Voice of the Nation–Arthur A. Goldberg

drew_and_angela1

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio

This Thursday Live at 2pm PST

On Thursday: Voice Of The Nation will be discussing the recent same-sex marriage changes on the horizon with Washington, New Jersey, New York and Iowa. Can homosexuals transform their sexuality? We’ll also be discussing the social science behind same sex attraction as well as it’s effect on parenting.

Guest Arthur A. Goldburg will be joining us this week. Arthur Goldburg is the Executive Secretary of NARTH, Co-Founder and Co-Director, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), President of PATH (Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality) and Principal of the International Center for Gender Affirming Processes (CGAP).

He was professor at the Connecticut University law school and Deputy Attorney General of New Jersey.

Can homosexuals transform their sexuality? Torah, Talmud and time-tested advances in gender psychology answer YES! The Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), Arthur Goldberg, tells how in his book “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change.” This groundbreaking book explodes the “gay gene” mystique, offering hope, compassion, direction and vitally needed information for those who struggle with same sex attraction, their families, friends, and surrounding community.

Open Chat and Call lines: We’ll be taking your questions via online chat during the show and if you want to ask your own questions, feel free to call in! 347- 215-6801.

The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations.  The show highlights current Family Values news and discusses the logic behind the Pro-Family Movement.

TUNE IN HERE

Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION every Thursday at 2pm PST.

347- 215-6801

2 Comments

  1. Chairm said,

    April 16, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    BB,

    The topic you have on-tap for your next blogtalk is probably even more highly contentious than the marriage issue.

    I think the two issues are distinct and the resolution of one is not dependent on the other.

    When people speak of orientation based on one’s true self, I think they do a disservice to themselves, and if they are professionals in counselling (whether religious based or otherwise) a disservice to those they hope to help, if the true self is defined by sexual attractions and behaviors.

    One’s fundamental orientation is toward the principles and deeply held beliefs around which one lives and through which one aspires with right behavior.

    So, if a person who experiences same-sex attraction, to whatever degree, orientates his or her life toward gay identity, then, there will be more than sexual behavior at stake.

    If a person orientates his or her life toward religious beliefs, either due to grace or through searching for meaning, then it is those beliefs that become the guiding points on the moral compass.

    Some will say that anyone who can turn away from same-sex attraction must not have been exclusively same-sex attracted (or “sexually orientated”) — in a word, a bisexual or a heterosexual who acted against type. Even if that is so, the orientation away from gay identity for such people can be achieved and sustained. Especially if the person integrates as a sexually embodied human being in a culture that recognizes the objective truth of human sexuality. The nature of humankind is two-sexed.

    But what of those who feel, subjectively, that they are exclusively attracted to their same sex? Their burden is made heavier by the politics of gay identity which subsumes the individual into a group identity orientated by sexual desire. But this is not a true self. It is a constructed self.

    While same-sex attractions (call it homosexuality) may or may not be inborn, no socio-political identity is inborn.

    There are sex differences within the experience of same-sex sexual attractions. Women and men do indeed experience it differently. Again, the question of exclusivity always comes up in discussion of these topics, however, predominance is a factor in all social and sexual phenomena.

    The politics of gay identity is not the science of human sexuality.

    When it comes to other areas of study of sexuality, predominance and persistence do not determine the morality, the ethics, the rightness of a sexual behavior. As human beings, with freewill, we are intrinsically orientated toward truth. The temptation to disregard truth is not a sin nor a moral failing. Feeling such temptation — sexual or otherwise — is itself not a psychological or emotional failing, but rather a vulnerability.

    The distinction between behavior and aspiration will always be intrinsic to the nature of humankind — on the individual level and through to he cultural level. It is toward this truth that society ought to orientate itself.

    While I have not experienced what men and women with same-sex sexual attractions have experienced, and have often hidden due to the misunderstanding and incomprehensions of even those closest to them, I’ve witnessed enough during the beginnings of the AIDS crisis to know that we are called to empathize and to reach out with love and the truth. We may not always be welcomed on that basis but we can knock, gently, on the door. There is no door handle on the outside of the human heart.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    April 17, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Chairm, thank you for your thoughts. I am interested in better understanding this subject, and realize that the marriage defense project has many facets and areas to understand. Homosexuality is not something that is easily understood. I would like to understand it better because defending marriage is vitally important to me, yet at the same time, those who fall on the other side of the issue from me have valid concerns and issues I would like to appreciate and understand. We’re all brothers and sisters, and though we don’t always agree, or see things from the same pairs of eyes, we ought to be willing to look and learn and understand as much as possible. As you say:

    “We may not always be welcomed on that basis but we can knock, gently, on the door. There is no door handle on the outside of the human heart.”

    Thanks for your thoughts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: