Richard Cohen is an American "sexual reorientation coach" who believes homosexual people can be transformed into straight ones and cites himself as an example. Such therapies are, of course, extremely controversial and Cohen is more controversial than most who practice them. In New Statesman he writes:
"In my undergraduate years of college, I had a male partner for three years. But, with all my heart, I wanted to marry a woman and have a family...After coming out straight, I went back to graduate school and obtained a master’s degree in psychology. In 1990, I founded the International Healing Foundation and began my counseling practice, helping SSA [same sex attraction] men and women fulfill their heterosexual potential. For seventeen years, I assisted hundreds of men and women fulfill their dreams - many are now married with children. In my book Coming Out Straight, I detail the process of transformation - how people may change from gay to straight. I have also helped hundreds of family members whose loved ones experience SSA...I am pro-choice regarding homosexuality. If someone wants to live a gay life, that needs to be respected. If someone wants to change and come out straight, that too needs to be respected. Let us practice true tolerance, real diversity, and equality for all."
What is the best response to this? The comment thread below the article includes examples of the familiar pro-gay arguments: most gay men and women know they are gay from an early age; there's nothing wrong with being that way; gay people who dislike their homosexuality do so because of social pressures to conform to heterosexual convention. I readily accept and agree with all of these claims except when nature is invoked to reinforce the case. When nature gets dragged into these things, life always becomes trickier for me.
I too consider homosexuality entirely normal but don't believe that it is often - if ever - wholly or decisively fixed by "nature". I can see the attraction of insisting that it is - what better defence for a gay person against accusations of defectiveness or degeneracy than a riposte which says, I can't help being homosexual. Nature - and maybe God - made me this way! But this argument is weak against the likes of Richard Cohen.
It's not his "tolerance" disclaimer that provides his defence. It is because Cohen's whole approach is premised on the fact that many people's sexual orientations can change - and do. It follows from this that he accepts that they are therefore very often flexible. While not endorsing Cohen, I find his intellectual position on where sexuality comes from is consistent with my view that sexuality - like, while we're at it, sexual practices in general - is more usefully understood as the product of all sorts of factors - psychological, social and environmental as well as microbiological - which interract in ways that cannot be reduced to a hard-wired "natural" drive that makes straightness or gayness essentially involuntary.
There's so much evidence to the contrary. Look, for example, at what straight men have long got up to when denied access to women by military service or jail. A truly liberated human sexuality would dispense with the categories homosexual or heterosexual, and even bisexual, for describing and defining human beings. Instead, there would be homosexual acts and feelings and heterosexual ones, all or any of which may be experienced by any human being at any point in their lives - and done so entirely normally.