Comments on: Narth fact sheet: Female homosexual development

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:45:27 +0000

And the theme of this thread might be summized as:
If you put lipstick on a pig, will it fly?

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:03:21 +0000

And by that, I mean of course, not that NARTH members are pigs, but that the chances of NARTH becoming truly factual and objective are about as likely as Hell freezing over.
NARTH is, and always has been, an anti-gay, unscientific, ideologically based movement that tolerates hatemongers and wackos like Cameron, Berger and Schoenewolf. Yet, they blame their lack of credibility on others and continually whine that the APA will give them no respect. Respect has to be earned.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:46:36 +0000

Furthermore, I do not think it is fair to blame the APA for something as awful as NARTH. I agree that "Narth’s calling should be to be rigorously thorough factual and objective." The important word here is "should". But, to use a similar analogy, "yeah, and pigs might fly".

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:43:33 +0000

David. You missed the point. I was not calling the PEOPLE of NARTH “pigs” — I was using the analogy that no matter how who dress up something ugly, it’s still ugly — and keeping people like Cameron, Berger and Schoenewolk is ugly. Even Throckmorton call’s Cameron’s views “abhorrent”. Why won’t NARTH?

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:28:38 +0000

The APA sexual orientation task force reports soon and we will see where things stand. As Dean Byrd pointed out, the APA has become more nuanced.
The open question is: When will NARTH?