Yes, it’s true. PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays) won a court ruling after being denied renting a booth at a conference in case it offended homosexual groups. In turn, they were offended and so took legal action. They weren’t deemed to have been discriminated against by the Conference organisers, but they were recognised as a “protected class” under the HRA.
The ‘ex-gays’ were previously barred from being considered a special case like the ‘gays’, lesbians, bisexuals, et al because their condition was not permanent.
The Court ruled that:
OHR’s [Office of Human Rights] analysis posits that the immutability of a person’s preferred sexual orientation categorizes them as a member of a protected class. In focusing on federal discrimination cases, however, the OHR misses the broad scope of the HRA and the explicit inclusion of the term “practice” in the HRA’s definition of sexual orientation.
I haven’t noticed this story in the UK press. I picked up on it from the Christian Institute’s article which includes other interesting bits and pieces, such as
…in March it emerged that almost a fifth of therapists in the UK had helped patients deal with unwanted homosexual attraction.
‘Gay rights’ activist Peter Tatchell has described being homosexual as
…a choice, and we should be glad it’s that way and celebrate it for ourselves.
In April Dr Joseph Nicolosi, an American therapist who helps men struggling with same-sex attraction, spoke at a conference in London. He told the BBC his approach focuses on men’s…
sense of self, self-esteem, relational issues, attachment issues, intimacy issues” rather than homosexual activity itself.
However, he said, by addressing these deeper issues many men find…
a diminishment in their homosexual temptations and an increase in their attraction towards women. Around two in three men change their sexual orientation as a result of the therapy.
The article also says that a study at Columbia University in 2001 found that homosexuals could become “predominantly” heterosexual through psychotherapy. This study was significant because it was carried out by Professor Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist with a long track record of supporting ‘gay rights’.
OHR noted that PFOX defined ex-gays as individuals who chose to leave homosexuality and practice heterosexuality by preference.
The premise of the HRA is simple: to end all discrimination based on anything other than individual merit.
You do have a choice who you sleep with, so can we now insist on an end to ‘equality’ legislation as it now stands?
The PFOX website states:
PFOX is not a therapeutic or counseling organization. PFOX supports families, advocates for the ex-gay community, and educates the public on sexual orientation. Each year thousands of men, women and teens with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality. However, there are those who refuse to respect that decision. Consequently, formerly gay persons are reviled simply because they dare to exist! Without PFOX, ex-gays would have no voice in a hostile environment.
What does this mean? ‘Sexuality’ is not immutable, like gender and ‘race’ are. I put it to you that, outside of rape, nobody is forced to have sex with anyone else and that the whole diversity agenda is designed to weaken families and society.
In 1987, two homosexual activists wrote a lengthy magazine article called The Overhauing of Straight America. You can read it here (pdf).
The fact that some homosexual activists want to see traditional family life totally destroyed, shows the real danger of accepting as normal, wayward sexual behaviour. As stated in that article:
Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and word of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.
So, what if an ex-gay decides to go back to being gay? Is he a gay-ex-gay or an ex-gay-gay? Does he persecute the ex-gays for not returning to the tribe? Is he a separate phenomenon among the rest of the human race?
The whole thing is damaging to society and has to stop before everything goes down the pan.
In an article, How Sodomy Was Sold To America, we read:
Sodomy, n. A crime against nature. –American Dictionary of the English language, Noah Webster 1828.
Words mean something. Noah Webster knew that well. Just hearing the word sodomy sounds harsh. This is evidence of how far we have slid.
“Whoever, therefore wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much secrecy… and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however, powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same…powerful country it is at the present.” (Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 1814.)
The Overhauling of Straight America states:
Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined be reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride” publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image.
Let us not be fooled by the propaganda. I have nothing against homosexuals, but their behaviour. I believe this behaviour is extremely damaging to society. I don’t believe that anyone has the ‘right’ to behave in such a way that threatens everyone else. A strong society requires family life and decent values to be the norm. When a society descends into hedonism and values pleasure more than righteousness then it is dying. Serious consequences are imminent for Western society because we are rejecting what is right.
Who will listen?