Can gays go straight? Science says yes

Great Debates
141

Question. I will assume for the moment that there are, as puddleglum seems to be asserting, a significant number of homosexuals who are either unhappy with or unhappy because of their sexual orientation. Imagine that one of these “unhappy homosexuals” approaches a psychiatrist for help. What should happen next?

It seems to me that in this case, as in all others, the therapist’s goal should be to improve the patient’s quality of life. In the above post, puddleglum seems to assume that the only way to achieve this end is to convert the patient to heterosexuality. I could be reading his post wrong, but that’s certainly the impression I get from the statement that without this research the “unhappy homosexuals (would) be left without help”.

I do not see that to be the case. It does not appear to me that given an “unhappy homosexual”, conversion to heterosexuality is nessecarily the only treatment option avaliable. Another possibility would be to help the patient accept his or her sexuality, and come to terms with it. Yet another possibility would be the diagnosis of an untreated psycological disorder which has nothing at all to do with the patient’s sexual prefrences. Depending upon the symptoms, I would expect a physical exam to be done to rule out things such as a thyroid condition which could be affecting the patients mood.

My opinion is that the real question is not whether or not conversion therapy is possible, but whether or not it is a good treatment option.
KellyM makes some points relevant to this thread in this other one.

142

**Puddleglum lectured Esprix:

When I was in psychology school they told us that it was generally not a good idea for the therapist to impose his goals and values on the client. The client has his own goals and values and if therapy is to be anything other than mind control than the therapist should work in the framework of the client’s goals and values. The therapist can and should suggest things but it is the client’s life and don’t you think he should be allowed to decide what he wants with his own life?**

Can anyone else see the incredible hypocracy in this statement? Puddleglum, try applying this rule to the conversion therapy groups like Exodus and Evergreen and see what results you get. This statement alone invalidates the reason for their existence.

143

Ah, beautiful - thanks for the summation. Evidently puddleboy still can’t get the differentiation between behavior and orientation.

Also beautifully put. Thank you.

Esprix

144

This is particularly rich. As others have pointed out repeatedly, you are happily ignoring the root of the issue here. Unhappy homosexuals are in all likelihood unhappy because of society’s ingrained homophobia and NOT because of their homosexuality itself. Gays grow up and move through the entirety of their adulthood facing ridicule and torment not only from strangers and peers, but from their own loved ones. I don’t see any evidence that you’ve even considered that a possibility. Please, mentally cast your mind back over the past year or so. Remember Matthew Shepherd? For that matter, remember this Onion article? All of these demonstrate the deep-seated ill-will society generally holds towards homosexuality. That is the root of the problem.

Rather than seeking to “fix” the individuals that are unhappy, we should strive to reshape our society to accept diversity in sexual orientation. In my mind, it’s quite parallel to women’s roles in society. For centuries, women were bound at home, widely thought to be mentally and morally unable to engage in politics, law, medicine, you name it. Should the women who protested this have been “fixed” to become happy with their lot, cheerily cooking and raising children like good little wives? I think not.

This “study” is indeed damaging. Though it is demonstrably flawed, people such as yourself, not to mention parents of girls like the one andygirl has discussed, will use it as proof and vindication that their bigotry is justified. “Studies” like this immediately garner media attention, as we witnessed in this case. To think that the general audience will analyze its scientific merit is, sadly, overly optimistic. While the best outcome is that people will discuss it as we are doing here, the worst outcome is horrific: people like andygirl’s friend will be subjected to torment and trauma, and for what? To satisfy the erroneous and moralizing stance taken by their parents and social circle, and onlookers like you.
P.S. Not to sound too bitchy, but puddlegum, if I see your signature one more time after you post, I am going to scream. Stop including it. It’s bad form, and it’s annoying.

145

andygirl
Neither I nor the psychiatrist who did this study has advocated forced therapy. If you would like to have a seperate great debate about that feel free.
Triskadecamus
Because you disagree with findings that means that the study was unscientific. I fear for science if the criteria for establishing valid studies is that they agree with what someone thinks their results should be. Hopefully science will produce more research on this topic but until then we will have to use what we do know to help people, imperfect thought that knowledge may be.
** MattMcl**
You seem to know an awful lot more about this study than what was in the article.
You seem to know all about the families and social lives of the participants. That coercion took place and that the participants were lying. How did you find these things out? Were you one of the researchers or do you have access to information about the participants the rest of us do not or have you obtained omniscience?
You are correct in that I have made several conclusions.

  1. Sexual orientation can be changed. I have produced a scientific study to support this as have you.
  2. That people who have sex exclusively with the opposite sex and express satisfaction and fulfillment with doing so are straight. This does not sound to off the wall to me. If you have another definition of straight enlighten us.
  3. The study found that many of the people who became straight expressed are satisfied and happy with their decision. What special knowledge of these people emotions do you have that makes you doubt them?
  4. The study also found that most of the people he talked to had begun the process 10 years before. If 10 years is not long enough, how long would be?
146

No no and no.

Try to get your mind around the concept of a continuum. It works like this at one end of this particular continuum are people who are only attracted to people who are of the opposite sex. These people are generally referred to as straight. At the other end of the continuum are people who are only attracted to people of the same sex. These people are generally referred to as gay. In between these two minorities are every shade of variation between the two.

Now psychology has as one of its base tenets the idea that each person should know and accept themselves as they are. So in a perfect world each of us should try to determine where we lie on the continuum of sexual orientation and then learn to accept and deal with that reality.

When someone has identified what their natural sexual orientation it would be the business of a physiological professional to assist them in that self discovery and acceptance. It would be a BAD THING for a physiological professional to suggest that the person should instead enter denial and use aversion to suppress part of themselves.

I bisexual individual could certainly trade a male partner for a female partner and still be in a rewarding relationship. People who claim to have “switched” from being gay to being straight fall into this category. They, and you, are using the wrong vocabulary to describe what is going on. They are bi. If they were not no amount of wishing, self flagellation (or flagellation by others) or “therapy” is going to change anything. They will still be gay. Even the study you so highly tout says this if you just look at it. The bis in the study were able to take up with opposite sex partners and make it work. (Of course they are horribly in denial and that will come back to bite them in the butt in the years to come, but they have made it work for now.) The ones who were gay were not able to change that fact no matter how hard they tried.

Simple as that. When you stop looking at the world in black and white then the whole study means nothing. Well nothing except a bunch of gays and bis are being tortured and damaged psychologically all in the name of conformity. That part is a tragedy.

147

I have only a cursory familiarity with the organizations you mentioned but from what I know they make no secret of their goals and values. Also from what I know of them they do not force people to attend their meetings. The people who attend those groups are there because they share the goals of the group and its values. If they are rounding people up at Barbra Streisand concerts and holding them against their will then they should be stopped. Otherwise they are trying to help people and the people who attend are there because the want to be helped.

148

And despite three pages of discussion to the contrary, and long explanations of the difference between orientation and behavior, you still believe this?

Your political motivations are telling and unsavory. We really have no place for them in Great Debates.

Esprix

149

Degrance
So your contention is that those who participated in the study were not really gay, even though they thought they were and went around telling people they were. How do you get better knowledge of their sexual preferences than they did? Have you been following them around or are you a sexual psychic?

150

I have produced scientific data to back up the first contention.
I have also produced a definition of straight that most people would agree with.
Nowhere in three long pages of discussion has anyone produced any fact or evidence to disprove either one.
I am reminded of a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes that some people’s minds are like a pupil of an eye. The more light you shine on it the more it will contract.

151

I’m sorry. I can’t even begin to understand how you have come to conclude that I hold this position. It is contrary to every last word I’ve said in this thread.

I must question your reading comprehension skills, as I do not believe that I have been the least bit unclear in expressing my thoughts on this matter.

152

You’re ignoring the fact that studies like these lead to forced therapy.

You’re saying that sexual orientation can be changed. So what does that say about those of us who cannot and do not change? Obviously, we’re making a choice. We’re not motivated enough to change.

This is the reasoning of homophobes. It is all the ammunition needed to deny gays basic rights.

153

**

You have not produced scientific data . The article is not scientific data, and you have not produced adequate sources or statistics to back up your claims. The other article would seem to be good counter evidence, as would any examination of the ‘success rate’ of the ex-gay movement itself.

Also, you are again missing the difference between orientation and behaviour. You also seem to think that this conversion therapy thing is a happy walk in the park where everyone is overjoyed with the results. I would personally like to know how you are an expert on homosexuality, conversion therapy, or anything of the sort.

Rarely has irony been so tragic.

154

You have produced a flawed study that has already been discredited to the nth degree to everyone’s satisfaction but yours. In addition, another similar study has been produced that has contradictory claims, which you seem not to acknowledge at all.

We, however, are not talking about “most people,” we’re talking about the psychological definitions of sexual orientation, which you seem to be woefully ignorant of.

Funny, everyone else here seems to see three pages that do just that. Sometimes you’re not valiantly defending the truth from the masses, you’re just tilting at windmills and you really are wrong.

Esprix

155

It also seems to me that conversion therapies and/or people wanting to “not be gay” have been around much longer than the movement towards societal acceptance of homosexuality. In addition, the therapies themselves have not changed much - faith-based, aversion, psychoanalysis, etc. This being said, it seems obvious to me that these conversions were therefore not and could not be successful, for if they were, there would (a) be many more happily converted homosexuals, and (b) the societal trend would not have begun, as everyone would be able to see clearly that homosexuals could change.

Esprix

156

Actually, there is an appeals process by which people whose parents refuse to support them can be declared independent, but it’s not easy.

Of course, there’s the usual way to get around the financial dependence rules: get married. Oh, wait, you can’t do that. Too bad.

157

My objections, stated much earlier, are that the study is flawed, your claims for its conclusions inaccurate, and that the quality of the research falls below the criteria of normal peer reviewed research. In fact your researcher himself felt that public media was a better forum in which to publish. I agree with this assessment. Politics does not bear scrutiny by the scientific method. You hope science will produce some research on this subject. In fact science has produced abundant research on the inapplicability of behavior modification to the phenomenon of sexual attitudes, in homosexual, and non-homosexual people. You choose to elevate this piece of media political opinion to the level of science and ignore the existing pool of information.

Crap in a box of pseudo scientific statistics remains crap. A homophobe with a Ph.D. is a homophobe. Your fearless researcher is not practicing the scientific method. I say that, not because he found out some fact that I don’t like, but because he uses ill defined terms, a biased selection of subjects, and unsubstantiated personal anecdotes to promulgate a unsupported premise he wishes to advance. He then avoids the scrutiny of his peers and publishes his “study” in the pop media, in an attempt to add argumentum ad populum to the plethora of inconsistencies in his version of science.

Now you attempt to don the garb of the wronged crusader for truth. Your slip is showing. In fact, your entire ass is sticking out.

158

You have refused to acknowledge that there has been more than enough adequate proof that this study is invalid.

You have shown that you have a very narrow view of homosexuality. You have also shown that you have a very narrow view of homosexuals. Your subtle and not so subtle slurs are indicators that you see all homosexuals as needing to change to heterosexuality.

There are deprogrammers who are paid by parents and friends of gay men and lesbians who do abduct and attempt to force change through whatever means necessary.

From http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/25/falwell/print.html

From http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Alerts/States/Oregon/opinions.html

For your pupil to contract, it would first need to have been open. You have not been wanting debate, as you have been behaving as Jack Dean Tyler and so many other trolls have.
You ignore evidence, restate your idea, and patronize anyone who presents data that refutes you.

By your words, you not only seem to advocate that all gay people need to change, but in the fashion of Alex from A Clockwork Orange.

So… why do you feel all gay people need to change, and what is in it for you?

159

Last week I called 200 former psychiatric patients who had undergone hypnosis with the specific intent of inducing past life regressions. I was expecting to find that they had failed, so you can imagine that I was shocked, SHOCKED, when 66% of them responded that they had experienced past life memories. I now plan to publicize my findings, and argue that they support my new hypothesis that some people who want to find out who they were in previous lives can do so.

Raise your hand if you think I just proved reincarnation by scientific method.

I don’t see your hand up, puddleglum. Can you provide me with some insight? How is my methodology significantly different from that in the study you quote? You have gone on record here as claiming that there can be no sampling bias if you aren’t really sampling (whatever that means), so my choice of participants is above reproach.

While you ponder that, here are two things to consider that I haven’t seen here (and forgive me if I skimmed past someone who said this already – four pages is a long thread):

1)This study does not appear to have considered, on any meaningful level, bisexuality. I submit that a valid and logically consistent explanation for the findings is that every participant is in fact bisexual. A bisexual male or female is perfectly capable of a sustained loving relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Such a relationship does not require a change on any level of the person’s sexual identity. Defining sexual orientation as having exactly two rigid, narrow categories (hetero and homo) flies in the face of everything I have ever read about human sexuality, and in the face of my personal experience.

  1. Even if you can establish that sexual orientation is entirely a choice (and I am nowhere near persuaded that you have made any headway there), who the hell cares? What earthly reason do you or anyone else have to even presume to have an opinion about who people you don’t even know are falling in love with or screwing? Question: if two adult men fall in love, move in together and have a sexual relationship, which one is the victim? Ditto two women. Over and over, the only arguments anyone ever makes against this are

a) God doesn’t like that, and

b) I think that’s icky.

Reason (a) has no merit. Period. You want to proscribe homosexuality within the confines of your religion, that’s none of my business. But don’t you dare presume to apply that to me or anyone else who doesn’t buy into it. If an Orthodox Jewish employer fired a worker because he found out that worker eats shellfish, that wouldn’t stand up in court. The bible forbids all kinds of banal activites that nobody could possibly care less about, yet this is the one that comes up again and again. Ultimately, I think, reason (a) is just a shield, behind which to hide reason (b).

Even if you can prove, with science, that homosexuality is a choice, you will never, ever, be able to prove, with science, that it’s the wrong choice.

160

You cannot say this, actually, without being a hypocrite. You have repeatedly tried to claim that Dr. Spitzer’s study is not a “sample”, and yet here you go and treat it like one when you claim a success rate of 20% for some therapy. Dr. Spitzer’s study cannot be used to determine success rates of any therapy method; he did not control his study for type of therapy used, nor did he insure that his sample is representative for either the treatment group (people who received any form of conversion therapy) or the control group (people who did not receive conversion therapy). (There are no people in his study who did not receive conversion therapy, which pretty much damns it as a study).

When you try to use his study to produce a success rate figure, you label yourself as both a hypocrite and a bad scientist.