The following videos have difficult audio. You'll need to turn up the volume. (Don't forget to turn it down afterwards.)
Obviously, NARTH and others need to bring forth live people who will attest to the exact opposite of what was alleged in the videos. Specifically, I mean people who won't simply say they are ex-gays but also heterosexuals: People who will say that they are happier and not the least bit depressed, etc., but overjoyed at the help they received via SOCE. Those people need to express how troubled they were and why, and it can't all be religious-based. I don't have the one-on-one in the numbers you people have had, but I'm sure there are people who were troubled for other than religious reasons.
Also, the tables must be turned 180 degrees. By that I mean that the same level of evidence for the allegations made against SOCE must be expected and demanded of those who are opposed to SOCE. The standards must be the same or be fundamentally unfair.
The psychiatrist struck me as effeminate. Shouldn't he have been asked? Also, the homosexual completely ducked the issue of his parents. The interviewer (Anderson Cooper) did not delve into that obviously because of his pro-homosexuality bias. That homosexual should be asked whether his father was distant and his mother the type Dr. Nicolosi has described. I would be particularly interested to know whether or not he was ever molested or sexually abused or even physically introduced to sex (or homosex) and especially at what age and by what gender. I say it that way because he may be the kind who would claim that early sexual activity, even of the homosexual kind, was something he "liked," possibly not being able to differentiate between hedonistic so-called pleasures on one hand and moral appreciation (or displeasure) on the other.
Most importantly, how many children are, or were, thoroughly confused and depressed and suicidal at having been molested by homosexuals and who now suffer or once suffered (pre-treatment) from same-sex attraction for reasons they don't/didn't understand and that compound/compounded their anxiety, etc.? Those children as children or now adults need to be allowed to come forth. The social environment needs to be made safe for them, as safe as for the homosexual in the videos, to speak out and to be heard by audiences as large as CNN's, etc. This politically charged issue is too important to be waged on a one-sided basis on CNN.
I didn't hear Anderson Cooper say that NARTH was invited but didn't respond or refused or what have you.
So in all the years NARTH has been practicing, CNN found two people? The other one who committed suicide, did he leave a note blaming NARTH? If not, upon what are they basing their claim that he died due to NARTH's treatment? People commit suicide over lots of different reasons. Why does it have to be because of NARTH's treatment? Regardless, is California going to outlaw every treatment where anyone later commits suicide when there's no evidence the treatment, per se, was the cause?
Based upon two suspect cases and no hard evidence in the form of studies disproving SOCE and California is going to outlaw, among other things, all teenagers' rights to seek help with SOCE? That's pure fascism in my book and extremely harmful in more ways than one: Talk about the fascist camel's nose under the tent.
In addition, why should people engaging in such aberrant behavior be cuddled to suit their self-esteem? Why should I feel better that the homosexual who was on CNN doesn't feel any longer that he engages in incorrect behavior and that he does so not by choice but because he was born that way? Where's the proof for the homosexual gene?
Where was the discussion about the problems with homosexuality that are there regardless of "acceptance," problems inherent in homosexuality that, all other things being equal, do not occur in heterosexuality? Human flesh is not free of problems, but it seems clear to me that we shouldn't choose to celebrate decidedly unhealthy behaviors, and that includes female homosexuals as well.
I'm certain that environment has vastly more to do with homosexuality than genetics, if genes have much if anything to do with it at all, all other things being equal.
There are plenty of other things that come to mind — questions — but that's enough for now.
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)