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: http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html
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)