This is certainly a bogus claim if I ever saw one. It's clear from NARTH's website that they have no problem with researching their own success rates and publishing the results. No, it is certainly not they who are afraid to find out the true numbers.......
Near the end of one of those webpages you asked me to read is this revealing quote -
"NARTH asked the American Psychological Association to join with them in conducting such a study. But the APA has refused to participate."
Hmmm. What is the APA afraid of finding out, I wonder? If they are truly interested in the pursuit of scientific truth, then what is preventing them from taking advantage of this opportunity offered to them on a silver platter to prove or disprove NARTH's claims? I think we all know the answer to that ---- politics! In light of this inexcusable behavior of the APA, I find it ironic in the extreme that you can make claims like these -
.... considering the blatant politicization of "reparative therapy"
........ This whole "change" discussion has been thoroughly politicized.
Please tell me once again, just WHICH side is interested in science and which side is interested in politics?
I should point out though, that the religioustolerance.org webpages you asked me to read are mostly 1 to 1-1/2 years old, but based on the latest postings on NARTH, it appears now that a number of the powers-that-be at APA are changing their tune more than a little bit!
(BTW, the "creative logic" - so to speak - appearing on the webpages you reference above is quite impressive. Also, I got quite a chuckle out of the two ads that appeared on the first page I read through on this, err, umm, Enlightened Religious website. The first ad starts off with -
"Love Spells & Love Spell Kits - Purchase powerful love spells and spell kits to help you find--and keep--the love of your life. Also try our horoscopes, good luck charms, ....."
and the second one reads -
"Free Online Ordination - Become a legally ordained clergy person - for free online. Perform weddings, baby namings and religious services....."
I'm surprised they didn't add to the weddings and baby-namings list something like, "Speak with religious authority on the topic of alleged anti-homosexual passages in scripture!"
But anyway, quite an interesting website. Thank you for this pointer!)
"I don't think that any study on this therapy by its proponents has ever been published in the most respected journals"
How could you fail to notice that on this exact same discussion thread, just 12 posts above your latest post, is an article entitled - "Gay-To-Straight Research Published In APA Journal"??
Or perhaps I failed to grok what your definition of "most respected journal" is? Perhaps you were thinking more along the lines of The Advocate, or The Washington Blade?
The proponents apparently can't even decide what the word "gay" means...
And your point is ........... what? Has ANY OTHER group involved in this debate - whether psychologists or the most radical of the pro-gay activist groups - ever come together and agreed on an exact definition of what "gay" means? Do you truly think anyone ever will?
A GAY man enters the "therapy," and when he leaves he is STILL gay but has decided to remain celibate.
So, you have decided to define "gay" entirely as an urge rather than as a behavior! You totally discount his celibacy - i.e. his NEWLY CHOSEN BEHAVIOR - in determining whether he is defined as a "gay".
By this logic, my father-in-law would still be defined as a "smoker" seven years after his last cigarette, because even at that late date he still felt the nicotine urge come upon him now and again. If you were around before he died, you could have told him, "Sorry, buddy - I know that you THINK you're not a smoker any more, but your urges betray you! You still are a smoker whether you admit to it or not. Sorry to have to tell you this, but your hard-fought, painful struggle against nicotine that resulted in *NO* cigarettes for the last 7 years doesn't count for anything in the end. Because BEHAVIOR doesn't matter in determining what label we can slap on you! Only your URGES are of any significance in this determination."
And by your logic, 100% of heterosexuals are adulterers. And 100% are polygamists/polyandrists as well, because it doesn't matter if they've never committed the actual act of adultery; it doesn't matter if they've never even seriously contemplated the act. It doesn't matter if they've never "lusted" after someone other than their spouse. And even if they're someone who has worked so hard on self-control so that every time their brain calls attention to an attractive member of the opposite sex they immediately turn away and divert their thoughts to something else, it still makes no difference in the end! The only really important fact here is that at SOME level of their brain there is a hardwired attraction to ALL good-looking members of the opposite sex. If they could only wise up and stop denying the existence of these hidden urges and start acting on the urges (thus being "True To Themselves"), it would demonstrate once and for all that all heterosexuals are adulterers.
But in the end, why am I so concerned about logic or facts, anyway??? What does logic have to do with anything when debating with Politically Correct Thought? "We're Liberals! We feel, therefore we don't need to think! " Sighhhh......