What's the Big Deal about Ex-Gays?

  

What's the Big Deal about Ex-Gays?

by

Paul E. Rondeau

The small, all volunteer organization PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) is once again making national news. They are supporting a shareholder's resolution at Disney (yes, that Disney) asking the media giant to include former homosexuals under their anti-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation.
   PFOX has successfully taken powerful school systems like Montgomery County, MD, ( a suburb of Washington, DC) to federal court for pushing unsafe and untrue sexuality classes on their students.
   PFOX brought mega-union National Education Association to the Superior Court of DC for blocking PFOX for years from even exhibiting at NEA national conferences while welcoming gay groups to train teachers.
   In order to continue to ban PFOX from the national conferences, NEA argued that they could discriminate against PFOX and ex-gays due to their right to freedom of association.  PFOX did not get to exhibit in the future but forced NEA to admit in court what PFOX already knew: the NEA and gay activist groups like GLSN and PFLAG that target K-12 schoolchildren are in bed together.
   Something else happened that the NEA forgot to mention in press releases:  The Court ruled that ex-gays are also protected from discrimination by the same laws that apply to gays.  PFOX forced the Goliath union out of the closet and set legal precedent--not a bad's day's work!
   PFOX is the only ex-gay group in the nation to sign-on in support of California's marriage amendment. They participate in press conferences against federal hate crimes legislation.  Fox News reported that PFOX also has confronted the mighty American Library Association.
   (The ALA vets and recommends books for inclusion in K-12 libraries. They routinely reject anything written by or about ex-gays. Meanwhile, children's books on gay penguins, lesbian mommies, and details of homosexual initiation with  an older man get their imprimatur.) 
   Why is this small Virginia-based group taking on mega-issues, mega-unions, and now Fortune 500 companies when ex-gay ministries like Exodus have walked off the public policy playing field? (PFOX is neither a therapeutic or counseling organization.)
  Both the Left and the Right scratch their heads about PFOX. The Left wonders, "Who do they think they are and how can we silence them?" Some on the Right wonder, "Who do they think they are and what are they doing?"
   What do marriage amendments, hate crimes, school curricula, and library books have to do with the PFOX mission of supporting and advocating for 'ex-gays?'  Most of all, the Right doesn't comprehend this "bizarre idea" that ex-gays should be covered by sexual-orientation anti-discrimination policies.
   To answer the first, all the ex-gay ministries and support in the world will not keep up with K-12 schools, library books, and teacher unions that continue to promote homosexuality as normal and healthy to millions of children each day. 
   Second, gay activists target ex-gays for ridicule, economic harassment, and political silencing.  Any discussion of successfully changing one's homosexual attraction blows down the "born that way" Ponzie scheme.  Gays unleash a spew of vitriol denouncing the bigotry such 'hateful' speech. What hateful speech?  Well, just that ex-gays exist.  If ENDA, Hate Crimes, same-sex marriage, and the rest of gay legislative laundry list become law, the next step is hateful speech becomes hate speech.  All ex-gays will become legally persona non grata. 
   And if just saying change of sexual orientation for some is possible becomes illegal hate speech, ex-gay ministries who support change will close-up shop.  It's not rocket science.  All professional therapeutic or research support to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction will become unethical if not illegal.  (Conspiracy theory?  Ridiculous?  Just check Germany where gay militants fought to revoke an M.D.'s license for just that.)
   In the last few years, radicals in the American Psychological Association almost succeeded in banning all  therapeutic support  for change as unethical--regardless of the patient's expressed desire.  Only pressure and threat of litigation from ex-gays and their supporters demanding that a patient's rights to self-determination was more important than APA political ideology defeated the gay gambit.


Not Hard to Imagine:  The Future is Already Here.

A Christian photographer passes on doing a 'gay wedding.' A single girl renting out an extra bedroom chooses not to have a lesbian roommate. They are sued, fined and ordered by the court to sensitivity training
   Did the gay complainants have ample other choices?  Doesn't matter.  The constitutionally enumerated right to religious freedom of the defendant?  Does not matter.  Private property and personal rights of the young woman?  Does not matter.
   eHarmony offers match-making based based on years of psychological research on successful heterosexual marriage.  It is not a generic dating site.  It has no research on same-sex relationships.  Doesn't matter. Ditto, Ditto.  The founder is an evangelical Christian.  Doesn't matter. More likely, that is exactly what did matter.
   A New Jersey gay filed for discrimination.  eHarmony is not found guilty but to finally end months of litigation, the owner agrees to launch a homosexual matching service called Compatible Partners.  Sorry, not good enough. Gays in California then filed a class action suit claiming a 'separate but equal [dating site]' is still discriminatory.
   What does matter is that these are not future events. They already happened.  Pastors in Canada and Europe have already faced hate speech prosecutions.  Ex-gay supporters have been dismissed by gay supporters.  Obama's 'safe school' czar is a past drug abuser and pro-gay zealot.  Oh, didn't hear any of this in the media?  Surely just an journalistic oversight on crowded news days for the last decade.
   Jurisprudence does not exist in a vacuum. What is the legal trajectory after ENDA, Hate Crimes, and wide spread same-sex marriage?  The obvious result would be further  forced compliance by the courts to validate homosexuality in every manner .
  Where would this leave those who want to leave homosexuality?   Or ex-gays?  Or un-affirming parents or teachers?  Is it so hard to imagine discrimination complaints followed by court ordered therapy to cure 'homophobia'? ( Remember, whether or not charges of homophobia  are untrue...doesn't matter!)
  That's where public policy and PFOX intersect.  The underlying precept to pro-gay policies is that there is no such thing as ex-gays. This implies that anyone, including ex-gays, who believes change is possible are either mentally ill or prejudiced against gays.
   Policies that protect the 'right' to be gay must also protect the right to become ex-gay.   If leaving homosexuality were mere science fiction, why don't gays ignore protection for ex-gays as meaningless?  Instead, they fight tooth and nail against any protection for ex-gays as a conspiracy to discriminate against gays, i.e. ex-gay is discrimination..  Hence, PFOX's strategic advocacy for inclusion of ex-gays in sexual orientation policies.  Q.E.D.

Gays are Self-Evident Proof, but Ex-gays are Just Crazy.
 
Homosexuality is still not proven to exist as anything other than a mental perception.  The 'science'  that proves the innate nature of gayness is that gays self-identify and behave as gays.  We are told that we must accept homosexuality as normal and healthy even for ourselves or loved one and pass pro-gay protections against those less enlightened.
  Gays set a little different level of scientific rigor for ex-gays. Ex-gays must prove that they were gay in the first place and then they must also prove that they are no longer gay . That is, ex-gays must first prove what gays have failed to prove in four decades and then prove the null hypothesis to what has not been proven in the first place.
  (No-no-no.  It doesn't work the same way in case your wondering.  It's perfectly fine to claim civil rights status because you say you are homosexual and behaving that way.  But self-identifying as ex-gay, claiming to now have less or no same-sex attraction  and behaving that way is not proof.  That's classified as just ex-gay right wing ignorant crazy talk.)
  PFOX fights for policies to keep the road to self-determination open for those who choose it and against policies that threaten it.  It's kind of like insurance or a constitutional amendment protecting marriage: you have to have it before you imagine you could ever need it. 
   Because in spite of being assured that change is impossible and against all odds, thousands of homosexuals do start the journey each year to conquer their unwanted same-sex attraction.
  It is a daunting, arduous trek. Some do not reach the life-changing goal they set. Gay activists exploit these most intimate personal disappointments as proof positive of the folly for all.
   But many do reach their destination.  They leave homosexuality behind.  That truth is a lighthouse in the perfect storm of sexual politics. They prove to gays, parents, and lawmakers that self-determination in one's own sexual nature is possible.    They prove change is possible.
   And that's a big deal.

Teen Trajedy Twisted into Gay Martyrdom

Teen Tragedy Twisted into Gay Martyrdom 

by

Paul E. Rondeau

With bitter tears barely dry over the murder of a troubled 15 year old boy by a 14 year old classmate, gay activists are already exploiting the very tragedy that their activism in K-12 schools helped create. Media spin by gay activists has already gone out to push for ever more exposure of students to sexual diversity in schools—as if more of the problem is the cure. The GLSTN sponsored National Day of Silence, marketed as raising awareness of “homophobia” in schools, was dedicated this year to Larry.

Diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder, Larry King could not bond with his parents. Taunted in earlier grades for being small and effeminate, in his stiletto heels Larry now chased other boys at school taunting them in the hallways with “you know you want me” and in the boys locker room with “you look hot.”

Last January, Larry started to show up for class at Oxnard, Calif.'s E. O. Green Junior High School decked out in women's accessories and maxed out in women’s makeup. Larry’s behavior is a significant indicator that he likely suffered from Gender Identity Disorder. He told a teacher that he wanted to be called Leticia. Teachers complained to management that his dress was disruptive but were brushed off.

One teacher told Larry to wash off his eyeliner and makeup. He did—but returned the next day with even more. He informed his teacher that he could wear makeup if he wanted: Ms. Epstein, the assistant principal (who was open about her lesbianism among the faculty) told him wearing make-up and girls clothes was his right. Another teacher gave Larry a green evening dress to “show her support.”
While he enjoyed the limelight and the school sent memos to faculty demanding they insure his “right” to sexual expression, Larry’s already low GPA sank from 1.71 to a dismal 1.0.

Brandon, a 14 year old classmate, was a fascination for Larry. Larry would walk close to Brandon, study him, and even claimed they had dated. Teachers suspect there was no relationship but nevertheless Larry threatened Brandon that he would tell the whole school “about them” if Brandon wasn’t nicer to him. Just before Valentine’s Day, Larry asked Brandon in front of his friends to be his Valentine. On Valentine’s Day Brandon sat behind Larry in class, pulled out gun, and shot him in the head. He then calmly walked out of class.


No one blames Larry for his own murder. But, says one teacher, they also failed Brandon. “We didn't know the bullying was coming from the other side—Larry was pushing as hard as he could, because he liked the attention." Brandon’s father Bill goes further: "Brandon was being terrorized," he says. "He was being stalked almost, to the degree of the school should have never let this happen." And while Larry’s father Greg King feels no sympathy for Brandon, even he believes his son sexually harassed Brandon. And, he resents that gay activist groups have “appropriated” the tragedy for their cause.

Teachers were barred from doing anything that might interfere with Larry’s “freedom” of sexual expression...even if he was at risk mentally and physically. “Sexual diversity” was enabled as an attention getting weapon of one disturbed adolescent child against others. One child would ultimately become so distraught that he murdered his tormentor.

Assistant Principal Epstein (who Larry’s father and others say confused her job with promoting gay rights) would be promoted to principal of an elementary school. Mr. King called the promotion “a slap in the face to my family.” He went on to say "I think the gay-rights people want it to be a gay-rights issue, because it makes a poster child out of my son." King is sueing the school system and is not so sure his son was in fact gay.)

Radical politically correct ‘sexuality diversity’ school environments put children at risk mentally, medically, and physically: they actually foster hostility rather than prevent it. Recently, PFOX (pfox.org) created a firestorm just for issuing a press release that reported the well documented increased health hazards of ‘coming out early’ that gay advocates proudly promote. We agree with Greg King, Larry’s father: (In fact, it has been reported that Mr. King is not so sure his son was in fact gay.)

Political correctness failed two children who both needed help. It created an environment where neither child could get the help nor safety they should have been guaranteed. This confluence of tragic events could have been stopped. It cost one life and destroyed another. Protecting and even encouraging “expression” of sexual diversity at any cost blinded some and left others helpless to intercede.


Newsweek reported (see http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790) that for many parents, the question was not whether Larry was homosexual but rather was Larry allowed to push the boundaries so far that he put himself and others in danger. We may never know whether Larry’s behavior was a cry for attention, Gender Identity Disorder, or something else.

One thing we do know: School children are just that—children. Not pawns for political agendas.

© 2008 UntwistedTruth.com