Reparative Therapy
I previously wrote on LJ that I was writing a paper for my Sexual Interactions class on homosexuality in the LDS Church. Some of you wanted to read it... well here it is. I don't expect everyone to read it, and that's fine. But it's there for those of you who are interested. After researching the subject, I found a closely related topic that interested me more. I must warn you, the paper is meant to be an argumentative one, as well as research paper. Although I strongly disagree with some of the LDS views, (I also agree strongly with some, as well) the paper is not meant to condemn LDS members. Rather, it is meant to explore a perspective of which they may not have been previously aware...
(Sorry that the paragraphs are not clearly indicated. I don't have time to mess with it now; but you can get the idea of where a new paragraph begins by the large blank line that proceeds it.)
“Reparative Therapy: Converting Sexual Orientation. Is it Ethical?”
More than twenty-five years ago, the mental health profession in the United States rejected the outdated view that homosexuality is a mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American Psychological Association have repeatedly affirmed that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and have urged their members to work to eradicate the stigma that has historically been associated with homosexuality. They are highly critical of attempts to change sexual orientation. The movement to change gay men and lesbians into heterosexuals through so-called conversion therapy or reparative therapy is founded on the discredited view that homosexuality is a mental illness, is not based on scientific data, and uses practices whose ethics have been questioned by the mainstream mental health profession.
First, the “success” of so-called reparative therapy techniques in changing sexual orientation has not been proved; it is highly doubtful that reparative therapies are actually able to change a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (Martin, 1984). Claims about their success are based on anecdotal reports, not on rigorous scientific studies that have been subjected to review by independent scientists. For every story about an individual whose sexual orientation was supposedly converted to heterosexuality, there are many other reports of people who tried unsuccessfully to change and who endured a great deal of psychological pain and suffering in the process.
Many interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation have succeeded only in reducing or eliminating homosexual behavior rather than in creating or increasing heterosexual attractions. They have, in effect, deprived individuals of their capacity for sexual response to others. Often, these “therapies” have exposed their victims to electric shocks or nausea-producing drugs while showing them pictures of same-sex nudes (Haldeman, 1991). One may find it useful, as somewhat of an analogy, to refer to a scene in Stanley Kubrick’s, “A Clockwork Orange,” wherein the main character is subject to a film of violent acts (having committed similar acts himself).
In other cases, “success” has been claimed when a patient merely reported having engaged in heterosexual intercourse. But being able to physically perform the actions of intercourse is not the same as adopting the complex set of attractions and feelings that constitute sexual orientation.
Another problem in many published reports of “successful” attempts to change sexual orientation is that the participants’ initial sexual orientation was never adequately assessed. Many bisexuals have been mislabeled as homosexuals with the consequence that the “successes” reported for the conversions actually have occurred among bisexuals who were highly motivated to adopt a heterosexual behavior pattern.
The extent to which people have actually changed their sexual behavior-even within the confines of these inadequate operational definitions-often has not been systematically assessed. Conclusions have often been based on the self-reports of psychoanalysts who were trying to change their patients’ sexual orientation (Haldman, 1994). In other cases, the patient’s self-reports were used. However, the accuracy of these self-reports is questionable because both the patients and therapists were highly motivated to report “success.” More rigorous objective assessments (such as having independent observers evaluate patients’ actual behavior over an extended period of time) have been lacking. According to the American Psychiatric Association, there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation (Haldman, 1991). There are few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person’s deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.
In May of 2001, two papers on the topic of conversion therapies were presented at the American Psychiatric Association's annual convention. One paper, by Dr. Robert Spitzer, reported findings from 45-minute telephone interviews with 143 men and 57 women who had sought help to change their sexual orientation. He found that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had achieved "good heterosexual functioning" and he attributed this to the interventions (Dieterle, 2003). The Spitzer study was immediately criticized on several grounds. For example, the sample consisted predominantly of activists recruited from "ex-gay" and anti-gay organizations. About two thirds were referred to Spitzer by so-called "ex-gay ministries," such as Exodus, or by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Of those who participated, 78 percent had spoken publicly in favor of efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. This is a potential weakness of the study because activists are highly motivated to report that they successfully changed their sexual orientation. Consequently, they may present an inaccurate impression of themselves to researchers. Dr. Spitzer took the activists' testimonials at face value, with no checks on the reliability or validity of their self-reports. In his relatively brief interviews with them, Dr. Spitzer may not have been able to detect factual errors or misstatements - intentional or inadvertent - by the activists.
Dr. Spitzer did not claim that his findings could be generalized to the gay and lesbian population at large. Indeed, he was quoted in the New York Times as saying that, despite the findings from his study, the number of homosexuals who could successfully become heterosexual was likely to be "pretty low." He also conceded that participants in his study were "unusually religious" and were not necessarily representative of most gay men and lesbians in the United States.
The ethics of trying to change people’s sexual orientation have been called into question. Even if “reparative therapies” were able to change the sexual orientation of a small minority of the people upon whom they are used, their ethical basis is questionable. These treatments are simply an extension of society’s prejudices against gay men and lesbians. Typically, people who want to become heterosexual are reacting to society’s intense antigay hostility. Often, they are pressured to change by their family or religious group. In many cases, they are minors who have been placed in a “reparative therapy” program by their parents (Martin, 1984). Says the American Psychiatric Association, clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.
In January of 1990, Dr. Bryant Welch, Executive Director for Professional Practice of the American Psychological Association, stated that “research findings suggest that efforts to ‘repair’ homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.” At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about the efficacy and ethics of so-called reparative therapies. The resolution highlighted the fact that many people who are the targets of “reparative therapy” are not really able to give informed consent to the procedure. This is especially true for adolescents who are being coerced into treatment by their parents or other adults. The resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct “conversion therapy” with individuals who are not capable of informed consent. The resolution reiterated the American Psychological Association’s position that psychologists are ethically required to respect people’s right to self-determination, to respect values different from their own, and to refrain from discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient (Haldman, 1994). Furthermore, many patients who have undergone ‘reparative therapy’ relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. Clearly, a bias has been created by society and thus prevents any homosexual to lead his or her life in what would be considered a normal, healthy manner. Perhaps it is for these reasons that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his or her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors.
With regard to religious groups advocating the practice of reparative therapy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is most prominent. As such, a discussion of doctrine and practice is not necessarily meant to decry the belief system held by Mormons, rather to act as an example of such therapies. First, the official LDS position on homosexuality must be established. According to Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the LDS Church, “People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.” President Hinckley continues to say that if gays and lesbians do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. However, if they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are (Hinckley, 1998). The official position states that Mormons want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But LDS members cannot stand idle if homosexuals indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. It is Hinckley’s belief that to permit this situation would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose: the rearing of families. It is interesting to note the President’s use of the terms ‘so-called,’ and ‘problems.’ Of course these words are used intentionally, however they discredit the large percentage of scientific findings which expressly state that homosexuality is, indeed, not a problem or disorder. As it is with so many religious topics, however, a belief system rarely agrees with science absolutely; the LDS Church advocates, in many cases, the use of reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuals of their “illness.” However, in doing so, the Church apparently has not weighed the recommendation of the APA, which states that reparative therapy causes more harm than what LDS policy would consider “good.” Thus, there exists an anomaly within the doctrine: LDS-sanctioned therapy aims to “help” homosexuals, but rather it is, more often than not, causing more depression, guilt, and anxiety. It exacerbates what they would call “the problem.”
In an editorial published in the Salt Lake City Weekly, Ben Dieterle, a gay LDS member describes his experience with a reparative therapy program, “After attending the support group regularly for a few months, the rhetoric began to ring hollow, and my attendance dropped off. Was being gay caused by some unnatural, external force? Or was it simply part of my nature? I cast a vote in favor of my nature. I thought to myself, when someone can explain exactly why they’re straight, then I’ll give them a clear explanation as to why I’m gay.” Dieterle is just one of 20.8 perecent of all U.S. males who have reported homosexual attraction and behavior since age 15; clearly his situation is not unique (Allgeier, 1998). By the LDS standard, one-fifth of all the adult male population in the United States is or was at one time “misguided,” or more rashly, “mentally ill.” While this is still a minority of males, it represents an enormous section of the population. Additionally, it is most likely that this percentage has not grown or diminished over time-there has always been a certain number of indivduals with a homosexual orientation. However, only recently have many societies become more accepting, (due to a greater knowledge of the world) and thus allow a greater number of homosexuals to feel comfortable in identifying themselves. Therefore, the LDS definition of ‘normal’ is all but completely discredited; thus reparative therapy should not exist because, in essence, there is absolutely nothing to repair.
The recent conversion therapy ad campaign and the practice of conversion therapy are prime pathways for devaluing lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and reinforcing stigma. Inaccurate information encourages prejudice and discrimination. Research in social psychology tell us that while public opinion about gay and lesbian individuals has moderated over the past two decades, negative attitudes about homosexuality persist, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual people still experience harassment, discrimination, and violence. Discrimination may take a variety of forms, including but not limited to the policies of the Latter-day Saints, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and Exodus International. Although the literature on hate crimes against gay people is only starting to emerge, recent evidence suggests that anti-gay attitudes, fueled by misinformation and cultural sanction, may greatly influence the behavior of those predisposed to abuse lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
But if sexual orientation can be freely chosen, as conversion therapists claim, then why not change it therapeutically? Why pass laws that protect the rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people in the same way that laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or national origin? From a practical perspective, even the most firm advocates of conversion therapy will admit that sexual orientation is difficult to change. Sexual orientation is a deep, psychologically complex aspect of the human experience (Curran, 1957). Though one’s feelings about his or her sexual orientation may be changeable and susceptible to social influence, no evidence suggests that sexual orientation itself is so malleable.
From a civil rights perspective, the issue of whether homosexuality is unchangeable or a matter of free choice is equally irrelevant. Ultimately, the right of the individual to choose a sexual orientation or to refuse conversion therapy should not be grounds for stigmatization or for limiting civil rights. Our laws provide civil rights protection against discrimination related to numerous characteristics (such as religious beliefs-those held dear by the LDS Church, or some disability conditions) that are the product of choices.
Conversion therapy is not just an individual mental health issue but has implications for society. This discredited and ineffective psychological treatment harms individuals and reinforces the notion that homosexuality is not “normal.” In this regard, it is not a compassionate effort to help homosexuals in pain, but a means of exploiting unhappy people at the cost of homophobic people’s peace of mind, and of reinforcing social hostility toward homosexuality. Herein lies the real “reparative therapy:” helping refugees of conversion therapy reconstruct their sense of identity and rediscover their capacity to love, as well as repairing a society still affected by the myth that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are mentally ill. Reparative efforts are best directed toward a broken social context, not the individual who has been victimized by it.
And there it is. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas.
(Sorry that the paragraphs are not clearly indicated. I don't have time to mess with it now; but you can get the idea of where a new paragraph begins by the large blank line that proceeds it.)
“Reparative Therapy: Converting Sexual Orientation. Is it Ethical?”
More than twenty-five years ago, the mental health profession in the United States rejected the outdated view that homosexuality is a mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American Psychological Association have repeatedly affirmed that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and have urged their members to work to eradicate the stigma that has historically been associated with homosexuality. They are highly critical of attempts to change sexual orientation. The movement to change gay men and lesbians into heterosexuals through so-called conversion therapy or reparative therapy is founded on the discredited view that homosexuality is a mental illness, is not based on scientific data, and uses practices whose ethics have been questioned by the mainstream mental health profession.
First, the “success” of so-called reparative therapy techniques in changing sexual orientation has not been proved; it is highly doubtful that reparative therapies are actually able to change a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (Martin, 1984). Claims about their success are based on anecdotal reports, not on rigorous scientific studies that have been subjected to review by independent scientists. For every story about an individual whose sexual orientation was supposedly converted to heterosexuality, there are many other reports of people who tried unsuccessfully to change and who endured a great deal of psychological pain and suffering in the process.
Many interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation have succeeded only in reducing or eliminating homosexual behavior rather than in creating or increasing heterosexual attractions. They have, in effect, deprived individuals of their capacity for sexual response to others. Often, these “therapies” have exposed their victims to electric shocks or nausea-producing drugs while showing them pictures of same-sex nudes (Haldeman, 1991). One may find it useful, as somewhat of an analogy, to refer to a scene in Stanley Kubrick’s, “A Clockwork Orange,” wherein the main character is subject to a film of violent acts (having committed similar acts himself).
In other cases, “success” has been claimed when a patient merely reported having engaged in heterosexual intercourse. But being able to physically perform the actions of intercourse is not the same as adopting the complex set of attractions and feelings that constitute sexual orientation.
Another problem in many published reports of “successful” attempts to change sexual orientation is that the participants’ initial sexual orientation was never adequately assessed. Many bisexuals have been mislabeled as homosexuals with the consequence that the “successes” reported for the conversions actually have occurred among bisexuals who were highly motivated to adopt a heterosexual behavior pattern.
The extent to which people have actually changed their sexual behavior-even within the confines of these inadequate operational definitions-often has not been systematically assessed. Conclusions have often been based on the self-reports of psychoanalysts who were trying to change their patients’ sexual orientation (Haldman, 1994). In other cases, the patient’s self-reports were used. However, the accuracy of these self-reports is questionable because both the patients and therapists were highly motivated to report “success.” More rigorous objective assessments (such as having independent observers evaluate patients’ actual behavior over an extended period of time) have been lacking. According to the American Psychiatric Association, there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation (Haldman, 1991). There are few reports in the literature of efforts to use psychotherapeutic and counseling techniques to treat persons troubled by their homosexuality who desire to become heterosexual; however, results have not been conclusive, nor have they been replicated. There is no evidence that any treatment can change a homosexual person’s deep seated sexual feelings for others of the same sex.
In May of 2001, two papers on the topic of conversion therapies were presented at the American Psychiatric Association's annual convention. One paper, by Dr. Robert Spitzer, reported findings from 45-minute telephone interviews with 143 men and 57 women who had sought help to change their sexual orientation. He found that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had achieved "good heterosexual functioning" and he attributed this to the interventions (Dieterle, 2003). The Spitzer study was immediately criticized on several grounds. For example, the sample consisted predominantly of activists recruited from "ex-gay" and anti-gay organizations. About two thirds were referred to Spitzer by so-called "ex-gay ministries," such as Exodus, or by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Of those who participated, 78 percent had spoken publicly in favor of efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. This is a potential weakness of the study because activists are highly motivated to report that they successfully changed their sexual orientation. Consequently, they may present an inaccurate impression of themselves to researchers. Dr. Spitzer took the activists' testimonials at face value, with no checks on the reliability or validity of their self-reports. In his relatively brief interviews with them, Dr. Spitzer may not have been able to detect factual errors or misstatements - intentional or inadvertent - by the activists.
Dr. Spitzer did not claim that his findings could be generalized to the gay and lesbian population at large. Indeed, he was quoted in the New York Times as saying that, despite the findings from his study, the number of homosexuals who could successfully become heterosexual was likely to be "pretty low." He also conceded that participants in his study were "unusually religious" and were not necessarily representative of most gay men and lesbians in the United States.
The ethics of trying to change people’s sexual orientation have been called into question. Even if “reparative therapies” were able to change the sexual orientation of a small minority of the people upon whom they are used, their ethical basis is questionable. These treatments are simply an extension of society’s prejudices against gay men and lesbians. Typically, people who want to become heterosexual are reacting to society’s intense antigay hostility. Often, they are pressured to change by their family or religious group. In many cases, they are minors who have been placed in a “reparative therapy” program by their parents (Martin, 1984). Says the American Psychiatric Association, clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so.
In January of 1990, Dr. Bryant Welch, Executive Director for Professional Practice of the American Psychological Association, stated that “research findings suggest that efforts to ‘repair’ homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.” At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about the efficacy and ethics of so-called reparative therapies. The resolution highlighted the fact that many people who are the targets of “reparative therapy” are not really able to give informed consent to the procedure. This is especially true for adolescents who are being coerced into treatment by their parents or other adults. The resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct “conversion therapy” with individuals who are not capable of informed consent. The resolution reiterated the American Psychological Association’s position that psychologists are ethically required to respect people’s right to self-determination, to respect values different from their own, and to refrain from discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient (Haldman, 1994). Furthermore, many patients who have undergone ‘reparative therapy’ relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. Clearly, a bias has been created by society and thus prevents any homosexual to lead his or her life in what would be considered a normal, healthy manner. Perhaps it is for these reasons that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his or her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors.
With regard to religious groups advocating the practice of reparative therapy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is most prominent. As such, a discussion of doctrine and practice is not necessarily meant to decry the belief system held by Mormons, rather to act as an example of such therapies. First, the official LDS position on homosexuality must be established. According to Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the LDS Church, “People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times.” President Hinckley continues to say that if gays and lesbians do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. However, if they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are (Hinckley, 1998). The official position states that Mormons want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But LDS members cannot stand idle if homosexuals indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. It is Hinckley’s belief that to permit this situation would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose: the rearing of families. It is interesting to note the President’s use of the terms ‘so-called,’ and ‘problems.’ Of course these words are used intentionally, however they discredit the large percentage of scientific findings which expressly state that homosexuality is, indeed, not a problem or disorder. As it is with so many religious topics, however, a belief system rarely agrees with science absolutely; the LDS Church advocates, in many cases, the use of reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuals of their “illness.” However, in doing so, the Church apparently has not weighed the recommendation of the APA, which states that reparative therapy causes more harm than what LDS policy would consider “good.” Thus, there exists an anomaly within the doctrine: LDS-sanctioned therapy aims to “help” homosexuals, but rather it is, more often than not, causing more depression, guilt, and anxiety. It exacerbates what they would call “the problem.”
In an editorial published in the Salt Lake City Weekly, Ben Dieterle, a gay LDS member describes his experience with a reparative therapy program, “After attending the support group regularly for a few months, the rhetoric began to ring hollow, and my attendance dropped off. Was being gay caused by some unnatural, external force? Or was it simply part of my nature? I cast a vote in favor of my nature. I thought to myself, when someone can explain exactly why they’re straight, then I’ll give them a clear explanation as to why I’m gay.” Dieterle is just one of 20.8 perecent of all U.S. males who have reported homosexual attraction and behavior since age 15; clearly his situation is not unique (Allgeier, 1998). By the LDS standard, one-fifth of all the adult male population in the United States is or was at one time “misguided,” or more rashly, “mentally ill.” While this is still a minority of males, it represents an enormous section of the population. Additionally, it is most likely that this percentage has not grown or diminished over time-there has always been a certain number of indivduals with a homosexual orientation. However, only recently have many societies become more accepting, (due to a greater knowledge of the world) and thus allow a greater number of homosexuals to feel comfortable in identifying themselves. Therefore, the LDS definition of ‘normal’ is all but completely discredited; thus reparative therapy should not exist because, in essence, there is absolutely nothing to repair.
The recent conversion therapy ad campaign and the practice of conversion therapy are prime pathways for devaluing lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and reinforcing stigma. Inaccurate information encourages prejudice and discrimination. Research in social psychology tell us that while public opinion about gay and lesbian individuals has moderated over the past two decades, negative attitudes about homosexuality persist, and gay, lesbian, and bisexual people still experience harassment, discrimination, and violence. Discrimination may take a variety of forms, including but not limited to the policies of the Latter-day Saints, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and Exodus International. Although the literature on hate crimes against gay people is only starting to emerge, recent evidence suggests that anti-gay attitudes, fueled by misinformation and cultural sanction, may greatly influence the behavior of those predisposed to abuse lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
But if sexual orientation can be freely chosen, as conversion therapists claim, then why not change it therapeutically? Why pass laws that protect the rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people in the same way that laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or national origin? From a practical perspective, even the most firm advocates of conversion therapy will admit that sexual orientation is difficult to change. Sexual orientation is a deep, psychologically complex aspect of the human experience (Curran, 1957). Though one’s feelings about his or her sexual orientation may be changeable and susceptible to social influence, no evidence suggests that sexual orientation itself is so malleable.
From a civil rights perspective, the issue of whether homosexuality is unchangeable or a matter of free choice is equally irrelevant. Ultimately, the right of the individual to choose a sexual orientation or to refuse conversion therapy should not be grounds for stigmatization or for limiting civil rights. Our laws provide civil rights protection against discrimination related to numerous characteristics (such as religious beliefs-those held dear by the LDS Church, or some disability conditions) that are the product of choices.
Conversion therapy is not just an individual mental health issue but has implications for society. This discredited and ineffective psychological treatment harms individuals and reinforces the notion that homosexuality is not “normal.” In this regard, it is not a compassionate effort to help homosexuals in pain, but a means of exploiting unhappy people at the cost of homophobic people’s peace of mind, and of reinforcing social hostility toward homosexuality. Herein lies the real “reparative therapy:” helping refugees of conversion therapy reconstruct their sense of identity and rediscover their capacity to love, as well as repairing a society still affected by the myth that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are mentally ill. Reparative efforts are best directed toward a broken social context, not the individual who has been victimized by it.
And there it is. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas.