Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Well This Should Be Fun

It appears as though Joseph Nicolosi has a book and new theories about the origins (and "cure") for homosexuality. If the excerpts from Dr. Warren Throckmorton's latest blog post are any indication of the rest of Nicolosi's new book (Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy) then it seems that Nicolosi's theories have become even further detached from reality (who knew that would be possible?) I didn't know that my same-sex attraction was the result of me hating myself as a child, or that this self-hatred was triggered by "abandonment-annihilation trauma" (which is especially funny when you consider that I was around my parents 24/7 since dad worked at home and mom was my elementary school teacher... yeah, I totally didn't get enough parental attention).

Dr. Throckmorton is prepping to write a more in-depth review of the book (and someone should seriously consider giving the man an award of some kind for taking the time to actually read and respond to such things seriously). Like all of Nicolosi's work, though, there are already some painfully obvious affronts to common sense involved, the clearest of which Throckmorton writes about here.

This should be reasonably easy to test. If all of this is true, homosexuals should be unable to hold jobs, or advance in careers, or do other things which require secure object relations and attachments. And of course, this is the practical problem for the practical work of reparative therapy. Many gay, ex-gay, post-gay, and SSA people do not have lives which correspond to the predictions in this book. Nor do their lives indicate the kind of deep self-deficits which are predicted here.

Oddly enough, homosexuals seem to be very adept at holding jobs, advancing in careers, and building secure relationships. Whatever "inadequacy" Nicolosi's clients feel, I think I can look back at my multiple academic scholarships, very good grade point average, loving friends and family, and say that, "No, despite my SSA, I don't feel inadequate or insecure at all." And since Nicolosi likes to speak for all homosexuals (except lesbians, whom he ignores), I think my own experiences would disprove him right out of the gate, right?

Either way, Nicolosi's ridiculous, but if you enjoy a further demonstration of craziness (and being a fan of reality television, I always do), then I suggest you keep an eye on Throckmorton's blog and watch as he decronstructs Nicolosi (yet again). Bring out the popcorn.

22 comments:

Richard said...

Speaking from long experience with same-sex temptations, homosexuality does not have a psychological genesis. Homosexuality, like a myriad of other sin, originates from a heart of darkness which abandons the glory of God for a kingdom of self idolatry seeing others as subservient objects for our own gratification and glorification (Romans 1). God’s call to homosexuals is not a call to a psychiatrist's couch; but, to a life in pursuit of holiness, wherever He leads.

Cass said...

"Homosexuality, like a myriad of other sin, originates from a heart of darkness which abandons the glory of God for a kingdom of self idolatry seeing others as subservient objects for our own gratification and glorification"

Nowhere in Romans 1 does it say or even infer this. And from a gay person's point of view, it's a heinous thing to say or even venture to substantiate. But if it did say this in Romans 1, it would surely be referring to Pedophilia. (BTW, Andrew Marin agrees about homosexual references in the Bible being all about peddies) So when you use the term "homosexuals" with regards to today, know that today's mo and the mo 2K years ago had entirely different meanings.

Romans 1 was a distinct decree to do away with Pagan religions and their "gods" that looked like men, animals etc, and made every attempt with "God" turning people gay and killing them for it, to killing those that prayed to "Gods" that looked like men. Good tactic, it worked. Odd thing is, if we look at what Christians think God looks like today, what do you get? A man with a big white beard. So it's still a bita duck soup.

But be very clear, your shame about your "temptations" has nothing to do with you being gay and having a "heart of darkness". Every Christian straight boy has the same thing going on in his straight world. Your verbage "heart of darkness" is simply the way you interpret your homosexual reality because that is your choice. You probably think lust is some evil to be done away with. Well my friend, if it weren't for lust, you wouldn't be typing today. Now over-lusting is a different story and falls into another category. But normal sexual attraction that does not impede your life, is lusty-normal. And. Expected.
Take sloth, I'll take a day on the couch, but that does not mean I'm slothy, get it?

You may not need a trip to the psychologists couch to "fix" your homosexuality, but I would venture to bet you could use quite a few trips to deal with your imbalanced take on lust and shame thoughts around all areas of your sexuality, a God-given beautiful gift. Like much of the Bible's take on homosexuality, at least todays interpretation which I believe is 180 from what it was then, your ideas are more "Nicolosi" style, and make no sense. If we cannot decide on sanity as a basis for living our lives together, we may as well hang it up and check out. Richard, are you sexually attracted to children?

Jay I must say, popcorn sounds so good right now! ; )

Cass said...

PS Jay, excellent post.

Jay said...

""Homosexuality, like a myriad of other sin, originates from a heart of darkness which abandons the glory of God for a kingdom of self idolatry seeing others as subservient objects for our own gratification and glorification"

Cass, Richard was saying that all sins--including homosexuality--originate this way. He wasn't pointing out homosexuality in particular.

And I would like to see where Andrew Marin thinks all Bible verses about homosexuality refer to pedophiles, because if I'm not mistaken he does believe that heterosexual marriage is God's will of people and that homosexuals should be chaste, and he certainly got that idea from somewhere.

And Cass, you are going to stop referring to my other commenters so disrespectfully. You are going to stop telling people who they are. You made a lot of assumptions about Richard based on one comment. Telling someone to go see a psychiatrist, or telling them that they have shame issues, is not going to be tolerated here. Your disrespectful question asking if Richard was attracted to children is also unacceptable.

This is your only warning. Another comment such as your last one and I will have no trouble banning you. Am I making myself clear?

Brady said...

"And of course, this is the practical problem for the practical work of reparative therapy. Many gay, ex-gay, post-gay, and SSA people do not have lives which correspond to the predictions in this book"

Jay- the problem with Nicolosi, and why he enjoys at least some sort of support in the real word is that his stereotype of gays, while WE all know is innaccurate, plays right into the stereotypes of gay people in our current culture.

Surely things are getting better in the stereotype world, but when I came out to my dad (and I'm talking just a few years ago--I'm not that old ;-), the only gay person he had ever known was an unemployed alcoholic he had met in AA. That plus what he had heard about gay people in his daily life means he basically thought all gay people were like that stereotype.

It's unfortunate, but it still happens, and while Nicolossi's book is easily disprovable, there are plenty of people that don't want him disproven--so they'll just take him at face value.

Cass said...

Gotchya. I would ask that if someone wants to comment on "homosexuality" being from the sin and heart of darkness, make sure that they say that for only themselves. Making sweeping statements to include me is offensive. Does that make sense?

If I offended anyone I apologize, but I would expect the same apology if someone has offended me. I felt offended by you Richard with the dark assessment of all gay's sexuality and nature. It's a great tactic to keep the confusion going, but I think that is what we are trying to resolve in this cultural mess. Please be more sensitive to those around you as many don't think the same way you do about their sexuality and really don't want to get slammed with such comment.

Re: Andrew Marin. I have spent hours with Andrew Marin personally and he has told me he would vote for gay marriage, and believes the Bible verses on homosexuality is Ped based and has no judgments with loving gays and gay sex. He does not in any way champion celibacy for homosexuals or call his sexually active gay friends "sinners".

His trek is to bridge the divide by not putting negative connotations or casting aspersions on anyone. Being straight, I think he is this way because he has not experienced the negative stigma that Christian gays experience around their "Christian gay sexuality", which more than not polarizes their sexual nature and continues the divide within and without. So his view in my opinion, is cleaner and definitely deeper studied Biblicaly, at least more than most.

I have the utmost respect for his views and have rarely experienced the love one exudes when watching him speak on stage. Many tears flow when he speaks because he comes from the heart and walks with the true Christ within his being. He loves gay people and his gay friends without any judgment, at all. Hence his book title, Love Is Not an Orientation, pretty much sums it up. The title intimates all people have the right to sex love and relationship without discrimination of any sort.

So I will say things a little more pleasantly if need be. But my point remains the same. Cool?

C

Brady said...

I guess I might as well chime in on Richard too (for the record, I found Richard's comment just as harsh as Cass', but maybe that's just our different perspectives--and this isn't my blog, obviously).

Anyway, Richard- I'm sorry that you see the love I have for my boyfriend as self idolatry and usery of him (interesting, I usually hear homosexuality described as idolatry of others).

We obviously have different views of homosexuality, and that is fine, but it's a bit hard for me to swallow you saying that because I have decided to embrace my love and emotions for another human being and complete every aspect of my life with him (not just sexual), you see it as nothing more than narcissism. It's more than hard to swallow--it's actually hurtful.

Whether you were pointing homosexuality out in particular or not, essentially that is what your comment says.

Jay said...

Cass: Yes, you will be more pleasant, because you're already on shaky ground. Brady's objection to Richard, while I disagree with it, was as good model for how I want disagreements on my blog to go. Read and learn.

And Marin's book is called, Love Is an Orientation, not Love Is Not an Orientation. You sure you're good friends with him?

Brady: I think all sins, though, even ones that have very strong emotional basis, come down to narcissism because they are, in essence, us doing what we want and what makes us feel good instead of what God has directed us to do.

I certainly loved my ex-boyfriend (not nearly as much as you love your partner, of course), but being with him was narcissistic--not necessarily because it was totally self-serving--but because I was following my own thoughts and feelings instead of God's.

I can't speak for Richard, but that's what I understood from his quotation, though I agree he could have framed it better.

Cass said...

Woops on Andrew's title, and yes, friends. You can take what I said about his views straight to the bank.

Jay you said,

"Cass, Richard was saying that all sins--including homosexuality--originate this way. He wasn't pointing out homosexuality in particular."

I thought you only believed gay sex was a sin, not homosexuality altogether. Please clarify.

Jay said...

That is what I believe.

I don't know if that's what Richard believes or not, so I'm not going to speak for him.

Cass said...

Jay, if you don't believe homosexuality is a sin, what are your thoughts and feelings when others call your gay sexual orientation a sin?

Jay said...

I believe homosexual behavior is a sin, but not the attractions (although I do view those as temptations, so I can't call them totally morally neutral).

If someone wants to say that my temptations (what you call an orientation) are sinful, then I'll disagree with them, and I'll have Biblical evidence to back it up. If they still disagree, and want to say that I'm sinning simply by being attracted to men, then they have to live with their own idiocy. I can't say it would alter my good mood or feelings in the slightest. Why would I give another person's opinions power over my feelings?

Cass said...

If you were denied a job, or entry into a church, do you then think you might have emotions that would make you feel something other than in a good mood?

Jay said...

A job, yes. That would hurt my feelings and frustrate me quite a bit. At the same time, I am a libertarian. I don't think the government can tell private businesses who to hire or who to fire, or for what reasons. If someone wanted to deny me a job because of my race, I'd be angry, but I think it would be within their rights if they weren't a government institution.

If they were public, then I don't think it would be legal for them to hire or fire me for any reason other than job performance.

As far as churches go, churches have very specific codes of what they believe and why they believe it. There are some churches that would deny me access based on my Calvinism.

Others would deny me based on my sexual orientation. But I wouldn't want to be a part of those churches, either. How is it rational for an adult to expect an organization to conform to his or her beliefs? Just find a church that does.

Cass said...

My point is, other people's actions and words do affect us, it's just being human.
Now I would say that to always take the high road and have understanding is probably the best bet because one gets to stay in their center or good mood, but like today (my day for apologies) it's not always that way.
Nicolosi is just plain stupid as his work is unfounded, so he does not affect me as I know psychology very well. My mom and dad both worked at home, and to tell the truth, as a child, I wished they would disappear more often to have some more semblance of myself. But I shouldn't say that too loud, or Nic might invent a suffocating dual parent condition that makes people gay.
In the religious spiritual realm, because I have great respect for clarity, I am a little more intolerant, as there is so much confusion.
Beyond all this, I think a good dose of prayer and meditation would do me a world of good about now.

larkspur said...

I, too, have heard the same about Andrew Marin's thoughts and beliefs on what exactly homosexuality is - on another blog, not his. So, I think that perhaps it will be incumbent on him in the coming months to really come out (no pun intended) on his true perspective. From reading his book, I felt his Scriptural observations left a great deal open for understanding and interpretation (and I'm not the only one to comment on that). IOW he doesn't clearly come out in his book and state the "one woman, one man for life" as the only option other than celibacy for human beings. Which I find strange for someone who would hold strongly to that belief.

As far as Wendy Gritter is concerned (another cutting edge person), she is pretty forthright on Bridging the Gap that not all Christians see gay relationships as sin -- and she respects the different interpretations.

My point is not to "speak for" other people, but rather to say that there is some real change on what Christians are thinking on gay relationships - Christians who would never call themselves liberal.

Cass said...

Larkspur,

Good points.

Wendy Gritter has also stated on Exgaywatch.com, to my surprise, that she felt the writers of scripture regarding sexuality, did not have the perspective or knowledge then that we now have today. (paraphrased) I tend to agree.

If there is any question about Andrew Marin's position on particular topics, one could cut down time and go to his blog and ask, if interested.

donsands said...

"that she felt the writers of scripture regarding sexuality, did not have the perspective or knowledge then that we now have today."

I don't understand?

The Holy Writ is the truth of God, and eternal truth. Amen?

Jay said...

I think she means that people in Biblical times didn't have the same medical/psychological understandings about sexual orientation that we do. I agree, just like I agree that people in Biblical times didn't have the same understandings about science and technology.

I do think, however, that they knew all they needed to know about morality because God never changes. A homosexual orientation by itself isn't a sin, and it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. But homosexual behavior was mentioned, and it is a sin.

donsands said...

Thanks Jay.

The other factor, that hasn't been mentioned is that Satan and his cohorts are in this earth, and they wreak havoc among the sons of men.

I met a man once, who talk of his 100 or so spirits he had collected. Was he simply making this up? Did he think he had 100 spirits, and actually was just himself, acting like other personalities?
Not sure. But surely he could have had 100 demonic spirits within him.

The Word tells us to flee fornication, and to resist Satan, and he will flee from you.

larkspur said...

Did the Old Testament patriarchs know all that they needed to know about morality - and therefore many of them practicted polygamy? This is an issue to grapple with when defining exactly what marriage means.

I've been presented with the idea that God tolerated rather than accepted multiple wives with, again, the Creation account of Adam and Eve as the correct definition of sexual relationship (i.e. Adam did not need anyone other than Eve, and God did not desire him to have other wives, therefore He did not create others for Adam.)

I guess I just can't swing the thought that those who followed Yahweh have *always* known what God desired if you hold to the "one man, woman for life" approach. And it has always puzzled me *why* God allowed polygamy if it is not in keeping with His original intent. I've heard lots of explanations from folks on this, but none seem to really hit the idea that God never changes as the underpinning of why polygamy yesterday and not today. Also, there *seems* to be a reference that polygamy was practicted in the NT (A deacon should be the husband of *one* wife.)

All that to say, I see much evidence of progressive revelation in Scipture (women preaching which seems to be commonplace in the most conservative denominations today, divorce and remarriage, etc...)

I guess that one line of them *knowing* morality kind of hit me sideways. I don't see evidence that they did with all cases and everything.

donsands said...

Those are some good thoughts.

God allowed David to have seven wives, and in fact gave them to David.
David then took another man's wife, and God chastised David very severely. Horrible consequences.

I would think that having more than one wife was very uncommon for most, was the exception not the rule, and was more for kings and princes then the common folk.

Arab nations allow for men to have up to 4 wives, I think.

I suppose God progressed this world the way He saw best. And for one wife and one husband to be the rule now is probably God's best rule, though He allows for much grace.

I need to study up on these things, for I'm not that familiar with them.

Good thoughts though. Thanks for sharing them.