I received the following from NARTH (the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality). There are a few things about it with which I disagree or rather concerning which I would add qualifying language, such as concerning the term "biological." Homosexuality is biologically based in certain senses; however, the biology (the actual matter, of the brain and other tissues, is subject to change through practice and conditioning, etc.).
Several other points:
- I do not hold with coercion. (NARTH's position is not coercive.)
- This information should not be censored.
- I am not endorsing secular candidates for secular offices.
- By agreeing (albeit with certain perhaps minor qualifications) concerning this one issue, I am not necessarily agreeing concerning any other issue or issue(s).
- This is not an exhaustive list.
Presidential politics places NARTH issues on front page!
In the past week, presidential candidate Congresswoman Michelle Bachman has been attacked because her husband, psychologist Marcus Bachman, allegedly does "reparative therapy" for those who come to his Christian counseling clinic seeking assistance with unwanted homosexuality. Almost simultaneously, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was asked in an interview if he thought homosexuality was a choice. Both campaigns reacted with statements that mirror information familiar to NARTH members and supporters. In short, they responded that counseling clients have a right to seek assistance for their unwanted homosexual attractions and science does not support the "born that way" mantra used to promote the gay political agenda.
In recent years, people have tried to marginalize therapists who provide psychological care for clients distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions; yet, change therapies have been offered for the past century and have been found to be successful. In fact, over the past 125 years, change of sexual orientation has been documented via case studies, clinical reports, and research studies (NARTH, 2009). It is clear that change of both behavior and attractions is indeed possible.
Although many people have been misled to believe that homosexuality is biologically based and therefore unchangeable, researchers acknowledge that people are not simply born homosexual. Researchers have never found a biological basis for homosexuality (APA, 2008). Anyone familiar with the research knows clearly that many factors contribute to sexual orientation. There are many pathways into and out of homosexuality.
Therapy for unwanted homosexual attractions is no different than therapy for any other issue. Therapists who offer psychological care for clients distressed by homosexual attractions typically offer mainstream approaches to therapy. Approaches to therapy include Interpersonal Therapy, Object Relations Therapy, Psychodynamic Therapy, Cognitive Therapy, Family Therapy, EMDR, trauma-based therapies, and others. NARTH therapists are fully licensed professionals who represent the major mental health organizations and who abide by the highest standards of ethical care.
NARTH supports the freedom of individuals to claim a homosexual identity or to explore their unwanted attractions and make changes in their lives. Clients have the right to self-determination. Ethically, therapists must honor the client's right to choose his or her own goals, or the therapist must refer to another therapist who can do so. Ethical therapists support their clients in achieving their stated goals, including goals to move beyond a homosexual orientation.
NARTH supports the rights of clients to pursue psychological care for unwanted homosexual attractions and the rights of professionally qualified individuals to provide such care. Those candidates in the public spotlight, and it will get far more intense as we get closer to election-day, are to be congratulated for sticking to the science and supporting client rights no matter how politically incorrect it is to defend truth and freedom regarding homosexuality.
American Psychological Association (APA) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns (2008). Answers to your questions for a better understanding of sexual orientation & homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf.
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Committee (2009). What research shows: NARTH's response to the American Psychological Association's (APA) claims on homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 1-128.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)