NOM BLOG

What's Next (and Next). NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Just about 75 days until the Supreme Court rules on the fate of marriage for a generation. Now is the time for you to act!

If you've signed the petition to the Supreme Court, thank you.

Can you ask 3 friends today to sign the petition as well?

If you haven't yet signed—go right now, and make your voice heard!

More "Inevitable" State Battles...

Deep in blue states, gay marriage advocates are pushing hard to get another victory, to feed their narrative of "inevitability" in the weeks before the Supreme Court decides the fate of marriage for a generation.

Right now the battle for marriage is engaged in Rhode Island, Illinois, and Delaware. Gay marriage advocates expected these battles in deep blue states to be slam-dunks.

But thanks to the generous donations of thousands of Americans who give to NOM's general treasury and trust us to be at the forefront of the most important fights for marriage—the good people in these states are not fighting alone.

The "slam dunk" in Illinois, which was supposed to showcase turncoat Republicans' embrace of gay marriage, is turning into a big problem, as black pastors in Chicago have made it clear they expect their elected representatives to represent them, not the DNC or George Soros, or the mainstream media.

In Rhode Island, what ought to be another "slam dunk" is turning into a real dog fight. NOM's Chris Plante is helping lead the fight.

We expect more battles to emerge across the country, especially after the Supreme Court ruling re-ignites the fight!

New Matching Gift Campaign

And thankfully an amazingly generous donor has stepped forward to help you make a difference for marriage:

Between now and the Supreme Court ruling, this donor has agreed to match every donation—dollar-for-dollar!—that you or a friend make for marriage.

That's right—your gift of $33 becomes $66 in the fight for marriage;

A gift of $100 will become $200; $500 becomes $1,000;

And, if God has blessed you with the means, $5,000 becomes $10,000!

Donate Now

And all of it, every precious penny you worked so hard to earn and save, will be carefully stewarded, gratefully treasured and put to the best possible use in fighting for marriage.

Time, treasure, talent, that's what the Lord asks of all of us. If you cannot be with the good people fighting for marriage, on the steps of the Supreme Court and beyond, you can help NOM amplify their voices, to make your own voice for marriage heard in the halls of power across this great and blessed country of ours!

The Intolerance of the "Tolerant"

Let me share with you the story of what people on the front lines face at this point. And what great people are at the forefront of that fight.

My friend Peter Wolfgang of the amazing Connecticut Family Institute received death threats for opposing homosexual marriage. This week the man who sent those threats was sentenced to five year probation by a federal judge.

Assistant Federal Defender Gary D. Weinberger said he "was touched" by the letter sent to the judge by Lawrence Taffner, who is operations director for the Connecticut Family Institute which spoke of the need to temper justice with mercy and prayers.

My friend, the one whose life and family was threatened, said he agreed with "every word."

"I do forgive [the man who made the death threats]" Peter said. But he also asked us all to be aware of a "a growing campaign of intimidation with respect to those of us who advocate traditional values, in an effort to silence us. And we will not be silenced."

Wolfgang said he learned of [the man's] intention to plead guilty to mailing the threats on the same day last August that Floyd Lee Corkins II was charged in the non-fatal shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

(If you'd like to donate to the Connecticut Family Institute you can do so by clicking here.)

Peter is right this is not an isolated case. Most gay people, I like to remind myself and you, are law-abiding people, our neighbors and fellow citizens whom we can respect even while we profoundly disagree with them on marriage. But what may be an organized minority are issuing increasingly ugly complaints and threats against their fellow citizens who stand up for marriage. Their goal? To silence dissent.

Just a few days ago we received a letter from a 17 year old, who posted a petition supporting marriage on Facebook. What happened next has been the experience of too many good people:

I got a slew of nasty and threatening comments. I was called many things and one even implied that I believed in slavery since I did not support gay marriage. But the one that took the cake was when one of them said that 'I hope a gay guy rapes you so you understand that they can't do anything to you, except rape you. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, it doesn't hurt anyone but butt hurt civil war jerk offs.' I simple wanted to tell my story in hopes that others learn that they are not alone in this.

What kind of advocate hopes a 17 year boy is raped?

We cannot let the ugly threats of a tiny minority prevent us from standing up for what is true and good and right about marriage.

What's Coming Next?

What's next if we don't stand?

This week the polygamists and the polyamorists came out of the closet to stake their claim to undefining marriage.

The Economist bold headline said it all "Gay Marriage: And Now On to Polygamy!"

The writer finally admitted what so many gay marriage advocates deny and suppress—changing the definition of marriage is a big deal:

Obviously the legalization of same-sex marriage represents a major change in the institution and in the meaning of the word, much as the meaning of phrases like 'all men are created equal' changed significantly when they began to be understood to include, say, women. For people who have a strongly gendered understanding of their own marriage, this is a paradigm shift. The government is now saying it understands marriage as a long-term legal commitment between two people who are assumed to have a sexually attached relationship to each other. Gender is irrelevant; marriage is simply a paired relationship. It's a big deal when social institutions change this way, and if conservative heterosexuals feel their marriages are affected, they're right, even when the way they phrase their complaints is wrong.

"But 'why only two?' isn't a ridiculous question," The Economist acknowledges. "Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?" they ask, describing an unwillingness to consider recognizing polygamy as mere "cultural prejudice."

(As one young supporter of marriage asked me "Is it still a slippery slope if your opponents start calling for it?")

That same week, Slate weighed in with an essay headlined "Legalize Polygamy!" She actually writes, "marriage is plastic."

Marriage is plastic, in their view. Marriage is just a word for government politicians to take over and define and redefine and undefine in response to aggressive claims of folks who don't want to marry, and they want the government's help in forcing all of us to view their relationships as marriage.

Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let's fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let's keep fighting. We're not done yet.

The Illinois Family Institute published a transcript from a radio interview with lesbian journalist Masha Gessen:

It's a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. ... [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

Two gay marriage advocates in one week admitting gay marriage will change marriage—wow the truth will come out, won't it?

She goes on to say:

I don't like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That's sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don't see why they shouldn't have five parents legally... I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby's biological father is my brother, and my daughter's biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three... And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage.

You may not have heard of Ms. Gessen, but she is not some outlier. She was appointed by the Obama administration in 2012 to head up Radio Liberty's Russian service and she blogs at the New York Times Latitude blog.

The Economist admits gay marriage fundamentally changes marriage. A New York Times blogger says she's tired of lying about what gay marriage means for marriage; what the future she is trying to build holds.

Superlawyers Stumped

Truth is breaking out all over!

Ed Whelan points out that the renewed interest in the consequences of "marriage equality" for polygamous marriage was actually spurred in part by the oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ted Olson:

Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked — and — and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

Alleged superlawyer Olson's response is lame to say the least: "If a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status." Marrying one man is status, marrying two women is conduct.

What's left?

Youth On The March For Marriage

Enjoy this photo of one of our youngest next gen leaders in Minnesota, protesting the gay marriage bill which as the Minnesota Family Council points out "quite literally would remove the terms 'husband,' 'wife,' 'bride,' and 'groom' from our state's policies, and also redefine 'mother' and 'father' as gender-neutral terms."

Talk about speaking truth to power!

Part of the good news I see emerging is a new generation of young leaders for marriage.

Here in America the Baptist Press reports on the brave young Americans who refuse to be silenced. "They exist: Millennials opposed to gay marriage" as the headline says, and the Baptist Press story notes that it was NOM's March for Marriage that brought a number of these young leaders out of the closet.

"Called to speak at the March 26 marriage rally in Washington, D.C., Alison Howard ran to the stage's microphone in an adrenaline-fueled burst. The 24-year-old graduate of Liberty University said she wanted to 'talk to the grown-ups" supporting traditional marriage at the event on the National Mall.

"Do not give up on us young people," said the communications director for Concerned Women for America. "The media will tell you that I don't exist. Well, I'll be the unicorn. I do exist, and I believe in the marriage between a man and a woman."

It would be easy to dismiss Howard's plea as a voice crying in the wilderness. A recent Pew survey found that 70 percent of those in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 33) favor same-sex marriage. But the same poll shows that 65 percent of young evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage. And a number of them, like Howard, are willing to face scorn by taking very public stands against the redefinition of society's most basic institution.

Many of them did not grow up expecting to stand on the front lines of the marriage debate. "Everyone I know who is working on this issue would rather be doing something else," said Ryan Anderson, 31, who co-authored the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. "But we feel like we have an obligation to be doing this."

The Baptist Press reported on several other next gen leaders who Marched for Marriage with us.

Hours before Anderson's televised showdown, Owen Strachan had positioned himself for his own marriage clash. The 31-year-old father of two had flown into Washington the day before the rally from Louisville, KY, where he is a professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College. He maneuvered his way to the second row of marchers headed past the U.S. Capitol toward the Supreme Court. Hispanics, Asians and African Americans strode alongside him.

'This reflects the diversity of the body of Christ,' he thought.

When they turned onto the street that runs past the court, they ran into a blockade of gay marriage supporters trying to halt the march. The counter-protestors refused to move. A man in fishnet stockings, devil horns, and a rainbow-colored tutu danced and taunted the marchers. In the midst of the chaos, Strachan and the others offered a unified response: They knelt where they stood and prayed aloud.

Some truths will not be suppressed! Some truths are too important to let die. And in the end I believe—I know—truth spoken in love will prevail.

Expect The Unexpected

A tiny sign of the times took place lack week at Princeton University, where a friend of NOM wrote to tell us that the distinguished debating society Whig-Clio sponsored a student debate on gay marriage. The vote at Princeton on marriage? 43 in favor—41 against. Among America's best and brightest, new concerns for what gay marriage will mean for marriage—for them, their children and their children's children, are brewing.

One thing I know from my 6 years at the forefront of this fight, thanks to your help and support for the National Organization for Marriage:

Expect the unexpected!

More Young People "Causing Problems"

In France spontaneous peaceful demonstrations by young people protesting their government's determination to ignore the voice of the people is causing headaches across the country:

"Since last Friday, public demonstrations against same-sex "marriage" and adoption in France have been escalating, not only in Paris but also in remote provincial towns and even abroad among French expatriates," reports Lifesite News. "The Senate's approval of the gay marriage bill (known as the 'loi Taubira,' after the Justice Minister that proposed the text to the legislature) has sparked off a wave of anger, and groups of determined young people all over the country have decided to make their presence felt."

For the government, this is becoming a major headache:

There is no centralized organization behind the rallies to look to for information about the next action, no unified group to follow, no 'youths' who are 'well known by the police,' as is the case when ethnic riots burst out in Paris. The demonstrators are law-abiding citizens who have no wish to steal, vandalize or hurt the law enforcement officers. They are massively answering calls to join spur-of-the-moment demonstrations via their cell phones and social media. They are in the streets to stop a law that they believe would badly hurt the common good, and they are prepared to give their time, efforts and even a few hours in custody to put a stop to the redefinition of marriage.

(If you want to follow these underreported events in France you can see photos and videos by "Salon Beige" a newsblog here.)

These young people are making sure government officials' support for gay marriage is not forgotten.

Each time a member of government visits a provincial town dozens of young and less young people bearing flags of the 'Manif pour tous' are on the spot to greet the official party; several visits have been cancelled. The Interior minister Manuel Valls' visit to a concert on Sunday evening in Paris was protected by 30 police vans and several people who joined the protests were arrested. Passers-by who had no idea of what was going on were also arrested in the melee. A growing number of police and 'gendarmes' are voicing their irritation about orders coming from the government to repress the movement with exceptional severity.

Violence did break out but not from the pro-marriage protestors.

In the small hours of Saturday, a leading member of the 'Manif pour tous,' Samuel Lafont, was knifed several times in the center of Paris after pro-gay 'marriage' activists had called for violence against him on Twitter. While his alleged aggressors are apparently not linked to the pro-gay movement in any way – they are Brazilians who were arrested on Sunday afternoon – outrageous remarks from the pro-gay 'marriage' lobby hoping he would die triggered a new series of demonstrations in the center of Paris on Sunday.

Courage, gaiety, light-heartedness and youth: these are the marks of a gallant French resistance that is vexing the powers that be, baffling the police and surprising the world. Something has changed deeply in France since nearly 40 years ago when the legalization of abortion was met with much less opposition and amidst near silence from the Catholic Church. Now many bishops are speaking out — and the communications revolution has given new power to ordinary citizens.

Change is coming, something new is stirring. The truth will win out.

Thank you again from the bottom of my heart for all or your support, your prayers, your notes of encouragement, your willingness to take action (like signing the petition) through the years.

You are such a blessing to me, to NOM, to this great country of ours.

It is an honor to serve with you in this great and noble fight for marriage.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

27 Comments

  1. Chris
    Posted April 18, 2013 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    Out of curiosity, how is this not "cringe-inducing" to see such a young child used like this in the marriage debate? Regardless of what side you fall on, you must agree that it is unacceptable to use children as pawns like this

  2. David Broadus
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Speaking of 'Truth wins out': Former ex-gay poster boy John Paulk has just released the following statement: "I no longer support the ex-gay movement or efforts to attempt to change individuals — especially teens who already feel insecure and alienated. I feel great sorrow over the pain that has been caused when my words were misconstrued."
    Please also note that John and his then wife split from Exodus International when Alan Chambers began to tell the truth, that reparative therapy and “ex-gay” ministries do not change anyone’s sexuality. John now lives openly as a gay man.
    It is time for you to accept that there is no such thing as 'gay reparative therapy'. No legitimate medical body or practitioner believes in such a thing, and those who make their living from this 'industry' sooner or later find themselves renouncing the practice after being caught out in scandal, or finally finding a conscience. What will it take to you people understand?

  3. David Broadus
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    John Paulk was at one time the most well known and influential person in the “ex-gay” industry, appearing on the cover of Newsweek with his wife Anne in 1998 under the headline, “Gay For Life?” He was instrumental in forming the Love Won Out “ex-gay” roadshow, which subjected countless LGBT youth and their families to misinformation, indoctrination and lies, and which destroyed many families in the process.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Accusing their victims of the crime they themselves are guilty of is the first line of defense in their quest to create willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.

    Bastardizing language so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity serves to prove that their proclivity is indefensable on its own merits.

    These miscreants seek to block out the light of truth.

  5. leehawks
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    This piece covers a lot of topics but has nothing to do with ex-gays or reparitive therapy so why are you bringing it up here?

  6. David Broadus
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Randy: whatever it is your were trying to say has nothing to do with the fact that another 'champion' of ex-gay therapy has come out to tell you it's hogwash. I'm imagining you going on national television and talking about 'depravity'. How do you think the general public - mainstream America - would respond to that? Can you even imagine anyone doing that? If someone were on tv speaking about appearing at an anti-gay rally they would be soundly booed and probably run off the show. Yet when people speak about their support of gay marriage they meet thunderous applause. Now I'm bringing this up because you still steadfastly state that the general public is on your side. That ship has sailed, buddy.
    Leehawks: why not bring it up here? It's breaking news (unlike yesterday's 'announcement' from NOM about Canada which was actually from 2011), and it's a topic that is at the very heart of the NOM cause.

  7. Garrett
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3TB_wry5o4U/UXFN5xlecJI/AAAAAAACYjM/oIoZbeGgGu4/s1600/NOMfrancecheer.jpg

  8. Richard
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Garrett. This is the true face of anti-gay virulence whether it's delivered on this site by the likes of Randy and Tom or on the streets in France. It has always been obvious that the true aggressors are gay haters.

  9. Richard
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if NOM will ever condemn the French violence perpetrated in the name of religion.

  10. Ash
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Great newsletter, Brian.

    It's a shame that such vile comments were leveled at that 17 year old marriage supporter, though not shocking. Yet another mentally ill SSMer who supports rape--so long as a teenager who opposes redefining marriage is the victim.

  11. Randy E King
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    @ David,

    Abraham Lincolns 'Gettysburg Address' was me with defining silence; Adolf Hitler's speech's were met with thunderous applause.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Correction: deafening silence...

  13. Randy E King
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    @Richard,

    When did it become a crime to hate the sexually depraved?

  14. Posted April 19, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    David,

    There are plenty of people who had a homosexuality problem who have done different kinds of therapy and, contrary to your claims, discovered plenty of underlying psychological problems and deforming personal experiences that cumulated in them developing their homosexual problem.

    Apparently you hate listening to what they say or to what their therapists say.

    Just this week, there was this comment:

    "As a psychotherapist who has worked with a good number of gay and lesbian clients over the years,
    ..., in my clinical experience I can attest that all of the gay men I have worked with were well aware that something about them was “different” by about age 8 to 10, and they often have accounts of a sensed mismatch with their father–not necessarily an abusive or really compromised relationship, although that certainly happens–from a very early stage."

    There is a stark difference between what people who investigate the psychology of homosexuals know and lay people, like yourself, who insist they know it all, without ever investigating a single case of homosexuality, and not having any professional capability to do any such investigation.

    Formative relationships profoundly impact the development of adult dynamics in relating to others. And this may very well generate problems in sexuality - since the basis of any sexual interaction are relationships (including those of perverted or degenerated kind).

  15. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 19, 2013 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Brian.

    I was struck by this comment by Ms. Gessen:

    "I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby's biological father is my brother, and my daughter's biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father."

    She believes this is a "family" that should be legally recognized. I consider it a dysfunctional mess. Those children will no doubt grow up feeling alienated and disconnected, at best.

  16. Ash
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 3:06 am | Permalink

    @David,

    “What will it take to you people understand?”

    What will it take to make you understand this simple fact: if you don’t approve of attempts to change one’s sexual orientation, then don’t participate in such efforts.

    To launch a campaign to eliminate the practice just because you don’t approve of it is like saying that no one should be allowed to eat doughnuts because you’re on a diet!

  17. Robert
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Ash, people are worried about the harm of reparative therapy, not that they merely disapprove of it. What decent person would allow therapy that actually harms someone?? That violates any possible code of medical or therapy ethics!

  18. Randy E King
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Robert,

    People are also worried about the potential harm of exposing their children to the sexual predators you whore for; yet you see nothing wrong with forcing other people's children into the waiting arms of their tormentors.

  19. Ash
    Posted April 20, 2013 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    Robert, we don't know whether SOCE harms individuals. Even the APA doesn't know. They just claim that there isn't sufficient evidence to know whether it works, and they advise clients to avoid programs that categorize homosexuality as a mental disorder.

    What's unethical is for psychologists to only allow politically correct choices for their clients. Apparently, it's so harmful for a person to attempt to shift their sexual desires, but not harmful for a physically healthy person to amputate themselves in order to live life as the "opposite sex"!

    Marriage supporters may want to read the document below featuring Dr. Nicolas Cummings, former APA president. He is well known for his criticisms of the APA's political correctness, but supports ssm and once acted to have homosexuality removed from the mental illness annals.

    http://www.drthrockmorton.com/APAneworleans.pdf

    Dr. Cummings notes on page 7 that the APA came within a hair's breadth of declaring SOCE unethical by a council vote. But, oddly enough, at that time, they had yet to deem the practice of "rebirthing" unethical, though it resulted in a child's death. Mismatched priorities.

  20. Chris
    Posted April 21, 2013 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    Randy E King once again proves his ignorance and conflates gays with predators. I applaud you and wish you would get on TV, it would be very entertaining to watch

  21. Randy E King
    Posted April 21, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    @Chris,

    What else would you call those that hide behind the mask of bastardized words...?

  22. Robert
    Posted April 21, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Ash, there's general consensus among legitimate therapists that reparative therapy poses more risks than rewards. Since there's nothing wrong with being gay, one wonders why any reputable therapist would risk harming a client to change something that doesn't need to be changed, especially minor-aged clients, aka, children.

    For all the insults hurled at gays about harming children, I find it interesting that religio-homophobes have no concerns about therapy that harms children.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted April 21, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    Are you saying that the APA does not represent legitimist therapists...?

    People would not be accusing perverts of harming children if it were not for the fact that they actually do harm children.

    The reason why people profile is because the people they profile fit the profile.

  24. Ash
    Posted April 21, 2013 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Robert, if a client is dissatisfied with their sexual attractions, then that's a good enough reason for the therapist to help them in attempts to change their orientation.

    Leave consenting adults to direct their lives the way they see fit. If someone doesn't see anything wrong with being gay, then that's their opinion. They should not be able to tell others what they can and cannot do.

    If a parent can allow a doctor to give hormone blockers to their transgender child and engage in the potentially harmful act of dressing as the opposite sex in public, then parents should also be trusted to make decisions for their child about other matters.

    The Supreme Court has long recognized the rights of parents to maintain the "care, custody and control of their children."

  25. Robert
    Posted April 22, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    "if a client is dissatisfied with their sexual attractions, then that's a good enough reason for the therapist to help them in attempts to change their orientation. "

    Actually, it's not. You don't know much about therapy, do you? Therapists routinely question the motives of those seeking change, whether it's sexual orientation or breast size. Since there's nothing wrong with being gay, a reputable therapist would like counsel a patient on dealing with his or her sexual orientation as it is, rather than try to change it.

  26. Ash
    Posted April 22, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    "Since there's nothing wrong with being gay, a reputable therapist would like counsel a patient on dealing with his or her sexual orientation as it is, rather than try to change it."

    That's called "gay affirmative psychotherapy." It is one of the options available to clients, and the APA endorses it. But it's not the only option, nor should it be forced on clients resolute about changing their sexual attractions.

    There's a difference between probing to see why the person wants to change and walling off options to them out of political correctness. That's a perfect example of a therapist imposing his or her preferences on a client: "I think gay is good, therefore you just need to learn how to deal with it as it is."

  27. Chairm
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    The criticism of reparative therapy are outdated. This form of therapy has come a very long way, as can be expected, with practice and with refining of both theory and method.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.