Category: reparative therapy

Rekers resigns from NARTH; website purge begins

UPDATE: Rekers continues to deny the claims of JoVanni Roman and says he is resigning to fight those claims.

NARTH Responds to the

Recent Media Coverage of Dr. George Rekers

“I am immediately resigning my membership in NARTH to allow myself the time necessary to fight the false media reports that have been made against me. With the assistance of a defamation attorney, I will fight these false reports because I have not engaged in any homosexual behavior whatsoever. I am not gay and never have been.”  –George A. Rekers, Ph.D.

NARTH has accepted Dr. Rekers’ resignation and would hope that the legal process will sufficiently clarify the questions that have arisen in this unfortunate situation. We express our sincere sympathy to all individuals, regardless of their perspective, who have been injured by these events. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH. NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client autonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.

That is what TPM is reporting.

George Rekers resigned this morning from the board of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, amid a gay escort scandal.

NARTH vice president of operations David Pruden tells TPMmuckraker that Rekers first offered his resignation last Thursday, and officially resigned today.

NARTH is a group that promotes the idea that homosexuality can, and should, be cured.

Pruden also denied a report in the Miami New Times that NARTH had been involved in helping Rekers respond to the media.

“NARTH has never had any role in advising Dr. Rekers except to suggest that if he is innocent he needs to get a good lawyer,” Pruden said in an email. “He has friends who are members of NARTH and they are free to talk with, advise, and needless to say, they are free to help him in any way they might select.”

“NARTH as an organization has taken no official role in this other than asking him to explain to us what has happened and in accepting his resignation,” he said.

Apparently, at least some of Rekers’ work is going with him. The link to his controversial work opposing gay adoption is gone from the NARTH website as of this morning. NARTH’s Dave Pruden told me that NARTH did not agree with Rekers that Native Americans could be excluded from adoption based on high levels of substance abuse and other issues. As I reported last week, Rekers told the Florida court in the Gill adoption case that — using the same logic as he did in testifying against gays — he believes the rationale could be used to exclude Native Americans. As of now, Rekers remains on the NARTH Advisory Board.

UPDATE: He is now missing from the NARTH Advisory Board page as well…(May 13)

CNN interviews George Rekers’ travel companion

Tonight, Anderson Cooper 360 has an interview with George Rekers’ escort, “Lucien,” and will provide a look at the contract between Rekers and Lucien. You can get a preview on Cooper’s blog.

UPDATE: Video added below:

NARTH denies statement on George Rekers – UPDATED

UPDATE, 5/6/10: This just in from NARTH

NARTH RESPONDS TO THE RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE OF DR. GEORGE REKERS

 

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional scientific organization with hundreds of academic, research, and clinical members dedicated to assisting individuals dealing with unwanted homosexual attractions. While NARTH is focused on the science of homosexual attraction, personal controversies often deepen the existing cultural divide on this issue. Such is the case in the recent news stories concerning one of our members, Dr. George Rekers.

 

NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made, and we are currently attempting to understand the details behind these press reports. We are always saddened when this type of controversy impacts the lives of individuals, and we urge all parties to allow a respectful and thorough investigation to take place.

At this difficult time for the families and individuals involved, we extend our sympathies. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH.

 

NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client autonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.

…………….

UPDATE 2: Rekers has responded further…

…………….

The unfolding saga of Dr. George Rekers is sad and unseemly all at once. The NARTH advisor and Family Research Council co-founder recently admitted traveling with a male escort for hire although he denies any sexual behavior. Given Dr. Rekers prominence in social conservative circles, this story is stunning to the same degree as the initial claims regarding Ted Haggard. Despite my strong disagreements with Rekers on matters of sexual orientation research, I had hoped that the story was false, and still hope for some good to come from it.

As more disclosures emerge from him and the young man, it becomes increasing difficult not to discuss the same kind of issues which arose during the initial days of the Haggard revelation. One organization which is vitally connected to Dr. Rekers and those issues is the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). I checked with Executive Secretary, David Pruden, yesterday about a response attributed to NARTH and he denied the statement. It first showed up in the same paper that broke the Rekers story, the Miami New Times. According the that paper, a NARTH representative said:

You have as much information as we do. Before this released we didn’t have this much information. All we had was a simple accusation that he was with a “rent boy” so that was all we were able to talk about with him. His answers (as well as his demeanor) showed that the story wasn’t exactly as it seamed [sic]. There are certain accusations that would and wouldn’t surprise certain people about others. This comes as a complete surprise as Dr. Rekers is not only very old and in very poor health, but also very nice and soft spoken, so until we have further information or proof of this incident it remains rumor and speculation.

I asked Mr. Pruden if NARTH had authorized this statement and his crisp reply was

We have said absolutely nothing.

Dr. Rekers is on the NARTH board, their scientific advisory board and the editorial board of their self-published journal.

OneNewsNow distorts Karten sexual orientation change study

Dog bites man. OneNewsNow distorts sexual orientation research.

In a great example of why I hope Janet Porter’s prayer to take over the media is never realized, OneNewsNow distorts the import of Elan Karten’s doctoral dissertation research reported recently in Journal of Men’s Studies.

Here is the OneNewsNow title:

‘Orientation’ change efforts effective.

Here is a statement from Karten and Wade (p. 86):

The purpose of the study was not to replicate findings from prior research or establish the efficacy of this treatment.

Now the way NARTH discusses the study, one might think replication of prior change research was the intent, but it was not a study that was designed to “establish the efficacy” of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). Rather, the authors surveyed 117 men who were trying to change and asked them what seemed to be working in their quest. It was not an outcome study and there were no follow up interviews with any of the subjects.

OneNewsNow says this:

Researchers at Fordham University have released a study showing that homosexual men can change their “orientation” by developing healthy, non-sexual relationships with other men.

As noted by the article, the study did not demonstrate change via any mechanism nor was the stated intent of the study to establish this finding. The study was not designed in such a way that change could be verified. Karten recruited participants from Journey Into Manhood participants and from therapists who conducted change therapy. The subjects were only required to have some same-sex attraction, meaning that we do not know how many, if any, exclusively homosexual men were in the study. There was only one measurement of sexual attraction via the survey with no follow up measures. Thus, change was not really measured, in that there was no pre-treatment or post-treatment assessments. Participants were asked to rate how helpful various interventions had been and various characteristics relating to masculinity.  Nothing causative can be inferred from any of the reported correlations.

There are several problems with the study which make any interpretations of findings speculative but I will return to that in a future post. For now, it is clear that the Karten article contradicts the reporting of OneNewsNow.

This is not the first time OneNewsNow has skewed facts regarding sexual orientation research. For instance, when the APA sexual orientation task force reported findings in August, 2009, OneNewsNow reported uncritically the incorrect view that the APA recommended that evangelical gays should change churches to join affirming groups. In my blog at US News and World Report, I pointed out that OneNewsNow refused a request to correct the record. In fact, when I called to point it out, the reporter hung up on me.

So when Janet Porter prays that Christians take over the media and that CBS should be the Christian Broadcasting System, I cringe. OneNewsNow is owned by the American Family Association, one of the sponsoring organizations for the May Day 2010 taking place this Saturday. In the program for that event, this prayer is offered for the media:

Media

-Repent for how the media has turned its backs on God and the truth.

-Repent for how they have become activists for evil.

-Invite God back into the media to guide and direct reporting in a truthful way. 

As noted in this video and the above prayer, Mrs. Porter proposes that truth will be served if Christians reclaim media. Well, I am all for truthful reporting. However, this OneNewsNow report demonstrates how beliefs about the truth can lead to inaccurate and biased reporting. To me, doing media Christianly at least involves getting all the facts and reporting them accurately, whatever the story might be.

Francis Collins rebukes the American College of Pediatricians: A closer look

Friday, I reported that Francis Collins released a strongly worded statement on the website of the National Institute of Health denouncing the Facts About Youth website. The website is a project of the American College of Pediatricians, a small conservative group of health and mental health professionals. For references, here again is the statement:

Statement from NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., in Response to the American College of Pediatricians

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.

Director

April 15, 2010

“It is disturbing for me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality.  The American College of Pediatricians pulled language out of context from a book I wrote in 2006 to support an ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice. The information they present is misleading and incorrect, and it is particularly troubling that they are distributing it in a way that will confuse school children and their parents.”

 Now consider the way the ACPEDS used his statements to promote “the ideology that can cause unnecessary anguish and encourage prejudice.” Here is the reference to Dr. Collins’ book, The Language of God, in the context created by the ACPEDS:

In dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction, it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born “gay” or “transgender.” Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion.  It is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy.5Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically influenced, it is “… not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.” He also states [that] “…the prominent role[s] of individual free will choices [has] a profound effect on us.” 6

Note the position of Dr. Collins’ statements. They are used as the justification for views which he does not hold but they are placed in such a way that a reader might associate those views with Collins. Just before the Collins’ quote comes two suspicious propositions. First:

the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion.

And second:

It is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy.

First, it is important to note that when Collins speaks of free will choices in his book, he is not referring to homosexuality specifically. In his book, he discusses genetics and intelligence and antisocial behavior among other traits. By referring to free will, he was not saying in his book that people can choose to change homosexual attraction by means of therapy.  

The statements from Collins about genetic factors predisposing a person to homosexuality and the general importance of free will seem to be placed in such a way as to parallel the ACPEDS’ views that family and social factors are “primary” and the view that the “conditions can respond well to therapy.” Now, these two views are highly speculative. Family and social factors have only weak relationships to homosexuality with little evidence that homosexual attraction can be erased via therapy.

The causative factors related to homosexuality are not clear but lack of an strong genetic association does not lead to the conclusion that any of the factors are alterable. Collins stated as much to Exgaywatch and me in September, 2008:

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable. (emphasis mine)

The consensus now is that pre-natal factors are not a complete explanation for homosexuality. Other factors may be involved. However, we cannot assume that those factors, whatever they are, are preventable or once set, alterable. Even if, for some people, the attractions may be alterable, no one can predict to what degree or what experiences might be potent. The ACPEDS could note that many religious people choose to live in contrast to their desires but they should not spin things to paint an incomplete, and therefore, misleading picture. At this point, I believe they would do well to take this cue from Francis Collins that the website is misleading and take it down.