Teresa,

I have been saying this for years – no one is listening.

While pointing out that science has been mis-represented by people on both sides of the debate, I find some of his claims to be a bit misleading. For example from the link you cited:

“Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality.”[13] It is less clear that this assertion is false than it is obscure how such a statement can be “scientific fact” in the first place … But how this assertion of value could be established as a matter of “scientific fact” is truly mystifying.

However if you actually go to the APA cite referenced , you will see the APA did explain its reasoning:

Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

Now, if Jones wants to argue that simply because it is not a disorder that isn’t sufficient to make it a “normal variant” that’s up to him, but to leave out the explanation by the APA and then declare their decision “mystifying” is misleading.

Another example:

He (LeVay) frequently frames the argument as if the only two etiological theories are total biological causation or total environmental causation. At no point does he engage a true interactionist hypothesis where experiential variables (familial, peer, cultural) or human agency can interact with biological influences.

.

I’ve spoken with LeVay personally, and while it would be fair to say he puts more weight on the biological components than psychological ones, I believe the above quote is a mischaracterizes his views.

The fact that sexual orientation is more complex and more difficult to study is no reason to abandon good science and substitute deeply held prejudices instead.

I think this is the problem when therapists deeply believe something that has not been verified by research or cannot be verified in that way. For example, the belief that homosexuality is caused by “deep wounding” or “inadequate parenting”. Where is the solid, scientific research to support this theory?

It seems that doesn’t matter much to folks at NARTH. They believe it and that makes it so. And I don’t think it’s far-fetched to suggest that their clients pick up on that belief and repeat back what the therapist already believes and want to hear.

Is it possible that bad parenting causes homosexuality? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Believing it doesn’t make it so. I agree with Warren: “Reparative therapists assume that the existence of same-sex attraction means a person has suffered gender based trauma during a specific period of childhood.”

And that “assumption” takes on a life of its own. It also leads therapists to make the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” mistake — confusing correlation with causality. They “know” what “causes” it — and then find “evidence” to support that assumption — even “helping” the patient to “remember” it.

Or as Warren put it: “If the gay man says he does not recall any such trauma, then the reparative drive theory posits that the gay man has repressed it and needs to uncover it. It seems to me the powerful effects of confirmation bias are at work.”

Therapy isn’t the same as research, a therapist often (ore mostly) works from theories he doesn’t test within his therapy. Theories in depth psychology are difficult to test, notwithstanding it’s not impossible to design kinds of tests, and NARTH has to do that.

As a parent I would never exclude that I have had a bad influence on my children. That’s life.