The Christian Post had an article about Exodus. While it is basically a bland little information piece, there are a few items in it which are worth noticing.
First, the article points out the difference in perception relating to orientation origin between the general populace and the Evangelical Christians:
Secular society is mixed in its understanding of what some call “the gay gene.” According to a Barna report released in July 2001, about half of all adults believe that homosexuality is a result of the environment. One third of Americans believe people are born gay, and 17 percent are not sure.
However, among Evangelical Christians, general opinion is quite clear: 85 percent of them believe a person is not gay from birth.
The article also explained why Exodus and others are willing to go on Penn & Teller or other programs that ridicule their position:
“Whether they criticize us or not, the great thing is we get to proclaim the good news about freedom in Jesus Christ,” said Chambers. “Every time that we are talked about, written about, or appear on a television broadcast, people call. People who want this alternative, call, and they get the good news that people can change.”
We should keep in mind that while we view the programs as a warning as to the dangers of their “therapy”, they view it as free advertising.
Of particular concern is a project that Chambers discussed relating to the recruitment of children into the ex-gay lifestyle:
Chambers believes that “anyone who’s smart these days would focus on the young because the truth is those who influence the young influence the future.”
This is why Chambers plans to launch a nationwide campaign to educate the young, their parents, and youth workers through distributing literature on campuses, and by having three sets of conferences: one for the youth, one for their parents and youth workers, and one for pastors.
As we know that the ex-gay lifestyle is damaging and unhealthy, as witnessed by so many that have come out of it, we need to vigilant in our warning of parents, schools, and others about this ex-gay agenda to seduce our children to this harmful way of life.
This will be the study.A word of caution about Barna — they have a habit of producing surveys heavily weighted to conserv./evangel. etc Christians. This skews the “all people” results. I’m thinking of their “abstinence — yes or not” survey of “average parents” for one.We’re off to a (heterosexual) wedding in a few minutes, but I can calculate the proportions of “types” used in this sample on our return.
Evengelical Protestants as a rule have a “science problem”. There seems to be no substantial tradition within that tradition for how to engage or dialogue with science.
One would like to hope that in the end this will destroy them as a powerful social movement.
Round Two,
From what I’m able to glean and decipher from what these ex gay programs do is mostly deprivation.
Even of wearing certain clothes and listening to certain kinds of music and associating with openly gay people.
Their definition of ‘dangerous’ behavior is patently stupid for two reasons.
1. It’s also present in heterosexuals.
2. The incompatibility argument also is weak if you think of the sex lives of the physically challenged, or elderly or physically disparate among heterosexuals.
It’s not homosexuals who complain about physical incompatibility. And the ex gay community isn’t demanding to know how the categories of heterosexuals I mentioned manage their sex lives.
Loaded words like ‘risky’, ‘threat’, ‘dangerous’
have to be challenged.
I have tried to communicate, or a least have an ex gay rep tell me EXACTLY why those words describe homosexual sex, and why it’s of such interest to their cause?
Other than Scriptural admonishment?
The issue of procreation is terribly weak too.
The world has seven billion people and counting.
So is it really so terrible if a small portion human beings DON’T have children?
This isn’t rocket science.
But ex gay supporters like to lecture as if they have all the answers and have the cure and know enough about homosexuality to try and wipe it out.
Why aren’t they getting that the trouble with homosexuality isn’t being homosexual and having homosexual sex.
The problem with homosexuality is blindly ignorant and invasive heterosexuals.
Period.
I’m just so over their dishonesty. Not only about their tactics, but their lack of success and their lack of intelligence on this issue.
Illogical deprivation is a surer way to make a person act out negatively.
I suppose what the entire movement really lacks in many ways is …depth.
So is it really so terrible if a small portion human beings DON’T have children?
According to some.
Regan, you’re mostly correct, but just to remind you, this “procreation” argument against homosex is ridiculous. IVF (in vitro fertilization) which has been around for at least 30 years, means that I, a gay male, could procreate merely by finding a willing female, masturbating into a cup and letting IVF professionals do their thing. Penile/vaginal sex has not been required to procreate for at least three decades.
I’ll never forget raj….but thanks for the reminder.
Skemono…thanks for the article!
I once belonged to the LA chapter of No Kidding.
The prejudice against the childfree is pretty bad as you can see from this article.
I used to wonder why I’d catch such crap from people who didn’t even know me and just assumed my decision to never bear children was selfish.
A not so veiled insult.
The No Kidding manifest is wonderful. Absolutely full of undisputable truth.
It’s very cruel for society to look at the childfree (or unmarried)as worthless to society unless and until one is a parent.
The article you linked there shows that.
Not that it matters, but I love children.
I found my niche.
I volunteer and belong to many educational programs aimed at youth.
I write for Fringe Benefits Theater and scene/role plays for the Museum of Tolerance.
I have been a nanny and think kids are wonderful and as an adult believe in our responsibility to them.
However, child raising is serious business and some people should be thanked for knowing their emotional, or financial or situational limits for doing their best for a child.
If there are adults out there who know they shouldn’t have a child or don’t want one for WHATEVER reason-it’s to their credit.
No societal detriment.
The detriment is coming from people who have the same limits, but have children anyway.
And make those children and the rest of us pay for it in the worst way.
My husband and I have adopted – definitely the biggest challenge we’ve ever faced in our lives, but it’s what we chose for ourselves.
My younger sister and her husband, by contrast, have decided neither to reproduce nor to adopt. As she put it to me, she’s quite confident of her inability to be a good mother to any child – so why put the child and herself (and her husband) through two decades of agony?
1)I’m having a hard time with the idea that one desires acceptance with understanding, but does not desire to initiate the feeling or understand the opposition, but rather name-call and use political terms to dismiss. It seems rather contradictory in nature.
2) Since when did “Evangelical Christians” become seperate from the “general populace” and under what clause does this seperation exist?
1)I’m having a hard time with the idea that one desires acceptance with understanding, but does not desire to initiate the feeling or understand the opposition, but rather name-call and use political terms to dismiss. It seems rather contradictory in nature.
2) Since when did “Evangelical Christians” become seperate from the “general populace” and under what clause does this seperation exist?
1. Our problem with the opposition is that we do understand it. Among other things, they push the idea that if sexual orientation is not inborn, then non-heterosexuals don’t need equal rights, which is absurd. They claim that they are only there for people who want to change, then turn around and say that homosexuals are all social deviants out to destroy America. They push a form of “therapy” which research has shown is quite likely to be damaging and with no proven benefits. You can’t claim that heterosexuality is objectively superior to homo or bi sexuality and then turn around and whine about being called anti-gay.
2. Evangelical Christians are people united by a characteristic that makes them worthy of study as a subset of the general population, just as any other identifiable subset- gays, Irish-Americans, steelworkers, whatever.