Session Notes

Danoah

Before I go on, I feel I must say something one time. Today’s post is not about homosexuality. It’s not about Christians. It’s not about religion. It’s not about politics. It’s about something else altogether. Something greater. Something simpler.



It’s about love.



It’s about kindness.



It’s about friendship

Honestly, I usually find this guy a bit insipid and annoying – but this is so worth reposting. Because it’s real. Because it’s so constant.

Isn’t it strange how secular society seems to get the Gospel so much better then the Church does??? We seem to only get this:

So much that the rest of society seems to be down on their knees screaming:

Finally, a little reason…

For years, the aggressive presentation of the American Psyc. Asso. has been that homosexuality is innate, that any attempt at reparative therapy amounted to abuse and that therapists who offer such should be banned. They further promoted the idea (and aggressively attempted the enforcement of such) that schools must affirm and even market homosexuality/bisexuality/lesbianism/transsexualism as a great idea for youth or risk being seen as and create children who are bigoted.

It would be nice if they had founded all of this politicking on anything more then rumor and thin air — but, they didn’t — the science just isn’t on their side.

Finally, the push back is coming — and coming VERY hard — from none other then the American College of Pediatricians in the form of a letter stating the obvious:

(1) individuals with unwanted same sex attraction often can be successfully treated;

(2) there is no undue risk to patients from embarking on such therapy and

(3), as a group, homosexuals experience significantly higher levels of mental and physical health problems compared to heterosexuals. Among adolescents who claim a “gay” identity, the health risks include higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide. Encouragingly, the longer students delay self-labeling as “gay,” the less likely they are to experience these health risks. In fact, for each year an adolescent delays, the risk of suicide alone decreases by 20%.

In light of these facts, it is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to “come out as gay” and be “affirmed,” there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students (who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation). Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.

Optimal health and respect for all students will only be achieved by first respecting the rights of students and parents to accurate information and to self-determination. It is the school’s legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students. It is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to “affirm” a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation.

Here’s a couple more sources of real information from NARTH and Liberty Counsel.

Don’t expect the politburo at the APA to agree though…

post-gazette.com.

Grove City student suspended over gay porn video

Says film income helped pay tuition

Thursday, May 07, 2009

The Associated Press
GROVE CITY, Pa. — A student is appealing his suspension from a Christian college in Mercer County for appearing in gay porn videos using a pseudonym.

Twenty-two-year-old John Gechter, of Philadelphia, was suspended for one year pending appeal from Grove City College after a student saw him last month in a video posted online.

Mr. Gechter is appealing the suspension and says he may sue, claiming that the gay porn job isn’t any of the school’s business, especially since he performed using the name “Vincent DeSalvo.” Mr. Gechter says he used his porn income to pay for his schooling.

School officials say Mr. Gechter is suspended because he was well aware his porn involvement “exhibited behavior contrary to the values” of the school about 50 miles north of Pittsburgh.

Three interesting things here:

The most interesting part of this is still being recognized by precisely nobody… Apparently, the student who was looking at same-sex oriented erotic videos and narc’ed him out — well, s/he’s still a member of the student body…

It seems that, on this week’s edition of the naughty list, the sex acts involved in viewing same-sex erotic materials are not quite naughty enough to qualify as a, “Really bad sin,” — but performing them (at least on film) is. Or maybe, the real issue is just that the public can’t identify which student reported the problem — thus the school can still claim the problem doesn’t exist in their back yard, avoid dealing with it and still retain their carefully crafted public image…

The second interesting fact is that this guy is telling the truth about his financial needs. It seems that, for no better reason then hiding their finances from the government, the school canceled every student’s ability to subsidize an education in the normal (student loan) way.

The third interesting thing is that no one stated considering keeping them both there, admitting that the entire student body is overloaded with broken hearts and working with all of them to heal such…

Fundamentalist logic…

Author’s main web site

Grab and composite of book.

(This needed to be archived — it’s not going to be allowed to stay up long. Small loss anyway considering the website seemed to have been designed by CIA torture specialists…)

From what I have read so far, this author has written the literature survey and logical defense I wish I had the time to create. I’ve been arguing the irrationality of a genetic explanation for the emergence of Same Sex Attraction for years from a variety of sources but this guy just found them all and then some.

The book also contains a more novel integration with an understanding of the emergence of heterosexuality and how such alters the core, “I was born this way,” argument.

The author is going to take a phenomenal amount of heat if they let his site survive at all. It’s worth a read.

timescolonist.com

And just as we were beginning to acknowledge this and trying to overcome the stigma attached to the disease our attention has been diverted by court cases in which people infected with HIV, mostly men, have been convicted for conduct that risks, or is simply perceived to risk, transferring the disease.

Johnson Aziga of Hamilton is the first person in Canada — possibly in the world — to be convicted of first-degree murder for having unprotected sexual intercourse with two women without telling them that he was HIV positive. He’s received a “life” sentence.

This has to be one of the most striking and disturbing articles of the day. Here’s the logic:

Forget the fact that this man knew what he was doing would kill. Forget the reality that he got the ability to bring that kiss of death through his own actions. Forget the fact that he lied to get that ability to bring this kiss of death to another. Let’s blame the victim of this deadly gift for the crime of trusting him and curse the injustice of the legal system for arresting him for this deliberate homicidal act.

Why? Well, here’s the logic: We live in a world of AIDS where everyone should live in fear of this pervasive plague or at least some other STD.

Really? Lets talk about a pervasive plague that impacts around 2/3rds of one percent (0.7%) of the population, is mostly transmitted by male on male sex (40—49% of new cases) and, in the United States, a known population (African Americans) make up about 48% of the total HIV-positive population and more than half of new HIV cases — despite making up only 12% of the population.

Is it any wonder that, so called, condom fatigue has set in? Is it any wonder that the general public still seems to think of STD’s in terms of chlamydia or the like? Is it any wonder that a few (Yes, even at the chlamydia level) very foolish individuals have begun playing a condom free game of Russian Roulette and could also be at risk to this order of calculated homicide?

Naw — let’s decry the failure to, “Overcome the stigma attached to the disease.” In English, that means, “Convince the population that this is everyone’s problem instead of still mostly being the byproduct of limited (Mostly homosexual) extremely high risk behaviors centered in a known population.” It means, “Ignore that there are some who actually pursue infection with the HIV virus.” It means, “Let’s all act like it makes sense to pretend obvious and rampant irresponsibility on the part of one known population group should be destigmatized while demanding hyper-responsibility in another.”

Once again, forget standing up, telling the truth about where the problem is centered and demanding that the core of the problem deal with it. Let’s deflect it by talking about other STD’s and make the whole world responsible.

Is it any wonder this completely preventable disease called HIV/AIDS is not going away?

The Denver Post

The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is “completely heterosexual” and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser.

Ya, ok, not so much… (To say nothing of the idiotic delusion of reparative therapy being completed in three weeks…)

ap.org

Disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard’s former church disclosed Friday that the gay sex scandal that caused his downfall extends to a young male church volunteer who reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard – a revelation that comes as Haggard tries to repair his public image.

Brady Boyd, who succeeded Haggard as senior pastor of the 10,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, told The Associated Press that the man came forward to church officials in late 2006 shortly after a Denver male prostitute claimed to have had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with Haggard.

But of course, the church is clearly living out their commitment to a transparent, open reflection of a new life in Christ… We think… Ok, maybe they are mostly covering it up better then even Haggard himself and even paying hush money…

Boyd said the church reached a legal settlement to pay the man for counseling and college tuition, with one condition being that none of the parties involved discuss the matter publicly.

Boyd said a Colorado Springs TV station reached him Thursday to say the young man was planning to provide a detailed report of his relationship with Haggard to the station. Boyd said the church preferred to keep the matter private, but it was the man’s decision to go public.

But no, of course it’s not hush money — it’s just compassionate assistance… Um, no wait…

“It wasn’t at all a settlement to make him be quiet or not tell his story,” Boyd said. “Our desire was to help him. Here was a young man who wanted to get on with his life. We considered it more compassionate assistance – certainly not hush money. I know what’s what everyone will want to say because that’s the most salacious thing to say, but that’s not at all what it was.”

Boyd said the church will not take action against the man if he tells his story in the press.

“We have legal standing to do that, but not the desire to,” he said.

Yep, compassionate assistance — with a Non Disclosure Agreement. I’ll bet the church also makes patrons of their food bank sign one though so I’m sure it’s all standard procedure…

It isn’t often that Evangelical Christendom manages NOT to make me ashamed to be associated with them — this is not their lucky day…

KUTV.COM

SAN ANGELO, Tex. – A Texas appeals court said Thursday that the state had no right to take more than 400 children from a polygamist sects ranch, a ruling that could unravel one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the state offered “legally and factually insufficient” grounds for the “extreme” measure of removing all children from the ranch, from babies to teenagers.

The state never provided evidence that the children were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court approval, the appeals court said.

It also failed to show evidence that more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and never alleged any sexual or physical abuse against the other children, the court said.

It was not immediately clear whether the children scattered across foster facilities statewide might soon be reunited with parents. The ruling gave Texas District Judge Barbara Walther 10 days to vacate her custody order, and the state could appeal.

FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said sect members feel validated, having argued from the beginning that they were being persecuted for their beliefs.

The legal geniuses have spoken. Contrary to this foundation of American marital law:

[W]e think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests…

[P]olygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy…. An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

…[T]he only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165-67 (1878).

…The court of Texas now feels that their belief system does not, in fact, influence those around them or damage children and that it has no interest in offering protection to the rest of society…

It ignored the reality that they COULD prove that 5 girls were being sexually abused, that this abuse was not some random uncle sneaking in under the cover of night but, rather, a socially accepted act carried out under the premeditated sham of an illegal marriage unto which the young girl had to have been forced — seeing as she had no legal ability to consent to such. This is something that the entire community participated in through participation in the ceremonies.

It also ignored the reality that, while these marriages were not declared as such, they did, in fact exist. (It’s really only through an adherence to a legal sham of state sanctioned marriage that they could be ignored in first place…) Thus they were permitted to ignore the actual illegality of the actions in question.

The most striking irony, though, is how they are talking now — having been schooled by an army of lawyers: “We’re being persecuted for our beliefs.” Really? The Texas authorities knew the compound was there for decades — and did nothing. The seizure of children was done because the violation of children reported and discovered was a socially accepted set of actions which then left the other children there defenseless.

They admit that their beliefs advocate something contrary to American law (Though they can lie like troopers on Larry King about having no husbands…) and there is solid proof that some children were illegally married to and sexually used by those older men, yet, the connection between belief and support of action seems to have no legal credibility.

It’s a strange bending of really: “You may believe you are married but we refuse to accept that those marriages could exist. If they can not exist, then no laws have been broken and no one could be harmed by what we just decided does not exist. All that is present here is a group of people believing in a fiction and beliefs can’t harm anyone either (COUGH 911 COUGH) so they should get their children back to continue teaching them to engage in what we have decided doesn’t exist.”

Only a lawyer could make that one make sense…

Q&A: My daughter just told me she is a lesbian:

“also realize that grace does not teach us that we are supposed to be accepting of perverse behavior, but that this is what we have been delivered out of. In Christ, ALL OF IT has been condemned EQUALLY. Christ’s death and resurrection did not make it OK, He put it to death and has raised US to new life.”

This is a really clear brief article that encourages us to say when we feel hurt/fear, the impact, over others choices, as this is our heart, and that we do love that individual. As well we can ask for limits so their free will has less of an affect on us. This is the treasure of grace and honesty in the freedom of Christ’s work on the cross. I pray we can all do it.

TimesOnline

But this time, we know what it’s all about, don’t we? Not joyful, simplified Christianity but a pulling-up of drawbridges. Anglican archbishops in Dar es Salaam are struggling to avoid “schism” in their vast communion over the issue of ordaining, or indeed tolerating, Christians whose unsought orientation is to pair up with others of their own gender. And it will be the illiberal, genitally-fixated wing of Anglicanism that sidles towards unity with Rome. It will do this because it thinks — accurately, more’s the pity — that Rome is where you find the most intolerant attitudes towards homosexuality.

It always intrigues me to watch liberal/postmodernist columnists going to war against fundamentalism on issues of sexuality. They start out with all the fire and fury of their supposed passionate love for the broken hearts of others and their desire for, well, something or other… They then vent their frustrated rage at the Churches’ incurable obsession with genital sexuality which, they hold, “Cripples every good intention, impedes every good work,” as though it were definitively the core of the problem that is causing the pain of those they claim to defend. Then, they present their solution:

The irony is, their solution is simply, “Let’s not talk about it.” They state that, “Christianity could just grow up, and stop treating sex as if it were innately toxic or radioactive and yet irresistibly interesting,” ignoring, for a moment, that these voices may actually have noticed something real. (Not that sexuality is innately toxic, but that there may actually be some seriously broken hearts resulting from the misuse of sexuality…) How do they substantiate this position of willful obliviousness?

The present Pope’s use of expressions such as “objectively disordered” is not only cruel, but unfounded in any solid fact. Nor is real homosexuality, as evangelicals love to claim, “curable”. You can persuade, inspire or bully people out of committing crimes, but not out of perceiving a particular kind of beauty, loveability, caressability and companionableness more in one sex than another. You can condemn people for doing bad things, but you cannot dictate where they will see beauty, a reflection of divinity.

Well, never mind that the very man that removed Homosexuality from the DSM has released his studies stating rather conclusively that homosexuality can be changed. Never mind that there are thousands of persons world wide who’s personal journeys beg to differ with this position. Let’s ignore all the research and just make a raw batch of categorical statements about your own opinions. In other words — they just don’t substantiate it — in fact, they don’t even engage any research that disagrees with them while upholding research as that which will vindicate them.

Ironically, the solution they offer — just ignoring the broken hearts of those trapped in this lifestyle — is exactly the same solution actually being currently practiced in the fundamentalist churches they rail against. In fact, it’s the solution nearly exclusively practiced on both sides (except for a very few.) While one side rails against behaviors and the other side praises the same, the real problem is that neither side is prepared to engage the broken at a level that actually matters.

And, what would engaging them look like? It would start with reading Romans and Galatians again for the very first time, walking away from the idiocy of our ethical revision of Christianity and figuring out that there is no other way to describe Christianity but with the word, “Freedom.” It would continue with the recognition of the dignity and sonship/daughtership of every child of God (regardless of their behavior) and a reexamination of the radical nature of both love itself as well as the call of Christ to do so. It would continue with an honest recognition of the reality of human broken hearts — especially in the case of those who are settling for so much less then what they were created for. Then it would require figuring out that love doesn’t tell a person who is settling for such that that’s all they can expect for their lives.

Just maybe, somewhere in there, the church might discover the point Paul was making back there: That love, grace, freedom and an intimate relationship with God/others can heal what no amount of hiding our heads in the sand or shouting our judgments at the broken will ever even touch.

But then, that would require us to actually go into the dark places of the human heart that Jesus hung out in — instead of acting like the damage is beautiful or, conversely, too evil to do anything but mark the person as fuel for the fires of hell…

Oh wait… Never mind… That would cut into the stained glass window budget…