NARTH warns that a pro-gay"philosophy usually includes the redefinition of marriage; the disparagement of genderdifferences as arbitrary 'social constructs'; the undermining of family and religiousauthority with the substitution of a different set of standards; and the idea thathomosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality" (NARTH, p. 9). This statementembodies the tactic of demonizing and vilifying the deviants to enforce traditional genderand sexual constructs by pointing to the many ways in which homosexuality threatens todestroy society. To begin, "the gay philosophy" (which they sat down as a collective andwrote in the spring of 1967) stated here, threatens to "redefine" the institution of(heterosexual) marriage - the pillar establishment that exemplifies approved gender rolesin our society. The undermining of family and religious authority serves to show thathomosexuals are breaking down two of the utmost important institutions in society (thefamily and religion), in addition to going against authority. It is also sure to affirm the"normal" and enforce boundaries by questioning the idea of variability in humansexuality. NARTH also presents "evidence" against homosexuality by posinghypothetical questions and providing responses supported by "science" as if they are hardirrefutable facts. Even more disturbing though, is this recommendation for teachingabout homosexuality that ties into the following discussion of the psychology field: "Wehaven't learned from science that 'homosexuality is as healthy as heterosexuality.' Viewsabout what constitutes psychological health are always based on some system ofphilosophy and morality. By itself, science cannot distinguish good from bad, right fromwrong, healthy from unhealthy" (NARTH, p.9). This supports a notion that science isobjective and unbiased, has no moral agenda, only reports the facts, and makes nojudgements. This is an interesting premise - let's see if it holds t...
