I would argue that when they say:

“There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.”

it’s really just a fancy way of saying “we don’t know,” but I don’t claim to have a strong case for that view.

I think you ought to take into account all the evidence Boo has regarding your connection to NARTH.

Why not lay it all on the table once and for all?

Best wishes,

Dan

http://www.gcc.edu/alumni/enewsletter/11-25-02/throck.htm

http://www.narth.com/docs/2002conf.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/press2.html

Received an award from them:

http://www.narth.com/docs/defends.html

And as of January 25 2006 they claim you as a member and a leader of their discussion list:

http://www.narth.com/docs/discussionlist.html

“Critics on the other hand fail to accept any reports of benefit from efforts to change or bring behavior in line with beliefs.”

I don’t accept specifically claims of change in orientation because:

Very few people actually make that claim.

Those who do often “fall” later.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is no way to test their claims.

Virtually everyone among the few who do publically make that claim are in the paid employ of ex-gay organizations.

Every year the claimed success rate of Exodus International has increased by a factor of ten. Alan Chambers claimed there were “thousands” of ex-gays in 2003, “tens of thousands” in 2004, “hundreds of thousands” in 2005, and just a few weeks ago Jerry Falwell went him one better and claimed there are “millions.” Yet we never see them, just a few people making mostly vague claims and who happen to be paid by the people they’re making the claims for.

I think both secular and religious ex-gay groups have helped some people in the sense that most of the people drawn to these programs seem to be living extremely unhealthy lifestyles and therefore getting them to constrain their promiscuous behavior may well save their lives, but they could get the same thing from what you call gay-affirming counselors without having to repress their orientation in the bargain.

If a Catholic organization publishes my op-eds, does that make me Catholic? If a Baptist organization publishes my stuff, does that make me Baptist? If a Muslim group publishes my articles, does that make me in bed with Muslims? My bed would be pretty crowded if I was in bed with all the places that print my columns.

“Benefits” is often quite a loose term in ex-gay circles. I’m talking specifically about changing orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. I guess I’ve heard too many John Paulks and Michael Johnstons to now take their reports at face value. I haven’t heard of anyone who claimed harm and was later determined to be lying.

“Regarding NARTH, I not a member and have been pretty critical of reparative drive theory on this blog and elsewhere. Can’t figure out why this is not clear.”

I didn’t say you were a member. I said you were in bed with them.

http://www.gcc.edu/alumni/enewsletter/11-25-02/throck.htm 2nd paragraph

http://www.narth.com/docs/intolerance.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/discussionlist.html 4th paragraph

http://www.narth.com/docs/drphil.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/2002conf.html 5th speaker profiled

http://www.narth.com/docs/guideme.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/pointtwo.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/influence.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/threatto.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/nea.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/defends.html 15th paragraph

http://www.narth.com/docs/press2.html 4th paragraph

In my opinion, the issue of change will not be resolved by therapy studies. Therapy studies can tell something about a phenomenon that can be measured reliably and validly. We as yet have nothing that can do that with sexual feelings, except self-report. If you cannot accept self-report about benefits then I do not know how you can do this with reports of harm.

Regarding NARTH, I not a member and have been pretty critical of reparative drive theory on this blog and elsewhere. Can’t figure out why this is not clear.

My belief is that people who wish to live in accord with beliefs that forbid homosexual behavior can do so without psychological damage. This can include feeling change and/or celebacy without feeling change. I do not decide such things for my clients.

I was the President of the American Mental Health Counselors Association which at the time was the largest division of the ACA. The ACA is in process of reevaluating its position on change therapies but has taken a more client centered view off and on over the years.

You’re splitting hairs. It is quite clear from the context that the term “reparative therapy” was used in the statement as a blanket term for attempts to change homosexuals into heterosexuals through therapy. Also, despite his claims, Throckmorton is neck-deep in bed with Nicolosi and NARTH.

“Well, you haven’t bothered to back up your statement. Just saying that there’s no evidence because the big (liberal, biased) organizations say so just won’t do it. This ain’t Hitler’s Germany or Mao’s Red China–think and research for yourself–you may be surprised at what you find. I recommend that you check out Wright and Cummings: “Destructive trends in mental health” book (reviewed on this site as well). But then again, since they don’t agree with the APA, you’d probably just ignore them completely.”

It is impossible to prove a negative. You can always keep claiming that the complete lack of evidence is only due to someone not looking hard enough. There is no evidence that unicorns exist, but that may be just because people haven’t looked hard enough. It is the responsibility of people who claim that they have been able to change people’s sexual orientation to come up with the evidence that they have done so. Until they do, their claims are unfounded. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is also not presence of evidence.

“You also mention anecdotal evidence.
What good is anecdotal evidence anyways? Do you even know what that means? You say there’s anecdotal evidence that people who try to change are harmed. I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that such efforts can be quite helpful.But it doesn’t matter..you know why?…because its ONLY anecdotal evidence. There’s anecdotal evidence that Elvis is alive and well down in Panama, working as a transexual bartender.”

No evidence of success on one side, anecdotal evidence of harm on the other side. Anecdotal evidence cannot tell you about the prevalence of harm in conversion therapy, but it does tell you that harm is caused in conversion therapy. There is anecdotal evidence of people who have claimed to “experience change,” by which they mean all different kinds of things, but those claims have never been tested in any objective way. If you meet a Panamanian transsexual bartender who claims to be Elvis, you really ought to try and do a DNA test or something before taking her word for it.

The weblink you sent me says that the ACA opposes “Reparative Therapy.”

Now….

How many times has Throckmorton said that he’s not a reparative therapist? Obviously that has fallen on deaf (or dumb) years. There’s a big difference in what Throckmorton promotes and what Nicolosi promotes. Hell, even I’m opposed to the reparative therapy that Nicolosi pushes.

If you don’t get it, I’ll spell it out. the ACA agrees with Throckmorton’s moderate stance, but disagrees with Nicolosi’s more extreme stance. Throckmorton supports Nicolosi only insofar that he supports client autonomy.

“As to coming up with research, what I said is that there’s no evidence that trying to change someone’s sexual orientation (not merely their behavior) works and that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that it’s harmful. It is the responsibility of people who claim that there is evidence that it works to come up with said evidence. So far, no one has.”

Well, you haven’t bothered to back up your statement. Just saying that there’s no evidence because the big (liberal, biased) organizations say so just won’t do it. This ain’t Hitler’s Germany or Mao’s Red China–think and research for yourself–you may be surprised at what you find. I recommend that you check out Wright and Cummings: “Destructive trends in mental health” book (reviewed on this site as well). But then again, since they don’t agree with the APA, you’d probably just ignore them completely.

You also mention anecdotal evidence.
What good is anecdotal evidence anyways? Do you even know what that means? You say there’s anecdotal evidence that people who try to change are harmed. I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that such efforts can be quite helpful.But it doesn’t matter..you know why?…because its ONLY anecdotal evidence. There’s anecdotal evidence that Elvis is alive and well down in Panama, working as a transexual bartender.

Of course, reading that story in print would be far more interesting than reading strawmen arguments.