Real Love Ministry’s Edmund Smith in Malaysian Women’s Weekly
Edmund Smith of Real Love Ministry (RLM) Malaysia believes his homosexuality was caused by his mother, as he shared in the February edition of the Malaysian Women’s Weekly.
I am the fourth boy in my family. When Mum was pregnant with me, they had hoped that I would be a girl. Perhaps that’s why, until I was five, my mother brought me up like a girl. I played with dolls and was dressed in dresses.
When asked whether he would return to what he deemed as the “homosexual lifestyle,” he added:
My faith, and the fact that I’m married with children, helps me to stay straight. Similarly, it is easier for an ex-smoker to start smoking again if his immediate circle of friends consists of smokers. I don’t frequent joints where gays hang out, so I’m out of that lifestyle.
In a recently launched video, he re-iterated his past dislike of being a boy. The video also featured Mr. Smith’s youngest sister, Helga Smith, in which she expressed the shame of people calling her “the gay’s sister”. Smith’s account takes for granted the theory of homosexuality being caused by cross-dressing. Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, describes the same journey.
Edmund Smith lost much of his credibility as a pastor and ex-gay minister in the aftermath of the two-hour seminar ”Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care” on May 10th last year, when he delivered a meaningless and unprepared speech that was merely a testimonial of personal convictions. Smith went straight into ex-gay rhetoric without regard for the biblical and societal nature of the topic, rendering “gender confusion” as a cause of homosexuality, and “consuming Christ Jesus” as a cure.
He went on to describe homosexuals as “pro-gays” whose goal in life is sexuality, not Jesus, all the while failing to answer important questions from the audience, some in regards to the spirit of Christ’s law. His attempt to promote his latest DVD at the end of his speech drew comical laughter from the audience.
Smith’s first VMeet group gathering in January 2008 centered on labeling the LGBT community with improper definitions. Curiously, in the second VMeet gathering, he describes sexual orientation as “not a choice,” but sexual “lifestyle” as natural, forced or redeemed. Subsequently in the third VMeet, this month, he describes sexual orientation as changeable and modifiable. He lists these as the causes of homosexuality:
Trigger Issues (Primary causes)…
- The Self Issue (Rejection of one’s own gender & looks)
- The Vacuum Issue (A severe need to be loved & to love people of the same gender)
- The Barrier Issue (An inability to look at people of the opposite gender as romantic/sexual partners)
Contributors (Secondary causes)…
- Premature Sexual Orientation
- Addiction (to sex)
- Living in a pro-gay environment
- Coming from a non-religious background
- Lack of healthy heterosexual role models
- Being close to pro-gay individuals
- Belonging to one-gender school
It remains to be seen just how far RLM could go with their amateurish version of the ex-gay movement and continual outdated misrepresentations of homosexuals in Malaysia. RLM appeals to a country that is willing to listen to prejudice and seek simple solutions, but RLM is now beginning to struggle for attention and is losing authority in its sincere, but sadly dogmatic views on what true love is.
The word was used by some writers during St. Paul’s time but never in the context of what we know now as homosexuality.
If you look at the list and understand why each is a mortal sin unto itself, it makes more sense why such a person who clings to such sins would be excluded from heaven.
Do not err: neither
fornicators (those having sex with prostitutes)
idolaters (those worshipping false gods)
adulters (sex between a married person and one whom he or she is not married to)
morally weak (malakos) (one not acting in strict regard for what is considered right or proper)
male concubines (arsenokoital) (male prostitutes – who could serve either sex – male or female or both)
thieves (those who take what is not theirs)
covetous (those who feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another)
drunkards (those who indulge in alcohol)
railers (those who revile or scold in harsh, insolent, or abusive language)
extortioners (those who obtain – usually money – from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power)
shall possess the kingdom of God.
My personal comment…the ex-gay industry should take a look at that last one (extortioners) and contemplate its meaning.
Praise the Lord even though the opposite is true and we don’t even have full time people doing it. The body of Christ really needs to hear an alternative view to the predominantly anti-gay message in Asia.
Yuki, first of all, let me just say that I’m not here to condemn you. I had not known earlier that you’re a transsexual. I thought you were one of the ‘straight’ ones yet again condemning ex-gays.
Before I go on, please do not think I’m sucking up to you all of a sudden. These are my honest thoughts and opinions.
I read another article you wrote early on when you said you were given a cold shoulder at a farewell party by a person reputed to be a follower of Pastor Edmund. Let me tell you right at the start that such behaviour from a person is unwarranted for. I do agree with you wholeheartedly – ‘Where is the love?’ If anyone who believes what Pastor Edmund has to say but goes out there behaving as if transsexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals are all ‘disgusting’, that is so wrong because all of us – you and me, included – are made in God’s image. There’s no question about that.
The fact that you were patient enough to confront her and speak lovingly is highly commendable and admirable.
You are a transsexual and I respect your choice. I’m not saying that you should change in any way. I’m sure Pastor Edmund does not mean that either. The fact is when someone like Pastor Edmund or me are passionate about making different choices in life and we share it with others, it does not mean we expect everyone to follow our way of thinking.
The comment
“The Body of Christ in Malaysia needs to get hold of the information that our materials have to offer.
The pro-gay information is spreading like wild-fire.
The xgay information needs into penetrate our society.”
just means that a lot of pro-gay information is telling people out there who do want to make something else of their lives is just not possible because they are ‘born that way’. Those who are ex-gays feel differently and so decide to share their views – some forcefully, some as just an afterthought. Sharing forcefully is definitely not right. If Pastor Edmund wants to share with the whole world at large, that’s his choice but not his to convert others. He does not do the converting, he just shares. It’s up to the individual to make the choice.
You and a whole lot of others are entitled to your opinions and decisions. That does not make you wrong or a bad person.
Believe you me, even God (I don’t know your religious standing on this) would be much more tolerant of you than a lot of us humans these days. Ignorant humans who do not know the dignity of human life whether hetero, homo, bi, trans, etc.
Regarding the definitions of transsexual and transgender as defined by the APA, I don’t see them as being different from Pastor Edmund’s definitions. Yes, he defined a really complex issue very simply, in layman’s terms but from what I see, the descriptions by the APA are broad explanations of what Pastor Edmund has mentioned.
I’m sorry if I have offended you in terms of defining yourself as ‘female’ as observed by scientific research whereas my views would mean you’re male. It’s not meant to confuse or upset you. I’m sorry about that. If you believe in yourself to be female, that is okay. Please do not feel condemned. I’m sure you don’t because you do express your opinions fairly strongly.
When Pastor Edmund talks about his past, he does not mean to accuse anyone who may or may not have been through that. So, don’t feel accused. You are a human in your own right.
Having said that, heterosexuals are not that better off either if they’re the type who go around having multiple sexual liaisons. This puts them in the same category as homosexuals who do the same. Not all homosexuals have sex on their mind 90% of the time. However, those who do, it’s like an addiction. It’s the same for anyone who is preoccupied with sex most of the time. Also goes for drug addicts,etc.
Having a balanced lifestyle is paramount to having a stress-free life (which, I agree, may not always be the case). So, again, that does not make you bad.
I hate to sound religious but I need to say this – in God’s eyes, you are someone very special despite your gender. I mean it from the bottom of my heart and I know this is true. Please don’t think I’m trying to get you religious and all that with all this talk about God. It’s entirely my opinion.
Clarify the bold letter i highlighted for you.
Did you mean it or is it just the way you talk and it slithered in there? Kind of like the word like?
If you did mean it, i hope you dont profess it as an absolute truth. Although, you dont seem like a person that does that.
Everything in your post sounded so harmonizing and with a peace that might stop a beating heart. But… I have a few simple questions for you.
1) Do you tolerate homosexual relationships(with a transgender too)?
2)Would you oppose any legalization/religous acceptance of SS marriage?
3) Do you believe theres a homosexual agenda?
4) If heterosexuals are that much better than homosexuals. Does that mean homosexuals should, at least, try to be heterosexuals?
David R — I fear some of the elements here are gradually getting away with a campaign of personal targetting of Yuki. Fair’s fair as far as agreeing or disagreeing with her about RLM etc, but I think the posts are instead being used for a more insideous purpose.
(Of the passive-but-very-aggressive “I don’t condemn you. You are evil, but it’s God’s job to condemn.” type of targetting. Yeah, a standard technique among these love bombers.)
I know you’re always on the lookout for such stuff, but, well just thought we’d state it out loud. If only because we can
——————————————————-
For everyone else, RLM has set out to target Yuki. Apologies if it’s upsetting to you Yuki, but it’s probably a good thing if everyone realises what’s been going on with these RLM supporters over some time. (if they hadn’t already gathered that!)
From January of this year… and following a longer history…
This is followed by 3 instructions on how to “deal” with Yuki, including passing on the preceding personal attack, and was signed by Edmund’s wife Amanda.
Can’t you just feel that “Real Love” oozing out of every pore of this ministry…
You might be right, grantdale, I admit I haven’t been reading those threads intensely. We depend a lot on regular commenters to pick up on that stuff anyway, so thanks for doing so. I think it also fair to point out that the first comment we got from Asia, and from the address it appears Edmund’s wife, was mean and contained strong personal attacks against Yuki. It was snagged by the spam filter and I wrote the person explaining the need to be civil and discuss the topic, not personal issues with the writer. Since then we have been getting what I also suspect are strategically constructed comments.
However, unless they are strongly off topic or uncivil, etc. I am not inclined to be quite so heavy handed as to moderate them. We try to save that for those who seem to respond to nothing else. If you or anyone else detect insulting comments between the lines, feel free to call that to the commenter’s attention. If it is overt, then by all means call it to my attention.
It does seem the ex-gay efforts in Asia don’t like being poked from this side of the world. We should delve into that more deeply.
Yep, yep — no probs. We weren’t asking for any action or criticising … just duly noting the trend etc. You do your (waaaay over-paid) job effectively, and we’re not the only ones grateful for that.
At the least: once noted such organised attacks do lose their effect; if unfortunately not their sting for the individual. Didn’t want Yuki to feel alone in this.
Hmmm… don’t like being challenged from your side of the World?
Fine with us — we ARE in the right time zone, and more than comfortable with our “cultural orientation programme” over many years. If we must, let’s be having it.
And, funny, but they don’t seem to have minded importing the worst sorts of ignorance, misinformation and nastiness from your side of the World.
(WaybackMachine not need — experience Exodus(c)1996… check yourself into RLM!)
Just consider XGW a little virtual US soil down under, like our own gay-friendly embassy. So you are visiting this side of the world when you comment
I wondered why we could hear gunshots and police sirens constantly in the background.
Renik Fair, please read this properly. I am really given the impression that whatever I wrote is not read by the opposition, or it is too complicated for simple minds.
Let me put this on record, I do not condemn ex-gays. I am just counter-voicing misinformation and misrepresentation of homosexuals by ex-gay groups. And I am ‘straight’. And married.
You should read grantdale’s comment and another accusation disguised as a prayer by Edmund. Perhaps you should say “if Edmund really believes in what he says then he himself should not be behaving that way”.
Short testimony from a ex-gay survivor: Edmund expected change. Everytime God affirms me as who I am, and I told Edmund, Edmund calls me a fool and that “being” a transgender is a sin. That is your thinking is it not, that it is a choice. Wow, so many choices. Yeah, I got a choice alright: be myself or pretend to be someone else while lying to everyone and to God who I am. What choice is that? There is no choice here if I am to live in full affirmation from God.
I use the key word again: informed choice. If he does not do “converting”, then what the heck is an ex-gay ministry for? And what are the true statistics of success rate? People who want change would be better of seeing a qualified psychiatrist with education on homosexuality, then to see someone who perpetuates such huge dogmatic views.
I know Edmund’s level of intelligence, but please, do not insult your own intelligence. Edmund simplified the APA? Did you read the entire APA FAQ? Then please show to me which part of what he says is in the APA FAQ on this one part alone.
In fact, just compare:
From Edmund:
From APA:
APA mentions a lot of both sexual identity and gender identity while Edmund is stuck with the word “gender” APA mentions clear cut meaning of the umbrella term transgender and its subsets like transvestites, transsexuals, cross-dressers at everything. In fact explain how Edmund has even read the APA FAQ, when he do not even know what transgender means, example:
From Edmund:
From APA FAQ:
Can you please find for me where the “psychological gender opposite of biological gender” as Edmund mentioned in his definition of transgender?
So tell me how Edmund “simplified” the APA?
There are a lot of Muslim transsexuals who are not allowed to go for sex change surgery in the risk of being flogged or jailed. But a transsexual is a transsexual is a transsexual. Sex change or not does not make one a transsexual. If you bother to read more what I wrote and from the links I provided, you would probably get the whole picture. You are not only insulting your own intelligence, you are insulting these beautiful women who probably are women innately, but just because they are born with a minor mutation you just decided to call them male. Why? Because of a penis? So what do you call an intersexed person who is born with sexual ambiguities that caused them to have a penis and a vagina?
Yet, by Edmund’s definition, these women are not transsexuals. So please, I stress again, do not insult your own intelligence, especially to do so in the hopes of justifying the dogmatic views of Edmund Smith. Again, I repeat in case you still insist Edmund knows all:
From Edmund:
From APA:
So, where is the connection between Edmund and APA?
Moving on:
It is okay, it is yours and RLM’s problem. I went to Bambo9 club the other day on ladies night and I was admitted in as a lady. The restaurant I usually ate has a lady boss that calls me ‘leng leng’ (pretty, pretty). All my friends calls me by female pronouns. The pub I go to I get free drinks all night on ladies night too. All the Indian restaurant people call me “kakak” (sister). Policemen call me “leng lui” (pretty girl). And so on.
It seems to me the only people who call me “male” and other male pronouns are from RLM now. Strange but true, perhaps for your reflections on what really constitutes sexual dichotomy. But of course, you would be wrong, because you got your ‘education’ from Edmund. Perhaps if he really did summon enought of his “inner man”, he would be MAN enough to admit his mistakes.
I may feel a bit annoyed, but almost do not feel a single thing. In fact, I am so happy that so many RLM members comes here and comment, so that the world would see just how warped and dogmatic their musings are.
Nope, check properly. He tells everyone that everyone became homosexuals because of broken families, gender confusion etc. And you have yet to give me a reliable statistic on what you mentioned earlier about sexual orientation being not a choice but sexual lifestyle is, and how a change in sexual lifestyle can constitute a change in sexual orientation. Remember? You said:
You are not politician to evade the issue, so just admit it. You do not have any research on this. This is just another Edmund-like thinking, I AM THEREFORE YOU ARE LIKE THAT TOO. The problem is the world do not work that way. Just because I have a cut on my left leg does not mean everyone in the world has one. Like I said, everyone is different. If he respects differences in people, he would probably stop RLM on homosexuality.
Know what, I am so glad you said that. So why RLM do not have a ministry to convert heterosexuals then? Surely with such sins commited we need a ex-straight ministry? If sexuality is as fluid as you said that one sexual lifestyle change can constitute change in orientation, then surely a straight can change his lifestyle, then change his sexual orientation and become gay! Really, a ministry like that would be useful, especially with the rise of HIV/AIDS cases among heterosexuals in Malaysia.
Does this not prove the need for an ex-straight ministry? So why do you not tell Edmund so start one?
I am glad you admitted these are all opinions. I stress again, as I had stressed before, it is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing to impose that opinion upon others, like Edmund.
Contradictory to what is perpetuated by Edmund about pro-gays. We do not go around telling people to be gay. We are telling people to love us just the way we are, just as we love everyone for just the way they are.
You have yet to address comments given, but chose to avoid it because you already know yours are unfounded. As in the case of so many of the RLM members here, so many just chose to ignore what was said and tried to change to another topic here and there. It is impossible to engage in any discussion and dialogue from such positions when one runs away from what was addressed, and refuse to be responsible for what was said.
grantdale,
Alone? I am surprised that even Alan S bothers to comment on this article. There are some new commenters from Asia too. That makes me excited. As I said before, ex-gay ministries are no longer an American issue, it is now a global issue. So the response is very encouraging. I am sure David is happy too, am I right?
Is there no way to turn back time and not make it a global issue, and let them keep this little treasure on their shores??? Pray hard pray hard, maybe God will work a miracle!!
As the old adage goes, Misery Loves Company. So since they are suffering, why shouldn’t others (keeping in mind the ex gay ministry was founded by ex gays, heh heh!)? In fact, the more the merrier. Bigger support groups, more are successfully *cough cough* converted, more funding allocated, and hey! No More Misery!
In fact, why not export it? Build a ‘viable’ option, convince the world they need it, salvation through non-homosexuality. More souls saved, more procreation, even more souls saved, more funding more funding more funding!!
Replicate it, franchise it, licence it, the world needs it!!
It’s just a business, and apparently quite a successful one, one would think!
Go Ex-Ministry! When will they get listed, anyone know?
Where is God in all these arguments and counter-arguments? I wonder if Jesus is here now, what would he say? One thing for sure, if anyone of you read the Gospels, the only people Jesus ever got pissed off with were the regidly religious people. These people knew the Word very well, they practiced living a holy life according to the word, and they set up rules and laws for the sinners to follow…..and these were the people who put Jesus on the cross!
I wonder these church people would do the same to Jesus today if he were here…..
But for me, if i have to spend eternity with these church people in heaven, i rather go to hell…
The religious did crucify Jesus and used the scriptures to justify their actions. They “practised” a Holy living on the outside but inside like a whitewash tomb – full of skeletons. We have to be careful not to fall into the same spirit.
Gays are used as a scapegoat because the church simply dare not come against the greatest sin of idol worship in the city of the 7 mountains.
I think it’s hard for conservative Christians to come across as genuinely loving those who are gay. We are in a dilemma. Is it possible to love the sinner but condemn the sin? In John’s gospel, Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery but asked her to sin no more. I understand that many here are bible believing Christians. I’m no Greek scholar and I have not done a research on all the arguments concerning the passages in the bible that speak against homosexuality. I will follow up on the biblical interpretation (need some time to do this). But if we truly believe the bible to speak against homosexuality, what kind of stand should we take? Edmund tries to come across as loving the sinner but hating the sin but obviously he failed ‘cos he’s got a fair share of bashing from pro-gays. I apologise if we come across as especially judgemental and condemning towards homosexuals because it’s as if we are perfect ourselves. I agree there is a degree of hypocrisy within the church. Why put the spotlight on homosexuality when there’s a whole host of other sins that are even more insidious? However, that does not mean that since this is so, we should all just live and let live. That is the dilemma for me anyway. If we love the sinner but we believe that they are in error, might we not be doing them a disfavour by just ignoring the sin? When we point out the sin, we do so with humility because we know we are all sinners saved by the grace of God. Might not God accept all into His kingdom regardless of who or what they have done as long as they believe in Jesus? I wish I could say yes, but that would go against what I believe to be in the bible. Grace does not give us the licence to sin wilfully(not just homosexual but pride, anger etc….) though we are ultimately dependent on God’s grace. We are all on a journey of becoming Christlike. For homosexuals, I dare not say that means becoming heterosexual but perhaps become celibate like Apostle Paul? So I wish bible believing gays would help me to understand how they read the bible because I might have read the bible wrongly. If I have, I’ll convert.
Esther, you’re not reading the comments, and you’re not reading the Bible. That’s not your fault, you have the church tape recorder playing while you read it, giving it its own spin.
Jesus said to Peter, if he wants John to live until He comes again, what is that to Peter. So i ask you, if Jesus makes homosexuals believe we are not sinning, what is that to you?
Jesus never condemned anyone, you are right, he condemned the sin. But when it came to sinners, he made each and every one turn within themselves to see their own sins. He never ever turned others to view and reflect on the sins of others, except those sins of the Pharisees. Who are the Pharisees of this day age?
Oh, i know, the Pharisees of this day and age say, “it’s the devil who makes homosexuals believe homosexuals are not sinning, blah de blah.”
But what if it’s not? Let me remind you what Jesus said about sins against the Holy Spirit: But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin (Mark 3:29). So unless someone 100% sure that the Holy Spirit has not given us peace, let me suggest you keep your thoughts to yourself. Of course, the thoughts themselves are sins, FYI.
Ex-gay ministries and the Pharisees of this day (i think i’m going to stop calling them ‘Christians’…) throw phrases like ‘we do this in humility’ and ‘we do this in good grace’. But what if the ‘humility’ and ‘grace’ leads to the destruction of another’s life? What if the ‘humility’ and ‘grace’ impinges on the faith homosexuals have in Christ? What if it causes people to stumble?
Your post has put a gentle little ‘twist’ to what ‘Christians’ do. kind of taking the sting from the words and actions of many ‘Christians’ towards homosexuals. Another old English adage:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As for:
Don’t apologise, just don’t be judgmental and condemning. Don’t focus on homosexuality, focus on your own sins, whatever they may be. Lust. Greed. Pride. Avarice. Sloth. Judgmental words or thoughts. Whatever.
Focus on your relationship with God. Jesus, as i said, never made people focus on another’s sin. Why then is the Pharisees of this day doing that? I answered my own question: because they are the Pharisees of this day.
We all know what Jesus says about those who cause one of his lambs to sin. How much worse would it be to cause one of his lambs to feel disillusioned with the faith, surely? With the church. With the body of Christ. His body, we are supposedly representing here on this planet.
And… may i ask how you came to the conclusion that Paul was celibate?
I am disturbed by this discovery:- that the slightest discussion on what Edmund does that affects the homosexual (and transgender) community – even on this post which just questions his dogmatic causation claims along with an unedited video – and just detailing into words what he himself said – is met with accusations that he is bashed by “pro-gays.”
May I ask what is “biblical interpretation”? How one knows one’s “biblical interpretation” is real “biblical interpretation”? The Bible has more verses teaching on how women should keep quiet in church, should submit to men, shouldn’t qoute scriptures to or debate scriptures with men (which what Esther is doing here) etc etc…there are more scriptural teachings in the Bible from the Old Testament and the New Testament forbidding women to be leaders and Bible teachers than against homosexuality. And yet, these ex-gays ministries are happily accepting women as their leaders, their pastors and Bible teachers. Now, if you want to follow the Bible, please follow it entirely. Don’t pick and choose according to your own fancy.
As for Esther, I as a Bible believing Christian, as a male Bible believeing Christian, am telling you now – please shut up! The Bible forbids women to speak out in the Body of Christ! Please go home and serve your husband and take care of your children and keep quiet!
Offensive? Yes, but that’s what the Bible says. I didn’t say it. It’s my “biblical interpretation”
And I apologize if I offended any women. I love women, just hate women being leaders and teachers in the church, because I am convinced the Bible says women should keep quiet and submit to men.
I am simply being cynical here but that what I was taught in the Seminary about women.
My own personal conviction? I believe my God accepts and loves all people disregard of their race, religion, sexual preferences and genders. And I also believe that people will be saved through Christ only so that no any ex gays can tell gay people “see, I got saved because I stopped being gay”. This is what I am hearing, having faith in Christ is not enough but we have to stop being homosexuals so that we can bring this “work” to present to Christ as well as to gays to boast.
Many Christians who are homosexuals have prayed and struggled for years to get rid of their homosexuality but never succeeded. God is either a very cruel God or He may be telling them He loves and accepts them as they are and they should just focus on developing their relationship with God.
As Daniels says, why don’t we just help each other to grow closer to God and let God leads us to become whoever He wants us to be. Please don’t play God.
Yuki, thanks for your comments.
You are right. I have not done extensive research on what you have commented. I am not one to shy away from admitting my mistakes and inadequacies in knowledge. I may have read materials on homosexuality but perhaps not so extensively and definitely, transgenderism and transsexuality are out of my league as I only know a couple of them – one of them was a friend of mine in uni days.
However, kindly do not assume that I am insulting my own intelligence. If I decide to pursue my understanding of such issues from a religious standpoint and you from a scientific background, so be it. Who are we to judge each other?
I would definitely give my time to study these issues from a secular, scientific point of view but my religious views would definitely colour my thinking because that’s me! I have been brought up that way and it has had a large influence in my life in so many areas. I would always go there for solace. That, however, does not keep us immune from deciding our own lifestyles and how to lead them.
Everything we do in this world is a choice we make. Pator Edmund Smith has an ex-gay ministry because he was a gay himself and now that he’s out of it and finds joy in adopting an ‘alternative’ lifestyle such as ‘heterosexuality’, what is wrong in sharing his views with the community at large? Anyone who listens and disagrees with him – that’s entirely their choice.
You said, ‘Perhaps you should say “if Edmund really believes in what he says then he himself should not be behaving that way”.’
In what sense do you mean, he’s behaving that way? In condemning others? Is that what you mean?
Also, he does not have an ex-straight ministry because that would defeat the purpose of his calling. The Bible does not teach to be ex-straight. It talks about the seriousness of sexual sin – be it heterosexual or homosexual – yet the Bible empahises straight sex but does not condemn the sinners but the sin. It’s a concept that many find hard to understand.
Why can’t we have a voice for ex-gays? You have a voice too don’t you to express your opinions? Why then, have this website ‘ex-gay watch’? You may say that this website is a response to those trying to advocate a gay-free life. Do you feel threatened by ex-gays? Aren’t we allowed to have our opinions and share them? If you think they’re pushing it, don’t listen. I mean, even those who want to remain gays or transsexuals in their own right would like to push their opinions to us. At the end of the day, everyone makes a choice – informed or not. Having an informed choice is, of course, the preferred way. We wouldn’t want anyone to make careless decisions – whether it’s to be an ex-gay or to remain a gay.
You asked where is it mentioned in the APA statement: ‘Can you please find for me where the “psychological gender opposite of biological gender” as Edmund mentioned in his definition of transgender?’
Notice: ‘Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity (sense of themselves as male or female) [psychological gender]or gender expression differs from that usually associated with their birth sex.[biological gender].
Also, Pastor Edmund’s comment: ‘Transsexual: A person who have had a sex change’. APA’s comment:’Transsexuals are transgender people who live or wish to live full time as members of the gender opposite to their birth sex.’
To be able to live full time as members of the gender opposite to their birth sex would entail a sex change. Of course, once that person has had a sex change, that person should no longer be classified as transsexual but either male or female based on their new sexual identity.
Of course, I do not have statistics on one’s change of sexual orientation when changing one’s sexual lifestyle. You’re intelligent enough to realise that. My ideas come from many homosexual testimonies of those who have given up such lifestyles to lead heterosexual ones and find fulfillment in them. You fail to mention lots of gays who now live ex-gay lifestyles. This can be attested to by Exodus International – an umbrella organisation in America that thrives as an ex-gay ministry.
Check out http://www.exodus-international.org
Of course, there are those, who go straight back into the gay lifestyle after becoming ex-gays for a time. I don’t deny that, either. Who’s perfect?
However, if people want to make a genuine change in their lives or remaining just as they are, I have no qualms about them sharing their views with others. However, condemnation should strictly be avoided on both sides of the issue.
Renik Fair,
I have requested you to not insult your own intelligence. However, your comments seems to show that.
You said:
I already said it time:
and time again:
Till I am getting tired.
I will make it as simple for you as possible now.
Edmund Smith can be ex-gay all his life for all I care. That is his life. But when he goes around perpetuating dogmatic musings about having distant fathers or mothers being the cause of homosexuality (scientifically proven wrong, and insulting to single parents) or goes around telling people that gays and lesbians are gender confused (also scientifically proven wrong, and he probably would wish to parrot the discredited NARTH files of course) or perpetuating myths that homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle (again scientifically proven wrong, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like bisexuality, asexuality, heterosexuality); he is misrepresenting homosexuals.
That is wrong. It is like how Geert Wilders misrepresented Muslims. It is like how ketchup is called chilli because, look it is red too! These kinds of myths affect homosexuals. Parents who have never been distant to their children would be accused of doing so. People would think of homosexuals as inexistent and all only about sex. Hey, it got me thinking.
Since Edmund Smith is so eager to save the world from the “gay lifetyle”, why not eradicate the problem from the roots? Ya know, ban single parents, force children to go to co-ed schools etc. (refer to the article links), why target the ones “affected” by the so-called trigger issues? Why not stop the problem from what causes it… parents! (Yikes, I am sounding like Joseph Nicolosi already, but just to prove a point).
And my oh my, adding your own words to try to… to… prove Edmund Smith correct? Congrats, you just help me prove how wrong Edmund is.
You claim:
Excuse me, have you overlooked the word gender expression? Why, because Edmund is formerly a crossdresser? He still wears make-up ya know, so is he still a transgender?
Gender Identity = Psychological Gender?
What is an identity? It could be expressed. Edmund is still very much girlish. So his feminine identity makes him having an issue with psychological gender? And gender identity caused by psychological? How about the physiological?
Birth sex = biological gender? Excuse me, but do you know what is the difference between sex and gender?
Or are you again lazy to read the APA’s FAQ?
Bizarre.
Another bizarro from you:
Really… bizarre… but thank you for finally realizing that Edmund Smith’s definitions are incorrect…. A lot of the pre-operative transsexual males and females out there who cannot afford SRS let alone hold a good job because of prejudice and discrimination, would probably thank you for this kind gesture.
And for more of what you said:
Lots? How many? And how many of them truly changed? How about those who are celibate? Or those who are bisexuals?
You have taken for granted those who have suffered in the hands of these maniacal ex-gay machines. Have you ever read about ex-ex-gays? Living with the full conscience of Christ and not blaspheming against the Holy Spirit as Daniel Lee gracefully mentioned, is not perfect, but closer to God’s will in our lives.
As for ex-ex-gays, have you ever wondered why they left ex-gay ministries? To go back to the “gay lifestyle”? Let us hear from Michael Bussee (one of the founders of Exodus International), Darlene Bogle, and Jeremy Marks.
(From Beyond Ex-Gay)
(Gosh, that sounds so much like Edmund Smith when he spoke to me.)
It is no wonder now why so many homosexuals left Edmund’s RLM, correct? Just how many “ex-gays” Edmund “converted”? One? (“Jerry See Toh” I heard). But RLM have homosexuals coming and going off in a huff for years now, leaving almost 99% of its core members who are straights. Wow, so instead of concentrating on his “success”, how about how many homosexuals he failed to convert?
One word, Renik Fair, you seem to love to use the word “gay lifestyle”, but what actually is the gay “lifestyle”? Because I assure you the lifestyles of many here, and many heterosexuals, is no different. Promiscuous sex? Heteros have it. Cruising for mates? Heteros done it. Going to discos? Heteros do it too, in fact Edmund Smith LOVES disco. So what is so grand about the ex-gay lifestyle? Any different from the gay lifestyle? If you wish to put anal or oral sex into the equation, how about heterosexual anal and oral sex? Should these straight couples engaging in it, be placed in a ex-gay ministry or ex-straight ministry? Please answer me, but do offer something concrete, not running away from the issue or bending/adding words to twist science.
And lastly:
I think I answered all those questions already. Ex-Gay Watch is in no way advocating a “gay-free” life. We are questioning those who paints negative pictures of the LGBTs, those who come from these ex-gay ministries (people like Edmund). Threatened? How could any of us be threatened by an already discredited machinery called ex-gay ministries? The problem is there are people who are indoctrinated by the wrong information (people like you), people who are brainwashed to choose to look at people by their sexuality instead of people. People who believe in taking away homosexuals’ rights to live as normal human beings in equivalance to heterosexuals.
However, I commend your patient attitude here. For there are those homophobics who are shallow and confused by these ex-gay ministries enough to kill “in the name of God”, and there are those homosexuals who are depressed because ex-gay ministries told them who they are is just an illusion, that there is no such thing as being gay, and that causes suicide.
I repeat again, Edmund Smith can do whatever he wants, but he would do well to represent the correct and factual information. If he continues to parrot the kind of myths like he did, that is lying. And lying is a BIG sin under the 10 commandments. Imposing lies, let alone values unto people, is wrong. It is an infridgement of the right for a homosexual person to live a life of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (gosh I love that Will Smith movie).
By the way, “homosexuality” is a scientific term. Where is the social construct “ex-gay” in the APA?
Yes, ex gays need a voice!!! In fact, there are places on the moon that ex-gays haven’t penetrated yet, be quick before the airwaves are taken up!
And actually, the ex-divorcees, the ex-female teachers in church, the ex-female pastors, the ex-adulterers, the ex-liars, the ex-fornicators, the ex-thieves, the ex-polygamists, the ex-adulterers, the ex-shellfish eaters, the ex-lepers, the ex-infedels, the ex-non-saved need a voice too!!!!
Let’s start a channel for them too!
Come on, come on! Let’s get more funding!! The money’s just waiting to be exploited!!!
Esther,
You ask:
I’ve never seen an example of anyone who claimed to love the sinner and hate the sin who actually did just that.
In every example I’ve seen, it is the “sinner” who is punished. Political campaigns are waged against the sinner’s health care, children, legal protections, employment, housing, and services. None of which effects the amount of “sin” that occurs and all of which harms the life and freedom of the “sinner”.
If you want to oppose sin, you preach; if you want to oppose sinners, you pass laws.
So on the day that I see anti-gays campaigning for hate crimes legislation and marriage equality, that will be the day that I believe that they “love the sinner”. And on the day that I hear anti-gays preaching to their congregation that they should not engage in homosexuality without mentioning those folks outside the church, that’s the day I’ll believe they “hate the sin”.
In the meanwhile, I rightly see this phrase as a justification for self-righteousness and for doing evil to your neighbor.
In all of the New Testament there is only one story that scholars debate whether it was in the original text. Some of the oldest copies don’t contain it and others have added on to the end of various books.
That is the story of the woman at the well.
And yet this is the very favorite story for those who try to justify their condemnation of others. Because it’s the only place Jesus told someone to sin no more.
Let’s assume that this story was in the original. OK, fine. Jesus said “sin no more”. So let me ask, are you Jesus? Does following Jesus mean going around looking for people to tell “go sin no more”? Is that the crux of your faith?
And if this is the only thing you can find to justify imposing your religion on others, don’t you think that’s a pretty weak illustration. Jesus condemned her sin in the weakest form whatsoever, something that essentially meant “now go be good”. Yet this scripture has been used to justify all sorts of grand proclamations about how Christians are called to go out condemning the sins of their neighbors. The entire Scripture seems for some to be nothing more than those five words.
I’m sorry if this seems to be directed at you, Esther. It’s not. But I’m frustrated with the catch phrases that anti-gays use to justify the way that they ignore the message of Christ.
Real love ministry women pastors or men who support women ministers why are you all so quiet? What is your view on women leadership in the body of Christ? The Bible is so clear that women shouldn’t be leaders or pastors in the body of Christ but you all are blatantly violating that teaching and yet so self righteously accusing homosexuals as not being biblical. I want answers!
Eddy’s comment:
Eddy, they have to be quiet. RLMs men are tasked to exhibit their wifes/girlfriends as proof that they are ex-gays (so far there are only 2 reported of them), while RLMs women are tasked to form relationships with gays so to prove men can change (so far there is only 2 reported of them). And with their failure to address their dogmatic views by skipping questions presented them or running away from it with another bunch of empty musings in the name of God, can we really expect real answers?
Throw into the equation to the way they market their conversion sessions.
Wow, “information” from “OUR materials”! “Please believe with us”!
So their “materials” is so SUPERIOR, containing “information”… huh? “information”?… What kind of “information”?…. Scientific? No. Facts? No. Truth? No.
What information again? Edmund sings some wonderful songs? Depends on who is listening. Edmund talks about his wife and children? If you are interested to know and not bored by now. Edmund talks about three trigger issues? Most of the LGBT population would not even relate to his barrier, vacuum, and self issue dogmas, let alone the “gender confusion” thingy, when all gay men are proud to be men and all lesbian women are proud to be women. Heck, just how many gay men here are cross-dressed by their mothers?
Edmund has no case here or in any decent civil society, so off he goes to seek attention from those people that are just waiting for Edmund to confirm their prejudice. Unfortunately, they are ultra-ignorant straights. Fortunately, many LGBTs had left RLM with their sanity intact unlike those unfortunate ones in LIA. Some straights even felt uncomfortable being with this RLM group. That is because their self made junk science is just too comedic and ridiculous to be absorbed by a more educated society that is exposed to real information. That is truth.