[Kerrigan]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4893735.ece

This article provides some depressing anecdotal insight into what exactly happens at ex-gay camps.

Not one of the events reported struck me as being a positive development in the ex-gay participant's life. The lesbian who gave up mechanics, the guy who decided he could be "fabulousss" and straight at once, and this:

A squeaky-voiced youth of no more than 17, who has been trembling violently, shoots up his hand. He wants to know whether he should dump his boyfriend.

“It's a no-brainer,” he is told. “You should end the relationship. If you don't do it now, it will only become harder later.”

The whole thing is wrong on so many levels. To think that there are old, creepy, closeted guys telling teenagers to dump their boyfriends and enter into a life of loneliness and self-loathing. It's as if Jesus' social message means nothing to these people, and they find satisfaction in making the downtrodden (ie insecure homosexuals) even more miserable than they previously were.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

t's as if Jesus' social message means nothing to these people, and they find satisfaction in making the downtrodden (ie insecure homosexuals) even more miserable than they previously were.

Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is something that can or should be cured, this argument makes no sense. Jesus said to repent and "go, sin no more". I don't think he considered people who had desires to do what most Christians believe is sinful as the "downtrodden".

Jesus constantly preached a message that we all are sinners who have strong temptations and that we should be avoiding those temptations at all cost. Telling someone not to do things which would cause them to sin does not sound like something that goes against Jesus's message. It sounds exactly like what Jesus did himself. He loved the sinner, hated the sin, and preached that we needed to avoid it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

anecdotal ... exactly happens

Errr...

[turtle777]

I'm still waiting for a cure that can be applied via clicking on a hyperlink.

Sort of rickrolled into being straight

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What if "teh gays" in their dingy underground computer labs develop an antibody, where you can be rickrolled into being gay?

Oh the tension and drama!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

What if "teh gays" in their dingy underground computer labs develop an antibody, where you can be rickrolled into being gay?

They already did that. They're called "ladyboys". As seen on Jerry Springer or the nearest Thai high street.

[Monique]

I was wondering when stupid remarks would surface on an interesting subject.

You cannot be an ex-gay like you cannot be an ex-heterosexual.

It is abuse, just like the ECT (electro chock therapy) use against anyone who did not fit the social profile in the 40's, 50's, and 60's

[olePigeon]

Everyone here should see the movie "But I'm a Cheerleader."

[RAILhead]

Was that a racial slur? ^^

/too obscure, maybe...?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sort of rickrolled into being straight

-t

Any clip with Chuck Norris in it.

[ort888]

Fundamentalist Christians should make camps to cure people of their dependance on usury.

" tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

-- Jesus Christ

[bazmond]

Isn't god an imaginary friend for adults?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Monique 

You cannot be an ex-gay like you cannot be an ex-heterosexual.

..or an ex-adulter, or an ex-pedophile, or an ex-alcoholic, or an ex-murderer.

You can be an ex-con, an ex-wife, an ex-boyfriend and be excommunicated.

I don't think that the group in question actually refers to people who go through their programs as "ex-gay" do they?

[Kerrigan]

I think the contextually correct translation is that it is harder for the fat end of a rope to go through the head of the needle. Or to use the modern day expression, it is harder for Shaq to penetrate the anus of Hillary Duff than for a rich man to go to heaven.

And railroader, "exactly what happens"/"exactly what goes on"/"exactly what did you see" are variations of an English language expression often used in extracting witness testimony or relating events as one saw them from a first-person vantage point. I can suggest some good books on English linguistics if you need help

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think that the group in question actually refers to people who go through their programs as "ex-gay" do they?

They do. It seems to be a point of pride for them.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..or an ex-adulter, or an ex-pedophile, or an ex-alcoholic, or an ex-murderer.

You can be an ex-con, an ex-wife, an ex-boyfriend and be excommunicated.

This gets into a tricky debate, doesn't it?

How does anyone really know whether something is "innate" or a "free choice?" For some things we can tell, like alcoholism. I believe scientists identified an alcoholism gene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). But for other things, it's not as clear cut. Adultery seems like a free choice, but even if environmental factors caused your choice, what if you don't have control over those factors? Is it still really a "free" choice?

For sexuality, I don't know whether it's genetic or environmental, but if I had to choose, then it's something more innate than it is a choice. How many people actually choose to feel sexually attracted to one sex or the other? Even if it is a choice, sexuality doesn't seem like it's something easily overridden. It's as much an innate part of our identity as height, weight (metabolism), and other physical attributes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

How does anyone really know whether something is "innate" or a "free choice?" For some things we can tell, like alcoholism. I believe scientists identified an alcoholism gene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). But for other things, it's not as clear cut. Adultery seems like a free choice, but even if environmental factors caused your choice, what if you don't have control over those factors? Is it still really a "free" choice?

For sexuality, I don't know whether it's genetic or environmental, but if I had to choose, then it's something more innate than it is a choice. How many people actually choose to feel sexually attracted to one sex or the other? Even if it is a choice, sexuality doesn't seem like it's something easily overridden. It's as much an innate part of our identity as height, weight (metabolism), and other physical attributes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

" tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

For the record, this doesn't refer to riches as such - it refers to the attitude behind those riches. If one treats them as the tool they are, you stand as much chance of getting past St. Pete as the next Christian. If you treat the riches as your god, you're going to hell with the atheists, gays, commies and Radiohead fans.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

They do. It seems to be a point of pride for them.

No...I mean that actual term. From reading the linked article, it appears they refer to people who are trying to abstain from homosexual behavior as those stuggling with "same-sex attraction”.

[design219]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbN...tnobutyes.com/

Gay scientist have discovered the gene for Christianity.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

And railroader, "exactly what happens"/"exactly what goes on"/"exactly what did you see" are variations of an English language expression often used in extracting witness testimony or relating events as one saw them from a first-person vantage point. I can suggest some good books on English linguistics if you need help

I suggest you read a dictionary. Look up "anecdotal" and "exactly".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

This gets into a tricky debate, doesn't it?

How does anyone really know whether something is "innate" or a "free choice?" For some things we can tell, like alcoholism. I believe scientists identified an alcoholism gene. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). But for other things, it's not as clear cut. Adultery seems like a free choice, but even if environmental factors caused your choice, what if you don't have control over those factors? Is it still really a "free" choice?

For sexuality, I don't know whether it's genetic or environmental, but if I had to choose, then it's something more innate than it is a choice. How many people actually choose to feel sexually attracted to one sex or the other? Even if it is a choice, sexuality doesn't seem like it's something easily overridden. It's as much an innate part of our identity as height, weight (metabolism), and other physical attributes.

I think this could be said of an preference. I like broccoli. I don't choose to like it — I just do. Is it innate? There's probably a component that's been present since I was born, but probably other components that weren't.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I like broccoli.

Teh gay?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think this could be said of an preference. I like broccoli. I don't choose to like it — I just do. Is it innate? There's probably a component that's been present since I was born, but probably other components that weren't.

Well said.

The simplicity of that analogy gets the point across really well.

[Kerrigan]

I don't think it even matters what causes people to like one thing or another. What matters is that people act responsibly. Trying to turn young or insecure homosexuals into lonely closet cases is irresponsible.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I don't think it even matters what causes people to like one thing or another. What matters is that people act responsibly. Trying to turn young or insecure homosexuals into lonely closet cases is irresponsible.

/Doof wanders off down to the local gay club with a bag full of Ubuntu install disks.

[macforray]

First, let me say that I am a Christian. Actually a pretty conservative one.

Let me also say that I truly believe that most of those who are gay / homosexual / lesbian are born that way. My background for this is the observations my wife and I made for years while she was running a daycare in our home. Without judging, we realized that a couple of the children were likely gay. Since most of these kids were our oldest daughter's peers. and some friends, we were able to observe them as they grew and matured. When both of these kids finally "came out" (one just after high school graduation, and the other when in college), our observations were validated. Both sets of parents were devastated. My wife and I could only wonder how the parents didn't know. These young adults now still stop by with their respective partners to visit us. We accept and understand, but we still pray for them as we do for any sin we commit.

I also believe that being gay is not a sin. The sin involved is the sexual act between those that are not a married man and woman. So, the sin is no different than premarital sex or adultery between heterosexual couples.

This is my opinion and belief, of which I am entitled. I do not desire to be baited into any "flame" wars regarding the subject. I love everyone, even those that do not share the same opinion.

[RAILhead]

I'm only pro-lesbian if they're hawt and in my living room with an HD video camera.

/just sayin'

[(s)macintosh]

Originally Posted by macforray 

Both sets of parents were devastated.

I never, never, ever understood parents feeling this way about their children because they suddenly "came out of the closet". They aren't murderers. They aren't rapists. They weren't killed by a drunk driver at 3am on some random Wednesday. Those are things to be devastated about, not someone searching for their own happiness & sanity. Are the parents really that shallow? "We won't have grandkids because Jimmy is teh gay!" ****, I'm 34, unmarried and don't have any kids. I'm straight; I like being free to do whatever I want, when I want. I have no commitments, and I like living my life simple and hassle-free. Would my parents like to see me in a relationship or having grandchildren? Sure, but they're not devastated by my decisions in life. Disappointed? Possibly. Devastated? Not a chance.

[smacintush]

I've said this before…it shouldn't matter whether or not it's innate or not. From a practical point of view there seems to be no reason I can think of to prove such a thing. Ok, maybe one; to attempt to prove something to those who take there own superstitious beliefs to a level that includes oppression of certain types of people. But proving that being gay is something you are born with doesn't change their opinions anyway. It like they are trying to find proof that it's ok to do or to want to do something that is already ok. I mean, two men having sex, in and of itself, really doesn't hurt anyone. Not society, not the families and friends, not even the men involved. Ok, it might hurt them a little the first few times but you know what I mean. And to be honest, two women having sex is of great benefit to society if you ask me.

So really, does it matter? Does it change anything? No. Nothing. When someone poses the question of whether or not someone was born gay the answer should be; "The question is irrelevant because if it is their choice it's still none of your damn business."

Now, I'm going to try to be as fair as possible here and not start religion bashing…as much as I might want to. Many, perhaps most of the things that Christians at least call "sins" are really good examples of things to avoid doing. All of our lives are better when people are not murdering, deceiving, stealing from each other etc. But the idea that two people like genders having sex being a sin…that is just useless. In no way does avoiding this behavior benefit anyone. Especially those who really, REALLY wanna do it. (is there anything worse than an itch you can't scratch?) There is no benefit to society, individuals, ANYONE. So really, what is the point of trying to "cure" them? To save them? I call bullshit.

How many camps or retreats have Christians created that are dedicated stopping hetero people from being adulterers? How about ex-liar camps? No, these things are folded into the regular services. Funny how being gay gets special treatment huh? I think that these people are merely trying to rid the world of something they find repulsive. It's personal.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by (s)macintosh 

I never, never, ever understood parents feeling this way about their children because they suddenly "came out of the closet". They aren't murderers. They aren't rapists. They weren't killed by a drunk driver at 3am on some random Wednesday. Those are things to be devastated about, not someone searching for their own happiness & sanity. Are the parents really that shallow? "We won't have grandkids because Jimmy is teh gay!" ****, I'm 34, unmarried and don't have any kids. I'm straight; I like being free to do whatever I want, when I want. I have no commitments, and I like living my life simple and hassle-free. Would my parents like to see me in a relationship or having grandchildren? Sure, but they're not devastated by my decisions in life. Disappointed? Possibly. Devastated? Not a chance.

If they're Christians, they think their child is damned to an eternity in hell because they're gay. That's why they're devastated.

By the way, I am in no way endorsing this conclusion - just trying to make some sense of it.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

You cannot be an ex-gay like you cannot be an ex-heterosexual.

Sure you can. There are many cases of a woman or man falling in love with the opposite sex (aka. being heterosexual), and then 15 years later falling in love with a person of the same gender (becoming gay). You can claim that they were gay or bi to start, but you don't know that, you would be guessing that. I know one person that this happened to (went from hetero to gay) and she doesn't feel that she started out gay.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think this could be said of an preference. I like broccoli. I don't choose to like it — I just do. Is it innate? There's probably a component that's been present since I was born, but probably other components that weren't.

I like broccoli a little bit now also, but 10 or 20 years ago I didn't like it at all. I like it now because I ate it enough times that it has become something that is a recognized taste and something I have come to accept as being okay/good.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

How many camps or retreats have Christians created that are dedicated stopping hetero people from being adulterers? How about ex-liar camps? No, these things are folded into the regular services. Funny how being gay gets special treatment huh? I think that these people are merely trying to rid the world of something they find repulsive. It's personal.

The reason that there are no camps dedicated to liars (although I think there are classes you can take), and adulterers is because those things haven't been labeled as being okay by a large portion of the media. When you have the full force of the media (TV, radio, movies, magazines, etc.) all saying that a particular sin is okay (or even good), it causes more effort to be put into stopping the expansion of that way of thinking.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

there are no camps dedicated to liars

Sure there are.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Sure you can. There are many cases of a woman or man falling in love with the opposite sex (aka. being heterosexual), and then 15 years later falling in love with a person of the same gender (becoming gay). You can claim that they were gay or bi to start, but you don't know that, you would be guessing that.

The idea that somebody who falls in love with both men and women is bisexual seems like much less of a conjecture than the thought that they really fluctuate between being exclusively attracted to men and exclusively attracted to women.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Sure you can. There are many cases of a woman or man falling in love with the opposite sex (aka. being heterosexual), and then 15 years later falling in love with a person of the same gender (becoming gay). You can claim that they were gay or bi to start, but you don't know that, you would be guessing that. I know one person that this happened to (went from hetero to gay) and she doesn't feel that she started out gay.

I have never heard such a person describe themselves as `ex-gay' or `ex-heterosexual.'

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I like broccoli a little bit now also, but 10 or 20 years ago I didn't like it at all. I like it now because I ate it enough times that it has become something that is a recognized taste and something I have come to accept as being okay/good.

It's still not your favorite food, is it?
I love broccoli

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

The reason that there are no camps dedicated to liars (although I think there are classes you can take), and adulterers is because those things haven't been labeled as being okay by a large portion of the media. When you have the full force of the media (TV, radio, movies, magazines, etc.) all saying that a particular sin is okay (or even good), it causes more effort to be put into stopping the expansion of that way of thinking.

There are plenty of people in the media who do not accept homosexuality and are not afraid to do so. The media is merely a (sensationalized) reflection of the public.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I have never heard such a person describe themselves as `ex-gay' or `ex-heterosexual.'

I used to like farm equipment. Now I don't. I guess I'm an ex-tractor fan.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sure there are.

Camp David?

(if that's one of your pics, sorry, my browser at work ain't pickin' up any images on this board for some reason)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Camp David?

Close. Capitol Hill and Westminster Palace.

[lpkmckenna]

Whether or not homosexuality is biological mostly irrelevant. The point is: it's harmless. Trying to cure harmless behavior is pointless, like trying to cure left-handedness. Also, it's pretty likely that a large swath of deviant behaviors is also biological: pedophiles, sociopaths, etc. They can be treated (ie managed) but not cured. But we aren't going to accept dangerous predators because "they were born that way."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Whether or not homosexuality is biological mostly irrelevant. The point is: it's harmless.

Most religions teach that the wages of sin are death. I doubt if they would view living in sin and ending up with an eternity in hell is "harmless".

Now, I understand that people who are not religious will not agree or understand. It's a free world though and if people who have a belief system whose moral tenets call for abstaining from what traditionally is known as "sexual immorality", that's their business. One man's "harmless" is another's eternal damnation.

People are tempted to do all sorts of things. If you decide you don't want to do something, and seek help in not doing it, it's really no one else's business.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by macforray 

I also believe that being gay is not a sin. The sin involved is the sexual act between those that are not a married man and woman. So, the sin is no different than premarital sex or adultery between heterosexual couples.

Indeed. If you take the Christian perspective on sex - that it was created as an act of procreation first and pleasure second between a committed man and woman (married, whatever; I don't go by legal terminology in this kind of thing), then gay sex is no different from premarital or extramarital sex. It's the act that causes the sin; not the ingrained tendencies one way or the other.

If you take sexual pleasure out of the picture, a homosexual relationship is nothing but a close, committed friendship, whereas a heterosexual relationship has the benefit of contributing to furthering the human race.

If you truly take God at His word and take sin seriously, you can be a homosexual Christian - you're just called to remain celibate.

All that being said, I don't think that any Christian can really oppose the legalization of gay marriage. The federal government's recognition of a union between two people for the purposes of taxation and insurance and whatever else has nothing to do with spiritual or religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I'm only pro-lesbian if they're hawt and in my living room with an HD video camera.

/just sayin'

Best post ever.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Most religions teach that the wages of sin are death. I doubt if they would view living in sin and ending up with an eternity in hell is "harmless".

Now, I understand that people who are not religious will not agree or understand. It's a free world though and if people who have a belief system whose moral tenets call for abstaining from what traditionally is known as "sexual immorality", that's their business. One man's "harmless" is another's eternal damnation.

People are tempted to do all sorts of things. If you decide you don't want to do something, and seek help in not doing it, it's really no one else's business.

I agree. Western society has evolved to the point that most people who don't live under rocks realize that a gay lifestyle can be as fulfilling and healthy as any straight relationship--or as hideously dysfunctional as any straight relationship for that matter. In other gay news:

http://gizmodo.com/5068441/apple-giv...position-in-ca

I guess if you're gonna be ex-gay you should be ex-Apple as well.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If you truly take God at His word and take sin seriously, you can be a homosexual Christian - you're just called to remain celibate.

Haha, oh teh gays all love to hear this one let me tell you

Best post ever.

pm me

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Most religions teach that the wages of sin are death. I doubt if they would view living in sin and ending up with an eternity in hell is "harmless".

Now, I understand that people who are not religious will not agree or understand. It's a free world though and if people who have a belief system whose moral tenets call for abstaining from what traditionally is known as "sexual immorality", that's their business. One man's "harmless" is another's eternal damnation.

People are tempted to do all sorts of things. If you decide you don't want to do something, and seek help in not doing it, it's really no one else's business.

That's what I don't get. If you choose to truly follow Christianity, why do other people think it's somehow wrong for you to believe that a certain action is sinful?

Some Christian denominations, as well as other religions, pronounce the consumption of alcohol as sinful. Yet nobody gives a Christian sh*t for refusing a champagne toast at a friend's wedding.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If you take sexual pleasure out of the picture, a homosexual relationship is nothing but a close, committed friendship, whereas a heterosexual relationship has the benefit of contributing to furthering the human race.

The only way I can further the human race is to have kids?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

The only way I can further the human race is to have kids?

Furthering, aka continuing, aka keeping from extinction. You know what I meant.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Furthering, aka continuing, aka keeping from extinction. You know what I meant.

Ok, but there aren't enough resources in many parts of the world to support the population we already have. In fact, countries like China have started to enforce draconian "one child" rules. It seems like the world can afford a great number of childless gay couples--or gay couples that adopt other people's unwanted children.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Close. Capitol Hill and Westminster Palace.

Ahh, the other non-partisan liars camps.

[ironknee]

Apple gives $100,000 to fight California gay marriage ban

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Apple gives $100,000 to fight California gay marriage ban

Just saw that on MacRumors. Sad how many have rated it negatively (almost half of all respondents).