Psychiatrists Warn Church of England to Reject Reparative Therapy
A report recently presented to Anglicans in the UK has warned that therapy to change sexual orientation is based on unproven methods and can cause severe damage.
In its submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality, the Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote that therapists who attribute their clients’ mental health problems to their sexuality are likely to cause “considerable distress.” The report went on to say:
A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client’s sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisation in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field.
No mention is made of the recent Jones and Yarhouse study, which also falls short of a full, randomized clinical trial.
The report, which also addresses the nature of gay and lesbian relationships, the origins of homosexuality, and the mental health of gay men and women, concludes by urging Anglicans to accept gays and lesbians fully into the life of the Church:
[There] is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible. Socially inclusive, nonjudgemental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.
But will the Church listen?
Tip of the hat to regular XGW commenter Jimbo.
Jim,
You are again being inspecific:
“The text I mentioned earlier”
Is that the 1977 text that Dr. Throckmorton pointed out had been contradicted by the authors’ subsequent writings? The same “hundreds of research” that are outdated by 30+ years?
“the article I cited previously”
Was that your self reference?
Jim,
What you seem to be failing to understand is that when your source has been debunked, you can’t simply refer to the same source as though it magically became authoritive again in the two minutes since your last comment.
You said:
Admit what? That you are happy? If that’s your question, my answer is yes, I can admit you are speaking your truth when you say that. If the question meant am I happy, Yes, I am happy and that’s my truth.
I don’t, however, think you were being very fair when you said my “comments seem to lack – fact and reason. If I agreed with you, would you then say this? So, do I have to buy into what you believe and how you interpret the literature?
I mean, let’s face it, noone has all the answers to the complexity of human nature and sexual preferences. We all base our conculsions, on findings, evidences, biases, values, beliefs, personal convictions, etc. There’s a constellation of factors that leads us to our understandings and we learn and grow everyday. Finally, the best of the best scholars in the world don’t even agree on any one issue.
Timothy,
You said: “Is that the 1977 text that Dr. Throckmorton pointed out had been contradicted by the authors’ subsequent writings? The same “hundreds of research” that are outdated by 30+ years?”
No, I was speaking of Fisher and Greenberg’s 1996 text, which has not been “debunked”. Warren pointed out that while the 1977 text may have supported mother and father factors of the triadic theory, the 1996 text could only support the father factor. This was likely due to the decrease in the literature as admitted by the researchers themselves.
As for the animal research, I cited several which are in the my article I referenced, which I left ordering instructions for. Those who seemed interested, at the time, did not express a problem with that reference, although they may have disagreed with my summarization of such.
Now, back to F&G text. People are getting defensive here and jumping to conclusions. I make it clear that the research supports the triadic theory of the etiology of male homosexuality. I did not say, but people conclude I did, that all gay men come from these backgrounds. The research that tested the theories, and used comparison groups (homosexual men vs. heterosexual men), found that homosexual men rated their fathers as less loving, more distance and more hostile than their heterosexual counterparts. NOW, that does NOT necessarily mean that the homosexual men in those studies had BAD DADS? NO, I did not say that. The study says that in comparison, they rate them lower on scales. Please spare me the anecdotes. I do not care to hear about ma and pop down on the farm stories. I was looking at research PEOPLE.
Jim said”I mean, let’s face it, noone has all the answers to the complexity of human nature and sexual preferences. We all base our conculsions, on findings, evidences, biases, values, beliefs, personal convictions, etc. There’s a constellation of factors that leads us to our understandings and we learn and grow everyday. Finally, the best of the best scholars in the world don’t even agree on any one issue.”
I hope you actually believe that, for I think it is possibly the wisest, most intelligent thing I think you have said in the time I have been watching this site.
I also hope, that you keep your own words in mind in the future: “noone has all the answers to the complexity of human nature and sexual preferences.”
I’ll forgive the word “preferences” for the moment, as I’d hate to tarnish what is essentially a compliment.
So your answer is yes, it is the F&G text and your own self-reference. Thanks.
As for the order of occurance (homosexual longings v. family disfunction) I believe Dr. Throckmorton has adequately addressed that.
Jim, if you want to refute the accepted position in your field, you need to provide some evidence to be taken as credible. And if what you provide is readily and immediately shown to be flawed, it does not serve you well to continue to insist on its authority.
If you want to speak of “the research” or “the studies” or “the literature”, you cannot rely on a single source that does not support your triadic assumptions (in the 1996 version) and which has been shown to have faulty causation assumptions.
Please know that people here are informed. And not easily swayed by generic references or repetitive claims that are either self-referencial or disputed.
Jim, seriously, you are beginning to sound like a quack. I know that you will just dismiss this advice, but nonetheless, please sit down with someone you trust and walk through the logic behind your views. Let them show you where you are not making sense, where your thinking is circular, and where your arguments place you in a negative light.
What I meant, Jim, and perhaps did not really say clearly, is that can YOU admit to your ideology, that being gay is NOT OK, and that this determines everything YOU have to say.
That you read and reviewed Biological Exuberance is good. That you reviewed it for NARTH is not (from my point of view) because i already know that NARTH comes from the ideology that gay is NOT OK, and that no amount of fact, reason, intellectual analysis or experience is going to have the slightest effect on anything they–and by extension, you– have to say on the subject.
When i say this, I can say also this: I am willing to concede that it is possible that there is something inherently “bad” about being gay, but the some of my life experience, the some of my reading, knowledge, and thought, all of which is considerable, is that it is not, and is in fact of far lesser consequence than the usual run of heterosexuality. if you can show me evidence (not opinion or religious belief) that being gay is bad in any sense of the word, that it is bad for society, bad for gay people, bad for anything except fundraising and power-mongering on the basis of prejudice, I would certainly be open to looking at it. that is what this website, and others like it, are about.
But if all you’re going to show me is your ideology, then what you will have to tell me is no less predictable than any other party line.