Comments on: NARTH is not primarily composed of mental health professionals

By: sam

sam — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:46:52 +0000

I noticed that there are people, even those who are Christians, who think that 1st and 14th Amendments only cover liberties of Christians to pray and preach within their churches and state their beliefs in public, especially condemnation of gay relationships. Gay groups are definitely not trying to take away liberties, mentioned above, from such Christians. However, numerous legal professionals think that 1st and 14th Amendments cover a lot more than that, including rights for Christians not be retaliated against by public service employers and public colleges against Christian employees and students who dare to express their beliefs. I see that gay groups want to practice such retaliation, meaning they want to have Christians condemning same sex relationships, fired from public service jobs and expelled from public colleges, and these gay groups do not think that such firings and expulsions violate anybody’s constitutional rights. Well, that’s a very controversial issue, and I hope that someday our Supreme Court will have a final say on that.
The XGW article appears very vague and it’s subject to interpretation.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:46:52 +0000

Okay,
You did not make comments about the case in New Jersey, but I know that several other gay advocacy groups did, apparently you weren’t one of them.
I found this article of yours, though, where you showed an intention to ban reorientation therapy:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/01/a-case-for-banning-reparative-therapy/#more-2547
I see it as a deprivation of liberties of people who have unwanted sex-same attraction and it is their civil rights to have the appropriate therapist available. People have rights not to be gay as much as they rights to be gay.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:53:12 +0000

THe article in question doesn’t call for banning reparative therapy. Rather, it presents “a case” for banning it – a point of view that, when followed to its logical conclusion, would have such “therapy” banned. The author does not advocate for anything more than labeling it for what it is: dangerous snake oil.
Of course, people have the freedom to use dangerous snake oil if the want. They can go to the hardware store and swallow rat poison. Nobody is stopping them and it’s not illegal.
I still don’t see how XGW has called for the encroachment of anyone’s liberties.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:53:12 +0000

You don’t have to take my word for it. You can read the article yourself. It’s not even very long.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:33 +0000

Ken,
Domininiosts seem to be very unpopular in the public press. If they were, I would have the same concern.