Homosexual Movement "Rests on Foundation of Lies"
"Together, we must continue to proclaim the truth--because there remain many men and women who need that truth to set them free." That was the message delivered on Friday by FRC's Peter Sprigg in an address to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).
NARTH is a scientific organization which defends the right to seek psychological care for unwanted homosexual attractions, and the right of therapists to provide care directed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual if the client desires it. Unfortunately, these freedoms are under attack by homosexual activists who seek to persuade people that change is impossible, that efforts to change are harmful, and that homosexuality is harmless.
NARTH has produced an outstanding new resource, the first volume of its Journal of Human Sexuality, which thoroughly debunks all three of these claims by proving that changing is possible, change efforts are not harmful, and that homosexually active people suffer higher rates of many pathologies.
Peter linked these findings to the public policy debates on homosexuality, pointing out that since homosexual conduct is not inborn, involuntary, immutable, or innocuous, it should not be treated like race or sex. Research alone may not settle these debates--but we should be highly skeptical of the homosexual movement, because it rests on a foundation of lies.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This article shoots itself in the foot in the second paragraph when it states therapists change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual if the client desires it. There's not one peer reviewed piece of evidence that this change is possible. Only that a change in behavior...something like what the priests are supposed to do...is possible.
NARTH and, likewise, Exodus International are so invested in this change business (and I do mean business) that were they to get honest, both businesses would have to reinvent themselves around a new idea. That is my prayer ...that both NARTH and Exodus International will get honest and find work that actually helps someone, rather than causing such pain and self hatred.
What would Jesus do?
Peace and Love - Bill
I can't believe that people remain so purposefully ignorant.
I found myself wondering how much of a connection there is between victims of homosexual pedophiles, and the victims eventually becoming homosexuals themselves.
Research cited in this piece...
http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp
appears to indicate a connection, giving a 7 times higher probablity of children molested by homosexuals of turning gay.
That being the case, I see no reason why victims of child abuse would not benefit from therapy as adults. I'll probably get flamed for saying so, but there it is.
In all research that was not done by christian groups, even dating back to the times when homosexuality was defined as a mental illness by psychologists, there was no link found between sexual abuse and homosexuality. Nor was there any link found with distant fathers, overbearing mothers, or any other theory put forward for homosexuality. The only vaguely consistant trait is for gay men: if you have 6 older brothers you are more likely to be gay. It has been suggested then that homosexuality occurs not genetically or due to socialisation processes, but in the womb.
Anyway
"pointing out that since homosexual conduct is not inborn, involuntary, immutable" .... evidence that has not been concocted by christian groups required here
"..or innocuous..." ... yes of course homosexuality is bad for ones mental health . As is being an immigrant group, being a racial or ethnic minority, or being poor or being in a war zone (but thats a separate issue). If you are discriminated against or if you live in a hostile environment all your life you suffer for it, simple.
I haven't met enough homosexuals over the years to make up anything close to a statistical universe, but most of those who've talked about it were molested as children .
I don't buy the theory it's genetic or something that happens in the womb. Most of what people carry into adulthood is learned as children. If you aren't taught right as a kid, you won't do it right as an adult. That applies to virtually everything and not just sexual orientation.
I agree with what you say that no one deserves to be discriminated against. At the same time, I've never had much use for those who play the perpetual victim. For the latter, it's never about "equal" treatment, but a demand for "special" treatment. As a man I generally considered wise once said, "Some people aren't happy unless they're miserable, and they're some of the happiest people I've ever met.".
You're argument that there is a lack of unbiased studies may have some merit. Unfortunately, most of those willing to pay for studies, pay for results, not for new information. It also seems to me that at times, there is a "politically correct" aversion to truth in large doses.
The American people have been dumbed down and hogtied to the point I doubt most of them would know the truth if it came up and bit them on the leg. That terrifies me. As the old saying goes, the truth will set you free. I'm speaking generally here, but more specific to the topic, there is a tiny cross section of the population saying, "You need to understand and accept us.". So, I'll ask you what I believe is a fair question; how can anyone do that when those demanding understanding and acceptance don't understand and accept themselves?
I have read a lot of your opinions and I am impressed with your scope of thought. But I did have one question that has absolutely nothing to do with this subject. I had looked over your responses and one caught my eye and I wondered if you would share your thoughts on that answer. The question was "Are people born Gay?" You said no. Yes or no would indicate that you are not wavering on this opinion. And this question, from me, is not to cause any emotional response, just a question. Why are people gay in your opinion? Thanks Bhall
From what little I've looked at on the subject, sexual orientation appears to be acquired behavior, rather than inherant.
Among other considerations, a gay gene would be contra survival. As a dominant mutation, it would mule out in the first generation. It isn't a genetic characteristic that would tend to have conservators in the overall gene pool. Even as a recessive gene, it would tend to be self culling.
Think of it along the lines of blue eyes vs. brown eyes, which is about as far as public education goes where genetic science is concerned. What if all of a sudden, everyone with blue eyes was unable to reproduce (the case with a recessive gay gene)? As a reinforced recessive in blue eyed people, it would disappear in the first generation, leaving you with a gene pool of exclusively brown eyed people, some of which would be carrying a recessive blue eyed gene.
The possible combinations in that gene pool would be 1. brown/brown plus brown/brown, 2. brown/brown plus brown/blue, and 3. brown/blue plus brown/blue.
In number 1, the recessive is eliminated and can't be passed on. In number 2, the blue recessive can only be conserved in offspring 25% of the time. In number 3, you'd have 25% of offspring brown/brown, 50% brown/blue, and 25% a self culling blue/blue.
So if you start with the first generation of 6 people, with half conserving a blue gene, and each couple has 4 children , the next generation would be brown/brown 4+3+1 and brown/blue 0+1+2, or 8 and 3, plus 1 blue/blue unable to reproduce.
Offspring produced in the second generation would be 19 brown/brown and 3 brown/blue (or 2 brown/blue and 1 blue/blue). In one hundred generations, it would be so fantastically rare to see a blue/blue as to be a near statistical impossibility.
Anyhow, that's as fair an answer as I can give to your question. A genetic explanation is a scientific impossibility, which leaves the only explanation I can think of as it being acquired behavior learned from environment . If the question is; what environmental conditions need to be present to produce a gay person, I don't know the answer to that one. No data.
Child abuse may be a factor but I don't know if that's the only cause, or even a primary cause. Oddly enough, there also seems to be a relationship between homophobia and gays . Who knows? Maybe they all come from far right, religious, Republican families? FWIW, they seem to be the only ones suffering from a concern that all their kids will grow up gay, so I suppose it's possible the concern is a genuine one, based on their experience.
Those with a more centered or left leaning view appear to opperate on the assumption their kids will grow up heterosexual, and are apparently justified in the assumption.
Don, the AFA is a HIGHLY biased source. They routinely twist studies conducted by reliable researchers and present them with their own spin, claiming that they prove things which they do not. Many researchers have protested this practice and it is well-documented. AFA also cites biased pseudo-studies produced by other organizations with an axe to grind (like NARTH) who have an investment in smearing gay people. Such "studies" are conducted without regard for proper scientific method and are not peer-reviewed. They cannot be taken seriously.
If molestation produced homosexuality , there would be a great many more gay people than there are now. The majority of people who are molested as children grow up to be straight. At the same time, many, many gay people were never molested and report having had wonderful relationships with their parents and other adults in their lives as children.
There is no "lack of acceptance of self" going on here. There is a great deal of misrepresentation and lack of understanding and acceptance, however, in the group who's article you linked up.
Seriously, find a better source if you're looking for scientific information about gay people. Would you read encyclicals from the Pope looking for scientific information about the origins of sexual orientation?
Talk about "resting on a foundation of lies." This articule exemplifies that statement.
"homosexually active people suffer higher rates of many pathologies."
Um... define "homosexually active people." Are you talking about lesbians? Gay men? People who are promiscuous? People who are in committed, monogamous relationships? Physical pathologies? Mental pathologies? "Higher rates" than whom? By whose comparison?
Please. And you expect yourselves to be taken seriously as a "scientific organization?" About as scientific as the Association of Professional Astrologers.
The interesting thing is that it could well be said that "heterosexually active people suffer higher rates of many pathologies," too. Do you offer "reparative therapy" to heterosexuals? No? Maybe you should.