If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you believe that certain claims and statements give you hope and are therefore valid and desireable – whether or not there is truth to them.

I can understand the need for hope. And I can understand the desire to hear what gives you hope.

But please realize that seeking to hear what is not true is, by definition, self-deluding. If you rejoice that NARTH tells you what you want to hear and don’t care if it is true, you are practicing self-delusion.

I know that we all tell ourselves little fibs from time to time to inspire us or give us confidence. I look great today. If I buy this lottery ticket my life will change. I will get this promotion.

But the difference is that these delusions generally don’t harm others and, as long as we don’t act on these fibs and act as though we are going to win the lottery, these hope-builders don’t harm us either.

But the deceptions of NARTH and Cameron hurt others. And, Anon2, if you act on them as though they are true, they will hurt you too.

If you want to seek the unlikely – but hope for its possibility – then by all means do so. I don’t fault you for hoping or trying. But if you are basing your life on the assumption that your orientation WILL change dramatically – and seeking confirmation from anyone who will affirm that assumption – then truly you are behaving no differently than if you were living as though you are planning on winning the lottery. “This ticket is a winner, and no one tell me otherwise”.

I think that you would ultimately be happier if you sought more to craft a life consistent with your values and then hope that change occurs within that framework – without relying on false promises or fruadulent claims. Of course, it is your own life. But if you assume that the “change can happen” claims are always true and that the “orientation is pretty much fixed” statement are always just media bias, then I think you will always be in internal conflict – constantly seeking to deceive yourself.

But then again – I’m not a mental health professional so don’t take my word for it.

“Cannot change” what exactly? No one is saying that gays can’t change their BEHAVIOR or that they can’t learn to live more productive lives. What most well-informed persons are saying is that it appears that sexual orientation tends NOT to change from gay to straight. A person CAN, however, live in accordance with his or her values — which is what I believe Dr, Throckmoston is trying to say. Anon2 may have “a difficult time listening to some of the accusations being leveled against NARTH and Exodus” but perhaps that is because they are TRUE.

NARTH (and EXODUS, by association with NARTH) have (1) repeatedly promoted religious and personal prejudice as “science”, (2) published the articles of adivisors (and still have as “expert advisors”) men who have advocated the ridiculing and teasing of children and who have suggested that “slaves had it better off”, (3) labeled those who disagree with them as “busybodies” and intellectually stunted “Marxists”, (4) stood by the unscientifc and hateful ramblings of folks like Cameron who insists that gays “live parasitic lives”, (5) engaged in an agressive right-wing political agenda rather than sticking to minstry. I could go on.

To be fair, EXODUS has disavowed Cameron, but NARTH has not — and EXODUS has not disavowed NARTH for standing by Cameron. In terms of “deception”. EXODUS contuinues to use confusing, vexing, provocative and misleading terms like “ex-gay” and “former homosexual” — even though their leaders admit that “ex-gay” doesn’t mean “ex-homosexual” or “heterosexual”. In light of all this, I am curious. What “deception” has Anon2 “seen for so many years from the other side”?

I think you are right about the country being divided. For myself I started feeling much better about myself and my relationship with my family when I started looking for balance in my own life. I believe that the extremes on either position are the real problem. Anyone who insists that someone must change or go to HELL is not being very compassionate. But one the other hand saying that one cannot change at all is taking away hope of value driven change and creating a sense of hopelessness in the individual.

The problem as I have come to see it is that this is a political issue for many and those, like myself, who have struggled with SSA, are being used as pawns in a larger power struggle. I think instead of encouraging confrontation between the two sides it is time to look at where there is common ground and work toward cooperation to over power the real enemy.

I for one have been very much helped by what NARTH has presented over the years. I have not felt it is all completely balanced, but it has helped to balance the very biased media reporting in opposition to change. Maybe this is not the case in the US but it has been the case north of the border.

Balance is what I see you are offering, Warren and balance is what is needed. I have a difficult time listening to some of the accusations being leveled against NARTH and Exodus, in light of the deception I have seen for so many years from the other side

I have not yet read the framework but I promise to do so. The summaries of it are most promising. Therapy should help clients to establish healthy and constructive values and to live according to those values. Therapy should not be about the therapist remaking clients in his own image and likeness.

I agree. The reparative therapy movement (and Nicolosi in particular) is famously guilty of this logical fallacy. They all begin with: If you are gay, you MUST have had a bad relationship with your dad – and if you can’t remember it, we’ll go moment by moment through your history until we find something to blame him for.

Throckmorton: “On one hand, it does appear that Dr. Nicolosi offers a singular explanation for homosexual attractions that clients encounter early in reparative therapy. On the other hand, Dr. Nicolosi tells clients the theory must ring true for them to proceed.”

Question: What does it take for his theory to “ring true”? Maybe just Nicolosi’s insistence that it IS true? Any unhappy homosexual, programmed by family, church and society to hate his gayness might very READILY accept the BAD DAD theory – just because an “expert” like Nicolosi insists the theory is true.

Throckmorton: “From the article about therapist neutrality, it appears that Dr. Nicolosi envisions an environment where gay affirming therapists can assert their beliefs to clients and reparative therapists can likewise assert their beliefs and then let clients choose which approach they like.”

This “let clients choose” makes it sound as though the client has enough unbiased information, informed consent and EMOTIONAL neutrality to make such an objective “choice” about which theoretical approach is the most appropriate and the most clinically sound. That’s assuming a LOT, isn’t it? The underlying message is clear: Choose the gay affirming therapist and you go to HELL for all eternity. Choose Nicolosi and heaven awaits…

“Our men do not come to us just to change their unwanted behavior. They come to us to change their sense of self — to be more heterosexual, not just to “act” heterosexually; to feel comfortable in relationships with straight men, to learn to hold onto their masculine autonomy with women — in short, to fulfill their latent heterosexual potential.”

He assumes: (1) that we gay men are uncomfortable in straight relationships, (2) that we have relinquished our “masculine autonmy” (whatever THAT is) with (I suppose he means emasculating) women (most likely, our Moms), and (3) that we all really just “latent” homosexuals.

It is interesting that he says he helps his “men” “to be MORE heterosexual, not “to BE heterosexual…