This is in response to the letter by Jack Drescher, M.D., in the July 2, 2000, issue on reparative therapy. In that letter, Dr. Drescher states, "Some reparative therapists themselves practice sexual politics, albeit on the side opposing gay and lesbian civil rights." He goes on to state that "some reparative therapists endorse criminalizing homosexuality. . . ."

As executive director of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the nation’s only professional association dedicated solely to the research and treatment of homosexuality (sometimes known as "reparative therapy"), I would like point out that NARTH does not believe that homosexual practice should be criminalized. Nor do we support the retention of antisodomy laws. Furthermore, the view that homosexuality is a developmental disorder and treatable condition should not be equated with "being against the civil rights of homosexuals."

Legal cases now in the courts do not concern whether gays should be stripped of their civil rights or should have them. The issue is much more complicated: it typically concerns the way the civil-rights laws will be interpreted. Is it just and fair to set up special quota systems to ensure a certain proportion of gays in government job settings? Do homosexuals experience such economic disadvantage that they should be singled out as a protected class of citizens? Saying "no" to such interpretations of the civil-rights laws does not mean that one is "against the civil rights of homosexuals."

Furthermore, there is the larger question as to whether, in general, the law should legitimatize homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality. Our laws cannot be neutral on these issues; the law must inevitably decide (indeed, as it has always done) whether to tolerate or to affirm certain behaviors and lifestyles. When we legitimize gay marriage and adoption and decide (in spite of the overwhelming evidence) that all types of family forms are equally vital to the health of the community and therefore should be given legal recognition, aren’t we making foolish decisions that will negatively impact our communal life?

We believe harm would be done if our laws were to affirm homosexuality as indistinguishable from heterosexuality. Children would be adopted by gay couples, whose households are by definition irrevocably motherless or fatherless; greater numbers of sexually confused youth would be encouraged to assume gay identities; we would be forced to teach homosexuality as normative in the public schools; and there would be a further erosion of the nuclear family as the foundation of society.

Gay psychiatrists readily offer the courts their own views, and the national psychological and psychiatric associations take positions on a host of controversial social issues that relate to pending legal cases. We believe it is NARTH’s responsibility to counter gay-activist testimony with our perspective, which gay activists call "heterosexist," but which has long served as a foundation of Western civilization and cannot be discarded with mere impunity.

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

Executive Director

NARTH