Follow the money: Pro-Family Charitable Trust

This post is mostly about information without much commentary. Recently, I noted that NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) had removed references to Scott Lively from their website. In that post, I reported that Mr. Lively’s foundation, the Pro-Family Charitable Trust chose NARTH as one of the first recipients of grant funds.
While the amounts are not large, Lively’s organization has funded other groups, including Paul Cameron’s Family Research Institute. Here is the list.
According to Lively’s website, NARTH has received $2000 total. PFOX, Exodus, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, JONAH, Mission America and Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation have all been recipients.

10 thoughts on “Follow the money: Pro-Family Charitable Trust”

  1. I wish we could get a dialogue going between all the people who let facts shape their opinions, as opposed to ignoring inconvenient evidence – something all too common.
    Part of that trend’s due to the pernicious influence of Postmodenism, but don’t let me get started on my favourite hobbyhorse!
    I’d really like to talk to people who have come to opposite conclusions to mine, in an effort to understand where they’re coming from. I’m being selfish here, my aim isn’t to convince or proselytise, rather to refine my own views.
    Given the damage I’ve seen NARTH do, the lives that have been lost directly as the result of their statements, it’s far too easy to Demonise them. Fortunately, amidst the dross, there’s some genuinely honest Science, and I often use publications linked to from the NARTH site as a resource. Of EXODUS I know less, just that they appear to be utterly clueless when it comes to matters of gender as opposed to sexuality.
    I have difficulty when people, no matter what their agenda, only quote part of the evidence, especially when they continue to trot out data which has been comprehensively debunked. And when they know that, but continue to do so anyway as it supports their line. I also have difficulty with people who are unwilling or unable to modify their views in the light of new evidence. Some hysteresis, some resistance is needed to avoid instability of opinion, but not to the extent of ignoring convincing evidence in favour of unsubstantiated surmises.
    So… any NARTH or ex-NARTH, EXODUS or ex-EXODUS “movers and shakers” willing to help me here? I’m more concerned about Intersex and Transsexual issues rather than standard Homosexuality, about which I know little.

  2. Interesting terms – “incestuous funding” Don’t many organizations cross over and contribute funds to several charities that support thier ideals? I know gay contributors who support gay causes will support several gay organizations.

  3. My guess is that some of these groups take part in incestuous funding in which they share funds. It might even be something of a tax dodge (though if you are a non-profit anyway it wouldn’t matter, would it?).
    But I cannot see their grantees. I cannot even get a Google cache of that page to show up – or any of for that matter.
    Conspiratorial? LOL!

    Ok, what the heck am I talking about?
    The guy that did Borat has put together another parody…hoodwinking his interviewees by pretending he is one of about 11 different persons. He pulls this off by creating temporary businesses and a web page to give him credibility.
    Now all those web pages have been scrubbed since the project is complete.
    A web page is not a professional journal, or a graduate school, or a professional association….

  5. David – Your list would be a great start. I really think there are many people who could move toward a socially conservative organization which put science over advocacy.

  6. Yeah, lose the advocacy, there are plenty of folks interested in that.
    Follow the science of behavior change (who in American science is going to argue against free will?).
    Keep repeating the science, abandon pet theories, stay calm.
    Get a website and a motivated ethical scientist or two.

  7. David – Not sure how much smaller Narth can get — fewer than 1000 members and most of them not clinicians. Perhaps you mean lose the advocates and keep the few science oriented people that remain?
    Some are very low budget. A lot of harm can be done with a website and a motivated person.

  8. tiny amounts…if these are the amounts that make these organizations work, then these organizations are amazing!
    And maybe that is the story.
    A small group of people, with a little bit of money, highly motivated can have a significant impact on the conversation.
    My belief is that Narth needs to get “smaller” in order to have a bigger impact on the conversation.

Comments are closed.