www.ex-gaytruth.com

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com

Mary Lou Wallner was given the distinction of being “Very Unsupportive (Initially)” Mary Lou’s lesbian daughter, Anna, committed suicide. Mary Lou Wallner is now an advocate for gay rights and has been touring the nation in support of the movie. In one part of the movie she tells the videographer that she blames Dr. James Dobson for the suicide of her daughter. At that time in her life Mary Lou was a member of a conservative Christian church that believed homosexual behavior was sin. She also followed the advice of Dr. James Dobson and did not accept her daughter’s homosexuality. The movie portrays that lack of acceptance as the cause of Anna’s suicide. The Poteat family was listed as “Partially Supportive.” This family kept an open relationship with their lesbian daughter. They too were conservative Christians, who did not approve of their daughter’s homosexuality, but their daughter was always welcome at her childhood home and she always knew her family loved her, even though they did not approve of her lesbian relationships. Having been a follower of Dr. James Dobson myself and having attended their controversial “Love Won Out” conferences on homosexuality, I can attest that Focus on the Family does not teach parents to reject their children. Obviously, Jake has never personally investigated Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family, but relied on second hand information from Soulforce to make his damning accusation. Focus on the Family and their Love Won Out conferences teach parents to continue to openly love their children while continuing their disapproval of the child’s sexual behavior. Focus tells parents the truth that homosexual attractions are usually not a choice, that sexual orientation change is possible but not easy, and that parents need to love their children just as God loves them, even in their sin. The Poteat family is actually a good example of what Focus and Dr. Dobson teach. Mary Lou Wallner was present at the screening of the movie I attended in Flint. In my research on homosexuality I have read reports and heard lectures by clinical psychologists that lesbians do not usually seek counseling because of conflicts with their sexual orientation, but rather for distress from broken relationships. In the Q and A following the movie I asked Mary Lou if her daughter had any recent relationship problems before the suicide. Mary Lou revealed that her daughter had recently broken up with her long-time lover and moved in with another lesbian who had three teenage children. About two and a half months into this new relationship the woman asked Mary Lou’s daughter to move out. Shortly after this breakup, the daughter committed suicide. Mary Lou also revealed that her daughter was always welcome at her childhood home. When her daughter and lesbian partners visited, Mary Lou and her husband let them sleep in the same bed. It became clear very quickly how distorted the movie had portrayed Anna’s suicide and the conservative Christian beliefs Mary Lou once held. The Wallner’s were at least as supportive of their lesbian daughter as the Poteats were, and maybe even more so. Anna Wallner’s suicide had little to do with her parent’s disapproval of homosexual behavior, but a lot to do with the destructive aspects of lesbian relationships. The movie intentionally distorted this fact and used this terrible tragedy to smear an innocent man and the organization he represents. But this is nothing new, it is standard gay propaganda.

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com

The movie “For the Bible tells me so” (forthebibletellsmeso.org) was shown in my home community of Flint, Michigan in the fall of 2008 as part of a series of gay events called “Out’N About.” Although the movie was billed as a documentary, it was first and foremost a gay propaganda film.

The movie has two distinct elements to it. The documentary element examines the lives of five homosexuals and how their immediate families responded to their homosexuality. That part of the movie is actually a documentary, interesting, emotionally moving, and somewhat objective. The other part of the movie is pure gay political propaganda arranged to disparage conservative Christians and present the gay political movement as the enlightened possessors of the real truth about homosexuality.
From my observations as a scholar on the gay political movement this movie has the imprint of the gay political organization known as Soulforce (www.soulforce.org).

Soulforce has been a branch of the gay political movement specifically targeting the Bible believing Christian church. Mel White is a cofounder of Soulforce and a prominent leader in the gay political movement. A favorite target of Mel White and Soulforce has been Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family (www.focusonthefamily.com).
The fact that the movie specifically targets Dr. James Dobson and that Dr. Mel White is a predominant spokesperson throughout the movie gives the Soulforce manipulation away. The movie at the time of this writing was featured on the Soulforce website and on the website of America’s largest gay lobbying organization – The Human Rights Campaign. A fifty page study guide comes with the movie to assist in molding the interested convert into an advocate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender equality with heterosexuality.
Besides the deception and lies presented as truths, the gay theology espoused in the film claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior is considered by many a self-serving concoction. It would take a whole book to accurately address all the deception and lies in the propaganda part of the movie, so I will select instances that best support my accusations.
Scientific lies and deception
Like most gay propaganda the movie begins its justification of homosexuality by contending that homosexuality is not something that is not chosen.

Conservative Christians knowledgeable on homosexuality, including ex-gays, and psychotherapists who help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, agree that clinical science has shown that homosexual attractions are not usually something that an individual chooses. That there is agreement on this point is never brought up in gay propaganda and it is not acknowledged in the movie. Instead Christians, ex-gays, and therapists who disagree with the gay worldview are shown as ninnies who ignore this and other clinical facts. Knowledgeable Christians, ex-gays, and therapists do distinguish between attractions and behavior, and most certainly maintain that individuals have a choice of whether or not they engage in any form of sexual behavior. This distinction is never mentioned in gay propaganda or the movie.

Gay propaganda and clinical science diverge after the fact that homosexuals do not choose their attractions to the same sex. Using that fact as a premise gay propaganda and the movie conclude that homosexuality is an innate condition that is unchangeable and therefore equivalent to heterosexuality. The movie specifically states that “sexual orientation cannot be changed or prevented.”

There are no facts to support the innate theory, so the movie shows a cartoon series that mocks the clinical evidence on the causal factors of homosexuality and sexual orientation change. What researchers have found is that male homosexuals usually have had past experiences of prolonged rejection by the same sex parent and same sex peers throughout childhood. As a child the homosexual never felt he was a part of his gender group, and the longing to be part of the group and the mystery of the same sex turned into same-sex attractions at puberty. This is not always the causal route to male homosexuality, but it has been documented enough to be referred to as the standard causal route.

Clinical science has also documented hundreds of cases where homosexuals have changed their sexual orientation. The evidence is overwhelming. The movie claims ex-gay organizations and psychotherapists use shame and guilt to coax homosexuals to repress their true feelings, thereby presenting ex-gay organizations as a sham and destructive to the mental well being of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that ex-gay organizations like Exodus International (www.exodus.to) offer real hope to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions. Many individuals have overcome homosexual behavior and desires. A significant percentage have changed their sexual orientation, married a person of the opposite sex, and raised families.
A sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual is partly a reparative process and partly a cognitive process. Motivation is the main part of the cognitive process. The motivation usually comes from religious beliefs, aspirations of a heterosexual marriage, and from a fact that gay propaganda avoids like the plague, which is that many who enter the gay world find its lifestyle very destructive. The main part of the reparative process is to understand and deal with the memories and hurt of same-sex rejection in childhood. Often there was sexual abuse that contributed to the unwanted same-sex attractions. This short introduction on the causal factors of homosexuality is more accurate than the sum of all the causal information in the movie. The movie mocks this knowledge, and in doing so mocks the truth.

Theological lies and deception

A Rev. Keene makes the statement in the movie that “All loving relationships are honored in the Bible.” This is an easily refutable lie. In the same chapter of Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned there are a number of family related sexual relationships that are prohibited. Surely sexual relationships between close relatives can be loving relationships, yet contrary to Mr. Keene they are condemned. Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 reads “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” There is no insinuation that if a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman in a loving relationship, then it is equal to a heterosexual loving relationship.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul was informed of a man in the Corinth church who was in a loving relationship with his stepmother. Paul told the church in Corinth to “Expel the wicked man from among you” (I Corinthians 5:13). In another incidence John the Baptist was martyred for saying that it was immoral for King Herod to marry his brother’s wife (Mark 6:18). Mr. Keene’s statement is a fabrication of what he wants the Bible to say.

Mr. Keene’s statement is also a misrepresentation of gay and liberal morality. Liberal sexual morality is based on consensual sex and is not dependent on a loving relationship or marriage. In general consensual sex without love in this moral code is as just as moral as sex in a loving relationship.
The movie presents many arguments of the new gay theology. The most amusing is “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” The answer is “nothing,” if one ignores his comparison of the destruction of Sodom and the fate of those who did not repent after seeing miracles and hearing the gospel message (Luke 10:12). The sin of bestiality (humans having sex with animals), which happens to be listed in Leviticus 18:23 right after homosexuality, was not mentioned by Jesus in the written record of the gospels. If we use the gay logic that because Jesus did not mention homosexuality it is not immoral, then the same logic applies to bestiality, and it too is no longer immoral behavior.

When one examines Satan’s appearance in the Bible as a serpent in the Garden of Eden or tempting Jesus in the wilderness, it becomes evident that Satan’s method of persuasion is to present half truths. Likewise gay propaganda often persuades with half truths. One such instance in the movie was the gay theological argument that God’s condemnation of Sodom was not because the city was steeped in homosexual behavior, but because it was inhospitable.
The half truth that gay theology presents is that Sodom was indeed inhospitable to the two angels sent to their city in the form of handsome young men. Instead of welcoming the strangers, the men of Sodom sought to anally rape the young men. What the movie does not reveal is that in the ancient world accepted homosexual behavior was not two men of the same sex in a loving reciprocal relationship. It was a dominate man sodomizing a subordinate man or youth, usually a slave or captive from a battle. It was considered a humiliation for a man to be sodomized in any type of relationship.
In a related half truth the movie states that pederasty (an adult man sodomizing an adolescent male) is not homosexuality. It is true that pederasty is considered a specific sexual orientation in itself, but it is definitely a form of homosexuality. Intellectual elites in Ancient Greece during the time of Plato and Socrates considered arranged pederasty relationships the most preferred of all loving relationships. In the late 1980s gay authors Kirk and Madsen referred to the pederasty relationships of ancient Greece as the “traditional gay family.” The values of the Grecian society allowed the free man to not only have sexual relations with his wife, but also prostitutes, both female and male slaves, and a young free man to whom he would also be a mentor. When the young free man became an adult the pederasty relationship ended, because it was dishonorable for a man to be sodomized or have effeminate characteristics.

Deception in the storytelling

The five families featured in the movie were rated as to how supportive they were to their gay child. One family, the Reitans, was given the distinction of being “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Advocates.” In the movie the family is shown taking part in a Soulforce sponsored demonstration at the Focus on the Family facility in Colorado Springs. With his parents at his side the gay child, Jake, makes the accusation that Focus on the Family teaches parents to reject their children.

Mary Lou Wallner was given the distinction of being “Very Unsupportive (Initially)” Mary Lou’s lesbian daughter, Anna, committed suicide. Mary Lou Wallner is now an advocate for gay rights and has been touring the nation in support of the movie. In one part of the movie she tells the videographer that she blames Dr. James Dobson for the suicide of her daughter. At that time in her life Mary Lou was a member of a conservative Christian church that believed homosexual behavior was sin. She also followed the advice of Dr. James Dobson and did not accept her daughter’s homosexuality. The movie portrays that lack of acceptance as the cause of Anna’s suicide.

The Poteat family was listed as “Partially Supportive.” This family kept an open relationship with their lesbian daughter. They too were conservative Christians, who did not approve of their daughter’s homosexuality, but their daughter was always welcome at her childhood home and she always knew her family loved her, even though they did not approve of her lesbian relationships.
Having been a follower of Dr. James Dobson myself and having attended their controversial “Love Won Out” conferences on homosexuality, I can attest that Focus on the Family does not teach parents to reject their children. Obviously, Jake has never personally investigated Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family, but relied on second hand information from Soulforce to make his damning accusation.

Focus on the Family and their Love Won Out conferences teach parents to continue to openly love their children while continuing their disapproval of the child’s sexual behavior. Focus tells parents the truth that homosexual attractions are usually not a choice, that sexual orientation change is possible but not easy, and that parents need to love their children just as God loves them, even in their sin. The Poteat family is actually a good example of what Focus and Dr. Dobson teach.

Mary Lou Wallner was present at the screening of the movie I attended in Flint. In my research on homosexuality I have read reports and heard lectures by clinical psychologists that lesbians do not usually seek counseling because of conflicts with their sexual orientation, but rather for distress from broken relationships. In the Q and A following the movie I asked Mary Lou if her daughter had any recent relationship problems before the suicide. Mary Lou revealed that her daughter had recently broken up with her long-time lover and moved in with another lesbian who had three teenage children. About two and a half months into this new relationship the woman asked Mary Lou’s daughter to move out. Shortly after this breakup, the daughter committed suicide.

Mary Lou also revealed that her daughter was always welcome at her childhood home. When her daughter and lesbian partners visited, Mary Lou and her husband let them sleep in the same bed. It became clear very quickly how distorted the movie had portrayed Anna’s suicide and the conservative Christian beliefs Mary Lou once held. The Wallner’s were at least as supportive of their lesbian daughter as the Poteats were, and maybe even more so.
Anna Wallner’s suicide had little to do with her parent’s disapproval of homosexual behavior, but a lot to do with the destructive aspects of lesbian relationships. The movie intentionally distorted this fact and used this terrible tragedy to smear an innocent man and the organization he represents. But this is nothing new, it is standard gay propaganda.

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com


Gay activists contend there are only seven scriptures that address homosexuality in the Bible and therefore homosexual behavior is insignificant in scripture. Gay activists also contend that theologians have misinterpreted the seven scriptures. The seven main scriptures are the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the letter by Jude verse 7, and the Apostle Paul’s letters in Romans 1:26-7, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
Gay activists like to point out that none of these scripture references are in the first four books of the New Testament that record the direct teachings of Jesus. The gay argument is that since Jesus never mentioned homosexual behavior, it should not be considered immoral. That argument lacks any merit when one realizes that Jesus never mentioned bestiality either (humans having sexual relations with animals – another aberrant sexual orientation). Using the same gay logic would imply that a human having sex with an animal is not immoral behavior. Bestiality is listed as a sin in the Mosaic Law right after male homosexuality in Leviticus 18:23. Male homosexual behavior and bestiality are the only immoral sexual behaviors listed in Leviticus 18 that include the adjectives of “detestable” and “perversion.” The gay insignificant argument also fails the test on the bestiality comparison because there are even less scriptures that address humans having sex with animals.
Leviticus 18:22 explicitly states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” (NIV) Gay theology argues that the type of homosexual behavior condemned in Leviticus does not include homosexuals in loving and consensual relationships. This gay argument is also without merit when one studies the content of Leviticus 18. Most of Leviticus 18 condemns various close relative and incestuous heterosexual relationships. The author of Leviticus condemns fourteen heterosexual relationships between close relatives and no homosexual incestuous relationships. The obvious reason Leviticus 18 does not list homosexual close relative relationships is because verse 22 condemns all homosexual behavior.
Other arguments put forth by gay theology are that the word for homosexual has been misinterpreted in the passages of the Apostle Paul’s letters; God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah not because homosexual behavior was prevalent in those communities, but because its citizens were inhospitable and sought to rape the male visitors; and the close friendships between Jonathon and David in the Old Testament as well as Jesus and the Apostle John in the New Testament were actually homosexual relationships. The key to all these arguments is still found in Leviticus 18. If Leviticus 18 condemns all homosexual behavior, which I believe it clearly does, these other gay arguments have no foundation for their devious assertions.
Once homosexual behavior is established biblically as sexual immorality along with adultery, close family heterosexual relationships, and bestiality, a host of other biblical scriptures apply to homosexual behavior. The Apostles gave four firm requirements to the non-Jewish Christians in the early church, “to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:20 NIV) The Apostle Paul wrote, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV) In his letter to the Ephesians Paul wrote, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” (Ephesians 5:3 NIV) There are many other New Testament verses with similar instructions to avoid sexual immorality.

.....


I was discussing these issues on homosexuality with an independent filmmaker in Houston, when she said, “I don’t care if people engage in homosexual behavior in their private quarters.” I was taken back a bit, because I knew I did care and didn’t care at the same time. I was also unclear what she implied by her statement. I had to think that statement through, and out of that thought process came a good example of how Christians need to be prepared to intelligently address issues of homosexuality.
My confusion and a lot of the confusion on issues of homosexuality stem from the fact that in America’s structured society there are different spheres of authority where behavior is subject to scrutiny. I find three distinct spheres where society views homosexual behavior from different perspectives – a medical sphere, a civil law sphere, and a theological or moral sphere. As one who has studied all three of these spheres, I tend to view homosexual issues differently depending on which sphere of authority they pertain to.
To illustrate this concept I am going to give my viewpoints on the filmmakers comment from these three structural spheres. From a medical viewpoint I do not care if two or three or four people engage in consensual homosexual behavior in private quarters, although I have apprehension that they may harm themselves or others. Some of the people engaging in that behavior may have unhealed emotional wounds from their same-sex parent and the behavior might be an attempt to repair that wound. Some may be carrying a sexually transmitted disease. I am not their medical doctor, their psychologist, their psychiatrist, or their close relative, so medically it is none of my business, but as a Christian I should have enough compassion to not want to see these individuals get AIDS or continue in behavior that will deepen their emotional wounds.
From a civil law viewpoint consensual homosexual sex in private quarters is not an infraction of civil law, so from that viewpoint I have no reason to care if people engage in that type of behavior. Sodomy used to be illegal. When it was illegal one could have been concerned that this consensual behavior was breaking the law, and even now some believe that sodomy, like prostitution, should be against the law. On another level as a Christian I care greatly if the civil law tells school children that consensual homosexual relationships are as desirable as heterosexual relationships and equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman, because those types of laws intentionally oppose my Christian moral beliefs.
From a theological viewpoint Christians should be concerned for people who engage in consensual homosexual behavior, because according to biblical scripture it will keep them out of heaven. The Apostle Paul reiterates that warning in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. In direct contrast to the warning is the desire of God to not want “anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) Followers of God should not want anyone to perish either. For those who are not familiar with this Christian terminology and message, one inherits eternal life (heaven) with Jesus upon repentance of their sins, turning away from sinful behavior, and choosing to follow Jesus. When one refuses to repent of sinful behavior and disregard God’s promise through Jesus, they are destined to perish (hell). Jesus talked about heaven and hell many times referring to hell as a place “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” To the Christian either heaven or hell represent each individuals eternal destiny.
The simple statement by the filmmaker had many interpretations and implications. For example, a moral liberal would state that they do not care if people engage in consensual homosexual sex in private quarters because they believe consensual homosexual sex is moral behavior. A libertarian could make the same statement and not care if the behavior was moral or immoral, because their main principle is personal freedom. A conservative could make the same statement also and in a mean spirited way imply that they don’t care if that person gets AIDS from their sexual behavior, because they are responsible for their own actions. A Christian could also make the same statement in a callous way and imply that they don’t care if people who engage in consensual homosexual behavior go to hell or get AIDS, because they deserve “the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)
As a Christian I do not identify with any of the four interpretations presented of the filmmakers statement. From my Christian viewpoint, although I agree American society gives people the civil right to engage in consensual homosexual sex in private places, I do care that people engage in this behavior, because ultimately I do not want them to go to hell or to harm themselves or to harm others.