'Ex-Gay' Men Fight View That Homosexuality Can't Be Changed - NYTimes.com

Instinctive homosexual desires?

S. Marc Breedlove, a neuroscientist and psychologist at Michigan State University, said there was overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is affected by both biology and environment. Clearly, he said, reparative therapy helps some people alter sexual behavior. But that is far different, he noted, from transforming instinctive sexual desires, something never proved in scientific studies.

via 'Ex-Gay' Men Fight View That Homosexuality Can't Be Changed - NYTimes.com.

Instinctive homosexual desires is also something that has never been proved in scientific studies.

In addition, if S. Marc Breedlove is referring solely to Reparative Therapy, then it should be said. The reason is that he should know that change in homosexual desires can be 100% altered via operant conditioning and other means if that conditioning and those means utilize the most advanced technological methods. The brain can be completely re-patterned. That's been known for decades. The brain matter is plastic, meaning changeable. The form and function is radically changeable.

The time for being dupe by stupid claims that homosexuality is immutable is long since past.

That sexuality is fluid is becoming common knowledge. Homosexual activists can't stop it. They've lost. They lost before they started.

The question has always been whether or not societally we want hedonism and narcissism to rule rather than what is best for humanity as a whole and individuals individually. Deviations allowing males to sodomize each other is clearly destructive of the moral fiber of the nation. Allowing such falsehood to masquerade as something to tolerate, let alone condone and now even celebrate and hold out as superior, is the completely wrong path for the nation and world.

Saying that in no way calls for a lack of or reduction in compassion for those who have been led astray onto the slippery slope. It in no way may be honestly reduced to vacuous and disingenuous terms such as homophobia or bigotry as used by homosexual activists, as there is nothing irrational in knowing that homosexual sodomy, for one, is fraught with problems (ripping the rectal tissues, allowing pathogens to enter making the body further sick) and nothing wrong in realizing that homosexuality is not akin to any of the traditionally protected classes of minorities where those minorities have no choice as to how they were born. It is also not akin to religious choices where people had been being persecuted for actually advocating what is best, such as peace, the voluntary giving and sharing of all things, and sexual purity.

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.