I don't know how long this video will remain viewable here, as YouTube said that it is not embeddable even though it is playing at the time of this posting. Also, I don't know how long the other parts of the series will be viewable here in the US on YouTube, as the BBC has YouTube enforcing copyright restrictions on 3 of the 6 parts. I'm not in control over such things and don't know what YouTube and/or the BBC's responsibilities are and what they have decided concerning the 3 parts that are viewable in the US on YouTube as of the time of this posting.
I found out about this series from a Reparative Therapist in the UK.
Here's what I told him about my impressions about the series:
Only 3 of the 6-part series were allowed (1, 3, & 6) on YouTube when I watch just now.
What I found in watching those 3 is that the "nurture" aspect was quite glossed over. His parents, siblings, and he did not go through deep psychological questioning concerning his family. Do we know that it is always reducible to only father and mother anyway? This raises the next thing that struck me.
If the pattern is a 30% increase in the likelihood of homosexuality in males with each older brother, then why did John assume that, that it was about the mother's womb and not anything to do with nurturing again, what with a household with an older brother or many brothers?
Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone), but there are other patterns concerning older siblings including that the 5th child appears more in personality type as the 1st born.
I can think of a number of psychological possibilities, not the least of which concerns primogeniture-type thinking where the older the son, the more he is "valued," even subconsciously. There is also what is called the pecking order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order). If there is any bullying that goes on, the younger one or ones can often receive a great deal of it relative to the 1st. Where the bullying starts though would have to be determined, and only in-depth questioning with honest answers and real and not blocked memories would be able to begin to shed real light on it all.
In addition, John (as suggested in the last video) had been presented repeatedly with that he did not fit the other "markers." However, he didn't weight for that once he grasped onto the conclusion that it had to be because of the immunological aspects of his mother's womb, as if she was becoming more and more allergic to male offspring rather than that those other markers were still every bit as valid, so to speak, and that the presence of an older brother could have factored into his upbringing/culture.
Why has this come up? California law SB-1172 Sexual orientation change efforts, states the following:
(o) Nothing in this act is intended to prevent a minor who is 12 years of age or older from consenting to any mental health treatment or counseling services, consistent with Section 124260 of the Health and Safety Code, other than sexual orientation change efforts as defined in this act.
If that law is not blocked in the courts, then come 2013, any boy who is homosexually molested or even violently homosexually raped will be breaking the law if he receives consensual Reparative Therapy for his unwanted same-sex attraction the result of the homosexual-pedophile or homosexual-pederast abuse. That law mandates that the only legal treatment in California by California-licensed mental healthcare providers is homosexual-affirming therapy.
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)