Reviewing John and Catherine Shore's video for NALT project

My title of this post:

This is one of the poorest explanations of the pro-gay Christian positions that I have ever heard.

Working through the video by John Shore and his wife, Catherine.  It is 12:51 minutes long.  The title is, “My wife and I on why “God condemns homosexuality” is irrational, unbiblical, unfair, and un-Christian.

But first, John hasn’t yet stated what type of intimate sexual behavior is consistent with Scripture, from his perspective as a Christian and thus where that behavior crosses the line into being sinful in his opinion.  He seems to focus on the far ends of the spectrum.  Does he agree that all sex anytime, as Evan Hurst has said, saying sexytime, whatever that actually meant, is biblical?  And is John comfortable saying that he is more than a cultural Christian as Evan Hurst says that Evan is and as Evan says that Dan Savage says that Dan is?

Working through the video. 

·         Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered.  However is that about behavior or identity, orientation or attractions? 

I'll let you make your own decisions about...

I'll let you make your own decisions about this one commenter:

6 Comments

1. 

   Mike Jones

   Sep 6, 2013 at 9:49 am

   I didn’t see that the focus of the NALT project was to “distance themselves from others who oppose gay marriage,” as Sarah Pulliam Bailey says here. It seems to have a much wider focus. John Shore and other co-founders of the project do address the topic of gay marriage here: http://notalllikethat.org/about/ where they are explaining the project.
   

Comment to John Shore's article on NALT

I posted this as comment #29 to John Shore’s article entitled “Introducing The Not All Like That (NALT) ChristiansProject” The article was written on September 4, 2013.

Mike Jones September 5, 2013 at 2:22 pm

John, if you had listed “Q” as well, when you said “LGBT-affirming Christians,” I would have at least known that I fit in there, as I am always questioning many things, it seems. The only thing that I’m pretty sure that I am not is ever-straight, other than I have only dated women. What category do you place someone like myself in who is a Christian man who is single, who experiences primarily sexual attractions toward men, who is not ex-gay, not gay, only bisexual way over on the homosexual attractions section of the Kinsey Scale, who isn’t gay-affirming himself and who is not sexually active with anyone, but who has non-sexual attractions mostly toward men? And who accepts and respects people who are gay, ex-gay, anti-gay, bisexual, straight, not yet Christian, or never to be a Christian.
 

Continuing... Sept. 8th:
The commenter, Lymis, had welcomed me with the label of bisexual. 

Comments dialogue at the LA Times article

Dialogue about the LA Times article

I think that it will be informative for people, who are interested, to read through the comments dialogue for the LA Times article on California SB 1172. 

Well, the dialogue continues between me and one commenter, as of Thursday evening, Sept. 5th.  [it continues as of Saturday evening] One thing that I suggest that you watch for is what commenters say about the reasons they think I say something, and see if you think this is a reflection of what they are doing in their comments. 

In Brian Pellot's article on 9/6/13 for his Blog at the Religion News Service, he interviews Dr. Heiner Bielefeldt, where Dr. Bielefeldt says,

I agree with this statement by NARTH

I don't agree with all of the perspectives that NARTH represents.  This time, I do agree with this statement here by NARTH about the Federal Court of Appeals ruling on California law, SB 1172. 

However, reading the statement by Liberty Counsel, at the same site, is troubling to me on multiple fronts.  The comments there are closed so I cannot express my reactions there.

And I agree with most of this article from NARTH, by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D., written in May of 2012, entitled, Fact- Checking California Senate Bill 1172. 

Ages of consent in North America

This will be a helpful reference.  These are the various ages of consent for areas in North American, including the range of ages of consent in the 50 states of the USA.  Especially consider California and New Jersey's ages of consent. 

My thoughts on bill SB 1172 in CA being upheld by Federal Appeals Court

Commenting on the AP article about the Federal Appeals Court upholding CA law SB 1172.

Conversation therapy does not necessarily seek to turn gay youth straight.  But if you say something enough, in a democracy, the public tends to believe it.  That’s what I meant when I said that in a democracy, effective communication is incomplete and inaccurate communication. 

Again, the APA says sexual orientation includes sexual attraction, sexual behavior and more. 

Does therapy appear dangerous in other regards – of course.  And as I said about the NJ bill A3371, at my blog here,  if you read it carefully it also bans licensed therapists from helping a bisexual minor become gay.