Gay Rights and Reparative Therapy

We Christians generally don’t do too well when it comes to dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Many Christians make it into “the ultimate sin” and treat gays like lepers. Some even go so far as to confront homosexuality with hatred; most of us have, through the media, witnessed some group of angry rednecks that profess Christ while holding signs exlaiming, “God hates fags!” Surely, if they’ve read their Bibles, they should know that the Messiah they claim to follow would never condone such mistreatment. After all, homosexuality is a sin found in the same list as idolatry, adultery, greed, thievery, drunkeness and fraud (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Why should these other sins be any less offensive?

On the other hand, however, many Christians back away from homosexuality; sermons purposely avoid such topics and many Christians dare not speak of it as sin. Furthermore, in some circles, homosexuality is openly acceptable and even celebrated as a perfectly legitimate lifestyle, despite clear teachings in Scripture against it (most of these teachings are blatantly misconstrued and manipulated to fit the “interpreter’s” worldview).

With so many Christians either becoming too militant or too welcoming toward homosexuality, it is perhaps difficult for one to be lovingly uncompromising on the issue of homosexuality. I believe Christians ought to reach out with compassion to homosexuals without denying or minimizing the seriousness or sinfulness of their lifestyle. However, after reading a recent article from Time regarding reparative therapy, I fear this moderate stance may become even scarcer; what is most peculiar, however, is that this time, it’s the gay rights advocates who are actually attempting to suppress gay rights.

Yes, that’s correct, it seems as though the gay rights movement is seeking to strip gays of their right to reparative therapy. The American Psychological Association—cheered on by gay rights activists—is now reconsidering its stance on counseling gays, potentially condemning reparative therapy, which provides counseling to those who seek to either suppress or reverse their homosexuality.

Here’s an excerpt from the original article:

The American Psychological Association is embarking on the first review of its 10-year-old policy on counseling gays and lesbians, a step that gay-rights activists hope will end with a denunciation of any attempt by therapists to change sexual orientation.

Such efforts — often called reparative therapy or conversion therapy — are considered futile and harmful by many gay-rights activists. Conservative groups defend the right to offer such treatment, and say people with their viewpoint have been excluded from the review panel. A six-member task force set up by the APA has its first meeting beginning next Tuesday.

Already, scores of conservative religious leaders and counselors, representing such groups as the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family, have written a joint letter to the APA, expressing concern that the task force’s proposals would not properly accommodate gays and lesbians whose religious beliefs condemn gay sex. “We believe that psychologists should assist clients to develop lives that they value, even if that means they decline to identify as homosexual,” said the letter, which requested a meeting between APA leaders and some of the signatories.

APA spokeswoman Rhea Farberman said a decision on when and how to reply to the letter had not yet been made. The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative therapy. The APA has decided to review the policy at a time when gay-rights groups are increasingly critical of such treatment and groups that support it.

Conservatives contend that the review’s outcome is preordained because the task force is dominated by gay-rights supporters. “We’re concerned,” said Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family. “The APA does not have a good track record of listening to other views.”

Joseph Nicolosi, a leading proponent of reparative therapy, predicted the task force would propose a ban of the practice — and he vowed to resist such a move. Nicolosi, who was rejected as a task force nominee, is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Clinton Anderson, director of the APA’s Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, insisted the panel would base its findings on scientific research, not ideology. He defended the decision to reject certain conservative applicants to the task force. “We cannot take into account what are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexuality — they don’t fit into our world view,” Anderson said.

[Read the Full Article Here]

First of all, I find the statement that the APA panel plans on basing their decisions on “scientific research” somewhat ironic; the most basic understanding of male and female anatomy makes it clear that homosexual sex is physiologically unnatural. But, in all fairness, the APA deals with psychological issues. So, we move to what’s really at stake here: human rights.

I would certainly understand the APA having a problem if reparative therapy was being forced upon homosexuals as a means of “converting” them to heterosexuality. But if a homosexual person seeks to become heterosexual, should he or she be prevented from undergoing such counseling? I’m not going to argue about marriage, child-raising, or any such issues here. However, one right I most adamantly believe gays should have is the right to pursue heterosexuality.

Most of the APA’s concerns come from claims that reparative therapy—that is, counseling to reverse one’s sexuality— can be psychologically harmful to the recipient. I won’t pretend to understand how difficult it may be to attempt to subject oneself to such a radical change, but I don’t think anyone should be denied the right to do so if he or she chooses to bear it out. Even if such therapy can trigger adverse effects, such as depression (although I personally tend to doubt that most of these problems are actually caused by the therapy itself), an informed person should be able to make his or her own decision.

Realistically, if we’re really worried about people harming their own health, we should completely ban smoking, fast food, and, for goodness’ sake, tanning beds. But what makes this issue ever-more-complicated is the fact that religion is involved. After all, the most common reasons people undergo reparative therapy are, in all likelihood, fueled by religious views that condemn homosexuality.

Should religious leaders have the right to preach a certain moral code to their followers, even if it may affect their self-esteem? I know a few rich people who would certainly be depressed if they were to selflessly give up all their money and live in poverty. In addition, without their money, they may no longer be able to afford their shrink. Does this mean preachers should stop proclaiming Jesus’ teaching in Luke 6:20, “blessed are you who are poor,” because it threatens the psychological well-being of rich people?

Whether there are realistic risks associated with reparative therapy or not, Jesus’ serious stance on sin cannot be ignored by Christians. It seems as though a ban on reparative therapy—if it were to occur—would hinder us from effectively ministering to the needs of the homosexual community. It seems the pressure is on us to go to one of the two extremes: either damn homosexuals and pull out of their world completely, or fully accept homosexuality as Scripturally sound and thus give up our grip on the truth of the Gospel.

Yet for the sake of Christ’s name, we must not do either.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• How Should I React to Falwell’s Death?
• Homosexuality cures do not work: CEN 8.21.09 p 5.
• Change Is Possible for Gays, Says Psychologist
• Gay Rights Marchers Press Cause in Washington