Helping Christians to make a difference
Dealing with current Issues
Helping Christian families to make a difference
Homosexual activists and the Greens are gloating about the fact the NSW Parliament's Legislative Assembly passed a MOTION last week condemning any form of 'reparative therapy'. The phrase 'reparative therapy' is used as a ‘catch-all’ phrase and is seen by homosexual activists as including ANY form of counselling that assists people deal with UNWANTED homosexual feelings!
This is often called SOCE – ‘Sexual Orientation Change Efforts’
The motion was introduced by Alex Greenwich (right), a homosexual activist who is now an Independent in the NSW Legislative Assembly. The Motion mentions a statement by the Australian Psychological Society (APS) which says that reparative therapy is ‘harmful’ – the Motion also claims that “no scientific research to substantiate the claims that medical and psychological treatment can change a person's sexual orientation.”
If Alex gets his way, all such counselling would be BANNED! He concluded his speech in parliament with that call! See below.
In this Report, we investigate the push to ban ‘reparative therapy’, the Motion itself, what is really behind these claims and who is making them – yes, it is often homosexual interest groups in the professional bodies! We also reveal how some Christians who want homosexuality accepted by the church as being ‘normal’ are actively working to close down ANY group that offers support and assistance to those who WANT help.
We believe that people who want to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction should be able to seek help to do so. We know many people who have changed, as Paul says, 'such were some of you' but they have been transformed by Christ.
No-one is suggesting that people should be FORCED to undergo any counselling in this area if they don't want to. But people should be allowed that choice to request help.
What is behind the PUSH to ban such therapy?
If people can change their sexual orientation, then the homosexual activists who claim that someone is ‘born that way’ would lose one of their key arguments. Homosexual activists have been campaigning against any therapy or counselling in this area for some time. Some psychological and psychiatric associations around the world have made statements condemning such therapy – but, as we will see below, many of those organisations have ‘gay and lesbian special interest groups’ that make these statements and sympathetic people who conduct the ‘research’.
In the UK, in July 2013, homosexual activists succeeded in getting a Motion about this issue into the parliament, titled, “GAY-TO-STRAIGHT CONVERSION THERAPY IN THE UK”. The motion called for “steps to ban conversion therapy for under-18s”. It has only 51 signatures. An amendment to remove the words, “for under 18s” – thus banning the therapy for everyone - has only FOUR signatures. See the Motion here. It was debated earlier this year.
In California, the government has passed a law banning psychotherapy to deal with same-sex attraction for young people under 18. NARTH and others appealed against the law, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal in August 2013. New Jersey also passed such a ban for those under 18 (report).
But this Motion goes much further in criticising ANY attempts to help people deal with unwanted same-sex attraction – not just for minors under the age of 18!
Christians pushing the issue…
In Australia, some of the main activists behind this move to ban ‘reparative therapy’ are people who are saying that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity. Matt Glover, the former minister at Lilydale Baptist Church, criticised reparative therapy after one of his counselling clients committed suicide. Matt blamed the suicide on the counselling the man had sought, and received, to try and overcome same-sex attraction – but he had given up those efforts more than two years before his death (read article).
Anthony Venn-Brown, former leader of Freedom2Be, who is promoting the view that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity, is also calling for the CLOSURE of groups that provide help and support for people who WANT help to change their unwanted homosexual feelings.
The MOTION put by Alex Greenwich
The MOTION put by Alex Greenwich and PASSED by the NSW Legislative Assembly on Thursday 24 October:
"That this House:
(1) Notes that the Australian Psychological Society has referred to so called "reparative therapy" treatment as harmful.
(2) Notes that there is no scientific research to substantiate the claims that medical and psychological treatment can change a person's sexual orientation."
Following the introduction of the Motion, there were four more speeches - from people SUPPORTING the Motion - including open homosexual Liberal Bruce Notley-Smith, Greens MP Jamie Parker, Independent Greg Piper and Dr Andrew McDonald, Labor Shadow Minister for Health.
No-one spoke AGAINST the Motion.
The motion was 'affirmed' ‘on the voices’ – no vote was taken.
But the real questions are…
How many Members were actually IN the Chamber for the Motion?
Many Members are not there all the time – only when a ‘division’ is called do they all come to the Chamber.
Many would not have known what ‘reparative therapy’ even was if they saw it on the Notice Paper.
Did Alex Greenwich organise those he knew would be supportive?
The BANNING of SOCE
Of course, the Motion doesn't go as far as calling for the BANNING of SOCE.
But that's what Alex Greenwich’s REAL INTENT is. His concluding remarks, before the motion was passed, were, "It is now time that harmful and tortuous practices against the gay and lesbian community like reparative therapy are banned. I thank members who have contributed to this debate. I will submit the Hansard record of this debate to the Health Care Complaints Committee inquiry into the promotion of false or misleading health-related information or practices."
In the Greens media release about the Motion, Greens MP Jamie Parker said that Bob Brown “is in favour of criminal charges being considered against such advocacy being aimed at gay students in our school system” and said he supported that!
Support from homosexuals and the Greens
The CLAIMS made in the MOTION
The claims made by the Motion were not explained - or tested - in the parliamentary debate. Let's look at them...
“The Australian Psychological Society has referred to so called "reparative therapy" treatment as harmful.”
“no scientific research to substantiate the claims that medical and psychological treatment can change a person's sexual orientation.”
- The Australian Psychological Society released a statement in May, 2000. Read The statement.
Peter wrote to the APS in 2011, asking for a copy of their Paper on the APS position regarding 'reparative therapy'. The person who responded said 'I am not aware of the APS having a position on reparative therapy’. Several more emails ensued, but no acknowledgement of a Paper or Position was provided (even though it is still on their website!) and they would not engage about the ‘science’.
The APS Statement was based on the Statement by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) issued earlier in 2000.
The APA and APS statements do NOT look at the OTHER side – the research and reports about people who have successfully changed their sexual orientation.
The most comprehensive information on CHANGE has been collated by Neil Whitehead in his book “My Genes made me do it” in Chapter 12, Can Sexual Orientation Change? (online)
He refers to Jones and Yarhouse’s analysis, which found real change in some participants.
Why DON’T they look at the OTHER SIDE?
Most of these professional groups have homosexual interest groups that are PUSHING the issue. Last year we wrote an article in our Journal about all the homosexual activist groups IN the various psychiatric and psychological groups.
They are generally run by homosexuals, homosexual activists and others who fully support the full normalisation of homosexuality.
In other words, they have infiltrated and are proposing policy that is then ENDORSED by the organisation.
The Australian Psychological Society has a group called the Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology” Interest Group (GLIP).
One of their aims is to “Provide expert advice to and on behalf of The Australian Psychological Society Limited on issues relating to the area of sexual orientation and related gender issues.”
This group is run by homosexuals and those supporting the full acceptance of homosexuality.
The Convenor of the GLIP group is Dr Damien Riggs. He is a homosexual who, with a (former) male partner has three foster care children – read his story here. One of his areas of research is ‘heterosexism’ in the foster care system! (See here and here) Is that bias or a conflict of interest?
This Special Interest Group is providing the information – and advice - on homosexual issues to the APS!
Who was responsible for the APA (USA) Statement?
The APA (USA) also has one of these LGBT groups!
It is called the ‘Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists’ (AGLP). One of their main objectives is to “Work within the APA to influence policies relevant to the lesbian and gay community.”
If you want to see just how influential they are in determining APA policy, have a quick look at . They have policies endorsing same-sex ‘marriage’, condemning reparative therapy and endorsing same-sex parenting and adoption!
Let’s have a quick look at the Committee of AGLP . . .
The Executive Director of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists is Ray Harker – and, yes, he is a homosexual with a male partner, Bob (source, P2)). The President, Kenn Ashley, describes himself as a ‘black, gay man’… (source, p4)
It’s also happening in the UK…
Earlier this year, in the UK, a ‘debate’ was held on the issue of changing sexual orientation. Dr Peter Saunders highlights the debate…
He writes, “Peter Tatchell and Professor Michael King essentially argued that homosexual orientation was biologically caused and fixed, that change was impossible and that change therapies were damaging and unethical.”
His question to Professor Michael King was, ‘Are there any randomised controlled trials which showed that change therapies were harmful or that showed gay affirmative therapies were effective.”
Professor King didn't answer - but the answer is NO – most of the ‘research done’ is anecdotal – ‘how do you feel about your experience?’…
The problem is that pro-homosexual activists look at only ONE side (saying SOCE is harmful) but IGNORE the other side!
Professor King is another example of activist groups in professional bodies. He founded the Special Interest Group in Gay and Lesbian Mental Health within the Royal College of Psychiatrists (source). Here is the website of the Group.
And his personal situation?
Dr Saunders reports that he listened in to a conversation after the debate: “Professor King said he was a ‘Christian’ and had been in a monogamous gay partnership for 30 years.”
Dr Saunders continues: “I wondered if King's passionately held convictions about Christianity and his own life-style choices had had any influence on his reading and presentation of the evidence and why he had not declared any of these personal interests in his scientific writings on therapies for unwanted same sex attraction.”
Read Dr Saunders’ excellent analysis – click here.
FINALLY – one of the Speakers referred to RANZCP
Dr Andrew McDonald, the Labor Shadow Minister for Health, is a medical doctor.
In this speech he referred to the Statement by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) on ‘Sexual Reorientation Therapies’.
You’ll see this has the same problems as the Statements above…
The RANZCP Statement relies on TWO sources:
American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (2009, 138 pages).
- Yes, the APA has a “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Office”
- Lots of policy positions of the APA on LGBT Issues – here.
- The Task Force was made up of homosexuals and pro-homosexual supporters – click here for analysis by Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH.
Yes, well – that says it all – see the information on this group and Professor Michael King above!
It was followed up by an ‘official’ position from the Society the following year!
Meanwhile Professor King has been busy making a submission to the UK Church of England ‘listening exercise’…. Read more at Peter Saunder’s blog…
Not much from me.... Bill says it all in this video!
Have you seen this detailed and insightful video from Bill Muehlenberg?
This 20 minute video is well worth watching and sharing – Bill addresses the question of whether the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’ will impact on the rest of the community.
Full Video: The consequences of homosexual ‘marriage’
Short version – 7 minutes – click here.
Posted on Bill's You Tube channel.
Full version here...
The question of parenting by homosexuals is one we have monitored, and written about, over the years. We have reported on methodological flaws, such as self-selected respondents, small non-representative studies, research done by homosexuals themselves, and parents reporting on their own impressions of outcomes.
A recent peer-reviewed Canadian study by Dr Douglas Allen, published earlier this month, compares the graduation rates for children across a range of family types. . . he found children in married families did best... better than children in same-sex families. Children of lesbian households did the worst...
Last year, we provided detailed reports of the New Family Structure Study done by Dr Mark Regnerus in the USA, which showed that children do much better when living with their biological, married mother and father.
Another study, published at the same time, was done by Dr Loren Marks. He analysed all the studies on same-sex parenting that were relied on by the American Psychological Association (APA) report on homosexual parenting. The APA report 's Summary of Findings was written by Charlotte Patterson, a lesbian and researcher into same-sex parenting. Dr Marks highlighted the methodological flaws in the studies.
Both of these studies are detailed on our ‘Same-sex parenting' webpage – click here.
Earlier this year we reported on the current Australian study being done by a Simon Crouch, a homosexual man with children, where self-selected respondents report on their own experience. Click here for the Melbourne Uni media report of the study and here for the interim report.
Now a new study from Canada shows that children growing up in homosexual households do NOT do as well as those growing up with married parents.
Dr Douglas Allen, economics professor at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, has published a peer-reviewed study titled High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households”.
It was published in Review of the Economics of the Household, Vol 11, Issue 4.
Dr Allen used a 20 % sample of the 2006 Canada census to “identify self-reported children living with same-sex parents” and investigated graduation rates of various family types.
He found that, “Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.”
Mark Regnerus analysed Dr Allen’s study, and writes, “Three key findings stood out to Allen: children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types [common law, gay, single mother, single father] are similar to each other and lie in between the married/lesbian extremes.”
In their media release, FamilyVoice reminded us of the results of the New Family Structure Study done by Dr Mark Regnerus which found children do best in a family with their biological, married mother and father.
Media Release from FamilyVoice:
Report from Mark Regnerus at Public Discourse, Witherspoon Institute:
A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter: New Evidence from Canada
Report from Lifesite:
Children from same-sex households much less likely to graduate high school: large study, 9/10/2013.
The ‘Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to child sexual abuse’ is continuing to hold hearings. Private hearings have been held along with one public hearing. Starting today (and for up to two weeks) the Commission is holding public hearings on ‘Case Study 2’ – how the YMCA dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse (more on that BELOW).
You can listen to the hearing online at the Commission's website.
Submissions are currently invited for the fourth Issues Paper 'Preventing Sexual Abuse of Children in Out-of-Home Care' - due by 8 November.
The Commission says they are "seeking submissions from interested individuals and government and non-government organisations about preventing sexual abuse of children in out-of-home care." See link in 'Key Dates' below.
Visit the Royal Commission website: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/
Public Hearing Case Study 2 commencing 21 October
Private Sessions in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth commencing 6 November
Private Sessions in Brisbane commencing 11 November
The way in which institutions have dealt with child abuse has often been appalling and we welcomed the Royal Commission's investigation. We have consistently said that any allegations of child abuse must be handed directly to police and not dealt with ‘in-house’ by organisations and churches.
Institutions need to have policies and procedures in place, relating to children, that are beyond reproach and they must take firm action whenever allegations are made, to protect children whilst police investigate the accusations. The protection of children, against any form of abuse, must always be an absolute priority.
The Royal Commission has looked at two 'Case Studies' so far. The first one, in September 2013, related to "The response of the Scouts Hunter and Coastal Region and Scouts Australia to allegations and information concerning the conduct of Steven Larkins in relation to children between 1997 and 2001." Full details here.
Case Study 2, being heard over the coming fortnight, relates to the YMCA and Jonathan Lord.
"The public hearing will run for up to two weeks and will look at a number of matters concerning Jonathan Luke Lord, formerly a child care worker employed by the YMCA Sydney, who is now incarcerated following his conviction for child sexual abuse."
The Commission will look at policies and procedures of the YMCA, responses by the YMCA to the allegations of child abuse as well as the response of police.
The Royal Commission notes, in its media release about this hearing, that it is dealing with processes, not particular cases of child abuse.
However, the Case Study focuses on Jonathan Lord, who was jailed in January 2013 for molesting 12 boys. Many of them he met whilst working at the YMCA – in a crèche, in before and after school programs and private babysitting.
During the court hearing, it was noted that Lord 'groomed the boys as well as their families. At the sentencing, Judge King said the ‘incidents would have affected the boys to such a degree that their ability to form normal social relationships would be affected for the rest of their lives’.
During the trial it was noted that the YMCA did not investigate Lord’s previous employment as a Camp Counsellor in the USA – he had apparently been sacked from that job following allegations of child sexual abuse.
Hopefully, the Royal Commission will investigate the wider institutional responses and not just limit themselves to this one tragic case.
The first day of the Case Study 2 public hearing heard that Jonathan Lord lied to the YMCA about his background.
The ABC reports, "The inquiry has heard that prior to his employment in Sydney, Jonathan Lord travelled to the United States of America to work as a camp counsellor at the YMCA Silver Beach Camp in Jamesville, Virginia. A 'situation log' entry dated 8 July 2009 reveals that Lord was dismissed from the camp due to "questionable behaviour" with an eight-year-old male camp attendee. A staff member reported finding Lord in a cabin with the lights off, and emerging from the bathroom with the boy."
The Inquiry was told that Lord said he returned from the US summer camp due to a "personal family matter". Apparently the YMCA did not investigate the situation of that employment and no referee for that camp had been provided. But the US camp was run by the YMCA!
Media report: Child molester jailed for 10 years, AAP, 31/1/2013.
Free speech in Australia has been diminished again. A woman who made comments about homosexuality and pedophilia has been found guilty of 'inciting hatred'!
The New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal has found that Tess Corbett is GUILTY of 'inciting hatred against homosexuals' and has ordered her to apologise for comments she made about homosexuality and pedophilia in January 2013, in the lead-up to the federal election.
At the time the comments were made, Tess Corbett was a candidate for Katter’s Australian Party. After the furore that resulted from the comments, Tess withdrew as a candidate for KAP - she later ran as a candidate for Australian Christians.
The complaint was made by Sydney homosexual activist, Gary Burns, who has made a career out of making such complaints!
Tess has been ordered to put the apology in the Sydney Morning Herald “in a reasonably prominent place” at her own expense and to apologise to Mr Burns in writing. The Tribunal has provided the WORDS of the ‘apology’! Tess did not appear at the hearing in late September or at the handing down of the decision.
This is another example of the politically correct climate we are now living under. Perhaps most alarming is that the comments were made in Victoria – Tess was the candidate for Wannon in western Victoria. The comment was reported in her local Hamilton Spectator newspaper (links below). Victoria doesn’t have a ‘homosexual vilification’ law but NSW does! The Tribunal decision claims that it was the fact that the comments were ‘re-published’ in newspapers such as Fairfax and The Australian across the country - and in NSW - that Tess re-affirmed her comments to journalists - that allowed the Tribunal to investigate the complaint in NSW.
Tess was accused on 'comparing' homosexual and pedophiles. But that isn't what she said...
When asked about discrimination laws, Tess told her local paper, "I don't want gays, lesbians or paedophiles working in my kindergarten. If you don't like it, go to another kindergarten." When asked if she put homosexuals in the same category as pedophiles, she said ‘Yes’ – but immediately said, "Pedophiles will be next in line to be recognised in the same way as gays and lesbians and get rights."
Bernard Gaynor issued a media release, saying, “Tess Corbett was a political candidate who was asked to provide her views about proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws. She gave that opinion and now she has been punished for doing so. The reason she is being punished is because homosexual activists do not like her opinion about paedophilia.”
He noted, “If homosexual activists can silence politicians on issues of great controversy, then it will be much easier for them to do so on less debateable issues. This decision now opens the door for gay political activists to target any politician who expresses a view that they do not like. It is only a matter of time before someone else also faces vilification claims because they don’t support gay marriage or homosexual sex education in schools.”
He pointed out, “This must be the first time in Australian history that anyone, let alone a political candidate, has been punished under anti-discrimination legislation for making a comment opposed to paedophilia.”
Bernard also posted on his blog. . .
This case is even more concerning because it involves political comment on matters of public interest. The High Court has previously found that there is an 'implied freedom of political communication' - see this article on Findlaw about the law, including discussion of the relevant cases.
In 2001, there was a complaint of 'discrimination law' where the candidate was found not guilty on the basis of 'political communication', and that electors were entitled to know what the views of the candidate were so their vote was 'informed'. The case involved Andrew Lamb, in Queensland - Andrew distributed material about Islam during an election campaign and a complaint was made by the Islamic Council of Queensland. Read this report of that decision.
The intolerance of tolerance is astounding ...
"AGREE WITH US, OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES" - IS THE NEW 'TOLERANCE'.
Peter referred to this very concerning article about former heads of the EU calling for monitoring of 'INTOLERANT citizens'!
Former heads of state call on EU to set up state surveillance of ‘intolerant’ citizens, Lifesite, 16/10/2013.
Peter wrote, "What they decide is a “hate crime” would be subject to criminal sanctions.
AND, IF YOU THINK THIS WON'T HAPPEN IN AUSTRALIA, TH...INK AGAIN, because Tess Corbett, who was a candidate in the recent election, spoke out against homosexuality - first she was EJECTED from Katter’s Australia Party', so she stood for Australian Christians' instead. NOW she has been found guilty of false charges brought against her in NSW by serial litigant and homosexual activist Gary Burns. He claimed she compared homosexuals to pedophiles during the election campaign - she did not - but she has been found GUILTY of vilification by the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal and ordered to make a public apology.
BEWARE - THE THOUGHT POLICE ARE HERE ALREADY!!! But we must not stop speaking out against immorality for the sake of our children & grandchildren."
We need to ask, 'What happened to free speech?'.
The ability to debate ideas is being curtailed in this nation. If we don't speak up, there won't be much 'free speech' left!
Court orders Tess Corbett to apologise, SMH, 16/10/2013.
Bob Katter political party hopeful Tess Corbett in gay furore, Herald Sun, 24/1/2013.
Corbett guilty, Hamilton Spectator, 17/10/2013.
Gary Burns Media Release:
Former Katter Australian Party candidate Tess Corbett faces court, 26/9/2013.
Bernard Gaynor's Blog article:
Gay decision protects paedophilia