Read that article with the following in mind:
One of the comments there says:
"...the author, Lara Embry, has first hand knowledge of a gay person who converted to be straight. Her former spouse, Kimberly Ryan, subsequently married a man, and then she engaged in a custody battle over the child that was borne by Ms. Ryan. The tone of the article, which includes ridiculing colleagues who masquerade as "formerly-gay", seems to disavow any possibility that a person may change their sexual orientation, or even re-discover their true sexual orientation. Her perspective as an independent, objective scientist in this matter, may in fact be tainted by her experience with her former spouse."
Attribution: "limitgovt at 11:38 PM August 27, 2012"
Unfortunately, they don't supply URL's to the individual comments.
I located this article on Embry: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1332928/Gleeful-family-day-Jane-Lynch-stepdaughters.html
It's probably not the best article, but it was the handiest one covering most of the various people involved.
I don't watch TV, but I remember the case concerning Kimberly Ryan.
I would have expected that the newspaper would have required a disclosure about that.
This one was also interesting (a number of them are):
"Again, you seem to place great emphasis on the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Can I assume that you're OK with conversion therapy if the gay child is not truly oriented for homosexuality, but merely confused and in an experimental phase for sexual behavior? Furthermore, who can truly determine whether someone is gay by orientation? Can psychologists read the minds of people who claim they are gay? Can young teens even decipher their attraction for members of the same sex? It may be simple hero worship, deep friendship mistaken for love, or lack of a male role model. If young teens find both boys and girls equally attractive, does that mean conversion therapy is still prohibited?"
Attribution: "penguinista at 1:16 PM August 29, 2012"
I'm certain that it is okay to be pasting these here under "Fair Use."
Here's Lara Embry false propaganda without a disclosure about her taking another woman's child from her: "Conversion therapy": Therapy that isn't - Los Angeles Times
Now, consider Embry's statement about Reparative Therapy. Also read my recent post: New Jersey Assembly Fascist Dem, Eustace, Announces Legislation to Ban Conversion Therapy.
Also read this: "My Genes Made Me Do It! - Homosexuality and the scientific evidence," by Neil and Briar Whitehead.
Dr NE Whitehead, PhD (research scientist)
Author of the book My Genes Made Me Do It - a scientific look at sexual orientation (1999/USA; revised 2nd edition, 2010) and over 140 published scientific papers. The revised edition of My Genes Made Me Do It! takes account of research undertaken in the decade 2000 - 2010, which only serves to strengthen the book's original conclusions. The book takes a position based on an objective, orthodox and extremely comprehensive 20-year review of more than 10,000 scientific papers and publications on homosexuality. Neil Whitehead: PhD in biochemistry, 1971, New Zealand. Employed as a scientist with the NZ Govt (24 years), the United Nations (4 years), more recently a scientific research consultant. Neil Whitehead has lived and worked in New Zealand, India, the United States, France, Japan and Afghanistan.
Briar Whitehead, B.A; Dip J (Journalist, writer & speaker)
Editor of My Genes Made Me Do It! and author of Craving for Love (UK, 2003)
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)