Skip to comments.Report criticizes 'cure' for gays (Authored by gay activists but Narth Allowed to Participate)
Posted on 08/14/2009 7:24:01 PM PDT by Maelstorm
The report was compiled by a six-member task force that admitted to a built-in bias that "same-sex sexual attractions, behavior and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality and are not indicators of either mental or developmental disorders."
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) said the task force was stacked with gay or gay-friendly activists who would naturally conclude that reparative therapy does not work.
"No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force," said David Pruden, NARTH vice president. "In fact, one can make the case that every member of the task force can be classified as an activist. They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view."
Task force Chairwoman Judith Glassgold, a New Jersey psychologist, is on the board of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychology, NARTH said, and was president of Division 44, APA's gay caucus, in 2003-2004. Committee member Jack Drescher is a public gay activist. Another committee member, Roger Worthington, a chief diversity officer with the University of Missouri/Columbia, has been cited by gay groups for his advocacy on their behalf.
Clinton Anderson, an APA spokesman, did not deny NARTH's charges.
"I think that we had a very open process where we put out a call for nominations," he said. "We evaluated the nominees based on their qualifications. I don't feel we have any apologies to make for how we appointed that task force."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Please help keep the research and therapy alive that is improving and the lives of people who want to be free of homosexuality. Narth does not have millions of dollars flowing into it from big corporations like Pepsi Cola but we can make a difference. Give what you can.
That the task force feels compelled to use the term “positive” blatantly betrays the fact that this was a completely unscientific opinion, but a political one. Scientific facts are neither “positive” nor “negative.”
Pedophiles, rapists, serial murders, and other mentally unbalanced people think they are "normal" too.But that doesn't mean they are.
All these gay activists have to do for a reality check is look at nature's design, and how all creatures follow closely natures intended design instinctively.
Perversion is not normal. Performing sexually deviant acts on another, or allowing another to do the same to them is not normal. It's the equivalent of someone cutting themselves. It's an act of self punishment in order to release a building anger against themselves deep in their subconscious that they don't know the reason for.
Degrading another in the same manner is like striking back at the person or thing that caused this repressed memory. And flaunting it to everyone in society is a cry for help, to be noticed. These queers are always extremely angry, disturbed individuals. Always quick to become agitated, then lash out to those around them. They rarely have a long term relationship, because they mistake their lust to degrade, "punnish" their selves or lash out at another for Love. They are so mentaly damaged they are incapable of allowing themselves to love or be loved.
Yes they do. I think Narth is the best vehicle. We need everyone united. This is an issue where there should not be a trend in the favor of gay activists. They have hit a wall with gay marriage but we must change and even the debate and the way that is done is by funding the professionals who provide an alternative view. That is the way the left has changed America. They did not wait for someone to agree with them. They swamped the system. We can do that too and we should not think of this as being a negative for homosexuals no more than it is negative to stop enabling anyone who participates in a destructive behavior.
I think that NARTH might approach the problem from a different angle, positing that there might be more than one kind of homosexuality. One that is treatable, and one that is perhaps not treatable.
This would put the APA on the spot, first of all, because they have no proof that homosexuality is a single thing, and for them to make a statement to that effect makes it a dare to prove they are wrong. That is, from that point, anyone who asserts that there is more than one form of homosexuality, that can be distinguished in some manner, can publish a paper about it.
NARTH can point out as evidence that there are individuals who believed themselves to be homosexual, or had homosexual inclinations, but who were willfully able to change their orientation, at least to their own satisfaction.