Friday, June 22, 2007

Ex-Gay Cat Fight

All Hell is breaking loose in the fraudulent world of ex-gays following Alan Chambers' following comment to the Los Angeles Times:

With years of therapy, Chambers says, he has mostly conquered his own attraction to men; he's a husband and a father, and he identifies as straight. But lately, he's come to resent the term "ex-gay": It's too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete," Chambers said.

Adding the the ex-gay heresy are statements by Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that "we should not be surprised" to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation. The concession that homosexuality may not be a choice, but a matter of DNA totally undercuts professional ex-gays like Stephen Bennett, who has a profitable business pretending prayer washed away the gay, and professional anti-gay rights whacko Peter LaBarbera (a/k/a Porno Pete), who has an unnatural need to go "undercover" at gay leather events.

Here's a summary of Bennett's comments following Alan Chambers' act of blasphemy:

There is ZERO biological, scientific "evidence" for homosexuality to this date. The biblical evidence for homosexuality is very clear: it's sin.

For Bible believing Christians, homosexuality is, was and always will be a sinful lifestyle - condemned by God throughout the Old and New Testament - a sin that anyone involved in, must repent from.

Stephen Bennett, an ex-gay himself now for 15 years, happily married for 14 years to his wife Irene and the father of their two children, stated, "Frankly, I am shocked that the President of the largest information and referral ministry in the world on homosexual issues, would ever make such irresponsible and false public statements. If Mr. Chambers, a married man and father who once engaged in homosexuality himself, says he's never met 'a former ex-gay' or one who has 'changed completely', he's personally invited to our home in Connecticut to meet one. I'd also be happy to introduce him to numerous other individuals - all former homosexual men and women."

Bennett once engaged in the homosexual lifestyle for 11 years with over 100 men - losing partners and friends to HIV/AIDS, until everything changed in 1990 - when he was confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He dealt with his root issues and in 1992 completely changed. Stephen no longer struggles whatsoever with homosexual temptation.

"Homosexuality is an outward expression of an inward conflict. When I completely dealt with my inward conflict, my alcoholism, cocaine addiction, bulimia AND homosexual struggle were completely gone," said Bennett.

Note how Bennett, like most of those who have become professional ex-gays has a history of alcohol and drug abuse. I suspect Bennett's root issue was the need to make money and find some form of acceptance and the ex-gay route provided both. In the case of Porno Pete, he strikes me as a bit too shrill and is probably a self-hating closet case. No one straight is that obsessed with homosexuality in my view.


Anonymous said...

>>There is ZERO biological, scientific "evidence" for homosexuality to this date. The biblical evidence for homosexuality is very clear: it's sin.<<

Sad, if not pathetic. Let's unwrap this twisted mindfuck just a bit, shall we?

First, I'm not sure what counts for "evidence" to these folk, but the nation's preeminent biologist E. O. Wilson of Harvard in several of his Nobel and Pulitzer writings addresses the FACTS of homosexuality as a part of the natural biospheric constellation, and even proffers possible explanations of why a non-reproducing element of the species remains statistically constant after eons of Natural Selection, despite no "apparent" reproductive advantages. But one must accept the facts and theory of Darwin as part of the theory of life for Wilson's "evidence" of homosexuality, not an ancient tribal people's divinations as "biology."

Second, even if one uses the ancient scrolls to "divine evidence," one will not find "homosexuality," an oxymoronic neologism of 19th C. coinage. If "sodomite" is the term in question, a sodomite is not necessarily a gay or lesbian person. It is a person associated with Sodom, and the Myth of Sodom, where Yahweh's angels want to fuck men, but the town fathers offer their daughters for rape, instead. Angels, Sodomites offering their daughters to angels, so the angels won't fuck men, but fuck their daughters instead. So "natural," no?

The Levitical Code of Holiness does bar men fucking men like women (and consuming milk and meat, rare-cooked meat, and polyester/cotton fabrics), but fellatio, for example, would be outside that "like to like," since women do not have penises. Not to get technical and all, but sucking cock would be permissible by the Levitical Code, only fucking would be lethal (and only if Yahweh's tribal people killed the two dudes, which some Arabs may have a perspective on).

Paul and Jude, on the other hand, refer to "UNNATURAL LUSTS," but I'm not sure Paul and Jude are particularly good experts of what is "natural" and "unnatural." If one assumes that in God's eye "unnatural" is what biologists know to be wholly natural in over 450 species, then "evidence" for unnatural lusts by God's evidentiary standards seems queer.

But if "evidence" is required, which Bennett suggests is according to his standards, let's ask him for his evidence of this phantom "God" he mentions. Only three known methods of "evidence" are known in human history: (1) sensory experience, (2) reasoning, (3) reasoned sensory experience.

To the best of my knowledge, Bennett cannot point to this phantom "thing" he calls "God," and no one has touched, smelled, tasted, seen, or heard this phantom "thing" Bennett calls "God," either. (Now, if one "thinks" bread is "flesh," well that's another matter.) So, (1) sensory experience, is excluded.

The Laws of Thought, a.k.a., reasoning, do not give "evidence" for this "phantom thing" Bennett calls "God," either. Several theists have tried, notably Anselm and Aquinas, but both err by (a) either a false premise, or (b) a false inference, or (c) both. Unsound in the former, invalid in the latter, and nonsense in the third. So, (2) "reasoning" is excluded as evidence, too. By the "additive rule" of logical conjunction, (1) & (2) necessarily entail (3) as being excluded also. No evidence, Bennett. Absolutely NONE.

Maybe Bennett's "evidence" is merely the printed page of the printing press. By that standard of "evidence," we'd have to accept Aesop's Fables (and the gods' love of young men), Homer's Iliad and Odyssey (the Greek male lovers), Virgil's Aeneid (and the gay warriors), Plato's Symposium (and the theories of male-to-male love) as equal "evidence."

But, we could do "one better." In fact, we could appeal to the printed page of any pornography, and ostensively point and say, "see," dudes do this sort of thing quite naturally. And our printed page show by photos what is "real" and "natural," not by "words" what someone imagined.

When Bennett finds his "God" in the world of "unicorns, tooth fairies, and Munchkins," and can point it out to the rest of us, then I'll take that as "evidence." Until then, his illusions and fantasies should be kept to himself. But his psychic fragmentation over such illusions may be part of the "problem," not part of the "solution." Denial of "doing 100 men," (obviously something got his attention), while insisting on phantoms and word games that his "doing 100 men" is not allowed by his Phantom Illusions, often leads to psychic fragmentation, which, frankly is easily solved: Drop the illusions. Nix the Myth without Evidence. Else: Take anti-psychotics for the "Phantoms." But, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, go with "duck," not with unicorns, tooth fairies, and Munchkins.

Psychic fragmentation over illusions of phantoms and divinities, when something "real" got him through 100 men. Maybe it is the "way" he went through the 100 men, not that it was men, per se? Divining mysteries and phantoms often leads to fragmentation. I'd urge him to "go with what you know," and 100 men should be enough to "know," but Denial is Big, Profitable, but oh so Destructive.

daveincleveland said...

being a bible believing chrstian, and dealing with many inner conflicts, i have resolved those conflicts and am happy to report that i am one of a growing population of "gay" christians, i am at peace with it, am happy with it, and the only conflict that remains is how to end a very sad marriage right now...i did not chose this way of life, it was and is part of me right down to my very soul, i have never felt so complete and true to my self as i do now

Anonymous said...

Hey Michael...

Great blog... hadn't run across you before just now.

We've got some good stuff in progress in response to the ex-gay movement at, especially a conference in a week for formerly ex-gay folks and their supporters.

It should be an interesting week... media coverage pending, a bit of drama here and there, and we'll be covering as much of it as we can all week.

Take care...