Personal Note: Ex-gay liberation
A couple of days ago, Tony Woodlief’s WoW post, “Anti-homosexual Christianity,” stirred quite a conversation. Tony looked at a piece of the book UnChristian, whose authors observe of the church that “outsiders say our hostility toward gays – not just opposition to homosexual politics and behaviors but disdain for gay individuals – has become virtually synonymous with the Christian faith.”
The post interested me greatly because I spent quite a bit of time this week talking with former homosexuals, and with Catholic, Jewish, evangelical, and secular counselors and psychologists who help people walk away from unwanted same-sex attraction. Two trends emerged:
First, it appears that the cultural liberation of homosexuality is also liberating those seeking to escape it.
Second, the cultural mainstreaming of homosexuality is awakening some churches to more compassionate ways of dealing with homosexuality — without endorsing the behavior.
Brad, a recent college grad from Manitou Springs, Colo., who has successfully fought homosexual urges for eight years, told me, “I’ve seen it over and over again,” referring to a new willingness among churches to accept and love people tempted by homosexuality. “Today, it’s easier to come forward in the church because homosexuality is more accepted in our culture,” Brad said. “Before, the whole subject of homosexuality was more taboo. Even to say you struggled with it was a horrible thing.”
Stephen, who works in the Nashville finance industry, had similar observations. Stephen told me he felt trapped by gay political activism — and, paradoxically, later liberated by it.
Stephen came out to his mother 10 years ago at age 16. The year was 1998, at the dawn of a new gay ascendancy. Ellen Degeneres had just come out in real life and on TV. The murder of Matthew Shepard sparked candlelight vigils and a flood of support for hate-crimes legislation that reached all the way to Congress. Meanwhile, gay activists continued a successful campaign to shift the debate over homosexuality from one about morality to one about civil rights.
The resulting cultural milieu made it easy for Stephen to say, “‘I like men. That’s my preference,’” he told me. It also made it easier to fall into a lifestyle that by 2006, left him feeling buried alive. Repeatedly molested beginning at age 5 and abandoned by his mother at age 9, Stephen was left with a dad who burrowed into a gambling habit and dragged his son along with him. As he grew older, Stephen coped by looking for love. After leaving home, he moved in with three men in quick succession, having known each for only a couple of weeks. But it was his secret life – scores of anonymous sexual encounters – that led Stephen into an abyss of despair: “It was like being inside a dark cave and trying to scratch your way out, but there’s no light anywhere,” he said.
Many times, when the sex was over, Stephen would walk outside and throw up, he remembers. Then he would go home and shower for the better part of an hour. “But then I was doing it again the next day,” he said, “because I was so in need of love, of an identity.”
In 2006, Stephen found that love — in a church. And in some respects, he feels he has gay activists to thank. “Because it’s easier to come out of the closet today, it’s also easier to find people who have found freedom” from homosexuality, he said. “You now have people who have lived in the gay lifestyle and who have been hurt and are talking about it.”
Another paradox emerged in my talks with secular and faith-based counselors who help in this area: On one hand, gay activists have succeeded in convincing the younger generation that sexuality is a malleable trait. On the other: Having been thus convinced, young people are now just as accepting of people wanting to leave the gay lifestyle as they are of those who want to explore it. Once pariahs, ex-gays are finding increasing acceptance, albeit outside the circles of establishment gay activists.
While the book UnChristian chronicles what has become the stereotype of the gay-hating church, statistics and surveys may be, as usual, lagging behind current trends. The church may have a long way to go, but perhaps we are headed in the right direction.



WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
















back to top136 Comments to “Personal Note: Ex-gay liberation”
Lynn, thank you so much for posting on this topic! It has been a real dilemma for me as a Christian who believes the behavior is sinful (just as heterozsexual sex is, outside of marriage), but also one who has beloved gay and lesbian friends and relatives. Some are Christian and some are not. They have made varying choices about how to view themselves and how to live their lives.
I can’t do it now, but I want to return later today and comment further.
Report comment to moderator
Oh boy Lynn, this thread will be a wild ride! There are those on here who simply will not tolerate anyone who believes homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle.
I think Janie makes a good point (which she’ll probably elaborate on later), but if the church treated herterosexual adultery with the same zeal as homosexuality, whew, half the pews would be empty in some churches.
When we make certain sin somehow more evil than others we demonize souls and drive those tempted underground.
Some may say Stephen is only one case, but I meet with three lesbian women who are, as they say, “over it.” In their 40s or 50s, they all came out in the 80s, lived the life and now have a trail of tears that the lifestyle never gave them whatever it was they were looking for.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for posting this. I don’t usually comment on the gay threads because they veer off so quickly into areas I don’t care for or don’t agree with. Janie and Adios, of course, are right.
I like to remember “they’ll know we are Christians by our love.” God hates all sin. And he doesn’t see it in shades of gray. I’m just as condemned without the grace and forgiveness of Jesus as the next gay participant, gossiper, thief or ______________.
Report comment to moderator
The egregious thing about the promotion of homoseuality is NOT that homoseuxality is some sort of worse sin. It’s not. It is the refusal to repent that makes it so eternally and egregiously deadly. It is the pretense that it is not even chosen in any way that makes it spiritual poison.
Everybody understands that adultery is a choice. And it is. And Jesus Himself added, “that anyone who looks ata woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28).
Homosexual attraction or behavior are a sin but no more deadly than any other sin among human beings. But what takes it to a higher level of evil is the denial that it is even a choice. That dehumanizes homosexuals as if they are nothing but choiceless biology bags or mere animals driven uncontrolably by instints.
Report comment to moderator
But it was his secret life – scores of anonymous sexual encounters – that led Stephen into an abyss of despair: “It was like being inside a dark cave and trying to scratch your way out, but there’s no light anywhere,” he said.
Many times, when the sex was over, Stephen would walk outside and throw up, he remembers. Then he would go home and shower for the better part of an hour. “But then I was doing it again the next day,” he said, “because I was so in need of love, of an identity.”
This is an example of the kind of conflation that goes on. This is a moving story, but many heterosexuals could tell you similar ones.
If you think about, we’ve all known people like that. Some of us have been people like that. They move in and out of shallow relationships, give easy sex and constantly seek a real love they never find, or at least not until they overcome their destructive patterns and find someone who truly loves them.
Many girls who are considered “sluts” are going through this. They give sex to using men because they want love, and that’s the only way they think there is to get it, and of course, it doesn’t work. They get used, their low-self esteem falls even lower and the cycle repeats.
It’s got nothing to do with orientation. But because the example in this case is a homosexual man, it’s presented as an example of how destructive the “gay lifestyle” is.
You can find these people among both gays and straights. You can find example of people who have found real love and settled into lifelong partnerships among both gays and straights too.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG is 100 percent correct. I don’t see nearly the same amount of tongue wagging here for pop starlets who sleep with scores of people as I do for gays. The conflation of promiscuity with homosexuality is dishonest. Anyone involved in souless sex of any kind is going to go through these trials.
As for the ex-gay movement, I say only, “to thine own self be true.” People tell themselves all kinds of lies. Who knows what is really in their heart or who they really are?
Report comment to moderator
former homosexuals
How many “former homosexuals” have been arrested in mens rooms or at forest preserves? What a hoot. They are a “former homosexual” but have to “fight the urge” for the rest of their lives. Please, don’t let my daughter or sister marry one of these “former homosexuals”. Apparently, the cure for being a “homosexuals” is called “denial”. And that’s not a river in Egypt.
Report comment to moderator
I just don’t understand the charge of Christian “disdain for gay individuals”. I mean, yeah, I think it’s a sin, but I don’t hang around with my fellow Christians trashing gay people and thinking of ways to be mean to them. True, if there’s a gay couple living together, I would probably decline an invitation to their house, the same way that I would decline an invitation from an unmarried hetero couple. I can still be friends with them without displaying active approval of certain sinful parts of their lives. If they demand that I validate every part of their behaviour, they’re not very good friends.
Report comment to moderator
If they demand that I validate every part of their behaviour, they’re not very good friends.
If you feel that they deserve less rights than you and their existance is a “sin”, then it’s you who is not the friend. You will never be friends. You are not friends now. Besides, considering the very few numbers of gays, most Christians don’t even know any. Gays have zero impact on the lives of Christians. It’s just a boogey man they use to justify hate.
Wait, I shouldn’t say they have zero impact. Many are great artists, singers, dancers, actors. Many of our greatest scientists. Many of our greatest authers and playrights. When it comes to the arts, gays have an impact way beyond their meager numbers. Too bad the Christian impact is small in comparison.
Report comment to moderator
John M. at #8: True, if there’s a gay couple living together, I would probably decline an invitation to their house, the same way that I would decline an invitation from an unmarried hetero couple. I can still be friends with them without displaying active approval of certain sinful parts of their lives.
RDean is right on on this one. If you would decline an invitation of hospitality as a way to express your disapproval of the way they live, you’re no friend. And further, they have every right not to want you as one.
And that is exactly the kind of disdain you’re trying to allege doesn’t exist.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn,
THANK YOU for telling this story about Stephen. We are unable to think without the ability to listen to real people. Coming back to my hometown after many years away and reconnecting with friends from my past, I am shocked at how many were sexually abused and now SO many things make sense! I feel privileged that they share with me. It is an honor.
Report comment to moderator
I find it interesting that the first response of some of our liberals is to invalidate the individual experiences of the people I spoke with, or to point out that similar experiences exist among heterosexuals. I daresay if Stephen had shared a story about vomiting after sex with women, only to go on to embrace his true nature as a gay man, the same liberals might applaud his newfound liberation.
I have noticed that this is a common response among liberals across a range of social issues: People whose deeply felt, individual experiences do not match the liberal social orthodoxy are derided as inauthentic or as oppressed dupes of the religious right. Even when those experiences pile up enough to become statistics, the statisics are then called “flawed” or “biased.”
Why can’t liberals admit that even people whose actual experiences conflict with liberal orthodoxy are sincere people, that their suffering is as real as any? That there is a range of true, real-life experience that is contrary to how the social left thinks things ought to be?
Report comment to moderator
Meanwhile, back at the topical ranch, why aren’t any liberals commenting on the positive development here: That Christians aren’t across-the-board “gay haters,” as RDean suggests. That the church is taking a more compassionate approach.
You must have noticed that Brad and Stephen didn’t want to participate in gay sex anymore — it was their free choice, born of their suffering, not the result of ex-gay shock troops going out and recruiting them into some kind of reeducation camp.
If sexuality is a malleable trait, why do liberals validate change in one direction while deriding change — or even the possibility of change — in the other?
Report comment to moderator
I am also wondering why we never hear stories from ex-gays who had loving parents and supportive childhoods.
I mean, as greatful as I am for Joel Mark looking out for me and making sure my agency is being perceived pro-actively, this story doesn’t describe me. People who vomit after sex are harboring some pretty deep resentment and some serious sex-negative assumptions. That is a psychosis, not being gay!
People healthy toward sex can negotiate it with the social skills that healthy people have. Stephen lacked social skills because he grew up in a dysfunctional home, simple. He needed help relating to people, and I’m willing to bet that he didn’t fare all that much better in other social locations.
Here’s a methphor:
Sometimes I go to the movies with my best friend because we can bond over something we are both interested in. Sometimes I go with a lover because it’s a chance to be together. Sometimes I go with someone I’m not all that close to because they happen to also want to see “The Day After Tomorrow.” Sometimes I go to the movies by myself. And sometimes I make an agreement that I am absolutely not going to go see “The Dark Knight” with anyone but this one person, because we really want to see it together–and no one else needs to come along.
Social Skills!
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
If you think about, we’ve all known people like that. Some of us have been people like that. They move in and out of shallow relationships, give easy sex and constantly seek a real love they never find, or at least not until they overcome their destructive patterns and find someone who truly loves them.
You went on to say it happened to both straight and gay.
As Janie said in 1, we’ve established that this lifestyle (sex outside of marriage) is wrong and destructive. It doesn’t matter what the sexual combination of partners are.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn,
I don’t know any group beside conservative christian’s who use the terminology “gay lifestyle”!
You are not being honest. The way you choose to present the stories of these “aberrations to the mainstream” (post-positive rhetoric) is with terminology that inherently generalizes their experiences to the whole.
You’ve been academically DISHONEST!
But on the other hand: I’ll take your concession that sexuality is malleable and run with it. Thank you, it’s nice to see eye-to-eye everyone in a while.
Report comment to moderator
Good points, Lynn. I have a number of gay friends, and have never shouted at them or sought to avoid their friendships. Yet all the pro-homosexual activist bloggers on WoW can chant is “No you don’t! Liar! What would they say if they knew you think homosexuality is sinful?”
Blah, blah, blah. The reality is, as Joel Mark pointed out above, most evangelicals in real life are living out the gospel, and reaching out to the lost souls all around them — and that includes those trapped in a homosexual lifestyle.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn: Fair question.
Stephen’s individual experience is what it is. If he’s found his true nature after years of mistakenly looking in a different direction, I applud that.
What I object to is a phenomenon I describe as “universalizing the personal.” You’re presenting Stephen here as an example to show that homosexuals aren’t really attracted to the same sex, and can be led out of it by love and compassion.
If that’s how it was for Stephen, then great. No one should feel compelled to live a life they know deep down is a lie. But to suggest that he’s typical is, at best, undemonstrated. In my decades of adulthood, I’ve know enough homosexuals who did not feel this sort of trauma and conflict about it to know for a fact that Stephen’s experience is not universal.
And that’s why I said what I did in #5. This sort of persistent despair and loneliness isn’t unique to homosexuals, nor is it universal among them. If Stephen has moved into a happier phase of life now by abandoning things that were never really his true self, that’s wonderful, but it’s a mistake to assume that any given homosexual is having the same kind of experience.
Report comment to moderator
#13: If sexuality is a malleable trait, why do liberals validate change in one direction while deriding change — or even the possibility of change — in the other?
Define malleable. Considering the act of gay, I can’t imagine participating. I can’t imagine the possibility of changing my orientation. When you look at a smooth beautiful woman and compare her next to a hairy man, it becomes obvious, there is no comparison. A gay sees the hair man as desirable. I don’t believe, based on my own experience, that you can change that for a second.
Can a straight man love another man? Sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s romantic love.
If someone, for one reason or another doesn’t want sex, fine and good. There is no reason to “run out and have sex”. Many people don’t want the sweat and fluids and grunting. There shouldn’t be any pressure.
But for those that do want sex, no amount of denial will change what is natural for them.
Report comment to moderator
oh my g-d,
RDEAN, stop talking!
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a methphor:
No.
Report comment to moderator
This sort of persistent despair and loneliness isn’t unique to homosexuals, nor is it universal among them. If Stephen has moved into a happier phase of life now by abandoning things that were never really his true self, that’s wonderful, but it’s a mistake to assume that any given homosexual is having the same kind of experience.
I return the “fair enough” to you, SteveG
That said, I have noticed similar “unversalizing of the personal” in articles showing why the ex-gay movement is a negative development. Stories about how this or that gay man, for example, tried “reparative therapy” or a church program, with soul-crushing results.
I doubt if the two sides on this issue (homosexuality is universally harmful) and (homosexuality is natural and healthy) are ever going to agree. But the church’s new compassion toward homosexuals who freely want to change, and liberals’ acceptance that change toward heterosexuality is okay, is a step forward.
Report comment to moderator
Personally, I have a close family member, a close
college friend, and several business colleagues who are homosexual. All of them well know my unequivocal love and compassion.
The idea that serious Christians single out homosexuals for their sin and cover for other sexual sins is a myth. Most Christians are just as concerned with fornication, adultery, divorce, etc. as they are with homosexuality, however weak they might have been on any of these issues.
The real problem here is that the militant homosexual political movement is involved in attempting to gain social acceptance for homosexual behavior and marriage. This movement is ably led and extends into many schools, churches, and blogsites.
As Lynn suggests Christian individuals and churches need to welcome homosexual people, without comprising their position on homosexuality based on both Scripture and reason.
Should anyone want to understand these issues in depth, I would suggest that they read Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover who has practiced psychiatry and psychoanalysis with homosexuals for over twenty years.
Report comment to moderator
I have worked in mental health facilities and seen the faith in clients whose lives have been completely shattered. As we sat drinking coke in Wal-Mart one day, a lady said that she felt the lesbian urge coming on. I wondered what would happen next. She said to me, perhaps at a later point, that when that happens, she prays to Jesus
and He takes it away.
God is at work everywhere. We do not limit Him.
Another man, very sad, and abused by his family growing up, I listened, he talked on and then concluded that God will take care of it, in other words, God does care, and the result is with God.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #23: The idea that serious Christians single out homosexuals for their sin and cover for other sexual sins is a myth. Most Christians are just as concerned with fornication, adultery, divorce, etc. as they are with homosexuality, however weak they might have been on any of these issues.
I can’t speak for any miltant movements, but the interesting thing is, I happen to agree with concern over divorce and adultery, and even fornication although with admittedly a less black/white view of it.
The differencee for me is that all of those really are decisions people make. Homosexuality is a way that people are.
I can see sensible reasons for not violating another person’s marriage, or for not ending your own except in dire circumstances. I can’t see any sensible reason for opposing homosexual relationships per se.
I think this is why so many Christians are insistent that it must be a “choice,” even though none of them can remember a time in their own lives where they made such a choice. They know that if they admit it’s an unchosen condition, their grounds for opposing it weaken considerably.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn at #22: That said, I have noticed similar “unversalizing of the personal” in articles showing why the ex-gay movement is a negative development. Stories about how this or that gay man, for example, tried “reparative therapy” or a church program, with soul-crushing results.
I doubt if the two sides on this issue (homosexuality is universally harmful) and (homosexuality is natural and healthy) are ever going to agree. But the church’s new compassion toward homosexuals who freely want to change, and liberals’ acceptance that change toward heterosexuality is okay, is a step forward.
It would be nice if we could agree that people should follow their true selves. People like Stephen who are misled into homosexual experimentation that really is not true to his self can turn away from it and recover his heterosexuality. While someone who is truly homosexual could embrace that and not feel anguished about being unable to change it.
I fear that day is still a long way off.
Report comment to moderator
“People like Stephen who are misled into homosexual experimentation that really is not true to his self”
There’s nothing about Stephen’s story that supports this kind of assumption. Better, and more honest, to leave Stephen right out of it and go with bald-faced assumption unadorned by any narrative.
take care,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Sure SteveG,
It seems like we all agree that sexuality is malleable. People should move to the interactions that lead them to the most personal fulfillment. But we are going to have problems living up to that ideal as long as conservatives keep convincing people to treat sex negatively.
I don’t have any problem with a “gay guy” crossing over, but Stephen’s emotional problems don’t seem to be caused by gayness. From the limited knowledge I have, I’m a little worried that he is scapegoating.
Lynn is ready to admit sexuality is malleable, but still insists that personal relationships not be (or that their is only one type of sexual relationship worth affirming). To use an old homophobe’s trope, limiting a malleable subject to a limited and rigid set of expression is ramming a square plug into a round hole!
Lynn’s (and others’) prejudiced motives are more apparent when they don’t succeed at sounding sensible.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s see…The night before my birthday my friend April took me out for a really nice meal. She told the waitress it was her girlfriends birthday – get shared a piece of cake. I went to a Mardi Gras ball with a woman I work with because her date backed out at the last minute and last Saturday night I went to see the Indigo Girls. My ex-husband asked me Sunday if I woke up a lesbian or if I had anything I wanted to tell him. Answer is still Nope. I personally don’t think it is a choice.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn is ready to admit sexuality is malleable
Don’t believe I ever said that, Luke. I simply pointed out that if liberals and gays believe that, they should be consistent and acknowledge that malleability, by definition, swings in both directions.
No pun intended.
Report comment to moderator
I would like to comment on the objection to the phrase “homosexual lifestyle.” I think that “gay” as an adjective to “lifestyle” is is as legitimate as are “singles,” “jock,” “workaholic,” “geek,” “religious,” or even “married” or “parental.”
When one aspect of your life drives most of your decisions, actions, and desires, you are obligated to be defined by it.
I, too, have several friends and acquaintances who are gay. The only reason I KNOW they are gay is because they “wear it on their sleeves” and parade it in front of everyone. I have no qualms about calling that a “gay lifestyle.” OTOH, I may have other friends who are also gay but I don’t even know it because it isn’t especially what they want to be their defining characteristic.
Fair enough?
Report comment to moderator
I think maybe instead of malleable, we think of sexuality as in part being socially constructed. The public way we understand our sexuality is itself very malleable as social history repeatedly shows.
The changes which Lynn saw in her interviews I think are real. That offers other possibilities in the Christian/gay interface. Maybe it’s not just politics or militancy (one social construction) but a possibility of a more integrated life. We may find that the problems which face our gay brothers and sisters are not that different than those we face — the same twistiness of the heart, or the constant pull of the self.
Report comment to moderator
#23: based on both Scripture and reason.
Why would you think there is reason in “magical” sciptures?
#23: Most Christians are just as concerned with fornication, adultery, divorce, etc.
Bull hockey. There are “swingers conventions” every year in Las Vegas. Swingers clubs made up of married couples all over the US. Even in small towns. Probably more married people belong to “swinger’s clubs” in the US than the total population of gays. If the number of swingers clubs on the internet is any indication, there are probably many times more swingers than gays. Most Christians are not concerned with fornication as long as it’s between a man and a woman.
http://www.lasvegasswingersclub.net
Report comment to moderator
How come no constitution amendment banning “swing clubs”? Ok, don’t answer. I already know. It’s NOT gay.
Report comment to moderator
StevenG – “I happen to agree with concern over divorce and adultery, and even fornication although with admittedly a less black/white view of it.
The differencee for me is that all of those really are decisions people make….”
It appears that you are saying that heterosexuals exercise some degree of rational choice about acting on their sexual desires, but that this is not the case with homosexuals. I disagree.
I would concur that one’s attractions are not chosen in the sense of an objectively arrived, rational, conscious slection – rather, I would posit that it is some blend of predisposition (genetic/gestational) and early upbringing/experiences that results in one’s attraction set. But acting on one’s predispositions is always a choice even if one’s predispositions are not.
Report comment to moderator
How come no constitution amendment banning “swing clubs”? Ok, don’t answer. I already know. It’s NOT gay.
No, RDean. It’s because there is no push on to add adultery to nondiscrimination laws. There are no officially sanctioned adultery clubs in public high schools. Adulterous characters in media are still generally not heroes. Churches are not proclaiming themselves “welcoming and affirming” of adulterers. Teachers are not reading to grade-schoolers books titled “Heather Has a Mommy, a Daddy, and Daddy’s Mistress.” Governments are not forcing people to hire out-and-proud adulterers.
See the difference?
Report comment to moderator
Adding to my last post: There is no activist push to legally sanction the union of two adulterers.
That you would ask such a question shows the success gay activists have had in transforming the debate from one over morality to one over civil rights.
Report comment to moderator
But acting on one’s predispositions is always a choice even if one’s predispositions are not.
Perhaps. But actual and measureable harm comes from adultery always, divorce usually and fornication at least some of the time.
No harm at all comes from homosexual acts, unless they also include one of the above components. Two homosexuals who are not infected with a disease and who form and honor a lifelong monogamous relationship can have a long and happy sex life within that partnership and no harm would ever come of it.
No one has ever given me a convincing reason to condemn homosexuality in general. “It’s a sin,” they say .. and that is a religious belief that can’t be shown objectively to be true. Many people think it’s not.
I can agree that sexual irresponsibility — heterosexual or homosexual — is wrong. But that’s as far as I can go down that road.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG It would be nice if we could agree that people should follow their true selves.
Here we get to the heart of the issue, namely whether we should follow our true selves or well reasoned and established moral law.
Rousseau, the romantic philosopher, argued that people are basically good in following their own lights and desires and are corrupted by the evil influence of traditional society. Christians argue that that we live in a moral cosmos that requires people to restrain their polymorphously perverse passions, including the sexual ones, and that with the grace of God we are capable of accomplishing this, despite manifold mistakes along the way.
Human Christians, clearly fallen, try to avoid sexual and other temptation with the help of God’s Grace and, however tempting, don’t think in a romantic way that they are autonomous selves. It is true that we are unique individuals in the sight of God and Christ, though within the confines of moral law.
Report comment to moderator
Most Christians are not concerned with fornication as long as it’s between a man and a woman.
You must not have every visited a Bible-believing church or school or home before, RDean, because I’ve heard anti-fornication teaching from Christian teachers and preachers all my life.
Report comment to moderator
StevenG – “But actual and measureable harm comes from adultery always, divorce usually and fornication at least some of the time.
No harm at all comes from homosexual acts…”
Your last statement is absolutely false. One must accept, at the very least, an equivilency of fornication and homosexual acts on any scale of harms caused.
Report comment to moderator
Hi, Kim!
Report comment to moderator
So Lynn,
you want to hold our arguments to a standard that says sexuality is malleable, but you don’t want sexuality to be malleable?
You also think sexuality is not malleable, but you still posit the existence of legitimate “ex-gays,” who have changed their sexuality?
You are not making gain for yourself in tern of making more sense! How do you have ex-gay without sexuality being malleable? And don’t say “transubstantiation”!
Report comment to moderator
Just for the record, I’m really happy to see a “gay thread” not going completely off the rails crazy. There’s some obvious (probably irreconcilable) disagreement, but people are listening and thinking before finger pointing and blame casting. Well, except for donato. But he’s so fiesty it’s kinda fun.
Since Harris and Peter Leavitt have pretty much said what I was going to say, and Lynn has thrown in some really great contributions, too, I’ll just sit back and watch again for now. Keep up the good conversation, y’all!
Report comment to moderator
KRM at #41: Your last statement is absolutely false. One must accept, at the very least, an equivilency of fornication and homosexual acts on any scale of harms caused.
No, I don’t.
In the first place, homosexual acts are only outside of marriage because the society doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage. (That is beginning to change but it’s still largely true.) For that reason, asserting that homosexual sex is by definition fornicative is only because the definition is rigged to make so.
Secondly, as I said, I don’t believe fornication is always wrong. (Remember, I am not coming at this from a Christian perspective so I’m not bound to agree with Christian teaching.) So even if homosexual sex is always fornicative, that doesn’t mean it’s always wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Well, it’s too bad Lynn didn’t talk to some of us who have been through the “ex-gay” movement and come away damaged by it.
Like some other topics on WorldMag (”race” for example), this topic lacks the perspective of those most affected by the issue.
Report comment to moderator
n the first place, homosexual acts are only outside of marriage because the society doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage.
Nope. Homosexual acts are outside of marriage because God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman. Secular society deciding otherwise won’t change that. Plus, the Bible separately condemns homosexual acts.
Remember, I’m coming at this from a Christian perspective, so I’m bound to agree with Christian teaching.
Report comment to moderator
Remember, I’m coming at this from a Christian perspective, so I’m bound to agree with Christian teaching.
So you are.
And that’s fine. But I continue to ask if anyone can make it make sense from a common-sense standpoint that doesn’t depend on holding a certain religious conviction. So far, no one has.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg you POST……: “But I continue to ask if anyone can make it make sense from a common-sense standpoint that doesn’t depend on holding a certain religious conviction. So far, no one has.”
Why should anyone leave their beliefs in the LORD Jesus Christ and Scripture for your so called “common-sense standpoint” when it isn’t common sense,…. its a LIBERAL view which goes against everything we believe.
This is one of the problems Steveg, you connive, and reword your posts in hopes you can somehow get a different message from the Believers. You cause your own distress!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, did you go through a program and try to become straight? What happened? Would you explain a little more? Once when I was about 16 and the ugly duckling a woman I knew was gay spent an amount of time talking to me and asking me questions. Now I know she was just being nice and realized I was shy and awkward. Then I thought she MUST be making a pass at me because gay people recognize each other right? None of the boys liked me or would talk to me but she did so that must mean I was gay too. Right? I thought about it for a week or more. Then I decided she must be mistaken I definately liked boys. I imagine from talking to the few gay friends I have that it must be that way for you as well.
Thursday morning I called my friend Dooze and told her I was going to the Indigo Girls. She and her girlfriend were going also. She told me to come on over to the dark side, she would hook me up with a membership card and a free toaster. We saw each other at the concert which was the first time in about 4!!!!! years that we actually SAW each other. She looked great. She has lost about 50 pounds since they finally realized that she had a tumor growing inside her. We hugged and kissed because that is the way our friendship has always been. If anyone wanted to read any more into it have at it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG does a good job of pointing out the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma that conservative Christians put gay people in:
On the one hand, they’re condemned for living a promiscuous “lifestyle”.
On the other hand, they’re condemned for forming stable relationships (not to mention their desire for marriage).
But that seems to be the point of conservative Christians: make gay people’s lives difficult, if not downright impossible, both socially and legally.
*****
Turning to the article as written by Lynn, while I’m quite disappointed by it, she retains a significant amount of goodwill from me. I know we all have our “blind spots”. This happens to be one of hers (in my opinion). Since no person should be dismissed based on one “blind spot” or being one-sided (or wrong) on a particular issue, I will give her forgiveness on this matter.
That’s not to say I won’t come back later and take on some of points she made.
Report comment to moderator
—-There is no activist push to legally sanction the union of two adulterers.
And yet, if gays were allowed a union, they wouldn’t be considered adulterers. Of course, they are also denied job protection swingers don’t have to worry about. Adulterers in the military regularly get a slap on the wrist or a verbal dressing down. Gays are kicked out, at least the lucky ones are. Others are charged as a criminal for lying.
So why do Christians work so hard to make life miserable for a very few?
—-That you would ask such a question shows the success gay activists have had in transforming the debate from one over morality to one over civil rights.
As well it should.
Expecting gays to go through their entire life without romantic love, denied to them based on occult scripture, is immoral as well as irrational. It would be like living your life according to tealeaves or astrological signs. Just because many Americans believe in the arcane, doesn’t make it any more real than “tea leaves” or “astrological signs”.
#40: because I’ve heard anti-fornication teaching from Christian teachers and preachers all my life.
And it always seems to be directed towards the gays. Never have I heard condemnation of Swing Clubs on this site. Considering that they may be many more swingers than gays, an outsiders would definitely see two sets of standards.
http://www.actualswingers.com/swingers_history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging
Report comment to moderator
you want to hold our arguments to a standard that says sexuality is malleable, but you don’t want sexuality to be malleable?
You also think sexuality is not malleable, but you still posit the existence of legitimate “ex-gays,” who have changed their sexuality?
Luke, you are mistating my position. I am saying that gays and their advocates have in the past tended to be inconsistent about the malleability factor, applying it going in only one direction.
My argument for the existence of “legitimate ex-gays” doesn’t depend at all on malleable sexuality, but rather on a person’s abandoning a lifestyle they consider wrong and/or unwanted. In the view of many, leaving homosexuality doesn’t mean “changing” one’s sexuality, or changing what one IS, but rather changing one’s sexual behavior — what one DOES.
Big difference.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn #12: I find it interesting that the first response of some of our liberals is to invalidate the individual experiences of the people I spoke with, or to point out that similar experiences exist among heterosexuals.
A few points. Some of this has been mentioned before.
1) If that’s what it took for Stephen to pursue a happy/happier existence then I’m all for it.
But;
2) Not knowing all the details of his story, it’s hard to say if converting his sexuality was just the most overt way for Stephen to deal with the host of other issues that were impacting negatively on his life. Did he seek any other help for his problems before he tried to convert his sexuality?
I guess I’m questioning the assumption of causation: that is, that being gay was the cause of his dispair, when it may have been abandonment issues, the history of sexual abuse etc.
3) Anecdotal evidence, such as this, can feed people’s perceptions/misperceptions. As has been said, it is unfair to generalise about other people’s lives based on the anecdotal evidence of one person’s life. While I doubt that this is Lynn’s intention at all, it is possible for some readers to draw generalisations such as; “Oh, look how desperate and tragic a gay lifestyle is, and it’s so fortunate when someone walks away from it.”
#12:
I have noticed that this is a common response among liberals across a range of social issues: People whose deeply felt, individual experiences do not match the liberal social orthodoxy are derided as inauthentic or as oppressed dupes of the religious right. Even when those experiences pile up enough to become statistics, the statisics are then called “flawed” or “biased.”
Read the first few posts on Anti-Homosexual Christianity and you’ll find a number of conservatives decrying UnChristian to be a meritless, stereotypical, biased, agenda-driven work that’s not worth discussing because it doesn’t reflect their individual experiences.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Kim!
I was involved with (well, sucked into/pressured into really) an “ex-gay” group for 2 years. I came out far worse than I went in. I went in “down” and came out severely depressed. It’s not what it’s cracked up to be. Of the 10 guys I was in the program with, not one of us came out better (much less straight). In my experience, the language and tactics used are downright dishonest.
That’s what I would say about the whole experience: it was dishonest all the way around. From the guys I met who were supposedly “changed”, to the promises made, to the covered-up failure rate, to the inability of either the leaders or the participants to tell the truth, to the supposed “counseling” sessions which were “hook-ups”, to the cult-like tactics that were used. This was one of the premier “ex-gay” organizations and home (at that time) to Exodus, which is the umbrella organization for most all “ex-gay” groups.
I could (and may) write a book on my experience some day. For now I’ll make a few points about “ex-gay” organizations:
1. They come from a negative perspective. They’re attempting to stop people from being gay. The failure rate is very high.
2. Their methods are bad, if not downright unethical and psychologically dangerous.
3. Dishonesty abounds (see my comments above).
4. They’ve become part of the Christian right and become much more anti-gay.
5. They operate more on theory than real life.
One wishes for all people to live their life with integrity and wholeness. For the vast majority of gay people that will involve an acknowledgment of their sexual orientation. For only a very small number of people will that involve attempting to live as “straight”. Almost exclusively that is driven by a religious conviction. That’s where the “ex-gay” groups come in. One should keep in mind that they are appropriate (and I use that word advisedly) for a very few people. But we should not be fooled into thinking that the “ex-gay” groups have the “cure” for being gay. What they do offer is a very strict religious regimen that even most conservative Christians would run away from. It’s based on a lot of rules. I’d equate it to living in a monastical life. For most people (gay or straight) that’s not going to be practical.
I’ll stop for now.
Report comment to moderator
#53: or changing what one IS, but rather changing one’s sexual behavior — what one DOES.
It seems you are saying it’s ok to have straight sex but not gay sex even if you are gay. I would never wish for my daughter or sister to marry a “formerly” gay man. When the term, “Love between a man and a woman”, is used, it is assumed that both are straight. When a woman is in deep love with a man who secretly harbors feelings for other men finds out about those feelings, she is crushed. There is a depth to the relationship between a straight man and a straight woman when they are truly in love that is not there when one or the other is gay. That love is a lie. They may have a “type” of love, but not the deep romantic love that only comes with honesty and the naturalness that they are both heterosexuals.
Two gays can have this type of love. To deny it exists is just being purposely ignorant. Many people don’t believe that gays can even feel deep emotion.
To me, mysticism is on par with astrology and tealeaves. It’s not real. To make people’s lives miserable because of what you think might happen to them after they die is, dumb? Mean? I don’t know what to say. It’s certainly immoral in my eyes.
Report comment to moderator
Pasted Note About Swingers:
NASCA International (formerly the North American Swing Club Association) is an association of clubs, websites, publications, travel agencies, and events catering to the swinging lifestyle community. NASCA was established as an umbrella organization with the intent of encouraging the dissemination of accurate information about swinging lifestyles across North America. It currently lists events and clubs in 43 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 38 Canadian clubs and events and clubs and events in 25 other nations, and publishes a printed guide.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #49: Why should anyone leave their beliefs in the LORD Jesus Christ and Scripture for your so called “common-sense standpoint” when it isn’t common sense,…. its a LIBERAL view which goes against everything we believe.
Who said anything about leaving your beliefs? I’m asking if your beliefs, on this issue anyway, can be put into terms that make sense to people who don’t share them.
You seem to be saying no, they can’t. Which is what I’ve suspected.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible doesn’t make sense to those who don’t believe it.
Report comment to moderator
Crap. There’s a swinging conspiracy to take over the world! Don’t fight it people! Resistance is futile! Throw your keys in the bowl!!!
RDEAN, I’ll grant you this. You do have a rather entertaining argumentative style. One just needs to remember to throw logic and objectivity out the window in order to appreciate it.
Report comment to moderator
#22: I doubt if the two sides on this issue (homosexuality is universally harmful) and (homosexuality is natural and healthy) are ever going to agree. But the church’s new compassion toward homosexuals who freely want to change, and liberals’ acceptance that change toward heterosexuality is okay, is a step forward.
It’s a step forward down a one-way street. The “church’s new compassion” simply capitalises on “liberal’s acceptance that change…is okay” and continues to do what it has been doing all along. But now it just has a little less resistance from some circles.
Simply put, liberals are more accepting of ex-gays, and the church is more accepting of people who want to be ex-gay.
Report comment to moderator
So Lynn,
You are saying that you believe sexuality is a “thing” whihc helps to define who someone “is,” and that sexuality is completely seperate from someone’s personal behavior.
So do you also acknowledge that multiple types of sexualities exist? How do you evaluate sexuality seperate from people’s actions?
Report comment to moderator
#22: (homosexuality is universally harmful) and (homosexuality is natural and healthy)
(homosexuality is universally harmful)- The Christian accusation. Studies have shown it’s harmful because of their prejudice making poor young adults feel guilty for feelings that are natural to them. Those that grow up not subjected to hostility tend to be better adjusted.
(homosexuality is natural and healthy) – only if you are gay. It’s healthy to have a good self opinion and not let those that believe in the occult define who you are.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #59: The Bible doesn’t make sense to those who don’t believe it.
Actually it does, to a large degree.
But you could say that about anything. Scientology makes sense … if you believe in it.
Report comment to moderator
RDean, so you really think it’s only the beliefs of Christians that makes homosexuality harmful? Perhaps AIDS is imaginary (or invented by Christians)? Perhaps the low life expectancy among male homosexuals is imaginary–and the plethora of diseases they’re exposed to? Perhaps the high suicide rate is either imaginary or caused by Christians?
I really don’t think that full acceptance by Christians will suddenly make homosexuals live happily ever after. In fact, the nearly full acceptance of homosexuality in American society by everyone but Christians should be enough to make homosexuals simply ignore us and live happily ever after, if we were the only issue. I suspect that deep down even most homosexuals know that we’re right, that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion of healthy sexuality. Christians cannot lie and pretend that is not true. We owe it to God to tell the truth, we owe it to our children, and we owe it to those caught in homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps AIDS is imaginary (or invented by Christians)?
AIDS is transmitted by certain behaviors. Homosexuals don’t just develop it spontaneously, and heterosexuals are not immune. Two homosexual men who are uninfected and who are monogamous with each other will never have to worry about it.
AIDS also does not affect lesbians to any significant degree, which I assume you find just as sinful as male homosexuality.
Perhaps the low life expectancy among male homosexuals is imaginary–and the plethora of diseases they’re exposed to? Perhaps the high suicide rate is either imaginary or caused by Christians?
I am not aware that the life expectancy for homosexual males is significantly lower. What is your source for that?
On the suicide rate, yes, I think Christians do have some degree of responsibility for that. You send relentless messages to homosexuals that they are sick and loathsome and inherently sinful and undeserving of human intimacy, and somehow expect them NOT to be affected?
Report comment to moderator
You see how they try to tie AIDS to gays? What mean and spiteful people. Living on a soapbox of faux superiority.
For many, your “God” is a made up fantasy figure. Since you can’t produce him/her/it, you can’t convince anyone otherwise. Instead of you speaking for your God, let your God speak for herself.
Report comment to moderator
“Every Christian is obligated unconditionally by God to love his neighbor just as he would love himself. He is obligated to honor all other persons by listening care-fully to their side of the story.
But the compassion with which our culture is pre-occupied is often a front behind which operates a betrayal of truth-seeking at the deepest and most profound level – the level of life and death. The primary obligation behind all other obligations, even behind the two great commandments to love God and neighbor, is the obligation to be truth-seekers and truth-speakers. All other obligations necessarily presuppose that one. Love and compassion cannot happen in chaos.
Love and compassion have the structure of truth, and are meaningless without it. When the arena of public debate is undermined by a betrayal of truth-seeking (when any of us want more to “be right” than to tell the truth), one can be sure that close behind is the father of lies and hidden obsessions with pride, power, and pleasure.
The following is offered, knowing that it will cause pain, but knowing also that those most deeply hurt by wrong behavior are those caught in it, and that only in full commitment to truth are we set free. Compassion and freedom have the structure and backbone of truth. If we care about those with AIDS, as with any other problem, we will tell them the truth, and call them likewise to seek the truth.”
(The link below will offer the entire site and article, with much information.)
ROAD to EMMAUS Website: http://theroadtoemmaus.org
Report comment to moderator
For what it’s worth, here’s my personal experience.
I was involved as a volunteer (but professionally-trained) counselor in an “ex-gay” ministry affiliated with Exodus International for a period of about ten years in the 90’s. I quit when a disagreement occurred among leaders of the group regarding how best to conduct the ministry. During and since that time, I got to know a number of individuals with varying degrees of same-sex attraction, all the way from those who had married and loved their spouses very much, but discovered later that they were tempted by frequent same-sex attractions, to those who were bisexual, to those who were exclusively attracted to the same sex. In addition to these variations in degree of same-sex attractions, individuals had differing life circumstances which in turn produced differing amounts of determination to “change”. Then, add to that the differing levels of emotional adjustment in all areas of life–some were a “mess” (like Stephen in Lynn’s account), some were in between, and some were quite mature. On top of that, put the differences in behavior and past behavior–some had never had sex (or had never had sex outside their marriages), some were (or had been) promiscuously sexually active with one or both sexes, and some were somewhere in between. A few were still living with same-sex partners from whom they wanted to separate but were ambivalent or scared. Obviously, it was absolutely necessary to consider each person’s unique situation and not try to apply a “one-size-fits-all” mentality to the vastly differing needs. As Lynn stated, one cannot fail to consider each person’s own experience. None of us but God can really know where things will go over time for a given person, and each one needs to be accepted and loved where they really are, not where you or they (or your church) might wish they were.
(Just for the record, I had also counseled people with other sexual struggles of various types, ranging from people seeking “attitude changes” all the way to habitual adulterers, those caught up in prostitution, and those who were otherwise habituated to sexual behavior that was creating a problem in their lives. I actually found habitual adulterers the hardest, because they were typically so used to lying and blaming their spouses that breakthrough to trust was very difficult.)
The beliefs held by those of us working in this ministry were that, according to God’s word, homosexual behavior was sinful in the same way that any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage was sinful. We also emphasized that all of us were sinners, but that God loved us where we were and desired that we approach him in whatever state we found ourselves to receive his forgiveness, love, and healing. We never specifically promised anyone that their “orientation” could be changed, but did say that God was powerful, merciful, and full of love, and we did not wish to put limits on whatever he wanted to do in someone’s heart and life. We all felt frustrated by the apparent lack of interest we saw in most churches toward embracing gays seeking change, in a fairly widespread unwillingness to view “slips” by those struggling with sexuality in the same way they would view any other “slip” into sinful behavior of a non-sexual nature, and the tendency to view homosexual sin as “different” or “worse” in some way than other kinds of sin. This may explain experiences like Anlir’s, where ministries became coercive, punitive, and otherwise desperate so they’d be viewed as “morally responsible”. This, in fact, became the issue over which our group split. Some of us were not willing to play games and push people around, or to say someone was hopeless or insincere if they fell. We saw what we were doing as accompanying a brother or sister on a journey with God. On journeys, most all of us trip and fall, pick ourselves up again, temporarily lose our way, etc. Most journeys to “Christlikeness” are lifelong. I, for one, will celebrate if indeed some of these attitudes are changing in the church. And I will celebrate too if gay activists and liberals can come to allow real “freedom of choice” that includes respect for anyone wanting to live and believe differently from the way they’ve chosen to live and believe, and can stop negating personal experiences different from their own.
Outcomes: Some people left for various reasons, with varying degrees of disappointment. Most were not angry with us, but had decided to do something different, usually to establish a monogamous same-sex relationship. In most cases they left in better shape emotionally than when they came. (We still loved and respected them.) We had one true miracle–a gay man who had never been sexually active and had married a woman he loved because he wanted a “normal” life was unable to consummate his marriage and confessed the reason to his wife. She of course felt deceived, hurt, and angry. The two of them decided to live separately but stay married and work together on their situation, even though many people persisted in telling the wife she may as well divorce him and had every right to do so. Over a period of several years they both worked toward trust and intimacy. Both loved the other and wished to be together. In the end, they were successful and have remained married. Two more individuals who were already married when they discovered their same-sex attractions found that their faith in God and love for their spouses enabled them to resist temptation until it weakened to the point of not being problematic to them. One woman and one man who found their “orientations” unchanging decided to live celibately unless and until change occurred.
As much as I’d like to embrace the big and small miracles that God performed in the lives of some in our ministry and use them to demonstrate that “everyone” has a choice, if they will just persist in exercising it, I feel I cannot do that without dismissing the people who left without change, and the many others for whom their experience has been that they cannot. I think we must admit that in regard to certain things, we do not know how much choice someone does or does not have. Only God knows that, and only he in the end has the right to judge. I do continue to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, just as many things I struggle with myself are. Sin in myself or in others provides no excuse for me in regard to the mandate to love as Christ loves.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Sexual addiction, not homosexuality, is a destructive problem/lifestyle – homo or hetero. When will the church wake up to this distinction and actually help combat the real problem instead of fighting its solution in many cases (healthy same-sex relationship)?
Report comment to moderator
Janie
You don’t say whether or not you are a licensed psychologist, or how long you actually worked for this organization. There are many more who have left a sinful lifestyle. You don’t mention exactly which churches are not accepting those struggling with sin, this is an important part of the program. I’m not saying your story isn’t true according to you, but I am concerned as to whether you followed up going to the churches which weren’t accepting of those seeking help and talk with pastor.
Many times those who’s lives aren’t working aren’t trusting the LORD, then they can blame it on a church or the inability to change.
If anyone ‘REALLY’ comes to know the LORD Jesus Christ, God promises that He will be faithful when they are tempted.
I don’t believe anyone can overcome a sinful lifestyle without being Born Again. It is with a new nature that one can experience change, by trusting and believing.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Janie I re-read your post. You do say you were ‘trained’ and stayed for ten years.
How long did your training last, and did you work there everyday as a ‘workday’?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – “homosexual acts are only outside of marriage because the society doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage” This is also patently false, particularly with male homosexual conduct, which features a great deal of the promiscuous style that men are prone to.
I understand that you aren’t approaching the matter from a Christian perspective, but in what way would homosexual conduct be distinguishably better than fornication?
Report comment to moderator
Janie, That was a very thoughtful, helpful, and intelligent post. Please don’t let Victoria’s comments and shoot-from-the-hip questions tarnish it.
Report comment to moderator
#72: but in what way would homosexual conduct be distinguishably better than fornication?
Ask the people from NASCA.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy – 73
Your comment isn’t true, there was no ‘hip shooting’-
Report comment to moderator
KRM at #72: This is also patently false, particularly with male homosexual conduct, which features a great deal of the promiscuous style that men are prone to.
I understand that you aren’t approaching the matter from a Christian perspective, but in what way would homosexual conduct be distinguishably better than fornication?
Because this part of what you said:
which features a great deal of the promiscuous style that men are prone to.
…is a stereotype.
Men and women both have sex drives, and men and women both have the ability to be sexually responsible. To suggest that homosexual men are just hopelessly promiscuous is to believe a myth.
There are, of course, hopelessly promiscuous men and women alike, but there are many — homo and hetero — quite capable of entering into longterm, even lifelong, monogamous pairings.
This is one reason the Christian oppostion to gay marriage is so confounding — with one breath you suggest they’re doomed to be promiscuous and in the next breath express your refusal to allow them entry into an institution that disallows promiscuity.
Of course, homosexuals can form those kind of partnerships without the legal framework, and many do. They fact that they do should tell you why your assumption is mistaken.
I don’t believe sex outside of marriage is always morally wrong. I do believe irresponsible sex, both inside or outside of marriage, is wrong. That applies regardless of whether it’s homo or hetero.
Report comment to moderator
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
There are many facts long known to the medical profession about homosexual behavior. Two are presented below, along with some more recent evidence on the average lifespan of homosexual persons.
1. Anal intercourse is a primary activities in which homosexual persons engage (over 90% of homosexual men). It almost always tears the rectal tissue, allowing the introduction of fecal matter from the person’s intestinal tract into his or her body. This is inherently disease producing.
2. The sperm introduced into the colon penetrates the colon walls, and then attacks the person’s immune system, thus rendering him or her increasingly less able to fend off those very diseases which were introduced by the fecal matter.
These two facts have been known by the medical profession for decades. Any competent medical doctor will be able (and with moral integrity, willing) publicly to verify these statements concerning the so-called “gay bowels syndrome” and other conditions.
3. The result of these and other activities in which homosexual persons typically engage have resulted in an average lifespan for the male homosexual person of approximately 42 years. That means an appalling average loss of about 40% of the male homosexual’s lifespan. Female homosexuals, according to the same researcher, live only a few years longer.
4. When AIDS is included, the average lifespan drops another 7% into the 30’s.
If these statements are facts, it is not possible to call homosexual behavior “mainstream America”, or just my neighbor living his life like I live mine. or that it is a God-given condition. That is a pathological condition of the most serious order.
ROAD to EMMAUS
Report comment to moderator
#76: This is one reason the Christian oppostion to gay marriage is so confounding
Not really. Remember, these are people that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and “Mystical Creation” is more science than, “science”. Read the stuff Victoria writes. Can you be any more determined?
#77: It almost always tears the rectal tissue
In case you didn’t know, many married people engage in this type of activity. Yea, don’t be shocked. They do it over and over and over again. Most rarely visit the hospital. Unless you are suggesting women’s bottoms are naturally more “stretchy”. Are they?
Report comment to moderator
Janie,
“I actually found habitual adulterers the hardest, because they were typically so used to lying and blaming their spouses that breakthrough to trust was very difficult.”
Thank you for this most insightful and helpful piece of information. I would have guessed it, but I know it from reality. The blaming is no joke and it doesn’t go away.
Please read Why Does He DO That? by Lundy Bancroft. Chapter 14 is priceless for detailing what real repentance looks like in reality. Don’t settle for anything less that what Bancroft presents; it is completely biblical. you would have thought that he got it from the Bible, but it came from his observations of real men who changed.
Report comment to moderator
#71 Victoria–I would not be considered a “psychologist”. A psychologist must have a PhD or PsyD. I was trained at the M.A. level, but after that had some internships in different areas. The areas that interested me most were marriage counseling and issues of sexuality, including the treatment of sex offenders. I received training from some very experienced and wise people after I accepted Christ. Although I worked full-time, only part of it was sexually-related treatment, but during the ten years I spent with the ministry most of my time was. After that group broke up, I worked mainly with parolees and their families in a prison after-care program for which my husband was providing jobs. We are now officially “retired” but are kept quite busy in our church.
In the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties we put a lot of effort into contacting pastors of various evangelical churches. They were for the most part not interested in reaching out to any of the individuals we were involved with. I think at that time it was too much of an “unknown”. I remember being present at a city council meeting where some local help for parolees to get re-established after prison was being discussed. Someone said, “but we don’t have any parolees here”. A guy I knew stood up and said that he was indeed a parolee and he indeed lived here. You could have heard a pin drop. In addition, we had pastors tell us that “no one in my church is struggling with homosexuality” when persons from their churches were actually in our group. Over and over we were told by group members that there was no one at their churches they could talk to. I know this is no longer as true, probably largely because the gay children of church members no longer tend to “sneak away”. We have a friend of many years who is in an “ex-gay” group in his church on the East Coast.
#78 Rdean In case you didn’t know, many married people engage in this type of activity. Yea, don’t be shocked. They do it over and over and over again.
OK, don’t be shocked. Rdean is right about this and about the “swinging” issue. I would say that many marriages are destroyed by the upsurge in the various kinky sex adventures now being sought out by married people. And more and more heterosexual singles, both men and women, seek anonymous (and dangerous) sexual games in a very promiscuous fashion.
#79 Reg I have seen that book. It is very good.
Report comment to moderator
Janie at #80: OK, don’t be shocked. Rdean is right about this and about the “swinging” issue. I would say that many marriages are destroyed by the upsurge in the various kinky sex adventures now being sought out by married people. And more and more heterosexual singles, both men and women, seek anonymous (and dangerous) sexual games in a very promiscuous fashion.
This is why a lot of us (gay and straight-but-supportive-of-gays) are perplexed at the Christian obsession with homosexuality. Adultery, divorce and swinging and so on pose a real threat to traditional marriages by actually compromising them and breaking them up.
Yet we don’t see blog posts about swinging, and only occasionally about adultery and divorce. We don’t see people trying to enact Constitutional amendments or even to pass laws about those things.
And when those efforts do happen, they are quiet and generally don’t cause much of a stir.
Homosexuality itself poses no threat to traditional marriage, and the only “threat” that allowing formal homosexual unions would cause is to expand the definition. But adultery, divorce and swinging already have changed traditional marriage. Many people no longer see marriage as necessarily a lifetime commitment, and fidelity within marriage is widely violated — sometimes with both partners’ consent and sometimes in secret.
Others have said that the reason for the great visibility of opposition to homosexuality is that no one is trying to have adultery seen as honorable … perhaps, but so? Adultery happens with much greater frequency and harms real marriages. The fact that it’s often invisible doesn’t mean it’s ok to ignore. Divorce is rarely stigmatized and even swingers are generally seen as eccentrics that aren’t harming anyone but themselves, even by people who think it’s harmful.
But homosexuality, which applies to maybe 10 percent of the population and doesn’t harm heterosexual marriage at all, generates tremendous amounts of hostility and rancor. I still don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
Janie – 80
After the 1981 exposure of AIDS came out in the news in San Francisco, ( I read the entire long story, and then related it to anyone who would listen) it was a long story in the Sunday Magazine ……. the Churches wanted to help, but there really weren’t to our knowledge those who were homosexual in our churches.
There was one young guy about 19 who was from one of the most prominent families in San Francisco, who was involved in the homosexual lifestyle in S.F.
My schedule was overloaded, but opened an organization which helped anyone with almost any problem. I had many great friends who were eager to help, they came with all sorts of backgrounds, both professional and those who stayed home to raise children. Our focus was to help people who had no place to live, no food, or needed medical attention, mothers without money or food, etc.
A young man was referred to me, and he became a Believer. I spent a great deal of time with him, his family was really tired of the situation (I cannot go into many details, as it would not be fair to expose them in any way) they had other children at home. I found a place for him to live within a home of 6 other men who had no where to go, plus very little money. I contacted the family and they were happy to help with his clothing, food and the price of the group home I had arranged for him to live. It was a Christian home with an older middle age couple, who’s desire was to serve the LORD, they had a number of bedrooms, so it was ideal.
I would take him shopping, we would have burgers and cokes at one of the department stores after he got out of school. We talked a lot, we became friends, (I wasn’t a lot older than he, so it was easy for him to share about his life) We spent lots of time on the phone too. He then started to give everyone a bad time, he went into S.F. and didn’t come home, when I finally was able to find him, he smugly told me that he had been pimping in S.F. I was heartsick. We were in church right after that on Sunday night, and they asked those who needed prayer… well, I was probably the first one, I started to ask for prayer for this person (some knew who I was talking about, others had no idea) I never gave his name. I was in tears,…….. all of a sudden in he walked down the isle and sat down, I couldn’t believe my eyes, as I sat there weeping. I was so glad to see him.
Many of us tried, we prayed we did everything we could, but he was a willful kid, and just about as defiant. He left the safe home he was living in. We heard very little from him after that . . . . I don’t know where he is, or if he’s even alive. We loved him, we wanted so much for him.
Many of the churches in the S.F. area were trying to help. The churches where I live now, will do anything to help anyone. The bottom line is, …….. the person in trouble needs to want help, they also have to trust in the LORD. These problems and sins are to big for anyone without CHRIST JESUS.
Report comment to moderator
Mysticism is the last thing to turn towards when attempting to solve problems. Does anyone in their right mind believe that people who are called “sick” will turn to the people calling them “sick” for help? That’s sick.
#81: Yet we don’t see blog posts about swinging
Of course not. I’m the only one who brought it up. No one wants to discuss “swinging”. They are having much too much fun hating the gays. Most people don’t even know of or know any gays, and yet the gays are somehow militant and “in your face”.
So I read #77 and there under, “Medical Evidence”, is listed one incredibly ignorant statement after another. Incredibly ignorant.
So I decide to do a search on, “gay bowels syndrome” because I have never heard of it before. So, what comes up? The most ignorant article out of the Conservapedia. One of the most ignorant and ridiculous sites on the Internet. For sure a case of determined ignorance.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome
Let me just say, not only do married people enjoy anal sex, Victoria, but there are even couples where the wife uses a strap-on, get this, on her husband. Obviously, you must BE a virgin.
Report comment to moderator
NOTE: Please use the link below to finish this piece, its very informative.
———————–
BEHAVIOR PROFILE
———————–
Studies abound describing homosexual culture, by both pro- and anti-homosexual people. While precise figures in such matters are inherently hard to obtain, nevertheless, the evidence results in a fairly clear picture of the kinds and frequencies of behavior engaged in by homosexual persons. The picture below is reinforced by the hours of TV coverage of the “gay rights” parades by C-Span and other organizations, readily available. The parades were hours and hours of sordid pornographic, obscene, and often blasphemous behavior.
The following figures are from ARE GAY RIGHTS RIGHT? by Roger Magnuson, KINSEY, SEX, AND FRAUD, by Reisman and Eichel, and from THE GAY AGENDA, a video documentary by THE REPORT. These in turn quote from a wide range of sources, mostly various public health reports. Four more recent books are HOMOSEXUALITY: A FREEDOM TOO FAR, by Charles Socarides, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH, by Jeffrey Satinover, both psychiatrists, STRAIGHT AND NARROW? by Thomas Schmidt, and A STRONG DELUSION by Joe Dallas, a leader in the Exodus ex-gay ministries. The evidence is clear and uncontradicted by any reputable researcher. There is also a large amount of material on the ROAD to EMMAUS electronic bulletin board (see below), including medical references.
Homosexual persons cannot use normal means of sexual gratification, and so substitute other means, chiefly other body apertures not constructed for sexual penetration, to imitate sexual intercourse. The result is not true sexual activity, but rather to imitate the feelings produced by sexual activity. The aim is feeling good, not good relationship, the goal of Godly sexuality.
Behind homosexuality is the whole tragic “sex-revolution”, the philosophy of “pan-sexuality”, that there is no moral distinction between forms of sexual activity — including bestiality, fetishism, sado-masochism, etc. The pan-sexual means to accomplish this “feeling good” is limited not to the same or opposite sex, but quite literally, only by one’s opportunity and imagination.
ROAD to EMMAUS
Report comment to moderator
One does wonder about the obsession by some with the private sexual behavior of other consenting adults. As sure as clockwork, those who are anti-gay focus on that, as if that is the sum total of gay people’s lives. Engaging these people on that level gives them exactly what they want: it takes the focus off of gay people’s humanity and reduces them to a particular sex act, which, by the way, not all gay people engage in (and plenty of straight people do engage in).
Focus people. Let’s not engage our anti-gay friends in a discussion about what goes on below the belt. Force them to discuss the real human beings who are affected by their bigotry.
Report comment to moderator
Traditional Values Coalition
The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN)!
GLSEN targets children for recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle as well as cross-dressing/sex change operations through GLSEN chapters that sponsor hundreds of Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs on junior high and high school campuses across the United States.
Report comment to moderator
The link below for post 86
Report comment to moderator
As I see Victoria has plastered this thread with the “Road to Emmaus” article too, I’ll post the response I put on the Anti-Homosexual Christianity thread.
And as Anlir says, in #85, it is difficult when people refuse to engage with real people and will only dialogue through their stats-sheets and amassed mis-information. We’re right here, ya know?! And it’s frankly libelous to keep telling someone that they behave in a way that they don’t.
Report comment to moderator
In the mean time, if you want to get into some good old fashioned hetrosexual fetishes, check out:
National Swingers Association
NASCA International (North American Swing Club Association)
Swingfest ’08 (largest swingers convention in North America)
America Swings
Report comment to moderator
#85 Anlir–Force them to discuss the real human beings who are affected by their bigotry.
Thank you, Anlir. It is indeed most helpful to focus on individuals and their experiences rather than to generalize and quote statistics. As anyone who has studied research methods knows, statistics, when you can’t see the actual studies, are not especially meaningful, and cannot be used to draw reliable conclusions. And for the individual who does not necessarily fit into them, they can be insulting and damaging.
In the case of gays, and in the case of certain sex offenders, their primary use is to promote unnecessary hysteria in gullible individuals.
Report comment to moderator
Well-said, Flaming Icarus (#88). Thank you, too.
Report comment to moderator
You can’t draw information regarding illness, behavior without research and statistics. Anyone who has worked in medicine and other fields knows this, its a given.
When one has no statistics, then the information which they offer doesn’t have merit when it comes to illness and behavior, . . and lives which are ruined by lack of knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G, #81 says,
This is why a lot of us (gay and straight-but-supportive-of-gays) are perplexed at the Christian obsession with homosexuality. Adultery, divorce and swinging and so on pose a real threat to traditional marriages by actually compromising them and breaking them up.
So you’ve never heard of marriages broken up by one spouse having a homosexual affair? I have. And I don’t think it’s fair to speak of the “Christian obsession with homosexuality.” I for one rarely hear it mentioned in Christian circles. Yes, on here, where we discuss news stories, it gets mentioned a lot. But as a rule, heterosexual sin is far more likely to be mentioned from the pulpit or in books and the like, simply because people in the pew are far more likely to be struggling with it. All sexual sin is, however, considered sin, and sexual sin (of all sorts) is one of the most damaging types of sin of our time simply because it is so widespread, so flaunted–and so destructive.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #84: Homosexual persons cannot use normal means of sexual gratification, and so substitute other means, chiefly other body apertures not constructed for sexual penetration, to imitate sexual intercourse. The result is not true sexual activity, but rather to imitate the feelings produced by sexual activity. The aim is feeling good, not good relationship, the goal of Godly sexuality.
Who are you, or anyone else, to say what the purpose is?
Anlir is right on about this. In the first place, many heterosexual people enjoy forms of sexual expression other than “normal” intercourse. If you, Victoria, don’t, that’s your right, but you have no right to inform anyone else what is and isn’t right for them.
In the second place, intimacy DOES bring closeness and strengthened relationships, and it doesn’t always have to be the kind that can lead to reproduction. (I am trying to speak delicately here but I assume people know what I mean.) To narrow the focus to the act and make assumptions about its significance dehumanizes the humans involved.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD at #93: So you’ve never heard of marriages broken up by one spouse having a homosexual affair? I have.
Sure. How often do you suppose that happens compared to heterosexual affairs? One time in ten? In fifty?
And I don’t think it’s fair to speak of the “Christian obsession with homosexuality.” I for one rarely hear it mentioned in Christian circles. Yes, on here, where we discuss news stories, it gets mentioned a lot. But as a rule, heterosexual sin is far more likely to be mentioned from the pulpit or in books and the like, simply because people in the pew are far more likely to be struggling with it.
That may be. But whenever Christians talk about sexuality publicly, it’s almost always homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. is right, guys–we rarely hear about homosexuality at church. We indeed hear far more about heterosexual sin. And marriages are sometimes broken up by one spouse having a homosexual affair–or one spouse deciding after a number of years of marriage and several children that they were really gay all along, and have to go follow their true nature now.
When we try to discuss issues like these with one another, buttons get pushed and many people pull out their generalizations and misconceptions. Hysteria reigns. We really do need to try to listen better to one another.
Report comment to moderator
Janie,
Thanks for your insights, too. And your acknowledgement of the necessity to see individuals rather than the generalisations.
I hold a position where I’m not adverse to people seeking to live a heterosexual life. I certainly wouldn’t want to deny someone the opportunity to do so, if they believed that it would be necessary for them to do. It’s kind of the APA position too.
But I am wary of a number of factors in this process. External pressure is a big one. Also, as you pointed out, some people have numerous other issues that contribute to their problems, which is why I disagree when some people try to attribute causation to the sexuality.
And changing the sexuality might just be an overt way of dealing with other issues, which could have been dealt with independently of the sexuality issue. Overly focussing on the sexuality, as the obstacle to be overcome, may also not prepare people for dealing with the other, deeper issues that have prompted them to seek help. But it’s good to read that you, Janie, were also prepared and willing to deal with the additional, non-sexuality related issues too.
I think it’s also important to note that there are counsellors and psychologists who work to help people learn to accept their same-sex attractions in a world that can be quite hostile to such an attractions. It’s that generalised hostility that can generate a lot of hurt in an individual. I think some people try to escape the hurt by changing that which attracts the hostility; that is, their sexuality.
So I remain unconvinced of the necessity of sexuality conversion, but I’m not adamantly opposed to it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG How often do you suppose that happens compared to heterosexual affairs? One time in ten? In fifty?
How much would how often it happens affect the devastation of the particular spouses and children to whom it does happen? (I personally know at least two off the top of my head.) This is part of the point I have been trying to make about statistics and generalizations. It goes both ways.
Report comment to moderator
Janie, I agree it’s devastating either way. My point is that the heterosexual manifestation is far more common, which is why I don’t understand why the homosexual possibility seems to get far more attention.
I accept that in the pews you hear more about heterosexual sin. That’s as it should be. But out in the public arena — and it should concern Christians because this is what the non-Christians are most likely to see and base their opinions on — it seems that Christians are far more worried that two homosexuals might share a house and hurt nobody than they are that two hundred married men and women might be clandestinely meeting opposite-sex lovers.
I don’t think any of these groups ought to be singled out for stigma, but I think that if Christians believe all of them are equally sinful, their attention — both in their Sunday sermons and also in their outward-focused statements — should be mostly on the things that happen more commonly.
This is just my perception and confusion as an outside observer, and it may be that there is a sensible reason for why that doesn’t seem to be the way it is.
Report comment to moderator
One of the ways that people are able to discriminate is to make the object of discrimination a threat to societies most vulnerable. This has been a tactic that has been tried over and over again. Victoria might want to take a close look at her own motives.
In the past, I have posted links to studies where children have been severely mistreated by their parents. A little boy with effeminate attributes who has been beaten and mistreated by his father to make him “into a man”. Even cases where a girl has been raped to make her into a woman.
Repeatedly, studies have shown the vast majority of child molesters identify themselves as heterosexual. Girls are seven to ten times more likely to be molested than boys are.
Clearly, at some time in her life, Victoria has had some kind of encounter or failed relationship with a gay or someone she has trusted has indoctrinated her into a cycle of hatred. If you believe that prayer does any good, then it’s Victoria you must pray for. Somehow, she has developed a damaged worldview that can only spiral down into even worse. If the way that she goes out of her way to present discredited information is any indication, then the depth of her extreme hatred towards gays is both dangerous to her, because it’s a sickness of the mind, or to others, because she doesn’t appear to be entirely balanced or in control. Anyone that knows her should consider helping her to get help.
Report comment to moderator
Janie
I don’t know where you live, but we do hear about homosexuals and the situation within the schools which I posted. There is MUCH more information regarding California and new laws. I don’t know where you live, or the situation your city is confronted with.
Everyone wants to play ‘nice nice’ but illness, disease, and infidelity are a real picture. Of course it always turns out to be the ‘blame game’</b.- which merely mean’s that, “whatever I am is someone else’s fault” or “this wouldn’t have happened had I felt cozy and comfy telling everyone I was a homosexual”- I wonder if any of you know how many lives have been TRASHED because of ridiculous excuse? I have known women who have endured much pain over this LIE,</b which could have been avoided had the people involved never walked to the alter.
It’s a SELFISH act when anyone knows in their heart they are homosexual, or they are not going to keep their marriage vows. I have read of the heart rending stories of those who deal with this end to their marriage. Who’s fault? Need I tell you, it’s the spouse who LIES, no one else’s.
Statistics give us an idea which we can use to develop a plan to help these types of situations, not only within the Church but outside the church as well.
Motives for making this information public stem from looking at lives TRASHED, because someone was more concerned with the ‘poor selfish abuser’ rather than looking at the children and spouse, who had to pick up the pieces of lies and deceit-
Report comment to moderator
#97 FI So I remain unconvinced of the necessity of sexuality conversion, but I’m not adamantly opposed to it.
Actually, most therapists who work with gays work with them to accept their orientation. I don’t consider sexual conversion a necessity, either. I just feel individuals should have the opportunity to explore any desired option. It’s actually kind of hard nowadays (outside Christian circles) to find anyone who will help you explore the possibility of conversion.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
Of course fewer homosexuals violate their marriage vows, numerically–there are far fewer of them and most aren’t married. But you suggested that homosexuality is a “victimless sin” (no, not your words), and I’m saying it ain’t. Not by a long shot. I only gave one way in which it hurts people. It also hurts family members who see a brother, son, etc. in such a destructive path, and then see him die young. You won’t count that pain, I’m sure, since the parents should blithely accept their kids’ choices, but pain it is.
Look, I’ve seen people I love lose a brother or a son to AIDS, and it’s haunting. They may or may not be reconciled to the sexual choices, and then they have to deal with that too. (And yes, in America, AIDS nearly always is a homosexual disease, so don’t bother arguing that point.)
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #101: Everyone wants to play ‘nice nice’ but illness, disease, and infidelity are a real picture. Of course it always turns out to be the ‘blame game’</b.- which merely mean’s that, “whatever I am is someone else’s fault” or “this wouldn’t have happened had I felt cozy and comfy telling everyone I was a homosexual”- I wonder if any of you know how many lives have been TRASHED because of ridiculous excuse? I have known women who have endured much pain over this LIE,</b which could have been avoided had the people involved never walked to the alter.
You really don’t see the absurdity of what you’re saying here, do you? First you say that to say “this wouldn’t have happened had I felt cozy and comfy telling everyone I was a homosexual” is a “ridiculous excuse.” And then you speak of lives trashed because people who knew they were homosexual married heterosexually and couldn’t keep to the vows.
Well, if they had been able to be openly homosexual without suffering stigmatization for it, they never would have felt social pressure to enter that marriage! People live lies when they feel like they can’t live true to themselves without suffering for it … suffering that comes directly from the people who tell them relentlessly how sick and sinful they are for their orientation.
How can you be so blind to your own self-contradictions?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. at #103: It also hurts family members who see a brother, son, etc. in such a destructive path, and then see him die young. You won’t count that pain, I’m sure, since the parents should blithely accept their kids’ choices, but pain it is.
I’m well aware of this. My cousin died of AIDS in his early 30s. His family were, of course, devastated.
I do not hold the position I do out of ignorance or indifference.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG I think that if Christians believe all of them are equally sinful, their attention — both in their Sunday sermons and also in their outward-focused statements — should be mostly on the things that happen more commonly.
I think that this would generally make more sense, too. However, I think that many Christians feel that they have to fight “the radical gay agenda”–NAMBLA, gay pride parades with naked people simulating sex acts where their children might see, etc. Even though these involve a tiny minority of gays, the tendency is to get scared, drag out the hysteria-producing rhetoric, and lump everyone who’s gay in with it. And, to be fair, if you read reviews of movies, music, and art written by Christians, you will find plenty of concern with sinful heterosexual expression.
Report comment to moderator
Janie at #106: And, to be fair, if you read reviews of movies, music, and art written by Christians, you will find plenty of concern with sinful heterosexual expression.
That’s a fair point.
I do object, however, to the idea that Christians equate “NAMBLA, gay pride parades with naked people simulating sex acts where their children might see, etc.” with homosexuality in general. (I understand you are not making this connection, but explaining the more hysterical Christian reaction.)
That’s like assuming that pornography performers, strippers, rapists and prostitutes = all heterosexuals.
So if that is why homosexuality provokes such visible public reaction from some (emphasis on some) Christians, it seems clear that it’s misguided and wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Janie – 102
Victoria,
Are you so repugnantly supercilious in your reactions, latching onto acontextual phrases you can wield to browbeat even your fellow believers, that you fail to comprehend what they are trying to say? Or is it just a rhetorical tic of sorts to question the beliefs of minds other than your own?
Just asking.
SG
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
1. I provided Christians struggling with same-sex attraction the opportunity to explore changing that. If a gay person is not a Christian and has no desire to become one, then he might not be interested in change, and I would not consider it necessary.
2. I consider homosexual behavior sinful. (You must have missed where I said that above.) However, if a person is not a Christian, I don’t feel it’s my job to tell them it is a sin. It’s not meaningful to them, unless and until they accept Christ.
3. Yes, I am a born-again Christian. What I meant when I said people should have the opportunity to explore “any option” I meant that since all secular therapists nowadays work not on change but acceptance, an opportunity should be provided for those who wish to work on change. (There are other Biblically acceptable options, too, like celibacy.)
4. I didn’t really need to give the people who came to me “God’s perspective”–they already had it or they would not have been coming to see me. But had I needed to, I would have.
5. Yes, my instructor and supervisor was a born- again licensed Christian therapist.
I hope that answers your questions.
Let me add a P.S. here. A couple of days ago you were on a thread about the death of a beloved Mormon leader ridiculing Mormons–in my opinion an immature, insensitive, unkind thing to do. Now you are on this thread unfairly stereotyping and condemning gays. I don’t get how you feel any of the information you are providing is in any way helpful to anyone or will address any particular problem, and that you don’t see that it is in fact insulting to individuals who don’t fit the stereotype. These two things, in addition to other unkind comments in the past make you seem lacking in lovingkindness to those different from yourself. As a fellow Christian, this concerns me.
Report comment to moderator
Janie – 110
I made several comments about Mormons. No ones death is more important than the ones who are left to believe in a cult which will lead them straight to a dark Eternity without Christ.
I am not stereotyping anyone Janie, homosexuality and the practices which lead to disease are well known. If you don’t understand the illness that it causes check with doctors who know.
As far as therapists go, that’s nice, but they aren’t physicians, they are people who work in the ‘health field’ but are not doctors.
You make accusations against me which are unfounded for whatever your reasons. I didn’t know you were carrying a grudge from who knows when. You will just have to deal with it, I don’t play girly ‘cat stand off’ games.
YOU WRITE:……. “4. I didn’t really need to give the people who came to me “God’s perspective”–they already had it or they would not have been coming to see me. But had I needed to, I would have.”
You would be surprised how many people don’t know much about Christ. If they knew all about HIM, if they had all those answers, they wouldn’t be coming to you or anyone else in the first place.
What perspective did you give them, if not Christs?
YOU WRITE:…… “2. I consider homosexual behavior sinful. (You must have missed where I said that above.) However, if a person is not a Christian, I don’t feel it’s my job to tell them it is a sin. It’s not meaningful to them, unless and until they accept Christ.”
If you are supposed to be a Christian therapist and your client comes to you with a sin problem, why wouldn’t you tell them its sin? It’s not a matter of your job, its a matter of telling them about a life everlasting which can be theirs if they trust in Christ. Without Christ they aren’t able to change, its only through Salvation and a new nature that they would be able to change through Christ. I don’t mean to hurt your feelings Janie, but trying to counsel someone without getting to the root problem isn’t a prescription for success, . . . Salvation and a changed heart through Jesus Christ and a new nature are what’s needed, not only for a changed life, but an Eternity with Christ.
YOU WRITE…… “5. Yes, my instructor and supervisor was a born- again licensed Christian therapist.”
Are you saying there was no Born Again Christian psychologist as the person in charge? It was only an “instructor” and a licensed “Christian therapist”?
Report comment to moderator
We often see stats on promiscuity, unsafe sex etc. trotted out on threads like this, but I’ve realised something: None of these things are necessary consequences of homosexuality. To assert that they are is akin to asserting that divorce is a necessary consequence of marriage. It simply isn’t so.
(Ok, the next paragraphs are a little generalised and I certainly don’t think it applies to all Christians.)
The irony is that some Christians, I suspect, will refuse to encourage any measures that might improve the stats that they are citing. “Stats say homosexuals are promiscuous,” they say, “but I refuse to encourage them to be monogamous. It’s heterosexual, celibate or out the door! Look, the stats say that homosexuals are promiscuous!”
I do understand that Christians probably aren’t able to encourage monogamous gay relationships, because that would be seen, to some degree, as condoning the behaviour. But, quite honestly, if you refuse to aid in improving the statistical information in any way you can, stop citing the stats as justification for your cause!
If I may be so bold as to assert: I think this is why some people question the “love” of Christians. Because, even when faced with an opportunity to improve a situation, they refuse to do so unless it’s on their terms.
I know that’s fairly generalised, but I think it is pertinent to some posters.
Janie #110,
I am not a believer, but I would echo your last paragraph.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #111,
I’ve seen a number of your fellow believers softly rebuke you for the tone of your comments. You subsequently brush off their admonitions as “girly cat fights” yet feel no qualms about repeatedly and indiscriminantly questioning their faith in Jesus Christ.
I think you should listen to your fellow Christians. They surely do not mean you any disrespect or malice, yet you’ve continuously treated their comments and feedback with the utmost disdain. The simple fact that a number of them have made similar observations is not an indication of deep grudges or conspiracies against you, it really means that what they’re saying has merit. Listen to them.
Report comment to moderator
101-”It’s a SELFISH act when anyone knows in their heart … they are not going to keep their marriage vows. I have read of the heart rending stories of those who deal with this end to their marriage. Who’s fault? Need I tell you, it’s the spouse who LIES, no one else’s.”
That was the situation in which I found myself.
I finally had to realize that I had partnered with a fool and was coming to ruin, as the Proverb says. I was not going to keep the sick cycle going.
Several years before my legal divorce (I was put away, according to the Bible, for how many years? See Donald Joy’s Bonding book for more Biblical original language study)
I read an article, (I don’t have it in front of me now) in Table Talk by a woman, I think she was a pastor’s wife, but I am not sure. This issue was from around 2000 or later. The whole issue was on adultery. This woman writer actually said that if a pastor ever committed adultery that it was the wife’s fault for not providing him with what he needed. It was the most sickening thing in print I have ever seen. This kind of ignorance along with my own tragedy, have driven me to find the truth in God’s word.
Thank you, for your above comment. This is the reality of a fool, a bully, an adulterer.
Report comment to moderator
This from Hello Dolly on another post–Burger Kingization.
“Tony – will you still be there if his marriage ends? Will your church still be there if his marriage ends? Or are you only there for couples who stay together?”
Tony says “Adios and AME, I think we are in agreement that the church is in large part its people, and that therefore we have an obligation to act accordingly toward the needs of others. AME, he is my friend, and yes I will be there for him.”
It is one thing for Tony to sit at a computer and write words about how he imagines things to be/about what HE would do.
Ame wants to know about Tony’s church.
Reality is altogether different.
I went to Tony’s church. My marriage came apart. I can tell you that in this particular church they have no idea how to handle a legitimate divorce. I was not welcome. And as long as that is the case, they will not LEARN how to “be there for those” whose marriages fall apart. You have to learn some things by doing them. And from what I hear in that church, I dare say, it probably has not been done.
The sad reality is that churches create the culture they want and then nurture the ones they want to keep and starve the ones they don’t want.
I was not the only one. Close to the same time period, in the same church, another woman, who chose to divorce her husband for his adultery was told to leave the church so that they would not have to excommunicate her. You see, some men place so great an emphasis on words, so that if the adulterer gets up in church and “repents to the church in words” (but the wife doesn’t know if it is yet real–and ONLY she knows what has gone on for years) that these men decide FOR the wife if she may divorce her adulterous husband!! What we don’t seem to understand here is the NATURE of adultery/lying. It doesn’t just go away with a simple apology. It is not like discovering that you accidentally stepped on your spouses toes. Adultery and the lying that goes with that lifestyle runs deep. If it does change, it is a long process not to be ignored, like, “Oh, he apologized, thank God! It is all over with now, we can go back sports and recreation.”
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
It’s must be difficult for you to bear up under the burdens you have been given.
When people write such things as you have mentioned … “This woman writer actually said that if a pastor ever committed adultery that it was the wife’s fault for not providing him with what he needed” ….. REG, it pains me to think of all the women who have suffered from such foolish words.
Men and women sin because they lust after other people and things which aren’t theirs. Lust of the flesh has ruined many a person. We can only pray for them, that they will come to Christ and repent.
You obviously have been hurt deeply, and the bruises and open wounds are still tender with pain. REG, I am going to pray for you, that your pain will be healed in a miraculous way, that you will feel the touch of ALMIGHTY God and be made whole through HIM.
You are precious in the sight of GOD, He loves you, and cares for you. Why this happened to you, may not be known this side of Heaven.
Continue to pray and trust, as I’m sure you do.
I know you and I didn’t get off to the best start on this blog, but I want to be your friend, even if we don’t always agree on everything.
GOD bless you Reg.
Report comment to moderator
REG,
Sin can’t be swept under the carpet. When adultery has been a way of life for either a man or a woman, there needs to be repentance, …. however there also needs to be CHANGE.
There is someone in my family whom I love very much, she suffered through much, in many more ways than I would post here. The church that she went to until recently would have brought her before the congregation to decide upon whether or not her divorce was a Biblical one. I was shocked when I heard about this. She has been divorced for a long time, her reasons are well documented.
Needless to say she left that church, and with the help of family she has been comforted and nurtured with love.
There is no reason for you to go through pain and suffering Reg, I don’t know much about your situation, but I prayed for you, and will continue. There are churches and Believers who will be your friend, try and find a church who will stand with you.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:You would be surprised how many people don’t know much about Christ. If they knew all about HIM, if they had all those answers, they wouldn’t be coming to you or anyone else in the first place.
Are you saying that if someone is a “real” believer, that person will never need help with any problem?
The people who came to me were sincere believers who were desperate because a particular sin had a hold on them, and they were seeking help breaking it. They knew a whole lot about Christ. If there were gaps in their knowledge, I helped to fill them in. I witnessed to plenty of people who were not believers about Christ. And I repeat: if a person is not a believer, it is not especially useful to talk to them about sin (except to explain the concept of everyone being hopelessly depraved, sinful, and lost without Christ’s sacrifice). It is not meaningful to them. This is part of treating individuals as individuals. Some need to be talked to about salvation. Some believers need to be talked to about sin. Some already feel like the world’s absolutely worst sinner, and they need reassurance and support. Some had absolutely no interest in Christ, and when this became apparent, we suggested they find other help more in line with their own thinking.
You seem distressed that my supervisor was not a “psychologist”. There is no special knowledge or training unique to psychologists that is not available to other well-trained professionals. We had a psychiatrist (MD), a psychiatric nurse practitioner, and several very well-trained and experienced therapists.
BTW, I do not have any grudge against you from any particular time. If I did, that would indeed be my problem. I’ve simply noticed a troublesome tendency of yours to display unkindness and lack of understanding in regard to some people. But, on the other hand, you are quite able to be loving to people you understand better. I’m not trying to pick a fight by saying this. Perhaps you should pray about it. We all have our blind spots. I have mine, as well, and I’m used to having concerns brought to me about them and listening seriously to them.
Reg: As Victoria said, it is obvious that you have suffered an enormous betrayal, and that others have not been as supportive as they should have been. Anyone who tries to tell you that “it is the wife’s fault” if her husband commits adultery is just dead wrong. Perhaps the husband is unhappy for some reason, but he needs to take responsibility for himself and his marriage to work it out, and not choose to comfort himself with other women while blaming his wife. I will pray that you find a church and believers who will tell you the truth and lend support.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria I made several comments about Mormons. No ones death is more important than the ones who are left to believe in a cult which will lead them straight to a dark Eternity without Christ.
And you thought making jokes about Mr. Hinckley’s (non-existent) plural marriages might be helpful in saving some Mormons? I’ve actually found the opposite–when you make fun of people, they tend not to feel inclined to listen to you any more. You’ve essentially lost your chance to witness to them.
Everyone: I can’t spend any more time involved in this discussion, but I’d like to personally thank all who participated. I really learned a lot. I’ve been wanting to be part of a discussion like this for a long time, and I feel most of us understand each other a little better. This is very gratifying to me. (I may come back at some point later to read any new posts.) Anyone who wishes to contact me off the blog can email janie1232@gmail.com. I will respond as I am able.
Report comment to moderator
The majority of AIDS patients are gay because that is the first community that was struck by the epidemic. As it spread, the straight community ignored the epidemic hoping it would wipe out the gay community. Many Christians are still under the delusion that gays are recruited by other gays and not naturally born, coming from their own children. Any search for AIDS statistics shows that the majority is certainly gay, but straights are racing to catch up.
http://www.avert.org/usastatr.htm
#111: However, if a person is not a Christian, I don’t feel it’s my job to tell them it is a sin.
It’s not your job whether they are a Christian or not.
#112: believe in a cult which will lead them straight to a dark Eternity without Christ.
Many believe that Christianity IS a cult. Look at you. You spout discredited misinformation. You give every appearance of not having a single original thought. You believe what you have been indoctrinated into without question. You give every sign of being a cult member. You feel you speak for “Christ”. Well, from what I have read about Christ, it is you that would most certainly be rejected. I suspect if you were able to think for yourself, you would agree.
Report comment to moderator
Janie – 119
Perhaps the problem you have with me is one you need to address in yourself, and pray about it. Many times I have enjoyed what you have written, and I’ve told you so. The only time I hear from you is when you find fault.
As far as the Mormon thread- I stand by what I said-
Janie, below is a quote from your post 102-
Judges: ‘Gay’ exposure OK for kindergartners
Parents citing religious beliefs vow to take case to U.S. Supreme Court
February 1, 2008
http://www.worldnetdaily dot com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59997
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #123: From the article: The opinion said the judges cannot see how the Parker’s son’s “free exercise right was burdened at all: two books were made available to him, but he was never required to read them or have them read to him. Further, these books do not endorse gay marriage or homosexuality, or even address these topics explicitly, but merely describe how other children might come from families that look different from one’s own. There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations.”
So there’s no “gay exposure” going on here, just a hysterical over-reaction by a couple of parents afraid their child might learn that not all families are the same.
It’s a public school. If the parents are that terrified of their child being exposed to a variety of ideas, they can homeschool or look into a private Christian school.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
thank you for your kind and understanding words. If you would like, email me at queenregina81@gmail.com
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #122:
If “sexual conversion” isn’t a necessity in the life of one who is involved in sexual sin, I fail to see the necessity in going any further. If someone wants to ’sit’ in their sin, what is the point of their coming for help to you or anyone else, except to complain, make excuses, blame anyone, about their situation…
Victoria,
I think Janie has been quite clear that she believes that it isn’t necessary to impose sexuality conversions on people who have not come to her for help, don’t desire to change their sexuality and don’t desire to become Christians.
The people that went to Janie for help were already believers, and as believers they explicitly desired to overcome their unwanted same-sex attractions. The people that saw Janie were not the ones who wanted to “’sit’ in their sins.” Janie worked with the people that came to her to help them achieve their goals. To suggest that she condoned their unwanted behaviour is beyond ludicrous.
If “sexual conversion” isn’t a necessity in the life of one who is involved in sexual sin, I fail to see the necessity in going any further.
You should re-read your own words, Victoria. You’ve just stated that there’s no necessity to “go further” with people who don’t think that change is necessary. So why are you criticising Janie for saying the exact same thing?
Report comment to moderator
REG,
Thanks for your email.
Report comment to moderator
Flaming Icarus – 126
I’m sorry you fail to understand what I wrote.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Victoria, if heaven is made up of people like you, I suspect it’s going to be a very lonely place.
Report comment to moderator
Hell is going to be the loneliest place in the Universe. Everyone who will be there, will have no excuse.
After every knee is bowed before the LORD, those who believed will spend Eternity with HIM, those who scoffed and mocked and played games with God’s Word will spend an Eternity apart from the LORD, and apart from everything else except the darkness which will never go away.
Many don’t want to believe this now, however the day is coming when it will be a reality to each person as to where they are and how the got there.
Report comment to moderator
Ha ha ha ha.
Report comment to moderator
If “sexual conversion” isn’t a necessity in the life of one who is involved in sexual sin, I fail to see the necessity in going any further. If someone wants to ’sit’ in their sin, what is the point of their coming for help to you or anyone else, except to complain, make excuses, blame anyone, about their situation…
Perhaps you might want to look at this situation a bit differently. Same sex attraction is not the same as engaging in same sex behavior. The attraction may be a temptation, but not necessarily a sin. I would think that the goal in a person’s life would be to grow in holiness as he/she develops a closer relationship with God. God may or may not choose to change the direction of a person’s sexual attractions. One cannot use the presence or absence of change in the direction of one’s sexual attractions as a sign of whether a person is right with God. I know several godly people who still experience same sex attraction. They see it for what it is–a temptation which they are likely to experience the rest of their lives. They also see it as a sign of their need to depend on Christ on a regular basis.
Now, if a person is actively choosing to engage in unbiblical sexual behavior, that would be a different story. Even then, there’s still hope–if they’re willing to consider the idea that there might be better ways of meeting their needs, things might change.
Of course, I think we all ’sit in our sin’ in some part of our lives. We may gossip, steal others’ reputations, overeat, or engage in a number of sinful behaviors or attitudes, all the while justifying them to ourselves and convincing ourselves that we aren’t really sinning against God. It doesn’t necessarily mean we aren’t Christians; most likely it means that there are areas in our lives that we haven’t yet yielded to Christ.
Report comment to moderator
tnnssmom – 132
We all are tempted in way or another to sin in many ways. IF we are a Believer it is ‘what we do with that temptation’ that makes the difference. I have posted the passage of Scripture below many times.
Maybe you haven’t read my posts very carefully. If one turns to Christ, repents, and then goes right back into WHATEVER sin willfully stays there, they have turned their back on Christ. The LORD has given us an escape from sin, its up to the Believer to accept it and turn to Jesus Christ each and every time they are tempted.
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13
Report comment to moderator
what we do with that temptation’
Considering what gay guys do, no truly straight guy is tempted. You have my word on that.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean
As Believers, and I am one, are tempted with sin, we all are in different ways. The Believers have the LORD and HIS promises to give us an ‘escape’ it’s up to us to depend on the LORD at those times, and flee from evil.
The devil tempts everyone, it’s only through our LORD that we are able to resist those temptations which are sin. God is faithful to all who trust in HIM.
6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. James 4
Report comment to moderator
I will never “submit” myself to the ages old religion of a bunch of ignorant desert people that had multiple wives, engaged in slaugher, sacrifice and slavery. Of course I don’t understand those that do. I have morals.
Report comment to moderator