Talk:Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity

What country
What country is it based in? Burlap bags (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Slander article written by a kook
"The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a non-profit religious organization established in 1992 by three discredited psychologists/psychiatrists" is nothing but slander/libel. NARTH is a secular organization, furthermore the psychiatrists behind it are not "discredited". Basically homosexuals don't like it when they find a secular (non-religious) scientific organization that produces research like Narth showing homosexuality to be a mental disorder, its laughable that the article writer had to resort to posting NARTH is a religious organization. It was founded by Atheists. Dust77 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahahaha, no. Take it up with the RMF and they'll decide if your claim has any basis, and what action to take from there. Until then, the article remains as is.--Madman (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * I'm pretty sure that's not how we're handling these things. Ikanreed (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Madman (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * Now... there's a second question that isn't necessarily about strictly defamatory statements. They claim to be secular, and the charge that the organization is religious organization is misleading.  They have many ties to religious anti-gay organizations.  Do you have a recommendation about how this should be rephrased?  Ikanreed (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * “We, as citizens, need to articulate God’s intent for human sexuality,” Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH, said in CNN’ 360 Degrees with Anderson Cooper, April 14, 2007. At the Feb. 10, 2007 Love Won Out conference in Phoenix, the “secular” therapist told the audience, “When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.” Confronted with protesters at their 2006 national conference in Orlando, NARTH instructed its members to “sing a hymn or pray instead,” according to Mother Jones magazine, in its Sept.-Oct. 2007 issue.. By the by, it was founded by Catholics, specifically two Roman Catholics and an Orthodox Catholic. --Castaigne (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah stuff like that is why I'm not inclined to just remove the "religious" part. But at the same time, they assert their secularity, as an organization.  Just point our their claims and the contrary evidence to those claims?  Ikanreed (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That would seem reasonable to me. Along with the name change. --Castaigne (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is trying to make out NARTH holds an extreme fringe position. Not true. There are a lot of psychiatrists who still regard homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology

This isn't like consensus on evolution and non-existence of human races among biologists (99.99%). There's a sizable chunk of psychiatrists, probably 20-30% who reject or question the consensus that homosexuality is normal. Homosexuals obviously don't like this research or data, and so all they can do is try to discredit those scientists who argue homosexuality is a mental disorder as being religious nutjobs (when most aren't). Its childish slander. Dust77 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 20-30% of all psychiatrists? Uh, what's your citation on that? Because I really have a hard time believing that around a third of all psychiatrists are a) some and b) consider the APA and WHO to be wrongity-wrong-wrong. The only psychiatrists that I have seen that still support the viewpoint that homosexuality is a mental disorder are either a) members of fringe groups like Scientology and Syanon, or b) who receive their funding primarily from organizations like the American Family Association and/or have a vested financial interest in reparative therapy.
 * So, show your sources on your statements, please. And make sure they're credible. --Castaigne (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, I find it interesting that the judge in the New Jersey reparative therapy case has disallowed "gay therapy experts" from NARTH to testify, on the basis that they fail the Daubert standard. So some commentary/sources on why that's wrong would be interesting too. --Castaigne (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Name Change
A quick Googling says they changed their name to "The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity." I do not currently have the time to update it myself though Trick (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-Freudian slip
Applying 'creative misinterpretation' - They wish to apply the therapy of homosexuality. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The group's new name is extremely misleading (probably the point)
With a name like Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity, someone who is unaware of their activities might believe that they are an organization that advocates integrity and ethics in therapy. What is it with these groups using misleading names? --USDA Certified Organic (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)