When Bachmann says “part of Satan”, she means that it advances Satan’s position.

And, in particular, she sees the use of the word “gay” to be part of Satan’s strategy: he is seeking to make homosexuality appear normal and benign by using this deceptive happy term for what is really a very sad life.

Quick aside: to conservative evangelicals, any life without Christ is by definition a sad life without peace or joy even if the poor miserable sinner doesn’t realize it. It’s definitional rather than descriptive.

But in the case of gay folk, conservatives genuinely believe that no only is is definitionally miserable, but literally unhappy too. Their impression of gay people is pretty much that of Boys in the Band and anything that does not portray gay people as such is a lie of Satan.

Bachmann doesn’t not believe gay people to be “a part of Satan” in a literal sense. But she does believe the homosexual lifestyle to be of Satan. And by “lifestyle”, Bachmann means any word, thought, attitude, behavior, or other expression that challenges God’s Law.

As God’s Law says that homosexuality is sin (and to Bachmann, there is no distinction between the Levitical prohibitions on a certain male sex act and the acknowledgement of same-sex attraction) then anything that might suggest otherwise is of Satan.

Gay marriage, a lie of Satan. Gay advocacy, a tool of Satan. Churches that do not condemn homosexuals of their sin, sellouts to Satan. Gay people,(who believe the lie) the victims of Satan to whom she would like to reach out in love and rescue.

Bachmann’s position – while horrific – is at least one step better than some. There are those who believe that gay people are not victims of Satan but willing associates who are so rebellious against God that they persisted in depravity to the point where their consciences have become seared over and thus are worthy of contempt and the harshest of punishment. (A commentary is coming on this.)

FOTF and their shills like Melissa Fryear are committing a SERIOUS breach of ethics by such a generalization. As mentioned, by doing that, they make suspicion grow in a situation that could very well DESTROY a family and their trust of each other. Or perhaps the sole gay member of the family will be banished as a precaution. Which would be an immeasurably cruel and devastating thing to do.

The very repetition of her ‘act’, for these conferences, begs challenging the veracity of her own experience.
When I talked to Chad Thompson, HE was convinced of similar abuse, because he wasn’t close to his father. He couldn’t REMEMBER any abuse, but nonetheless was CERTAIN it back there somewhere.
He obviously was certain that his distant father was most potent cause of his homosexuality, because THAT he could remember and knew it to be true.
How people get themselves so thoroughly brainwashed around gay related issues is no less scary than how people could be convinced to turn on their Jewish neighbors in the 1930′s.

I mean, damn…at some point, WHEN are these people going to quit being so WEAK? They aren’t STUPID, but they are insufferably unwilling to face facts.
Even Nicolosi wouldn’t answer my question regarding fatherly distance and a lack of more prevalence to homosexuality among single parent BLACK homes where the dearth of fathers is much higher? I brought that up with Chad, and he didn’t have an answer to that either.
But I knew I hit a nerve because he RAN from even disseminating that part of the discussion we were having.

It’s amazing how many people live this way for years, even all their lives, feeling awful about themselves if they are gay, believing they are not changing because their faith is not strong enough – believing that their God does not accept them as they are.

I think they should send dolpins into space – any alien intelligence will quickly write us off once they get to know our infantile superstitions.