NPR has an article on religious-based ways people are trying to cure homosexuality. And I don’t want to go off on NPR this time. I think they handled it rather well, considering. They don’t explore the subject too much, though, and I’d like to do some of that here.
The APA considered homosexuality deviant until the 1970s. Until that time this “scientific” classification fueled the perception (as well as many arguments) that homosexuality is deviant and therefore, a problem.
The article in question discusses religious “cures” for homosexuality. They come in many flavors, from evangelical Christian to Catholic to Jewish. There are also Muslim groups striving for the same goal. I was unable to find any information about such Buddhist groups, although did find many sites claiming that any Buddhist ethic that condemns homosexuality is recent. I don’t know whether or not this is true, but I do find it interesting that most of the groups hoping to convert people away from homosexuality are religious in nature. More specifically, are Christian (for the most part) or at the very least, Of The Book.
I find the concept of curing homosexuality troubling because it necessitates treating (or at least discussing) homosexuality as a disease. A disease is a problem. A disease can be transmitted. A disease has a cure (whether or not it’s been discovered). So, if homosexuality is a disease, homosexuality is a problem; it can be transmitted; it can be cured.
If it is a problem, for whom is it a problem? For the gay man? Or for his pastor? For the lesbian? Or for her family? Now certainly, a family can transmit their problems to other members, but it seems to me that the problem is perceived by those around the homosexual. Perhaps the problem is for the homosexual. But is it because he has been brought up in a religion that says it’s bad, a sin, something that one must avoid? I believe that people are born gay. I didn’t, honestly, until my nephew was born. So, how would I feel if I were told that having five fingers on each hand is bad, a sin, and something I must avoid? Well, I was born that way. Would I wear gloves so that my shame would not be obvious but secretly type at 120 wpm in my home? Would I cut off a finger so that I could prove to everyone how contrite I am as a five-fingered person? If I lived in that world, I’m sure I would want to be “cured”. I’m sure that I would welcome a person who told me that God made me with five fingers to try me, to test my faith, to see if I could make it back home into His graces. I’m sure I would see it as a problem.
Now we come to transmision. As I said above, I believe that people are born gay. Most people don’t become sexual beings until puberty. That’s when we start to realize our own sexuality and that of others. Often, that’s when people realize that they’re gay. And that’s when many learn to supress it. So, if people are born gay, how is the contagion transmitted? Is it genetic? Is it due to the number of siblings one has? Is it hormonal? Is it the mother’s fault or the father’s? Does it matter?
I also find problematic the attitude often exhibited by homosexuals that “I don’t have to change”. Not that I want them to suddenly change their orientation to “fit in”, but I think this attitude has permeated our society to the point where everyone is perfect just the way they are. There is never room for improvement. Personally, I don’t think there’s anyone who couldn’t use some change. Maybe in terms of mentality, or love, or vices that one has, but no body “doesn’t have to change”, whether they’re gay or straight.
13 responses so far ↓
1 nee // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Miko, I confused regarding your last paragraph.
I think it’s understandable that a GLBT person would have an attitude that they shouldn’t have to change their orientation. The ones I know (and there are many) don’t have that attitude about their entire being, only as it relates to their sexuality and desire for loving relationships.
If I’m reading what you’re saying after that point, it sounds like you’re talking about people who justify anything they do or feel should be acceptable just because they do or feel it.
I’m not sure on what the connection is unless you believe that homosexual relationships should not be acceptable. The rest of your post idicates that is not your sentiment, thus my confusion.
2 Miko // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:37 pm
yeah, I wasn’t sure how it would come across when I wrote it; it was just something that I was struck by when listening to the article: basically the only sentiment expressed by the gay people who were interviewed (and maybe this is indicative of bad editing) was that there would be no compromise. And it didn’t sound like a “I’m not going to stopy being gay just for you and your god” but more of a global expression of “I have no need to change anything about me”. Personally, homosexual relationships are just as valid to me as heterosexual relationships. And most of the gay people I know don’t exhibit this attitude, or maybe it just hasn’t come up. It might be the kind of thing that, after having sat through a “cure session”, they’re just so incensed by the whole experience that their only response is to be closed in this manner.
…
I’m certain that I’m not getting my point across, I’m sorry. The gay people who are interviewed in straight media come across as being just as closed-minded as the anti-gay straight people. So, what I’m seeing as a failing of gay people (which has not been my personal experience, but my mediated experience) may very well be a failing of the medium itself. It would be interesting to see Logo do a special on these seminars.
3 Jonathan // Mar 2, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Thank you for the last paragraph!!! I love it because you took the whole subject to a deeper level…
I don’t like the strength of my beliefs to come from a disgust of others who believe differently than me. That’s building a belief system based on an anger-reflex, and in the process, the real truth is never found, but rather any belief that will salve my anger. In other words, I will believe the opposite of people that piss me off on principle. I am so guilty of this it’s not even funny.
I find this sad reality in human nature (including my own) all the time: That if a large vocal majority hate what you believe, that opposition will fuel and solidify your belief! I see this a lot in cults - opposition is one key to the strengthening of cultic beliefs. I have no desire to debate what a ‘cult’ is, I just bring it up because they usually suffer a lot of abuse from the outside.
Although it may on the surface appear noble, this mentality really subverts a true desire to find the real truth about a matter. I have called this problem out as a gigantic thing to watch for in my truth-finding checklist: to no matter what, even at the expense of my pride, to find the real truth about something. This is hard. In order to not sacrifice my intellectual honesty when I see this problem in me, I have to just give up searching for truth in an area until my emotions and anger calm down. In the meantime, I have to rationally tell others that as of yet, I have no rational opinion on the matter.
Not too long ago, Jana wrote a feminist manifesto. My personal crusade seems to be much broader - to find truth in general, so I’m kind of inspired by her example to write a “truth-seekers” manifesto.
One of its key tenants will be to not get carried away by the trap of reactionary thinking. I’m thinking the result of this is good - it will most likely stall me from making absolute truth claims and force me to think about them harder before I speak or act on behalf of them.
4 Ramo // Mar 3, 2007 at 11:13 pm
It is probably an error to say that all people do not become sexual beings until puberty. I have known many people who got “sucked” into homosexuality at a very young age by older males. Being sexualized at age 6-8, sex became an obsession and an affliction with them. They did not become predators, but continued to be in the role of the “used.” This is not to say that all homosexual males prey upon young boys, but a large number do, and draw others into their addictive behavior. This is an experience that I have known in many others and an experience that I have lived in my own life. After a struggle of many years, I was able to put it behind me, love and marry a wonderful wife, and have five beautiful children. Before that, however, I spent many long troubled years crusing the dark areas to obtain physical contact with men.
5 John White // Mar 4, 2007 at 7:54 am
Ramo: Wow, that’s a very tough story to hear, much less live. I worry, though, that you’re blurring the line between homosexuality and adults preying on children. -Any- child who is sexualized at that young an age is probably going to have shadows over their lives, regardless of the type of sexual contact. I’m troubled that you characterize a “large number” of homosexuals as preying upon young boys, as if man-boy pedophilia was some sort of subset of homosexuality, as opposed to a subset of pedophilia.
6 Miko // Mar 4, 2007 at 10:28 am
Ramo: I agree that not everyone’s sexuality is dormant until puberty. Some people are naturally very obviously hetero- or homosexual way before puberty. Some are forced into sexuality too early. Others are non-sexual for most of their lives.
7 John // Mar 4, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Ramo, I\’m with John White. We have to be especially cautious in public discourse linking homosexuality to something that evokes such negative, visceral reactions as pedophilia. I accept and do not want to devalue your personal experience; but I find the linking of child molestation to homosexuality in a kind of normative way plays on fears and stereotypes in American society the way that some in the South still play on fears about black men raping white women (it helped defeat the election of Ford for the Tennessee senatorial seat).
I did some research, and the claim that gay men are more likely than hetero men to molest children is disputed. In fact, the more methodologically sound the studies are, the correlation between sexual orientation and pedophilia disappears.
8 Ramo // Mar 6, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Having been trapped in this addiction for many years myself, and done more than considerable research with live subjects, I know of the extensive role that immagry plays in the development of male homosexuality, and the broad factor of unavailable fathers.
It is an arror to state that same-sex attraction is necessarily synonimous with homosexuality, and therefor that homosexuals are born and not made. If you’ve never done it you aint one. Effeminate young men are prime prey for crusing homosexual males, and cerainly, once bit the addiction is a terrible one to beat, just as pornography, a related malady, is difficult to overcome, but the addiction to penis immagry is really not that differant from the addiction to pornographic immages.
The greater percentage of practicing male homosexuals interviewed, who had Physically and emmotionally unavailable fathers cannot be discounted. This being a fact, it is not too far fetched to theorize that the giving of sexual satisfaction to a mature male is a proxy mode of seeking attention and affection from the unavailable male parent.
There are many males of different ages who are in actuality overcoming their male-male addiction, but, as with other addictions, the assist of a higher power is essential.
9 John White // Mar 7, 2007 at 8:34 am
Ramo, I’m always interested in learning things I wasn’t aware of before. Can you point me to the studies which link unavailable fathers to homosexuality or SSA in sons?
10 Phil // Mar 9, 2007 at 3:38 am
The notion that homosexuality even needs a cure is among the biggest scams in the Abrahamic religions today, especially Christianity.
11 Miko // Mar 9, 2007 at 7:10 am
I’d have to agree, Phil. I think there’s an I’m Better Than You attitude from those who believe it needs to be cured.
12 Miko // Mar 9, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Just heard this podcast (I’m behind, as I said) which mentions this subject at 23:29. Here’s the iTunes podcast link.
13 Miko // Mar 16, 2007 at 1:58 pm
One right-wing xian’s desire to proceed with (possibly) stem-cell research (although definately other kinds of biotech) if it leads to a “cure” for gayness. I’m amused that he assumes that “liberals” (the only people who like gays, right?) would only defend the platonic gay and would seriously consider aborting or “treating” a gay fetus rather than having to raise one of their own. I think this counts as projecting your own fears onto other people, Mr. Mohler. Atheist scientist responds.
Incidentally, I’m interested that when people speak “against” gays, they only mention male gays. Is it okay to be lesbian because guys (even religious guys, even if they feel guilty about it) think that’s hot? Or do women simply not merit mention regardless of the subject?
Leave a Comment