Julie Hamilton says NARTH is not homophobic with a straight face.
The reporter should have asked why they had non-researchers Michael Brown and Sharon Slater speak.
54 thoughts on “NARTH: We're not anti-gay, we just have anti-gay speakers at our conference”
Comments are closed.
Crap in, crap out.
Sounds like they have taken the ship to … ludicrous speed
We’re not anti-gay .. we just …errr .. umm help people not to be gay .. and to encourage you not to be gay we have speakers that believe you should go to jail for being gay.
LOL
Dave
Essentially, the best reading of their position as stated would be:
“If you are happy with your mental illness, that’s fine, but if you recognize, as we do, how awful and evil it is, we we are here to help cure you.”
It’s really hard for them to spin a message that smells that bad. I would have more respect for them if they were blunt about it like they used to be.
The choice of speakers proves the first assertion is false — and junk “science” is hardly “good information”.
The woman on camera who spoke on behlf of NARTH comes across on camera as very sincere. If I didn’t know better, I would believe her.
Of course, she may be sincere in her belief … and this is perhaps the really frightening thing!
Exodus remains a strong ally of NARTH — even though Exodus says they oppose the crimininalization of homosexuality. It’s way past time for Exodus to dump NARTH and say so clearly and openly. Silence implies agreement.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmasteradrian.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2F07%2Fnarth-features-gay-imprisonment-advocate%2F&h=_AQFvJ6PqAQGIMAypbHb01qzmJVdXE6CgJa8IUnwKa6s8sQ
My comment above was addressed to one Kevin, whose own comment seems now to have disappeared.
If that is the sum total of your views, then you are not, in my opinion, homophobic.
Not quite sure what you mean by a ‘non-gay life’, if I’m honest, and I am of the view that there is a genetic element to a person’s sexuality.
Actually, come to think of it, I can imagine Nicolosi saying this — in order to boost sales of his “Gay-Proofing Your Kids” books among military families, and especially religious ones…
You know what really bothers me the MOST about NARTH? It’s that they go after the parents and blame the parents. Can you imagine sitting in the audience and a professional doctor who is an “expert” on homosexuality saying that it is your fault you child is a sexual minority. I think of so many lives Nicolosi et al have crushed, it must be devastating for those parents.
It is the fault of the absent or distant father and the overbearing/clinging mother he claims. I read a comment on a pro-equality website that made a lot of sense to me. The person writing was African American and they noted how, sadly, in that community so many children are raised by their mothers and grandmothers with absent fathers and yet there is not an over population of African American sexual minorities. This cookie cutter one size fits all (blame the parents) diagnosis that Nicolosi promotes is sheer bullroar.
I am also majorly disturbed that Nicolosi even accepts minors as patients. There is something really wrong with that. We need to remember what those protestors said, Homosexuality is not a disease and does not need to be cured.
Dave,
I was wondering where did you get this information about these speakers?
You could make a similar observation about “military brats” as a demographic group — perhaps especially in the case of the US Navy, where it’s normal for personnel to be deployed away from their families for months at a stretch even during peacetime.
(Can you imagine Nicolosi telling social conservatives that military service by a man increases the odds that his sons will be gay?)
It’s rather like Jack the Ripper saying “I’m not a murderer; I’ve just murdered a bunch of people.”
Did you know that NARTH is accredited as an organization for continuing education credits? How did that happen? Somebody should let California know about NARTH.
http://talkaboutequality.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/california-board-accredits-ex-gay-org-narth-sign-the-petition-to-stop-them/
My comment above was addressed to one Kevin, whose own comment seems now to have disappeared.
If that is the sum total of your views, then you are not, in my opinion, homophobic.
Not quite sure what you mean by a ‘non-gay life’, if I’m honest, and I am of the view that there is a genetic element to a person’s sexuality.
sam# ~ Nov 8, 2011 at 12:26 am
“If you look at their website, they claim to be both scientific and ideological.”
NARTH’s web sites makes many claims, not all of them are true.
“I firmly believe that as long as we have 1st and 14th amendments in place, which protect individual liberties, I would never be concerned about possible criminalization of homosexuality and forced reorientation therapy. To do otherwise, would be illegal.”
In the US, that would be correct. But what about Uganda and other african nations? By allowing Slater and Brown to speak at this conference NARTH is allying itself with them. And worse, giving her the impetuous to cite NARTH’s unproven claims in order to justify her stance about imprisoning gays.
sam# ~ Nov 8, 2011 at 12:26 am
“If you look at their website, they claim to be both scientific and ideological.”
NARTH’s web sites makes many claims, not all of them are true.
“I firmly believe that as long as we have 1st and 14th amendments in place, which protect individual liberties, I would never be concerned about possible criminalization of homosexuality and forced reorientation therapy. To do otherwise, would be illegal.”
In the US, that would be correct. But what about Uganda and other african nations? By allowing Slater and Brown to speak at this conference NARTH is allying itself with them. And worse, giving her the impetuous to cite NARTH’s unproven claims in order to justify her stance about imprisoning gays.
I’m not sure they claim to be ideological … as a direct claim. I think that is inferred from their writings. If they directly claimed that, it would shatter their claim to be guided by science. Or, do they make the statement somewhere; and, I haven’t seen it?
I think, and this is just me, NARTH would be better served by simply stating loudly and clearly, many times if necessary, that their faith belief, their firmly held belief as traditional Christians; that homosexuality is a mental illness … both, the behavior and simply being same-sex attracted. They need to state directly, without equivocation, that their strongly held view on ‘sexuality’ … its purpose … leaves no room for sexual ‘deviancy’. They need to state that no matter that science may eventually find biologic, causative agents, intrauterine or elsewhere … no matter that no one can actually ‘change’ their orientation from gay to str8; it will not change the fact that NARTH sees this is as ‘abnormal’ development, as a form of mental illness … much like schizophrenia.
If they simply would be honest about this, at this level, without the mask and pretense of being a ‘scientific’ organization, so much would their organization gain credibility; at least, in my eyes. The credibility of integrity, courage, fidelity to belief, perseverance in the face of opposition … if they could be all this … what a breath of fresh air that would bring, for them and for all of us living our human experience as homosexuals. What a breath of fresh air, if they admitted that being same-sex attracted; however, limiting it may be in some areas, can be a joyful experience … and, their faith belief guided by living what they see “as truth in love” can help those of us same-sex attracted persons live congruently with our faith belief.
I’m not sure they claim to be ideological … as a direct claim. I think that is inferred from their writings. If they directly claimed that, it would shatter their claim to be guided by science. Or, do they make the statement somewhere; and, I haven’t seen it?
I think, and this is just me, NARTH would be better served by simply stating loudly and clearly, many times if necessary, that their faith belief, their firmly held belief as traditional Christians; that homosexuality is a mental illness … both, the behavior and simply being same-sex attracted. They need to state directly, without equivocation, that their strongly held view on ‘sexuality’ … its purpose … leaves no room for sexual ‘deviancy’. They need to state that no matter that science may eventually find biologic, causative agents, intrauterine or elsewhere … no matter that no one can actually ‘change’ their orientation from gay to str8; it will not change the fact that NARTH sees this is as ‘abnormal’ development, as a form of mental illness … much like schizophrenia.
If they simply would be honest about this, at this level, without the mask and pretense of being a ‘scientific’ organization, so much would their organization gain credibility; at least, in my eyes. The credibility of integrity, courage, fidelity to belief, perseverance in the face of opposition … if they could be all this … what a breath of fresh air that would bring, for them and for all of us living our human experience as homosexuals. What a breath of fresh air, if they admitted that being same-sex attracted; however, limiting it may be in some areas, can be a joyful experience … and, their faith belief guided by living what they see “as truth in love” can help those of us same-sex attracted persons live congruently with our faith belief.
My guess is that NARTH wants to promote an ideology stating that homosexuality is not normal, thus they invite speakers who share their views. If you look at their website, they claim to be both scientific and ideological.
I firmly believe that as long as we have 1st and 14th amendments in place, which protect individual liberties, I would never be concerned about possible criminalization of homosexuality and forced reorientation therapy. To do otherwise, would be illegal.
Michael,
NARTH does not support criminalization of homosexuality. They never have, and never will. Just because they have a speaker who takes a neutral, and somewhat obscure stance on that infamous Uganda bill, that does not make NARTH liable. It’s like me being involved in community service for the poor with the Mormons, does not make me a Mormon believer.
FYI, if there ever was a proposed legislation, or an activity to force you to become straight AGAINST your will, I would be the first person to defend your rights.
sam – I know you want NARTH not to support criminalization but in fact they have no official position for or against. To discern the attitudes of leaders of a group, then you look to their choices on other matters such as who they invite to speak at their events. NARTH chooses Slater to speak who, despite your strange interpretation of her, does support African countries who maintain harsh laws against homosexuality.
Association with Mormons doesn’t make you a Mormon, but it does mean you support at least some of their objectives. Same with NARTH and Slater. NARTH is not Slater but they must as a leadership group feel good about what she is doing. Why else invite a non-scientist to speak at a so-called scientific meeting?
Exodus remains a strong ally of NARTH — even though Exodus says they oppose the crimininalization of homosexuality. It’s way past time for Exodus to dump NARTH and say so clearly and openly. Silence implies agreement.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmasteradrian.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2F07%2Fnarth-features-gay-imprisonment-advocate%2F&h=_AQFvJ6PqAQGIMAypbHb01qzmJVdXE6CgJa8IUnwKa6s8sQ
My guess is that NARTH wants to promote an ideology stating that homosexuality is not normal, thus they invite speakers who share their views. If you look at their website, they claim to be both scientific and ideological.
I firmly believe that as long as we have 1st and 14th amendments in place, which protect individual liberties, I would never be concerned about possible criminalization of homosexuality and forced reorientation therapy. To do otherwise, would be illegal.
Michael,
NARTH does not support criminalization of homosexuality. They never have, and never will. Just because they have a speaker who takes a neutral, and somewhat obscure stance on that infamous Uganda bill, that does not make NARTH liable. It’s like me being involved in community service for the poor with the Mormons, does not make me a Mormon believer.
FYI, if there ever was a proposed legislation, or an activity to force you to become straight AGAINST your will, I would be the first person to defend your rights.
sam – I know you want NARTH not to support criminalization but in fact they have no official position for or against. To discern the attitudes of leaders of a group, then you look to their choices on other matters such as who they invite to speak at their events. NARTH chooses Slater to speak who, despite your strange interpretation of her, does support African countries who maintain harsh laws against homosexuality.
Association with Mormons doesn’t make you a Mormon, but it does mean you support at least some of their objectives. Same with NARTH and Slater. NARTH is not Slater but they must as a leadership group feel good about what she is doing. Why else invite a non-scientist to speak at a so-called scientific meeting?
SG. No, I don’t think so. The only way she could cope with her feelings of guilt was to get drunk and lash out at me. I don’t think it’s at all unusual. It went on for about 5 years. Then she read about the founder of GLSN and her son, my mother called Jean, and went to talk to her. That began to allow my mother to drop her burden of guilt and calm down. I did my duty towards her and tried to help her as much as I could. It wasn’t till her final illness, however, that through caring for her I was able to love her again and, I feel privileged to be able to say, she died in my arms.
But this is why the overbearing mother/distant father nonsense carries a particular meaning for me. It was also kind of true in my case, which I think my mother recognized, though my father was more immature child than distant. He didn’t go through the same convulsions as my mother or come to the same kind of resolution as she did. Consequently I found it impossible to have any kind of relationship with him and we haven’t spoken in years.
Stephen =
StraightGrandmother = Stephen, isn’t that kind of an odd reaction from your mother? If I was told I was to blame for my child’s homosexuality I would feel burdened with guilt and do everything to make it up to them. Cruelty? That is an odd response I think.
MB: We went through this ‘diagnosis in the 50s with psychoanalysis, a position that was abandoned on the Upper East Side but has been embraced by NARTH with enthusiasm. Like you, my mother was tortured by this thought and behaved towards me with great cruelty as a consequence. We got through it eventually but one can never forget, only put the past in perspective.
SG. No, I don’t think so. The only way she could cope with her feelings of guilt was to get drunk and lash out at me. I don’t think it’s at all unusual. It went on for about 5 years. Then she read about the founder of GLSN and her son, my mother called Jean, and went to talk to her. That began to allow my mother to drop her burden of guilt and calm down. I did my duty towards her and tried to help her as much as I could. It wasn’t till her final illness, however, that through caring for her I was able to love her again and, I feel privileged to be able to say, she died in my arms.
But this is why the overbearing mother/distant father nonsense carries a particular meaning for me. It was also kind of true in my case, which I think my mother recognized, though my father was more immature child than distant. He didn’t go through the same convulsions as my mother or come to the same kind of resolution as she did. Consequently I found it impossible to have any kind of relationship with him and we haven’t spoken in years.
Stephen =
StraightGrandmother = Stephen, isn’t that kind of an odd reaction from your mother? If I was told I was to blame for my child’s homosexuality I would feel burdened with guilt and do everything to make it up to them. Cruelty? That is an odd response I think.
MB: We went through this ‘diagnosis in the 50s with psychoanalysis, a position that was abandoned on the Upper East Side but has been embraced by NARTH with enthusiasm. Like you, my mother was tortured by this thought and behaved towards me with great cruelty as a consequence. We got through it eventually but one can never forget, only put the past in perspective.
First I read what looks like a great therapy framework, then now I see the H word here used in a way that doesn’t look very scientific. Lord, grant us discernment!
FWIW, my father did have a year-long unaccompanied deployment to the general vicinity of Vietnam when I was between the ages of 1 and 2, leaving me alone with my mother — so Nicolosi could make of that what he will. But for the rest of my childhood (and as far back as I can actually remember!) we always went overseas with my dad, and he was always around, and an active parent to me and my sister.
Actually, come to think of it, I can imagine Nicolosi saying this — in order to boost sales of his “Gay-Proofing Your Kids” books among military families, and especially religious ones…
You could make a similar observation about “military brats” as a demographic group — perhaps especially in the case of the US Navy, where it’s normal for personnel to be deployed away from their families for months at a stretch even during peacetime.
(Can you imagine Nicolosi telling social conservatives that military service by a man increases the odds that his sons will be gay?)
First I read what looks like a great therapy framework, then now I see the H word here used in a way that doesn’t look very scientific. Lord, grant us discernment!
StraightGrandmother said:
I have the same strong objection. First, define homosexual orientation as an illness or dysfunction — and then “blame” the parents. Think of the psycholgical, familial and pastoral implications for the Moms and Dads.
I know that my Mom read such “experts” — and suffered great guilt because she was told that she somehow “made” me gay. It took her years to overcome it. Mark Yarhouse’s concerns about the “risk” that gays experience pertains to their parents as well:
FWIW, my father did have a year-long unaccompanied deployment to the general vicinity of Vietnam when I was between the ages of 1 and 2, leaving me alone with my mother — so Nicolosi could make of that what he will. But for the rest of my childhood (and as far back as I can actually remember!) we always went overseas with my dad, and he was always around, and an active parent to me and my sister.
Did you know that NARTH is accredited as an organization for continuing education credits? How did that happen? Somebody should let California know about NARTH.
http://talkaboutequality.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/california-board-accredits-ex-gay-org-narth-sign-the-petition-to-stop-them/
You know what really bothers me the MOST about NARTH? It’s that they go after the parents and blame the parents. Can you imagine sitting in the audience and a professional doctor who is an “expert” on homosexuality saying that it is your fault you child is a sexual minority. I think of so many lives Nicolosi et al have crushed, it must be devastating for those parents.
It is the fault of the absent or distant father and the overbearing/clinging mother he claims. I read a comment on a pro-equality website that made a lot of sense to me. The person writing was African American and they noted how, sadly, in that community so many children are raised by their mothers and grandmothers with absent fathers and yet there is not an over population of African American sexual minorities. This cookie cutter one size fits all (blame the parents) diagnosis that Nicolosi promotes is sheer bullroar.
I am also majorly disturbed that Nicolosi even accepts minors as patients. There is something really wrong with that. We need to remember what those protestors said, Homosexuality is not a disease and does not need to be cured.
Essentially, the best reading of their position as stated would be:
“If you are happy with your mental illness, that’s fine, but if you recognize, as we do, how awful and evil it is, we we are here to help cure you.”
It’s really hard for them to spin a message that smells that bad. I would have more respect for them if they were blunt about it like they used to be.
StraightGrandmother said:
I have the same strong objection. First, define homosexual orientation as an illness or dysfunction — and then “blame” the parents. Think of the psycholgical, familial and pastoral implications for the Moms and Dads.
I know that my Mom read such “experts” — and suffered great guilt because she was told that she somehow “made” me gay. It took her years to overcome it. Mark Yarhouse’s concerns about the “risk” that gays experience pertains to their parents as well:
Of course, she may be sincere in her belief … and this is perhaps the really frightening thing!
The woman on camera who spoke on behlf of NARTH comes across on camera as very sincere. If I didn’t know better, I would believe her.
Crap in, crap out.
Amazing how she says that with a straight face. I’ve never seen anyone actually exhibit such belief in their nonsense.
Dave,
I was wondering where did you get this information about these speakers?
Sounds like they have taken the ship to … ludicrous speed
We’re not anti-gay .. we just …errr .. umm help people not to be gay .. and to encourage you not to be gay we have speakers that believe you should go to jail for being gay.
LOL
Dave
Amazing how she says that with a straight face. I’ve never seen anyone actually exhibit such belief in their nonsense.
It’s rather like Jack the Ripper saying “I’m not a murderer; I’ve just murdered a bunch of people.”
The choice of speakers proves the first assertion is false — and junk “science” is hardly “good information”.