Theresa May announcing a ban on 'Gay Conversion Therapy'
Theresa May announcing a ban on ‘Gay Conversion Therapy’

So Theresa May has ‘vowed’, as the London Evening Standard puts it, to ban what has become known as ‘gay conversion therapy’.

Action Plan

She is proposing a £4.5 million ‘action plan’ aimed at making society ‘more inclusive’ for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders. They make up the media’s so-called ‘LGBT community’. And part of the ‘action plan’ is to brand any course of treatment or healing for same-sex desires as ‘abhorrent’.

As the Bible says:

Proverbs 29:27 An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.

The initiative follows a major Government survey to which more than 108,000 LGBT people responded. The rest of the population, 99% of us, knew nothing about it.

The survey found out of the 1% of the population who are sadly L or G, as many as 2% had undergone conversion therapy and a further 5% had been offered it. That, clearly, will never do.

The action plan states: ‘We will consider all legislative and non-legislative options to prohibit promoting, offering or conducting conversion therapy.’

Avoid holding hands

The survey showed LGBT’s claim to experience ‘prejudice’ on a daily basis, the Government said.

More than two thirds of those who took part in the survey said they avoided holding hands with a same-sex partner in public for fear of a negative reaction. 23% said work colleagues had reacted negatively to them being LGBT. So not everyone has been steamrollered by the LGBT juggernaut.

LGBT hate incidents had been experienced by 40% of people in the survey. More than nine in 10 of the most serious offences went unreported, says the Standard. But a ‘hate incident’ could be someone like me objecting to repellent homosexual propaganda in Lloyds Bank, or a mother not being too pleased about dirty boys holding hands in front of her children.

The Prime Minister said: ‘We can be proud that the UK is a world leader in advancing LGBT rights, but the overwhelming response to our survey has shone a light on the many areas where we can improve the lives of LGBT people.’

Will DUP support the plan?

Arlene Foster's DUP have kept Theresa May honest over Brexit. Can they do the same in respect of the LGBT action plan?
Arlene Foster’s DUP have kept Theresa May honest over Brexit. Can they do the same in respect of the LGBT action plan?

Mrs May’s administration depends on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party. The DUP has remained a shining light in Northern Ireland, preventing ‘gay-marriage’ and abortion reaching the Province. Can the DUP shut down this ludicrous and freedom-sapping initiative?

Mrs May went on: ‘I was struck by just how many respondents said they cannot be open about their sexual orientation or avoid holding hands with their partner in public for fear of a negative reaction.’

‘No one should ever have to hide who they are or who they love.’

Does that include paedophiles and serial adulterers? Mrs May needs to understand that many of us, from strong religious convictions, seriously object to homosexuals flaunting their perversions in public. She continued:

‘This LGBT action plan will set out concrete steps to deliver real and lasting change across society, from health and education to tackling discrimination and addressing the burning injustices that LGBT people face.’

LGBTs matter more than others

The plan aims to investigate ‘LGBT abuse online’; as if no other form of abuse online is anywhere near as important. It also wants to improved ‘mental healthcare for LGBT people with a focus on suicide prevention’. That means other suicides, like those of young men in general, do not matter as much.

Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

It will also say that society is to blame for suicides among homosexuals, not the disorder of homosexuality itself.

Inevitably, it will step up gay propaganda in state schools under the guise of ‘combating homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying’.

Finally, a national adviser on reducing LGBT inequality will be appointed as part of the initiative. And a BBC internal survey just found 10% of their staff were ‘that way inclined’. That’s five to ten times as many as in the population. Homosexuals are also over-represented in Parliament and academia. There is no ‘LGBT inequality’ in our law or in our public institutions. Just in the public mind.

Pastors may not pray?

And of course there will be the ban on ‘gay conversion therapy’. The psychological profession’s regulation bodies already prohibit their members from offering any such therapy. In the 1970’s activists such as Peter Tatchell browbeat the psychiatric profession into removing homosexuality from any list of disorders.

Therapist Lesley Pilkingon was struck off by her professional body, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. She was targetted in a sting operation by activist Patrick Strudwick, as he boasts in the Independent here.

But what if someone goes to their pastor and asks for prayer to rid themselves of unwanted same-sex desires? What if the pastor suggests a Christian healing ministry? Will ministries, even churches, that take a Biblical view on sodomy and lesbianism be banned? What if the pastor or a friend of one seeking healing offers to cast out a demon?

Attack on basic freedoms

Let us be under no illusion. This is an attack on freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of association, and inasmuch as Christianity forms the backdrop to a desire to be free from same-sex desires, or constitutes an element of the healing process offered, on religious freedom.

And why is such a ban being proposed? Simply to protect the fragile sensibilities of homosexual activists:

Firstly, the mere thought that someone could be dissatisfied with being homosexual and want to change is politically incorrect.

Secondly, the very idea that someone could actually change is politically inconvenient.

Thirdly, the concept that human sexuality is not rigidly determined at birth is at odds with the gay agenda.

Fourthly, the idea that there is something inherently wrong with sodomy and all things gay may not be entertained.

Gay Conversion Therapy ban criminalises ideas

There are people walking away from the homosexual lifestyle? How very dare they.

Homosexual activists cannot get over the fact that many ordinary people view same-sex desires and those outwardly expressing them as abnormal, unnatural, deviant and pathological. In particular, they cannot abide the church not honouring their perversion.  But it never can:

Mark 10: 6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

And becoming one flesh in the Bible’s full emotional, spiritual and physical sense is something a pair of gays or two lesbians can never do.

So to be blunt, Mrs May is going to try to criminalise ideas. And that way lies tyranny. Another part of George Orwell’s nightmarish 1984 vision is in place. Here come the Thought Police.

We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings

Click on the social media links below to share this post:

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

30 COMMENTS

  2. Thank you Stephen as always for writing so clearly on this madness. Mrs May’s comments, like those of her predecessor of being proud of our nation’s achievements in leading the world on LGBT issues may well lead to her downfall, God will not be mocked. It beggars belief that such a few can demand and get their own perversions not only legalised but legislation criminalising those who dare to speak out against it. Surely revealing who is behind it, Satan himself, and the church by and large condones such behaviour. Come Lord Jesus!

  3. Hi Stephen

    I applaud your Christian Stance on the Bible, God’s Word to mankind.

    But I would like to make a suggestion, your bible quotations are from the KJV and although I agree this is one of the best translations, although I hold that the RV is equally accurate if not better in some aspects, but my point is this, that the average person who is not a Christian, who will hopefully read or watch your nano sermons on U-Tube. I have to say, will think because you are quoting the KJV and using an out of date language such as thous, and thees, saith, speaketh etc, etc. will think that we also are out of date in our beliefs.

    If fact most non-Christians already think the we are out of date in this “Post- modernist world”.

    I know you will find it difficult to accept my observations, but please pray about it and seek the Lord’s will on this matter.

    I personally use the NKJV but cut my teeth as it were 30 years ago on the NIV.

    I do admire you for backing up all your relevant points you make, with a scriptural reference.

    Your brother in Christ Jesus

    Eddie Turner

    • HI Edward, Your point is often raised. If there were a modern translation which was faithful to the Masoretic Text (OT) and the Textus Receptus (NT) and was universally accepted in the church, then we could move to it. But there isn’t. And there is one thing people know about the KJV: when you quote from it, everyone knows that’s ‘Bible’!

        • hmm, I have just googled “Masoretic Text” and “Textus Receptus” and discovered that these are indeed “authoritative”, original Hebrew and Greek texts of the OT and NT respectively, making my previous comment appear rather foolish.

          Nothing like a bit of humble pie for the good of the soul I suppose.

          Or as Golda Meir reportedly once said, “Don’t be humble, you’re not that great”.

          Or as I believe I have posted on this site before, the story goes that Winston Churchill was once told that Clement Attlee, his political opponent, was a very humble man. “Well, he’s got a lot to be humble about”, replied Winston.

        • I agree with Mark totally on this.

          I recommend to you, Mark, the New English Bible or the Revised English Bible, both produced with similar diligence to the Authorised Version, but with a lot more information available.

          The New English Bible is quite hard to get, because the Revised English Bible is a revision of it and has replaced it. But it’s available on very thin paper with the nice Horace Knowles illustrations, if you can get one. (The later revisions are minor for most purposes).

      • I agree with Mark. Let’s be reading the best possible version of the evidence. unless we particularly want the essentially 16th century wording for literary or ceremonial effect.

        This is serious, though. It’s not a case of lol.

        Mark, you wrote “the best translation of the original Hebrew/Greek texts”. Now you are only referring to the Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. This is a big switch from comparing English translations of them.

        But in fact it is perfectly possible for older and thus (it is usually assumed) better texts to have appeared since the 17th century, and this has in fact happened. The NEB and REB have on some pages footnotes referring to the different workding in different reliable texts, and sometimes to whole passages which seem to have been added to later versions by a later hand. These got into the Authorised Version, and whereas nobody would want to remove them from public scrutiny, they shouldn’t really be there.

        • are you saying that there are other, just as old, Hebrew/Greek texts other than the ones Stephen refers to, which are better translated by the NEB/REB, Rox?

          Gosh, I just read your reply “carefully”, and it may reap a reward. I may, depending on your answer, have learnt something.

          There is also the Septuagint and the Vulgate to bring into the discussion, themselves translations, which many consider to have major authority.

  6. People will always know if the public is uncomfortable about them holding hands, and I don’t think it’s possible to legislate against this. Similarly, I personally feel alarmed at first when I come up against a sinister woman in a niqab (NB not a hijab), and then I deal with this by smiling at it, almost laughing. No legislation is going to stop me reacting like that.

    I often wonder where all these transgender people are, and it has emerged that 417 of them work for the BBC !
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905129/BBC-chief-stunned-secret-staff-sex-survey-reveals-417-workers-transgender.html
    (This has been reported by The Times etc as well as by the Daily Mail).
    Altogether, 11% of BBC staff are lesbian, gay, transgender or bisexual.
    But Tunde Ogungbesan, the BBC’s director of diversity, says that more lesbians are needed.

    Sorry to have wandered from the topic.

  7. The Dutch psychotherapist Gerard van den Aardweg, a personal friend of mine, specialises in the treatment of homosexuality, his life’s work, and has written many books on the subject, e.g. Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About Treatment and Change by Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg. Apparently about 70% of those afflicted with same-sex attraction can be cured.
    David Prentis

  9. The NHS now supports people who want to ‘change’ their sex. Why then should people who wish to change their sexual orientation be prevented from receiving support in this, whether it be by therapy, counselling or prayer? If adults give informed consent to any of these approaches, who are we, or our government, to forbid it? I understand from this article https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Why-the-Government-s-knee-jerk-ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy-fails-to-understand-the-real-issues that the Royal College of Psychiatrists have found no evidence that conversion therapy is harmful. If this is the case, there are no rational grounds from impinging on our freedoms by such a ban. This government initiative is hence mere claptrap to placate the LGBT etc. lobby, who have sadly gained the politically correct high ground. At least £4.5 million is insufficient to do much harm. But prohibition of giving support that people wish to receive is a very dangerous precedent, and one to be fought.

    • “The NHS now supports people who want to ‘change’ their sex. Why then should people who wish to change their sexual orientation be prevented from receiving support in this. ”

      That is a very good point !

      Actually, if somebody who is apparently a man and who is attracted to men claims that he is “really” a woman, and the Government pay to change him into a woman surgically and chemically, haven’t they then done their best to convert a homosexual into a heterosexual ? It’s a messy and expensive solution.

    • we’re not talking rational here, but PC, the post-truth society. If the truth is inconvenient, then its got to go, along with those who espouse it. I personally think this country is finished, only judgement awaits, with gay marriage we spat in the face of God, and continue to push the envelope. Indeed, the first part of God’s judgement is to remove his hand of protection/restraint, allowing us to go our own self-destructive way. Or the punishment may be the islamic takeover, as He used another bunch of barbarians, the Assyrians & Babylonians, to punish ancient Israel. Only national revival/repentance can save us, as Stephen/ Christian Voice point out: I see no sign of this happening, with a cowed, sleeping and lukewarm church content with material blessings for themselves, seemingly quite at home in the world, and primarily concerned with being part of the “community” (there is no real community anymore, imo, we mostly retreat into our houses and watch TV, hardly knowing even our next-door neighbours. Unless you mean the special-interest minority groups like the LGBT as “community”, it aids these politicians etc to waffle on about “communities”, when there aren’t any really). These so-called pastors (who rarely seem to be selected for their pastoral ability (when was the last time any one of them visited you?), but because they’ve got a “vision” (oooohhhhh gasp, “what a Man of God he must be”) for the church, which always seems to involve building work. These people fool undiscerning people) seem to think that the object of the church is to organise football tournaments and open coffee-shops. Whatever, they WILL NOT preach the Gospel, not outside the safe confines of their buildings anyway, and rarely there.

      But I suppose things were pretty dark before other revivals eg John Wesley

  10. It probably works. I mean I personally don’t know if it does or not from anyone I know who is or was gay, simply because I don’t know any, but reading what you say about the government’s methods, I see it as a panic. I don’t see any reason why it should not work to some degree given these sexual perversions are environmental as opposed to genetic. Many forms of mental illness can be improved or even cured with some help. I get the impression it is a kind of addiction, so it’s like those methods used to stop smoking. What the government are obviously worried about is that as these people help more affected, so their expertise increases, they pass on tips to others, and it becomes established. Now it looks like it will be forced underground. But, surely that is discrimination. All other mentally ill people get help. Homosexuals might have to break the law. Back to the old days eh!