Source: wthrockmorton.blogspot.com
Late this afternoon, Dr. Warren Throckmorton wrote in his blog:
Call me crazy but I have decided not to present the Sexual Identity Therapy Guidelines at the NARTH conference in November. In addition to other reasons, I am in disbelief that the leadership of NARTH has not come out against the article by Gerald Schoenewolf regarding political correctness. I fear that this is a cloud over NARTH that can only be dispelled by decisive action and clear statements.
Dr. Throckmorton, a long time supporter of NARTH’s claimed mission, was to speak at their next conference in November. He has apparently changed his mind in the wake of NARTH’s attempt to escape accountability for the Schoenewolf document which presented a justification for slavery and, until recently, appeared on their site at narth.com.
In addition, Dr. Throckmorton writes:
Furthermore, I have been informed that David Blakeslee has resigned his membership in NARTH and the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee, in part due to the ambiguous responses from NARTH regarding the Schoenewolf controversy.
Dr. David Blakeslee has shown his dismay over this matter in posts he has made here and on NARTH’s blog. We sincerely congratulate him for making this move of conscience, though we understand that such decisions are often difficult for the individual. We are certain that Dr. Thockmorton also anquished over his decision to pull out of the next conference and we thank him for his honesty in doing so and reporting it on his blog in such a candid manor.
Only time will tell if NARTH will take responsibility for their membership; what is NARTH if not it’s members? Or if instead they will continue to disenchant their moderate, rational members until they are left only with the extremists and activists.
Again Drs. Throckmorton and Blakeslee have proven themselves to be credible and honorable. I may disagree with them on many issues but an honorable opponent is always welcome.
I’m going to strongly agree with Timothy — I can’t express the sentiment better than he did.
Well, this is a pleasant surprise but while they’ve shown credibility and honour on this issue the same can’t be said when it comes to treatment of gays, Throckmorton anyway opposes the right of gays to marry the one person they love most. I suppose it is better to only oppose gays than to oppose both gays and blacks but I won’t be inviting either man to dinner anytime soon.
Randi said:
Well, this is a pleasant surprise but while they’ve shown credibility and honour on this issue the same can’t be said when it comes to treatment of gays,…
One can hold opposing views and still be credible and honorable. It doesn’t necessarily validate the viewpoint but it does make honest debate possible.
I am impressed by Warren Throckmorton’s statement to pull out of the NARTH conference due to NARTH’s response to the racist statements in the Shoenewolf document. I hope a lot of good will come of this whole thing in the long run.
David, based on that would you say Schoenewolf is credible and honourable despite his views on slavery? If not what’s the difference between a slavery apologist and someone who opposes equal marriage for same sex couples? Both viewpoints can point to the bible for justification. To me a credible and honourable person can’t oppose a love that doesn’t hurt anyone.
Randi,
You seem to be suggesting that no one is credible and honorable unless they agree with you. How convenient.
Not everything about Drs. B and T (nor anyone else on the planet) is honorable. Everyone has faults. At best, you are bickering over a commenter’s sentence structure for failing to make “credible” and “honorable” conditional. At worst, you are presenting yourself as a know-it-all, a paragon of integrity.
Either way, the persona that you convey is unpleasant. I’m sure that’s not what you intended nor desire.
Ah Randi, you do like to get into semantics. That’s a subtle trap and I’m not stepping in. What they did to show disagreement with NARTH was honorable. I’m not going to argue with you about why holding any position with which I disagree is not the equivalent of justifying slavery.
Mike said “Not everything about Drs. B and T (nor anyone else on the planet) is honorable. Everyone has faults.”
That’s what I’m saying Mike, I’m glad we agree. I’d be the first to suggest I’m not credible and honourable without condition. I would never describe myself as a “paragon of integrity” and you can disagree with me on issues other than the equality of gays and all people and be credible and honourable. I thought the sentence structure was fine and I certainly don’t consider opposition to equal marriage a similarly trivial issue.
David, I agree that what they did to show disagreement with Narth on the handling of the slavery issue was honourable, I just wouldn’t make a blanket statement to that effect about the individuals as a whole. In thinking more about it, justifying slavery is probably not the equivalent of opposing equal marriage, but they differ in degree, not in kind.
A fresh look at the NARTH blog shows:
{{{This topic is for adult children who have been raised by gay parents. I am looking for people who are having difficulty with the experience. Not much has been said about people in your situation and you have not had much of a voice. However, now we welcome your stories and struggles. Please remember this is a public blog and your comments are read by many people. Feel free to use a screen name for confidentiality purposes.}}}
Why only the difficulties with the experience? Is it for the purpose of finding ways to help people, or for political hey to use for some specific purpose like…oh, um, let’s take a stab…discrediting gay parenting?
How about we take a note from the turtle box and ask…
{{This topic is for adult children who have been raised by religious parents. I am looking for people who are having difficulty with the experience. Not much has been said about people in your situation and you have not had much of a voice. However, now we welcome your stories and struggles. Please remember this is a public blog and your comments are read by many people. Keep your comments free from unnecessary swearing or overly graphic details.}}
I’ve had harsh words for Dr. Blakeslee in the past, so it pleases me to be able to offer words of praise. Thank you, Dr. Blakeslee for demonstrating a level of integrity that others don’t.
“I suppose it is better to only oppose gays than to oppose both gays and blacks but I won’t be inviting either man to dinner anytime soon.”
Personally, I’d rather deal with a guy who only opposes gays. I think I have a better chance of changing his opinion. 🙂
Every group has its Trail of Tears. My daughter reminded me of this a couple of years ago. I don’t think we forget, I just think we believe such events make us unique and defensive (My mom is Quaker and made many efforts during my childhood to tell me the Quaker’s “Trail of Tears” story).
I hope the Schoenwolfe “event” reminds us all of our personal and community wounding. Different stories I am sure, but similar terrors and similar isolation. I can react by being defensive and wrapping my arms around my comrades. In such a case, we may survive. Or I can respond and wrap my arms around more than my comrades and maybe, help change the world. (Cue: “We Are The World”).
I have said on other posts and on other sites that a fidelity to the truth and devotion to loving one’s neighbor as one’s self is a good cornerstone for the discussions which could follow. I think NARTH is capable of such a commitment and I hope that the current distress they have created, they will eventually correct and that in the process they will significantly rethink the way they go about reviewing and writing articles for the general public. If they do, they can be an important contributer (not sole authority) to the public discussion on same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, gay and lesbian issues.
Every group has its Trail of Tears. My daughter reminded me of this a couple of years ago. I don’t think we forget, I just think we believe such events make us unique and defensive (My mom is Quaker and made many efforts during my childhood to tell me the Quaker’s “Trail of Tears” story).
I hope the Schoenwolfe “event” reminds us all of our personal and community wounding. Different stories I am sure, but similar terrors and similar isolation. I can react by being defensive and wrapping my arms around my comrades. In such a case, we may survive. Or I can respond and wrap my arms around more than my comrades and maybe, help change the world. (Cue: “We Are The World”).
I have said on other posts and on other sites that a fidelity to the truth and devotion to loving one’s neighbor as one’s self is a good cornerstone for the discussions which could follow. I think NARTH is capable of such a commitment and I hope that the current distress they have created, they will eventually correct and that in the process they will significantly rethink the way they go about reviewing and writing articles for the general public. If they do, they can be an important contributer (not sole authority) to the public discussion on same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender, gay and lesbian issues.
David, in the spirit of loving one’s neighbour as oneself do you support the right of gays to marry the one person they love most?
Randi,
I agree that treating your neighbor as yourself includes allowing that neighbor all of the access to civil benefits that you enjoy yourself.
However, I’m not certain that marriage equality is the litmus test that differentiates between those who we respect and those we discard. If it were, there would be a great many people whom we would have to shun but with whom we might otherwise find some common ground.
We have to recall that the issue of gay couple sealing their bonds through matrimony is a very new one and not everyone has fully processed their thinking on this. I don’t happen to think that a policy change that directly effects a small percentage of the population and which would move to hold all citizens to the same standard is all that earth shattering or such a big deal. But the truth is that this issue is tied up in “culture wars” and claims of “human secularism” and debates about “lifestyles” and even carries issues of partisan loyalty and church authority.
So while I will continue to try and convince reasoning people, David Blakeslee included, that it is both socially wise and consistent with Christ’s commandments that marriage be offered (and even insisted upon) to gay couples on the same footing as straight couples, I think we can let this point go for the moment.
Perhaps marriage may not be the only litmus test.
But the creed of equality and it’s application is.
I have asked this question before: regarding whether a gay person in America is treated less than and less equally than the most reprobate heterosexual?
Is a heterosexual qualified for or against certain professional choices the way a gay person is?
The answer is certainly no.
Our society has encountered a range of gay people in every possible human condition without exception.
And regardless of the competence or commitment at hand, a gay person risks losing the most vital components of a social foundation.
THAT is anathema to compassion and common sense and reasonable legal standards that are meant to enhance social competence, not work against it.
If doctors B and T agree only that gay people can or should change.
How that disqualifies gay folks from the protections and benefits of citizenship equal to everyone else if they DON’T change is what I’d want to know.
An honorable and credible person would expect everyone to be treated as if they have the same potential regardless of orientation.
Indeed, how does any of us really know WHAT would happen if homosexuality were routinely accepted and not tampered with?
I’d really like to see that. Then I wonder just how many people would be left who’d feel any obligation whatsoever to change.
I wholeheartedly respect and appreciate Dr. Throckmorton (whom I have met) and Dr. Blakeslee for their honourable stand.
I wholeheartedly respect and appreciate Dr. Throckmorton (whom I have met) and Dr. Blakeslee for their honourable stand.