So, I see self-styled liberals (misnomer) decrying the New York Times article entitled, "'Ex-Gay' Men Fight Back Against View That Homosexuality Can't Be Changed." I see them still clinging to the falsehood that change is not possible and that regardless of the degree of diminishment in homosexual attraction, one who has even the slightest residual twinges, even as those too are disappearing, is still every bit as homosexual as before when engaging in homosexual-bathhouse orgies on a frequent basis.
In response to several of these "liberals" on Facebook, I posted the following comment:
Then I read this:
As for deliberately distorting the English spelling of Jesus's name, do you have something against him or are you just making fun of certain people who believe in him?
That last bit was because some of them thought it proper form to spell Jesus as "Jayzus" and "Jizzus."
Here's the reply I received:
Tom- I happen to have personal issues with what you are suggesting with your links. 1 - Sexual preference in human beings is not a choice. 2- SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS NOT A CHOICE. 3 - If your religion(I take it you're a Christian)is so unaccepting of those unlike you or of something you don't understand, perhaps you need to reconsider your faith. Why not just accept people for who they are instead of changing them? How would you feel if society told you who you are is an unacceptable lifestyle choice that you needed to change? 4 - I've actually dated 5 gay men, and I have quite a few gay people in my life who I consider brothers and sisters. They are wonderful people who accept me, warts and all, as I accept them. I could care less who they partner with, as you and your faith should too. To even think someone should change who they are to satisfy another's fears about something they don't understand is despicable, to say the least. It's also not really Christian...according to your Jesus. Off my soapbox. Sorry if I seem snippy, but I was up very late speaking with my heterosexual mate.....or at least I hope he is heterosexual. Lol
To which I replied:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." That's what Jesus tells us. Rien, you wrote, "To even think someone should change who they are to satisfy another's fears about something they don't understand is despicable, to say the least. It's also not really Christian...according to your Jesus." An adulterous person could just as easily say that he or she is simply that, an adulterer or adulteress, as the case may be, and just misunderstood. What's to fear with swapping spouses for sex? The same may be said for any sexual manifestation. Why is the pedophile not entitled to the same license you grant homosexuals? Many pedophiles put up the same arguments for dropping age-of-consent laws that homosexuals put up for dropping anti-homosexuality laws. Many pedophiles also swear about one another that they are very nice and loving people, etc.
If change wasn't and isn't possible, then why did Jesus bother saying what he did? Why did he tell the adulteress to go and sin no more if her sexual desires were not something changeable?
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11)
I handle your reply in this manner because you appear not to understand even the most fundamental things about Christianity. However, if one takes Christianity, per se, completely out of the picture, there are still a great many people who change concerning a whole host of desires.
There's nothing inherent about homosexuality that puts it off in some immutable category. Research has shown that different habits of mind are more stubborn than others, but homosexuality has never been found to be immutable. As Christopher Doyle mentioned in the interview, there's a range of responses with clients as well. Someone has to be the most stubborn case. There are also those who change relatively easily.
Children are subjected to what I deem sexual abuse. Many of them are homosexually abused. For boys in particular and depending upon a number of factors in their lives, that abuse sets them up for same-sex attraction – what Christopher Doyle called "homosexual imprinting." Such boys have been seen by Reparative Therapists. The boys are often confused about why they are sexually aroused by thoughts of males when they were not before they were homosexually abused. I don't find it difficult to comprehend what has happened to those boys from a sexual-conditioning perspective.
Come 2013 in California and if the law CA SB 1172 isn't blocked by the courts, even the boys will be breaking the law if they are treated in California by CA-licensed Reparative Therapists for their unwanted same-sex attraction stemming from the homosexual abuse. Under SB 1172, the only legally allowable treatment will be to affirm the boys as homosexuals or bi-sexuals. I find that highly illiberal, certainly not Christian.