From the first time bit read about NARTH, he thought it had a sort of “…the one who has the most belief succeeds …” tone about it, but what would one expect?

But, nonetheless, please make a point.
Are you trying to say they shouldn’t be touting reorientation therapy?
Are you trying to say their therapy is not 100% effective after 5 years?
Are you trying to say they shouldn’t promote reorientation therapy until it’s 100% effective?
Are you trying to say they should offer a money back guarantee?

On TP the only poster who associates numbers with homosexuality is bit. So when you say there’s an ex-ex-gay crowd, how large a group of people are you talking about?

Percentage of homosexuals in the general population: 2.8%.
Percentage of homosexuals interested in marriage ( based on MASS experience when the license was available to only residents)? 2.0% – that’s 0.1% of the general population – is interested in so called same-same gender marriage.

Percentage of homosexuals with unwanted same-same sex attraction? ????%

Percentage attempting reorientation therapy? ????%
Percentage successful ????%

DS, need some numbers. All you seem to be ?saying is that it doesn’t work for everyone. Ok?

I’ve heard the complaint from con sites about how 20% of the official members voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder, but they seem to gloss over the fact that the voting percentage is the same for all other votes to include or remove disorders. Makes one wonder why they pick and choose their votes about which they complain.

“NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.”

NARTH, again, glosses over the testimonials of the ex-ex-gay crowds, and refuses to acknowledge the percentage of people who’ve “failed” their therapy. It’s not like NARTH is AA, they are very proud of the few people who’ve “converted”, but only for as long as these people remain “converted”. They seem to pass blame for their failure onto the people, and not onto their therapy.

Even you have to admit that truth.

bit doesn’t know that they “ignore” the data that disagrees with their view, and what you’re saying could be equally true of the APA or of NARTH.

Even hard science is affected by the “consensus” view. If you know the history of APA removing homosexuality from their diagnostic manual of mental disorderes – as many conservative sites know it, you would know that it wasn’t science that got the homosexuality removed, but APA politicis.

OTOH, NARTH is straight forward about their intention:

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.

July 9th, 2009 at 8:52 am

This is the pertinent phrase of your comment. The experts that NARTH cite ignore the data that disagrees with their pre-determined conclusions. That is not “science”, by any stretch.

Even you have to admit that truth.

Other the undermining NARTH’s credibility, bit’s not sure what point you’re trying to make.

One group of experts, PhDs, disagrees with another group of experts, PhDs.

Ok. So what?

One chooses experts whose conclusions most closely agree with what one wants.

NARTH works with people who have undesired same sex attraction and want to be free of it.

A link to the journal is at the end of the article.”

July 8th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

Well, the truth comes out. The “Journal for Human Sexuality” is NOT a peer-reviewed publication at ll! It’s only NARTH responses to a peer-reviewed publication by the APA that states that gay-conversion therapy does indeed cause mental, emotional, ans spiritual harm to the individual.

In fact, the title of this “Journal” is “NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality.” See for yourself:
http://www.shop.pilgrimageresources.com/category.sc?categoryId=2

Seems that NARTH doesn’t allow facts to rebut their claims, therefore they cannot claim to be “peer-reciewed”.

bit’s opinion is that NARTH has published an article promoting reorientation therapy for some homosexuals. bit is not able to speak to the efficacy of this therapy, and this is not an opinion with which anyone can disagree.

bit does believe there are people who claim to have left homosexuality. Again, bit doesn’t claim to know exactly how successful these people were or what difficulties they experienced.

This link is to a summary of the article published in the Journal of Human Sexuality:
http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html

A link to the journal is at the end of the article.

bit does to believe there are people who claim to have homosexuality. Again, bit doesn’t claim to know exactly how successful these people were.

This is a summary of the article published in the Journal of Human Sexuality
http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html
A link to the journal is at the end of the article.

July 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Care to provide a link to this report? NARTH is about promoting their perveted world-view, and imposing their morality on everyone else, no matter the truth.

Here’s some links that contradict your opinion:

“Three former leaders of an international ministry that counsels gays to change their sexual orientation apologized for their efforts, saying that though they acted sincerely, their message had caused isolation, shame and fear.”
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18583/gay-counseling

“Hurting people for “God” and profit: The “ex-gay” scam exposed, yet again”
By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.
onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2147.shtml

.
.
.
A new report in this month’s issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation can be changed — and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions is generally beneficial and that research has not found significant risk of harm.
.
.
.

July 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

NARTH has been proven to use biased studies and fabricated “evidence” to support their prejudices.

A much better site is Betty Bowers web site. They don’t hide the fact they are a parody site, and a much better read than anything that NARTH can fabricate.

http://www.bettybowers.com

Elton John WAS married to a man named David Furnish in 2005. While it IS a marriage in everything but name it is CALLED a civil partnership THAT is what he was talking about.

Good news – for some, anyway.

Focus on the Family reports that a na rth study demonstrates that some homosexuals can successfully receive reorientation therapy.

http://www. citizen link .org/CLtopstories/A000010419.cfm

New Study: Sexual Orientation Can Be Changed

by Gary Schneeberger, CitizenLink editor

Peer-reviewed scientific survey looks at more than a century of research to determine that those with unwanted same-sex attractions can benefit from therapy and should continue to have access to it.

A new report in this month’s issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality finds that sexual orientation can be changed — and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions is generally beneficial and that research has not found significant risk of harm.

The study, conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), examined more than 100 years of professional and scientific literature from 600-plus studies and reports from clinicians, researchers and former clients principally published in professional and peer-reviewed journals.
.
.
.
Among the scientific findings cited in the study:

• Despite knowing the AIDS risk, homosexuals repeatedly and pathologically continue to indulge in unsafe sex practices.

• Homosexuals represent the highest number of STD cases.

• Many homosexual sex practices are medically dangerous, with or without “protection.”

• More than one-third of homosexual men and women are substance abusers.

• Forty percent of homosexual adolescents report suicidal histories.

• Homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have mental-health concerns, such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety.

• Homosexual relationships are more violent than heterosexual relationships.

• Societal bias and discrimination do not, in and of themselves, contribute to the majority of increased health risks for homosexuals.

Jeff Johnston, gender issue analyst for Focus on the Family, said these findings should have an impact on “those who claim to have the best interests of the gay community at heart.”

“True social justice, compassion, concern and intellectual honesty,” he explained, “dictate that men and women who want to pursue freedom from homosexuality – whether because of their faith or because of the health risks associated with homosexuality – should be afforded that opportunity by the mental health industry, including its associations and educational institutions.”

I’d love to see Elton John do something that makes them very uncomfortable. By making the right announcement, the “good” congresscritters could be made to feel very uncomfortable.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
______

If this quote is valid, Elton John agrees with them on gay marriage:

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word “marriage,” I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/11/16/wtf-elton-john-very-happy-with-civil-union-and-used-by-yes-on-8/

It is more important that health-care legislation inject stiff competition among insurance plans than it is for Congress to create a pure government-run option, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:42 am   
——–
Isn’t Elton John opposed to gay marriage; or is that just a rumor?

I remember when he was married, but he and his wife lived on different continents. He in Europe and the US and she in Australia.