from Social Issues
NARTH's president Joseph Nicolosi responded with the following letter (which the Monitor chose not to publish):
To: Sara Martin, Editor
Monitor on Psychology
750 First St., NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
Dear Ms. Martin:
In your April issue, Dr. Linda Garnets of UCLA ("Our Erotic Personalities Are Unique as our Fingerprints,") says that limiting ourselves to heterosexuality places an unnecessary constriction on human potential. When we overcome our fears of homosexual expression, we will discover rich, creative possibilities.
Thus Dr. Garnets makes a statement of scientific fact (that people are capable of a wide range of sexual responsiveness) and then slips directly into an area that is the realm of philosophy and ethics (her judgment that sexual diversity is good). She ignores the is/ought distinction -- that "what is" is not necessarily "what ought to be."
Science cannot, of course, tell us whether a heterosexual ethic -- or a celebration of sexual diversity -- is right or wrong.
Still, had Dr. Garnets called instead for a monagamous, heterosexual ethic, she would have been dismissed as a heterosexist whose opinions should be limited to Sunday sermons. But when a psychologist's moral prescription calls for celebration of sexual diversity, her work is uncontroversial and is assumed to be a pronouncement of science. One cannot help but be taken by the irony.
Sincerely,
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.