The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) recently held a conference in Denver to discuss the success of therapy which helps homosexuals recover from unwanted attraction to the same sex.
Like any habitual sin, homosexuality can be difficult to leave behind--especially with so many in society telling them that they can't get out of that sin, that they were born that way.
But the Bible makes it clear that people can leave homosexuality and other sins behind.
Like anything, though, if you don't want to leave it behind, you can't leave it behind. As a former drunk and a former smoker, I have some first hand knowledge of such things. I couldn't quit either...until I wanted to. But now I've been free of both for about 15 years.
NARTH and other ministries are there for homosexuals who do want to leave this immoral and unhealthy lifestyle behind.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Conference Highlights Success of Therapy for Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
ABSOLUTE GARBAGE! Anyone who claims they have been "cured" of being homosexual is either a fake or someone so messed up with mental torture they just give in and say they're cured to avoid persecution!
Can you cure a heterosexual and make them feel attracted to the same sex? I think not. Same principle applies to homosexuals.
When will you stop attacking people for who they are?
But keep it up, your outright rejection of reality is fueling the disintegration of the "conservative" movement, and it will only accelerate if you continue to attack gays, many of whom are (closeted of course) leaders in the conservative ranks.
Sad. I feel especially bad for the children and family rejected by those that choose to remain ignorant of what psychology figured out a almost two generations ago now: homosexuality is part of the natural and wonderful variation in humanity.
Anonymous 7:58, can you cure someone of feeling hungry when they haven't eaten in a couple of days? Of course not. Why? Because it's normal.
Heterosexuality is normal; if religion and nature themselves didn't teach us this (which they both do), the percentages illustrate that homosexual behavior is abnormal (an HRC commissioned study earlier this year found 2.9% of the population is homosexual).
I think the reason you don't want to believe people can leave homosexual behavior behind is because if they can...you can, too. And if you can, too...you're morally culpable for committing an immoral behavior.
That's an uncomfortable place to be, I know. I've never been a homosexual, but I've been a drunken promiscuous heterosexual, and facing up to my immoral behavior and my responsibility to change it was no fun...but it was what I needed to start living the abundant life. And you can, too.
Curtis, people weren't created to be homosexuals any more than I was created to be a drunk.
God wants to much more for them than a life of disobedience to him that puts them at odds with him spiritually, and harms and misuses their bodies to boot. You wouldn't accuse someone of attacking a drunk or drug addict by encouraging them to stop their behavior, would you?
You should feel bad for people caught up in this unhealthy sin, and for their families who are forced to endure watching their loved one destroy their body and soul.
Why have you put the "wisdom" of this fallen, sinful world ahead of God's truth?
anon. & cp, be careful with your claims. When you say gay is natural, then you are suggesting it is genetic and not a choice or psychological condition. If genetic, than it can be tested for, if positive, a couple could choose to abort under current social norms. Be careful!
Mr. Ellis, there's a big difference between abnormal and unusual. Assuming that only 2.9% of the population is homosexual, it would be correct to say that this behavior is unusual and not the norm (notice also the difference between "norm" and "normal"). It is an OPINION, however, to say that it is abnormal. And even if something is considered "normal," that says nothing about whether it's right or wrong, good or bad. It was once normal to own slaves. It was once normal to deny women the right to vote. It was once normal to execute people for committing adultery. In fact, in the Muslim world it still IS normal to execute people for committing adultery and to treat women as less than human. People in that region would think our approach is decidedly abnormal compared to theirs.
As for what nature teaches us, heterosexuality is "normal" insofar as it's necessary, but I doubt animals care about right and wrong; all they want is to propagate their DNA. Species cannot reproduce and therefore survive unless they mate with the opposite sex, so of course heterosexuality is "natural." But how do you account for the many organisms, including over 300 species of vertebrates alone, that engage in certain types of sexual behavior purely for social reasons, including homosexuality? What scientific explanation can the Bible offer for this fact?
Getting back to NARTH, I don't think this is a question of merely "leaving homosexual behavior behind." Of course anyone can choose not to have sex - I don't think we need an organization of psychologists to tell us this. The real question is whether people can change their sexual orientation. Mr. Ellis, can you imagine yourself no longer being attracted to women and instead being attracted exclusively or at least primarily to men? Nevermind what you consider "normal" or what you infer as God's design or what the Bible says is right or the apparent health risks of homosexuality. I don't think any of those factors would affect your answer. Even if you had never heard about the Bible or what God wanted for your life, could you really CHOOSE to be attracted to men?
Having a hard time finding a scientific explanation in the Bible for why animals behave homosexually, Mr. Ellis?
I thought I had already given my answer to your comment this morning, but apparently it didn't save. Fortunately I have a backup of it.
============
The dictionary defines unusual as: not usual, uncommon, rare.
The dictionary defines abnormal as: deviating from the normal or average, unusual, exceptional.
Notice that not only are the two definitions very close, but "abnormal" also contains the definition of "unusual." Therefore it appears you are trying to split nonexistent hairs in an ineffectual attempt to justify homosexuality.
According to a study commissioned by a pro-homosexual organization, only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. That is FACT, not OPINION. I think it's safe to say that by any reasonable definition, something that makes up 2.9% of the whole definitely meets the definition of both "unusual" and "abnormal."
You are correct to say that "normal" does not determine right or wrong. However, the Bible is very clear that homosexual behavior is immoral, condemned by God as an egregious violation of his design for the expression of human sexuality.
Homosexuals almost always act in a promiscuous manner (making that behavior the "norm" for the homosexual community), which is unhealthy both from an emotional and physical perspective. The evidence of this is born out in the high rates in the homosexual community of AIDS, other STDs, anal cancer, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. So it is not only a moral wrong but a practical and medical wrong.
God provided sexuality as a means of reproduction. He designed humans and most organisms to reproduce heterosexually (while some reproduce asexually, none reproduce homosexually). Therefore, in addition to being immoral and unhealthy, homosexual behavior serves no useful biological function.
Incidentally, animals area also subject to the same fallen and broken condition of this universe brought on by Adam and Eve's sin, and they, too, do not always function correctly and act as God intended. But again, such behavior is unusual and abnormal (see above).
Why should society lend any credence, legitimacy or acceptance to a practice which is immoral, unnatural, unhealthy, and serves no legitimate biological function? Is there a valid reason why society should give its blessing to this behavior? (Hint: "because I want to do it" is not a valid reason)
I think the obvious answer is: no.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me when I said "scientific evidence."
Does your explanation disprove accepted biological findings that many organisms engage in same-sex behavior to establish alpha-male status within their species? Or that they also do it to maintain population control? How *exactly* does one go about testing your hypothesis? What observations prove unequivocally that animals did NOT behave homosexually until original sin? How many scholars in the scientific community agree with your explanation?
In other words: prove it. (Maybe you'll have to bring in your resident science guru Dr. Theo to field this one, because it's embarrassingly obvious that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.)
I guess my last comment "didn't save" either.
Anonymous 8:06, I think it's embarrassingly obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, either scientifically or theologically.
Homosexual behavior has absolutely no legitimate biological usefulness whatsoever. I can bash someone's head in with a hammer, and the hammer is effective in doing that, but I don't think anyone is going to claim that bashing in people's heads with a hammer is a legitimate function of that tool.
Also, many animals kill other animals and eat them. Do you plan to argue that because some animals do this, that it is now morally acceptable for humans to murder and cannibalize one another? (And this behavior is certainly more "usual" than homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom). I certainly hope not, but with the moral bankruptcy and dearth of analytical thought prevalent in our culture today, one can never be too sure.
I also find it amusing that you would attribute an intelligent motive to animals (homosexual behavior "to maintain population control") while making the implicit claim that homosexuals (who, as human beings, possess both a conscience and intelligence) are incapable of restraining themselves from this behavior. That's rather like wanting to have your cake and eat it too: animals can choose to engage in homosexual behavior...but humans can't choose not to engage in the behavior.
Pretty convenient...if you are desperate to legitimize a behavior which is obvious on many levels to be unnatural, abnormal, immoral and unhealthy. But that's really what it's all about, right?
I never said that we should base human behavior on that of animals, I never said that human homosexuality is acceptable because animals do it too, and I never said that humans cannot stop themselves from having homosexual sex. Please don't draw the focus away from my questions. If you can't answer them, just say so.
Your hypothesis is the following: animals participate in homosexual behavior because Adam and Eve sinned. This statement, while unavoidably theological, has implications in the fields of biology, zoology, and genetics, so it is therefore a scientific statement. And since it's a scientific statement, you must follow the scientific method to establish its validity, otherwise it should be discarded (as you advised me, you can't have your cake and eat it too - if you make a scientific claim, you must follow it through to the end):
1. How exactly would you go about testing your hypothesis?
2. How exactly does your hypothesis disprove the current scientific explanations for why animals behave homosexually?
3. What body of evidence proves that animals did not begin to exhibit homosexual behavior until after Adam and Eve sinned?
You claim to know more about science than I do, so surely you're aware that unless you can support a theory with evidence, you might as well say that animals engage in homosexuality because the Flying Spaghetti Monster made them do it. And even if I did have ulterior motives in asking these questions, the burden of proof for your claim would still rest squarely on your logical, analytical shoulders. But you're a much smarter man than I am, so I'm sure you already knew that ;-)
Ok, ok. We both know you can't prove your explanation, so I won't harass you anymore. But the least you could do is admit it! I shudder to think about where you stand on the evolution vs. "intelligent design" debate! You should leave questions of science up to the scientists and stay where you're better acquainted: history, politics, Christian fundamentalism, and sodomy. Hey look at that, I just described the Republican Party!
(As an aside, why do you think maintaining population control is an "intelligent" motive? Organisms do this purely out of instinct, and -surprise! - there's biological evidence to back it up. That's how they, unlike us, remain in balance with nature. Turn on the National Geographic Channel every once in a while! True, you won't find any shows claiming that Adam strolled around the Garden of Eden alongside an inexplicably herbivorous and friendly Tyrannosaurus Rex, but I guess that's the godless scientific community for ya, what with their annoying things like "fossil evidence," "testable hypotheses," and "intellectual honesty"!)
Though I'm tempted to get sidetracked and prove how little you and the National Geographic Channel know about dinosaurs, I'll refrain.
Since the god of science is all you will worship, and you demand scientific proof of everything before you'll believe it, answer something for me:
Assuming you love your mother, prove it scientifically.
Hahaha I love this site!
Post a Comment