Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Another Messy Scandal Rocks "Ex-Gay" Movement

Expand Messages
  • nyguy_1225
    Another ex-gay leader is found to be having sex with other men while claiming freedom from homosexuality. www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 13 6:39 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Another "ex-gay" leader is found to be having sex with other men
      while claiming "freedom from homosexuality."

      www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm

      Michael Johnson was head of Kerusso Ministries, Chairperson of
      National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day and starred in a TV ad
      campaign claiming he went from gay to straight. Johnston was also
      the host and producer of the anti-gay talk radio show "Truth Under
      Fire" and his life story is chronicled on a video, "On Wings Like
      Eagles." Johnston's testimony of sexual conversion was also
      featured in the 1996 Campus Crusade for Christ "Another Way Out"
      campaign.

      Hopefully the unmasking of Johnston's lie will help him to come to
      terms with integrating his rich faith with his unchangeable sexual
      orientation so he can finally begin to live an honest, authentic and
      responsible life before God, before man -- and before himself.

      -Alex
    • calldon2k
      ... and ... He has exposed many sex partners to HIV by having un-safe sex with them. As far as I know, he has made no real public statement of appology or any
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 14 12:47 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225 <no_reply@y...>
        wrote:
        > Another "ex-gay" leader is found to be having sex with other men
        > while claiming "freedom from homosexuality."
        >
        > www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm
        >
        > Hopefully the unmasking of Johnston's lie will help him to come to
        > terms with integrating his rich faith with his unchangeable sexual
        > orientation so he can finally begin to live an honest, authentic
        and
        > responsible life before God, before man -- and before himself.

        He has exposed many sex partners to HIV by having un-safe sex with
        them. As far as I know, he has made no real public statement of
        appology or any comment in general about it, other than to close the
        ministry. Hmmm!?!

        Now...how is Michael Johnston gonna tell those folks about Jesus?

        D*
      • Paul Jackson
        D. I heard about this about a week and a half ago. I am on the Exodus mailing list. I like to keep my eye on what the enemy is doing. lol In all seriousness, I
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 14 6:50 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          D.

          I heard about this about a week and a half ago. I am on the Exodus mailing list. I like to keep my eye on what the enemy is doing. lol

          In all seriousness, I was heartbroken when I read this about Mr. Johnston. I was not so much sad for him as I was for the innocent people who may have been exposed to hiv.

          I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest dreams because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope that some good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr. Johnston.

          The people who encourage such behavior should be ashamed at the fruit they have produced. I hope all of the straight preachers out there in fundy land who go around cheerleading such things reads about this.

          Paul

          calldon2k <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
          --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225
          wrote:
          > Another "ex-gay" leader is found to be having sex with other men
          > while claiming "freedom from homosexuality."
          >
          > www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm
          >
          > Hopefully the unmasking of Johnston's lie will help him to come to
          > terms with integrating his rich faith with his unchangeable sexual
          > orientation so he can finally begin to live an honest, authentic
          and
          > responsible life before God, before man -- and before himself.

          He has exposed many sex partners to HIV by having un-safe sex with
          them. As far as I know, he has made no real public statement of
          appology or any comment in general about it, other than to close the
          ministry. Hmmm!?!

          Now...how is Michael Johnston gonna tell those folks about Jesus?

          D*








          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • nyguy_1225
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 15 10:19 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            << I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest
            dreams because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope that
            some good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr.
            Johnston.>>

            It's yet another illustration of the life one sets oneself up for
            when one buys into the lie to have a "right" relationship with God
            one must pursue heterosexuality. It reminds me of the "No Easy
            Victory" testimony that Christianity Today (CT) published last
            year. Last March, CT astonishingly published the very honest
            testimony of an anonymous Christian (he didn't reveal his name) who
            acknowledges "the fact that I'm still homosexual" ("No Easy Victory"
            by Anonymous, Christianity Today, March 11, 2002). He said
            he's "tried to change, tried to become heterosexual, tried just
            about everything to do so! Counseling, therapy, prayer, healing –
            you name it. But for all my trying, all I've managed to do is
            control the behavioral manifestations of my sexual orientation."

            At one point, he calls himself a "happily married man for more than
            25 years, and proud father of a couple of teenagers." But his is,
            as he admits, "no easy victory." In fact, given what he says about
            his "daily battle," the word "victory" is pathetic. And what does
            his being "happily married" feel like? "There are times when
            maintaining this dichotomous life is nearly overwhelming. Over the
            years I've continued to struggle with emotional attractions and
            attachments to other men that have torn away at my insides and
            eroded my confidence in myself and in God. I continue to struggle
            from time to time with thoughts that my wife and sons would be
            better off if they didn't have to deal with such a moody husband and
            father – especially his recurring bouts of almost suicidal
            depression." He grants that his "victory [is] one that comes at
            considerable psychological cost to me and to my family" – an
            understatement.

            He's "sometimes angry about the effort required, and I am frequently
            angry that I have had to do this on my own, without the support of
            friends or of a caring Christian community" (he's his congregation's
            president and youth-group leader – closeted, of course). He's angry
            that fellow Christians so easily wink at heterosexual missteps
            ("hormones, you know") while calling his "abomination." He's angry
            that heterosexual Christians either push an ineffectual "fix" or
            urge that he "accept and live out" his homosexual orientation. He
            sees that he and many others "who actually are homosexual" are left
            out, "misunderstood, marginalized, and ignored." This hard and
            lonely life, he says, is the "reality shared by many more than just
            me, but disclosed by few."

            With all his acknowledged and understandable anger and frustration,
            why does he put up with a marriage mismatched by something so basic
            to marriage as sexual orientation? Because it is his "fervent
            belief that God intends us to live in heterosexual and monogamous
            fidelity." But is his marriage heterosexual in any sense other than
            anatomical? Real marriage is far more intimate than anatomical
            correctness. And what is the "testimony" of the wife and sons,
            living with such a constantly frustrated, tempted, angry, moody,
            depressed and isolated husband and father? How can any honest CT
            reader actually believe he's a "happily married" man or that this is
            a "happy" family? And how can Golden Rule readers in marriages that
            fit in terms of sexual orientation, not sense complicity in this
            poor family's predicament? Would a heterosexual be "happy" in
            a "marriage" with a person of the same gender? Would heterosexual
            readers wish such a mismatch for their children? If they can grasp
            even a hint of the injustice of this situation, how can they read of
            it – even if they bother to do so – and then go on about their
            business as though this man and his family are not having to
            continue to contend with all the daily consequences of an ill-
            conceived coupling in the name of Christian virtue? Yet just such a
            counter-productive arrangement is one of the "expanded alternatives"
            proposed for gay Christians by heterosexual Christian counselors who
            must admit that sexual orientation doesn't really change.

            Of course, an unhappy life is not an unknown calling for a people
            who worship the Christ of the cross. But sexual hardship itself is
            hardly the calling!

            -Alex

            --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Paul Jackson
            <rembrandtjackson@s...> wrote:
            > D.
            >
            > I heard about this about a week and a half ago. I am on the Exodus
            mailing list. I like to keep my eye on what the enemy is doing. lol
            >
            > In all seriousness, I was heartbroken when I read this about Mr.
            Johnston. I was not so much sad for him as I was for the innocent
            people who may have been exposed to hiv.
            >
            > I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest dreams
            because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope that some
            good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr. Johnston.
            >
            > The people who encourage such behavior should be ashamed at the
            fruit they have produced. I hope all of the straight preachers out
            there in fundy land who go around cheerleading such things reads
            about this.
            >
            > Paul
            >
            > calldon2k <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            > --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225
            > wrote:
            > > Another "ex-gay" leader is found to be having sex with other men
            > > while claiming "freedom from homosexuality."
            > >
            > > www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm
            > >
            > > Hopefully the unmasking of Johnston's lie will help him to come
            to
            > > terms with integrating his rich faith with his unchangeable
            sexual
            > > orientation so he can finally begin to live an honest, authentic
            > and
            > > responsible life before God, before man -- and before himself.
            >
            > He has exposed many sex partners to HIV by having un-safe sex with
            > them. As far as I know, he has made no real public statement of
            > appology or any comment in general about it, other than to close
            the
            > ministry. Hmmm!?!
            >
            > Now...how is Michael Johnston gonna tell those folks about Jesus?
            >
            > D*
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Paul Jackson
            Alex, I am so in agreement with your thoughts on the matter of the man who published his testimony in CT. I have a question for you that I would be interested
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 15 7:32 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Alex,

              I am so in agreement with your thoughts on the matter of the man who published his testimony in CT. I have a question for you that I would be interested in your help with. In my community, the Bahai' Faith, our institutions have only dealt with this issue on a superficial level. When they have dealt with it, they often point out that while it is very difficult to not act on sexual feelings, the homosexual Bahai's should always remember that they are no different than their heterosexual counterparts. They must strive to meet the requirements of Bahai' membership just like heterosexuals. The Bahai teachings make it clear that any sexual activity outside of marriage is not permitted, and since homosexuality entails having sex outside of marriage, as marriage is only allowed in the Faith between a man and a woman, they must either remain celibate, or choose marriage to a person of the opposite sex.

              My own contention here is that no, we are not just like all of the other Bahai's. The heterosexual Bahai's do not have to face a life of loneliness, knowing that they will never be able to get married to someone they love and are attracted to. The biggest thing that the Bahai' institutions seemed to be concerned about is that they do not want the homosexual Bahai's to define themselves by their sexual orientation, as they maintain that this is such a small part of who we are as human beings. While there is some merit in this line of reasoning, I find it to fall short of completely explaining to me why I am the same as all other Bahai's.

              Please understand also, that I am very much enamored by my Faith, and in all other issues in my faith, I agree and am very comfortable with. So leaving my Faith is not an option at this point. I would be very interested in what your thoughts on this are.

              In His Service,

              Paul

              nyguy_1225 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              << I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest
              dreams because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope that
              some good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr.
              Johnston.>>

              It's yet another illustration of the life one sets oneself up for
              when one buys into the lie to have a "right" relationship with God
              one must pursue heterosexuality. It reminds me of the "No Easy
              Victory" testimony that Christianity Today (CT) published last
              year. Last March, CT astonishingly published the very honest
              testimony of an anonymous Christian (he didn't reveal his name) who
              acknowledges "the fact that I'm still homosexual" ("No Easy Victory"
              by Anonymous, Christianity Today, March 11, 2002). He said
              he's "tried to change, tried to become heterosexual, tried just
              about everything to do so! Counseling, therapy, prayer, healing �
              you name it. But for all my trying, all I've managed to do is
              control the behavioral manifestations of my sexual orientation."

              At one point, he calls himself a "happily married man for more than
              25 years, and proud father of a couple of teenagers." But his is,
              as he admits, "no easy victory." In fact, given what he says about
              his "daily battle," the word "victory" is pathetic. And what does
              his being "happily married" feel like? "There are times when
              maintaining this dichotomous life is nearly overwhelming. Over the
              years I've continued to struggle with emotional attractions and
              attachments to other men that have torn away at my insides and
              eroded my confidence in myself and in God. I continue to struggle
              from time to time with thoughts that my wife and sons would be
              better off if they didn't have to deal with such a moody husband and
              father � especially his recurring bouts of almost suicidal
              depression." He grants that his "victory [is] one that comes at
              considerable psychological cost to me and to my family" � an
              understatement.

              He's "sometimes angry about the effort required, and I am frequently
              angry that I have had to do this on my own, without the support of
              friends or of a caring Christian community" (he's his congregation's
              president and youth-group leader � closeted, of course). He's angry
              that fellow Christians so easily wink at heterosexual missteps
              ("hormones, you know") while calling his "abomination." He's angry
              that heterosexual Christians either push an ineffectual "fix" or
              urge that he "accept and live out" his homosexual orientation. He
              sees that he and many others "who actually are homosexual" are left
              out, "misunderstood, marginalized, and ignored." This hard and
              lonely life, he says, is the "reality shared by many more than just
              me, but disclosed by few."

              With all his acknowledged and understandable anger and frustration,
              why does he put up with a marriage mismatched by something so basic
              to marriage as sexual orientation? Because it is his "fervent
              belief that God intends us to live in heterosexual and monogamous
              fidelity." But is his marriage heterosexual in any sense other than
              anatomical? Real marriage is far more intimate than anatomical
              correctness. And what is the "testimony" of the wife and sons,
              living with such a constantly frustrated, tempted, angry, moody,
              depressed and isolated husband and father? How can any honest CT
              reader actually believe he's a "happily married" man or that this is
              a "happy" family? And how can Golden Rule readers in marriages that
              fit in terms of sexual orientation, not sense complicity in this
              poor family's predicament? Would a heterosexual be "happy" in
              a "marriage" with a person of the same gender? Would heterosexual
              readers wish such a mismatch for their children? If they can grasp
              even a hint of the injustice of this situation, how can they read of
              it � even if they bother to do so � and then go on about their
              business as though this man and his family are not having to
              continue to contend with all the daily consequences of an ill-
              conceived coupling in the name of Christian virtue? Yet just such a
              counter-productive arrangement is one of the "expanded alternatives"
              proposed for gay Christians by heterosexual Christian counselors who
              must admit that sexual orientation doesn't really change.

              Of course, an unhappy life is not an unknown calling for a people
              who worship the Christ of the cross. But sexual hardship itself is
              hardly the calling!

              -Alex

              --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Paul Jackson
              wrote:
              > D.
              >
              > I heard about this about a week and a half ago. I am on the Exodus
              mailing list. I like to keep my eye on what the enemy is doing. lol
              >
              > In all seriousness, I was heartbroken when I read this about Mr.
              Johnston. I was not so much sad for him as I was for the innocent
              people who may have been exposed to hiv.
              >
              > I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest dreams
              because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope that some
              good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr. Johnston.
              >
              > The people who encourage such behavior should be ashamed at the
              fruit they have produced. I hope all of the straight preachers out
              there in fundy land who go around cheerleading such things reads
              about this.
              >
              > Paul
              >
              > calldon2k wrote:
              > --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225
              > wrote:
              > > Another "ex-gay" leader is found to be having sex with other men
              > > while claiming "freedom from homosexuality."
              > >
              > > www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm
              > >
              > > Hopefully the unmasking of Johnston's lie will help him to come
              to
              > > terms with integrating his rich faith with his unchangeable
              sexual
              > > orientation so he can finally begin to live an honest, authentic
              > and
              > > responsible life before God, before man -- and before himself.
              >
              > He has exposed many sex partners to HIV by having un-safe sex with
              > them. As far as I know, he has made no real public statement of
              > appology or any comment in general about it, other than to close
              the
              > ministry. Hmmm!?!
              >
              > Now...how is Michael Johnston gonna tell those folks about Jesus?
              >
              > D*
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • nyguy_1225
              Paul, I can not comment on requirements for the Bahai or any other non-Christian faith, nor do I think this would be the proper venue to do so since this
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 16 6:32 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Paul, I can not comment on requirements for the Bahai or any other
                non-Christian faith, nor do I think this would be the proper venue
                to do so since this particular group was essentially founded for
                those looking to integrate a Christ-centered faith with their
                sexuality. And what may be indicative of the Christian faith may or
                may not apply to any other. That said, of course, all are welcome
                here.

                Regarding your question: While many Christians attempt to apply
                Bible passages either out of their proper context or in a wooden or
                literalistic kind of way (since they've been taught to do that), any
                bible scholar, except perhaps those on the fringes, would point out
                what a grievous error this can be. The Bible has been made to say
                all kinds of things that it was never intended to by very well-
                meaning people. But as best-selling author and former professor of
                biblical exegesis F.F. Bruce once said: "It is not enough to
                say: `The Bible says' ... without at the same time considering to
                whom the Bible says it, and in what circumstances." And as R.C.
                Sproul, who for years was professor of systematic theology and
                apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary, said: "If God speaks,
                he must use words to do so. Words express thoughts, commands,
                descriptions, and the like. The problem is that words and sentences
                must be interpreted if they are to be understood. It is far more
                than a matter of translation, for while translation gets at what God
                says, we are still left with the question of what God means."

                Jesus himself NEVER applied any law or passage in a wooden or
                literalistic way. He looked at and spoke about the original purpose
                of it. The radical consequences which resulted from Jesus looking
                at the Sabbath in this way are clear in all the gospels. He
                blatantly disregarded the onerous rabbinical interpretations of what
                Sabbath observance required, on the grounds that the institution was
                intended to be a blessing and not a burden [Mark 2:27].
                (Incidentally, the application of those same interpretive principles
                to the few passages many Christians use for their antigay theology
                would similarly lead to more compassionate conclusions regarding
                homosexuality.)

                As far as marriage is concerned, I, as well as scores of respected
                and renowned scholars and theologians, do not believe the Bible
                teaches that sex outside of marriage is categorically wrong.
                Certainly the Bible says a great deal about self-indulgent or
                irresponsible expressions of our sexuality, but nowhere does it
                categorically state that sex outside of marriage is always wrong
                and/or sinful. We are not called to repent of our sexuality
                (whether gay or straight) but of our sinful responses to them.

                Those who continue to preach this error should be reminded that when
                a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have
                intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a
                male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-
                27 par.) What Jesus did consider supremely important about all
                sexual relationships, however, is that people would live their
                sexual lives within their covenants with each other.

                Those who wish to take the bible serious should consider: Unlike the
                people Paul describes in Romans 1 who had TURNED THEIR BACKS on God
                and resort to a depraved lifestyle, the gay Christians I know have
                TURNED TO GOD and seek after Him with all their heart.

                Unlike the people Paul describes in Romans 1 who have REJECTED God,
                the gay Christians I know have not rejected God at all; they love
                God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts.

                Unlike those Paul describes in Romans 1 who had turned
                from "natural" heterosexual practices to homosexual practices for
                purposes of their pagan fertility cults, the gay Christians I know
                have not given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They
                have never been heterosexual. They have been homosexual from the
                moment of their earliest sexual stirrings.

                And unlike those Paul describes in Romans 1 who were constantly
                lusting after each other and in their actions were only following
                their lusts, the gay Christians I know do not lust after each other
                any more than heterosexual people lust after each other. They seek
                abiding personal companionship, enduring love, shared intimacy and
                complete trust from each other just as heterosexual people, at their
                best, do.

                Hope this helps!

                -Alex

                --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Paul Jackson
                <rembrandtjackson@s...> wrote:
                > Alex,
                >
                > I am so in agreement with your thoughts on the matter of the man
                who published his testimony in CT. I have a question for you that I
                would be interested in your help with. In my community, the Bahai'
                Faith, our institutions have only dealt with this issue on a
                superficial level. When they have dealt with it, they often point
                out that while it is very difficult to not act on sexual feelings,
                the homosexual Bahai's should always remember that they are no
                different than their heterosexual counterparts. They must strive to
                meet the requirements of Bahai' membership just like heterosexuals.
                The Bahai teachings make it clear that any sexual activity outside
                of marriage is not permitted, and since homosexuality entails having
                sex outside of marriage, as marriage is only allowed in the Faith
                between a man and a woman, they must either remain celibate, or
                choose marriage to a person of the opposite sex.
                >
                > My own contention here is that no, we are not just like all of the
                other Bahai's. The heterosexual Bahai's do not have to face a life
                of loneliness, knowing that they will never be able to get married
                to someone they love and are attracted to. The biggest thing that
                the Bahai' institutions seemed to be concerned about is that they do
                not want the homosexual Bahai's to define themselves by their sexual
                orientation, as they maintain that this is such a small part of who
                we are as human beings. While there is some merit in this line of
                reasoning, I find it to fall short of completely explaining to me
                why I am the same as all other Bahai's.
                >
                > Please understand also, that I am very much enamored by my Faith,
                and in all other issues in my faith, I agree and am very comfortable
                with. So leaving my Faith is not an option at this point. I would be
                very interested in what your thoughts on this are.
                >
                > In His Service,
                >
                > Paul
                >
                > nyguy_1225 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                > << I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest
                > dreams because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope
                that
                > some good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr.
                > Johnston.>>
                >
                > It's yet another illustration of the life one sets oneself up for
                > when one buys into the lie to have a "right" relationship with God
                > one must pursue heterosexuality. It reminds me of the "No Easy
                > Victory" testimony that Christianity Today (CT) published last
                > year. Last March, CT astonishingly published the very honest
                > testimony of an anonymous Christian (he didn't reveal his name)
                who
                > acknowledges "the fact that I'm still homosexual" ("No Easy
                Victory"
                > by Anonymous, Christianity Today, March 11, 2002). He said
                > he's "tried to change, tried to become heterosexual, tried just
                > about everything to do so! Counseling, therapy, prayer, healing –
                > you name it. But for all my trying, all I've managed to do is
                > control the behavioral manifestations of my sexual orientation."
                >
                > At one point, he calls himself a "happily married man for more
                than
                > 25 years, and proud father of a couple of teenagers." But his is,
                > as he admits, "no easy victory." In fact, given what he says about
                > his "daily battle," the word "victory" is pathetic. And what does
                > his being "happily married" feel like? "There are times when
                > maintaining this dichotomous life is nearly overwhelming. Over the
                > years I've continued to struggle with emotional attractions and
                > attachments to other men that have torn away at my insides and
                > eroded my confidence in myself and in God. I continue to struggle
                > from time to time with thoughts that my wife and sons would be
                > better off if they didn't have to deal with such a moody husband
                and
                > father – especially his recurring bouts of almost suicidal
                > depression." He grants that his "victory [is] one that comes at
                > considerable psychological cost to me and to my family" – an
                > understatement.
                >
                > He's "sometimes angry about the effort required, and I am
                frequently
                > angry that I have had to do this on my own, without the support of
                > friends or of a caring Christian community" (he's his
                congregation's
                > president and youth-group leader – closeted, of course). He's
                angry
                > that fellow Christians so easily wink at heterosexual missteps
                > ("hormones, you know") while calling his "abomination." He's angry
                > that heterosexual Christians either push an ineffectual "fix" or
                > urge that he "accept and live out" his homosexual orientation. He
                > sees that he and many others "who actually are homosexual" are
                left
                > out, "misunderstood, marginalized, and ignored." This hard and
                > lonely life, he says, is the "reality shared by many more than
                just
                > me, but disclosed by few."
                >
                > With all his acknowledged and understandable anger and
                frustration,
                > why does he put up with a marriage mismatched by something so
                basic
                > to marriage as sexual orientation? Because it is his "fervent
                > belief that God intends us to live in heterosexual and monogamous
                > fidelity." But is his marriage heterosexual in any sense other
                than
                > anatomical? Real marriage is far more intimate than anatomical
                > correctness. And what is the "testimony" of the wife and sons,
                > living with such a constantly frustrated, tempted, angry, moody,
                > depressed and isolated husband and father? How can any honest CT
                > reader actually believe he's a "happily married" man or that this
                is
                > a "happy" family? And how can Golden Rule readers in marriages
                that
                > fit in terms of sexual orientation, not sense complicity in this
                > poor family's predicament? Would a heterosexual be "happy" in
                > a "marriage" with a person of the same gender? Would heterosexual
                > readers wish such a mismatch for their children? If they can grasp
                > even a hint of the injustice of this situation, how can they read
                of
                > it – even if they bother to do so – and then go on about their
                > business as though this man and his family are not having to
                > continue to contend with all the daily consequences of an ill-
                > conceived coupling in the name of Christian virtue? Yet just such
                a
                > counter-productive arrangement is one of the "expanded
                alternatives"
                > proposed for gay Christians by heterosexual Christian counselors
                who
                > must admit that sexual orientation doesn't really change.
                >
                > Of course, an unhappy life is not an unknown calling for a people
                > who worship the Christ of the cross. But sexual hardship itself is
                > hardly the calling!
                >
                > -Alex
                >
                > --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, Paul Jackson
                > wrote:
                > > D.
                > >
                > > I heard about this about a week and a half ago. I am on the
                Exodus
                > mailing list. I like to keep my eye on what the enemy is doing. lol
                > >
                > > In all seriousness, I was heartbroken when I read this about Mr.
                > Johnston. I was not so much sad for him as I was for the innocent
                > people who may have been exposed to hiv.
                > >
                > > I am sure that Mr. Johnston is suffering beyond his wildest
                dreams
                > because of his refusal to be honest with himself. I hope that some
                > good comes of this somehow, for all involved, even Mr. Johnston.
                > >
                > > The people who encourage such behavior should be ashamed at the
                > fruit they have produced. I hope all of the straight preachers out
                > there in fundy land who go around cheerleading such things reads
                > about this.
                > >
                > > Paul
                > >
                > > calldon2k wrote:
                > > --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, nyguy_1225
                > > wrote:
                > > > Another "ex-gay" leader is found to be having sex with other
                men
                > > > while claiming "freedom from homosexuality."
                > > >
                > > > www.sovo.com/2003/8-8/news/national/exgay.cfm
                > > >
                > > > Hopefully the unmasking of Johnston's lie will help him to
                come
                > to
                > > > terms with integrating his rich faith with his unchangeable
                > sexual
                > > > orientation so he can finally begin to live an honest,
                authentic
                > > and
                > > > responsible life before God, before man -- and before himself.
                > >
                > > He has exposed many sex partners to HIV by having un-safe sex
                with
                > > them. As far as I know, he has made no real public statement of
                > > appology or any comment in general about it, other than to close
                > the
                > > ministry. Hmmm!?!
                > >
                > > Now...how is Michael Johnston gonna tell those folks about Jesus?
                > >
                > > D*
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > > exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > exexgayministry-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • dixibehr@aol.com
                ... The question that I frequently ask--especially of the Biblical gay bashers--is this: Limiting what i m asking to heterosexual marriage (to make it easy),
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 16 9:10 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 8/16/03 6:32:51 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


                  > As far as marriage is concerned, I, as well as scores of respected
                  > and renowned scholars and theologians, do not believe the Bible
                  > teaches that sex outside of marriage is categorically wrong. 
                  >

                  The question that I frequently ask--especially of the Biblical gay
                  bashers--is this:

                  Limiting what i'm asking to heterosexual marriage (to make it easy),
                  according to the Bible just WHAT should a man and a woman do to be really, truly,
                  validly, and properly married in God's eyes. Please give book, chapter, and verse
                  in your answer.

                  What's strange is that it's MARRIED heterosexuals who get the most upset at
                  this question. You think that THEY of all people would be able to answer it!
                  Yet they never even attempt to.

                  To save the readers of this posting trouble: The Bible doesn't say at all!
                  You can't say that a marriage ceremony is absolutely necessary. Isaac and
                  Rebecca, for instance, never had one. Nor did Jacob and Leah, or Jacob and Rachel,
                  so far as we can tell from the Biblical data.

                  However, there is one more or less constant feature in marriages in both
                  Testaments--something that most Bible-believing American pop-evangelicals would
                  rather be shot than follow: Marriages were arranged by the parents, or families,
                  of the parties involved. You didn't get married for love of your spouse, but
                  love of your family--beacuse it was your duty! As Tina Turner sings, "What's
                  love got to do with it?"

                  Keeping this in mind, the thrice repeated apostolic command "Husbands love
                  your wives", which seems obvious to us today, was a revolutionary idea to its
                  initial audiences.

                  Something else. Quite often some try quoting the "for this cause shall a man
                  leave his father and mother...." But if this is literally true, then Isaac was
                  never really married, was he? Rebecca was brought to the tent of Sarah, where
                  Isaac was living (and there was no ceremony, btw). In fact, Abraham FORBADE
                  Isaac to leave the family tents! Thus a matchmaker was sent. In fact, the
                  general custom was for the BRIDE to move in with the husband and his family, not
                  for the man to leave, despite the words of Scripture and their literal meaning.

                  Which, of course, shows that scripture in these matters, is NO to be taken
                  literally!



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • nyguy_1225
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 17 6:20 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    <<However, there is one more or less constant feature in marriages
                    in both Testaments--something that most Bible-believing American pop-
                    evangelicals would rather be shot than follow: Marriages were
                    arranged by the parents, or families, of the parties involved. You
                    didn't get married for love of your spouse, but love of your family--
                    because it was your duty!

                    Well, yes and no. Marriages were arranged by parents also for the
                    modality of power. In addition, men needed offspring to leave their
                    inheritance to and children were also needed to work the land.
                    There was no romantic dating as we know it. In fact there was
                    virtually no time for leisure to speak of at all. Just think about
                    what it required even as early as a generation or two ago just to
                    wash clothes before the washing machine??!! An entire day was often
                    devoted to it. Ironing often took another whole day. Furthermore,
                    one couldn't simply walk into a supermarket and purchase a loaf of
                    bread. One had to bake their own. This too often required a whole
                    day. And what was required a generation or two ago to take a bath?
                    One had to get a big metal tub. It had to be filled with water.
                    The water had to be heated, etc. Such a major undertaking ("drawing
                    a bath") was such a task that if it happened once a week, it was a
                    lot. And because of all the work involved, the same bath water
                    would then often be used for the whole family! And deodorant, for
                    that matter, didn't come into being until about 50 years ago. This
                    list goes on and on and this was just a generation or two ago let
                    alone centuries ago. Where then was the time to sit around
                    watching soap operas and fanaticizing about the boy next door or the
                    girl down the road? It simply didn't exist. If you intuit some of
                    these realities it becomes clearer and easier to understand why
                    homosexuality as a sexual orientation (or as a psycho-sexual
                    experience) could not have existed in Bible times. Even
                    heterosexuality as we know it was very, very different.

                    Romance as we know it did not come into being until the Middle Ages,
                    which is precisely why the period is referred to as the "Romance
                    Period."

                    Rules surrounding marriage and adultery were also centered around
                    property rights. When one got married in Bible times it was akin to
                    purchasing property. A price was paid by the boy (or the boy's
                    family) and the wife became his "property." This gives insight into
                    why Jesus said to even LOOK at another man's wife as if to want to
                    sleep with her was in and of itself considered adultery. To sleep
                    with another man's wife was like driving his car, i.e. taking his
                    property!

                    This also provides insight to why the Apostle Paul's words about
                    marriage were so revolutionary: For those who had not received the
                    gift of celibacy, Paul had to specify circumstances for sexuality
                    intercourse that would not be in conflict with Christ's "ownership"
                    of the Christian body. He found them in Christian marriage. The
                    distinctively Christian thing in Paul's description of marriage was
                    his careful balancing of husband's sexual ownership of the wife with
                    an equivalent ownership of the husband by the wife -- which was
                    absolutely unheard of prior to this for women had virtually no
                    rights whatsoever! Sexual desire, according to Paul (see 1
                    Corinthians) is a fact of human life that must be reckoned with
                    intelligently and faithfully; it is not to be ignored or rejected.
                    Marriage exists, according to Paul, for the sake of mutual sexual
                    satisfaction; and neither partner can pursue a sexual course that
                    does not involve the other, since each is the property of the other.

                    -Alex

                    --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                    >
                    > In a message dated 8/16/03 6:32:51 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                    writes:
                    >
                    >
                    > > As far as marriage is concerned, I, as well as scores of
                    respected
                    > > and renowned scholars and theologians, do not believe the Bible
                    > > teaches that sex outside of marriage is categorically wrong. 
                    > >
                    >
                    > The question that I frequently ask--especially of the Biblical gay
                    > bashers--is this:
                    >
                    > Limiting what i'm asking to heterosexual marriage (to make it
                    easy),
                    > according to the Bible just WHAT should a man and a woman do to be
                    really, truly,
                    > validly, and properly married in God's eyes. Please give book,
                    chapter, and verse
                    > in your answer.
                    >
                    > What's strange is that it's MARRIED heterosexuals who get the most
                    upset at
                    > this question. You think that THEY of all people would be able to
                    answer it!
                    > Yet they never even attempt to.
                    >
                    > To save the readers of this posting trouble: The Bible doesn't say
                    at all!
                    > You can't say that a marriage ceremony is absolutely necessary.
                    Isaac and
                    > Rebecca, for instance, never had one. Nor did Jacob and Leah, or
                    Jacob and Rachel,
                    > so far as we can tell from the Biblical data.
                    >
                    > However, there is one more or less constant feature in marriages
                    in both
                    > Testaments--something that most Bible-believing American pop-
                    evangelicals would
                    > rather be shot than follow: Marriages were arranged by the
                    parents, or families,
                    > of the parties involved. You didn't get married for love of your
                    spouse, but
                    > love of your family--beacuse it was your duty! As Tina Turner
                    sings, "What's
                    > love got to do with it?"
                    >
                    > Keeping this in mind, the thrice repeated apostolic
                    command "Husbands love
                    > your wives", which seems obvious to us today, was a revolutionary
                    idea to its
                    > initial audiences.
                    >
                    > Something else. Quite often some try quoting the "for this cause
                    shall a man
                    > leave his father and mother...." But if this is literally true,
                    then Isaac was
                    > never really married, was he? Rebecca was brought to the tent of
                    Sarah, where
                    > Isaac was living (and there was no ceremony, btw). In fact,
                    Abraham FORBADE
                    > Isaac to leave the family tents! Thus a matchmaker was sent. In
                    fact, the
                    > general custom was for the BRIDE to move in with the husband and
                    his family, not
                    > for the man to leave, despite the words of Scripture and their
                    literal meaning.
                    >
                    > Which, of course, shows that scripture in these matters, is NO to
                    be taken
                    > literally!
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • dixibehr@aol.com
                    ... You have made some VERY good points, and I m glad you did. However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation (as well
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 17 8:28 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > If you intuit some of
                      > these realities it becomes clearer and easier to understand why
                      > homosexuality as a sexual orientation (or as a psycho-sexual
                      > experience) could not have existed in Bible times.  Even
                      > heterosexuality as we know it was very, very different. 
                      >
                      You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did.

                      However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a sexual
                      orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation) ALWAYS existed from
                      the beginning of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. It just wasn't recognized,
                      or given a name, until the middle of the 19th century.

                      And I suppose that the "wife as property" attitude was why the 10th
                      commandment didn't simply end the matter with "Thou shalt not commit adultery," but
                      concluded. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife [or chattels or other
                      goods]"




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • nyguy_1225
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 17 11:35 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        <<You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did.
                        However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a
                        sexual orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation)
                        ALWAYS existed from the beginning of the species Homo sapiens. It
                        just wasn't recognized, or given a name, until the middle of the
                        19th century.>>

                        You are certainly free to disagree if you like but you'd be hard-
                        pressed to come up with any credible evidence to support your
                        conviction. I'm afraid the Bible is an empty closet. There are no
                        homosexuals in the Bible. Contrary to the belief of some, Ruth and
                        Naomi were not lesbians. David and Jonathan weren't gay. Neither
                        were Jesus and John, the men of Sodom, cult prostitutes, slave boys
                        and their masters, nor call boys and their customers.

                        Ideas and understandings of sexuality have changed greatly over the
                        centuries. People in biblical times did not share our knowledge or
                        customs of sexuality; we do not share their experience. The
                        ancients, as MIT's David Halperin notes: "conceived of 'sexuality'
                        in non-sexual terms: What was fundamental to their experience of sex
                        was not anything we would regard as essentially sexual: rather, it
                        was something essentially social -- namely, the modality of power
                        relations that informed and structured the sexual act." In the
                        ancient world, sex was "not intrinsically relational or
                        collaborative in character, it is, further, a deeply polarizing
                        experience: It serves to divide, to classify, and to distribute its
                        participants into distinct and radically dissimilar categories. Sex
                        possesses this valence, apparently because it is conceived to center
                        essentially on, and to define itself around, an asymmetrical
                        gesture, that of the penetration of the body of one person by the
                        body, and, specifically, by the phallus -- of another. .... The
                        proper targets of [a citizen's] sexual desire include, specifically,
                        women, boys, foreigners, and slaves -- all of them persons who do
                        not enjoy the same legal and political rights and privileges that he
                        does." In studies of sex in history, Stanford classics professor
                        John J. Winkler warns against "reading contemporary concerns and
                        politics into texts and artifacts removed from their social
                        context." This, of course, is a fundamental principle of biblical
                        hermeneutics.

                        -Alex

                        --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                        >
                        > > If you intuit some of
                        > > these realities it becomes clearer and easier to understand why
                        > > homosexuality as a sexual orientation (or as a psycho-sexual
                        > > experience) could not have existed in Bible times.  Even
                        > > heterosexuality as we know it was very, very different. 
                        > >
                        > You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did.
                        >
                        > However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as
                        a sexual
                        > orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation) ALWAYS
                        existed from
                        > the beginning of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. It just wasn't
                        recognized,
                        > or given a name, until the middle of the 19th century.
                        >
                        > And I suppose that the "wife as property" attitude was why the
                        10th
                        > commandment didn't simply end the matter with "Thou shalt not
                        commit adultery," but
                        > concluded. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife [or chattels
                        or other
                        > goods]"
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • dixibehr@aol.com
                        ... My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and chickens always exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did homosexual
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 17 12:04 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 8/17/03 11:36:18 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


                          > <<You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did. 
                          > However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality as a
                          > sexual orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation)
                          > ALWAYS existed from the beginning of the species Homo sapiens. It
                          > just wasn't recognized, or given a name, until the middle of the
                          > 19th century.>>
                          >
                          > You are certainly free to disagree if you like but you'd be hard-
                          > pressed to come up with any credible evidence to support your
                          > conviction.  I'm afraid the Bible is an empty closet.  There are no
                          > homosexuals in the Bible.
                          >

                          My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and chickens always
                          exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did homosexual
                          orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even given a name
                          until 150 years ago or so.

                          Yes, there ARE homosexuals as we understand the term in the Bible. The law of
                          averages says so. It's like the man who says he doesn't know any homosexuals,
                          and has no gay friends. He does, too. He simply doesn't know who they
                          are--yet. By the same token, there ARE homosexuals in the Bible (as well as redheads,
                          blondes, and southpaws). But it IS true that we don[t have enough infomation
                          to pin the rainbows on the right ones.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • nyguy_1225
                          I know what your point is; you stated it clearly two posts ago. I will reiterate what I said in my last post: You are free to believe anything you like. But
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 17 12:23 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I know what your point is; you stated it clearly two posts ago. I
                            will reiterate what I said in my last post: You are free to believe
                            anything you like. But you'd be hard-pressed to come up with
                            credible evidence to support it. Quite the contrary, the evidence
                            does not support it. We can quote from the published works of
                            dozens of historians and scholars who have devoted more time and
                            effort to this study and subject than both of us and who are more
                            learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
                            wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.

                            -Alex

                            --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                            >
                            > In a message dated 8/17/03 11:36:18 AM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                            writes:
                            >
                            >
                            > > <<You have made some VERY good points, and I'm glad you did. 
                            > > However, I will disagree with one of your points. Homosexuality
                            as a
                            > > sexual orientation (as well as heterosexuality as an orientation)
                            > > ALWAYS existed from the beginning of the species Homo sapiens. It
                            > > just wasn't recognized, or given a name, until the middle of the
                            > > 19th century.>>
                            > >
                            > > You are certainly free to disagree if you like but you'd be hard-
                            > > pressed to come up with any credible evidence to support your
                            > > conviction.  I'm afraid the Bible is an empty closet.  There are
                            no
                            > > homosexuals in the Bible.
                            > >
                            >
                            > My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and
                            chickens always
                            > exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did
                            homosexual
                            > orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even
                            given a name
                            > until 150 years ago or so.
                            >
                            > Yes, there ARE homosexuals as we understand the term in the Bible.
                            The law of
                            > averages says so. It's like the man who says he doesn't know any
                            homosexuals,
                            > and has no gay friends. He does, too. He simply doesn't know who
                            they
                            > are--yet. By the same token, there ARE homosexuals in the Bible
                            (as well as redheads,
                            > blondes, and southpaws). But it IS true that we don[t have enough
                            infomation
                            > to pin the rainbows on the right ones.
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • dixibehr@aol.com
                            ... Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a comparatively recent thing? Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 17 12:30 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


                              > Quite the contrary, the evidence
                              > does not support it. 
                              >

                              Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a
                              comparatively recent thing?

                              Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in SYMPOSIUM.


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • dixibehr@aol.com
                              ... I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either of us in any discipline. However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK? [Non-text portions
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 17 12:37 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:


                                > who are more
                                > learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
                                > wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.
                                >

                                I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either of us in any
                                discipline.

                                However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK?


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • nyguy_1225
                                I think I made the point relatively clear in post #2932 as well as in numerous other posts on this board in the past where the works of several renowned
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 17 2:11 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I think I made the point relatively clear in post #2932 as well as
                                  in numerous other posts on this board in the past where the works of
                                  several renowned scholars and historians were quoted.

                                  -Alex

                                  --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                                  writes:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Quite the contrary, the evidence
                                  > > does not support it. 
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is
                                  a
                                  > comparatively recent thing?
                                  >
                                  > Seems to me that even Plato suggested otherwise in SYMPOSIUM.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • nyguy_1225
                                  I know people who have a doctorate in divinity who are atheists and I know doctors with medical degrees who are quacks. What s your point? -Alex ... of us in
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 17 2:14 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I know people who have a doctorate in divinity who are atheists and
                                    I know doctors with medical degrees who are quacks. What's your
                                    point?

                                    -Alex

                                    --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                                    writes:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > who are more
                                    > > learned in Scripture than you and I will ever be -- and they
                                    > > wholeheartedly and categorically disagree with you.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > I supposed there will always be more learned persons than either
                                    of us in any
                                    > discipline.
                                    >
                                    > However, I DO have a doctrate in divinity, OK?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • calldon2k
                                    ... chickens always ... homosexual ... given a name ... Considering what has been called the fluid nature of sexuality, exactly WHAT is a homosexual? Are
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Sep 11, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                                      > My point is that just as measles and mumps and redheads and
                                      chickens always
                                      > exists (at least since the beginning of recorded history), so did
                                      homosexual
                                      > orientation, even though it wasn't recognized as such, or even
                                      given a name
                                      > until 150 years ago or so.

                                      Considering what has been called the "fluid" nature of sexuality,
                                      exactly WHAT is a homosexual? Are you considered a homosexual when
                                      you are 30% straight and 70% gay? Are you considered homosexual when
                                      you are 20$% straight and 80% gay? How about if you are 90% gay but
                                      you still get a thril at a nice boob or pair of female legs?

                                      What we label 'homosexual" is more subjective then objective!

                                      D*
                                    • calldon2k
                                      ... It is a subjective moniker. There are few who would honestly say that they never have a twinge at the opposite sex. It is a objective as the testimonies
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Sep 11, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In exexgayministry@yahoogroups.com, dixibehr@a... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > In a message dated 8/17/03 12:24:14 PM, no_reply@yahoogroups.com
                                        writes:
                                        > > Quite the contrary, the evidence
                                        > > does not support it. 
                                        >
                                        > Are you saying that homosexuality, AS AN UNCHOSEN ORIENTATION, is a
                                        > comparatively recent thing?

                                        It is a subjective moniker. There are few who would honestly say
                                        that they never have a twinge at the opposite sex.

                                        It is a objective as the testimonies of those who claim to be Ex-gay.
                                      • nyguy_1225
                                        I think homosexuality can best be defined as the
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Sep 12, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          <<Considering what has been called the "fluid" nature of sexuality,
                                          exactly WHAT is a homosexual?...>>

                                          I think homosexuality can best be defined as the naturally occurring
                                          ability to fall in love with a person of the same gender rather than
                                          with anyone of the other gender. As such, and as any straight
                                          person would know from their own experience of heterosexual
                                          orientation, it cannot be reduced to a matter of genital nerve
                                          ending stimulation and body parts. It's the same un-asked-for
                                          experience for heterosexuals and homosexuals; only in the former
                                          case the person of affection is of the other gender and in the
                                          latter case the person of affection is of the same gender.
                                          Experientially, it's the very same core need, the very same gift of
                                          God. It's about an involuntary enthusiasm of romantic response in
                                          the presence of someone seen as wonderfully "other," as mystery, as
                                          precious differentness from one's own sense of self, as
                                          complementary beloved. And it's about a deep longing for that
                                          person in his or her absence. It is a lack that nothing but the
                                          beloved can supply.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.