sexual orientation

While reparative therapy, which intends to make gay and bisexual people straight, has already been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the American Psychological Association, among others, a new study from Pat Robertson’s Regent University may also shed doubts on the ability of people to transform from gay to straight. Warren Throckmorton points to a study by Regent University, “Characteristics of Mixed Orientation Couples: An Empirical Study” [pdf] in the Christian psychological periodical Edification, that may deal a heavy blow to the popular right-wing argument that people can just change their sexual orientation.

Pat Robertson, one of the country’s most prominent and harshest critics of gay rights and the LGBT community, is the founder and chancellor of Regent, which was originally named CBN University after his Christian Broadcasting Network.

A study from two Regent professors and four Regent doctoral candidates undermines a common refrain from the Religious Right that gays and lesbians can simply marry people of the opposite sex and become heterosexual. Many endorse “reparative therapy” for gays and lesbians, such as the ‘ex-gay’ counseling practiced at the clinic run by Rep. Michele Bachmann’s husband.

The group surveyed people currently or once involved in mixed orientation marriages, or one spouse who identifies as heterosexual and an opposite-sex partner who identifies as a sexual minority (like gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer or bi-curious).

The researchers used two versions of the Kinsey scale (0 as completely heterosexual, 7 as completely homosexual) to measure both sexual behavior and sexual orientation. Unsurprisingly, they found on the Kinsey scale that measured sexual behavior that gay, bisexual or queer spouses had more heterosexual behavior when they were involved in a monogamous marriage to someone of the opposite sex. But they found that heterosexual behavior did not mean changes in sexual attraction, emotions or fantasies in the Kinsey scale (Kinsey Expanded) which measured sexual orientation. Essentially, while their sexual behavior changed, their sexual orientation remained the same:

On the Kinsey Expanded version, the mean score for both before marriage and the current assessment were 4.33 and 4.57 respectively. Both of these scores fall in between the Equal amounts of heterosexual and homosexual and Largely homosexual, but more than inci­dental heterosexual categories.

A paired-sample t-test was conducted to deter­mine if there was a significant difference in their Kin­sey scores before marriage and currently. There was a significant difference in their Kinsey behavior scale scores, indicating the sample’s sexual behavior signifi­cantly shifted toward the exclusively heterosexual side of the continuum since they have been married. This is likely simply a result of the fact that most of the par­ticipants were in a heterosexual marriage, thus decreas­ing the frequency of same-sex behavior. On the Kinsey Expanded scale, there was not a significant difference between their ratings before marriage and currently, suggesting there has been little change in their degree of overall sexual orientation (attractions, behavior, emotional attachment, and fantasy).

…

When we look at the sexual minorities specifical­ly, it is noteworthy that the findings from the Kinsey scale suggest that they did report significant behavioral change. This likely reflected the commitment to their heterosexual marriage and the decrease in frequency of same-sex behavior. However, when the Kinsey ex­panded scale was administered, sexual minorities did not report a statistically significant change in the com­bination of behaviors, attraction, fantasy, and emo­tional attachment – the combination meant to convey sexual orientation rather than just behavior.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is working with yet another extreme organization ardently opposed to gay rights. The virulently anti-gay American Family Association is the host of Perry’s prayer rally, and another endorser of The Response is David Kubal of Intercessors for America, an organization which claims to helps Christians who recognize “the need for God to intervene in U.S. governmental and cultural issues” about current political and cultural issues.

Among the issues Intercessors For America focuses on include the threat of microchips implanted into humans, the so-called North American Union, and the supposed wrongdoings of the Obama Administration. Most recently, Intercessors for America asked members to be wary of the Dalai Lama’s visit to Washington, D.C.: “Pray that any occult spirits from the Dalai Lama and monks of Tibetan Buddhism will be bound and unable to bring harm to Washington, D.C. or the U.S.A. May they and those they seek to influence, or have influenced in the past, be set free from the power of darkness and come to know the light of life in Jesus Christ!”

Kubal’s Intercessors for America is also a harsh critic of gay equality and a vocal proponent of ex-gay reparative therapy. An endorser of the ex-gay group Exodus International, Intercessors For America hosted Bob Ragan, formerly of Exodus International, to give a speech on “Freedom From Homosexuality.” Furthermore, the group prayed to stop anti-bullying laws to protect LGBT and LGBT-perceived youth, warning they “can only lead to God’s judgment,” and that support for marriage equality “leads a soul to eternal damnation”:

Marriage equality in New York: By the signing of this measure into law it has opened the door by inviting the spiritually blind to walk in degradation, accepting a reduction in rank, dignity, standing, losing their honor of a sound reputation, accepting humiliation, and moral and intellectual decay which eventually leads a soul to eternal damnation unless they repent.

Ask the Heavenly Father to bind this edict from gaining acceptance in the hearts of the populace of New York. Ask the Lord to loose the power of His holy and eternal love to each of those who will turn back to God and denounce this unrighteous lifestyle.

Gay rights: Pray that this "homosexual" agenda initiated by an extremely small minority of individuals be exposed to the whole of our U.S. citizenry, and that a proper response and correction be made to this attempted corruption of our governmental principles. Ask the Lord to raise up leaders to bring this corrupt movement to a halt.

Anti-LGBT bullying: Ask God to help us to speak the truth in love to young people who are being affected by the "LGBT" lifestyle. Ask the Lord to protect those “bullied” by any corrupt government effort to promote sinful sexual practice among our youth. Ask the Lord to help our citizenry to stand courageously against these misguided “bullying” efforts which can only lead to God's judgment!

Student Non-Discrimination Act: (H.R.998 & S.555) These parallel bills both prohibit public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates. S.555 Bill Summary & Status 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) Legal experts believe that, if passed, this bill will actually empower the homosexual community to dictate curriculum in all our schools, public and private. As a result, our schools may become a form of "indoctrination centers" for the gay lifestyle. (Contributors: Library of Congress, Capitol Hill Prayer Partners)

Greater is He that is in us than He that is in the world! Ask the Lord to forgive the sponsors of these bills for they know not what they do.

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is back with new anti-gay rants, hitting both the Republican National Committee and the National Education Association for allegedly supporting “the promotion of homosexuality.” The RNC came under fire from Religious Right activists when a member of the Log Cabin Republicans joined their finance committee, and Harvey is now calling on listeners to withhold donations to the RNC “until the sodomy lobby is shown the door”:

Harvey: Here’s my suggestion: True conservatives who are sickened and rightfully concerned about the promotion of homosexuality at every level in our culture need to send a clear message to the GOP national headquarters. We need to say no to donations from the Republican National Committee, when they call we need to tell them why. Until the sodomy lobby is shown the door, don’t give the RNC itself one dime.

Harvey is also incensed the National Education Association endorsed anti-bullying initiatives that protect children from bullying based on sexual orientation. According to Harvey, Americans should sue the NEA to prevent the burgeoning “gaystapo” from enacting anti-bullying programs:

NEA’s anti-bullying campaign will include a strand on creating safe work environments to include: 1) support plans within the organization for members bullied, harassed, or exposed to hate language; 2) student discipline plans that stop bullying, harassment, and use of hate language; 3) contract language that secures safe work environments for all our members.

The "hate language" policy is bad enough. Will this result in even more "gay"stapo efforts to silence Christians and conservatives? Or to position students and fellow staff who dare to express traditional moral beliefs as speaking "hate language"?

But.... "Contract language"?? In other words, parents, get ready. Teachers are going to transform the local school into an even more ideological monolith as they negotiate away your rights to not have your child propagandized, in order that they, the teachers, feel "safe" from certain viewpoints. It's the control freak tendency of the tolerant left,once again.

Where are the anti-discrimination class action suits against the NEA when we need them?

Perhaps taxpayers can "contract" to have public sector unions become a relic of the past.

Rabid anti-choice activist Clenard Childress, who believes that gay rights are a sign of the End Times, is now comparing advocates of LGBT equality to the people in the Bible that called for Jesus' death. Wrongly suggesting that the American Psychological Association believes that homosexuality is a choice (the group says the opposite), Childress also claims that gays and lesbians can't claim to have civil rights "because your sexual orientation could be flawed." Childress writes:

The Roman Empire had been occupying and subjugating Israel for multiple years along with the religious elite. They were enslaved to man outwardly and sin inwardly and blind to both. Certainly at that point, Jesus saw the futility of trying to reach that audience with truth, yet out of compassion he persisted. The elites were determined to twist and malign the facts to accommodate their lifestyle, though in error. They lived in a vacuum of denial refusing to see the obvious. When truth is ignored, or denied, the course often taken by those in denial is to first obfuscate, then defame, diminish, and finally denounce the messenger. This crowd resorted to using the "N-word" of that day: "Samaritan," and even went so far as declaring that Jesus was the devil. Sound familiar?

It is similar today, for instead of examining the data, this generation's elites combat truth with ideology, character assassination, deception, and of course, denial. The two defining issues of the day which will determine the course of our culture, and the destiny of our nation, are abortion and homosexuality... Pro-choice, and homosexual and lesbian activists, all claim their cause is a Civil Rights issue. Yet the "Civil Rights" of the unborn children are being denied, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim a "right" for yourself, and by so doing, deny the rights of someone else, especially when that someone is an unborn infant. These individuals are completely wrong because you do not give Civil Rights to sexual orientation because your sexual orientation could be flawed. "Civil Rights" are based on "Birth Rights," and according to the APA, homosexuality and lesbianism is an acquired behavior, not something like the color of your skin — something you're born with. You were not born homosexual, so sexual preference is not a Civil Right — it's a preference.

Only a writer for the ultraconservative WorldNetDaily would believe that the Religious Right is too soft on the issue of gay rights.

WND’s Josh Craddock of the Institute for Cultural Communicators claims that the reason more Americans support marriage equality is because social conservatives haven’t fought gay rights or attacked the LGBT community enough. Responding to Focus on the Family president Jim Daly’s recent claim that the Right Wing “probably lost” the debate over equal marriage rights, Craddock alleges that organizations like Focus on the Family simply didn’t fight gay rights hard enough.

He points to the case of the campaign for Colorado’s Amendment 2, the unconstitutional law that barred anti-discrimination ordinances from covering gays and lesbians, protections that anti-gay activists said granted “special rights” and ceded too much ground to the gay-rights movement. Craddock argues that Religious Right activists should have more vigorously and forcefully opposed the decriminalization of homosexuality and letting anyone who was gay or sympathizes with gay rights from serving in public office:

Rewind to 1992's Colorado campaign on Amendment 2, designed to ban homosexuals from receiving special rights based on their sexual orientation. It was then that Dr. James Dobson and the vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, adopted the unwise but politically opportunistic pro-Amendment 2 campaign slogan "Equal rights, not special rights." If homosexuals are entitled to "equal rights," then why should homosexual couples be prohibited from marrying? Focus on the Family lost the gay-marriage debate in 1992 when they broke with 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian history and sided with Hillary, Hollywood and the humanists by legitimizing homosexual behavior.

Incidentally, that victory was short-lived. It was overturned in Romer v. Evans (1996) with the help of a prominent Washington, D.C., lawyer who specialized in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Less than a decade later, Dr. Dobson actually supported that attorney's bid to become the nation's next chief justice. In 2005, John Roberts was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Most recently, Focus on the Family announced that they wouldn't oppose a homosexual nominated to the Supreme Court over sexual orientation. A spokesperson for the organization commented in 2009 that the nominee's sexual orientation "should never come up" because "it's not even pertinent to the equation." Not even relevant to know if an individual appointed for life to the highest court in the nation has a traditional view of the family, or is a self-avowed homosexual? Where did that come from? Certainly America's Founding Fathers would be shocked, since they followed lock-step with Christian Western tradition that criminalized homosexuality.

Today's conservative Christian leaders believe what was scandalous just 30 years ago: that homosexuality should be legal. Back in the Dark Ages, way back in 1986 when the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law, Christian leaders actually believed that homosexual behavior should be criminal. Their beliefs have changed rather quickly with the culture, preferring to garner social acceptance through a moral fluidity that reminds me of Groucho Marx's quip: "If you don't like my principles, I have others."

Despite victories for traditional marriage in states across the Union, social conservatives are losing because they've missed the heart of the issue. Same-sex marriage is a diversion. The real battle is over the morality of homosexuality itself.

In May Rep. Pete Stark (R-CA) introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which prohibits “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.” While it is unlikely that the GOP-controlled House would approve the legislation, it is an important step in the fight to ensure that children awaiting adoption or foster care can find homes.

But the “pro-family” Religious Right wants to stop the bill in its tracks.

Focus on the Family along with the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg attacked the bill, claiming that “children will suffer” if it passes:

“We need to do all we can to encourage successful and innovative partnerships, rather than try to shut agencies out of the process,” said Kelly Rosati, vice president of community outreach at Focus on the Family. “It’s the children who will suffer.”

Sprigg agreed.

“This represents one more case,” he said, “in which we are seeing the rights of adults placed ahead of the best interests of the children.”

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel even alleged that the legislation is unconstitutional and demonstrates how the “homosexual activist political tsunami destroys everything in its path that is righteous, good and beneficial to society”:

At least one pro-family attorney disagrees with the liberal Democrat from California. "This bill has nothing to do with providing adoptive homes for children in need and has everything to do with shutting down all biblically-sound Christian adoption agencies around the country," contends Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

And he argues that the proposal is unconstitutional because it violates the freedom of religion, which is protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

"This bill puts the [political] demands of selfish, adult homosexual activists...ahead of the welfare of children and religious liberty, and it must be stopped," Barber adds.

So he decides this is the latest example of how the "homosexual activist political tsunami destroys everything in its path that is righteous, good and beneficial to society." He cites a preponderance of studies that conclusively show children are best served in a home with a mother and a father.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the House Armed Services Committee Authorization bill, which included three amendments designed to delay the repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

With the Senate taking up the bill, Rep. Randy Forbes, along with Bishop Harry Jackson and a group of right-wing pastors, held a press conference to encourage the Senate to pass the pro-DADT amendments.

Attempting to seem semi-reasonable, Jackson began the conference by claiming that amendments intending to make the repeal of DADT more difficult and time-consuming weren’t about DADT itself, but instead about “clarity.”

That line of reasoning lasted all of 15 minutes. By the time Q&A rolled around, Jackson and the Religious Right figures that had joined him used all of the same tired arguments that have been used against DADT in the past. When asked if the repeal of DADT would hurt recruitment, Bishop John Neal claimed that he wasn’t sure, but what he was really worried about was the “close quarters” that soldiers have to share, and what would happen when there was “only one spigot” on the shower.

This again?

Multiple speakers claimed that “no one should be marginalized for their religious beliefs,” but they all seem to believe that marginalizing people for their sexual orientation is perfectly acceptable. One of the speakers, John Neil, went so far as to claim that the military discriminates all the time, by not allowing, for example, extraordinarily tall people to pilot cramped fighter jets. Because that’s exactly the same situation.

Despite their claims to be promoting the rights of chaplains, this group showed that their real goal was restricting the rights of the LGBT community, going so far as to assert that Martin Luther King Jr. would disapprove of same-sex marriage:

Jackson: There were members of his family who were for gay marriage, others were against. I know this: King basically spoke from two vantage points that he thought were very, very sacred within the American culture - one was the Bible and the other was the Constitution. And I think what we're dealing with here is that from a biblical perspective, King no doubt would have been with us biblically. And I think, again, the lines of what is exactly the right of an American to do, I've got a hard time believing that "the pursuit of happiness" crosses into some of these areas. So I think that King would be with us, as a preacher first.

Question: Just to clarify: you're saying Dr. King would be against gay marriage?

Jackson: Yes. Very specifically, yes. Because it's against what is clearly written in Scripture. And if you listen to any of his messages, that clarion call to scriptural accountability even to the point when his own house was firebombed and folks came up in Montgomery armed and ready to go fight folks, he said "no, no, no, we will turn the other cheek."

So there was not just a tacit biblical acceptance or kind of whitewashing, if I can use that phrase, certain kinds of behaviors and say this is Christian, this is not. I think there was an inherent commitment to those issues in our social culture.

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission weighs in on the "It Gets Better" campaign to let young people know that, if you are gay, it does not, in fact, get better ... it actually gets worse:

Cass has also written a piece for his website to accompany this video:

The campaign to legitimize homosexuality in our society is based on lies that are designed to manipulate public opinion and relies upon fraudulent science and suppression of opposing views. (Source: Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science,” www.NARTH.com <http://www.narth.com/>)

It is a lie that people are born homosexual and that the incidence of homosexuality is unaffected by influences from culture, family, peer socialization, and incremental choices. (Sources: Brad Harrub, Ph.D.,Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Dave Miller, Ph.D., “This is the Way God Made Me: A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” www.trueorigins.org <http://www.trueorigins.org/> , see also www.NARTH.com <http://www.narth.com/> , www.exodusinternational.org <http://www.exodusinternational.org> ) (Långström N, Rahman Q, Carlström E, Lichtenstein P (February 2010). "Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden". Arch Sex Behav 39 (1): 75–80.

It is a lie that homosexual conduct is not a choice. Although same-sex attraction may be involuntary, one’s response to it is completely voluntary. All sex is voluntary except rape. Further, all people have the obligation to resist temptations, no matter how strong, that lead to personal and social harms.

It is a lie that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. We are all heterosexuals by definition, but each of us has the choice to indulge in any number of types of sexual behavior that deviate from the way we are made. That’s why it is called “sexual deviance.” (Source: Dr. Charles King, "The Meaning of Normal." Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 18, 493-501)

It is a lie that homosexuality is equivalent to race or skin color. General Colin Powell said it best: “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of all behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.” (Source: Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995, p. 533)

It is a lie that disapproval of voluntary homosexual acts is equivalent to racism. The specious equating of moral disapproval with racism is based on the erroneous and baseless comparison of homosexuality to race.

It is a lie that opposing homosexuality equals hate. The accusation of hate is a cynical tactic designed to intimidate conservatives from speaking the truth about a form of conduct that spreads disease and is linked to numerous physical and psychological disorders. We all have a stake in this issue, and most of us care about homosexuals as people even while opposing their actions, just as we do with alcoholics, bulimics and others who suffer from behavioral disorders. (Source: Dr. Scott Lively, Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda, 2009, Introduction)

It is a lie that homosexual parenting is harmless to children. (Source: “Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids,” AOL News, October 17, 2010)

It is a lie that homosexuality is not linked to pedophilia. (Source: Steve Baldwin, “Childhood Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, “Regent University Law Review, Vol. 14:267)

It is a lie that AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease. "While CDC estimates that MSM [males who have sex with males] account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men)." (Source: www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf <http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf>)

It is a lie that “gay” youth suicide can only be prevented by forcing the rest of society to affirm homosexual conduct. (Source: “Cornell professor: Gay suicide rates not abnormal,”www.studentfreepress.net <http://www.studentfreepress.net/>)

It is a lie that homosexuals are a powerless victim group that needs vast public resources to protect it from its “enemies.” (Source: “The Growing Power of the Gay Rights Movement,” The Atlantic, 12/14/2010)

It is a lie that the acceptance of homosexuality brings harmony and peace to the individual homosexual. (Source: www.exodusinternational.org/resources/real-stories/ <http://www.exodusinternational.org/resources/real-stories/> )

On Monday, Focus on the Family kicked off their first Day of Dialogue, which replaced the Day of Truth that had been sponsored by the “ex-gay” group Exodus International. Brad Clark, the executive director of One Colorado, wrote an open letter to Focus on the Family calling for them to work towards building “a true dialogue about what it means to be LGBT—instead of encouraging young people to spread harmful rhetoric to vulnerable youth in our schools.”

Focus on the Family has consistently claimed that anti-bullying programs send students a “homosexual message” and are part of a “pro-homosexual curriculum” made by “gay activists” who are “infiltrating classrooms under the cover of ‘anti-bullying’ or ‘safe schools’ initiatives.” Candi Cushman is the point person in their campaign against bullying-prevention programs, and heads their True Tolerance program and Day of Dialogue, which heavily propagates the view that gay people can change their sexual orientation through “reparative therapy.”

Unsurprisingly, Cushman accused Clark of promoting censorship and attacked the anti-bullying Day of Silence, where students remain silent throughout the school day to show solidarity with bullied and closeted LGBT students:

However, Clark's suggestion that kids merely expressing their faith-based viewpoints in a loving and peaceful way in their own schools is the moral equivalent of practicing sexual violence and physical harm is a rather frightening stance. Carried out to its full and logical conclusion, such reasoning becomes a convenient tool for censorship, an idea not only contrary to the tenets of academia, but contrary to the principles of free speech and thought that have not only made this country great - but that have made this country possible.

Consider, as an example, what occurred Monday: Thousands of Christian students in public high schools and colleges across 42 states and some foreign countries participated in a new, Focus on the Family-sponsored event called the Day of Dialogue. This event was designed to create a safe space and equal access for different viewpoints, including faith-based ones, partially in response to the Day of Silence, which has been celebrated in thousands of public schools nationwide for the past 15 years.

Sponsored by one of the nation's largest homosexual advocacy groups, Day of Silence is a day when educators are encouraged to have materials in their classroom addressing homosexual, bisexual and transgender topics from the sole perspective of that sponsoring group. What Day of Dialogue is meant to help facilitate is a true, free exchange of ideas and open conversations, rather than the silencing of certain viewpoints.

As Cody J. Sanders, a Baptist minister, notes in Religion Dispatches, by constantly playing the victim and attacking gays, Focus on the Family does not promote genuine dialogue at all:

Supposed “threats to religious freedom” and the language of “all-out, full-scale attack” produce war-like images that serve only to demonize those with whom one is to dialogue. It becomes a bit clearer why the Day of Dialogue site offers no assistance to students who wish to listen to the views of their dialogue partners. When the (LGBT) dialogue partner is constructed as the “enemy” whose way of being in the world is fundamentally evil, corrupt, pathological or anti-Christian, there is really no need to dialogue.

Since the language of “threat to freedom in America,” the corrosion of “constitutionally protected rights,” and “full-scale attack” is the language typically used when trying to justify engaging in the violence of war, one wonders if “dialogue” is just a polite cover for a more insidious intention.

…

When one dialogue partner defines gay marriage as a “controversial sexual topic” contrary to “God’s truth” prior to engaging the views of the other, what possibilities exist for dialogue? An a priori assumption about what constitutes the “true view” of the Divine (which is, of course, the view one already holds) disallows the necessity of actually listening to and engaging the views of other dialogue partners.