The U.S.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has just released its long-awaited comprehensive review of over 125 years of scientific research on homosexuality, reports Family Watch International.
This groundbreaking report, “What Research Shows,” dispels the myths that are commonly used to promote the legalization of same-sex marriage and the mainstreaming of homosexuality throughout society and in the public schools by force of law.
NARTH is a professional association of scientists and mental health professionals whose stated mission is to conduct and disseminate scientific research on homosexuality, promote effective treatment, and to protect the right of individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction to receive effective care.
While one might think that such a mission would be viewed as both commendable and relatively non-controversial, the reality is just the opposite. Homosexual activists try to suppress research on same-sex attraction because one of the pillars of homosexual advocacy is the falsehood that homosexuals are “born that way” and cannot change their orientation. Since the NARTH report proves that homosexuality can be changed through therapy in the same way conditions like alcoholism and other addictions can be changed, the whole case for mainstreaming homosexuality into society crumbles. Another myth the NARTH report disproves is that therapy to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction is ineffective and even harmful.
The extensive research and clinical experience reviewed by NARTH makes it clear even to a layman that these claims are false. Homosexual activists spread these misconceptions about homosexuality and even persecute their own who seek treatment because they know that public opinion polls show that people who believe homosexuals are born that way are more likely to support the homosexual agenda. NARTH is one of the very few credible, professional organizations anywhere in the world that is successfully challenging this propaganda.
Specifically, the NARTH report substantiates the following conclusions:
1. There is substantial evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
“Treatment success for clients seeking to change unwanted homosexuality and develop their heterosexual potential has been documented in the professional and research literature since the late 19th century. …125 years of clinical and scientific reports which document those professionally-assisted and other attempts at volitional change from homosexuality toward heterosexuality has been successful for many and that such change continues to be possible for those who are motivated to try.”
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation have not been shown to be consistently harmful or to regularly lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
“We acknowledge that change in sexual orientation may be difficult to attain. As with other difficult challenges and behavioral patterns—such as low-self-esteem, abuse of alcohol, social phobias, eating disorders, or borderline personality disorder, as well as sexual compulsions and addictions—change through therapy does not come easily.”
“We conclude that the documented benefits of reorientation therapy—and the lack of its documented general harmfulness—support its continued availability to clients who exercise their right of therapeutic autonomy and self-determination through ethically informed consent.”
The NARTH report warns that “The limited body of clinical reports that claim that harm is possible—if not probable— if a person simply attempts to change typically were written by gay activist professionals.”
3. There is significantly greater medical, psychological, and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.
“Researchers have shown that medical, psychological and relationship pathology within the homosexual community is more prevalent than within the general population. …In some cases, homosexual men are at greater risk than homosexual women and heterosexual men, while in other cases homosexual women are more at risk than homosexual men and heterosexual women. …Overall, many of these problematic behaviors and psychological dysfunctions are experienced among homosexuals at about three times the prevalence found in the general population—and sometimes much more. …We believe that no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”
You can read NARTH’s executive summary of the report on our Web site here.
Report from the Christian Telegraph
Even if people agree with you myself i disagree. What do you mean that is not treatable? Does she seek for therapeutic help?
We are not living in a world of disorder but of order and we cannot be influenced by some people philosophy. We leave for each other and the joy or sadness of others may touch me as human being with reason. So, i think that you are a bit wrong by saying that “you have no business snooping into other people`s sex lives”.
I believe in nature and homosexuality is completely bad and there is no way to promote and support it.
Well, firstly this article is a report on some research into the matter. Like many research findings into many things there are those that agree with the research findings and others that don’t – and people are entitled to their opinions, which is why I often allow comments that are opposed to my thoughts (and in this case, those of the article I posted) to be posted here. I don’t allow offensive comments, as these are not generally helpful to anyone.
I too know homosexual people and have at times been relatively close to one or two. Generally I would say that I don’t have any close friends that are involved in that chosen lifestyle. It is not a lifestyle that I am interested in and not one that I agree with.
Having said that however, there are many sorts of lifestyles that don’t interest me and many that I don’t agree with, as I am sure is the case with many people. I would view the homosexual lifestyle as being on the same footing as any other lifestyle that is outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ and people who want to live in that manner are quite free to do so – it is their choice.
However, when that lifestyle seeks to play a part within the Christian community, that is another matter completely. Why? Because it is opposed to the clear teaching of the Bible and a choice must be made. To continue in that lifestyle you must continue outside of the Christian church. To enter the Christian church you must choose to remove yourself from that lifestyle, just as you must from many other types of living that are opposed to Biblical teachings.
If you don’t like that scenario than keep out of the church. You are quite free to continue in your chosen lifestyle outside of the church.
Why is there intolerance? Christians seek to live according to the rule of Scripture and anything opposed to that is not acceptable. However, Christians ought not to project their practices onto unbelievers/non-Christians, just as we wouldn’t expect it to be the other way around.
To be an all loving God does not mean to be ab all tolerating God. There are rules that he has laid down and there are consequences for living in a way opposed to those rules. Weak views of God as a God of love who tolerates anything and everything is not the God of love that the Bible speaks of.
Um, I have homosexual friends, and yeah, it isn’t treatable and I really wish people would stop referring to it and acting as if it is some horrible disease that must be ‘cured’. It isn’t going away, you have no business snooping into other people’s sex lives, and lots of people share my opinion on the matter. Why is there so much intolerance in a faith that declares that their God is an all-loving God?