NARTH reports on Robert Perloff, former president of the American Psychological Association. Perloff keynoted the annual NARTH conference in mid-November.
Excerpts from Perloff:
I am here as the champion of one’s right to choose … It is my fervent belief that freedom of choice should govern one’s sexual orientation … If homosexuals choose to transform their sexuality into heterosexuality, that resolve and decision is theirs and theirs alone, and should not be tampered with by any special interest group — including the gay community…
And:
The individual’s right for self-determination of sexuality — or sexual autonomy — is, I am happy to see, inherent in NARTH’s position statement: ‘NARTH respects each client’s dignity, autonomy, and free agency…every individual has the right to claim a gay identity, or to develop their heterosexual potential. The right to seek therapy to change one’s sexual adaptation is considered self-evident and inalienable.’ I subscribe fully to the aforementioned NARTH position statement.
NARTH comments:
Noting that he was a Fellow of APA’s Lesbian and Gay division, Dr. Perloff reiterated his support for gay and lesbian issues. However, he vigorously declared his opposition to the efforts of the gay community within APA to prevent psychotherapists from accepting clients who wished to develop their heterosexual potential. Dr. Perloff articulated the following reasons for his position….
1. "The individual has the right to choose whether he or she wishes to become straight. It is his or her choice, not that of an ideologically driven interest group.
2. "To discourage a psychotherapist from undertaking a client wishing to convert, for reasons I will explain, [is] anti-research, anti-scholarship, and antithetical toward the quest for truth.
3. "To deny a client the opportunity to engage in a psychotherapeutic experience is potentially harmful to the client, who may well have emotional problems and mental health roadblocks independent of that client’s sexual orientation."
This was my favorite part:
“He commended NARTH for its position, which he views as representative of the clear majority of Americans because of the popular support for traditional marriage that was expressed in the recent national elections.
“‘NARTH,’ he added, ‘is a voice in the wilderness.'”
So which one is it?
To truly believe the humans have a right to “choose” their sexuality, NARTH would have to advocate that being gay is, or at least can be, a healthy, productive, “normal” way to live. However, the organization considers being gay an illness to be cured, so their statements fall a little flat for me.
Oh, we’re gonna hear lots of this quote in the days (years) to come.
I got some problems with words like “heterosexual potential…,” “transform their sexuality into heterosexuality…,” “change one’s sexual adaptation…, ”
these seem like some sort of RR code words. Speaking them, of course it’s his right to, seems to say a lot about an individual’s ideological perspective, not one’s understanding of medical fact.
Jason, funny you quoted that, I was about to do the same.
CPT- good point, I am not sure how this man does not see NARTH as anti-gay. Its not like they are putting out positive and negative gay messages- they only put out the negative ones.
If NARTH really wants to be honest and representative, they should 1) ask reparative groups to conduct scientific, peer reviewed studies (or they should do them themselves. 2)They should research some of the negative effects of reparative therapies (if they exist) and publish them.
Shouldn’t we have informed consent from these guys? Shouldnt someone about to go into this type of therapy know what might happen and want might not?
When I went on Accutane as a teenager, I was told that I might have to fight depression, I would not be able to drink alcohol, or eat fatty foods or else I could become very ill. They told me what might happen so I could prepare for it. For NARTH not to do the same really is harmful.
Seems like a lot of verbiage without any long-follow-up study. As we say in Missouri, “show me” – show me that 200-individual (100 treated, 100 not treated), thoroughly characterized group of non-bisexuals with 20 year follow-up. Seems to me that an oversold ineffective “therapy” could be profitable for individual practitioners….from their standpoint, why study efficacy and risk losing out on a meal ticket?
What puzzles me is that these groups all virulently oppose giving women the right to choose whether to take contraception or have an abortion, or have premarital sex. Yet they want people to have the right to “choose” to be straight. What is their reaction when people around them “choose” to be gay?