Comments on: NARTH is not primarily composed of mental health professionals

By: sam

sam — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:46:52 +0000

Okay,
You did not make comments about the case in New Jersey, but I know that several other gay advocacy groups did, apparently you weren’t one of them.
I found this article of yours, though, where you showed an intention to ban reorientation therapy:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/01/a-case-for-banning-reparative-therapy/#more-2547
I see it as a deprivation of liberties of people who have unwanted sex-same attraction and it is their civil rights to have the appropriate therapist available. People have rights not to be gay as much as they rights to be gay.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:46:52 +0000

I noticed that there are people, even those who are Christians, who think that 1st and 14th Amendments only cover liberties of Christians to pray and preach within their churches and state their beliefs in public, especially condemnation of gay relationships. Gay groups are definitely not trying to take away liberties, mentioned above, from such Christians. However, numerous legal professionals think that 1st and 14th Amendments cover a lot more than that, including rights for Christians not be retaliated against by public service employers and public colleges against Christian employees and students who dare to express their beliefs. I see that gay groups want to practice such retaliation, meaning they want to have Christians condemning same sex relationships, fired from public service jobs and expelled from public colleges, and these gay groups do not think that such firings and expulsions violate anybody’s constitutional rights. Well, that’s a very controversial issue, and I hope that someday our Supreme Court will have a final say on that.
The XGW article appears very vague and it’s subject to interpretation.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:53:12 +0000

You don’t have to take my word for it. You can read the article yourself. It’s not even very long.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:53:12 +0000

THe article in question doesn’t call for banning reparative therapy. Rather, it presents “a case” for banning it – a point of view that, when followed to its logical conclusion, would have such “therapy” banned. The author does not advocate for anything more than labeling it for what it is: dangerous snake oil.
Of course, people have the freedom to use dangerous snake oil if the want. They can go to the hardware store and swallow rat poison. Nobody is stopping them and it’s not illegal.
I still don’t see how XGW has called for the encroachment of anyone’s liberties.

By: Jon Trouten

Jon Trouten — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:33 +0000

As for sodomy laws, religion was part of its influence, but also it was based on the idea of biology that everybody needed to procreate. They come from the old days where people's attitudes about sex was different than they are today.

Even priests? That said, gay people can and have procreated.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:33 +0000

Ken,
Domininiosts seem to be very unpopular in the public press. If they were, I would have the same concern.

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:11:32 +0000

Warren, your NARTH article made it onto http://www.GoodAsYou.org That is a very good website I read it at least several times a week.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:10:34 +0000

Dave,
Well, if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westburo Baptist Church, then I’m hoping Supreme Court rules eventually in favor of Julea Ward, if she loses on appeal, that Christian woman who got kicked out of public’s university’s counseling program for standing up for her beliefs such as that homosexual relationships are immoral. The point you’re missing that these groups you mentioned, are saying that there is so much thought police activism going on purported by the gay rights groups. Such activism threatens First Amendment rights of individual Christian Americans who don’t approve of same-sex relationshps. I agree with them and I’m sorry that you and I don’t share the same vision. Also, I find it very generalizing to say FRC, Exodus, Narth and so forth are opposing gay rights. They don’t oppose 1st and 14th Amendment rights gays have just like everybody else, they oppose any proposed legislations that would declare same-sex relationships a civil right, like same-sex marriage (please reread Mr. Walker’s decision) which would endanger religious freedom of people of faith who morally object to same-sex relationships. Maybe such things are fine in Canada and Europe, but it is not acceptable in the USA. That’s the point FRC, Narth, Exodus, AFA, ADF, and so forth are making and I agree with them about that.
Speaking of speaking, just please, look at what liberal groups are saying, especially AU and PFAW, that convservative evangelical Christians want to create theocracy. Oh please, look who’s really spinning?

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:10:33 +0000

@ Sam, I was merely making a factual point with my references to DADT. However, The way you whined about me even mentioning it, you tipped your hand.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:10:33 +0000

sam# ~ Oct 25, 2011 at 10:34 pm
“FRC and NARTH are being biased towards homosexuality the same way that Soulforce, XGW, PFAW, AU, and Truth Wins Out are being biased towards conservative Christianity.”
No Sam, not in the same way. Not even close to that.
FRC, NARTH, etc, distort, misrepresent, and even lie about homosexuality. While some of the other groups you mention may have exaggerated a bit, they have done nothing anywhere close to what FRC etc. al. have done.