just a quick comment on what you said “non-practicing homosexual is kind of a silly and inaccurate label”

non-practicing homosexual refers to someone that is homosexual but is not having sex with men. The term can be applied to heterosexuals. i.e. I am a non-practicing heterosexual … this means I am attracted to women, but am not engaging in sexual activities with them. When I start having sex with women, then i would be a practicing heterosexual.

I dont wish to be pulled into the bigger issue on what I believe, etc so this is why I am only commenting on term usage.

I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Dennis Jernigan, but he is an amazing worship leader who went through the same struggles you are going through.

His story is on his website.

http://www.dennisjernigan.com/djs-story

Friend, I have had more than a few friends who were men who did not want to be associated with other gay people, and didn’t want the cultural connotations of gay to apply to them. They’ve gone without subscribing to any label, or by same-gender-loving (in this case it is usually a black male that doesn’t want the white cultural connotations), and I’ve even had a friend call himself non-heterosexual. In all cases, when other people refer to them the word gay was used, and the usual application of social constructs and stereotypes that people apply to self-identifying gays were applied to the sgl, non-heterosexual, label-less persons. No matter what label you go by, when you say you are a male who is attracted to only men, most people hear gay. Also, as alternative-labels-to-gay go (as I stated before in a comment to the original post), non-practicing homosexual is kind of a silly and inaccurate label.

In regards to changing sexual orientation — I am not discrediting people who claim to have changed their orientation. A person’s sexuality can change; I am not calling anyone a liar who says that they were attracted to only men and now are attracted to only women. My point is that there is no 12-step program to changing your sexual orientation. There is no documented procedure to stop being gay. There have been several comments in this discussion saying the APA doesn’t count the power of faith-based programs. This is not true, and as we all should be aware of by now, there are a great number of faith-based conversion therapies that have been studied, with results similar to non-faith-based.

I don’t think the APA is the end-all LORD OF SEXUALITY, but as I said before, they are as unbiased as a group can get, and the task force members are not pushing personal agendas like a pastor who hates gay people or a queer who loves gay people would. They are studied scientists, not impassioned crackheads. The APA is indeed running off the belief that homosexuality is normal and positive. The basis for this is that being gay is not a mental disorder.

There are a ton of definitions of mental disorders, but a quick google: define found this — “the term that refers collectively to all mental disorders. Mental disorders are health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior (or some combination thereof) associated with distress and/or impaired functioning”. Schizophrenia meets these requirements because people with it cannot live an unsupervised and/or untreated life. Suffering from distress and/or impaired functioning is not intrinsic to being gay, hence not a mental disorder. While some gay people certainly suffer from distress and/or impaired functioning, I would argue that (unless affected by something that IS a mental disorder) it is the same scenario as any oppressed minority, and lots of research supports this.

Friend, nobody has ever said that you are not free to make your own choices, and I think for the most part everyone has said things with your best interests at heart. I sincerely hope you find happiness. Feel free to contact me if you ever want to talk, about sexuality, faith, or the basal rate of your insulin supply.

Let me reiterate that I’m encouraged. You guys are my church leaders and I believe that you are speaking with God’s wisdom.

We can speak until we are all nauseated from quotations, but whatever may cause homosexuality(or alleviate it) I like Friend’s mindset. You and other friend are some cool dudes and I hope to talk to you in person some day.

1. Curtis’s comparison of “green” to “gay” seems to fail for a couple of reasons: a) green has no social connotations, and b) green is not a label applied to people. Green is simply green. Period. Something is green or it isn’t. “Gay,” on the other hand, has connotations that may or may not apply to someone with homosexual attractions. Since it is a label applied to people, it may or may not be an appropriate label depending on the person.

2. Curtis said, “There has not been a single documented case where somebody has actively changed his/her sexual orientation.” That just isn’t true. There is plenty of research, some recent, some going all the way back to Freud, that documents many cases of people who claimed to have changed their desires from primarily homosexual to primarily heterosexual. Much of that research was not considered for the APA’s report, not because it wasn’t credible, but because the APA deemed the research did not sufficiently control for other factors that might have led to the client’s sense of change. This is quite different than saying “there has not been a single documented case …”

3. Curtis speaks of the APA in almost reverential terms, as if they are the final arbiters of what is true and false concerning homosexuality. In a previous comment he said the APA was “unbiased.” That’s quite a claim for any organization. Calling the APA “unbiased” is like calling Fox News “fair and balanced.” No doubt there are plenty of people who would say they are. It’s always tempting to believe the organizations we agree with are playing fair with the facts. I doubt there is any such thing as an unbiased organization. Organizations consist of people, people hold beliefs, and those beliefs bias them. The trouble is, even when we think we are playing fair with the facts, bias could be at work. We all have bias. The best we can do is acknowledge it and try to control for it in our research or reporting. On this point, I feel the APA fails dramatically. Throughout their 2009 report, titled Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (produced by a task force of just six people), the APA repeatedly states, “… The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality …” But not once did I ever find any place in the report where the task force cited any research that supported their claim. Not once. Not in 130 pages. They just state it, and we’re supposed to believe it. And curiously, a companion article published by the APA in 2008, called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles …” Hmm. If we can’t say what causes homosexuality, whether it is biological or not, and if we can’t rule out developmental family trauma and dysfunction as one contributing factor, then why did the six-member task force repeatedly say homosexuality is “natural” and “positive”? Moreover, why did they say the research supports this when in fact the APA has already acknowledged that it does not? Sounds like bias to me. The task force began from the belief that same-sex desires and behaviors are normal and positive, and that belief–that bias–directed the course of their report.

4. Steven, thank you for your kind words. No hard feelings at all about anything you said before. I once was called Satan when I was an RA in a dorm. Hitler is a step up, I guess. Perhaps we will meet and get to talk in person some day soon. I’d like that.

And I say this as a “therapist.” I am a counselor (with a master’s degree) who not only spent a large portion of my time studying human sexuality in my graduate work, but also completed several safe-zone trainings and trainings on how to appropriately counsel regarding sexuality.

I am not homophobic (I feel the need to say that here with all of the accusations going on) and I have openly counseled gay clients without ever having suggested they seek therapy for their “gayness.” In fact, most times I deal with gay clients, the reason they are in therapy is not the fact they are gay, so we don’t have to discuss it as such. It’s just a part of who they are, and as a counselor, I understand that.

That being said, I do agree with the “Friends” that they have the right to pursue therapy on what they want. It is their life, and in counseling, they can choose to address whatever in their life that they want to.

Also, I personally can speak to the fact that at least one “Friend” here is not basing his scripture misgivings on the pressures from the environment around him. In fact, I would say this guy is one of the best students of scripture I know. I admire this guys’ tenacity at which he approaches the scriptures and I wish I had the depth of understanding of theology and scripture that he does. So I want to say that it bothers me that people assume he is misguided in his interpretation of the scripture instead of trusting his words that say this is his choice and his beliefs.

In regards to therapy in general, I obviously am for counseling in general (hence it’s my profession). I can also say that any type of therapy could be viewed as “harmful” if people entered it with the wrong expectations. In my training and experience, I can say with certainty that expectations between a client and counselor and goals are crucial to counseling being a helpful experience. I keep a “magic wand” in my office and sometimes when people come in with a problem and just look at me hoping I can solve it, I wave the wand and say “Bibbity Boppity Boo” and then say “I wish that could work, but it doesn’t.” This helps emphasize to them that therapy is not about my beliefs or values, but rather about themselves.

One of the main values of counseling is the belief of the counselor that the answers truly lie within the clients. It is not my job to give someone any answers. It is also not my job to give advice. Rather, it is my job to be a device used to draw out the answers that are already within someone. This is how I can counsel people who make different choices than I would make.

I, too, am a church leader. I am a staff member, deacon and board member. I take seriously all matters of scripture. And the issue of homosexuality is one where I can’t say with certainty that I understand easily. I have done my own study through the years and I don’t know that I can say “this is how God definitely feels about every action.” I do struggle with some of the passages and I tend to fall more towards the “left” in wondering “what if sexuality is something people are born with?” But while I wonder that, I support “Friend’s” statements that note that even while the scientific community LEANS towards stating it is biological, there is no certain proof.

We need to, as a community, realize that there may never be undeniable evidence supporting the roots of sexuality. Just as some have evidence stating alcoholism and addiction are diseases of the brain, others have evidence stating alcoholism can be cured and that addiction is not a disease. How do we argue against two sides when both have “scientific” proof? I get the feeling that homosexuality will continue to be an issue as such, and that even as evidence comes out one way, it will also come out another.

To me, as a follower of Jesus, as a counselor, as a church leader, and most importantly, as a friend, I think the biggest issue is not the science behind what we argue about, but rather the heart with which we deal with the people we are communicating to. In this case, I applaud Jim for being a true friend to his “Friend.” He has not once pushed his own agenda, and did not start this series on the web without his friend wanting to also engage in the discussion. Jim is not using his position as a church leader to push some type of therapy. Instead, he is a church leader who has a friend who wanted to share about his life. And Jim has been open enough to use his forum to allow the discussion to be had. This isn’t about Jim’s church’s stance on homosexuality, or about Jim’s personal feelings. This is about Jim’s Friend wanting to make a personal choice to pursue therapy for himself, and Jim supporting that decision. Period. Keep in mind that Jim has known this friend for years, and known his struggles, and not once did Jim push him to start therapy. That shows me that I am glad I too can call Jim a friend, because he’s the type of guy I want as a friend. Not one who pushes his agenda, but one who supports what I need when I need it.

I envision that at some point in the future, this friend will be ready to take the next step to reveal himself. Until then, let’s not use quotes or sarcasm about his choice to stay anonymous for now. Both he and other friend have done a lot to be open, even if they have not used their names. I am proud of them both.

To Jim’s “friend” or “friends”, I apologize if you feel that the things I have said here were less than accepting of your personal choice. My issue is with an understanding of guilt and the fact that it is largely a socially constructed feeling and I have doubts that you would be seeking this therapy if you were in a truly accepting environment. If scripture is your misgiving, I would still say that your feelings surrounding these verses is largely based on the environment in which you learned the messages they were used to solidify. Regardless of my feelings, I wish you the best of luck in finding a comfortable and stable sense of self and an equally rewarding spiritual life.

In case you don’t remember, I’m the “ignorant reader” that the “gay-but-not-really-gay-because-I-don’t-want-to-be-gay-friend-of-Jim’s-who-doesn’t-actually-have-a-name” referred to in this post. I say that with a healthy dose of sarcasm, because a lot of what has been said is wordplay and is really not furthering the discussion. For the record, I love labels. I love that when I say the label green, other people know what color I’m talking about. I don’t think it reduces the color green, or any other color by calling it green. Even if something green wants to avoid being associated with other green things and wants to be called a non-practicing yellow-blue hybrid, I can deal as long as we all understand that “green” and “non-practicing yellow-blue hybrid” are in fact the same.

It’s been stated several times (and once a quote of mine taken slightly out of context), but let me reiterate: there has not been a single documented case where somebody has actively changed his/her sexual orientation. That does not mean that sexuality is immutable — my own life story is proof of that (if you cared to ask before using me as the ignorant example you might think differently of me). There is a lot of theory stating that sexuality is at least somewhat fluid over time. Is it possible that people can go from gay to straight? (or “straight enough” as friend seems to desire) I believe it is possible. However, there is no program that can take you there. The APA’s report calls it irresponsible to tell a client that they can or should try to change, and that the best thing for a patient to do for their mental health is try to accept his sexuality and somehow resolve issues of gayness and faith. The panel of only six are experts; any one of them are more knowledgeable on sexuality than all of us combined — I would not dismiss what they say, especially as their only interest is the mental health (which includes spiritual health) of the patient (and not personally biased as any queer, pastor, or queer pastor could be).

I’m extremely annoyed when people make comments belittling those who get heated on the topic of sexuality and faith, especially when it’s a straight person who thinks gayness is sinful condemning a queer person who doesn’t. Even when you wrap it up in phrases like “this isn’t God’s plan” to tone down the actual consequences, it still means that person A thinks person B is knowingly participating in sin without guilt or repentance, and last I checked a lot of Christians say that means person B is going to hell. When person A (in this case Jim) says that gayness is sinful, I think it’s totally okay for all persons B to get loud and upset by it.

I find it really frustrating with the approach that there is nothing wrong with being gay (seemingly to placate gay people so they won’t get all fired up and angry), but then reversing that claim by saying a person should try to change his sexuality. If it’s a sin and required/desired to change for one gay person, then it has to be a sin for all gay people, and if it’s not a sin for one person then it isn’t a sin for anyone. In some ways, I miss Jerry Fallwell’s rhetoric because at least he was upfront with his intentions of suppressing lgbt people, and even though I never agreed with his interpretations of things, his arguments were at least honest and logical.

“Friend” (if this label reduces you too much, I suggest giving a name, even a fake one if you’re not comfortable being open with your real name) stated that he doesn’t think there is anything negative about being gay, and even though I don’t recall Jim saying those exact words his stance seems to mimic the notion. You even said that you feel no shame about your homosexuality. I call BS on this. You keep using phrases like affected by homosexuality (like a disease), and insinuated through juxtaposition of ideas your belief or hope that damage done in your childhood is the cause of your gayness (ie, gay = damaged) and can be healed. Even (especially?) the basic premise of these blog posts, shows that you feel the need to stop being gay, so that you can function in a “normal” and “desirable” way. Friend, my heart goes out to you. Trust me when I say I know what it feels like to hate something about yourself and to want the power to change it. I sincerely hope that you can find happiness and can resolve your faith and gayness.

Which is why I urge you to try a different therapy program. Every single person I’ve talked to who has gone through some form of conversion therapy has deeply regretted it. The most tragic are the ones who are in the later stages of life, and had gone through decades of therapy, with varying degrees of “success”, but invariably did not end up happy. I am not suggesting throwing your faith out the window, but you have other options besides conversion therapy that can lead to happiness and fulfillment.

I have a strong feeling that nobody will change his opinions at the end of this discussion, but I hope I’m wrong.