Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Fight for Equality–from the Right
Ken Williams already has two strikes against him. He is a Christian pastor. He was gay at one time and found his way back to a heterosexual life and is now married with four kids. And he has a third strike against him as he fights legislation in California that could prevent counseling gays who want to explore the possibility of living as heterosexuals.
Williams was interviewed on the Daily Signal podcast and told his story of realizing he was homosexual, how he re-discovered his male sexuality with a friendship with a woman, and then fell in love with that woman who became his wife. (A partial copy of the interview is here.) He now counsels people who want to deal with same-sex attraction and works with them in a very loving, compassionate way. In a sense, he has lived their story.
When asked if his work with clients was conversion therapy, he was firm in his belief that it was not, and in fact didn’t know anyone who had gone through it:
What’s so common though is people are confused about their identity or their sexuality. They go and they talk it out with a counselor, and the counselor helps them figure out what they want to go toward and leads them that direction … follows what they’re wanting to pursue and helps them go that direction.
So I know tons of people who have been so helped by things that could be labeled as conversion therapy that were merely a person talking with the counselor and figuring out, ‘Why do I feel the way that I do?’
He also acknowledged the damage that Christianity had done to those who believed they were gay:
For so long and in Christian circles it was, this is the mandate, ‘Gay people are detestable. They’re going to hell. They’re terrible,’ or whatever. And there wasn’t any offering for, ‘OK, wait a minute, God loves you and he wants to help you.’ It was just, ‘You shouldn’t be who you are,’ and that can’t be God first of all. And who wants to behave that way?
So I feel some of what we’re experiencing today is a reaction from a society that was holding expectations of people without helping loving them into what that expectation might be.
I so regret that that happened, but the way to fix it now is for all of us to be loving of people without necessarily agreeing.
A number of thoughts came to me as I listened to Williams. He was candid about his own history, and shared his struggles and his fears about his own sexuality. His compassion and caring for others were apparent. Although I am quite sure that he hoped, at some level, that people he counseled would turn to the sexuality they were born with, he also demonstrated that his primary concern was to be an empathetic listener, to help people explore their history, and to help them heal, however it may occur.
Another thought I have been exploring is the process for a person changing his or her sexual orientation. Some research shows that the brain can influence sexuality, although there is not consensus in the medical community:
The functionalities of regions in the brain like the amygdala and the hypothalamus have been proven to be determined genetically and are influenced by hormones. Developments in these regions kick in even before an individual learns cognitive skills or is exposed to environmental and educational settings. But scientists still do not negate the role of environmental factors.
I’m not a scientist, but I do know from my years of practicing and studying meditation that the brain is altered through regular practice. The number of neural pathways is increased, the pre-frontal lobe thickens (which increases a sense of well-being), and many people have other improvements in health-related areas.
Ken Williams cited the fluidity of sexuality and his marriage of 13 years:
As we’ve gone further through marriage, and I’ve continued to work on my own heart and being part of that men’s purity group, where I feel like I’m constantly getting better as a man and taking more responsibility for my life and just, I don’t know, continuing to grow.
A lot of my friends that I know that share my similar experience, it becomes kind of fluid that way, as far as your understanding of yourself and of your sexual desires, they can shift. Even the APA will tell you that, that there can be a shift in sexual desires. So contrary to popular opinion, they can shift both ways.
Given the fact that the brain actually can change, why couldn’t a person who wanted to be heterosexual develop neural pathways that would be focused on developing heterosexual attitudes? If people who were deeply religious wanted to change, in order to serve G-d more appropriately, and took steps to do so, why shouldn’t they be allowed, even encouraged to change? Again, I want to emphasize that this type of counseling should be voluntary and can’t be forced on a person.
Deeply concerning to me is that we are making alternative lifestyles normal, and even criticizing people who want to follow their gender of birth. Why shouldn’t this type of therapy be encouraged, if they are interested? Why should they be pressured to pursue a gay lifestyle that makes them feel inauthentic and irreligious?
The problem in 2019 is that a bill in California that was tabled in 2018 is being proposed again. It is called the Equality Act and would essentially override the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). These types of laws have been used in other states:
These state laws have been used to shut down Catholic adoption agencies that only place children with a mother (biologically female) and a father (biologically male). They have also been used, famously, to compel people working in the wedding industry, like florists, photographers and bakers, to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies, in violation of their religious conscience and without regard to the availability of such services from vendors who would be happy to provide them.
But the future implications are even worse, if that’s possible. Monica Burke of the Heritage Foundation describes what has already occurred:
The Equality Act would be used to compel speech. Virginia high school teacher Peter Vlaming lost his job for something he did not say. A county school board voted unanimously to fire the veteran teacher over the objections of his students after he refused to comply with administrators’ orders to use masculine pronouns in referring to a female student who identifies as transgender. Vlaming did his best to accommodate the student without violating his religious belief that God created human beings male and female, using the student’s new name and simply refraining from using pronouns altogether.
Unfortunately, the school still considered this a violation of its anti-discrimination policy.
Ken Williams is taking a stand against the Equality Act. Ironically, he is the one fighting for equality, not those who sponsor this bill. Since California is historically in the lead for cultural change, let’s hope they can be stopped.
Published in Law
How is it that homosexuality can be partly hereditary if matched pairs (identical twins) don’t yield consistent results? It’s been my understanding that the acid test for human traits is must be consistent with matched pairs. Also I find it difficult to grasp how a “gay gene” could develop in a species which would take generations of breeding by homosexuals … not likely.
It’s become a social norm for homosexuality to be considered genetic, it’s convenient. It’s convenient for parents who no longer need to feel they failed by raising a homosexual child, or that they could have done something differently. It’s convenient for straights who can firmly prove their heterosexuality because they don’t have “the gene.” It’s convenient for LGBT’s political ambitions in that they can call down a host of protections for people who were simply “born that way.”
A few years back a friend invited me to dinner with a nice conservative suburban-type couple. The first dinner was tremendous and I served up my top notch Margaritas. The second dinner didn’t go so well when the woman revealed her daughter was gay and I insisted she couldn’t have been born that way. That made me persona-non-grata.
My suspicion is that gays, or traits bound up with gayness, are in some way ‘useful’ to mankind as a whole. But that isn’t particularly meaningful either – how would you ‘prove’ it, and further, how would you demonstrate a usefulness that transcends history?
“How is it that homosexuality can be partly hereditary if matched pairs (identical twins) don’t yield consistent results?” For example, a pair of twins might have a tendency toward lung cancer or heart disease, but only the twin who is a couch potato or a smoker will actually get sick. With homosexuality, one twin might have a particular experience that starts him down one road rather than the other. Also there is usually some difference in the prenatal environment.
As I already explained, sexually antagonistic selection can account for the development of what might loosely be called a “gay gene”; though it might actually be a “male pheromones smell good to me” gene that influences both sexes.
So a counselor can tell a man “You might be a woman” but he cannot tell a man “You might be straight”? And that makes sense because . . . ?
A couple of thoughts.
If there is a homosexual gene and they find it. Abortion will come to an end via the homosexual lobby. Or it will rip the left apart or both.
Is there a fat gene, criminal gene, etc, etc ?
If you are born that way, then the “blank slate” theory is hogwash. You then have to start taking IQ across population groups seriously. This will also cause the left and con inc to go spastic.
Homosexuals and there apologists want things both ways. Many on the right assist them in this endeavor.
The Bible is correct in its analysis. It is a sin like all others. Inheritable ? To the extent that predilection to particular sin’s can follow the famly tree.
They won’t find a Homosexual a gene. However, they just may lie about it. Then when normie’s who are keen on abortion start aborting their homosexual off spring. All hell wil break loose.
I love this comment, @vancerichards. Yep, you’ve got it right . . .
Actually, @kevinschulte, there is supposedly research that says people can have a predilection for. . . whatever. Which means squat. Tendencies, family histories, all of that (and I think you agree) mean nothing because we all have one “gene” in common: free will. My entire family struggled with weight problems. Actually they were discipline problems. I would love to eat lots of stuff, all the time, but I guess I was born with a “discipline” gene. My discipline gene and my older body make it harder every year to behave, but that’s all about me, nothing else.
Susan, I’m curious how you believe the following problem should be addressed:
In the past many homosexual children have been subjected to “counseling” – usually but not always from a religious perspective – intended to help them to cease to be homosexuals. Putting aside the question of whether this ever works, it’s undeniable that it often does not, In many cases this counseling is undesired by the child and insisted upon by a parent or parents. Because of the particular struggle to come to self-acceptance that most gay people go through, such counseling can reinforce pre-existing feelings of self-loathing and create or magnify episodes of serious depression, in some cases leading to suicide. If I had been subjected to this treatment as a teenager, I am quite certain I would not be writing this today. As it is, it was touch a go for a couple of years and I feel fortunate to have survived.
I’m not asking about adults who choose to undergo this counseling. I am skeptical, but I wish them all the luck in becoming whatever they want to be. I’m also not asking about bakers, or transgender bathrooms, or at what age treatment for transgender individuals is appropriate or anything else someone might pipe in and claim is part of a slippery slope. I’m just asking about homosexual children subjected to this “counseling” (whether you call it conversion therapy or not) involuntarily in an attempt to change their sexual orientation. Do you:
Well, she definitely was a threenager, so totally not ruled out.
Important questions, @catorand. If it’s a religious house, I think the parents should be consistent in their teachings, but I don’t think kids should be humiliated or forced to go through counseling. I do think that if they are confused and unhappy about their sexuality, they could be treated as Ken Williams treats people: with compassion and with genuine exploration. It’s a delicate situation. But to reinforce a child’s homosexuality and “encourage” them to embrace it might also be putting needless pressure on them, too. I think a door should be opened where they can discuss their feelings and experiences for a period of time. If the child is not willing to do this, I don’t think there’s any point in trying to do it: all their energies will be put into resisting (because that’s what kids do). But if they are confused (which could very well be a factor, especially at an earlier age), they should be encouraged to look into it, perhaps with a professional.
From much that I’ve read, children’s sexuality identity can be fluid, especially early in life. I’m disturbed at the pressures put on children to be the gender-of-the-day; that kind of coercion is unacceptable, too.
That is a subtle answer that probably raises as many questions as it answers when it comes to policy making. Some parents will “send” their children to “counseling” in an attempt to eradicate their homosexuality, even if the child in question is not confused and not a willing participant. That is a fact in the world that we cannot change. What we can do, from a policy perspective, is to regulate how the “counselor” is permitted deal with that situation. What say you? Refuse on the grounds that the treatment is unethical or illegal? Or attempt to comply with the parent’s wishes?
As an aside, I’m skeptical about how Ken Williams actually treats people. I’m skeptical about everything about his story. It’s not hard to imagine why a practitioner would want to put the friendliest possible face on “conversion therapy.” But since all we have to go on is what he’s told us (I listened the podcast too), I’m just putting that aside. I can’t add anything more useful than “sounds unlikely to me” which I know doesn’t advance the ball much.
The question is.
What position should a school have in the direction of a kids sexuality ?
I say neutral, sadly we have advocacy for the homosexual lifestyle. This is just wrong.
@catorand, whose policies are we talking about? Government policies? I hope not. You are correct: parents can do damaging things to their kids in many different areas. Who would set the regulations for counselors? What about counselors who want to coerce children into being gay when they are simply confused? The problem can show up in either direction. I think if a counselor feels that his or her ethics are being compromised, he or she shouldn’t take on the patient. Doesn’t a counselor have the right to refuse to provide treatment? The difficulty, as I’ve said, is whose ethics are to be followed?
I’m not surprised that you’re skeptical about Ken Williams. You have some built-in biases, as do I in the opposite direction. These are excellent issues you raise; I’m sorry they aren’t discussed more openly and honestly.
A few responses:
I am not comfortable with your using “conversion therapy” to describe this kind of exploration. I could just as easily say that a conversion therapy is being used to convince kids they are trans, couldn’t I? I don’t have a problem in providing ethical guidelines within psychology, although that profession is so far left that I’m very skeptical that it wouldn’t be political; I’d add the caveat that people who hold different perspectives should contribute to these rules. Also, I don’t know if there is data to support your sentence that I bolded above; I just don’t know.
I think we are actually not far apart in our beliefs on this issue. We both are very concerned about these issues and how the kids are treated.
I like how “science” pushes the envelope when it comes to normalizing homosexuality.
I”ve seen articles written about this travesty, it just points to the level of power of LGBT … doesn’t need to make sense on a rational level.
Yes, but we usually discuss law, politics and public policy on this site and the question of whether this sort of “counseling” (if you don’t like “conversion therapy” – which I use as a short hand as much as anything) should be subject to legal regulation is a binary one. Either you believe it should or you believe it shouldn’t. If you believe it should, we can then discuss what the terms of the regulation should be and we might not be that far apart on that question, if you grant my premise that there should be regulation. But if you believe it shouldn’t be regulated, that ends the legal, political and policy discussion.
If I’m reading you correctly, we are diametrically opposed on that “should/shouldn’t” be regulated question. The fact that we may not be that far apart on the “how best to treat children” question doesn’t change that.
The one place we may agree on the “should/shouldn’t” question is on who should do the regulating. It should be no surprise that I am generally of the view that politicians as a class have little expertise in anything and so things like standards of care might be better regulated by professional bodies rather than state legislatures. I am open to the idea that the regulation of this sort of treatment is better done by professional bodies with loss of licensing being the maximum penalty for bad behavior, rather than by law with fines or incarceration being options for sanctioning it. But one way or another, I think we need to bring the question out of the shadows and impose some standards on the practice.
When it concerns a minor, a parents views should reign supreme within reason. That a parent views their child going homosexual as a problem, is reasonable. For the homosexual to lobby to regulate a psychological option off the table for that parent is authoritarianism. This has been the nature of the politics of that community.
Cato, I don’t see where you read that I was opposed to regulations;I don’t have a problem with regulation–just governmental regulation. It sounds like you believe the same. As long as every type of therapist is governed by those rules established by professional organizations, I don’t think there’d be a problem. I suspect the problem will be in reaching agreement on the rules–from both or all sides of the discussion.
You are correct, Kevin. I think (not sure yet) that Cato and I want to be sure that a fair approach is used in exploring a child’s sexuality. Determining those rules, of course, will be near to impossible with the influence of the Left in these areas. One only has to read Jonathan Haidt to know that the Left dominates the area of moral psychology.
You need not look any further than advocacy in the schools to see the way any regulations would travel.
Cato knows this I think.
You are not entirely wrong, in that most evolutionary biologists stayed mum on the issue of homosexuality, until they figured out an evolutionary explanation. They didn’t want to provide support for the once-dominant view that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
My recollections of the great “IQ argument” of the late 60s and early 70s makes me uneasy about making professional associations the arbiters of anything; e.g., how children are to be counseled, as discussed elsewhere in the comments. I, of course, understood why they did it but, during the IQ argument, associations in the field of psychology repeatedly adopted resolutions that falsified the science.
Another important point. It’s all pretty discouraging, isn’t it? Thanks, @taras.
Pretty sure philosophy, morality, ethics, and religion are discussed, as well.
I think we agree on wanting to be “fair.” I will be surprised if it turns out we agree on what’s “fair” though. I saw your earlier comment in which you agreed that some regulation was appropriate, and I think we were both comfortable with professional body regulation being the best venue. Apologies for misinterpreting you on that.
The question then becomes the content of the regulation (or ethical rules, as they might more properly be called). I know this is not the only question, but the one I am most interested in is this:
What must a counselor do when parents bring a child in and ask the counselor to help the child overcome homosexuality, but the child says s/he doesn’t want to overcome homosexuality and doesn’t want to be there, but can’t make his/her parents understand and accept that fact.
My answer is very clear. The counselor must decline to act on the parent’s request. He/she might attempt to help the child in other ways, but to attempt to make the child into a heterosexual, or to shame the child for being homosexual, or to in any way support the notion that there is something wrong with the child because s/he is homosexual, is unethical behavior by a counselor. A counselor who is in the business of doing those things primarily should not be licensed as a counselor and should not be permitted to practice counseling. A counselor who is caught doing them in an individual case should be warned that s/he has violated the ethical rules of counseling and that s/he may be subject to more serious sanctions if it occurs again.
What is your answer?
I would give the same answer to parents who asked a counselor to “force” a child to accept being trans. In fact, if a child is forced to go to a counselor for any reason, it’s probably a waste of time and money. No one wants to be forced, and will probably resist the therapy. If the child is confused about his or her sexuality, that’s a different story. But again, the child should be open to exploring the questions. And I would wish the child to go to a skilled and experienced therapist.
Of course biologists have only an interest in biological explanations and I’m not certain that they figured out an evolutionary explanation as much as they’ve managed to concoct and explanation. “Sexually antagonistic selection” sounds like a concoction to me. From a more behavioral perspective it would make sense that a male growing up with a very motherly type sister might make a deep personal connection with her psyche – especially if she’s older.
While evolution has all sorts of strategies, behavior has many times more and I’m not convinced that what should be the null hypothesis: homosexuality is a behavioral choice, has been examined with even close to the rigor as producing a biological genetic origin. It would be homophobic to do so, no?
But this is consistent with numerous behaviors being relegated to biology as well as the rise of the school of “no such thing as free will.” It’s all very dangerous stuff, and in my estimation: dubious science. Kinda reminds me of the way the Soviets used science to validate their positions.
I am surprised but it sounds like we may have agreed on the answer, even if not for precisely the same reasons. I agree with you that trying to “force” a patient to be anything is almost certainly a waste of time and money, though in the case of my hypothetical, I also think it would be unethical because it would be harming the patient.
Sadly, there may be more tolerance of divergent viewpoints in the political sphere. I recall the rage of global warming activists when Republicans tried to permit climate skeptics to be heard — after all the hard work the activists had done to silence them!