Dr. Brown talks with Anne Paulk of Restored Hope Network, discussing the difficult questions surrounding homosexuality and the Church. Is change really possible? How should a person with same-sex attractions relate to God? What is the Church’s role? What are good resources for those in need? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: It really is true; people from every background and sexual attraction, such were some of you, but Jesus changed you.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: No matter how deep the issues are in your life, we have a savior who goes deeper still to bring wholeness and freedom.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week you can order 24 hours of in-depth teaching by Dr. Brown at an incredible 60% OFF regular price! That’s right, this week you can get Dr. Brown’s two teachings on Foundations of Prayer and Foundations of Intercession on digital download for only $15!
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
In the part of the show I heard, Anne Paulk was propagating that out-of-date theory that homosexuality comes from gender confusion.
While gender confusion is a real issue for some people, most gays are not confused about their gender.
Your identity as a man is not defined by your attraction to women. (or visa versa)
What is a socialist?
“That’s when all are equal and all have property in common, there are NO marriages, and everyone has a religion he likes best.”
Fydor Dostoevsky 1880
What would he write about us today?
Marriages have been destroyed, all of our property belongs to the state, but we are all happy, happy, happy with our religion that fits us best.
Homosexuality, as with all sexual immortality, comes out of rebellion to God’s design. There’s no verse in scripture that says otherwise. Those involved in sexual immortality find acceptance from man, but not from God.
Gender confusion comes from parental failure or trauma. Gender confused people need prayer and they need to confront the cause rather than trying to accept it as who theyare. I read a deliverance testimony where a guy had a demon cast out of him that was tied to some minor infraction he got confused about as a kid. He made a promise to play with girl toys and ended up identifying as a girl later on. After the demon left, he found his masculinity.
Greg Allen, homosexuality is an attraction to the same sex rather than an attraction to the unique complimentary sex. Whether a person with same sex attraction thinks they are in the wrong body or not, homosexuality is a form of gender confusion.
So what does the idea that people who are homosexual can not change, have to do with salvation?
Suppose someone believes that, and wants to be saved anyway?
Suppose someone believes that it is not in their power to change their sexual desires or “identity” or identity confusion, and they also believe it’s not possible that God will change it for them.
What does that have to do with salvation?
If my only interest was leading them to salvation, should I even care about that, if that’s what they have decided to believe about all that?
Why not for now, forget about all that and go on about salvation?
The way to salvation is the same for everybody, regardless of their sexuality, identity confusion, or identity clarity. It’s still all the same for everybody.
It’s the same gospel no matter what.
We all have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved. We all have to repent of sin and resist temptation, regardless of what form it comes to us as.
Suppose their sexual desires never changed, not in 50 years. The gospel is still the same. We still need to agree with the scripture, what it says about everything, knowing it’s not a sin to be tempted, it’s only sin to give in to sin, and commit sin.
Suppose somebody resisted temptation all the rest of their life, and died. Isn’t that what we all are supposed to do?
Moses never did get into the promised land did he? But don’t we think he made it to heaven?
After all, he was with Elijah on the Mt of transfiguration, found talking with Jesus, wasn’t he? (Mat 17)
So if somebody tells them they can change and be changed by God, restored fully, and they see that as a promised land they might never get to…
So what? Moses never got to the promised land in his earthly life did he? But there he is, talking with Jesus, right next to Elijah.
And what’s wrong with hoping for a promised land they might not ever even get to? Moses never quit. He kept on with God. He’s a good example.
The Bible is full of good examples.
Spokespeople for the “ex-gay” movement never cease to amaze me. It’s quite revealing that not even Anne Paulk, one of the more famous examples of supposedly ex-gay persons, can outright claim that she no longer has same-sex attractions anymore. Her words speak volumes:
@22:00 min mark
Dr. Brown: “Simple question…are you simply fighting a good fight to say no to lifelong same-sex attraction or did you actually experience a change at the core of your being”
Ann Paulk: “You know I experienced a reuniting with my original purpose, I’ll put it that way. My purpose is to obey Christ and live according to his way.”
To me, that’s the cowardly way of basically saying that one still experiences same sex attractions but chooses to live according to how Christ would want one to live (ie. not act out on homosexual desires). To most people, that would mean your still gay, not ex-gay. The closest Anne comes to claiming to be “ex-gay” is in her claim that her “attractional part really began to change” once she identified more strongly as a “woman amongst women”. Her words here are so ambiguous though that they could mean literally all sorts of things. Does she mean, for example, change in the sense that she went from homosexual attractions to heterosexual attractions? Does she mean change in the sense that she developed heterosexual attractions while still having homosexual attractions? Does she mean a repressing of her former same-sex attractions? Or maybe she means a new found commitment to fighting certain attractions. Who knows! Those words could mean anything, and judging by the very misleading rhetoric that all too often comes from people in her camp I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if it turns out she hasn’t really gone through the transformation that people expect of truly “ex-gay” individuals.
I’m sorry, but people in the ex-gay movement are their own worst enemy. The more they continue to mislead others about their lives and the more they continue to give false hope of “change” to other same-sex attracted individuals then the more they will lose credibility when people come to realize that the claims being made don’t live up to the expectations born out of them. Such misleading claims matter in a society that still stigmatizes homosexuality. At best, gay individuals will walk away and give up reparative therapy efforts upon realizing they were mislead about it, but at worst they become depressed and even suicidal after unsuccessful efforts to change. If the latter didn’t really happen then I wouldn’t care so much about this kind of thing. But the fact of the matter is that such tragic outcomes are very real, and too many religious people are blinded by their bigotry and prejudice to even realize the kind of damage and suffering they’re causing by promoting these ex-gay ministries.
I wonder if some of these things are similar to someone quitting smoking.
I smoked for many years, then quit, and I was surprised over the years because once in a while the urge to smoke would come over me.
These urges would become less frequent over time, but it still surprised me.
Later on, I began to realize that some of this was not me at all. It was crazy. I had no urge to smoke this far down the road. I really didn’t.
But sometimes this strange foreign thing would trouble me. I realized it wasn’t me. It was a foreign entity.
Just the devil. It would be there and then gone.
Now I never have the urge to smoke.
Reading Romans 1:18-32 I don’t know how anyone can rationalize these words away. They are very very clear. The gay movement today… Do they not fit this description? They are wicked and perverse and need to swallow their pride or be destroyed by it. Those at the top of the movement not only defile themselves continuously, but cause children to become defiled by their twisted and deceptive logic.
It’s hard not to take on a spirit of Jonah and want them all to be destroyed while we go on doing whatever peaceful things we want, but God doesn’t want that. He wants them to abandon their evil ways and live. He is merciful and slow to anger. Those like Dr. Brown are doing great things by holding fast to scripture in love and peace in effort to show those captive in their sexual sin that they can abandon it. Only by the blood of Jesus.
For most of my life I struggled with so many questions, fears, and anxiety to the point it caused me to wake up the hospital from seizures. I would ask God why? But as I have walked away from a strict religion where you only listen to a man and not the Lord of all, I have allowed God to guide me in revelations. I have have learned to give it all to Him as He is my strength in the temptations to be afraid of what was again and not know what it was to trust in the Lord. I am still tempted but God is my deliverer from my weakness just as those who have been given away to a life that is not holy yet they feel they can’t change. It may take time as it has with my weaknesses but I see God working all things together for good. I am always reminded of a message God gave me in my hardest times in a fortune cookie. It said,”Everyone wants a testimony but no one wants a test.” God bless in Jesus’ name.
You wrote, “But the fact of the matter is that such tragic outcomes are very real, and too many religious people are blinded by their bigotry and prejudice to even realize the kind of damage and suffering they’re causing by promoting these ex-gay ministries.”
In candor, it never ceases to shock and amaze me that all folks on your side can do is accuse people like me of bigotry and prejudice. Love tells the truth, and you would do well to search your heart for bigotry and prejudice. What moves me is love for God and love for my neighbor.
Question for anyone on the board-
Has this queer thing that has happened to America been the final piece that has actually made America into a Socialist country? Based on the Dostoevsky quote No marriages – Marriage has been destroyed in this country. The Rose bowl parade this year highlighted the victory over even marriage. We have destroyed marriages by first living together, Christian marriages have matched the divorce rate of the secular population. The sexual abuse, and this queering of America is all but complete. Is socialism the victor here?
“In candor, it never ceases to shock and amaze me that all folks on your side can do is accuse people like me of bigotry and prejudice. Love tells the truth, and you would do well to search your heart for bigotry and prejudice. What moves me is love for God and love for my neighbor.”
I just got done explaining the misleading rhetoric of people like Anne Paulk and how harm can potentially result from that. How does that translate into me, and other people on my side, simply, and only, accusing people like you of bigotry and prejudice? Try giving up your persecution complex once in a while and focus on the actual substance. Bigotry and prejudice weren’t even the central point. I wrote my response to specifically demonstrate how people like Anne Paulk and other people in the ex-gay movement mislead others with their words.
That said, I do personally think you hold a lot of bigotry and prejudice against gay people, but but not simply because you are against same-sex marriage or homosexual behavior. My parents are against both and I don’t consider them bigoted. Same with many of my friends. It’s the ridiculous stances you take on so many social issues that leads me to think you hold inherently bigoted views of gay people. It’s one thing to be against same-sex marriage given the close connection between marriage and sacred religious beliefs, or be against homosexual conduct based on the Bible, but why in a secular society would you be against homosexuals serving openly in the military? Why be against openly gay boy scouts? Having servicemen be open about their sexuality doesn’t one bit entail that people must accept homosexual behavior or that marriage should include same-sex couples. Nor does it at all entail that same-sex conduct in the military would be anymore acceptable than heterosexual conduct already is (ie. it’s not). Same goes for openly gay individuals in the boy scouts. These changes affect nothing and yet you’re still against them. To me, then, your stance on these rather easy social issues reveals to me that you are in fact operating from a position of bigotry and prejudice, a position that is not at all necessary for someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage or homosexual conduct.
Also Dr. Brown,
If love tells the truth then why don’t you tell people the truth about reparative therapy efforts? Why do you keep insisting on the “possibility” of change and doing these sham radio programs with ex-gay spokespeople when in fact it turns out that the vast majority of people who go through these programs do not experience substantial change? So how about it Dr. Michael Brown? How about telling people the hard truth about sexual orientation change efforts?
Love on your worldview clearly doesn’t tell the truth. It tells “truth” which is convenient for your cause.
James have you read the extensive 700 page book written on this topic? If not try the book of the ages the Bible. Or we could just throw out all of it and make our own religion to please our desires. Let’s just be socialist and join all the nations and destroy Israel and throw out this non scientific theory of God. Are you in?
James, Your side has won! You have most of the country on your side, you have full media support, Hollywood is selling this as normal. What more support do you want? Do you want the last 10 percent of the population that does not even consider this because of our faith? It is not a Michael Brown that is building a small coalition, you do not think that we are brain dead and wait for orders from a leader do you? This is the last stand of what this country was, and what it is now. This is the final battle. If your side prevails there is no G_d. But I suspect that there is something just gnawing deep inside you that makes you uncomfortable being the large majority. Listen to that deep quiet voice.. You too can be the persecuted minority. Welcome home soon.
John, what are you talking about? Almost half of Americans disagree with same-sex marriage. Even more think that homosexuality is wrong. Most states still do not recognize same-sex marriage, and many people like Dr. Brown actively campaign against efforts to treat gay and lesbian people equally under the law. Our side hasn’t won by any means. Our side is, however, steadily moving forward in this battle, while you’re side is retreating. That much is clear.
What I ultimately want is a better society for individuals regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs (or lack thereof). That’s what I want. Moreover, that many people support my side does not absolve our responsibility to fight against the many injustices that still exist in this area.
And I’ve already read the Bible and a good chunk of Dr. Brown’s anti-gay book “A Queer thing Happened to America”. As you might have guessed, I don’t think too highly of his book. Then again, neither did any publisher, which is why Dr. Brown had to self-publish it.
And I’m not interested in destroying Israel or undermining belief in God. Belief in God is quite compatible with both science and gay rights, and Israel affords more rights to gay and lesbians than most states in the U.S. I’m pro-Israel.
James forgive me I was being sarcastic in most of my post. I am for Gods way only, PRO ISRAEL, PRO HUMAN. I love humanity, and like the post above from Dostoevsky above we can not make the bible convenient for our lives. This is the queer thing that has happened to us. For instance reading in MB book about the entry into Harvard of what kind of applicant applied. Founded in 1636 the rules and precepts to be observed by the student were to know God and Jesus Christ and everyone shall exercise himself to reading the scriptures twice a day. Contrast that to this day Gaypril month.. What in the world has happened to us in just a few years relatively? So, you as a pro Israel, and belief in God are very close to the views of MB. The last part is to spend time In talking with God and aligning your will with his.
Re your post
And I’ve already read the Bible and a good chunk of Dr. Brown’s anti-gay book “A Queer thing Happened to America”. As you might have guessed, I don’t think too highly of his book. Then again, neither did any publisher, which is why Dr. Brown had to self-publish it.
Do you know the story of this book not getting published? I think if you knew the facts of just this part of it, that may indeed change your views. Call in I would love to hear the dialogue between your position and the facts.
James, it isn’t fair to the rest of the unit when those who are active in conduct that is immoral are put shoulder to shoulder with the rest. It’s a burden on all the others, and I believe they already carry enough.
And if, in your opinion, a military would be bigots if they kept out all homosexuals, would you be inclined to say the same about heaven?
You don’t add up James.
James, forgive me for being so rash in giving my opinion (I seemed to be having a case of it) concerning some type of arithmetic.
Here’s what makes sense to me: When I came to my first duty station upon my enlistment into the United States Army, I read something George Washington said which was posted on a wall.
He spoke of the much needed favor of Almighty God, and asked how it is that an army could really ask and be seeking his favor in battle if it was partaking of so much profanity among it’s ranks.
Some people use profanity as if they can not cease from it. (I remember counting out loud each time a profane word was used as I listened to a co-worker talk to my employer. It quickly added up to over ten.)
But suppose a soldier said “It’s just the way I am, so everyone else must simply accept it.”?
Would that soldier be acting fairly to the rest of the group?
That wouldn’t add up to good sense to me.
Ray, we don’t make policies based on how members of the military feel. If that were the case then blacks and women would have never been integrated into the military.
And try to realize exactly what you’re arguing for. You’re position is literally to keep out all people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of whether they’re practicing homosexuals or not. That’s what being homosexual or gay means. People who are homosexual or gay are people who experience same-sex attractions rather than opposite sex attractions. Thus you could be a Christian who experiences same-sex attractions and be completely celibate but still be denied the opportunity to serve in the military since you would be deemed gay or homosexual. Is that fair?? Do you seriously think it’s fair and just to prohibit men and women from serving in the military simply because of their unchosen sexual orientation? Well that’s exactly what DADT did for gay men and women. The only way these people could join was to actively hide their sexuality and pretend to be straight.
As for heaven, you again seem to incorrectly define homosexuals. If you say heaven keeps out all homosexuals then you are in effect saying that all people who experience same-sex attractions will not be in heaven. That seems crazy. Besides, I don’t even share the view that those engaged in homosexual behavior will be excluded from heaven anyways.
Ray, it seems I don’t add up to you because you don’t understand basic terms and definitions on this subject. You seem to define homosexuals in terms of their behavior only, a very outdated view, but one that is unfortunately still popular among Christians today. Honestly, it’s no wonder why people like Anne Paulk and others are so misleading here. You guys in general seem so utterly confused on how basic terms are defined in this area. No doubt these silly confusions are born out of desperate attempts not to be seen as gay, but the consequences of such confused and misleading rhetoric still remain harmful, and people like Anne can’t plead ignorance to how their words mislead others. They have to take responsibility for their language. If Anne and her former husband John had been completely honest and unambiguous about their same-sex attractions all along their story wouldn’t be the mockery it is today. Instead, however, they chose to mislead the public by using words like “change”, “former homosexual”, “ex-gay” etc that mean’t one thing to the public but something quite different to them.
“But suppose a soldier said “It’s just the way I am, so everyone else must simply accept it.”?
Would that soldier be acting fairly to the rest of the group?
That wouldn’t add up to good sense to me.”
No, to answer your question, that soldier would not be acting fairly in such a circumstance.
Why think, however, that this circumstance is comparable to someone who is homosexual? It’s only if you see homosexual persons as those necessarily engaging in homosexual behavior itself then it becomes a problem. But as I said in my previous post, however, being a homosexual or gay is not defined in terms of your behavior. It’s defined in terms of one’s sexual attractions.
You can learn to control what you say. You can even learn to undo bad habits such as propensity to use profanity. This is simply not the case for same-sex attractions. You can’t choose what attractions you have and you certainly can’t undo them in the way that you might for foul language. On top of that, I don’t see same-sex attraction and behavior as harmful or problematic in the way that bad language or profanity is. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, people who have a propensity to use foul language were never prohibited from serving openly in the military. Indeed, as you already pointed out, they could use profanity without being kicked out. Gay men and women were prohibited simply for being gay, completely ignoring whether they had ever engaged in homosexual conduct before. Thus for all of these reasons I just don’t see a valid comparison here between the two.
James, it appears that I am a barbarian to you and you to me.
However, I do agree with you when you say that we ought not to make decisions based upon what people may feel.
Doesn’t the scripture teach us that people ought to bear their own burdens?
Using the scripture as a foundation to make policies, should immoral practices be allowed in the military as it does burden others?
Is it fair in your opinion that those who are openly homosexual (or even those who speak for it as if it is something correct, clean, or righteous) burden the rest of the group with such things that are contrary to God?
It isn’t fair, and those who are exposed to that injustice are required to bear the burden which has been upon those who are refusing to take responsibility for such behavior themselves, and in so bearing the burden of others, they are doing the will of God.
If you James, would bear your own burden, and take it to the cross, I would not have to be bearing this with you.
All sins have residual fall out. There are no sins that one may commit that will not have any effect upon creation, even though grace abounds.
Sin always has consequences, and those consequences are negative, causing someone or something to bear the consequence.
Even the plants which were planted and would grow to produce food for Adam were burdened by thorns and thistles which were a result of Adam’s sin.
The reason profanity is comparable to homosexuality is that both practices are sin and are a burden to the righteous who are nearby.
Do you think the scripture says in vain that righteous Lot’s soul was burdened by the sins of the cities around him? (II Peter 2:7,8)
James, what is your godly purpose here on this blog?
It certainly isn’t to unnecessarily burden the righteous.
You need to learn about Dr. Lisa Diamond. She is a lesbian-identified psychologist who researched same-sex attraction among women and found amazing results, as she relates in her book, “Sexual Fluidity”. Dr. Diamond did a longitudinal (long-term) study of women who were attracted to women.
In an interview for the “City Weekly” gay magazine she says,
“What I found when I checked in over time is that they would change their identity-labels. They would find themselves falling in love with people they didn’t expect; whether it was heterosexual women getting involved with women, or lesbian women getting involved with their male best friends, there was just a whole broad range of experiences that absolutely flew in the face of this pact, clean story of a progressing, unfolding identity. It forced me to go back to the drawing board and ask myself what exactly we thought this phenomenon of identity development really was — and then to ask ourselves deeper questions about the nature of female sexuality and what sexuality in general really is.”
“The majority of women who experience any same-sex attractions at all, actually tend to experience attractions for both men and women. Not necessarily 50/50 and in fact the majority of folks lean toward one end or the other. But they’ll say, “I’m mainly attracted to women, but if the right guy came along that would be okay.” This is an idea that many people find very threatening. It’s much more comfortable for the culture at large to imagine that everyone fits into a gay or straight box.”
Dr. Diamond notes that her research has been confirmed by other research.
“We now actually have more good data on what folks out in the world are doing. And whether the folks who are having sex with the same sex are identifying as gay, and how they describe their attractions.
One of the first large scale studies of this that was published in 1994 from a random representative sample of American adults. They were looking at Americans who said that they were attracted to the same sex, Americans who were having sex with the same sex, and Americans who were identifying as lesbian, gay and bisexual.
What they found when they put those groups together was fascinating. The majority of those individuals report being attracted to the same-sex but they are neither having same-sex sexual contact, nor are they identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual. They are just going about their lives, having attractions and doing nothing about it at all. That’s the majority of individuals with any aspect of same-sex sexuality.
Then you have a group of individuals who engage in same-sex behavior, but don’t identity as gay and don’t even say they are attracted to the same-sex. That’s what they report. That group is half the size.
“And the smallest group, are those who identify and are also having sex and claiming same-sex attractions. So the prototype in our mind of a gay person who identifies is actually the least representative type. And studies in other countries have found the same thing.”
My, how this differs from the gay propaganda that James and Greg use!
Please, drop the rhetoric, which just lowers you in every one else’s eyes. The reason no publisher would touch the book, despite some publishers telling me it would be an important book, was because of the consequences of publishing it — the very thing documented in the book. The more you resort to empty rhetoric and personal barbs, the more you display the bankruptcy of your position.
Sheridan, what are you trying to prove? That sexual orientation must therefore be a choice because it is fluid in some individuals? That sexual attractions can easily be changed? No offense, but you probably don’t have the slightest clue about research into this area. Like many people in the anti-gay movement, you misuse the research in this area to further your own anti-gay agenda.
First of all, that sexual attractions may be fluid in some individuals does not in anyway entail that sexual orientation can be willfully changed, or even that its a possibility for many individuals. Secondly, sexual fluidity in some individuals does not therefore mean that everyone is capable of experiencing sexual fluidity in their lives. Thirdly, the existence of sexual fluidity does not therefore justify harmful reparative therapy efforts. Fourthly, most research on sexual fluidity has primarily been associated with women. Very few men experience the kind of sexual fluidity referred to above. Lastly, Dr. Lisa Diamond is in agreement with all of the above and is on record of disavowing anti-gay groups who use her work for political purposes or to promote reparative therapy efforts. She is in full agreement with the American Psychological Association on the harmful effects of reparative therapy as well as the unlikeliness of changing one’s sexual orientation. Here is her specifically in a video not only condemning the misuse of her work by NARTH and other anti-gay groups, but also completely rejecting reparative therapy:
Dr. Lisa Diamond: ‘NARTH Distorted My Research
Finally, the entire second half of what you quoted from Dr. Diamond above has nothing to do with sexual fluidity. It has to do with sexual identity and behaviors, none of which is relevant to any of the points I made above so why quote her in this regard?
“Please, drop the rhetoric, which just lowers you in every one else’s eyes. The reason no publisher would touch the book, despite some publishers telling me it would be an important book, was because of the consequences of publishing it — the very thing documented in the book. The more you resort to empty rhetoric and personal barbs, the more you display the bankruptcy of your position.”
You haven’t even dealt with any of the points I raised above, except for the personal offense you took to my comments. Evidently you must get a lot of insults and accusations of bigotry, since that is the only thing you apparently have to offer by way of your whiny responses to me.
And are you seriously going to lecture me on “lowering” myself in the eyes of others? Dr. Brown, you actively campaign against the rights of gays and lesbians to be treated equally under the law. You actively fight against their basic equality and dignity when you try to prohibit them from serving openly in the military or joining a boy scouting organization, as you’ve done. You routinely disparage gays and lesbians in writing and on your radio show by comparing and equating homosexuality to pedophilia, polygamy, and incest. You frequently promote harmful efforts that seek to change the sexual orientation of gay and lesbian individuals despite ALL major medical and psychological associations expressing grave concerns about such efforts and the harm that can result. You do all of this practically every week and yet you have the nerve to ask me to drop the rhetoric? You’re incredible!!
I’ll tell you what. I’ll drop the rhetoric as soon as you stop fighting against our basic rights to be treated equally under the law. Actually, I’ll make it even more easier for you. I’ll drop the rhetoric completely even if you just stop doing one of the things I mentioned above? Deal?
Is there such a thing as an ex-gay person? Absolutely! I came from a circle of people which included many homosexuals, and one of them was my best friend at university. After my husband and I became Christians, forty years ago, my friend approached us for prayer to receive Christ. We did not specifically address his gay lifestyle, but he changed radically from that time onwards, got married and had a family, becoming a devoted follower of Jesus. As to the persecution of ex-gays by gay people, I can also attest to that, in the furore and anger that his conversion (and my role in it) produced among our circle of friends. We had unwittingly challenged one of the fundamentals of gay propaganda, which is that homosexuality is innate and unalterable.
Gaby, how do you know your best friend was truly “ex-gay”? Just because someone abandons the “gay lifestyle” and gets married doesn’t mean their sexual orientation changed or that they stopped having same-sex attractions. Your side continues to propagate this confusion that inevitably leads to so many people being mislead, especially individuals and families who struggle in this area. As I stated above, the more your side continues to mislead the public about the supposed possibility of being ex-gay, the less credibility you will have. Don’t be surprised then when so many people “persecute” or mock ex-gays. That’s entirely your own fault due to your irresponsibility in the way you talk about this.
I’m able to interact with perhaps 1 out of every 100 comments here. Feel free to post your most pressing point again, and I’ll respond ASAP. I am 100% for equal rights under the law for everyone. I am 100% AGAINST redefining marriage based on someone’s sexual desires or romantic attractions.
Medically, someone is never an ex-alcholic, but some people consider themselves so. Either way it is sin to get drunk. Even if the a person never was and alcoholic, it is a sin to get drunk. It is the same with same sex attraction and homosex. Homosex is a sin no matter what the orientation.
Gluttony is a sin whether it is committed by someone with an eating disorder or not. Some people consider themselves cured in this category.
Homosexual attraction is a disorder. We can understand why a person with a disorder does what they do that is against nature, but it is foolishness to make laws to justify their behavior or to redefine it as something it is not.
Overweight people have been looked down upon and judged and discriminated against for as long as there have been people…whether or not they are gluttons. The weight is not the sin, but overeating is. Just because someone has an excess food attraction, does not make it right to excuse the sin of gluttony.
YHWH’s grace is sufficient to overcome same sex attraction and excess food attraction and alcohol attraction. We all have different crosses to bear. We do not need to make laws to excuse sinful behavior.
I did not say that my friend ceased to have same-sex attraction ever again, but that he left the gay lifestyle permanently. “Ex-gay” therefore seems like a reasonable description.
The problem, as I see it, is with the concept of neuroplasticity. You see, the brain itself is actually constantly changing based upon our experience, and, especially with a young child, the brain is much more plastic than that of an adult. The brain is an incredible instrument; it can basically mold itself to our experiences, so that we remember certain things, or so that we learn to think in certain ways.
I would say the same kind of thing happens in homosexuality that happens in another area that deals with neuroplasticity, and that is pornography. In pornography, desires are gradually changed, so that men can actually desire pornography more than actual sexual relations with an actual woman. In fact, Dr Norman Doidge, a neuroscientist who has done much work in the area of neuroplasticity, has pointed out many problems with pornography, but one of the most striking is that many of these folks actually desire pornography more than they desire actual women! In fact, in one article, a famous pornographer named Hugh Heffner would have sexual relations with the women at his mansion, but he could never finish having sexual relations. He eventually had to look at pornography. For this man, real life women had very little alluring; only pornography was now alluring.
One of the problems with someone saying that they “are gay” is the same problem with Freudian psychology. Because the Brain can learn to think in certain ways and in certain patterns, there is no way to know if your analysis of yourself as gay is something that you have found out about yourself, or something you have trained yourself to believe. The fact that the woman in this program was molested, and it caused her to change her view of her gender is critical here, because there have been other similar traumatic events that have been related to homosexuality as well. For example, consider this story here:
In that article, this former homosexual man speaks about how he was molested repeatedly when he was a boy by older men. The reason why he continued to allow them to do it is telling. He allowed them to do it because, if he allowed them to do it, he was given the love and protection that a child needs. Such makes sense, if we speak of the brain changing itself. The child then learns that his worth as a human being is connected to him engaging in homosexual relations with these other men. Then, he lives that out in terms of his desires, much like pornography was made more and more alluring to Hugh Heffner to the point where real women don’t even matter anymore.
That is why this article by Dr NE Whitehead is so important:
Even the genetic information about homosexuality that was such a splash earlier last year only dealt with a kind of second-level genetics involving which genes are turned off and turned on. However, the problem is that the activating and deactivating of genes is something that is also monitored by the nervous system as well. Hence, there is nothing whatsoever to rule out the possibility that homosexuality is related to the changing of the brain based on experience, and, especially given Anne Paulk’s testimony and Robert Lopez’s testimony, and the testimony of most people who have come out of homosexuality, we find that there is some experience that they say really catapulted them into these kinds of feelings.
Also, a couple of clarifications are necessary. I am not saying that the reason why people become homosexuals is because they are molested. Molestation is a possibility, as, ironically, is pornography. You see, pornography is one of those things that has to change over time in order for a person to get the same high that they got when they first saw pornography. The reason is that the neurotransmitters in the Basal Ganglia which modulate risk and reward [especially dopamine] are also involved in sexual desire. Over time, the pornography needs to get more and more explicit and more and more exotic in order for someone to get the same high. The possibility of pornography being a gateway between the heterosexual and the homosexual is very real, because homosexual pornography would simply be a more exotic form of pornography used to get the same high as before. There is also the possibility of fatherly neglect, and many different things, but the point is that any one of these things could lead a person to think in a particular way which leads them to the conclusion that they are a homosexual.
Also, I don’t agree with the definition that was given that a homosexual is someone who simply has homosexual desires. That presumes that you can define who a person is on the basis of their desires. Desires can be both evil and righteous, and hence, you can’t define a person on the basis of their desires. When a person says they are a homosexual, they usually try to define who they are by these actions and desires. The person who has truly been converted to Christ may still struggle with those desires, but no longer identifies themselves *with* those desires! To deny this latter category is to deny the gospel, and that is why this is really an issue which is a dividing line between Christians and non-Christians.
Also, I do think we need to be sensitive that these things take time and work. The brain can change back, but it is a long and hard process of rewiring and learning new ways to think. That is why pornography addiction is so difficult to lick. It takes time, and we should recognize that people with homosexual desires will not change over night. However, the brain *can* change, and is actually changing all of the time. Our goal as Christians should be to seek these root problems that homosexuals have, and to bring freedom by continuing to share the gospel with them daily. Eventually, as they learn to think differently, and as their brain molds back to its normal self, we will see the redemption of God in the lives of these people.
About healing, I think it should be fine with us if by chance healing takes a lot of time for some, though sometimes healing comes right away.
The reason I say this is because of the nature of restoration.
I don’t think it’s really a quick, kind o’, sort o’ cheap kind o’ deal.
Adam — thanks for the lengthy post!
James, your assumption is wrong, and your inferences are meaningless. This program is titled “Is There Such a Thing as Ex-Gay? An Interview with Anne Paulk”.
My use of Dr. Diamond’s statements have to do with the possibility of a lesbian-identified woman being able to have a loving relationship with a man. You appear to have no grasp of Dr. Diamond’s findings. Instead, you fall back to a standard, default gay propaganda line about her research and how some people are misusing it.
Dr. Diamond says, “They would find themselves falling in love with people they didn’t expect… lesbian women getting involved with their male best friends”. If “lesbian women” can fall in love with a man, then surely Anne can also fall in love with a man.
Or, “But they’ll say, ‘I’m mainly attracted to women, but if the right guy came along that would be okay’ “. Anne could do that also, and she did!
Diamond points out that, among those women who experience same-sex attraction, the number of women who are also attracted to men is much greater than are those who are are exclusively lesbian.
Diamond demonstrates that her findings have been confirmed by another large study: “from a random representative sample of American adults”.
Dr. Diamond also has a video listing several such studies which confirm her results, and show nearly the same results for men who experience same-sex attractions: 79% of men who experience same-sex attractions are not exclusively gay (see at 14:52 on the video below).
If Dr. Brown will permit me to do so, I would like to quote part of a previous post of mine, with some editing.
Several things need to be said about what “failures” mean in ex-gay change methods.
1.Many of the “ex-gay” self-help groups have been run by well-meaning people who have no idea what they are doing. They have no professional training and no concept of what to do or what to expect when individuals go through their program. They claim to be able to cure homosexuality, even though no professional therapist would ever claim to produce “cures”. When people go through such a program and are not completely cured–and become completely heterosexual–they suffer despair and consider themselves failures.
We can see an analogy in our Christian lives. Although many people change dramatically after conversion and during their Christian walk, we all still struggle with sinful desires throughout our lives; we are never “cured” from sin. The same is true for “ex-gays,” both psychologically and spiritually.
2. All legitimate psychotherapists know a rule of thumb called the “one-third rule”.
On average, in any form of therapy, for any problem, about one-third of the people who enter the program will not finish it and will “fail”.
Another third will finish the program but will not be helped by it, for a variety of reasons.
But one-third will be helped: some will show dramatic change, while others will show more modest change. This very same phenomenon has been consistently manifested in legitimate “ex-gay therapy”: Many fail, some are helped significantly, others miraculously!
Obviously, most people who enter some form of psychotherapy will be “failures”. If we were to outlaw therapies which have more failures than successes, we would have to outlaw ALL psychotherapy.
3. No legitimate therapist will claim to “cure” anyone completely of anything. The idea of a psycho-therapeutic “cure” is a myth which exists in the minds of the uninformed public.
I once sat in a room with a PhD professional psychotherapist (gay-identified) who made exactly these points to his audience. When someone asked him how he would “cure” a certain problem, he immediately responded that he could not produce cures. Rather, he helped people develop strategies to cope with, and reduce, unwanted feelings, anxieties, or behaviors. This also happens in professional “ex-gay therapy”.
4. Dishonest opponents of “ex-gay therapy” play on the ignorance of the public as to the above facts. These opponents claim that unless everyone is completely and permanently cured,this form of therapy is false and needs to be outlawed. Even some Christians are deceived by these false charges.
Even though professional organizations claim there is no scientific evidence that ex-gay therapy works, they fail to tell the public that individuals in many ex-gay studies show dramatic changes, but some deficiency in the studies causes them to be labeled “not science”.
The same organizations also admit that there are no scientific studies which show that ex-gay therapy does or does not work, or cause harm to those in these therapy programs.
“There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation.”
“As to the issue of possible harm, the task force was unable to reach any conclusion regarding the efficacy or safety of any of the recent studies of SOCE: ‘There are no methodologically sound studies of recent SOCE that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom,’ according to the report.”
A woman I knew (not a practicing Christian–to my knowledge, she followed “Ramtha” or some kind of weird New Age thing) from a “Raw Food” Forum I belonged to–went by the name “Suvine” (http://fruitarienne.wordpress.com/author/suvine/ among other websites)–openly said that she used to sleep with women but woke up one day and just “knew” inside of herself that she could never sleep with another woman again.
Gay Historians Say Nobody Is ‘Born That Way’
Comments are closed.