Comments on: NARTH: Forced therapy unethical and ineffective

By: anteros

anteros — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:31:04 +0000

“Rehabilitation” as prescribed by the homophobes and fundamentalists in Uganda, is bound to require belief in God or Allah or whichever Higher Power they imagine disapproves of homosexuality and has the ability to “cure” homosexuals. That would mean forced conversion to Christianity(or other religion) and heterosexuality for gay atheists. Is Uganda being over-run by christian Taliban? Would gay Muslims in Uganda be handed over to Muslim leaders to be sentenced and executed sharia style, like the gay teens who were hanged in Iran? Uganda’s constitution protects freedom of worship, which forced therapy would violate. Why cant they just decriminalize homosexuality and leave gay people alone? In fact, given all the homophobia in Uganda, gay Ugandans really need legal protection. Separate the church and the state, damn it.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:41:58 +0000

So, are you saying that Warren was incorrect in labeling ‘it’ an inappropriate detour?

No. I agree with him:

I would like this post to stay on topic and not get off on GLSEN. It does not matter what the standards are at GLSEN to discuss the fact that NARTH has become clear about forced therapy and that Scott Lively recommends the same organizations who do not recommend him.

I believe he meant that bringing GLSEN into this was the inappropritate detour. The topic at hand was NARTH’s and Exodus’s positions — and that Lively is recommending groups that don’t recommend him or agree with his positions.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:22:50 +0000

So, are you saying that Warren was incorrect in labeling ‘it’ an inappropriate detour? (As in your opening words moments ago: ‘not a detour’.)
Or are you suggesting that YOUR follow up comments that I referred to weren’t part of the unacceptable detour…in that case, I puzzle over your use of ‘Last Word’ to begin your statement. Did you mean ‘last word’ in that you were done posting on this thread? That doesn’t seem to be true. Did you mean ‘last word’ in that you were pronouncing the thread dead? Nah. Did you mean ‘last word’ in reference to the detour that Warren suggested we abandon? Seems so. Surely, the words ‘last word’ referred to something…and now your suggesting that they didn’t. Makes me dizzy.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:02:03 +0000

Not a detour to say that groups should have official policies. This thread was about NARTH’s.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:31:12 +0000

MIchael–
I find it interesting that even when Warren says to abandon a detour, you feel the privilege of adding a final ‘two cents’. I find it amusing that you feel the privilege and the need to post twice with urgent things that must be said re the detour he’s requested we abandon.

Lynn David–
Yes, I saw and read your brief comment.It didn’t have GLSEN in it. Fortunately, it did have your sarcasm.

Yeah, I live in a world where ‘no means no’, where limitations are accepted, and where the wishes of hosts (including blog hosts) are honored. My bad.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:43:45 +0000

Sounds about par for the course, Eddy.

I bet you read that!

By: Michael Busee

Michael Busee — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:23:12 +0000

Thanks LD. Last word: Professional, ministry or advocacy groups that deal with homosexuality should all have clearly posted, readily available, age-appropriate, medically accurate, highly ethical, official policies.

They should make a personal and public commitment to abide by these standards and policies — and should insist that their members and affiliates do likewise.

Why that idea is the least bit controversial is WAY beyond me.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:09:37 +0000

Sorry, LD–
Not even going to read your comment. Warren has said that the GLSEN thing isn’t suitable here. I’ve agreed to let it go and I only think it’s fair that, since I’ve been silenced on it, that the rest of the blog gang should be too.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:01:09 +0000

Am I wrong, or while the event was one sponsored by GLSEN, the 'little black book' wasn't produced by GLSEN (was it an AIDS committee intended for gay men of age?) nor even handed out by them, but was admitted to being 'mistakenly' handed out by a local health department. Though I thought I read somewhere that the principal at the school didn't think anyone had gone home with any of the booklets. , The 'pornographic' books on a GLSEN reading list for elder teens and all books therein are cautioned to be reviewed for content on the Booklink website:

All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content. However, some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes. We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability. The editorial and customer reviews listed at Amazon.com often provide information on mature content.

. GLSEN's policy statement reads in part:

GLSEN believes that learning about the diversity of humankind is an essential part of education in a democratic society, and affirms the right of students to learn in classroom environments that nurture diversity. GLSEN encourages schools to allow students in all grade levels access to curricula, trainings, texts and materials -- in all areas including but not limited to, history, literature, family life, sexuality and health education -- that are relevant, comprehensive, age-appropriate, medically-accurate and inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. GLSEN calls upon public policy makers to remove any prohibitive laws that forbid or discourage in-school discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

...

By: Eddy

Eddy — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:07:45 +0000

I will be making no more statements re GLSEN’s ongoing impropriety. (To my knowledge, the materials have not been pulled from the schools.) So let’s call this one a ‘no comment’. Will let Michael’s be the last word on the subject.