Wayne is especially gifted at this form of communication…

Kind of like the McLaughlin group….

ELEANOR!

PAT!

bye, BYE!

Really, Wayne, look in the mirror.

Debbie says: Bottom line,They have a right to exist and the liberal establishment does not get to define “doing harm.”

You are so right Debbie. It is the survivors bearing the mental scars, few of whom belonged to the “liberal establishment” at the time of their so-called therapy who have a right to define “harm.” I find it sad that you see everything through the jaded lens of liberal vs. conservative politics. You have reduced life and the experiences of such victims to a rerun of “Crossfire”.

No, Wayne. I don’t and I haven’t. You read selectively, as usual. I am not out to defend what is indefensible in NARTH. I merely pointed out that they have a valid raison d’etre. So does TWO, by the way. The one has conservative underpinnings while the other has liberal. I didn’t make it that way. And APA has a decidedly liberal political bent. I don’t go “high and right” just because you may disagree with me.

You are so right Debbie. It is the survivors bearing the mental scars, few of whom belonged to the “liberal establishment” at the time of their so-called therapy who have a right to define “harm.” I find it sad that you see everything through the jaded lens of liberal vs. conservative politics. You have reduced life and the experiences of such victims to a rerun of “Crossfire”.

Bottom line: They have a right to exist and the liberal establishment does not get to define “doing harm.” Both sides are meant to balance each other out.

Yes, Debbie, NARTH has a “right to exist”, just as a person of conscience has a right — more then that, a moral responsibility — to define “doing harm” when they see it, and to speak out strongly against it. Why is Exodus still associated with NARTH anyway? Isn’t it about time to dump them, as Warren has done? Bad science, misguided “experts” like Cameron, Berger, Schoenewolf, etc. Exodus does not need to be associated with them, for sure.

Glatze doesn’t need to be featured on NARTH’s site, for sure.

I think everybody at NARTH is corrupt simply because the idea is corrupt. It doesn’t pass the “minding your own business” litmus test.

The test is a very simple one to apply:

Does it hurt me?

Does it hurt anyone I know?

You may see that as a simple test, Jarrett, but those are anything but simple questions. I can well imagine the folks who decided NARTH was a necessary response to the way they were being ostracized by the APA believing they were being hurt as were, by extension, their clients. So that’s an affirmative answer to your questions right there.

You’ve only got to look at NARTH’s history. It’s going beyond what their original purpose was in some ways that riles folks the most, not necessarily that a more conservative approach to therapy for SSA individuals may have been warranted or fair. Yes, they could more carefully vet some of their mouthpieces, but that’s true of just about every organization out there. Bottom line: They have a right to exist and the liberal establishment does not get to define “doing harm.” Both sides are meant to balance each other out.