Pro-Homosexual Professor of Psychology Admits Orientation "malleable"

There's an update at the bottom.

I just answered Charles Negy, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Central Florida, in the following manner [as of the time of my posting this here, my comments were "pending approval"]:

"...not very malleable. Moreover, studies suggest that sexual orientation is determined by some combination of genetic and environmental factors and is, in all likelihood, fairly crystalized by adolescence...."

Ah, so it is malleable. You've just admitted it! That will be news to the homosexuals and pro-homosexuals who have been falsely claiming that it is not able to be changed at all, there's no diminishment, there's nothing but being stuck exactly where you are at any given point. You see, the more we discuss the actual facts about authentic Reparative Therapy and what it's based upon, the more you have to concede. That's how it's going to stay too. Your side's days of snowballing everyone are over, have been for quite a while now. That will dawn on you soon.

"studies suggest"? What is the term "suggest" there but a clear indication that you cannot say that you have any studies that are definitive. There are studies that suggest the opposite. What's more, you know that but conveniently fail to mention that in your totally one-sided, false-propaganda piece. The fact is, environmental factors play a gigantic role if genetics plays much if any at all.

[commenting break due to length limitations]
cont.: The fact is that the vast majority of neuroscientists and those who are expert in operant conditioning know full well that homosexuality is conditioned into the actual matter of the brain where dopamine acts in an addictive manner hooking primarily the hyper-sexualized male homosexuals into each sexual fix often in the form of sodomy, which is clearly symptomatic.

"crystalized"? Hardly. That will come out in the court cases too.

Speaking of the court cases and taking your attack on Christianity in particular, isn't it interesting that it is your side that is seeking desperately to deny the civil liberties of children in California (many of who have been homosexually molested and as result suffer with confusion and unwanted same-sex attraction) who want authentic Reparative Therapy to help them with their malleable (your term) sexual attraction to restore them to where they were (heterosexually oriented) before they were homosexually violated.

Give them enough rope.... Keep talking. It's great for our side, the side that gives a damn about sexually abused, even homosexually raped, children.

I can hardly wait for your reply if you've got the guts to reply yourself right here in the Huffington Post commenting section, which of course you read concerning your own posts here. Going to take a pass? Ha!

[commenting break due to length limitations]
cont.: Really, though, I would much rather you see the light and stop all of this utter nonsense of yours. Start telling the truth – the whole truth. Stop spinning, twisting, and ducking – conveniently leaving things out that you know about but don't want your lesser-educated fellow travelers to know about because the real truth would moralize them. Yes, I didn't say demoralize. Think about it.

Do you want the name of a good Reparative Therapist who can help you with your same-sex-attraction confusion? You could even do phone therapy.

Update: I just posted the following in the comment section on the Huffington Post article:

I posted 3 comments on this article. The 1st was approved. I edited it adding one apostrophe. Because of that, it went back in for moderation. Rather than accepting the additional apostrophe, the comment was disallowed.

The reasons for that, among others, is that this site, The Huffington Post, at least this homosexual section of it, is intellectually dishonest and, frankly, cowardly. It practices wholly unmerited censorship. I always allow homosexual activists to post comments on my site so long as they don't do trolling quips, they don't post canned posts without permission (especially to those concerning which they could link), they answer my questions, they don't continue practicing blatant illogic, and they don't post redundantly. If my comments violated some Huffington Post rule or rules, which one or ones?

Anyone interested in my full commentary on this article may Google "Pro-Homosexual Professor of Psychology Admits Orientation "malleable"". I would supply the URL, but I doubt it would be "approved."

I'll shortly be adding this comment to the bottom of my post.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.