HANDBOOK OF THERAPY FOR UNWANTED HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTIONS: A GUIDE TO TREATMENT: SUGGESTIONS

HANDBOOK OF THERAPY FOR UNWANTED HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTIONS: A GUIDE TO TREATMENT: SUGGESTIONS

HANDBOOK OF THERAPY FOR UNWANTED HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTIONS: A GUIDE TO TREATMENT, by Julie Harren Hamilton Ph.D (Editor), Philip J. Henry Ph.D. (Editor). Publisher: Xulon Press (May 18, 2009). Language: English. ISBN-10: 1607916010. ISBN-13: 978-1607916017.

  • Joseph Nicolosi, PhD.
  • A. Dean Byrd, PhD., MBA, MHP
  • Mary Beth Patton, MA, LPC
  • Janelle Hallman, MA, LPC
  • Esly Regina Carvalho, MS, LPC
  • Mike Rosebush, PhD.
  • George A. Rekers, PhD., ThD. [As of early May 2010, Rekers is embroiled in a sex scandal involving a male-homosexual prostitute. Whether or not the statements of people surrounding this are factual, other people cannot be painted with one brush. Each heterosexual is not responsible for the acts of every other heterosexual. The same applies for homosexuals.

    "But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." (Jeremiah 31:30).

    For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matthew 16:27).

    I, Tom Usher, agree with the sentiment there. Lumping all people together such as the racists do saying "all Blacks" this or "all Palestinians" that, as if all Blacks are responsible for what some Blacks do or all Whites are responsible for what some Whites do, is immoral. (* see: NARTH statement, below)]

  • Kimberly Barnett Oram, PsyD.

To obtain the book at a discounted price, begin by clicking on the book's image above.

Would it not be wise to go beyond "ministry and church leaders," "lay counselors and pastors," "Christian counselors," and such language by saying something akin to "lay and clerical religious leaders"? Aren't Muslim clerics, Jewish rabbis, Hindu priests and priestesses, etc., also in need of the tools? Does promoting the tools to them connote an abrogation of Christianity, or does it do the exact opposite? Christianity itself truly doesn't even "need" science, but here is a book that for those who reject the pure healing of faith in God will at least receive some direction, which if truly followed to the only logical conclusion, arrives at God. That does though necessitate knowing which paths and parts not to follow or to tread that deviate endlessly from the narrow way.

Also, I wonder about the term "Unwanted Homosexual Attraction" as opposed to just "Homosexual Attraction" or just "Homosexuality." It's too late for this particular printing/edition, but shouldn't great consideration be given to overcoming homosexuality regardless of the starting point with any individual or group?

How do older adults and parents and grandparents and others begin to deprogram/change the minds of youth who are really on a harmful ideological bandwagon the direct result of false advertising/proselytizing by libertines and hedonists promoting vice?

My concern is with making unnecessary and detrimental concessions. The use of the word "Unwanted," to my way of thinking, has the unwanted effect of allowing many to dismiss the larger issue of homosexuality simply by saying he or she or they "want" it. NARTH has shown that homosexuality itself is dangerous, risky, and damaging. When does anyone escape the harm without making a full recovery? If the issue here concerns not forcing therapy upon people and especially children because the greater mass of "scientists" right now claim that there is no harm in homosexuality or that treatment is more harmful than homosexuality or that homosexuality is not mutable by virtue of genetics or for some other reason, then why not dig in at a point much closer to the truth of the matter and stake out the language there?

When a brainwashed child says to a rightly concerned parent, "I want it," then this new book is doomed from its cover. The children have been fed reasons for "wanting" it. Adults have created the language that children apply to each other as peer pressure. Parents and others need the countervailing and correct language (the mental challenges and answers and refutations) concerning all of that peer-pressure language.

Parents and counselors don't need to be infallible in every aspect of their beings in order to demonstrate to youth that in the absence of parental and other guidance, youth would self-destruct in most cases — repeating all the mistakes down through history. Who teaches the child not to run out into the street without carefully stopping, listening, and looking both ways, etc.? Is the child or youth going to appreciate the truth of that lesson or not?

The answer to who teaches that lesson is the adults in the child's life primarily and also other children who have already been trained up correctly on the issue or who as suddenly wide-eyed children, who didn't know the rule or simply dismissed it or weren't sufficiently impressed or attentive, has experienced heart-stopping realization when faced with a panic-stopping driver.

Why should the youth disregard the stop sign place at homosexuality anymore than they should disregard the other warning signs?

Well, society has had self-placed, incorrect restriction before. The arguments against certain behaviors were specious. Prohibitive behavior was surrounded by overkill. I grew up with statements such as try it once and you'll be hooked for life rather than statements more akin to that it is better not to experiment because even one episode contains some degree of harm and it can and often does lead to a habit that can be and often is very difficult to break.

Youths say to each other, "Go ahead. It won't kill you." Some malignant cancers can take decades to kill. A child wouldn't know it on day one without being told by a rightly trusted source. Is homosexuality fatal? I understand that the book is dealing on the mundane, "scientific" level. Does an old homosexual finally die of "old age" or the cumulative effect of homosexual behavior and bent? It's a spiritual point that the testers of science can't answer from within their limited language. I won't press the issue here, even though I do advocate digging in at truth and not just closer to it. There does have to be bridging language constructed, and what I'm doing here is putting out a bridge the entrance to which is placed such that no ground must be retaken after the treatment of "Unwanted" homosexual attraction has been re-accepted in the main. I'm not interested in fighting a new war after that over just homosexual attraction. My point is that no one shouldn't be lead to falsely imagine that he or she wants it in the first place. Focusing upon and emphasizing "Unwanted" may appear the expedient thing, but it is not. It may take away some of the perceived ammunition of those who would fault a parent for removing a splinter from his or her child's foot even when no anesthetic is available. That though should not be conceded to them as any valid ammunition at all. Such false bullets should be given credibility in the first place, shouldn't even be allowed to leave the homosexual Pied Piper's non-gun.

*NARTH statement:

NARTH RESPONDS TO THE RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE OF DR. GEORGE REKERS

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional scientific organization with hundreds of academic, research, and clinical members dedicated to assisting individuals dealing with unwanted homosexual attractions. While NARTH is focused on the science of homosexual attraction, personal controversies often deepen the existing cultural divide on this issue. Such is the case in the recent news stories concerning one of our members, Dr. George Rekers.

NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made,and we are currently attempting to understand the details behind these press reports. We are always saddened when this type of controversy impacts the lives of individuals, and we urge all parties to allow a respectful and thorough investigation to take place.

At this difficult time for the families and individuals involved, we extend our sympathies. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH.

NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client autonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.

The issue is over whether change is possible. If change is not possible, then don't attempt to break habits. Don't become a new person. If you steal, continue. If you lie, continue. If you do anything that you want to stop doing, don't attempt to stop. Don't stop. Continue with whatever it is you don't want because you have no choice. You are locked into whatever you've done. You are damned to repeat whatever things you've done.

Some may object that these things are not "genetic" and that homosexuality is genetic. However, lying and stealing and all other things are genetically allowed or they wouldn't happen. That's consistent with the "science."

Have you ever changed?

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.