|Posted on October 11, 2020 at 5:50 AM|
Wir hören ja immer wieder, homosexuelle Beziehungen seien im Schnitt weit weniger monogam, weit kurzfristiger und sexuell weitaus "experimentierfreudiger" als heterosexuelle. Das ist zweifellos richtig, insbesondere was Beziehungen zwischen Männern angeht. Ja, heterosexuelle Beziehungen holen hier auf, aber sind regelmäßig immer noch weit davon entfernt. Das wirdx in der schwulen Szene normalerweise auch nicht negativ gesehen.
Es gibt Schwule, die nun irgendein Paar anführen, von dem sie gehört hätten, sie hätten eine langfristige Beziehung. Bei näherem Hinsehen erweist sich diese jedoch selten als monogam und noch seltener als sexuell nicht so ausgefallen wie heterosexuelle.
Die Frage ist hier, warum man möglicherweise etwas anderes erwartet hat oder "beweisen" will. Zwei Menschen desselben Geschlechts (insbesondere zwei Männer) haben nunmal eine völlig andere Sexualität und damit auch ein völlig anderes Zusammenleben als zwei Menschen unterschiedlichen Geschlechts. Die Evolution und damit die Notwendigkeit des monogamen langfristigen Zusammenlebens fällt weg. Selbst wenn Kinder adoptiert oder mit in die Beziehung gebracht werden, lässt sich Mutter Natur wohl nicht so einfach austricksen.
Wie mensch das beurteilt, steht auf einem anderen Blatt. Hier müssen sich sowohl Homosexuelle gefallen lassen, dass andere Menschen dem ablehnend gegenüber stehen - was ihr gutes Recht ist - als auch die "andere Seite", dass Menschen so zusammenleben wollen. Deshalb der "Gegenpartei" unlautere Motive, psychische Störungen oder dergleichen unterstellen zu wollen (kann ja nicht sein, dass ihre Gründe vernünftig sind und vernünftig betrachtet werden wollen) oder sie gar verbal mit Dreck zu bewerfen, bringt niemandem etwas und zeigt eher den eigenen Mangel an Charakter, Respekt und gewaltfreier Kommunikation.
|Posted on May 19, 2017 at 2:05 PM|
Some might not like to hear what I am saying, but it needs to be said. No wonder the ex-gay (or "purity" or whatever you call it)-movement has so little impact on society! Look at its "leaders": They brag with scientific credentials in psychiatry and/or psychology while most have no credentials at all or at best low-level ones. Extremely few really are psychiatrists. Others point out their theological "achievements". It is not an achievement when you were appointed pastor by some small church - which would not be recognized by 99% of Christianity! Others try to make their own name big, forgetting who really set them free. Then you have those who studied theology or whatever else and now claim to be expert on any given field. Most of their "knowledge" comes from stuff they have read somewhere. Finally you have those who travel across the globe and write books about how to find freedom from same-sex attractions, how to look at them from a Christian and scientific point of view, how to deal with them from a political perspective - you get the picture. The "I-know-everything"-types. However, if you look at their private lives things do not look so shiny - they might be divorced or married a divorced partner, which makes their cohabitation a form of adultry no better than any homosexual act.
So what am I getting at? That we are all liars and hypocrites?
I can't look into someone's heart, so it is not up to me to say that. But! we should stick at what we truly know about and not try to beat the world in areas where it is better than we will ever be. God does not need credentials. Your own life story is worth a whole lot more if you present it - and yourself - authentically! Don't try to brush it up, to make it look better. Don't push your own agenda, but God's.
As Doug from Homosexuals Anonymous used to say: "The only thing that keeps us from finding true freedom is the belief that it can be done!"
He sometimes told me how they started off in 1976, having no fancy psychology books, but the Bible. Yet to this day I have not met a man with a stronger faith than Dr. Douglas McIntyre, who passed away in 2015.
He did not put human science down, but he gave credit where credit was due.
Finally, at the end of the day, we need a love bigger than whatever our hearts and bodies held on to so far. A love that can give eternal life.
Director Homosexuals Anonymous
|Posted on April 13, 2017 at 4:55 PM|
Have you ever been told you have an "anger issue" - along with some Bible verses to help you to repent? Anger is a completely normal emotion. Nobody (!) does NOT get angry. Jesus got angry. He got so angry He chased the merchants out of the temple. Stop pretending you have no emotions and/or emotions are a bad thing. Emotions have a function in our lives. We have them for a reason. Without emotions, humanity would not even have survived. They protect us, motivate us or prevent us from doing something. Get a life!
|Posted on April 13, 2017 at 2:45 PM|
Yes, we've been gone for so long. We've been outsiders - and still are. "The marginalized" you call us - and you use us to knock off your loving the unlovable off the list. You want to bring Jesus to us hookers, pimps, inmates, gays, drug addicts, homeless and what not. We don't need you to bring us Jesus so you feel better and can tap yourselves on your shoulders. Jesus is already here. Yes, we left our old lives behind, but we are still "we" - and that's alright with God. We went to those nice and fancy church buildings where they all asemble - all those nicely dressed people, some of which we knew too well from their double lives. They "welcome" us, but all the time they let us feel they are something better - and we are not.
Oh, they certainly know how to hide that behind spiritually or wanna-be-psychologically sounding phrases - "You might want to pray about...", "Don't take it personal, but...", "A Christian does not say/wear/do this/does not listen to this music...", "This looks like you're still gay/a hooker/a drug addict/a criminal..." - you get the point.
Then you wonder why so many call Christians hypocrite. Because many of you are. We sure don't need churches and Christians like these and we can smell your true attitude a mile away. This is why we feel much better among our own. Yes, we are Christians now - and certainly not worse ones than you are - and this is why our folks love us like we are. No "but" attached. And vice versa. We do not have to look like a middle class American John Doe in his suit and tie to worship the Lord. We dress up for Him - but that might look different than what you know. Who are you to tell us we should pray about our behavior - meaning to say you are standing on your hill, pretending to be God and having all the truth in the world. You are a sinner like the rest of us, not better, not worse.
When we follow Jesus, we are dead serious about it. We see you spreading much "wisdom" on facebook and telling everybody what should be done - but when we ask you to join us going out on the street to all those wild places where you find those people Jesus loves so much, you give us a trillion excuses why you cannot come along. Teary-eyed snowflakes, that's what you are. Chicken. Your house is not built on a rock and your seed fell among thorns.
So with all of our heart we tell you: Keep on doing whatever you think you should be doing, but leave us and our likes alone. We don't need you. We need Jesus - and we assemble for and with Him and we go to meet Him. Actually, it is pretty easy. He assembled twelve simple men called apostles and told them on the Sermon of the Mount the basics of what a believer in God is all about. This is what we go by.
We have two words for you:
|Posted on December 24, 2016 at 3:45 AM|
On the Promotion of Homosexuality in the Schools
American College of Pediatricians – August 2008
ABSTRACT: School officials are being increasingly pressured by pro-homosexual organizations to integrate homosexual education into school curricula. These organizations recommend promoting homosexuality as a normal, immutable trait that should be validated during childhood, as early as kindergarten. These organizations also condemn all efforts to provide treatment to gender confused students, advocating instead the creation of student groups that affirm homosexual attractions and behaviors.
One of the most coordinated efforts to convince school officials to embrace this position was launched by a coalition of 13 organizations which produced a brochure entitled, Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth. This coalition, which includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, and the National Education Association, mailed the brochure in January 2008 to all 16,000 public school superintendents in the United States. The purpose of the brochure is to:
Promote the notion that all forms of sexual attraction among students (regardless of age) are equally and entirely normal, including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.
Inform educators that all sexual-reorientation therapy may be harmful and should be prohibited.
Warn school officials that student clubs advocating the practice of homosexuality must be allowed on campus.
The American College of Pediatricians disagrees with the coalition and presents this scientific response:
The etiology of homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial, environmental, and social influences. For some individuals the inheritance of predisposing personality traits may also play a role.
While homosexual attraction may not be a conscious choice, it is changeable for many individuals.
Declaring and validating a student’s same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be harmful.
Many youth with homosexual attractions have experienced a troubled upbringing, including sexual abuse, and are in need of therapy.
The homosexual lifestyle carries grave health risks.
Sexual reorientation therapy can be effective. Students and parents should be aware of all therapeutic options.
There is no evidence that pro-homosexual programs, such as on-campus student clubs, ease the health disorders of homosexual youth.
The Just the Facts brochure is based upon statements of endorsement of adolescent homosexuality by coalition organizations, and not upon citations of evidence-based research.
Regardless of an individual’s sexual orientation, sexual activity is conscious choice. Any sexual activity outside of a monogamous, heterosexual, married relationship is unhealthy and ill-advised.
Primary Author: Michelle Cretella, MD, FCP
The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being. More information is available at www.BestforChildren.org.
The above statements are supported by the following documents:
“Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?” by the American College of Pediatricians
“Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children” by the American College of Pediatricians
Use and Abuse of Sociology by Marriage & Religion Research Institute
“Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth” by the American Psychological Association
“Homosexuality in Your Child’s School” by Family Research Council
|Posted on December 24, 2016 at 12:45 AM|
Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy (SAFE-T):
Creating a clearer impression of professional therapies that allow for change
Christopher Rosik, Ph.D.
During its May 27th, 2016, meeting, the board of the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) voted unanimously to endorse new terminology that more accurately and effectively represents the work of Alliance therapists who see clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. The board has come to believe that terms such as reorientation therapy, conversion therapy, and even sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are no longer scientifically or politically tenable. Among the many reasons the board felt it time to retire these older terms as much as possible were the following:
1. These terms imply that categorical change (from exclusive SSA to exclusive OSA) is the goal. This is a degree of change that is
statistically rare and not demanded of any other psychological experience as a condition of legitimate psychological care.
2. The current terms imply there is a specific and exotic form of therapy that is being conducted (not standard therapeutic modalities)
3. These terms imply that sexual orientation is an actual entity (i.e., the terms all reify sexual orientation as immutable).
4. The terms imply that change is the therapist’s goal and not that of the clients (i.e., it’s coercive rather than self-determined).
5. These terms (especially SOCE) do not differentiate between professional conducted psychotherapy and religious or other forms of counseling practice.
6. These terms have been demonized and/or developed by professionals completely unsympathetic to therapies that allow for change in same-sex attractions and behaviors.
This means that Alliance clinicians are immediately on the defensive as soon as they reference their therapeutic work in these terms.
For all these reasons and more, first the Alliance Executive Committee and then the Alliance Board discussed potential new terminology and finally settled upon the name "Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy" (the acronym of which is SAFE-T). The Board believes this term has many advantages that commend its usage. First, it addresses all of the concerns noted above. It does not imply that categorical change is the goal and in so doing create unrealistic expectations for many clients. Nor does it imply that change which is less than categorical in nature cannot be meaningful and satisfying to clients. It also makes clear that SAFE can occur in any number of mainstream therapeutic modalities. Furthermore, by focusing on sexual attractions it avoids the implicit assertion that orientation changes or that orientation as an immutable reality even exists. By stressing therapeutic exploration, the new term accurately conveys that the therapist is not being coercive but merely assisting individuals in a client-centered examination of their sexual attractions. The Board also appreciated the fact that the acronym SAFE-T immediately challenges portrayals of the professional therapy utilized by Alliance clinicians as harmful.
Scientifically, the fluidity of sexual orientation (and, for our purposes, especially same-sex attractions) for many women and men is now beyond question (Diamond & Rosky, 2016; Katz-Wise, 2015; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2015). The language of SAFE-T highlights this reality and points to human experience that cannot be denied, again without the complicating focus on orientation. The only counterarguments to SAFE-T on fluidity grounds might be that therapy-assisted fluidity has not been proven to occur and such efforts could be harmful. These arguments are much easier to defend against with SAFE-T than when one is trying to defend implications of complete orientation change. First, we know that sexual attraction fluidity occurs in response to relational and environmental contexts, the very factors that therapists routinely address in their work (Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2015).
Second, there is research in progress to support the occurrence of therapy-assisted sexual attraction fluidity (Santero, Whitehead, & Ballesteros, 2016; Pela & Nicolosi, 2016), not to mention a rich history of past research, as good as any research of its era (Phelan, Whitehead, & Sutton, 2009). Finally, recent research on “ex-ex-gays” (e.g., Bradshaw, Dehlin, Crowell, & Bradshaw, 2015; Flentje, Heck, & Cochran, 2013) tells us no more about SAFE-T than research focused on divorced consumers of marital therapy would tell us about its safety and efficacy. While itis reasonable to conclude that more research is needed to better comprehend the extent of therapy-assisted sexual attraction fluidity, denying the potential for such a therapeutic process would seem to be much more a matter of ideological compulsion than it is one of theoretical or scientific implausibility.
Due to all of these important considerations, the ATSCI Board encourages Alliance members and supporters to join them in employing the terminology of SAFE-T in their professional work. One might say, for example, “I practice a cognitive form of SAFE-T” or “I practice SAFE-T from an interpersonal perspective” or “There is no scientific basis for banning any form of SAFE-T” or even “I don’t do SOCE, I only practice SAFE-T.” Because this term represents what Alliance clinicians actually do in a scientifically accurate and defensible manner, the Board anticipates that the professional interests of these therapists and the public policy interests of supporters will be much better served by SAFE-T.
Bradshaw, K., Dehlin, J. P., Crowell, K. A., & Bradshaw, W. S. (2014).
Sexual orientation change efforts through psychotherapy for LGBQ individuals affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.915907
Diamond, L. M., & Rosky, C. (2016). Scrutinizing immutability: Research on sexual orientation and its role in U. S. legal advocacy for the rights of sexual minorities.
The Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10:1080/00224499.2016.1139665
Flentje, A., Heck, N. C., Cochran, B. N. (2013). Sexual reorientation therapy interventions: Perspectives of ex-ex-gay individuals.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17, 256-277. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2013.773268.
Katz-Wise, S. L. (2015). Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men: Associations with sexual orientation and sexual identity development.
Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 189-208.
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Sexual fluidity and related attitudes and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1459-1470. doi: 10.1007/s10508-
Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). Polyamory, monoamory, and sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 168-180.
Pela, C., & Nicolosi, J. (2016, March).
Clinical outcomes for same-sex attraction distress: Well-being and change.
Paper presented at the Christian Association for Psychological
Studies conference, Pasadena, CA.
Phelan, J. E., Whitehead, N., & Sutton, P. M. (2009). What the research shows: NARTH’s response to the APA claims on homosexuality.
Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 5-118.
Retrieved from , http://www.scribd.com/doc/115507777/Journal-of-
Santero, P. L., Whitehead, N. E., & Ballesteros, D. (2016).
Effects of Therapy on U.S. Men who have Unwanted Same Sex Attraction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
|Posted on December 7, 2016 at 5:45 AM|
For those among us who found freedom and married a beautiful wife or husband: Praise the Lord! Those, however, who married a divorced partner did not find freedom, they simply exchanged one sin for another. If you love your partner, you want the best for him/her - and the best is always the best in God's eyes. You loose all of your credibility when you keep on talking about ex-gay stuff while continuing to live in another sinfuld live. Most of all, you do not do us (and yourself) a favor with that - quite on the contrary. And please stop justifying that with your own personal view of the Bible that happens to meet your lifestyle. This is exactly what gay Christians do.
|Posted on November 14, 2016 at 8:40 AM|
I forgot to add the important part of my update, the figures.
Please find the correct report as follows.
Jason Ministries Update
(Oceania, Africa, Asia, Middle East)
COUNTRY August 2016 November 2016 Plus Minus
1) Afghanistan 02 03 +1
2) American Samoa 16 18 +2
3) Australia 11 11
4) DC Congo 08 10 +2
5) Fiji 04 05 +1
6) Ghana 01 03 +2
7) Iran 13 15 +2
Kenya 06 05 -1
9)New Caledonia 07 10 +3
10) New Zealand 08 07 -1
11) Nigeria 02 02
12) Papua New Guinea 31 37 +6
13) Philippines 58 64 +6
14) Republic of the Congo 07 08 +1
15) Samoa 19 23 +4
16) Singapore 27 30 +3
17) Sri Lanka 13 13
18) South Africa 06 09 +3
19) Sudan 05 05
20) Thailand 39 42 +3
21) Uganda 00 00
22) United Kingdom 03 06 +3
23) United States of America 04 08 +4
Totals 290 334 +46 -2
Of interest is the following:
Increase All countries with the exception of the following.
No change Australia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Sudan
Loss New Zealand, Kenya
This represents an increase of 46 since August 2016 Online Group members.
Sadly we lost 2 online members Internationally. We will pray that they return and try again to overcome SSA.
A few countries are bucking the trend in their respective countries:
Philippines and Thailand are continuing to grow regardless of their openness to "selling sex" now seen as a tourist commodity and unacceptable in the sight of almighty God. Please pray that more people will see the light and desire freedom.
Iran is sadly displays an open rejection of SSA. However, almighty God is opening a door for that country to share their concerns and frustrations with SSA.
The online anonymity seems to be helping members by holding firm to their confidences and yet at the same time, opening up to much needed sharing with others who are experiencing the same or similar concerns in the lives as far as SSA goes. I am likewise seeing a deepening of Christian understandings by a number within the Group. This is a very difficult thing to achieve given the backgrounds that some have come from given the countries that they live in and the pressures that they live under such as Islamic and other beliefs that have ruled their lives. It is a blessing to see these men opening their hearts to receive the Gospel and indeed starting to talk freely about almighty God.
The Lord is continuing to do a mighty work of grace in the above mentioned countries. Oftentimes I have no knowledge as to how these dear souls happen to come across JASON, but I am pleased they do. There is so much hurt, suffering and pain being experienced by these members that they are crying for help and turning to Jesus Christ to turn them from SSA to that which is beautiful in His sight.
Let us together uphold these dear people and their countries before the throne of grace and seek blessings on them all from almighty God.
Kia tau te aroha noa ki a koe. Amine.
(Grace be with you. Amen)
+ Paul Andrews DD
His Eminence Paul Andrews DD
Rt. Rev. Archbishop and Representative
Jason Ministries Oceania Region
Email: [email protected]
|Posted on November 7, 2016 at 12:00 AM|
Every sick person deserves compassion and necessary care and treatment. This does not mean, however, that you cannot say an open word as to the causes for this sickness.
Men who have sex with men (MSM) are accountable for a high percentage of persons with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In Germany, you can check the numbers for yourself here: www.rki.de. Included are not even follow-up diseases like drug addictions, mental problems, physical diseases and so on that result from a high-risk lifestyle only all too common among some of the men with same-sex attractions ("homosexuals"). Obviously, safer-sex campaigns don't work as they should (aside the fact that they do not protect against all STDs, they also start at the end of the chain. Teaching the true meaning of love, marriage and sex might do a far better job). Society has to pay the high costs of the health treatments of those persons then. The same society that is usually blamed for as being "homophobic". However, it is not this society whom you can blame for when you become sick because of irresponsible sexual behavior. It is no other than yourself.
Bringing this up is politically not correct. I will even top it with this: Whoever lives in a monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong Christian marriage will not become HIV or any of the other health problems mentioned above. Some will not like that, but it definitely needs to be said.
We help financing gay public events and the gay movement in general, when the outcome is more than shocking - and oftentimes irresponsible.
|Posted on October 13, 2016 at 11:45 AM|
There are those kind of 'friends' that unfriend and ban you on facebook with a snip of their finger - and then wonder why they have no friends in real live either. I guess because you have not the slightest idea of what friendship is all about! Pouting like a five year-old when some disagrees with you and booting him out because of that sure is not the behavior of a mature man that can live with the fact that a friend can have another opinion or even criticize him. People that don't care about you tell you what you want to hear. Only those that really love you tell you want you need to hear. Cutting you off from them will hurt you the most.