Do you think it's possible to hold two views which are somewhat contradictory, and to feel that each view is justified on a different basis? In this case what I mean is the view that psychologically it could be perfectly correct that a healthy psyche is best served by acceptance of different sexual identities without concern for societal norms, but that there's also a spiritual view of what is healthy which derives from a belief that God intended us to have the traditionally accepted binary sexual roles? I'm not quite sure how to resolve the conflict between those two views, but it's pretty much where I am. If one has a secular viewpoint, then it's impossible to justify trying to 'fix' homosexuals or transgendered individuals and it certainly should be their choice to NOT be fixed. Yet from my own religious perspective, I find the Catholic theology of the body to be quite compelling and it says certain things about our creation as man and woman which can't really be reconciled with the secular view of alternate sexual identities. I don't feel that anyone should be compelled to accept my theological views on that (so again, I don't at all advocate compelling people to be 'fixed'), but I don't think that what the science says about it should make any claims on what theology should say about it. Of course theology itself also demands that our views on this shouldn't permit us to judge others, and should always promote a completely compassionate viewpoint.

But I think it should be acceptable for theology to have it's own view as long as no one tries to claim that it's based on science, and I also think that those with the theological perspective aren't always wrong to push back against science making sweeping claims that it can't always substantiate (about how 'settled' the matter really is.)

Any comments or thoughts on that?

We are raised to be heterosexual, presumed to be heterosexual, and then before we know it we are living a lie. Thus, when we have to come out to friends and family, we not only have to tell them something so deeply intimate and personal, we have to admit a lie! To say that we are bisexual softens that a bit.

Further, many of us who identify as gay have had heterosexual experiences, which in some sense allows us to wear the bisexual label for that moment. But it does, then, cloud the issue and allow others to call it nothing more than “homosexuality in hiding.”

Thanks for the comments!!!

I start with the postition, that each individual should be seen in his/her entirety and not be defined by his/her gender identity, sexual preferences or sexual practices.

Professionals without an ideological agenda should decide what the norms and genralities are. However, honest and well informed professionals should be as careful as the ideology driven not to apply norms and generalities to any particular individual.

Likewise, as threatening as that may sound, I don't think knowledge, or research ,should ever put a final period in any field of inzquiry..
In the evolution vs. I.D, case, for example, the theory ov ecoluton is only strengthened by testing incoming new data agaisnt it.
Keeping an open mind and a scientific approach means keeping an open mind on a continuing basis, even in the face of challenges. Meeting challlenges head on, rather than dismissing them out of hand, is what strengthens truth and erodes bias and prejudice.

Am I wrong?
DrE? Joe?

good article and I appreciate your personal anecdote JOe… the personal is so often missing from reportage giving it a feeling of facade over deeper facts

Runasim, I quoted you here, bec I wanted to say, that for many of we shrinks, it is settled. But, in the last many years, some psychologists who are members of APA and who are Evangelical, have tried to open the issue again. However much they press however, there is a strong element by the rest of us to push back, not wanting psychology, a science, distorted by a religious idea. The Hippocratic oath, supports what some would perhaps think of as 'religious' ideas, as it is inclusive without regard to class or personality type, and rather, focuses on giving aid, bringing wholeness, supporting the individual. But, the code of care for others, does not normally assess whether the helper/healer thinks the patient is a good person or not, a sinner or not, wrong-headed somehow by virtue of birth and environs.

Bi-sexuality appears to be a norm in some persons, just whole as is. Rather than bisexuality being a foil for homosexuality… it is far more often that pretending toward heterosexuality is the foil used by (most often unsucessfully) those who are gay and hope to hide. That was a common generational subterfuge, belonging to older people who are gay, and not so much to younger gay people in the US.

And you're right runasim; it ought not matter one way or the other in culture. There are laws of the land, not of individual men, to corral the anomalies in any gender oriented person should they commit criminal acts
dr.e

I don't think it's a simple topic to deal with, however. Heteros express sexuality in neurotic ways at times. as a form of rebellion, for example. It would seem to follow, then, that some self-identifying gays could do the same.

We need to see the whole person, not his gender or sexual identity or expressions of sexuality. as being apart from the whole.
I wouldn't depend on generalties for any group or any conclusion, though, not even the ones that are soothing, when it comes to an individual.

There is some discussion about bi-sexuality, for example: is it true bi-sexuality or is it homosexuality in hiding? Personally, I don't see why it should matter, but I can see why it would to psychologists, sociologists and the collectors of knowledge.

PS Ii saw the PBS series, btw, and found it very impressive, and very moving.