Discussion:
How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
(too old to reply)
A Brown
2008-03-20 03:16:48 UTC
Permalink
This is something that comes up in this newsgroup from time to time.

I heard a FOTF broadcast that touched on this subject in a unique manner.

I thought some may want to give it a listen.
(You can listen at the website.)

How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm


If you get a chance to listen to the program, I'd love to hear your
comments.
shegeek72
2008-03-25 02:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm
If you get a chance to listen to the program, I'd love to hear your
comments.
James Dobson is from the Fred Phelps (godhatesfags) ilk: a sorely
misguided, anti-gay crusader who has conservative Christian listeners.
Joe Dallas, a self-proclaimed 'ex-gay' (a misnomer: sexual orientation
is hard-wired and not a choice) tries to convince us that 'loving'
someone is coercing them into one of those 'ex-gay' programs, where
all that's accomplished - even in the so-called 1% 'successes' - is a
sublimation of one's natural sexual orientation. They also lump being
gay in with 'sexual addiction' (they are separate and distinct).

Ironically, my girlfriend's parents listen to Dobson's broadcasts and
are staunchly anti-gay. However, she's gotten homosexuality is
'impossible and a myth' to 'Do you want the couch and loveseat from
our old house for you and Tara?' from her mom. I've been praying for
their acceptance and perhaps real love has been working. :)
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
s***@yahoo.com
2008-03-26 23:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Ha ha, phelps.
We got a big laugh at my church when they came to protest against Mr.
Rogers.
It was the "nobody is more "you" than YOU are" slogan, telling kids to
feel good
about thier individuality, that really set them off.

Nils K. Hammer
Bren
2008-03-28 01:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Post by A Brown
How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm
If you get a chance to listen to the program, I'd love to hear your
comments.
James Dobson is from the Fred Phelps (godhatesfags) ilk: a sorely
misguided, anti-gay crusader who has conservative Christian listeners.
Joe Dallas, a self-proclaimed 'ex-gay' (a misnomer: sexual orientation
is hard-wired and not a choice) tries to convince us that 'loving'
someone is coercing them into one of those 'ex-gay' programs,
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me. There is
no hate in God as far as I am concerned and God is concerned with far
far more than the outward body and this realm and how our genitals
work together and who with....Love and I am You and You are we and WE
are I AM...is all that matters. How to talk to homosexuals?listen to
them? etc.? well first off by seeing them as regular human beings who
just happen to have a different sexual expression is one...stop
seeing them as somehow faulty, out of place or evil or against God is
another. Get over it and make some friends and expand your horizons
and stop seeing others as "US and THEM". Seeing others as not of God
in the first place is the first lie of ego and the one that cast us
out in my opinion in the first place. I see understanding and
compassion and tolerance and inclusiveness as enlightenment and anti-
gay a product of darkness myself.
Blessings
B.
Matthew Johnson
2008-03-31 02:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bren
Post by shegeek72
Post by A Brown
How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm
If you get a chance to listen to the program, I'd love to hear your
comments.
James Dobson is from the Fred Phelps (godhatesfags) ilk: a sorely
misguided, anti-gay crusader who has conservative Christian listeners.
Joe Dallas, a self-proclaimed 'ex-gay' (a misnomer: sexual orientation
is hard-wired and not a choice) tries to convince us that 'loving'
someone is coercing them into one of those 'ex-gay' programs,
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me.
Ah, but if it is "evil to you", then is it "evil to God"? And if it is "evil to
God", are you demanding that God love it anyway?
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
AJA
2008-03-31 02:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me.
God hates is a strange expression to me also and a wrong one.
The whole homosexual ranting is so very tiresome to me. It's as though
folks have chosen that as their favorite sin, and by God quoting Scripture
that are absolutely _right_ about it!
Christians are told: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for
it is God is at work in both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
Philippians 2:12. Who can be so sure that they have the absolute last word
on another's salvation? Other than God, that is. And the issue sidelines
every other extremely pressing issue: The poor, downtrodden. The real evil
of the issue is that going on and on about it makes people angry, and mean
and it polarizes Christians. Paul wrote in the context of his life and
times. I truly believe that. I have to or as a woman I'd have to keep my
mouth shut in church, or not be welcome there either.

Charity in all things.
Blessings,
Ann
A Brown
2008-03-31 02:35:15 UTC
Permalink
If you listen to the program, you might be pleasantly surprised by what you
hear:

http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm

The speaker shows much compassion....and is critical of the way the church
has responsed in the past.
Post by Bren
Post by shegeek72
Post by A Brown
How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm
If you get a chance to listen to the program, I'd love to hear your
comments.
James Dobson is from the Fred Phelps (godhatesfags) ilk: a sorely
misguided, anti-gay crusader who has conservative Christian listeners.
...
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me. There is
no hate in God as far as I am concerned and God is concerned with far
...
shegeek72
2008-03-31 02:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me. There is
no hate in God as far as I am concerned and God is concerned with far
far more than the outward body and this realm and how our genitals
work together and who with....Love and I am You and You are we and WE
are I AM...is all that matters. How to talk to homosexuals?listen to
them? etc.? well first off by seeing them as regular human beings who
just happen to have a different sexual expression is one...stop
seeing them as somehow faulty, out of place or evil or against God is
another. Get over it and make some friends and expand your horizons
and stop seeing others as "US and THEM". Seeing others as not of God
in the first place is the first lie of ego and the one that cast us
out in my opinion in the first place. I see understanding and
compassion and tolerance and inclusiveness as enlightenment and anti-
gay a product of darkness myself.
Every Christian who has issues with homosexuality should attend an
affirming, or GLBT-friendly, church. When one gets to know these
wonderful (often better people than straights) folks he or she would
be hard pressed to maintain their negative opinions of gays and
lesbians.

To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to potential
taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or physical violence,
even murder? It just doesn't make sense and when something doesn't
make sense it usually isn't true.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-01 01:41:49 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by shegeek72
Every Christian who has issues with homosexuality should attend an
affirming, or GLBT-friendly, church.
This is like saying, "everyone who has doubts about whether or not he
should purchase a timeshare, should attend one of those free
high-pressures sales presentations".
Post by shegeek72
When one gets to know these wonderful (often better people than
straights)
Wow! Such obvious bias and prejudice! Yet you would have us believe
they are "often better"?
Post by shegeek72
folks he or she would be hard pressed to maintain their negative
opinions of gays and lesbians.
Whereas if they believe they are all like you, they will keep their
negative opinions?
Post by shegeek72
To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to potential
taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or physical violence,
even murder?
Yes. People make even stranger and more mysterious choices.
Post by shegeek72
It just doesn't make sense and when something doesn't make sense it
usually isn't true.
What are you talking about? People do _lots_ of things that don't make
sense. Just look at tall those people who signed morgages without
reading the whole contract, falling prey to the high-powered sales
tactics of loan officers.

Besides: astrology doesn't make sense, yet you believe in that. So
your plea here is all the more unconvincing.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
B
2008-04-01 01:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
If you listen to the program, you might be pleasantly surprised by what you
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm
The speaker shows much compassion....and is critical of the way the church
has responsed in the past.
B - fine and dandy but still considering homosexuality a disease or a
sin...is entirely man decided as far as my interp of Christ nudgings
within tell me and not at all of God. I find that many people are
just using God to justify their own disgust and are in a pretense of
compassion. To have his own website called God hates fags...sort of
shows that.
B.
Steve Hayes
2008-04-01 01:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJA
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me.
God hates is a strange expression to me also and a wrong one.
The whole homosexual ranting is so very tiresome to me. It's as though
folks have chosen that as their favorite sin, and by God quoting Scripture
that are absolutely _right_ about it!
In Lent we Orthodox Christians are supposed to pray every day "Grant me to see
my own transgressions and not to judge my brother".

And of course one of our frequent transgressions is ignoring that.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Dave
2008-04-01 01:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me.
But God does hate. Consider:

Deuteronomy 12:31 -- You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your
God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for
their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to
their gods.

Deuteronomy 16:22 -- You shall not set up for yourself a sacred pillar
which the LORD your God hates.

Proverbs 6:16-19 -- There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes,
seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And
one who spreads strife among brothers.

Isaiah 1:10, 14 -- Hear the word of the LORD, You rulers of Sodom;
Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah. ...
14"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have
become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them.

Isaiah 61:8 -- For I, the LORD, love justice, I hate robbery in the
burnt offering; And I will faithfully give them their recompense And
make an everlasting covenant with them.

Jeremiah 44:2, 4 -- "Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel,
'... 4'Yet I sent you all My servants the prophets, again and again,
saying, "Oh, do not do this abominable thing which I hate."

Zechariah 8:17 -- 'Also let none of you devise evil in your heart
against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I
hate,' declares the LORD.

Malachi 1:2-3 -- "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How
have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD.
"Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his
mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals
of the wilderness."

Malachi 2:16 -- "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of
Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of
hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal
treacherously."

Revelation 2:1, 6 -- "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The
One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks
among the seven golden lampstands, says this: ... 6'Yet this you do
have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Dave
Dave
2008-04-01 01:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to potential
taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or physical violence,
even murder? It just doesn't make sense and when something doesn't
make sense it usually isn't true.
People make all kinds of illogical decisions that lead to their
suffering. I'm sure that you can name a few right off the top of your
head. Why do you think a decision to be gay is different? That's
illogical!

Dave
AJA
2008-04-02 02:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
Every Christian who has issues with homosexuality should attend an
affirming, or GLBT-friendly, church. When one gets to know these
wonderful (often better people than straights) folks he or she would
be hard pressed to maintain their negative opinions of gays and
lesbians.
To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to potential
taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or physical violence,
even murder? It just doesn't make sense and when something doesn't
make sense it usually isn't true.
One thing I don't understand about G&L Christians. Why is it so important
that one know you are gay? I have never discussed my sexual preference,
much less declared it in my church. My parents certainly never did. What
is the purpose in doing so? Wouldn't a discussion/support group do just as
well as declarations of sexuality in a church? Seems the result is to fire
people up, irritate them. How about quiet humility?

Blessings,
Ann
DKleinecke
2008-04-02 02:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me.
Deuteronomy 12:31 -- You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your
God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for
...
Post by Dave
Deuteronomy 16:22 -- You shall not set up for yourself a sacred pillar
which the LORD your God hates.
Proverbs 6:16-19 -- There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes,
seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans,
...
Post by Dave
14"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have
become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them.
...
Post by Dave
Isaiah 61:8 -- For I, the LORD, love justice, I hate robbery in the
...
Post by Dave
saying, "Oh, do not do this abominable thing which I hate."
...
Post by Dave
Zechariah 8:17 -- 'Also let none of you devise evil in your heart
against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I
hate,' declares the LORD.
...
Post by Dave
"Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his
...
Post by Dave
Malachi 2:16 -- "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of
...
among the seven golden lampstands, says this: ... 6'Yet this you do
Post by Dave
have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
I assume that all the passages you quote are correctly translated as
"hate". What we have here is not god hating anything - it is people
projecting their hatred onto god. The writer hates and so he is sure
god hates.

This is theological pathology. God is Love - not hate. Standing the
reality about god on its head will get us nowhere.

But, of course, it will not get you damned. Because god loves you even
if you hate and you imagine he hates.
B
2008-04-02 02:10:02 UTC
Permalink
To me that is just the writings of man ....who didn't want the faiths
of people not of the tribes to infect theirs with difference and
foreign ways. I am talking about God....I don't make the Bible into an
idol.
Blessings B
Post by Dave
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me.
Deuteronomy 12:31 -- You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your
God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for
t
Dave
AJA
2008-04-02 02:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Oh those troublesome prophets! I find it helpful to read these passages in
context. They are too often used to describe God, and one is almost always
in error when one does that, I find.
Blessings,
Ann
Catherine Jefferson
2008-04-02 02:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by AJA
Post by Bren
B - Oh dear...the whole concept of "God hates" is evil to me.
Not to me. Saying, "God hates sin," when sin is fundamentally
destructive to human beings, is good as well as true. On the other
hand, saying that God hates any human being whatsoever, regardless of
how sinful, is both evil and false.
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by AJA
God hates is a strange expression to me also and a wrong one.
The whole homosexual ranting is so very tiresome to me. It's as though
folks have chosen that as their favorite sin, and by God quoting Scripture
that are absolutely _right_ about it!
There does seem to be a lot of ranting about that particular sin, in
here and in other Christian circles. While I don't deny the words of
Scripture nor the Church Fathers on the subject, I never did understand
why many seemed so inordinately disgusted by this particular sin and so
tolerant of other sexual sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures
consider homosexual sex to be simply one of many forms of fornication,
no worse than others.

The whole thing reminds me of something C. S. Lewis said in response to
a question about his autobiography. As a child Lewis went to a boarding
school, and describes a great deal of homosexual behavior (and
homosexual bullying) in the dormitories at the school. A reader asked
him why he had simply described the situation and said nothing about the
sin of homosexuality. His response was that he preferred to comment
about sins that tempted him and that he'd had to fight, and neither
homosexuality nor gambling had never been tempting him.

Of course, someone promptly asked if that meant that he'd been tempted
by every other sin.... ;)
Post by Steve Hayes
In Lent we Orthodox Christians are supposed to pray every day "Grant me to see
my own transgressions and not to judge my brother".
And of course one of our frequent transgressions is ignoring that.
<nod> And the sin of judging others while ignoring our own sins is
closely allied with the one sin that has any claim to being the worst
sin of all -- spiritual pride. :/


Lord, have mercy!
--
Catherine (Hampton) Jefferson <***@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
A Brown
2008-04-03 00:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ann
Post by AJA
One thing I don't understand about G&L Christians. Why is it so important
that one know you are gay? I have never discussed my sexual preference,
much less declared it in my church.
Nor did you hide it.
Post by AJA
My parents certainly never did.
Of course they did...when they walked in together. Do you think everyone
assumed they were "friends"?
Post by AJA
What
is the purpose in doing so?
First of all, it's not just sex...it's about who someone is. Just like your
father and mother going to Church together, showing affection, etc. They
didn't talk about their sex lives....but they didn't have to pretend they
were "just pals" either.

Second, the purpose in discussing it is to counter all the hateful things
being said in pulpits everywhere.

You wouldn't expect someone to stay silent when someone is getting slammed
and villified do you?
Post by AJA
Wouldn't a discussion/support group do just as
well as declarations of sexuality in a church?
Sexuality gets declared in the church all the time...usually from the
pulpit.

It's usually the pastors that start it.
Post by AJA
Seems the result is to fire
people up, irritate them.
How about quiet humility?
Sure. But how about Justice too?

Are you called into "quiet humility" when you see an injustice?

How about giving people the dignity they deserve?
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-03 00:55:12 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Catherine Jefferson
While I don't deny the words of
Scripture nor the Church Fathers on the subject, I never did understand
why many seemed so inordinately disgusted by this particular sin and so
tolerant of other sexual sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures
consider homosexual sex to be simply one of many forms of fornication,
no worse than others.
I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law, but I _was_ told
that the canonical penalty for this particular sin was much more severe than for
the other forms of fornication. But don't take my word for it; you can look it
up yourself.

But I am reduced to guessing why it is so much more serious too; my guess is
that it is because more so than any other fornication, it is a radical denial of
the mission of Man as described by St. Maximos the Confessor, to unite the
divisions of Creation, here, that between male and female.

Of course, that does not explain why the non-Orthodox excoriate this sin above
all others, even taking delight in doing so. But despite how it may seem, I
don't pretend to have answers to everything;)
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-03 00:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by shegeek72
To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to potential
taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or physical violence,
even murder? It just doesn't make sense and when something doesn't
make sense it usually isn't true.
People make all kinds of illogical decisions that lead to their
suffering. I'm sure that you can name a few right off the top of your
head. Why do you think a decision to be gay is different? That's
illogical!
In Tara's case, the reason would be because Tara does not believe it is a
_decision_ in the first place. And indeed, if you accept the commonly held
notion of what the human will is, this is the _natural_ conclusion. But this is
exactly why it is _so_ important to go _beyond_ the commonly held notion, and
realize what "free-will" really means. But Calvinism confuses many people,
keeping them _far_ away from this understanding.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
B
2008-04-03 00:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJA
One thing I don't understand about G&L Christians. Why is it so important
that one know you are gay? I have never discussed my sexual preference,
much less declared it in my church. My parents certainly never did. What
is the purpose in doing so? Wouldn't a discussion/support group do just as
well as declarations of sexuality in a church? Seems the result is to fire
people up, irritate them. How about quiet humility?
Blessings,
Ann
One thing I don't understand about G&L Christians. Why is it so important
that one know you are gay? Seems the result is to fire
people up, irritate them. How about quiet humility?
Blessings,
Ann
B - I don't get fired up or irritated or any other such thing when a
person talks about their sexuality. Then again...many folks my age and
under don't have a problem with doing this so it could be an age thing
(I'm 46) ....and then again maybe they don't like people just
assuming they're straight..so they have to say something.
Whatever..it doesn't bother me in the least. One of my oldest and
dearest of friends is Gay and he doesn't go around announcing his
sexuality...everyone is different.
Blessings, B.
A Brown
2008-04-07 02:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Catherine Jefferson
While I don't deny the words of
Scripture nor the Church Fathers on the subject, I never did understand
why many seemed so inordinately disgusted by this particular sin and so
tolerant of other sexual sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures
consider homosexual sex to be simply one of many forms of fornication,
no worse than others.
I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law....
Remember there are many, many denominations of Christians that do not base
their theology on Canon Law.
Post by Catherine Jefferson
But I am reduced to guessing why it is so much more serious too;
Well, we tend to be much more understanding of sins that hit close to
home....and less tolerant of the sins of "others".

I assume that homosexuality was thought at the time to be affecting only a
few perverts on the edge of society.

The Sins of *those people* are thought to be much more severe than the sins
of others.

i.e....Men (not women)made most of the rules/laws...so is it any surprise
that when a woman was caught in adultry, she was to be stoned to death?

What happens to to the man involved? I guess the writers of the law had
much more understanding for him.....than her.
Steve Hayes
2008-04-07 02:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by Catherine Jefferson
While I don't deny the words of
Scripture nor the Church Fathers on the subject, I never did understand
why many seemed so inordinately disgusted by this particular sin and so
tolerant of other sexual sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures
consider homosexual sex to be simply one of many forms of fornication,
no worse than others.
I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law, but I _was_ told
that the canonical penalty for this particular sin was much more severe than for
the other forms of fornication. But don't take my word for it; you can look it
up yourself.
Yes, I believe it's right up there with wilful murder and underpaying your
workers.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
shegeek72
2008-04-07 02:27:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 31, 6:41 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is like saying, "everyone who has doubts about whether or not he
should purchase a timeshare, should attend one of those free
high-pressures sales presentations".
Poor analogy, as usual.

There's a big difference between a high-pressure timeshare
presentation and a GLBT-friendly church. In the former, someone is
trying to sell you something; the latter Christians (who happen to
have a different sexual orientation) are worshiping at a church. One
doesn't normally attend a sales presentation to get to know the sales
people.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
When one gets to know these wonderful (often better people than
straights)
Wow! Such obvious bias and prejudice! Yet you would have us believe
they are "often better"?
Indeed, I've found them often better in terms of intelligence,
creativity, compassion and caring. My opinions are based on years of
personally associating with GLBT and straight folks. Whereas, your's
isn't.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
folks he or she would be hard pressed to maintain their negative
opinions of gays and lesbians.
Whereas if they believe they are all like you, they will keep their
negative opinions?
People's opinions don't bother me and negative ones are almost always
based on ignorance.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to potential
taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or physical violence,
even murder?
Yes. People make even stranger and more mysterious choices.
The differences being: 1) sexual orientation is not a choice. Anyone
who believes otherwise has not read up on the science of sexual
orientation that states it usually has genetic, hormonal and
environmental causes. 2) Being gay doesn't have the negative
consequences of consuming too much alcohol, abusing drugs, stealing,
etc. Indeed, any negative consequences to being gay come from
homophobes and those who have misguided beliefs (such as you).
Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: astrology doesn't make sense, yet you believe in that. So
your plea here is all the more unconvincing.
Ah, still dredging up astrology. I'll repeat: my investigations into
astrology have proven to my satisfaction that it's valid. There are
just too many characteristics that astrology is right on concerning
people's personalities, character, etc for it to be coincidental.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
shegeek72
2008-04-07 02:27:29 UTC
Permalink
[snip]

If you take the Bible literally. The more I learn about the Bible the
more I'm finding out that numerous parts are subject to
interpretation.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
shegeek72
2008-04-07 02:27:29 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
But Calvinism confuses many people,
keeping them _far_ away from this understanding.
How much study did Calvin do on transsexuality?
__
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
RP
2008-04-07 02:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by B
To have his own website called God hates fags...sort of
shows that.
B.G....Dobson does not have a website called "God Hates Fags".

---

[godhatesfags.com is, of course, from the Westboro Baptist Church.
--clh]
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-08 02:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
While I don't deny the words of Scripture nor the Church Fathers on
the subject, I never did understand why many seemed so inordinately
disgusted by this particular sin and so tolerant of other sexual
sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures consider homosexual
sex to be simply one of many forms of fornication, no worse than
others.
I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law....
Remember there are many, many denominations of Christians that do not
base their theology on Canon Law.
You just couldn't come up with a response that makes sense, could you?
NO Chuch bases its _theology_ on Canon Law.
Post by A Brown
But I am reduced to guessing why it is so much more serious too;
Well, we tend to be much more understanding of sins that hit close to
home....and less tolerant of the sins of "others".
I can't imagine why you would believe this. It is just another false
generalization.
Post by A Brown
I assume that homosexuality was thought at the time to be affecting
only a few perverts on the edge of society.
But this is a _bad_ assumption.
Post by A Brown
The Sins of *those people* are thought to be much more severe than
the sins of others.
And here is another.
Post by A Brown
i.e....Men (not women)made most of the rules/laws...so is it any
surprise that when a woman was caught in adultry, she was to be
stoned to death?
You just had to dig yourself deeper into confusion, didn't you? We
were not _talking_ about the Mosaic Law. But it is the Mosaic Law, not
Canon Law, that called for her to be "stoned to death".
Post by A Brown
What happens to to the man involved? I guess the writers of the law had
much more understanding for him.....than her.
Then you guess wrong -- again. Canon Law calls for the same penalty
for both: excommunication for several years.

But for the sin _you_ are in favor of, the penalty is a much longer
period of excommunication. That makes it clear which is regarded as
the more serious, incurable sin.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-08 02:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
On Apr 2, 5:55 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
But Calvinism confuses many people,
keeping them _far_ away from this understanding.
How much study did Calvin do on transsexuality?
You miss the point: it is the concept of the human _will_ that Calvinism
confuses. Once that confusion is established in a person's mind, there is much
that he cannot understand, including 'transsexuality'.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
B
2008-04-08 02:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by B
To have his own website called God hates fags...sort of
shows that.
B.G....Dobson does not have a website called "God Hates Fags".
---
[godhatesfags.com is, of course, from the Westboro Baptist Church.
--clh]
B - my mistake then. I Apologize to the group and to Dobson. Blessings
B.
Joshua Holmes
2008-04-08 02:38:20 UTC
Permalink
RP <***@nospammailandnews.com> wrote:

: [godhatesfags.com is, of course, from the Westboro Baptist Church.
: --clh]

Is Westboro for real? I was under the impression they were a
satire.

--
Joshua Holmes - ***@stwing.org
Per aspera, luctor et emergo.

----

[The members apparently think it's real. It's Fred Phelps' group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
--clh]
Steve Hayes
2008-04-09 00:16:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:38:20 GMT, Joshua Holmes
Post by Joshua Holmes
: [godhatesfags.com is, of course, from the Westboro Baptist Church.
: --clh]
Is Westboro for real? I was under the impression they were a
satire.
Even though they behave like a caricature, you can't take the mickey any more,
because someone is bound to trump your satire with the Real Thing.

I think it's the Landover Baptist Church that is satire.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
shegeek72
2008-04-09 00:16:30 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 7, 7:38 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
How much study did Calvin do on transsexuality?
You miss the point: it is the concept of the human _will_ that Calvinism
confuses. Once that confusion is established in a person's mind, there is much
that he cannot understand, including 'transsexuality'.
Yes, and you are quite confused about transsexuality.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
A Brown
2008-04-09 00:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
While I don't deny the words of Scripture nor the Church Fathers on
the subject, I never did understand why many seemed so inordinately
disgusted by this particular sin and so tolerant of other sexual
sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures consider homosexual
~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
sex to be simply one of many forms of fornication, no worse than
others.
I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law....
Remember there are many, many denominations of Christians that do not
base their theology on Canon Law.
You just couldn't come up with a response that makes sense, could you?
Well it makes perfect sense. The writer above said "scripture".
You state Canon Law as if every Christian accept it. Most of the Christians
in the USA do not.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
Well, we tend to be much more understanding of sins that hit close to
home....and less tolerant of the sins of "others".
I can't imagine why you would believe this. It is just another false
generalization.
No it's quite true. The sins we are more forgiving of are the ones that hit
home.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
I assume that homosexuality was thought at the time to be affecting
only a few perverts on the edge of society.
But this is a _bad_ assumption.
No, it is not. Since there was no indication of the existance of
responsible, charitable, humble, loving and dedicated homosexuals at the
time...we can assume the "assumptition" is true.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
The Sins of *those people* are thought to be much more severe than
the sins of others.
And here is another.
Post by A Brown
i.e....Men (not women)made most of the rules/laws...so is it any
surprise that when a woman was caught in adultry, she was to be
stoned to death?
You just had to dig yourself deeper into confusion, didn't you? We
were not _talking_ about the Mosaic Law. But it is the Mosaic Law, not
Canon Law, that called for her to be "stoned to death".
No confusion....we are talking about Scripture.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What happens to to the man involved? I guess the writers of the law had
much more understanding for him.....than her.
Then you guess wrong -- again.
No, I was correct, there is no death penalty for the man.
Post by Matthew Johnson
But for the sin _you_ are in favor of, the penalty is a much longer
period of excommunication. That makes it clear which is regarded as
the more serious, incurable sin.
I am not a Catholic, so excommunication from "Rome" doesn't have any effect
for me.

My faith is in Christ alone.
RP
2008-04-10 03:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Joshua Holmes
: [godhatesfags.com is, of course, from the Westboro Baptist Church.
: --clh]
Is Westboro for real? I was under the impression they were a
satire.
Even though they behave like a caricature, you can't take the mickey any
more,
because someone is bound to trump your satire with the Real Thing.
I think it's the Landover Baptist Church that is satire.
Here is their site:

http://landoverbaptist.org/
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-10 03:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
On Mar 31, 6:41 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
This is like saying, "everyone who has doubts about whether or not he
should purchase a timeshare, should attend one of those free
high-pressures sales presentations".
Poor analogy, as usual.
Well, of course, _you_ would call it a "poor analogy". I think it is
both telling and apt.
Post by shegeek72
There's a big difference between a high-pressure timeshare
presentation and a GLBT-friendly church.
Why, yes, there is. The dishonest salesmen making the timeshare
presentation is not nearly as dangerous and malicious. He only wants
to steal your money, not your salvation.
Post by shegeek72
In the former, someone is trying to sell you something; the latter
Christians (who happen to have a different sexual orientation) are
worshiping at a church.
Not everything people _call_ 'worship' really is worship, not every
building they _call_ 'church' is really a church.
Post by shegeek72
One doesn't normally attend a sales presentation to get to know the
sales people.
You are missing the point. One of the first things a 'good' salesman
does is make you feel like you _do_ know him. That makes it easier for
him to deceive you.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
When one gets to know these wonderful (often better people than
straights)
Wow! Such obvious bias and prejudice! Yet you would have us believe
they are "often better"?
Indeed, I've found them often better in terms of intelligence,
creativity, compassion and caring.
Repeating your bias for all to see? That is not a very intelligent
thing to do.
Post by shegeek72
My opinions are based on years of personally associating with GLBT
and straight folks.
So? It is still bias. You have said nothing to prove otherwise.
Post by shegeek72
Whereas, your's isn't.
You don't know that. That is your own bias popping up again.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
folks he or she would be hard pressed to maintain their negative
opinions of gays and lesbians.
Whereas if they believe they are all like you, they will keep their
negative opinions?
People's opinions don't bother me and negative ones are almost always
based on ignorance.
That is a whopper of a false generalization. No, "negative ones" are
NOT almost always based on ignorance.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
To anyone who still thinks being gay is a choice: do you honestly
think someone would voluntarily subject him or herself to
potential taunting, ostracizing, discrimination, verbal or
physical violence, even murder?
Yes. People make even stranger and more mysterious choices.
The differences being: 1) sexual orientation is not a choice.
Look: we all know _you_ believe that. But not all of us do. I
certainly don't. And since you have _repeatedly_ shown your own
_inability_ to judge what is 'scientific' and what is not, I don't
_believe_ you when you claim to have scientific proof of this. Nobody
should believe you.
Post by shegeek72
Anyone who believes otherwise has not read up on the science of
sexual orientation that states it usually has genetic, hormonal and
environmental causes.
Anyone who believes _you_ know what is 'science' and what is not is
VERY much deceived. You cannot know, as along as you still embrace
astrology.
Post by shegeek72
2) Being gay doesn't have the negative consequences of consuming too
much alcohol, abusing drugs, stealing, etc.
Oh, but it does. It leads to _far_ more negative consequences. This is
the _reason_ it is more harshly punished in Canon Law: because it is
so deadly to the soul.
Post by shegeek72
Indeed, any negative consequences to being gay come from homophobes
and those who have misguided beliefs (such as you).
Another of your extremely unscientific conclusions.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: astrology doesn't make sense, yet you believe in that. So
your plea here is all the more unconvincing.
Ah, still dredging up astrology. I'll repeat: my investigations into
astrology have proven to my satisfaction that it's valid.
And I'll repeat: your 'investigations' must have been extremely
unscientific if they allowed you to fool yourself into such a
blatantly false conclusion. You weaken your credibility by advertising
such _weak_ investigative capabilities.

Did it ever occur to you, that there might be a GOOD reason why _all_
astronomers reject astrology as a pseudo-science? And they have all
rejected it since Newton's time.
Post by shegeek72
There are just too many characteristics that astrology is right on
concerning people's personalities, character, etc for it to be
coincidental.
No, there are not. It is all a cleverly crafted illusion, crafted by
the same basic method of fraud St. Augustine described so long ago
when he described why _he_ gave up on astrology.

As described in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.v.xxii.html:

Chapter 22 .The FOLLY of Observing the Stars in Order to Predict the
Events of a Life.

33. But to desire to predict the characters, the acts, and the fate of
those who are born from such an observation, is a GREAT DELUSION AND
GREAT MADNESS. And among those at least who have any sort of
acquaintance with matters of this kind (which, indeed, are only fit to
be unlearnt again), this superstition is refuted beyond the reach of
doubt. For the observation is of the position of the stars, which
they call constellations, at the time when the person was born about
whom these wretched men are consulted by their still more wretched
dupes. Now it may happen that, in the case of twins, one follows the
other out of the womb so closely that there is no interval of time
between them that can be apprehended and marked in the position of the
constellations. Whence it necessarily follows that twins are in many
cases born under the same stars, while they do not meet with equal
fortune either in what they do or what they suffer, but often meet
with fates so different that one of them has a most fortunate life,
the other a most unfortunate.
[capitalization mine]

He has much more to say in proof of the folly of astrology, the proof
that is is VERY unscientific indeed: just like your beliefs concerning human
sexuality.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-11 02:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
While I don't deny the words of Scripture nor the Church Fathers on
the subject, I never did understand why many seemed so inordinately
disgusted by this particular sin and so tolerant of other sexual
sins. As best I can tell, the Holy Scriptures consider homosexual
~~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
sex to be simply one of many forms of fornication, no worse than
others.
I haven't verified it myself by looking it up in Canon Law....
Remember there are many, many denominations of Christians that do not
base their theology on Canon Law.
You just couldn't come up with a response that makes sense, could you?
Well it makes perfect sense.
No, it does not, as I already observed.
Post by A Brown
The writer above said "scripture".
Once more, you show your incompetence at quoting. She said not just 'scripture',
but "Scripture nor the Church Fathers". The difference is crucial. It _was_ the
Church Fathers who wrote Canon Law.
Post by A Brown
You state Canon Law as if every Christian accept it.
No, that is not what I assumed. That is _your_ bad assumption.
Post by A Brown
Most of the Christians
in the USA do not.
This is not even relevant. For as I already mentioned: she said not just
'scripture', but "Scripture nor the Church Fathers". The difference is crucial,
whether you recognize its importance or not.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
Well, we tend to be much more understanding of sins that hit close to
home....and less tolerant of the sins of "others".
I can't imagine why you would believe this. It is just another false
generalization.
No it's quite true. The sins we are more forgiving of are the ones that hit
home.
You are simply repeating the same bad false generalization, with no evidence to
back it up.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
I assume that homosexuality was thought at the time to be affecting
only a few perverts on the edge of society.
But this is a _bad_ assumption.
No, it is not.
Yes, it is. The documentation of the Philippics and of St. Clement of Alexandria
shows how false it is.
Post by A Brown
Since there was no indication of the existance of
responsible, charitable, humble, loving and dedicated homosexuals at the
time.
Since there is not even any indication that such _ever_ existed, this is
irrelevant. It is not "responsible, charitable, humble, and loving" to lead your
'beloved' into such terrible sin.
Post by A Brown
..we can assume the "assumptition" is true.
Your conclusion does not even follow from your stated premise. And your premise
is false anyway.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
The Sins of *those people* are thought to be much more severe than
the sins of others.
And here is another.
Post by A Brown
i.e....Men (not women)made most of the rules/laws...so is it any
surprise that when a woman was caught in adultry, she was to be
stoned to death?
You just had to dig yourself deeper into confusion, didn't you? We
were not _talking_ about the Mosaic Law. But it is the Mosaic Law, not
Canon Law, that called for her to be "stoned to death".
No confusion....we are talking about Scripture.
No, we were not. You were, but only because you failed to understand: Catherine
said "scripture AND Church Fathers".
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What happens to to the man involved? I guess the writers of the law had
much more understanding for him.....than her.
Then you guess wrong -- again.
No, I was correct, there is no death penalty for the man.
You are digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole. You were wrong, you
are still wrong, for the exact reason already stated.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
But for the sin _you_ are in favor of, the penalty is a much longer
period of excommunication. That makes it clear which is regarded as
the more serious, incurable sin.
I am not a Catholic, so excommunication from "Rome" doesn't have any effect
for me.
It is not just Rome that excommunicates you.
Post by A Brown
My faith is in Christ alone.
If it were, you would not be advocating and defending gross sin. But you are, so
no, your faith is not in Christ. You cannot change this fact by repeating the
same false assertions over and over.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
A Brown
2008-04-14 00:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Not everything people _call_ 'worship' really is worship, not every
building they _call_ 'church' is really a church.
So who decides which is which?
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-17 00:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Not everything people _call_ 'worship' really is worship, not every
building they _call_ 'church' is really a church.
So who decides which is which?
Not me, not you, but the Church itself, as the Body of Christ on earth, makes
this decision, expressed in various ways, e.g. Ecumenical Council, Canon Law,
Anathemas...

Of course, I realize even this does not answer the question definitively,
especially since there was a period when anathemas flew across the Mediterraneum
like spitballs in an unruly classroom;) But it is important to get the first
point: you and I do _not_ make this decision. Nor does any one other individual,
or even group of individuals.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
B
2008-04-17 00:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Not everything people _call_ 'worship' really is worship, not every
building they _call_ 'church' is really a church.
So who decides which is which?
B - we each decide by using the God within.
i.m.o
Bren
A Brown
2008-04-18 04:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Not everything people _call_ 'worship' really is worship, not every
building they _call_ 'church' is really a church.
So who decides which is which?
Not me, not you, but the Church itself, as the Body of Christ on earth,
makes
this decision, expressed in various ways,
My Church (and many others) welcome gay members!

I assume your does not.
Post by Matthew Johnson
I do _not_ make this decision.
But you make the decision as to what Church you attend and observe.
B
2008-04-21 02:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Not everything people _call_ 'worship' really is worship, not every
building they _call_ 'church' is really a church.
So who decides which is which?
Not me, not you, but the Church itself, as the Body of Christ on earth,
makes
this decision, expressed in various ways,
My Church (and many others) welcome gay members!
I assume your does not.
Post by Matthew Johnson
I do _not_ make this decision.
But you make the decision as to what Church you attend and observe.
When The United Church in Canada split into two groups..ones allowing
Gays..one not my own grandmother went with the crowd of her friends
and went to the one not allowing gays (openly) and I was so sad about
this. My grandmother was a good women..but she simply didn't
understand homosexuality and wanted just to go to the church where her
friends were. I wish she would've been more understanding but I
suppose as she is in heaven now..she is seeing things how they really
are and has learnt something. Just a thought.
B.
**Rowland Croucher**
2008-04-22 00:41:19 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by B
When The United Church in Canada split into two groups..ones allowing
Gays..one not my own grandmother went with the crowd of her friends
and went to the one not allowing gays (openly) and I was so sad about
this. My grandmother was a good women..but she simply didn't
understand homosexuality and wanted just to go to the church where her
friends were. I wish she would've been more understanding but I
suppose as she is in heaven now..she is seeing things how they really
are and has learnt something. Just a thought.
B.
Which raises two issues: a church for friends? Where does a 'church for
mission' fit in with that purpose?

And in answer to the Subject question: we welcome gays or anyone as
Jesus did - but that doesn't mean everything's up for grabs. Even Jesus
was selective about the persons to whom he gave leadership positions eh?
--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ (20,000 articles 4000 humor)

Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/
j***@go.com
2008-03-31 02:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
This is something that comes up in this newsgroup from time to time.
I heard a FOTF broadcast that touched on this subject in a unique manner.
I thought some may want to give it a listen.
(You can listen at the website.)
If they'd been courteous enough to provide a *transcript*,
which I can go through much faster, I would have read it;
but I'm not about to waste the quantity of time that would
be required to listen to Dobson's pontificating. There are
still people who *read* in this country; I guess FOTF's
refusal to accommodate us is symptomatic of the
anti-intellectualism of America in general and most
of American Christianity in particular. (If there actually
is a transcript on that website, it can't be readily
located from the page for which the original poster
provided the link.)
Post by A Brown
If you get a chance to listen to the program, I'd love to hear your
comments.
My comment is the same as I always make to those
self-styled Christians who spend so much energy
gay-bashing: Why not focus on the *real* besetting
sin of America -- GREED? Why not denounce the
fact that a good many Christians (including the
President and the right-wingers who controlled
Congress for a long time) apparently believe that
you *can* serve God and Mammon (an error that,
I believe, goes back to Calvin)? Why do I, the
Apostate Prophet, seem to be the only one
pointing this out?

-- Jeffrey J. Sargent

----

[Not Calvin, actually. --clh]
RP
2008-04-07 02:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@go.com
Post by A Brown
This is something that comes up in this newsgroup from time to time.
I heard a FOTF broadcast that touched on this subject in a unique manner.
I thought some may want to give it a listen.
(You can listen at the website.)
If they'd been courteous enough to provide a *transcript*,
which I can go through much faster, I would have read it;
but I'm not about to waste the quantity of time that would
be required to listen to Dobson's pontificating.
Well, it IS a _radio_ program...not a newspaper. The point of a radio
program is that you *listen*!. ;-)

The point of that program was that is was NOT Dobson "pontificating".

It was a guest speaker who spoke in a manner you would never expect from
someone associated with Dr. Dobson.

That's why it was posted here....it was out of character.

Last I checked it was still there:

(You can listen at the website.)

How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm
Antares 531
2008-04-11 02:20:22 UTC
Permalink
The first thing that needs to be done to clear up this set of
questions is to determine what causes homosexuality and at what age or
point in life a person becomes a homosexual. My personal take on this
is that a person is born with their gender orientation already set up,
and they have no choice except to override their pre-programmed gender
orientation. This may be possible in some cases but in others I am
convinced it just is not possible.

I am a straight male, and could never, ever embrace any form of
homosexuality. I know I was straight at about age 5, when I had my
first puppy love with a little girl whose family lived across the
street from my grandparents' store.

My gender orientation at age 5 could not have been a testosterone
thing. My emotional involvement with this little girl was the
outgrowth of my basic mind set. I am convinced that homosexual people
have no more choice in their gender orientation than I had.
Post by A Brown
This is something that comes up in this newsgroup from time to time.
I heard a FOTF broadcast that touched on this subject in a unique manner.
I thought some may want to give it a listen.
(You can listen at the website.)
How Should We Respond to Homosexuality?
http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000993.cfm
If you get a chance to listen to the program, I'd love to hear your
comments.
shegeek72
2008-04-17 00:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Antares 531
My gender orientation at age 5 could not have been a testosterone
thing. My emotional involvement with this little girl was the
outgrowth of my basic mind set. I am convinced that homosexual people
have no more choice in their gender orientation than I had.
Point of correction: it's sexual orientation, not gender orientation.
Gender identity is the inherent conviction that one is male or female,
or a combination of both. Like sexual orientation, gender identity is
hard-wired before birth.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-18 04:49:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <3VwNj.3246$***@trndny07>, shegeek72 says...
[snip]
Post by shegeek72
Point of correction: it's sexual orientation, not gender orientation.
Gender identity is the inherent conviction that one is male or female,
or a combination of both. Like sexual orientation, gender identity is
hard-wired before birth.
You may well believe it is "hard-wired before birth", _and_ that it is so
independent of sexual orientation, but the only 'support' you have for this
position is just as shaky as your support for astrology.

So no, this is not convincing.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
A Brown
2008-04-21 02:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Point of correction: it's sexual orientation, not gender orientation.
Gender identity is the inherent conviction that one is male or female,
or a combination of both. Like sexual orientation, gender identity is
hard-wired before birth.
You may well believe it is "hard-wired before birth", _and_ that it is so
independent of sexual orientation but the only 'support' you have for this
position is just as shaky
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-22 00:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Point of correction: it's sexual orientation, not gender orientation.
Gender identity is the inherent conviction that one is male or female,
or a combination of both. Like sexual orientation, gender identity is
hard-wired before birth.
You may well believe it is "hard-wired before birth", _and_ that it is so
independent of sexual orientation but the only 'support' you have for this
position is just as shaky
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?

Three reasons:

1) I have seen it change in persons I know

2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)

3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it changed (see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.

These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible. But there are more.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
A Brown
2008-04-23 01:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
You may well believe it is "hard-wired before birth", _and_ that it is
so
independent of sexual orientation but the only 'support' you have for
this
position is just as shaky
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
Well, where are all these people that neo-cons point to? Why are they all
so invisible?
Post by Matthew Johnson
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
Must we go to Russia for this change? Or is it available everywhere?
Post by Matthew Johnson
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
Again, this is not the Gospel...nor words of Jesus Christ.

As was pointed out by the moderator, you have to read passages such as this
in the context of who was writing it...and who they were writing to.

It was written to different cultures. That's a simple fact. The
question is how that fact affects how we read it.
Post by Matthew Johnson
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible. But there are more.
You may have had enough to convince yourself of something you want to
believe....but there is no "evidence" this is possible.
shegeek72
2008-04-23 01:44:06 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
So you claim, but how do we know this is true? And if we are believe
you, how do we know these persons have actually 'changed'? In all the
cases that I know of the homosexuality has not changed, but merely
been sublimated.
Post by Matthew Johnson
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g.,http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
More questionable, second-hand reports? For someone who appears to
value documentation this fails.
Post by Matthew Johnson
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it changed (see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32
This section does not refer to the loving, longterm relationships of
today. It most likely refers to homosexual rape and prostitution.

But the most dramatic evidence that refutes your 'sources' are the Am.
Psychological Assoc. and the Am. Psychiatry Assoc., which both state
that homosexuality is not a choice and unchangeable. Indeed, the vast
majority of therapists and sexologists agree. But, of course, modern
science is wrong and you're right.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org
RP
2008-04-23 01:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it a
fact.

I think the overall failure rates of such "change" ministries is enough
evidence and reason enough to disbelieve people who purport to "know
someone" who changed.

Anyone see Ted Haggard?

Anyone hear of the Catholic Church Crisis?
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-24 03:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by shegeek72
On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
So you claim, but how do we know this is true?
You don't. But you are missing the point. Have you forgotten what the
question was?

For that matter ,why did you snip w/o marking where you snipped?
Post by shegeek72
And if we are believe you, how do we know these persons have actually
'changed'? In all the cases that I know of the homosexuality has not
changed, but merely been sublimated.
And I could turn that around and ask you: how do -we- really know that
yours didn't change, that they only 'sublimated'?

We don't.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g.,http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
More questionable, second-hand reports?
No more questionable than all the cases you claim weren't really
changed.
Post by shegeek72
For someone who appears to value documentation this fails.
Again, you miss the point.
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
changed (see, g.e., Rom 1:18-32
This section does not refer to the loving, longterm relationships of
today.
How long do you think you can hide from the truth? This thread is not
_about_ such relationships, whether they exist or not; it is about the
_orientation_.
Post by shegeek72
It most likely refers to homosexual rape and prostitution.
No, it does not. That is sheer speculation. Pretty obviously biased
speculation at that.
Post by shegeek72
But the most dramatic evidence that refutes your 'sources' are the Am.
Psychological Assoc. and the Am. Psychiatry Assoc., which both state
that homosexuality is not a choice and unchangeable.
Those "dramatic" sources are not good enough. How could they be, when
even the very meeting where that decision was taken was so heavily
politicized? How could it be, when the no less scientific Catholic
Medical Association finds the very opposite?
Post by shegeek72
Indeed, the vast majority of therapists and sexologists agree.
Just like the majority of prostitutes agree that prostitution should
be legal?

Perhaps you missed the Yahoo! article about how the majority of
doctors were wrong about drinking 8 glasses of water a day?
Post by shegeek72
But, of course, modern science is wrong and you're right.
Ah, but what you call "modern science" is not really scientific at
all. That is the dirty secret you try to suppress.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-24 03:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it a
fact.
And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
Post by RP
I think the overall failure rates of such "change" ministries is enough
evidence
We know you do. We knew this several posts ago. You add nothing to the
discussion by repeating this unproven and unprovable assertion.
Post by RP
and reason enough to disbelieve people who purport to "know
someone" who changed.
No, it is not reason enough. But more important, you miss the point: it was
_you_ who claimed it is "hard-wired", so all it takes is ONE counter example to
prove you wrong. And I gave such a counter example.
Post by RP
Anyone see Ted Haggard?
Irrelevant, for reasons already explained.
Post by RP
Anyone hear of the Catholic Church Crisis?
This is _also_ irrelevant, since it does not even concern whether or not sexual
orientation is 'hard-wired'.

If you have to keep bringing up such inflammatory, yet totally irrelevant
points, then you can only succeed in one thing: persuading the rest of the NG
that you have not got a leg to stand on, so you have to keep on resorting to
"red herrings".
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
A Brown
2008-04-25 01:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
So you claim, but how do we know this is true?
You don't. But you are missing the point. Have you forgotten what the
question was?
No. This experience is something that has obviously affected you. But you
expect everyone to come to a similar conclusion...not knowing this
individual you mention.

Also, why doesn't he share his story...to offer support to others?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
And if we are believe you, how do we know these persons have actually
'changed'? In all the cases that I know of the homosexuality has not
changed, but merely been sublimated.
And I could turn that around and ask you: how do -we- really know that
yours didn't change, that they only 'sublimated'?
Because they have no stake in claiming anything different.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g.,http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
More questionable, second-hand reports?
No more questionable than all the cases you claim weren't really
changed.
Second, third hand unverified information?

Plus those that claim "no change" are public. Your "change is possible"
people are all second and third hand accounts...impossible to verify.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
For someone who appears to value documentation this fails.
Again, you miss the point.
No, that's indeed the point.

Instead you cling to things that you *wish* to believe or *want* to believe
and accept them as true...with no facts, no verification, impossoble to
prove.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
changed (see, g.e., Rom 1:18-32
This section does not refer to the loving, longterm relationships of
today.
How long do you think you can hide from the truth? This thread is not
_about_ such relationships, whether they exist or not; it is about the
_orientation_.
How long are you going to _make up the Truth_ from the things you _want_ to
believe.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Those "dramatic" sources are not good enough.
Of course not...why let facts get in the way?
Post by Matthew Johnson
How could it be, when the no less scientific Catholic
Medical Association finds the very opposite?
Would you expect anything else from the CATHOLIC Medical Association?

The _Catholic_ Medical Association has a dog in the fight.

They are bias...and carry very little authority on this subject.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Perhaps you missed the Yahoo! article about how the majority of
doctors were wrong about drinking 8 glasses of water a day?
But Rome is *always* right....right?

Just ask Galileo.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
But, of course, modern science is wrong and you're right.
Ah, but what you call "modern science" is not really scientific at
all.
This from someone who uses the Catholic Medical Association as a source?
A Brown
2008-04-25 01:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it a
fact.
And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
Sure we do. Look at the track records of those who have attempted change.

As has been stated....a dismal record. Fact. The numbers don't lie.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
I think the overall failure rates of such "change" ministries is enough
evidence
We know you do. We knew this several posts ago. You add nothing to the
discussion by repeating this unproven and unprovable assertion.
It's not unprovable. The research has been done...and the facts are there.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
and reason enough to disbelieve people who purport to "know
someone" who changed.
No, it is not reason enough. But more important, you miss the point: it
was
_you_ who claimed it is "hard-wired", so all it takes is ONE counter
example to
prove you wrong. And I gave such a counter example.
An unverified example. Again, good enough for you to have your opinion.
But you expect others to come to the same conclsuion on second and thrid
hand unverifiable information?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Anyone see Ted Haggard?
Irrelevant, for reasons already explained.
Relevant...for reasons explained (Part of the failure of "change
minstries".)
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Anyone hear of the Catholic Church Crisis?
This is _also_ irrelevant, since it does not even concern whether or not
sexual
orientation is 'hard-wired'.
Again, part of the failure of "change ministries".
Post by Matthew Johnson
If you have to keep bringing up such inflammatory,
Why are they inflammatory? They're all true. Or do you not read the
papers?
Post by Matthew Johnson
yet totally irrelevant
points,
Very relevant....for reasons already explained.
Post by Matthew Johnson
then you can only succeed in one thing: persuading the rest of the NG
that you have not got a leg to stand on,
I dont see the NG jumping to your defense....?
Post by Matthew Johnson
so you have to keep on resorting to
"red herrings".
And you keep resorting to this mysterious yet unverifiable "person you've
known" as your source of what is possible...or Russian fairy tales on the
internet (cuz if it's on the internet, we know it's true!).
Radio Ron
2008-04-25 01:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it a
fact.
And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
nor has matthew offerred any facts to support his claim.

someone here said it before....you are substituting "wishful thinking" for
real facts and data.

otherwise, where are the multitude of success stories from these ministries?
Post by Matthew Johnson
But more important, you miss the point: it was
_you_ who claimed it is "hard-wired", so all it takes is ONE counter
example to
prove you wrong. And I gave such a counter example.
well....maybe THAT person wasn't hard-wired that way....just confused.....

besides this "i know someone who...." isn't anyway to prove a point.
RP
2008-04-25 01:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it a
fact.
And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
We know you do. We knew this several posts ago. You add nothing to the
discussion by repeating this unproven and unprovable assertion.
Oh there have been studies...and there is data....

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Are 'ex-gay' ministries therapy or spiritual abuse?
Task Force study fuels debate over success rates, personal toll
The study, titled "Youth in the Crosshairs: The Third Wave of Ex-Gay
Activism," documents the high failure rate of conversion therapy. The study
also contends that ex-gay ministries harm gay people by causing depression
and damaging their relationships with family members and friends.
Participants in ex-gay programs also reported loneliness and sexual
dysfunction, the study says.



Do ex-gay groups cause

family rifts?

"Many participants complained that conversion therapy harmed their
relationships with family and friends, particularly with their parents," the
study says.

"They play this game of blaming the parents," Jason Cianciotto, one of the
study's authors, said in an interview. "Conversion therapy primarily focuses
on supposed dysfunctional relationships with same-sex parents."

Cianciotto said the groups also focus on child abuse and molestation as
alleged causes of homosexuality.

But those theories have been widely rejected by psychological and
psychiatric experts, Cianciotto noted.

Dr. Douglas Haldeman, a clinical psychologist in Seattle, said he has seen
firsthand "the wreckage of the ex-gay ministries." When he first started his
clinical practice in 1983, Haldeman said he treated a gay Mormon who had
undergone electro-shock therapy to try to change his sexual orientation.
Since then he said he has treated numerous patients who dropped out of
ex-gay programs.

"All of organized mental health, which is based on science and research,
discredit these conversion therapy theories," Haldeman said.

Haldeman said the ex-gay ministries tend to attract vulnerable people who
may already suffer from low self-esteem.

"When it doesn't work, the shame and stigma are doubly painful," Haldeman
said. "People become depressed and self-loathing. It spikes suicidal
feelings and propensity toward alcoholism and drug abuse."

He noted that both the American Psychological Association and the American
Psychiatric Association have come out against conversion therapy.

Groups that push the theory that a lack of family bonding causes
homosexuality, such as Focus on the Family, whose web pages on homosexuality
focus almost exclusively on a child's relationship with his or her same-sex
parent, may actually be creating rifts in families, Cianciotto contended.

He pointed to a study of 202 individuals who had participated in conversion
therapy. The study, conducted by two psychologists, Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr.
Michael Schroeder, found that only 26 of the participants (13 percent)
reported believing that they had successfully changed their sexual
orientation. But of that 26, only eight reported that they were not
experiencing "slips" back into same-sex attraction.

Of the 176 participants in the self-perceived failure group, 155 (or 88
percent) reported significant long-term harm, including depression, "some to
the point of wanting or attempting to commit suicide," Cianciotto said.



'I no longer struggle.

Jesus healed me'

Rev. Jerry Stephenson, a former Baptist minister, was also a client in the
Worthy Creations program and now counts himself among the ex-ex-gay.
Stephenson was a Baptist minister for 15 years and taught at Miami Christian
College for more than three years. In 1986, he sought Christian counseling
for his homosexual attractions. When the dean of the college found out that
he was in Worthy Creations, Stephenson said he was fired.

"I may be the only person to be fired for being ex-gay," Stephenson said.

After he was dismissed from the college in 1990, Stephenson became associate
pastor of the First Baptist Church in Key West, where he counseled others on
how to overcome homosexuality.

"I would tell them, 'I no longer struggle. Jesus healed me,'" Stephenson
said. "But inside nothing had changed. You can take an orange and paint it
blue and put a hula skirt on it, but it's still an orange."

Stephenson said he went through a period of severe depression before he
finally reconciled his sexual orientation and his Christian faith.

"I went from teaching at a college to working at a 7-Eleven pushing a
broom," he said.

Stephenson came out in a South Florida Sun-Sentinel article in 1992.

Stephenson, who has a master's degree in biblical studies from Miami
Christian College and a doctorate in pastoral psychology from Atlantic
Institute Bible College and Seminar in Panama City, Fla., now runs his own
counseling practice called the Sanctuary. He is an outspoken critic of
ex-gay ministries.

"Not only do these groups destroy the individuals, they also destroy their
families," Stephenson said.



Homosexuality 'wasn't

God's will for my life'

Cordy Campbell, a volunteer leader with Worthy Creations who described
himself as an ex-gay, conceded that conversion therapy "is very hard work."
But he insisted that people can leave behind being gay and learn to lead
happy heterosexual lives.

"People want a quick fix, and it's not a quick fix," he said.

According to Campbell, Worthy Creation's drop-in group draws about 30 people
per week. Campbell said that he sees "people quit all the time after just a
few meetings." But he said some people had been with the group for three or
four years and "are doing great." He said the group doesn't keep records on
its retention rate.

Campbell said he was "in the gay lifestyle" from the age of 12 until he was
45. He said after he became a born-again Christian, "I felt like it wasn't
God's will for my life."

Campbell said he thinks a lack of bonding with his father, who was an
alcoholic, caused him to be gay.

"I didn't bond with him," Campbell said. "He wasn't there, and when he was
there, he was drinking. A dad is supposed to call the child out of mom's
circle into manhood. A lot of dads don't do that. They don't spend time with
the boy."

Campbell said he also became disillusioned with being gay.

"I saw a lot of tragedy in that lifestyle," he said. "I saw a lot of
depressed people, especially older people. It's a lifestyle for young
people."

Campbell said he got tired of sitting on bar stools and talking to depressed
older gay men. He said he worked with a man who committed suicide after his
boyfriend left him.

"The relationships don't last," he said.

Campbell, who said he is a recovering alcoholic, now dates women but is not
currently in a relationship. He said he wants to be a "man among men."

Campbell said he knew "former drag queens and others who had been in
long-term gay relationships" who now regard themselves as ex-gay.

Campbell said he has nothing but empathy for gay people, whether or not they
choose to overcome their homosexuality.

"I love gay people because I came from that lifestyle," he said. "I
understand why people are gay. They're looking for love. But it's the result
of brokenness, and we live in a very broken world."



Ex-gay ministries 'not

bulging with members'

Wayne Besen, author of "Anything But Straight," a book that challenges what
he calls "ex-gay myths," said the ex-gay ministries "are not bulging with
members."

He said ex-gay ministries such as Exodus International exaggerate their
numbers.

"[Exodus president] Allen Chambers pulls numbers out of thin air," Besen
said. "In 2003, he claimed that there were thousands of members. By 2004, he
said he knew of tens of thousands. Last week, it was hundreds of thousands.
The ex-gay ministries are apparently the next Starbucks."

Besen said many of the ex-gay ministries are small groups started by a
"charismatic leader with a checkered past."

"They are mini-cults of personality," Besen said. He said the leaders often
have a history of dysfunctional behavior, such as alcoholism or drug abuse.
He recalled one ex-gay leader who was a former porn actor.

"They blame homosexuality for their behavioral problems," Besen said.

Florida is an epicenter of ex-gay activity. The state has hosted 10 ex-gay
conferences. It will host another one when Focus on the Family's "Love Won
Out Conference" comes to the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort
Lauderdale May 6. There are also at least 11 ex-gay ministries in the state,
according to the Task Force's Cianciotto.

Besen said Texas, North Carolina and California are other states with a lot
of ex-gay activity. Portland, Ore., has one of the "more active" ex-gay
ministries, he said. There is not much activity in New England.
surprisingly, ex-gay groups do not have much of a presence in deep South
states such as Mississippi and Alabama, Besen said.



'I was born to be gay'

After a year and a half of ex-gay therapy, Justin Flippen said he finally
decided to accept who he is.

Flippen, who now serves on the board of directors and the worship ministry
team at the Metropolitan Community Church's Sunshine Cathedral in Fort
Lauderdale, said he had an epiphany one day while driving down I-95. He
recalled a passage in the Bible in which Jesus is overwhelmed by sorrow
because of the burden of his role on Earth. But he finally accepts it.

"Just as Jesus was born to be the Messiah, I was born to be gay," Flippen
said.

----

[While this posting doesn't include any references, they are
referring to information on the web site http://www.thetaskforce.org,
a pro-gay site. The report referred to appears to be
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/YouthInTheCrosshairs.pdf
It has the references that this posting doesn't.
--clh]
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-27 23:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it a
fact.
And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
We know you do. We knew this several posts ago. You add nothing to the
discussion by repeating this unproven and unprovable assertion.
Oh there have been studies...and there is data....
But not "data to make it a fact". In fact, all your incoherent
citations below are from an _extremely_ biased source, the source the
Moderator gave below.

Why, you didn't _even_ address my three points above. You are trying
to sidestep them completely. This proves that you don't really have
any support.
Post by RP
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Are 'ex-gay' ministries therapy or spiritual abuse?
Even this question presumes the fallacy called the "false dilemma".
Post by RP
Task Force study fuels debate over success rates, personal toll
The study, titled "Youth in the Crosshairs: The Third Wave of Ex-Gay
Activism," documents the high failure rate of conversion therapy.
Even the title already reveals how severely biased the 'study' is.
Post by RP
The study
also contends that ex-gay ministries harm gay people by causing depression
and damaging their relationships with family members and friends.
This claim is absurd on the face of it. No further study is even
needed to recognize its absurdity.
Post by RP
Participants in ex-gay programs also reported loneliness and sexual
dysfunction, the study says.
This is even more absurd. So don't be surprised at how much I snip below.

[snip]
Post by RP
Dr. Douglas Haldeman, a clinical psychologist in Seattle, said he has seen
firsthand "the wreckage of the ex-gay ministries." When he first started his
clinical practice in 1983, Haldeman said he treated a gay Mormon who had
undergone electro-shock therapy to try to change his sexual orientation.
Since then he said he has treated numerous patients who dropped out of
ex-gay programs.
Do you know what a "statistical outlier" is? Electroshock therapy for
such treatment is so inappropriate, it should surprise no one it
failed. But it is _not_ typical of such therapeutic programs.

Rather, your use of this example is a perfect example of a classic
fallacy: taking the worst evidence and pretending it is your
opponent's best. It isn't. Whoever this is who used electroshock for
this was simply a nut case.

You cannot use his example to prove we are all nutcases;)
Post by RP
"All of organized mental health, which is based on science and research,
discredit these conversion therapy theories," Haldeman said.
Haldeman may very well say that, but neither you nor he have exhibited
any real evidence for this.
Post by RP
Haldeman said the ex-gay ministries tend to attract vulnerable people who
may already suffer from low self-esteem.
Believe it or not, some of us are so tired of all the incredible
nonsense introduced under claims that so-and-so is "suffering from low
self-esteem", we stop listening once you make this claim.

[snip]
Post by RP
'I was born to be gay'
Look: we all _know_ you guys like to claim this. But I already gave
the reasons I do not find this claim convincing, simply repeating it,
and quoting others who repeat it, proves _nothing_.

Unless, of course, it proves that you _have_ no rational argument,
that you can _only_ make irrational appeals in support of your
disastrous belief.

[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-27 23:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Radio Ron
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by A Brown
What are your reasons in believing it's not?
That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
changed
(see,
g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible
voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it a
fact.
And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
nor has matthew offerred any facts to support his claim.
Not true. I have offered facts. They are right in front of you, yet
here you are denying their existence.
Post by Radio Ron
someone here said it before....you are substituting "wishful thinking" for
real facts and data.
Speaking of "wishful thinking", you must have been indulging in it
heavily when you posted _that_ quote.
Post by Radio Ron
otherwise, where are the multitude of success stories from these ministries?
What 'multitude'? Why do you believe a _multitude_ is necessary to
disprove what I set out to disprove?

It isn't necessary. All I need is one case, that is enough to disprove
the grossly irresponsible claim that sexual orientation is
Post by Radio Ron
well....maybe THAT person wasn't hard-wired that way....just
confused.....
So why don't you just admit that they are wrong who say that sexual
orientation is hard-wired?
Post by Radio Ron
besides this "i know someone who...." isn't anyway to prove a point.
Sure, it is.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-27 23:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Post by Matthew Johnson
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g., http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where
it changed (see, g.e., Rom 1:18-32.
These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
irresponsible voices claiming to have evidence for the
impossible.
Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to
make it a fact.
And you do not have the data to make it a fact.
Sure we do. Look at the track records of those who have attempted change.
You miss the point -- predictably. Their poor track record does _not_
prove your claim. All it proves is their poor track record.

Have you forgotten what your claim was? It was not only that the
change programs must fail, it was that they must fail because
orientation is 'hard-wired'.
Post by A Brown
As has been stated....a dismal record. Fact. The numbers don't lie.
Numbers don't lie, but people who trot out that saying often do. Such
seems to be the case here, since the numbers support only a different
point, _not_ your point.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
I think the overall failure rates of such "change" ministries is
enough evidence
We know you do. We knew this several posts ago. You add nothing to the
discussion by repeating this unproven and unprovable assertion.
It's not unprovable. The research has been done...and the facts are there.
If "the research has been done", then why haven't you cited it? And
why is the only research that _was_ cited so obviously biased?
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
and reason enough to disbelieve people who purport to "know
someone" who changed.
No, it is not reason enough. But more important, you miss the
point: it was _you_ who claimed it is "hard-wired", so all it takes
is ONE counter example to prove you wrong. And I gave such a
counter example.
An unverified example. Again, good enough for you to have your opinion.
But you expect others to come to the same conclsuion on second and thrid
hand unverifiable information?
This is no more "unverifiable" than your support for your opinion. Its
not my fault you can't read the article.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Anyone see Ted Haggard?
Irrelevant, for reasons already explained.
Relevant...for reasons explained (Part of the failure of "change
minstries".)
Newsflash: your "reasons explained" were not convincing.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by RP
Anyone hear of the Catholic Church Crisis?
This is _also_ irrelevant, since it does not even concern whether
or not sexual orientation is 'hard-wired'.
Again, part of the failure of "change ministries".
No, it is not. You are _presuming_ that the failure is due to
this. But this is where your evidence can only fail you.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
If you have to keep bringing up such inflammatory,
Why are they inflammatory? They're all true. Or do you not read the
papers?
I remember the days when "he believes what he reads in the papers" was
a biting commentary on a person's foolishness. It appears you haven't
yet figured it out; only fools believe what they read in the papers.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
yet totally irrelevant points,
Very relevant....for reasons already explained.
Post by Matthew Johnson
then you can only succeed in one thing: persuading the rest of the NG
that you have not got a leg to stand on,
I dont see the NG jumping to your defense....?
Look again.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
so you have to keep on resorting to
"red herrings".
And you keep resorting to this mysterious yet unverifiable "person you've
known" as your source of what is possible...or Russian fairy tales on the
internet (cuz if it's on the internet, we know it's true!).
No, I don't _keep_ resorting to it. I do it quite rarely. That you
exaggerate its frequency with your "And you keep resorting to this
mysterious..." shows how irresponsible you are.

I don't trust 'research' or 'facts' cited by such irresponsible
persons. Nobody should.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2008-04-27 23:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
1) I have seen it change in persons I know
So you claim, but how do we know this is true?
You don't. But you are missing the point. Have you forgotten what the
question was?
No. This experience is something that has obviously affected you. But you
expect everyone to come to a similar conclusion...not knowing this
individual you mention.
Also, why doesn't he share his story...to offer support to others?
If you understood the value of privacy, you would know the answer to
this question. But you hail from a class of callous persons who
believes that 'outing' is so good for society, you trample on
individual rights to get it. So I am not surprised you express such
eagerness for trampling on his privacy.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
And if we are believe you, how do we know these persons have
actually 'changed'? In all the cases that I know of the
homosexuality has not changed, but merely been sublimated.
And I could turn that around and ask you: how do -we- really know
that yours didn't change, that they only 'sublimated'?
Because they have no stake in claiming anything different.
But why should I believe even this? Of course they could have a stake
in claiming something different. Why would you even know or admit what
that stake is?

So no, your 'sublimation' examples are not convincing. Your examples
have all the same weaknesses as mine, yet you do not see them, you
only see them in mine, because of your own bias.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
2) I have heard others report it changed in persons _they_ know
(e.g.,http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relationship/_article/2496/)
More questionable, second-hand reports?
No more questionable than all the cases you claim weren't really
changed.
Second, third hand unverified information?
Plus those that claim "no change" are public. Your "change is possible"
people are all second and third hand accounts...impossible to verify.
No, not _all_ "second and third hand accounts" not all "impossible to
verify". It is not my fault if you can't read the article I cited.

For that matter, are you really so audacious as to dismiss the words
of Paul in Romans as "second and third hand accounts"?
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
For someone who appears to value documentation this fails.
Again, you miss the point.
No, that's indeed the point.
Instead you cling to things that you *wish* to believe or *want* to
believe and accept them as true...with no facts, no verification,
impossoble to prove.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by shegeek72
Post by Matthew Johnson
3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where
it changed (see, g.e., Rom 1:18-32
This section does not refer to the loving, longterm relationships
of today.
How long do you think you can hide from the truth? This thread is
not _about_ such relationships, whether they exist or not; it is
about the _orientation_.
How long are you going to _make up the Truth_ from the things you _want_ to
believe.
How long are you going to turn to loaded questions rather than face
the truth of what Scripture says?
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Those "dramatic" sources are not good enough.
Of course not...why let facts get in the way?
They aren't 'facts'.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
How could it be, when the no less scientific Catholic Medical
Association finds the very opposite?
Would you expect anything else from the CATHOLIC Medical Association?
Wrong question: of course not, since I happen to believe they are
right;)
Post by A Brown
The _Catholic_ Medical Association has a dog in the fight.
They are bias...and carry very little authority on this subject.
You miss my point. You and your sources all "have a dog in the fight"
as well, you and your sources are no more scientific than they are.
Post by A Brown
Post by Matthew Johnson
Perhaps you missed the Yahoo! article about how the majority of
doctors were wrong about drinking 8 glasses of water a day?
But Rome is *always* right....right?
Again, if only you had a clue what you were doing here! If you had a
clue, you would know that I am the last person in this NG to suggest
that Rome is always right.

[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...