Conversion Practices Insights Report has been released by the Human Rights Commission – that’s the human rights for people we like commission. The intro says:
The purpose of this report is to capture the extensive collective learning and reflection that we gathered from our role in implementing the civil response of the CPPLA as well as recommending actions to be taken to support survivors of conversion practices and to prevent these practices from occurring. This report concludes with nuanced advice informed by lived experience about the support survivors need to promote healing.
Now remember – according to the HRC themselves,
The $2.2m taxpayer-funded complaints centre set up by the Human Rights Commission for receiving complaints about ‘conversion therapy’ has struggled to obtain any formal complaints about the use of ‘conversion therapy’ in the two years since the new law was passed, despite significant advertising about its services, and they have referred no complaints to the Police. The NZ Police have also acknowledged that they have received no direct complaints which have warranted an investigation over the past two years.
This is consistent with numbers before the law was passed.
The taxpayer via the Human Rights Commission has spent $2.2m looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. But what the politicians and these activist groups have done is make it difficult for parents, counsellors and therapists to support troubled adolescents who identify as ‘trans’ or ‘gender diverse’.
So let’s have a look at the latest fire starter.
And the foreword immediately unpacks critical theory 101 in all its glory
Rainbow people experience discrimination at a rate higher than the general population.3 For Māori, Pacific, and ethnic peoples in Aotearoa, this is overlaid with racism.4 Colonisation impacted Indigenous peoples’ traditional acceptance of the natural fluidity of sexuality and gender, replacing it with a rigid binary opposition of male and female.5 Disabled Rainbow people who experience conversion practices also face layered oppression arising from a pervasive perception that they need to be ‘cured’ or ‘corrected’ for their sexuality or gender identity and their impairments.6
Phew. The intersectionality is overwhelming. And this is coming from a cis white heterosexual Christian married male with XY chromosomes – the source of all evil
It then says
the evidence shows that conversion practices do not work.
It’s classic that there is no link to any research on this statement – because there isn’t any. The evidence was gained in the tea room at the “human rights for some” commission at their regular Monday morning staff meeting. A show of hands.
And then to really destroy their already destroyed credibility, they quote…. the Disinformation Project.
The Disinformation Project’s report found the language and imagery used online against transgender people had become more violent over time.7 The language and imagery they found included repeated denials that transgender people exist or that they should be allowed to exist. The report described the language used about transgender people as “genocidal”.
Here’s some examples
On to the Executive Summary – and they say
Ending conversion practices contributes to upholding te Tiriti o Waitangi… Te Tiriti also protects the right to be free from discrimination for Māori, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Ooh I must have missed that bit in the Treaty.
And then
The international and domestic human rights relevant to conversion practices include: • the right to freedom from discrimination • the right not to be deprived of life • the right to freedom of expression
The right not to be deprived of life. I never knew that the Commission was against abortion. Awesome. And the right to freedom of expression – except if you want to live your life according to your religion or personal beliefs.
By the way, I did a word search of this 102 page document just to see who the real enemy was
Church – 49 times
Christian – 46 times
Marriage – 31
Mosque – 0
Muslim – 1
Hindu – buddhist – Mormon – couple of times each
Now the publication does have some recommendations – and one of them is to make it easier to prosecute people – by removing the requirement that the Attorney-General has to approve any prosecutions – and this clause was always a sop to those sitting on the fence that “we want the law but it’s not going to be enforced much – we just want to send a message”. A bit like the “police discretion for smacking offences”. Politicians always get sucked in by those little things and vote for the dumb law.
Now it has recommendations for the church – saying
Engage in research around inclusive and affirming interpretations of religious/spiritual teachings.. Commence a review process of reckoning with religious texts and teachings that do not affirm Rainbow people… inclusive interpretations with an open mind.
In other words, the Bible according to the HRC with just the “nice bits”.
Fortunately, the Christian church knows that the Bible changes us, we don’t change it.
The Commission then sinned – and lied.
In February 2021, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, a Green Party MP at the time, presented a further petition to Parliament to accelerate the progress for a ban.28 Her petition collected 157,764 signatures in one week – the largest validated petition in the history of Aotearoa.
Nope – it was a Green party petition hosted on their website – signed by anyone in the world! With no verification. A complete porkie by the Commission.
And then interestingly, they have a little footnote with a list of the 7 MPs who opposed the law.
Now why did the Commission list those names – and not the ones who voted for it.
Why do you think?
In my view, it is skullduggery at its very worst. The “human rights for some” commission wants to name and shame politicians they hate. My message to these MPs who are still in Parliament is “shut down this radical activist commission”. They hate democracy.
Now this report took 18 months to write – think of all the wages paid by you for this report – I mean they had $2.2m to spend quickly so they had to justify their existence somehow!!
But here’s why the report is useful only for starting fires.
We received a small amount of feedback from those supportive of conversion practices as a way to uphold what they perceived to be the ‘rights’ of families and religious communities to discipline or try to change those in their care. We have not given space to those views in this report …
Shocking.
But in our earlier OIA I referred to, they admitted
“The Commission has not knowingly had any engagement with individuals who made submissions against the new law and who had positive experiences of receiving counselling to deal with unwanted sexuality and gender confusion issues.”
The Human Rights Commission don’t want to hear any contra view. They don’t want the feedback. They don’t listen to the feedback. They only want “human rights for those they agree with”.
OK – I can’t stomach too much more of this.
But just a few more bits
On page 22, it lists examples of conversion therapy. Now we would oppose most things in the list. Always have. Always will. “beatings, whippings, burnings, ‘corrective’ rape, electric shocks,”
But there’s a few interesting items: “prayer, recitation of religious texts with some type of aversion component” – that naughty “sin” word maybe?, and “worship”.
In fact, at a youth worker conference last year in Auckland, the Commission told youthworkers that an altar call could be conversion therapy.
Now the Commission is quite adamant that conversion therapy is happening in NZ. And to prove that, they showed this graph
1/3rd said yes – and 27% weren’t quite sure.
The problem was that the source of these comments were a conference with a massive attendance of 26. (page 24) Yes – 26 including allies. So not LGBTQIA people.
On page 29 they again repeat their pro lie stance which they are actually lying about. The quote the Rights of the child and article 6
the child’s inherent right to life and States parties’ obligation to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child – embracing the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral, psychological, and social development.
They are ally are confused, aren’t they. They don’t actually care for the rights of the unborn child or their right to life. The Commission just lies.
On page 31 they say
trans people, all healthcare professionals have a duty to provide gender-affirming care within their scope of practice.
False. They don’t have a duty to chemicalise, castrate, and confuse. Another lie from the Commission.
And then some more critical theory and attacks on religion – specifically Christianity
The introduction of Christianity in Aotearoa by European missionaries in the 19th century brought with it concepts of binary gender, monogamy, and heteronormativity, which influenced and altered attitudes towards sexual orientation and gender that largely remain today… Catholic leaders recommend celibacy as the path for those with diverse sexualities. This is still, however, a form of suppression
Note to the Commission – this applies to heterosexuals also. Doh.
And then this classic comment about the LGBT community being racist. Yep you heard that right.
A 2023 study of the experience of Asian Rainbow youth captures the way young people experienced Rainbow community spaces as ‘white’ and not spaces in which the Chinese Rainbow youth quoted could be themselves. “The [Rainbow space] is still predominantly cis- and white-dominated for me to feel entirely comfortable because currently it doesn’t feel like it’s a space I go to feel represented and loved.” Chinese, Rainbow
And as part of this discussion, they mentioned that “other examples of conversion practices in ethnic communities” include
‘black market’ hormones and herbal remedies to demasculinise or defeminise an individual
Oh – so hormones which make more feminine or more masculine are a form of conversion therapy?
Can you see just how deluded the Commission are. I’m starting to wonder whether they wrote this report after having a few… – you know what I mean
And just finally – some advice for churches.
Listen up.
Under prayer:
Review the prayers and liturgy offered in your space. If you think they may cross the line into a conversion practice, consider reaching out to the Commission.
The Church of the HRC will write your prayers and liturgy for you. How generous.
Get consent before praying for someone. Consent applies to topics of prayer and to physical touch during prayer interactions. Privacy should be taken seriously when it comes to prayer. Diversify prayer. Consider expanding prayer into music, art, written, and other verbal outlets.
Thanks but no thanks
Under worship
Consider the language used in worship and whether it could be unintentionally excluding some community members. Some traditional songs may no longer be appropriate. As with teaching material, consider using gender-neutral terms.
Under leadership and groups
Review the names of your ministries or groups. Do they have gendered titles? If so, do they need to have them? Consider renaming groups to reflect their activity or purpose, for example Sewing Group or Prayer Breakfast.
In other words, they hate Mens Breakfasts, Women’s Fellowship, Ladies Night, Mens group – and don’t you even mention Promise Keepers or Sistas Conference. Dont you dare.
Under community, they say
Consider having non-religious events. When your community celebrates events, consider whether you need to include a religious element. Also consider celebrating events that may uplift your Rainbow community like Pride Month.
Consider placing a small Pride flag or poster with a Rainbow-affirming message in a common area.
Review the layout of your bathrooms…
Yeah – you know where that is going,
Finally, under the heading “What about sacred texts?”
Becoming an accepting and inclusive church does not necessarily mean putting aside traditional religious texts or changing your view on the authority of these texts in the life of your community. For example, theologians and others who advocate for an inclusive interpretation of scripture often refer to six well-known Bible verses used against homosexuality as ‘clobber verses or passages’. Many posit that these few verses have been weaponised to justify discrimination and exclusionary treatment of Rainbow people within church life. In response, a rich discourse and scholarship that challenges those traditional interpretations and assumptions now exists. These inclusive interpretations are available for Rainbow communities and others who cherish their sacred texts and acceptance of diverse genders and sexual orientations.
One of the resources it recommends is this one
Join the Chariot is written by InsideOUT – need I say more – is neither theologically grounded nor carefully crafted. Its Foreword quickly indicates that the resource is neither theologically grounded nor a Taonga.
What this precious resource provides is an exemplary reading of the Gospel text, ‘I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly . . .’ For just as Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for not taking care of those for whom they are responsible, for instead acting as those who bring fear and potential harm into the lives of those most vulnerable, he is also insisting it is the human right of all to choose if they so desire, to ‘come out [sic] and to go find abundant pasture’!
This of course is a complete (and offensive) misrepresentation of the words of Jesus in John 10:9.
Go to familyfirst.nz and search “Chariot” and you’ll see more of our analysis of this idiot resource which you may find both amusing but also offensive and alarming.
All New Zealanders should be protected from coercive, abusive or involuntary psychological or spiritual practices. However, participation in psychological assessments, counselling sessions, prayer meetings and other therapeutic practices is almost always an expression of voluntary behaviour and personal freedom. Under this new law, people are prevented from getting help to live the lifestyle they choose. And parents could be criminalised for encouraging their children to embrace their biological sex.
Ironically, while gender and sexuality is supposedly ‘fluid’, activists want the law to stipulate that it can only go in the direction they approve. Conversion therapy is still legal. It’s practiced in schools by groups such as InsideOut and Rainbow Youth.
The bottom line – the Human Rights Commission is just an activist group that should be immediately defunded. The conversion therapy law should be binned. And anybody with a copy of this report should use it to start the fire tonight. Apparently it’s gonna be a cold night.
Bob McCoskrie is the National Director of Family First New Zealand, he has a Masters of Commerce with Honours from the University of Auckland and a Diploma of Teaching from the Auckland College of Education. He posts regularly on McBlog - Where this article was sourced.
Now remember – according to the HRC themselves,
The $2.2m taxpayer-funded complaints centre set up by the Human Rights Commission for receiving complaints about ‘conversion therapy’ has struggled to obtain any formal complaints about the use of ‘conversion therapy’ in the two years since the new law was passed, despite significant advertising about its services, and they have referred no complaints to the Police. The NZ Police have also acknowledged that they have received no direct complaints which have warranted an investigation over the past two years.
This is consistent with numbers before the law was passed.
The taxpayer via the Human Rights Commission has spent $2.2m looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. But what the politicians and these activist groups have done is make it difficult for parents, counsellors and therapists to support troubled adolescents who identify as ‘trans’ or ‘gender diverse’.
So let’s have a look at the latest fire starter.
And the foreword immediately unpacks critical theory 101 in all its glory
Rainbow people experience discrimination at a rate higher than the general population.3 For Māori, Pacific, and ethnic peoples in Aotearoa, this is overlaid with racism.4 Colonisation impacted Indigenous peoples’ traditional acceptance of the natural fluidity of sexuality and gender, replacing it with a rigid binary opposition of male and female.5 Disabled Rainbow people who experience conversion practices also face layered oppression arising from a pervasive perception that they need to be ‘cured’ or ‘corrected’ for their sexuality or gender identity and their impairments.6
Phew. The intersectionality is overwhelming. And this is coming from a cis white heterosexual Christian married male with XY chromosomes – the source of all evil
It then says
the evidence shows that conversion practices do not work.
It’s classic that there is no link to any research on this statement – because there isn’t any. The evidence was gained in the tea room at the “human rights for some” commission at their regular Monday morning staff meeting. A show of hands.
And then to really destroy their already destroyed credibility, they quote…. the Disinformation Project.
The Disinformation Project’s report found the language and imagery used online against transgender people had become more violent over time.7 The language and imagery they found included repeated denials that transgender people exist or that they should be allowed to exist. The report described the language used about transgender people as “genocidal”.
Here’s some examples
On to the Executive Summary – and they say
Ending conversion practices contributes to upholding te Tiriti o Waitangi… Te Tiriti also protects the right to be free from discrimination for Māori, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Ooh I must have missed that bit in the Treaty.
And then
The international and domestic human rights relevant to conversion practices include: • the right to freedom from discrimination • the right not to be deprived of life • the right to freedom of expression
The right not to be deprived of life. I never knew that the Commission was against abortion. Awesome. And the right to freedom of expression – except if you want to live your life according to your religion or personal beliefs.
By the way, I did a word search of this 102 page document just to see who the real enemy was
Church – 49 times
Christian – 46 times
Marriage – 31
Mosque – 0
Muslim – 1
Hindu – buddhist – Mormon – couple of times each
Now the publication does have some recommendations – and one of them is to make it easier to prosecute people – by removing the requirement that the Attorney-General has to approve any prosecutions – and this clause was always a sop to those sitting on the fence that “we want the law but it’s not going to be enforced much – we just want to send a message”. A bit like the “police discretion for smacking offences”. Politicians always get sucked in by those little things and vote for the dumb law.
Now it has recommendations for the church – saying
Engage in research around inclusive and affirming interpretations of religious/spiritual teachings.. Commence a review process of reckoning with religious texts and teachings that do not affirm Rainbow people… inclusive interpretations with an open mind.
In other words, the Bible according to the HRC with just the “nice bits”.
Fortunately, the Christian church knows that the Bible changes us, we don’t change it.
The Commission then sinned – and lied.
In February 2021, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, a Green Party MP at the time, presented a further petition to Parliament to accelerate the progress for a ban.28 Her petition collected 157,764 signatures in one week – the largest validated petition in the history of Aotearoa.
Nope – it was a Green party petition hosted on their website – signed by anyone in the world! With no verification. A complete porkie by the Commission.
And then interestingly, they have a little footnote with a list of the 7 MPs who opposed the law.
Now why did the Commission list those names – and not the ones who voted for it.
Why do you think?
In my view, it is skullduggery at its very worst. The “human rights for some” commission wants to name and shame politicians they hate. My message to these MPs who are still in Parliament is “shut down this radical activist commission”. They hate democracy.
Now this report took 18 months to write – think of all the wages paid by you for this report – I mean they had $2.2m to spend quickly so they had to justify their existence somehow!!
But here’s why the report is useful only for starting fires.
We received a small amount of feedback from those supportive of conversion practices as a way to uphold what they perceived to be the ‘rights’ of families and religious communities to discipline or try to change those in their care. We have not given space to those views in this report …
Shocking.
But in our earlier OIA I referred to, they admitted
“The Commission has not knowingly had any engagement with individuals who made submissions against the new law and who had positive experiences of receiving counselling to deal with unwanted sexuality and gender confusion issues.”
The Human Rights Commission don’t want to hear any contra view. They don’t want the feedback. They don’t listen to the feedback. They only want “human rights for those they agree with”.
OK – I can’t stomach too much more of this.
But just a few more bits
On page 22, it lists examples of conversion therapy. Now we would oppose most things in the list. Always have. Always will. “beatings, whippings, burnings, ‘corrective’ rape, electric shocks,”
But there’s a few interesting items: “prayer, recitation of religious texts with some type of aversion component” – that naughty “sin” word maybe?, and “worship”.
In fact, at a youth worker conference last year in Auckland, the Commission told youthworkers that an altar call could be conversion therapy.
Now the Commission is quite adamant that conversion therapy is happening in NZ. And to prove that, they showed this graph
1/3rd said yes – and 27% weren’t quite sure.
The problem was that the source of these comments were a conference with a massive attendance of 26. (page 24) Yes – 26 including allies. So not LGBTQIA people.
On page 29 they again repeat their pro lie stance which they are actually lying about. The quote the Rights of the child and article 6
the child’s inherent right to life and States parties’ obligation to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child – embracing the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral, psychological, and social development.
They are ally are confused, aren’t they. They don’t actually care for the rights of the unborn child or their right to life. The Commission just lies.
On page 31 they say
trans people, all healthcare professionals have a duty to provide gender-affirming care within their scope of practice.
False. They don’t have a duty to chemicalise, castrate, and confuse. Another lie from the Commission.
And then some more critical theory and attacks on religion – specifically Christianity
The introduction of Christianity in Aotearoa by European missionaries in the 19th century brought with it concepts of binary gender, monogamy, and heteronormativity, which influenced and altered attitudes towards sexual orientation and gender that largely remain today… Catholic leaders recommend celibacy as the path for those with diverse sexualities. This is still, however, a form of suppression
Note to the Commission – this applies to heterosexuals also. Doh.
And then this classic comment about the LGBT community being racist. Yep you heard that right.
A 2023 study of the experience of Asian Rainbow youth captures the way young people experienced Rainbow community spaces as ‘white’ and not spaces in which the Chinese Rainbow youth quoted could be themselves. “The [Rainbow space] is still predominantly cis- and white-dominated for me to feel entirely comfortable because currently it doesn’t feel like it’s a space I go to feel represented and loved.” Chinese, Rainbow
And as part of this discussion, they mentioned that “other examples of conversion practices in ethnic communities” include
‘black market’ hormones and herbal remedies to demasculinise or defeminise an individual
Oh – so hormones which make more feminine or more masculine are a form of conversion therapy?
Can you see just how deluded the Commission are. I’m starting to wonder whether they wrote this report after having a few… – you know what I mean
And just finally – some advice for churches.
Listen up.
Under prayer:
Review the prayers and liturgy offered in your space. If you think they may cross the line into a conversion practice, consider reaching out to the Commission.
The Church of the HRC will write your prayers and liturgy for you. How generous.
Get consent before praying for someone. Consent applies to topics of prayer and to physical touch during prayer interactions. Privacy should be taken seriously when it comes to prayer. Diversify prayer. Consider expanding prayer into music, art, written, and other verbal outlets.
Thanks but no thanks
Under worship
Consider the language used in worship and whether it could be unintentionally excluding some community members. Some traditional songs may no longer be appropriate. As with teaching material, consider using gender-neutral terms.
Under leadership and groups
Review the names of your ministries or groups. Do they have gendered titles? If so, do they need to have them? Consider renaming groups to reflect their activity or purpose, for example Sewing Group or Prayer Breakfast.
In other words, they hate Mens Breakfasts, Women’s Fellowship, Ladies Night, Mens group – and don’t you even mention Promise Keepers or Sistas Conference. Dont you dare.
Under community, they say
Consider having non-religious events. When your community celebrates events, consider whether you need to include a religious element. Also consider celebrating events that may uplift your Rainbow community like Pride Month.
Consider placing a small Pride flag or poster with a Rainbow-affirming message in a common area.
Review the layout of your bathrooms…
Yeah – you know where that is going,
Finally, under the heading “What about sacred texts?”
Becoming an accepting and inclusive church does not necessarily mean putting aside traditional religious texts or changing your view on the authority of these texts in the life of your community. For example, theologians and others who advocate for an inclusive interpretation of scripture often refer to six well-known Bible verses used against homosexuality as ‘clobber verses or passages’. Many posit that these few verses have been weaponised to justify discrimination and exclusionary treatment of Rainbow people within church life. In response, a rich discourse and scholarship that challenges those traditional interpretations and assumptions now exists. These inclusive interpretations are available for Rainbow communities and others who cherish their sacred texts and acceptance of diverse genders and sexual orientations.
One of the resources it recommends is this one
Join the Chariot is written by InsideOUT – need I say more – is neither theologically grounded nor carefully crafted. Its Foreword quickly indicates that the resource is neither theologically grounded nor a Taonga.
What this precious resource provides is an exemplary reading of the Gospel text, ‘I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly . . .’ For just as Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for not taking care of those for whom they are responsible, for instead acting as those who bring fear and potential harm into the lives of those most vulnerable, he is also insisting it is the human right of all to choose if they so desire, to ‘come out [sic] and to go find abundant pasture’!
This of course is a complete (and offensive) misrepresentation of the words of Jesus in John 10:9.
Go to familyfirst.nz and search “Chariot” and you’ll see more of our analysis of this idiot resource which you may find both amusing but also offensive and alarming.
All New Zealanders should be protected from coercive, abusive or involuntary psychological or spiritual practices. However, participation in psychological assessments, counselling sessions, prayer meetings and other therapeutic practices is almost always an expression of voluntary behaviour and personal freedom. Under this new law, people are prevented from getting help to live the lifestyle they choose. And parents could be criminalised for encouraging their children to embrace their biological sex.
Ironically, while gender and sexuality is supposedly ‘fluid’, activists want the law to stipulate that it can only go in the direction they approve. Conversion therapy is still legal. It’s practiced in schools by groups such as InsideOut and Rainbow Youth.
The bottom line – the Human Rights Commission is just an activist group that should be immediately defunded. The conversion therapy law should be binned. And anybody with a copy of this report should use it to start the fire tonight. Apparently it’s gonna be a cold night.
Bob McCoskrie is the National Director of Family First New Zealand, he has a Masters of Commerce with Honours from the University of Auckland and a Diploma of Teaching from the Auckland College of Education. He posts regularly on McBlog - Where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
The scope of the Treaty has been incredibly stretched, but to include conversion therapy is absurd.
If any conversion therapy needs to banned in the common good it is pro maori conversion applied through ministries, govt departments, education, health, councils, firms, at al.
The separation of church and state goes both ways. Based on the post’s summary of this document, the HRC appears to be interfering in the rights of New Zealanders to worship freely. Not just that, but the HRC is promoting a neopagan, far left ideology that is destroying the fabric of our society.
I can see another opportunity for the coalition government to reduce their expenditure…
LFC
>"Indigenous peoples’ traditional acceptance of the natural fluidity of sexuality and gender...."
>"The introduction of Christianity in Aotearoa by European missionaries in the 19th century brought with it concepts of binary gender, monogamy, and heteronormativity..."
I would mount a vigorous challenge to the insinuation that traditional peoples in general, or Maori in particular, were all that accepting of homosexuality and its various concomitants. My life experience tells me that in most (admittedly, not all) indigenous societies there is a very low level of tolerance for such goings-on. Indeed in most tribal societies I have come across, being sexually deviant carries a lot of risk. There is question-begging with a very meagre evidence base going on here - and I wouldn't be surprised if much of that evidence were fabricated. After all, intellectually honest social science research went out when the marxofascists took over.
Oh, and by the way, while monogamy is certainly not the norm among traditional peoples, this aspect of marriage law has nothing to do with societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Most cultural marriage customs are polygamous but that means one spouse (usually but not always the man) has the right to marry additional partners (ie usually additional wives - he can't throw another bloke into the mix!). It is an interesting point to note that all (correct me if I am wrong) jurisdictions that have taken same-sex marriage on board are monogamous.
Regarding the so called Maori view, I can only refer to an interview with Witi Ihimaera, a gay Maori, saying that Maori are one of the most homophopic people in the world.
The collective (Marxist/Communist) term “Human Rights” means that this ideology (which never means what the name projects, in fact just the opposite) is the objective here.
As each sovereign individual is born with inalienable rights, which cannot be stripped away from that sovereign individual (unless they hand it over to the state), there is absolutely no place for this collective organization to exist, unless the “corporate state” prefers this option.
Socialist church infiltrators have come up with an 11th Commandment—“Thou shalt be nice”—and forget about the other Ten.
This makes pastors and ministers overwhelmingly trepid to state the Biblical position on homosexuality and trans issues, and impel them to tone it down when publicly addressing these matters.
Few church leaders would introduce a topic saying something like: “Today we are going to talk about adultery. Before kicking off, I just want to say that we LOVE adulterers. In fact, many of my best friends are adulterers…”
Substitute “gays and lesbians” or “trans people” for “adulterers” to see what I mean.
The Judeo-Christian position on homosexuality is that there is a Created Order.
God made Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
Not Madam and Eve.
Gays and lesbians petulantly refuse to accept the Created Order and attempt to recreate it according to their own personal sexual preference.
Just another version of mankind’s first heresy. In the words that the Serpent whispered in the ears of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden: “Ye shall be as Gods.”
Taking a purely secular standpoint, homosexuality is a dangerous, pathological and unsanitary lifestyle, not to mention biologically redundant behaviour.
There is no functional difference between sperm swimming towards eggs or sperm swimming towards faeces?
No functional difference between a penis bumping up against a cervix or a tongue attempting vainly to reach one?
Anal sodomy is against the natural teleology (purpose) of the body.
That which is normal is that which functions according to its design.
The anus is an organ of excretion, not procreation.
How bright do you have to be to work out the consequences of sticking a life-giving organ into the poop chute?
At one time, psychologists viewed homosexuality and gender identity disorder as disorders of psychosexual development, and like other forms of mental illness, amenable to therapy.
In the 1970s,, after gay activists repeatedly and violently disrupted APA conferences—homosexuality and its offshoots were removed from the Diagnostics & Statistics Manual ( the shrink profession’s ‘bible’) as mental disorders.
This turned decades of the accrued experience of clinicians and accepted professional wisdom on its ear.
No new studies or information had come to light. The APA made a political decision on this matter entirely so as not to make the sexually disordered feel marginalised.
Homosexuality and its offshoots were now only problematic if the patient ‘felt anxious’ about their condition.
The focus of therapy shifted to helping a disordered individual to come to terms with their current reality, rather than seeking change.
And the burden of change had now shifted from the disordered individual to an unjustly ‘condemning’ society.
Now we come to the ‘born that way’ nonsense peddling by the Lavender Lobby.
There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay, lesbian, or transgender. There is no ‘gay gene’ or ‘trans gene.’
“Sexual orientation” is a crock. The correct terminology is “sexual preference’—as evidenced the numerous individuals who change their sexual preference—often several times—over a lifetime.
While I don’t advocate compulsory therapy for any mental condition, if a voluntary patient wishes to seek the help of a shrink to change their sexual preference and sexual behaviour from gay to straight or trans to CIS-gender, it is a violation of their human tights to use lawfare to block this.
Easy it seems to take for granted that such nonsense can be spouted about so-called conversion therapy in a Christian country. In other cultures such conversion therapy involves simply being thrown off building rooftops (probably not a lot different to treatment by indigenous 'cultures').
Post a Comment