.... This type of client usually has no particular difficulties with male friendships or self-assertion, shows no evidence of male gender-identity deficit, and has a family history that does not fit our pattern. The treatment issues we address are not relevant to his issues.

Limitations of gay love

Each one of us, man and woman alike, is driven by the power of romantic love. These infatuations gain their power from the unconscious drive to become a complete human being. In heterosexuals, it is the drive to bring together the male-female polarity through the longing for the other-than-me. But in homosexuals, it is the attempt to fulfill a deficit in wholeness of one's original gender.
...
The inherent unsuitability of same-sex relationships is seen in the form of fault-finding, irritability, feeling smothered; power struggles, possessiveness, and dominance; boredom, disillusionment, emotional withdrawal, and unfaithfulness. As a result of this binding ambivalence, his same-sex relationships lack authentic intimacy.
...
Gay couplings are characteristically brief and very volatile, with much fighting, arguing, making-up again, and continual disappointments.... Research, however, reveals that they almost never possess the mature elements of quiet consistency, trust, mutual dependency, and sexual fidelity characteristic of highly functioning heterosexual marriages.
...
The results show that of those 156 couples, only seven had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those seven couples, none had been together more than five years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple that was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

It makes me chuckle when I see words like "authentic" used like swords--first the one side swings, then the opponent. Who gets to be acknowledged as really "authentic"?

And why exactly should I buy matter-of-fact statements about the unconscious basis for sexual drives? So, everyone everywhere is subconsciously trying to become a complete human being by filling up personal deficits or consuming "other-than-me" by having sex? I don't like unsupported assertions like that, but I suppose I find it plausible because it is consistent with my own experience--I want to have in a visceral way the object of my attraction. Even with that concession, it seems hokey.

Lastly, I don't buy the qualitative difference he suggests between gay and straight sex because two gay men have the same "deficits" and a man and a woman don't. This just all seems like what one of my psychiatry mentors calls "psychobabble". I try, I really try, not to think psychology is crap-science. But it's hard. :)

What I DO buy is the data about long term relationships. These couples had made a commitment of fidelity and the outcomes were measured by gay researchers. Lacking some other explanation for it, I suppose his theory takes on some credibility.

Sensitivity

Contributing to my retreat into homosexuality was that I was one of those sensitive, "artistic" children with neither the talent nor interest in any of the usual "masculine" pursuits. I hated physical activity--sports and games most of all--and when I would make an effort to be a part of the gang I would fail so miserably to perform well that for a long time afterward I would suffer from the shame of ineptitude.... I was a classic case in that I (later) felt out of place in a man's world, and comfortable and capable in a more esoteric environment.

Willam Aaron in his biography as quoted by
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

I got straight A's through elementary school except one C in gym. I embarrassed myself with regularity in P.E. during middle school and by the time I got to high school I was all sorts of enthusiastic to avoid P.E. altogether by being in the marching band. I hated church basketball and softball because I couldn't handle being the charity case. My mom always told me I had "thin skin" and I shouldn't worry so much about what other people think. I was too sensitive, she said. As an adult, I've been told I "throw like a girl". I hate it when conversations turn to sports or cars during social events--topics I know virtually NOTHING about.

Compare that with my less masculine abilities. I love performing in theater, singing, playing the piano, I'm quite a good artist, I have a great eye for design and photography, and I like cooking and gardening. I'm damn good at all that stuff and I know it. People respect me when I, for example, have my art in a professional show, and I'm proud of myself. So proud, I occasionally feel smarter and more sophisticated than the guys who woop at Monday night football and talk up Harley Davidsons. I find myself alternately disdainful and envious of them at odd times.

I just can't get myself to believe there is nothing to what Nicolosi is getting at. Sure, he presents his info in a way that bothers me (pretty much all social sciences do), but if I get past that, it compels me.

Joseph Nicolosi, 1

In the psychoanalytic literature, homosexuality has long been explained as an attempt to "repair" a deficit in masculine identity. This theory is not new; in fact, it has a long tradition within the psychoanalytic literature. While not all homosexuality can be explained simply as reparative drive, for most homosexual men it is a significant motivation. When the homosexual encounters another man who is what he himself would like to be, he is likely to idealize him and romanticize the relationship.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

Reparative therapy, as you may know, has been on my mind for a while. The more I read about it, the more I realize that it is not a well-defined term. Some people use it to include any effort to change sexual orientation (i.e. including electroshock aversion therapy, pray-it-away therapy, and lobotomies), and some use it to specifically refer to Nicolosi's therapeutic approach. For Nicolosi, homosexuality is a state that is always caused by developmental abnormalities. Addressing the abuse or the male relationships or the confidence issues or the self-perception of masculinity (or whatever the past may be) is the first step in ridding oneself of homosexuality.

For others (more to my liking), the repair in "reparative therapy" is not of sexual orientation itself, but of the psychological state resulting from unmet needs and lack of masculine self-perception. Whether or not the next step has any basis (the one in which new insight and successful healing from childhood hang-ups leads to heterosexual orientation) seems suspect.

Critics can argue all they want about whether gays have a deficit in masculine identity, but my own experience has me pretty convinced. Counter-examples notwithstanding, if you got a bunch of gay guys and compared them to a bunch of straight guys, I think there would be some statistically significant, measurable differences in masculine self-perception (and many of the other purported "causes" of homosexuality Nicolosi posits).

But measurable differences mean only that there are differences, not that there is a causal relationship or that fostering all the masculine self perception in the world would have any difference whatsoever on sexuality. Which seems to be the basis of most criticisms of reparative therapy--there's no reason it should work and it hasn't been measured to work more than a fraction of the time.

So, why go there? Because I do have outstanding issues from the past. They do keep me from having more self-confidence and a thoroughly masculine self-perception. And if my reparative therapy leaves me gayer than Ladybird Park but allows me to heal in these other ways and increase my platonic positive relationships with other men, it will have made me very happy. The men I'm now attracted to can be my good friends rather than merely my sexual desire. Rather than feeling rejected by (and lust for) the carefree and easygoing athletic type, I can be one. I can move on.

Index of Joseph Nicolosi posts:
Joseph Nicolosi, 1
Sensitivity
Limitations of gay love
Causes
Affirmative therapy
Self-acceptance
Joseph Nicolosi, 2

Living a lie

Three times today I've seen references to people lying to themselves. Once by a gay man in reference to when he was living within the constraints of the Mormon church, once by a gay man in reference to another gay man who has chosen a straight marriage and to remain true to the church, and once in an editorial in reference to affirming gays.

The last reference says, in part:

He believes he is homosexual and has found some seasonal peace in being "honest" about who he believes himself to be. The real tragedy of this story, as well as the doctrinal reality in it, is that this young man has been deceived into being honest about a lie.

It sort of makes me tired. Each person being a law unto themselves. That's what personal revelation is about, right? Getting a feeling about something and then believing it at the expense of all else to be true to yourself. Looking for "inner" truth. Oh, wait, is that arrogance and wishful thinking? I'm so confused. Why didn't anyone say, "I am at this very moment living a lie." I guess people are all deceived rather than lying (which implies self-awareness of the deception) and it takes an outsider (or a new improved self) to spot it. Too bad all the outsiders disagree. They probably all think I'm living a lie. And I disagree... but then, I would.

Gay marriage

Tomorrow, from what I understand, there will be a letter read in sacrament meetings asking church members to contact their senators regarding their opinions on the Marriage Protection Amendment. Specifically, the letter states that church leadership has repeatedly articulated their position "that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship." They quote the Proclamation on the Family wherein it says, "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." And they conclude by urging members to "express themselves" on the matter to their elected government officials.

One may believe, as do the folks who maintain the lds4gaymarriage site, that expressing oneself to government officials as being for gay marriage is inconsistent with having good standing in the church.

I don't see it that way.

If one believes, as I do (tentatively), that gay marriage will strengthen the family unit as the fundamental unit of society, then one can in clear conscience agree with the church's right to support the amendment while personally opposing it. The church statement says that straight marriage is the only "acceptable" kind, but does not elaborate. If one takes that to mean, "acceptable by God", then one can believe both that straight marriage is the only acceptable kind for bringing about eternal families but that gay marriage can be acceptable secularly in this free, non-theocratic society. The church's official statements "favor" a traditional marriage amendment, but stop short of proscribing such a view as the only acceptable view for members to hold. The church has greatly decreased its propensity to firmly dictate political positions (and parties) for their members since the 1800s. I don't personally know of any church discipline resulting from political views (only from doctrinal views), although it seems I've heard claims of such.

I'm very tentative in my views. I've heard claims of strong data supporting the equivalent (or even superior) child rearing capabilities of gay couples. I've heard claims of strong data denying that very thing. Basically, I respect the rights of people to believe the set of data that resonates with their gut. Which means I tolerate both folks who oppose gay marriage and those who support it. Unfortunately, I realize there are many gays who refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of any non-discriminatory rationale for opposing gay marriage. This is only a testament to their narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy. One view I find logically valid, non-discriminatory, and potentially true was expressed several months ago on NPR. And, of course, there are many religious folks who can't examine the gay marriage debate from any paradigm but their own, which is equally closed-minded.

So, my position is tentative. I remain a student of the issue. But so far:

• I DO believe it is fair to extend marriage or some legislative equivalent to gay couples,
• I do NOT believe it is a matter of civil rights,
• I'm not sure whether recognizing gay marriage will have positive or negative overall social consequences, and
  
• I DO believe that while the church "favors" societal institutions reflecting God's plan for the family, I can independently study it out and conclude for myself what to support as the best possible governance.

Balancing Act

I would prefer to take a moderate stance on gay issues since I firmly believe in the freedom of every person to decide for themselves what they believe to be moral and follow their heart--whether they be religious or gay. But I equally value the importance of challenging anti-religious or anti-gay sentiments when they are unfriendly and uninformed. In short, for me it's about promoting tolerance and battling prejudice and intolerance.

Surprisingly, perhaps, this has translated into me defending religion time after time. Apparently my blog isn't a big hit with the religious crowd since there are never really anti-gay comments. There are frequent (and of varying legitimacy) anti-religious comments though. So, I reluctantly take the minority view and repeatedly defend religion against the bigotry that presents itself. I've pigeon-holed myself, I suspect.

Oh well. I guess that's how it goes.

But in the spirit of providing the alternative point of view, I must comment on the overwhelmingly biased and ridiculously pejorative comments I've seen on the blogosphere in regard to Richard Cohen's recent appearance on Paula Zahn.

For example, one blog writes, "In case you haven't heard any of this stuff before, you should know that this is a line used by anti-gay psychotherapists, but there is no research anywhere, ever, that supports the idea that these kinds of family dynamics have anything to do with a person turning out gay." Ummm, no. My understanding is that there is research showing a correlation, just not causality. Causing gay (as is claimed in reparative therapy and is, in my opinion, either false or oversimplified) and correlating with being gay (which is true) are two different things.

It's just a word-smithing world out there to push an agenda. Pisses me off.

What politics?

Reparative therapy is fascinating stuff. I've started reading Nicolosi's book on the subject, which from what I understand, is sort of the definitive text right now. He gives a pretty large set of references for prior work on the subject and the measured "successes" of past efforts. But, of course, those references and their supposed success cases have been criticized widely as not scientifically rigorous. This is understandable to me, but I find it a little amusing that there is now a propensity for people to go so far as to say reparative therapy has been shown to be unnecessary, ineffective, and harmful.

Unnecessary? I'll buy that. It surely depends on what one considers to be a necessity. If a person wants to live a happy and well-adjusted life as a gay man, no reparative therapy is necessary. But what I find interesting is that although the science is sketchy at best, there are many examples in the reparative therapy theory that have real and compelling applications in my life. I can identify dozens of experiences I've had consistent with "defensive detachment" and problems with masculine identity. (I can think of many inconsistencies too.) Pondering the lack of certain kinds of male companionship in my life helps me to realize that I can pursue those relationships through reparative therapy completely irrespective of the goal of sexual orientation change, and my life will be richer for it. In a word, although it's not necessary, it's desirable to me (and presumably anyone whose past abuse and disenfranchisement by male peers bothers them) even if no actual change in sexual orientation follows.

But what about those darned risks? Since reparative therapy has been "shown" to be harmful, surely it's a bad idea to go there. Well... I must reserve judgment as I'm not familiar with the primary data on the subject. However, it's not a closed case, and anyone claiming it is well understood and dangerous reads from a script I'm starting to become familiar with--the activist script. Nothing wrong with activism, as long as it doesn't masquerade as science. Even the APA says in their position that "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of 'reparative' treatments."

When reparative therapy was discussed in my medical curriculum, I asked the Planned Parenthood presenter for primary sources to support his claim that it is ineffective and harmful. He referred me to the APA's position statement. I pointed out that I was already familiar with the statement and that it actually says that reparative therapy has not been shown to be effective (not the same as 'shown to be ineffective') and that risks have been ignored or minimized by those who practice reparative therapy (not the same as 'shown to be harmful'), and that I was concerned that the material in our curriculum was more political than scientific in a way similar to that described by the APA statement. He questioned my motivations by asking why I was bringing politics into a discussion on healthcare.

Ummm... are you stupid? I'm not one to be thwarted by the ol' "you're making this political when any rational person can clearly see that I'm right even though the reference I use to back my claims actually CONTRADICTS my position."

Politics? What politics?

Okay, buddy, try pulling your head out and acknowledge that there is wide disagreement on this controversial subject. How can we talk about it if you seek to discredit my motives as "political" when I have merely asked for scientific references? The APA explicitly acknowledged the political nature of the debate. So sorry for asking for references from your one-sided and unannotated lecture.

Instinct

In reality we have not advanced one step. I will not insist on the point that Instinct is a name for we know not what (to say that migratory birds find their way by instinct is only to say that we do not know how migratory birds find their way), for I think it is here being used in a fairly definite sense, to mean an unreflective or spontaneous impulse widely felt by the members of a given species. In what way does Instinct, thus conceived, help us to find "real" values? Is it maintained that we must obey instinct, that we cannot do otherwise? But if so, why are the Green Books and the like written? Why this stream of exhortation to drive us where we cannot help going? Why such praise for those who have submitted to the inevitable?

C.S.Lewis,
in The Abolition of Man

I cannot understand the maxim that a person’s sexual orientation touches all parts of his life. Nor that it is so intertwined that pulling it out would spiritually eviscerate a person by removing a vital part of their being. Sexual arousal and performance are complicated physiologic phenomena of a human organism. Perhaps one might say they are instinctive. There is certainly an autonomic component in the medical sense. Were that instinct to change, would the creature cease to be himself? Does a disoriented duck, having lost the instinct to fly south, become any less a duck? Does an infant lose its humanity when it grows out of the Moro reflex? People change aspects of their personality as well as their physical nature all the time without becoming a different person. Why would this be any different?

I can only conclude that I either misunderstand or that it is easy to confuse sexual orientation with romantic love, platonic love, brotherly fellowship, and other expressions of appropriate intimacy, all of which are genuine needs that would remain were sexual orientation to evolve.

Morality and reason

Let us suppose for a moment that the harder virtues could really be theoretically justified with no appeal to objective value. It still remains true that no justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous. Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite skeptical about ethics, but bred to believe that "a gentleman does not cheat," than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers. In battle it is not syllogisms that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of the bombardment. The crudest sentimentalism… about a flag or a country or a regiment will be of more use.

C.S.Lewis,
in The Abolition of Man

This book is quite complex, and any quotation threatens to be misinterpreted as out of context. The entire book is the context. It’s short and hard to isolate aphorisms. Anyway, the "trained emotions" he is referring to is traditional values. He is testifying (I think) to the importance of having been taught independently moral principles. He is making the case for teaching sentimentalism. Teaching children patriotism. Teaching morality. He makes the interesting case that without natural moral law, there can be no valid arguments to create morality through reason.

The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premises in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible. We must therefore either extend the word Reason to include what our ancestors called Practical Reason and confess that judgements such as society ought to be preserved …are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself: or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of "rational" value behind all the sentiments we have debunked.

The abolition of man

…Righteousness, correctness, order, the Rta, is constantly identified with satya or truth, correspondence to reality. As Plato said that the Good was "beyond existence" and Wordsworth that through virtue the stars were strong, so the Indian masters say that the gods themselves are born of the Rta and obey it. The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar. "In ritual," say the Analects, "it is harmony with Nature that is prized." The ancient Jews likewise praise the Law as being "true."

C.S.Lewis,
in The Abolition of Man

Moving past Parks, today I picked up The Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis. That man is a smart guy. Unfortunately, much of what he writes is difficult for me to understand. This is probably due to some combination of his use of British idioms, the date of the text, and ubiquitous allusions to literature I’ve never studied. Oh yeah, and that it’s just thick stuff. Regardless, I always find it a pleasure to consider his thoughts. I’ve had this book for over 10 years (as part of a Lewis set) and today was the first time I’ve read it. I usually go back to favorites I’ve read in the past. But perusing this today turned out to be quite apropos.

Comments on my Parks posts reminded me that I’ve noticed two disparate views on the homosexual condition. Proponents of one view seem to hold a relativistic philosophy in general. Love, truth, and good are all to be discovered from within. Lewis doesn’t mention homosexuality a single time, so the application to this topic is purely my own. But I would hold that Lewis would object to such views. Lewis believes in natural moral law—independent of preference or dislike. And I find it difficult to consider the alternate view as plausible, based on the explanations I’ve heard.

Jason Parks, 2

Each of us has hope because of who we are and who God is and who we are together. Don't pray that God will make your life free of problems, but pray for hope, strength, and courage to bear them. Adversity can bless our lives if we let it purify us and teach us.

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

I share the feeling of angst and desperation I read about on the blogs of men similarly situated. Life, at times, feels unbearably painful. I'm as moody as the next guy, and I happen to be pretty darn happy right now. But there have been some pretty low lows, and I'm certain there will be more. So, this seemed like a nice thought to end with.

Parks' book has some flaws, but far fewer than I expected, to be honest. I was expecting more of a biography--I don't know why. But rather than a pure biography, it is a well-annotated work of non-fiction that relates occasional personal experiences to detail many of the issues from a uniquely LDS perspective. Because of that perspective, I highly recommend a careful read (rather than a quick scan) to anyone who is Mormon and a gay man. Reading something like this, even if it is just consciously processing it to separate out what you agree with and disagree with, is a hugely helpful activity in achieving personal insight. Or at least, it has been for me. And I happen to know they have it at libraries in Utah, because the copy I'm reading came on inter-library loan from SLC. Ha!

Enjoy, my friends! (Or get violently indignant, as the case may be!)

Index of Jason Parks posts:
Jason Parks, 1
Revelation on homosexuality
Subtly arrogant
AIDS and suicide
Happiness
Approval
Homophobia
Inborn and unchangeable?
Jason Parks, 2

Inborn and unchangeable?

Gay advocates state that homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable. The proposition that a person could change questions the very concept of a gay identity. In addition, recognizing that anyone would want to change is to admit there are those who believe it is wrong and does not make them happy. Gay advocates may go to great lengths to try to disprove anyone who claims to have changed. They may say that such people were never gay in the first place or that they have been brainwashed into believing they have overcome homosexuality and some day will realize they are just supressing their true homosexual nature. It is ironic that gay advocates have no problem believing that a straight man may discover his latent homosexuality, but they cannot tolerate the idea that a man with homosexual desires may discover his heterosexual nature. Jeffrey Satinover also noted, "There will always be people who seek to change but are not successful, even after many years of effort. Understandably perhaps, some of these relapse into a vocally gay-activist posture and become hostile toward the ministries they perceive as having failed, or even deluded, them."

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

I am pretty darn gay, and desire to change. So I found this part interesting. Should I attempt to prove for the record that I'm gay? That would be an interesting post... ;-) The truth is, I actually wrote just such a post a while back, but it's still sitting in draft status. Ultimately, I realized I can't produce any evidence sufficient for anyone else. It was actually a pretty amusing post, but it bordered on inappropriate. Maybe I should post it just to string along anyone who can't stomach non-stop pensive philosophical posts. Anyway, people will just have to choose to trust me or not. And, folks, I'm not just gay, I'm WAY gay.

As for change, I'm not entirely persuaded. I'm prepared to live my life without any such change, but it would be nice. If such a change is possible, I'm going to achieve it. And I'm going to continue to ignore the shrill insistence of those who claim to know for certain that it is impossible. I can see how it is important for some people to hold inarguably that it is not possible, but it's a part of my newly affirmed assertiveness that I will not assuage their subconscious apprehensions by conceding what they want to hear. We'll see. Or at least, I will.

Homophobia

Homophobia is defined as an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuality. Although there are legitimate cases of homophobia, the use of the term has been expanded to take on social and political meanings. Gay advocates use it widely to refer to those who are hostile toward gay people and even those who disagree with the pro-gay perspective. They consider homophobic those who want to resolve their homosexual problems as well as therapists who try to help them. Some activists have an almost neurotic attitude toward all "straight" people and blame all their suffering in life on either social or internalized homophobia.

The truth is, those who are hostile toward gay people are usually prejudiced, meaning that they have an opinion against it without adequate basis, but not homophobic. Those who disagree with the pro-gay perspective may also do it legitimately out of conviction, which is a strong belief. Those who object to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds do so out of conviction, not because of a phobia or prejudice.

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

Whoa. This sounds familiar. I would say he plagiarized me except that he wrote it nearly a decade before I thought it up. ;-)

Approval

I used to feel that I had to have the love and approval of everyone all the time. When I didn't, I felt I had failed. It bothered me if anyone in the room was upset. In social situations, I felt it was my duty to keep everyone happy and I would jump into conflicts that weren't mine in an effort to be the peacekeeper. I now realize that no one has the approval of everyone all the time. I now try to find the appropriate balance between being true to myself and being sensitive to others. If I get their approval, great. If not, I don't feel I have failed because I realize they have their perspectives and preferences, and I respect them.

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

I am an admitted approval whore. It's like an addiction. Except, I'm not just trying to have the approval of everyone in the room, I want the approval and love of the WORLD WIDE WEB. It's been good to blog and have occasional disagreements with commenters because it shows me that I can remain civil with people I strongly disagree with. And I can even make strong statements to the right kind of person. And I try to BE the right kind of person that won't be easily offended, although it is my inclination to be overly sensitive and have easily shatterable self confidence.

It's something I need to work on, without a doubt. I value fair-minded and cool-tempered exchange of ideas, even if they are difficult or politically charged. Managing that when agreement is essentially impossible is worth working for.

Happiness

I used to feel that I couldn't be happy until I resolved all the homosexual problems in my life. Then one day I realized that working on challenges like these is the essence of life. Our whole purpose for being on this earth is to have experiences and learn and grow from them. If we decide we won't be happy until we have mastered all our challenges, we will never be happy.

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

I liked this part. It's what I would tell every LDS man who is struggling with homosexuality if I could. It would be nice if those suffering could be saved from some of the intense depression and loneliness by recognizing this early on. But, at the same time, I do hold the somewhat fatalistic view that we don't entirely "decide" to be happy.

AIDS and suicide

Less than 2% of the gay population survives to age sixty-five. Gay people commit suicide at much higher rates than national averages [according to a DHS study]. Gay people generally attribute these problems to the oppression and hate they receive from society. However, the internal struggle with homosexuality creates much emptiness and despair.

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

The other trick about this book is that it is a little dated. It was published in 1997 and a lot has happened since then. The discussion on HIV and AIDS was particularly annoying to me. It's understandable, but still annoying, when someone who doesn't have a science background tries to interpret and explain scientific information and gets it slightly wrong. Journalists are notorious for this. Or just presents selected scientific information that supports a particular point of view. I didn't quote this section because it is quite lengthy, and, really, his point in the section about HIV and AIDS being a significant public health problem for gay men is true regardless, and most people probably wouldn't even notice subtle errors in portrayal.

The bit on suicide quoted above is similar. I've seen many endorsements on the blogs of the idea that emptiness and despair can result from the internal struggle a gay man faces. And I think it is entirely reasonable to believe that hate from society has a great deal to do with the problem. But spouting either of these as if they adequately explain this complex problem is off-putting. What about confounding factors? What about mental illnesses? What about substance abuse? What about personality traits more prevalent (but not pervasive) among gays? What about the fact that we just plain don't understand these things as well as some would like to claim?

I thought the recent post on DW's blog discussing suicide was an interesting example. Suicide rates are both knowable (although perhaps not by a retrospective cohort) and reported. Saying they can't be shows a lack of epidemiological training or understanding. Further, the LDS church does not "contribute" to suicide among gays any more than a high school teacher who gives a paper an "F" contributes to the suicide of the student who feels like a failure and takes his life afterward. It is the emotional and confused state of the suicidal person that leads to the death, not innocuous circumstances that would be tolerated by a well person. Such mis-attribution of blame is deplorable.

Subtly arrogant

Another subtle form of justification is to accept a lower standard for ourselves than the one revealed in scripture and through modern prophets. Alan Medinger counsels us to be on guard against "the attitude that says, 'God, I am doing the best I can do; this is just the way I am.' Rather than working towards the gospel standard, we adopt a tolerant, indulgent attitude that declares, 'If I only go off on a sexual binge once a year, I'm better off than I used to be. Besides, God understands my weakness.' I have known people who for years have justified their ongoing sin as being reasonable, given their emotional and psychological makeup." It is subtly arrogant to assume that our understanding of ourselves exceeds what God has revealed in scripture and through his prophets.

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

I've been perplexed myself as I read various accounts of how people are dealing with their struggles when they say something to the effect that they've done the best they can and that's good enough (and so now I'm going to move on and be gay and God must be okay with that). I mean, that's a legitimate worldview and everything, but I don't see it as compatible with LDS doctrine.

But on the other hand, there's some hand waving in the doctrine when you talk about the atonement covering our imperfections "after all we can do". "Can" meaning what? Can we be perfect? Theoretically there's nothing keeping me from living a sinless life. If it means after a legitimate and persistent effort, that's another story. So, do we have to be free from big sins like immorality but not worry about other sins?

Maybe it's a matter of our attitudes. If a person is failing on a regular basis to abstain from his sexual weaknesses, but humbly strives to do better, he's in a different situation than one who excuses himself altogether for one reason or another. I dunno...

Revelation on homosexuality

With a sincere desire to help, [they] write letters to Church leaders and pray that God will inspire the Brethren to understand homosexuality and change Church policies to be more favorable toward those who have homosexual desires. The leaders of the Church seriously consider homosexual issues and have a clear understanding of what God would have them do. There will likely never be a revelation on homosexuality that will become a section in the Doctrine and Covenants to answer all our questions. I likewise don't see a section about overcoming alcoholism or other mortal conditions. Revelation on these matters comes individually. The gospel already has the answers we need, and we can receive individual revelation as we need it to understand how to apply gospel principles to our specific problems.

Jason Parks,
in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

There is plenty I agree with in this book, but there are a few minor points with which I take issue. In fact, as I re-read this quote line by line, there is nothing explicit in it I disagree with. It's just the overall implication that the church is currently all set up to adequately meet the needs of its gay members that I find disagreeable. Sure, the gospel has the answers we need, but that doesn't mean making those answers easier to understand or more accessible isn't a good idea. Why isn't it appropriate to humbly suggest policy change where a need is perceived? It's a tricky thing, I realize, when your average member like me doesn't have access to the same body of information the brethren do. But, it's possible, I think, they may benefit from receiving more information.

Further, while I don't expect there to be a new section in the D&C changing doctrine on the topic, continued revelation and clarification are fundamental tenets of our faith, and I think to assert that no new revelation (other than individual) will come is presumptuous. There is, in my view, a pervasive ignorance in the church on homosexual issues. I do not believe it is widespread among the high leadership (although certain writings appear to evidence some), but I believe it is widespread among the membership. Teaching more on the subject would serve both those who struggle with gay issues and those who don't but who haven't given it much thought.

I do not wish to spend time in the comment section defending the brethren against insults or out-of-context quotations that misrepresent the church's position, so please keep any comments respectful.

Jason Parks, 1

You may be struggling to make sense of homosexual attractions in light of the gospel. Although you have a testimony of the gospel, you also know these feelings are very real and strong and in spite of your efforts to live the gospel, the feelings don't go away. You are caught between the gospel which is right and the attractions toward men that are contrary to the gospel. The response of most men is to (1) try to suppress the feelings and live the gospel or (2) decide that the gospel doesn't fit in their life and pursue the attractions, thereby losing out on the blessings of the gospel. Rejecting the gospel was not an answer for me, but suppressing the feelings didn't make them go away either. Suppression means a continual struggle where, at best, you are celibate but miserable, and at worst, lead a double life by pretending to be a good member of the Church but secretly engaging in homosexual behavior. The only way to resolve the problem is to identify the needs that cause the attractions and fill them in legitimate ways.

Jason Parks,

in Resolving Homosexual Problems: A Guide For LDS Men

I've started doing a little research. I've checked out a few books from the library and decided to give them a read and report back what I thought. I'm not far into Parks' book yet, but it has pleasantly surprised me. Well, it follows my personal trend of being quite impressed when I set my original expectations low and being disappointed when my original expectations were high. :-)

Parks' book is unique in that there are few by LDS authors that specifically address my issues in the context of the gospel. So far it has referenced the typical studies on the prevalence of homosexuality, how genetics may or may not contribute, and whether plausible options exist. It takes, not surprisingly, a conservative slant on the data--presenting mainly the data supportive of his position and excluding the contrary. This is typical of both sides of the debate, and at least Parks has clearly annotated his discussion so that primary resources can be consulted.

The thing I like about the book, and why I'm excited to continue reading, is that its explanation of defensive detachment and unmet needs for homoemotional interactions is so compelling to me. It's not a new concept, and certainly criticized by some, but that doesn't change its clear significance for me. When I read the chapters, they described me. I can recall situations in my past where my sensitivity has kept me from bonding with other boys/men. This scenario was laid out in such detail and resonated with such clarity that I'm certain it's true, despite the inconclusive interpretation of data. I know I have or had needs that must be addressed. Whether or how that will affect my sexuality I'm not certain. On that I have only the testimonial of Parks and other men who have attempted this type of therapy.

I'm glad suppression (celibate misery detailed on some blogs) and acting gay are not the only options. There are many gay men who don't feel unmet homoemotional needs are at the root of their being gay, and that's fine. But, luckily, I do believe it contributes to mine (and many others whose blogs I've read) and that gives me a rational goal to pursue. At worst, in attempting to fulfill my homoemotional needs I will be a happier but still a wholly gay man. At best, I will be able to "resolve" my homosexual issues.

Index of Jason Parks posts:
Jason Parks, 1
Revelation on homosexuality
Subtly arrogant
AIDS and suicide
Happiness
Approval
Homophobia
Inborn and unchangeable?
Jason Parks, 2

Out, but in.

Since joining a couple e-mail listserves for SSA folks, I've been fascinated with the diversity of experience people have. One man posted not long ago about his return to the church after having lost his membership. His account of his journey away and back was very interesting and reminded me that although I seem to constantly feel on the cusp of some irrevokable cliff, the gospel will always be there for me when I am willing to have a broken spirit and contrite heart. No failure ever need be final.

And even more recently a man recounted a conversation with his son recently in which his son came out to him, so he reciprocated by coming out to his son. Together they can support and encourage one another in the gospel. It was a very inspiring story.

The creator of disciples2 is a woman who also seems quite remarkable to me. She is now divorced and I don't know anything about the circumstances surrounding that, but she has remained faithful to the church throughout. Further, she seems to have acheived great insight into the kind of appopriate bonds to be made with fellow SSA strugglers. Her story along with Another Other's testify to the importance of recognizing potential temptation as I learn from and am supported by blogging and e-mailing friends. I hope you will read her story and consider joining disciples2 if you are still committed to the lds church.

Religious crimes against nature

It seems ironic to me that homosexuality has been described as a "crime against nature" by religious folks who also believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God". I recognize the intended meanings and the consistency therein, but the word choice is interesting.

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3:19)

It seems more apt to me to describe homosexuality as TOO natural! The challenge I face on a day-to-day basis is how to keep up this ongoing crime against nature I am committing by trying to be like Jesus.

I'm a believer in the notion that we are accountable for our thoughts our words and our deeds. But I qualify that with the caveat that God understands the exceptions. I think it's usually a mistake for a mortal like me to try to pinpoint them. One exception that has been clarified by the brethren is same-sex attraction. The mental pathways used here are not chosen, and I believe I am not culpable for them. But that's not to say that I get a free pass to fantasize on every fine piece of... you see my point. Our deeds, similarly, are not chosen for those of us with some specific medical conditions I can think of, but that by no means gives a free pass for reprehensible behavior with the justification that my hormones made me do it. Again, God is the judge. And accountability stands.

So, who is this natural man anyway, and why are we up against him? Pleasure pathways in the brain connect the autonomic part of the body with the conscious. You get thirsty and then water tastes fantastic. Your body is pulling the behavior strings. You exercise and you get that endorphin rush. You eat and your hunger is quelled. And you have sex, and your body tells you that pushing that button is a very good thing although it leaves off the footnote that the reason is that it brings about continuation of the species. Hell, it can even hurt and your body just says, don't worry about it, just keep going. These physiological adaptations let the creature thrive.

These natural signals are entirely selfish in their aims. That's what they are for. And selfishness is not shameful in all cases--it's only natural.

Yet, our cognitive ability tells us there are higher causes, unselfish and worthy ways to spend our efforts. Some hedonists, on the other hand, want those pleasure centers stimulated at all costs. Have a smoke and you falsely stimulate the brain's pleasure centers. Take a hit of meth and you no longer feel hungry. Or tired. Screw with your body's signals and you sabotage yourself.

The little devil on your shoulder telling you to go for the druggy high is the natural man. And the little angel telling you to go out and play checkers with the boring old dude down the street is the saint. Looking at porn on the computer is the natural. Kneeling in family prayer is the saint. But it's not an entirely academic discussion taking place on your shoulder. Prior behaviors give the devil some extra buttons to push and extra tricks to try in his favor. He has a direct line to those pleasure centers. But then, the angel has some tricks too--but they don't come standard. They take enabling prayer, study, and discipline.

Note that there are plenty of appropriate ways to keep those pleasure centers hopping. But stimulating them in the manner that God has outlined shows a willingness to "submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him".

May we all be outlaws against nature. May we be our best selves.

Perseverate

In a post titled "perseverance", gayLDSactor writes, "I've dedicated years of my life to doing what I've been taught to do, and it hasn't changed my feelings. I don't regret a moment of that." I really respect the sentiment that a lifetime of effort to be obedient is nothing to regret. Contrast that with the sentiment "I've wasted my life" potentially offered by those contemplating leaving the church to find happiness elsewhere. I guess such a comment may reveal a lack of insight into what one wants out of life and what makes life worthwhile. If life is an attempt to maximize rock star sex where planets fall from their orbits, my life has been only modestly successful. But, luckily, I think my view of life isn't quite so shallow. And if life is worthwhile only when "eat, drink, and be merry" is the mantra, the growing experiences like adversity have no value at all.

The funny part about the title "perseverance" is that it reminds me of the word "perseverate" (per-SEV-er-ate) which means to fixate on something. I suppose anyone who has a themed blog on gay issues (or gay Mormon issues!) perseverates to some extent. A lot of effort goes into thinking about one issue of life at the expense of many others. I think I come back over and over because I have a lot to think about and work through for myself. Maybe it won't be all the way worked out before I die. I dunno. But perseverating on this aspect of life alone has got to be a mistake. Granted, sexuality is a big deal, but human intimacy can be expressed in many ways other than sexuality. And a life filled with rich human interactions is never "wasted" even when there's no superstar sex. I can see how perseverating on gay issues may falsely give one the impression that those issues are paramount in defining an identity or gauging the success of one's life, but it's a lie.

So, indulge other aspects of your identity. If you are going to perseverate on something, perseverate on Christ. Or family. Or service.

Also, come back to my blog and comment daily. ;-)