This can be compared to the More Light Presbyterians, another mission society where membership is actually open, and the history of engagement has had rather more positive results for GLBT people and our friends in the Presbyterian Church and the wider world despite the markedly smaller budget.

Basically, she is saying she cannot think for herself, so she’s been hiding behind the church her whole life. She doesn’t trust any conclusions she might come to on her own. Quite honestly she craves, NEEDS a stamp of approval on her life. She simply can’t stand on her own.

Isn’t there an anti-drug commercial out there that says something to the effect that if you let everyone else decide things for you, you lose what’s most important: you.

Personally, I see this as the American Protestant flirtation with the medieval notion of Christendom. It’s a rather curious flirtation at that because on the one hand they wish to maintain the American ideals of democracy and freedom, but only seen through the lens of their brand of Christianity. Nor are they consistent even in this as most would reject stripping ‘heretics’ or atheists of their rights under the Constitution. Yet if we look back on what Christendom meant to the medievals, than matters which cause harm in the spiritual realm are all also matters of State concern. The lines between Church & State are very tenuous, if not non-existent in many cases. Under this scheme, atheism and heresy are just as bad as murder. Indeed, one could reasonably argue that they are worse since it’s not just the body that is killed but the eternal soul and society as a whole suffers from the confusion these sow by obscuring the Truth. I’ve yet to see how their dubious flirtation with this notion resolves the inconsistencies in their reasoning, let alone a full understanding on their part of how adoption of this idea would kill the “American experiment”.

“Choice is only that, if you are aware of all the options and know what you are choosing.”

Sometimes I wonder what is the real purpose of ex-gay movement. Are they sincerely wanting to help gay people for salvation or are they trying to comply us with their perception of righteousness?

Reading the article above really disturb me, isn’t there suppose to be more options? Are you suppose to wipe out the existency of ex- exgay?

I am happy that Brad and Maria found His grace through heterosexuality (or so they think) but the fact is …not everyone is the same.

It is more important to show people that God never close His door to people who has faith in Him than to condemn and close the door on people unless they comply with the LAW.

God bless

I’ve made the change as you’ve requested. Although I gotta admit, “These are the only two ways” is what generally comes naturally to my Appalachian ears. You can take the boy out of the hills but….

Die-or-change talk creates environments where the mental health of some lgbtq folks suffers. Not all lgbtq folks are heavily impacted, of course. But the most tender, scared, vulnerable gay folks tend to bear the greatest burden.

They don’t hear that Ms. Cardenas faced a mental health crisis similar to their own. They hear a false choice which resonates with their despair — better to change than die, but better to die than get mental health care, better to die than live as an openly gay person.

The case we’re not yet making effectively in lgbtq advocacy, it seems to me, is that ex-gay-affirming folks use words like Cardenas’ to deny their peers access to effective, evidence-based mental health care.

Their descriptions of mental health crises, linked to incomplete or false choices, don’t cause other people to harm themselves. But the words paint a thoughtful, reasonable, sensitive patina over the fact that they don’t want their audience to seek professional, credentialed health care which might prevent premature death.

For most ex-gays I know, the “choice” indoctrination is equivalent to patronizing a young gay boy, forcing him into the closet, locking him up with barely enough room to breathe as “normal” and do not allow him to take food as any “natural” human beings do. Then when he is dying they, the “saviour” ministry would ask; so do you want to be dead or “change”.

To go against what is normal and natural for a good many gay men and lesbian women (and testifying as if every duck is a chicken and every gay is a potential ex-gay) is to be called “change” that since had been unproven? And implying the rest of them that would not “change” is in the state of denial?

I am happy they both “changed”, but I would request to them please do not present themselves as a representative of a possible “change” in me. They are born in the States and I am born in Asia. Show a change on THAT, then come and talk to me.