Michelle Bachmann and Ex-Gays
July 18th, 2011
I Am a Man
By Greg Quinlan
Why have gay activists instigated media attention over ex-gays and the husband of Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann?
Apparently, Mr. Bachmann, who has a PhD in clinical psychology, operates several counseling centers which also offer services to homosexual clients seeking to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. But because even one ex-gay proves that homosexual behavior is not innate or immutable, the gay lobby’s fear of their former members results in false claims and attacks aimed at preventing homosexuals from exercising their right to self-determination. They cannot bear to have even one homosexual leave homosexuality, hence their outrage at Dr. Bachmann.
I know because I am ex-gay myself. I suffer more harassment as a former homosexual than I ever did as an out and proud homosexual.
The ex-gay community includes thousands of former homosexuals like myself who benefited from counseling. We did not choose our homosexual feelings, but we did exercise our right to seek help to change those feelings. As a registered nurse, I saw hundreds of gay men die of AIDS before I finally left the gay lifestyle.
Contrary to the myths being generated by outraged homosexuals, counseling for unwanted same-sex attractions is not prohibited by any medical association. Unhappy homosexuals are not children in need of parental permission and can freely choose their own therapeutic treatment just like anyone else.
The Bachmann incident demonstrates that as homosexuals gain more civil rights, heterosexuals are losing theirs. Because gays are a wealthy and politically powerful minority, they claim access to media attention, political power and corporate influence that middle America does not have.
Dependent on the wealth of the gay community for his election and reelection campaigns, President Obama vigorously implements gay, bisexual and transgender policies at every level of the federal government, yet omits the only unpopular status of sexual orientation — that of ex-gay. But to his credit, Obama refused to cave in to homosexuals when they demanded he remove ex-gay singer Donnie McClurkin from a campaign fundraiser.
President Obama needs to demonstrate that kind of courage once more, and support those who change their sexual orientation as much as he supports those who change their gender. But who will ask him? A jittery media fearful of gay reprisals remain silent, a further testament to homosexual influence and power.
While the media look the other way, the ex-gay community is being harassed and publicly denounced by unforgiving gay activists because of our unpopular sexual orientation.
Wayne Besen of the hate group Truth Wins Out, and other modern day Sauls, stalk and expose ‘out’ ex-gays in a negative light to ensure that they retreat back into the closet. Lambda Legal supports the establishment of GLBT Centers at public universities but blocks any attempt at ex-gay equal access. Corporate shareholder resolutions to include ex-gays in anti-discrimination policies are repeatedly defeated by the gay community.
Keep reading.
Categories: Gay and Lesbian, gay lobby, Political Correctness, Politics & Marriage ex-gay, gay lobby, Homosexuality, politics
Loading ...
Where is the “tolerance” demanded by the homosexualists? And what about the claims from the homosexualists that SSM will not cause harm to anyone?
“The Bachmann incident demonstrates that as homosexuals gain more civil rights, heterosexuals are losing theirs. Because gays are a wealthy and politically powerful minority, they claim access to media attention, political power and corporate influence that middle America does not have.”
As Blessed Pope John Paul II warned and Dr. J reminds us, we cannot afford to be idle. Pray for strength.
Thank you for your efforts Greg.
Dude, you’re not “ex-gay.” You are bisexual, choosing to live in a heterosexual relationship.
In any event, I agree with the author that people should have the freedom to seek whatever therapy they want. However, I don’t agree that kids should be forced by their parents to attend “ex-gay therapy” because I think that such a practice can cause intense harm to that child. What children crave from their parents is acceptance and unconditional love.
“But because even one ex-gay proves that homosexual behavior is not innate or immutable,”
No it doesn’t. It proves either that the “ex-gay” was bisexual, not gay to begin with, or it proves that people are perfectly capable of lying to themselves. There have been plenty of gay men who married women and had children with them, only to later divorce. That doesn’t change the fact that those men are gay, even if they choose to live contrary to their nature out of guilt or shame.
Finally, I don’t think that the furor over Mr. Bachmann is all about his counseling center. It has more to do with his comments about gay people, including that we are “barbarians.” It also has to do with the fact that Mr. Bachmann exhibits traits that are typically associated with gay men, which in turn creates the question of whether Mr. Bachmann himself is a so-called “ex-gay” or one that is still in the closet…
This is typical of God’s economy; an ex-gay guy becomes a mighty warrior for the truth.
God bless you in the fight, Greg!
@Heidi So, you decided that the guy is bisexual rather than ex-gay?! Who are you to tell people what their real orientation is?!?!? Typical, and the proof of what he said – the reason you have to make him bisexual is because you won’t allow such a thing as ex-gay to exist.
As for children, they aren’t ever “gay” until someone brainwashes them to be.
@Heidi
“It also has to do with the fact that Mr. Bachmann exhibits traits that are typically associated with gay men, which in turn creates the question of whether Mr. Bachmann himself is a so-called “ex-gay” or one that is still in the closet…”
Are you stereotyping?
@Heidi
“What children crave from their parents is acceptance and unconditional love.”
Love includes moral direction. Limits make children feel safe. And loved.
Heidi, you seem very certain that feeling homosexual attraction justifies the pursuit. I’m wondering, how do you distinguish between which attractions are acceptable to pursue and those which aren’t?
For example, if a child feels “from the time they are 8” that they are sexually drawn to their parent, do they have the right to pursue it? Maybe when they’re older? I mean, they shouldn’t have to go through their life denying their sexual orientation, should they? They shouldn’t be forced into therapy to deny who they really are, right? That could be very harmful to them……
For the sake of the example, let’s assume the parent and the child are the same sex, since that’s not an issue for you and so we don’t need to waste time talking about potential genetic implications……just the “morality” of it.
Just because you “feel it” doesn’t mean you’re supposed to do it. The idea that homosexual inclination is real does not in any way justify acting on it. There are impulses we are supposed to oppose. That’s what distinguishes us from the other animals. It’s not personal or oppressive. It’s just the way it is.
“Who are you to tell people what their real orientation is?!?!?”
Gee, straight people do it all the time to gay people: “you chose your sexual orientation!” Turnabout is fair play. And any reputable therapist knows there’s no reliable way to alter sexual orientation.
“There are impulses we are supposed to oppose. That’s what distinguishes us from the other animals. It’s not personal or oppressive. It’s just the way it is.”
When straight people start controlling their urges, then we’ll ask gay people to control theirs. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and acting accordingly with a consenting adult.
@Sean It is a fact that you do choose your sexual orientation. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. And it is a fact that one can choose to change their orientation – thousands of ex-gays prove that daily. But that doesn’t fit with your “born that way” agenda. Keep lying to yourself to justify yourself. Normal people do control their impulses, which is why you don’t see sex everywhere on the street. We’re not a bunch of animals, although you want to allow behavior as if we are. There is everything wrong with being homophile, and the evidence has been provided to you many, many times.
@Sean
“And any reputable therapist knows there’s no reliable way to alter sexual orientation.”
Of course, you are referring to pedophelia, polygamy and incest? So we can begin legislating and teaching the benefits of all of these unalterable orientations in schools as well?
Let me preemtively address the inevitable “pedophelia doesn’t count because it’s not consenting adults” response: The consitent arguments from the homosexual community is that they “knew from the time they were 8 that they were gay”; minors are given condoms and directions to the abortion clinic at school; and teenagers (even pre-teens) are “identifying their sexual orientation” and engaging in sexaul behaviour well before adulthood.
The arguments and laws cut both ways. If sexual orientation and impulse is justification for behaviour, you don’t get to draw the line around your own preferences. (Unless you’re Sean or Heidi).
“When straight people start controlling their urges, then we’ll ask gay people to control theirs. ”
When straight people allow their urges to run their lives, society calls them out on it….they don’t justify it and then teach it in schools as “good”.
@Sean
My initial inclination was to include rape as a sexual orientation. I realized that the inevitable response would be “It’s not consenting adults” so I left it out.
The reality is that homosexual couples can create orphans for their personal use. So if simple impulse without regard for potential victims is the definition of sexual orientation, then I say rape counts and it is only fair that we should legalize it and teach it as “good” in schools.
Wouldn’t you agree, Sean?
@Heidi
Heidi, please list, exactly, all those traits “that Mr. Bachmann exhibits … that are typically associated with gay men”. You said it, you back it up.
And then tell me how you are not stereotyping.
“It is a fact that you do choose your sexual orientation. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.”
Then tell us when and where you chose to be straight. Who were you with when you made the decision? Did you do a lot of research before making the decision? Did you ask your parents to help you weigh the pros and cons of being straight or gay or bi?
Why has no one written a book or pamphlet entitled, “Picking the Right Sexual Orientation for You!”? If human sexuality is chosen, one would think that the experts would be offering us advice on which one to choose, based on our life goals and needs!
“And it is a fact that one can choose to change their orientation – thousands of ex-gays prove that daily.”
There is no evidence that anyone has changed his or her sexual orientation. There are people who have chosen to refrain from acting on their longings, because of religious or social bigotry, but there’s no one who was gay and transformed into straight, or straight and transformed into gay. Where are the ex-straights, and why are they so silent?
“Keep lying to yourself to justify yourself.”
You’re the one who’s deceiving himself. You keep telling lies, as if they’ll become true through repetition.
“The arguments and laws cut both ways. If sexual orientation and impulse is justification for behaviour, you don’t get to draw the line around your own preferences. (Unless you’re Sean or Heidi).”
Your argument lacks a moral element: you can’t act on impulses that harm someone else. Even though you homophobes love to smear gay and lesbian people by associating them with pedophilia, incest and polygamy, your efforts fail, because you are comparing a normal, productive sexual orientation that harms no one, with behaviors that are harmful or are disfavored. Being gay or lesbian isn’t a behavior, it is a personal characteristic, like race or eye color.
It is perfectly legal and constitutional to outlaw pedophilia (it harms children), or incest and polygamy (outlawing them doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights).
“When straight people allow their urges to run their lives, society calls them out on it….they don’t justify it and then teach it in schools as “good”.”
But for the most part, straight peoples’ bad behavior is perfectly legal. Let’s offer equal legal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, too. If Americans don’t care that these days, straight people get married multiple times in their lifetimes, it’s hypocritical to decry the “damage” same-sex couples would do to marriage when same-sex marriage is legal.
“The reality is that homosexual couples can create orphans for their personal use. So if simple impulse without regard for potential victims is the definition of sexual orientation, then I say rape counts and it is only fair that we should legalize it and teach it as “good” in schools.
Wouldn’t you agree, Sean?”
The definition of sexual orientation has nothing to do with children, it has to do with what gender a person is attracted to do. Rape is not even about sex, it’s about power, from what I’ve read. Comparing human sexuality, straight or gay, to rape shows a real lack of understanding. You might want to get some reputable (non-religious) books on human sexuality.
Being straight or gay is perfectly normal. It should be taught in schools as normal, since it is, and because some folks appear to think there’s something wrong with being gay. Gay teens and adults pay an unfair price in terms of discrimination and even violence because of this false attitude. Let’s fix it. It’s the decent thing to do.
@Sean
“Being straight or gay is perfectly normal.”
Nothing distinguishes gay from polygamy, incest or pedophelia? Add them to your statement.
Polygamy and incest are not sexual orientations, but rather, voluntarily chosen circumstances. No one is biologically oriented towards being in a multi-partner marital or sexual relationship, or biologically oriented towards being romantically involved with a sibling.
No explanation for pedophilia is required because no matter its cause, the potential harm to a child of having sex with an adult outweighs any benefit to the adult, and is, and should be, prohibited. There is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. There is something terribly wrong with acting on those feelings.
@Sean
“No explanation for pedophilia is required because no matter its cause, the potential harm to a child of having sex with an adult outweighs any benefit to the adult, and is, and should be, prohibited.”
And who decides what “harm” is?
Ultimately, the US Constitution. And no, the Catholic church doesn’t get a say.
@Sean ”
“No explanation for pedophilia is required because no matter its cause, the potential harm to a child of having sex with an adult outweighs any benefit to the adult, and is, and should be, prohibited. There is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. There is something terribly wrong with acting on those feelings.”
How old are people when they recognize their “sexual orientation” ?
How old are they when they begin expressing their sexual attractions?
If 8 is a sufficient age to “reognize a person has homosexual attractions” (heard it here)
then why is pedophelia off limits? Either children can express sexuality at rediculously young ages or they can’t.
“No one is biologically oriented towards being in a multi-partner marital or sexual relationship, or biologically oriented towards being romantically involved with a sibling.”
We’re either allowed to act on whatever sexual attractions we have or we aren’t. You don’t get to pick which ones. They are exactly the same argument. The only distinction is you like one and not the others.
@Ruth
Sean decides what “harm” is Ruth. If he needs it to matter it does. If it gets in the way of his argument then it doesn’t.
@Sean
“Ultimately, the US Constitution. And no, the Catholic church doesn’t get a say.”
But people who are Catholic do. You see Sean, we’re Catholic AND we’re American citizens. And we get to have the same voice as you do (even though that really annoys you).
@Anne
I think you’re right, Anne.
Sean replied that the U.S. Constitution decides what “harm” is, but I don’t think the U.S. Constitution mentions pedophilia.
However, the Constitution, being “made only for a moral and religious people. and “wholly inadequate to the government of any other” is best informed by Scripture, which very definitely points to the harm of all sexual deviance, including homosexual practice.