NARTH is not primarily composed of mental health professionals

Last week, the Family Research Council promoted the annual conference of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, touting the group as “one of the best sources of information about homosexuality.” In the description of NARTH, the FRC claimed that NARTH is “primarily composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other professional therapists and counselors who offer ‘sexual reorientation therapy’ to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.”

However, this is not accurate. NARTH is not composed primarily of mental health professionals. Actually, according to NARTH’s operations director, David Pruden, only about 250 of NARTH’s approximately 1000 members are mental health professionals. Furthermore, some of those 250 members who have mental health degrees are academics who write about sexuality but do not provide sexual reorientation therapy. Thus, the lion’s share of NARTH’s members consist of lay people, ministers, and activists who have an interest in the materials provided by NARTH but are not scientists or therapists.

By comparison, the American Psychological Association has 150,000 members. All mental health groups are by far much larger than NARTH. I suspect most, if not all, state chapters of these groups are larger than NARTH.

The influence of NARTH comes from the fact that religiously conservative groups like FRC recommend the organization and refer to it as a counterpart to the established organizations. However, in the mental health marketplace, NARTH is not attracting members or supporters. Given the fact that 75% of the members have no professional or scientific credentials, it seems more accurate to consider NARTH to be an advocacy group with some like-minded mental health professionals as members, rather than a scientific group.

This impression is reinforced by the fact that two prime speakers at next week’s convention in Phoenix are not scientists at all, but anti-gay activists. Sharon Slater will speak in a session about her work with United Nations’ countries, especially in Africa and the Middle East, which aims to keep laws on the books criminalizing homosexuality. Then, following Slater, will be Michael Brown who is a minister. Read this post for more about these individuals.

RELATED: What if NARTH was a scientific organization?

Voting for an Independent Candidate Is an Acceptable Option
Will Evangelicals Stand By Their Man?
Election Day 2016 Live Blogging and Open Forum
Live Blogging Election 2016
  • Bernie

    The FRC not being truthful? What else is new. Such good Christians!

  • sam

    If NARTH, Michael Brown, FRC, Focus on the Family, AFA are called anti-gay activists then Soulforce, Truth Wins Out, Exgaywatch, John Shore, and SPLC should be called anti-Christian activists.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    …except that XGW’s editor and the majority of the writers are Christians. and Soulforce is a Christian organization, I believe. That doesn’t even make sense to say they’re “anti-Christian” activists. How can a Christian organization be “anti-Christian?”

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Ditto on what Emily said ..

    Additionally …

    Sam .. have you actually looked at what the SPLC says about these organizations .. they (the SPLC) are hardly anti-christian .. they are not even opposed to groups that are against same sex marriage .. they are opposed to groups that are hateful and slanderous in the process of promoting an anti gay (marriage) position. Think before you type. To be frank about it .. you are starting to sound like a loud gong for far right rhetoric rather than a thoughtful person who is here to dialog and learn from others.

    As for Michael Brown .. I have blogged with him and he is definitely anti-gay .. slander and spin and half truth abound from him and his website.

    Dave

  • StraightGrandmother

    If there are 250 health care professional members, I wonder how many are American?I remember reading how NARTH went to the UK to run training programs for reparitive therapy for psychologists there. One woman psychologist took the training, then was visited by an undercover journals who was gay and went to see her to become straight (he didn’t wish to become straight he just said that for his investigation), she ended up loosing her license. So if there are only 250 mental health care members at NARTH how many American health care members are there? Not sure about this, but aren’t they in Canada also?

    I’ll never forget the testimony of Dr Tam, who was an official proponent for Prop 8, he said he got all his information about sexual minorities from NARTH and he believed it. We never did find out what he has a PhD in, as surely he could not be a medical doctor.

  • Amber Thompson

    They sound more like, mental patients to me.

  • Frank

    For those who have not committed a crime, therapy of any sort should be strictly voluntary. NARTH crosses an ethical line by extorting gays into undergoing therapy by promoting ideas like imprisoning gays and blaming gays for the Holocaust as one member of the NARTH scientific advisory board did.

  • sam

    Dave,

    So, it’s your opinion, that those Christians and organizations who oppose same-sex marriage are anigay, meaning they hate gay people, but that’s not how I see it. Therefore, I find what left wing organizations, including SPLC to be spinning. It is SPLC’s interpretation that what the “antigay” organizations are saying is spinning. I researched what they said and found out the stuff they said WAS not what SPLC claimed they said. My point is, everybody has different opinions, but if we keep attaching labels to those who see and think things differently, that’s going to ruin the dialogue. As for Soulforce and XGW, while they have people on their staff who call themselves Christians, their theology is WAY different with the theology of mainstream Christianity, and these organizations have been publicly attacking people and organizations with more conservative values. To be accurate, they are anti-conservative Christian…. To be frank with you, Dave, if your parents have lived in an oppressive Communist system, you would be on my side, But since it is not the case, the least I can ask you, is for you to not judge me. Of course, I’m not asking you to change your opinion about who is anti.

  • sam

    Frank,

    Where did you get this idea from? As far as I know, in America, NARTH is very respectful of their clients’ self-determination. They even stated on their website that they don’t force anybody to become straight but are eager to help people who have unwanted same-sex attractions.

  • Frank

    Sam,

    NARTH supports the religious, political, and legal oppression of gays. They are sponsoring a conference and inviting a speaker who will advocate criminalization of homosexuality. NARTH’s allies don’t merely attack same-sex marriage; they attack the rights of gays and lesbians to nearly every civil right you as a Christian are guaranteed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These include the right to non-discrimination in employment, housing, and education.

    For Christian organizations to call these “special rights” and to campaign against extending them to gays and lesbians on that basis is the height of hypocrisy. For Christians to call criticism of this fundamental attack on gay and lesbian civil rights anti-Christian, is far worse. It’s tantamount to a rapist suing his victim for assault because she defended herself.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    “I researched what they said and found out the stuff they said WAS not what SPLC claimed they said.”

    Can you give some examples (with references) of the SPLC mis-quoting organizations?

  • sam

    Frank,

    Per US Constitution, religious freedom is more important than protection from religion, rathter protection from religious beliefs that offend somebody.

    As per SPLC, FRC have stated that more pedophiles and child molesters identify themselves as homosexuals than heterosexuals, while SPLC interpreted it as if FRC have said that gay and lesbians are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. That’s just one example, who’s really spinning? You be the judge.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    “As per SPLC, FRC have stated that more pedophiles and child molesters identify themselves as homosexuals than heterosexuals, while SPLC interpreted it as if FRC have said that gay and lesbians are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. That’s just one example, who’s really spinning? You be the judge.”

    FRC since they are inappropriately attempting to link homosexuality and child molestation. Esp. since they don’t have the data to support their claim.

    However, I would really like to read the context of BOTH claims, can you provide cites for them?

  • Michael Bussee

    NARTH: Snake oil.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Sam =

    Per US Constitution, religious freedom is more important than protection from religion

    StraightGrandmother = Well that is a new on one me. Please elaborate.

  • Michael Bussee

    So we’re left with 250 people who have some sort of “professional or scientific credentials”. I wonder what kind? What kind of “professional” or “scientist” would stick with an organization like this?

    Did their professional training involve any classwork on research design? Professional ethics? Any advanced coursework on human sexuality?

    This is an organization whose “experts” have included the likes of Schoenwolf (who suggested that blacks may have had it better off during slavery), Berger (who advised “busybodies” to not intervene to prevent the teasing and harrassment of LGBT kids) and Rekers (of “Rentboy” fame).

    Even their guest speakers are anti-gay activists, not scientists or therapists. How could any reputable therapist or scientist take them seriously? Why on Earth do they stay?

  • StraightGrandmother

    Michael B, I think when referring to Rekers we must never forget Kirk Murphy so I would suggest rewording it to …Rekers (of “Rentboy” and Sissy Girl Fame)

    That Sissy Boy story still makes me upset. To think of how many people have quoted this research for justification of “Change is Possible” it just gets me. It is still being quoted in research.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Sam .. Pedophila ia a heterosexual and homosexual problem .. The fact that FRC tilts the deck deliberately toward homosexuals is a rather obvious slander technique. I could just as easily say that pedophila is a Catholic priest problem .. And I think we all know that there have been problems there. But the reality is that this problem of adult / child sex spans all denominations .. not just the Catholics (who have gotten a lot of press on it). So I can guarantee that if I went on a rant or tilted the deck (like the FRC has concering gays) spreading concerns and warning that Catholics have a pedophilia problem .. I am sure many Catholics would rightly cry foul.

    Dave

  • stephen

    This is news?

    P.S. Loving sam’s understanding of the constitution. You hang in there, big guy.

  • Michael Bussee

    SG: You make a very good point. I should have included that about Rekers. You would think that those 250 people with “professional or scientific credentials” would be more concerned about their professional credibility. I can only assume that their anti-gay agenda must be more important to them.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Warren, your NARTH article made it onto http://www.GoodAsYou.org That is a very good website I read it at least several times a week.

  • Science matters

    I’m not surprised to learn that NARTH’s membership is comprised of not very many people generally (for a literally “National” organization); individuals who actually have mental health credentials make up a minority; and individuals who are practicing clinicians is a smaller number still.

    I’d like to know many people among NARTH’s membership are non-religious. I’m guessing approximately zero.

    As someone who has what I believe are legitimate academic social science credentials, it often shocks me how individuals and organizations that are hostile to civil rights for gay people (if not, let’s face it, hostile to gay people themselves) are so naïve, or else disingenuous, about empiricism, scientific validity, and the scientific method.

    Some of them remind me, quite a bit, of Scientology-brainwashed Tom Cruise lecturing Matt Lauer on “The Today Show,” saying, approximately, “You don’t know about the history of psychiatry, but I do!” An example might be the modest shop called “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality,” i.e., Peter LaBarbera. He must be an authority on “the truth about homosexuality,” right? Well, then, I must suppose he has a background in biology?, human development?, psychology?, maybe sociology or anthropology? Ethology? Zoology? I would expect at least a master’s degree, and also scholarly research and participation in scholarly conferences. No to all. (He has a BA in political science, and otherwise a long career in, to quote from his own LinkedIn profile, “conservatism activism.”) Yet he is very insistent of his own authority on the matter of homosexuality.

    Radio host Matt Barber has a very similar combination of very-low scholarship or scientific credentials, or understanding of science + an extremely great sense of personal subject matter authority. Ditto Tony Perkins, and radio host Bryan Fischer (who wants to see homosexuality re-criminalized).

    It’s quite a trick.

    Related to all this, I’d like to see data on changes relative to “unwanted same-sex attractions” that have actually been effected by the however-many clinicians in the NARTH membership (I know Joseph Nicolosi is one, and perhaps Richard Cohen counts; I don’t know any others by name). I’d like to see:

    — Physiological (e.g., plethysmographic) measurements of homosexual arousal

    — Physiological (e.g., plethysmographic) measurements of heterosexual arousal

    — Longitudinal studies: take measurements again in 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years

    — Control for demand characteristics (i.e., pleasing the experimenter).

    I am skeptical that the effects reparative therapy can produce go much beyond the effects of hypnosis or self-hypnosis — while I still grant that the matter is an empirical question (a.k.a. show me the data). I personally suspect the only way to really get of unwanted same-sex attractions is to punish homosexual arousal with an extremely painful experience (e.g., a strong electric shock) on a repeated and continual basis, with a very broad range of homosexual stimuli. You’ll create a vegetable that way, but, hey, he or she will have been effectively conditioned to be afraid to allow homosexual feelings into consciousness. Oh, sweet victory over sin at last!

  • Arynne

    As for Soulforce and XGW, while they have people on their staff who call themselves Christians, their theology is WAY different with the theology of mainstream Christianity

    Oh dear, here comes the No True Scotsman Fallacy

  • Bernie

    @Science matters# ~ Oct 24, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Ooo, oo, You forgot all about David Barton(The Great Historian), who is no more than a minister….

  • sam

    Our First Amendment says that the government will not establish a national religion, and that it will not prohibit the free exercise of religion. With that being the case, we can infer that if there are two different Christians, one who believes that same-sex relationships are immoral and the other who believes such relationships are fine, should be given the same amount of respect in public and should not be penalized by any government entities for practicing their respective beliefs and conscience.

    As for FRC, this is the PDF that gave SPLC and others a lot of frustration:

    http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-top-ten-myths-of-homosexuality

    I looked at it, as a whole, and I noticed that what FRC did: they listed scientific evidences, showing various pathologies among homosexual community. On pedophilia, there were studies listed showing correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. From scientific point of view, correlation does not offer causation. Warren, isn’t that correct? Thus, neither i nor FRC make a position that pedophilia is caused by homosexuality or that pedophilia is a homosexual problem. FRC also made a statement that they don’t believe that many homosexuals are child molesters or pedophiles. Perhaps, what FRC did was politically incorrect, you know, in our culture you’re not supposed to present evidences of negativity of any minority groups (Blacks, Muslims, also gays), but it is scientifically correct. I think that SPLC labeled them as hate group just for being politically incorrect. I think they would label anybody who’d present studies showing correlation between Islam and terrorism, as anti-Muslim hate group or person, too. But you know, I suggest you be the judges, read this FRC pamphlet, and determine for yourself whether SPLC was correct in giving a fair assessment of what FRC actually said and did. I didn’t find anything hateful in it, but that’s just me. One thing that boggles me about FRC being antigay hate group, if this was true than why two gay conservative organizations Log Cabin Republicans and GoProud have been speaking positively about them and admitted that they shared most of their worldviews? Chris Barron, the leader of GoProud, even wanted to come to their Conservatives Values Summit conference. Unfortunately, FRC’s leader Tony Perkins has refused them to come because they disagreed on DADT’s repeal. I think it was very lame of Perkins but that didn’t stop Barron from wanting to work together with FRC. I mean, if FRC was an antigay hate group, I highly doubt that Barron would ever wanted to work with them.

  • stephen

    sam,

    why so obsessed with gay sex? Is there something you want to share with us?

  • Mary

    Stephen,

    That’s an old argument. Try reading his post and responding.

    I’m so tired of people suggesting that someone is gay just because they show an interest in it. I have an interest in homosexuality. You don’t have to be gay to be interested in it …. as the voters clearly demonstrate.

  • Jayhuck

    Sam,

    . I think that SPLC labeled them as hate group just for being politically incorrect. I think they would label anybody who’d present studies showing correlation between Islam and terrorism, as anti-Muslim hate group or person, too. But you know, I suggest you be the judges, read this FRC pamphlet, and determine for yourself whether SPLC was correct in giving a fair assessment of what FRC actually said and did. I didn’t find anything hateful in it, but that’s just me.

    Did you actually read the reasons that the SPLC listed FRC as a hate group when they did not give this label to many other conservative Christian group? The SPLC did not label them a hate group just because they were politically incorrect, they labeled them a hate group because they have a history of twisting the truth and the result of scientific studies and of spreading lies about the gay community.

    Using your logic it would seem to be ok to look at Christian extremists who have killed or murdered and suggested that these people represent ALL Christians? Is this what you are proposing?

  • Frank

    Sam,

    Bless your little heart!

    Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion. Protestants shouldn’t have to believe in the Real Presence in communion; Catholics should be forced to use grape juice to consecrate communion because many Protestants think drinking is a sin and that communion is only symbolic sacrifice. In fact the two churches have explicitly contradictory theology concerning communion and warred with one another for centuries over this. Therefore, the Constitution’s prohibition against the establishment of religion is essential to freedom of religion.

    You don’t have have a right to freedom of religion unless I have an equal right to freedom from your religion.

    Please, take a class in formal logic before you accuse others of being illogical.

  • Dan

    Sam, you wrote that the FRC brochure is “scientifically correct,” but as an academic psychiatrist, my judgment is that it is a mixed of cherry-picked data, distortions, and outright lies. One could just as easily write a brochure on how Jews must be restrained from running the media and the banks, or that blacks must be segregated for the safety of society. Except that racism and anti-Semitism are no longer acceptable prejudices; being anti-gay still is, in some conservative circles.

  • sam

    Did you actually read the reasons that the SPLC listed FRC as a hate group when they did not give this label to many other conservative Christian group? The SPLC did not label them a hate group just because they were politically incorrect, they labeled them a hate group because they have a history of twisting the truth and the result of scientific studies and of spreading lies about the gay community.

    Using your logic it would seem to be ok to look at Christian extremists who have killed or murdered and suggested that these people represent ALL Christians? Is this what you are proposing?

    Yes, I read SPLC’s reasons, but it is their interpretation. No, I am not suggesting that the actions of Christian extremists, said above, represent ALL Christians. Likewise, what FRC wrote in their brochure, does not represent ALL gays, and they have said so. I think that in a free society, we should be able to point out the good and the bad of all different groups. Freedom of speech. You are free to think that FRC is a hate group, but not everybody agrees with you, and not everybody from the gay community. Do you remember Chris Barron and GoProud? Sure, groups like FRC and NARTH are biased and they do cherry pick studies, but so do APA and ACA. They cherry pick studies that supposedly say that same-sex relationships are healthy. I think every scientist and researcher is biased, but being biased does not necessarily mean hateful.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 25, 2011 at 12:17 am

    “Thus, neither i nor FRC make a position that pedophilia is caused by homosexuality or that pedophilia is a homosexual problem.”

    Here is what you originally said (sam# ~ Oct 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm):

    “while SPLC interpreted it as if FRC have said that gay and lesbians are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. ”

    And here is what FRC ACTUALLY said (from the PDF you referenced)

    Myth No. 8:

    Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

    However, it (myth no. 8) is not true.

    Now if the initial statement is “not true” then either it is indeterminate (unknown) or the negation of the statement is true. From the text of the FRC article it is very clear they are claiming the negation is true. And what is the negation of “Myth No. 8”, Sam? Compare this negation to what you claimed the SPLC said about FRC. Do you still want to claim the SPLC was wrong in its “interpretation” of what FRC has said?

    And this doesn’t even get into how FRC has distorted the science to support this claim.

    Your initial claim was one thing (that the SPLC had distorted what FRC said), but after citing your reference (at least the FRC part, at this point, it isn’t necessary to cite what the SPLC reference), you changed your claim (that you and FRC aren’t claiming homosexuality causes pedophilia), but that wasn’t what your initial disagreement with the SPLC statement was about.

    I’m trying to think that you are making honest mistakes, but as you keep repeatedly making these distortions (which is exactly what FRC etc al does), I’m finding harder and harder to believe there is anything honest about them.

  • ken

    the 8) was supposed to read: Myth No. 8

  • sam

    Ken,

    I never said that SPLC distorted anything, I said SPLC interpreted as if FRC were making a claim that supposedly homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles and child molesters. Distortion means intentional falsification of information, but SPLC truly believed in what they thought about FRC. After reading everything attributed to myth 8, I simply disagreed with their interpretation.

  • Jayhuck

    Sam,

    They cherry pick studies that supposedly say that same-sex relationships are healthy.

    I think what is missing from this discussion however is the fact that the majority of studies suggest that same-sex relationships are “healthy”. FRC will never acknowledge that. And I don’t remember the last time an author of a study had to step in to the APA and tell them they are misrepresenting their research, but this has happened several times to NARTH!

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    In light of the fact that much of the Christian world is making the false connection between pedophila and homosexuality I would say that the intention of the FRC’s statements are suspect. Similarly (like I said earlier) .. if an organization/website was raising concerns about Catholic ideology and practice as being bad for society and went out of their way to point out concerns that (some) Catholic priests are pedophiles I have a feeling that many Catholics would have issue with that..

    Another problem is how one defines terms .. Is an adult that seeks to have sex with a (same sex) child considered to be gay .. or are they (heterosexual) pedophiles that like little boys. I have known of 3 (male) pedophiles in my life time. Two are in jail .. one died. All three were in heterosexual marriages.with children. . But all three sought out children of the same sex to have sex with. I might add that that all three were church members.. and that two of the three were devout Christians. Two worked with youth .. the other was a pastor. I consider only one of the three to be gay based on later partners he had in life. But the FRC and others like them might consider them all to be gay.

    This comes back to motive. Would it be appropriate for me to make across the board statements about black people? Would it be appropriate for me to make across the board statements about Catholic priests? How about hispanics or any other people group?? And why would I be making such statements?

    The bible raises significant concerns and warnings when we stereotype a people group .. .. scripture calls it slander .. it is worth noting that slander is often addressed in the exact same verses that sexual immorality is addressed in.

    Dave

  • Bernie

    @Sam,

    this may open your eyes, as to the prevaricating tactics the FRC uses in slandering Gays in a effort to demonize and vilify them as a class…http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/01/family-research-council-still-using.html

    There are many other instances where the FRC has egregiously touted claims and lies on their behalf. I was going to be polite and use the word “misinformation”, but that time is since long gone.

    When it came to DADT, the FRC did it’s own “Scientific” study regarding the repeal of DADT. What they neglected to tell everyone, is that their “Scientific” study consisted of 1000 of their own constituents on their own mailing list, 70% of which who took part in the poll, were over the age of 50! Now, how in the name of God, does THAT reflect the sentiments of the active military forces, who’s mean age is 25-27? You see where I’m going with this? They are nothing more than paid professional political activists, who left their Christianity at the door, once that paycheck was flown in their face.

    I submit another, and then I’m off to work…In 7/2009 the DOD published it’s 2008 report on Sexual Assaults in the Military. Well, Peter Sprigg of the FRC, soon after that published his “Shocking Finding” regarding gays in the military. He stated that Gays, according to the DOD’s report were 5x more likely to commit such acts. That sounded pretty fishy to me, so I sat up one evening and read the entire 72 pg report, and researched all of Sprigg resources…You know what?, the man fudged the numbers, so as to make his math work. In other words, he lied. Not bad work from a Baptist Minister, turned well paid political mouthpiece for the conservative Christian base? Such the Christian!

    I could go on, and on, but like I said…gotta go to a real job. At least I earn my money thru hard work, and not making falsehoods against my fellow man all day long.

    God Bless, and Peace

  • sam

    There is a big difference between promoting biases and between telling lies. As for DOD report, I’m suspecting it was a biased report. You see, DOD tend to conceal quite a few information leading to the dismissals of its servicemebers. They say they do it in order to protect the privacies of people. But blame it on DOD. I also know that when there was a policy against open service, DOD were only making negative reports on homosexuality. Well, military is not a democracy, and they have to do and say what reflect their policies. The report done by Peter Sprigg I know of, he listed several cases (I think about 6) of servicemembers who got court-martialed for homosexual sexual assault. But that information does not suggest at all, that it reflected all gay servicemembers in the military. At that time, it was really difficult to gather statistics on the correct number of sevricemembers in the military who were gay, due to the fact that many such people were ordered not to reveal their identities. Also, DADT is gone, it’s a done deal, so, why are we still talking about it?

    As far as groups and people, the Bible teaches us that God is not respecter of persons, meaning that he wants us to be better than our human nature, and he instructs us to expose the lifestyles and behaviors He sees as sinful. That’s all I got to say about that?

  • Frank

    Sam writes:

    … and he instructs us to expose the lifestyles and behaviors He sees as sinful. That’s all I got to say about that?

    The problem here is that your philosophy consistently allows you and your kind to slander, condemn, and persecute the innocent. The Book of Job tells us that God sends adversity to good people as well. If homosexual orientation is such a trial for righteous people and you slander and persecute them because of it, then you had better remember what happened to the youths who persecuted Job. Listen for barking.

  • Teresa

    Trigger Warning: Snarky Comment.

    and he instructs us to expose the lifestyles and behaviors He sees as sinful.

    Sam, I’m assuming the “us” means you in this conversation? I’m always alarmed by the “we’re good … you’re bad” … and, we, righteous ones, have a personal memo from God to ‘expose’ what, Sam … ???

    Far better, we tend to our own lives, our own conduct, our own business … but, that’s just so boring, and really hard work removing the log from our own eye … we’d rather be about the business of removing the speck from our brother’s eye.

    Ah, I hear the retort now … Sam says: I’m a sinner, too. I’m just “speaking the truth in love”; because, I love homosexuals so much.

    Thank you, Sam, we appreciate your concern for our welfare. We, likewise, are concerned for your spiritual welfare … speaking the truth in love to you, Sam … reread the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. It’s meant to keep all of us right-sized, spiritually.

  • sam

    First off, I believe that all people, including myself, are equally sinful. I also believe that God allows bad things to happen, in different ways, to all of us, because he wants us to come to Him.

  • Frank

    Sam,

    Looks to me like you’re volunteering to be puppy chow.

  • David Lampo

    Sam,

    where did you ever get the idea that Log Cabin Republicans are in any way friendly or supportive of FRC? We HATE FRC because they lie about almost every glbt issue and person and because they hate us. They are completely opposed to the core conservative principles of limited government and inidividual rights.

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 25, 2011 at 9:02 am

    “I never said that SPLC distorted anything,”

    fine the word you used was ‘spinning” rather than “distorting”

    “I said SPLC interpreted as if FRC were making a claim that supposedly homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles and child molesters.”

    Yes, the SPLC did interpret FRC that way, because that was the actual claim FRC was making.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Sam, checking back to see you substantiate your claim of

    Per US Constitution, religious freedom is more important than protection from religion

    Second request, Please elaborate where you derive this from. Aren’t you saying that Freedom of Religion trumps all in our Constitution? That Freedom of Religion is more important, comes first, before any other Constitutional rights we all have? That Freedom of Religion say trumps the Fourteenth Amendment, the right of all persons to be treated equally under the law. Like perhaps Sam our Marriage Laws. I took a quick read again of our Constitution and I didn’t read anywhere in it where it says The Freedom of Religion Trumps all other Freedoms. Please cite your source.

  • sam

    I already quoted the text of the First Amendment, and as for Fourteenth Amendment, I don’t see anything implying civil marriage licensing, in it, but that’s another topic. The most recent evidence of how seriously our government takes the First Amendment Rights, protecting the expression of speech and extremely offensive religious beliefs, is the 8-1 US Supreme Court Decision ruled in favor of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church! Now, I find these guys to be hateful but to put FRC, AFA, and others on the same board with them is egregious.

    I suggest you look at the definition of a word myth:

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/myth

    Thus when FRC labeled something as a myth, such as that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children as heterosexuals, we can infer that FRC’s position was that the above position was a combination of facts with imagination. FRC further substantiated their position on homosexuality and pedophilia, which, in my view was not what SPLC saw. I said that SPLC was spinning when they attached “hate group” labels to a bunch of organizations. To me, spinning means exaggerating, giving something too strong of a word than it actually deserves.

    So, David, now LCR officially hates FRC. I see. But I used to think that you and GoProud are pretty much the same organizations. I know that the members of GoProud used to be members of LCR, including its founder Chris Barron. He was the one who wanted to come to the conference FRC was holding to discuss conservative politics, but FRC refused them. This is the only thing I don’t like about FRC. I mean, according to Barron, GoProud and FRC had many political agreements, so, why couldn’t they work together?

  • http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/ Jon Trouten

    GOProud broke away from LCR. As a result, they aren’t the same organization.

    FRC can’t work with GOProud because they have GLBT people in their organization and FRC cannot work alongside GLBT people.

  • sam

    Jon,

    Thank you for clarification. So, now it’s only GoProud who is supportive of FRC. The mere fact that GoProud has demonstrated an interested in coming to their conference cannot logically say that FRC is a hate group. With that being the case, maybe SPLC should label GoProud as a hate group, too. The only info I have is that FRC refused to work with GoProud, becasue the latter wanted to have DADT repealed and did not want to outlaw same sex marriage in 5 states they had it. It’s important to know, that GoProud did not want to repeal DOMA, either. I don’t know, but if this is true that FRC does not want to work together with GoProud just because it’s comprised of gays and lesbians, then, shame on them.

  • Jayhuck

    Sam,

    There is a big difference between promoting biases and between telling lies

    And perhaps even a difference when it comes to promoting lies, which is what the FRC does.

  • Jayhuck

    Sam,

    I cannot find any article that suggests that GoProud supports FRC. GoProud was going to a conservative conference where, like them, the FRC were also guests. They were not going to an FRC conference – unless you know something that I do not.

    And yes, we can still say, without any doubt whatsoever, that FRC is a hate group.

  • sam

    FRC and NARTH are being biased towards homosexuality the same way that Soulforce, XGW, PFAW, AU, and Truth Wins Out are being biased towards conservative Christianity.

  • http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/ Jon Trouten

    Sam: A quick google search of FRC and GOProud really calls into question GOProud’s support of FRC and vice versa. Yes, GOProud is willing to attend conferences like CPAC where FRC will also going to be. From GOProud’s perspective, they support any group that’s anti-Democratic party. But FRC won’t have anything to do with GOProud.

    Also, GOProud the group has no official policy on DOMA, but many of its founders and members, including Chris Barron are married gay men. LCR could be considered a gay Republican group. GOProud is a conservative group that has a lot of GLBT people running around (plus Ann Coulter, who then mocks those GLBT people). Groups like FRC don’t see the distinction b/c they don’t see a place for GLBT people under the conservative big top, but there’s a distinction.

  • http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/ Jon Trouten

    They created biased lies and “research” about conservative Christians and spread them around and around even after its demonstrated that they are spreading blatent lies and slanderous assertions?

  • sam

    They created biased lies and “research” about conservative Christians and spread them around and around even after its demonstrated that they are spreading blatent lies and slanderous assertions?

    They have made sensationalist claims by portraying conservative Christians as somebody who’s everybody should be afraid of.

  • Jayhuck

    Sam,

    FRC and NARTH are being biased towards homosexuality the same way that Soulforce, XGW, PFAW, AU, and Truth Wins Out are being biased towards conservative Christianity.

    Yes, but at least most of the gay groups in this list at least are not trying to demonize the entire population of Christendom, whereas FRC has nothing, absolutely nothing good to say about gay people. I’ve read articles from both and find FRC at least to be much more vile. NARTH just likes to put out anything that supports their point of view even if what it says cannot be supported by science.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Sam .. it is interesting how you bring up the first amendment in light of the Supreme Cour’s decision with regards to West Boro Baptist Church and their demonstrations. You do realize the groups such as FRC . Narth .. Exodus .. and so forth have been lyying and spinning for years about how the church’s free speech is threatened and have opposed gay rights on those grounds .. Looks to me that the Supreme Court’s decision sheds some significant light on all this lying .. a point conveniently missed by these lying groups.

    Dave

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 25, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    “FRC and NARTH are being biased towards homosexuality the same way that Soulforce, XGW, PFAW, AU, and Truth Wins Out are being biased towards conservative Christianity.”

    No Sam, not in the same way. Not even close to that.

    FRC, NARTH, etc, distort, misrepresent, and even lie about homosexuality. While some of the other groups you mention may have exaggerated a bit, they have done nothing anywhere close to what FRC etc. al. have done.

  • Bernie

    @ Sam, I was merely making a factual point with my references to DADT. However, The way you whined about me even mentioning it, you tipped your hand.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Sam you originally said

    Per US Constitution, religious freedom is more important than protection from religion rather protection from religious beliefs that offend somebody.

    StraightGrandmother= I asked you to justify your statement about religious freedom, you came back with an entirely different freedom we have, Freedom of Speech. Again please elaborate on how our Freedom of religion is more important than protection from religion.

    Sam =

    The most recent evidence of how seriously our government takes the First Amendment Rights, protecting the expression of speech and extremely offensive religious beliefs,

    There is quite a difference between speech and beliefs, and making those beliefs into civil laws that discriminate against a class of people simply because there is an aspect about them that is against your religion. There has to be a State Interest in making laws. The State cannot say, it is illegal to wear red clothes, as the State cannot show an interest on how the non wearing of red clothes benefits the State.

    Here I think the Supreme Courts words in 2003 in Lawrence vs Texas is what we need to clarify your supposition. The Supreme Court struck down the sodomy laws in Texas and this is what they had to say about religion and forcing your religion into civil laws.

    “for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

    This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

    Be honest, don’t these words and decision of the Supreme Court invalidate your claim? Religion does not trump all. Freedom of speech is different than Freedom of Religion. I think perhaps you were mixing up the two.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Sam =

    Therefore, I find what left wing organizations, including SPLC to be spinning

    StraightGrandmother= The Southern Poverty Law Center is the preeminent organization that tracks HATE GROUPS like the KKK, White Supremacists and others. The SPLC is a community partner with the FBI.

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/february/coldcases_022707

    Now maybe the FBI is not sufficient validation for you that the SPLC is legitimate and not a left wing propaganda machine, but it is good enough for me. I’ll go with the FBI. If you don’t think the FBI has done a thorough enough investigation of whom they partner with, well I guess nothing will change your mind. I call that simply clinging to bigotry and prejudice. I know it hurts to be let down by someone or an organization you believed in, you trusted, but the fact is, The Family Research Council IS a HATE GROUP.

  • sam

    Dave,

    Well, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westburo Baptist Church, then I’m hoping Supreme Court rules eventually in favor of Julea Ward, if she loses on appeal, that Christian woman who got kicked out of public’s university’s counseling program for standing up for her beliefs such as that homosexual relationships are immoral. The point you’re missing that these groups you mentioned, are saying that there is so much thought police activism going on purported by the gay rights groups. Such activism threatens First Amendment rights of individual Christian Americans who don’t approve of same-sex relationshps. I agree with them and I’m sorry that you and I don’t share the same vision. Also, I find it very generalizing to say FRC, Exodus, Narth and so forth are opposing gay rights. They don’t oppose 1st and 14th Amendment rights gays have just like everybody else, they oppose any proposed legislations that would declare same-sex relationships a civil right, like same-sex marriage (please reread Mr. Walker’s decision) which would endanger religious freedom of people of faith who morally object to same-sex relationships. Maybe such things are fine in Canada and Europe, but it is not acceptable in the USA. That’s the point FRC, Narth, Exodus, AFA, ADF, and so forth are making and I agree with them about that.

    Speaking of speaking, just please, look at what liberal groups are saying, especially AU and PFAW, that convservative evangelical Christians want to create theocracy. Oh please, look who’s really spinning?

  • sam

    I meant to say: speaking of spinning. So, FBI works together with SPLC. That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean they agree on everything. I hope that FBI would never ever bother FRC.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    We have already discussed the Ward case here .. I believe you were present for that .. Warren has already checked in on this giving us some inside scoop on what is going on .. I am not going to waste my time typing to go over it again.

    I don’t see how allowing different beliefs threatens my right to believe what I choose (or your right to believe what you choose). Your very oppostion to it in alleged defense of the constitution is an oxymoron.

    As for a theocracy .. yes that is exactly what many of these groups are trying to do .. they want their beliefs .. and their beliefs only .. supported and protected by the government. (Do a google search for dominion on this blog for info on this) Again .. this is in direct conflict to the freedom that the constitution provides. I don’t doubt that there are Christians out there that are simply desiring that govt policy reflects their values .. but the constituition supports the diverse values of members of society .. not just certain Christian ones. If diverse values are a threat to you then I think you are missing the entire point of what freedom is about.

    Dave

  • sam

    Sure, the government supports diverse values, but liberals are attempting to exclude Christian values from it. That’s what I find threatening. Also, the people I have in mind, are regular individual Christian Americans who want to contribute to society, just as everybody else, they are hardly dominionists. Most likely, not at all.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    By liberal I suppose you mean someone with a different view than you. And how is that a threat again .. ??? It seems to me that the mere presence of such a view is threatening to you. So how about you try explaining this again.

    Dave

  • StraightGrandmother

    Sam =

    They don’t oppose 1st and 14th Amendment rights gays have just like everybody else, they oppose any proposed legislations that would declare same-sex relationships a civil right, like same-sex marriage (please reread Mr. Walker’s decision) which would endanger religious freedom of people of faith who morally object to same-sex relationships

    StraightGrandmother= Your argument did not hold up in many many court cases, all the DOMA court cases and the Prop 8 case. The fact is you are perfectly free to follow your religion and never ever have a same sex relationship. Your freedom of religion is about how you live your life, not about enforcing your religious doctrine on how others how they live their life. The fact is there is no State interest in denying Civil Marriage (not Holy Marriage) to sexual minorities. I will simply reiterate the words of the Supreme Court

    Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code

    The key word in the Supreme Courts statement is Liberty. Your Liberty Rights end with you, you may not infringe on the Liberty Rights of others to self determine how they want to live their lives. To believe otherwise would mean that the highly concentrated Muslim population around Detroit Michigan by virtue of being a majority of the population, could make civil laws based on their Muslim religion. Do you feel you have the right to dictate to others how they should live their lives is because you are in the majority?

    The Fourteenth Amendment promises all of us as individuals that we will be treated Equally in our Civil Laws. If heterosexuals can get a marriage license so to should sexual minorities, Equal Protection under the Law. Do you want the state telling you who and who you can’t marry? As the Supreme Court said in Lawrence vs. Texas “absent any harm” and there is no harm to YOU or to the State when two sexual minorities marry. You may not like it but, ‘taint none a your biddness. Thankfully we all have Individual Constitutional Rights or else we would simply have tyranny of the Majority running roughshod over any and all minorities making civil laws that benefit only the majority and deny those same benefits to minorities.

  • sam

    To me, liberals are those who are dictating others to be politically correct , ie to keep your opinions to yourself because you might offend someobody. Especially over the issues of race and sexuality.

    It’s been only 90 years since the US Congress passed a law requiring every state to have a marriage license. It had to do with a government wanting to be involved with people’s lives. Although it’s the law of the land, our Constution never required it. It had not made things better, as far as I can see. If same-sex couples want their relationships publicly recognized, that’s fine, but why call them civil rights, implying that’s something everybody has to approve of? To me, to do so, would threaten the civil rights of religous people who find such relationships immoral.

    As for sodomy laws, religion was part of its influence, but also it was based on the idea of biology that everybody needed to procreate. They come from the old days where people’s attitudes about sex was different than they are today.

  • http://jontrouten.blogspot.com/ Jon Trouten

    As for sodomy laws, religion was part of its influence, but also it was based on the idea of biology that everybody needed to procreate. They come from the old days where people’s attitudes about sex was different than they are today.

    Even priests?

    That said, gay people can and have procreated.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Sam, I simply do not find your views and positions very well thought out and backed up by facts is all. The world has changed Sam and you have not changed with it. You know Sam, slavery was Biblicaly justified, and we as a society moved passed that and we changed. In Loving vs Virginia which was the 1967 Supreme Court case where the interacial couple wanted to marry in Virginia and there was a state law denying any white person from marrying a non white person, this is what the Virginia State Judge said, (source Wikipedia)

    The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach’s 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that

    “ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

    So you see Sam in the United States we have justified slavery and discrimination based on the religious beliefs of the Majority of the population. As you know the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s marriage law and the Lovings married. That was then and this is now. Now in the Year of our Lord 2011, the Majority is discriminating against sexual minorities based on the Bible (gee this sounds familiar doesn’t it?). Do you see where this is going Sam? This blatant religiously based discrimination will not pass muster under our Constitution. It may take time, in fact it is taking far to long, but eventually we do get it right. And once State Sponsored Discrimination ends the public soon, well eventually, follows.

    I have read most of your comments and what comes through to me is that you are upset that you are loosing your majority status, and this is true. More Americans support marriage rights for sexual minorities than oppose it. You no longer can in polite company, spout off how being gay is a sin without somebody challenging you. The problem is Sam, it is NOT that nobody will let you talk anymore, the problem is that more and more people don’t agree with you and don’t want to hear what you have to say. You know Sam eventually the racists of previous generations ceased making racist comments in polite company also, I imagine they couldn’t take the social pressure.

  • sam

    What upsets me is I see that America is becoming a thought-police society like Communist Russia, from where my parents came from, and more upsetting about it, that these thought-police activists say that want to protect “oppressed minorities.” They even dare to compare God-fearing Christian people with racist bigots, oh my God!

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    sam – You are losing any credibility you might have with the last statement. Comparing the US to Communist Russia is provably ridiculous.

    In the US, anyone can disagree with anyone else, even the govt. Comparing God-fearing Christians with racist bigots is free speech. Christians are free to compare gays to Nazis. We can be just about as nasty as we wanna be, even to the govt.

  • Teresa

    What upsets me is I see that America is becoming a thought-police society like Communist Russia, from where my parents came from, and more upsetting about it, that these thought-police activists say that want to protect “oppressed minorities.” They even dare to compare God-fearing Christian people with racist bigots, oh my God!

    What you’re saying, Sam, is not entirely untrue. But, this cuts both ways; and, often did historically.

    Thought police, like in the Soviet Union, abounded aplenty throughout the centuries, due mostly to Religion. The Inquisition and the Witch Hunts in Germany and in Massachusetts are prime examples. Classically, in that same fashion, we see much of this occurring in some Islamic Countries, the same thought police action, forbidding who knows how many things … and, what’s more, the informers … supposed neighbors and friends … become the long arm of the law.

    Please understand, Sam, the Christian Right is the mirror of the Secular Left: the agendas are exactly the same, only the content is different. Both ends of the pole want to tell people what to say, what to do, when to do it, how to do it … and, what’s more, be controlled by a ruling elite. In the case of the Secular Left, the ruling elite are groups like the SPLC, etc. In the case of the Religious Right, it’s the ‘priest caste’ … meaning priests, reverends, ministers, imams, rabbis, etc.

    Both feel they’re right. Both feel the other side is dangerously wrong. Both feel they’re picked on by the other. Both claim the other has all the advantages. Amazingly, there is a middle road, or as St. Thomas would put it: a “via media” … virtue is in the middle.

    However, for some things, there is no middle ground. Slavery was one of the issues. And, yes, we spent decades right here in America spouting Biblical stuff that kept others in chains. African Americans weren’t completely human, didn’t have the intelligence whites had, needed to be treated like children, best to keep them in their place, given to violence and criminal behavior … all of these notions and more, were part of “speaking the truth in love”.

    Homosexuality may, in fact, be another issue where there is no middle ground. That remains to be played out. However, Sam, remember whoever’s ox is being gored at the time, plays the victim, cries foul … right now, it’s the Religious Right. They had their day … centuries of it … still do in many places. They are not the victims in any of this. Neither is the Secular Left.

    Fortunately, for both, they get to yell, scream, and do whatever nonsense they choose to do, right here, right now, in plain sight and hearing of anyone; because, we all enjoy our freedoms.

  • sam

    Warren,

    I just expressed my true feelings about what I am upset with. Since because my parents came from Communist Russia and several of my relatives have been kicked out of universities, including two others being imprisoned, for sharing their Christian beliefs that the government found offensive, and my family instilled all these values into me, I believe I have credibility. It doesn’t mean that I am right, but it is an explanation to people why I do what I do. Just curious, what knowledge do you have about Christians being persecuted in Communist Russia?

    My position that United States is not like Communist Russia right now, but it could EVENTUALLY become so, if we stop protecting individual freedom of religion and conscience. This is why it is important to make decisions what groups and people we need to support and align with.

  • Teresa

    Sam, I have plenty of knowledge about Christians being persecuted in the Soviet Union … as it was properly called for decades. The greatest persecution took place in the Ukraine, where 10 – 40 millions Kulaks were systematically starved to death by Stalin. However, we can’t forget the Czars’ Pogroms against the Jews … Orthodox Christianity’s version that preceded Stalin. Also, what’s quite peculiar is that the Orthodox priests and bishops: many, many of them became agents of the KGB … and, lived fairly peacefully through it all.

    Sam, please understand, you don’t need to align yourself with anyone who has an agenda “that they have the only way” … this, of course, includes the Christian Right, as well as the Secular Left. It’s the same old, same old; Sam, different players, same game.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Well Sam (t-cash) the sun could blow up .. ever think about that.? Your whole argument is based on some Chicken Little idea of what might happen… not on the reality of what is. With that type of logic a person could concoct anything.

    Dave

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 26, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    “My position that United States is not like Communist Russia right now, but it could EVENTUALLY become so, if we stop protecting individual freedom of religion and conscience. ”

    And why is it you are only concerned about the “liberals” shutting down free speech and freedom of religion?

    Seems to me the conservative christians are working a lot harder at it than any “liberals.” Why is it you are so concerned about the “liberals” taking over, but consider concerns about dominionists to be fantasy?

  • sam

    Dave (DW), I wish you had the same empathy as Teresa has for me. I figure that I have a right to be offended by the speeches and actions of others, just like SPLC, Soulforce, Truth Wins Out, XGW have a right to be offended. I’m a human being just like them and I also have feelings just like they do. The only difference is that, althought I might be offended, I don’t try to take away their liberties.

    As far as who I should align with, I’m still unsure at this moment.

  • sam

    Ken,

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

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    How exactly is XGW trying to “take away liberties?”

  • sam

    Didn’t XGW recently advocate for that teacher in New Jersey who posted stuff about gay relationships on facebook to be fired?

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    How are any of these groups taking away your liberties?

    To be honest I often find it hysterical that Christians think gay groups are taking away their liberties … ( note that there is a whole other point here which I am not addressing which is that there are gay Christians that affirm gay marriage) Some examples follow …

    –Christians can work and not be fired for being a Christian .. but many of them oppose laws such as ENDA that would afford lgbt individuals the same protection. I might add that no Christian has whined and accused the govt of beign liberal becaue the same freedom of religion principles that protect them from being fired for their beliefs also protect people of other religous beliefs .. including devil worshippers.

    –Christians can marry whoever they want .. they can get divorced and remarried as many times as they want .. but many of them are opposed to gay folks marrying at all. Note that I am making a distinction here between a theological position and a political one .. A Christian could certaianly support equal rights for everyone (politically) without compromising their moral values.

    –Christians can blatantly accuse gay folks of being pedophiles and being the force behind the Nazi’s but if gay folks oppose their (the Christians) speech they cry foul and play the victim.

    In summary .. I realy don’t get the whole .. liberty at risk .. victim approach .. that Christians such as yourself promote.

    And .. no .. I am not showing the same empathy as Teresea is showing because you and I have been through all of this before .. you are touting the same things you touted on Bridges Across years ago and on GCN. There is nothing new here in what you have said. You are claiming the same fatalistic Chicken Little what if approach .. the same concern about what happened in Russia .. and so forth and so on. Now of course you have a right to your beliefs and perceptions just as I have to mine .. And fortunately we live in a country that allows such great diversity of thought .. I don’t see that changing .. All parties involved hold to these principles .. and for the few that don’t .. those principles will reign them in if they overstep free speech or religous liberty boundaries.

    On a different note if you would like to look at something new and perhaps helpful .. why don’t you check out SITF .. re: the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework that Dr. Throckmorton and Dr Yarhouse have put together .. it is honest about real orientation change and whether it is likely or not .. It encourages the client to live in congruence with their faith beliefs .. and it leaves the door open for change though it does not promise change. It offers a very unique path between the polarizing views usually put forth. I might add that I believe it is recognized by the APA as a valid framework and thus provides a professional route to respond to those clients whose religous beliefs may lead them in a different direction than a fully affirming view.

    God bless,

    Dave

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    I don’t recall that happening. Can you provide a link?

  • sam

    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.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    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.

  • sam

    Emily,

    I’ll take your word for it, which is that XGW just wants to point out the danger of reparative therapy, but not actually ban it. Sure, it’s their freedom to speak. If this is the case, then XGW is not trying to take away the liberties of people with unwanted same-sex attractions.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

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

  • ken

    sam# ~ Oct 26, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    “Didn’t XGW recently advocate for that teacher in New Jersey who posted stuff about gay relationships on facebook to be fired?”

    Why don’t you try the following experiment, put the following 3 words into your favorite search engine:

    teacher facebook fired

    what you should see is that teachers have been fired (or otherwise censured) for a wide variety of things they have posted on facebook, not simply homophobic comments. Should Buell be fired for his comments, maybe, but the same criteria holds all the other teachers who posted questionable (and not so questionable) things on facebook.

    Now, certainly it is an interesting question of how free speech works (or should work) in the age of social media. However, to portray Buell’s case as a special case when he has been treated pretty much the same as all the other teachers who made offensive remarks online, is dishonest at best.

  • sam

    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.

  • sam

    Also,

    Here is the recent article written by Michael Brown, covering a lot of important issues:

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1471424

    It doesn’t appear like he is being hateful, at all. But I guess, let others be the judges.

  • Jayhuck

    Sam,

    Michael Brown is not outright hateful, usually anyway, but he preys upon stereotypes and he couches a great deal of ignorance and fear in his messages. He also doesn’t seem to mind skewing the truth to further his own ends – although whether he honestly realizes he is misleading people is up for debate. He definitely believes in what he is doing, the problem is he often doesn’t really listen to those who disagree with him, nor does he seem to care about facts. :)

  • sam

    I’d like to adress two people from here:

    Dave (DW): It appears to me that you are one of those people who think that our Constitution, especially 1st and 1th Amendments rights, only protect religious people, including Christians only when it comes to worship in their churches and stating their messages in public, including disapproval of same-sex relationships, but Constitutional protections don’t apply to Christians in various professions, even those that are of public service supported by our taxes, such as public school teacher and mental health counselors. Guess what? You are not alone in this. There are quite a few lawyers who interpret Constution that once somebody starts working in public, and if public professional ethical codes stipulate that same-sex relationships are okay, any public employer who demonstrates disagreement with it, should find himself another job, like be a Christian teacher and/or counselor. For example, a famous progay legal organization Lambda Legal have such views on our Constitution. Like I said before, it’s a very gray area in our interpretation of the Constitution, and there is still a huge legal debate going on in our courts. I hope someday, this decision will be settled by the US Supreme Court. I see that our interpretation of the US Constution is aso gray from different people. Obviously, there are people, some of those are legal experts, who disagree. They think that if a Christian public school teacher makes deragatory comments about same-sex relationships, he or she should not be fired because of 1st and 14th Amendment, and gay rights groups are trying to take away his or her consitutional liberties. You, and Lambda, have a right to interpret our Constitution the way you see it, but what I would kindly ask you is to not to accuse those who interpret it differently from you, as liars, spinners, slanderers, betrayers of the Great Commission, etc. You know, you might be as well very right about your interpretation, and them and I, might be so wrong about it, but it’s just when you attach labels to them like that, you, yourself, appear very self-righteous and arrogant

    Warren: I’ve looked through you page on Sexual Identity Therapry, the one that Dave has suggested, and I found out that SIT and NARTH’s therapies and theories have MORE things in common, with very few disagreements. To me, it looks like you guys are pretty much saying the same thing but in different ways. Of course, you have things you don’t agree upon, but that’s what all scientists always have. It’s just I don’t see why disagreements should be the reasons for you and them having so much friction. Is it more because of political culture war than because of science?

    Sam.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Warren, I wonder if you ever read the Amicus Brief filed by NARTH in the Prop 8 Trial. Here is a remarkable quote fromt he brief

    “Exodus International—a parent Christian ministry for a coalition of more than 100 ministries and Christian counselors worldwide—offers individual, group, and educational therapy. It reported that 85 percent of the people it served experienced sexual reorientation.59”

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/25/amicus13.pdf

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Well congratulations SGM …. you have just discovered (if you didn’t know before) one of the main reasons that the orientation change language is still out there. Its there to be used as a political weapon in the culture war. This is most likely one of the primary reasons that these organizations will not give up the change language. Yet another sad day for Christianity. Sigh ….

    Dave

  • sam

    Or could it be possible, Dave, that NARTH and Exodus are afraid that a potential change in politics, including allowing gays to marry, will force them to go underground?

    Sam.