{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02028397565922921, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.326923076923077, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
When therapists do not acknowledge their moral values: Green's response as a case study.

In this rejoinder to Green's (this issue) commentary on my article, I clarify several points of agreement and divergence with his critique. The failure of Green to be forthcoming about the sociopolitical and moral framework that infuses his response is unfortunately all too common in this literature. This places a limitation on the degree to which his comments can be contextually evaluated, though they remain didactically useful. Marriage and family therapists (MFTs) must realize that their underlying belief systems exact a profound influence on their conceptions about what constitutes mental health, valid treatment goals, and the best means to achieve these aims. These value frameworks may or may not be shared by religiously conservative and other clients who seek to develop their heterosexual potential. This has important, but often unrecognized, implications for clinical practice.