The real flaws in homosexual advocacy

In 1973, Robert Spitzer, then-leader of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), supported the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder from the industry’s bible. He was a staunch opponent of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals – the practice of helping people (mostly men) struggling with homosexuality overcome those urges and change their sexual choices.

In 2003, Spitzer recanted that earlier position and argued in a peer-reviewed journal that people struggling with homosexuality can indeed be helped to not make those sexual choices. Of course – using a tactic they found so successful in politicizing medicine and science back in 1973 through their public protests at the APA convention – homosexual advocates raised a ruckus. But Spitzer lived with it. For a while.

Now, in 2012, dying of Parkinson’s disease, Spitzer is back to his original sentiment that, notwithstanding his peer-reviewed work on the subject, he thinks he was right in 1973. In The New York Times, Spitzer writes, “I think I owe the gay community an apology.” He adds, 

The study had serious problems. It was based on what people remembered feeling years before – an often fuzzy record. It included some former gay advocates, who were politically active. And it did not test any particular therapy; only half of the participants engaged with a therapist at all, while the others worked with pastoral counselors or in independent Bible study.

Of this contrition The Salt Lake Tribune, ever objective about homosexual issues, reports, “The most serious flaw, critics argued, was that the change was all self-reported.”

Bingo! Now we’re getting somewhere.

In fact, the most serious flaw in the entire rhetorical arsenal of homosexual advocacy is that EVERYTHING about “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” is self-reported. Homosexuality 101 teaches that “sexual orientation” is a feeling, not a behavior (the same for “gender identity”). This doctrine allows those advocates to state with all confidence that notwithstanding a human being has never had sexual relations of any kind, only thoughts and feelings, that human beings can be eternally locked into an existence called “gay.”

Have you wondered how a 10-year old boy can say with confidence “I’m gay”? While it is quite possible that this little boy was molested by a man, was unable to resolve the emotional difficulties arising from such abuse, and now finds pathetic solace in a self-conclusive “gay” emotional prison, the reality is that this little boy is nothing but an abuse victim or, if no abuse occurred, a little boy who simply “self-reports.” He could call himself Captain America or the Incredible Hulk and it would have the same meaning in this latter scenario.

Because there is no replicable scientific or medical proof that any human being is “born gay,” the only scientific evidence we have of homosexuality is when a human being has sexual relations with another human being of the same sex.

And yet, homosexual advocates, sympathetic friends and relatives and (often beguiled) legislators maintain the wisdom of anti-discrimination laws and other “gay rights” based solely on self-reporting – based solely on someone’s emotional imagination.

Spitzer is a dedicated psychiatrist. He believes in the science of psychiatry. So much so that he can’t see the forest because of the trees. As quoted above, Spitzer was turned because he can’t see how a human being can change his or her behavior without having talked with a licensed therapist. He questions the value of an emotional release valve in the form of a “pastoral counselor” and “Bible study group” to help a person heal and make constructive changes. (Think of a bishop or Evergreen International in Mormondom.)

And Freud forbid that a human being could ever exercise his or her moral agency and make a drastic life change in thoughts, feelings and behavior on their own without having spoken with anyone!!

Here is where the ideology of homosexuality is laid bare: People struggling with homosexuality fall into one of two categories of irrationality – either they were physically abused and are unable to fully come to grips emotionally with that abuse, or they simply choose to believe that they have no moral agency and submit to a “gay” emotional prison. Of course there is another view of “gay,” but one frowned upon in the ideology of homosexuality: people who, of their own free will and choice, choose to have same-sex sexual relations. But those who do (mostly admitted to by women, by the way) are ridiculed for violating the first principle of Homosexuality 101: it’s not a choice.

Robert Spitzer is irrelevant in the world of “gay” politics. What is relevant is the war between reason and irrationality. Telling a 10-year old boy who is emotionally unresolved because he was sexually abused by a sick man that this boy is now “gay” is just as wrong as telling a young girl who was raped by a sick man that she was somehow responsible for her own rape. And telling yourself that the exercise of your sexuality is anything more than a choice is, well, irrational.

Reason testifies that human beings are born male or female. It informs us that any physiological variations that appear to distort our masculinity or femininity are simply that – distortions of male and female, not a new gender. And reason stands as a witness that the exercise of sexuality in the name of our natural maleness and femaleness – the family – leads to human happiness.

But what do I know? I’m not a licensed therapist.

This entry was posted in Gay Rights and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • rmwarnick

    There is no such thing as “gay rights,” rights dependent on sexual orientation.  However, our Constitution demands equal rights for all.  That’s what we mean by freedom in America.

  • rmwarnick

    There is no such thing as “gay rights,” rights dependent on sexual orientation.  However, our Constitution demands equal rights for all.  That’s what we mean by freedom in America.

  • Andrea

    Spitzer’s changes in opinion are quite metaphorical. First, he said gays could not change their sexual orientation. Then he said they could. Then he said they couldn’t. This is similar to reparative “therapy”. First, someone acknowledges that he is gay. Then he underogoes “therapy” and comes out straight. And then later on, he acknowledges reality and admits that he is gay.

  • Andrea

    Spitzer’s changes in opinion are quite metaphorical. First, he said gays could not change their sexual orientation. Then he said they could. Then he said they couldn’t. This is similar to reparative “therapy”. First, someone acknowledges that he is gay. Then he underogoes “therapy” and comes out straight. And then later on, he acknowledges reality and admits that he is gay.

  • Andrea

    If someone went through reparative “therapy” and ended up bisexual, would that be considered a partial success?

    Has anyone tried reparative “therapy” in reverse? That is, try to make a “straight” guy gay?

    Do all conservative “think tanks” but the word “gay” in quotation marks?

  • Andrea

    If someone went through reparative “therapy” and ended up bisexual, would that be considered a partial success?

    Has anyone tried reparative “therapy” in reverse? That is, try to make a “straight” guy gay?

    Do all conservative “think tanks” but the word “gay” in quotation marks?

  • Pingback: instant loans canada()

  • Pingback: direct payday loan markham lender()

  • Pingback: drugrehabcentershotline.com addiction treatment centers()