H Maria Jos VilaaMaria José Vilaça, nome de referência na psicologia portuguesa, tem assumido sempre, ao longo da sua longa carreira, um espírito de missão e de serviço. Como dizer “não” a quem pede ajuda do foro psicológico? Como "não ajudar" os outros? Seja uma patologia comum, sejam casos mais duros e difíceis, ou seja algo - como é muitas vezes o caso da homossexualidade - que um jovem ou um adulto ressente como um grave desequilíbrio na sua vida pessoal, familiar, social ou mesmo religiosa. Muitos não entendem - ou não querem entender - que alguém peça ajuda para sair de uma vida marcada pela homossexualidade, enquistados que estão num raciocínio pré-formatado e preconceituoso relativamente à abordagem da homossexualidade. Na ótica dos nossos meios de comunicação social esta realidade tem de ser considerada como dogma de fé, questão sacrossanta, não passível de análise crítica ou discussão aprofundada. A homossexualidade, segundo os grandes pensadores residentes nas redações, nas televisões, e na política também, deve ser equiparada, custe o que custar, quer queiramos quer não, ao normal relacionamento entre homem e mulher. Como se - pelo facto de esses eminentes jornalistas e opinion-makers repetirem milhões de vezes que a homossexualidade é uma escolha, uma opção, um direito, etc - pais, avós, educadores, jovens, crianças, tivessem que aceitar passivamente esse condicionamento ideológico.

E. do S.


California’s shocking ‘you must stay gay’ bill

April 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a brazen assault on our most fundamental freedoms, California legislators are considering a bill that would make it illegal for anyone to receive professional help to resolve unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion. This would apply to people of all ages. People of all religious and moral convictions. It is an absolute outrage, and it must be opposed vigorously.

For the last few years, a growing number of states and cities have embraced legislation making it illegal for minors struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion to receive professional help, even with the full support of their parents.

This would apply to a 14-year-old girl who was raped by her uncle at the age of 8 and now feels repulsion from men and attraction toward women. If her parents stood with her and she wanted to meet with a trained counselor to get to the root of her attractions, in some states, that would be illegal. No professional counselor or therapist or psychologist would be allowed to help her.

Yet in these same states, if an 8-year-old girl believed she was really a boy and wanted to receive professional help to deny her female identity, that would be perfectly legal. A counselor could tell her parents to encourage her to dress and identify as a boy. That counselor could also recommend that, at age 10, she start taking hormone-blockers, then prepare to "transition" fully to "male" at age 16, then have "sex-change" surgery at 18, with hormones prescribed for life.

That would be perfectly legal. But for that same 8-year-old girl to say, "I want to be at home in the body God gave me. I don't want hormones and surgery. Can anyone help me?," the answer would be, "No. Such help is illegal."

California wants to take this one dangerous step farther, making it illegal for anyone of any age to receive such help. This defies all logic and can be seen only for what it is: a frontal assault on our freedom to self-determination. A frontal assault on our freedom of religion. And a frontal assault on our freedom of conscience.

Make no mistake about this. As ADF attorney Matt Sharp explained on my Line of Fire broadcast, this legislation will extend into the churches.

For example, let's say your church has the policy of offering free pastoral counseling for all tithing members. That means a financial transaction is involved in those services. So you, a member in good standing, want to receive some much needed counseling.

You're a married father of four, but you struggle deeply with gender identity confusion. You set up an appointment with one of the pastors, only to be told, "It is illegal for us to help you."

I am not exaggerating.

Or you're reading the Bible, which strictly forbids homosexual relationships, and you want help with unwanted same-sex attractions. You even read where the Bible says some people used to practice homosexuality, but through the gospel, they no longer do (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

You try to set up that counseling appointment with your pastor, only to be told, "It is illegal for us to help you."

That pastor could not even recommend a book on the subject from the church bookstore.

That's how far this outrageous bill goes, and it's only one of a series of bills being put forward in California. If the bills pass there, other states will be eager to follow suit.

What makes this even more outrageous is that 1) there are thousands of ex-gays who can personally testify to their own transformation, 2) there are gay and lesbian psychologists who argue against the myth that homosexuality is innate and immutable, and 3) most children who identify as transgender no longer do so after puberty.

And remember: while California seeks to pass this monstrous legislation, it has no problem backing a psychologist who will help a man embrace his alleged male and female identities simultaneously. Or a counselor who will help someone embrace his alleged animal (or alien) identity. All of that is fine. But to help someone be at home in his own body would be illegal.

The whole basis of the legislation is the claim that 1) medical fraud is being practiced and 2)  harm can be done to patients who undergo such counseling or therapy.

But there are plenty of patients who attest to the life-transforming impact of the counseling they have received. And there are plenty of Christians who attest to the life-transforming power of the gospel – including transformation from homosexual and transgender identities.

It's also a fact that there is no definitive proof that such counseling harms a patient any more than some patients claim harm after undergoing counseling for substance abuse or overeating or depression.

In fact, during my radio broadcast, Ann Paulk, an ex-lesbian herself, said positive counseling outcomes for people dealing with unwanted same-sex attractions are higher than positive outcomes for those dealing with alcoholism. Yet no one in his right mind would seek to ban professional counseling or therapy for alcoholics.

No, this California assault on our most fundamental freedoms is simply the latest manifestation of LGBT activism. As I and others have warned incessantly for many years, those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet. Do you believe me now?

And while critics of any kind of change therapy mocked us with the (false) claim that we were trying to "pray the gay away," these same critics now want to pass a law that says, "You must stay gay" (or "gender confused").

Will you stand up and make your voice heard today?

Here are four things you can do: 1) share this article and my radio broadcast with your friends, 2) go here to find out more, 3) alert your friends in California and encourage them to contact their legislators, and 4) pray for awakening in the Church and sanity in the society.

You have been forewarned.



The left really is trying to silence us

Maybe you once thought the left wants tolerance and diversity, but in reality, tolerance and diversity have never been the goals of the left, especially the radical left. Instead, it wants to suppress and silence opposing views, and the farther left you go, the more extreme the intolerance.

For those who have still not come to grips with this, let these recent examples jar you.

It is bad enough that states have been passing legislation banning counseling for minors struggling with same-sex attraction, even if they have their parents' backing. But now there are reports that some states are considering banning such counseling for people of any age. (I was informed of this last week by a Christian counselor in California.)

In other words, it could be illegal for a 30-year-old man with unwanted same-sex attractions to go for professional counseling that focuses on helping him deal with and even overcome these attractions. This is a monstrous violation of individual freedom, not to mention a serious misrepresentation of scientific data, as if all "conversion therapy" were harmful.

Taking things one step farther, "A church in Michigan has come under intense attack this month [meaning February] after posting on Facebook that it was holding a workshop at the church for girls who are struggling with essentially LGBT thoughts."

So not even a church is allowed to help its young people who struggle with unwanted same-sex thoughts. I guess freedom of religion and, even more fundamentally, freedom of self-determination go only so far. How dare a church do such a thing?

The pastor,  Jeremy Schossau, stated, "'It is hard to believe how much vile filth has been sent our way,' adding that many of the emails contained gay pornography. 'We're talking 10,000 emails and posts and messages and phone calls. It's just been virtually nonstop.'"

Ah, the sweet, gentle voice of tolerance and diversity!

On a very different front, Pamela Geller explained to Milo Yiannopoulos that "Google has scrubbed all internet searches ... of anything critical of jihad and Sharia. So if you Google 'jihad' and you Google 'Sharia' and you Google 'Islam,' you're going to get Islamic apologetics, you're going to get 'religion of peace.' Whereas my site used to come up top, page one for 'jihad' and 'Sharia' or 'Islam,' or JihadWatch did, you can't find it now. They scrubbed 40,000 Geller posts of Google."

She continued, "You know what? It's Stalinesque."

Geller wasn't exaggerating, and her example is just one of many.

But all you have to do is label something "hate speech" these days, and you can get it removed from social media in a hurry.

A friend of mine had his Facebook page shut down for sharing Bible verses about homosexual practice – I mean verses without commentary.

Another friend had his Facebook page shut down for posting medical data about the health risks associated with homosexual practice.

These are just two examples out of many more, where colleagues have been warned, if not censured and then censored.

Even Joe Rogan, hardly a conservative activist, noted how "squirrely" things have become with "hate speech" labeling on social media. (The context of his comment was his interview with Douglas Murray, himself anything but a conservative activist, noting how Murray's discussion with atheist Sam Harris was somehow labeled hate speech, thereby in violation of Twitter's "community guidelines.")

Over at Harvard University, a Christian club has been penalized for daring to live by its biblically based code for leaders. As reported by Todd Starnes, "A well-respected Christian student organization at Harvard University has been placed on probation after they [sic] allegedly forced a bisexual woman to resign from a leadership position for dating a woman.

"The Crimson reports that Harvard College Faith and Action was put on 'administrative probation' for a year. The group is largest Christian fellowship on campus."

So a Christian club cannot require its leaders (not its members) to live by Christian standards, which raises the question: could the leader of a campus Islamic club be a professing Christian? Or could the leader of a campus PETA club be a meat-eater? Or could the leader of the campus atheist club be an Orthodox Jew?

By why ask logical questions? The left wants to enforce its intolerant groupthink on everyone else. Leftist tolerance is a myth.

Just consider the recent debate on gun control in the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, was any tolerance shown to Dana Loesch (representing the NRA) at a CNN-sponsored town hall? Not only was she called a murderer and bad mother, but Jake Tapper actually asked her if she and her husband had security to escort them out of the building.

Is it stretching things to imagine that there could have been physical violence against Loesch? We've already seen how violent the left can get at places like Berkeley, where "punch a Nazi" becomes the rallying cry.

This doesn't mean we respond with violence and anger. God forbid.

But it does mean we start speaking up more loudly, clearly, fearlessly, and persistently. And in the appropriate ways, as with the new "Internet Freedom Watch" initiative announced by the NRB (National Religious Broadcasters), we fight back.