Homosexuality and the Truth by Sy Rogers and Alan Medinger (Exodus International, 1990, 4 pp.)
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Calling the idea that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable nothing but “pro-homosexual propaganda”, these two fundamentalist “ex-gay” leaders push their anti-homosexual propaganda by lifting statements out of context and misrepresenting, misapplying and/or misunderstanding them. The result can hardly be called “the truth”.
They’re so desperate to prove that heredity is nothing in psychosexual development – otherwise, they admit, “homosexuals would be deserving of minority status” – that they fail to understand scientists who speak of heredity’s not being everything. They cite John Money of Johns Hopkins as though he said only that “psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the homosexual system or the nervous system at birth”. But they don’t cite his also saying that “to classify homosexuality as hereditary or constitutional versus acquired is outmoded”, that it is the “product of the confluence of heredity and environment”, and that “it is counter-productive to characterize prenatal determinants … as biological, and postnatal determinants as not”.
To support conversion of homosexuals to heterosexuality, they again misuse Money’s work and fail to quote his conclusion that, “science has been totally defeated in being able to change people into gays, and vice versa”. They say that Masters and Johnson had a “success rate in 81 gays desiring reorientation” but they don’t say that Masters and Johnson “candidates … had Kinsey ratings that ranged from 2 through 4”, i.e., they were all behaving bisexually. Nor do they quote Masters and Johnson’s acknowledging: “The Institute felt more secure in accepting homosexually dissatisfied men and women in treatment when the applicants for conversion or reversion to heterosexuality freely expressed their reservations about making the complete change in role preference or openly stated their desire to function in both roles”. Is this what the “ex-gay” advocates want? Rogers and Medinger cite Robert Kronemeyer’s saying that homosexuality “is ‘curable’.” The quotation marks are Kronemeyer’s. But they don’t cite his recommendations for “effective therapy”, e.g. herbal teas and mineral waters” as well as “daily exercise” – the everyday regimen of many gay men. Nor do they let their readers know that Kronemeyer writes of the “prenatal life of the fetus” and “a slip up in the cosmos” as being etiologically significant for homosexuality. Outdated American psychoanalytic assumptions underlie the practices of therapists cited. But contrary to what they quote Joseph Nicolosi as saying about “80 years of psychoanalytic observation”, even American psychoanalysts have not been untied in the idea that homosexuality is a curable illness. There have always been prominent psychoanalysts such as Lindner, Thompson, Mintz, Ruitenbeek, Robertiello, Boles, Seidenberg, van den Haag and others who have followed Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, who wrote that homosexuality “cannot be classified as an illness” and that psychoanalysis “cannot … abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place”. Rogers and Medinger refer to psychiatrist Lawrence Hatterer in order to discredit the “propaganda” that, as they put it, says “Homosexuals can’t change – and to suggest they try is unrealistic, even harmful”. But they fail to quote Hatterer’s saying: “Any expectation that … past homosexual consciousness shall be totally removed from all levels of consciousness is completely unreasonable. Hence, even after he has gained and sustained control over his homosexuality, relapses can evoke acute anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or even sudden impulsive reentry into a period of protracted homosexual practice”. Thus Hatterer adds (and they don’t cite this either): “It’s cruel for a parent and a therapist to attempt to change a person who is strongly identified” as homosexual.
The antigay lobby has been pushing a lie that Rogers and Medinger repeat: “The gay community … prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II [1974 edition], its listing of psychological disorders”. But as the then president of the APA has explained repeatedly: “The issue was studied for more than a year by a special task force which carefully evaluated all the available scientific evidence before making its recommendation to the board of trustees of the APA. It was on this basis that the board voted unanimously … to accept the task force’s recommendations”. The DSM revisions covered every condition, not just homosexuality and the very same criterion was applied to every condition, including homosexuality: whether or not the condition, in its full-blown manifestation, always entails subjective distress and social dysfunction.
Rogers and Medinger misapply statistics on suicide, alcoholism, and promiscuity among some homosexuals, failing to realize that their use of these figures is in error since no study can tap a random sample of homosexuals. They further misinterpret as evidence of intrinsic homosexual pathology what are tragic effects of systemic and ubiquitous homophobia. Would they attribute similar high rates of these same problems among blacks to blackness or to racism?
In spite of the abysmal failure of the “ex-gay” effort, it continues in ever-changing guises, excuses and personnel. It’s a dogma driven by bad exegesis, sexual ignorance, neurotic guilt, self-righteousness, greed and a failure to integrate Christian faith and the intrinsic homosexuality of some Christians. It’s a revolving door for young recruits coming from and then going back to some of the worst of the gay subcultures. Even one of Rogers and Medinger’s experts remarks in candor (though they don’t quote him on this): “I’m getting all of these reports from biased unhappy homosexuals”. And so are Rogers and Medinger. And so are those who rely on them.