Homosexual activists cannot bear the transition of homosexuals to normality. This is because it undermines one of their most cherished falsehoods, namely, that sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that is unchangeable. This is an absolute lie. There are many thousands of homosexuals who have left homosexuality and many of these have entered into long-term, successful, traditional marriages and have become devoted parents of children.
It is critical to homosexual activists, however, that this falsehood continue to flourish, as most of their political gains – in public opinion, legislation and in the law – have rested on this lie. The heart of their argument is that it is inherently unjust to deny homosexuals disadvantages in marriage, sexual activity, employment discrimination, etc., because their sexual orientation is – just like race, place of birth, ethnicity – unchangeable, since it is determined at (or before) birth.
The lie that homosexuality is unchangeable played a central role in the 2015 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, to strike down all state laws that define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in order to legalize same-sex marriage. Mr. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court, writing for the slim 5-4 majority, asserted that the unchangeability of sexual orientation was the basis of his decision for support of same-sex marriage. He asserted the immutable homosexual nature dictates that same-sex marriage is the only real path to commitment for homosexuals.
Because of the enormous importance of this myth to the LGBT community, it goes to great lengths to ruthlessly stamp out any objections to it. These activists narcissistically ignore the harm their actions may cause others. In this case, homosexuals who want to change their orientation, and have consented to the treatment, are being abused by the demand that everyone support homosexuality as immutable. This prohibits a health practitioner from providing sexual altering services for a consenting adult. This will inevitably run into a Charter challenge, based on the denial of the patient’s freedom of religion, expression and opinion – not to mention, choice.
Homosexual activists persist in arguing that attempting to change the orientation of a homosexual, which they call “conversion therapy”, is dangerous and harmful, since it allegedly poses 28 critical health risks to lesbian, gay and bi-sexual people. This long list of suggested risks includes depression, guilt, shame, social withdrawal, suicide, substance abuse, anger, betrayal, etc., etc. None of this is based on any factual evidence. The American Psychological Association (APA), nevertheless, supports these 28 health risks, even though none has been documented in scientific peer-review literature. It is noted that the APA is currently studying the issue of making polyamory legal. Polyamory is the practice of, or desire for, emotionally intimate relationships with more than one partner, of either sex, with the consent of all partners involved. Unfortunately, the APA has long ago abandoned all respect for fact-based research and science and has replaced science with ideology. The APA is not a creditable source of information.
Justin Trudeau Jumps into the Controversy
There is nothing that Justin Trudeau will not do for the LGBT community. Any demand they make is his command to obey. Also, the Liberal Party believes that the more “progressive” their policies, the better it is for them, as it encourages voters on the left to vote for them rather than the NDP or Green Party.
Not surprisingly, in June 2019, the Liberal government sent letters to all of the provincial and territorial Ministers of Health and Justice across the country urging them to ban the “shameful” and “cruel” practice of homosexuals being counselled to change their sexual orientation. The letter states that the party is also considering amendments to the Criminal Code to better crack down on these traumatic programs. The letter reads, in part, “We are concerned about the harmful effect of the message that someone’s sexual orientation is abnormal, and that it can and should be changed.” To emphasize the importance of the letter, it was signed by Justice Minister David Lametti, Health Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor, and special advisor to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ issues, homosexual MP Randy Boissonnault.
Sexual Orientation Can be Changed
Many scholars – including those who self-identify as homosexual or lesbian, or are openly supportive of the homosexual movement – have provided well-researched, scientific evidence that sexual orientation can change over time. One of the most significant of these studies is the 2016 one, conducted by lesbian professor, Lisa Diamond, and Clifford Rosky in the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) PubMed, called “Scrutinizing Immutability.”
In this study, they cited key studies on sexual orientation and concluded, “Given the consistency of these findings, it is not scientifically accurate to describe same-sex orientation as a uniformly immutable trait.”
Diamond and Rosky were also critical of Justice Kennedy’s remarks in the Obergefell same-sex marriage decision, describing his statement as “casual, scientifically inaccurate, as it relates to immutability of sexual orientation” and, further, that “the Supreme Court has a view of sexual orientation that is several decades out of date.”
This truth, however, has not stopped the LGBT community from trying to keep the immutability myth of sexual orientation alive. For example, it has recently convinced Amazon to censor all books, audio books, and Kindle material relating to conversion or reparative therapy from its stock. This is a shocking example of censorship in view of the fact that, at Amazon, one can buy any book, including Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” or books glorifying pedophilia and suicide.
This move by Amazon has deeply angered ex-homosexuals, who have launched a petition to pressure Amazon to reverse its decision.
These individuals claim that the books banned have been “life-saving” instruments for those who have been struggling with their homosexuality and have been in the dark space of suicide risk and are trying to return to normality.
It is clear that the LGBT activists are totalitarian and the homosexual rainbow flag is not an emblem of freedom, but is an offensive symbol of bondage, to which everyone is expected to pay homage.