Anglican Mainstream

By Matthew Hoffman, LifeSite News

Pastor Marco Feliciano, a Brazilian Evangelical who was recently elected as the chairman of the Human Rights Committee for the national Chamber of Deputies, is not satisfied with holding his ground against bitter protests and pressure to resign from homosexual activists and their allies. To the outrage of the country’s gay lobby, he is now introducing legislation to roll back the prohibitions placed on reparative therapy for homosexuality by the country’s Federal Council of Psychology (CFP).
 
The proposed legislation, authored by Evangelical deputy Joao Campos, would override parts of a resolution passed by the CFP in 1999, which prohibit psychologists from seeking to cure homosexuals of their sexual inclination or from endorsing the notion that their condition is any way psychologically disordered. A similar measure failed last year.

The CFP is a quasi-governmental body with the power to govern and restrict the activities of all Brazilian psychologists, and it has already used its authority to prohibit psychologists from screening out candidates to the Catholic priesthood for homosexuality, calling it “discrimination.” It has also acted to prohibit one psychologist, Rozangela Justino, from practicing reparative therapy, and has ordered psychologist Marisa Lobo, who also favors reparative therapy, to remove all references to her religious beliefs from her websites and public declarations. Lobo has refused.

Asked if the bill was intended as an act of provocation against homosexual activists who oppose his presidency of the Human Rights Committee, Feliciano answered: “It’s not.”

“The bill needs to move forward and I am not going to delay any bill, also because the committee has no bills [to examine],” added Feliciano. “The few bills that it has [before it] are controversial. I can’t shelve a bill because it would be cowardly to do so.”

Deputy Joao Campos told the media that “one of the basic principles of medical ethics is the autonomy of the patient. It’s as if the Federal Council of Psychology considered the homosexual as a minor child, incapable of self-determination.”

Read here

By Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

Recently, ex-gay spokesman John Paulk left his wife and three sons after more than 20 years of marriage and rejoined the gay community. He has renounced his former married life and is now discouraging others from attempting change.

Long ago, John emerged from a very troubled past. Prior to his Christian conversion, he assumed an identity as “Candi,” a cross-dressing and drug-using prostitute, immersing himself in the wilder and more anti-social aspects of the gay world. But his Christian conversion led him into a stark change: marriage with Anne, a former lesbian and a committed Christian woman dedicated to an orthodox understanding of family and sexuality, with whom he raised three sons, now teenagers. He also had a key position with Focus on the Family, where he became a well-known media figure testifying to his commitment to heterosexual family life and the traditional, Biblical understanding of sexuality, which holds that a gay identity is a false construct, not part of our human design. But now, all that life has crumbled.

As a reparative therapist who has worked with thousands of homosexually oriented men seeking change, and a friend of John’s for many years, I believe I am in a unique position to speculate on these recent events.

First, John’s story is a cautionary tale about ex-gay celebrity. There is an inherent risk in the ex-gay movement’s reliance on any public spokesperson.

Read here

From Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund

The extremist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has sued Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) in what it calls a "first of its kind" lawsuit in the nation. The guts of the case is that the SPLC claims that homosexuality is fixed and immutable and that any person or organization, including religious nonprofits, that try to help homosexuals overcome unwanted same-sex attractions are committing a fraud. Of course, this is ludicrous, since there are many thousands of former homosexuals who are now living lives in conformity with their religious values, either married to someone of the opposite sex or celibate.

By Andrew Comiskey

With grief I consider the irony of Exodus’ response to John Paulk’s immersion in gay culture (Exodus Blog, April 22; Paulk presided over Exodus in the nineties). Exodus used to focus on how Jesus leads persons out of homosexuality. Now Exodus appears to celebrate those who return to it.

Exodus VP Randy Thomas just wrote a glowing account of Paulk’s renunciation of his ‘ex-gay’ status. In the spirit of Exodus new ‘radical’ grace message, Thomas ‘agrees with 95%’ of what Paulk confided in him, commends him to us as ‘one pursuing the true meaning of grace’, and describes John as ‘a man without guile.’

Yet Thomas omits the fact that Paulk’s choices violate his vows to his wife and three boys who as teenagers need their father more than ever. Exodus seems more concerned with John’s authentic gay self than with the needs of his wife and kids.

If I was married to a SSA-struggler tied to Exodus, I would jump out of my skin. Dabbling in idolatry, even if married, now appears to be covered by Exodus’ ‘grace.’

Ironically, Thomas notes that Paulk ‘got very emotional talking about young people.’ Maybe father Paulk could stop grieving for gay teens and attend undividedly to the teens he sired. Maybe he could be encouraged to cry tears of repentance and return to them.

Perhaps John grieves for himself more than for anyone else. Such is the narcissism that drives any ‘ex-gay superstar’ as well as the ‘ex-ex-gay’ who cries victim rather than takes responsibility for his own bad choices.

Read here

Read also:  A sad day for the Paulks by Haydn Sennitt

By Michael Brown, Townhall.com

There was one particular testimony before the New Jersey Senate detailing the dangers of “gay conversion therapy” that was so riveting that it sounded like something taken straight out of a Hollywood script. It now appears that it was taken straight out of Hollywood. So, not only is the New Jersey Senate in danger of passing a terribly unfair, discriminatory bill, but the most compelling testimony presented appears to be a fabrication.

Before getting into the details of what appears to be an incredible hoax, it’s important to understand the nature of this very dangerous bill, which would make it illegal for a licensed therapist to offer professional help to a minor with unwanted same-sex attractions, even if the minor had parental permission.

Yet if that minor wanted to find out how to embrace those same-sex attractions, or if that minor felt he was a boy trapped in a girl’s body and wanted to explore hormone therapy with a view towards sex-change surgery, that would be fine. But let that same young person say, “I’m troubled by my same sex attractions and would like to explore the possibility of change,” that would be illegal if this outrageous bill passes.

Read here

By Mike Davidson and Dermot O'Callaghan

James and Janet would like to marry, but James worries that he experiences some latent sexual attraction to men. A
friend of his left his wife and children for another man and James does not want to risk this.

John is a therapist who has assisted some men in reducing same-sex attractions. James asks him for help but he declines.

The UK Council for Psychotherapy have introduced new rules forbidding such efforts as being “not in the patient’s best interests”. They claim that although “sometimes limited effect has been reported”, there is “overwhelming evidence that undergoing such therapy is at considerable emotional and psychological cost.”

This distresses James. He does not want to be harmed. He writes to the UKCP asking what the ‘overwhelming evidence’ is. Their polite reply evades the question. Then he is disturbed to hear on Radio 4 (Sunday programme, 3 February 2013) Dr Di Hodgson of UKCP say, “whether or not something works doesn’t mean that it is ethical or in the public interest or the right thing to do for someone. So we have taken a view in a way which is regardless of the scientific findings.”

So even if therapy might help him, the UKCP have taken a view “regardless of the scientific findings” that he has no right to receive it. And, sadly, John is living in fear of his own professional body. Something must be badly wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Cheryl Wetzstein, Washington Times

Read here

By Jessica Elgot, Huffington Post

A Christian campaigner for gay “conversion” therapy who is taking Boris Johnson to the High Court for the right to advertise on London buses, has said he is making a stand for the rights of people like himself.

Dr Mike Davidson, of Core Issues Trust, designed posters based on Stonewall’s "Some people are gay. Get over it!" to be put on London red buses.

His posters read: “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!".

Dr Davidson, who describes himself as having had homosexual feelings supressed by therapy, enabling him to marry and have children, said he was campaigning for the right to be recognised.

He told HuffPost UK: “I am tired of being told I am a repressed gay and that I am homophobic. It’s too easy folks, it belittles me because I disagree, and that is not right. It is profoundly uncomfortable that we cannot talk about this.

“We are not damaging gay folk, we are damaging people that do not want to go in that direction and want to seek help, but cannot.”

Johnson says the ad is not only offensive to gays but could lead to a retaliation against the wider Christian community.

The Huffington Post UK met Dr Davidson at the headquarters of Christian lobby group Christian Concern, which is backing his case, on the eve of the High Court case.

Read here

Read also:  Prayer Alert: Key freedom of expression case being heard – TODAY from Christian Concern

Listen to Dr Mike Davidson on BBC Radio 4

By David Barrett, Telegraph

Boris Johnson will this week face claims in the High Court that he failed to respect a Christian group’s right to free speech by banning their posters from the side of London buses.

The Mayor of London refused to run the advertisements which promoted the group’s view that homosexuals can be “reoriented” through therapy and prayer.

Mr Johnson said the ads by the Core Issues Trust were offensive to gays, and said they could even spark retaliation against the wider Christian community.

The posters said “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!” and was in response to a previous poster campaign by Stonewall, the gay rights group, which said: “Some people are gay. Get over it!”

Mr Johnson’s role puts him in charge of Transport for London, which is responsible for approving advertising on buses in the city.

On Thursday Dr Mike Davidson, the head of the trust, and his supporters will go to the High Court to claim Mr Johnson’s ban on their poster campaign should be reversed on the grounds that he unlawfully stifled free speech.

They are bringing a judicial review and Dr Davidson is hoping Transport for London (TfL) will be forced to accept the advertisements.

They argue that other advertising campaigns – including Stonewall’s, and campaigns for underwear – have been allowed TfL.

“This is all about being free to talk about these issues,” said Dr Davidson, who himself has a homosexual past, but has been attracted controversy for suggesting gays can become heterosexual through counselling and prayer.

Read here

By Miriam Grossman

[...]  I had an idea: Invite these men to come and speak to my colleagues at the counseling center. Have them describe their journeys to therapists who are convinced that therapy for unwanted same sex attraction is a dangerous scam.

• By neglecting to inform him that alternatives to gay-affirming therapy exist, thereby
  depriving him of the right to self-determination.
• By judging his traditional culture, and imposing theirs: your culture is
  homophobic and repressive. Ours is better.
• By depriving him of a source of hope, thereby worsening his emotional distress.

by Hilary White, LifeSite News

While pressure continues at the international level to prohibit psychotherapists from offering help to those wanting to overcome same-sex attraction, a Canadian therapist has told a British audience that such bans are “unethical.” A debate, billed as a discussion on the “legitimacy and freedom to offer sexual reorientation,” was held at Westminster in late January organized by Christian Concern and Core Issues Trust ahead of a debate in the House of Commons on the government’s “gay marriage” bill.

Dr. Joseph Berger, a consultant psychiatrist at the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Canada, and a practitioner of “change therapy,” attended the debate and said it “absolutely horrifies” him that some professional therapy organizations in Britain are attempting to prohibit therapists from offering it.

“There should be absolutely no ban on any such treatment. In fact, I consider it unethical to propose such bans,” Berger said.

In the debate, Berger said, “The idea to me in terms of any group coming and saying that should not be permitted in terms of people wanting to question their same-sex thoughts and desires and behaviors — that is what is unethical. That people would seek to stop that, would seek to ban it, would seek to try to throw such therapists out of their professional bodies, that to me is absolutely horrendous.”

Homosexual political activist Peter Tatchell, who was also on the debate panel, framed the issue entirely as a matter of “homophobia.' Tatchell said, “These therapists are not seeking to independently, objectively analyze sexual orientation.” Tatchell claimed that there is no evidence that the therapy works, saying it is wrong to give people “false hope” and that “we know from the evidence that there is virtually no possibility for 99.9 percent of people.”

But Dr. Berger said there is “tons” of evidence that contradicts this axiom of the homosexualist movement. “Considerable proportions” of people who come forward asking for help, “some studies suggest 33 percent, to other studies that come up as high as 79 percent,” have been helped. He added that claims that these therapies are harmful are anecdotal. Berger added, “I treat people, not homosexuality.”

Read here

by Christopher Doyle, Christian Post

Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." The lesson Dr. King taught us when he spoke those words, was that a righteous cause must be fueled by love, truth, and justice.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which claims to be "a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society," has been conducting a hate campaign for several years against former homosexual leaders, therapists, and persons with unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA).

The mission of SPLC's hate campaign is three-fold: 1) Character Assassination: spreading false and misleading information on their website and via the media about therapists who offer professional services to individuals with unwanted SSA; 2) Fabricate evidence and embellish the facts about the so-called "dangers" of sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) therapy; and 3) Recruit vulnerable and disgruntled clients to take legal action against organizations that offer assistance for those struggling with unwanted SSA in hopes to put them out of business.

The SPLC's method of character assassination is simple. Repeat a lie loud enough and long enough, and people will believe it. The first lie is that SOCE is inherently harmful to persons with unwanted SSA. On their website, an article entitled "10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked" lists #10 Myth: "Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality

Read here

By Dale Kuehne, Sharewik

[...]  These are just a few examples of a wide variety of human encounters I've had, and I’m not even a counselor. I can only imagine what professional therapists encounter on a day-to-day basis.

No two people are alike and when people are honest, they defy simple categorization. The study of human beings cannot be described as an exact science. We all have different backgrounds, different stories, and genetic markers. While it is the case that humans are somewhat predictable, such as the fact that those of us who are sexually abused as kids usually fall apart when we get to the 40’s, but even so not every victim does, and if we do, we fall apart in uncommonly common ways.

All of this is to bring up a question to which I cannot fathom an answer.

Why are various professional associations of psychologists and psychiatrists aggressively seeking to outlaw therapies that assist clients who have sexual attractions that confuse or concern them?

And why do they do this in the name of "science?"

Recently, at the urging of such professional associations and professional, the state of California passed such a law, only to have it overturned by the courts.

In late January I was present for a debate at the British Parliament in which a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists was adamant about the damage that is done to anyone who seeks to change an unwanted sexual attraction. I was surprised when he spoke as though the scientific literature strongly supports the idea that genetic and bio-chemical factors are the two primary causes of sexual attraction, and left speechless when he concluded that any client who comes to a professional therapist for help in dealing with unwanted sexual attraction should be turned away.

Read here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

Rosaria Butterfield is an ex-lesbian English academic and one-time professor of 'queer theory', now married to a pastor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

She has written a fascinating autobiographical account entitled 'The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith' which is just starting to make waves in cyberspace.

Read here

by Stefano Gennarini, J.D., Turtle Bay & Beyond

The agressive homosexual lobby is not interested in merely securing tolerance and preventing violence against homosexuals and others who identify themselves on the basis of their non-orthodox sexual preferences. They are interested in purging the universe of what they call “heterosexism.”

At an event held at the Church Center for the United Nations in New York last week, across the street from the General Assembly Hall, this kind of agressive activism was on display fo the select few who attended a panel discussion on reparative therapy. Those in attendance, roughly fifty people in the eight floor room, were treated to three hours of propaganda from leading same-sex peddlers from academia, the medical profession, and national and international legal organizations.

Despite acknowledging that 17% of homosexuals who attend this kind of therapy achieve some degree of success, panelists presented it as fundamentally a moral problem – homosexuality must be embraced, period.

Panelists made more or less deft presentations on how homosexuals are being cheated into thinking that reparative therapy is an option at their disposal, and how young children and teenagers are being forced to this kind of therapy by intolerant parents and religious leaders. Toiko Kleppe , senior counsel on LGBT issues with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was happy to re-peat the oft repeated mantra that there is nothing new about homosexual rights in international law, even though there is no such thing. She even went close to speaking about reparative therapy as a human rights violation.

Read here

by Peter Saunders, CMF

This morning I took part in a short documentary on the Radio Four Sunday programme on ‘change therapies’ for those with unwanted feelings of same sex attraction.

The presenter was Ed Stourton.

‘Change therapy’ (more accurately SOCEs – sexual orientation change efforts) is aimed at altering the strength and direction of sexual feelings and is currently banned in the UK by counselling organisations such as the BACP and UKCP. ‘Change therapists’, however, continue to practise under auspices of professional counselling bodies in the US and Canada.

The UK ban is primarily on the basis of the argument that sexual orientation is biologically caused and fixed, that change is therefore impossible and that therapy aimed at change is harmful (I have previously critiqued this view here, here and here).

[...]  Mike Davidson, a therapist who has been suspended by the UKCP for practising ‘change therapy’, conceded that it is not for everyone but argued that clients should not be banned from seeking it:

‘Any therapy in the wrong hands is potentially damaging but therapy that overrides a person’s right to choose the pathway that suits them and is consistent with their own values is damaging. So I’m not arguing that everybody should change, or that everybody can change, but I think people need to have the right to explore the possibility if that is what they want.’

He went on to argue that much of the objection to ‘change therapy’ is not actually evidence-based but rather ideology-driven.

‘I think one of the reasons that there is such a reaction to this is that it is perceived to be a threat to the idea that homosexuality is innate and therefore unchangeable. Anything that comes along that demonstrates that actually the reverse is true, that in some cases it can be changed – and certainly homosexual feelings can be reduced and sometimes eliminated – is a threat to that ideological position.’

Read here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

A woman who is happily married with children falls in love with another woman but is desperate to keep her marriage together. Should she be able to accept professional help to deal with her unwanted feelings of same sex attraction?

A bisexual man wants to marry his girlfriend but is worried that his residual feelings of erotic attraction to other men might jeopardise the relationship. Should he be able to seek professional help?

Currently in Britain the answer is ‘no’ but these questions were at the very heart of a fascinating debate that took place in the House of Commons this week under the title ‘Sexual reorientation therapy: Freedom to change?’

The event was subtitled ‘Should people be able to change their sexual orientation?’ and was billed as being ‘a debate about the legitimacy and freedom to offer sexual reorientation when many professional bodies are banning such therapies’.

Read here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

Yesterday in Parliament I attended a meeting where four leading figures engaged in a lively debate on therapy for those with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction.

The debate focussed on the legitimacy of, and freedom to offer, ‘change therapy’ (more accurately SOCEs – sexual orientation change efforts), which is aimed at altering the strength and direction of sexual feelings.

Dr Michael Davidson of CORE Issues (who is about to undergo a disciplinary procedure for using it) and Canadian psychiatrist Dr Joseph Berger (who uses it regularly) were supporting change therapy.

Psychiatrist Professor Michael King (who is its most vehement critic) and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell were against it.

Although members of the mainstream press were present the debate has so far been reported only by Christian Concern, Pink News and Gay Star News.

Tatchell and King essentially argued that homosexual orientation was biologically caused and fixed, that change was impossible and that change therapies were damaging and unethical.

I will come back to King in another blog but I was particularly intrigued by the hard line position taken by Tatchell.

Tatchell (pictured) summed up his position on the causes of homosexuality by dismissing cultural and environmental factors: ‘The overwhelming mass of scientific and medical evidence shows that homosexual orientation is the product of inheritance and hormonal influences in the womb.’

King, the scientist, wasn’t anywhere as dogmatic about this and suggested that no one really knew the cause. Tatchell, however, firmly stood his ground.

To those who are acquainted with Tatchell’s writings this announcement marked a huge departure from his previous stance. Rather than accept the view that people are born gay, he has actually been one of its chief opponents.

On his own website in an article titled ‘Born or Made Gay?’ he argues as follows:

Read here