The "Dr. Phil" TV program & sexual orientation
Overview: Two solitudes, & their resolution
The two solitudes:
On just about every issue involving lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, (LGB), North Americans are profoundly divided:
The two groups are deadlocked. On most sexual orientation topics, the beliefs of the two groups are mutually exclusive. Little or no dialogue appears to be active to resolve the conflicts.
The following gives a crude picture of the lack of agreement between the two main "solitudes." It is impossible to be precise in the space available, but this chart may give a general idea of the conflict:
Resolution of the two solitudes:
Unfortunately, both solitudes are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their own beliefs. Essentially no formal dialog exists between them to resolve the differences.
NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, is a group of conservative religious and social therapists and clergy. They once attempted to open a dialogue with the American Psychiatric Association, but were rebuffed.
In the meantime, the rate of suicide attempts by GLBT persons is quite high, particularly among youth and young adults. Dead bodies are piling up at a fierce rate. Unfortunately, in order to effectively save lives and directly tackle problems associated with sexual orientation and gender identity, the two side would have to actively engage in dialogue. This is apparently difficult for them to do.
Talk radio and TV programs in general and "Dr. Phil" in particular have the ability to help resolve the conflict over GLB issues.
The same "two solitudes" phenomenon exists with abortion access: There are methods by which the total number of abortions in the U.S. could be reduced by many hundreds of thousands per year. Countries elsewhere in the world have employed these technique successfully and already have much lower abortion rates than the U.S. To a person who is pro-life, this would mean the saving of many millions of human lives every decade.
Unfortunately, the pro-life and pro-choice movements invest almost all of their effort into erecting barriers to prevent women from having an abortion, or into efforts to tear them down. Little money and effort is available to reduce the abortion rate by preventing pregnancy in the first place and by making it economically feasible for women to choose to continue their pregnancy.
Copyright © 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious