sorry – that was a mistake. I misread an entry on Ex-gay Watch – the ‘former links to Exodus’ bit was referring to Richard Cohen, not Paul Miller. Admittedly that does slightly undercut the point I was making above, too.

in friendship, Blair

just a few quick responses. At the risk of arrogance, I am aware to a degree that Abeo’s position is held by other organisations, like NARTH. You say such organisations “understand
that people can only change if they want to”, but what of the stories of ‘former ex-gays’ who testify to having desperately wanted to change, committed to it and made costly efforts to do so, but experienced no change?

You go on to say that, “The position statement straddles the individual’s personal stance and their rights under the law. the position statement looks to me as affirming a person’s right under the law to choose whatever it is they think is right for them. A good therapist understands that
coercion is out of the question in therapy”. I think you’re largely right in the way you describe their statement, but again at the risk of arrogance, this doesn’t address the argument I gave above. In straddling “the individual’s personal stance and their rights under the law”, it seems to me that Abeo ducks the question of truth, and is not consistent with its own logic. I’m not arguing for coercion, or suggesting people don’t have “the right under the law to choose whatever it is they think is right for them”. But I am saying that if Abeo, really, believes that ‘gay-affirming therapies’ are not offering what is best for men and cannot lead them to fullness of masculinity, surely it should say so and seek to persuade men who are ’content to be gay’ that they are missing out on their fulfilment. If I choose something that I think’s right for me, sure, I have the right to do so – but if friends or others who care about me see it’s not leading to my flourishing, they would likely challenge my choice. To act on its beliefs, shouldn’t Abeo do the same? (…and yes there’s a strong risk of hypocrisy for me here – I don’t always act on what I say I believe, yet here I am demanding it of others…)

You then turn to ”secular treatments” – but I would like to ask you where this comes from to be honest. It seems to me it’s very hard to think of an ‘ex-gay’ ministry or ‘therapist’ who actually is secular. I don’t think Abeo can be said to be so, given Dr Paul Miller’s background (eg former links to Exodus, training under Richard Cohen). NARTH’s Joseph Nicolosi was touted as a secular therapist by Anglican Mainstream when he came to the UK to address a conference last year – but again, I don’t think that is the case (from his writings he seems to start from something close to the ‘official’ Catholic view, and would a secularist name his clinic after St Thomas Aquinas?). You added that, “There has been a long British tradition of secular treatment for unwanted homosexuality” – but I’d like to ask you, where is this tradition and who are its ‘leading lights’?
 
 
in friendship, Blair

As for secular treatments, I personally support them. 
They can work for many people of all faiths and none.
I don’t as a Christian think that Christians should
be obstructive of secular treatment of unwanted
homosexuality. Christians have not been known to
be obstructive towards secular treatment of other
problems and in my opinion they should NOT
contribute to a cultural climate where the only
treatments for unwanted homosexuality are
spiritual ones.
It’s unfair and simply wrong that in Britain 
it is stigmatised by the general cultural climate,
when successful treatment of unwanted homosexuality
was done in Britain by no less than Anna Freud. 
There has been a long British tradition
of secular treatment for unwanted homosexuality. 
I’m sure it still goes on in private practice, and I 
hope those who want such therapy are able to find it.

I may be misreading that, but am wondering if Mrs Robinson was naive here – looks to me a little like she was goaded by Stephen Nolan.
If I remember rightly, the context was that Nolan was asking her what she meant by “abomination,” and to do that he read out a dictionary definition of “abomination.” He was repeating back to her the dictionary definition (vile, wicked, nauseating etc) and asking her if she agreed with it, although out of its context it might look like he was randomly spinning off a list of offensive adjectives.

Not exactly a class-A idea to go to a dictionary (which are often mistaken for prescriptions when they should be descriptions), but she could always just have said no. She didn’t hesitate to affirm every single aspect of the dictionary definition.