Junk Science on Stage

[E.J.]

Junk Science on Stage

Psychiatrists Allow Ex-Gay End Run

By: PAUL SCHINDLER

Story Link

In 1973, in one of the signal achievements of the emerging gay liberation movement, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), at its annual convention, voted to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Yet, 35 years later, on May 5, at APA's 2008 convention in Washington, the group will host a symposium, at which one of the two mental health practitioner-panelists is Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist without state board certification and an advocate for "Sexual Identity Therapy," which he says he has successfully applied to help patients "alter homosexual feelings or behaviors" and live their lives "heterosexually" with "only very few weak instances of homosexual attraction."

The symposium, moderated by Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Peteet, who chairs APA's Corresponding Committee on Psychiatry, Religion and Spirituality, is titled "Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religious Dimension." Indeed, the panel includes two prominent religious figures from radically different perspectives - New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and the Reverend Dr. Albert Mohler. Robinson came to nationwide attention in 2003 when he became the first non-celibate, out gay person elected an American Episcopal Church bishop, for the Diocese of New Hampshire.

Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, a nationally syndicated radio host, and a board member of James Dobson's stridently anti-gay Focus on the Family. The symposium's primary booster has noted that Mohler has distinguished himself among Christian right evangelicals in acknowledging that homosexuality may not be a choice. Left unmentioned, however, was Mohler's statement that "if a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use."

Robinson's wisdom in appearing with Mohler - and the broader debate about LGBT advocates engaging those on the other side - are not what make this story intriguing, and indeed troubling. Instead it is the embrace by a scientifically-based organization, APA, of an unlicensed practitioner who espouses controversial professional opinions about homosexuality but can point to no peer-reviewed findings that his clinical approach has merit.

Perhaps most unsettling is the fact that the same defender of the symposium who credited Mohler with some degree of enlightenment on gay issues, Dr. David Scasta - a former president and newsletter editor of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists (AGLP) - has circulated a press release for the event dubbing it "a 'balanced' discussion," the sort of characterization one might expect from intelligent design proponents demanding a seat on a panel of evolution experts.

The 1973 victory in removing homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM was hard-fought, reflecting three years of organized mobilizing by gay, lesbian, and allied mental health professionals and based on research findings, dating back to as early as the 1940s and '50s, from biologist and sexologist Alfred Kinsey and psychologist Evelyn Hooker.

Anti-gay forces within the psychiatric profession, who had enjoyed almost unquestioned sway until their abrupt defeat in 1973, continued rearguard actions that stigmatized certain manifestations of homosexual inclination until 1987. A decade later, APA first took aim at the controversial practice of reparative therapy, aimed at "curing" homosexuals from an illness the group no longer believed existed. In a position adopted by the organization as a whole, "potential risks" from such "therapy" were characterized as "great," including "depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior."

While calling on practitioners to "do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality," the group, in the face of determined opposition from a small number of psychiatrists, held back from branding conversion therapy "unethical." But three years later, in 2000, APA adopted a position recommending that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum, to 'first do no harm.'"

Given this history, how did APA arrive at the point where it is sponsoring a symposium Scasta inexplicably terms a "balanced" discussion? Scasta himself, in a detailed apologia that appeared in AGLP's February newsletter, entitled "Who Let Wolves in the Hen House? Cavorting with the Enemy," said it was Harvard's Peteet, the psychiatrist who will moderate the symposium, who came to him with the idea. But Dr. Jack Drescher, an APA Distinguished Fellow and the outgoing editor of AGLP's Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, who took sharp issue with Scasta over the symposium in AGLP's April issue, disputes as well his colleague attributing the event's origins to Peteet.

"[scasta] is promoting this thing," Drescher, in the capacity of APA's official spokesman, told Gay City News this week. He said Peteet had earlier organized an APA panel on religion and homosexuality, but one with an altogether different character than the May 5 event.

In Scasta's February newsletter piece, he wrote at some length about his regard for Throckmorton's careful critical thinking and correctly noted that the psychologist, an associate professor at Grove City College, a Christian institution in Pennsylvania, "does not classify himself as a reparative therapist." Scasta went on to argue, "Throckmorton is circumspect about the efficacy of 'reparative therapies' and is willing to rely on scientific findings to assess such."

Drescher doesn't buy this benign view of Throckmorton, terming him in his AGLP riposte to Scasta a "spin doctor of the ex-gay myth," and warning of the symposium's "potential harm," particularly if its presentation at an APA convention "becomes a PR tactic to buttress the standing of conversion therapies to the general public."

On his blog, Throckmorton argues that he is not a conversion or reparative therapist, specifically rejecting the traditional focus of such practitioners on gay men's "failure to bond with the father" as the root of their disorder. Instead, without laying out his own therapeutic approach in detail, he claims to meet troubled gay men where they are, as it were, to help them "pursue their objectives." But like reparative therapists, Throckmorton claims success with leading gay men away from homosexuality and is unable to point to any data or research to buttress his assertions.

He also shares with reparative therapists an affinity for right-wing anti-gay thought; his blog's home page lauds Bill O'Reilly's warnings about the dangers of teenagers self-identifying as gay.

Wayne Besen, the founder of Truth Wins Out, a non-profit aimed at exposing "the 'ex-gay' myth," argues that Throckmorton's primary goal is to supplant the reparative therapy model championed by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who heads up the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. NARTH's work, which has won wide acclaim in Christian right circles, is rejected by every leading mental health and education association, including APA. According to Besen, Throckmorton and Nicolosi previously worked collaboratively, but have since had a falling-out.

In Besen's view, the real tragedy of the APA symposium is that it comes at a time when ex-gay conversion rhetoric is in retreat. "They are losing," he said, clearly exasperated.

In a lengthy, at times rambling, response to a posting about the symposium on Besen's blog, Scasta related his own background in a Southern Baptist family in Texas and argued, "There is an air of disdain among some gay advocates who denigrate religion and refuse to have anything to do with those who are people of faith." But in mounting this now-commonplace critique of LGBT activism, Scasta appears to have forgotten that society looks to him not for his cultural insights or political expertise, but rather his training as a psychiatrist.

And indeed, in his handling of scientific questions, Scasta seems somewhat unsteady.

In his press release promoting the symposium - for which, Drescher said, he was reprimanded for making it look like an official APA statement - Scasta wrote the following, which seems very much to contradict itself in the course of just three sentences: "... If homosexuality is not a disease, it does not need to be fixed and attempting to fix the arguably unfixable may only lead to internalized self-hatred and patient harm. And, the APA does not give platforms to therapies which are harmful. But for many gay and bisexual people of faith, the religious imperative is of such paramount importance, that therapy promoting change or celibacy seem to be the only alternatives [sic]."

In an email message, Scasta was asked to explain the seeming contradiction in this passage and why a psychiatric convention would choose to engage people who reject their science, therefore giving them a platform. He did not respond as of press time.

Posed the same questions via email, Harvard's Peteet wrote, "The statement above presents two contrasting perspectives in an effort to highlight the tensions experienced by many individuals trying to reconcile faith and same-sex attraction. My understanding is that Dr. Throckmorton does not describe himself as a reparative therapist, but rather as a clinician trying to help individuals who are struggling with these issues to consider them in the best possible way."

Throckmorton, asked via email about the same seeming contradiction, about any measures of his therapeutic successes, and about Besen's criticisms, responded, "Due to guidelines from the APA about symposium and publicity, I am not sure what I am able to address and what I am not. I am going to forward your questions to Dr. Scasta and Dr. Peteet who are the psychiatrist members of the symposium. They may well ask you to funnel your questions through the APA press office. I am not saying I won't address this but I want to make sure proper protocol is followed. I will let you know something as soon as I know." At press time, Throckmorton had not been back in touch.

Only Drescher made any real effort to be responsive when asked about the language in Scasta's press release. Requesting that it be read back to him twice after this reporter first stated the question, Drescher was quick to make clear that the release did not reflect official APA thinking.

?GayCityNews 2008

[Fun Tails]

The only danger I see here is Throckmorton using the APA forum to try legitimize himself after with patients etc.

Other than that, I hope he does go to that forum and I hope he gets his ass handed to him by the other participants when they challenge him on his lack of evidence and results.

As an aside, I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but I don't accept the article;s criticism of Albert Mohler. I think that if a gay gene is ever identified and a way to reverse it found that parents SHOULD be able to reverse it. Even if they're removing it because they think it's sinful, etc, I see no problem with it.

According to Besen, Throckmorton and Nicolosi previously worked collaboratively, but have since had a falling-out lovers' spat*.

*Fixed

[DesDownunder]

I think that once again people are over-looking a basic human condition of sexuality in general.

The problem with blaming the gene as cause for homosexuality is that it permits the idea that it is a genetic fault and therefore can like any fault, be "fixed." Clearly the gene, in this case, is regarded as defective, or at least aberrant.

This allows people to blame the gene as the reason for the "defect."

Once this thought is entertained, it is a short jump to claiming homosexuality is an aberrant behaviour of a biologically deformed genetic condition. In other words, the homosexual can no longer be blamed for having a problem with not being heterosexual, due to this gene.

The homosexual is no longer mentally ill, but now suffers from a genetic disorder.

This is clearly a dangerous point of view because it invites medical science to regard the genetic aberration as a fault and therefore "fix" it.

The clear and present danger of fiddling with the human condition by altering genes should ring alarm bells in any self-respecting person.

Therefore it is of extreme importance that acceptance of human sexual expression is the issue, not the altering of it to suit some social idea of what some people regard as "normal" or non-aberrant.

Expressing affection for a member of the same sex in a physical way is simply a healthy and honorable way to love each other and should be seen as consistent with the human condition.

We don't need to be fixed. We just want to be accepted as we are.

[Fun Tails]

To help clarify my position on this, let me offer up a counter-example.

I am an atheist. I find irrational beliefs of all kinds imfuriating. There is some evidence that some people are more genetically disposed to be religious or open to irrational beliefs.

Now, if a genetic screening procedure was ever created that would stop my kid turning out to be a Christian or a Muslim, I want to have it. I *will* use it.

To me, the choice genetics will offer us in the future, to choose and customise many aspects of our children, is a plus and should be given leeway.

Genes for homosexuality, gray eyes, height, large penises, intelligence, curly hair, pointy ears... all of them should be available for selection or deselection if the technology exists.

---------------

As a further examination of this idea, let me ask you this Des,

Would it be OK with you if the parents of a fetus decided they WANTED a gay child and CHANGED their heterosexual kid into a gay kid? It's very likely that this choice will be made, since the example of deaf parents shows that parents often pick 'bad' genes for their kids.

Suppose a pair of healthy parents decided that they didn't want their child to be deaf or to be a dwarf. Those aren't immoral or (in the modern world) unhealthy options. WOuld you prohibit parents from choosing to have a deaf or dwarf child if that child could be made physically perfect? After all, deafness and dwarfism are also part of the human experience.

[DesDownunder]

Fun Tails,

It is not a matter of what I would allow people to choose for their children. I can say I wouldn't choose to deliberately deform a child of mine to be dwarfed or deaf.

As for the argument that such deformities are part of the human experience, so then are Siamese twins and various other congenital conditions.

As for predetermining my child to be homosexual, I am not of the opinion that the gay gene is wholly responsible for a man living a gay lifestyle. It might be one factor. I don't consider it a congenital defect.

I don't really feel genetic manipulation is ethical where the aim is to produce even a Mozart, let alone an Einstein and certainly not a physical deformity. That is my opinion.

It is paramount to my argument that the homosexual is not a deformity, not a result of genetic aberration, but is a valid variation of the human experience and as such should not be tampered with even if it is possible, which I doubt.

The deaf and the dwarf are not in this class.

Like you Fun Tails I am an atheist, but I cannot agree with your arguments. They are not rational to me and I do not say that to antagonise you. It is just a statement of my position.

[Fun Tails]

Lots to say, but I'll stick to 2 points for simplicity's sake.

1) What's wrong with manipulating genes for a Mozart or Einstien?

2) What would your views be on the 'christian gene' I gave as a 'what if'? Would you be against such a screening?

[DesDownunder]

Lots to say, but I'll stick to 2 points for simplicity's sake.

1) What's wrong with manipulating genes for a Mozart or Einstien?

2) What would your views be on the 'christian gene' I gave as a 'what if'? Would you be against such a screening?

I am tempted to say if you do not see what is wrong then I can't tell you. However out of respect I will offer the following.

Neither of the questions appeals to me as achievable.

There are too many environmental variables involved in human development to say that just because we have genetically manipulated a fetus, that it will even have a hope of being what we have set out to achieve for it.

At the present time we can't even ensure naturally talented children will develop to their full potential.

Even if we could control that, it wreaks of social manipulation if not fascism.

A "Christian gene" if such could be found would logically prove the existence of a Christian God.

I simply cannot agree that either of the questions are in fact realistic or logical.

If we do allow such genetic manipulations, with or without associated bionic implants, what measures are going to be put in place to ensure that every unborn fetus has its own designer program.

The sheer numbers of human beings on the planet means that those who are genetically chosen will form a class that rules over those who are not. Who will decide that? Even if it were possible to apply gene therapy to everyone, who would decide what was a desirable trait?

To my mind that is an unethical situation.

[The Pecman]

Wow, what a great thread.

I think this brings up a lot of good issues. Me personally, I think that parents should legally permitted to tinker with the biology of their child as much as they want. I think this is especially important in cases of brain damage, blindness, deafness, and other physical defects.

Of course, then it begs the question of whether this would allow wealthy parents to allow doctors to mutate their children into "Super-Beings" -- a whole "Master Race" thing of blond-haired, blue-eyed perfect physical specimens. Is this morally wrong? I can see several sides to it, but ultimately, I think people will be able to do it.

I'm not sure that merely having "the gay gene" always makes someone gay. I think the tendency to be gay can be inherited, but I'm in the "genetics/environment" school that believes that both are factors. Still, there's no question that there are kids who are born 100% gay, and start showing those signs even before ages 6 or 7.

Genetic tampering does bring up some moral issues, but as far as I'm concerned the government should completely stay out of those. I think in a broad sense, the good far outweighs the bad.

[Fun Tails]

By 'christian gene' I meant a gene that many already speculate does exist which makes people more likely to be religious. (not necessarily Christian, but I called it that so I could have a catchy name)

Intelligent people, by and large, are more law abiding and see more gain in a fair and moral society than less intelligent people. It therefore seems to me that, far from creating a master-race of overlords, the creation of more geniuses will allow for development of a society that has more opportunity for all. I mean, philosophically speaking, there is no difference between rich people giving their kids intelligence genes and rich people giving their kids a Harvard education.

Having private education, the best of which is accesible only to those with money, has not lead to less freedom, but to more. We live in the most democratic age ever, today.

As for your charge of fascism, There is more dictatorialism in denying people the chance to use this technology.

[DesDownunder]

I was aware you were giving it a catchy name but I thought I would catch you out and get you to reveal it.

In the past 30 years (or more) we have seen democracy become little more than a tool for dumbing down the people by the people who have had a private education for the people who have little sense of ethical conduct.

Our freedoms are in token only, in so many areas, it is no longer amusing to watch dumb and dumber attempts to dim the mentality of the masses in all but a few of the worlds smaller democracies.

Whole countries comprising of billions of people are still living in totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, subject to restrictions of opportunity, intelligence and information.

Poverty and disease are used as tools to divide the population. The list of problems with our nations and their political manipulation of the people is matched only by the greed of the corporations run by so called intelligent people who have no sense of human priorities or propriety.

The intelligent people who control the military, the global economy, and world health are failing to deliver service to mankind.

The difference of opportunity for rich and poor kids is not acceptable. It happens and it is not acceptable.

It is not that I make a stand against the gene technology itself, but that I doubt gene technology can deliver the fanciful benefits claimed for it; particularly where it is not accompanied by full understanding of what we are actually doing by using it. We need to be certain we are doing what we think we are doing, and we need to be able to sustain acceptable conduct in doing it.

One wrong manipulation of a gene and we could wipe out the ability for humans to evolve or adapt, rather than select the evolution we want based on the social climate of our time. This itself is a serious danger being overlooked. For instance if you did manage to remove a gene associated with religion, you might also affect or even wipe out human emotion. Without emotion, music has no place in our lives. If you think that is acceptable I disagree.

We are talking about playing with things no one fully comprehends. The human genome project may provide more knowledge on the matter, but we are not there yet. I am asking that we not rush into adoption of gene modification based on what people desire for themselves or their children or on what is socially and politically fashionable. Gene therapy may well have some medical uses in the short term, but let us not think we can create perfection when even our best minds have not been able to agree on what perfect means let alone what constitutes a perfect human being.

To allow gene modification for matters of personal cosmetic preference seems to me to be fraught with problems; not all of them moral.

For example, blue eyes are weaker than brown eyes. If you could repair that weakness but leave the eyes blue that would be an interesting use of gene therapy. But just giving your child blue eyes with their attendant weakness is hardly a wonderful idea, even if it is your favourite colour. I won't even mention the blond jokes.

Certainly We have to be careful we do not modify genes that render vast sections of humanity as little more than happy slaves to serve the rich and upper classes of society.

At the moment that possibility seems all too likely given the state our current world governments, democracies or otherwise.

[Fun Tails]

I never said this world was perfect. So obviously you are right to point out the abuses of power that exist in the world.

What I am pointing out in opposition is that this age we live in is the most free, safest and most prosperous age of all human history. Take any measure of human progress, like literacy, infant mortality or starvation and you will find that humanity is better off now than ever before.

A large part of that is that we now have a system that rewards people for being smarter, not for being a better fighter or a better hunter.

One wrong manipulation of a gene and we could wipe out the ability for humans to evolve or adapt, rather than select the evolution we want based on the social climate of our time. This itself is a serious danger being overlooked. For instance if you did manage to remove a gene associated with religion, you might also affect or even wipe out human emotion.

A little prone to hyperbole are we?

Science isn't Elzar in the kitchen, you know (A little bit of this and a little bit of that and Bam!)

[DesDownunder]

I never said this world was perfect. So obviously you are right to point out the abuses of power that exist in the world.

What I am pointing out in opposition is that this age we live in is the most free, safest and most prosperous age of all human history. Take any measure of human progress, like literacy, infant mortality or starvation and you will find that humanity is better off now than ever before.

I am not saying the world isn't better. I am saying it isn't what it could be. However, there are times when ignorance prevails in our societies. Illiteracy, starvation, infant mortality and slavery are still on the planet in many nations. People are being dumbed down in many countries including first world nations. Try looking at commercial TV advertisements objectively and you will no longer ask why we do not get visitors from other planets.

A large part of that is that we now have a system that rewards people for being smarter, not for being a better fighter or a better hunter.

A little prone to hyperbole are we?

Hyperbole? Who me? No, I am saying it is necessary to see beyond our own circumstances, our own comfort, at what is happening and occurring around the world in an attempt to be realistic. I am always dismayed that people who are fully employed or even have some hope of being so, are less able to realise the poverty and hardships that still do exist.

I have no delusions that competitive capitalism is the source of much misery, rather than being the best solution.

Science isn't Elzar in the kitchen, you know (A little bit of this and a little bit of that and Bam!)

No science should not be that at all. But therein is the rub, because of the current dumbing down occurring and lack of common sense, Elzar looks like he has left the kitchen and taken charge of the laboratory. In fact we have reached a stage where common sense is anything but common. Science is being contaminated by wishful thinking and on a bad day, by assumption born of ignorance.

I am asking that we be careful, that we do all that we can to make sure that the chief research scientist is not Elzar, and equally important, that the Surgeon General isn't Dr. Frankenstein, even if he does have the best of intentions, profit motive or not.

[E.J.]

getting back on topic for a moment.........

Robinson backs out of symposium on ?ex-gays?

Gay bishop denounces reparative therapy; APA disavows event

By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade

Story Link

A controversial symposium to address the relationship between religion and homosexuality is causing consternation among some psychiatrists and some gays, who argue that holding such a dialogue will legitimize homophobic views.

Controversy surrounding the event prompted a gay religious figure who was scheduled to speak at the event to cancel.

Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained a bishop by the Episcopal Church, had planned to voice his opinion at the forum, but has since pulled out.

Robinson said he canceled his plans to attend because he came to believe that making an appearance at the event would validate the concept that sexual orientation can be changed.

?Conservatives, particularly Focus on the Family, were going to use this event to draw credibility to the so-called reparative therapy movement,? Robinson told the Blade. ?It became clear to me in the last couple of weeks that just my showing up and letting this event happen ? lends credibility to that so-called therapy."

The forum is titled ?Homosexuality and Therapy: the Religious Dimension? and is scheduled to take place Monday at the Convention Center in Washington. Panelists include Warren Throckmorton, a counselor known for helping patients alter homosexual behavior, and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who was quoted as saying he would support prenatal treatments to convert the expected sexual orientation of unborn children.

Although the event is scheduled at the same time as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting and is taking place in the same city, APA is emphasizing that the forum is not an official event.

David Scasta, a New Jersey-based practitioner and member of the APA, is one of the psychiatrists responsible for organizing the symposium. He is also slated to be one of the panelists at the forum. In the February 2008 edition of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists newsletter, Scasta describes how he set up the symposium with the intent of creating ?a model for bridging the polarization between religious and scientific groups.?

Panelists should be ?respectful of each other but uncompromising with regard to scientific rigor,? he wrote.

Scasta argued that holding the symposium could be a step forward in efforts to make APA statements about sexual orientation more palatable to conservative groups, which often dismiss such positions as ?ranting.? If, during the forum, important figures sympathetic to religious groups? beliefs state that they also agree with some APA assertions, these religious groups may be more willing to listen to APA positions, Scasta said.

Scasta declined a Blade interview request ?to try to calm down some of the hype.?

John Peteet, a Boston-based psychiatrist and APA member, will be moderating the symposium. He said he expects the symposium will ?foster some thoughtful discussion? about the issues of religion and sexual orientation.

While proponents of the symposium are arguing that it would establish dialogue between parties with opposing views, APA officials have said the event could have negative consequences. Jack Drescher, a New York City-based psychiatrist and former chair of the APA committee on gay issues, said he was ?surprised when he learned about the symposium? and said if he had been consulted about the event, he would ?have told the organizers this is probably not a good idea.?

Drescher, who is gay, said APA members organizing the event appear not to understand ?how conversion therapists and their supporters on the religious right use these appearances as a public relations event to try and legitimize what they do.?

Inviting religious figures and proponents of reparative therapy to an APA event gives credence to speculation that APA is reconsidering its views on sexual orientation, which couldn?t be further from the truth, Drescher said.

?Conversation is good except when you try to use the conversation ? to communicate that somehow this means more than it actually means,? he said.

APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. The association came out against reparative therapy in 2000 and endorsed the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in 2005.

Drescher said a flier circulated to advertise the event is designed to look as though it were an official APA press release. APA reprimanded Scasta for distributing this flier and was told the association was not interested in publicizing the symposium any further, Drescher said.

Condemnation of the event is not confined to other psychiatrists. Wayne Besen, executive director of TruthWinsOut.org, an organization geared toward countering ?ex-gay? organizations, said the APA members putting this event together ?are giving a platform to spread backwards and outdated views that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with marketing and public relations.?

Besen called Scasta ?a pawn of the religious right? and said he was being ?used and duped into providing? advocates of reparative therapy ?an opportunity to present themselves as mainstream when they?ve been on the fringe for decades.?

Besen plans to attend the symposium and is considering actions to counter the event, such as holding a news conference that would be held near the time of the forum.

Scott Melendez, a gay 42-year-old Washington resident who was once underwent reparative therapy, said it was ?worrisome? that licensed psychiatrists would have a dialogue with figures associated with reparative therapy because it legitimizes views on sexual orientation that APA repudiated long ago.

?It gives these people a platform to try and, I think, sway and frankly confuse people as to what the facts are,? Melendez said.

Melendez formerly participated in Bible study, prayer and fasting to attempt to overcome his homosexuality. In 1985, while living in Phoenix, he joined Homosexuals Anonymous, hoping it would be the ticket to change. But while participating in program activities, he noticed that he and his fellow

members were ?just as gay then as the day they walked through the door.?

Melendez has since reconciled his religion with his sexual orientation.

?The bottom line is there in no problem with being gay and being a Christian,? he said.

While critics are attacking the concept of having a dialogue with individuals associated with reparative therapy, Throckmorton, one of those scheduled to speak, is defending his views. Throckmorton, a counselor in Grove City, Pa., said the symposium is about ?recognizing that there are various religious views on sexuality? and that mental health workers need to be ?respectful of religious differences? when treating clients.

?This symposium is an academic conversation about how can mental health professionals take those views seriously, how can we work with clients who have a variety of often differing religious views ? to best pursue their individual goals,? he said.

Throckmorton intends to advocate a concept he calls ?sexual identity therapy.? The concept takes into account how some gay men choose to be married to women and fall in love with them.

?They?re making behavioral choices to live a heterosexual life as opposed to actually experiencing huge shifts in their more general sexual orientation,? he said.

Throckmorton says he worked with more than 250 individuals ?who have sought assistance to alter homosexual feelings or behaviors.?

He cited a case of a 24-year-old man who came to him with an anxiety disorder. It was revealed that the source of his anxiety ?was confusion surrounding his sexual orientation.? Throckmorton says therapy was ?not focused on conversion but rather on self-understanding and social assertiveness.? By talking about his sexual feelings, the patient?s anxiety subsided and ?the homosexual feelings faded, replaced by heterosexual dreams and crushes on female co-workers,? Throckmorton said.

Throckmorton cited another case in which he claims a 23-year-old gay man was treated for anxiety with Phenelzine. After two months, the man ?began dating women exclusively, enjoyed intercourse and expressed no sexual interest in men.?

Throckmorton told the Blade he does not believe that treating someone with anti-anxiety medication will convert his or her sexual orientation.

Besen said Throckmorton?s entire career has been ?degrading? to gay people and based on ?trying to stop them ? from having sex or being in long-term loving relationships.?

?Throckmorton talks the talk of someone who?s reasonable, but his record is quite radical,? Besen said.

Throckmorton does not have a license for counseling in Pennsylvania, the state where he resides. He said he does not have a license because such credentials are not necessary to practice counseling in the state and because he now spends his time exclusively as a professor at Grove City College, a religious school. Throckmorton also said he has licenses in two other states.

Mohler, the other controversial figure slated to appear at the panel, did not respond to interview requests.

? 2008 | A Window Media LLC Publication

[Fun Tails]

I have no delusions that competitive capitalism is the source of much misery, rather than being the best solution.

Wow. you really are a hippie.

------------------

Well, dude, all I can say is that as long as we disagree on the efficacy of science and capitalism we'll just have to go our separate ways for this thread.

(Though you could probably start another thread about Capitalism if you want to take up that part of the argument.)

[DesDownunder]

Wow. you really are a hippie.

------------------

Well, dude, all I can say is that as long as we disagree on the efficacy of science and capitalism we'll just have to go our separate ways for this thread.

(Though you could probably start another thread about Capitalism if you want to take up that part of the argument.)

Yes I don't deny my hippie roots. (minus the drugs ) However if it makes you feel any better I have no liking for the modern so-called Left either. I guess I basically feel more comfortable with humanist philosophies, but I am somewhat exhausted by our debate in which I am pleased to see we did not allow to degenerate into personal attacks. So I will forgo your kind invitation to debate Capitalism as I have other writings on which I really should expend my energies. I would like to thank you for a stimulating discussion and if nothing else we agree that we disagree. How civilised.

As for this thread I leave you only with my hope that we err on the side of caution in our application of science.

[Cole Parker]

You guys are both very good at this! Sorry to see it end.

C

[E.J.]

?Ex-gay? symposium canceled

Controversy surrounded forum's involvement with the APA

By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade

LINK

A controversial symposium that was supposed to look at the relationship between religion and homosexuality has been canceled.

The symposium, put together by some American Psychiatric Association members, caused consternation among some psychiatrists and gays, who argued that holding a dialogue with hostile figures would legitimize homophobic views. The forum was titled ?Homosexuality and Therapy: the Religious Dimension? and was supposed to take place Monday in Washington.

Warren Throckmorton, a counselor known for helping patients in efforts to alter homosexual behavior, was slated to speak at the event. The Grove City, Pa.,-based counselor said he was disappointed that the forum was no longer scheduled.

On his blog, Throckmorton writes that he was told that organizers did not cancel the event because gay activists were unhappy with it.

?At this moment, I am skeptical,? he writes.

Wayne Besen, executive director of TruthWinsOut.org, an organization geared toward countering ?ex-gay? organizations, called the cancellation of the symposium ?welcome news? in a statement on his blog.

?It gave the wrong impression that the American Psychiatric Association endorsed 'ex-gay' therapy, when, in fact, the organization soundly rejects such therapies,? he said.

The event caused some discontent among other APA psychiatrists. Jack Drescher, a gay New York City-based psychiatrist and former chair of the APA committee on gay issues, said association members organizing the forum did not appear to understand ?how conversion therapists and their supporters on the religious right use these appearances as a public relations event to try and legitimize what they do.?

Controversy surrounding the event had prompted a gay religious figure who was scheduled to speak to cancel his appearance. Rev. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained a bishop by the Episcopal Church, said he canceled his plans to attend because he came to believe that making an appearance would validate the concept that sexual orientation can be changed.

David Scasta, one of the APA members responsible for putting the symposium together, said the event was canceled because surrounding publicity made it impossible to accomplish the forum?s goals.

?The hype that has come with all of the media attention is to the point that it is becoming the proverbial circus, making it very difficult to achieve the goal of the symposium which was to open up dialogue, to share our views, to see where we are; treating each other with respect and looking for where there is common ground,? he said.

Scasta said organizers are planning to ?regroup, reconsider, and represent next year -- hopefully in a saner atmosphere.?

? 2008 | A Window Media LLC Publication

[Anthony]

What I thought we were discussing was whether it would be right to use genetic manipulation, not whether it would be achievable. You wrote:

Neither of the questions appeals to me as achievable.

I think that shows you haven't got the matter straight.

The fact that the selection of a single complement of genes from the two sets provided by the parents is (as far as we know) random doesn't make that somehow righter than a biased selection or a manipulated one.

If something 'has always happened' or 'happens' naturally' that is not a reason to prefer that something over unnatural or new ways of doing things (or to prefer the unnatural or new).

Now it IS possible to select by sex (and, by selective infanticide, it always has been) and the consequence has been that some societies, that value boys above girls, have now quite large sexual imbalances which may lead to a lot of men who are unable to find women partners. It will be interesting to see if homosexual behaviour becomes more common or acceptable there. I think that large biases in the balance between the sexes resulting from such selection (or from the wanton slaughter of the first world war) is bad for society, but as far as I know, no-one has ever made a plausible attempt to evaluate it or measure the difference between an unbalanced and a balanced sex ratio so as to give a reason for choosing one over another.

I cannot tell whether my next grandchild will turn out to be a boy or a girl or heterosexual or homosexual or .... Nor can I tell whether fixing a characteristic will help to enable the child to be happier or not. I'm not even sure that happiness is the right thing to aim for. I don't think Mozart was very happy.

Surely nearly everyone is as ignorant about these things as I am and surely no-one is in a position to lay down the law about what is right. If we don't know that something is wrong, why would we want to prohibit it?

Love,

Anthony

[aj]

This has been a fascinating discussion to me...particularly the part about the ethical/unethical nature of genetic manipulation of children in vitro. Here is my take:

Creating Mozarts or Einsteins would definitely benefit a great many people, if not society as a whole. I don't think that can be disputed. Less undisputable is the assertion that elminating a 'gay gene' would do the same, and the argument that removing a 'christian/nonrational thinking' gene would benefit society is about on a par with it. However, social utility is not something that a decision about ethics can be based on. The good of the many does not, in fact, outweigh the good of the few.

My thought is that genetic manipulation of children in the womb is a form of coercion, and that kind of coercive act is only justified if there is a clear and present danger to the health or wellbeing of the subject. I do not believe that being gay or religiously minded falls into this category, as evidenced by millions of both gay and religious people who manage nonetheless to live relatively happy and productive lives...and in fact, the same can be said of dwarves and of deaf people. If it were possible to genetically alter people after they were of age to make this sort of decision for themselves, and chose to participate in such a change, I would have no problem with it, but the choice must be presented to them and their wishes for themself followed.

This is, to my mind, a classic case of the difference between knowlege and wisdom: just because a particular act is possible does not make it necessarily desirable.

cheers!

aj

[DesDownunder]

aj, your points are beautifully and clearly made.

I like your recognition of the few and the many.

My thought is that genetic manipulation of children in the womb is a form of coercion, and that kind of coercive act is only justified if there is a clear and present danger to the health or wellbeing of the subject.

is an excellent point and well worth making.

However people will tend to argue about "wellbeing".

Do you think we may need to limit it to endangerment of life itself, as wellbeing may be an area open to interpretation?

[Trab]

AJ and Des both have good points. Health and wellbeing are entirely too vague, particularly for those who wish to deliberately misinterpret.

[Cole Parker]

And 'wellbeing' is so, so subjective. Many on the edges of rationality would only to grant that blessing to people whose views of a happy life run parallel to their own. Put in the words of an earlier generation, those whose views are in lockstep with their own.

One of the issues that takes so much thought today, now that we are gaining medical capabilities we've never had before, is to decide how to use them. Like so many other issues today, there will be wide divergence on the answers. We're already seeing that with stem cell research.

C

[JamesSavik]

I am almost sorry to see this dog & jackass show canceled.

Nothing exposes idiocy like the clear light of day.

I suspect people would have started walking out as soon as soon as the-rapist start praying and laying on hands; not because is is epically scary but it is a prelude to handling snakes.

Now they'll just go back to performing their ignorant, superstitious hocus-pocus in private. The sad part is that their victims are likely to be teen agers whose only fault was to tell their religious fanatic parents the truth about themselves.

[aj]

"One of the issues that takes so much thought today, now that we are gaining medical capabilities we've never had before, is to decide how to use them. Like so many other issues today, there will be wide divergence on the answers. We're already seeing that with stem cell research."

And we're going to be seeing that issue raise its head again. Apparently, according to a recent report that I read, medical researchers have mastered the capability to regress a mature cell back to a stem cell-like state, with full capability to develope into any individual kind of cell it needs to be.

I agree that 'health and wellbeing' are very vague terms, probably needing much more specific definition in order to be useful. They are, however, useful in setting up a basic argument. If we can agree on those basic terms, then a more comprehensive definition can be worked out.

cheers!

aj

[Fun Tails]

I'm having trouble with this coercion argument both in specifics and in general philosophy.

1) If I use in vitrio treatment to remove blindness from a child, am I coercing it to have vision?

2) None of us have much choice in what natural attributes we have to begin with. We don't chose our skin color, our height, our intelligence. All of these things affect our social wellbeing.

If we never had the choice to begin with, then how is having somone choose these things coercion?