Forward from Joel McDonald, creator of Virginia Beach Progressives:  The question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice is not only extremely important in the debate on gay rights, it’s central to the debate. While I personally subscribe to the Kinsey scale, which allows for some choice, I also can attest to the reality that there are people who have no choice in the matter regarding being attracted to people of the same sex. These people, in the grand scheme of things, are a small minority. However, no matter how small that minority may be, they are entitled to every right and privilege granted to any citizen in the pursuit of happiness.

Melanie Jones presents here a fantastic write up on a presentation given by Mark Yarhouse, a same-sex attraction researcher funded by Exodus, at Regent University. I think her report on what was said and her thoughts on the issue are very much worth reading and considering. You can read more about this presentation over at Our Own Online.

Conservative Christian communities have long advocated that homosexuality is a choice, one that once the offender had found the true path laid out by God will be abandoned.  Through various tactics, ranging from the cruel and unusual, such as electroshock therapy and physical abuse, to the mundane, but still potentially emotionally stunting, therapy and targeted faith-based teachings, certain groups have actively tried to “cure’ homosexual urges.  It was this therapy, and more specifically the quantitative numbers that could deem it either successful or a waste of time, and of whether this treatment is harmful to the participants, which was the topic of the symposium today held at Regent University. Dr. Mark Yarhouse of the Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity, based at Regent, and Dr. Erica Tan of Eden Counseling Center both presented their findings, seven years in the making. They were to an extent inconclusive, as many participants who started in the research study later, throughout the six years of tracking, dropped out, as it were.  The study, which started out at 98 ended with nearly 70, and of those who stayed on, the findings were too varied to say definitively that these techniques work to eradicate homosexuality. It also was not long-term enough; those who may possibly have been found “cured” may very well have later been unable to maintain the heterosexual lifestyle.  The specifics of this study can be read as an attachment at the Institute’s site.

One interesting part of this study was in its measure of success, in that it counted those who chose chastity over homosexuality as a marker of such and counted it in the plus column for faith-based correctional therapy.  One could argue that this so-called chastity is actually an inability on the part of the participant to engage in intimate partnerships with others, since the ones that they desire are unattainable and those they can have are undesirable.  Not only that, but the guilt and confusion surrounding same sex attraction, and the possible harsh methods to eradicate it may have even left the participant unable to sexually perform.  When Dr. Yarhouse was questioned as to the sustainability and even desirability of chastity as an alternative to homosexuality, he became a bit patronizing, answering that this virtue was often sought in Christianity, as God condemns sex outside of wedlock.  His partner, Dr. Tan, was a bit less so, citing that those who were chaste were better able to form real human connections outside of the realm of sexuality, begging the question of whether or not she feels that the GLB community (Transgendered deliberately omitted as a separate topic) is over-sexed and unable to form platonic bonds.  Human sexual intimacy is such a crucial part of experience that this almost flippant disregard for such an important segment of life is inexcusable, and those who have suffered the loss of it must be counseled back to a point where they can have meaningful sexual relationships.  These relationships are not merely a disgusting bodily function, but can be a culmination of a relationship, one that has been robbed by overbearing conservative hegemony.

Secondly comes the question of choice in this study.  Is it truly possible to say that the participants had the autonomy to actually choose to leave their homosexuality behind, as it were, and, as a free agent, participate in correctional therapy.  This point is marked in the research as a possible point of contention, and I would like to now contend it. Most of the participants in this study were from conservative backgrounds, presumably having been indoctrinated from an early age as to the “evils” of homosexuality.  The evangelical movement has labeled same-sex desire as both a sin and a choice, implicating those who have these urges as active agents in their participation, and therefore as having the ability to actively choose against it.  So following that logic, one could arrive at the conclusion that those who participated were free agents.  If, however, the premise is that homosexuality is not a choice and that those who participate in correctional therapy do so because of indoctrination, intimidation, and the fear of alienation, then it follows that they are not agents and do not have the free will to participate.  This calls into question the very ethics of this study.  Yarhouse referenced this, but only in passing.

Lastly, it is important to point out that Yarhouse and Tan’s research was funded by Exodus International, a conservative Christian group whose main objective is to cure homosexuals of their same sex desire and to assimilate them back into a traditional, heterosexual lifestyle within the church.  Although the study denies that this funding changed the outcome, it does indicate the premise from which the research continued and gives an uncomfortable connotation of inhumane methods of correction.

Related posts:

1. For Virginia Partisans, there really wasn’t a choice
2. Smoke Screening Discrimination?
3. Blogging going the way of the telephone?