.png)
.png)
Homosexuals Anonymous
Homosexuals Anonymous is an international self-support organization dedicated to serving the needs of men and women who struggle with unwanted same sex attraction. It does not offer therapy.
This fellowship of men and women, who through their common spiritual, intellectual and emotional experiences have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality.
If you are a person who struggles with unwanted same sex attraction, you are not alone Homosexuals Anonymous and many other related ministries, counselors and therapists provide valuable resources that can be of great use to you.
Remember always that while no one chooses to have same sex attraction, many do choose to diminish and eliminate those feelings of attraction. All people have the right to self determination, the right to choose for themselves the aspects that comprise their identity. Through HA, you will meet many people who see their identity as being rooted in their faith and not in their unwanted desires and behaviors.
If you are a parent, relative or friend of someone who struggles with unwanted same sex attraction, you can find helpful resources they will appreciate.
If you are a parent, friend or relative of someone who embraces and lives a gay lifestyle, you can find support, encouragement and hope in the material you will find available to you in website. If you are interested in online support groups or forming a local parents support group, please contact us and let us know how we can serve you.
If you are a minister, counselor or therapist looking for a support group and other resources to serve the needs of a counselee wanting freedom from homosexuality, then please read through our website. In your exploration you will learn who we are and how we can help you.
Wir machen keinerlei Therapien, wir empfehlen insbesondere keine Konversionstherapien und werben auch nicht für eine Teilnahme an einer derartigen Therapie.
We offer no therapy whatsoever. Especially we do not recommend conversion therapies nor do we make any publicity for such them.
Weder Homosexuals Anonymous noch Jason International geben irgendwelche Heilversprechen ab noch bieten wir eine Psychotherapie an. Wir sind Selbsthilfegruppen und bieten Hilfesuchenden seelsorgerischen Beistand. Uns geht es nicht darum, Menschen von "homosexuell" zu "heterosexuell" zu machen. Einerseits, weil dies grundsätzlich nicht unser Ziel ist (das Ziel eines Christen ist letztendlich die Heiligkeit. Ein keusches, gottgefälliges Leben ist bestenfalls Ausdruck und Weg des Glaubens, nicht aber das Ziel. Nicht-Christen unter uns stehen wir bei, ein selbstgestecktes Ziel zu definieren und zu erreichen. Auch hier liegen die Ziele in der Regel ganz wo anders).
Gleichwohl anerkennen wir das Recht von Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen, die unter diesen leiden, eine Therapie mit einem Therapieziel ihrer Wahl in Anspruch zu nehmen.
Heutzutage wird ja immer gerne die moralische Verwerflichkeit von "Reperativtherapien" oder "Konversionstherapien" herausgestellt - vor allem von aktiven Schwulen selbst. Die Wissenschaft springt leider gerne auf diesen Zug - auch wenn ein derartiges Vorgehen wissenschaftlicher Forschung widerspricht. Es ist nicht Aufgabe der Wissenschaft, moralische Urteile zu fällen. Auch darf Wissenschaft niemals freie Forschung unterdrücken, nur weil diese politisch unkorrekt ist.
Die heutige wissenschaftliche Datenlage:
Sexualität wird von vielen verschiedenen (!) Faktoren beeinflusst. Aktuelle Forschung weist darauf hin, dass sexuelles Empfinden durchaus zur Fluidität neigen kann - also keineswegs in Stein gemeißelt ist.
Selbst genetische Prädisposition (die im Falle von "Homosexualität" keineswegs belegt ist) bedeutet keinesfalls, dass jemand, der ein (fiktives) "schwules" Gen hat, auch zwangsweise gleichgeschlechtlich empfinden wird oder gar so handeln muss (wir sind nicht Sklaven eines Gencodes).
Epigenetik hat uns gelehrt, dass es von weiteren Faktoren (etwa der Umwelt) abhängt, ob und inwiefern Gene zum Tragen kommen oder deaktiviert werden. Umweltbedingungen etc. können sogar zur Änderung der DNA (also des "Gencodes") und der Gehirnstruktur beitragen (was ganz neue Schlussfolgerungen zulässt!).
Ein pauschales Urteil darüber, ob sexuelle Orientierung veränderbar ist, halten wir aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht deshalb nicht für möglich (aus spiritueller Sicht sehr wohl - was für den Menschen unmöglich ist, ist für Gott möglich!). Geschweige denn dass wir anderen vorschreiben, ein solches Urteil als richtig oder falsch anzuerkennen.
Für uns ist dies aus eingehender Argumentation heraus auch unwichtig, da unsere Aufgaben und Ziele anderswo liegen.
Wo jedoch Grenzen überschritten werden, ist, wenn wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse (etwa DNA-Markierungen) als Begründung für moralische Akzeptanz oder "Natürlichkeit" herhalten müssen. Das ist nicht mehr Wissenschaft, das ist Propaganda übelster Art.
Würde man diese Argumentation logisch weiter führen, würde man schnell zu absurden Ergebnissen führen.
Wir fordern deshalb Wissenschaftler auf, sich für die Neutralität der Wissenschaft einzusetzen.
Politiker fordern wir auf, dem Druck einer Minderheit stand zu halten und für ihre Werte einzustehen!
Geistliche fordern wir schließlich auf, ihre Aufgabe wahrzunehemen und Menschen, die ein gottgefälliges Leben führen wollen, dabei zu unterstützen - koste es, was es wolle!
Responding to new UK report on "conversion therapy":
To the editor:
Kashmira Gander's recent piece on "conversion therapy" [https://www.outrightinternational.org/content/pioneering-report-exposes-global-reach-so-called-conversion-therapy] was quite a feat: It painted a one-sided, misleading and sensationalist picture of a practice that doesn't even exist. There is, flatly, no such recognized mental-health procedure; "conversion therapy" is a political label hung on any effort to help individuals overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. Using the inflammatory name, and spotlighting truly heinous practices like electroshock as if they were common today rather than treatments of the 1950’s, gay activists are winning battles in state legislatures.
Restored Hope Network does not force its message of hope on anyone, rather, we provide support for people who are not satisfied with their sexuality and are seeking prayer support and conventional talk therapy to overcome their attractions. Shouldn't such individuals be allowed to pursue happiness as they define it in a free country that celebrates individuality and the sanctity of choice? We and our member ministries think so, and we will continue to stand for our clients' rights to pursue and receive the same kind of freedom so many of us enjoy.
Anne Paulk
Director, Restored Hope Network,
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Is there a "gay lifestyle" ?
Many people would answer that this is a homophobic invention. Gays live there lives in many different ways, as straight folks do.
So is it completely non-appropriate to talk of a "gay lifestyle"?
Let's take a closer look at what Wikipedia has to say:
"Lifestyle is the interests, opinions, behaviours, and behavioural orientations of an individual, group, or culture. The term was introduced by Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler with the meaning of "a person's basic character as established early in childhood", for example in his 1929 book "The Case of Miss R.". The broader sense of lifestyle as a "way or style of living" has been documented since 1961. Lifestyle is a combination of determining intangible or tangible factors. Tangible factors relate specifically to demographic variables, i.e. an individual's demographic profile, whereas intangible factors concern the psychological aspects of an individual such as personal values, preferences, and outlooks.
A rural environment has different lifestyles compared to an urban metropolis. Location is important even within an urban scope. The nature of the neighborhood in which a person resides affects the set of lifestyles available to that person due to differences between various neighborhoods' degrees of affluence and proximity to natural and cultural environments. (...)
A lifestyle typically reflects an individual's attitudes, way of life, values, or world view. Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. Not all aspects of a lifestyle are voluntary. Surrounding social and technical systems can constrain the lifestyle choices available to the individual and the symbols she/he is able to project to others and the self.
The lines between personal identity and the everyday doings that signal a particular lifestyle become blurred in modern society. For example, "green lifestyle" means holding beliefs and engaging in activities that consume fewer resources and produce less harmful waste (i.e. a smaller ecological footprint), and deriving a sense of self from holding these beliefs and engaging in these activities. Some commentators argue that, in modernity, the cornerstone of lifestyle construction is consumption behavior, which offers the possibility to create and further individualize the self with different products or services that signal different ways of life.
Lifestyle may include views on politics, religion, health, intimacy, and more. All of these aspects play a role in shaping someone's lifestyle. In the magazine th, and television industries, "lifestyle" is used to describe a category of publications or programs." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_(sociology) September 7th 2019)
Are there common interests, opinions, behaviors, and behavioral orientations in the gay scene? Anyone who has ever been there would definitely agree. There is a special way of talking, of celebrating, a different way of dressing up, different interests and values than compared to the rest of the population (yes, there will always be some who drop out of this classification, but on the average this might be a true statement). I have been there for many years and from my experiences I can definitely agree.
My "lifestyle" and that of many others I encountered reflected our attitudes, our way of lives and world views - no doubt about that. The environment we were living in also constrained our lifestyle choices. I could absolutely agree on that one as well. And yes, my views on politics, religion, health and intimacy were shaped by it as well and formed what you might call a "lifestyle" that I shared with many others then.
So all in all there is a "gay lifestyle".
The question is rather why so many gays are annoyed by this term? I guess they want to present an image to the public that makes them look like an ordinary John Doe, just like everyone else. But they are not! Gay activists use that as a propaganda technique - being well aware that the reality is way different. If I'd still be in the gay life, I would be more than happy to embrace a "gay lifestyle" - probably even be proud of it. Could it be that the gay self-confidence and self-assurance is so low it needs to look like everyone else and is ticked off by being called "gay"?
Recently, I communicated with gay men in online dating sites (not that I recommend that!). My impression? The more things change, the more they stay the same. Nothing much seems to have change since I left 15 years ago. Just take a look at the CSD-parades each year and tell me there is no "gay lifestyle"! To claim there is not is ridiculous and every gay person knows it.
I am ever so glad I left the environment that shaped my life back then. The way I live my life now does not fit any category and I am more than happy about that.
Robert
Education sector damaged by 'conversion therapy' research
This year, the Government Equalities Office launched new research into “the effects of conversion therapy in the UK”, asking LGBT activist Adam Jowett from Coventry University to recruit people to interview. Following criticism over how he was conducting the research, Carys Moseley now comments on how this government study presents an “ethical, moral and legal dilemma.”
In May 2019, the Government Equalities Office (GEO) announced that as part of the government’s commitment to ending ‘conversion therapy’ in the UK, psychologist and gay activist Adam Jowett from Coventry University was recruiting people to interview on their experiences of attempting to change sexual orientation and gender identity. This kind of research was clearly envisaged and planned for in the second version of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the United Kingdom, published in October 2017.
“Within the next five years, if funded, signatory organisations will seek to ensure appropriate research into the prevalence and effects of conversion therapy in the UK, and into how best to work with gender and sexually diverse clients.”
However, it will be impossible for this research to discover the prevalence of efforts to change sexual orientation; doing so would require a random representative sample of the UK population, and this research does not set out to do this. Whether or not this research will succeed in discovering “the effects of conversion therapy” is a question I will address later.
Gay activist psychologist heads pro-government ‘conversion therapy’ research
Adam Jowett has spent most of his career writing and teaching about LGBT issues. He is chair-elect of the Psychology of Sexualities section of the British Psychological Society – one of the most influential mental health professional bodies that has signed up to the Memorandum. He is therefore hardly an independent, let alone an impartial and disinterested observer, of the issues involved.
The Memorandum also makes clear that this study will link into research on how clients with same-sex attraction and gender confusion should be treated by counsellors and psychotherapists who are members of the signatory organisations. This means that academic research based on interviews with former clients will be used to dictate how all clients will be dealt with, regardless of future clients’ desires and values.
‘Conversion therapy’ research design inherently flawed
This week, Adam Jowett finally received responses to his tweet linking to the GEO call for participants, mostly from lesbian radical feminist activists asking him to look at gender reassignment for females as a form of ‘conversion therapy’. What this means is that they think that offering teenage girls and young women who suffer from gender confusion the choice of gender reassignment to live as ‘trans men’ is really a disguised way of attempting to ‘convert’ lesbians to be ‘men’. This is because many (but by no means all) such girls and women have same-sex attraction. One person also wondered about gay activists aiming to turn straight people gay. This was probably not quite the kind of response hoped for.
The lesbian feminist argument is, of course, largely mistaken. But their point that the category of ‘biological sex’ is being eroded by those who support a therapy ban is still valid. In this case there is clear evidence for it.
The initial questionnaire for would-be participants is available on the website of Coventry University. It asks people for their ‘gender identity’ and their ‘assigned sex’ at birth. It does not ask what their biological sex is. All this is entirely deliberate, as it exemplifies the core LGBT untruths that ‘gender is a spectrum’ and ‘sex is a spectrum’. (This is very much what we found with the Mermaids training session for staff and governors at a Church of England primary school recently.) The problem the researcher will face, however, is that lesbian and bisexual women especially will probably refuse to answer, saying their ‘gender identity’ is ‘woman’. Also, there is no guarantee that transgender people will tick the boxes marked ‘transman’ and ‘transwoman’. Many are likely to say ‘man’ or ‘woman’ because they are treated legally and socially in most cases as that. This fundamental erasure of biological sex means that the initial data is likely to be fundamentally flawed at the outset. Such elementary untruths should have disqualified this research in the eyes of the relevant ethics committees at Coventry University.
Researcher’s main targets are Christianity and ‘heterosexism’
In an article Jowett published in 2014 in The Conversation, we can glean that he opposes Christian support for leaving homosexuality behind, and opposes ‘heterosexism’. He discusses the reaction of many gay people to radical feminist campaigner Julie Bindel saying she is unconvinced by the ‘born that way’ argument on sexual orientation, and that she chose to be a lesbian. Likewise, actress Cynthia Nixon from ‘Sex and the City’ was attacked for making the same kind of observation in 2012.
Jowett then quotes Bindel’s discussion with gay activist journalist Patrick Strudwick, who initiated the current attack on counselling and therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction. Strudwick got angry with the claim that sexual orientation is a choice because, in Jowett’s words:
“anti-gay religious rhetoric is based on the assertion that we can ‘choose not to be gay’, and such claims can be used as a justification for those seeking to ‘cure’ homosexuality.”
In the comments section, Jowett responds to a reader with the following words:
“Nobody has the right to define someone else's sexual identity for them and tell them that they're not really a lesbian, they're bisexual. And the 'born this way' argument really throws those who do identify as bisexuals under the bus. Of course they can argue that they're born bisexual but heterosexist religious rhetoric will say that they can and should choose to be with a member of the opposite sex.”
So here we have a clear case of opposition to Christian sexual morality and by implication also to permitting sexual behaviour only within the context of marriage between one man and one woman.
In response to a reader’s criticism of Julie Bindel, he then wrote this:
“I find it highly problematic when women's views are dismissed on the basis that they are feminist (radical or otherwise) nor do I believe that we should exclude those with whom we disagree from academic discourse. I could quote academics who have been making very similar arguments for a long time but they weren't the ones who were recently very publicly criticised.”
‘We should not “choose” to be straight’
In response to a third reader’s comment, he then said this:
“Homosexuality shouldn't be treated because it is not a mental disorder, we should not 'choose' to be straight because there is nothing immoral about loving someone of the same gender and the basis of sexual orientation is irrelevant because we are human and deserve human rights.
“And yet almost all of the comments on a republished version of this article on Pink News seem to have misread my article as suggesting that being gay is a choice.”
Here we have clear evidence of Jowett’s opposition to people with same-sex attraction having the freedom to choose to leave homosexuality behind and develop their natural heterosexual potential. We should be calling this out for what it is – making homosexuality compulsory for people who are morally opposed to it. This is profoundly abusive towards people with unwanted same-sex attraction. Coventry University and the Government Equalities Office should be roundly taken to task for supporting research on attempts at changing sexual orientation by someone with such an attitude.
British Psychological Society implicated in eroding parental rights
It is highly relevant that Adam Jowett has recently tweeted with approval a petition for Hall Green Constituency Labour Party to de-select Roger Godsiff MP for supporting the parents protesting LGBT indoctrination at a primary school in Birmingham. By virtue of his prominence within it, this is the second time that the British Psychological Society has been linked to erosion of parental rights regarding resisting LGBT indoctrination in primary schools.
Kate Godfrey-Faussett, a British convert to the Shi’i movement within Islam, was a member of the British Psychological Society, but had her membership suspended after social media evidence emerged of her protesting against this in Birmingham, partly in her capacity as a mother of three children. Godfrey-Faussett said she would contest this suspension and attended a healthcare professionals’ tribunal hearing on 9 May this year. The outcome has been adjourned.
How should universities handle research on sexuality and gender?
The fact that Coventry University has seen fit to permit Jowett’s research, which appears to toe the government line on ‘conversion therapy’, is in marked contrast with the fate of James Caspian’s research on transgender people. Bath Spa University did not allow James Caspian to conduct research interviewing detransitioners – people who regret having undergone gender reassignment. The government did not step in to defend his academic freedom, nor the freedom of expression of his interviewees, many of whom may have not had a listening ear until approached for this project.
The Memorandum of Understanding says that the kind of research currently conducted by Jowett will be used to influence future work with clients. This is not just LGBT clients. This is all clients with same-sex attraction and gender confusion, including the many who want professional help to be rid of these things. This means that this research could be used to affect the work of gender identity clinics funded by the NHS, including the Gender Identity Development Service for Children and Adolescents. It could be used in training courses up and down the country and the publications based on it will be quoted in textbooks and by lecturers. It isn’t a coincidence how the Government Equalities Office has never supported clinical research by psychiatrists on gender dysphoria, or on detransitioners and young people who desist from the path of gender reassignment.
Toeing the government line endangers future research
It is a matter of grave concern that there is a university funding government research which is effectively shutting down free speech. To be precise, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with producing research that turns out to agree broadly with a particular government policy. However, there is a very clear difference between producing research that turns out at the end to validate a particular policy and one which ignores and effectively censors and entire sub-population of people relevant to the research in order to agree with a policy that is already founded.
Moreover, the research is intended to support the government commitment to ‘end conversion therapy in the UK.’ This means it will lead to shutting down future research on the subject. This is because a total therapy ban will exacerbate the current situation I have described. ‘Conversion therapy’ will be a forbidden practice, likely deemed ‘extremist’, which will be impossible to discuss openly.
Should this research have been given ethical clearance?
Given all these concerns, there is a serious question as to whether Coventry University should ever have given ethical clearance to this research. A critic could argue that this is unfair. The online form does tell prospective research participants that “there is no right or wrong answer.” Surely this means that people who have benefited from counselling or therapy could also take part if they wanted to.
Coventry University, like all universities, has policies on research ethics, and its academics are required to abide by them. The university needs to provide ethical approval for any academic project involving “survey work, questionnaires, interviews, focus groups or case studies.” This is because this involves human subjects and is subject to data protection laws. The guidelines go on to state that, “this is especially true of the activity requires or could involve: (1) Active or unintentional participation by human participants,”and “(4) An ethical, safety, moral or legal dilemma for the researcher and/or participants in allowing the activity to proceed.”
Given that this research supports the government’s plans to ‘end conversion therapy’, an ethical, moral and legal dilemma is presented for prospective participants if they have benefited from counselling or therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion. For in participating in a study wedded to the idea that such counselling or therapy should cease to exist, they would be acting as useful idiots for the government, giving the study an appearance of even-handedness and impartiality that it may well not have.
In addition, if a person responds saying they did experience change in sexual orientation or gender identity as a result or by-product of counselling or psychotherapy, and were happier as a result, this would surely undermine the entire purpose of the research, which is to support the government’s plan to ban all such counselling or therapy. Would this not present an ethical or moral dilemma for the researcher? This shows the illogic of stating that there is ‘no right or wrong answer’ to the questions.
Government should end its ‘conversion therapy ban’ obsession
The Government Equalities Office – a taxpayer-funded government department – has, at the heart of the research, created an erosion of academic integrity and coherence. It has not had any regard for the protected characteristics of sex, religion or even sexual orientation in asking for such research. This is because people have the right to determine their own sexual orientation, and thus must surely include the right to move from homosexuality to bisexuality or heterosexuality.
Instead, the GEO has proven itself to be a vehicle for LGBT domination of the rest of society, often via the education system, and erosion of fundamental freedoms. Given this, perhaps it is time politicians started to call for the government to ditch its crazy plans to end all counselling and therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction and gender confusion. If it refuses to do that, there is a good case for the GEO to be subjected to an official investigation, if not shut down altogether.
(Source: https://www.christianconcern.com/our-issues/education/education-sector-damaged-by-conversion-therapy-research?fbclid=IwAR1SfrivVsD_wibSgG3Tnr8uvMEEnkotyJF8_FVBLwU4G_ZJAZhREM-McNk abgerufen am 20.06.2019. Used with permission)
“Love is love” is a lie, here’s why
Rod Lampard On July 12, 2019
“Love is love” is a slogan that assuages all sexual sin.
If “love is love” is the new moral standard, then adultery, promiscuity, bestiality, and a number of other sexual sins are not only justifiable, they are permissible.
This is because “love is love” falsely elevates sexual sin to a morally superior position, where anyone who stands opposed to the assumed “love is love” standard, is belittled as “unloving and immoral”.
Heterosexuals who spout “love is love” know that in the current climate, “love is love” covers a multitude of sexual sin, so why not jump on the bandwagon? Especially when embracing the slogan enables them to pursue an anything-goes ethos.
In light of this, it’s easy enough to see how the widespread support and use of the “love is love” slogan isn’t as altruistic or as selfless as it seems. From this perspective, heterosexual support for same-sex marriage, and homosexuality, in general, is pure self-centeredness.*
In the words of psychiatrist Karl Menninger, “the lure of profit exceeds the prestige of prophet.”[i]
Pornography also contributes. Many a breakup and the continuing dysfunction of marriages can be attributed to the mythic, false and distorted view that pornography creates in men, about women and sex.
What’s more, these points uncover just how asinine the “love is love” slogan is.
Love cannot define itself. Love is defined by God. Love comes from who God is. He cannot be anything, or anyone other than who He is.
The very fact that God is love means we cannot say in reverse that love is God. The noun precedes the verb, not the reverse.
Love is defined by the One who exists outside of humanity. His love enters time and space, and graciously seeks out a relationship with us.
Love is defined by the One who comes to humanity from outside itself, as both grace and command. God is love and He presents knowledge about Himself to humanity, through His covenant with Israel, and by His revelation in Jesus Christ.
Love is defined by the One who seeks a human response, the One who builds life and gives order to creation; the One who doesn’t abandon His creation to its own inclinations, or the terror of the abyss. In the words of John, ‘we love because He first loved us.’ (1 John 4:19, ESV).
This is the ‘sovereignty of His love’, which doesn’t ‘exercise mechanical force, to move the immobile from without, [or] to rule over puppets or slaves, but rather to triumph in faithful servants and friends, not in their overthrow, but in their obedience, in their own free decision for Him.’
The ‘sovereignty of God’s love’ liberates humanity from subjective, abstract and artificial alternatives. We are emancipated from the burden of the oppressor, who defines love by whatever he or she decides it should or could be.
To borrow from G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy, those who seek to define love by itself, seek the moon, and its morbid light. Then in confusion, ponder about why it doesn’t produce life. Leading G.K.C to conclude: hence, ‘the moon is the mother of lunatics and has given them all her name.’
The individual who jettisons the ‘the sovereignty of God’s love’ from love inevitably asserts a definition of love made in their own image and desires.
Under the “love is love” slogan, no one is allowed to challenge this definition. Any reasoned disagreement outside this abstract idea of love is measured as an act of hatred, betrayal and treachery – anti-love.
Therefore, to assert that God is love is to enter into a revolt against it.
As a revolt, it asserts that love is not Lordless. Love is not meaningless or without purpose. Love is defined by what God does, and what God does comes from who God is.[ii]
Love cannot define itself any more than the slave or abused child can define freedom. The sin of others has distorted their view of the world. Lies replace truth. They’ve been taught to believe the abuse he or she receives at the hands of their oppressor is normal. In this way, “love is love” fails the oppressed and gives legitimacy to the oppressor. Love that defines itself negates itself.
Alternatively, the ‘sovereignty of God’s love’ encompasses both His “yes” and “no”. God’s “yes” to the genuinely oppressed, raises humanity up to challenge the claims of the oppressor. In this way, God’s firm “yes” and loving “no” to the oppressed and the oppressor is an outworking of His sovereignty. Love is not Lordless.
That God is love, means love cannot be love without God at its center.
Likewise, human freedom grounded in love cannot be true freedom without the One who loves in freedom. It cannot be true freedom without the ‘God who frees man and woman to be free for Him and free for each other.’[iii]
Without God, love becomes a cheap commodity, whose meaning is traded and swapped for whatever sells best. Love is downgraded to emotion, sex, money and the satisfying of an individual’s selfish desires.
“Love is love” is newspeak; a tool used to uphold human claims to ownership of what love is. Love is then determined to be anything the oppressor wants it to be.
Roger Scruton helps to brings this into clearer focus, noting the Communist practice of controlling language and meaning, under ‘the communist conviction that you could change reality by changing words […] The purpose of communist Newspeak, has been to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.'[iv]
For example, if the slogan “love is love” is taken to its logical end, aren’t the obscenely wealthy, or the national socialists justified in their love for money, nation or race, and to hell with the consequences?
If “love is love” justifies lifestyle choices, such as its promotion as a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage, then doesn’t “love is love” justify servitude to a Führer, the State, and his/her ‘ism, and the reign of terror that often follows?
In light of this, aren’t “love is love” advocates, especially those who protest crony capitalists, who love their money, in the end just hypocrites selling something no one should ever want to buy?
Under this shadow, “love is love” is lordless, abstract, confused and empty. “Love is love” is a cover-up, and like all self-justification, “love is love” is proven to be a lie.[v] It cannot sustain a working definition of what love actually is.
The first cause of change in attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage is the erosion of heterosexual marriage. This erosion includes the downgrade, and dismissal of Biblical theology which asserts that God is love and that under ‘the sovereignty of His love’, ‘woman is free for man, man is free for woman, and together both are free for God’. This comes by way of the covenant fulfilled in The Gospel, where, in His costly reconciling of humanity to Himself in Jesus Christ, God proves who and what love is.
“Love is love” is no substitute for this. It is no substitute for the One who was, and is, and is to come.
Maranatha.
References:
[i] Menninger, K. 1973. Whatever Became of Sin? Hawthorn Books Inc.
[ii] Barth, K.1942 CD II/II: The Election of Jesus Christ Hendrickson Publishers p.178
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Barth, K. 1951 CD III.IV The doctrine of creation Hendrickson Publishers pp.170-180
[iv] Scruton, R. 2015. Fools, Frauds & Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left Bloomsbury Publishing, (p.8)
[v] Torrance, T.F. 2008. Incarnation: The Person & Life of Christ, IVP Academic
* I don’t doubt that there are sincere believers in the slogan, the evidence provided by James, however, suggests that such believers might be few and far between.
(Source: https://caldronpool.com/love-is-love-is-a-lie-heres-why/amp/?fbclid=IwAR1RgGB-ZkUw-vASCxYmuW74sejcI69oDeDisb_1gL1enE0NI4RHq0srOi8 July 26th, 2019)
"In the very first chapter of the very first book of the Bible, we read these words: 'Male and female he created them' (Gen. 1:27c).
“The transgender revolution is in fact nor a revolution but a rebellion, a rebellion against
the very clear teaching of Scripture and the very nature of the universe. Gender is not a construct. It is reality." [Stephen J. Nichols, A Time for Confidence: Trusting God in a Post-Christian Society, (Orlando, FL.: Reformation Trust, 2016), p. 45}
Ausgaben der Landeshauptstadt München für homosexuelle Projekte, Veranstaltungen und Organisationen laut Auskunft von Frau Dorothee Schiwy (Sozialreferentin) vom 21.02.2017:
Förderung durch das Sozialreferat/Amt für soziale Sicherung (rosa Alter): 84.645 EUR
Förderung durch das Referat für Gesundheit und Umwelt (Sub e.V.): 14.300 EUR
(Angaben pro Jahr. Diese Beträge wurden zumindest seit 2015 unverändert in dieser Höhe bezahlt).
Es ist mir unverständlich, weshalb hier besondere sexuelle Neigungen mit einem derart hohen Etat gefördert werden, wenn zugleich Schulen, Altenheime, Krankenhäuser und vieles mehr die Unterstützung weitaus dringender benötigen.
Menschen werden gefördert und unterstützt, wenn sie der Förderung und Unterstützung bedürfen. Dabei jedoch besondere Bevölkerungsgruppen wegen ihrer sexuellen Vorlieben hervorzuheben, ist eine Diskriminierung der anderen Bevölkerungsschichten.
Ich fordere deshalb eine Einstellung jeglicher finanzieller oder sonstiger Förderung gleichgeschlechtlicher Projekte durch städtische oder staatliche Stellen.
München, den 21.02.2017
Robert Gollwitzer
www.robert-gollwitzer.com
“In this world are many people who do not master their bodies. Such people say that no one can tell them what to do, not even God, and they think that in this way they have no master. In the end they become slaves to anything.”
― Michael D. O'Brien, The Island of the World
The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion:
1) Exploit the “victim” status;
2) Use the sympathetic media;
3) Confuse and neutralize the churches;
4) Slander and stereotype Christians;
5) Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
6) Intimidation.
(https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-six-ways-homosexual-activists-manipulate-public-opinion?utm_content=bufferc9d45&utm_medium=social&utm_source=defendmarriage%2Bfacebook&utm_campaign=buffer)
Genesis 19:1-29
Genesis 1:27-28
Genesis 2:18-24
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 22:5
Romans 1:24-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Proverbs 28:13
A Word to "Ex-Gay Leaders"
Some might not like to hear what I am saying, but it needs to be said. No wonder the ex-gay (or "purity" or whatever you call it)-movement has so little impact on society! Look at its "leaders": They brag with scientific credentials in psychiatry and/or psychology while most have no credentials at all or at best low-level ones. Extremely few really are psychiatrists. Others point out their theological "achievements". It is not an achievement when you were appointed pastor by some small church - which would not be recognized by 99% of Christianity! Others try to make their own name big, forgetting who really set them free. Then you have those who studied theology or whatever else and now claim to be expert on any given field. Most of their "knowledge" comes from stuff they have read somewhere. Finally you have those who travel across the globe and write books about how to find freedom from same-sex attractions, how to look at them from a Christian and scientific point of view, how to deal with them from a political perspective - you get the picture. The "I-know-everything"-types. However, if you look at their private lives things do not look so shiny - they might be divorced or married a divorced partner, which makes their cohabitation a form of adultry no better than any homosexual act.
So what am I getting at? That we are all liars and hypocrites?
I can't look into someone's heart, so it is not up to me to say that. But! we should stick at what we truly know about and not try to beat the world in areas where it is better than we will ever be. God does not need credentials. Your own life story is worth a whole lot more if you present it - and yourself - authentically! Don't try to brush it up, to make it look better. Don't push your own agenda, but God's.
As Doug from Homosexuals Anonymous used to say: "The only thing that keeps us from finding true freedom is the belief that it can be done!"
He sometimes told me how they started off in 1976, having no fancy psychology books, but the Bible. Yet to this day I have not met a man with a stronger faith than Dr. Douglas McIntyre, who passed away in 2015.
He did not put human science down, but he gave credit where credit was due.
Finally, at the end of the day, we need a love bigger than whatever our hearts and bodies held on to so far. A love that can give eternal life.
Robert Gollwitzer
Director Homosexuals Anonymous
"The correct Catholic response to “Gay Pride” events
In recent decades, “gay pride” parades started spreading through cities of the Western world. The clear objective of this constantly growing phenomenon is to take over the town squares of all the cities of the western world and, in the long term, the cities of the entire world, with the exception of Islamic countries because of fear of predictable violent counter-reactions.
These demonstrations are carried out with enormous financial and logistical commitments, accompanied by propaganda supported by the most influential powers of public life, namely political elites, social media and powerful economic and financial bodies. Such unanimous support on the part of these public bodies was typical of historical totalitarian systems in order to impose a certain ideology on society. The so-called “gay pride” demonstrations unmistakably resemble the propaganda marches of various totalitarian political regimes of the past.
However, there is one very important voice in public life that has not yet officially, or to a large extent, joined this unanimous chorus of support for so-called “gay pride” parades. This voice is that of the Catholic Church. The totalitarianism of homosexualist gender ideology is pursuing its most ambitious goal, which is to conquer the last bastion of resistance, i.e. the Catholic Church.
In the meantime, this goal has unfortunately been in some way achieved, since it has been observed that an increasing number of priests, and even some bishops and cardinals, publicly express in various ways their support for these totalitarian marches, called “gay pride.” These priests, bishops and cardinals thereby become agents and promoters of an ideology that represents a direct offense to God and to the dignity of the human person, created male and female, created in the image and likeness of God.
Gender ideology, or the ideology of homosexuality, represents a revolt against the creative work of God, which is so admirably wise and loving. It is a revolt against the creation of the human being in both sexes — male and female — which are necessarily and wonderfully complementary. Homosexual or lesbian acts profane the male or female body, which is the temple of God. In fact, the Holy Spirit says, “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are” (1 Cor 3:17). The Holy Spirit declares in Sacred Scripture that homosexual acts are ignominious, since they are contrary to nature as it was created by God: “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct” (Rom 1:26-28). The Holy Spirit then declares that persons who commit gravely sinful acts, including homosexual acts, will not inherit eternal life: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Yet the grace of Christ has such a power that it transforms an idolater, an adulterer, or a practicing homosexual into a new man. The quoted text from the Word of God goes on to say: “And such were some of you [idolaters, adulterers, sodomites]! But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). Faced with this truth and reality about grace, the light of hope and true progress shines brightly on the anti-Divine and anti-human scene of the ideology and practice of homosexuality; that is, the hope and real possibility that a person who performs homosexual acts can be transformed into a new man, created in the truth of holiness: “You did not so learn Christ! —assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:20-24). These words of God are the only message worthy of hope and liberation that a Christian, and even more so a priest and a bishop, should offer people who perform homosexual acts or propagate gender ideology.
The totalitarianism and intolerance of gender ideology, by their own logic, also requires totalitarian adherence. All sectors of society, including the Catholic Church, must therefore be obliged to express somehow their acceptance of this ideology. One of the most widespread and concrete public means for imposing this ideology lies in the so-called “gay pride” parades.
It cannot be ruled out that the Catholic Church, in the not too distant future, will be faced with a situation similar to the situation of persecution by the Roman Empire in the first three centuries, when adherence to the totalitarian ideology of idolatry was also obligatory for Christians. At that time, the test or verification of such adherence consisted in the civil and politically correct act of burning several grains of incense in front of the statue of an idol or of the emperor.
Today, instead of burning several grains of incense, the gesture of solidarity with the “gay pride” parades is offered through a warm welcome from clergy and even through a special prayer service in support of the alleged rights to homosexual activities and to the spread of their ideology. We are witnessing an incredible scenario, in which some priests and even bishops and cardinals, without blushing, are already offering grains of incense to the idol of homosexuality or gender ideology, to the applause of the powerful ones of this world, that is, to the applause of politicians, social media giants and powerful international organizations.
What is the correct response of a Christian, a Catholic, a priest and a bishop to the so-called “gay pride” phenomenon?
In the first place, one must proclaim with charity the Divine truth about the creation of the human person, proclaim the truth of the objective psychological and sexual disorder of homosexual tendencies, and then talk about the truth concerning needed and discreet help for people with homosexual tendencies, so that they receive care and liberation from their psychological disability.
Then one must also proclaim the Divine truth about the gravely sinful character of homosexual acts and of the homosexual lifestyle, since they are offensive to God’s will. One must proclaim with truly fraternal concern the Divine truth about the danger of the eternal loss of the souls of practicing and unrepentant homosexuals.
In addition, by showing civil courage and using all peaceful and democratic means available, one must protest against contempt for Christian convictions and against the public display of degrading obscenities. One must protest against the imposition — on the populations of entire cities and towns — of marches characterized by political-ideological militancy.
The most important thing, however, lies in the spiritual means. The most powerful and precious response is expressed in public and private acts of reparation to the Divine holiness and majesty, so gravely and publicly offended by so-called “gay pride” parades.
Inseparable from acts of reparation is fervent prayer for the conversion and eternal salvation of the souls of the promoters and activists of homosexual ideology, and especially of the souls of the pitiable people who practice homosexuality.
May the following words of the Supreme Pontiffs strengthen the correct Catholic response to the so-called “gay pride” phenomenon.
Pope John Paul II protested against the “gay pride” parade in Rome, in 2000, saying:
I feel obliged, now, to mention the well-known [gay pride] demonstrations held in Rome in the past few days. In the name of the Church of Rome I can only express my deep sadness at … the offense to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics throughout the world. The Church cannot be silent about the truth, because she would fail in her fidelity to God the Creator and would not help to distinguish good from evil. (Angelus address, July 9, 2000)
The reigning Pontiff, Pope Francis, has on various occasions warned of the danger of gender ideology, when for example, he said:
You, Irina, mentioned a great enemy to marriage today: the theory of gender. Today there is a world war to destroy marriage. Today there are ideological colonizations which destroy, not with weapons, but with ideas. Therefore, there is a need to defend ourselves from ideological colonizations. (Meeting with priests, religious, seminarians and pastoral workers, Tbilisi, October 1, 2016)
On another occasion, he said:
We are experiencing a moment of the annihilation of man as the image of God. I would like to conclude with this aspect, since behind all this there are ideologies. In Europe, America, Latin America, Africa, and in some countries of Asia, there are genuine forms of ideological colonization taking place. And one of these – I will call it clearly by its name – is [the ideology of] ‘gender’. Today children – children! – are taught in school that everyone can choose his or her sex. Why are they teaching this? Because the books are provided by the persons and institutions that give you money. These forms of ideological colonization are also supported by influential countries. And this is terrible! In a conversation with Pope Benedict, who is in good health and very perceptive, he said to me: ‘Holiness, this is the age of sin against God the Creator’. He is very perceptive. God created man and woman; God created the world in a certain way… and we are doing the exact opposite. God gave us things in a ‘raw’ state, so that we could shape a culture; and then with this culture, we are shaping things that bring us back to the ‘raw’ state! Pope Benedict’s observation should make us think. ‘This is the age of sin against God the Creator’. (Meeting with the Polish Bishops on the occasion of the XXXI World Youth Day, Krakow, July 27, 2016)
The true friends of people who promote and perform degrading actions during so-called “gay pride” parades are Christians who say:
I will not burn even one grain of incense before the idol of homosexuality and gender theory, even if — God forbid! — my parish priest or my bishop should do so.
I will make private and public acts of reparation and offer intercessory prayers for the eternal salvation of the souls of all those who promote and practice homosexuality.
I will not be afraid of the new ideological-political totalitarianism of gender theory, for Christ is with me. And since Christ has conquered all the totalitarian systems of the past, He will also conquer the totalitarianism of gender ideology in our own day.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!
July 28, 2018
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Mary Most Holy in Astana
Translation from the Italian by Diane Montagna"
(Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishops-athanasius-schneider-on-the-correct-catholic-response-to-gay-pride)
Our goal is NOT to turn gay people into straight ones. We assist people with same-sex attractions who decide by their free will that they do not wish to live a "gay" life. In that context we help them to develop an alternative life the nature of which is alone in the hands of our clients.
Even people who wish to live a "gay" life will find pastoral care and Christian counseling at Homosexuals Anonymous, if they wish to have it.
.png)
.png)
.png)
"For I will see the rainbow in the cloud and remember my eternal promise to every living being on the earth.” Gen 9:17 TLB
To all those gay activists who still think the rainbow stands for "gay liberation" or whatever else: it does not. It is copyrighted by God. The rainbow the sign of His promise to all of us on earth.
You made something sexual out of it. Something clearly against God's covenant with us.
Some colors just don't fit everybody.
Or goal is not to turn "homos" into "heteros". We help people who - for whatever reason - do not want to act out on their same-sex attractions. We do this through pastoral care, Christian counseling, individual talks or group meetings. Who are we to tell them that their goals are not to be pursued?
Nevertheless it is striking that meanwhile professionals as well as gay activists are talking of a "fluidity" of human sexuality. This means in other words that nothing is set in stone here but open for - however defined - change.
In spite of this "conversion therapy" is fanatically being attacked. You can't have it both ways though. Either there is fluidity of human sexuality - implying openness for change - or not.
Human sexuality is influenced by many different internal and external factors. Even the activation or deactivation - or even the development (!) - of genes depends on envirnonment and behavior. Black and white statement may have a political background, there is one thing, however, they are not: scientific.
Robert Gollwitzer
Homosexuals Anonymous
