I received a Facebook comment from a Facebook friend of mine. Since he said that I should post CAMFT's cite/URL, I am reproducing his statements/question here and am responding here as well. The post he commented about is this one: Revealing the lies of the Homosexualists: IIRTH Ethical Complaint Against San Francisco Psychotherapists - YouTube.
Here's Steven's comment on my wide-open Facebook Wall:
I am compelled to comment.
1. It would be good for you to include a link to the SF CAMFT site: http://www.sfcamft.org/.
2. The CAMFT statement does not seem offensive to me. It does not appear to be denying the possibility of reparative therapy. "Affirmative multiculturally competent and client-centered approaches" does not equal "gay-affirmative therapy."
3. NARTH and IIRTH certainly have a right to express their opinions, and you have the right to report on that. I believe that you did not fairly present SF CAMFT's position.
4. Exactly what is the meaning of "homosexualist"? You seem to use it as a pejorative.
The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) reaffirms its respect of human diversity, including gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. CAMFT affirms that same-sex sexual attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity.
That's not "gay-affirming" to you? Come on. That is affirming. How can you read it any other way?
CAMFT acknowledges that current cultural prejudice about same-sex sexual orientation compels some clients to seek out sexual orientation change due to personal, family, or religious conflicts, or to better fit into some cultural and religious norms. CAMFT is concerned about children and youth, who are especially vulnerable to harm and who lack adequate legal protection from involuntary or coercive treatment and whose parents and guardians may not have accurate information to make informed decisions regarding the child's development and well-being.
Wow, is that ever loaded. It assumes that people don't instinctively know that there is something decidedly wrong with homosex. It also completely ignores the harm done by leaving vulnerable children on their own when those children have been neglected and/or sexually abused into homosexual behavior.
National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and others cite peer-reviewed research on their sites that runs contrary to the view that homosexuality is a positive variation of human sexuality. It is that scientific research and reporting that homosexualists seek to censor and in some cases, make illegal.
CAMFT advises mental health professionals that do provide assistance to those who seek sexual orientation change, to do so by utilizing affirmative multiculturally competent and client-centered approaches that recognize the negative impact of social stigma on sexual minorities and balance ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence (sic), justice, and respect for people's rights and dignity.
So, one may assist someone who wants to be rid or of, or to diminish. same-sex attraction; but at the same time, he or she is supposed to affirm multiculturalism (in terms of, among other things, affirming homosexuality as not only normal but positive) and, at the same time, "recognize the negative impact of social stigma on sexual minorities." So, the therapist is to help someone be rid of same-sex attraction while saying to that one that there's no good reason for doing so, even when the therapist fully believes and knows that homosexuality is not a positive thing at all and has the science to back that up.
According to the evidence (when viewed without biased, homosexual filtering and false propaganda), homosexuality inherently is not on a par with heterosexuality. This is where all other things are equal. The negativity is with homosexuality itself. It is not unethical to know that and to state it openly.
So, exactly how was I not fair? NARTH and the International Institute of Reorientation Therapies (IIRTH) know what they are up against: homosexual and pro-homosex fascists. Read the rest of this post and the material linked to below. NARTH and IIRTH know what CAMFT has said and published. CAMFT has not taken a principled stand vis-a-vis the research/evidence NARTH has supplied. The fact is that NARTH has been blatantly and severely misrepresented and vilified by the homosexualists.
As for the term ("homosexualist", what is an Islamist? One might call me a Christianist but for my anti-coercive position. A homosexualist is one who seeks to make illegal the voicing in public of the idea that homosex is fundamentally an error. They seek to use the government to suppress the truth. Their position is ideological and not based upon the scientific method they claim. As for it being a pejorative, pejoration is the process of taking something good and demeaning it. I have never thought of homosex as anything but a gross error. What I take offense to is your use of the term "gay" when referring to them. "Gay" is a euphemism. It is exactly backwards. It is twisting even further than "collateral damage."
The fact is that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) work. Change is possible concerning sex, just as it is concerning other behaviors.
I suggest you look into all of this and then start spreading the real truth rather than going with the homo false-propaganda:
Peace and truth are one and the same.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)