Friday, February 13, 2009

Op-Ed: NARTH Not Wrong to Counterbalance PFLAG Agenda; Question Scientific Data

Narth and the Gay Rights Agenda   In a recent newsletter put out by NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality)  a Philadelphia physician is taking issue with school curricula which focuses on tolerance and a positive perspective on homosexual relations.  Citing Gender Identity Disorder or GID,  Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons sets forth a rejoinder to the "born that way"  argument of gay advocates,  saying  that there are familial and social reasons why one might drift into same-sex attractions.    He also disputes the idea,  set forth by gay activists,   that gay relationships are similar to heterosexual ones.  He asserts that while the latter have an abuse rate of about 7 %, same-sex relationships have an abuse rate in the range of 33-55%.

  He also challenges scientific data and research methodology of gay advocacy groups,  who have claimed that same sex relationships are as exclusive and long lasting as heterosexual marriage,  and that two fathers or mothers are as good as a husband and wife.  Not the case,  according to Fitzgibbons, and many have felt all along that  data was counterintuitive, and that the cheery agenda of the pro-gay groups might be hiding a sinister underside. 

Certainly throughout the 1990s,  organizations such as PFLAG ( Parents and Family, Friends of Lesbians and Gays) , bolstered by books such as Virtually Normal  by Andrew Sullivan,  made vast strides within the public domain and in public education,  causing acceptance of homosexuality as just something " a bit different"  but quite close to heterosexuality , to soar in public opinion polls.  It signified a major advance for the gay agenda and for gay rights.   Now however,  it seems its shadow side may be fast catching up with it.

Of course,  free and rigorous debate is the mark of a democratic society, and challenges to one's research ought always to be welcomed.  If corrections must be made,  all to the good to get it out in the open.  If not,  then NARTH's challenges will only strengthen gay rights,  if disproved,  and cause the pro-gay argument to become more robust.

  Many people I have discussed gay rights with always felt that the gay marriage agenda contained the seeds of its own destruction,  and that philosophically,  the love argument was weak.  It was as though those who wanted gay relationships decided that it followed that it was also good for children and society to want them.  That in itself was highly suspicious. And charges of "homophobia"  against those who question whether gay marriage might not ecaserbate already high rates of divorce and familial breakdown and confusion  -  actually a very strong secular argument,  totally independent of the Christian evangelicals and other religious nay sayers  -  have lost the power to persuade.   In addition,  many would agree with Dr. Fitzgibbons that while it may be true that gays are bullied and teased at school,  one can strongly condemn this,  and encourage kindness and emapthy, without having to promote the gay agenda.    In any case,  let us welcome the counterview,  and keep a keen eye on the  conflict as it unfolds.    Ours is a new age,  and Barack Obama turned the page for many of us.  Our children's future must not be left to partisan agendas, after all.

No comments:

Under New Influence