National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
Encino, California — National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) President Joseph Nicolosi and Linda Nicolosi, co-authors of A Parent’s Guide To Preventing Homosexuality, have expressed concern over the American Psychological Association’s recent endorsement of gay marriage.
The American Psychological Association issued its endorsement of gay marriage, foster parenting, and gay adoptions at its conference in Hawaii on July 29.
The APA’s endorsement was based on recommendations from the APA’s Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships, a group of gay and lesbian clinicians who have been activists in gay causes.
Dr. Nicolosi noted that although the APA considers itself a scientific organization, “They’ve let political activists take over the APA in this particular area, and these activists are giving us their own, values-laden ‘take’ on the issues.”
Nicolosi observed that because the APA has started out “with the foundational belief that there’s no real difference between the genders, then mothers and fathers start to look interchangeable. With such a worldview, gay and straight relationships look the same; then gay marriage starts to look as if it were no different from the natural, biological family.”
But the APA’s foundational beliefs are flawed, says Nicolosi. “And, when the research comes in—as indeed it has—showing gays and lesbians to be less psychologically healthy than straights, then the APA simply dismisses it, saying that the psychological problems are due solely to society’s homophobia.”
NARTH Publications Director Linda Nicolosi is equally troubled by the APA’s endorsement of gay marriage and believes the APA should openly define what it means by “healthy sexuality,” “healthy families,” “healthy development,” and “self-actualization.”
She notes, “Without agreement on these basic terms, what we have is one philosophical camp—the APA—disagreeing with another philosophical camp, the traditionalists. But the irony is, the APA gets to have the unfair advantage of calling itself ‘scientific’ while the other side is labeled ‘religious.’ In reality, the APA is recommending nothing more than its own secular humanist worldview—a worldview that most of America simply doesn’t share.”
“Nobody to Give the Other Viewpoint”
Robert Spitzer, M.D. — longtime prominent member of the American Psychiatric Association, and a strong ally of gay activists — says his own organization, the American Psychiatric Association, won’t likely change its views on gay issues and reorientation therapy.
“There’s a gay-activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association…there’s nobody to give the other viewpoint…There may be a few people…but they don’t talk.”
It is interesting to hear of the variances between secular institutions such as the APA and religious ones such as NARTH in regards to our understanding of human psychology. What one labels “neuroses” or “dysfunction” the other labels “sin”. While one may recommend Lithium or Paxil, the other may call upon an exorcist. Are the origins of physical (mental) sickness and spiritual the same, or must they be treated with the different medicines?
NARTH discredits the APA, despite the latter’s proven success in its use of psychotherapy and its recommendation of medicinal treatments for what we understand to be physical mental ailments. The APA discredits the spiritual element of organizations like NARTH, which raises the question of how they determine what “healthy mental functioning” is in the first place (against what standard are they defining this?).
I personally have little regard for NARTH and its members because they have completely rejected any claims towards the genetic origins of homosexuality, focusing instead on developmental causes.
They later contradict this by seeming to suggest that if a child grew up in a vacuum with no input as to what “normal, healthy” sexual expression consists of, that child (and all children) would “naturally” develop a heterosexual orientation (I assume this is what they mean by “natural”). How can this be explained if there were not some genetic basis for one’s orientation?
I also find NARTH to be far too simplistic in its treatments, and I also believe they overstate their “success” rates by looking at a far too narrow time window following their “cures”.
(Incidentally, one non-NARTH researcher who wrote against the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson stated that his studies reflected homosexuality to be a “complex disease” in the same vein as diabetes or color blindness. Of course this means nothing in regards to the moral issues of homosexuality. The question of whether even hardened serial killers are “born or bred” has been raised countless times, yet it certainly is irrelevant in regards to whether their actions are deranged and wrong or not.)
I’ve found M Scott Peck’s books to be an informed blend of psychology and spirituality.
Josh, I’m not sure why you would call NARTH “religious” except to bolster the APA stand. More accurate I think is NARTH’s complaint of politics driving the APA policy decision, where gay rights activists predetermined an outcome.
Further, does NARTH really label homosexuality “sin”? I don’t recall ever seeing this.
As for homosexuality having a genetic basis, no credible evidence exists that it does. Don’t forget that the APA Journal published an article a year or two ago endorsing reorientation therapy.
NARTH is not a specifically religious group, although their members have written many articles (available on the NARTH site) regarding how their religious views have impacted their professional assessments. Nothing wrong with that, of course.
However, they’re trying to pretend they are a non-religious organization offering “conversion therapy” to those who desire it based on scientific evidence that homosexuality is mentally unhealthy, even by a secular standard. To do this, they utilize the very old trick of finding “cause” when there is only correlation.
To use an analogy, African-American men, while comprising only 12% of the population, account for nearly 56% of the prison population. I would doubt that Dr. Nicolosi would suggest that black men are intrinsically more criminal, but the logic is equivalent to the conclusions NARTH draws to prove their thesis.
I actually support “conversion therapy” for those who are truly unhappy with their orientation. However, I’m going to doubt that NARTH is very discriminating as to whom they consider a suitable candidate for such therapy, although I’m willing to be proven otherwise. I’m not even sure what they consider a “success”. Changes in behavior alone does not qualify as a success to me if that person’s orientation remains fundamentally unchanged.
What I’d like to see is for NARTH to address some of the more obvious and problematic issues (like alcoholism, dependency issues, abuse) which are found in (but not specific to) gay people instead of putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.
The homosexual population suffers from some maladies at rates significantly higher than the general population (death rate, age of death, physical abuse, chemical dependencies, etc.) Whether this proves homosexual behavior is “mentally unhealthly” (a claim I am not sure NARTH would make) might be open to question, but a claim that it is physically dangerous is clear. There are high costs associated with the homosexual lifestyle (see: The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality.
The deeper question concerns your claim that NARTH “pretend(s) they are a non-religious organization.” I don’t see where their religious views ought to exclude scientific contributions, when the contributions are sound. All data is dependent on a larger narrative framework in order to give that data meaning and value. Look at the Intelligent Design debate for example. You could make the same argument against Design proponents, but you would be ignoring the fact that Darwinism is dependent on a narrative informed by nineteenth century philosophical materialism. Although the disciplines differ in this example, the underlying conflict — a clash of narrative paradigms — is similar. I touch on this theme in my review of Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. I’m sure that the APA committee that approved homosexual marriages has its own narrative framework, a point already supported by the fact that the decision has political motivations.
Fr. Hans: “There are high costs associated with the homosexual lifestyle (see: The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality.)”
Personally, I have a great distrust of any information that comes from the right-wing think-tanks. (If I ever hear of a left-wing think tank, I’ll probably distrust their information too.)
For example, the above-referenced article comes from the Family Research Council, and was written by a fellow on their payroll.
It’s one of those articles with a lot of information thrown together, but as far as I can tell, it’s only for the purpose of discrediting homosexuality; there is no purpose to it other than that. For example, I checked out one reference to an article published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. That article discusses a statistical epdemiological *model* that suggests that in a community in Canada AIDS/HIV would reduce the life expectancy of homosexual men at age 20 from between 8 and 20 years.
This is how that article is referenced in the Family Research Council article:
“Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy.”
So a theoretical model dealing with the effects of AIDS/HIV becomes a “study” seemingly of actual mortality rates, with no explanation that this is tied into the specific factor of AIDS/HIV.
This may appear to be a small distinction, but if a number of similar distinctions disappear throughout an article, you end up with disinformation. But so what? This stuff is for the consumption of the faithful. Nothing wrong with a little propaganda as long as it gets the troops fired up!
Jim: As I mentioned too (and I hate to belabor my point), there’s no distinction in the logic between using “statistics” to discredit homosexuality in its entirety and saying that because African-American men are overrepresented in prison, there’s a “link” between black skin color and crime and that getting their skin bleached would eradicate their tendencies towards crime.
Also, it’s been said that some of NARTH’s patients are as young as three years old, and that they utilize treatments such as aversion therapy which uses physical pain or illness to condition those being treated to learn to reject their impulses. I’ll admit I can only go by third party testimonials, but from the sound of it, their methods are crude and their “success” rate is nothing to boast about (30% at best by their own admission, although this is not even based on long-term studies and doesn’t include cases where the person simply doesn’t exhibit specific behavior but the core orientation is unchanged).
Perhaps this is why their claims for adhering to scientific standards are called into question.
If we’re talking a reduction in the symptoms for sex addiction (which causes people in general to put themselves in dangerous situations simply for immediate gratification) I’m all for it. Teaching people to relate on a more human level is a benefit that be obtained without neutering them, however.
Josh, any independent proof that NARTH uses “aversion therapy” on three years olds? (Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.)
Jim, one “distinction” is a long ways from ending up with “disinformation.”
I’ve found that almost no supporter of a moral parity between homosexual and heterosexual behavior is willing to confront the health related data except in the most general terms. They will either attempt to discredit the data (difficult because of lot of independent data exists), or dismiss it through dubious moralizations (for example, gay marriage will tame homosexual “promiscuity”, etc.).
BTW, mortality rates of homosexuals are significant higher than the heterosexual population, most because of AIDs. Check out this article. It’s certainly tragic, but to dismiss such data outright is burying our heads in the sand.
Fr Jacobse:
I’m trying to get very explicit info on NARTH’s methods from an independent source, although my understanding of reparative therapy is that it by nature includes aversion therapy, prayer and general counseling. Again, I am generally supportive of those organizations that offer conversion therapy and prayer to those who desire it, but for NARTH to label themselves as a scientific organization seems to be misleading when the foundations of reparative therapy by nature include methods outside the realm of most medical and psychiatric practitioners.
In regards to the health data which is touted by the FRC, I don’t think anyone’s dismissing it. I would certainly be the first one to criticize any behavior that puts oneself or others in danger, knowingly or unknowingly, and I have in the past!
That being said, the “GAY = AIDS” equation addresses only behavior, not orientation. The fact that 30% of the heterosexual population in some areas of Africa is HIV+ doesn’t seem to lead anyone to recommend that all of the residents should undergo therapy to have their heterosexual impulses removed from their psyche. They simply say that their impulses must be controlled and not acted upon indiscriminately. This is quite a distinction!
I will try to contact NARTH directly to find out what their methods consist of and will try to refrain from making any further judgments or criticisms until I know more.
Fr. Hans writes: “BTW, mortality rates of homosexuals are significantly higher than the heterosexual population, most because of AIDs. Check out this article. It’s certainly tragic, but to dismiss such data outright is burying our heads in the sand.”
Yes, that’s the same article referenced in piece by the Family Research Coucil. Your link goes to the abstract. The full article can be found at the International Journal of Epidemiology web site. (I’d post the actual link to the article, but it’s about five lines long!)
Again, the referenced article talks about the results of a statistical model applied to a community in Canada, not about the actual mortality rate. I suppose that having worked for years as a data analyst at an academic medical center, this is an important distinction for me.
Nonetheless, it’s clear that if a population of young people contracts a chronic, incurable, and potentially fatal disease, it will tend to have a shorter life span. The issue is what do you do with that information, what follows from that information.
What we do, for example, in the case of another high-risk behavion, smoking, is not to presume that the smoker is morally defective, but to introduce various educational programs, raise taxes on cigarettes, have anti-smoking health clinics, and so on.
In the case of homosexuality the problem is somewhat different. Homosexual orientation by itself is not dangerous to one’s health, though certain behaviors are. Or, even if homosexuals are more prone to, say, depression, that becomes another thing that you have to watch out for, another factor that medical providers need to pay attention to when treating the homosexual population.
But my impression of the Family Research Council article is that it is not concerned with the prevention or cure of illness. Rather, it is simply concerned with showing that homosexuality is unhealthy and abnormal so as to influence the way that people think about political issues.
But the problem is that the issues raised are to a large extent irrelevant. For example, women live longer than men. White men live longer than black men. With respect to certain diseases, being a male (heart disease), or being black (diabetes) can itself be a risk factor. Ok, great, now what? Do we conclude that the idea of the healthy black male is a “myth” that needs to be exposed and debunked? That being black is abnormal?
What’s happening in the FRC article is that medical and other kinds of information that should be used to help the homosexual community is being used to discredit them. This just seems wrong to me. Imagine that a valid scientific study showed that Orthodox believers were more prone to depression, and that this study were then used by fundamentalists to “prove” that Orthodoxy was unhealthy and unnatural. Again, I would say that this would be a misuse of the information.
In other words, there is a certain morality related to how one uses information. Information is a tool, and like most tools it can also be used as a weapon.
In other words, the intention should be to help the homosexual community. What conservative Christians currently offer is either a) reparative therapy or b) lifetime celebacy. The former is not likely to work in the vast majority of cases, and the latter is something that even many heterosexuals cannot do. To the extent that homosexual marriage would promote stable and monogamous relationships, it seems to me that this would be a good thing. Were homosexual marriage possible it could at least be presented as an alternative to a promiscuous lifestyle.
I think you are missing the point of the study. Homosexual behavior, not orientation, is the cause of the increased mortality rates and other issues addressed.
So yes, the data shows that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy, a fact that for the present is not in dispute. But to jump, as you do, into a spirited moral defense of the homosexual person strikes me as the same mistake fundamentalists make but from the other direction: people are defined solely by their sexual orientation. I call it secular fundamentalism.
I would not want to see this data buried for the sake of political expediency. It would be like burying the data that shows smoking is harmful because it might hurt the tobacco industry.
Josh,
When it comes to homosexuality, there is no such thing as a purely “scientific” position. All discussion is necessarily moral, because the homosexual question has social ramifications that reach beyond the behavior of two people. It’s unavoidable. This is one reason why it is such a hot button issue. You see this in Jim’s response above where he goes from an examination of the data into a moral defense of the homosexual person, as well as in his suspicion that my use of the data is to condemn the homosexual (which I have not done, and actually don’t do).
As for AIDS in Africa, Uganda has achieved remarkable success in lowering the transmission rate of HIV (50% in eight years). How do they do it? Read this article.
I looked up “reparative therapy” in an online dictionary:
It is thus defined:
“Reparative therapy uses a number of techniques, including counselling, aversion therapy, male bonding, fasting, reading scripture, and prayer.”
I sent a note to NARTH inquiring as to what their therapies consisted of, but they never responded, so I’ll stick to this third-party definition. Given what reparative therapy entails, how can they not be considered a religious organization?
Again, I have no qualms about religious organizations offering such therapy, but NARTH should be honest about its approach and I do not understand their hesitation in admitting to utilizing religious therapies.
As a footnote: I agree that the APA is a secular institution and as such, will use different criteria to define mental and psychological health than would a religious organization. I think one can, however, be mentally and emotionally healthy in that one can function normally in society and still not be “spiritually” healthy. We would expect our religious institutions to instill the virtues necessary for the latter while groups like the APA simply enable people to reach a functioning level of mental stability.
Big difference.
Hospitals hire chaplains, and many doctors are aware that patients who pray often heal faster. Are they a religious organization?
It seems you think that psychological therapy is “scientific” in the sense that it involves only observable and quantifiable data. It doesn’t. It always involves morals, values, beliefs, assumptions, goals — all sorts of unquantifiables, which is why the values and assumptions of the therapist always plays a significant role in the outcome of the therapy.
On the other hand, perhaps you believe that any reference to God is out of bounds in therapy. But again, when dealing with unquantifiables, reference to an outside and transcendent authority in some manner is inevitable.