|
Jewish World Review / July 21, 1998 / 27 Tamuz, 5758
Cal Thomas
Telling the truth about
THE RECENT SERIES of full-page newspaper ads sponsored by
conservative and Christian organizations telling homosexuals
they can change their behavior and lifestyle if they want to
strikes at the heart of the intolerant gay rights movement. To
acknowledge that even one person can become celibate or
convert from a homosexual pattern of behavior to a
heterosexual one undermines the arguments gay rights
activists have been making in favor of their "once gay,
always gay'' theory.
That various medical groups and liberal religious
denominations have declared homosexual behavior not a
disease or a sin says more about the organizations and
denominations than it does about the possibility of change.
Gay rights activists give the appearance of having won much
of the cultural debate, but they won't be satisfied until they
silence through intimidation those who continue to believe
that change is possible. They label such people bigots or use
other inflammatory language to cover up the truth.
So, rather than debate the issue on evidence, gay rights activists wear
down a morally exhausted society that shrinks at the prospect
of being thought uneducated, lacking in compassion and
judgmental. Gay activists speak of discrimination in the
workplace, but rejoice when a lesbian fire chief in Madison,
Wis., fires a Christian firefighter for refusing to back down
from his belief that homosexual practice is a sin.
It is true that some homosexuals revert to their former
behavior patterns after testifying to being converted. But
many have remained converted and feel liberated in their
new, non-homosexual lifestyles. Was it something about their
new associations, marriages, church attendance and will that
differed from those who reverted? Why don't we see more
reports about the successes and not just the failures?
One of many who changed is Darryl Foster, now a youth
pastor at a church in Waco, Texas. Abandoned by his father,
Foster says he was "left ... longing for a man to hold me in
his arms and tell me he loved me.'' Foster says he developed
homosexual desires and quickly embraced the gay lifestyle:
"I went to house parties, orgies, got hooked on 'poppers'
and started drinking .... I developed a hard attitude toward
others, even my lovers. People existed to give me pleasure;
when I was finished, I discarded them.''
During Easter Week, 1990, Foster says he had suicidal
thoughts. He turned on the TV, saw a picture of Jesus hanging
on the cross and realized God loved him no matter what he
had done. He called his own behavior sinful and says Jesus
converted him.
I have dozens of other deeply personal stories like this in my
files, some from friends. Are they all lying? Are they all in
denial? Do the gay rights activists believe it's only a matter of
time before all of them revert to their former lives? And what
if they don't? Will the gay rights crowd claim that such people
were never homosexual in the first place?
The newspaper ads and the debate they have revived will be
good news to many who want to change and who have been
told that change is impossible. For the political activists and
religious apologists who can save money, but not souls, and
don't recognize sin when they see it because they've denied
the One who defines what it is, this is bad news, indeed.
The converts don't have a political agenda, unlike those who
claim conversion is impossible. That part of the public which
still has doubts about whether people can stop homosexual
behavior should consider the motives behind the changed
and the unwilling to
homosexual behavior
Countering the conservative ads, gay rights groups are quoting
people who claim they tried to change but relapsed. This is as
persuasive as saying once a smoker, always a smoker. Why
should homosexuality enjoy a category unique among
behavioral patterns? The answer is politics and power.
The Paulks, First Family of the 'formerly-gay' movement
7/17/98: One Nation? Indivisible?
7/14/98: Who cares about killing when the 'good times' are rolling?
7/10/98: George W. Bush: a different 'boomer'
7/08/98: My lunch with Roy Rogers
7/06/98: News unfit to print (or broadcast)
6/30/98: Smoke gets in their eyes
6/25/98: Sugar and Spice Girls
6/19/98: William Perry opposed
technology transfers to China
6/19/98: The Clinton hare vs.the Starr tortoise
6/17/98: The President's rocky road to China
6/15/98: Let the children go
6/9/98: Oregon: the new killing fields
6/5/98: Speaking plainly: the cover-up continues
6/2/98: Barry Goldwater: in our hearts
5/28/98:The Speaker's insightful remarks
5/26/98: As bad as it gets
5/25/98:Union dues and don'ts
5/21/98:
Connecting those Chinese campaign
contribution dots
5/19/98: Clinton on the couch
5/13/98:
John Ashcroft: another
Jimmy Carter?
5/8/98: Terms of dismemberment
5/5/98: Clinton's tangled Webb
4/30/98: Return of the Jedi
4/28/98: Desparately seeking Susan
4/23/98: RICO's threat to free-speech and expression
4/21/98: Educating children v. preserving an institution
4/19/98: Analyzing the birth of a possible new nation
4/14/98: What's fair about our tax system?
4/10/98: CBS: 'Touched by a perv'
4/8/98: Judge Wright's wrong reasoning on sexual harassment
4/2/98: How about helping American cities before African?
3/31/98:Revenge of the children
3/29/98: The Clinton strategy: delay, deceive, deny, and destroy
3/26/98: Moralist Gary Hart
3/23/98: CNN's century of (liberal) women
3/17/98: Dandy Dan
3/15/98: An imposed 'settlement' settles nothing
3/13/98: David Brock's Turnabout