You incorrectly stated Dr. Paul Cameron founded NARTH and then tried to use that as justification to ignore the text of the article. Cameron was not a founder of NARTH. From the NARTH site:
Drs. Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman, and Joseph Nicolosi founded NARTH in 1992 in response to the growing threat of scientific censorship. The organization has grown rapidly to include over 1,000 members.Here's my post rewritten just for you, with full references to source material:
The more science studies homosexuality, the more we see the major factor determining homosexuality is environment. That's not a bold statement, it's what science continues to report.
We should heed the words of John Adams when he said:
"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."As two of the three little pigs learned, we must build our house out of something solid. This was an important teaching of Jesus as well. He said it is foolish to build your house on sand, or to build your core position on something that is easily washed away. Instead, we should build our position on something solid, something which stands firm under scrutiny.
In regards to homosexuality and genetics, the work of homosexual activist Dr. Simon LeVay has often been used to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic, and his work is still quoted to this day. But what did LeVay really find? Here is what LeVay said of his own work in a March 1994 interview with Discover magazine:
"[His 1991 research] made the unassuming LeVay one of the most misunderstood men in America. "It's important to stress what I didn't find," he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain --INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior. My work is just a hint in that direction--a spur, I hope, to future work."Source: Interview with David Nimmons (March, 1994) "Sex and the Brain", Discover, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 64-71.
Ten years later still nothing from LeVay or anybody else.
In 1973 the APA (American Psychiatric Association) declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. According to LeVay, it wasn't science that propelled the APAs change, he said "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality."
Source: Simon LeVay, Queer Science, MIT Press, 1996, p. 224
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer played a pivotal role in the above 1973 decision made by the APA. Spitzer used to believe homosexuals couldn't change but after studying the results of therapy he now believes homosexuals can change:
"I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change." Spitzer completely changed his mind whether or not some homosexuals can change. And then Spitzer concluded with:
"the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."Source: Spitzer made the above comments at an annual APA meeting, May 9, 2001. The study was reported in the May 9, 2001 issues of The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today and it was also released to many local newspapers via the AP. ABC, CBS, FOX and MSNBC all reported the study.
Spitzer went from believing homosexuals can't change to where they can, and then he goes so far as to say mental health professions shouldn't ban the very therapy resulting in that change. To deny this isn't a 180 degree change is to demonstrate bias beyond belief.
According to the ABC report:
"A well-designed survey, [Spitzer] said, can determine whether or not a respondent is credible. And his respondents, each of whom was asked some 60 questions over 45 minutes, have all the earmarks of credibility."In fact, he said, to dismiss his survey would be to dismiss an awful lot of psychological and psychiatric research. The methods used in designing his study are the same as those used to determine the effectiveness of drugs, he says."
Spitzer completely changed his mind as a result of the study. According to the NARTH article, Spitzer "expressed his gratitude to the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and to the ex-gay ministry Exodus, "without which this study would not have been possible."" To remain skeptical after reading the above is a choice you can make if you like living in denial.
You're misrepresenting Spitzer's capitulation. You make it sound as if he's denounced his earlier findings and has become a cheerleader for conversion therapy. That's not the case at all. I think I gave a pretty clear picture of where he stands in my previous post to you.
Again I ask, do you not think there might be potential problems with his data and the research methodology used? I know he and NARTH say there isn't, but ask anyone who's familiar with accepted research methods. It's glaringly obvious there's a problem. He based his 'new' conclusion on 45 minute telephone interviews with subjects supplied to him by proponents of conversion therapy. Still see no problem with objectivity?
It may be LeVay's opinion that the APA changed their classification of homosexuality because of political pressure. There are a number of people who seem to believe that. However, that's still just one man's opinion.
And I suppose you are aware that the two co-founders of Exodus have denounced it as a fraud, right?