NARTH pulls the Melonakos article

Recently, I took some exception to the outdated article, “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?” by Kathleen Melonakos. It was posted on the NARTH website and reprinted at Lifesite News but has now been pulled from the site. You can still read it at the Lifesite News page. I commend Dave Pruden and the NARTH leaders who are taking seriously these concerns for accuracy.

UPDATE: 1/5/06 – A commenter pointed out that the Melonakos article has now been pulled from the Lifesite News site. So this link does not work. For future reference, one can find it on other sites around the web.

12 thoughts on “NARTH pulls the Melonakos article”

  1. Dr Throckmorten, I clicked on the Lifesite News link in this post and the link does not work. Maybe they followed NARTH’s lead and removed it from their page.

  2. As a NARTH member, I am glad to see them remove this article. I was near quitting last year, but if NARTH changes I may stick with it. I am not a pyschologist but I believe people change, I have family members who have so I think NARTH can be very helpful. I hope this is a sign of better things to come.

  3. Anon – While Michael is not a promoter of innate and immutable per se, I agree that the professions often do promote this view. Dogmatism on either side is not warranted by research.

  4. I am a suppoerter of gay rights (actually equal rights for all citizens) but I for one have NEVER expressed a conclusion that homosexuality “must be inborn”. The FACT of the matter is that no one (repeat no one) knows what “causes” homosexuality. We also do not know what “causes” heterosexuality for that matter. Soy? Dysfunctional parents? Demons? Eunuchs from birth? The list goes on and on…

    There are many THEORIES about what “causes” sexual orientation, but theories are only guesses (or possible explanations) for a phenonmenon. Theories are not facts. Some “guesses” seem to be more likely and seem to have more emperical evidence. Some do not. It is arrogant (and unscientific) for “gay rights supporters”, NARTH or any other individual or group to state categorically that they KNOW.

    One other important point: NARTH presents itself as a “scientific” organization and seeks the validation of other scientific organizations (like the APA). NARTH therefore has a greater responsibility to be clear that they are stating an OPINION only (a theory) and NOT present their religious/political bias as “science”.

  5. Michael, while it is certainly true that NARTH has made up its mind about homosexuality and isn’t interested in considering other views, how does this differ from the approach of gay rights supporters who are determined to conclude that homosexuality must be inborn?

  6. I think it keeps happening because NARTH does not adhere to the scientific method of inquiry: testing a hypothesis, constructing an experiment, weighing the evidence, making reasonable conclusions based solely of that evidence, etc. NARTH has already made up its mind about homosexuality. They tend to print anything that supports that bias. It’s a classic case of “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

  7. One has to wonder why this kind of thing keeps happening. The webmaster must not have any oversight from the NARTH leaders. None of these take downs have come because NARTH’s review was unfavorable. Who is really in charge at NARTH? Is anyone?

  8. Let’s hope this trend continues. I was astonished, this past summer, that NARTH let the “we’ll print anything” editorial policy go on so long. Maybe a new and improved NARTH, holding more to science and less to oddball politics, is in the making now that Nicolosi is out?

  9. Good call, Warren. This is very good news. I’m glad to see them remove that article. It was inaccurate – without a doubt. I’d read it in the past and always thought there was something fishy about it, but could never quite put my finger on it. I get angry when I see the gross inaccuracies on pro-gay sites (of which there are plenty, let’s face it), so the last thing one wants is the same problem at the other camp. Hopefully NARTH will become more sensitive to this in the future. NARTH has helped me a lot in the past, I would never have achieved the change I have, if it were not for them. I just wish they were a little lighter on the politics… but I guess thats for another topic! 🙂

  10. Dr. Thockmorton, unlike the people on both extremes you actually sound reasonable. People can change, but those who don’t aren’t mentally disturbed. I was starting to worry that Narth was going to support the concept of draptomania next.

  11. You just never know what I am going to say. Perhaps, I should include a warning at the top of the blog: Not to be read while eating or drinking. 🙂

  12. I commend Dave Pruden and the NARTH leaders who are taking seriously these concerns for accuracy.

    I shouldn’t have read that with coffee in my mouth. I nearly choked.

Comments are closed.