I am writing to both Benjamin Kaufman's letter in TAP (29/4) and the advertisement on the same page for NARTH's Conference on Homosexuality.

Dr. Kaufman writes that Dr. Roughton “tries to suppress any further debate on the health issue of homosexuality, even to the point of making wild accusations against those who disagree with him and dare to voice their opinions in a scientific, legislative, or public forum.” Dr. Kaufman need look no further than his own backyard to see how debate can be stifled.

I am enclosing a photocopy of a letter from Joseph Nicolosi, secretary-treasurer of NARTH. The letter is addressed to Charles Silverstein, an openly gay psychologist who has written extensively on affirmative treatment of lesbians and gay men.

In response to Dr. Silverstein's application for membership in NARTH, Dr. Nicolosi wrote: “We are sorry to deny your request for membership into NARTH. We consider your professional views and objectives as too radically opposed to ours.” Please note that a “scientific” organization that chooses members on the basis of its views sounds remarkably like the type of organization Dr. Kaufman rails against in his unflattering caricature of The American's Committee on Issues of Homosexuality.

NARTH's political agenda includes the repeal of existing civil rights for lesbians and gay men. Furthermore, as Dr. Roughton has pointed out, not only have the psychoanalytic members of NARTH testified against Colorado's Proposition One, Charles Socarides submitted an affidavit supporting the Tennessee sodomy laws, one which was ultimately rejected by the Tennessee court. When Dr. Kaufman piously reminds us that “gays continue to endure pain from society's discriminatory practices,” I say spare us your crocodile tears. Finally, the support of TAP for such an organization through the promotion of its conferences speaks louder to lesbian and gay mental health professionals than all the honeyed words about “change” and “progress” within the American Psychoanalytic Association.

Jack Drescher