Sexual identity: Wall Street Journal reports on APA report and sexual identity therapy

(First posted on August 6, 2009)

The Wall Street Journal’s Stephanie Simon has captured well the application of the APA task force sexual orientation report in an article out this morning. Of course I would say that…

The men who seek help from evangelical counselor Warren Throckmorton often are deeply distressed. They have prayed, read Scripture, even married, but they haven’t been able to shake sexual attractions to other men — impulses they believe to be immoral.

Dr. Throckmorton is a psychology professor at a Christian college in Pennsylvania and past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. He specializes in working with clients conflicted about their sexual identity.

The first thing he tells them is this: Your attractions aren’t a sign of mental illness or a punishment for insufficient faith. He tells them that he cannot turn them straight.

But he also tells them they don’t have to be gay.

For many years, Dr. Throckmorton felt he was breaking a professional taboo by telling his clients they could construct satisfying lives by, in effect, shunting their sexuality to the side, even if that meant living celibately. That ran against the trend in counseling toward “gay affirming” therapy — encouraging clients to embrace their sexuality.

But in a striking departure, the American Psychological Association said Wednesday that it is ethical — and can be beneficial — for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions.

The APA is the largest association of psychologists world-wide, with 150,000 members. The association plans to promote the new approach to sexuality with YouTube videos, speeches to schools and churches, and presentations to Christian counselors.

According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn’t signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.

But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.

While the report doesn’t use my exact words (e.g., I don’t say ‘you don’t have to be gay’), she does catch important aspects of the APA report and the stance I use within the sexual identity therapy framework. Furthermore, I don’t show the video at the same time in the same order of things to clients and then they make a decision about their direction. I do however, do extensive informed consent and answer lots of questions which involves videos and slides to answer. Thanks to Michael Bailey for those vids.

This report captures the essence of the novel findings in the APA report in contrast to the AP report which continues to present a polarized picture. For sure, as long as the dialogue around change is important to people, we keep talking past each other. However, when you look at what both sides actually claim, they are not that far apart. According to the AP report, Jones and Yarhouse are going to report over half of 61 subjects either changed or are celibate. Whatever the percentage, it is clear that change cannot be promised to clients as a predictable function of therapy or ministry. We should be able to agree about that and then place emphasis on belief and value congruence. From there, see what happens.

Print Friendly
  • Richard Willmer

    I find this article very interesting. It certainly seems reasonable to me to make clear to those who are ‘uncomfortable’ with the idea of having a same-sex relationship that they have genuine choices when it comes to how they handle their situation. I’m not sure if this amounts to a ‘change in identity’ – though it is the case that how one chooses to act can profoundly affect how one understands self and others, and that this ‘shapes’ a person’s place within a community (and the Christian understanding of ‘identity’ is a communal, as well as an individual, matter).

    As for ‘celibacy’: I consider this a ‘calling’ (and think that the term ‘celibacy’ must be used with care). By contrast, chastity is a discipline that is centred upon the idea respecting self and others. One of the big discussions currently ranging within the Anglican Church (and, in a much more muted fashion, in the Catholic Church) is whether there are circumstances (and what those circumstances might be) where same-sex relationships can/should be deemed to fit within the definition of chaste behaviour. I’m unashamedly in the (so-called) ‘liberal’ camp on this point (in case anyone hadn’t guessed that!), but do respect those who, as a matter of ‘conscience’, and motivated by ‘care’, take a different line.

    Shortly before he became Pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said this in 2004 about those whom he would describe as ‘homosexual persons’: “Above all, we must have great respect for these people … who want to find their own way of correct living.” He went on to say that he did not approve of some form of ‘gay marriage’; however, what he did say does indicate a belief that sincere moral searching is always, regardless of whether it leads to what might be deemed a ‘change in identity’, ipso facto of value.

  • Christopher Rosik

    Warren,

    Since you posted this again, I thought your readers might find the following critique of the report of value in gaining additional perspective on this important document. It is a compilation of a symposium I participated in at APA last August. Here’s the link (the article begins on page 7): http://www.apa.org/divisions/div1/news/fall2010/Fall%202010%20TGP.pdf

  • Madison

    Christopher, thank you so much for providing that link. That is a fascinating review of the APA’s task force report. It’s surprising (or not) that it has not received any attention. I especially like how it points out how SOCE research is thrown out specifically because the task force’s earlier pronouncements have made it difficult to conform to the task force’s requirements. That the task force has stacked the deck in its favor, so to speak. It’s pretty transparent but nice to see that point made in print.

    Would be interesting to hear Warren’s perspective but I suspect the NARTH involvement will doom the article. Too bad.

  • Teresa

    @Christopher Rosik,

    Thank you very much for linking to this APA Division One Periodical. I would hope we could have an intelligent discussion, as far from politicizing as possible. I think the inclusion of such a lengthy, well-reasoned, dispassionate article in this periodical says something for the APA as well as your association within the APA, and the recognition and legitimacy of SOCE.

    I wonder if you would entertain questions or observations, not in anyway inflammatory, regarding the article, particularly relating to the philosophical foundation of psychology, i.e., ontology and epistemology.

    By way of introduction, I am a woman with same sex attraction, whose Christian Faith drives my behavior; but, I’m also very interested in the science of sexuality, as well as modalities of experiments, … pretty much everything your article touched upon.

  • Madison

    I wouldn’t hold your breath. Rosik can be linked to NARTH so I suspect the crew here will immediately discount him in his entirety. Same with the article he linked to. Such a shame.

    But I would agree that NARTH really needs to clean up its act. It probably needs to change its name and get more rigorous on who associates with it. I’m afraid it wouldn’t be able to accommodate much involvement by Nicolosi since so many people have already made up their minds about him in spite of the facts. The TWO/EGW/BTB crusade to discredit everyone it disagrees with is shameful.

  • Teresa

    Madison,

    Perhaps, we could move beyond putting everyone here in one box. We all have opinions; and, some of us will just never agree. I, for one, would like to talk more about the linked article, and with as little bias or prejudice as possible.

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren

    Chris – I hope you will take Teresa up on her request. She is a thoughtful person who can hold her own in these conversations.

    For myself, I read the article which I found to be well written, as I would expect a piece by you and Stan Jones to be. However, at the end of it, my reaction was that you made many technical points but I do not see how what you identified would alter the APA report.

    Essentially, given the state of the research, any fair observer would have to come to the conclusion that evidence is insufficient to say whether therapy can alter sexual orientation, and if anything the evidence we have is negative toward that view. The APA did not stop SOCE, nor forbid research on the subject. The APA made a helpful distinction which you surely must agree with that identity is distinct from attractions for many people. The APA said that SOCE can be helpful in some ways, but that SOCE has been reported as harmful by some others.

    Maybe a good way to get at this is what do you think the APA would have said differently if they followed all of your recommendations? Given the respect for religion as a diversity variable, the respect for religious values being a means of identifying the core of a person, and the acknowledgement that identity is fluid, what do you want?

    The least convincing part of your article was the business about family dynamics in causation. The studies you identified either did not relate to such dynamics (Bearman and Bruckner – the only thing related to male orientation was having an female twin sister), or presented a very ambiguous picture (Francis and Frisch & Hviid). I agree that these studies should be reviewed and are important. However, if reviewed, I cannot see that the APA’s findings would be altered significantly. When you look at the miniscule effects of the significant findings, one comes away from them aware of just how little any of these environmental factors matter to the general phenonmenon of same-sex attraction.

    Chris – I would have a lot more respect for NARTH if the force of your work was not to exaggerate the few bits of data which seem to cut in the direction you prefer. This is my frequent criticism of NARTH. Instead of dealing with the total picture, NARTH addresses the studies that fit your view.

    In the Div. 1 article, you spent many words identifying correctly some technical flaws in the APA report. You are probably correct that the APA task force members demonstrate some confirmation bias as well as a bent toward the organismic framework. However, at the end of the day, what else do you want them to do?

    It seems to me that the APA report does a fine job of doing the things you identified as positive in your article and those are the main things of interest. If your interest is simply to make academic points, then I see some value in that. But if it to undermine the clear progress made in hopes that the APA will make room for reparative therapy and homosexuality as a mental illness, then you must know that is a non-starter.

    Thanks again for sharing the link, but I hope you will stick around to discuss it.

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Madison

    To be fair to TWO etc, the ‘anti-gay fraternity’ is (also) quite prepared to try to ‘discredit’ those with whom it does not agree – often using somewhat malicious language. Just look at the antics of people like Bahati and Ssempa in Uganda, and Lively and Fischer in the USA. I suspect that, rightly or wrongly, many see the kinds of ‘messages’ coming from certain quarters as the thin end of a very nasty homophobic wedge. One cannot deny that life has in the past been made very unpleasant for many gay men and lesbians; in many parts of the world this continues to be the caes to this day. There has, in countries like ours, been great progress on this score in recent decades, and it is only to be expected that such progress will be ‘defended’ by those who (like me) welcome it.

    As for NARTH: I’m sure that ‘cleaning up its act’ would be very good idea. I’ve already suggested changes in approach that could be conducive to the ‘common good’ in this regard.

  • Madison

    @Richard, I actually disagree. I don’t think heterosexual affirming community spends as much energy trying to discredit detractors. I think it is far more focused on helping individuals. I’m not even aware of anything like TWO/EGW/BBT on the other side. Which makes sense because one side is running a positive campaign and the other a negative one.

    @Warren I would admit that in today’s environment it would be difficult to put ego-dystonic homosexual orientation or something like it back into the DSM. It could start World War 3. That is one of the reasons why I think it was such a bad idea to remove it in the first place. I just don’t see how you can make the case that people with unwanted SSA should not be able to get heterosexual-affirming professional treatment.

    I also think you are much too dismissive of the impact that removal has had on investigation and research on the heterosexual affirming side of things. As the report suggests, the task force has stacked the deck in its favor by practically outlawing peer-reviewed research so that it can exclude it from its consideration. That’s pretty nasty.

  • ken

    Christopher Rosik# ~ Jun 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    Are there any studies regarding SOCE outcomes you feel the APA Task force should have considered but didn’t?

  • ken

    Madison# ~ Jun 22, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    “I’m not even aware of anything like TWO/EGW/BBT on the other side.”

    American Family Association

    Tradition Values Coalition

    Focus on the Family

    NOM

    Exodus (although, they have mellowed over that last couple of years)

    NARTH

    Yes on 8 Campaign

    “As the report suggests, the task force has stacked the deck in its favor by practically outlawing peer-reviewed research so that it can exclude it from its consideration. ”

    can you cite any peer-reviewed research that has been “outlawed” by the APA?

    Or any SOCE research proposals that the APA has prevented from going forward?

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe Brain

    Madison wrote:

    I just don’t see how you can make the case that people with unwanted SSA should not be able to get heterosexual-affirming professional treatment.

    What about those who have unwanted OSA and wish to get homosexual-affirming professional treatment?

    Serious question, bearing in mind that my partner and I love each other very much, are of the same sex, and are both straight.

  • Madison

    Their prerogative. I would not even think for a split second about getting in their way. I would not belittle them. I would not start a blog to ridicule them. Lots of people have lots of different sexual desires and attractions.

  • Christopher Rosik

    I hope you will all be able to forgive me if I do not respond individually to each of your inquiries. I simply to not have the time or energy to do so in such a forum, though I do appreciate the depth of thought that sometimes goes into these posts. So in order to be efficient with my time, let me suggest that those who are interested look up the recently published, “Guidelines for the treatment of unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors.” It can be purchased cheaply through the NARTH web site (it is a part of volume 2 of the NARTH journal). I think it will address many of the issues raised. While no doubt there will be many of you who disagree with this document at points, I also think you will find some surprises and it may challenge some characterizations of what NARTH as an organization (as opposed to certain individuals within the organization) believes.

    I will tell you that I affiliated with NARTH because of my concern for the rights of clients to pursue professional, change-oriented psychological intervention. I still have this concern (increasingly so) and continue to view NARTH as the best non-religiously organized association in which to guard and preserve these rights. If you are so inclined, you may want to review the emerging scholarly literature on “discriminatory referrals” and “sexual orientation microaggressions.” I suspect that, intended or not, these constructs will come to provide attractive vehicles for construing as unethical all non-affirming approaches to psychological care related to same-sex attractions.

    As you may know, I am also a big fan of Dr. Jonathan Haidt, who is an evolutionary social psychologist at the University of Virginia and the main proponent of moral foundations theory. I find his views and the science that supports them very helpful in understanding differences and therefore humanizing those who disagree with us and promoting civil debate. They can help us distinguish between the preciousness of the person (whether angry GLB activist or rigid religious conservative activist) and their views of certain subjects with which we may vociferously disagree. I highly recommend a visit to his web site (you can even increase your own self-awareness by taking the moral foundations questionnaire online). Haidt, though a self-described liberal, is very fair to conservatives, having recently described his own association of social psychologists as a “moral-tribal community” who have fairly strong ingroup and outgroup boundaries along these lines. I sense that the APA has a similar left-leaning organizational/leadership ethos at play (and this would be fine if they would only admit it).

    Finally, as someone who has actually met and interacted with both Warren and Joe Nicolosi, I have to say that I have great respect for what each of them have accomplished, though I have my own differences with each. This mutual appreciation may be hard to comprehend for many on this blog, but I assure you it flows from my experience. Having said that¸ I now should get back to my day job. I cannot promise further posts, but I will try to check the blog from time to time to see what you all are up to.

  • William

    Madison wrote:

    I don’t think heterosexual affirming community spends as much energy trying to discredit detractors. I think it is far more focused on helping individuals. I’m not even aware of anything like TWO/EGW/BBT on the other side. Which makes sense because one side is running a positive campaign and the other a negative one.

    There’s certainly no need for anything like TWO/EGW/BBT on the other side. There are no ex-straight ministries which try to convince heterosexual people that their natural sexuality is a form of “sexual brokenness” which needs “healing” and which proclaim that “freedom from heterosexuality” is possible. There are no quacks offering “reparative therapy” for heterosexuality and encouraging people to blame their “other-sex attraction” on defective relationships with their parents. Kids in school don’t get bullied because they are (or are surmised to be) straight, and if they did we wouldn’t find fundamentalist religious nutters objecting to attempts to stop the bullying on the grounds that to do so would be “promoting” the ungodly heterosexual lifestyle. We don’t find parents forcing straight teenagers into ex-straight programs in an attempt to nip their heterosexuality in the bud. We don’t even, to my knowledge, have psychologists who have abusively tampered with the psychological development of little butch boys in order to stop them from growing up straight and who have been discovered decades later at airports with 19-year-old call-girls with whom they have just spent their holiday.

  • Madison

    Christopher, once again, thanks for posting.

    I’m wondering how much influence or contact you have with NARTH? Here are a couple thoughts:

    1) Make the “Guidlines” freely available. I don’t see any reason to limit distribution unless I’m missing something.

    2) NARTH needs to clean up its act. While I think many of the attacks are errant, I do think NARTH leaves itself open. Since the facts skew in NARTH’s favor, it really should be able to operate above reproach. Is there anyone associated with NARTH evaluating this?

  • http://www.wthrockmorton.com Warren

    @Chris – I agree with Madison that the Guidelines should be free. APA and ours are free; so should your guidelines be freely available.

    And thanks for your kind words. I believe you are a reasonable guy which is why I continue to be puzzled that you think NARTH is non-religious and has any ability to pursue the objectives you describe. In fact, as I noted above, the APA provided an excellent foundation to pursue freedom of conscience. I do agree that other professions such as Professional Counseling, Social Work and the MFTs have not followed the APA’s lead. I think more energy should be put into helping them come to where the APA is.

    I am, as you may know, involved as an expert in a couple of court cases which seek to preserve rights to refer for conscience based reasons. I could not be more convinced that NARTH is one of the biggest obstacles I face in making the case. I have to work overtime to distance myself from reparative therapy, and the clear problems associated with NARTH. If anything NARTH muddies the waters when it comes to the issues which are important. There are changes which NARTH could make which would improve the situation, but they have been resistant to making them — one reason among several why I severed ties in 2006.

    @Madison – Chris is on their scientific advisory board so he is a good one to hear your suggestions. As you know we disagree that the facts skew in NARTH’s favor. I have demonstrated that repeatedly on this blog.

  • Madison

    The facts I am speaking of are simply of SSA being mutable and people able to change sufficiently to live a non-gay life. NARTH is in the right on those core tenets. If I’m not mistaken, I don’t believe the reparative stuff is an official NARTH position as it is an approach used by some of its (more well-known) members.

    NARTH does not strike me as religious and I think it needs to stay that way. There are people like me who are immediately wary of anything religious. There are very strong, non-religious reasons to pursue SOCE. While I appreciate that religious organizations are leading the way (and taking the criticism), I wish there was much more secular activity.

    “Reparative” probably needs to be thrown out at this point. Too much baggage.

  • Ken

    Christopher Rosik# ~ Jun 24, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    “it may challenge some characterizations of what NARTH as an organization (as opposed to certain individuals within the organization) believes. ”

    I have followed what NARTH has said as an organization for several years (late 90′s to about 2002-2003). My opinions about the organization are based on its official statements and postings during that time, not simply on what Nicolosi believed or said. I read what Socarides, Satinover, Byrd, Kaufman and others wrote about NARTH and homosexuality in general. And over the time I studied NARTH, I saw the organization getting worse not better. Until finally I decided it was no longer worth the effort in bothering to listen to what the members had to say. What little integrity NARTH may have had in the late 90s was long gone by 2003.

    And I did look through the NARTH website. briefly, a couple of times since Nicolosi stepped down as president of NARTH. it didn’t appear to me that a whole lot had changed.

  • Ken

    Madison# ~ Jun 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    “The facts I am speaking of are simply of SSA being mutable and people able to change sufficiently to live a non-gay life. ”

    mutable for what percentage of people who are gay? And you when you say change, what is changing: behaviour? identity? orientation? something else?

    and even if it is mutable for a significant percentage of people (I’m still unconvinced that this is the case however), there is no evidence that therapy can change a person’s orientation.

  • David Blakeslee

    Thanks for checking in Chris…good to hear from you.

    For others, my experience with Chris is that he has written interesting and thoughtfully and scientifically on SSA. He has also had very good experiences with the APA; which he has spoken about at NARTH and in personal conversations.

    It does get back to the issue of what we define “change” as (behavior, vs attractions; intensity and frequency)… and whether seeking it is “likely,” or “inherently” or sometimes going to” result in harm.

    …and whether we are allowed to place the same lens over those who wish to identify with their SSA.

  • Madison

    there is no evidence that therapy can change a person’s orientation

    When you say “no evidence” you reveal yourself to be arguing in bad faith. You know as well as I that there is evidence, a lot in fact. But you choose to dismiss it. You need to caveat that statement or, better, stop saying it.

    If you’re argument is that “orientation” equates to “non-changing” than it’s a pointless statement. By the way, it is only when discussing homosexuality that the word orientation has fixed connotations. Score one for the gay agenda on that.

    To answer your question, it’s probably mutable to some degree for all. What is changing are sexual attractions.

    If you haven’t spent much time with NARTH in 8 years, we probably don’t need to put much stock in your current opinions of it. If you read Warren as recently as 3 or 4 years ago you’d have a completely different perspective than you would now.

  • ken

    Madison# ~ Jun 24, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    “When you say “no evidence” you reveal yourself to be arguing in bad faith. You know as well as I that there is evidence, a lot in fact”

    Sorry, I wasn’t as precise as I should have been. There is no credible, scientific evidence that therapy can change a persons sexual orientation in the general case. And if you think there is be sure to list the citation for the reference.

    “If you haven’t spent much time with NARTH in 8 years, we probably don’t need to put much stock in your current opinions of it.”

    The changes I’ve seen in NARTH haven’t been for the better.

    ” If you read Warren as recently as 3 or 4 years ago you’d have a completely different perspective than you would now.”

    Actually, I have been reading/posting on this blog for more than 4 years. and no I don’t have a completely different perspective of him. Now, I will admit my initial opinion of Warren has changed (after all I did find him through my research on NARTH).

  • Madison

    credible, scientific evidence

    That’s better but I still think (purposefully) mis-leading.

    I didn’t write that sentence very well. What I meant was that Warren’s perspective has changed. So if you knew him 5 years ago, you might not recognize him today.

  • ken

    Madison# ~ Jun 24, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    “That’s better but I still think (purposefully) mis-leading.”

    I am never purposefully misleading. And while I do try to be clear, I realize sometimes I’m not. I’m always willing to clear up any confusion and cite my sources. However, rather than ask me to clarify you simply jump to (wrong) conclusions.

    “I didn’t write that sentence very well. What I meant was that Warren’s perspective has changed. So if you knew him 5 years ago, you might not recognize him today.”

    Not at all. I don’t view people based on whether they agree with my positions or not. I view the based on how they form their positions. Do they base them on the facts and evidence? on personal bias? on whatever the talking heads on TV tell them? etc. And from that perspective Warren hasn’t really changed much at all.

  • Madison

    “I am never purposefully misleading”

    Hah, hah. Good one.

    But seriously, you’re not even trying to understand what I said. Why is that? I’m making a simple comparison that someone we all respect made a radical shift in the past couple of years versus you fixated on what NARTH was doing almost a decade ago. Things change. But in your commitment to disagree with me (and any hetero-affirming folks), you can’t see that (or don’t want to).

  • http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com Throbert McGee

    What the heck does “hetero-affirming” even mean?

    Are you talking about encouraging bisexual individuals who experience both SSA and OSA to only act on their heterosexual feelings, but not their homosexual feelings?

  • http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com Throbert McGee

    there is no evidence that therapy can change a person’s orientation.

    I guess it depends on how you define “therapy.” Would MDMA and V**gra-assisted “massage sessions” with a gold-hearted hooker count? I’m sure that with the appropriate combination of pharmaceuticals and some coaching from a very uninhibited and experienced woman, I could be nudged downward a notch or two on the Kinsey Scale. Of course, learning to be aroused by women wouldn’t make men less appealing to me — so the therapy wouldn’t make me “ex-gay,” but rather “neo-bi.”

    P.S. I’ve never actually tried ecstasy, but from what I’ve heard, it would be an ideal drug if you were attempting to “learn a new sexual orientation” via Pavlovian conditioning and positive reinforcement.

  • Ken

    Madison# ~ Jun 24, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    “But seriously, you’re not even trying to understand what I said. Why is that? I’m making a simple comparison that someone we all respect made a radical shift in the past couple of years ”

    And I’m saying the shift I’ve seen isn’t as radical as you claim it is. When you examine the causes of that shift, it isn’t radical at all.

    “Things change. But in your commitment to disagree with me (and any hetero-affirming folks), you can’t see that (or don’t want to).”

    And I’m saying I haven’t seen any such change in NARTH. And I don’t believe you when you simply “say” NARTH isn’t as bad as it was years ago (I see it as worse). Show me evidence of this improvement at NARTH.

    Further, my issues with NARTH have never been that it is “hetero-affirming.” My issues with NARTH are that it is deceptive. That its positions are based not on science, but on the biases of it’s members. That its goals do not appear to be to advance research into sexual orientation, but rather to denigrate and misrepresent anyone or any research that does not agree with its policies. that it enables bigotry and prejudice against sexual minorities. I have many issues with NARTH, however, it being “hetero-affirming” isn’t one of them.

    Yet again, rather that bother to ASK about my position on something, you just jump to the wrong conclusions.

  • William

    I would agree with Madison. There is evidence that “therapy” can change a person’s sexual orientation. But that evidence is similar to the evidence for the Loch Ness Monster: abundant in quantity, but exceedingly poor in quality..

  • David Blakeslee

    Throbert,

    I’ve never actually tried ecstasy, but from what I’ve heard, it would be an ideal drug if you were attempting to “learn a new sexual orientation” via Pavlovian conditioning and positive reinforcement.

    Rikers’ might be interested in this approach.

  • Maddeson

    Ken, you’re the one who said you have not followed NARTH since 2003. If you’re going to accuse me of making a wrong conclusion, please cite.

  • Ken

    Maddeson# ~ Jun 27, 2011 at 1:31 am

    hmmm. missed this.

    “If you’re going to accuse me of making a wrong conclusion, please cite.”

    I did cite it. your conclusion about MY position on NARTH is wrong. My issues with NARTH have nothing to do with it being “hetero-affirming.”

    You have done this several times. Made incorrect assumptions about me and my position on various issues. You have also made accusations about me you have yet to back up.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X