Hate Groups Attack Alan Chambers for Speaking the Truth that Gays Can't "Change"

I've noted in prior posts on how Alan Cambers and the "ex-gays for pay" at Exodus International have taken a major step and admitted that reparative doesn't work and that there is no such things as a "ex-gay."  Sadly, Chambers and company continue to cling to the discredited Bible passages that have been used to stigmatize gays and label us as "sinners."  That said, the admission that reparative therapy is nothing but a huge fraud knowing perpetrated on the gullible and religiously brainwashed is huge.  And not surprisingly, the Bible thumpers and certified hate group leaders are veritably foaming at the mouth over Chambers/Exodus' belated honesty.  A case in point is hate group leader Linda Harvey (at left) who has ZERO, that's right ZERO credentials that make her a credible commentator on sexual orientation and/or medical and mental health issues (we traded e-mails some years back and she conceded her academic business background have ZERO to do with the things she now pretends to have expertise about).  Right Wing Watch looks at Harvey's attacks on Chambers and those who are willing to admit that the whole "ex-gay" storyline is a lie (Note: she claims thousands of gays have "changed" but offers up ZERO evidence):

Recently, the "ex-gay" organization Exodus International shocked the Religious Right when it announced that it would no longer promote so called "reparative therapy" which claims to help gays change their sexual orientation.

The announcement has, not surprisingly, angered professional anti-gay activists and today Linda Harvey lashed out at Exodus president Alan Chambers, saying that his admission that he still struggles with same-sex attraction demonstrates "very poor judgment" and blasting the idea that gays can be Christians because the Christian Church would never welcome a "compassionate pedophile":

For one, Chambers has said he doesn't believe a person can change his or her so-called sexual orientation. Now, there's not anything like this invented term called "sexual orientation" in Scripture in the first place, but then he also says that he still struggles himself with sexual feelings for other males. This shows very poor judgment as the leader of this ministry to, first of all, be experiencing this and secondly, to announce it to the whole world.

Of course a person can leave homosexuality; there are thousands of people who have done it and God's word clearly states that he can deliver us from sin. And the proud, open sinner who is publicly proclaiming it as good in defiance of God's word? It is highly questionable that such a person is saved.
...
We would not be making this exception for well-adjusted adulterers would we? How about a compassionate pedophile? What about incest like two brothers involved in homosexuality? Why not just defy God's word on this?

This is plain old rebellion and worship of self and our own impulses, not the worship of our Creator and Savior. Please join me in praying for Alan Chambers and Exodus, but also in praying for Alan's influence to diminish unless he recants this untruthful misrepresentation of the Gospel.

1.  Chambers needs to come fully clean and jettison the whole antiquated religious brainwashing that seeks to condemn many millions of individuals around the world based on the misinterpreted writings of ignorant, uneducated Bronze Age nomads and herders.  I'm sorry, but to pretend that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" insults the intelligence of pre-teenager much less that of a supposedly mature adult. f

Ass Backwards Thinking - Except Possibly in the Long Run

Chris Wilson at Slate has an utterly ridiculous column on why Obama - not Hillary - should drop out of the race. Long term under his view, Obama wins, although the country gets fu*ked over for four more years under a McCain administration. Basically, his analysis comes to the fact that because Hillary Clinton is such a self-centered, vicious, slash and burn, nasty shrew that is willing to destory the Democrat Party , Obama should drop out. In return, Wilson maintains that Obama would be set to take the Democrats to victory in 2012 after Hillary goes down to defeat against John McCain.

Obama is supposed to take this magnanimous step even though he has won more votes, more delegates, and is more electable than the she-bitch. To me, that kind of thinking is analogous to religious denominations that maintain anti-gay policies for the sake of "unity" rather than mustering the resolve to tell the hate filled element in the pews to get a life and get their heads out of their ass. The reality is that the superdelegates and Party leaders need to get some backbone and tell Hillary it is over NOW. Period. End of discussion. But such a move would take true leadership - something the Democrat Party leaders have not shown to date. Here are some highlights:

If Clinton had the good of the Democratic Party in mind, she would have given up her bid the day after the Mississippi primary, which Obama won by 25 points. The delegate math was as dismal for her campaign then as it is now, even after Pennsylvania, and she was facing down a six-week gulf before the next election. But Hillary Clinton isn’t going to drop out. There simply isn’t a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.

Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left. Moreover, were he to play it right, dropping out now nearly guarantees that he’ll be elected president in 2012. Here’s the roadmap:

In one stroke, Obama will regain his messiah creds by making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the party. His followers will be furious. The mere mention of Clinton’s name will provoke unspeakable acts. They will abandon Clinton in numbers sufficient to hand McCain the election in November.

Losing the presidency again after eight years of Bush will ruin the Democratic Party. It will become obvious that Clinton’s decision to stay in the race was the turning point in the election. The base will turn its wrath on party leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, who failed to push Clinton out. Obama, as the de facto head of the party, will broker negotiations to install new leaders loyal to him.

McCain will be eminently more beatable in 2012. Demographics will continue to shift in Obama’s favor as his 14- to 17-year-old supporters come of voting age. Anyone foolish enough to challenge Obama for the nomination—and don’t rule out Clinton—will go nowhere. Obama’s utopian vision for a Democratic party unified around him will be complete.