A paeaphrase from Pat condell I’ve used many times illustrates this:

When someone tells you that you are dirty, sick, unclean, and especially, sinful and in need to salvation (which they offer, of course, at a price) it is the biggest mistake in the world to assume that 1) it’s true, and 2) that they are telling you for your benefit, and not for their own. The concept of sin, especially YOUR sin, becomes the expression of their will and their way of seeing the world, and if it is making you unhappy, or interfering with your life, then that is probably a good test of its truth and its value. You pay the price with happiness in your life, while they reap the benefits– or, validation– and the “glory”.

And where I work now.
American Idol expects their potential performers to have clean backgrounds. Several of them have gotten notice for being under warrants for anything from parking/traffic tickets to petty theft and assault…or, posing for racy pictures.

Universal has similar expectations of THEIR performers. We are in sensitive situations with children and the handicapped. And because it’s a diverse and open place that encourages ALL to apply to work there, those who harbor prejudice or hostility against the LGBT, women or the handicapped need not apply or are carefully weeded out during probation.

Which leads me to this issue of NARTH and EXODUS and so on.
A gay person, dealing with the fear of rejection, exposure, insecurity, prejudice and self doubt, is EXTREMELY vulnerable.

The lightweight dictum of NARTH that they ‘help those dealing with unwanted same sex attraction’ aren’t even ADDRESSING the reasons in the proper context in the first place.
So if you’re not, then you’ll inevitably apply the WRONG methods, focus and information towards that individual.

And WE all know that on it’s face, such therapy is exploiting all that I listed above, rather than looking to alleviate it properly.

A person who doesn’t have cancer doesn’t need chemo therapy and there is no doctor in the world that should insist a person has cancer when they don’t, and insist they should have chemo therapy when they don’t need it, and doing all this because the person seeking their help is AFRAID OF CANCER.

See what I mean?

A therapist like that would be committing something especially unethical and that NARTH or any similar entity gets away with is shows just how sturdy and pernicious the prejudice and assumptions about homosexuality are, regardless how detrimental it all is.

They deserve scrutiny and to be shut down, just as a fake oncologist would who exploits fears of cancer would be.
And if we lived in a society that was eager to take away the civil and human rights of people with cancer, or those THOUGHT to have it or who were at risk of getting it, then the fake oncologist would be considered exceptionally CRUEL, not compassionate.

There are laws against fake doctors, fake diagnosis and fake approaches to issues that don’t require their services, whether fake OR not.

So, why IS it so hard for these people to be held accountable? Because exploiting the especially vulnerable is tactically something NO professional would or should do in the first place.

Yes, because heaven forbid someone actually investigate the activities of professionals and report their unethical behavior to the appropriate professional organizations. I mean, the very idea of holding therapists accountable for their actions is preposterous, no?

Is it the embarrassing sham study in conducted to preempt the APA report last year? This “study” included aversion therapy to show that “Change is Possible”. They tried to pass off this joke as “peer review”.

Which brings me to the basic point — NARTH does not do real research. It essentially repackages old studies and presents their anachronistic findings as new evidence. So, we can’t debate NARTH on the peer review research, as they suggest, because they don’t have any. Should we also engage them on the symphonies they have not yet created, the movies they have filmed or the ballets they have produced? With NARTH, there is no there, there.

When discussing the “research” and the “science”, maybe it is talking about the time the group blatantly distorted the findings of Lisa Diamond?

Let’s face it, NARTH is a shady group of snake oil salesmen. NARTH defending itself on the basis of science is like Ben & Jerry defending its ice cream on the merits of how it will help you lose weight. Please….

Whem Julie Hamilton says that “NARTH does not rise or fall based on the actions of individuals”, who is she kidding. It is nothing, if not a collection of irresponsible or avaricious individuals who peddle junk science and mindless myths for personal gain. Arthur Abba Goldberg is indicative (on a much larger scale) of the moral turpitude of NARTH therapists, who are all running a scheme. They are all offering therapeutic promises they cannot deliver and making money on a faulty product.

Finally, just for the record, Truth Wins Out did not plan the West Palm Beach rally. I was not personally there, however one of our board members was on-hand. The protest was, indeed, planned and put together by eager college students. Thus, hardly an evil plot by seasoned gay advocates. Shame on NARTH for trying to portray these teenagers and young twenty-somethings a some sort of scheming cabal.

NARTH is truly a pathetic quack organization whose initial response to the Goldberg scandal shows its true colors.

“its about the science” they say? Hahahahahahahhaahaha

Julie Hamilton: NARTH does not rise or fall based on the actions of individuals. NARTH is a scientific organization upholding the research behind the issue of homosexuality and defending the rights of clients to seek therapy for unwanted homosexual attractions. NARTH is not responsible for the actions of its members, nor do the actions of NARTH members change the scientific data. The research stands regardless of the attacks launched by activists who are avoiding the data by focusing on individuals. Emotionally based campaigns and character assassinations do not change the research, nor do they diminish the right of clients to pursue their personal goals. NARTH will continue its mission as a scientific organization despite the propaganda, and the research will continue to speak for itself.

Apparently the Goldberg exposé touched a nerve.

I fully agree. “should they exist” should have been the last three words of that sentence. Thank you for catching that.

raises the worry that they are not detecting any previous convictions by other members of NARTH for rape, child abuse, stalking, domestic violence or other serious crimes.

I would add “should they exist” to that sentence as we have no idea if any of their other members were convicted of anything. Unfortunately, apparently neither does NARTH. That is even worse when it comes to organization officers.