“How can a Christian even in the service of mental or psychological consonance be open to a client assuming a same-sex identity when this therapist knows that consonance comes at the cost of his or her client’s eternal life?” — Laurie Higgins

Mark Yarhouse, Professor of Psychology, Regent University

Folks, it’s a heckuva long road from “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22) to “gay” (no Scriptural citation possible). Note the critical difference between acknowledging in a free society that people have the free will to make bad choices (i.e., embrace sin) — and respecting the sinful choices of such individuals as a “valued identity.” Laurie Higgins is right: Mark Yarhouse’s (and Warren Throckmorton’s) “Sexual Identity Therapy” puts Christian professionals in the dangerous position of doing the latter. Here is Yarhouse’s defense of SIT, “Understanding Sexual Identity Therapy.” And here is his and Throckmorton’s paper, “Sexual Identity Therapy: Practicing Guidelines for Managing Sexual Identity Conflicts.”

Also, we feel obligated to note that although we concur with Higgins regarding Yarhouse’s strained defense of SIT, we in no way put him in the same category as Throckmorton, the Grove City College professor and one-time pro-”change” advocate who has become a de facto pro-homosexual activist — talking down the possibility of lasting, ex-”gay” change for people caught up in homosexuality even as he disingenuously claims to adhere to biblical orthodoxy. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Higgins writes (article after jump):

_____________________________

Regent University Professor Mark Yarhouse’s Defense of Sexual Identity Therapy

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute, April 20, 2010

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT) Framework co-developed by Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton and Regent University professor Mark Yarhouse. This week, I’m going to take a stab at unpacking Dr. Yarhouse’s defense of the SIT Framework.

I will acknowledge the obvious from the get-go: I am not a trained mental health professional. I am an ordinary person trying to sift through what seems to me to be murky, abstract, intellectualized jargon that doesn’t quite conceal the anti-biblical ideas embedded in it.

I will also acknowledge that I’m critiquing these guidelines based on the assumptions that Drs. Throckmorton and Yarhouse hold orthodox theological views of homosexuality and that they believe that Christians are to submit their hearts, minds, and wills to Christ. I assume they believe that the Christian walk is not a hobby practiced in the evenings and on the weekends, and that we owe God both our leisure time and our professional lives. And further, I assume they believe it would be a sin of the gravest order to affirm in or to others that which God–whom they believe is an objective, transcendent, eternal reality–deems abominable.

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s SIT Framework states the following:

The emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with value conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations…some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options …. Clinicians should assist clients to clarify their values in order to determine their preferred course of action. Therapists should be open to the possibility that a same-sex identity is the least dissonant course.

For a secular therapist this approach would be understandable, but how can a Christian even in the service of mental or psychological consonance be open to a client assuming a same-sex identity when this therapist knows that consonance comes at the cost of his or her client’s eternal life? Is temporal dissonance a more serious problem than eternal damnation? Is it compassionate to facilitate the appropriation of the “least dissonant course” when that course is one which God hates? And can a follower of Christ be complicit in any way of facilitating the pursuit of such a course?

It strikes me that the life of all Christians is a life of dissonance. Our temporal lives are necessarily characterized by a dissonance between our fallen, depraved natures and our new natures that are being sanctified through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:22-24 tells us that “You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s image–in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.” Isn’t the term “dissonance” as used in the SIT Framework merely secularized jargon to describe the painful struggle all humans experience in trying to oppose our sin natures while living for Christ?

Believers, including those who are mental health professionals, owe our very lives to Christ, including our professional lives. We owe those who struggle with seemingly intractable, persistent sin–which is all of us–comfort, support, prayer, fellowship, and wise counsel that reflects truth, for it is only the truth of Christ that can set people free from bondage to sin. Those Christians who counsel men and women who suffer from unbidden same-sex attraction have no right or authority as Christians to “provide therapy recommendations” that “respect” the “option” of modifying religious beliefs in such a way to make possible “the integration of same-sex eroticism within a valued identity.”

The SIT Framework also states that “in sexual identity therapy, the focus is on sexual identity as a construct that incorporates the person’s assessment of sexual orientation, emotional preferences and inclinations to engage in sexual activities.”

SIT states that “We believe that the therapist should not attempt to persuade clients about how to value these dimensions but can assist clients to determine their own valuations.” How can a Christian, who is a Christian first, “assist” clients in determining that they “value” homosexual practice. If the professional standards dictate that therapists may not attempt to persuade clients how to “value” their same-sex attractions, then I would argue that Christian therapists ought to choose not to counsel clients who find little or nothing morally problematic with acting on same-sex impulses.

Let’s imagine that age of consent laws are someday overturned. And imagine a client experiences pedophiliac impulses. Or, imagine a client who experiences zoophilia, that is, a sexual attraction to animals. Could a serious follower of Christ be part of any process that results in a client determining that they value and will integrate pedophilia or zoophilia into their lives?

Clearly, those clients who enter therapy with some kind of dissonance between their same-sex attraction and their faith hold at least somewhat to orthodox Christian beliefs. Are temporal subjective feelings so superordinate that facilitating heresy in a client is justified? And to a Christian therapist, is the biblical position that homosexuality is anathema to God a “value,” or is it objective truth?

Dr. Yarhouse explains the different conceptions of mental health practitioners:

Some people will assume that Christians in the mental health field should function like they are a particular kind of pastoral care provider. Although there are many ways in which pastoral care providers practice, I see pastoral care providers as representing their faith tradition in a very intentional way. They hold up a standard and provide pastoral care to help people move toward that standard of orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right practice)…. Others would view licensed mental health professionals as different than (sic) pastoral care providers in some important ways. They would see a licensed Christian psychologist, for example, as entering enter (sic) into a fiduciary relationship with the public, a relationship built upon trust, and part of that trust is built upon the assumption that the services provided are in keeping with the standards in the field as it is currently governed by the state in which the psychologist practices. So a group of one’s peers (psychologists, in this case, not Christian psychologists necessarily) would reflect on what is standard practice for addressing the topic of homosexuality in clinical practice.

Dr. Yarhouse employs some strained rhetoric in the phrase “Others would view” rather than saying “In contrast, Dr. Throckmorton and I provide services in keeping with the standards in the field as it is currently governed by the state.” Making such a direct first-person claim would reveal the troubling compartmentalization of their faith, the kind of schism about which Nancy Pearcey and Chuck Colson write:

[H]aving a Christian worldview…means following biblical principles in the personal and practical spheres of life….What does this mean in practice?… It means we do what is right even at great cost, because we are convinced that what we gain in the unseen realm is far greater than what we lose from a worldly perspective.

Sadly, many Christians….give cognitive assent to the great truths of Scripture, but they make their practical, day-to-day decisions based only on what they can see, hear, measure, calculate….They may sincerely want to do the Lord’s work, but they do it in the world’s way-using worldly methods.

Dr. Yarhouse’s rhetoric brings to mind the words of Martin Luther King Jr. in “Letter From Birmingham Jail” who was lamenting the failure of church leaders to boldly condemn the evil of racism:

In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities…. And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular. (emphasis added)

Christian counselors may be prohibited from “imposing” their values or even offering direction to their clients, but surely they enjoy the freedom to direct a client to another therapist rather than becoming complicit in facilitating the integration of same-sex eroticism into the “valued identity” of a client–or to put it another way, of facilitating heresy and behavior that if left unrepented of will lead to eternal separation from God.

I have heard people offer specious analogies to other professions, for example, suggesting that counseling someone who experiences same-sex attraction is analogous to a tax accountant accepting a client who is an adulterer. The analogy fails because tax return preparation is wholly separate from the moral issue of adultery, whereas when a therapist counsels someone on their experience of dissonance between their faith and their same-sex impulses, the moral issue is the entire purpose for their professional relationship.

I’m not arguing that Christian therapists must refuse to treat those struggling with conflicts between faith and sexual impulses. I am arguing that Christians are biblically prohibited from participating in any process that involves facilitating the modification of religious beliefs–that is to say, heresy–in such a way that same-sex eroticism can be integrated into a “valued identity.”

If what Drs. Yarhouse and Throckmorton mean when they say that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity,” is that therapists have to accept the unfortunate reality that by the end of therapy some clients will choose to pursue lifestyles that include the appropriation of wrong beliefs and destructive sin, their statement would be reasonable even coming from a Christian.

But their assertion that they “seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect the option of modifying religious beliefs to allow integration of same-sex eroticism” suggests a positive regard for an end result that no Christian should hold in positive regard. It suggests a willingness to facilitate the appropriation of wrong beliefs and destructive sin. Such a response is neither biblically defensible nor loving.

It could be cowardice, ignorance, pride, or vanity that causes a Christian counselor to affirm the ideas affirmed in the SIT Framework. But it could be the result of a serious lack of imagination. Imagine that you are a Christian counselor and with your assistance a client decides to modify his religious views in such a way as to accommodate sin that you know with absolute certainty will shortly result in unimaginable suffering–suffering worse than any torture you’ve ever read about in history books. Now imagine saying about this decision “I seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect this option.” Such a response should be inconceivable.

Correction: in initially posting this piece, we mistakenly cited the American Psychological Association, instead of the American Psychiatric Association, regarding the changed DSM on homosexuality as a mental disorders. We apologize for the error. — AFTAH, www.aftah.org

________________________________________

“Nuance” — yet another manifestation of rhetoric serving the cause of sin. Where oh where is C.S. Lewis when we need him to poke holes in the fancy façade of sophistication that we sinners don to conceal our acquiescence to a fallen world?

Grove City College Professor Warren Throckmorton’s feet have been put to the fire recently regarding the Sexual Identity Therapy guidelines that he and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University have developed. Their guidelines state the following:

The emergence of a gay identity for persons struggling with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations….some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.

How can a serious follower of Christ “envision” a homosexual identity, that is to say, an identity defined by disordered desire and objectively immoral behavior? Substitute another sin for homosexuality and imagine such a statement:

“The emergence of a polyamorous or promiscuous identity with religious conflicts is a possibility envisioned by the recommendations. Some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of polyamorous eroticism or promiscuity within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options.”

Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s statement could be made only by those whose allegiance to a secular worldview takes precedence over their allegiance to Christ. Unfortunately, Throckmorton and Yarhouse are not alone in their subordination of faith and truth to the demands of secular professional guidelines or requirements.

In an interview with One News Now [see ONN site HERE; AFTAH analysis and ONN story HERE], Throckmorton stated that “in a professional therapy situation” it is accurate to say that “homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness.” Throckmorton and Yarhouse quote APA guidelines which state that “Psychologists understand that homosexuality and bisexuality are not indicative of mental illness.” In the words of the infamous Gollum, this is tricksy rhetoric that calls for some careful parsing.

What constitutes “mental illness” is determined by the notoriously liberal American Psychiatric Association, which removed “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 because of the political machinations of a group of homosexuals who stormed and disrupted an APA meeting and subsequently applied political pressure to any pockets of resistance.

But whether the APA considers homosexuality a mental illness or not should be irrelevant to a Christian mental health professional. Christian counselors ought not ignore serious moral issues when deciding how or whether to counsel a client. Neither polyamory nor adult consensual incest is considered a mental illness either. Does that mean that Throckmorton and Yarhouse would be complicit in helping a brother and sister who were involved in an incestuous relationship to work out their relationship conflicts?

Throckmorton asserts that “homosexuals can live normal, natural and healthy lives,” which raises the critical question of how he, as a Christian first, defines normal, natural and healthy. He quite obviously is not applying biblical understandings of normality, naturalness or health. I can’t imagine even what secular standards he is using to define these terms. [Editor's note: in a 2007 radio interview with homosexual activist Mike Signorile, Throckmorton was asked this question: "So you think it is normal, natural and healthy for people who come out and accept that being homosexual — accept being gay — and completely have no issues with their religious faith — you believe — would you describe the words as 'normal, natural and healthy' – that that is fine?" He responded:  "Yes. Yes, I have been very clear about that in my public statements, that the efforts to demonize people who accept their homosexuality and come out as gay have been futile."]

Since homosexuals constitute somewhere between 2-4 percent of the population, homosexuality can’t be considered normal. And since the predominant sex act between homosexual men is profoundly unhealthy and structurally damaging, and homosexual sex is inherently sterile, it’s hard to see how anyone would define homosexuality as natural or healthy.

But most important, as a Christian first, how is Throckmorton defining that which God calls abominable as normal, natural and healthy?

In his interview with One News Now, Throckmorton also said that “he takes a more ‘nuanced’ view” on the topic of same-sex marriage. He said “that he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions.” Tricksy rhetoric again. He cleverly avoids saying he supports homosexual unions, instead saying that the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual unions.

First, if the Equal Protection Act actually required homosexual unions, it seems it would require same-sex “marriages” also.

Second, the question Throckmorton needs to answer directly is, does he, who claims to hold orthodox Christian views on homosexuality, believe that “civil unions” — which are really same-sex “marriages” in all but name — should be legalized? Some are interested not in what he thinks the Equal Protection Clause permits, but what he personally thinks should exist.

What seems clear is that many Christian mental health professionals are subordinating their faith to the professional standards established by a world largely hostile to faith. No serious Christian — no one who understands that Christ expects full submission of every aspect of the lives of those who accept the gift of eternal life that came at the cost of His life — would affirm to others either implicitly or explicitly profoundly sinful behavior, behavior that orthodox Christian doctrine teaches will lead to eternal damnation.

Increasingly, Christians from all walks of life are going to have to choose between their work and their faith, between friendships and faith, and perhaps even between family and faith. We shouldn’t be surprised: Jesus told us that,

Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt. 10:32-39)

_____________________

Laurie Higgins is a writer and analyst with Illinois Family Institute. She can be reached through AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

Editor’s Note: links have been added to the following letter sent by Steve Baldwin to Grove City College President Richard Jewell (Phone: 724-458-2500). For more contact information on GCC, go HERE.

From: “Steve Baldwin” [e-mail address withheld]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:35:55 -0800
To: <rgjewell@gcc.edu>
Subject: Message from Steve Baldwin

President Jewell:

Warren Throckmorton

We’ve met before when I was the Executive Director of the Council for National Policy.  I’ve been following the controversy involving your professor, Warren Throckmorton, and I have to say, Throckmorton is doing great damage to the reputation of Grove City College.

It’s bad enough having a professor who actively declares that homosexuality is just fine if the person in question is happy with himself.  That is simply not biblical and you know it.  It like saying alcoholics are fine the way they are as long as they’re happy with themselves.

But what’s worse is that he seems to have poisoned the minds of many of your students.  The email message below is from one of your students to Peter Labarbera [of Americans For Truth] and it just made me sick to my stomach:

Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.  Your unsolicited attack on Throckmorton isn’t surprising, but you should still know that Throckmorton has the support of the student body here.  Perhaps one day you will realize that the only thing doing “incalculable harm to many young people” is your ignorant and hate-inspired position on homosexuality.  Throckmorton’s Golden Rule Pledge simply encourages to do as Jesus did: accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.Thanks for your time,

David Bier, Grove City College Senior

This student is saying that God does NOT disapprove of homosexual behavior and he implies that the entire student body is in agreement with this heresy.  Since this has gone on for some time now, I would like to know if this is the official view of Grove City College.  I’m in contact with hundreds of conservative high school students and many often ask me for my recommendations as to what colleges to attend.  If this view of homosexuality is now the official view of the Grove City College, I need to know, as I will no longer be recommending Grove City College.

I look forward to your answer.

Steve Baldwin

__________________________________________

The writer (left) is the former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, a former State Assemblyman in California, and a longtime conservative Republican activist. He and his wife Patti and their four sons live in Santee, California, outside of San Diego. You can write Baldwin through americansfortruth@comcast.net.

Matt Barber's brutally honest description of homosexual sodomy was too much for Exodus International.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, a few days ago we ran a story about CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) allowing a homosexual activist group to be a co-sponsor, in which I quoted my friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber offered a colorful description of homosexual sodomy and same-sex “love.” It was appropriately dismissive toward this “detestable” act (Leviticus 18:22) once known as a “crime against nature,” and you can read it HERE.  The point was: no true “conservative” can support or celebrate homosexual perversion.

Well, thanks to the politically correct overreaction of Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers of Exodus International (an ex-”gay” umbrella group), Liberty Counsel (Barber’s current employer) issued an apologetic statement that was not fully accurate in that it left out a key fact: Matt’s ownership of the bold sodomy description. This could create the  impression that Barber might not have made the comment, which he did.

Today Matt issued his own clarification (emphasis added):

“This is for clarification only. As affirmed in Liberty Counsel’s statement, neither I nor anyone with Liberty Counsel ever publicly ‘wrote or made’ the comment in question – an unapologetically direct and accurate depiction of the sin of sodomy (a sin that God directly and accurately calls both an ‘abomination’ and ‘detestable’). Some years before I began working with Liberty Counsel, I made the comment in private conversation with Peter LaBarbera. At the time, Peter asked if he could ‘quote me on it’ and I said yes.

“On a personal note, let me take this opportunity to share with those caught-up in this particular sin lifestyle that I am no less a sinner and no better a person than they. None of us are. The good news is that, through Christ’s earth shattering sacrifice on the cross, we are redeemed. We need merely believe, call upon His name, repent and make every effort to ‘go and sin no more.’

“Unfortunately, however, we live in a society where this particular sin is embraced, promoted  and even celebrated. People erroneously equate this unnatural and sinful behavior with ‘identity’ and ‘orientation’ even taking ‘pride’ in an objectively deviant lifestyle. My hope and prayer is that this silly faux ‘controversy’ might actually make people reflect –– if only for a moment –– upon the emotionally, spiritually and physically destructive nature of homosexual conduct. ‘Gayness’ is about what people do, not who people are. It’s about feelings and behaviors alone. But those feelings and behaviors don’t make those caught-up in them any less precious to God, to me or to anyone I know.

“Scripture tells us that the ‘wages of sin is death.’ It breaks my heart that so many ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ continue in a lifestyle that ultimately results in spiritual and, yes, even physical death. I’m very grateful for ministries such as PFOX, Exodus and others that reach out to those who seek to escape the homosexuality snare. In the meantime, I will push forward, undeterred, on the front lines of the ongoing culture war, fighting the militant homosexual activist organizations that enable and encourage those trapped in homosexuality to continue down that changeable path of destruction. Shame on them and shame on those who support them.” – Matt Barber

Exodus published two blog posts by Randy Thomas (first THIS ARTICLE and then THIS FOLLOW-UP pegging off the LC statement) highly critical of Barber’s remark and this writer for using it. Predictably, these Exodus articles have been exploited by homosexual activists such as Wayne Besen — who typically exaggerate the story in their zeal to embarrass Americans For Truth and by extension the pro-family movement. (Besen is also a malicious liar whose life ambition is to discredit ex-”gays”; he revels in ad hominem attacks on Barber, me (he came up with and continues to use the nasty smear “Porno Pete”) and others in the pro-family movement. Needless to say, he despises and maligns Exodus on a regular basis. By the way, the hateful Besen is also a strong contender for AFTAH’s “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 award due to — among other mean-spirited acts — his bullhorn harassment of Boston’s Park Street Church, which was holding an ex-”gay” conference.)

Below is a reprint of my original response to Liberty Counsel”s statement — which I published as a comment on Randy Thomas’ Exodus blog.  AFTAH will continue to work with Exodus even though occasionally we have philosophical and semantic disagreements with them about the proper approach toward homosexuality and the “Gay” Activist Lobby. The reality of our movement — like all coalitions — is that different groups take different approaches, hopefully all with the same end goal in mind. Exodus has a problem with re-stigmatizing homosexual behavior; we believe doing is essential to turning back the GLBT Lobby’s gains.

We also appreciate the work of Liberty Counsel and look forward to partnering with them as always in the fight against the aggressive and anti-Christian homosexualist movement.

This episode made a mountain out of a molehill and we regret that Exodus chose to draw more attention to it and to condemn us in such a self-righteous manner. If you would like to read my four responses to Randy’s posts (and to a comment by another writer critical of AFTAH) on the Exodus blog, go HERE to see all four posts. I look forward to reading Randy’s responses to my questions if he can find the time to answer. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera’s first comment on Randy Thomas’ Exodus blog post, “Liberty Counsel Responds to Crass Quote Attributed to Matt Barber”:

December 18, 2009 at 2:00 pm

This is Peter LaBarbera. The quotation in question by Matt Barber — a brutally honest and necessarily accurate description of homosexual sodomy — is printed verbatim and was made in conversation between the two of us years ago — long before he went to work for Liberty Counsel. I asked Matt at the time if I could quote him on it and he gave me permission to use it, and ultimately I did — in the context of showing how CPAC or any organization that defends sodomy (as GOProud and countless other GLBT organizations implicitly and explicitly do) cannot call itself “conservative.”

I presume and hope that what Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel meant to say was that Matt Barber’s quoted words were not uttered or published under the auspices of Liberty Counsel — as they were made several years ago in private conversation long before Matt came to work there.

Frankly, I am appalled at Randy’s “spiritualized” condemnation of Matt Barber’s phrase. Sorry, Randy, I disagree with your self-righteous take on Christ-like compassion. Philosophically, I believe that you are conflating behavior with a supposed “identity” — “sexual orientation”/”gayness” — found nowhere in the Bible. Sin is what we do in our fallen nature, not who we are. Is Tiger Woods’ serial infidelity part of his “core” identity? I think not.

Would Randy be upset at a similar, direct condemnation/description of other sinful sexual behaviors condemned in the Bible, like pornography, adultery or incest? We’re talking about behavior here (sodomy) that God calls an “abomination.” Using the same logic, is Randy going to get on God’s case next for His very unambiguous (you might say harsh) classification of homosexual sodomy as detestable? Is Almighty God demonstrating “insensitivity” toward “gay” men with such language?

Let me ask you, Randy: how would you accurately and honestly describe the act of sodomy, and are you opposed to forcefully condemning it?

There is so much to disagree with regarding Randy’s posts that I will leave that for a formal reply on my site (Americans For Truth: http://www.americansfortruth.org). But I do want to clarify that Matt Barber’s candid description of homosexual sodomy — typical of his bold, entertaining and decidedly non-PC style –  is completely accurate; that he stands by it; and that he did indeed give me permission to use it years ago — which has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberty Counsel today.

Next time please shoot me an e-mail and we’ll clear this up easier.

_____________________________________

Randy Thomas responds to Peter LaBarbera’s comment:
December 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Peter, I have tried to dialog with you in person and via email in the past and it hasn’t cleared up anything before. You nod, say nice things and then go do something else that stigmatizes people who struggle with or embrace homosexuality. This time you wrote a hateful public quote attributed to someone else and contextualized it as a current reaction to the GOProud situation. We went through the direct and appropriate avenue to follow up with the person you alleged made this quote and got the above response.

Do what you got to do Peter.

____________________________

Peter LaBarbera responds to Randy Thomas’ “snippy” answer:
December 18, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Nice snippy non-response, Randy.  Talk about presumption. Perhaps you are correct: dialogue between us is not very productive as you seem to have one foot still in the “gay” camp (at least sympathy-wise) and another in the Christian pro-family camp. I sometimes wonder if you are more troubled by conservative pro-family groups like AFTAH than you are by homosexual activists. According to your loaded and misguided definition of “hate,”  I suppose you could make the case that the God of the Bible is a “hater” because He calls sodomy “detestable.” Matt and I and others are re-stigmatizing homosexual behavior, Randy — not people. Please, I beg you, show me anything close to “sexual orientation” in the Bible!  If you cannot, then stop defining people by destructive behaviors and treating homosexuality like some sort of special sin that deserves more deference than all the others. In fact, if criticizing bad sexual behavior is truly “hating” people, then much of the country is hating Tiger Woods right about now. (Do you “hate” Tiger? I don’t, and yet it makes me sick what he has done.) The practice of anal sodomy — or the infamous “crime against nature,” as that “hater” Noah Webster defined it — has caused untold physical destruction in this country, and across the world: I make no apology for agreeing with Matt’s dismissive and bold condemnatory description of it.

Barber is the keynote speaker at Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s fund-raising banquet outside Chicago on Saturday, Oct 24.  An AFTAH Board Member and former professional heavyweight boxer, Barber is currently Director for Cultural Studies at Liberty Counsel. Sign up to hear Matt at the AFTAH banquet by using the “Online Banquet Sign-up” link at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (discount rates for students and pastors).

_________________________________________

‘Intolerance’ Will Not Be Tolerated

Reprinted from: http://across.co.nz/IntoleranceNotTolerated.html

By J. Matt Barber

We were in elementary school — morning recess by the jungle gym.  My buddy Kyle presided over the ceremony.  I was the groom and Karen Smith was the blushing bride.  The mock wedding lasted about three minutes.  The mock marriage lasted about half-a-day.  Oh, I was faithful — until Christina McCarroll caught my wandering eye during Math class.  Of course we weren’t really married — we were fourth graders – but we sure had fun pretending.

Flash forward about twenty-five years — San Francisco, CA — An activist Mayor, Gavin Newsom, taunts the State’s voters and defies both the rule of law and the sanctity of marriage as he cons thousands of “same-sex couples,” including the corpulent Queen of crass herself, Rosie O’Donnell, into taking part in a number of mock weddings held in San Francisco’s City Hall.  Of course they weren’t really married — but they sure seemed to have fun pretending.

Webster defines marriage as: “The legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife” – a definition consistent with humanity’s own since the very beginning of recorded time.  Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family have forever been cornerstones of civilized society.  Regrettably, there are at present, many within the militant homosexual lobby who wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones — many who hope to undermine both the historical and contemporary reality of marriage and family – many who, through judicial fiat, aim to circumvent the Constitution, the legislative process, and the overwhelming will of the people in an effort to redefine marriage. Accordingly, the unsolicited, oxymoronic and spurious expression “same-sex marriage” has been forced into popular lexicon.

As more and more Americans begin to unite against the radical concept of “same-sex marriage” we learn that our northerly Canadian neighbors are once again on the cutting edge of societal de-evolution.  The Canadian Parliament is considering passage of legislation, which would legalize “same-sex marriage” nation-wide [and has now done so].  To Canada, we offer this sincere admonition:  If you pass it, they will come — that is, along with all the Blue-State fringe lefties despondent over our recent Presidential election, expect to see droves of American “same-sex couples” crossing the border in search of their own little slice of “progressive” utopia. But we digress.

As the “same-sex marriage” battle wages on within the larger culture war here in our own Country, it’s important to accurately define the terms. Aside from the obvious, what is homosexuality?  Is it a status – a state of being — a word that typifies one’s membership in a suspect, minority class no different than Black or Female?  Let’s consider.  To be Black or Female, one need only be Black or Female.  Membership in either class is contingent upon nothing.  It’s a state of being, which represents entirely neutral qualities (i.e., skin color and/or gender).  On the other hand, homosexuality is contingent upon something: behavior — a person’s actions — choices made — their “sexual preference.”  It’s the end result of choosing to define one’s identity based upon with whom, and how one elects to have sex.

There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in homosexual behavior are “born that way” — that they’re merely acting upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic make-up.  They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various “studies” which seem to support the “born that way” theory.  They entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the “respectable” scientific community embraced even one study.  In fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and the associated “scientists” have been exposed as homosexual activists attempting to further an extremist agenda.  Additionally, the theory’s proponents have been wholly unable to reconcile its central theme with the so-called “bi-sexual” condition, which on its face would seem to eliminate any illusion of merit.

By the same token, there’s a growing movement among adulterous heterosexual men with estranged wives, who likewise embrace the theory that they were “born that way” — that their genetic makeup precludes the monogamy option, and requires that they have multiple sex partners. Charming, no?

At the risk of being arrested, charged with a “hate-crime” and dragged away to a “progressive” re-education camp, I’ll put aside for a moment the flawed, emotion based, irrational silliness that is “Political Correctness” (in the event I’ve been overly PC thus far).  Rather than approaching our analysis of homosexual behavior from the traditional, liberal, PC perspective, let’s look at it from the rarely visited “Biologically Correct” (BC) vantage point.  For one to believe that homosexual behavior, the act of sodomy in particular, follows the biological order of things, one must ignore the fact that sodomy violates natural law – you know, wrong plumbing, square hole/round peg.  The whole thing really is a testament to man’s creativity.  Give us something good, and we’ll bend over backwards to twist it into something else.

Without delving into the overly descriptive mechanics, suffice it to say that, scientifically speaking, the sexual act was designed for procreation — nothing more, nothing less. I know, not very romantic, but we’re talking science here.  Further, the design behind the human digestive system was solely and entirely intended for digestion, not for makeshift sexual activity — there’s not a sex organ in the mix.  The notion that the act of sodomy is a natural, biological event simply does not square with biological reality.  It may be PC but it sure ain’t BC.

Still, perhaps the most troubling aspect of the homosexual lifestyle in general, is its destructive nature. Destructive not only in terms of the emotional harm it may cause, but destructive also in terms of the health related issues that will almost certainly arise as its consequence.

You may have noticed that you’re barraged on a daily basis by the left’s self-righteous indignation, as they wax eloquent about the harm caused by tobacco, pollution, drugs, alcohol — fatty foods — name your poison. Countless lawsuits have been filed under the pretext of recovering damages to cover health care costs relative to these vices. And they are vices, no doubt.  But, these vices are fair game; they don’t fall within a PC protected class.  Consider this:  When was the last time you heard about the dreadful and preventable health related pitfalls, which stem from the homosexual lifestyle?  You don’t — you won’t — you can’t — you shan’t — Don’ t confuse the Left with the facts. That’s “insensitive!”

As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years old – 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.

One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106 sexual partners per year.  It’s no wonder that homosexual men account for over 50% of all hepatitis cases, and still account for over 50% of all AIDS cases despite the fact that they only make up 1-3% of the population. Homosexual men and women share a markedly increased risk of contracting nearly all forms of STD.  The men frequently suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous nature of the gay lifestyle.

All of these things considered, and given that the cost to treat an AIDS patient averages nearly $350,000, the homosexual lifestyle shares responsibility, by no small measure, for this country’s skyrocketing health care costs.

Fortunately, for those who wish to escape the homosexual lifestyle, there is support.  A number of homosexual recovery organizations such as Exodus International and NARTH have helped thousands of people who have been addicted to homosexual behaviors, successfully leave the lifestyle.  Many have gone on to have happy and fulfilled heterosexual marriages, to include the greatest of all blessings. children.

But the militants don’t want to hear it.  In fact, they don’t want you to hear it, and have proposed legislation to ban such recovery organizations claiming that any mention of homosexual recovery is “hate-speech.”  But it’s predictable — any time anyone dare expose the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda, there’s an enormous backlash.  It’s an age-old tactic geared toward silencing one’s critics.  It consists primarily of the ad hominem attack — Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher! Neanderthal! — And on and on it goes.  It grows old. It wears thin, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Many homosexuals choose not to recognize that the majority of their detractors really do care for them as individuals, hold no animus toward them, and would not presume to dictate what sexual anomalies they entertain behind closed doors, whether self-destructive or not.  However, when militant homosexual activists attempt to quell all criticism of their behavior, force society to accept that behavior, and further attempt to alter the fabric of society by changing it to correspond with their own morally relative, androgynous notion of marriage, then those same activists shouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that they’ve angered those who value the sanctity of marriage — they shouldn’t be taken aback to find that they have one h*ll of fight on their hands – to expect anything less would be queer indeed.

___________________________

[NOTE: This was the attribution provided for the piece on this website in 2004:]

Copyright © 2004 by J. Matt Barber  (Used with permission)

J. jmattbarber@comcast.netMatt Barber is a non-practicing attorney, an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer (Matt “Bam Bam” Barber), and a jazz drummer in Chicago, IL.  In addition to his Law Degree, Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University.  Matt is a Contributing Editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a Contributor to the Washington Times “Insight Magazine,” as well as a number of other top conservative publications. E-mail your comments to Matt, at

Folks, Americans give far more credit to professional institutions like the American Psychological Society (APA) than they deserve. We forget the strong liberal, anti-faith bias of academia and especially the soft sciences — and the enormous cultural subversion that PC-driven professional organizations have engaged in over the years. (Groundbreaking “sexologist” Alfred Kinsey himself was a notorious pervert.) This includes, in the APA’s case, forays into the “study” of adult-child sex (pedophilia). Remarkably, as Lifesite’s Matthew Hoffman reports below, the APA continues its affiliation with known pedophilia advocate Theo Sandfort. Regardless of what it puts out on the (in)ability of people to change their “orientation” (translation: sexual practices, thoughts and habits), the APA has no moral authority on these matters given its documented conflict-of-interest stemming from an overwhelming pro-homosexualist bias. Conservatives should resist the temptation to cite the APA as authoritative when it happens to bend a degree or two in their direction. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

LifeSiteNews reports:

The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality: Lunatics Running the Asylum?

Special LifesiteNews Report Commentary by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman [click HERE to sign up for LifeSiteNews e-mail updates]

WASHINGTON, August 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) — A man goes to a psychologist with a problem.  “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man.  I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body.  Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men.  I want to change my sexual preference.  I want to become heterosexual.”  The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not!  That would be unethical.  Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

The irony of this little tale is that, while reading like a joke, it is in reality an accurate description of the mental health professions today.  While dismissing and condemning reparative therapy for homosexual orientation, the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists in Anglophone North America have embraced the concept of “sex change,” a procedure that does nothing more than mutilate the patient to appease his confused mind.

The American Psychological Association Perpetuates the Madness

In its most recent statement on the topic, the American Psychological Association (APA) has softened its tone somewhat against psychologists who do reorientation therapy for homosexuals. However it maintains that, “Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.”

The refusal of the organization to accept the increasingly strong evidence against its position is another reminder of how entrenched the sophistry of sexual hedonism has become among the leaders of the organization.

In recent years, a number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals, indicating that significant numbers of patients who voluntarily participate in therapy to change their sexual orientation are successful and happy with the results. Combined with numerous individual testimonies by former homosexuals, evidence in favor of the practice is overwhelming.

However, in its new report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” the APA’s leadership declares that all of those studies can be dismissed because, in its words, “None of the recent research (1999-2007) meets methodological standards that permit conclusions regarding efficacy or safety.”

The report therefore conveniently disposes of the most recent studies on the topic — the ones that undermine the APA’s position.  The only studies that remain are ones done before the resurgence of the reparative therapy movement, in the 1970s, when the APA declared that homosexual orientation and sodomy really weren’t unhealthy after all.  New research is rejected in favor of research that is now over 30 years old, applied to therapeutic practices that may no longer be in use.

However, the authors of Essential Psychotherapy and its Treatment, a standard text in medical schools, disagree with the APA’s leadership, and say that the newer studies vindicate sexual reorientation therapy.

The newest edition (2009) notes on page 488 that, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).”

The APA’s latest report, done by a task force composed of psychologists with long records of homosexualist activism, also claims as “scientific facts” that “same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality — in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders” — and “no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research supports theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma.”

These unbelievable statements fly in the face of more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships and is associated with a wide range of diseases and pathological behaviors.

Studies have shown that homosexuals disproportionately come from families in which sons or daughters lack a healthy relationship with one or both of their parents, or in situations in which the homosexual was the victim of child sex abuse by a same-sex adult.

Homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships, anxiety disorders, depression and suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death.

Even the homosexual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that homosexuals suffer disproportionate rates of disease and self-destructive behavior.

Although the homosexualist leadership at the APA tries to rationalize these relationships by claiming that they are caused by social stigma or other factors, their claims ring hollow.  Many stigmatized groups exist in society that display none of the pathological tendencies of homosexuals, and these tendencies appear even in countries that are very tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as the Netherlands.

Homosexualism on the Defensive

The very existence of the report, however, is evidence that the homosexualist establishment currently in power at the APA is on the defensive, and seeking to preserve its ideology of sexual permissiveness as a paradigm in the psychology profession.

After surrendering itself to a hedonistic ethos in the 1970s and 80s, the American psychological practice has been transformed into a vehicle for patients to rationalize and reconcile themselves with self-destructive, irrational, and narcissistic behavior, paying an “expert” to soothe their consciences by assuring them that “science” is on their side.

However, an increasing number of mental health professionals whose institutions were stolen from them by political activists in the 1970s are now rising up to take back their profession in the name of true science, and patient health.

Former APA President Dr. Robert Perloff has publicly endorsed the National Organization for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), the largest American organization devoted the treatment of unwanted homosexual attractions, and has denounced the APA’s campaign against such treatment.

“The ideology of those who oppose efforts to try to facilitate transfers from SSA, that is, Same Sex Attraction, to heterosexual attraction, must not, must not stand in the way of those homosexual persons who desire to live their lives heterosexually, a choice which is unarguably theirs to make,” he said in a videotaped statement played at NARTH’s 2008 annual meeting.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, who has been been called the “architect” of the American Psychiatric Association’s normalization of homosexuality in the 1970s, provoked outrage from the homosexualist establishment when he admitted in 2001 that his own investigations had convinced him that sexual reorientation therapy can work.

His study, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Mental Health in 2003, found that a majority of his sample of 247 people had developed heterosexual urges or had ceased to be predominantly homosexual after only one year of therapy.  None of the subjects said that they had been harmed in the process.

After presenting his paper before the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, Spitzer said: “I’m convinced from people I have interviewed…many of them…have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.”

Other prominent figures in psychiatry and psychology have also raised their voices in protest, including Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and physicist who has testified before Congress in favor of reparative therapy, and has denounced the hijacking of the mental health professions by homosexualist ideologues in his book, the “Trojan Couch.”

“Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past 35 years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that derives from the public’s belief that these robes exist,” Satinover said in a recent interview .

“The diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction,” he added.

“The question isn’t just homosexuality, said Satinover, “but rather, freedom from all sexual constraint. This has been an issue for civilization for thousands of years…We now have so little of a moral compass that we’re really completely at sea. We’re awash in the tide of unconstrained instinctive behaviors which are all being labeled ‘okay’ because nobody really has a sense, any more, as to what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Whither Psychology?

The debate over reparative therapy for homosexuality runs deeper than the issue itself.  It is arguably a debate over the future of the psychological professions as a whole.

Although there are signs that an increasing number of mental health experts are taking an honest look at the facts regarding homosexual behavior and sexual orientation therapy, there are other signs that portend an even darker future for the profession.

In 1998, the APA released a study by three psychological researchers from Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan, claiming that the “negative potential” of adult sex with children was “overstated” and that “the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.”  It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were “positive,” and suggested that the phrase “child sex abuse” be replaced with “adult-child sex.”

The APA not only passed the paper through its peer review process where it was approved by multiple psychologists associated with the organization, but actually published it in one of its journals, Psychological Bulletin.  Moreover, when objections were raised by radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and various pro-family groups, the organization defended the article for an entire year.  It was also defended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which chillingly stated that it “saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors.”

Although the sheer insanity and destructiveness of the content should have prevented the APA from publishing the article in the first place, the sexual libertines in charge of the organization only issued a muted retraction after the U.S. Congress joined the fray, passing an unprecedented resolution condemning the study.

The publication of the paper was only one example of such lunacy by mental health professionals in peer-reviewed journals.  One of the three authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, has a history of publishing pedophilia-advocacy “studies,” including one for the now-defunct journal Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, whose editors admitted to being pedophiles.

Since the 1998 article, Bauserman and fellow author Bruce Rind have gone on to write more articles defending child sex abuse [adult-child sex], which have appeared in such mainstream journals as the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2001) and Clinical Psychology (2003).  Apparently, the psychology profession is comfortable with Bauserman and Rind’s work, and intends to continue publishing it.

Another apologist for child sex abuse who has received acceptance, affirmation, and recognition from the mental health professions is Dr. Theo Sandfort, who is currently an Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (in Psychiatry) at Colombia University.  Sandfort published a study in 1981 that claimed that boys as young as 10 years old had “positive” experiences in their “sexual relationships” with adults.

While he was co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, Sandfort interviewed 25 boys from between the ages of 10 and 16 who were in such “sexual relationships” — that is, they were being sexually abused by adults.  In fact, the abusers themselves took Sandfort to their victims so he could interview them.  When the victims gave Sandfort their “positive” responses, he duly recorded them.

“For virtually all the boys … the sexual contact itself was experienced positively,” Sandfort wrote, without a hint of irony.

The fact that Sandfort was promoting the sexual abuse of minors with the help of their victimizers didn’t seem to faze him.  Nor did it faze his then-employers at the University of Utrecht.  Nor did it faze the prestigious University of Colombia, which later gave him a professorship, even after he went on to write articles such as “Pedophile relationships in the Netherlands: Alternative Lifestyles for Children?” and books such as “Childhood Sexuality: Normal Sexual Behavior and Development” (2000).

It hasn’t fazed the APA either, which has named Sandfort a “fellow” of the organization since 2002.

The defense and even the promotion of mental health experts who defend child sex abuse is a terrifying, but not unexpected movement down the slippery slope of sexual hedonism embraced by the powers that be at the APA.  It not only threatens homosexuals, who are deceived by the seductive argument that their orientation is nothing to worry about, but psychology and psychiatry themselves.

The outcome of the current battle over the science of homosexuality may well determine the future of the mental health professions as a whole. Will they turn back from the brink, or plunge into the abyss? And what will become of the societies that heed their counsel?

PS. Don’t forget also to save Saturday, Oct. 24th for AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet featuring dynamic culture-warrior Matt Barber as our keynote speaker.

Concerned Women for America writes [click HERE to listen online]:

Homosexual “pride” events and street fairs are growing in number and size. A number of them are also becoming increasingly risqué despite their public nature; except in Charlotte, North Carolina. There, Dr. Michael Brown and the Coalition for Conscience have been taking a stand for truth while actively and civilly reaching out to those attending the “gay” pride gathering. Just this month, 500 Christians came to Charlotte to pray, worship and share the Gospel with those at the event, and proclaim that God Has a Better Way. Dr. Brown joins Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth in comparing the events in San Francisco and Chicago with those in Charlotte. Listen | Download

Related AFTAH links:

• No Nudity Crackdown in San Francisco – Police Again Allow Rampant Public Nudity, Sex Acts at Deviant ‘Up Your Alley’ Street Fair
• A Model Christian Response to ‘Gay’ Pride: ‘God Has a Better Way’ in Charlotte

Opinion piece by J. Matt Barber [Note: Barber will be keynoting Americans For Truth's fund-raising banquet on Sat., Oct. 24 in suburban Chicago]

The highly contentious “nature vs. nurture” debate over whether “gay” penguins choose the homosexual lifestyle or are hatched that way has reached a hard boil.

San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTUV reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.

“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTUV.

But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:

“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”

When asked if heterosexual penguins can become gay, Besen replied, “Well, um, sure. It happens all the time. But in that case it’s just the penguin embracing who he really is. Penguin pride is quite a courageous thing to witness, what with all the mean-spiritedness and homophobia among Penguo-Americans and everything. Once gay, always gay! You know; birds of a feather and all that.

“See,” continued Besen, “medical science has conclusively determined that, while still eggs, many of the more effeminate penguins sometimes get a bit scrambled, so to speak, due to what’s called ‘Homospheniscus Magellanicus Inheritus’ or, as it’s commonly referred: ‘The Gay Penguin Gene’ (GPG).

“No, seriously. It’s science,” insisted Besen. “Harry’s as gay today as he’s ever been. Mark my words. It’s just a matter of time until he ends up slinking around some back alley gay bar in the Castro District, strung out on meth.”

As is customary, Besen – along with a lathered-up handful of equally irate anti-ex-gay blowhards – intends to raucously picket Harry’s Zoo holding area – megaphones in hand – to protest what Besen called, “the tremendous political setback an ever-increasing number of ex-gays pose to our furiously ambitious political agenda. I really, really wish they’d just go away.”

Meanwhile, Pepper has also had difficulty accepting Harry’s decision to embrace natural sexuality. According to KTUV, Harry’s relationship with Linda “did not go over well with Pepper, who became violent.” Zookeeper Jennifer Katz lamented that “Pepper is by himself now.”

Still, it appears that Pepper has yet to hit rock bottom. In recent days he has reportedly been spotted waddling around the zoo’s public men’s room, skulking in stalls and inexplicably tapping his flipper. There’s even speculation that, as things continue to spiral, he may consider a run for political office.

___________________________

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  Barber will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet on Saturday, October 24 at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois, northwest of Chicago (see below).

Matt Barber to Keynote AFTAH Fund-raising Banquet on October 24th

NOTE: The date of our banquet has been changed to Saturday, Oct. 24th:

SAVE THE DATE, Saturday Oct 24: Please save the evening of Saturday, October 24 to attend Americans For Truth’s banquet. Our featured speaker is Matt Barber, culture warrior for Liberty Counsel and author of the column below. Matt is quite a guy, to say the least. He’s gone from being a professional heavyweight boxer, to being fired by Allstate Insurance Company in 2005 because he wrote an online article – on his own time — critical of organized homosexuality, to his current position as one of America’s leading defenders of natural marriage and family. AFTAH got rave reviews for its last banquet; you won’t want to miss this one! The event will be held outside Chicago, in Arlington Heights, IL. Write us for more information at aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net. We hope to see you there!

– Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.com

NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, reports in its April 23, 2009 “NARTH News” e-newsletter:

“The 2009 Edition of Essential Psychotherapy and Its Treatment, a classic text used in most medical schools and psychology programs, has the following important addition to its section on homosexuality (W.W. Norton & Company, p. 488):

‘While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).’

“This is a very important academic text and the inclusion of this statement and the research it cites is a victory for NARTH and all those who support client self-determination in the treatment of unwanted homosexuality!”