Comments on: I am not a part of NARTH

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:12 +0000

I think the comments about how other christian organizations have spoken out about bullying was meant (although poorly presented) to contrast how NARTH has NOT said anything about it (even though they claim to “acknowledges on its website that there are those who are comfortable with their homosexual identity. It values an individual’s right to choose.”)

Warren, didn’t you present your SIT framework at a NARTH conference several years ago?

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:12 +0000

I blame this both on both conservative Christianity and the gay community. Both are inclined towards all-or-nothing positions and leave little room for nuanced approaches.

Very true, and very frustrating.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:12 +0000

It’s really just poor writing in general, very badly written. Then again, finding people willing to write positively about NARTH without gagging probably takes them to the bottom of the proverbial barrel.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:12 +0000

ken: I spoke to the reporter this morning. She was viewing NARTH as a Christian organization and suggesting that Christians were not as harmful as the gay leader expressed. I wish it was what you said, and perhaps with correction it will be. RE: SIT Framework - I was going to go but declined because of NARTH's non-reaction to the strange comments of NARTH advisors about bullying and slavery. More here.

By: Norm!

Norm! — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:12 +0000

Ha! NARTH desperately claims itself a "scientific, secular organization". And yet even this poorly researched 'news' article describes NARTH as "an organization with faith-based views on homosexuality".

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:12 +0000

How sad that the Christian Post cannot distinguish between having a conservative sexual ethic and engaging in anti-gay activism and hocus-pocus science.

I blame this both on both conservative Christianity and the gay community. Both are inclined towards all-or-nothing positions and leave little room for nuanced approaches.

Which is sad; there are no doubt many people who believe that their faith calls them to live according to a specific sexual ethic but who also have no desire to run demonize gay folk or treat them like any other person who does not share their doctrinal views.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:08:12 +0000

NARTH, an organization with faith-based views on homosexuality .... maintains that it is a professional organization that only promotes practices have been proven scientifically effective. NARTH urges against claims that there is "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, it encourages a broad view based upon diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality. ... But NARTH maintains that its stance that homosexuality is the product of biological, psychological and social factors that begin at a young age is the same stance held by the American Psychological Association.

I've never heard a more confused and contradictory descriptor of what would purport to be a science-based organization and what it considers to be the state of the science. Then again, maybe it is a good description of NARTH. But the article was poorly structured and showed a lack of understanding of the issue. Can't expect a journalist to be perfect though.

By: David Roberts

David Roberts — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:26:18 +0000

I blame this both on both conservative Christianity and the gay community. Both are inclined towards all-or-nothing positions and leave little room for nuanced approaches.

Very true, and very frustrating.

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:48:07 +0000

By: ken

ken — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:11:03 +0000

Warren, didn’t you present your SIT framework at a NARTH conference several years ago?