If sexuality is fluid (and it is) and if there are transgendered adults who've gone through sexual-reassignment surgery and hormone treatment, etc., only to regret it and stop taking the hormones (and there are), how can anyone of good conscience deny people the full, professional, nonjudgmental help of a therapist throughout the process? How can anyone say that counseling supportive of the client/patient should only be allowed in one direction and not back again? Doesn't the exact same thing apply to both gender identity and sexual orientation? If the therapy is completely non-coercive on the part of parents and therapist(s), how can the exact same thing also not apply to children, especially those who only became same-sex attracted after suffering same-sex sexual abuse? Why are those children thrown under the bus when sexuality has clearly been proven to be fluid, particularly for youths, and able to be modified via pure talk-therapy (no force, no lies)?It strikes me as an act of extremely selfish desperation on the part of people to deny such children assistance in regaining their prior opposite-sex orientation if that's what those children want. And how in the world can such therapy bans be justifiably extended to adults? Can you imagine being an adult wanting to modify same-sex attraction only to be told that it's illegal for a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist to affirm you in that goal and help you achieve it? What kind of freedom or liberty is that? Who's gaining what stranglehold on those professions and to what ultimate end?
Why are so many people so afraid to address this issue? I'm as economically, democratically leftist as anyone I know of (well to the left of Bernie Sanders' stated economic positions). However, I do not understand the supposed leftist-ness of being opposed to the "conservative" (I say it's actually very balanced civil-libertarian) position put forth in this linked article: "Special Report: Liberalism, Transgenderism, and Gay Conversion Bans," by Dennis Saffran.
Many "conservatives" won't like this, but from a leftist international relations and foreign policy position, look at it this way. Right-wing Zionists had a lock for the longest time on their issue. Any Jew not falling into line was smeared as anti-Semitic. Attempts to do that still occur but are having less and less impact. Little by little, more and more Jews, especially young ones, have stepped forward to not only question the right-wing narrative but actually denounce it as utterly inconsistent and counter-productive.
What may have happened is that a group has developed a near lock on the issues of identity and orientation to the extent that many economic leftists have been cowed and intimidated and are afraid to even question, let alone disagree with, those self-assigned gatekeepers who appear to insist that facts showing them wrong not be allowed to even be considered.
We are never going to be free until we put truth first. Using false means is never justified by truly good ends. False means always lead to a false end. A truly good end requires truth, whole truth, as the means.
Saying all sexual orientation is a result of being born that way was a lie. Saying that sexual orientation is immutable is a lie. We're at our current state on this issue as a direct result of those massive, deliberate lies. There is no way it's good.
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)