Created: 03 June 2014
We have regularly reported on the stance of the professional psychological and psychiatric bodies around the world regarding their position on homosexuality itself, as well as their opposition to counselling for people who WANT to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction. Those who offer such support (usually Christian groups) now refer to this as SOCE - Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.
Last November, we wrote about a 'motion' by homosexual activist and NSW MP Alex Greenwich
which criticised SOCE, and highlighted the fact that many of these professional bodies have 'Special Interest Groups' dealing with homosexual issues - many of the members of those groups are practicing homosexuals and these 'Special Interest Groups' are actively involved in developing 'policy positions' for the professional body. Read our report - click here.
Royal College Statement on Sexual Orientation
The Royal College of Psychiatrists
in the UK released a STATEMENT
on "Sexual Orientation"
in April 2014 - it also referred to SOCE
. The Statement says they SUPPORT a BAN on any SOCE counselling!
Yes, the Royal College
has a "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Special Interest Group"
which was founded by Professor Michael King
, who is a practicing homosexual (source
The Special Interest Group actively works on 'policy' in this area... they claim on their website, as part of the activities of the group, "A Position Statement on Sexual Orientation has also been produced". The Statement has now been 'approved' by the "Policy Committee" of the Royal College.
Some Christian groups have picked up some changes in position in the Statement - in particular, that the Royal College
now DOESN'T adhere to the 'Born Gay' position
. The new Statement reads, "The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors."
See reports from Christian Concern
and Core Issues Trust
. Core Issues Trust
and the Christian Medical Fellowship
had previously criticised the Royal College
's position of claiming it was 'born that way', so the change is significant.
The rest of the Statement...
However, the majority of the Statement is NOT good news for Christian groups and Christian counsellors who help people deal with unwanted same-sex attraction.
The Royal College goes on to state, "Leading therapy organisations across the world have published statements warning of the ineffectiveness of treatments to change sexual orientation, their potential for harm and their influence in stigmatising lesbian, gay and bisexual people."
The Royal College acknowledges that people DO change:
"It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life."
They also agree with counselling to help them live with homosexuality:
"It is also the case that for people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation – whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual – there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress and reach a greater degree of acceptance of their sexual orientation."
But NOT counselling to HELP people CHANGE...
They actually want to BAN such therapies...
Their conclusion is "the College remains in favour of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies".
Professor Robert Gagnon responds...
Professor Robert Gagnon, a respected theologian and leading commentator on homosexuality and the Bible, has written an excellent article on the NEW STATEMENT ON 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' by the Royal College.
In fact, Robert is a speaker at a conference on SOCE
to be held in the UK and Ireland NEXT WEEK (13 June) being organised by Core Issues Trust
- click here
Please read Robert's short article...
May 30, 2014 - Robert Gagnon, Anglican Mainstream.
Double-speak from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Britain. On the one hand, they acknowledge: “It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life” and that “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of [not only] biological [factors but also] postnatal environmental factors.” On the other hand they adamantly reject any right of patient self-determination in seeking therapeutic help to facilitate sexual orientation change, referring euphemistically to “a right to protection from therapies that … that purport to change sexual orientation.” The “right to protection” from such therapies already exists: simply don’t go to them. No one is putting a gun to the person’s head. But this Orwellian formulation by the RCP really means: We seek to prohibit anyone from seeking help in facilitating the very sexual orientation change that we have already acknowledged exists when we say that “it is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable.”
They also claim that “it is eminently reasonable that the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others (such as employers), means that some lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems.” But societal discrimination doesn’t explain why active homosexual males experience significantly higher rates of STIs and numbers of sex partners lifetime even relative to homosexual females. Nor does it explain why homosexual females experience on average lower longevity in relationships and higher rates of mental health problems even in relation to homosexual males (all of whom experience the same levels of societal disapproval). The RCP statement is an exercise in ideological propaganda, pure and simple, yet even through this seemingly impenetrable grid some rays of truth manage to shine.
Note that they add: “Nevertheless, sexual orientation for most people seems to be set around a point that is largely heterosexual or homosexual. Bisexual people may have a degree of choice in terms of sexual expression in which they can focus on their heterosexual or homosexual side.” Note that they add the qualifying adverb “largely,” which fudges much of their argument. Then they bracket off this group off from “bisexual people” as if one can never move along a spectrum from, say, a category 6 homosexual to a category 4 bisexual, as if there were some impenetrable “Berlin wall” between the two groups. And doesn’t it beg the question as to who is homosexual and who is bisexual? How does a homosexual person know that he or she can never develop some heterosexual attractions before he or she has lived out a full life of experiences?
They conclude: “The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.” Yet they conveniently overlook the point that heterosexual relations conform naturally to the complementary structures of male and female: anatomically, physiologically, and even psychologically. The true sexual complement to a man is a woman and to a woman a man. It takes many years of ideological indoctrination to obscure that obvious fact.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement on Sexual Orientation: