As a retired professional mental health and marriage and family counselor, with more than 35 years of experience counseling individuals and families that were dealing with issues of sexual orientation, I welcome the proposed changes in the licensing codes of Washington state through House Bill 2451.
The proposal restricts therapists and counselors from performing therapy regimens with the objective of changing sexual or gender orientation.
One of the cardinal rules of the counseling profession is that any form of therapy must be shown to be effective. If it is not known if a certain form is or is not effective in some cases, the burden is that the practitioner must show there is no substantial negative impact. Key to this rule is the informed consent of the patient.
Many professional, peer reviewed psychology studies have concluded that attempts to change one’s sexual orientation leave the patients worse off. The attempts to change one’s sexual orientation have produced disastrous results, often leaving the patient much worse off than before. By far the therapies are not successful, either in changing the orientation or even for the less ambitious goal of helping the patient achieve a feeling of living a better quality of life.
In determining treatment, psychologists are bound to choosing regimens based on empirical evidence. Faith is not involved. Beyond this specific issue, licensed counselors violate professional practices if they introduce elements of faith into their practice.
It is fair to inquire how this bill would impact ministers or counselors recognized by religious bodies. For that reason, I highlight the part of the legislation that reads:
“Nor shall it be construed to apply to religious practices or counseling under the auspices of a religious denomination, church, or organization that do not constitute the performance of sexual orientation change efforts by licensed health care providers on patients under age 18.”
In non-legal terms, this section allows for religious freedom, provided that the counselor not present themselves as licensed providers to patients under 18 years old.
Will this modification of the codes insure that there is no harm done? Sadly, I would answer that with a loud “No.” Thankfully, this bill allows for therapy around a young person finding acceptance in their identity. But I still envision situations with a family asking for a religious counselor for help concerning their 17-year-old son who finds himself sexually attracted to his best male friend. That counselor may, after much counseling responsibly suggest that they cannot change the boy’s orientation, only God can, and that the boy and family need to pray for that to happen.
Harm will be done under the notion that God or Gods will judge us as inadequate and sinful in our creation.
I’m going to have to stand with scripture on its diagnosis of the human reality of sin.
1 John 1:8-10
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”
I believe Tom’s post is mostly regarding the ethical nature of evidence-based therapy embracing practices for which existing bodies of evidence not only deny efficacy but substantiate harm.
IF a discussion specifically on sexual orientation WERE to be sanely ventured inclusive of both religion and science, I believe some groundwork from each camp would first be necessary.
From a scientific viewpoint, am I not correct to say before talking about homosexuality we want to talk about sexuality, and before talking about sexuality we want to talk about gender and before talking about gender we want to talk about socialization?
From the Christian viewpoint, am I not correct to say there are varying degrees of sin? Before talking about the “sin” of homosexuality would we not first want to talk about the “sin” of lust? How many times is the specific “sin” of lust mentioned in the bible and how many times is the specific “sin” of homosexuality mentioned? This begs the question of whether heterosexual lust acted upon without love present is more or less a sin than homosexual sex with love present?
(I’m not recommending this conversation be explored here.)
Sorry Riff, I can’t resist at least a comment on your conversation. It’s always a challenge to write coherently enough to be understood correctly so I’d have to start by saying that “Christian” thinking by one’s own definition may or not be consistent with a biblical thinking. The bible teaches that sin of any kind or degree separates us from God. If we have truly been born from above then we will have a desire to cease from anything that does that. If we prefer instead to insist that we can continue on in a lifestyle that the bible defines as sinful, then whether it is lust, greed, adultery, sex before marriage, homosexuality or any number of other sins, then we will be separated from the life of God until such time as we repent and return to Him or it becomes permanent in hell.
Hello Dennis,
You know, “sorry,” is another way of saying, “forgive me.” 🙂
Any skilled linguist or individual capable of thinking it through will attest no two people grasp EXACTLY the same comprehension of any single word in the English language. This is why communication depends on much more than the fragments of speech we write, type, or speak. (Tom has elaborated on this.) Every word transfers meaning via the CONTEXT expressed.
In other words, the word speaks the truth, but the truth is not the word.
One might react that such clarification complicates matters. In fact, this is the qualifier that simplifies debate in faith and values. The test of a word’s validity is in the consensus it conveys. Conveyance depends on the reasons behind why specific words are put forth. Just as love is not the word (rather, the experience of the idea), the context in which we invoke words adds meaning beyond definition. (Why Jesus did not entrust us to speak judgment of one another.)
When we quote scripture (or seek to spread the gospel), we are grasping at the very words we recite to better understand, demonstrate, and share their true meanings. (ACTIONS always speak louder than words.) SO when someone (not asked) sets out to tell another person what “the bible teaches,” rather than conveying gospel, he or she most likely conveys the choices, thoughts, and actions behind his or her words. (If not practiced, Truth is not conveyed.)
What I question in your statements is discrimination against “sinners.” Which sins must we campaign against? By your own statements, the degree of sin is irrelevant. If that is true, why point to sins of others before mastering one’s own practice capable of living life free of sin? (Only the Son can judge those who place themselves above judgment.)
You do not disagree there is a spectrum to “sin.” I would say that anyone (capable of choice) is guilty of “sin” to some degree. You mention the act of insistence (an act of will/choice). I also agree that when we persist in choosing to repeat destructive actions, we create our place in hell. However, I do not agree with imposing interpretation of “biblical thinking” on anyone but oneself.
Did not the disciples give up their lives and families to follow Jesus and spread His message? Have we done the same? If not, how can we pontificate without the finger pointing both ways? For our efforts to bear fruit, are they not best invested inspecting OURSELVES in the mirror ahead of passing judgment upon the so called sins of others (as He so taught)?
The modern world might not have come into being if not for transgressions in judgment of the Catholic Church. America might not be a super power today if not for the “sin” of greed.
May I right my own path instead of imposing values upon upon others. If we are to heal our broken ways, may we aim our efforts at our weakness rather than point out weakness in others. I hope we spread the gospel by living the gospel. (If folks want our opinion they will ask for it.)
(Thanks.)
My comment was directed to the homosexuality angle of the post but the conclusion at the end:
“Harm will be done under the notion that God or Gods will judge us as inadequate and sinful in our creation.”
If this idea is the basis of one’s view of humanity’s soul and human experience and presented as God’s view of it, I’d reject it.
Sexuality and sin are intertwined throughout the Bible. We are sexual and sinful beings. The work of sanctification in salvation as the bible explores it, is deeply connected to all, no matter their culture, birth or environment.
My comment “wasn’t” arghhhhhh! Typos!!!
Well, no fun if this issue is restricted to merely a theist v. theist debate. From my secular atheist vantage there seems to be two salient points. First, that the legacy of reparative therapy is a dismal one: it doesn’t work, and only distracts people from thinking about the nature of human sexuality and the role this should play in human society. And second, to what extent are the notions cultures have had about sexuality (preserved in texts usually penned by male heterosexuals) subject to the same historical and scientific reevaluation as claims about global floods or gods having lengthy battles from flying chariots.
I have a genuine sympathy for the quandry conventional God of Abraham believers are in when it comes to our modern sensibility on homosexuality: the Bible certainly shows no sympathy for gender identity issues, any more than it did for the idea that people should never be owned as property or killed if you are deemed to be a witch. Liberal believers have accommodated themselves to gay rights, the abolition of slavery and eschewing witch killing, without pressing too far onto the slippery slope of “if the Bible could be so wrong on those things, why accept any of it?”
Which is why a secular society gives a safety valve here: a chuch may legitimately refuse to recognize gay marriage within the covenant of their belief (or interracial marriage for that matter, as used to be the case also up until quite recently) while the broader civil regulations allow such unions as right and reasonable in our diverse society.