Jerry Falwell: Ex-'gays': Ignored and discounted

WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/15/06 | Rev. Jerry Falwell

[starfish923]

I don't agree with Falwell much either, and this one's obviously no exception. I've seen too many women hurt by guys who think they can change. I'm convinced the ones who do "change" were bi to start with.
I couldn't agree with you more. Falwell's boys were never "gay" to begin with. Perhaps they were bi, or more likely, they engaged in homosexual behavior out of curiosity, peer pressure, youthful indiscretion, etc. But they were never gay.

I also agree with you.

People, especially young people, engage in some pretty bizarre behavior...ESPECIALLY when alcohol and drugs are introduced to the brain.
People shoplift, cheat on exams and taxes, lie and commit adultery....but that doesn't make them career thieves, cheaters, liars or adulterers.
That doesn't make the "experimenters" homosexual....just dumb. (My opinion)

[starfish923]

Former homosexuals? Don't buy it either. It's as illogical as former heterosexuals.
Only if you're approaching the topic from the perspective that there are multiple, equally valid, sexual orientations. If you take the perspective held throughout most of human history - that heterosexuality is normal and that homosexuality is an aberrant departure from that norm - it makes more sense.

"Only"?? I disagree. The comparison is valid as it stands. I think that heterosexuality is the normal, with 99% of all humans being normal. Homosexuality is a profound abnormality, with only about 1% being so profoundly abnormal. So, for one to be equally normal versus abnormal is a logical comparison of sexual orientations. Making the comparison doesn't, in any sense of logic, make them equally valid. At least, not by any logic I've ever learned about.

Also, the "perspective throughout most of human history" RARELY mentions either heterosexuality or homosexualtiy. Those terms simply weren't used. The comparisons are fairly modern in human history, as is the entire discussion.

Behaviors of men who liked other men were described. "Sodomy" was the sin, not "homosexual behavior"....and lesbianism was rarely mentioned. And when it was, there didn't seem to be any "sin" attached to it at all.

In the past history, you RARELY read about "homosexuality" because so very, very few people actually knew that homosexuality (as we know it today) existed. It wasn't "diagnosed" and was really a 19-20th century phenomenon, as we describe it today. Perhaps Freud, Jung and the other early German shrinks had a handle on it, but few others did.
Sodomy was the "sin" and men committed the "sin" no matter what their sexual orientation was. Homosexuality just isn't mentioned much because it just wasn't diagnosed as it is today. It was always described. There were the women of Lesbos but you don't often hear of lesbianism as being a lifestyle or a sinful state of existence.

There were mentioned men that preferred men. One prime example: Alexander the Great had a male lover accompany him ALL his adult life. He DID marry the beautiful Roxane, a Bactrian princess but it was for power and profit. In 327 B.C., Roxane, a Bactrian princess and the daughter of Oxyartes, married Alexander the Great. Roxane gave birth to Alexander's posthumous son, Alexander Aegus and had Alexander's second wife, Stateira (Barsine), killed. Alexander Aegus was accepted by the Macedonian generals as co-ruler with Alexander the Great's half-brother Philip III Arrhidaeus. Roxane went to live with Alexander the Great's mother Olympias in 319, but then was captured by one of Alexander the Great's successors, Cassander, in 316. Cassander had Roxane and her son killed.

Tchaikovsky was homosexual, as was another of this three brothers. That WAS known. Peter kept it rather quiet; his brother didn't. It just wasn't a big deal...but it WAS considered aberrant. Perhaps a family's wealth and position dictated how much aberrant behavior would be tolerated. The Marquis de Sade was aberrant, so much so that even his fortune and rank couldn't keep him out of prison for most of his life.

It ALL makes sense to me BECAUSE I view it through an historical sense. Homosexuals always existed. But, it's only today where the "gay liberation" has and is trying to FORCE the rest of us 99% heterosexuals to believe that their "lifestyle" is normal and "viable."
That is simply horsepucky.
I don't really care what they do, but I object STRONGLY to their "agenda" and especially their, er, "missionary" work.

[starfish923]

1. Understand that both these premises are flawed. From a religious perspective, God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Given His actions at Sodom and Gomorrah, it is clear that God does not make homosexuals have the flawed tendencies that they display.
2. From a scientific perspective, there is no scientific evidence of a gay gene, and if you think about it, there never will be. Everything about a gay gene would fly in the face of evolutionary theory - and natural selection would result in such a gene being purged from the gene pool in short order. The only way to get around that is to make wildly speculative assumptions about such a gene being associated with with CPG mutation hotspots and functioning in the same way that achondroplasia does.
1. God never mentions the words homosexuality or homosexuals. You and others put such a modern day spin on it and it simply doesn't hold water. The sin was sodomy. It wasn't, apparently, only homosexuals who sodomized. Women were usually (but not always) portrayed in the scenario, at least in the Bible they were.
Promiscuity and adultery were also the sexual sins. They weren't any better or worse than the other.
The "flawed" tendencies aren't described as homosexual, either female or male. The tendencies of all humans is often toward sin. The sin is hated, not the sinner.
Being human, sodomy, promiscuity and adultery were practiced and those sins were the ones for which God demanded repentance. Homosexuality WAS NOT singled out as the major sin...or even mentioned.
People were sinners and their sin was hateful. God never, ever hated the sinner. He loved them (us) all. He never picked and chose the "homosexual" as the archsinner.
You extrapolate the sin of sodomy to ONLY homosexuals. Biblically, you are wrong. Men sinfully sodomized women as well as men. Some women, apparently, weren't "raped" by sodomy either....some women WERE raped, frontally and by sodomy. And some women actually approved of being sodomized. Women sinned in the flesh, sexually, as much as men.
AND, there' no mention of the sin of lesbianism either. Women having sex with women (and therefore outside the marriage bed) is JUST as sinful as ANYONE having sex outside of marriage, as is the orgy.

2. There is no "gay" gene yet. However, homosexuality often runs through families. If you haven't read about it or seen it with your own eyes, then you simply have ignored what reality is.
Homosexuality has been studied VERY much this century and there ARE brain differences in hetero versus homosexual men.
Homosexuality might be from some sort of brain damage or changes at the DNA level. The fact that it's not down to a DNA science YET doesn't preclude its existence. The very fact that research is being done shows that it is indeed a relevant avenue to explore.

SIN isn't the one, final and only answer to homosexuality, much as you may like it to be. This is your final fear, I believe. A homosexual CAN be chaste and without the sin of sex outside of marriage. For you, if a man DOESN'T engage in homosexual activity, that alone makes him heterosexual. That thinking is so simplistic as to be positively puerile.

A homosexual is a heterosexual who engages in immoral behavior out of free choice or secondarily to molestation or insanity.
You couldn't be more wrong. That would mean that homosexuality (lesbianism included) simply doesn't exist. According to you, nature is never, ever wrong and makes no mistake WHATSOEVER with sexual orientation. I guess you just can't see how little sense that makes.

You wouldn't believe otherwise, it seems. YOUR mind is irrevocably set in one and only one vision of reality when it comes to sexual orientation.
No genetic exceptions or errors of any kind, whatsoever, in the ENTIRE range of the trillions and trillions of humans who have, do and will exist, are in the realm of any kind of plausibility or possibility.
I thought the same when I was very young, but after the three-plus decades of seeing/reading research and my own reading, observation, life experience and maturity, I've come to believe that nature DOES occasiaionally make mistakes. Our best man was homosexual, but had denied it until his mid-40's. He was a drunk and had been since his teens. When he sobered up for good he left his wife. He HAD always been teased in school as a "fag." His uncle, his mother's brother, was also a homosexual. His uncle lived with another man for 45 years and just recently died. His uncle DIDN'T die of AIDS/HIV. He just died of a heart attack. The best man DID die of AIDS/HIV. The two, nephew and uncle, even looked very similar.
One only has to look in a hospital nursery of newborn infants to see just how many and the variety of errors nature does make.
The entire DNA chromosomic fabric has billions of genes so it would be impossible for there NOT to be lots of errors, even at the level of sexual orientation.

[leenie312]

It's amazing to me...after reading your many replies on this thread....I was just wondering if it isn't a tight squeeze. I mean sitting in that place of judgment reserved exclusively for the Father God Almighty. But you have shown that you are an equal opportunity judge...be it homosexuals to alcoholics and fat people. Wow...just amazing....I thought God frowned on all that. You do know that pride is a sin...a basic part of the root cause of judgment. And we all know where the prideful are going...they will be sitting right next to the homosexuals.

Secondly, God does not lie , so in order for you to be correct in your assumption that these women "were probably always HOMOsexual or BIsexual but wanted marriage and children."<---now that is a quote....God would have to be a liar. He gave His Son so that all men could be saved. But since you assume they were always homosexual...there is no room for grace for a great many people who are born homosexuals. To believe that.. is saying God condemned these people from the moment of conception to never be able to go to heaven. The God of the Bible is more gracious and good than that...He gave Jesus for ALL of us.

We all are born with a sinful nature ( a tendency toward sin)...some learn to become thieves, some adulterers, some liars and some still homosexuals. No one is free from the stain of sin...But are all thieves from conception or adulterers or liars? And have no chance for salvation? Walking in sin is a choice...plain and simple...you don't just fall into ...you choose to steal, to lie, to be prideful...and my neighbors chose to live a lifestyle contrary to God's word.

Oh and BTW I never quoted anything you said (quoting someone usually entails using quotation marks)...that was MY word for how I took the content of your post.

[Old_Mil]

1. God never mentions the words homosexuality or homosexuals. You and others put such a modern day spin on it and it simply doesn't hold water. The sin was sodomy. It wasn't, apparently, only homosexuals who sodomized.... ...You couldn't be more wrong. That would mean that homosexuality (lesbianism included) simply doesn't exist. According to you, nature is never, ever wrong and makes no mistake WHATSOEVER with sexual orientation. I guess you just can't see how little sense that makes.

You've missed my point entirely, and this is is illustrated by your first paragraph when you say that it wasn't only "homosexuals who sodomized." Homosexual and lesbian behavior exists - as do murderous, adulterous, larcenous behaviors. However, there is no such thing as an incurable, intrinsic same-sex orientation.

Those errors in nature such as true hermaphroditism and Klienfelter's XXY that do occur are birth-defects, not deviant behaviors, and are traced to genetic abnormalities. Homosexuality is not.

[Spyder]

I agree with you, but have to warn you about a pattern I have observed. There are one or two people on this board who are...uhhh..particularly sensitive about the ex-gay thing.

I see what you mean. They're entitled to their opinion. All I know is I wouldn't want our daughter dating a "reformed" gay guy. I have no problem with her having gay friends, just not boyfriends, fiances, or husbands.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don't think it's a gender that one is attracted to.

If a man dresses up as a woman, he can get other men to be "attracted" to him. Whatever it is that has changed, it isn't his gender, it's simply his "look", and what the other men "think" they are seeing.

OK, you could have simply meant the "look" of a person gender-wise, rather than an actual physical "connection" based on some innate characteristic of gender.

But if a man dressed as a woman performs oral sex on another man, and that other man never learns the truth, has that man had a "homosexual encounter"? Is that man now "gay"?

And if not, would that man be considered gay if, having learned of the deception, he figures out that when it comes to oral sex, if he can simply shut out of his mind certain characteristics, he can enjoy the act regardless of the gender of the person he is with?

OK, in fact the idea of being "gay" seems much more about who you fall "in love" with. But men fall in love with men all the time, and they aren't considered "gay" unless there is some physical sexual aspect to the relationship.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If you are simply talking about sex acts, I think you can have sex acts without regard to gender or orientation, it's just a matter of what you can make your mind accept.

[gidget7]

Everyone has sinned in one way or another, of course! Jesus died for those sins. The difference is, homosexuals are the only ones claiming they were made by God, as homosexuals, that is, like saying God made me a thief. Absolutely not true. He made us all yes, how we sin is our choice, and when we do, most people confess those sins and do not repeat them. We don't claim a right to act as thieves or what have you, because that's the way God made us.

We don't demand the right to live our lives as thieves, as a human right, and expect society to change all of it's laws to accommodate thieves.

[gidget7]

"Since the definition of bisexual I am familiar with is someone who is attracted to both sexes "


A PC term, yes, not a definition.

[gidget7]

"How terribly wrong and evil it is that the media and the prevailing societal attitude denies and discourages homosexuals from getting help to overcome their homosexuality."


One name comes to mind, when speaking of brave individuals who speak of the truth when it isn't PC, or in some cases even safe, to do so, is Tammy Bruce!

[starfish923]

You've missed my point entirely, and this is is illustrated by your first paragraph when you say that it wasn't only "homosexuals who sodomized." Homosexual and lesbian behavior exists - as do murderous, adulterous, larcenous behaviors. However, there is no such thing as an incurable, intrinsic same-sex orientation.
Those errors in nature such as true hermaphroditism and Klienfelter's XXY that do occur are birth-defects, not deviant behaviors, and are traced to genetic abnormalities. Homosexuality is not.

Well, I didn't miss your point at all. I read your post and am perfectly capable of understanding it. Your prose is perfectly clear and understandable. I simply disagree. Disagreeing doesn't mean MISUNDERSTANDING at all, although to YOUR thinking, perhaps, one only misunderstands when one doesn't agree. Nah, you are neither obtuse or arrogant.

You simply refuse to accept common knowledge (which didn't used to be common knowledge) and you SEEM to base it on the Bible. Or, if you base it on science, you base it on science of the 18th century and earlier. And, you seem to assume since hard science hasn't found "gay genes" that they simply couldn't or wouldn't exist.

You said that there is no such thing as an incurable, intrinsic same-sex orientation. I disagree. There ARE more "sexual" errors in nature besides hermaphroditism and Klienfelter's XXY. One of those errors in nature is homosexuality, genetic and incurable.

By the way, there is more than hermaphroditism and Klienfelter's XXY. You left out de la Chappele's Syndrome (XX males), Turner Syndrome (only females get it), "ambiguous genetalia" (pseudohermaphrodites)...and other missing or extra sex chromosomes syndromes.

[leenie312]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[starfish923]

It's amazing to me...after reading your many replies on this thread....I was just wondering if it isn't a tight squeeze. I mean sitting in that place of judgment reserved exclusively for the Father God Almighty. But you have shown that you are an equal opportunity judge...be it homosexuals to alcoholics and fat people. Wow...just amazing....I thought God frowned on all that. You do know that pride is a sin...a basic part of the root cause of judgment. And we all know where the prideful are going...they will be sitting right next to the homosexuals.
....Your stream of....consciousness....seems to flow.....from .....nowhere. There was....never....any "judgment"....involved. The JUDGMENT involved was those who seemed (.....seemed.....) to believe that homosexuality was the sin. I think.....there are...wrong.
You ..... "equal opportunity" phrase is catchy and P.C. but totally .... non-sequiter.

Secondly, God does not lie , so in order for you to be correct in your assumption that these women "were probably always HOMOsexual or BIsexual but wanted marriage and children."<---now that is a quote....God would have to be a liar. He gave His Son so that all men could be saved. But since you assume they were always homosexual...there is no room for grace for a great many people who are born homosexuals. To believe that.. is saying God condemned these people from the moment of conception to never be able to go to heaven. The God of the Bible is more gracious and good than that...He gave Jesus for ALL of us.
Totally skewed logic. God doesn't lie, but YOU misinterpret because....that....is.....what you do. God gave us, even homosexuals, the free will NOT to sin. Extrapolating YOUR gibberish is just.....a leap too far, even for.....you<-----.

We all are born with a sinful nature ( a tendency toward sin)...some learn to become thieves, some adulterers, some liars and some still homosexuals. No one is free from the stain of sin...But are all thieves from conception or adulterers or liars? And have no chance for salvation? Walking in sin is a choice...plain and simple...you don't just fall into ...you choose to steal, to lie, to be prideful...and my neighbors chose to live a lifestyle contrary to God's word.
All true, but it is, as is most your reply, not germane. But....you do....manage....to get in a lot of.....stream of consciousness....dots.

Oh and BTW I never quoted anything you said (quoting someone usually entails using quotation marks)...that was MY word for how I took the content of your post.
You didn't make that clear at all. But, then that's not.....surprising<------.

[starfish923]

M203M4: I agree with you, but have to warn you about a pattern I have observed. There are one or two people on this board who are...uhhh..particularly sensitive about the ex-gay thing.
Spyder: I see what you mean. They're entitled to their opinion. All I know is I wouldn't want our daughter dating a "reformed" gay guy. I have no problem with her having gay friends, just not boyfriends, fiances, or husbands.

I sure wouldn't want any daughters dating "former" homosexuals. I don't think they exist.

Some people on this thread believe that homosexuals simply don't exist and that a person couldn't BE homosexual and, therefore, it's all and only about personal choice, aberrant behavior and therefore all and only about sin.

As you say, Spyder, they're entitled to their opinion.

[scripter]

I don't think [former homosexuals] exist.

FreeRepublic has a number of former homosexuals/ex-gays.

Besides freepers who are formerly homosexual, post 57 mentions the story of Noé Gutierrez, Jr., who was in the It's Elementary video. The same post mentions Robert Spitzer and the fact that he changed his mind that homosexuals can leave the lifestyle.

Post 59 lists over 40 testimonials from ex-gays. Post 60 contains a link to Straight Talk Radio. Post 61 has a link to People Can Change. Post 62 has references to places where homosexuals can get help leaving the lifestyle. Some of those places are Christian, some Mormon, some Jewish and there are others that are secular that I don't have listed.

I've seen you reference the Bible. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Former homosexuals indeed exist. The I Do Exist video tells the story of 5 ex-gays and how they left the lifestyle.

Here's an excellent summary of the issues: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together.

[gondramB]

>>But if a man dressed as a woman performs oral sex on another man, and that other man never learns the truth, has that man had a "homosexual encounter"? Is that man now "gay"?

And if not, would that man be considered gay if, having learned of the deception, he figures out that when it comes to oral sex, if he can simply shut out of his mind certain characteristics, he can enjoy the act regardless of the gender of the person he is with?<<

My position of gender trickery is that its a kind of rape by deception with the same appropriate penalties for any other kind of rape.

I don't want you to think I'm ignoring the rest of your post and questions - but the truth is that with those questions we have now exceeded to the depth of interest I have in this in this topic. I'm not offended by graphic talking about sex but I don't have a desire to dwell on intricacies of homosexual sex.

I can put up with it if I have to but its not what I want to talk about.

[rcrngroup]

You made a comment about homosexuality being part of their genetic nature. I simply pointed out the scriptures that complete refute that point. Homosexuality is the final result of moral depravity and a reprobate mind. The decision to be homosexual or lesbian is a vile, unnatural choice, not a genetic makeup. If you can't stand that, I'm not the one you need to argue with... it's in the Bible. Where is the source found for your comment? Some secular humanist psychologist?

[gondramB]

Me:"Since the definition of bisexual I am familiar with is someone who is attracted to both sexes "


gidget: A PC term, yes, not a definition.

Actually its from the 1800's - coined by a reasonably famous medical doctor Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing who was attempting to scientifically catalog paraphilias tht had been observed by generations of doctors but not named.

I remember studying him in first year psych at Georgia Tech.
He also coined the terms sadist and masochist. His naming system remains in wide use today - bisexual is a medical term that long predates any kind of PC movement.

I don't really get what the objection would be to calling someone attracted to both genders a bisexual -it seems preet descriptive. I know some transsexuals feel the term bisexual is offensive because it leaves them out but they get offended at lots of things.

[Future Snake Eater]

I'd like to see the data on ex-gays who were not victims of sexual crime...

Well, I know my gay BIL doesn't fall into that category, but he does have some rather large psychological issues, and I'm utterly convinced that his homosexuality is nothing more than a symptom of those issues.