Focus on the Family Citizen Link updates. Warning: Blood boilers enclosed.

[Zerbie]

It's amazing how easy it is to see through this distorted and frankly, evil, missive from Citizen Link. This email worries me. How many people receive these Citizen Link emails??? How many people read that and swallowed it?!

The environment where I taught high school was incredibly dangerous for gay kids. I was the ONLY teacher who asked kids not to talk about killing, burning, or stomping "fags" and the other teachers repeatedly told me not to bother.

Our school had a "sensitivity training" day where a video was shown to discourage kids from racist, ablist, and other prejudicial judgments and behaviors. When it got to the part about homophobia, the principal hit fast-forward. When I protested, I was told "homosexuals are different, society is never going to accept them so it doesn't matter." This was only a few weeks after (or was it before?) a 15 year old lesbian was assaulted in the hallway by a group of teenage neo-Nazis on a purge. A teacher narrowly missed getting kicked in the head with a steel boot intervening to save her. She was gone the next day, missing, and finally the school got word, she had taken refuge at the city's gay community center. The other teachers all shook their heads in sorrow and said she was "in the clutches of the homosexuals now."

It seems obvious to me that GLSEN is trying to communicate the same message I tried to communicate when I taught: 'please kids, don't beat or kill somebody because they're gay. We all deserve to be safe.' Calling an attempt to protect innocent kids "propaganda" is monstrous beyond belief. But that is what I was accused of when I confronted my students about their gay-bashing. Propaganda.

[Emproph]

pnggrad,

They’ve heard it all BEFORE. They’ve heard it ALL before. Again and again and again and again and again. And they still don’t get it.

It’s worse than child abuse it’s HORRIBLE HORRIBLE MURDER.

All in the name of Jesus.

Honestly I cannot put a prettier face on it than that. I’ve spoken with these people. People of this mindset. No amount of damage is too much to sacrifice being “right.”

It’s so much worse than we can imagine. But for those of us who understand that, therein lies the hope. We-do-get-it, we’ve woken up from that nightmare, and we infect the planet with that liberation. It’s already happening, we’re just lost in the middle of it.

(This one was particularly sickening though.)

[pnggrad79]

I know! You're certainly right, Emproph. The sad thing is-my nephew is probably gay. He's 18, but lives with my sister who has done everything in her power to squelch any kind of independent thinking in her children. They are afraid to see a movie lest she find out and deem it unfit for her children. She forbade them to see National Treasure, the DaVinci Code, Sister Act, etc. Her oldest, being brought up in such an oppressive atmosphere has chosen to openly rebel against his mother and has gotten into all sorts of trouble.

When people start applying the pharisaical ideals that the Church has fostered and upheld for 2000 years, it is hard to hear the spirit of grace and mercy that Jesus exemplified. So what we have are a bunch of fundamentalist white washed tombs and vipers, ready to throw anyone who doesn't fit the mold into everlasting darkness and punishment-that is all God is to them-judgment, fear and prejudice are the antithesis of grace, mercy and love. And the fall out is a bunch of bright, promising young people who have grown up with judgment, fear and prejudice and they are beaten down and told to fit into a mold and put God and his grace in a little box.

[Emproph]

You should get a lifetime achievement award for your “militant homosexual activist propaganda” work.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

It's amazing how easy it is to see through this distorted and frankly, evil, missive from Citizen Link. This email worries me. How many people receive these Citizen Link emails??? How many people read that and swallowed it?!

The environment where I taught high school was incredibly dangerous for gay kids. I was the ONLY teacher who asked kids not to talk about killing, burning, or stomping "fags" and the other teachers repeatedly told me not to bother.

Our school had a "sensitivity training" day where a video was shown to discourage kids from racist, ablist, and other prejudicial judgments and behaviors. When it got to the part about homophobia, the principal hit fast-forward. When I protested, I was told "homosexuals are different, society is never going to accept them so it doesn't matter." This was only a few weeks after (or was it before?) a 15 year old lesbian was assaulted in the hallway by a group of teenage neo-Nazis on a purge. A teacher narrowly missed getting kicked in the head with a steel boot intervening to save her. She was gone the next day, missing, and finally the school got word, she had taken refuge at the city's gay community center. The other teachers all shook their heads in sorrow and said she was "in the clutches of the homosexuals now."

It seems obvious to me that GLSEN is trying to communicate the same message I tried to communicate when I taught: 'please kids, don't beat or kill somebody because they're gay. We all deserve to be safe.' Calling an attempt to protect innocent kids "propaganda" is monstrous beyond belief. But that is what I was accused of when I confronted my students about their gay-bashing. Propaganda.

Wow, what a story, again. Those teacher responses are incredulous. Blame the victim mentality, not gee, maybe we should at least speak out against violence directed toward anyone.

But even though Focus on the Family now 'advocates' such a 'protect all' attitude, they've found a way around it. I don't think I included this part:

Even Brenda High, whose son committed suicide after being bullied, has opposed safe-school policies that create special categories for homosexuals.

"The efforts to include definitions of classes of victims, also excludes other victims, making it more difficult to protect ALL kids," she said.

-Next we'll be hearing from kids who get bullied who are willing to speak out against their own safety.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Calling an attempt to protect innocent kids "propaganda" is monstrous beyond belief.

...I think we have a sound bite.

[Zerbie]

There is no "because" (iow, there is no such thing as a reason to assault an innocent person.) How many times did those kids look me in the eyes incredulously when I spoke out against bashing gays on the streets and say. . .

"But - Mz Zerbie - it was JUST a fag."

*****
What are they (I'm back on Citizen Link now) arguing against? For some bizarre reason, asking that gay (or perceived gay) children and youngsters be included in the "all kids" category - of those who deserve to be protected - supposedly constitutes a special scenario in which ONLY gay kids are to be protected at the expense of everybody ELSE??????

Their argument is bogus. WE are the ones saying that all kids deserve a safe environment. It is not a choice between homosexuals OR everybody else. But the opposition loves to paint it that way. It's not unlike their marriage argument, which essentially boils down to painting it as a choice between the elective happiness of homosexuals, or the safety of children. THERE IS NO EITHER/OR CHOICE! The opposition tries to make people think there is, so that gays can be continually put down as sub-human. It's pretty damn twisted.

[tdogg]

pnggrad,

Your nephew is oh so blessed to have you for his aunt, he's going to really need you in the coming years (months, days), especially with parents like that. SISTER ACT?????? I don't get that one at all.

(Shaking my head in confusion and amazement, as I must leave the computer and my time on the forums and go engage in my vulgar lifestyle of Thursday nite league bowling...) See y'all later!

T-dogg

[Emproph]

Titled: CitizenLink - Focus on the Family Propaganda: Pants on Fire, Telephone Wire

-The language in some of the posts there recently has been almost verbatim to the garbage FOF/CL spouts, so I thought it was time to take the bull by the horns so to speak.. -because they just ignore us when we confront them personally. (kudos Nate and Awediot)

My point is that I'm convinced that some of them actually get CitizenLink and believe it. I make sure to tell them "not to Google anything."

Anyway, enjoy.

(And BTW -This 'Allies, Too!' campaign is supposedly going on THIS week October 15-21)
__________
CARM post:

Episode 1

CitizenLink October 16, 2006
Exodus Launches New Youth Campaign

"Allies, Too" meant to balance pro-gay message being heard in schools.

Exodus International has launched its first national campaign to promote truth, authentic tolerance and safety in schools across America. The "Allies, Too" campaign offers an approach to these issues that nonreligious students and students of faith can embrace.
____

"Allies, Too" meant to balance pro-gay message being heard in schools.
-Let’s explore the meaning of “Pro-gay” first shall we?

First, “Allies, Too” was designed to counter GLSEN’s “Ally week.”
(GLSEN= Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network)

Ally week is in essence:

By signing this pledge, I am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. As an Ally, I pledge to:

1. Not use anti-LGBT language and slurs
2. Intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing students
3. Actively support safer schools effort
____

The so called ‘balance’ to Ally week, “Allies Too,” is in essence:

Thousands of students across the United States will be pledging their support to making schools safe for everyone. Christian students can speak out in solidarity with this goal, while still taking a stand for God's design for sexuality.

-Sounds a lot like the garbage can adage: God is unconditional Love BUT...

The definition of "God" of course being whatever your believing little heart picks and chooses for it to be. Based of course upon which ever Bible your believing little heart chooses is the "inerrant" one. And like the shampoo commercial from the seventies – and so on and so on and so on...
~~
-So what does “while still taking a stand for God’s design of sexuality.,” REALLY mean?

Well since sin has no basis in reality other than whatever one picks and chooses it to be, based upon whichever Bible one chooses to pick and choose it from...

"This can leave many Christian students feeling as though they must choose between holding to their beliefs and looking like a bully."

Isn’t that a shame? What American would take away the religious right to of certain students to express their religious right to condemn others to the flames of eternal hell “just because the Bible says so,” in public schools?

What could possibly help “schools to be a safe and harassment-free place for all students,” than to stand up and say YOU’RE AN ABOMINATION TO GOD BECAUSE OF WHAT I ASSUME? ...but I love you anyway.
___

How can you help ‘Christian’ students in American public schools “love” other students by showing them what an abomination to God they are? Easy.

First Pray!

Pray “that deceitful influences in their lives will be broken.”

-As in their existence. Make sure to pray for GLBT students to understand that their very being and existence is a deceitful influence, and that their Reality itself is a deceitful influence. Anyone who tells them that REALITY is actually real, MUST BE of the devil.

Second, Get Permission!

“If you encounter biased resistance, there are groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund which specialize in defending your rights.”

-If they don’t give it to you SUE! If your parents have the money, go for it! Pay no attention to the quippy little quote you learned as a child: "Never Sue" because SUE makes an 'S' out of 'U' and 'E.'

Third, Get Informed and Equipped
-Exodus youth exists and is here for you to bone up on the latest propaganda techniques.

What Kind of Events? -Pledge cards!
And what naive-gullible-inexperienced-life-student doesn't love to sign one? American Public School Christian students can sign them to show their support for safety, kindness and truth. Don’t forget to point out that “compassionate” fine print: for more info about freedom from homosexuality, visit www.exodusyouth.net

-Make sure not to tell them that ex-gay ministries don’t even keep their own success statistics, and DEFINITELY don’t tell them that the word “freedom” as in “freedom from homosexuality,” usually just means “celibate Christian homosexual who just THINKS homosexuality is a sin.”

Definitely don’t say that, I can’t stress that enough! And DON’T GOOGLE ANYTHING! Make sure they don’t Google! Google is a sin... say it’s in the Bible or something... somwhere..

Topic Forum
Schedule an open forum... to bring questions about God, the Bible and sexuality...You may want to invite an experienced speaker...

-We have plenty of propagan... er, I mean speakers to choose from...

(from the article)
"We want students to know that you do not have to drop your personal faith at the school door in order to promote compassion and dignity among your peers," said Scott Davis, director of Exodus Youth. "Authentic tolerance includes diverse beliefs and opinions and a healthy environment in which to discuss them.

Who wouldn’t agree that all students should be free to express their religious freedom to openly define their fellow students as abominations to God? Personally I think it's a sin that we don't already have an "Abomination to God" week in our schools.
___

So Exodus Youth believes that “you’re an abomination to God” is “authentic tolerance,” worthy of the definition of “diverse beliefs,” and contributes to a “healthy environment in which to discuss” whether or not I (if I were a student) happen to be an abomination in the eyes of God or not.

With healthy environments like that who needs vitamins?

Truth, tolerance, and safety "in love" my derriere!

P.S. I haven’t even gotten to the good stuff yet, which you can find here. (pdf)

[revtj]

If there are thousands of homosexuals who have gone str8, why did this phenomena only recently occur? Wouldn't there be a documented history of 100s of years of testimony of gays gone straight?

What about a film of "Gays Gone Str8" like "Girls Gone Wild?" Would it sell?

Did they only recently discover a "cure"?

Is it a "cure," or is it an extension of heterosexuality, like some drugs can extend a cancer patients' life but not "cure" them?

What is the difference between saying "I'm straight" if you are lying, and then not having gay sex (or you don't get caught), and actually being heterosexual? Which one offends God most?

If you are gay and you have heterosexual sex, is God proud of you, like, you know, 'yeah, get it on for the Lord, son!'

What is the difference between the Nazi soldiers who used to force gay men to copulate with females in front of them for their amusement and Dr. Nicolosi's & NARTH's efforts to get a gay guy to do a woman? According to documents, the gay men were usually able to perform the act...what exactly does that prove? That their oppressors are sick, cruel bast*rds?

If gays gone str8 still struggle with homosexual temptation (as is admittedly a part of reparative therapy) but rarely or never have erotic heterosexual temptation how is that definitive of being changed to a heterosexual?

If I call my cat a dog and tell everyone he is a dog, he just doesn't know it's what God intended him to be, and he isn't interested in barking, but he occasionally gives in to the temptation to meow, does that make him a dog?

If only Jesus & the Christian Bible can make you str8 so you can go to heaven, does that mean Jews are bumped out again? Can you go from gay to str8 without Jesus?

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by revtj

What is the difference between the Nazi soldiers who used to force gay men to copulate with females in front of them for their amusement and Dr. Nicolosi's & NARTH's efforts to get a gay guy to do a woman? According to documents, the gay men were usually able to perform the act...what exactly does that prove?

I was in a straight marriage for a long time, and I can tell you that I was able to perform at least 3 times! (I have 3 kids) and truth be told, I was able to do it many more times than that. However, being able to does not indicate gay or straight. this is where the "love the sinner/hate the sin" dichotomy just doesn't work. it's not the same sex act, it's the emotional attachment and intimate connection with the person. for crying out loud, it's the LOVE!
there are plenty of college guys being paid to get it on with each other, and they are rather convincing. it doesn't make them gay though, does it? having sex with my then-wife didn't change the fact that I would rather do it with men. it didn't make me straight, thought I tried for 17 years.

[revtj]

Keltic,

I understand and it seems obvious to me. It would seem to me that anyone acquainted with their own sexuality would be able to figure this one out. It sounds like you had a long struggle both emotionally and spiritually.

I just don't get the ex-gay objective. What would it prove if I did do it with a female? Other than a rudimentary biological point, it would prove nothing about my affectational orientation, my spirituality or salvation, or anything else at all for that matter.

In getting to know Wayne Besen over the past few months I learned that he is Jewish. This has really set my mind to wondering what the ex-gay effort is really all about. I mean let's suppose he is "cured" and becomes str8 but remains Jewish...do they still condemn him? Then we are left with an utterly stupid, hate-filled question, which does God hate more, Jews or queers?

If their therapy is supposed to be scientifically sound, then it should work with or without Jesus. Atheists are cured of cancer and alcoholism all the time. So there should be plenty of religiously neutral and unbiased data if it is indeed a scientific cure, right?

The whole ex-gay thing is so buried in illogic, it's a maze of stupid assumptions built on top of more stupid assumptions. It is weird but it seems to me that THEY are trying to recruit heterosexuals! I mean, does any person ever born really need training in how to be sexual? It seems like instinctively EVERYBODY figures that out for themselves like eating or breathing. If anything, most of us only lacked accurate, scientific information.

In the end what we are talking about is emotional and spiritual violence against gay and questioning people, am I right?

revtj

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by revtj

Keltic,

I understand and it seems obvious to me. It would seem to me that anyone acquainted with their own sexuality would be able to figure this one out. It sounds like you had a long struggle both emotionally and spiritually.

I just don't get the ex-gay objective. What would it prove if I did do it with a female? Other than a rudimentary biological point, it would prove nothing about my affectational orientation, my spirituality or salvation, or anything else at all for that matter.

........

In the end what we are talking about is emotional and spiritual violence against gay and questioning people, am I right?

revtj

we agree, and I think I was trying to reinforce, in some roundabout way, that just because it's (the act) possible, doesn't make it right, and doesn't really prove anything. as such, there must be some other motivation for the ex-gay camp to continue pushing this pseudo-science, and that is the emotional and spiritual violence we experience.

[marutidas]

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/46/hooker.htm

I found this article about Dr. Evelyn Hooker, the woman who's reseach help remove Homosexuality from the list of Psycological Disorders in 1973.

So what are the bible thumpers curing?

Remember, they are not using scientifically approved methods of therapy, they do not the approval of any legitimate mental health institution,
they do not do this out of caring for the individual, they do it because they feel it justifies this horrible suffering inflicted upon gay people, that its their fault for being what they are.

They are Not cured, they are Brainwashed into thinking that is something wrong with them and the only way to be cured is by turning to God.
They are deinied the facts, that one homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder, and they are denied the fact that the Bible is neither for, nor against homosexuality.
I believe in God, but not as an actuall deity, but a force that makes up the best parts of us.
I would like to think that God made this way, wonderfully fantastically Gay, in this life, and there is nothing wrong with me.

and trying to understand what a fundi is thinking, is like trying to understand the mind of a psycopath.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Marutidus

trying to understand what a fundi is thinking, is like trying to mind of a psycopath.

Yup, that about sums it up. I'm still trying though, even if it's just for my own sanity.

I just don't get the ex-gay objective. What would it prove if I did do it with a female? Other than a rudimentary biological point, it would prove nothing about my affectational orientation, my spirituality or salvation, or anything else at all for that matter.

Part of the assumption is that spiritual life begins with biological life. I suspect they are closet atheists who are ‘Christians’ in the hopes that they are wrong, but since “being right” is one of their idols of worship, the fear is that spiritual life also ends with biological life. That would explain their attitudes on stems cells, abortion and euthanasia. The fear of death. And they can’t advocate for effective birth control either, that “promotes” sexual sin, and just in case there is a god they wouldn’t want to inadvertently send anyone to hell.

If their therapy is supposed to be scientifically sound, then it should work with or without Jesus. Atheists are cured of cancer and alcoholism all the time. So there should be plenty of religiously neutral and unbiased data if it is indeed a scientific cure, right?

Some of them link to non-religious ex-gay sites. I haven't checked them out yet, but sure you can be ex-gay and not Christian, you're just going to hell afterwards, that's all. (after living in hell)

What we’re talking about here is the politicization of the ex-gay movement. Ex-gays are their latest and greatest weapon. I don't even know that it was a movement per se before. As long as they can trot out their trophy ex-gays, then they can claim that "becoming" gay might not be a choice but remaining gay is.

Slick eh, being gay isn't a choice but remaining gay is.

They’re usually careful not to actually say the words cure and heterosexuality as the result of “therapy.” As Mike Haley – one of the founders of Love Won Out – says in his book “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, it’s holiness.”

The whole political movement is a mess of word play designed to deceive the non-religious or not-as-religious public without actually lying.

You might want to ask Wayne about this, but it seems that the ex-gay movement is their lynchpin. If that can be discredited for what it is, then the anti-gay movement falls along with it. Whenever they use the statistic that a majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage they neglect to say that that's among those who believe that being gay is a choice. Among those who believe it is not a choice however, a majority are in favor, they don't use those stats though.

So ultimately it's little more than a publicity campaign to define homosexuality as a choice and thus a sexual perversion unworthy of equal rights of ANY kind.

The whole ex-gay thing is so buried in illogic, it's a maze of stupid assumptions built on top of more stupid assumptions. It is weird but it seems to me that THEY are trying to recruit heterosexuals!

They’re doing exactly that. All their accusatory words like recruit and indoctrinate apply to themselves. In this instance I call it perversion conversion (therapy).

I mean, does any person ever born really need training in how to be sexual? It seems like instinctively EVERYBODY figures that out for themselves like eating or breathing. If anything, most of us only lacked accurate, scientific information.

Apparently that’s what some of them think, I get the impression that WE are proof of that. If spiritual life begins with biological life, then so must gender identity and thus gender attraction must be based on one’s genitals. And with a worldview that is based on appearances, the keltic’s of the world reinforce the so called “fluid” nature of sexuality. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of them are bisexual or have 'tendencies' and that their belief in sexual "fluidity" is sincere.

For most though, I think they just assume that if we aren’t smart enough to realize that our spirituality, thus our sexuality, is biologically based, then nothing we say need be taken seriously. And who can argue with someone whose parameters of universal truth are based on a closed cannon that couldn't possibly be incomplete?

[Emproph]

CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview With Dr. James Dobson
Aired November 22, 2006
Transcript

~Show highlights, (special effects mine)

LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, sexual immorality in the church. Dr. James Dobson's first face-to-face TV interview on the gay sex and drug allegations that brought down his close friend, Evangelical leader Ted Haggard.
~
KING: Do you change or are you -- would you call yourself very set in your ways?

DOBSON: I'm pretty set and the longer I live, the more set I am, I think.
~
KING: What's your reaction -- we'll have to discuss this a while -- on the fall of Ted Haggard? You've described him as a close friend, colleague of many years. We now know he's been openly been leading a double life.
DOBSON: He sure has. Larry, that's a very sad circumstance. I feel terrible for him. I feel bad, especially for his wife, Gail, she's a wonderful lady and their five children. We had no idea that this was the case. I've known him for many years and this was a very private kind of thing that -- that he -- you know, this double life that you call it. And it is now resulted in the loss of just about everything -- his dignity, his work, his influence. He was a powerful influence in the Christian community. So, we're all very, very sad about that.

KING: And like yourself in Colorado, right?

DOBSON: Yeah, he was in Colorado, the largest church in Colorado Springs, growing I think 14,000 members. It just is a tragedy of the first order.

KING: How's he doing?
DOBSON: I don't know. I haven't talked to him since it happened.
KING: Oh you haven't?
DOBSON: I talked to him the day that the news broke and I have not talked to him since then.

I think all that’s self explanatory, but just in case...

KING: When you say, Doctor, when you say "restoration" you mean restore him from being gay to not gay or what do you mean?
DOBSON: Yeah, probably that, too. But in Galatians 6.1, there is a scripture that says when -- "Brothers when one of you falls into sin, those who are spiritual should work to restore him gently." That is the scripture behind the restoration process...We don't want to just kick him out, I mean, he's lost his church, obviously, but there's still concern for him as an individual.

-And here I was getting the impression that the "tragedy of the first order" was only about the loss of his political influence through Ted Haggard. In the shame of my minitude I stand corrected. The individual – Ted Haggard and family – is "still" of concern.
~~

KING: Do you still believe that being gay is a choice rather than a given?
DOBSON: I never did believe that...Neither do I believe it's genetic...
KING: Then what is it?
DOBSON: I don't blame homosexuals for being angry when people say they've made a choice to be gay because they don't.

It usually comes out of very, very early childhood, and this is very controversial, but this is what I believe and many other people believe, that is has to do with an identity crisis that occurs to early to remember it, where a boy is born with an attachment to his mother and she is everything to him for about 18 months, and between 18 months and five years, he needs to detach from her and to reattach to his father.

It's a very important developmental task and if his dad is gone or abusive or disinterested or maybe there's just not a good fit there. What's he going to do? He remains bonded to his mother and...

KING: Is that clinically true or is that theory?

DOBSON: No, it's clinically true, but it's controversial. What homosexual activists, especially, would like everybody to believe is that it is genetic, that they don't have any choice.

-To his credit he did say it was controversial, but remember from above:

"I don't blame homosexuals for being angry when people say they've made a choice to be gay because they don't."

versus:

"What homosexual activists, especially, would like everybody to believe...is that they don't have any choice."

Ergo we didn't choose to be gay, but we do choose to remain gay. Thus he gets our "anger" and "feels our pain" when people say that we chose to be gay, but can't understand why we get angry when people like him continue to say that we choose to be gay – without ever actually saying so.
~~

Daniel said it so well the other day:

Originally Posted by Daniel

On the 'born gay theory'...

...what we're talking about is people self-reporting that they have been attracted to members of their sex for as long as they can remember. Hence: they report that they are born gay.

I think this is an excellent example of how it would usually described by those of us who are convinced we were "born gay." We don’t need science or anything else to validate what we are already know about ourselves.

But by characterizing the belief that one is "born gay" as an attempt to promote the belief in a gay gene, the personal understanding of one’s own self is now equated with a dishonest politically motivated agenda. Ironically this tactic is usually used to further the dishonest politically motivated "Christian" agenda to accuse gay rights 'activists' of being political in a way that they are not.

By equating ‘born gay’ testimony with the gay gene theory, anyone who insists that homosexuality is inborn is now politically motivated – and thus an "activist."

More hate the sin, love the sinner nonsense:

"We don’t have a problem with homosexual persons, just those "activists" who say they were born that way."

In this case it's hate the "homosexual activist" and not the "homosexual citizen."
~

If it were genetic, Larry -- and before we went on this show, you and I were talking about twin studies -- if it were genetic, identical twins would all have it. Identical twins, if you have a homosexuality in one twin, it would be there in the other.

But of course they don’t believe in evolution, which is based on natural selection, which is based on genetics. (feel free to run 'wild' with that one)

DOBSON: So, it can't be simply genetic. I do believe that there are temperaments that individuals are born with that make them more vulnerable and maybe more likely to move in that direction, but it usually is related to a sexual identity crisis.

So you can be born with the "temperament" to be gay, but not actually be born gay.
~~

KING: Well, how could a gay person preach against gays? How could you do that?

DOBSON: Well, a lot of people wonder that. He, obviously, was, again, at war with himself. He was involved in activities that I think horrified him. He said that he fought against it, but he also knew what he believed.

It was not hypocrisy. It was a struggle between behavior and the belief system.

KING: How long does counseling last in this kind of case?

DOBSON: It could be a long time. I would think that the restoration process here, if Reverend Haggard chooses to go through with it, would be three to five years.

KING: And is success the fact that he is no longer gay? Would that be your definition of success?

DOBSON: That would be part of it. It's a spiritual restoration, too. It's a personal and marital restoration. It involves every aspect of life.

Earlier:

"KING: When you say, Doctor, when you say "restoration" you mean restore him from being gay to not gay or what do you mean?

DOBSON: Yeah, probably that, too.

So three to five years to complete the "restoration" process which includes "probably" becoming no longer gay. It all sounds so simple. It makes me wonder why he didn't tout Love Won Out to help we gays who continue to be convinced we were born this way.

For the record, I emailed a question early that day when I found out about the show. I believe my exact words were: "What is the ex-gay success rate from homosexual to heterosexual."

Whether related or not, me thinks there’s some interviewer / interviewee pussyfooting going on. hmm...
~~

Tune in next segment where he addresses religious hypocrisy by blaming the left..

[Emproph]

..as in the fundraising drinking game. Let's put the fun back in fundraising!
(everytime anyone spots a lie or hypocrisy that can't be refuted, everyone else has to cough up a dollar)

KING: How do you compare how evangelicals handle their difficulties with hypocrisy or whatever you call it and the Roman Church's handling of its extraordinarily difficult pedophilia problem?

DOBSON: Well, the Catholic Church has tried to deal with that, as well, but they were very late in doing it and a lot of damage was done in the meantime.

[snip]

DOBSON: It's deceit, it's betrayal, and it seems that those that are on the left approach this with glee. But I would say what else is new? I mean, if you just look at humankind, we're flawed.

[snip]

KING: If the left gets glee, Doctor, does the right get glee over sexual peccadilloes on the left?

DOBSON: That's very possible. We're all inclined to look at other people. But it's interesting to me that those, again, on the more liberal end of the spectrum are often those who have no value system or at least they say there is no moral and immoral, there is no right or wrong. It's moral relativism.

KING: To you...

DOBSON: Let me finish the point. That's moral relativism. So they say there is no right and wrong. But when a religious leader, especially an evangelical falls, guess who is the most judgmental of him and calling him a hypocrite and those things? Those that said there is no right and wrong in the first place.

Projection at it’s finest.

Two direct questions, basically about personal responsibility and self reflection:

KING: How do you compare how evangelicals handle their difficulties with hypocrisy...
KING: If the left gets glee, Doctor, does the right get glee...

Both of which were almost immediately deflected by criticism of those who would criticize hypocrisy.

Wikipedia:
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice.

Moral Relativism in philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

Even the ideas of "right and wrong" are relative. The "left" who essentially believe in and practice the ten and two commandments (don’t kill, don’t steal, do unto others, etc.), but don’t attribute those moral values to "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances," are construed as believing there is NO right and wrong. Ergo Dr. Dobson's Biblical absolutes of "right and wrong" are based almost EXCLUSIVELY on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

Consider the Iraq "War," the environment, fiscal responsibility - re tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the poor, sexual [responsibility] education... Interesting that those who don’t rely on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances" to determine what is right or wrong seem to have a better 'absolute' sense of what is best for everyone.

The number one moral value of the "left" is that we do not consider ourselves to be morally superior to others. Equality, the heart of the Golden Rule and the lynchpin of Christianity. It would seem that there are moral benefits to the practice of 'moral relativism.'

Which now puts all of this into context:

DOBSON: ...it's interesting to me that those, again, on the more liberal end of the spectrum are often those who have no value system or at least they say there is no moral and immoral, there is no right or wrong. It's moral relativism.

DOBSON: ...That's moral relativism. So they say there is no right and wrong. But when a religious leader, especially an evangelical falls, guess who is the most judgmental of him and calling him a hypocrite and those things? Those that said there is no right and wrong in the first place.

^It’s a self portrait.

...and it seems that those that are on the left approach this with glee. But I would say what else is new?

Touche’ Dr. Dobson. Why attack the left for finding glee in the exposure of hypocrisy on the right when it is known that the left has no moral concept of hypocrisy to begin with?

Or better yet, how do you blame unrepentant sinners for enjoying the exposure of the unrepentant sinfulness of those who consider themselves morally superior?

..what were talking about again?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Emproph

.
Even the ideas of "right and wrong" are relative. The "left" who essentially believe in and practice the ten and two commandments (don’t kill, don’t steal, do unto others, etc.), but don’t attribute those moral values to "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances," are construed as believing there is NO right and wrong. Ergo Dr. Dobson's Biblical absolutes of "right and wrong" are based almost EXCLUSIVELY on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

Consider the Iraq "War," the environment, fiscal responsibility - re tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the poor, sexual [responsibility] education... Interesting that those who don’t rely on "social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances" to determine what is right or wrong seem to have a better 'absolute' sense of what is best for everyone.

The number one moral value of the "left" is that we do not consider ourselves to be morally superior to others. Equality, the heart of the Golden Rule and the lynchpin of Christianity. It would seem that there are moral benefits to the practice of 'moral relativism.'

Emproph- what you've outlined above is brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

I happened upon the program when it ran again at midnight but couldn't bring myself to watch it. Sometimes I just don't want to get all jangled up before I go to sleep, know what I mean?

Dobson reminds me of something Gore Vidal wrote. Something to the effect that, if America was every taken over by facists, it would be at the hand of someone who sounded like Arthur Godfrey- who had an even-tempered, calm and reasonable tone of voice. Dobson tries his damnest to sound like that, doesn't he? Even so, I can hear an undertone of anger in his voice. Pride too. Where, I want to know, is the joy?

Today I went outside to run an errand and saw two young men around 18 or so, walking close together, one had his hand in the sweatshirt of the other. They were in love. Boy were they in love. Their faces where shining with Shekhina glory. And their love made me smile from ear to ear. And I thought to myself: "That's what it's all about. There really isn't anything but this." It's hard to describe what I saw- and the kind of experience that ensued- which can appear like a flash of lightening in a dark room.

I don't think people like Mr. Dobson realize that the love we experience as gay people is real. But it is. And it's the only thing that's Real in my book. Everything else points to it. It doesn't matter if we have a partner or not. I think we can all access it in our own way.

The Beloved brings Presence. The Beloved is Presence. We are that which we Seek.

[pnggrad79]

It is just obvious to me that Mr. Dobson has no clue about the thousands of gay people in this country who grew up in fundamentalist homes and believed that they were going to hell because they had feelings and thoughts they could not get rid of. If I counted the number of times I begged God, pleading and crying for this horrible sin (I thought) to be taken from me, it would number in the thousands I am sure. Dobson is misinformed and blind. He bases his prejudice on both things. My father was not an absentee father. My mother was not domineering. I grew up going to church and made a profession of faith when I was 7. I am a lesbian and a Christian and I could no more help the fact that I am gay than I can control the fact that my hair is black and my eyes are dark brown. God made me this way, and knew before I was even thought of that I would be a lesbian and it would be a good thing. Dobson can shut his stupid mouth and go live in Alaska for all I care.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by pnggrad79

Dobson can shut his stupid mouth and go live in Alaska for all I care.

Aw but PNG, why do that to Alaska?

Mars is farther away.

[tdogg]

Wait, Mars is my ruling planet (Aries) - we MUST move him on.

Perhaps outside our own solar system?

[Huggins293]

Originally Posted by keltic63

I was in a straight marriage for a long time, and I can tell you that I was able to perform at least 3 times! (I have 3 kids) and truth be told, I was able to do it many more times than that. However, being able to does not indicate gay or straight. this is where the "love the sinner/hate the sin" dichotomy just doesn't work. it's not the same sex act, it's the emotional attachment and intimate connection with the person. for crying out loud, it's the LOVE!
there are plenty of college guys being paid to get it on with each other, and they are rather convincing. it doesn't make them gay though, does it? having sex with my then-wife didn't change the fact that I would rather do it with men. it didn't make me straight, thought I tried for 17 years.

When you state that you were able to perform does that mean you were not attracted to your wife. You used some other mental stimulation to get you aroused? As a straight person I can not see myself performing anal sex on a man. Although, ignorant heterosexists continue to believe that I am lying about this.