"Love" in action and victims of ex-gay brainwashing

The BBQ Pit
141

Oh, and since you posted this before I composed my last response.

You keep posting your opinion. We get it by now - that’s your opinion. So what? You haven’t posted anything to support it - no facts on ex-gay programs, not even any facts on the kid’s life. Then, when we didn’t accept that it’s “not evil” based upon your proclamations, you pull out the insults? You honestly think that people should agree with you just on the basis of you repeating your opinions over and over? Post some reasons, post some facts, and we can agree to disagree. But you just repeat your opinion over and over - you expect us to take your words as holy writ, apparently - brickbacon said so, therefore it’s true.

And you’ve been making assumptions about his present - assumptions that are false, and easily falsifiable if you had bothered to read his blog at all. You’ve decided to decide purely upon your assumptions about what’s going on. That’s idiotic.

Illogical. First, he says so. Who’s qualified to decide if not the queer in question? Second, he’s known for three years. Third, he’s got gay friends - a supportive community around him. He’s not just gay, he’s sought out other gay people - he’s forging a life and a part of that is his sexual identity. There’s plenty to indicate that he’s gay.

In contrast, there’s nothing to indicate that he’s not. No questioning on his part, no willingness to take part in this program (to say the least - as I mentioned, he developed suicidal ideation in response to being forced into it.) The question is who are you to say he’s not gay? I mean, we’ve got some decent evidence that he is, so if you want to argue against it, what’s your argument based on? Most people who say they’re gay are gay. If you think this is an exceptional case, then justify your opinion.

Wait, you can’t - because you haven’t bothered to read a thing about the kid’s life, and you’ve deciding based upon your preexisting biases.

Yeah, but ninety percent of the time, it’s straight to LGB, not the other way around. Do some people have brief periods of confusion as to their sexuality? Yeah, a few. A small number, by anyone’s estimation. This kid is even less likely to be confused, as he’s known for three years - it’s not like he decided a week ago.

You’ve been issuing your proclamations under the assumption that ex-gay therapy is effective - which is something that you haven’t supported with any facts. In fact, the actual facts contradict you. Your real argument should be spelled out more accurately: I don’t know much about this kid, human sexuality, or ex-gay programs. Therefore it’s wrong to offer condemnations. Which would be reasonable, except for the fact that those of us condemning it do understand these issues. The fact that you’re ignorant about this matter does not mean that we are, and you should not assume that since you don’t know anything about this kid’s sexuality, that the rest of us don’t, or that the kid himself doesn’t.

Why do you keep arguing from your own ignorance? Sure, you can’t be certain that the kid is gay. So what? The fact that you’re not certain means that he’s not certain? By your standards, we can’t be certain about anything. I can’t be certain what color the sky is right now. The rain and thunder stopped two minutes ago, so I have a pretty good guess going that it’s grey. By your logic, I should carry sunglasses outside with me. After all, to you, being less than absolutely certain (which one can never be about anything) is equal to having zero knowledge whatsoever. brickbacon, I can’t be absolutely certain my best friend won’t attack and murder me tomorrow - maybe she’s been biding her time. By your lights, that means it would be okay to toss her in jail - after all, how do I know she’s not a murderer?

What a bizarre, irrational thing to speculate about, when the kid himself has stated clearly that his parents’ faith is not enough to convince him to become celibate. Why do you keep bringing matters up to discuss as though there wasn’t established information on them?

Why do you act as though we know nothing about this circumstance? We’re not pitting the existence of ex-gay programs. We’re pitting the fact that a kid who doesn’t want this abuse is being forced into it. Why do you think a bunch of hypothetical statements about what some kid somewhere might feel about ex-gay therapy are pertinent, when we know how this kid, the kid in question, feels?

Do you see how irrational your arguments are? There’s some miniscule possibility - and I’ve already presented evidence for why it would be miniscule - that this kid is confused in his sexuality. Therefore, in your world, “he could be anywhere along that line.” Uh-huh. You’re saying, “This kid has provided evidence that is less than absolute certainty to prove his sexual orientation. I have no evidence whatsoever. Therefore we can make no judgment as to his sexual orientation.” This line of reasoning reflects disordered thinking.

You say, “This kid does not want to enter this program. Some other people want to change their sexuality. Therefore, we can make no judgment as to whether this person wishes to enter this program.” Like I said, this is disordered thinking. This kind of thought process could be indicative of some sort of brain dysfunction - have you been examined for that?

We’ve examined the logic you use to make assessments of the world around you. Now explain why it’s okay to force a 16-year-old into a program whose stated purpose is to alter part of his personality, when he has clearly indicated he is unwilling to go. Even if the kid were in any way uncertain in his sexuality, or in any way motivated out of religion (though, in fact, he’s certain as to his sexuality and he’s uninterested in his parents’ religious justifications for this), why would it be morally okay to force him to do this? Why is it acceptable to isolate your child against his will? He won’t be permitted to talk, or communicate with gestures or eye contact, during the first three days of the program. Why is that okay? He won’t be allowed to go to bed past ten in the evening, listen to secular music, or read books. Why is that okay? Why is it okay to isolate a child against his will? Even if there could be any rational doubt as to his sexual orientation - there can’t, as no one has provided any evidence to counter the kid’s own assertion, which is inherently solid evidence - why would that justify shutting him away from his entire life in this program, against his will? Why don’t the kid’s feelings matter at all? Why is it okay to drive your child to contemplate suicide?

142

Man, those rules are fucked up. Shaving twice-weekly? No secular books or music (including classical music)? WTF?

143

Meanwhile the homophobes are upset about a TV show

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1334715.html
sigh

144

Then he will change on his own, in his own time. Just as those plenty of other people do without going to reeducation camps.

145

I’m responding to direct questions. If you don’t like it, stop quoting me and asking for a response.

Bullshit. I haven’t made any assumptions about the kid. All I’ve done is give his parents the benefit of the doubt while everyone else has assumed that they are pond scum. Just because you disagree with their decision doesn’t mean they are evil. It’s amazing how everyone starts frothing at the mouth, and refusing to use their brains when a topic like this comes up.

Good for him.

Show me where I said he’s not gay.

Again, when did I say I know the kid is not gay??? Also, show me where I said the therapy is effective. I actually stated the opposite. The only thing I said is that it may help some people. The success rate is certainly not 0%. Not that that makes it the right thing to do, but to state that it never works is false.

More rambling and nonsense.

Plenty of you are, in fact, pitting ex-gay programs. Which is fine. I actually agree with most of what has been said about them. The hypotheticals are relevant because it’s about more than this one kid.

No, you are taking the answers I’ve provided completely out of context, and I think you are doing it deliberately. My main problem is with the need to assume these parents are obviously wrong and evil when that may not be the case. I realize I live in a different reality than many religious people do. In their minds, homosexuality is a sin, and is unnatural. Within that construct, many people are doing what they think is right. Yes, the facts we have before us lead most to believe they are wrong. I get that. But, what I don’t get is the need to elevate this to them being evil, spiteful, destructive people.

OK, now you’ve completely twisted what I said. Either you are being dishonest or you are fucking retarded.

146

I just wanted to say that the boy’s parents are wasting their time and money because when the program is over he will be gayer than ever just to spite them and that Love In Action seems like torture but there are probably a few people who want to be their so more power to those people…but still it seems like torture especially when I imagine myself going to a place like that for the opposite effect…*Homosexual Boot Camp * :dubious: .

147

Did anyone else slog far enough through the rules of that place, as posted in the kid’s blog, to see this?

What? The? FUCK? Bach, one of the greatest composers of liturgical music – Lutheran liturgical music? Not even that Mary-worshipping, Whore of Baylon Catholic masses ‘n’ stuff, but good old Protestant Reformation Lutheran music?

These people are beyond weird.

148

I picked up on that, too, EddyTeddyFreddy. Which, I hate to say that their choice of music is the most boggling thing about this whole business, but at least the rest of it has some internal logic, no matter how unsound. But Bach? BACH? In what universe is he not a Christian composer?

149

It’s because it’s pretty. None of that for our upright heterosexual men!

150

Can we email/write to these people at LIA?
Is there some way to talk to them?

Not to flame them, or insult them, just to, you know, fight their ignorance?

151

I’m sure they’re contactable; I doubt very much if you’ll do any good trying to talk to them - perhaps quite the reverse; their worldview most likely has a built-in expectation of opposition; in which case providing that opposition (however carefully and moderately you phrase it) will make them feel that their views are vindicated.

152

Let me tell you what I won’t do, and you’ll probably be glad. :slight_smile: I won’t drag you through a scripture slinging contest where I show you that scripture does indeed condemn the other stuff I mentioned plus a whole lot more.

Instead, since you believe that Paul speaks for God, I’ll just point out to you that Paul disagreed with you about whether a rational and sane person can control his sexual behavior. Recall that, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul advocated celibacy for all men: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman… But,” he wrote, “if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Therefore, in marrying, a man has already conceded that he lacks any self-control. Inasmuch as Jesus tells us that we are judged by whatever measure we use to judge others, how can a man without self-control advise some other man to exercise self-control?

And now you might say, “But my gay son could marry a woman and at least fulfill Paul’s lesser of two evils.” Okay, maybe so. Maybe that would be fine for your son. But what about for the woman? Are you not disregarding all concern for the woman he marries? Would you want to be married to a lesbian who finds nothing about you attractive? Is marriage with celibacy an improvement over either marriage or celibacy? In the same Corinthians chapter, Paul advises that a man owns his wifes body and she owns his. If therefore your lesbian wife wants you to have a sex change, will you not be bound by Paul’s advice to make her property suitable for her?

Gay sex may be an abomination, but if we are to believe Paul about one thing, then shouldn’t we believe him about another, as when he said that a man touching a woman is “not good”? And since God is utterly holy, does the man who touches a woman have any advantage over the man who touches a man? Nothing less than perfection qualifies a man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, which, of course, is what divine grace and forgiveness is all about. Therefore, an abomination has no advantage over a not-good.

The fact is that you are asking your gay son to do what Paul has advised is the very worst option. You are asking him to burn with passion. Since Paul did not cover specifically whether it is better for a gay man to burn with passion or commit to another gay man, we are left to follow the logic. And since condemnation of homosexuality is conspicuously absent from the teachings of Jesus, we have to conclude that Paul would have extended the same loving relief to gay men that he would extend to straight men — unless we are to assume that Paul is a respecter of persons. But that would mean that he most certainly does not speak for God. God declared unequivocally that He is not a respecter of persons. (Meaning, of course, that he does not extend grace to one and not the other.)

Therefore, you cannot invoke Paul to justify advocating celibacy for homosexuals.

So what is a man to do about his gay son? Well, I venture to say that he is to do the same thing he would do about his straight son who burns with passion, touches a woman, or marries — all of which are not good. Show him unconditional love and acceptance, abominations and not-goods included. Love is not found in fear. Nor is it found in judgment. Nor is it found in legalism. And it most definitely is not found in psychotherapy. Even psychotherapy that is draped in slogans like “Christ centered”.

153

So American Freedom is all good unless you are a teenager?

154

I find you hypocritical on several levels. Tolerating your lesbian friend’s sexuality while stating that you would attempt to forcibly alter that of your hypothetical child is one level. Failing to allow your child free will and the tolerance afforded by God is another.

That was the politest epithet I found myself able to use. I refrained from using several others.

155

Amen.

156

Hey, us Friday-Fish-Eaters use Bach too, though, nowadays. (And didn’t Bach compose an Ave Maria?)

Maybe they’re of the ULTRA fundie set, and think that even Lutherans are evil.

157

If we’re talking about a raid, put me down for infiltration. I’ve got the credentials. I’m a devout Christian who can honestly say my relationship with Jesus Christ is the most important thing in my life; I’ve taught Sunday School and sung in choirs, and I dress modestly and respectably. They’d never suspect a thing! :smiley: (Note to self: make sure not to pack Hell’s Mensan t-shirt!) I’ll even see if I can do a bit of subversion by playing a bit of Bach, Beethoven, etc. on any musical instrument they’ve got (sorry, I can’t whistle). Come to think of it, there’s a good Episcopal hymn which should wreak havoc on their teachings:

CJ

158

Interesting that you wouldn’t fund research concerned with murder, rape, child molestation, terrorism, suicide, poverty, disease, spousal abuse, mental illness, illiteracy, etc., etc., etc.

I’m curious as to whether you’re at all capable of accepting a belief that’s counter to (your own interpretation of) Scripture; or are you locked into your dogma, regardless of any rational arguments? Your answer to this will determine whether you’re, in fact, “totally beyond hope.”

159

Speaking as a straight guy myself, even I see that this “camp” (brainwashing center) is just WRONG, i hope he fights hard against their propoganda and exits it relatively undamaged, play along with their “rules” or twist them to your advantage (as stated before, use the “no violence” clause to your advantage, stage a mutual fight, or threaten the councellors or something…

why can’t people just leave each other alone

160

I Googled “Zachary Love In Action” and found this website - fellow bloggers have organised a protest, and even have had some media coverage.

If you start at this link and follow the links within it, you’ll find photos and the TV news item.

I hope it is helping the young lad keep strong, and hopefully it might make his or other parents pull their kids from the program…

http://www.cherrybloss.org/