The illiberal dogma of "immutable homosexuality"

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:

I just finished listening to this:

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.


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.
    • ShehanR

      I agree that people can change. But people should not change due to their religious beliefs. We should separate religion from reparative therapy. There are many other reasons for someone to seek change other than their religious beliefs. Religion is suppose to make people happier and calmer. If someone is being happy (profoundly) and calm with their homosexuality, there is nothing wrong. 

      PS: I am an ex-gay

      • RT is practiced by the religious and non-religious and with success in both cases.

        The issue of religious beliefs being the motivation for change as a problem makes no sense in Christianity, as Christians gauge their behavior according to the commandments of Jesus Christ. Requesting Christians not to seek change (even though Jesus says to them to change), is to actually be requesting Christians to stop being Christians.

        As for profound happiness and calmness in homosexuality being indicative of nothing wrong, Christianity teaches that such is denial. The terms "happiness" and "calmness" there for the Christian are understood within a full theological context. For the real Christian, there are no such things as real happiness or real calmness in homosexuality. There is only falsehood.

        The truth is that homosexuality is never right. It is always an error. That is part of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and I agree with him. If you don't, well, that's you.

        • ShehanR

          Religion is in the heart not in the books. 

        • One cannot follow Jesus Christ without any knowledge of both his words and deeds as recorded in the Gospels and as referenced in the Old Testament.

          Are you claiming that Christianity is not a religion? That's the logical conclusion of your statement if one grants 1) you have sufficient knowledge about Christianity 2) can think at even the most rudimentary level and 3) are being sincere. 

          Having the divine law written on the heart doesn't negate the written scriptures. Why you would think otherwise is irrational in my religion.

          If you are speaking of some religion you have made up for yourself, then that religion is certainly not for me, as I do not find your mind superior to, or the equal of, Jesus's.

          Do you find yourself superior or equal to Jesus in the whole of your being? Do you find anyone else superior or equal to Jesus in the whole of his or her being? If not, why are you promoting inferior thinking rather than the best thinking of which you have become aware? What's in it for you?

          Are you aware, or are you speaking against Jesus from a position of near total ignorance concerning what he said and did per the Gospels?

        • ShehanR

          Jesus was true but the sources of Bible are not trustworthy. Bible is for silly people who does not have the wit to follow what Jesus taught, by heart. That's why there was no scriptures in the earlier times. People in the earlier times were wise unlike people today who tries to find the truth in scriptures.

        • You have no credible sources more accurate than the Gospels concerning Jesus's words and deeds.

          You don't realize that the Gospel of John is actually John's account of Jesus and that he actually lived with Jesus during Jesus's public ministry. You claim to know better about Jesus than the Gospel of John, but you don't know how ridiculous that is.

          You claim that you don't need the Gospels to know the divine law, but you also falsely claim that homosex is acceptable when it is between those you claim are profoundly happy and calm in their homosex.

          You do not have the divine law written on your heart, or you wouldn't be spreading the hedonism and narcissism of homosexuality regardless of whether it attempts to wrap itself in the sheep's clothing of "happiness" and "calm." You'd be concerned with children being led astray into the myriad problems of homosexuality, that slippery slope, where harm is always done whether you are able to perceive it or not.

          Homosexuality is always an error. The fact that you don't know that or are unwilling to admit it, shows that it is you who is untrustworthy.

          Your position is irrational, and there is no point in continuing to attempt to dialogue with you if you are planning to persist in it.

          You've said your position, and I need hear no more from you here on it. It would just be more of the same and certainly out from the dark side: the spirit of falsehood.

          You are not a son of light.

    • It is unfortunate that there are people out there who are ignorant and dimwitted yet haughty.

      This ShehanR person decided to respond in an inappropriate manner.

      There are rules for being allowed to continue commenting on this site. What this site is not is a forum for people who make wild statements, are challenged with specifics, and then continue on as if they can completely ignore those specifics.

      ShehanR is nearly devoid, if not completely devoid, of even the most fundamental knowledge of the principles of Christianity yet had the nerve to come to this Christian site and pontificate as if ShehanR has some deep insight into the mind of God and Jesus Christ concerning homosexuality and absent the Gospels.

      I have limited patience with such people called on it, and ShehanR quickly wore out the welcome.

      When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: (Luke 13:25 KJV)

      That's the Gospel. That's Jesus. You don't know it without that it was recorded. Thank you, Luke! No thank you to ShehanR.

    • "Irenaeus - Theophilus:

      "The importance of the testimony of Irenaeus is measured by the efforts which have been made to invalidate his witness. But these attempts fail in the presence of his historical position, and of the means at his command to ascertain the belief of the churches. There are many links of connection between Irenaeus and the apostolic age. There is specially his connection with Polycarp. He himself describes that relationship in his letter to Florinus, a fellow-disciple of Polycarp, who had lapsed into Gnosticism, in which he says, "I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and the others who had seen the Lord" (Euseb., HE, V, 20: McGiffert's translation). We cannot say what was the age of Irenaeus at that time, but he was of sufficient age to receive the impressions which, after many years, he recorded. Polycarp was martyred in 155 AD, and he had been a Christian for 86 years when he was martyred. Thus there was only one link between Irenaeus and the apostolic age. Another link was constituted by his association with Pothinus, his predecessor in Lyons. Pothinus was a very old man when he was martyred, and had in his possession the traditions of the church of Gaul. Thus, Irenaeus, through these and others, had the opportunity of knowing the belief of the churches, and what he records is not only his own personal testimony, but the universal tradition of the church.

      "With Irenaeus should be adduced the apologist Theophilus (circa 170), the earliest writer to mention John by name as the author of the Gospel. In prefacing a quotation from the commencement of the prologue, he says, "This is what we learn from the sacred writings, and from all men animated by the Spirit, amongst whom John says" (Ad Autol., ii. 22). Theophilus is further stated by Jerome to have composed a Harmony of the four Gospels (De Viris Illustr., 25)."

      From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

    • This ShehanR person things Hinduism is superior to Christianity.

      It's so superior that it has to make direct competition with Christianity for the hearts and minds of so-called untouchables illegal in India. It reminds me of Islam. I hate religions that are so weak they can't stand uncoerced competition on the merits.

      Islam has to make up stories about Jesus rather than taking the earlier Gospels as the Gospel.

      Mohammed didn't like the implications of Jesus's words and deeds and being rejected as a prophet by the Jews and Christians, so he just made up a new anti-Christ religion. That way he could have sex with as many women as he wanted and even children (9-year-old child bride with whom he consummated the marriage, meaning had sexual intercourse with her) and take booty from wars and raids and such. He even demanded the wife of his follower.

      Great guy that Mohammed, not! Respect him? Never!

      The Persians were way better off under Zoroastrianism, but they should convert to Christianity which is better still.