AP reports large rally for Sally
Posted on April 2nd, 2008 by Warren
The Associated Press reports 1000 people attended a rally supporting Sally Kern in Oklahoma City today.
Concerned Women for America say the turnout was more like 2000.
-
Subscribe To This Blog
To receive new posts via email: -
Bullycide In America
I see the local Exodus ministry signed on in endorsement of Sally’s claims.
OMG! This is a tragedy - truly- a tragedy.
I’m sure George Wallace had over 1000 fans in his day too. Eventually he saw the light.
I feel compelled to make note of the fact that Ms. Kern is not a native Oklahoman.
How embarrasing this is for my state.
forgot to check the follow-up box…
she was born in arkansas….btw
Embarrasing for Oklahoma!?! How about a poor representative for Christ? Pam, we don’t think less of you - it’s not your fault she imported herself.
From an Oklahoman newspaper:
“Kern’s husband, the Rev. Steve Kern, said it wasn’t the purpose of the rally to bash homosexuals.
“We love them,” said Rev. Kern, pastor of Olivet Baptist Church in Oklahoma City.”
OK, let’s get this “straight”. Calling people worse than terrorists is not love.
Denying them the same rights and privileges you get is not love.
Promoting lies and vicious stereotypes about them is not love.
Your stupidity is not love.
That “Christians” think they love gays is the ultimate self-deception.
When your “Christian love” only drives people away from Christ, perhaps you need to have a reality check.
But then, this isn’t about love. It’s about certain “Christians” trying to make themselves feel good about who they are by demeaning others. They like to trot out so-called “ex-gays” (who still have homosexuals desires) as if they were trophies and not humans. They like to deceive people into thinking that a person can change their sexual orientation, when all they really mean is you can change how you feel about yourself, or you can become celibate (but of course, a celibate priest is not considered “ex-straight”).
How many lies can they tell until they realize what agents of Satan they truly are?
Is it really any surprise that this happened in Oklahoma? (sorry Pam
I live in a neighboring state and let me tell you that this comes as no surprise to me - no more a surprise than finding out a local Exodus ministry signed on in support of her. Welcome to the Midwest 
Nick,
Globalizing the Kerns christianity as ALL christianity is not correct. I feel your hurt and need to vent but not all christians are being represented by the Kerns. I am a christian and ex gay and I certainly do not agree with their messgae nor their statements.
Mary: Let’s see how many Christians show up to protest the “Christians”.
Michael,
Well, did some here show up and protest?
EXODUS will never be able to cleary define what they do stand fo if they fall to say what they won’t stand for. The local EXODUS ministry was part of the “gays pose a bigger threat then terrorism” festivities. Will EXODUS speak out? Don’t bet on it.
The AP has strange rounding methods for numbers…
Has EXODUS said anything offical about Kern? Have they spoken out against comparing gays to terrorists? Nope. Instead, one of their member ministries in Oklahoma acutally spoke out in support of her at the rally.
Has EXODUS rebuked Cameron for his “abhorrent solutions” to the “gay problem”? Nope. They just don’t cite his “research” anymore.
Has EXODUS urged NARTH to stop citing Cameron and dump Berger or Schoenwolf? Nope. EXODUS remains closely affilitated with NARTH — inspite of Alan’s promise that he would drop NARTH if there “weren’t some big changes.”
Has EXODUS made a clean break from poltics as Alan seemed to indicate they would do? Nope. They just won’t “focus” on it this year — while they remain a member of a very political group that can do the direct lbbying for them.
As one of the founders of EXODUS, I really don’t get it — and it causes me great distress. Why does EXODUS tolerate this stuff. They have a microphone to the public. Why won’t they use it?
Back then, we would have spoken out clearly and quickly against Kern’s inflammatory rhetoric. We would have condemned Camreron’s “evil” and we would have stayed AWAY from any organization, like NARTH and it’s wacko theories and questionable “experts”.
What happened to EXODUS anyway?
I can understand stating things from one’s point of view. But Concerned Women for America simply lied.
Outright lied:
While I don’t doubt that many emails were hateful and wished ill on her, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations did not find any that contained threats against the state representative. But that’s not the big lie.
None of the calls or emails were ” because of comments she made supporting traditional marriage”.
None.
Why? Because the extracted portions of her speech that were made public did not mention the word “marriage” a single time.
In fact, Kern only used the word twice in her half hour speech and once was to criticize moderate republicans. Kern made exactly zero comments in support of traditional marriage. None.
So why did CWA claim that this was the content of Kern’s speech?
I suggest that it is because CWA has no respect for truth or regard for honesty. Sadly, this is not rare amonst anti-gays.
Those who have connections with conservative Christianity should let them know, if you want to have any relevance in the world today, you need to stop lying. You’re giving Christianity a bad name.
OK, what’s happening here? First off, aren’t you reacting to a false report by Associated Press:
“Kern made the recorded remarks about homosexuality to a recent gathering of fellow Republicans outside the Capitol. The state representative said homosexuals are a greater threat than terrorists and she has rejected demands by gay and lesbian groups that she apologize.”
If you have read her remarks, not just the edited clips on YouTube, you know that she was not talking about gays, but about the GLBT AGENDA. Why is it so hard to distinguish between persons and behavior? Christians don’t seem to have a problem here, loving persons but hating the behavior that is so destructive to these beloved brothers and sisters.
Warning people of imminent danger is not hate. I think persons who identify as GLBT feel threatened and hated because they have established their personal identity upon the “gay is a human trait” paradigm, and thus their conviction about “who they are” is being undermined. Those who have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle experienced an identity makeover in their commitment to Christ Jesus as Lord (the one whom to follow) and Savior (the one who brings forgiveness and New Life). In other words, their conviction about who (and whose) they really are was changed, and they are enabled to handle whatever attractions, desires, and other experience-derived learned responses they have until these are extinguished or inhibited.
Here is the closest thing she said relating to marriage:
“What they’re trying to do is send a message of intimidation to those people who are taking a stand for traditional marriage and against the homosexual lifestyle.”
Dave, she has been quoted several places as saying that the homosexual agenda is dangerous because it damages traditional marriage. And the quote Timothy provided above came from the CWA website.
Sally Kern is not being attacked because she publicly favored traditional marriage. It is wrong to frame the issue that way. Others who advocate that position are not receiving the scrutiny she is.
She is being attacked because of the rhetoric and outrageous comparisons she made. You simply cannot have credibility when you say homosexual anything (people, agenda, etc.) is worse than terrorism. I believe the same firestorm would envelope a politician who said the Christian agenda is worse than terrorism. That Christians are the death knell of this country, etc.
If someone did say that and 1000s rallied in support, I would feel a little nervous as a Christian. And then if those who made this comparison, then said hey but we love you, just we hate your beliefs or your way of life, I probably would have a hard time believing them.
I have a hard time with what she said; but I have a harder time with her claiming the hoopla is over her beliefs about marriage and the morality of homosexuality.
Thanks for your words Warren.
I’m curious though, why do you think Christians are having such a difficult time getting their message out that her words were hateful? Is it because they are too scared to speak out? Is it because they refuse to actually condemn her words? Is it because they just don’t want to bother?
People such as yourself are regularly consulted by the hateful and lying Focus on the Family. Do they not care what you think on this issue? Why do you cooperate with them knowing that they support Sally Kern and her hateful rhetoric?
Please, OK and KS both have constitutional Marriage Amendments. If you’re “embarrased” then you’re in a very small minority. One can easily assume that the greater majority of Oklahomans and Kansans support Ms. Kern and agree with her opinion.
Tim Kincaid: “You’re giving Christianity a bad name.”
Man you gotta warn me before you say things like that… Now I gotta clean the cola off my monitor!
Cheese Louise!!!
Everyone — especially the Christians here. Let me ask you.
Who is more dangerous: Someone who actively and maliciously targets your child’s LIFE? Or someone who carelessly and callously risks your child’s SOUL?
Marty,
I started to provide stats.
But then I realized that this statement on its face is ludicrous. Even in Oklahoma, I’m quite sure that the vast majority of residents don’t really believe that homosexuality is a greater threat to the nation than terrorism. Some thing are just so blatantly bigoted and stupid that even the most conservative of people flinch. Well, the ones who aren’t fired up homophobes themselves, anyway.
Marty,
They are equally dangerous.
Mary, please — continue? As a Christian I do not consider losing my life “equal” to losing my soul. If you do, I’d like to know more/why/how.
Or it could just be because some people (such as Rep. Kern) are calling them more dangerous than the terrorists that caused the September 11 attacks. Come on, now. Why is it so hard for people to see the logic in this? Wouldn’t any group of individuals be angry if they were compared to that kind of violence?
Well, being one of the people you’re talking about here… I might have to disagree just a tad on a few points. I did have an identity makeover, that’s for sure. My selfishness, rudeness, anger, and generally spoiled nature has experienced a dramatic change. However, the fact that I am a homosexual is still there. I still like men and if I called myself straight or asexual that would be a lie. If I said I was ex-gay, that would be misleading. I am a celibate gay man, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that label Thus, I still think I fall (if ever so slightly) on the GLBT spectrum. More than that, I have plenty of gay friends and neighbors. I disagree with their views on religion and sexuality, but that doesn’t stop me from being their friend and standing up for them when they are being mistreated.
The backlash as evidenced by this rally is because conservatives are tired of people being silenced because of opposition to homosexuality - General Pace, for example, or even that video Teri posted on an earlier thread - and not so much in order to reiterate that one media line “it’s more dangerous than terrorism”. It was ONE line in her speech, which the media, etc. is picking out in order to bash her.
She was not going into the streets yelling the comparison through a bullhorn. She shared what she believed to fellow conservatives. It’s how she expressed her concern for the obvious and chaotic impact increased recognition, acceptance and participation of homosexuality will have.
Marty,
If you lose your life and have not considered your soul - you have lost the chance to save your soul - sort of speak. If you lose your soul - what kind of life is that?
They are both bad, bad, bad situations.
Why is Ms. Kern getting a pass on her outrageous and frightening statement about “not all religions are equal” when she is an elected official in a nation whose constitution makes all religions equal?
Has anyone asked her which religions, other than Islam about which her feelings are clear, are NOT equal?
Nemario -
Backlash? Silenced? Are you kidding?
Who was ever “silenced?”
Christians are constantly playing the victim card on this and other issues. As soon as they are criticized, the whine about being “silenced.” No one is “silencing” you. They are criticizing you. Grow up, tell the truth, and quit being such crybabies.
Nick R. asked: Why do you think Christians are having such a difficult time getting their message out that her words were hateful? Is it because they are too scared to speak out? Is it because they refuse to actually condemn her words? Is it because they just don’t want to bother?
I think the answer is that “Christians”, like most Americans, are complacent. They won’t speak up unless it’s really serious and impacts them directly – like an increase in their cable bill — something of that sort. And yes, they seem paranoid that if they speak out against anti-gay fear, prejudice and hatred — people might think they are “pro-gay” — as our discussion on the Day of Silence demonstrated. Better to stay silent and let evil triumph than to give that impression!
WHY do we speculate on what Sally stands for? Why not read her own follow-up speech at the rally to see where she’s coming from and what she really stands for?
http://americansfortruth.com/news/huge-rally-for-sally-1000-1500-turn-out-for-kern-at-ok-statehouse.html
Dave G -
I’m not speculating on what Sally stands for - I already know what she stands for - or at least what she believes she stands for. In that link above, at the end of her speech, she speaks of homosexuals in the same sentence as drug addicts and murderers. Such Christian love and understanding brings tears to my eyes
Sally, like some other conservative Christians, are afraid - and it is fear I believe that is driving them - hence the rally. They are afraid of what they don’t understand. Some of that fear is understandable, because it comes from religious right media that enjoys spinning Truth about gay people to further its own agenda - Its the same kind of fear that drove so many people into believing that black people did not deserve the same rights as white. But the fear and the intolerance is always couched in loving words. It is scary and sad all at the same time.
jayhuck,
Can drug addicts and murderers choose not to engage in their respective behaviors? So can GLBTs. The whole ex-gay movement attests to this.
But Sally is saying that Christians are no better, in fact they’re worse, because they’ve been silent when they should be speaking out, quoting scripture, and declaring the forgiving, saving Love of God that helps us turn our lives around to live according to His will, not ours. Christian silence is more attributable to fear than is their conviction about sin –or which homosexual conduct is only one example. The “gay agenda” is getting focussed attention only because they are intent on legitimatizing it with legal protection and implicit endorsement.
And NOTE: it’s the agenda, not the people, that Sally and other Christians, as well as moralists of many faiths, are opposing.
Dave G. If you can lump gays together with drug addicts, murderers and terrorists. I can see why you admire Kern. But, how terribly sad. How would you feel if I did that with heterosexuality?
Gayness is not, as you continue to assert, a “behavior” akin to drug abuse or murder. What a ridiculous idea! I am gay even if I am not “behaving” homosexually. Gary and I had NO SEX during the last two years of his life, but we were still gay. Our relationship was one of mututal caring and self-sacrifice. It bore no resemblance to murders or terrorists.
Hetersexuals are still heterosexual even when they aren’t having sex. Their sexuality is much more complex than what they do — or how they “behave”. Your “behavior” argument overlooks love, bonding, caring, attachment, devotion, romance, companionship — all of those human traits that make sexuality MUCH MORE than what people do (or do not do) for a few minutes each week.
Homosexuality can only be legitimately compared to heterosexuality – it is not “like” addiction, murder or terrorism — any more than heterosexuailty is.
Michael,
Two people of the same sex loving one another, living together, maintaining a household are not necessarily homosexuals, they are called bachelors or “maiden ladies” or whatever other label may be applied. The word homosexual as used today implies a same gender sexual relationship, which by definition is immoral. It describes a mode of behavior that holds no promise for succeeding generations. Projections “to the seventh generation” are pretty dismal.
“Love, bonding, caring, attachment, devotion, …companionship” are common to many human relationships, and they are to be commended. But the gift of sexual relationship is appropriate only for a man-woman relationship united in marriage with the prospect of procreation and raising of children –the next generations.
Perhaps you could explain to an ignoramus like me what makes you a “homosexual” outside of learned behavior, perception, and psychologically conditioned responses.
But, it really doesn’t. I’m just copying out of my computer’s dictionary right now:
“Homosexual” isn’t a noun-verb. If it was, then “heterosexual” would be one too, and then no virgin would be able to claim a sexual identity (and almost all — gay or straight — do). Everyone who wasn’t having sex would be considered asexual. Does anyone really think of themselves that way if they don’t have sex? Of course not! Bachelors and old maids still know who they’re attracted to, so do virgins, nuns, priests, and celibate homosexuals like myself.
I’m giving up homosexual sex because of my belief in Christ and the teachings of Scripture. However, I’m still 100% attracted to men and calling myself anything other than a gay celibate would be misleading.
Dave G. I really wish I knew what makes a person like me “homosexual”. I just don’t know. No one does. Could you tell me what makes a person “heterosexual”? Nope. Heterosexuality must be some sort of learned behavior, perception or psychologically conditioned response, right?
My earliest memories of being attracted to boys goes back to kindergarten. I just noticed that, to me, boys were better looking than girls — and that I liked being in their company.
Later on, I noticed that this emotional and romantic attraction took on a sexual feeling. I have talked to a lot of my straight friends, and they describe their awareness of their budding sexuality in the very same way — only towards girls.
They didn’t “learn” it. They didn’t “choose” it. It wasn’t a “behavior”. They weren’t “conditioned” into it. They just became aware of it. They just were. Why do you imagine that homosexuality must be any different?
You said: “The word homosexual as used today implies a same gender sexual relationship, which by definition is immoral.” Really? By whose defintion? Yours? I probably read and believe the same Bible you do. Are you absoltutely sure what each passage of Scripture means? Is it possible you might be wrong? Do you obey all the Old Testament — or only the laws you like?
I find it sad that you think that “the gift of sexual relationship is appropriate only for a man-woman relationship united in marriage with the prospect of procreation and raising of children –the next generations”. What about straight couples who cannot or choose not to procreate?
Procreation is not the only legitimate purpose of sex. It is also a source of pleasure and comfort. It is a means of communication (”Intercourse”), expressing love and passion for another person — even if no kids are produced.
You don’t have to worry about the “7th generation” or the species dying out. No chance. Plenty of straights seem to be working overtime to make sure they have lots of carbon copies of themselves. Besides, which, many gays, like me, have had kids, I am expecting my first grandchild, a boy, this June.
Jay: Thanks for this: “I’m giving up homosexual sex because of my belief in Christ and the teachings of Scripture. However, I’m still 100% attracted to men and calling myself anything other than a gay celibate would be misleading”
Wow.! I really apprecaite your honesty. Now, if only EXODUS, “former homosexuals” and “ex-gays” would be equally concerned about not being misleading.
Dave G. It seems your concept of “immoral” is anything on the “list” of “do’s and don’ts” — but only those things on the “list” – as you understand it – and only those rules that you think still apply today. Easy! No need to really ask “why” it’s “immoral” — or to examine your heart. If it’s on your list, it’s “immoral”.
For us “non-list” types, “morality” isn’t so easy. we have to look at the motivation, at the heart. What makes something “immoral”? To us “non-listers” it is whether or not it violates Luke 10:27: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
We have to rely on our best understanding of Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit — we can’t just “check the list”. It’s not that easy. Is drinking immoral? How about articificial insemination? Blood transfusions? Mercy killing? Stealing food from the Nazi’s to feed the Jews? Remember that during WWII, Corrie Ten Boom broke the law and lied – she used love of the Holy Spirit, not the “list” as her guide.
Though it may never have occured to you, Dave, but those bachelors that you so fondly think of were probably a same-sex couple. When my grandmother told me about her two “bachelor uncles”, I could clearly hear the quotation marks she put around the term.
And I did go and read what Sally stands for. She isn’t shy about it. She believes that Christianity (or actually her particular dogma) should trump civil rights and equality of citizens. She supports the enactment of Christianity as a religion of preference by means of law. She thinks that this was the intent of the founders of our nation.
I find that frightening.
As I once asked my father, a pentecostal pastor, “If they ever based the law on the teachings of a religion, do you really think they would pick yours?” Only the astonishingly arrogant who believe that God endorses them actually believe that they would get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
OK, Michael, here’s my understanding of human development:
We are born with a self-preservation instinct, and with free will to make a difference in our environment. The former is exhibited by the first cry for sustenance; the latter perhaps when an infant first reaches out to touch a mobile toy suspended above the crib and makes it move. We tend to have our own temperament, which colors our response to experiences and our interaction with our environment. We are also born with what some have called “hardwired to connect” such that we feel incomplete outside of relationship.
Essential to balanced development is a sense of place where I belong; a sense of self as differentiated from others; and a sense of prime relationship to others who are “there for me” and with whom I belong. These are the first to influence my own sense of self-identity, my likes and dislikes, my preferred activities, inasmuch as they can reinforce or inhibit my random behaviors.
Beyond parental and sibling bonding, as we grow, we are usually drawn first to others of the same gender, unless we have had negative experiences that have inhibited this natural attraction. Same gender relationships tend to reinforce our own gender identity as we interact within these relationships. So being attracted to boys in kindergarten is natural and expected. Admiration of or a desire to be liked by others of the same sex is part of the growing up and identity-establishing process.
As we approach puberty, we begin to have sexual feelings that were not there before. Whether these are associated with same-sex or opposite-sex companions is influenced more by our developmental experiences than with our personal make-up. Among these experiences should be our family nurture in discerning right or wrong, good or bad, true or false. If our moral environment at home is neutral or perceived as neutral, our self-interest tends to take over. If it’s so strict as to block self-expression, our self-identity rebels as a means of self-preservation. Thus parenting adolescents has been characterized a “walking a tightrope.”
Association of sexual feelings with the opposite sex is a learning experience generally approved by the culture, but with guidelines as to how these are to be handled. Association of sexual feelings with same-sex individuals is also a learned behavior, often by neglect or rejection from significant others, or by actual sexual experience imposed upon a child or adolescent. The personal stories of former homosexuals testify to the great variety of factors that imprinted upon their understanding of associating their sexual feelings (which are physiologically based) with same-gender individuals.
By whose definition is same-gender sexual conduct immoral? In the Judeo-Christian tradition it by God’s definition. Other cultures (with very few exceptions) also define this type of conduct to be wrong and detrimental to the health and perpetuation of society. I am not a Biblical literalist, but I can read the Bible and discern that human behaviors have consequences about which we are given fair warning. I can also recognize convoluted exegesis motivated by self-interest.
Yes, sex can be used for purposes other than procreation, but this is often for selfish purposes of pleasure and self-gratification. It can certainly be used as an expression of love within an appropriate context, but it can be used as an expression of abuse and control and violence and hatred as well. Hence a need for guidelines as to the appropriate use of sexual intercourse, and these need to be rooted in the cumulative experience of a culture that thrives from generation to generation.
Dave G: “We tend to have our own temperament, which colors our response to experiences and our interaction with our environment.”
I completely agree — but where does the “temperament” come from? No one knows. It’s a mystery. It seems “built in” somehow. In any litter of puppies, you will quickly notice individual temperamental differences — even before “experience” or “conditioning” can play their part. Same is true with human babies.
I know. My daughter came equipped with her OWN personality which she imposed on us! I happen to believe that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is part of that “hardwired temperament”.
I also agree with you that” “We are also born with what some have called “hardwired to connect” such that we feel incomplete outside of relationship”. John Bowlby and other attachment theorists would agree. Bonding, not reproduction, seem to be the primary human drive.
You then say: “As we approach puberty, we begin to have sexual feelings that were not there before. Whether these are associated with same-sex or opposite-sex companions is influenced more by our developmental experiences than with our personal make-up.”
This is, of course, just your belief — an assumption — (as is mine) — not an established fact. You don’t KNOW this to be true. You believe it. I beliieve the opposite.
My gay attractions were basic, instincitve, sexual, persistent and primary –regardless of the developmental experiences I have had along the way Did developmental experiences influence me? Sure. Did they determine my sexual orientation? I don’t think so. And I don’t think they determine anyone else’s basic sexual orientation either.
One last thing: It really offends me that you continue to equate homosexual behavior and “self-interest”. Straights have this problem, too.
Well, not this “former homosexual” (and I only use that term to say that I once wanted to pursue homosexual sex, and now am abstaining from it; I still am attracted to men). My father and brother are very close to me, and always have been. In fact, my brother is the first person I shared my homosexuality with. I have always been able to trust them and they have been by me my entire life, supporting me and showing that they cared. My father has always been the kind of guy to hug, bond, and say he loved his sons, and my brother and I are, well, what brothers should be — a dynamic duo, two sides of the same coin.
I have no idea where my sexuality came from, and I personally don’t care. When I reached puberty, I noticed I was attracted to men instead of women. It freaked me out because of my Christian background and I was silent about it for many years. Then I decided that I would wait until college and would come out and pursue homosexual relationships. Then I became a stronger Christian (for reasons far beyond my sexuality), and then I decided to be celibate. I still came out though, and have always been vocal about my views. I guess I don’t have the typical ex-gay story, but oh well. It’s mine.
There you have it folks - a confession that heterosexuality is not inborn, but learned. As such, heterosexuals should not be given special rights to marry, to get tax breaks, etc.
No special rights for heterosexuality - a learned lifestyle choice that is totally changeable!
Dave G.: I know I said “one last thing”, but I forgot this: You said: “By whose definition is same-gender sexual conduct immoral? In the Judeo-Christian tradition it by God’s definition. Come on, Dave. Who determines what “God’s definition” is? Do you? Do I? How do we decide which passges still apply and which don’t? Do we take a vote?
The fact that most cultures approve or disapprove of something doesn’t make it “moral or “immoral”. Keep in mind that most cultures, including our own, condoned slavery at one time — and many “Christians” used the Bible to prove that it was OK by “God’s deifintion”>
Here’s the “catch”. We have to rely on human beings to determine what “God’s definition” is. You don’t absolutely know the mind of God any more than I do. It really bugs me when some Christians absolutely insist that they “know”. Strikes me as arrogant. Rember that old bumper sitcker? “God said it. I believe it. That’ settles it.”?
I wish they would I say “I believe” — and not make it sound as if they “know”.
Dave -
Whether these are associated with same-sex or opposite-sex companions is influenced more by our developmental experiences than with our personal make-up.
I don’t usually say things like this on this blog, but you are absolutely wrong on this. That is an opinion of yours, not a scientific fact. Science actually believes, as we’ve hammered into the ground on so many other threads, that all of our complex behaviors are a combination of nature AND nurture - this includes sexuality: heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality.
Jay,
I meant to say this to you earlier - I wanted to echo Michael’s appreciation for this statement of yours:
“I’m giving up homosexual sex because of my belief in Christ and the teachings of Scripture. However, I’m still 100% attracted to men and calling myself anything other than a gay celibate would be misleading”
That is exactly how I feel
THANKS, guys, for your responses. Now I have a better idea of where you’re coming from. I have expressed my convictions, as you have yours. Hopefully, some of these can be subjected to scientific study to see if they have merit, rather than for us to merely speculate on where the truth lies.
I am still bothered by the morbidity/mortality statistics within the glbt community. My interest in this sexuality issue was initiated because I had too many funerals for friends and acquaintances in their young adult years who were self-identified as “gay.” Deeper research showed me that suicide, depression, disease, etc. were attributable to the disillusionment and despair experienced within these relationships, and not (as popularly blamed) because of persecution from “straights.” A day’s seminar with former homosexuals helped me understand that not only was change possible, but prevention was much easier and preferable. The “agenda” Sally (and others like us) oppose counteracts efforts at prevention and actually encourages behavior that later proves nearly inescapable. So what if you find same-sex companions attractive? Love them, but you don’t have to sexualize your relationship. In the long run, it doesn’t work out for the good of any society.
Dave G. Homosexuals contrtibute great good to society. We are not “parasitic” as Cameron teaches or “self=serving” as you suggest. We are parents, freinds, brothers and sisters. We teach Sunday schoo. We make major contnbutions to society in every area of endeavor — the arts, science, health care — every occupation and every field of charity and social service.
As for “deeper research showing you that suicide, depression, disease, etc. were attributable to the disillusionment and despair experienced within these relationships, and not (as popularly blamed) because of persecution from “straights.”
How can you separate those negative outcomes from the prevasive social, religious and family pressures to “conform”? It does not have to be overt “persecution”. Anti-gay sentiment is subtle and ubiquitous. Everywhere a gay person looks, their are mssages that gays are evil, broken, disordered, diseased, sinful, that they will burn in hell iif they don’t “change” — and that their “agenda” or “lifestyle” is a “greater threat than terrorism.
Can you imagine the suicide, derpression and diseasse that straights would experience if they had heard these messages all their lives? It’s the old “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” problem. Being gay did not necessarily “cause” the suicide, depression and disease. That’s sort of like saying that Jewishness “caused” concentration camp victims to feel despair, malnutrition and death. Prejudice, religious bigotry and rejection kill.
Dave G. Thanks for admitting that these are your convictions, your beliefs, your theories on the matter — and not some sort of of absolute and infallible knowledge of the will of God or the Laws of Nature.
My biggest problem with the developmental theory you have described is that many “researchers” confuse this theory with reality. They “reify the construct” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy).
We must be cautious, remain a bit humble and keep in mind that “the map is not the territory”. None of us can claim perfect knowledge of Scripture, science, the laws of nature or God’s will — although many claim to possess it.
No one “knows” what causes homosexuality — or heterosexuality. We are all still guessing. Some theories seem to make more sense or have more scientific support, but they are still explanations — not the “thing”.
My own belief is that homosesxuality is part of my intrinisic “temperament” — and I don’t think that “genetics” or “learning” are (or wuill ever be) adequate explanations. It is my nature, my predisposition — part of my essential “being”.
Frankly, I think it is meta-genetic and meta-learning — I believe it even transcends “sex” or “sexual behavior”. It’s bigger than that. and more complex than that. It is, and probably will remain, a mystery — something that science will never be able to conclusively explain.
I always laugh at the logic of those who argue that because gays supposedly have lower life expectancies (which has yet to be demonstrated), that it is evidence homosexuality is wrong.
Why do I laugh? African-Americans have lower life expectancies than whites. In Roman times, it seems that Christians had lower life expectancies than pagans. Men have lower life expectancies than women. etc.
The stupidity of the argument astounds me.
Then don’t believe bogus “studies” like the one pushed by the infamous Paul Cameron. To my knowledge, there are no morbidity/mortality statistics that describe a diminished life expectancy for persons that can be attributed to sexual orientation.
There is NO research that supports your claim that “suicide, depression, disease, etc. were attributable to the disillusionment and despair experienced within these relationships”.
So, with all due respect, I believe that this statement is not truthful. I don’t think you did “deeper research” at all other than going to websites, reading anti-gay claims, and nodding your head. Had you don’t research into the matter, and by “research” I mean review the findings of those professionals who do clinical research in this field, you would know that your claim is not based on emperical evidence but simply on bias.
You see if someone were homophobic and were to set out to find confirmation of his own personal anti-gay bigotry, there are plenty of fellow haters who will provide “studies” and “research” to back up his hatred and malice towards gay people.
However, Dave, if you are not bigoted you can balance these “studies” with actual research performed by legitimate scientists. I encourage you to ask yourself if your findings were what they are only because you set out to look for such things.
I’m sure you found the day’s seminar to be useful in confirming your anti-gay assumptions. However, the very limited research into the field of reorientation does not support the claim that change is possible.
Take, for example, the Jones and Yarhouse study. This was a study funded and fully supported by Exodus, conducted by two researchers who were avid supporters of ex-gay ministries. They wanted to study 300 participants, but after more than a year, they could only find 57 willing to participate. They then changed the rules for acceptance in order to increase the total to 98. After following this sample for 4 years, 25 dropped out. Of the remaining, only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” Another 17 decided that a lifetime of celibacy was good enough. One of the 11 successes later wrote the researchers and told them that he was only saying what he really wanted to believe and not what he was experiencing. Further, comparing the prospective and retrospective samples of the study showed that, statistically speaking, “change” only occurs in recollection and not in orientation.
If anything can derived from that study, it is that change in orientation is very very rare, if ever, and that even those few who are most successful in accomplishing some measure of change generally find themselves to be something other than a regular heterosexual.
There are those who report a change in their orientation. Some, like Mary, comment here. But if we were speaking in general terms (especially if we were talking about same-sex attracted men), it would be safe to say that setting a goal of a change in orientation is almost inevitable going to result in disappointment.
As for “preventing homosexuality”, there is exactly zero evidence of this. None. Nothing at all.
This “agenda” that you and Sally fear doesn’t exist. If there is any agenda at all, it is social equality.
Society has found over time that sexually frustrated young men are not in general a contributor to peace and tranquility. You can believe whatever you like about the moral parameters of sexuality and you can preach them if you like. But don’t try and turn your own personal moral code into some “good for society” claim.
Timothy,
The problems I have with looking to science for answers these days is that it is so often driven by where the funds are coming from and where popular opinion is driving it. If you pick and choose the types of research that you are going to consider reputable then you are being biased. If you believe that the science that has been done in recent years to justify the genetic predisposition hypothesis and ignore the influence of upbringing and social conditions on the development of same-sex attraction then you are showing how unwilling you are to examine the entire picture.
I do pick and choose. That’s what those who search for an honest answer do.
For example, I choose to look at sampling methods, population sizes, whether the sample was random and representative. You know, the stuff that separates good research from wackiness.
So far, anti-gay “studies” don’t seem to follows the rules of research and seem instead to start with the conclusion and search for a way to support it.
Now if there are good studies that disagree with my opinions, I give them consideration and may even change my mind.
Do you?
Now that’s interesting. Ya know, I used to believe that orientation might be due to social conditioning. It’s what we had always been told. I didn’t have a distant father or smothering mother, but I figured it all worked in there somewhere.
But then when I got to know gay people, I saw that these early assumptions just didn’t seem to be consistent. So I started looking at science.
Now you may choose to disregard “the science that has been done in recent years”, but I don’t. And some of it is pretty convincing that something biological is going on. For example, it’s hard to write off chromosome activation differences or even finger length or hair whirls as coincidental.
As for whether there are any “influences of upbringing and social conditions”, I really don’t know. No one seems to be able to demonstrate this to be true, but I guess there could be some components. At least we think that orientation is not purely defined by genetics and that “other factor” may well have some socialization components.
But so far, as best I can tell, there is no “science” to this science. If anyone can provide something more than speculation, I’m open to hearing it.
I wish you were as open to the empirical evidence of biological influences.
Marty,
I don’t understand what you mean by this….
Are you saying that being in a minority (which I’m not) means that one can’t be embarrassed?
As far as Oklahomans agreeing with her statement that the (mythical) gay agenda is a greater threat than terrorism, that is simply not true. We are speaking about a city who has experienced terrorism first-hand.
We are also speaking about a city and state which has a number of elected and appointed government officials who are openly gay. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
A whole day long seminar, huh? Whoa.
Pam, are you embarrassed to be an Oklahoman? Are you embarrassed that Ms. Kern was invited to speak to your fellow citizens? Are you embarrassed that she drew a crowd of 1000+ supporters, while those who denounce her drew a crowd of a few hundred? (http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=8109676)
Seems to me you ARE in the (minority) here.
Seems to me they gay agenda is more than (mythical).
Seems to me the vast majority of Oklahomans aren’t buying what you are selling.
And with that I’ll refer you to my question at #96120, which only one person has even attempted to answer.
Are you saying that being in a minority means I can’t be embarrassed?
I can’t control how things seem to you….don’t even want to….just trying to converse with you here….ok? Sorry for the snarkiness. I regretted it after.
Did you answer my question?
In answer to your question….I don’t fear either one of those. I sincerely do not live in that sort of fear. I’m not being flippant here. I just don’t. I have brought my children up to know the Lord, and they do know him. I have had to learn to pray and trust in Christ…..I have faced difficulties and so have my children with regard to dealing with the issue of having a loved on who is gay. But they have not lost their salvation because of it. I guess I’m not fully understanding what it is you are afraid of.
I still don’t think you really know what you are talking about as far as the things going on in my state and in OKC. I know many things regarding this particular situation with Ms. Kern that I won’t share. You’re just wrong about some of this stuff but it’s okay with me if you think differently.
Proverbs 22:6 - “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
#1 Based on this proverb one could argue that it’s the Christian parents who carelessly and callously risk their childrens souls by not training their children properly. A gay person who “maliciously targets” children? Well, that ridiculous language aside, if you’ve trained up your child right then you have nothing to worry about. So don’t blame us if you are a failure as a parent.
#2 For the children of non-Christian parents, well, it seems to me that once again its the parents fault they aren’t training the children correctly. The children, according to what I presume is your theology, would go to Hell regardless unless they accept Christ. So, if that child “becomes” gay or not is a mute point - unless you think gays aren’t able to accept Christ.
In summary, a non-Christian child becoming gay when s/he grows up does not impact that individual’s eternal salvation. A Christian child becoming gay when s/he grows up, based on assumptions that being gay is a choice, etc, does so because the parents didn’t train them correctly.
So, stop blaming gays for your failures. After all, if we believe ex-gay ministries it’s all the parents fault - dad for being distant or more for being domineering. So once again, it’s not the gays that are doing it. You have to love conservative Christianity - it’s all about blame and shame.
There is no gay agenda, other than wanting the same rights and privileges you get and the same benefits that our taxes ultimately provide for you.
* should read “or mom for being domineering”
Marty,
I’m trying to understand the question.
In the first question, are you speaking about a terrorist who is actively seeking to kill your child?
And then, in the second question, are you speaking about a gay person (you say someone) who is somehow risking your child’s soul?
Do you mind me asking….are you the parent of a gay child? Is that what you mean?
Being ill and unable to sleep, I will do what anyone would do, make a blog comment - Achoooo
Marty, I am not from OK, but I am a conservative Evangelical and I am embarrassed. Despite the endorsement from the Exodus ministry, she has made life a little harder for SSA people, whether out, not out, ex-gay or not. And she has placed a stumbling block in the way of SSA people who might consider her faith.
As for your question, which does not seem relevant to me, but I think I know what you are getting at, Jesus had something to say about that in Mt 10:28.
Matt 10:28 is pretty close to what I’m getting at here.
Osama bin Laden and friends can only take my child’s life, but those who insist that there is no need for repentance of sin (or that what is plainly condemned is really not sinful at all) are putting much more than their lives at risk…
And ultimately that’s what the gay agenda is all about. Because without sin, there is no guilt. Without guilt, there is no repentance. Without repentance, there is no salvation. And without salvation, there awaits an eternity of torment.
Marty,
Now that makes more sense. But….I read it differently than you. (imagine that!) ha!
(please read this comment with a friendliness intoned)
That verse does enlighten the entire discussion that you and I are having. You equate gay Christians with Satan (the One). I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong in my assumptions, so I’m just going to talk and then you let me know how close I am here to what you really think.
For you, this is a sort of “slippery slope” issue. If we start letting gay people sin openly and then get into heaven, the next thing you know, there won’t be any standard for anyone and your own children will be sinning and thinking it’s okay and then go straight to hell.
Here’s the deal. For me….I’m pretty sure that it’s always been this way. There have always been issues that seperate us from Christ…things that we accept as “holy” that indeed are not holy. This really is something to be concerned about. However, I still don’t fear “things” or “ideas” or “issues” or even “agendas” if they exist.
I personally don’t have to work out my salvation around the issue of being gay….because I’m not gay and I’m not the least bit sexually attracted to the same sex. However….there are PLENTY of areas of my life (including my sexual purity) that I have to consider as I journey in Christ. My children will have their own issues as they seek to become more like Christ. The “One” may even distract them with the issues of others while they themselves drift further from Christ in their own “evangelically acceptable” fashion.
I don’t fear the gay agenda, real or not, I don’t fear it. Anymore than I fear the people who make Hummers and BMWs when I can see absolutely no justification for that sort of waste of the resources I’ve been blessed with. If I had money and I spent it like that, I know with all I am that God would convict me of that as sin. And yet, I’m not fearing that my children are going to grow up and drive Hummers. In fact, they might. And I’m going to have to continue to love them and work on my own salvation.
Sorry for the length of this.
Marty,
Do you protest all you can eat buffets? After all, gluttony is one of the traditional 7 deadly sins and the buffets basically ignore this and treat this sin as if it’s ok. It seems to me this is a much bigger issue in American society than homosexuality. All you can eat buffets make the sin appear as non-sin. They don’t make people feel guilty, and even advertise on tv as if it’s a good thing. Without the guilt people aren’t going to repent. Even church-goers are unrepentant over this sin - they’re living in unrepentant sin and all the while trying to get splinters out of other people’s eyes. This is especially important when you see how many food establishments target children. And then when you consider the lower life expectancy and health related problems caused by this sin, why it’s just criminal the church remains silent!
Yet, I don’t see churches even concerned with this. I’ve always thought it’s because the churches would lose too much money if they did. It’s much easier to scare people into giving money by using a small population as a scapegoat - using a significant portion of the country as the scapegoat would only drive people out of the pews and then the churches would lose money.
Marty - Check with your pastor or a good commentary; you are not catching the meaning of Mt 10:28.
So - Marty - don’t let happen to you. But leave others out of your twisted interpretation of what you should do with their life.
Sorry Mary. Anyone who callously and carelessly puts the souls of my children at risk is in for a world of backlash.
I expect you to respect that.
Okay - then if you expect respect for that - don’t be surprised how others interpret scripture. I think if you think that others are in control of your children’s soul - you are far from being on the right track. I beg you to consider your own soul first.
Marty,
Your statement really and truly begs the question…
What if someone sincerely and determinedly puts the souls of your children at risk?
I honestly don’t think you see a difference in that…it just seems odd to me that you keep reinforcing that particular language. I still don’t truly understand what you fear….but I do respect your right to fear it.
Does that help? Also….do you feel content that your question has been discussed thouroughly? I’m being completely sincere….I feel like that sounds like a sarcastic question…but it’s not. I’m really wondering if you are good with the fact that your question was addressed.
pam,
Then I’ll see them coming, and take evasive action as required. At least they won’t be coming in some feel-good disguise (it’s a matter of ‘civil rights’), appealing to my better instincts (you’re just a mean old bigot), or trying to convince me that my fears are not valid (twisted interpretation).
I stuck with the particular language (”callous and careless”) because these are the kinds of attacks we see on a daily basis. Satan rarely sends temptation in a direct frontal-assault — those are too quickly recognized and too easily parried.
Also because I don’t think those who are carrying out these attacks do so knowingly or even willingly. I think they are driven purely by self-interest. I don’t think anyone here would knowingly and deliberately put my children’s souls at risk. But I do think many of us can be callous and careless with the souls of others, if we were after something for ourselves…
Satan would be lucky to have friends as helpful as you, Marty. I’ve rarely seen someone who soaked up the worst of what the current Church has to offer with so little of the good. Playing a shell game with your kids to justify your hate is not very impressive.
Here’s some common ground. I agree with this entirely. I’m 99% sure that I have a completely different perspective on it than you do as far as the souls that have been harmed, but still….it seems we agree that it is our responsibility as Christians to be tender and careful with one another. At least that is the opposite of being callous and careless, and I believe the words careful and tender are appropriate ways to treat each other.
Thanks for talking to me in a more transparent way than just the two of us just exchanging snappy comebacks.
Michael. Tim, et al:
You’re right, and you’re wrong. My research was personally professional, I’m not into publishing my findings, but they are based on decades of counseling with persons whom I loved and admired even though they happened to be gay. These, plus reading as well as listening to the life stories of many, many former homosexuals –even those who may not have fully extinguished their imprinted imagery associated with sexuality –my conclusions moved from tentative beliefs to full convictions. As you must know, convictions are about as close to true knowledge as we can admit, and we live by them as an act of faith. Further information has to be pretty powerful to shake these; rather, I have found further information to be affirmative.
Regarding Sally Kern, I just note that an ex-gay speaker was also present at the rally. You may be interested to read his input: http://americansfortruth.com/news/speech-by-stephen-black-former-homosexual-at-rally-for-sally-supporting-ok-rep-sally-kern.html
Thank you Pam. I’m glad that we finally understand each other better.
David Roberts, your callousness is duly noted. At least now I’ll see you coming.
Pam said:
Pam, do you notice there was no clarification or correction?
LOL, nice try David.
I only equate you with (the One), now that you’ve come out of your calloused closet about it. I’m pretty sure Pan noticed the clarification, even if you missed it.
Go ahead, put words into my mouth and misconstrue what I said into your worst possible scenario so you can try to use it against me with your x-x pals. I don’t mind. Getting kind of used to it now in fact.
Marty said:
Good grief, it just hit me that you are actually trying to justify Kern’s terrorism statement? If you frame everything in the world as something coming to get your kids, if you indeed have any, you could justify anything.
What kind of nuts has this woman drawn out of the woodwork.
There you go Pam.
Ok, Marty, you can answer point blank: do you consider gay Christians evil, or to put it as you are, one with Satan? Or only those who find you repugnant?
And what exactly does “coming out of one’s calloused closet” mean?
What are x x pals? Can some one clue me in?
Marty,
For the record - in case you missed it - I am ex gay and I do not support Kern’s comments nor do I support Stephen Black’s comments and position. One woman is not the voice for all christianity in this country and one man is not the voice for all ex gays in this country. Picking out one person from each group is sort of like picking out one dog and saying this is a dog and no other thing that does not look exactly like this can be called a dog. We all know - that is not true.
DR:
Not evil, just tools serving the cause of evil, misguided by their own self-interest and desire. Gay christians (actively gay, unrepentant, not celibate SSA-christians) have a particularly dangerous way of distorting the bible to justify their cause.
Mary: x-x was just a reference to XGW.
Sorry guys…I went to bed early last night and missed all the fun.
David,
I’d apologize on behalf of all Christians for the way he’s talking to you AND the things he’s saying, but I know I don’t need to do that. It astounds me when people complain about the VERY thing they are doing.
Marty,
Why would you talk like that? What do you have to gain from name-calling and just being plain rude? Why would you possibly think that you can equate someone with Satan and they are not going to take issue with that? I just don’t get it. I really, really don’t get it.
It’s easy to see why you agree with Sally Kern and her tactics. I’ll make it clear that I don’t just disagree with her tactics…I disagree with her content as well….but good grief….it boggles my mind when I see these fruits….
and so little of these…
Galations 5
I’m going to school, so I’ll be done with this discussion for today.
Marty - I agree with Pam. You attract no one and create barriers with this rhetoric. The Sally Kern School of Rhetoric actually pushes moderates away from your position. Like Pam, I don’t get it. I do not see the value or benefit. I suggest a nice soak in Romans 2.
Dave G: You said that your “research” was “personally professional” and that you are , “not into publishing you findings“. Then, I submit, it’s not real research. Real “researchers” frame a hypothesis, devise and clearly describe their research methods — and provide proof or evidence that can be scrutinized and tested by others. You don’t. My research and statistics professor would have flunked you!
You assert, without providing any evidence, that anti-gay “persecution” was not a major factor in motivating unhappy gays to seek “change”. I would like to know (1) who asked the questions, (2) how the questions werre framed, (3) who was asked, etc.
I have seen NARTH’s “research” on this matter, and ALL of the factors NARTH dismisses as “not persecution or social presure” in fact ARE social pressures. — religious convictions, the desire to have a family, the desire to fit in, to be “normal”. You simply cannot separate a gay person from his social environment and claim it had no impact on his desire to “change”. Overt and subtle anit-gay messages are everywhere — and part of our everyday experience.
You say that your conclusions are “based on decades of counseling with persons whom I loved and admired even though they happened to be gay”. So are mine — and I disagree strongly with your “convictions”. Every unhappy gay person I have met, everyone who looked for “change” had grown up surrounded by anti-gay pressures and prejudices. It is incredibly naive of you to think that these played little or not part in their desire to “change”.
I also do not agree that “convictions” as “close to true knowledge as we can admit”. Still strikes me as arrogant. “I believe it is so” is not the same as “it IS so.” Regardless of how strongly you believe them, they are still beliefs, not true knowledge. What you and I believe may be wrong. Only God has complete knowledge.
Finally, I am really offended that you have reached “convictions” about my family without even knowing them.! You begin your “research” with a truckloads of assumptions: that gays are broken, that they can and should be fixed, that they are self-serving, that their parents must be inadequate, etc.
You imply that I must be gay because of faulty parenting — that my “family nurture” did not teach me to “discern right or wrong, good or bad, true or false” and that my “moral environment at home” was “neutral or perceived as neutral” so that my “self-interest” took over.
Wow! I don’t cast aspersions on your family. I would apprreciate it if you didn’t cast them on mine. My parents were loving, stable, nurturing, hard-wroking, devoted and moral people who did a great job — and two out of three of their kids turned out straight.
I find it very interesting — very revealing — that those at EXODUS headquarters have said nothing about Sally Kern. I must assume that they agree with her. Where is Wendy Gritter when we need her? They don’t seem “thrilled” with her suggestions of reform. — or with her loving, moderate, gracious and Christlike message anymore. Back to business as usual, I guess.
Michael,
Just chiming in for a second here. I would assert that religious convictions aren’t necessarily social pressures. They certainly can be, but it’s not the case with every homosexual who seeks “change” or conformity to a traditional interpretation of Scripture. Though my parents are certainly good Christians, I would say I’m more traditional than they are and my beliefs about sexuality certainly were not pressured on me by them (or even by my United Methodist church community back home). Indeed, my family is more concerned about my celibacy and the potential for lifetime singleness that it entails, rather than my homosexuality.
Dave,
I agree with Michael about making assumptions about people’s family’s. I don’t think I’m any more broken than any other sinner. That’s still a lot of brokenness to go around, mind you, but making SSA-folk feel like they’re so much worse off than everybody else has never done anyone any favors.
And telling me my parents didn’t teach me right from wrong when they very obviously did is just, well, unnecessary.
Michael,
You begin with the assumption that there is nothing broken about homosexual behavior simply because the APA said it is so. I agree with David, I have seen more young men who struggle with sexual identity issues who have come out of broken family settings than not. You may be working with happy gays, but there are many out there who are not.
My parents may have tried very hard to teach me right from wrong, but I still went ahead and did what I wanted to do and felt justifed in doing it. Mostly I feel I followed the wrong crowd in believing that there was nothing wrong in acting on my same-sex attraction in order to fullfill some unmet need. Today I realize that it was exactly the giving into that idea that made the need to connect with other men even more pronounced. Today I am happy to be no longer caught up in that kind behavior.
With due respect, Jay, I contend that religious convictions are social pressures. I know that some folks believe that this “pro-hetero moral sense” and accompanying religious convictions are inborn, but I stronlgy belief that these are taught. Maybe your parents didn’t put religious pressure on you, but I am sure you picked up anti-gay religious messages from your culture.
EXODUS teaches that “homosexuality is evil” and that you will burn in Hell if you don’t try to “change”. Almost everyone has heard the story of Sodom as proof of how much God hates homosexuality. We have all grown up with anti-gay “jokes” and slurs. We have all lived with the fear of rejection by family, employer, church or peers if these people “found out”.
We have all heard stories of people beaten or killed for being gay. Many of us have [personally experienced teasing and bullying — which NARTH’s “Expert advisor” thinks is OK. People like Dave G. and organizations like NARTH teach us that we are “broken”, diseased and disordered — and that our parents werre morally weak, neglectful or abusive.
Pro-heterosexual messages are everywhere — and those who speak out against the mistreatment of gays are dismissed as “activists” with an “agenda” that is worse than terrorism. Add in the pervasive pressure to date, marry, have kiids and live a “normal” family life. Now, separate ALL of that OUT — and tell me that any “ex-gay” was immune to it. Tell me that it didn’t play a big part on their feeling that it was wrong and should be “changed”.
Concerned: Give me a break! I don’t believe that homosexuality isn’t “broken” because the APA told me so. I do happen to agree with them — as do most mental health and medical professional — but I made up my own mind — working over the past 30 years with hundreds of gay men — some happy being gay and many, MANY who are not so happy. I just wonder: What MADE them unhappy? WHY do they “struggle”?
You say that you “have seen more young men who struggle with sexual identity issues who have come out of broken family settings than not.” Perhaps. But keep this is mind: Those people who “struggle”, those who are unhappy and those who seek out therapy often had dysfunctional families. That’s why they are in treatment — not why they are gay.
It doesn’t prove that their “broken” family caused them to be gay. This is a common fallacy of reasoning that groups like NARTH and folks like Dave G. make with alarming frequency.
As a Marriage and Family Therapist I have seen MANY people, gay, straight anfd in-between, who came from broken families — and many who did not. One does not necessarily “cause” the other.
When I meet an unhappy gay person who is “sturggling with sexual identity issues” I don’t assume, as you do, that their homosexuality OR their parents made them unhappy. I always ask “WHY are they unhappy being gay?” “What do they believe about being gay that is making them unhappy?” As I have said before, I’ll bet a lot of slaves were unhappy — but it wasn’t because they were black.
I find this an interesting - and perhaps even ironic - statement.
At this site, and throughout Christendom, there is disagreement about the spiritual risk associated with homosexuality.
Most (but not all) conservative Evangelicals believe that same-sex mating is outside the will of God and is, indeed, an agregious sin that will condemn one’s soul to hell. Many mainstream churches believe that homosexuality is a natural occuring aspect of an individual and that sexual purity expectations are comparable to those of heterosexuals.
Though it may seem “black and white” in Scripture, a closer look shows us that the most dogmatic of both sides of the debate rely on adamant translation of ambigious original language and that to bolster their position they must carefully ignore or dismiss statements, stories, and declarations that appear to contradict their declarations of “Truth”. The most that can be said with absolute certaintly is that both sides have Scripture that seems to support their position and both have Scriptural difficulties.
But those of us who believe that study of Scripture and the direction of the Holy Spirit have led to an inclusive understanding of sexuality have a real problem with anti-gays: You are putting the souls of our children at risk.
By this I mean that you are setting up a paradigm that drives same-sex attracted children from God.
Anti-gay state that one must choose between sexual orientation or God. “Gay Christians” are considered to be an oxymoron, deluded, or tools of Satan. Not allowed to be both, they must sacrifice one or the other.
I know at one point I decided that a god that would condemn me for the way he created me was not a diety that deserved any worship or praise. Fortunately, my personal journey found that the God I knew was not the god that had been described to me by anti-gays. But many others cannot make that journey and so they leave all faith behind.
Some offer a way of reconciliation: reorientation. But most gay people know that changing orientation is not an easy task, if indeed it is entirely possible. And it is a sad fact that many of those who seek to become ex-gay find that the process makes them ex-Christian instead.
And yet there are those anti-gays who loudly and proudly stand in the way of those gay persons who would seek God and say, “you aren’t welcome here”.
They are callously and carelessly putting the souls of my children at risk.
Well, Michael, with all due respect I would assert that you are wrong — at least in my case and in the case of several people I know. For one, I was raised by parents who were artists. They stood out from most of the other people in our area because of their personalities and because they were very liberal politically (though they were no less accepted by the church and surrounding community, mind you).
Because of them, I was raised with what I would call a fiercely independent spirit. I have never cared what other people thought of me and I was generally fine with being gay (though I did keep it mostly to myself in high school for several reasons — mainly because I didn’t understand what it meant at the time). I was completely at peace with many of the struggles that being gay involved (and I knew my family would be too, once I came out to them), but eventually I came to a different conclusion about sexuality based on my religious beliefs. And I basically came to that conclusion on my own and through my own interpretation of Scripture and what I felt God was calling me to do in my life.
Besides, I’m celibate but I’m still gay and I’m open about that. If I was trying to fit into some social norm, don’t you think I would be a little more qui