Millions of lives are destroyed, relationships are uprooted, and fortunes are wasted in the false hope of becoming ex-gay, all because of the blatant misuse of one biblical passage.

It is well-known that the ex-gay movement is based on very faulty psychological premises.  What is not so well-known is that the biblical basis for their assumptions is equally bankrupt.  It may be good to remind ourselves that every time oppressed groups began to make headway in America they were all opposed by those who claimed to have the Bible on their side.  Eventually, their arguments were perceived as the rantings of self-serving demagogues and carry no weight today among mainstream Christians and biblical scholars.

So today we should not be surprised that the Bible is trotted out once again to keep another oppressed group under wraps.   And just as before, a careful look at their arguments finds this current effort wanting.

(Read More)

In a WorldNetDaily article promoting the Love Won Out ex-gay road show, writer Bob Unruh reports:

One organization, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said the term “ex-gay” threatens the homosexual community because “it implies that one remains homosexual by choice. That the gay person need not continue in the homosexual lifestyle is an unsettling message.”

[Gary] Schneeburger [of Focus on the Family] agreed. He said the one thread that runs through all the testimonies of speakers at Love Won Out conferences is the revelation individuals had when they realized that change was possible.

“That message is what folks [in the homosexual community] are intolerant about. They don’t want to have the discussion,” he said.

Various web sites periodically voice the false hope that the ex-gay movement is moderating its dishonest rhetoric of undefined “change”; PFOX and Focus on the Family, however, demonstrate a steadfast commitment to the failed rhetoric of the past. (Read More)

An article published last week by the Christian New Man Magazine claims to interview Exodus president Alan Chambers, but a careful reading suggests that the questions could easily have been written by Chambers or his handlers.

The answers are boilerplate ex-gay rhetoric; what makes the interview interesting is the narrowmindedness and political correctness of the questions. (Read More)