Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

NARTH To Export Ex-Gay Message To London

Jim Burroway

April 21st, 2009

PinkNews is reporting that two American ex-gay proponents will conduct a conference in London this coming weekend. The conference is sponsored by an organization called Anglican Mainstream, which seeks to push the Anglican mainstream to the far right.

Speaking at the conference will be Joseph Nicolosi, a co-founder and past President of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). He is well-known for his “reparative therapy,” which blames a male child’s homosexuality on the father. He is fond of telling stunned audiences, “Fathers, if you don’t hug your sons another man will” Nicolosi used to be a featured speaker at Love Won Out conferences in the U.S. until he displayed his famous temper on CNN.

Jeffrey Satinover is the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, in which he contends that homosexuality was improperly declassified by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental illness. He contends that there is no such thing as “sexual orientation,” and therefore there should be no civil rights extended for something that doesn’t exist. This line is now a pervasive theme in ex-gay circles.

The conference is to be held at a thus-far undisclosed location in central London. Anglican Mainstream, despite its name, is a far-right organization which cites the work of discredited “researcher” Paul Cameron, as well as holocaust revisionist Scott Lively.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Stefano A
April 21st, 2009 | LINK

The conference is to be held at a thus-far undisclosed location in central London.

UK Gay News reported on 18 April that conference co-ordinator Lisa Nolland said in an email to a reader who passed it on to UK Gay News the conference will be staged at the Emmanuel Centre in Marsham Street.

This is the second time Anglican Mainstream has staged such a conference. In June 2007, Anglican Mainstream, together with other groups, brought Dr Nicolosi to London for a conference entitled Time for Truth: Is Gay Real? More than 100 attended.

That event was reported by Pink Therapy. (The UK’s largest independent therapy organisation working with gender and sexual minority clients.)

Johnson
April 21st, 2009 | LINK

Sounds to me like business isn’t so good right now here in the US, so these quacks must export their pseudo “science” and hate abroad.

Priya Lynn
April 21st, 2009 | LINK

[Jeffery Santinover] contends that there is no such thing as “sexual orientation,” and therefore there should be no civil rights extended for something that doesn’t exist.

By the same token there would be no such thing as a religious orientation so there should be no civil rights extended for something that doesn’t exist, like Christians.

David C.
April 21st, 2009 | LINK

By the same token there would be no such thing as a religious orientation so there should be no civil rights extended for something that doesn’t exist, like Christians. —Priya Lynn

Sound reasoning has never been a hallmark of any anti- or ex-gay groups that I am familiar with. That observation extends to their supporters and those that seek validation for their witch hunts and persecution of gay people. Evidently, Anglican Mainstream can now be added to the list.

Tavdy
April 21st, 2009 | LINK

“the Emmanuel Centre in Marsham Street.” – Stefano A

Marsham Street is in southern Westminster, a short walk from the Houses of Parliament. It’s a good place to stage an event of this kind – there are loads of government buildings in that area, so security is quite high compared to other parts of London, which can deter protesters.

There is a protest being organised – Peterson Toscano (who is touring the UK from this weekend) sent out a message on facebook about a protest being staged at the Emmanuel Centre on Saturday, staring at 1pm. There’s more info on this facebook page. (sorry to non-facebookers, that’s the only page I know of that has any info)

Andrew Conte
April 21st, 2009 | LINK

My father hugged me till I was blue in the face…..guess what…I’m gay.

Kristie
April 21st, 2009 | LINK

So the UK won’t allow the Phelps nutcases from Westboro Baptist Church into the country, but they still allow these idiots in? Seems a little unfair to me. Just because these guys don’t carry “God Hates Fags!” signs and talk about how God is punishing the US because we don’t burn gays at the stake or whatever, doesn’t mean that they aren’t still spewing hate-speech and inciting prejudice.

I guess it’s true about the squeaky wheel getting the grease. The loud mouthed, obviously crazy anti-gay types get noticed and rejected (by people with braind), but the smooth-talking, well-dressed, seemingly reasonable ones don’t raise any alarms. I hope people protest and bring attention to these jerks and their hateful twisting of the truth.

Lynn David
April 22nd, 2009 | LINK

Someone should be there and bring up the several studies which Dr Throckmorton [wthrockmorton.com] now says falsify Nicolosi’s hypothesis about homosexuality in males. I wonder what Nicolosi would do if confronted with that.

Lynn David
April 22nd, 2009 | LINK

Dr Throckmorton has created a page which is that grouping of studies which he reasons should falsify the reparative drive ideas of Nicolosi. That page is at:
http://wthrockmorton.com/reparative-therapy-information/

Should anyone be at a talk Nicolosi might give, this information would be a fine way to confront the man and his ideas in any question and answer sesssion which may follow. That is if Nicolosi might allow such, he might go the way of so many of fundie-ilk and “disable the comments.” But should he take questions…. fire away!

quo III
April 22nd, 2009 | LINK

Theories like Nicolosi’s tend to annoy people, so it’s not surprising that they try to come up with quick and easy ways to debunk them. The kind of arguments presented are always presented in a self-satisfied way, rarely represent the views they criticise properly, and make for a lot of dangerously over-simplified thinking about psychology.

That link doesn’t seem to work, by the way.

quo III
April 23rd, 2009 | LINK

I managed to access Throckmorton’s anti-reparative therapy site. He writes there, ‘However, while for some people unfavorable attachments could be relevant, the study indicated that there was no one set of environmental experiences which associated with homosexuality, as predicted by reparative theory.’

Throckmorton is wrong about what reparative therapy predicts, as one can see by looking at Nicolosi’s book on preventing homosexuality. He writes on page 74, “Of course, the common syndrome of the triadic family, combined with temperamental boyhood gender nonconformity, should not be considered the only route to homosexuality. There are other pathways, which no doubt involve somewhat different parenting styles…”, etc.

Throckmorton can’t be taken at all seriously as a critic of reparative therapists views on the causes of homosexuality.

William
April 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Yes, I agree: theories like Nicolosi’s do tend to annoy people. They’re about as credible as the vague spirit messages that so many platform mediums give you at their demonstrations of “clairvoyance”, but for those homosexual people who swallow them, they’re likely seriously to damage, or to damage still further, their relationship with their parents. They sure as hell won’t change anyone’s sexual orientation.

quo III
April 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Nicolosi’s theories have a lot of truth to them. I find that they fit my experience fairly closely, and he does have good sources to back them up.

Timothy Kincaid
April 23rd, 2009 | LINK

No, quo.

Nicolosi does not have “good sources” to back up his claims. He has no credible sources at all to back up his claims.

quo III
April 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Yes, Timothy, Nicolosi does have good sources for his views on the causes of homosexuality, including Fisher and Greenberg. Nicolosi deserves praise for having the courage to articulate unpopular truths.

Emily K
April 23rd, 2009 | LINK

don’t you get it, Timothy? If it’s true for quo, it’s true for ALL homos! He’s the only source we need! Nicolosi has the courage to articulate such “unpopular truths” so valiantly, like when he threw that tantrum on CNN, remember? Mommy and Daddy hugged me a lot when I was a kid but I still turned out gayer than Ellen’s Birckenstocks. Huh! Well I must be a freak, rather than any kind of “proof” that blows apart Nicolosi’s childish gender stereotyping theories.

grantdale
April 23rd, 2009 | LINK

quo III — Fisher and Greenberg cannot be the source of Nicolosi’s views. They made no such conclusion: the distortion is his alone.

Rather than rely on Nicolosi, go read them for yourself. A stopped clock is also ‘correct’ twice a day — but is useless for telling the time with.

Your history will also match that which can be described for a percentage of heterosexuals too. Using Nicolosi’s warped logic… why, therefore, are you not heterosexual?

quo III
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

Grantdale, I haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about. I said that Nicolosi had several sources, Fisher and Greenberg among them, and this is true. I have no idea what “conclusion” you claim Fisher and Greenberg did not make or what “distortion” you think Nicolosi is guilty of.

William
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

“Nicolosi deserves praise for having the courage to articulate unpopular truths.”

It’s putting it a bit strongly to describe crackpot theories as “unpopular truths”.

grantdale
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

quo II

Of course “you have have no idea” and of course you “haven’t got the slightest idea” what we’re talking about.

That much is plainly obvious. It always is.

Until you can actually be bothered to read the source documents you pretend quote you are quoting from… you are talking from ignorance. It’s also a form of fraud, because you are being less than honest. We don’t like that. We like that less than dealing with genuinely stupid people.

Read Fisher and Greenberg, if you must. Until you have done that, don’t pretend to ‘expertly’ quote them in support of Nicolosi. Fisher and Greenberg provide no support for Nicolosi’s crackpot ideas — in fact, they offer the opposite.

Fisher and Greenberg (who were exploring Freud’s ideas, rather than homosexuality per se) are one of the prime sources behind the idea that having a gay son may cause a father to withdraw: an idea in complete contradiction to Nicolosi’s whimsy.

That’s right quo III — Fisher and Greenberg actually ALSO contradict Nicolosi. I don’t expect he told you about that, hmmm?

(and thank-you William for the reminder … and we agree, we don’t use ‘crackpot’ as often as we perhaps should in these forums. A fine line between accuracy and wearing the term out… if you know what I mean.)

ps: quo III, given you also match the childhood profiles of many heterosexuals… we’re still awaiting your answer as to why you are not heterosexual. Perhaps you need ask your doctor first, and that’s fine — we’ll wait. We’ll be standing next to the cracked pot wearing a red carnation when you are ready.

William
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

Yes, grantdale, I’m sure that you’re right and that quo III does match the childhood profiles of many heterosexuals, but of course Nicolosi’s theory would ignore such cases. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Men mark when they hit, and never mark when they miss.”

grantdale
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

William,

Yes, indeed, and that is exactly what Nicolosi operates. He fails because there is no science to be found in anecdotes, and no science to back his anecdotes.

Nicolosi might as well be selling magnetic pillows on late-night television. That’s how much ‘science’ is involved.

And thanks for the quote: Francis Bacon was a very intelligent man. For all that the Elizabethan age he lived in meant… he’s a personal mentor (well he cannot be, he’s dead; but you get what I mean).

If nothing else, he was both spiritual and ALSO a voice against superstition in an age when people got burned as witches. His philosophical commitment to the first graspings at the scientific method continue to have enormous influence to this day — we are all still influenced by his approach.

Apart from that, if nothing else, dear old Francis is proof enough that old gay men should never marry 14 year old girls… even if they feel they ‘have to’.

(Who did he think he was — a break-away Mormon in Nevada???)

Some things are not just, and gay men marrying women is but one of them.

The only truly funny thing that his wife was titled “Lady Bacon”.

Good Lord. Could life be so cruel — married to a gay man AND with a title only a twisted drag queen from Omaha in the early 1990’s could happily adopt???

Timothy Kincaid
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

Nicolosi might as well be selling magnetic pillows on late-night television. That’s how much ’science’ is involved.

That deserved to be repeated.

And the comparison is apt. As with the magnetic pillow hawkers, he has many testimonials like those who are convinced that magnets saved them from cancer or helped their arthritis or, perhaps, are turning them heterosexual.

quo III
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

Grantdale,

I didn’t understand what you were talking about because you expressed yourselves unclearly and in a way that didn’t seem altogether grammatical.

‘Until you can actually be bothered to read the source documents you pretend quote you are quoting from… you are talking from ignorance. It’s also a form of fraud, because you are being less than honest. We don’t like that. ‘

I beg your pardon? I didn’t claim to offer any quote from anything in any of my posts in this discussion. You’re welcome to dislike anything you want. I dislike being misrepresented (as well as ungrammatical and unclear comments).

‘Fisher and Greenberg (who were exploring Freud’s ideas, rather than homosexuality per se) are one of the prime sources behind the idea that having a gay son may cause a father to withdraw: an idea in complete contradiction to Nicolosi’s whimsy.’

There’s no difference between testing Freud’s ideas about homosexuality and exploring homosexuality. If what you are trying to claim is that Fisher and Greenberg argue that in all situations when homosexual sons are distant from their fathers, that this is because the father is withdrawing from his son due to his gayness, then you are mistaken.

I’ll look up Fisher and Greenberg again and prove as much. I don’t have the books immediately at hand, but can consult a library.

Your question about why I’m not heterosexual is foolish. You seem to be convinced that because no particular family type automatically causes homosexuality, that therefore people’s relationships with their parents cannot have any effect upon their children’s sexuality. This is a classic fallacy, and the reasons why it’s a fallacy are perfectly obvious. It is simply not valid, as a general rule, to suppose that because A does not always lead to B, that it can never lead to B under any circumstances.

quo III
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

Nicolosi quotes Fisher and Greenberg in chapter 4 of A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality (“The reports concerning the male homosexual’s view of his father are overwhelmingly supportive of Freud’s hypothesis”, etc, p. 73).

If you want to show that somehow Nicolosi is misrepresenting Fisher and Greenberg, you’re welcome to try. What Nicolosi in fact does is to say that Fisher and Greenberg’s findings fit his theory – not that they themselves support it.

quo III
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

‘ You seem to be convinced that because no particular family type automatically causes homosexuality, that therefore people’s relationships with their parents cannot have any effect upon their children’s sexuality. ‘ The addition of the word “children’s” there was a slip, but you can see what I’m saying.

John
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

The other minor problem with Nicolosi is that there is no convincing evidence that he has managed to cure anyone of their homosexuality. He has had years to demonstrate the effectiveness of his brilliant insight and intervention, yet there is nothing… It is a little troubling after all these many years.

Emily K
April 24th, 2009 | LINK

Well, you can’t cure someone unless they’re sick. And homosexuality isn’t a sickness.

Steven Milverton
April 26th, 2009 | LINK

Nicolosi in the BBC news and BBC radio:

http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=197&avap=1

http://www.ccfon.org/mediacentre.php?avid=196&avap=1

quo III
April 26th, 2009 | LINK

I had a careful look at Freud Scientifically Reappraised. I will grant that the way Nicolosi quotes this book is slightly misleading. The passage Nicolosi quotes is actually Fisher and Greenberg themselves quoting their own earlier book The Scientific Credibility of Freud’s Theories and Therapy. Fisher and Greenberg quote that passage to show what their views were in the late 1970s, and they contrast that with their current views in Freud Scientifically Reappraised.

This is unfortunate, but it does not affect Nicolosi’s conclusions in any significant way. Fisher and Greenberg certainly see the evidence as suggesting that children are more likely to become homosexual if they have poor relationships with their fathers, although they’re careful to stress that this does not necessarily happen for precisely the reasons that Freud thought it did.

Fisher and Greenberg do not say that if fathers have poor relationships with their homosexual sons, this is because the son’s gayness is making the father distant rather than the other way around; in fact they don’t even mention that idea. So there is no problem with Nicolosi using them as a source; their conclusions are similar to his.

Emily K
April 26th, 2009 | LINK

What I want to know is where the hell are his records? Where does Nicolosi keep track of all his “success stories?” If they really exist, then they’ll be studied. Jones & Yarhouse is the best they’ve done, and even with their flawed research “success” was what, 11%?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.