by James Tonkowich
When Tim Schaefer was sixteen years old he was contemplating suicide. Fortunately someone anonymously telephoned his father, Rev. Frank Schaefer, pastor of the local United Methodist church. The caller told him about his son’s state of mind and added that Tim was gay and worried that his parents would reject him.
According to an article in the Washington Post, Pastor Schaefer and his wife asked their son if it was true. He told them it was. “My wife and I lost it in tears. We hugged him. We told him we loved him so much,” Schaefer told the Post. “To me, this was definitely the proof—he did not choose this.”
Wait a minute. “To me, this was definitely the proof—he did not choose this”? What “this” was “definitely the proof”? That he and his wife cried and hugged him and told him how much they loved him? That the boy was suicidal? If there’s definitive proof here, I missed it.
I admit that the scene has great pathos. It’s a beautiful story of parental love and compassion, a love and compassion I hope I would have in a similar situation. But as to proving something about Tim’s homosexual desires, it’s a complete bust. There is no rational way to leap from “I love my gay son,” to, “therefore He didn’t choose to be gay, but was born that way.”
In fact, there’s good reason to believe—particularly given that Tim Schaefer was sixteen at the time—that homosexuality was not only a choice, but a choice he hadn’t yet made.
Robert Carle recently wrote in Public Discourse about the legislative overreach in California and New Jersey insisting that therapists may only counsel teens to accept their homosexual feelings and desires even if those teen would rather resist those feelings and desires. The article deserves careful reading, but here I want to highlight two studies cited by Carle regarding sexual orientation in teenagers.
The first, the National Health and Social Life Survey done in 1992, he writes, “found that, without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they are gay at sixteen don’t think they are gay by the age of twenty-five.”
That kind of flies in the face of increasing societal pressure to assign a fixed homosexual sexual orientation to sixteen-year-olds and even younger children. Leave it alone and in 75% of all cases, it goes away on its own.
The second study reveals more of the same. Carle writes, “The University of North Carolina’s National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health surveyed 10,000 teenagers and found that the vast majority of sixteen-year olds who reported only same-sex sexual attractions reported only opposite-sex sexual attractions one year later.” Carle goes on to say that since no one expected this, the studies have been replicated time after time with “almost identical” results.
Carle also sites Dr. Nicholas A. Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association and former chief psychologist at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco. In an article published in USA Today, Cummings, who has a great deal of experience counseling people with same-sex attraction, wrote that the idea that same-sex attraction can’t change has been politicized: “Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic.”
“But,” he goes on, “contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality.” Some people with homosexual desires can and do change.
Yet without this “distortion of reality,” the claims of gay rights activists become incoherent. That’s the primary reason you and I haven’t heard of these studies before.
If same-sex orientation can change, then gay rights are not the next logical step in the civil rights movement. Gays, lesbians, et. al. do not qualify for special minority treatment. If three quarters of sixteen-year-olds with same-sex attractions have none at twenty-four or even at seventeen, then restricting marriage to one man and one woman cannot be reasonably compared with the ban on interracial marriage.
Today, however, even Christians who hold a biblical view of sexuality agree that sexual orientation is something people are born with, not chosen. This is particularly true of those with gay or lesbian friends or family. The same sort of “Ah-ha” convinces them that convinced Pastor Schaefer. But a rush of good feelings for a child, sibling, or friend is not a careful consideration of the research, which indicates that the “Ah-ha” in most cases is wrong.
And while I’m all for good feelings, compassion, and love for children, siblings, and friends, it’s also wrong to make feelings rather than facts the center of public policy about marriage, family, and the emotional health of teenagers.
Originally published on November 21, 2013 at Religion Today.
Comment by joey on November 24, 2013 at 11:33 am
Wow, to take a touching story and manipulate it to serve your agenda. Disgusting. Sexual orientation is a touchy subject, I understand that. But to say that sexual orientation can be changed and that gay rights shouldn’t exist because it can be changed is illogical. Few people change from “conversion therapy”. Many suffer because of it. Why is it necessary to change something that isn’t broken? For adults who want to for some reason, should be allowed to as they are adults. To force children to go to a therapist to change their orientation is the equivalent of brainwashing.
Comment by Jeff Allen on November 25, 2013 at 5:06 pm
“Few people change?” 75% change if nothing is done! The others change if they are “highly motivated.” The same thing could be said of quitting smoking…you have to want to change. And if they seek/believe in the unlimited transformational power of Christ, they can be changed.
I could line up thousands and thousands of people who have been in car accidents in an effort to prove that driving cars is dangerous and should be banned, which is exactly the kind of tactic that the gay activists employ with regards to conversion/reparative therapy. But I’d like to hear from someone who was truly hurt by this therapy, not the false James “Brielle” Goldani story that was mentioned in Prof. Carle’s Public Discourse article. Moreover, the so-called Goldani story described techniques that are NOT employed by good, professional counselors. My bet is that those who may have been hurt were hurt by coercive counselors, which we do not support.
Comment by joey on November 25, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Jeff, I do not know of the statistics or studies involved. I’ve heard many stories, but I have to look into the issue further. I am not advocating to ban the “therapy”. I think it is reasonable to allow it for adults. But for children. Regardless, the UMC accepts gay people, why should they need to change?
Comment by Adrian Croft on November 26, 2013 at 10:19 pm
The UM church is not God, so whether it “accepts” gays or not is moot. When you go to meet God, “The UM church said it was OK” wont’ cut it.
Comment by joey on November 26, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Adrian, I do not follow any Church. I am addressing the article according to the Church’s teachings. Are you claiming to speak for God?
Comment by writerJerome on July 1, 2014 at 12:33 am
I wasted over $40,000 dollars and decades of my life, ruined the life of a good woman by taking the advice of my reparative therapist to get married to an opposite sex spouse. The reparative therapy is neither reparative (gays are not broken) and not “therapy” a word which means “to cure an illness.” Sexual orientation is not an illness. I lost a friend to suicide because of his shame in not being able to change. Reparative therapy’s largest client group is minors, coerced into the fake therapy by their parents. I started when I was 16. There are multiple organizations today for people who have been harmed by reparative therapy.
Comment by Adrian Croft on November 28, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Like all gay activists, you are very aggressive about wanting to take away the rights of parents. The same people who want to take away parents’ authority to “indoctrinate” their kids have their own indoctrination as the agenda. While there are plenty of bad parents in the world, I think that in 99 out of 100 cases, parents should decide what is best for their children. The fact that two men or two women form a “couple” or even “marry” runs up against the reality that the “couple” cannot truly create their own family between them, which I think explains activists’ obsession with other people’s children. Gays know that, demographically, they are in a losing race with heterosexuals, there will always be lots fewer kids being raised by gay “couples,” so the gays wish to wield as much authority as possible over kids in normal families. Christians should resist this.
Comment by joey on November 28, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Adrian, thanks for the generalization and conspiracy theory. It really proves a point.
I was addressing the reasoning of the article in regards to the UMC. If the church teaches that gay people should be loved, why is there a need for parents(who belong to the UMC) to want to change their kids’ orientation. It doesn’t make sense and is unnecessary.
According to http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/family/
“Generally a family can mean the following:
◾A group of persons who are connected by blood or by affinity or through law within two or three generations.
◾A group that consists of Parents and their children.
◾A group of persons living together and having a shared commitment to a domestic relationship.
The term family has varied meanings depending on the context it is defined in. ”
So yes, gay couples can create families.
Comment by Adrian Croft on December 2, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Then let them create them. When two men can make a baby together, I will be first in line to shake their hands. Until that time – and don’t hold your breath on this one – it will remain utterly and completely impossible for Bob and Kevin to refer to “our kid.” It may fool their friends from the bar, but that kid does not have both their genes.
Comment by Joey on December 2, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Adrian, you can apply the same logic to heterosexual couples who adopt, invalidating your point.
Comment by writerJerome on July 1, 2014 at 12:28 am
Adrian has been writing thousands of posts for years now, only on male homosexuality. He never mentions lesbians except when he gets to make crude jokes. Otherwise, he can’t stop thinking about hot man on man action.
Comment by John C. Edwards on December 1, 2013 at 5:18 am
Joey
My son was 12 when he asked me one day “Dad, what if I am gay?” I replied, “What do you mean ‘what if?’ Either you are or you aren’t?” For couple of years I had to console him, listen to seemingly endless angst, and occasionally offer him a visit to a psychologist to work out for himself this issue. Finally, one day he announced “I don’t know what I was thinking – I’m straight! I have a girlfriend.” Since that time he has remained straight, as far as I know, because he has had many girlfriends since then, some of whom he admits he has slept with,
Puberty is such a confusing time for some kids, I never rushed off to judge mine. But I would have been extremely wroth with anyone for trying to interfere and insist my son accept his desires. I am glad I got to impact his life before his adulthood, or his life may have taken a different course.
Comment by John C. Edwards on December 1, 2013 at 5:22 am
And by the way, I am not proud of the fact my son slept around with his girlfriends, and I have tried to talk him out of this behavior. But I still love him for the honest and loving son that he is.
Comment by dogen222@gmail.com on December 1, 2013 at 11:33 pm
John, I’m a little confused by your story. You say that you would have accepted your son either way, and you seem to be very understanding. I just don’t understand what you are referencing when you say :”But I would have been extremely wroth with anyone for trying to interfere and insist my son accept his desires. I am glad I got to impact his life before his adulthood, or his life may have taken a different course.”
Was your son attracted to the same-sex before or just unsure? And are you saying that your influence “changed” his sexuality?
Comment by Daniel on November 24, 2013 at 12:43 pm
As Joey’s comments above show, people do not want to confront alternatives when it gets in the way of their established “facts.” Sexual attraction and orientation is a complicated behavior, but there is no gay gene. If you want to see emotions getting in the way of rational and Bible based discussion go over to the UMC Connections web site and read some of the comment threads. The best thing for the UMC is a gracious separation with each party being allowed to take their real and personal property with them. Follow the New Testament example of Gamaliel. Let them each go their own way. That which is ordained of God will prosper over the long term and that which is not will ultimately fail.
Comment by Adrian Croft on December 2, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Well, look at what happened in the cases of Brian MacLaren and Anne Rice, both whom claimed to be Christians but threw away the Christian morality when their kids turned out gay, MacLaren even performing the “wedding” for his gay son. Rice’s gay son convinced her to turn so thoroughly against Christianity that you have to wonder just how deep her conversion was.
Your kid says “Daddy, I’m a —-.” Only the most jelly-spined parent could say “Well, I’ve always believed it was a sin to be a —-, and the Christian tradition says it’s a sin, but, by gum, you’re my kid, so I’m wrong the Bible is wrong and two thousand years of Christian morality are all wrong. You don’t have to conform to God, instead, I’ll shape my religion to conform to you.”
What happened to “tough love,” you parents? If you kid wants to burn the house down, do you let him?
Comment by Joey on December 2, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Adrian, you are still missing the point. Being gay (being attracted to the same-sex) is different from acting upon that attraction. It is not a sin to have an attraction to something (as it is not controllable). According to most Christian traditions, it is a sin to act upon those attractions. So a person who is attracted to members of the same sex are not doing anything wrong. It is only if they act upon it, according to Christianity, that they are doing something wrong.
Comment by joey on November 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Daniel, orientation/attraction is not a behavior. Acting upon the attraction would obviously be a behavior. I would assume that you are attracted to women. Is your attraction to women a behavior? Are you controlling that action at all, or is it something that just happens. Additionally, there is no straight gene either.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on November 24, 2013 at 4:11 pm
If something “isn’t broken” then it would, presumably, cause no adverse effects to one’s self or society, right? So, how does a behavior (and please be clear, homosexuality, unlike race, is primarily, necessarily, defined by behavior), the large scale practice of which would eventually result in extinction of the species, qualify as not broken?
If something “isn’t broken” then why do so many who have same-sex attraction, quite apart from any societal or religious condemnation, feel that something IS broken and want to change (and now they are being denied the opportunity to even try)?
If there’s nothing broken then why do so many gay activists, upon any criticism whatsoever, react with emotional, over-the-top vitriol rather than a reasoned, civil response?
It appears that something IS broken.
Comment by Daniel on November 24, 2013 at 6:13 pm
Joey,
Thank you for proving my point that sexual attraction/orientation is an environmental issue, not a genetic one. As for behaviors, perhaps I am being imprecise, but my point is that, Lady Gaga to the contrary, you are not “born that way.” Through a complex series of environmental factors, stimuli and responses, and along with your hormones you “become that way.” If something goes awry in this process, what God intended to be attraction between men and women can fail to materialize. I don’t condemn anyone for struggling with sin of any type. What I have a problem with is people saying sinful behavior should be blessed because they like it that way. Contrary to popular belief, having sex with the object of one’s desires is not the most important, fulfilling thing in life.
The only thing we are born with is original sin. Through the redemptive power of Christ’s shed blood we are forgiven of our sins and through the transformative power of the Holy Spirit, we can make changes in our lives, although we will never be totally without sinful behavior.
Comment by Adrian Croft on November 28, 2013 at 7:48 pm
We all know Lady Gaga’s clout as an arbiter of morality. If I were gay, I would be embarrassed at someone like her being an “ally.”
Comment by writerJerome on July 1, 2014 at 12:24 am
You are gay, Adrian. You just live in denial.
Comment by joey on November 24, 2013 at 6:23 pm
cleareyedtruthmeister, attraction to the same sex is not a behavior. Acting upon it is. I agree with you on that. I want to address all the points in your comment.
1. “the large scale practice of which would eventually result in extinction of the species, qualify as not broken? ” Not all people are attracted to the same-sex/in same-sex relationships. The extinction of the species would not result in your theoretical world.
2. “If something ‘isn’t broken’ then why do so many who have same-sex attraction, quite apart from any societal or religious condemnation, feel that something IS broken and want to change (and now they are being denied the opportunity to even try)? ”
I am not of the Methodist faith but have been raised in the Catholic community. There is, in many parts of the world and country, where people are pressured through family or their religious organizations to change. They do not feel comfortable with it at first due to negative connotations. I can attest to that. At first I asked God to change me, so I didn’t have to deal with the “shame” of being gay. I was afraid I would lose my closest friends. As I started coming out to them, they accepted me and I became more comfortable and accepting of myself. Additionally, it is minors who in certain states are being denied that. Adults can engage in whatever “conversion” they want to if they do not feel comfortable.
3.”If there’s nothing broken then why do so many gay activists, upon any criticism whatsoever, react with emotional, over-the-top vitriol rather than a reasoned, civil response?” You make a generalization here. Yes many people do get emotional and rude. I do not condone that. I think the main reason is that they are not being understood. I am making a civil response to you, so please do not lump me into that category. The fact that I am engaging you does not mean that anything is broken.
Comment by cleareyedtruthmeister on November 27, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Joey, other than your mischaracterization of this piece as “disgusting” I think you have generally been reasonable in your responses and I applaud you for that. We don’t usually get such moderation from your side of this issue. (By the way, regarding #1 above, in some western democracies the population is already in stasis, so even a small increase in non-heterosexual activity could have a big effect–but the larger point has to do with the view that, if something is “not broken” it should have no adverse effects on society).
Nothing in my commentary is intended as a personal insult, but it should be pointed out that, while you may not choose to whom you are attracted, there is definitely a choice in how to respond. And those choices have consequences. There’s an old saying that goes something like this: our desires are like tigers competing for food–the one that grows is the one that gets fed. Once it attains a certain size it cannot be turned back. If you choose to make your sexuality a centerpiece of your existence then that will, in my opinion, have negative consequences.
In contrast to what you suggest, this article does not mandate “conversion therapy” for anyone, it simply posits that it should be available for those who want it, particularly when considering the following facts: Teenagers’ sexual identity, perhaps owing to raging hormones, the natural confusion most have about sexuality at that age, etc., is not as tidy as gay activists often present it–pigeonholing someone as gay at an early age, while they are still coming to terms with with sexual identity, can set the stage for long term psychological harm, certainly as much harm has been done to those who have supposedly had conversion therapy forced upon them. The psychological and sociological professions are dominated by liberals, so we frequently do not get an objective view of this from them, despite pretenses to the contrary.
Gay activists say they are “born that way”….now, there may be some truth to that, but the science is mainly unknown, and it certainly argues against the biological imperative of survival of the fittest. If gay activists want to contend that homosexuality is inborn, then they must encounter another problem: using the same rationale, one can conclude that gays are constitutionally constructed in a fundamentally different way–quite apart from any infertility problems heterosexual couples experience–such that children are not an option, even potentially, for them biologically. Therefore, it can be argued, parenthood should not be pursued artificially. Adding more ammunition to this argument is the fact that hildren do best with a mother and a father. That certainly agrees with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Even the psychological and sociological data–contaminated as it may be with left-leaning agendas–supports that.
Regardless, I believe God’s grace is sufficient for all, and I wish you well.
Comment by joey on November 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm
cleareyedtruthmeister, I appreciate that. It is glad to see someone from a different perspective actually discussing the issue, instead of others who just insult and attack me for my views. I was just confused with your comment. What affects harm society? This point wasn’t addressed at all. And, while I do agree that adults should be able to choose what sort of therapy they want to engage in, I fear that parents who do not accept homosexuality in children may force them to participate in this therapy when they do not want to. If they do not feel comfortable and want to change their sexuality, they should be able to go to a normal therapist and seek out reasons for wanting to change.
The main reason I was addressing this was the stance of the UMC. It accepts gay people for who they are. It doesn’t say anything about changing their orientation. That leads me to question why conversion therapy is even brought up. If the church is fine with gay people, why should anyone in the church even want to change, or want someone else to change.
To this last part :”Adding more ammunition to this argument is the fact that hildren do best with a mother and a father. That certainly agrees with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Even the psychological and sociological data–contaminated as it may be with left-leaning agendas–supports that.” This has not been proven. Studies have shown that children from “intact” families tend to be better off than children from divorced/”broken” families. However, it has not been shown that a mom and dad are necessary for a child to grow well. The Regnerus study which attempts to purport this does not even observe the difference between heterosexual and homosexual parenting.
Comment by joey on November 24, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Daniel, I am not so familiar with UMC’s belief system as I was raised in the Catholic community. I do not follow that belief system anymore for various reasons. Sexual orientation has not been proven to be either innate or environmental. It could be a combination of both. We do not yet know for certain. Regardless, my original comment was in reference to wanting people to change their orientation. According to the UMC’s position on human sexuality: “We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God. All persons need the ministry of the Church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all. We will seek to live together in Christian community, welcoming, forgiving, and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.” (http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066287&content_id={1F6BAEA8-E9EE-4867-B892-2F6871C78CB6}¬oc=1)
There is nothing that states that people should change their orientation. The Catholic church teaches the same. People should be accepted for who they are (as persons), even if they are “oriented in the wrong way”.
Lastly, in regards to this comment: ” Contrary to popular belief, having sex with the object of one’s desires is not the most important, fulfilling thing in life.” Gay people do not see others as objects of sexual desire. Some do, just like heterosexual people. But it is not all about sex. I love my boyfriend, he completes me, and I hope to start a family with him someday. I believe that each religious institution has the right to deal with the question of same-sex marriage in its own way. That is fine. But stating that conversion therapy is necessary for gay children, when one’s church does not endorse it concerns me (regarding the author of the post).
Comment by gary on November 25, 2013 at 5:01 pm
oops I threw up a little in my mouth when you said ” he completes me, and I hope to start a family with him someday.”
Comment by joey on November 25, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Gary, can you actually contribute to the discussion instead of insulting me.
Comment by Adrian Croft on December 2, 2013 at 6:17 pm
Maybe you have no clue how children have been conceived for several billion years, but it’s been around long enough that we can safely apply the term “normal” to it. Maybe in your circles the word “normal” is a curse word, but to the rest of us, the situation of some gay man and some lesbian concocting a child like some kids playing with a chemistry set just seems both comical and disgusting. In your normless subculture, you just don’t get it.
Btw, I’ve been on enough blogs to know that whenever a gay meets with the slightest resistance, he immediately screams “I’m insulted.” That is supposed to end the discussion immediately, but it isn’t going to. You’ll have to come up with something better than “He hurt my feelings!”
Comment by Joey on December 2, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Adrian, I never said that I was crying “He’s hurting me”. I just said that the comment was out of line and not appropriate. I have never called for an end to the discussion. I am addressing you, along with everyone else respectfully, but am not receiving the same respect back. Additionally, you keep throwing out “arguments” against same-sex marriage when the whole discussion isn’t even based around that. Regardless of your or even my opinions, there is always a way to respectfully address someone or an issue.
Comment by Adrian Croft on November 26, 2013 at 10:21 pm
If that makes you throw up, consider how the “conception” takes place. Not exactly the textbook definition of “romantic evening.”
Comment by joey on November 26, 2013 at 11:47 pm
Adrian, why don’t you actually contribute something to the discussion?
Comment by Steven on November 25, 2013 at 11:13 am
Yes, interject yourself into a personal struggle and give that person all the answers. Who needs God and prayer when we have conservative bashers who have all the answers?
Comment by joey on November 25, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Steven, I addressed your comment. My addition after was my personal belief. Take it or leave it. It does not change the fact that I did address your comment. I am not arguing over religion. I am presenting my background. You can believe what you want, I am fine with that.
Comment by joey on November 25, 2013 at 5:38 pm
I apologize, I addressed Daniel’s comment. I looked over the screen to quickly!
Comment by TSR on November 25, 2013 at 1:44 pm
First let’s clear the air, the UMC DOES NOT condemn any gay person and has gone to great lengths through dozens of General Conferences to point out the sacred value of every person, regardless of any of these things. Simply because the denomination will not condone marriage of two gay individuals nor permit practicing gay individuals into ordained ministry is not condemning, violent nor hate-drive in any way. The denomination’s embracing, open acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters is quite commendable. Love never has, and never will, imply total and absolute freedom to do whatever one desires or wishes or dreams up.
Comment by joey on November 25, 2013 at 5:33 pm
TSR I agree completely. My problem is that if the Church accepts its gay brothers and sister, why advocate to “change” their orientation? If the Church is fine with their orientation (as long as they remain chaste), why should it endorse “conversion therapy practices”?
Comment by Adrian Croft on December 2, 2013 at 6:19 pm
No one is stupid enough to believe that gay men are going to “remain chaste.” Period.
Then again, denominational executives and bishops might be that stupid.
Comment by dogen222@gmail.com on December 2, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Adrian, there are some gay people who do remain chaste. I have a Catholic friend who is.
Comment by writerJerome on July 1, 2014 at 12:21 am
The Gay Christian Network has thousands of members who are chaste. So does the Catholic group Courage. Adrian Croft is obsessed with male homosexuality, writes thousands of posts to different continents attacking gays. Studies show the loudest homophobes are often trying to drive out their own same-sex attractions. He may be projecting his own lack of chastity on others. He often uses vile language, so we got off light here.
Comment by David Christie on December 4, 2013 at 2:09 am
Joey,
The reason that, while the UMC accepts the inherent, God-given value of ALL people, the UMC’s ultimate mission is to reconcile the member’s souls to God based on God’s law, not personal whimsy. Homosexuality has been considered sinful behavior for a long time. It is a fairly new phenomenon that the church has moved so far to the left.
You are accepted into the UMC because you are a valued person who sins. You cannot be reconciled to God if you are an unrepentant sinner which being an active homosexual is. The UMC is to love YOU and facilitate you becoming reconciled to God. To do so, you will be required to eventually change your orientation. That’s God’s law, not the UMC or any other churches rules.
You are correct that homosexuality isn’t all about the sex. It is a heart issue and that is what God is interested. Until you repent of your sin and let God clean your heart, God’s judgement may or may not be very pleasant. And that concept applies to everyone no matter their sin problem. It is not just because of the homosexual issue.
Lastly, a true Christian will treat you with respect while they do not approve of the sin. It is not out of fear or bigotry. It is out of love for you that you be the best person you can be and, more importantly, the person God created you to be. The people that have been dogging you will be known by the fruit of their actions. Know that God is still in charge and all things will work out for those that love him. But it’s on God’s terms, not ours.
Comment by Joey on December 19, 2013 at 5:59 pm
David Christie, I don’t believe you understand my statement. There is a difference between being gay (having an attraction to the same-sex) and engaging in the activity. The UMC believe that being gay is not a sin but acting upon it is. My question is why should people be compelled to undergo “changes” to their sexual orientation if the Church accepts people’s orientations? It doesn’t make sense.
Comment by Dale on November 25, 2013 at 2:12 pm
Joey, you are obviously passionate about this issue, but thus far all you presented is your opinion and how you feel. How do you refute the studies presented? How do you reasonably address the points made in the article?
Comment by joey on November 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Dale, used the UMC website to illustrate that the Church will embrace gay people, but not gay marriage. It should not condone conversion therapy, like the author says.
Comment by Dale on November 25, 2013 at 9:45 pm
Joey, it didn’t endorse or, in your words, “condone” conversion therapy. It just said that it should be available if the person desires it. Are you saying that if a person doesn’t want to be gay, they should be forced to remain that way, with no options?
Comment by joey on November 25, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Dale, I addressed that in a comment to Jeff at 5:37 :” I am not advocating to ban the “therapy”. I think it is reasonable to allow it for adults. But for children. Regardless, the UMC accepts gay people, why should they need to change?”
Adults should be able to do whatever they want with their lives in regards to that. I don’t believe minors should be. If parents are forcing them to go to these “counselors”, I believe that is wrong.
Comment by David Christie on December 4, 2013 at 2:22 am
….and who should be forcing the children to these counselors. Are the children really in a mature enough mental state to make this decision? That’s one problem with this country that too many children are running it. And a lot of them are in elected office.
Children don’t have the experience or maturity to decide whether they are gay. Just because they question their life or “don’t fit in” doesn’t mean they are gay as the activists would have you believe.
There was a joke a few years ago that basically goes like this…….I used to have a drug problem. My parents drug me to church every Sunday and they drug me to church every Wednesday. Sometimes parents have to make the tough choices because the children don’t have a clue about life because they haven’t lived long enough. Doesn’t mean they are stupid but they don’t know what they don’t know.
Comment by Marco Bell on December 3, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Joey, you have remained a gentleman through this entire thread, and I also applaud you for that.
For reasons that escape me, others, such as Gary, and Adrian Croft haven’t accepted the concept of adoption. For straight OR Gay couples, adoption is an outstandingly loving and dignified choice for creating a family.
I wish you and your partner the very best in you endeavors to make this world a better place for ALL to live, and thrive!
May God bless you!
Comment by Joey on December 4, 2013 at 12:09 am
Marco, I greatly appreciate your comment. It bothers me to see people on both sides arguing without respect for one another, so I try my hardest to prevent that. And yes, they do fail to understand that concept.
Thank you very much for your kind words, and I will continue to push myself to make it a better place. I wish you well on your path as well. God bless!