23 thoughts on “NARTH responds to the Schoenewolf controversy”

  1. The situation has gone on much too long. It is unbecoming and unseemly. I call on NARTH to take the concerns raised about the Schoenewolf article seriously and decisively.

  2. I posted this on the NARTH Blog:

    With all due respect, Jennifer, there is a difference between a blogger from ex-gay watch posting an abusive, threatening rascist comment to DL and a NARTH article which looks at the “sunny side” of slavery.

    The former is a peripheral person in this debate and was “kicked off” ex-gay watch after his comments were exposed. The latter is a professional and expert.

    I understand feelings are running high. I think this is a mistake to politicize this process. We have an identity as a scientific organization which is weakened by the poor comparison made above.

    Lets blog about science, let’s post articles on science.

    David Blakeslee

  3. I just received this from Mike at Exgay Watch — a clarification of and response to NARTH’s blogmaster’s (FALSE)accusation that Exgay Watch had made violent, racist threats:

    “Just for complete clarification; you all know all or parts of this:


    1. Kautz wasn’t an active commenter — I found only 12 previous comments by him.

    2. As has been pointed out already, he made the racist and threatening comments on D.L.’s site, not ours.

    3. We banned him anyway because if those comments had been posted at XGW, they would have violated our guidelines. We try not to allow commenters to use XGW as a safe harbor while they conduct unethical or illegal activities elsewhere”.

    –Mike (Exgay Watch)

  4. I just called David Pruden of NARTH again, as the secretary at the NARTH office just directed me to do. I spoke with Mr. Pruden yesterday about this and I just challenged him (again) to read the blogmaster’s comments and defense of Schoenewolf. In particular, I directed his attention to these lines:

    “Why white gays activits(sic)are not apologizing for the repeated acts of racism they engage in?”

    “If one could sum up the leadership of the Ex Gay crsuaders (sic) at the hate blog Ex Gay Watch it would be this “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks”.

    It is WAY out of line to suggest that all of NARTH’s critics (and the folks at Exgay Watch) are “racist”. Is Dr. Throckmorton racist? He also thinks you should PULL the article and APOLOGIZE.

    It is WAY past time for Dr. Nicolosi, Mr. Pruden and whoever may actually be in “charge” of NARTH to respond.

  5. From their blog:

    “NARTH values diversity of opinions and freedom of speech, and encourages individual writers.”

    Are they JOKING?

  6. The NARTH blog seems to be engaging in the very type of behavior Schoenewolf claimed characterized the Civil Rights, Feminist, and Gay Rights movements: hysterically dividing the world into all-bad “gay activist” victimizers and all-good victims such as themselves and claiming their assumed victim status trumps everything. Add to that their heavy censoring of opposing viewpoints.

    Isn’t it ironic? Dontcha think?

  7. I just called NARTH and Dr. Nicolosi’s office at the Thomas Aquinas center to bring his attention to what is going on at his blog. I asked him to do what he AGREED was the right thing to do with with “Berger Debacle”: retract and apologize. Why Dr. Nicolosi has let this go on this long is beyond me.

  8. Now Jennifer at NARTH is accusing Exgay Watch of being “a hateblog”:

    “Why white gays activits are not apologizing for the repeated acts of racism they engage in? Do they get a pass?

    For the record, I have NEVER engaged in acts of racism nor have I EVER made threats of violence. One WACKO (gay) blogger does not represent the entire gay community. For NARTH to imply this is ridiculous.

    First they defend Schoeewolf, then retract him, then defend him and now they seem to accuse all gay “activist” bloggers of being violent hatemongers and racists.

    Does ANYONE at NARTH know what is going on at their blog?

  9. I’m becoming increasingly concerned with the recent turn the NARTH blog is taking. In contrast to much of the rest of the content, the blog appears to be unusually unhinged and hysterical lately.

    Let’s be clear about one thing: As long as the posters remain anonymous, the NARTH blog will always appear to represent the opinions of NARTH to any casual observer, despite disclaimers to the contrary. People dropping in will look at it and just asume that it represents NARTH. If there were a real name, then it could be clear who is expressing what opinion. Anonymity undercuts that, leaving NARTH as the only identifying sponser of the blog.

    And of course, this problem is compounded by their heavy-handed censoring of comments, which makes their claim of valuing a variety of opinions ring hollow. I tried posting comments, but they have never seen the light of day. I really don’t think I’m in the habit of posting unreasonable comments (IMO).

    So I have to wonder: Are NARTH members aware that the NARTH blog reflects so poorly on the organization — and on the membership by extension?

  10. We express objections to Schoenewolf and Sojouneer at NARTH says,

    “Tell your stories here please stand up and make these attacks public. By making it public you are demonstrating the intimidation is not going to work. If we are silent, it will only get worse and may become violent later.”

    Come on. Didn’t he/she read any of the coverage of the completely peaceful protest in Indian Wells? Just a bit PARANOID, don’t you think?

  11. I hope I have not posted this twice. I just got off the phone with Mr. David Pruden of NARTH. (I hope I have spelled his name correctly).

    He said he was not aware of how much controversy this matter was causing and agreed that a “reasonable” person might rightly assume that NARTH agreeed with the Schonewolf piece and that such a person might also reasonably assume that “Sojourneer” and “jjohnson” spoke on behalf on NARTH.

    He felt that that sojourneer and jjohnson were only expressing their own opinions and that (like a certain part of the human anatomy)”everybody had one”.

    He came across as an open, sincere and friendly man. He said he was not offended at all by my call — and actually thanked me for bringing this to his attention. He said he also knew Dr. Throckmorton “real well” and would most likely call him to discuss this.

    He also understood, that left as it is, this had the potential to embarrass FOTF.

    I assured him that I was NOT trying to “silence” NARTH — only to make NARTH accept more repsonsibility for its editorial policies and practices.

    Perhaps, NARTH will issue an offical apology and retraction soon.

  12. First they post it. Then they defend it. Then, pull it. Now they are defending it again. My head hurts.

  13. The same “jjohnson” (Jeremiah Johnson) who ANONYMOUSLY pulled the Schoenewolf article and “duly noted” the criticisms is now posting numerous examples (on the NARTH blog)of what he/she feels are “public” proof of
    “gay activist’s tactics”. Easy to throw rocks from behind a screen, Jeremiah.

  14. I just posted this at NARTH. I doubt they will print it. I hope they DO document my “tactics” publicly.

    “Does Focus on the Family know that you guys are STILL defending the Schonewolf article? I called their media relations department last week and spoke with a very nice women named “Devon”. I directed her to the actual article and the offending passages. She kept saying, “oh, no” and “Oh, my goodness.” She was completely unaware of the controversy, thanked me for bringing it to her attention and said she would “pass the information along”.

    I heard nothing from them, so I have to believe they might also defend it. Please “publicly document” on this blog that I intend to call Dr. Dobson personally if Dr. Nicolosi doesn’t step up to the plate REAL soon and stop having you do his dirty work. Call this “intimidation”, if you like. I think FOTF has a right to know what you guys are up to — their reputation is at stake here, too. Please at least show this post to Dr. Nicolosi if you decide not to “document” my “tactics” on your blog.”

    Note: I am NOT trying to “silence” NARTH. I think everyone whould know what they say and do.

  15. This from the NARTH website:

    “NARTH Disclaimer: NARTH does not support nor endorse comments made on the public blog. The blog is a free expression of ideas and issues on the topic of unwanted homosexuality. All posts are monitored before being placed on the blog. No hate speech will be allowed. However, diverse but respectful, opinions are welcomed.”

    Does this mean they DO or do NOT endorse “jjohnson’s” announcement that the article has be pulled? Do they or do they not endorse Sojourneer’s comments on NARTH’s behalf in defense of the Schoenewolf article?

  16. Warren – I cannot identify myself but I am livid that NARTH has squandered any credibility it had with shameful defenses of reprehensible articles on its website. I suspect you are getting much grief over your sane and responsible disagreement. Hang in there.

  17. Let me get this right. Anonymous “Sojouneer” is challenging his/her blog readers to “stand up and be public” with stories of “gay intimidation?

  18. And, by the way, how do we know that “jjohnson” has ANY authority to speak on behalf of NARTH, pull the Schonewolf piece or “duly note” the criticisms? Is the article pulled or not? If so, who authorized pulling it?

  19. Which is it? Did Nicolosi apologize for the Berger artcile because he disagreed with it — or because he was “intimidated” by gay activists? I think he pulled it because he was sick of getting calls and emails from me. During the “Berger Debacle”, he called me personally and asked, “What do you want me to do, Mike, beat the s*** out of him?” I told him NO, I believed in non-violent protest, I told him I wanted him to do the decent thing — retract the article, state WHY he was doing it and apologize for it, which he did.

    Now, with an even MORE offensive article, he has ‘sojouneer’ do his dirty work — pulling the article, wihtout apology — only “criticisms duly noted”. I think the public has a right to know — Does Dr. Nicolosi find the Schoenewolf piece LESS objectionable than the Berger piece? Does he agree with it?

    It’s time for the Wizard of OZ to come out from behind that curtain and take some responsibility for the mistakes he and his advisors have made. He blames (and caves into) his critics, instead of standing by his advisors. Does the man have ANY inteltectual backbone at all?

  20. I am shaking my head in disbelief. Does NARTH really intend to present themselves as an organization of mental health professionals while giving prominence to such an immature display of paranoia?

    And I second the comment about screen names. If this “sojourner” wishes to be taken seriously, why the anonymity? I don’t get it.

  21. Ok, they say the purpose of the post space is to “Tell your stories here please stand up and make these attacks public. By making it public you are demonstrating the intimidation is not going to work.”

    Then they post an article from Newswire. Yeah Wayne, it was very sneaky of you to make a secret attack on NARTH via the public news feed.

    “If we are silent it will only get worse and may become violent later.”

    Uh huh, so criticizing two articles on NARTH’s website will lead to violence. And NARTH is bravely standing up to this “intimidation.” So why did they take the articles down?

  22. Typical NARTH. They don’t like the message so they try to shoot the messenger.

    I found it curious that they did not print the letter from the National Black Justice Coalition, which also condemns them.

    By the way, who is sojourner? Do these NARTH people have names, are or they ashamed of who they are?

    On a final note, I thank Dr. Throckmorton for speaking out against NARTH on this issue.

Comments are closed.