One of my close friends asked me just last week where I had come up with the title for this presentation.  It really goes back to an interview that our gay son had with Channel 4 two or three years ago.  In explaining the evolution of his coming to grips with his homosexuality, he told the interviewer that he delayed his decision to serve a mission for the LDS Church for 10 months because he was in such inner turmoil about how to deal with his same-sex attractions. He decided to serve an LDS mission after much contemplation in what he hoped would be a final effort to rid himself of the “demon” with which he had struggled for the preceding four or five years.  He served an honorable mission, but returned with his same sex-attractions undiminished.  He then determined that it would be his secret, that it was something he could never divulge to anyone, but circumstances got in the way.  There were at least two young women that were romantically interested in him and from the outside it appeared that he would marry one of them and live happily ever after.  I particularly liked one of the young ladies and, being completely unaware of his homosexuality, began encouraging him to marry her.  He knew that he could not marry either one because of his same-sex attraction and he could not think of a good reason to tell them why other than to tell them the truth.  As he revealed his feelings to one of them, he made her promise not to tell a single soul because he feared that if the information got out, it would destroy him.  They cried together and then she asked him if he had read anything about homosexuality.  “Do you have any information about it?” she asked.  When he replied that he did not, she said to him, “Craig, that doesn’t seem like you.  You need to get some responsible information.”  And he said to himself, “Why haven’t I done that?  Why haven’t I read one single thing about homosexuality?”  Shortly afterward, he decided to go to the Orem library.  He described the trip in the following way:  “The library was a wreck.  There were very few books on homosexuality and I don’t respect the books that were there anymore now that I have more information.”

Later that month he told us of his dilemma and the next few years were a gradual process of coming out, gleaning responsible information and becoming more comfortable with his homosexuality.

I very much want to emphasize the importance of responsible information, because there is a plethora of irresponsible information in our communities.  Information that, for the purposes of this talk,  I will  refer to as “snake oil”.  The early west was plagued by itinerant salesmen who would travel from town to town and make outlandish claims for a product they were selling.  Before their claims could be refuted or proven false, they would move on to the next town, always one step ahead of their dissatisfied customers who experienced none of the promised miracles.  Many of these charlatans employed shills who would offer testimonials to verify the claims.  “Snake oil” was one of those popular all-purpose remedies that these salesmen hawked.  Such peddlers have been lumped together as “snake oil” salesmen.  Their preposterous claims lacked scientific credibility and eventually resulted in such a clamor that our current Food and Drug Administration was organized to police and license these individuals so they could no longer defraud the citizenry.

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I have wished we had a similar organization to police information dispensed about homosexuality.  In the absence of such an organization, I’m going to identify some of the information that I don’t respect and tell you why I consider it to be like that ineffectual, old fashioned “snake oil.”

This talk is my third public address on homosexuality.  My first talk, entitled “Mugged by Reality,” was presented at this conference two years ago and was just published in Sunstone.  The second talk, entitled “The Logical Next Step:  Sanctioning and Affirming Same-sex Relationships,” was given at the Sunstone Symposium last fall and has been accepted for publication in the fall issue of Dialogue.  This talk, which I have entitled “Snake Oil vs. Responsible Information,” is intended to build on and reinforce the premises  articulated in the previous talks.

Those premises, which I spelled out in “Mugged by Reality,”  represent my own conclusions about homosexuality after almost ten years of intensive study.  I think those premises are worth reiterating today, because they have not changed and are unlikely to do so.  I find that knowledge of these basic premises is necessary when studying and trying to come to an understanding of same-sex attraction.

The five basic truths are as follows:
    1.  Homosexuality occurs in a small, finite percentage of human beings and other mammalian species.  It has always been present and will continue to be so.
    2.  The causes of homosexuality are complex and are not completely understood.
    3.  Homosexuality is rarely chosen.
    4.  Homosexuality is not amenable to significant change.  By this, I mean the same-sex attraction or the “core” longings, and,
    5.  Homosexuality is morally neutral.

Is homosexuality a normal biologic variant?  Its consistent presence in almost every mammalian species that has been studied lends strong support for a biologic connection. The general agreement among researchers that sexual orientation is set very early in life, most will say no later than four years of age, also suggests a biologic component.  The most compelling argument that homosexuality simply occurs and is not chosen, however, is the testimony of those with same-sex attraction.  While many people do not consider homosexuals to be valid witnesses for their own feelings, I do.  I have yet to meet a gay man who says that he chose to be gay.

Why do people have such a difficult time believing that humans with same-sex attraction, just like swans, panda bears, and other mammals, do not choose the attraction, but that it simply occurs?  Because they begin with the premise that homosexuality is immoral in humans and try to construct their own reality on that premise.  Is homosexuality immoral for swans and panda bears?  Interesting, yes; immoral?  I’ll let you make the call. The debate about whether or not homosexuals choose to be homosexual finds its genesis in such nonsense.

I might add, however, that gays and lesbians do have to make a choice:  whether being homosexual is something to deny or acknowledge.  Increasing numbers are choosing to acknowlege their homosexuality. While this makes some people uncomfortable, I think it is a healthy choice. The willingness of more and more homosexuals and their families to openly acknowledge their homosexuality  is the prime source of so much public dialogue we are experiencing at the present time. This premise is vehemently opposed by many religions, and is the subject of considerable debate as evidenced by the recent advertising barrage in the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.  This advertising is  sponsored by the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council, encouraging homosexuals to seek “cures” for their homosexuality through Christian faith.  More about that later.

We see the same line of reasoning applied to whether or not people can change their sexual orientation.  People begin with the premise that it is sinful to engage in sex with someone of the same sex and try to construct their own reality  on that basis. It is assumed that homosexuals are not capable of having a moral relationship with someone to whom they are naturally attracted, and therefore, they should change, and must be able to change. The concept that the morality of the relationship should be determined by the way the relationship is conducted, rather than by who is involved in the relationship is simply ignored....

    The fifth, and the last issue I would like to discuss today has to do with the propriety of conversion therapy.  I mentioned earlier that some conservative organizations have recently placed a series of ads in several of our prominent newspapers encouraging homosexuals to seek a cure from their homosexuality through intensive counseling, will power and the help of God. The ads showcase a former lesbian who attributes her homosexuality to sexual abuse when she was four years of age, recounts her dissatisfaction with the “gay lifestyle” and tells of her ultimate conversion to heterosexuality and God’s forgiveness.  The ads conclude by saying that “thousands of ex-gays like these have walked away from their homosexual identities. For information on an ex-gay ministry in your area, please call...”  Should we classify this ad as “heterosexual recruiting?!”

I would simply ask three pertinent questions.  (1)  Which organizations are for and against change therapy?  (2)  Are there any clients who are unhappy with their heterosexual orientation who are presenting themselves as candidates to be changed to a homosexual orientation? and (3) Would you want your heterosexual son or daughter to marry someone who has identified themself as having same-sex attraction and then claims to have changed their sexual orientation?

First, none of the professional organizations dealing with homosexuality recommend conversion therapy.  Not only do they not recommend it, they actually discourage it.  There are no accredited programs on reparative or conversion therapy being taught in any of our graduate schools in America.

The National Association of Social Workers has this to say:
     "Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes.  Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen.  No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.  NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy.  NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so."

The American Psychological Association responded to the ads with the following statement from Raymond Fowler, Executive Director:
     "For nearly three decades, it has been known that homosexuality is not a mental illness.  Medical and mental health professionals also now know that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be altered.  Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called 'conversion therapy' are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm to those they say they are trying to help."

It is inconceivable to me that all of the professional organizations would uniformly oppose reparative or conversion therapy if there were data to support its efficacy.  One can only conclude that the “thousands of ex-gays” the reparative therapy supporters claim to have walked away from their homosexual identities have not been followed in a longitudinal study that has scientific credibility. When you re-examine the claim in conjunction with our five basic premises enumerated at the beginning of this presentation, it should come as no surprise to anyone.

Second, it almost goes without saying that therapists are not being innundated with clients seeking conversion to homosexuality.  Why?  Because homosexuality is not valued socially.  If such a client did exist, would therapists seriously undertake an attempt to help him or her make such a conversion?  Reorientation techniques would not exist if homosexuality were considered a normal, biological variation.

Third, the question about having your heterosexual son or daughter marry someone who has identified as gay, but claims to have changed is relevant.  Those who are proponents of change therapy should be willing to answer that question with an empathic YES or they should get out of the business.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Left alignment