...and those evil people that still chose to eat shellfish in violation of God's law. ...and those evil people that fail to stone to death adulterers.
This whole subject has been in the news recently with the apparent splitting up of the Anglican community over the ordination of gay ministers. And in the middle of this debate, some woman doing "Thought For the Day" on Radio 4 - a five minute chat on some topic of the moment, from a religious point of view - started off her talk by referring to some vile crime when some guy got beaten to death because he was gay. I can't really remember everything she said, but at the end she was basically stating the claim that "God sees everybody as equal, and we all have to stand before His judgement, gay or straight." And I thought, "Erm, no, love - I think it's time you got with the programme and faced up to some facts. To whit: God hates poofs. All this debate going on about whether people who seriously cannot help which gender they happen to find attractive. Is there a compromise we can reach if we accept the Bishop is gay, as long as he isn't "practicing"? So, we basically come up with fact no. 2. Gay or straight, the main problem is God hates penises being put into anuses. Or mouths, I guess. It's fine, the Bishop can live in his loving relationship, but unlike any straight clergyman (and are there really that many of those in the Christian church?) he's not allowed to put his penis whereever he wants. Anybody who comes back at me with "Hey, it's not about the penis - we hate lesbians too!" is .... well, proving my point, I guess. Woody, I notice in your first post that apparently "rumours" were that some of these people had in fact reoffended, but they denied it. Thank God every Christian is totally trustworthy! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! EDIT: A miracle happened - today was the last day this was still available online, so I'm going to post the transcript. This material is copyright (c) 2006 the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20060621.shtml Thought for the Day, 21 June 2006 Anne Atkins Hate crime is as hateful as the name suggests. Jody Dobrowski was murdered, not for his wallet nor because he happened upon the wrong place at the wrong time, but because he was gay. A crime of chance or greed is undiscriminating, and anyone might have died in his place. But Mr Dobrowski's death was personal: attacked for his identity, assaulted for who he was, murdered for his very nature. Shockingly, if he had been different he would still be alive. So under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, those guilty have been jailed for twenty eight years - and not a day too many... though twice as long as they would have received if their reason had been different: crimes prompted by race, religion, disability or sexuality now attract far heavier sentences. An understandable reaction, I realised when I heard of a man in America being dragged behind his car for a mile because he was black. Suppose, though, his torturers had objected to his hair colour? Or name, or make of car? Would his death have been any less dreadful? Does motive make a murder so much more wicked? Hitler killed for reasons of race, religion, disability and sexuality, and his crimes still - and rightly - revolt us. But he also hated those who helped his targeted victims. Was it worse to kill a Jew than someone who - voluntarily and bravely - helped a Jew escape? A lawyer in Mr Dobrowski's case is quoted as saying that "we are moving towards a saner society in which everyone's human dignity and personality, whatever his lifestyle, is fully recognised" - a surprising observation when, as one commentator has pointed out, if Mr Dobrowski had been heterosexual, his life would seem to have been valued as only half as precious. So we no longer have a set punishment for a certain crime then, but a system that seems subjective in response to circumstances. It was recently the 20th anniversary of a case that caused outcry for similar reasons, when the perpetrators of the violent and terrifying Ealing vicarage rape were given lenient sentences because, the judge said, the victim's trauma "had not been so great". This was retribution based on reaction rather than reason: now we have a penalty apparently prompted by political correctness. It's a far cry from the statue of justice on top the Old Bailey, blindfolded because she shows no partiality towards persons. Very different too from the origin of judgement itself, the justice of God. Whose ruling is so objective that it is the same for sinner and saint equally; who despite His particular love for some yet treats all alike; and who is so scrupulously fair that good and bad - of any race, religion, disability or sexuality - will face the same Judgement... and are offered the same escape from it. copyright 2006 BBC
SW said: That's your definition and it tells how you feel about it. The definition used by professional therapists is considerably different from yours. perhaps someday when you wish to join their ranks, you might want to look it up. Perhaps it will help you sound professional. It sounds like you're going off the deep end. Actually you failed to read my answer, and the very favorable reply from the one that asked it. I can imagine a therapy session with SkinWalker. Perhaps a sign on the wall that says " I'll talk and you'll listen." Perhaps you are capable of a dialogue, who knows? Flawed in what way? The point of his study was to show that it is at least possible to show sexual orientation can be changed through therapy. Is there any doubt of that after sampling 200 ex-gays? Especially the females who seem to be a lot better at it than the males. Is that any surprise? It isn't to me. Of the three lesbians I've known personally two of them worked out fine for sure. I haven't heard from the third, but she managed to go at least bisexual the last I heard from her. The thing I find incredible is a psychiatric clinic that fails to produce any positive benfit to any patient yet maintains a business and has been doing so decades before the gay movement even showed up. How did they get referrals if they didn't help anyone? What a failed business model that would be. Your analogy is useless that compares a therapy clinic to some research facility on a federal grant. Could you imagine a medical or psychiatric practice staying in business that never helped anyone? They would be sued wouldn't they? Apparantly you don't understand how business works. Business works based on results. A government funded research program works the liberal way -- through tax dollar funding and political gimme. You understand that model better because it supports you. Perhaps that's why you chose it to make the comparison.
I originally said that a homosexual that wants help should be allowed to receive it, according to his/her wishes. You disagree and quote the bible, therefore, I will not read or respond to anymore of your posts. Goodbye. You go to the phantom zone.
(great response kenny Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) May He smite them all, and all right-handed people see how they are blessed of rnot being smitten, for they have chosen to be right-handed! Give me a break!! Homosexuality occurs in nature... I have a boy dog... and trust me... he likes my sister's boy dog... a bit... too much. Homosexuality is not a choice, and most homosexuals like being homosexual. If some want to change their orientation, let them, doesnt affect me.
What about people tht lose their preferred hand-of-choice, and adapt equally well to using the opposite hand? What about people that want to be right handed out of convenience? What about people like me: I'm a left-handed bow shooter and a right handed guitar player? If I were born 5,000 years ago in a hunting society, would I be called left-handed or right handed? Your argument is truly stupid and I've heard it before from other stupid people. Stupid people say stupid things. Hence it is off to sock-puppet troll land for the both of you. You're on my ignore-list. Goodbye. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The definition by professional therapists is simply "prejudiced against homosexual people." I expounded upon it because your bigotry is clear as is your intent. If the science of reparative therapy (there's no evidence that it is either) was what you wished to discuss, then you'd have started the thread in the Human Science subforum. Instead, you posted it here, in the Religion subforum, because your bigotry -your homophobia- is religiously grounded. My definition is appropriate and supported by your own actions. QED. Indeed I did fail to read your answer. The answer you posted approximately 10 minutes before I posted my own. I probably already had my reply dialog open by time you dropped yours. My apologies for being so careless. But I found your answers to be less than satisfactory. Perhaps there are gays that are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I'm sure there are. Spitzer's research suffers from several flaws (which I noted previously). One of them, which I may not have discussed, is that there is research that indicates that gays dissatisfied are so because of the stigma and pressure that exists in their lives against homosexuality. In short, gay-bashing, homophobic bigots who belittle them because of their religious superstitions and hate-filled rhetoric. In Shidlo & Schroeder's sample (2002), they found that of the gays that went through so-called 'reorientation therapy' did so because of homophobic attitudes toward them. Among their sample were individuals who had initially sought therapy for depression and anxiety only to be instructed to attend 'conversion therapy.' Of the 87% of the sample they studied (a full 176 individuals) reported that they failed to 'convert' back to a heterosexual identity. Only 13% perceived themselves as successful. Of that 13% (26 individuals), 6 refused to put a self-label on their sexual identity and 3 of this 6 were celibate! This is the only study that I know of that bothers to attempt a quantitative look at so-called 'conversion therapy.' Clearly, such 'therapies' are problematic. Not only do psuedoscientific groups like NARTH fail to consider such data or discuss it with their consumers, but they flat out refuse to conduct any meaningful research of their own. Instead, they rely on one of the hallmark indicators of pseudoscience: anecdotal testimony. Useful in selling a product, but useless in measuring any real success. Shidlo & Schroeder conclude with: In one of your answers (#3), you say: I've read Spitzer's work and much of the work that directly criticizes or compliments it. I'm leafing through his primary contribution to the subject in Archives of Sexual Behavior, printed in October of 2003, and I see no mention of adolescent confusion. Could you point us to another citation perhaps? Obviously there's one I'm missing. More likely, you're relying on the homework I did for you by finding the citation and assuming he said something about adolescent confusion and hoping that no one else actually has a copy of the journal. And the section on page 411 under the heading "Good Heterosexual Functioning" isn't discussing "confusion" among adolescents in the context you imply. So share with us the correct citation so we can have some complete perspectives. Stop hiding it.. that's pseudoscientific. Yes. See the work of Shidlo and Schroeder above as well as the criticisms in my earlier post. In the very same issue (October 2003) of Archives of Sexual Behavior in which Spitzer published, there were many sound criticisms of his work, some of which are mentioned in my previous post (which, it seems you didn't bother to read). In addition, Spitzer himself said: The only thing Spitzer demonstrated is that, given sufficient motivation, gays can at least pretend to change their sexual orientation. In his methodology, Spitzer reveals that his sample included individuals who self-reported at least a rank of 60 with 0 being completely heterosexual and 100 being completely homosexual. What!? 60!? So his cut-off for "gay" is someone who thinks they're attracted to the same sex more often than not? Where is the control for the anxiety driven, depressed man or woman that is simply scared of their androgenous thoughts and occasional curiosity about the same sex? Why didn't Spitzer study convergents who were completely homosexual? NARTH (if this is the "clinic" you are referring to) is not a psychiatric clinic. It is a religious cult center that does not adequately measure its work or invite oversight from peer review. Moreover, the methodologies they employ are suspect at best, pseudoscientific at worst. They should be shut down by the government, but the religious nutters have their dicks planted in so many politicians asses that to do so would by akin to biting the hand that feeds them via donations. Pseudoscience clinics like NARTH exist to fleece money off of willing believers (and perhaps government "faith-based initiatives" funding). They're no different that the many new age clinics that do much the same thing with unfullfilled-promises of cures and prevention via snake oil like coral calcium, reflexology and magnetic therapy. Reference Reminder Shidlo, A., & Schroeder,M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259. Spitzer, R. L. (2003). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 subjects reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 403-417
Maybe they are basing it on scientific information?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6773 http://www.isem.univ-montp2.fr/GE/Adaptation/Bibliographie/fauriePRSLB2004.pdf
It makes about as much sense as your silly argument that homosexuality is bad because your cult deems it so. Do *I* get to be on your ignore list now? Or do I have to say Jesus Fucking Christ on a Stick again?
You are not listening. May I quote myself AGAIN. This is the last time I will do so. You said: wsionynw asked the question, and to my response he said: SW for some reason you think you speak for him, and you DON"T. Some people didn't ask the question, wsionyw asked the question, and I answered it. Not only did I answer it, I answered it well in his words -- the person that asked me the question. I have no use for a liar that can't even communicate. You are no professional therapist, you're just a plain and simple troll. Your prejoritive lieing accusations are unacceptable by anyone's standards for civil decency. Point 2: you said: That too is a lie. You have a big problem with it because they are making that choice for themselves, instead of you choosing otherwise. Do you want to be on my ignore list? If that's the best you can communicate then you will go there. I thought liberals were all about choice pro-choice to abort fetuses, pro-choice about lifestyle, etc. But your true colors really come through. You aren't about choice at all, you're about CONTROL. You want all you can get. You even want to control this forum. People are offended by your uncaring approach to humanity, and little wonder -- it's because you believe we are no better than animals. Are you not human as well? If so please act like it. Pretend to be even if you aren't.
Good links. By the way, Jimi Hendrix was a leftie. I'd start playing guitar left-handed if I could play like him in the long-run. In some things I am ambidextris and have no preferred hand. I probably ought to switch to right-handedness on a bow.
Woody, But you didn’t answer my question – From a religious perspective - why change orientation? What's wrong with being Gay?
Since Woody now has me on ignore (and if he doesn't he should), I'll speak to those that bother to read his bigoted thread. Like I posted earlier, his motives and intent is clear. This is about his cult doctrine and its bigoted perspective on the fact of homosexuality. There is no evidence that gays choose their sexual orientation and much that says that it is a matter of little choice. If Woody truly had something scientific to discuss about the so-called "reorientation therapy" (aka "conversion therapy," aka "reparative therapy") he would have posted it in the Human Science forum. Instead, he chose the religion forum, because this is where the pseudoscience he's asserting as viable comes from. Additionally, Woody appears to not understand what I said about not seeing his little answers to the questions the other poster asked. When I clicked reply, Woody's wasn't there. Moreover, I found his answers unsatisfactory regardless of what the other poster thought. It would seem that Woody is satisfied having a fan-base of one in this thread. Good for him. But Woody shows his utter stupidity by calling me a liar because I've no problem with gays who want to pretend to be heterosexual. What knowledge could Woody possibly have that gives him enough insight into whether or not I actually believe this statement. I'm tempted to say, "what a moron," but that isn't the case. Woody isn't interested in debating facts surrounding the pseudoscience of "conversion therapy." Instead, he's content to start a thread with his homophobic bigotry in rhetoric form then simply reply with ad hominem remarks and derisions about "liberals" and such. In other words, the dumb ass approach. I'm more than willing to make use of ad hominem rhetoric, particularly with dumb asses who deserve it, but at least I'm also willing to actually read the debated literature and form an opinion on the facts. Woody has only his hatred for homosexuals which he disguises as a "concern" for the well being of the heterosexual trapped inside. What a bigoted dumb ass. At least on ignore, I'll be able to counter his pseudoscientific nonsense without having to read past the complete ignorance and utter lack of education that responds to me.
QED there you go again, on another CONTROL issue, and I'm really tiring of this. Also, the definition by professional therapists is not what you claim. It is a rare but treatable condition for people that are struggling with their own homosexual feelings. You are no professional therapist. Whatta joke. SW, you totally ignore the number one reason cited in the study for the re-orientation: They are emotionally dissatisfied with same-sex relationships because they were hurt in them. These patients view opposite sex relationships as more fulfilling. If you read some of the testimonials I supplied, you will understand that some of the reasons a person is homosexual have nothing to do with sex at all. I'm not going to re-quote it if you aren't going to read it. It's really a question of "what's the criteria for a success?" The criteria in the study is significantly reduced homosexual drive combined with enhanced heterosexual drive. Few people lie on the 100% hetero or homo profile under existing measures. Developing the appropriate criteria is indeed difficult because the criteria for "homosexual" hasn't been clearly defined according to the researchers I've read. Is it the person, or is it the behavior they exhibit? What kind of behavior? How frequent? Under what conditions? For how long? These questions muddy the waters for any kind of reasonable approach to research, and they need to be clarified. They have done an additional study that agrees with Spitzer's. I don't feel like finding it right now. Yeah, Spitzer tried to be scientific about it. He made the point that the conventional measures are inadequate for determining homosexuality in this type of a study. In his presentation he requested that the psychiatric community come up with a better system than what's currently available. Are there any takers out there in the APA, or do they just continue to hide behind their ivory tower? As Spitzer himself said, he didn't even know an ex-gay community existed until he was confronted at an APA convention, and then asked to do the research. SW, this is where I think we depart. It appears that you wish to sweep ex-gay people under the rug and forget about them because they are not politically expedient for you. I'm getting a strong impression of this. Do you wish pain and suffering on them so you can be "politically right"? If so, then our "discussion" is over. And what about the psychiatrists (before 1970) that were applying reparative therapy before NARTH and the gay movement appeared? If it didn't help the patient, then what was the point? Where was a political pay-off back then? I hear the gay movement is really strong in the polical pay-off department, and even the APA leans that way with their money. Oh, and there you go again, "they should be shut down by the government" because you can't control it. As Spitzer's study indicates, the patient's themselves said they were happier as a result of the therapy. Do you have something against their happiness? You probably wish and hope they were miserable to help your cause, you see. That's the impression I'm getting from you. Yeah I figured the snake-oil was coming. To that I ask you this -- how do you define success? In business, success is defined as a customer that is satisfied with your product or service. In a therapy business model the patient is a customer, and the therapy is a service. If the customer is happy with the result, then the business model works. I don't think it is possible to have a placebo therapy. How would that even work? Do you fool the customer into thinking they are happier? Isn't that something they know for themselves? They don't do the therapy in a day. It takes about 2 years to see a visible change, and 5 years to complete the program. It doesn't work for everyone, even though they are extremely motivated. Some complain that it worked, but not to the extent they had hoped for. The risks are explained up-front. Some relapse into old behavior. The ex-gay support groups compare it to Alchoholics Anonymous. If someone slips, and this is expected to happen in many cases, then they are received in an open and supportive environment with others that are dealing with the same issues. Even the leader can fall, but they are given another chance. It's a struggle of mind over matter. What's in control, the mind or the body? Christians believe the mind is greater than the body, and that, as such, it outlives the body even when the body rots. They also believe when a body controls the mind (as in the case on non-Christians) it rots with the body after death. Non-believers have little choice but to let their bodies be in control. As such, I can understand your frustration and disbelief in reparative therapy. You believe the human mind is too weak to make the change. As a Christian, I can relate to the struggle the ex-gays are going through. You see, every person that becomes a Christian must re-identify themselves in the sex department. This is not easy, even for a person like myself that has opposite sex attraction. I was celibate for ten years before I married. Without marriage I would have remained celibate. There is no garantee that a marriage is going to work, and if sex is the only reason for the marriage then it will not work.
How is this a cure for homosexuality? I wasnt aware that homosexuality was a sickness... reminds me of x-men series...
Looks like I touched a nerve Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Although to me it looks like God hating left handed people is as realistic as God hating gays... Sorry, 'fags' as your American bible belt nutter calls them. Isn't it more likely that God does not hate anything, but humans hate things, therefor they claim that God hates the same things they do? You might as well put me on ignore, Woody, as you never even give direct answers to any of my questions. Thanks for doing me a favour. Goodbye.
I still don't see a rationale for why Christians have a problem with homosexuality. The bible doesn't explain this and the references to homosexuality are dubious. Leviticus is the clearest but then in the same context if you eat shllfish you should be put to death or if you wear clothes made of mixed fabrics you should be put to death, etc. So Levitus must be ignored on the grounds of just sheer silliness. And the myth makers didn't have the aleged JC mention the issue at all. So why is this subject such an issue for some Christians?
SG said: The God of the New Testament says: I like pork barbecue myself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! SG said: How about the adulterous woman that was brought before our loving savior Jesus Christ: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I always wondered why those jewish pharisees didn't bring the man too. After all the woman was "caught in the very act of adultery." Doesn't that imply that a man was involved? They must have been real cowards. ---------------------------------------------------------------- SG, you gotta be careful how you use a bible, and just pull things out of context. For example: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." Mat 27:5 "Go, and do thou likewise." Luke 10:37 ----------------------------------------------------------------- BTW there is a sex-reorientation therapy especially for jewish people . It is called JONAH. Jonah ex-gay member's testimony Here is a support group for parents of ex-gays called PFOX. Don't ex-gays have rights too? Look who is calling the kettle black: Heterophobic discrimination Many gays are offended about this billboard: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Talk about discrimination. Geeez. Excerpt from PFOX: Yep, the political stakes are high. No wonder Skin Walker sheds his snake skin about this issue. It's all about political control and mandated public brainwashing with lies and distortions from the left. from ex-gay speaker Greg Quinlan: Michael Reagan's confession:
Cris said: You quote the OT which Jesus changed. IN the NT the apostle Paul said, Rom 1:27 But that is not the point made in this thread. The point of this thread is as follows: shouldn't a group of society be respected and supported for their effort to change a behavior that they do not want regardless of their reasons which include their own emotional needs? Shouldn't they be allowed to make that choice for themsleves, instead of liberal nuts telling them they don't have that right and denying they even exist to start with? The liberal left is cruel and unusual in this regard because of selfish political motivation. Ex-gays stand in the way of their agenda which goes far beyond civil rights for all people. Why can't they accept that some people aren't happy being "gay" and then help them? For an ex-gay person the word "gay" is an oxymoron. Even the english language has been changed to say: well if you're homosexual or "gay" you're automatically "happy" -- lies, lies, lies.
