Last week, the Vatican released a report from Study Group 9 of the Synod on Synodality, one of 10 groups set up by Pope Francis in 2024 to examine controversial issues.
Titled “Theological Criteria and Synodal Methodologies for Shared Discernment of Emerging Doctrinal, Pastoral, and Ethical Issues,” the report presented testimonies from two gay Catholic men in same-sex civil marriages.
The report has sparked quite a controversy in the Catholic faith. Very traditional Catholics — and even some evangelical Christians — have largely viewed it as dangerous and subversive, seeing it as undermining long-standing Church teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts by platforming positive testimonies of same-sex “marriages” and downplaying doctrine in favor of subjective experience.
BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who describes herself as a devout Catholic, addressed the synod report on a recent episode of “The Liz Wheeler Show.”
She first addresses the panic of those who interpret the report as indicative of imminent change to Church doctrine.
“One of these documents from a synod is not Church dogma. It is not magisterial teaching. It has no authority to change doctrine of the Church. It is at best … an advisory committee that puts together reports that advise the pope on how to handle issues pastorally,” she says, noting that the pope is free to “accept these recommendations or not."
As of now, Pope Leo XIV has neither formally accepted nor rejected the report.
“Even if he did [accept it], it's not binding. It's not doctrine or dogma,” says Liz.
That said, she acknowledges that ”there is valid concern that the ‘pastoral’ nature of this advice will encroach, at least in praxis, on the official teaching, the unchangeable doctrine, of the Church — at least at the local level,” which Liz says would be “a moral travesty” despite the fact that the “teaching remains unchangeable.”
After reading the report herself, she admits that the report is written “in an ambiguous way” that makes it unclear whether or not the synod is neutrally summarizing testimonies of two gay Catholic couples or “embracing” their viewpoints and lifestyle.
“The generous way to interpret this [synodal report] would be listening to people who struggle with sin can help you help them; there is value in hearing what led someone to a particular struggle,” says Liz.
“That would be fine … as long as your goal for these people is the fullness of Christ, as long as your goal is not indulgence, an excuse for their sin, redefinition of sin,” she explains. “So if this synod report that includes these testimonies is including the testimonies because they want to better understand how to bring these people out of their sin into the fullness of Christ, OK, that's fine.”
Liz admits that she is reluctant to be generous in her reading of the synod report because of the ambiguity in which the testimonies are presented.
“How on earth could you not clarify whether you are embracing that testimony or whether you are simply summarizing it — especially when you know it will cause tremendous confusion, even scandal, among the faithful?” she asks.
The “defensive way” to interpret the report, says Liz, is to read it as a genuine attempt “to sneak effective changes to doctrine that [homosexuality advocates] have no authority to change into the pastoral practice of the Church, hoping it becomes the de facto norm in the Church, despite the contradiction to unchangeable Church teaching.”
While Liz is torn between the generous and defensive interpretations, the most important thing, she says, is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually teaches: that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, are contrary to natural law, and can never be approved, but that people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, with every sign of unjust discrimination avoided, and are called to live chastely through self-mastery, prayer, and friendship.
“That is the official, unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, and it's beautiful,” she says.
To hear more of Liz’s analysis, watch the episode above.
To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
A very disturbing TikTok video has gone viral after a pregnant woman recorded herself playing ABBA songs to make her unborn son gay — while thousands of mothers cheered her on in the comments and across social media.
The video shows her blasting the lyrics “Gimme, gimme, gimme a man after midnight” next to her stomach.
BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is shocked to read the comments, which include things like, “My son is 4 and exclusively listens to Sabrina Carpenter. Hopes are very high for him being gay.”
“My son just officially came out a few months ago,” reads another comment with a cheering emoji.
Another one reads, “My son was born to ‘Dancing Queen.’ I have high hopes for him.”
“This is disgusting that you are thinking about your child’s sexuality,” Stuckey says.
“It’s a horrible thing to wish on someone. It is. Now, I’m a Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is a sin, OK. But I also think that it’s bad for society to encourage this kind of thing,” she continues.
“We should be encouraging our boys to be strong and to be brave and to be protectors and to be fighters and to rein their masculine energy into good things. Yes, and you can call that old-fashioned, but it’s true,” she adds.
Stuckey likens these mothers’ hopes for gay sons to “conversion therapy” and calls it “very, very grotesque.”
“I talk about this concept of what I call ‘toxic mommy culture’ in my book, ‘You’re Not Enough (and That’s Okay)’ — when moms make their feelings and their validation and their social image the highest priority and they project that onto their kids and they use their children as props to perform this, like, progressivism on social media for likes, affirmation, cultural approval,” Stuckey says.
“I just find this little thing that this mother is doing gross. ... Kids are always the unconsenting subjects of progressive social experiments,” she continues. “It’s not good.”
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Colorado's ban of so-called "conversion therapy" has finally been exposed for what it really is: an attack on free speech.
In the recent decision Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado had violated the First Amendment by censoring the free speech of psychological professionals in the name of banning “conversion therapy.”
Constitutional rebukes by courts are routinely treated like speed bumps by social engineers.
That’s a grab-bag term invented by activists to demonize traditional counseling aimed at helping patients pursue happiness as they see fit.
In fact, Colorado’s “Must Stay Gay” law didn’t restrict — as its advocates claimed — cruel or coercive treatments. Instead the law prohibited therapists from serving clients who sought help in diminishing unwanted sexual compulsions.
For instance, imagine a married dad struggling with temptations to commit adultery with young, even underage, males. Or consider a sexual abuse victim suffering from gender dysphoria who wishes to accept her physical sex instead of submitting to disfiguring, sterilizing surgery and a lifetime of dangerous hormones.
The LGBTQ lobby pushed hard for this law, akin to an equally draconian ban in California, falsely claiming that any therapy aimed at altering sexual feelings was “unscientific” and “harmful.”
My own organization, the Ruth Institute, filed a detailed amicus curiae debunking such claims, citing published studies by eminent professionals showing that talk therapy with willing clients is often beneficial and virtually never harmful. People do successfully change their patterns of sexual attraction and behavior, with or without therapy.
The Changed Movement collects their stories. We at the Ruth Institute have interviewed many such people. In fact, objective studies show that there are more "ex-gays" than "gays." “Must Stay Gay” laws like Colorado’s depend on legislators’ ignorance of such facts.
But the court didn’t rule on the psychological merits, instead pointing to the more fundamental question of free speech in America. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:
The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech," and any viewpoint-suppression law "represents an 'egregious' assault" on the "inalienable right to think and speak freely" and the "free marketplace of ideas.”
Such a robust attachment to free speech and thought is increasingly rare in America and other Western countries. A pastor in Finland just faced trial for an alleged hate crime for writing a pamphlet summarizing historic Christian teaching on sexual morality. A law soon to pass in Canada would punish “offensive” religious speech, even citations of the Bible. We’ve heard prominent figures such as Hillary Clinton call for civil or even criminal cases aimed at citizens who share “misinformation.”
In Britain, dozens of citizens face arrest every day for posting their opinions about immigration and crime. The European Union has fined the platform X (formerly Twitter) $140 million for refusing to suppress political speech that Eurocrats deem unacceptable.
RELATED: How we help 'gay' men and women 'Leave Pride Behind'
Why have so many, especially among our elites, endorsed censorship and even government-enforced speech? Because so many of their preferred policy positions cannot prevail on the merits in the “free marketplace of ideas,” which Justice Gorsuch rightly defended. These fashionable stances rely on media myths, pseudo-science, and politically enforced orthodoxies.
As I show in my book "The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and How the Church Was Right All Along," the only way for an untenable worldview to prevail is by massive amounts of force and propaganda. The campaign against change-allowing therapy meets both objectives. It discredits the very idea of therapy to help reduce unwanted same-sex attraction. And it shuts the door to anyone in the helping professions who doesn’t accept every jot and tittle of the sexual revolution’s shifting party line.
Those who hold traditional Christian ethical values must be driven out of the therapy business. There must be nowhere for sexually confused or traumatized people to go, except to those convinced that there are 47 human genders, that gay people are “born that way,” that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable while gender is a shifting social construct.
None of that is supported by the evidence, but it’s sold to the public and low-information legislators as the “verdict of science.”
The victory for therapeutic freedom and the First Amendment in Colorado is welcome pushback against the rule of groupthink. It should invalidate laws in other states that constitute “viewpoint discrimination.” One brick has been pulled from the sexual revolutionary Berlin Wall.
But the revolutionaries are already at work looking for workarounds. Constitutional rebukes by courts are routinely treated like speed bumps by social engineers. (Despite SCOTUS’ defense of the Second Amendment, blue-state gun grabbers keep scheming up new ways to undermine this fundamental right.) The very day of the SCOTUS decision, Colorado and California introduced bills to incentivize lawsuits against therapists for alleged “harm” inflicted by “conversion therapy.”
The freedom of your neighbors to the therapy of their choice is still not safe. Despite this important victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, the battle isn’t over.
In a massive win for those against transitioning minors, the Supreme Court ruled this week that Colorado is not allowed to enforce its “conversion therapy” ban — which aimed to shut down conversations between therapists who do not believe in affirming sin and minors.
The 8-1 decision by the high court pointed out that it was wrong for the law to allow for therapists to affirm minors' gender identities or sexual orientations but not allow them to help them change if they want to.
The initial lawsuit was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian therapist, who argued that the conversations she had with her clients were a form of protected speech, while Colorado claimed the state was allowed to regulate her speech.
BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is thrilled by the news.
“What this means is that Christian counselors, Christian mental health professionals are allowed to say what is true. Not only say what they believe biblically, which they should have a right to do, but also say what is true biologically. They were being punished by acknowledging and affirming biological reality,” Stuckey says.
“And people, including minors, should be free to have access to biblical counselors, counselors who will tell them the truth,” she continues, pointing out that the real "conversion therapists” are on the left.
“What is actual quote unquote ‘conversion therapy’ is the psychiatrist who tells the young, autistic, schizophrenic woman who is coming from an abusive household that, yeah, those feelings of distress that you feel about your body, it’s because you’re the opposite gender,” Stuckey explains.
“That is conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is when you tell a young boy, ‘Yeah, sure, you’re actually a girl. Let’s get you on those hormones. I’ll sign the waiver for you. I’ll sign the form telling the endocrinologist and telling the surgeon that you’re good to go,’” she continues.
“That is actually harmful, real conversion therapy that absolutely should be banned because it's a lie,” she adds.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
In a case with potential far-reaching consequences in states with similar laws, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, that a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors was unconstitutional.
The case, Chiles v. Salazar, has gained a wide mix of reactions from think tanks, politicians, and media personalities alike.
'They believe it is more natural for a man to be a woman than for a man to be a man.'
Blaze News previously reported that the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh ripped into Jackson's dissent, saying that her opinion "just proves again that she is the most unfit, unqualified, unhinged lunatic to ever hold a seat on the Supreme Court."
Others celebrated the positive aspects of the case, touting the decision as a win for all of the victims who have been caught in the crosshairs of gender ideology.
RELATED: SCOTUS rules on law banning 'conversion therapy' — and 2 liberal justices break rank
Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, told Blaze News, "The Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for religious believers, parents, and, most importantly, vulnerable children. Colorado Democrats have shown they will stomp on the rights of anyone who stands in the way of the well-heeled gay and transgender lobby whether it is bakers, doctors, or desperate families."
"It should not take the lengthy legal battles or the Supreme Court to rein in the liberal war against reality. That is why fed-up Colorado families are appealing straight to voters to protect children from extremist Democrats," Schilling continued.
Ashley McGuire, author, radio host, and senior fellow at the Catholic Association, likewise showered the Supreme Court's decision with praise.
In a statement to Blaze News, McGuire said, "Efforts by left-wing ideologues to force health care professionals to violate their personal and religious beliefs have failed again. We applaud the Supreme Court's decision to protect the religious liberty and free speech rights of therapists in today's 8-1 ruling in the case of Chiles v. Salazar. This ruling also protects vulnerable children and upholds the rights of parents to seek care for their children in line with their personal beliefs."
The ruling is primarily a First Amendment case, which, notably, does not issue any opinion or ruling on the efficacy, morality, or legality of so-called conversion therapy itself, defined in the ruling as any treatments or attempts "to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity."
The issue, in simple terms, was that the law forced the plaintiff and other counselors who deal in the relevant field to adopt an affirming approach to minor patients who may have been confused about their sexual orientation or gender identity and were seeking to change it.
BlazeTV's Daniel Horowitz summed up this issue in a statement shared with Blaze News:
It is shocking how it has taken years to affirm such a basic right as two adults contracting with each other to engage in verbal therapy to affirm natural sexuality. It is even more shocking how the left believes a doctor can pursue a physical action to unnaturally change gender with castration, but you are banned from merely speaking with someone in support of their existing natural sexuality. They believe it is more natural for a man to be a woman than for a man to be a man. Their understanding of authentic individual rights as it intersects with governmental powers is as perfectly corrupted as one can imagine.
Democratic leaders, on the other hand, expressed their disapproval of the decision. In a reply to the Associated Press' report on X, California Governor Gavin Newsom said, "Conversion therapy is discredited junk science that inflicts harm on LGBTQ youth. The Supreme Court's decision is disappointing and puts vulnerable kids at risk."
On a lighter note, some social media users pointed out the humor of this decision being released on the so-called Transgender Day of Visibility, March 31.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In a nearly unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on one state's ban on conversion therapy for minors, resulting in an important First Amendment win and setting a possible precedent for many states with similar laws on the books.
In an 8-1 decision released Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that, when applied to talk therapy, Colorado's ban on minor-directed conversion therapy — or any therapy that attempts to "change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity" — "regulates speech based on viewpoint" in violation of the First Amendment.
'The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.'
The Colorado law, passed in 2019, was adopted "in response to a growing mental health crisis among Colorado teenagers and mounting evidence that conversion therapy is associated with increased depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts." The law thus prohibited licensed counselors from engaging in "conversion therapy" with minors, according to the opinion.
Kaley Chiles, a mental health counselor in Colorado, brought the suit against Patty Salazar, the executive director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies.
RELATED: SCOTUS sides with officer over protester in qualified immunity case, reversing lower-court opinion
The ruling overturns a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which ruled in favor of the law, not finding any violation of Chiles' First Amendment rights.
However, the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concluded:
In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint. Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.
Gorsuch added that the law in question not only regulates the content of Chiles' speech, but "goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express."
Justice Elena Kagan, together with fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined the majority opinion, but wrote a concurring opinion "only to note that if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more difficult question."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson alone dissented from the majority: "Stated simply, the majority has failed to appreciate the crucial context in which Chiles's constitutional claims have arisen. Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional."
While these facts were clearly established in the syllabus and the body of the majority's opinion, Jackson's primary contention, stated at the end of her dissent, was that "the majority's holding means, in effect, that just because Chiles is a talk therapist — and not, say, a surgeon — a State can be prevented from incidentally imposing reasonable restrictions on the treatments she provides."
"To do anything else opens a dangerous can of worms," Jackson concluded. "It threatens to impair States' ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect."
Matt Walsh, noted for his documentary "What is a Woman?," weighed in on the decision, attacking Jackson's attempt to uphold the ban:
To be clear, this was a law that attempted to ban therapists from telling gender confused boys that they're actually boys, and girls that they're actually girls. It was literally a law prohibiting anyone in the therapy profession from verbally acknowledging biological reality to their clients. Easily one of the most psychotic pieces of legislation ever passed anywhere in the world at any time in history. The fact that Ketanji Jackson tried to uphold this law — even as her fellow liberals broke ranks with her — just proves again that she is the most unfit, unqualified, unhinged lunatic to ever hold a seat on the Supreme Court.
Colorado is one of more than 20 states with laws prohibiting conversion therapy.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
“Why are you gay?” intoned Tucker Carlson in an African accent. Then the internet exploded. The voices of countless homosexuals and their supportive family members rose in unison to a pitch so shrill it could crack silicon data chips.
They trotted out all the predictable labels. Homophobe. Bigot. Christian nationalist. Carlson was promptly denounced across social media as a homophobe, a bigot, and a purveyor of hateful Christian nationalism — simply for asking the question we are not allowed to ask.
'I’m not crying because you’re gay,' she said. 'I’m crying because I know that life is going to be harder for you.'
It happened on Carlson’s December 4 podcast, which featured an extensive conversation with “Dangerous Faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. For those who don’t know, Yiannopolous is a right-wing cultural commentator and provocateur with a pronounced histrionic gay affect. Today, he says he has abandoned homosexuality.
Before I go farther, it’s necessary to clear some underbrush. I am interested in the content of what Yiannopolous said, not in what anyone thinks of him as a person. Whether one thinks he’s honest, dishonest, annoying, or charming is irrelevant. What he says is what I’m interested in.
So what did he say?
"In almost every case, and certainly in every male case, [homosexuality] is a trauma response. It is not a sexuality."
Milo Yiannopolous speaks for me. I endorse what he said and believe it to be true. I believe I became a homosexual because I grew up under a mother with narcissistic personality disorder, a father who left before I could ever meet him, and an attempted murderer and pedophile for a stepfather.
Let me clear away some more underbrush, though it will probably be fruitless.
1. Yes, I believe the large majority of male homosexuals are homosexuals because of childhood circumstances and trauma.
2. Yes, I believe that most of those who claim that they had no childhood trauma are not being candid — including, in some cases, not being candid with themselves. Personal and professional experience leads me to this conclusion.
3. No, I’m not claiming that every single male homosexual had abusive parents. Yes, I recognize that some male homosexuals come from stable, loving families. I have male homosexual friends who fit this description.
We have lived for so long with the culturally enforced mandate to believe in “born this way” that we have to remind society of what it used to know just yesterday. Those of you in middle age will remember that until the past 25 years or so, homosexuality was understood to be the outcome of an abusive or neglectful childhood.
Not only psychiatric researchers, but everyday Americans noticed that most male homosexuals had troubled or nonexistent relationships with their fathers. They noticed that male homosexuals were unusually close to and emotionally enmeshed with their mothers. They noticed that those mothers often had overbearing, domineering, or melodramatic personalities.
If you’re younger than 40 and reading this with shock, I’m telling you the truth. This view was normal, but it was deliberately re-cast as “homophobia” and “ abuse against gays” in the past 25 years by the same activists who brought you “trans kids,” breast removal of healthy teen girls, and cross-sex hormones for teen boys who “are actually girls.”
That’s the set that brought you “born this way.”
As I write this piece, I’m struggling with how to give readers some citations. The trouble is that on the topic of homosexuality, just like with all things “COVID,” most people think there’s something called “the Science.” Even based right-wingers who rejected the authoritarian commands that tried to compel us to take mRNA “vaccines” and wear masks jump right to “show me THE SCIENCE” when the subject is the origin of homosexuality.
When the topic is this emotional, people stop thinking and start emoting. They start pretending that humans can’t know anything about the world, can’t recognize any patterns, and can’t come to any conclusions unless a Scientist published a Paper in a a Peer-Reviewed Journal.
Nevertheless, I’ll try. Surprising though it may be, the psychiatric and psychological literature, starting with Freud in the early 20th century, has long noted the pattern I described above. And most, though not all, male homosexuals were sexually abused as children or as minors. (I am a homosexual, but I was not molested as a child.)
Commentator and “ex-gay” Joseph Sciambra has published several bibliographies that round up much of this literature.
Normally, people don’t demand “the Science” on other subjects. No one demands “the Science” before noticing that most teenage drivers are more erratic and dangerous and therefore it pays to drive defensively around them. Everyone knows this, not because they read “the Science.” They know it because they have eyes, ears, and a brain that detects patterns.
Today, even conservatives are invested in the “born this way” gay narrative. While I’m pleased that the right wing came around on unfair laws that penalized homosexuals simply for being homosexuals (not laws that properly punished lewd public behavior), I’m not pleased that the average Republican now treats “born this way” as the end of the conversation.
The gay activist set has conquered the right wing. Those conservatives who find the position taken in this piece hard to bear have been manipulated emotionally by gay activists.
If you’re a conservative who finds this uncomfortable or “mean,” I think I know another reason why. You have homosexuals in your family whom you love (so do I, friends). Some of them are your children. And if they’re your children, you’re hearing an implicit accusation: “He’s saying I’m a terrible mother who made my son gay.”
No. I’m not (necessarily) saying that, even if you “feel” that I’m saying that. I don’t know you, and I don’t know how you raised your children. As a peer support coach, I’ve spoken to many moms and dads with gay children. These are loving moms and dads, but sometimes they made mistakes, or divorce or other trauma came to pass in the family.
Even the most loving parents will make mistakes, and the culture outside the parental home is ravening at your children and pushing them to adopt deviant and hedonistic lifestyles. Even the best parents can’t keep all of that out.
RELATED: Milo Yiannopolous dares to tell the truth about homosexuality
Let me tell you the story of a night in 1986 when I “came out” to my mother at age 12. Align readers know from my past columns that my mother was an abusive, deranged woman who veered into psychopathy at times. But there were moments when a real woman with real feelings came through.
I sat on the avocado-green pleather daybed we used as a couch. My mother was in her armchair, the square glass ashtray and a pack of Merit Ultra Light 100s at her side. It was 8 p.m., and my mother had sent the other children to bed because I had something important to tell her. I think she knew what was coming.
I told my mother that I was gay and that I felt duty-bound to tell her the truth about it. Looking back at myself at 12, I shudder that I was already forming myself into a “gay identity” that would trap me in promiscuity, addiction, and emotional disturbance for decades to come. But I didn’t know any better then.
My mother started crying. It wasn’t her usual self-pitying kind of crying, and it wasn’t her angry crying that would escalate to slaps across the face and screamed insults.
“I worried for so long that I would do this to you, that I would make you gay,” she said while she looked down at her hands. “I never gave you a father, and the father figure I brought into your life turned out to be a monster.”
This was one of the few times in our life together that I can remember when my mother seemed genuine and honest and seemed to care about my well-being. I think her sense of responsibility and guilt was real (my mother wasn’t much for feeling normal parental responsibility).
“I’m not crying because you’re gay,” she said. “I’m crying because I know that life is going to be harder for you. I’m terrified that you’ll get a disease and die early. Please be careful.”
Because my mother had already parentified me, turning me into her “surrogate husband” and emotional caretaker (almost universal with personality-disordered mothers and their children), I started comforting her.
“You didn’t do anything to me, Mom. I was born this way,” I said.
And I believed it.
It is true that my mother never sat down one day and said, “How can I derange my son and turn him into a homosexual?”
But what my mother feared did happen. The abuse, the depravation, the disordered emotions in my childhood home did make me a homosexual. How I choose to behave is my responsibility, but I did not “choose” to be sexually disordered this way. I was just a child.
If you’re reading this and you’re a homosexual or the parent of one or a loved one, and you don’t believe this applies to you, then go in peace. But please let those of us for whom this is important — let us have this conversation. Too many emotionally triggered people do everything they can to shut it down.
They accuse homosexuals like me of being “abusive” and of “hurting” them. No such thing is occurring. All the sympathy "allies" claim to have for homosexuals when we are “born this way gays” evaporates the moment we change our minds. They insult us and call us insane, with more vitriol than actual anti-gay bullies who beat us up in high school.
We are going to have this conversation. We’re not going to be silenced or manipulated into being good, quiet little gay boys to fit someone else’s fantasy of having a “fabulous” best friend or son.
I lived the “fabulous” life, and it nearly killed me through alcoholism and self-destructive promiscuity. The way I lived brought despair. And I am typical. I am not “just an unusual gay.” My life story looks like the life stories of the majority of gay men. Yeah, I know. They tell you that isn’t true.
They’re lying because they’re terrified that something they’ve relied on too heavily to define themselves as human men may have been a lie all along. I know, because I lied this way too.
Yes, I’m still attracted to men and not attracted to women. I don’t believe I have the ability to change those subjective feelings, but I may find otherwise in time. For seven years I’ve been single and celibate, and I plan to remain so.
Others must choose their own path in their own time. Nothing I’ve written here can honestly be construed as an attack, or an assault, on other homosexuals or those who love them. The truth is not an act of hate or abuse.
What’s real and true matters, and it’s well past time to tell the truth about the lie we call “born this way.”
Don’t dismiss Milo Yiannopoulos.
He may be provocative, but he’s right. In his recent two-and-a-half-hour conversation with Tucker Carlson, Yiannopoulos dares to speak the truth about homosexuality.
Instead of a mechanical 'cause' such as genetics, it is more accurate to think of a set of factors that contribute to the development of persistent same-sex attraction.
It is a truth many are afraid to acknowledge, despite its firm grounding in scientific research. In fact, I found myself wondering, “Have they been eavesdropping at the Ruth Institute?”
At the top of the list: Yiannopoulos explains that the “born gay” idea was invented as a marketing strategy. He accurately summarizes the strategy laid out in “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.” Treat “sexual orientation” as if it were genetic, comparable to race.
Yiannopoulos rejects the “sexual orientation paradigm” or “essentialist paradigm.” He does not believe “sexual orientation” is an inborn trait that is an “essential” feature of a person’s personality.
And he is right.
Gay is not the “new black.” There is no gay gene. The twin studies are inconsistent with the idea of a genetic “cause” of “gay.” I outlined the evidence against the “born gay” idea in my report Refuting the Top 5 Gay Myths.
Although “gay” is a complex of thoughts, feelings, political commitments, and much more, when people say “gay,” they most likely mean “sexual arousal template.” We have been sold the idea that a “gay” man or a “lesbian” woman has an arousal template “oriented” exclusively toward people of the same sex.
The gay activists are really saying two things combined. First, people are born with a sexual arousal template preloaded into their brains. Second, this template cannot be changed.
Yiannopoulos takes direct aim at this package deal, when he says “[homosexuality] is a trauma response.” Trauma can shape the development of a person’s arousal pathways. He cited his own case. He had a mobster father, whom he did not want to emulate. As a teenager, he was sexually abused by a priest who was kind to him.
People are born with the potential to develop a sexual arousal template that is oriented toward the opposite sex. But sometimes, something happens to derail that normal developmental process.
People who self-describe as gay, lesbian, or bisexual typically have more difficult childhoods than others. They report more adverse childhood events, including a higher likelihood of childhood sexual abuse. Many in the psychology profession deny that there is a causal connection. But people who have lived the experience will tell you otherwise.
Including Yiannopoulos.
Instead of a mechanical “cause” such as genetics, it is more accurate to think of a set of factors that contribute to the development of persistent same-sex attraction.
Yiannopoulos listed some of those contributing causes: an absent or unattractive father figure, an overbearing mother, sexual abuse. No one factor always “causes” same-sex attraction in every person. At the Ruth Institute, we have interviewed numerous people who have Left Pride Behind who report some version of this story.
Yiannopoulos and Carlson talked about the bans on so-called “conversion therapy.” They were shocked that anyone would try to regulate conversations between a client and a therapist. "Why are you keeping people gay against their will?"
You can complain all day long about Yiannopoulos. But he is right. That is exactly what these laws are doing. We at the Ruth Institute ran a campaign in June called “Must Stay Gay Is NOT Okay!” Believe me: We did not run out of things to talk about!
They discussed the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that will decide whether these bans violated the U.S. Constitution. The Ruth Institute submitted an amicus brief to the court in this case, called Chiles v. Salazar.
RELATED: A Christian looks back on Pride: 'I was in hell'
Most importantly, Yiannopoulos gives hope to people who want more for themselves than a life shaped by an LGBT identity. Therapy can help, especially if you focus on healing the part of you that was wounded. The sexual feelings change in the process.
Finally, Yiannopoulos made no secret of his personal religious conversion. He has been touched by love, the ultimate love of Jesus Christ. Interviewees have told me some version of this story again and again. In fact, I experienced it myself. Same-sex attraction wasn’t my particular problem. But participation in the hookup culture, abortion, and contraception certainly were my problems. I needed the grace of the confessional, the Eucharist, and, no doubt, the prayers of many people who loved me more than I knew.
Come to think of it, maybe Yiannopoulos and Carlson weren’t really listening in on our conversations at the Ruth Institute after all. Maybe it's just that when people go searching for the truth, they end up in roughly the same place.
No one is born gay. No one has to stay gay. No matter what you have been through, gay is not the final word about your identity. Jesus has healed many people. He can heal you.
Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
Wisconsin Democrat Gov. Tony Evers is doubling down on seemingly defying a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on so-called “conversion therapy” for children. The moment came during a Monday “Pride Flag Raising” event at the State Capitol. While flanked by attendees waiving rainbow flags, the left-wing governor bragged about vetoing bills passed by the Republican-controlled […]
For the third time, SCOTUS has slapped down an attempt by Colorado to control what people say, think, and do regarding sexuality.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com