« We Expect to Be Christians without Study | Main | Christianity and Culture »

December 04, 2013

Comments

Seriously - who cares?

Why are you so wrapped up by what consenting adults do in the bedroom?

Is it not true that some US states are trying to make counselling for unwanted same sex attraction banned as bigoted?

@The Great Suprendo, how pathetic. If someone is receiving therapy for something and you're not interested, that's fair enough, but I should imagine those involved care very much indeed.

@Paul Taylor If people want to seek therapy of their OWN volition, that's up to them. It looks like NARTH supports that, but goes further and actually wants all homosexuals to submit to therapy.

What I'm asking is - why is this site so obsessed with the issue of homosexuality? That seems to me to be pathetic.

TC - I hope they aren't. But coercing people into receiving unwanted therapy is wrong.

It boils down to this - if the crux of your argument is 'homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is', you dont have an argument. This article I found from NARTH (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Finnis_61-70.pdf) boils down to just that. Pathetic.

@Paul Taylor And even The Pope seems to be softening his position, so why shouldn't you?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/29/pope-gay-priests/2595255/

Unless you want to start down the no true scotsman route - a popular cul-de-sac on these forums

But is wanted counciling to be prohibited by law because it's existence is unacceptable?

Read "Maurice", and stop being so clever, you don't know it all

I'm curious if there are an peer reviewed studies done on the subject of whether certain types of therapies are successful in changing people's sexual orientation. It seems to me that a lot could go wrong in these kinds of studies and that peer review would be a good thing. But since this type of study is so taboo, I wonder if something like that could even get published in the first place.

One thing that can go wrong, it seems to me, is that a lot of these cases of people supposedly changing their sexual preference are really just cases of bisexuals at one time having a stronger preference for one gender and later having a stronger preference for the other gender. No real change is going on here anymore than there's a change in peppered moths. It's no different than a person who sometimes prefers Italian food, then later prefers Japanese food.

I remain skeptical that people can actually change their sexual orientation for two reasons. First, because it is inconceivable to me that I could change mine. Second, because I've heard too many stories of gay people who wanted very badly not to be gay but couldn't help it.

This article even seems to affirm my suspicions--that you can't really change a person's sexual orientation from being 100% one way to being 100% the other way. It only works on bisexuals, causing them to shift which preference is dominant. And the successes (if they really are successes) are few and far between compared to the efforts.

Another thing is this: How do we know these people really have changed their sexual orientation and are not just telling themselves and everybody else that because it's what they want to be true, and there's a lot of peer pressure? That wouldn't surprise me.

I think it was New Jersey that passed a bill that prohibits any licensed couselor from treating someone who is homosexual. The governor believes they are born that way and no amount of counseling will change that.

Hey there Great Suprendo,

You asked, so I’ll answer. But you won’t like it because I am a true Scott.

---“Why is this site so obsessed with the issue of homosexuality?”

Don’t you know that this is a Christian training site and an apologetic organization?

Don’t you know that we as Evangelical Christians stand against homosexuality because our God and Creator clearly told us how to properly behave sexually in His written word?

Don’t you know that it is a valid argument to say that homosexual actions are a violation of the objective, unchanging, eternal moral code given to us in writing and in nature by our God and Creator and that His word has been witnessed and validated by the death, burial, and resurrection of His own Son, Jesus Christ?

Don’t you know that there are painful, deadly and eternal consequences for such violation of His moral code?

---“It boils down to this - if the crux of your argument is 'homosexuality is wrong because the bible says it is’, you don’t have an argument.”

Is it not self-evident that man and woman are designed as complementary mates?

Is it not self-evident that sexual intercourse is only possible for one man with one woman by the very nature of their complementary bodies?

Is it not self-evident that misusing the digestive tract as if it were part of the reproductive system is an effective means of spreading STD’s & viral infections due to the immunosuppressive factors present in semen delivered to the highly absorptive and unprotected lining of the digestive tract?

Is it not clear enough by the notorious AIDS crisis and concomitant contamination of our nation’s blood supply that homosexual actions pose a significant threat to all people by acting as an invisible vector of disease among the general population?

Is it not clear by the trajectory of the “gay rights” activists’ efforts that they mean to eliminate all barriers to absolute individual sexual freedom, even going so far as to liberate children from the oppressive restrictions imposed by their concerned and loving parents?

C.I.P.—“But coercing PEOPLE (Including children?) into receiving unwanted therapy is wrong.”

Is it not clear by the subversion of justice by our judges and the recent diminution of our Constitutional rights that this has become a civil war for the hearts, minds and souls of everyone in our country?

This issue strikes at the very core of what it means to be a human being. It is not the only front in the war, but it is a large one.

---“Why are you so wrapped up by what consenting adults do in the bedroom?”

If your ‘consenting adults’ never had to leave their bedroom, then you might have a point. But that glorious Brave New World of sexual freedom without consequences that you are imagining will continue to destroy the real lives of our family, friends and neighbors before it reaches its ill-fated fruition.

BTW – Soon after giving birth to a baby girl, my sister left her husband to live with her lesbian lover. That was in the 70’s. After ~12 years of mild to moderate drug use and several other women as lovers, she decided to turn her life around and remarry her husband. She received counseling through a local church. She remained married to him until an early death from cancer. She is one of many people who have changed. She did not change her SSA. She changed her behavior, legacy and destiny.

Sam,

My understanding of all this ends up being closer to yours than Alan's. Categorical change from gay to straight might never happen. I'm not sure I've ever seen it.

I do have at least one friend who really did shift from completely lesbian to pretty much just bisexual around the age of 26. I've known others who have experienced some sexual fluidity, often in the direction of going from completely gay to falling in love with one particular person of the opposite sex, while still being primarily gay. Even these stories are definitely the minority, though.

And I've encountered a significant number of people who used to say that their orientation had changed because they had been peer pressured into believing it, but who later realized that their orientation hadn't really changed. I'm sort of in that category myself, although it's complicated because I'm bi and have always recognized that to some degree. I just thought I was having a shift towards more exclusive heterosexuality at some point and later realized it was wishful thinking. So I don't think these are nasty people, but I do think it's naive to assume that orientation change per se is always what's happening.

Nor are they suggesting to force therapy on anyone. In fact, they believe in client self-determination and pursuing the client’s goals.
Then you also say:
If homosexuals can change, then this casts doubt that homosexuality is an inborn, immutable trait. If homosexuals can change, it will be hard to draw a parallel between sexual orientation and ethnicity. If homosexuals can change, they can no longer claim that God made them that way. Many of the arguments of the gay rights narrative will seem specious.

So what I hear you saying is:

1. Nobody would be forced to change orientation, it's only if you want it!.

2. If you refuse to change your orientation, you will be denied any rights.

You try to spin this like it is about therapy or about helping people. Instead this sounds like just another disguise for plain old bigotry and hatred. A way to make sure that all people, whether they believe in your god or not, are required to live exactly as you think they should live.

Sam,

Your comment, "I'm curious if there are an peer reviewed studies done on the subject of whether certain types of therapies are successful in changing people's sexual orientation." struck a nerve so I have to sound off.

It is time to stop using the term "peer reviewed" as if it meant "true", or "repeatable", or even "likely". All it really means is "published".

As this scientist said, "Peer review is a joke".

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439

Goat Head 5

I don't think peer review is a joke. Peer review is what keeps any and everybody publishing whatever hair brained idea they can come up with. It's what keeps academic journals credible. I didn't use "peer review" is a synonym for "true."

"Peer review is a joke".


Or in other words, "Peer reviewed papers never reach the conclusions that I want them to reach."

Love’s Ontology:


E Pluribus Unum, Love’s Uncreated, Immutable, and innately triune Self-Other-Us is, in Love’s Ontology, the A and the Z of all narratives, and therein Mankind and Man’s fibers are neither the beginning nor the end of any story.


Fortunately it is the case that Love’s Ontology does, ultimately, end all of our, mankind’s, fragmented lovelessness. It is disappointing to see such name calling and hatred against those who give their testimony of change. While Man has always made such attempts at silencing people’s truth-statements, such lovelessness has never come down on the right side of history, ultimately. We all suffer from this or that issue and we find in Love’s Ontology His embrace of every one of us. Though the reaction of attempted oppression against those who speak of their change may employ rejection or even anger to achieve that oppression, we find no such motions in Him. While the testimonies of many who have actually changed orientation is, somewhat violently, either oppressed, ridiculed, met with hate, or even met with physical violence against those giving such testimonies, we know that E Pluribus Unum, Love’s Ontology of the triune Self-Other-Us will, ultimately, reject all such hatred. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us; “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”


While in Christ, in Love’s Ontology, we find the embrace of all men everywhere, as churches are but hospitals for all of us, both changed and unchanged, in whatever arena one wishes to foist, we find, it seems, no such blind-eye in those who reject and hate those who change and only love those who haven’t changed. “If you’re not like us, we reject both you and your story” is the sounding board of those who hate the testimonies of actual change. E Pluribus Unum is found in Love’s Ontology, while the darkness of lovelessness is found in the Cold Outside.


My own personal list of sins, daily, reaches to the sky. But what has that to do with my acceptance at my church? As it turns out, just nothing at all. Sin is our fall into grace, not out of grace. The only fall out of grace is that motion into the Isolated-I, into the Pure-Self, that shout of “My resume’ and not Your resume’!” into the Face of Love Himself, which is on definition void of Love’s Self-Other-Us and is therein void of Love, for Love just is that triune E Pluribus Unum in singularity. He is our Means and our Ends: that is Grace. I am my own means, my own ends…… that is a fall out of Grace. I am a man without a resume’. Love’s Ransom is my resume’.


That is Grace.


It just is the case that the testimony of the many who have experienced changed desires, minds, and hearts in the arena of SSA’s and countless other arenas cuts to the core of what it is that Uncreated Love actually does offer to Mankind, to the World, and not merely to this or that particular arena, and that is His embrace, and, ultimately, Mankind’s rescue from lovelessness, from isolation.


Another study showing that change does exist is simply one more pebble in the shoe which just cannot be ignored, as people’s conscience, upon hearing such testimonies, cannot help but be left with a kind of echo which betrays an incoherence to reality as it actually is in the words and narratives of violence against those who give their testimony of change. As long as there is change, and there always will be, that little bit of actuality that change is possible will persist, for Truth just does win out, in the end, and therein Man’s attempts of violence against, oppression of, and silencing of the human spirit’s thirst for hope, of Love’s Truth, can only end up sounding like a kind of ill-tasting incoherence, as history has taught us that, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)

There are many testimonies floating around in this world about change in so many other arenas as in this arena, such as this testimony. Another testimony, that of this ex-lesbian, is one of a woman who suffered all the stings of hatred from those who simply did not want her story told and in other videos the rejection she suffered from those who seek to oppress people’s actual experiences is brought to light. But the human spirit has always sought for, and found, freedom from such oppressive tactics. Immutable Love just seems to be the end of all of Man’s lessons, as those who oppress and ridicule (rather than embrace and love) those who give their testimony of their actual change are at the end of the day found to be the very assault against human dignity we were trying to avoid all along. The dignity and validity of every individual may be attacked, but those who are so attacked ought never grow tired of telling their own personal truth of change. “One's dignity may be assaulted, vandalized, cruelly mocked, but it an never be taken away unless it is surrendered.” (Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.)


Both changed and unchanged are found inside the walls of Love’s embrace, and those who only love “unchanged” and continue to seek to oppress and ridicule those who seek change, as well as those who have changed, are a part of the inhumanity which the human spirit has always sought freedom from. Such exclusivity and discrimination always, eventually, comes down on the wrong side of history.


Changed lives in so many arenas continues to be Love’s Story from A to Z and though those who have experienced change in this thread’s particular topic will continue to be met with attempted silencing and oppression, the words of Truth unrelentingly shed the light of Love’s Day into this loveless world. This testimony and countless others have already been released into the public conscience, destined to continue to speak the truth that there are things greater than Man’s DNA at work here inside of Actuality. The hatred which is seen in these threads every time the testimony of change is brought to the fore is a window by which the world’s eyes just cannot help but see a kind of illness in both motive and narrative in those who react with such hatred. But, we must not return hate for hate, we must instead do as Immutable Love does and embrace all people and let dignity win out. “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)

E Pluribus Unum, Love’s Uncreated, Immutable, and innately triune Self-Other-Us is, in Love’s Ontology, the A and the Z of all narratives, and therein Mankind and Man’s fibers are neither the beginning nor the end of any story. “Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)

As for those who seek to forbid attempted change and therein seek to oppress freedom, or sink to simple ridicule and name calling when testimonies of actual change speak of the Truth of a part of actuality which they fear coming to light, well, that kind of hate is simply a part of the problem, and a response of hate by the Christian against those who employ such verbal and emotional violence would be the wrong response. We must remember that we are to employ Love’s Means and Ends, which is but Love Himself, and trust, really trust, that Dignity and Love will have the last word as no other anything will, in the end, be found to be on the right side of history.


“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Physeter and Sam,

Peer review does not keep academic journals credible.

The link I provided demonstrates that quite handily. Hare brained "research" or "studies" can be published through peer review easily.

All peer review does is let the gatekeepers keep out what doesn't fit their current dogma.

Open source science will change all that.

Goat Head 5

Sam and Jeremy,

I can sympathize with your skepticism, because I share it to some extent. In defense of Alan and NARTH, I will say a few things:

1) Why should we define success as a 100% change from one side of the spectrum to the other? If a person is unhappy with their same-sex attraction and the way it effects their life, shouldn't it be considered some measure of success if therapy lessens its effects? Or gives them some measure of opposite-attraction which they can focus on, moving forward?

2) I have often thought about how inconceivable it would be to change my own sexuality as well, but I wonder if that really poses any problems in regard to the true efficacy of therapy? Obviously nobody is saying one can change their desires just by wishing it. Rather, the claim is that through a long process of voluntary therapy, some measure (large or small) of change is not out of the question. There are many changes of my desires that I do not consider possible simply by wishing them, however it seems reasonable that many of these could be changed through therapy.

3) It seems as if the point of the post is that therapeutic methods have improved over the last few years. So I'm not sure if "I know plenty of people who have tried to change and were not successful" is a good objection. First, did they even attempt through therapy in the first place (see point 2)? And if so, perhaps the recent improvements would increase the probability of success.

Anyways, I'm not convinced that any of this sort of therapy works, but I'm open to the possibility. And I think a charitable reading of the post will identify the argument that 1) some level of change is possible through therapy, and 2) recent improvements of therapeutic methodology in this area have increased the possibility of success. These seem like modest, but significant, claims to me.

Austin, a few quick thoughts.

1.) I don't necessarily think that 100% change has to be the goal. What concerns me the most, though, is when Christians make a claim implying that if you still have SSA, you haven't tried very hard, or don't love Jesus enough, or some such thing. I'm not saying Alan or NARTH is necessarily doing that (although some members of NARTH have certainly failed to make things clear, at least in the past), but it's something I do see at times.

2.) This may have been more of a reply to Sam than to me, but at least in theory I think it's possible. I just haven't seen that much good evidence that it works in practice. Although I know several people who have experienced some level of change in their feelings, it's unclear whether it was actually therapy that made a difference.

3.) My objection is less about "I know plenty of people who have tried to change and were not successful" as much as "I'm aware of numerous people who tried to change and *thought they were successful,* and *reported success*, but later realized they had experienced something other than orientation change." In other words, the false positive rate based on self-report is known to be really high. People sometimes mistake cycles in libido for orientation change, or believe they've changed because they really want it, or because of social pressure, or some such thing.

What it would take to convince me would be people who I can tell have been in a stable state of having experienced some degree of change for several years, or for whom the changes include something radical like developing attraction for the opposite sex that clearly wasn't there before. Furthermore, they need to be people who I can tell are in a position where they'd be open and honest about where they're at, rather than being pressured to look straight to satisfy family, church connections, etc. This isn't an impossible demand; I know several people who are in that category. However, it's not clear to me to what extent therapy was actually connected to their orientation change.

Similarly, NARTH has been making these sorts of claims about therapy for about a couple decades. They've been crying wolf for long enough that I admit I find it difficult to believe what they have to say at all. It also seems that a lot of people are motivated less by evidence than by politics, including on the pro-change side of things. In other words, they argue for orientation change so that they can argue against particular political movements, even though there isn't good theological grounding for that in a world where original sin and inborn illnesses are known to exist. I think a lot of people end up buying bad arguments due to political motivations.

The real danger I've seen with the promotion of this type of therapy is when people have put their hope in it, and then been disappointed when they didn't experience orientation change. Changes in doctrinal beliefs, leaving the faith entirely, and suicide are all fairly common responses. I've seen the first two happen far more times than I can count. So we need to proceed very carefully. At the minimum, people need to be approaching therapy with the realization that orientation change is not by any means a certain outcome, no matter how hard they try or whether they do the right things. I found that counseling did help me with other issues like shame and gender identity, even though it didn't result in orientation change. But I think people should be encouraged to do therapy for those sorts of issues only to the extent to which those issues are actually a problem for them (whereas some NARTH therapists have been known to dogmatically assume they're problems for all SSA/gay people), and without the assumption that it will result in orientation change.

Jeremy notes, “This isn't an impossible demand; I know several people who are in that category. However, it's not clear to me to what extent therapy was actually connected to their orientation change.”


Austin notes, “Why should we define success as a 100% change from one side of the spectrum to the other? If a person is unhappy with their same-sex attraction and the way it effects their life, shouldn't it be considered some measure of success if therapy lessens its effects? Or gives them some measure of opposite-attraction which they can focus on, moving forward?”


Clearly the incidence of success is less than 100%, and, also, clearly, the incidence of failure is greater than 0%. The testimonies of many are wholly disconnected with any formal therapy and revolve solely around the individual’s journey with the God Who is Love. I wonder what Jeremy’s observed orientation changes were connected to, but should it be the latter than such would be in line with other testimonies.


It is unfortunate to see the level of anger which rises whenever the actuality of change is brought to the fore. The emotional and verbal abuse seen against those who tell of their testimony of change, and against those who merely repeat their stories, is a window by which the world’s eyes just cannot help but see a kind of illness in both motive and narrative in those who react with such hatred. But, we must not return hate for hate, we must instead do as Immutable Love does and embrace all people and let dignity win out. “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)


As long as there is change, and there always will be, that little bit of actuality that change is possible will persist, for Truth just does win out, in the end, and therein Man’s attempts of violence against any light shinning upon that reality, Man’s attempts in oppression of the telling of that reality, and Man’s attempts in silencing of the human spirit’s thirst for hope, of Love’s Truth, in the journey of many who speak of that reality, can only end up sounding like a kind of ill-tasting, and dangerous, incoherence, as history has taught us that, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)


It just is the case that the testimony of the many who have experienced changed desires, minds, and hearts in the arena of SSA’s and countless other arenas cuts to the core of what it is that Uncreated Love actually does offer to Mankind, to the World, and not merely to this or that particular arena, and that is His embrace, and, ultimately, Mankind’s rescue from lovelessness, from isolation.


In Christ, in Love’s Ontology, we find the embrace of all men everywhere, as churches are but hospitals for all of us, both changed and unchanged, in whatever arena one wishes to foist. William Lane Craig reminds us, “If you find yourself feeling glad when some affliction befalls a homosexual person or you find feelings of hatred welling up in your heart toward homosexual people, then you need to reflect long and hard on the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew: “it will be more tolerable on the Day of Judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you” (Mt. 10.15; 11.24).”

Well, let's be careful. I did say that I know some people who have experienced some degree of orientation change. The ones I know are Christians, so their relationship with God could have something to do with it. However, they're easily outnumbered by Christians I know who have just as vibrant faith, but who have not experienced any significant changes in their basic orientation. So orientation change is not a foregone conclusion for repentant Christians. And every single one of the people I mentioned knowing personally continues to experience same-sex attraction, even if they're in vibrant marriages to people of the opposite sex.

I think "change is possible" is way too ambiguous to be used as a slogan. If by that you simply mean, "There exist people who have experienced some change in their orientation," then I would agree with it. If you mean, "There exist people who have become completely straight," then in principle it could be true, but I'm skeptical. If you mean "All LGB/SSA people can experience some significant degree of change in their orientation," then at least with what we currently know, I vehemently disagree. This is a pastorally dangerous approach that, as far as I can tell, has led to quite a few more people leaving the faith entirely than people actually experiencing orientation change.

I think we're often forgetting an important distinction that is expressed quite well here: http://logikyle.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/sexual-orientation-and-sinful-desires-an-important-distinction/

Sanctification and changing hearts has more to do with changing how a person responds to their sexual attractions than with actually changing the attractions themselves.

Jeremy that is a great point, particularly your concern about Pastoral nuances.


Many have witnessed exactly 360 degrees of change, and, 0 degrees of change, and, every shade in between.


The specific area of “issue” is not the point, as every area in all of each struggle every one of us face internally, whatever it may be, is, in His House, found wholly intact in each of 360 different degrees.


You noted the most important point here:


“Sanctification and changing hearts has more to do with changing how a person responds to their sexual attractions than with actually changing the attractions themselves.”


It is good news that God is, and, that He is Love. Just as, it is good news that, like all internal arenas of wants and appetites and fears and so on, whatever the case may be, let’s call them Topics, we find inside of His House in each and every one of those Topics the whole spectrum of degree change, from 0 degrees of change to 360 degrees of change. This includes SSA, just as it includes all the other Topics. Testimonies abound.


I find it a dangerous road to covertly attempt to stamp out any and all testimonies of 360 degrees simply because such a Topic happens to be experienced by someone in the arena of SSA’s, as such lives lived and spoken of are not captions in a vacuum, but are the painful and beautiful stories of actual human beings, and such ought merit more worth than one’s agenda, or, one’s fear. An appeal of, “Well that human being’s story is just the minority, so his story, his life, does not count in this discussion! Only the majority count here!” is the sort of hatred, fear, and discrimination which Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. warned us all about when he noted that, , “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)

As long as there is change, and there always will be, that little bit of actuality that change is possible will persist, for Truth just does win out, in the end, and therein Man’s attempts of violence against any light shinning upon that reality, Man’s attempts in oppression of the telling of that reality, and Man’s attempts in silencing of the human spirit’s thirst for hope, of Love’s Truth, in the journey of many who speak of that reality, can only end up sounding like a kind of ill-tasting, and dangerous, incoherence, as history has taught us that, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” (Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.)


Pastors ought not, on any Topic, think that any member in the church is magically void of Topic A and Topic B and Topic C, and so on, as, each of us has those continued interior pulls in so many of our own varied Topics, in fact, in all of our own varied Topics. Should a Pastor declare that the presence of remnant pulls, both weak and strong in some Topic, any Topic is a marker of some kind or a measuring stick of some kind then such a Pastor would need to exit the human species and Pastor some other species on some other planet.


I have about a million different Topics in-play today. They will be there, to some degree or other, 50 years from now, should I live that long. He is the Author, and, He is the Finisher.


Perhaps it is worth repeating:


My own personal list of sins, daily, reaches to the sky. But what has that to do with my acceptance at my church? As it turns out, just nothing at all. Sin is our fall into grace, not out of grace. The only fall out of grace is that motion into the Isolated-I, into the Pure-Self, that shout of “My resume’ and not Your resume’!” into the Face of Love Himself, which is on definition void of Love’s Self-Other-Us and is therein void of Love, for Love just is that triune E Pluribus Unum in singularity. He is our Means and our Ends: that is Grace. I am my own means, my own ends…… that is a fall out of Grace. I am a man without a resume’. Love’s Ransom is my resume’.


That is Grace.

I'm actually not aware of so many testimonies of complete orientation change. It's confusing, because there's a lot of pressure for people to believe that they've experienced such change, or at least to tell others that they have. Furthermore, a lot of people confuse orientation and behavior and say things like "I left homosexuality" or "I used to be gay" when their orientation actually has not changed even though their behavior has. Often when pressed, these same people will acknowledge that they continue to experience same-sex attraction.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of a more complete change in principle. Of course people matter and we should listen to their stories. It's just that in each case I've seen of alleged complete change in orientation, I was less than convinced that the person had actually experienced a change as complete as what they said implied at face value. And I've interacted with a lot of LGB/SSA people who were all over the map in a lot of areas. In some cases, perhaps they did experience that kind of complete change, and I just can't tell.

I also don't believe that SSA is in and of itself sinful. It includes as a major component a temptation towards a particular form of sin, but that doesn't mean that it is sin in and of itself. Some of the aspects of living in a fallen world are things we are morally responsible for, and some are not.

I hear you: you see a misread in any story of complete change.

But I know others who are not misreading.

The question is: who is invited to the table here and who will be required to wear a red badge that states, "My name is Misread"?

This is that dangerous road of discrimination.....

Not any story of complete change in principle, just the ones I'm personally aware of. And it's possible that there are stories I've heard where complete change actually has happened, but I don't know enough about the situation to judge that they did really experience that kind of change.

BTW: you make a great point that temptation is not on ontological par with sinning.

As in: The life of Christ.

Eden and Gethsemane are filled with Self vs. Other, with temptation, and such is not itself sin.

If homosexuals can change, then this casts doubt that homosexuality is an inborn, immutable trait. If homosexuals can change, it will be hard to draw a parallel between sexual orientation and ethnicity. If homosexuals can change, they can no longer claim that God made them that way. Many of the arguments of the gay rights narrative will seem specious.
Once in a while someone falls from a plane without a parachute and survives. Therefore?

The question is: Can apologists change?

Change?

Are you asking a question, or, is this but one more intentionless neuronal reflex?

It's interesting. When the ex gay died, he had no more to offer those who hated him for his change, as they sat by, hoping he'd re-develope his former likes.

That he was atop his death bed seemed an irritation to them as they sat by.....hoping.

Such is the marriage of Fear & Hate, and their child named Violence.

Martin Luther King Jr. was right.

The comments to this entry are closed.