Dennis Goff wrote:
> It is hard to believe that NARTH and Religious Tolerance are reporting on the same
> research. A > comparison of those two reports and a reading of the original research
> report could provide a
> good exercise in critical thinking and rhetoric for our students.
(playing Devil's advocate here:) The NARTH version is aimed at making this point:
"Spitzer's findings challenge the widely-held assumption that a homosexual orientation
is 'who one is' -- an intrinsic part of a person's identity that can never be
changed".
That is, it's not trying to argue that people with a "homosexual orientation"
_in general_ can be changed into heterosexuals, but rather, only that _some_ such
persons can. That's a very weak claim, and one that I think might eventually turn out
to be true. Perhaps [see below]. Anyway, the argument about the hand-picking of
participants (see the Religious Tolerance site) isn't a problem if one is merely
arguing that it is _possible_ to change. Identifying a single positive instance would
effectively support that claim.
He also makes a normative claim, that it is right to offer this "therapy", and
he does admit that "many people...are evidently content with a gay identity and have
no desire to change". And of course this study falls far short of supporting any
claims that homosexuality is wrong - there's nothing at all here about that.
But even at that, I can't say that it's very convincing, as the description of
sampling method and especially "statistical and demographic details" (again, as
presented in the NARTH version) are very clear that the participants were NOT people
for whom homosexual orientation was important to their identity (quite the opposite,
in fact). It seems to me that the major split here is not just between the NARTH and
Religious Tolerance reports, but between the first three paragraphs of the NARTH
report and the rest of that report. Whatever "homosexual orientation" means (and it's
a terribly vague term with probably a different meaning for every individual), I can't
bring myself to apply that label to a sample like this (despite the scores on the
"sexual attraction scale):
- Over a third of the participants (males 37%, females 35%) reported that at one time,
they had had seriously contemplated suicide due to dissatisfaction with their unwanted
attractions.
- 78% had publicly spoken in favor of efforts to change homosexual orientation.
- 19% of the participants were mental health professionals or directors of ex-gay
ministries.
- The majority of respondents (85% male, 70% female) did not find the homosexual
lifestyle to be emotionally satisfying.
- 79% of both genders said homosexuality conflicted with their religious beliefs
- 67% of men and 35% of women stated that gay life was an obstacle to their desires
either to marry or remain married.
- a certain percentage (males 13%, females 4%) had never actually experienced
consensual homosexual sex.
These are supposed to be people with a "homosexual orientation"? I think
there's a serious conceptualization problem here. It seems to me that they found
people who didn't have a homosexual orientation, and got some of them to change their
scores on some scale about attraction to the same sex. I can't see that supporting the
claim that one can change sexual orientation. I suppose (in fact, I hope) we'll
probably never know what the result would be if these kinds of "therapies" were tried
with people who actually did have a homosexual orientation. However, I don't think
it's completely out of the question that some of them would change that orientation.
I couldn't help but also wonder about this: "67% of men and 35% of women
stated that gay life was an obstacle to their desires either to marry or remain
married". So for 1/3rd of the men and 2/3rds of the women, being gay wasn't an
obstacle to their desires to get or remain married? And "21% of the males and 18% of
the females were married before beginning therapy" but "more of the men than women
(53% to 33%) had never engaged in consensual heterosexual sex before the therapy
effort". So 21% of the men were married before the therapy but 53% of them had never
engaged in consensual heterosexual sex? And 18% of the females were married before the
therapy, but 33% of them had never engaged in consensual heterosexual sex? Is all of
this to be explained as "show marriages" (essentially disguising one's self in a
mutual agreement with a partner)? Just who were these people, anyway?
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
