Ripping Our Society to Shreds

There was a time when civil rights were understood to mean those enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Now, at least in the State of Massachusetts, they mean the right of homosexuals and transgender people to flaunt their lifestyle anywhere, any time. If you don’t like it and say so, the police can arrest you.

I have always been a live-and-let-live kind of person. I consider a person’s sexual preferences to be their own business. No longer. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender crowd is determined to impose their sexual “orientations” on everyone, starting in, but not limited to schools.

On November 16, the Massachusetts legislature pushed through a controversial “Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes” bill. The whole process was so unethical as to be breathtaking. In two hours, the bill went from committee release to re-write, to a late-night House vote and early-morning Senate final passage. The Senate, unlike the House, passed it by voice vote to avoid a roll call to identify who supported it. 

Wham, bam, thank you Maam. 

Apparently, in Massachusetts the proper review, discussion, and passage of legislation only applies to those laws not favored by its homosexual lobby.

As MassResistance, a pro-family group, noted, “Its passage appears to be timed to coincide with ‘Transgender Awareness Week’ in Massachusetts.” Since when did that State or any other get to the point of having such absurd events? Since when have we reached a point where any spoken objection to Gay Pride parades or similar events can be deemed a crime? It’s not a crime. It’s free speech. 

MassResistance noted that Governor Deval Patrick “a strong supporter of homosexual and transgender movements will sign the bill within days. The only Republican in the state legislature to vote for the bill was Rep. Dan Winslow who just happens to have been former Gov. Romney’s chief legal counsel and is credited with facilitating gay marriages in Massachusetts. 

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a man with a woman. To redefine this institution, central to all societies, is to shred the bonds and standards on which society is based. What we have learned, however, is that homosexuals are not content with being granted civil unions with rights comparable to marriage. 

The arrogance this represents is appalling, but the implications of the homosexual and transgender lobby’s efforts have far greater implications for everyone, but especially for families who do not want their children exposed to “choices” they are too young to understand and which their parent’s faith or beliefs disapprove. These matters do not belong in a school curriculum.

Making homosexuality “mainstream” and doing so by force of law runs counter to common community values that Americans have held since the nation’s founding. Exercising tolerance is one thing, but facing jail for any act of disapproval is quite another. 

Who defines a “hate crime” and when did America begin to criminalize thought, as opposed to action? The answer is that hate crime legislation is the invention of the gay lobby.

Now, for your edification, here is the actual text of Section 7 of chapter 4 as amended by the following clause:

“Fifty-ninth, "Gender identity" shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth. Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, as part of a person's core identity; provided however, gender-related identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.”

So, are we to assume that anyone can claim “gender identify” any time someone objects to the way they dress or behave in school, at work, or in any public place? This opens the door to a lot of cross-dressing and other folks who want to pursue their lifestyle no matter what affect it has on others. 

These are not women. They are cross-dressing men

who got together at Capone's Restaurant, Peabody, MA

Source: Massresistance.org

A case in point. In 2010, Capone’s Restaurant in Peabody, Massachusetts tossed out a group of men dressed as women who were upsetting its customers and even using the woman’s restrooms. When the new law goes into effect, the restaurant will be subject to fines, as would be its customers if found guilty of trying to “intimidate” them with their reaction to their presence.

This isn’t about gender. It isn’t about intolerance. It isn’t about civil rights. It is about the all-out assault on the rights of the majority heterosexual society to assert commonly held values regarding sexually-related behavior as it affects society as a whole..

© Alan Caruba, 2011

Poster of the Week

Need we say more? This is from an Occupy Wall Street protester.

Gay Marriage is an equality to far!

Courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com:

MANCHESTER, October 24, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian property manager in England has been demoted, taken a £14,000/year pay cut and narrowly avoided the sack for commenting on Facebook that Christian churches should not be forced to participate in same-sex union ceremonies.

54-year-old Adrian Smith was declared by a tax-funded housing trust to be guilty of “gross misconduct” after he called allowing same-sex ceremonies in churches “an equality too far” in a Facebook comment thread.

54-year-old Adrian Smith was found guilty of "gross misconduct" by The Trafford Housing Trust.

Writing on his own Facebook page, which was not accessible to anyone other than his Facebook friends, Smith had responded to a BBC news item about a controversial new law that would allow churches to conduct same-sex union ceremonies. Asked if his comment meant that he did not approve of the proposed law, Smith wrote, “No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church.

“The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.”

The trust summoned Smith from home to a disciplinary meeting after another staff member complained. The Trafford Housing Trust, (THT) which manages homes in Sale, Greater Manchester, removed Smith from his managerial position that paid £35,000 per year, reemploying him as a £21,000/ year “adviser.”

With legal help from the Christian Institute, Smith is suing, saying the trust breached its contract by violating his rights to free speech and religious liberty.

The trust made a statement to the BBC, saying that its updated code of conduct “clearly set out what use employees can make of social networking sites such as Facebook.”

“Some three months after this new code was issued, Mr. Smith, without our authority or knowledge and on a Facebook page that identified him as a manager at Trafford Housing Trust, made comments that were found, by a full disciplinary investigation in which he had trade union representation, to be in breach of the company’s code of conduct and other policies.

“Mr. Smith was disciplined for his breach of company policy. The trust made no comment about any personal beliefs that he holds.”

Smith’s lawyer, Tom Ellis of Manchester-based law firm Aughton Ainsworth, said that Smith was “shocked and distressed” over the incident.

“As a Christian, Adrian believes in the values of fairness, courtesy and respect for the opinions of others. These are the values of a mature and healthy society.

“Surely that leaves room for colleagues to discuss and even disagree about the topics of the day. Conversations like that happen in offices and factories up and down the country every day.”

The incident has aroused outrage among some of the UK’s popular newspaper columnists, even on the left. Ally Fogg, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper, noted that Smith had “politely expressed some relatively mild views” on the issue. “If the trust was concerned about its reputation for inclusiveness and tolerance, it couldn’t have got things more badly wrong,” Fogg wrote.

Move from Homosexuality to Heterosexuality possible and Harmless

Courtesy of David Prudent from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH):

Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Evidence of Long-Term Outcomes

Reviewed by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D.

(October, 2011) The best-designed study of sexual-orientation change efforts (SOCE) to date, has just concluded in a follow-up report that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts.

The original study was published in 2007 by Stanton Jones, Ph.D., of Wheaton College, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., of Regent University, in their book, “Ex-Gays?”. The follow-up study has just appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.

In the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, the authors conclude:

Evidence from the study suggested that change of homosexual orientation appears possible for some and that psychological distress did not increase on average as a result of the involvement in the change process” (Jones & Yarhouse, 2011, p. 404).

Study methods

The authors followed 98 individuals (72 men and 26 women) who undertook SOCE through the assistance of a variety of  Christian ministries over a period of 6-7 years. The authors’ motivation for conducting this study was, in part, that the American Psychological Association had gone on the record indicating that change in sexual orientation was not possible, and that risks to those who engage in such efforts could be significant.

The authors note that the APA has moderated its viewpoint somewhat since then, fluctuating between statements that sexual-orientation change is “uncommon,” to the view that science “cannot yet” make conclusive statements about such change from the available literature.

The rigor of their own research standards, Jones and Yarhouse indicate, in fact meets many of the requirements that the APA itself has asserted are necessary in order to make reasonably definitive conclusions about the actuality of such change.

Participants in the Jones-Yarhouse study were first assessed at the beginning of their involvement in SOCE (from 1-3 years); again at 3 years, and again at the 6-7 year mark. Findings from the first two assessments were published earlier in the book, Ex-Gays? (2007).

Standardized and widely accepted measures of sexual orientation and psychological distress were administered at each assessment period. At the final time of assessment, attrition had reduced the available sample to 64%, which is not unusual for longitudinal studies.

Study findings

The results after 6-7 years of SOCE involvement, presented below, indicate that change does indeed occur, although not for
everyone.

• Success: Conversion:  23% (n = 14) of the sample reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.
• Success: Chastity: 30% (n = 18) reported that homosexual attraction was still present, but only incidentally or in a way that did not seem to bring distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.
• Continuing: 16% (n = 10) reported modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.
• Nonresponse: 7% (n = 4) reported no significant sexual orientation change; they had not given up on the change process, but some were confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.
• Failure: Confused: 5% (n = 3) reported no significant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process, but without yet embracing a gay identity.
• Failure: Gay identity: 20% (n = 12) had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.

Jones and Yarhouse observed that from the point-of-view of the ministries involved in their study, 53% of the sample therefore had self-categorized as achieving “some version of success,” and 25% had self-categorized as failure.

As regards harm, the study participants on average did not report experiencing harm due to SOCE during the course of their pursuit of change.  In fact, two of the indicators of psychological distress actually improved significantly over the time of the study.

Discussion

Jones and Yarhouse conclude that “the findings of this study appear to contradict the commonly expressed view that sexual orientation is not changeable” (p. 425).  and that attempts to change are not likely to be harmful.

While the authors believe their research clearly contradict the pessimism regarding SOCE that has been promulgated by the APA, they do acknowledge that their study has limitations.

First, the average change in sexual orientation was modest, although they noted that this is likely to be an artifact of average change scores including some participants who made dramatic shifts away from homosexual orientation and fewer participants who reported dramatic shifts to a gay identity.  In other words, the dramatic changes toward heterosexual response clearly made by some participants may have been offset by changes toward homosexual response in others, so that the overall average change in sexual orientation for the sample appeared to be modest.

Second, participants who had begun the change process prior to the start of the study appeared to have disproportionately positive outcomes compared to participants inducted into the study early in their pursuit of change.  This may indicate that some weeding-out of individuals who were not successful in changing sexual orientation occurred in the time between the onset of pursuit of change and the initial collection of data.  Although there is no way to know this for sure, Jones and Yarhouse imply that it is probably wise to view their study’s success rate for the change process undertaken in Christian ministries as a somewhat optimistic figure.

A third limitation is the relatively small sample size, which makes any generalization of these findings to the population of individuals pursuing SOCE tentative.  That said, the size of the sample is not uncommon in the longitudinal research that has been widely accepted as representative of samples in other subject domains.  Finally, the authors note that, given the study design, it was not possible to determine which components of the participants’ change process were responsible for the outcomes reported.

Comment

No doubt this study will be dismissed by skeptics who for ideological reasons remain dogmatically unwilling to acknowledge the reality of sexual orientation change in some people. However, Jones and Yarhouse’s study of SOCE should go a long way toward putting to rest two extreme positions:  i.e., that change always occurs and is simply a choice, or that change never occurs and is generally harmful.

It is also worth remembering that this study did not examine SOCE’s  that occur in the context of psychotherapy.  The subjects in this study received their counseling in Christian ministries. It is certainly within the realm of plausibility that the inclusion of professional psychological care, over and above participants’ involvement in Christian ministries, would increase positive outcomes.

The hallmark of a scientific organization that is not beholden to socio-political interests is a heightened curiosity at unexpected findings, and a subsequent dedication to understanding how such findings came to be.  In the case of change in sexual orientation, which had been purported to be impossible, this implies a dedication to study those individuals who report change in order to identify the active ingredients of change and thereby maximize its potential among SOCE consumers.

Unfortunately, however, the major mental-health associations appear to be moving further away from a purely scientific approach and toward one apparently directed by activists, whereby the purpose of their science does not seem to be understanding those who report change, but rather debunking, dismissing, and ignoring them.  Thus while Jones and Yarhouse will win no accolades or awards from the APA, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that their research exemplifies the best in scientific curiosity and courage.

Reference

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M.A. (2007). Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers  Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2011). A longitudinal study of attempted religiously mediated sexual orientation change.  Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 404-427. DOI: 10.1080/009263X.2011.607052

Where were the churches’ in fight against Don’t Ask repeal?

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of America’s most seasoned war generals expressed frustration at the silence of Christian churches as the U.S. military’s ban on open homosexuality fell to a repeal effort earlier this year.

Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin described at the Values Voter Summit on Saturday the exasperation of pro-family leaders in Washington who found themselves abandoned by church leaders unwilling to make a stand for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Boykin, who spent the majority of his career in the Special Forces, was mission commander of the battle portrayed in the Hollywood movie “Black Hawk Down,” and accepted the surrender of Panama military dictator Manuel Noriega in 1989.

Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin at the Values Voter Summit on Saturday.

According to Boykin, “nobody in this country fought a greater fight” against normalizing homosexuality in the military than Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, himself a former Marine who joined forces with senator and fellow veteran John McCain.

“John McCain kept turning to Tony Perkins saying, ‘Where’s the church? Where are the spiritual leaders?” said Boykin.

“The answer was, they were silent. The church was silent.”

Join a Facebook page to defend marriage here. 

Besides a large number of military chaplains, few church leaders in America spoke up publicly against the Obama administration’s campaign last year to pass the repeal in Congress.

Notably, while the Vatican had released a statement in 1992 supporting a ban on open homosexuality in the military, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops remained silent on the repeal effort, leaving military Archbishop Timothy Broglio to defend the ban alone. When questioned on the controversy in December 2010, Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl demurred, saying “there isn’t a specific Catholic Church position” on the issue.

Boykin, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, told his conservative audience, “Christians have to rise up like a mighty army to be the salt and light.”

“Today, the church has lost its moral authority. The church has ceded its authority to the ACLU, and CODEPINK and MoveOn.org. They’re the ones with the real influence today,” he said. The veteran pointed to Europe as a good example of what will happen if America continues to lose sight of its identity as “founded on Judaeo-Christian principles.”

“Europe is hopelessly lost,” he said. “Folks, this could happen in America if we continue to be asleep, if the church does not rise up. The church has to get back to the fundamentals ... of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“We have to stop compromising on the gospel of Christ because ... we’re afraid somebody’s gonna be offended. Let me tell you something: when the Gospel of Jesus Christ offends people, that’s exactly when they need to hear it.”

School Bullies Student for Opposing Homosexuality

Courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com:

FORT WORTH, Texas, October 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Texas school where a teen was punished for saying homosexuality was wrong has apologized and stated the boy “has the right to express an opinion in a manner consistent with law and policy.”

The Fort Worth Independent School District has issued a letter fully vindicating high school freshman Dakota Ary, who was given in-school suspension for telling another student that he believes homosexuality is wrong because of his Christian faith.

Dakota Ary

The school’s letter is in response to a letter from the Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel, which is representing Dakota, requesting full vindication and a full retraction of the suspension. The district’s letter will be placed in Dakota’s permanent file to further clear his record.

The controversy surrounded an incident that happened when Dakota was in Kristopher Franks’ German language class at Western Hills High School and the topic of homosexuality arose. Dakota said to one of his classmates, “I’m a Christian and, to me, being homosexual is wrong.” Franks overheard the comment, wrote Dakota an infraction, and sent him to the principal’s office.

In the discipline referral form, Franks charged Dakota with “possible bullying” and indicated, “It is wrong to make such a statement in public school.”

Join a Facebook page to defend marriage here.  

Two weeks prior to this event, Franks had displayed a picture of two men kissing on a “World Wall” and told his students that homosexuality is becoming more prevalent in the world and that they should just accept it. Many of the students were reportedly offended by his actions and his continually bringing up the topic of homosexuality in a German language class. The teacher was temporarily placed on administrative leave with pay last week.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, praised the school’s vindication of Ary.

“No public school teacher should use the position of authority to bully students to accept homosexuality. That is what this teacher did, and he got his hand caught in the cookie jar,” said Staver. “We want to make sure this never again happens to any student.”

Gay ‘marriage’ in high demand? Not according to the U.S. census

Chuck Colson

Column by Chuck Colson:
October 5, 2011 (Breakpoint.org) - The pressure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples keeps increasing. The impression is given that thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians are unable to do the one thing they want to do more than anything else: That is, have a wedding.

As if to prove the point, the US Census Bureau announced that it would be counting same-sex households in the 2010 Census. In August the Bureau announced that there are nearly a million. I was surprised by the small number.

But this past week, they reduced their estimate of same sex couple households by nearly thirty percent. In fact, it turns out that there are fewer than 650,000. That’s about six tenths of one percent of total US households.

But an even greater shocker for me was the number of same-sex married households. Gay marriage is legal in six jurisdictions. In Massachusetts, it’s been the law since 2004. Same-sex couples can get married, for example, in Massachusetts and Washington, DC, and live anywhere because nobody’s enforcing DOMA anymore in view of litigation. And yet there are only 131,729 households headed by married same-sex couples. That’s two-tenths of one percent of married households. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

This census data exposes the two biggest myths created about gay marriage.

The first is that there’s a huge demand for it. No way! In fact, there’s hardly any demand at all. Gay couples are not lined up at city halls hoping for a marriage license.

The second myth is the so-called “marriage equity” argument: That this is just another civil rights movement. Are you going to tell me that it was possible to fuel the civil rights movement with 646,000 couples, when only 131,000 had a real stake in it? It’s laughable.

I have never believed that gays wanted to marry. Their behavior by its very nature is too promiscuous. Gay relationships are for the most part sexually open rather than exclusive.

For us to redefine marriage, thereby altering thousands of years of human history, ignoring all of the benefits marriage offers to individuals, cultures, civilizations and — above all — children, for the sake of 646,000 same-sex households, only 131,000 of which are married, is madness.

Gays and lesbians don’t want marriage; they want their sexual choices affirmed as normal and moral. And that’s what’s behind the blacklisting, boycotting, and suing anybody who even questions homosexuality. They don’t want anyone telling them that how they live is morally problematic. Gays are actively trying to destroy marriage and will take away our freedom of speech and religion in order to do it.

Does this take the church off the hook? No. For years we have helped deconstruct marriage, winking at cohabitation and allowing easy divorce. We’ve allowed politicians to pass bad divorce laws and to loosen the moral standards surrounding marriage. Now it’s all coming back to haunt us. But our job is to rebuild marriage as a sacred institution and to stand our ground and defend it, come what may, from what appears to be a tiny minority.

Reprinted with permission from Breakpoint.org