Gay is Not Good by Frank M. duMas (Thomas Nelson, 1979, 331 pp.)
Shadow of Sodom by Paul D. Morris (Tyndale House, 1978, 164 pp.)
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Evidently, some evangelicals cannot rely on only one antigay book per Christian publisher. Here we have two more books from the publishers of three others in the same vein by Kirk, LaHaye and Gangel (cf. REVIEW, Summer 1978, Fall 1978, and Spring 1979).
Because the duMas book is hardback, has over 300 pages, 325 bibliographical entries, 8 appendices, and is written by an ex-chairman of the psychology department at a small college in Georgia, Gay is Not Good has a face validity that is immediately countered by its title and finally obliterated by a closer look at its contents. Just beneath the surface, it’s a book of unbelievable superficiality, shifty and incomplete argumentation and haughty ignorance. (This is obviously not duMas’s view of his book for he lists it first in an appended “Books for the Basic Library” – all antigay – which he arranges in “rank order based mainly on immediate practicality and usefulness”. In his Preface, he congratulates Thomas Nelson for having had the “good sense … to publish this book”.)
DuMas admits that “footnotes were intentionally omitted” and instead he used a numbered reference system throughout the text. The confusing way duMas uses this system is intellectually dishonest for his readers have no way of knowing (except to search out and read every referenced book or paper) which references corroborate duMas’s statements and which are antithetical to them. He cites assigned numbers in both ways without indicating which is which. But for all its hundreds of entries, his bibliography fails to note the studies of 25 of the most important clinicians and social scientists in homosexual research. He might have avoided writing his nonsense had he known of this research. Or, knowing of the rigorous refutation of his nonsense, does he want his readers not to know about it? He tries to claim as allies clinicians who, apparently unknown to him, have spoken at gay rights rallies, have been celebrated in the pro-gay Homosexual Counseling Journal (edited by this reviewer), and have written that “an importantly needed community service is being offered” through the pro-gay Homosexual Community Counseling Center, which this reviewer founded and serves as director.
In a chapter of Gay is Not Good entitled, “Advantages of the Homosexual Lifestyle”, he presents 14 “real advantages” distinct from “pseudo-advantages” as though one sits down and decides whether or not to be a homosexual. Indeed, his whole book assumes such an intentional process. His “advantages” are silly fabrications and irrelevancies as well as falsehoods presented as selfishness. He contradicts himself on several of them (e.g., “variety” is said to be a “real advantage” here but later he claims that there is greater variety in heterosexuality). His conclusions following a summary of various “Freudian” stages of development are massively overstated with no logical attempt to connect his promises of “immunization against homosexuality” to resolution of these stages. He advises: “Keep the adolescent busy”. But if all of these preventatives fail, duMas recommends therapy. He lists six “Homosexual Behaviors or Types” and their treatments and prognoses. Though he admits prognoses for four are “least positive”, “variable”, or “depends”, he contradictingly concludes with the sweeping generality: “All homosexuals can change to heterosexuality.” Of the two other “types”, he gives “situational homosexuality” (e.g., in single sex environments such as prisons) a “most positive” prognosis with a “change of environment” and “conditioned homosexuality” a “positive” prognosis under behavior therapy. He seems unaware of the contrary assessment by the behavior therapy researchers themselves. DuMas offers his “Homosexual Checklist” as Appendix G, a combination of 70 overly obvious, inappropriate and totally irrelevant items to which a “’yes’ indicates homosexual tendencies”. Examples: “Longstanding homosexual age 35 or older?”, “Engages in cross- dressing?”, “Thinks of himself/herself as a homosexual?”, “Does he use cosmetics, such as rouge, lipstick, nail polish, etc.?” These four are signaled with asterisks by which duMas means they “are especially important”. He shows utter lack of professional understanding of validity and reliability by stating nonsensically: “Its validity and reliability rest mainly on the correctness of the check marks and the skill and experience of the person doing the interpretation of the scores, asterisk items, and individual non-asterisk items”.
In Shadow of Sodom, Morris admits “the widespread failure” of therapy to “cure” homosexuality but says that Gestalt and behavior therapies are successful. Thus, he fails to recognize that the “fathers” of these two approaches (e.g., Perls, Goodman, Lasarus) insist that their therapies do not “cure” homosexuality. But it is not surprising that Janov’s Primal Therapy (the one new secular therapy which is particularly antigay) is the one on which Morris pins his highest hope. But writing in a new Bethany Fellowship book, the Bobgans go so far as to call Primal Therapy, “this sick, sick, sick psychotherapy”. Of the “ex-gay” promises, Morris writes that he “will demonstrate … that ‘delivered’ homosexuals aren’t simply suppressing their true sexuality” but he cannot do so with references he gives to now defunct testimonies (e.g., founders of EXIT and The Third Sex? book’s “ex-gays”). No wonder Morris is so bent on believing that there must be a way to get rid of “homosexuality”. His own depressing experience: he “observed the gay scene when he drove a taxicab by night” and now he works for Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship. What impression of any sexuality would one expect to gain from such observations?
This miscellany of errors cannot enlighten anyone, though there must be some light in a “sodom” Morris never found – else why the shadow?