Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

"Christianity and Homosexuality"

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Christianity and Homosexuality"

    Thread Reopened. Will move new posts to part two if thread is too large
    Christianity and Homosexuality by Matt Slick



    "The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.

    In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.

    The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the so-called "religious bi gots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.

    What does the Bible say?

    The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

    Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
    Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
    1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
    Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

    With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.

    Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

    Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.

    Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?

    In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

    The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.

    Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

    Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.

    Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?

    Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.

    What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?

    Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.

    Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.

    In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.

    "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
    "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).

    You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.

    Objections Answered

    1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

    The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

    The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

    The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

    In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.

    2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.This is a fallacious argument.


    Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.

    Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.

    If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.


    3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.


    The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.

    There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.

    Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

    4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.


    This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'” Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means thatat the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity." Matt Slick
    http://www.carm.org/issues/homosexuality.htm

    1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
    The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts"


    Please post now in this thread Part Five: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-Homosexuality
    Last edited by Diane S; 01-13-18, 12:28 AM.
    God Bless,
    Diane S

  • #2

    Homosexuality-is-not-congenital, Posted by boldirishlass on forum, copied here for information


    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...l-known-causes
    "Hello Aussieguy,

    Great questions...I listened to a Christian preacher present this topic from a sociological/psychological perspective (this was his field of study) and tie it in the with the word of God on the Divine design of the family. What contributes to the propensity towards homosexuality? He presented known causes from the fields of sociology and psychology. They are:

    1) Traumatic homosexual/psychological experiences in childhood can leave an individual scarred in their soul (personality) and this can contribute towards opting for sexual intimacy with the same gender. (incest, molestation, rape, seduction of a child) This occurs in every city/every income bracket/every class of society. Fears and phobias may develop preventing the individual from functioning in relationships with the opposite sex.

    2) Psychic conditioning in the home. When we reverse what God has designed male/female roles within the home, this can condition children towards homosexuality.

    a) Husbands - who's key role is to love his wife as Jesus loves the church and to be the head of the woman and the leader in his home. God placed the responsibility of leadership in the family on the man because He equipped them with the necessary traits in order to be successful in this role.

    b) Wives - who's key role is to be actively and positively submissive to the husband to bolster her husband in his leadership role. Note she is not passive but active in this role.

    There is a reciprocity in the Scriptural relationship - as a woman bolsters her husband in his leadership her femininity develops his masculinity. His masculinity feeds her femininity and a healthy relationship develops.

    Since the parents are the first and lasting images of the male/female relationships mirrored to the child/children, God designed us in such a manner to be successful in our roles within the home for the ultimate good of the family.

    Psychologists state that the most common pattern leading to effeminate tendancies in young males is masculine weakness in the father who has surrendered his leadership role to the wife and submitting himself to her authority in the home. Son(s) begin to view life more from the female perspective than the male - hence, conditioning begins.

    Absentee fathers either physically or emotionally or both, may cause daughters to fail to develop admiration for men and seek women as a cohort to have her needs met and be prejudiced towards marriage. If a father is weak and hypocritical a daughter may hold him in contempt and transfer that image to other men. Or if a father is too attentive, unduly intimate this may turn his daughter from the respect she needs to develop towards her mother.

    If a husband/wife are divided in their loyalty towards one another a child senses that disloyalty and will seek the one that will take his side (viewpoint) and a parent can turn children against one another, developing in the child hostile attitudes towards the other parent which can result in a predominant outlook on life that for a son might be predominately female or in a daughter might be predominately male.

    When a wife/mother usurps her husband's leadership role she tends to smother, over-protect, feel possessive towards her son which in turn demasculanizes him. The father will generally remove himself from the home physically/emotionally to avoid this domination. Hence, conditioning the son towards homosexuality. Female rejection of the daughter can result in an over attachment to the dad and she will view life and begin to act more in a male dominated manner.

    Attitudes from the parents towards sex can also have a role i.e., a mother who constantly complains that all her husband ever wants is sex, sex, sex...can condition the daugther's attitude towards sexual intimacy with men.

    In most cases, both sexual trauma and conditioning towards a propensity of homosexuality, there is crushing guilt engulfing the soul because universally this is viewed as an abhorent lifestyle. Many are in agony and may become suicidal.

    Society also plays a role in influencing youth. Television is an image maker. How is a man portrayed on tv? How is a woman portrayed on tv? Moviestars/entertainers/sports figures are viewed as heroes to the American public. These are ego-oriented fields and most of these figures have moved from crushing guilt to promotion of this lifestyle, refusing to associate any thoughts of guilt/evil of their lifestyle and promoting their lifestyle choices as viable acceptable lifestyles, going so far as to demand civil rights. These figures are rich and famous and revered and sadly most Americans look up these images.

    The bottom line is that this is not congenital...it is social/psychological sin. A sinful mental attitude leads to homosexuality. The psychic phenomena that sets up in their mind that can lead to homosexuality. And this has been determined both by the fields of psychology and sociology. The first questions they ask are what is/was your relationship like with your mother/father and what was their relationship like towards each other.

    The real cause is a rejection of Divine viewpoint values. The vast majority of the members of the human race are heterosexual even though they reject many Divine viewpoint values. Homosexuals have chosen to dishonor their own bodies (Romans 1:26-27) in order to pursue the lusts of their hearts. God has spoken clearly in His word and His word condemns us whether we are homosexual or not as guilty hell-bound sinners.

    There is a hope for the homosexual that will honestly face the issue of God's word and what God has provided for them in His word. The power and capacity and love and resources within the Christian faith will cure the homosexual!

    (sources: "The Homosexual Society", Richard Hauser, 1962...
    Ron Merryman, Merryman Ministries, "Homosexuality...causes" http://merrymanministries.net/Message.aspx?MessageID=68)
    God Bless,
    Diane S

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Diane View Post

      Homosexuality-is-not-congenital, Posted by boldirishlass on forum, copied here for information


      http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...l-known-causes
      "Hello Aussieguy,

      Great questions...I listened to a Christian preacher present this topic from a sociological/psychological perspective (this was his field of study) and tie it in the with the word of God on the Divine design of the family. What contributes to the propensity towards homosexuality? He presented known causes from the fields of sociology and psychology. They are:

      1) Traumatic homosexual/psychological experiences in childhood can leave an individual scarred in their soul (personality) and this can contribute towards opting for sexual intimacy with the same gender. (incest, molestation, rape, seduction of a child) This occurs in every city/every income bracket/every class of society. Fears and phobias may develop preventing the individual from functioning in relationships with the opposite sex.

      2) Psychic conditioning in the home. When we reverse what God has designed male/female roles within the home, this can condition children towards homosexuality.

      a) Husbands - who's key role is to love his wife as Jesus loves the church and to be the head of the woman and the leader in his home. God placed the responsibility of leadership in the family on the man because He equipped them with the necessary traits in order to be successful in this role.

      b) Wives - who's key role is to be actively and positively submissive to the husband to bolster her husband in his leadership role. Note she is not passive but active in this role.

      There is a reciprocity in the Scriptural relationship - as a woman bolsters her husband in his leadership her femininity develops his masculinity. His masculinity feeds her femininity and a healthy relationship develops.

      Since the parents are the first and lasting images of the male/female relationships mirrored to the child/children, God designed us in such a manner to be successful in our roles within the home for the ultimate good of the family.

      Psychologists state that the most common pattern leading to effeminate tendancies in young males is masculine weakness in the father who has surrendered his leadership role to the wife and submitting himself to her authority in the home. Son(s) begin to view life more from the female perspective than the male - hence, conditioning begins.

      .....

      There is a hope for the homosexual that will honestly face the issue of God's word and what God has provided for them in His word. The power and capacity and love and resources within the Christian faith will cure the homosexual!

      (sources: "The Homosexual Society", Richard Hauser, 1962...
      Ron Merryman, Merryman Ministries, "Homosexuality...causes" http://merrymanministries.net/Message.aspx?MessageID=68)
      So what about those of us who are homosexual but for whom none of those factors are true? My parents were both equally involved in my childhood, with some element of gender roles (my parents aren't stereotypes of men and women that you seem to hold up as idols, but they still were traditional parents for the most part), and I had no sexual trauma, or any trauma for that matter. Oh, but you know what? I have a grandpa who was gay, and perhaps some other relatives. This leads me to believe that it's rooted more in genetics, epigenetics, fetal environment, and hormonal factors.

      (additionally, I'm sorry if I'm not supposed to be commenting here, I just had to address this, feel free to delete it or move it to a more appropriate location).
      "Shame on you! you who make unjust laws and publish burdensome decrees, depriving the poor of justice, robbing the weakest of my people of their rights, despoiling the widow and plundering the orphan. What will you do when called to account, when ruin from afar confronts you? To whom will you flee for help?" -- Isaiah 10:1

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Diane View Post
        [B]
        Homosexuality-is-not-congenital,
        Neither is religion, but free, open societies don't discriminate on that basis either....
        It is the human being who is sacred not beliefs or religion.
        -Maryam Namazie-

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by a.s.d.f
          There are no properly controlled, double-blind, scientific studies which demonstrate that it is possible for GLBT people to be "cured" through the "love and resources within the Christian faith" or any other methods.

          This is why the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, American Academy of Physician Assistants, World Health Organization, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and every other mainstream medical and scientific organization recommends that ethical practitioners not take part in "conversion therapy" to attempt to turn gay people straight.
          Gay people can go straight if they want to and you and nobody else can tell the ones who do go straight anything different!
          Truth hurts!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by realist View Post
            Gay people can go straight if they want to and you and nobody else can tell the ones who do go straight anything different!
            Edit personal attacks/infraction This person demonstrated 10 medical/scientific/psychological sources that call your "conversion therapy" harmful, yet you continue to shout that it's good because you say so.
            Last edited by Diane S; 12-06-11, 03:12 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by a.s.d.f
              There are no properly controlled, double-blind, scientific studies which demonstrate that it is possible for GLBT people to be "cured" through the "love and resources within the Christian faith" or any other methods.

              This is why the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, American Academy of Physician Assistants, World Health Organization, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and every other mainstream medical and scientific organization recommends that ethical practitioners not take part in "conversion therapy" to attempt to turn gay people straight.
              Not true any more, the various professional organizations you list that have been run over by political activists are now taking a different more neutral position being forced to with more recent studies. Of course, you will find hundreds of homosexual activists websites suggesting the OLD news and propaganda, but if you keep up, you will find, there is no "danger" or "harm" noted to patients in the most recent studies performed. Of course it will take time for the political professional organizations, since again, they are more about the politics than the science involved. However, the APA has renewed their position in recent year to taking a more neutral position leaving it up to the therapists and clients to pursue the therapy they choose.

              "Ex-Gays?
              A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation
              By Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse

              possible to be an ex gay?
              Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse present social science research on homosexuality designed to answer the questions:
              Can those who receive religiously-informed psychotherapy experience a change in their sexual orientation?
              Are such programs harmful to participants?

              The results show that outcomes for this kind of religiously-informed psychotherapy are similar to outcomes of therapy for other psychological problems. Such programs do not appear to be harmful on average to individuals.

              This research will be of interest to all those who want to know the latest research on sexual orientation change and the effects of religiously-informed programs on those who utilize them." http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2846
              God Bless,
              Diane S

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Diane View Post
                Not true any more, the various professional organizations you list that have been run over by political activists are now taking a different more neutral position being forced to with more recent studies. Of course, you will find hundreds of homosexual activists websites suggesting the OLD news and propaganda, but if you keep up, you will find, there is no "danger" or "harm" noted to patients in the most recent studies performed. Of course it will take time for the political professional organizations, since again, they are more about the politics than the science involved. However, the APA has renewed their position in recent year to taking a more neutral position leaving it up to the therapists and clients to pursue the therapy they choose.

                "Ex-Gays?
                A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation
                By Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse

                possible to be an ex gay?
                Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse present social science research on homosexuality designed to answer the questions:
                Can those who receive religiously-informed psychotherapy experience a change in their sexual orientation?
                Are such programs harmful to participants?

                The results show that outcomes for this kind of religiously-informed psychotherapy are similar to outcomes of therapy for other psychological problems. Such programs do not appear to be harmful on average to individuals.

                This research will be of interest to all those who want to know the latest research on sexual orientation change and the effects of religiously-informed programs on those who utilize them." http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2846
                Diane, quick question, what evidence do you have that supports any of those organizations being taken over by any political activist group?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by realist View Post
                  Gay people can go straight if they want to and you and nobody else can tell the ones who do go straight anything different!
                  Yep. People go and in out of sinful things/practices all the time. Thank God for His grace, mercy and patience.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by a.s.d.f
                    So your claim is that the organizations I listed were previously taken over by political activists, and have now been reclaimed by solid, evidence-based science?
                    No, absolutely not, they are far from being fully neutral as to the leadership taking over in politics, they are completely political as far as the task force groups and those assigned to the groups by activist political groups of homosexuals, liberals. I am saying and have posted the facts here many times, the membership, voting members, the actual true scientists within the organizations even the former APA presidents and officers are now beginning to be heard and speak out in being published to a neutral position, since the most recent studies are not what the political leaders of the organizations report.

                    Well there's something in that acknowledgment, I suppose, considering that not a single one of these mainstream medical & scientific organizations recommends "reparative therapy".
                    The membership does, absolutely. There are thousands of names of psychiatrists, psychologists including the former presidents and officers of the organizations that are now exposing the organizations for what they are. They are political, not scientific and no longer as respected by all the professionals in the field.

                    ...Are these professional psychologists, also wrong? Edited swearing.....

                    "The APA is too ******* politically correct...and too ****** obeisant to special interests!" said Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the American Psychological Association.

                    Dr. Perloff delivered those uncensored remarks during a rousing speech to psychologists at the 2001 APA Annual Convention.

                    In an expression of public anger and frustration, Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. Of reorientation therapy with homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research." (1)

                    Dr. Perloff is a recipient of the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest. In bestowing the award, the Psychological Foundation recognized Perloff for his noted "love of social justice" and his career-long struggle to champion "the rights and dignity of women, minorities, and homosexuals."

                    But, Perloff asked, "How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical?"

                    "Contacted by NARTH, Dr. Perloff added the following comment in an interview:

                    "I believe that APA is flat out wrong, undemocratic, and shamefully unprofessional in denying NARTH the opportunity to express its views and programs in the APA Monitor and otherwise under APA's purview." (2)

                    Other Professionals who Support Client Autonomy


                    Robert Spitzer, M.D., the psychiatrist who is called the "architect of the 1973 diagnostic manual" that normalized homosexuality, expressed a similar concern two years ago about the movement within the mental-health professions to prevent sexual-reorientation therapy. Describing his own study, which he would later announce at a panel discussion at the 2000 Psychiatric Association convention, Dr. Spitzer said:

                    "I'm convinced from people I have interviewed...many of them...have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained."

                    About exclusive homosexuality, he conceded, "I think, implicitly, there is something not working" (3).
                    Dr. Raymond Fowler, CEO of the American Psychological Association, says that his interpretation of the APA's position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client's right to self-determination (4).

                    Dr. Brent Scharman, former president of the Utah Psychological Association, considers himself a "typical" psychologist--not an activist on either side of the homosexual issue--and he says that all homosexual individuals should have the right to pursue change. It is the client, he says, who should determine the direction of the treatment (5).

                    Dr. Warren Throckmorton, immediate past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association, studied a broad cross-section of research on sexual-orientation change. He says such treatment has been effective, can be conducted in an ethical manner, and should be available to those clients requesting such assistance (6).

                    Dr. Martin Seligman,
                    1998 President of the American Psychological Association, cites research in his book What You Can Change and What You Can't that is optimistic about change for those who have had fewer homosexual experiences and/or some bisexual feelings (7).

                    In a recent paper in the premiere academic journal Psychotherapy, and again in the American Journal of Family Therapy, Dr. Mark Yarhouse of Regent University made a powerful case for such therapy:

                    "Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to allow individuals to pursue treatment aimed at curbing experiences of same-sex attraction...not only because it affirms the clients' right to dignity, autonomy and agency...but also because it demonstrates regard for diversity (8)."

                    Endnotes

                    (1) "Same Office, Different Aspirations," APA Monitor on Psychology, December 2001, p. 20.

                    (2) Dr. Robert Perloff, personal correspondence to NARTH, February 15, 2002.

                    (2) Quoted by Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her syndicated radio show, January 21, 2000.

                    (3) Reported in "1999 NARTH Conference, Speech by Brent Scharman," the NARTH Bulletin, December 1999.

                    (4) Ibid.

                    (5) Throckmorton, Warren, "Attempts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues," Journal of Mental Health Counseling October 1998, vol. 20, pp. 283-304.

                    (6) Reported in "1999 NARTH Conference, Speech by Brent Scharman," the NARTH Bulletin, December 1999.

                    (7) Yarhouse, Mark, "When Clients Seek Treatment for Same-Sex Attraction: Ethical Issues in the 'Right to Choose' Debate." Psychotherapy vol. 35, Summer 1998, no. 2, pp. 234-259.

                    Updated: 2 September 2008 "

                    "The mental health guilds in their many public pronouncements about “reparative
                    therapy,” and the authors of the brief in their selective use of references and in their discussion of change exclusively in a therapeutic setting, appear to want nothing more than to draw the public and the Court into an esoteric debate between which group of psychotherapists is right. But the reality is that since 1994—for ten years—there has existed solid epidemiologic evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity” is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors. We may now say
                    with increasing confidence that those “extraneous” factors are primarily the “social milieu” in
                    which the person finds himself.
                    Ironically, this “ social milieu” is the family setting and culture being created by, interalia, the decisions enforced by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States acting in coordination with the misrepresentation of scientific evidence provided to it by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers."
                    “It's a matter of fashion. And fashions keep changing.”—John Spiegel, M.D.

                    How neutral is the American Psychological Association's conclusion (from a review of the peer-reviewed journal literature over the past 40 years, still available at their website)?
                    Again, depends on where you look...The membership of the organizations are not consulted by vote, and any scientific evidence disagreeing with those with the political agenda such as the task force with only those on one side, is simply ignored to those doing studies on the opposite side. But NOT by all the members or even as listed, the true scientists and even former officers.

                    [/INDENT]Glassgold, JM; et al. (2009-08-01), Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (emphasis mine)[/QUOTE]

                    Ok, now do your homework. Find out how many on the task force, who they are and did they truly represent all the professionals, scientists within their organizations and the various scientific opinions. If you really want to learn something about the politics involved, with an OPEN mind, read "The Trojan Couch" Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D., Ph.D. http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
                    Last edited by Diane S; 12-07-11, 11:18 AM. Reason: typo
                    God Bless,
                    Diane S

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Frankenstein View Post
                      Diane, quick question, what evidence do you have that supports any of those organizations being taken over by any political activist group?
                      http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

                      Read the entire paper, and the qualifications of Satinover that is often called as an expert. The entire movement that removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, was about politics. It was never, not ever the opinion of the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists....It remains about politics as it was from the beginning. Read the paper....
                      Last edited by Diane S; 12-06-11, 09:20 PM.
                      God Bless,
                      Diane S

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Diane View Post
                        http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

                        Read the entire paper, and the qualifications of Satinover that is often called as an expert...
                        Yeah, we've seen Satinover's "expert testimony" before. He and his NARTH colleagues (lovely folks like George Rekers, Paul Cameron and Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively) misrepresent the work of real researchers like Lisa Diamond and Robert Spitzer who have both rejected Satinover's characterization of their work.
                        It is the human being who is sacred not beliefs or religion.
                        -Maryam Namazie-

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by A Hermit View Post
                          Yeah, we've seen Satinover's "expert testimony" before. He and his NARTH colleagues (lovely folks like George Rekers, Paul Cameron and Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively) misrepresent the work of real researchers like Lisa Diamond and Robert Spitzer who have both rejected Satinover's characterization of their work.
                          And we have also seen your attack on Satinover and continual personal attacks on any that disagree with your politics, just as the political activists do rather than showing any scientific proof. Of course Spitzer is reacting, because the homosexual activists are attempting to destroy his career after his study came out. Not interested in your opinions of the professionals, refute the studies or show evidence proving Satinover wrong, the more recent have been published once again supporting the fact that "reparative" therapy harms no one and has helped those most dedicated to wanting a change.... Again, there are opinions within the Professional organizations on both sides of the argument, and thus far the character attacks, personal attacks not working on the professionals interested in the actual science.

                          "Ex-Gays?

                          A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation
                          By Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse

                          possible to be an ex gay?

                          Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse present social science research on homosexuality designed to answer the questions:

                          Can those who receive religiously-informed psychotherapy experience a change in their sexual orientation?

                          Are such programs harmful to participants?

                          The results show that outcomes for this kind of religiously-informed psychotherapy are similar to outcomes of therapy for other psychological problems. Such programs do not appear to be harmful on average to individuals.

                          This research will be of interest to all those who want to know the latest research on sexual orientation change and the effects of religiously-informed programs on those who utilize them." http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2846
                          God Bless,
                          Diane S

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Diane View Post
                            And we have also seen your attack on Satinover and continual personal attacks on any that disagree with your politics, just as the political activists do rather than showing any scientific proof. Of course Spitzer is reacting, because the homosexual activists are attempting to destroy his career after his study came out. Not interested in your opinions of the professionals, refute the studies or show evidence proving Satinover wrong, the more recent have been published once again supporting the fact that "reparative" therapy harms no one and has helped those most dedicated to wanting a change.... Again, there are opinions within the Professional organizations on both sides of the argument, and thus far the character attacks, personal attacks not working on the professionals interested in the actual science.

                            "Ex-Gays?

                            A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation
                            By Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse

                            possible to be an ex gay?

                            Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse present social science research on homosexuality designed to answer the questions:

                            Can those who receive religiously-informed psychotherapy experience a change in their sexual orientation?

                            Are such programs harmful to participants?

                            The results show that outcomes for this kind of religiously-informed psychotherapy are similar to outcomes of therapy for other psychological problems. Such programs do not appear to be harmful on average to individuals.

                            This research will be of interest to all those who want to know the latest research on sexual orientation change and the effects of religiously-informed programs on those who utilize them." http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2846
                            Gladly:

                            Preliminary Review: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/17/785
                            Problems with numbers: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/14/782
                            edit link rule violations:

                            Additionally, how many ex-gay survivors and former leaders need to stand up to convince you otherwise? Very few original leaders still remain: [url]link rule violation
                            Ex-gay therapy seen in the binary lens of gay or straight completely ignores the reality of bisexuals (or any other non-binary sexual orientation).
                            Last edited by Diane S; 12-07-11, 04:28 PM. Reason: more than two links to blogs/rule violations
                            "Shame on you! you who make unjust laws and publish burdensome decrees, depriving the poor of justice, robbing the weakest of my people of their rights, despoiling the widow and plundering the orphan. What will you do when called to account, when ruin from afar confronts you? To whom will you flee for help?" -- Isaiah 10:1

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Diane View Post
                              And we have also seen your attack on Satinover and continual personal attacks on any that disagree with your politics,
                              I'm not making a personal attack, I'm pointing out that the researchers he appeals to say he is misrepresenting their work. They should know....don't you think?



                              A weak study, with a tiny, non-representative sample. They started with 98 subjects (after trying and failing to get 300 volunteers) and finished with only 61, and of the 23% who reported a change in orientation (that's 14 individuals) almost all reported also continuing to have feelings of attraction to the same sex...that's what most people call being "bisexual."

                              And of course the whole things relies entirely on self reports; no MRI imaging or other objective tests of arousal were used.

                              Throckmorton has the details here: http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/10/27/...-does-it-mean/
                              It is the human being who is sacred not beliefs or religion.
                              -Maryam Namazie-

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X