Excerpts from the Introduction of my upcoming book, "Looking Through the Dark Glass"

I have had the opportunity to work with individuals and families who have processed through issues related to same-gender attraction for many years now. It has been my privilege to be so close to this controversial issue. Truly, I have had some reservations about writing this post, because this is such a controversial issue, and the controversy, I believe has been tainted by politics more than science. However, after working with numerous clients and conducting countless groups for same-gender attraction, I have found it necessary to write this workbook, because truly, the population of individuals and families who either want to objectively understand the issue, or those who want to manage their attraction and live their values, have been misrepresented in our society as a whole. I have had many clients who have told me that for years they have been attempting to get help to “overcome” their attractions and keep their families, but the only help they could find were with therapist who told them that they had no choice but to leave their marriage and “live the lifestyle”. Does this issue need to be so black-and-white? Choice should be emphasized when dealing with same-gender attraction. I feel that therapist may instantly become biased when working with individuals with same-gender attraction. Either the therapist becomes an instant religious zealot, or a liberal activist. For example, often I have heard from clients that therapist have either said “this is who you are, you need to embrace this lifestyle... you were born this way... you have no choice, but to get out of your marriage and change your life”, or “this is all about lust... read more scriptures and turn away from your sin”. It is interesting that therapist can so quickly and easily abandon one of their core principles, to respect the autonomy of their clients! Lets take a moment and look at the issue in more detail: Misconceptions Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, in his ground-breaking and healing Ensign article, titled “Helping Those who Struggle with Same Gender Attraction”, stated, “Same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is.” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction,” Liahona, Oct 2007, 40–43 ). This article and statement dispelled many misunderstandings that church members had about the nature of same-gender attraction, showing that attractions to the same-sex is not behavior, thus is can not be sin—however acting against the law of chastity through homosexual acts is a sin and frustrates the plan of happiness. The Quorum of the Twelve, with the First Presidency added to Elder Holland's remarks with their pamphlet “God Loveth His Children”. It proclaims, “You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life.” The pamphlet goes on to say, “A number of Latter-day Saints with same-gender attraction are moving forward with their lives by carefully adhering to gospel standards, staying close to the Lord, and obtaining ecclesiastical and professional help when needed. Their lives are rich and satisfying, and they can be assured that all the blessings of eternal life will ultimately be theirs.” (God Loveth His Children [Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve, 2007] 1,4.) There is hope and there is support. President Gordon B. Hinkley stated: “Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters” (“Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 99) In their book, “Understanding Same-Sex Attraction”, Byrd, Cox, Dant, Dahle, Livingstone and Wells, state “Few subjects are as difficult to understand or as controversial as same-sex attraction... Viewpoints about it often fall into polar extremes... That is, it is seen as either a gross perversion or it is seen as an acceptable alternative to heterosexual attraction”(“Understanding Same-Sex Attraction”. Dahle, et. al., (2009) Foundation for Attraction Research, pg. 6) How true this is. As I have worked with countless client who have struggled with the heartbreak and frustration stemming from same-gender attraction, I have come to find that the individual, the family and the community around them, seem to to greatly misunderstand same-gender attraction. An entire book could be written on the misconceptions of same-gender attraction, for more on this subject, please refer to the book referred to above: “Understanding Same-Sex Attraction”. A. Dean Byrd and his colleagues were phenomenal in their research and depth of the subject of same-gender attraction, along with the misconceptions of it. One final highlight from this book: The term gay in context of same-sex attraction is correctly defined as a sociopolitical identity assumed by individuals, both men and women, who have embraced their homosexual attractions as a core sense of self. Likewise, the term lesbian is an assumed sociopolitical identity but refers exclusively to women. These terms define people based on their sexual feelings and can incorrectly imply that same-sex attraction are innate physical characteristics on the order of being male or female. As a therapist I know of the damaging nature of labels. When one labels themselves, they have the tendency to live up to that label and the definitions which come with that label. What does it truly mean to be gay? The media has its definitions, and many with same-gender attraction are living up to that society-bound implied and explicit definition of who they are supposed to be. Labels are damaging, you are yourself, not so-and-so, the gay person. Choice This is very complex, as are many other issues related to same-gender attraction. The world would have us believe that in some aspects of our lives we have no choice. The ideas of psychic determinism-or- we are destined to succumb to the psychological drives within us, are ideas which have been around since Sigmund Freud, and before. The idea that we can't chose our destiny is very destructive. Choice is the key. Forcefulness and coercion have no place in an existential/transpersonal person-centered approach. Furthermore, the concepts and notions of psychic determinism, which Freudian psychoanalysis espouses, are the antithesis to choice and free will, Minima non curat praetor. Basically, Sigmund Freud stated: “…But so far as I can observe, it [free will] does not manifest itself in weighty and important decisions; on these occasions, one has much more the feeling of a psychic compulsion and gladly falls back upon it… What is thus left free from the one side receives its motives from the other side, from the unconscious, and the determinism in the psychic realm is thus carried out uninterruptedly.” In some other forms, Freudianism hints to a type of circular causation, i.e. free-will—determinism—free will—determinism, however the outcome in this theory always concludes with a type of total psychic determinism, void of choice. Freud again discusses: “…many persons argue against the assumption of an absolute psychic determinism by referring to an intense feeling of conviction that there is a free will. This feeling exists, but is not incompatible with the belief in determinism.” (Freud, S., Psychopathology of Everyday Life, 1904, 129-130). [In regards to these criticisms to psychoanalysis, this mode of psychotherapy can be very beneficial to individuals, especially people who suffer from attachment issues. Therapies and theories, such as object relation, ego psychology, psychosocial (Erik Erikson), etc., are valid and impactful modes of treatment, in this author’s opinion]. The ideas of total psychic determinism can be negatively enabling and disempowering. Determinism suspends a sense of personal and social responsibility, and gives way to the excuse that, for example “this is the way I am, this is what I was born to be, and I will never change or grow”. Instead of seeing same-gender attraction as only influences, those who are determined by these issues live a life of relinquishing responsibility, which in turn, disables their personal growth. For example, many who have been addicted to substances use determinism as an excuse “I come from a long line of alcoholics—it is in the blood… I guess this is what I will turn out to be… an alcoholic.” Moreover, not only do Freudian psychiatrist ascribe to the ideas of determinism, there are other ideas which go beyond the notion of psychic determinism. There are anthropological ideas of genetic determinism, e.g. “it is in the gene pool”. Notions of social and environmental determinism can be found in theories of sociology and social work, for example there is a belief that the socioeconomic class that one is born into determines what a person’s future status will be in society. Essentially, the theory of determinism is a smoke screen, a justification to legitimate certain social sciences and political correctness; it undermines basic principles and gives idleness an excuse. However, the concepts of free will and choice are empowering. When an individual comes to awareness that they have control over their lives, the individual overcomes ideas of destiny and changes his/her life to come into line with her/his goals and objectives. The serenity prayer of AA fame puts these notions of free will, choice and control in a clear perpective: God grant me the serenity To accept the things I can not change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. A few years ago, while working with a religious-based treatment center, I met with a young man who was extremely suicidal because of his choice to use heroine, with its caustic affects. This young man also struggled with same-gender attraction. I sent him to a local hospital to obtain intensive treatment and to help him keep safe. After a day at the hospital, I decided to visit this client. After a good conversation on his progress with his addiction program, I was shocked to hear that his case worker didn't want him to meet with me anymore. Earlier that day, my client had a heated argument with the case worker centered on his attraction towards men. She had told him that he needed to embrace his attraction, leave his LDS religion and join a group to help him learn to increase sexual intimacy with other men. As per my client's report, she added that my client's suicidal thoughts were triggered by his unwillingness to involve himself in the gay lifestyle. He stated, in effect, “Yes, I struggle with these feelings I have inside... I accept that this attraction is part of me and will probably be with me for the rest of my life, but I have been on a mission... I have committed myself to God and to keep his commandments... yes, I made a mistake by getting myself involved with drugs, and I see this as going against the word of wisdom... you are telling me to violate an even bigger law—the law of chastity!.. Are you insane, I would be even more suicidal than I am now if I were to do that!” I believe one of the healing factors in my client's recovery was his opposition towards this case worker. I found in subsequent sessions that he had a new resolve to increase his participation in the church and to utilize his spirituality. Because you have same-gender attraction, it doesn't mean that you have to pack your bags and move to San Fransisco and find a gay relationship. Most of my clients wanted to live the gospel and keep their marriages together. Choice is possible. So again, is this issue a choice? I have found that same-gender attraction can be both nature and nurture. Is change possible? Lets take a look at the research: As I investigated research on the subject I came across the following 31 studies on the possibility to change perceptions towards same-gender attraction and supporting evidence for changes, in behavior, attractions, fantasy and self-identification by the subjects of the various studies and surveys, the findings suggested that a person really does have a choice in the matter. As an introduction to this discussion, it must be realized that sexuality is not as black and white as the world would have us believe. Alfred Charles Kinsey, was an American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology who in 1947 founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, where he developed the “Kinsey sexuality scale and spectrum”. He stated: Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 65) [from wikipedia.com “Kinsey Scale”] As part of his study on the sexual dynamics of people, Kinsey developed the following scale: Rating Description 0 Exclusively heterosexual 1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual 3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual. 4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual 5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 6 Exclusively homosexual X Asexual, Non-Sexual (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) Of the 31 studies, 28 of them presented information on over 2000 participants. Some of the participants in the study didn't have enough information on them to be considered in the studies reviewed. Those with whom enough data, before-and-after Kinsey sexual orientation, was available were assigned to groups consistent with the Kinsey scale above. In the study, they eliminated scores for participants whose “before” scores were lower than 5 on the Kinsey scale. The following are the findings: • 45 cases of people who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual (a 6 or 5 on the Kinsey scale) making a full shift in sexual orientation (to a 0 on the Kinsey scale). • 287 cases of people who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual (a 6 or 5 on the Kinsey scale) making a partial shift in sexual orientation (to a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale). • 86 cases of people who were exclusively or predominantly homosexual who transitioned to satisfying heterosexual relationships. (This third group of studies measured change by external behavior and reports of satisfaction, rather than reports of levels of attraction.) There were at around 400 incidents in the published psychological literature of heterosexual orientation shift. The research studies considerably reported at least 550 subjects whose perception of same-gender attraction and along with their perception that they actually had a choice in the matter had varying degrees of change toward increased heterosexuality. In the American Psychological Association's June 2002 issue of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays," summarizes 11 studies and concludes: "My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others." (see www.peoplecanchange.com) The ideas that a person has no choice when it comes to their feelings toward the same-gender and that there is "no evidence of successful sexual orientation change" is misinformed. Techniques such as Reparative therapy has not been discredited, as many political entities would have people believe. “It has simply fallen out of favor since the 1973 vote by the board of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its official encyclopedia of mental disorders. The research hasn't been disproved; it has simply been disenfranchised by the political correctness of the times.” (see peoplecanchange.com) The authors of the website, people can change, processed through the following insight into choice and the benefits of changing one's perception: The Benefits of Pursuing Change Critics like to claim that attempting to change one's sexual orientation puts one at risk for depression and even suicide. There no doubt have been those who have pursued change for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong ways, and thereby have inadvertently increased the internal conflict and struggle rather than decreasing it. These are unfortunate cases, but what do they prove? Only that that particular therapy or ministry was not helpful or appropriate for those particular individuals at the time. It doesn't prove that they are not helpful to or appropriate for anyone ever -- any more than the grumblings of a few lapsed Catholics would "prove" that Catholicism is harmful to all. Especially when there is significant evidence of others who benefit. • Dr. Robert Spitzer (http://www.narth.com/docs/published.html(found no evidence of harm among the 200 individuals he surveyed on their experience in reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries. He has stated, "To the contrary, they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself." • The NARTH survey (http://www.narth.com/docs/published.html) of 882 men and women who had pursued change said the therapy was beneficial to their mental health and helped them cope with and reduce their homosexual attractions. They also overwhelmingly rated their experience as positive on a range of variables, including self-acceptance, trust of the opposite sex, self-esteem, emotional stability, relationship with God, and depression. Only 7% of survey respondents said they were doing worse than before the therapy on three or more of 17 measures of psychological well-being. Elder Robert D. Hales explained that our choices affect more than ourselves: The challenge is to live in the world you not partake of the world's temptations, which will lead us away from our spiritual goals. When one of us gives up and succumbs to the wiles of the adversary, we may lose more than our own soul. Our surrender could cause the loss of souls who respect us in this generation. Our capitulation to temptation could affect children and families for generations to come (Ensign, May 1998, 76.) This statement is profound. I have seen many individuals lead into temptation, violate the law of chastity, and follow after the “gay lifestyle” all because of the influence of others. I have seen through my practice of psychotherapy, children follow the example of their fathers who had same-gender attraction, leave their wives and break the hearts of their own children. Don't underestimate the power of example, and don't let the adversary lead you into the belief that your choices will not affect others! Politics I have discovered that this issues of same-gender attraction has been driven by political agendas more than by psychological ones, to the result that psychology has followed political correctness to the detriment of those who are trying to understand their own attractions to the same-gender. There has been much controversy on the issue of gay activism, and it seems to me that the activist have a much different agenda from many of those I know who have attractions towards the same gender. I often ponder; why is this so? In his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, helped with the answer. He stated: ...Gay politics arouses in me an exasperated, somewhat stifled, outrage, exasperated and stifled because of the tangle of conflicting emotions that arise when “political power” is joined to “victim” status; outrage because gay activism distorts the truth and harms not only society but homosexuals themselves, especially young people... to the extent that homosexuals have been victimized, we can only reach out in compassion for the suffering, struggling soul... but the organized, political side of the picture is entirely different. Here we too often see on violent display the brute aspects of human nature in all it crudity, stupidity, vanity, selfishness, disregard for others, and disregard for the truth. Like so many of its predecessors, too often gay activism follows the dictum that desired ends justify the means.(Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality of the politics of truth, pg.21) Richard G. Scott, discusses the dangers of political correctness, especially when we base our concepts of truth on it. He states: Since truth is the only meaningful foundation upon which we can make wise decisions, how then can one establish what is really true? Increasingly more people are finding that making wise decisions is becoming more and more difficult because of the ultra-interconnected world in which we live. Constantly forced into our consciousness is an incessant barrage of counsel, advice, and promotions. It is done by a bewildering array of media, Internet, and other means. On a given subject we can receive multiple strongly delivered, carefully crafted messages with solutions. But often two of the solutions can be diametrically opposed. No wonder some are confused and are not sure how to make the right decisions. To further complicate matters, others try to persuade us that our decisions must be socially acceptable and politically correct. Some pondering of that approach will reveal how wrong it is. Since social and political structures differ widely over the world and can dramatically change with time, the folly of using that method to make choices is apparent. There are two ways to find truth—both useful, provided we follow the laws upon which they are predicated. The first is the scientific method. It can require analysis of data to confirm a theory or, alternatively, establish a valid principle through experimentation. The scientific method is a valuable way of seeking truth. However, it has two limitations. First, we never can be sure we have identified absolute truth, though we often draw nearer and nearer to it. Second, sometimes, no matter how earnestly we apply the method, we can get the wrong answer. The best way of finding truth is simply to go to the origin of all truth and ask or respond to inspiration. For success, two ingredients are essential: first, unwavering faith in the source of all truth; second, a willingness to keep God’s commandments to keep open spiritual communication with Him. (Richard G. Scott, “Truth: The Foundation of Correct Decisions,” Ensign, Nov 2007, 90–92 ) The truth about same-gender attraction and related issues should be based more on scientific research then on political maneuvering. How can we trust a persons subjective political ramblings without first backing it up by objective facts. This is the reason for the skewed reality on this subject. Santinover goes on to say: Here is the conundrum we face now that gay activism has burst onto the national scene. On the one hand we must decide how best to counter the tactics of intimidation and refute the false claims of a group that operates in the hostile mode of raw, power politics. On the other hand we must retain the profound compassion and fellow-feeling toward individual homosexuals that we ourselves need and yearn for from others... Gay activists, by contrast, deliberately seek to confuse these two dimensions. They insist that respect for a person is identical with accepting his or her political claims for equality in all areas of life. Even principled opposition is therefore tantamount to bigotry, “homophobia,” and the equivalent of race-hatred. But by deliberately confusing these two sides—the political and the personal—gay activism has created a dangerous monster. The lesser danger is that our very sympathy for the persecuted will blind us to the social danger. In the name of a murky, confused “inclusiveness” we will thereby sell out cultural birthright for a mess of political pottage. The greater danger, by far, is that our justifiable protest will stifle and eventually kill our understanding that “homosexuals” are... simply us. Should this occur, we lose not only our birthright, but our souls. (Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality of the politics of truth, pg.21)