American Queery

7/18/2005

"Ex-gays" in schools: denying the facts, teaching self-hate, promoting intolerance

Salon has started a series of articles on "ex-gay" groups and their agenda. Part of the catalyst for this is the recent brouhaha in the school district where I grew up, Montgomery County, MD: the Board of Education wanted to pass a progressive, informative sex-ed curriculum; ex-gay groups sued; the County settled by paying their legal fees and having the ex-gay groups have a seat at the next round of curriculum talks.


The first article has this unbelievable quote about life in one of the "therapy" groups; it would be funny if it weren't so tragic:


According to ["reparative therapy" group] Love in Action's rules, posted on Zach's blog, clients must report sexual fantasies to the staff. The program specifies the exact length of haircuts and how many times men must shave each week (seven). Love in Action bars jewelry and clothing by Abercrombie and Fitch. The rules prohibit "campy gay/lesbian behavior and talk." New clients are not allowed to talk to or make eye contact with anyone for the first three days. Clients have to wear pajamas to bed and if they get too cozy they "must always have exactly one person between them." Clients cannot keep a diary, and all their belongings are searched every morning by the "Chain of Command." All secular media, including music and movies, are forbidden. Also, during counseling -- no "disgusting" faces.


The truth of the matter, though, is that
"The mental health professions in this country do not value or credit conversion therapy at all. And we are increasingly aware of the potential harms of this misguided treatment," says Haldeman, of the Association of Practicing Psychologists. "There are a substantial number of people who go through this who are harmed for some period. This is just a dressing up of old, old theories that have never been proven."

The American Psychiatric Association has asked ethical psychiatrists to refrain from reparative therapy. "We are finding that the numbers of people claiming to be harmed by reparative therapy are increasing," says Dr. Jack Drescher, chair of the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues. "I don't know about the suicides because it is hard to determine why somebody killed themselves afterward. But the harm is increasing. The legislative body of Drescher's APA approved a statement this past spring that endorsed gay marriage to help reverse gay stigma. They also cite evidence that stable, monogamous relationships are beneficial for mental health, whether gay or straight.


Here's a New York Times article on the same topic. Here's what Rev. John J. Smid, the executive director of Love in Action, has to say:

The goal of the program, said Mr. Smid, who said he was once gay but now renounces homosexual behavior, is not necessarily to turn gays into practicing heterosexuals, but to "put guardrails" on their sexual impulses.

"In my life I've been out of homosexuality for over 20 years, and for me it's really a nonissue," Mr. Smid said.

"I may see a man and say, he's handsome, he's attractive, and it might touch a part of me that is different from someone else," he said. "But it's really not an issue. Gosh, I've been married for 16 years and faithful in my marriage in every respect. I mean I don't think I could white-knuckle this ride for that long."


Doesn't that sound like a great way to pass your life!

3 Comments:

  • As someone who just a few years ago was actively trying to find "victory" against my homosexuality -- not in a formal program but involving much prayer, confession and accountability -- I have mixed feelings about such groups. On the one hand, of course they have a right to exist and proselytize. And if people successfully complete the program with more contentment and joy in their life, more power to them. But I wouldn't want them to be the only ones speaking to teens. As long as someone is speaking the other message to young teens -- "you are just fine the way you are" -- then I believe (perhaps too optimistically?) that the marketplace of ideas is a good thing. Yes, I believe these groups are denying facts, teaching self-hate and promoting intolerance, but I support their right to do so. I'm just glad I've left the chains of their dogma.

    By Blogger Crowing Cock, at 7/19/2005 01:43:00 PM  

  • Certainly, adults should have the right to freely choose to participate in such programs to "change" their sexuality, however misguided, ineffectual, and destructive we may believe them to be. That's basic personal freedom. Nevertheless, while I think we have no grounds to outlaw such programs for freely-consenting adults, we have every right to participate in the "free marketplace of ideas" and argue against them, trying to convince people to not choose that road.

    The situation is murkier with juveniles, who are more often than not thrown into such programs without freely consenting and, indeed, without being informed about the scientific consensus on the normalcy of same-sex desire. Certainly parents should have the right to educate their children as they see fit, but where do we draw the line (if one is to be drawn) when parents put their children through such destructive programs?

    It is clear, though, that in public school settings such anti-gay programs and agendas have no place. It has been established that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality itself. Attempts to say otherwise are not based on research but on dogma which has no place in government-run programs such as public schools.

    By Blogger Victor Chudnovsky, at 7/20/2005 10:23:00 PM  

  • I think murky is the operative word. I teach in a public junior high in a pretty conservative community. Though closeted myself, I look for opportunities to demonstrate an acceptance of the GLBT community in front of my class, though I do so carefully. Currently, I think you could describe our official/though really unofficial policy toward gayness in my building as neutral. It is neither affirmed publicly (we have no out role-models or any sort of GLBT support group and our sex-ed teachers stay away from the subject), nor do we allow public intolerance. Students who bully others for perceived GLBT behavior are punished. If we had a group in the building that said publicly, "Gay is fine, even good," I feel hard-pressed to see how we could not allow a group that says "Gay is not fine, we have a way out of that life." Remember, I think the second is crap. But they think the former is crap. Why should my opinion trump theirs?

    Unfortunately, introducing science into the conversation does not win the argument. One has only to look at the evolution debate to see the futility of convincing fundamentalist believers with anything that challenges their beliefs.

    There are two other points that I think need to be kept in mind: One is that most communities in America are like mine: Gays are tolerated only if they don't make their lives too public. The vast majority of people in my community, I believe, are at least latently homophobic. Push them too hard and we lose the fight big time. Second, the age of the students involved makes a difference in my mind. While I admit I prefer the almost "don't ask, don't tell" neutrality of my school, I think a fairly open debate between the various sides is something that would benefit most high schoolers. Giving them the recent Slate series would be a great place to start.

    By Blogger Crowing Cock, at 7/23/2005 12:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home