"NARTH seeks to support the many homosexual men and women who are profoundly distressed by their condition. Homosexuality is experienced by them as completely contrary to their value system and their conviction that all men and women would normally be heterosexual were it not for disturbances in their early lives.

We acknowledge that many homosexual men and women do not wish to change their psychosexual adaptation, and we respect their wishes not to seek therapy. Furthermore we do not wish to diminish the fights of homosexual people in society.

However, we believe that treatment should be offered to those who voluntarily seek it. NARTH works to protect the rights of patients who do seek treatment, as well as the rights of the therapists who treat them."

I thought, hey, that's great. Change for those who wish it and no hassling of those who don't. But then I read the sentence immediately following that one.

"We stand by the conviction that homosexuality is primarily developmental in origin, and that in most cases, it is responsive to psychotherapeutic measures."

So much for first impressions....It also raises the question, what about those cases where it DOESN'T respond to treatment. What then is the cause of these people's homosexuality? If it was purely developmental, then ALL cases should respond to treatment eventually.

Disheartened, but not without hope, I read on. The next page I checked out was Three Myths about Homosexuality. Now I was without hope.

"There is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions."

Well of course not! First of all, it wasn't that long ago when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and in fact many of the founders of NARTH were probably practicing when it still WAS a mental disorder. Until that time, there was little NEED for research: the goal was to cure it, one way or the other. There were more pressing diseases that needed the research money. After all, it didn't affect that many people.....Get my drift? It was a mental problem and there was no need to find a biological or genetic cause because the belief was that it was due to ENVIRONMENT while growing up. Second, the human genetic map is still virtually blank. There are so many factors that could play a role in the difference between being gay and being straight. But simply because no scientific research indicates a biological or genetic cause DOES NOT MEAN ONE DOES NOT EXIST! Anymore than our inability to detect radiation means that it didn't exist prior to our gaining that ability.

To be honest with you, I'm torn on this issue. If there IS a genetic cause, then I can foresee those trying to "fix" this "deviant" gene. It would stop those who say "It's a choice" dead in their tracks and then they'd have to come up with some other religious reason that gays are going straight to hell. But it would also allow those who see it as deviant to fix it. In truth, it needs no more fixing than the gene that gives you blue eyes when both parents have brown or makes you 6' tall when your parents are both under 5'-6" tall.

"Scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality."

"Research shows that gay teens are especially vulnerable to substance abuse and early, high-risk sexual behavior. It does far more harm than good to tell a teenager that his or her attractions toward members of the same sex are normal and desirable. Teens in this position need understanding and counseling, not a push in the direction of a potentially deadly lifestyle."

When I read this, I searched high and low for a way to email this group. But alas, they have no email. Just this webpage set up to disseminate their propoganda and no willingness to allow others to react in the same medium. Cowardly behavior, IMHO. Perhaps they should seek counselling?? (heavy sarcasm for those looking for some excuse to sue me... LOL) Anyway, to my counter argument...

I think they're confusing cause and effect here. Gay teens are more prone to these behaviors because they have no clue where to turn to find support and understanding for their feelings. They are ostracized by society and their peers and made to feel they're sick, immoral, demented and disgusting. Of course they're going to try to mask the pain if they don't know how to stop it! And these people are saying that being gay is what causes it?!?!?! Being UNACCEPTED AS A GAY TEEN is what causes it. Having people like this group say that they're completely dysfunctional and in need of mental treatment is what causes it. Show me a study done where gay teens receive the same acceptance and support as straight teens FROM THE MOMENT THEY'RE BORN and THEN show me a study saying that gay teens are more likely to be promiscous and involved in drugs, etc. and THEN MAYBE I'd agree that being gay caused the drug use instead of the drug use being the effect of being gay in a society that won't accept you. Unfortunately, this can't be done until society accepts gays as "normal" and that can't be done until there are no more groups trying to "cure" gays.

A potentially deadly lifestyle?? I have a news alert for you. LIVING CAUSES DEATH!!!!! Someone in the military leads a potentially deadly lifestyle. Someone who chooses to be a cop or a firefighter leads a potentially deadly lifestyle. Stuntment and thrill seekers lead potentially deadly lifestyles. Someone who drinks and drives on a regular basis leads a potentially deadly lifestyle. Someone who smokes cigarettes leads a potentially deadly lifestyle. In fact, anyone who takes a breath leads a potentially deadly lifestyle. Being gay is only MORE potentially deadly because:

a.) some segments of society seem to think that it's okay to beat up/maim/kill someone just because they're gay,
b.) the government felt that AIDS/HIV wasn't a big problem for so long because it only affected gays and IV drug users,
c.) people like the ones who founded this group and religious "hellfire and damnation" preachers convince struggling gay teens that there's something basically and intrinsically wrong with them and that if they ever act on their feelings of love for the same gender, God will abondon them to an eternity of pain in hell so the teen kills him/herself. And
d.) when someone loses a job, a home, family/friends, etc. because they reveal they are gay (or our outed), rather than face the scorn, contempt, disgust and disdain of society, some choose to end their life.

"A 1992 study in Pediatrics found that 25.9% of 12-year-olds are uncertain if they are gay or straight. The teen years are critical to the question of self-labeling, so the facts must be presented in our schools in a fair and balanced manner."

This supports my long-held belief that the percentage of gays is higher than reported, although I realize that all those uncertain kids aren't gay. But I'm fairly certain that more of them than not will hide the fact that they are so as not to face society's scorn of gays. However, that's not my point. To present it in a fair and balanced manner would mean presenting the argument that being gay is a developmental disorder as a THEORY, not as fact. These people THEORIZE that ALL homosexuality is caused by some childhood lack. Yet they present it like it's written in stone. And this is their idea of fair??

Now we come toNARTH's Purpose. In it we find the following:

"Fifty years ago, researcher C.D. King offered a very useful definition of 'normal.' The wisdom of that definition is still apparent. Very simply, normality is 'that which functions according to its design.'"

This seems to indicate that NARTH thinks that the only purpose of human beings is to mate and have babies. If that is the case, then ALL of society is abnormal because we're doing so much MORE than just that. Using C.D. King's definition of "normal", all priests and nuns and other clergy who take a vow of celibacy are "abnormal" and we should be looking into what events of their past caused them to choose this abnormal lifestyle. Heterosexual couples who marry and CHOOSE not to have children are abnormal and we should be treating them and doing research to find out what events in their childhood turned them away from "normal" behavior. And then we're going to have to go and explore and research what makes the bonobo's and dolphins and whales exhibit homosexual activity. And dogs. Let's not forget all those male dogs we see humping other male dogs. (Excuse the crudeness of this example, but I'm a bit up in arms right now.) We need to find out what lack in their "childhood" caused them to act this way. How does one determine if a bonobo is "normal"? If the entire tribe acts this way AND they are thriving and not going extinct, then are they "functioning according to their design"?

Forgive me, but I think that humans are designed to LOVE. I see nothing wrong with that love being expressed between two people of the same gender. Do I find promiscuity harmful to gay men and women? Yep. But I find it just as harmful to straight men and women. I live in a very small township. And in that township, we have four "nude entertainment" houses in one 5 mile stretch of highway. (Three of them are within 1/4 mile of each other, if that far.) There's a fifth and sixth that are about another five miles or so in either direction. These places are primarily there for HETEROSEXUAL MEN. Most of them MARRIED! Yet I don't see any "esteemed group of phsychiatrist" with a webpage designed to promote treatment of this "abnormal" behavior. And the reason is that it's not considered abnormal. Why? Because it's men lusting after women. That they're doing so at the expense of their wives and girlfriends and children doesn't matter. It's "normal" because they're men and the object of their lust is a woman. Give me a break! I'd much rather be in a loving relationship with another female than in a relationship with a man who felt the need or desire to go to a strip bar and oogle naked women rather than be home with his wife and kids.

They go on to write:

"As clinicians, we have witnessed the intense suffering caused by homosexuality, which we see as a "failure to function according to design."

They see humans as being designed simply to produce babies. What does that say about how they see things? Again, I think they're confusing causes here. The "intense suffering" is not caused by homosexuality but by society's rejection of the homosexual. By the attempts to force everyone to fit into some neat little box. It doesn't work that way and to find a group of psychologists/psychiatrists advocating just such a thing is frightening.

"Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex. It works against society's essential male/female design and the all-important family unit."

I have several friendships with other women that are not, never have been and never will be sexual in nature. I have friendships with men that are not, never have been and never will be sexual in nature. What is being distorted here is NOT the bonds of friendship, but the pupose of human interaction and human existence. We're NOT here to just procreate (which would be the "essential male/female design"). We're here to better ourselves and our world. Being gay does not prevent that. We have tried the "procreate" path and it's led to overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, deforestation, starvation, and poverty the world over.

As for the "family unit", divorce, war, death by accident or illness, drug addiction, promiscuity, pornography and a whole host of other actions work against the all important family unit too. My ex lives 15 miles away from me. But unless it's wrestling season or his weekend to have the kids, he very rarely calls them. It's not that he can't or that I prevent him from doing so, he just doesn't do it. My wife on the other hand is very invovled in their lives. Which is better for the boys? A single mom and a remarried father who only calls when he has to? Or a happily married gay mom whose wife provides a second caring, involved parental figure for them to relate to and to let them know that someone else really does care and will guide them in their walk in life.

Let's use the definition of "normal" that NARTH relies on. What is the design of the "family unit"? It is to raise the young and put them on the path to self-sufficiency so they can go out and be happy and so some of them can procreate. (Remember, there are heterosexual couples who CHOOSE to remain childless and others who cannot have children.) Sound good to everyone? It mentions nothing about a father AND a mother. It mentions nothing about heterosexuality. It mentions nothing about the color of one's skin, one's belief in God, one's nationality, the color of the parents' eyes....How then is being gay undermining the purpose of the family unit?

Quite simply, it isn't. They just want you to accept that their word is fact because they have lots of fancy letters after their name and spent lots of money getting their degrees. They don't want you to look behind the logic of their argument to see if it really IS logical. They just want you to be the "good patient" and take the doctor's word for it and don't dare to question their judgment. (OK, I will admit that there are those for whom religious beliefs dictate they must attempt to turn people away from homosexuality. BUT those who join this group are not in that class of people because their statement plainly says they respect the rights of those homosexuals who choose not to change. Someone doing it from religious conviction would attempt to change ALL homosexuals.) What they really want is for you to believe the same thing they do. That way, they won't be forced to face their own fears and prejudices and bigotries.

Doctors CAN BE AND ARE WRONG sometimes. And in this case, it's my fervent belief that they're VERY wrong. That what they're doing is causing more harm than good. There is a HUGE difference between wanting to protect the right to seek treatment for those who truly do not want to live as a gay man or lesbian and saying that being gay is abnormal. I fully support the right of those who seek to STOP living as a gay person to have safe places to seek treatment. I do NOT support the right of a group of physicians to put out their personal belief that every gay man and every lesbian woman has issues in their past that made them this way and make it appear as a medical/scientific fact.

In males, it is associated with poor relationship with father; difficulty individuating from mother; a sense of masculine deficit; and a persistent belief of having been different from, and misunderstood by, same-sex childhood peers.

It's very interesting to me to note that they say NOTHING about why lesbians are lesbians. Could it be that these gentlemen, like most of male society, have no problem with two women loving each other. In fact, most men would consider it a turn on to watch and/or participate in such a venture. What they have a problem with is two MEN being together in a sexual manner. Which to ME indicates that the problem is NOT with the gay men but with those who have a problem with the gay men being gay. But I'm not a shrink...

In adulthood we also see a persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors in gay and lesbian life.

UNTIL YOU CAN DO A STUDY IN WHICH YOU ELIMINATE THE EFFECTS OF OSTRACIZATION ON GAYS BY SOCIETY, YOU CANNOT CLAIM THAT BEING GAY IS A CAUSE FOR MALADAPTIVE/DESTRUCTIVE/ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR BECAUSE IT IS EVEN MORE PLAUSIBLE/PROBABLE THAT SUCH BEHAVIOR IS THE RESULT OF SOCIETY'S ATTITUDES TOWARDS GAYS AND ITS TREATMENT OF GAYS AND NOT TO THE FACT THAT ONE IS GAY.

Such a study will never be possible until being gay is NOT considered a mental disorder and society stops discriminating against GLBT's.

"Professionals who belong to NARTH comprise a wide variety of men and women who defend the right to pursue change of sexual orientation."

Then remove the statement that being homosexual is abnormal. Otherwise, NARTH is falsely advertising its site. It's not seeking to support those who want to change for their own happiness, but seeking to convince them that their lifestyle was wrong to begin with. Those are two different goals entirely. (EDITORS NOTE: There is a statement saying that not all members of NARTH agree that homosexuality is a developmental disorder, but that most do. My question to those who don't would have to be why then are you a member of a group that says that it is?).

These kinds of arguments are just another example of how slick packaging can make something appear to be "beneficial." I'm not by any stretch of the imagination trying to say that there are not those living as gays and lesbians who want to change and who can change. I AM saying that those who do want to change are not really gay or lesbian to begin with but are just acting that way because of the very causes this group states. They are "acting out" or "rebelling" and this is the manner in which they do it. They are NOT homosexuals: they're heterosexuals trying to find some sense of acceptance and they're doing it by trying to be gay/lesbian. Of course it causes them pain. The same pain that is found in gays/lesbians who try to live as heterosexuals. Except that these gays/lesbians have groups like NARTH trying to tell them that they're "abnormal" and that they can only find delusional happiness (okay, so they didn't come right out and say it, but it's implied) if they stay gay/lesbian. If there is a gay advocaty group that's saying that heterosexuality is abnormal, I haven't heard of them.

Finally, there is one last word I'd like to add. Just something that was pointed out to me by someone else who viewed the NARTH page at my request. If you check out the roster of officers and scientific advisory board, you'll note that all of them are doctors of some sort (with the possible except of one- I don't know what those initials stand for). Who is it do you suppose that would benefit most from "treating" homosexuality?

Enough said.

All quoted material is ©NARTH, All Rights Reserved by NARTH. If you find an error in my quotes, please inform me and I will correct it immediately.