Jarred the Masochist rides again. Tonight, I'm watching a video by Michael Brown about the problems with/dangers of Gay Christianity.

From the splash screen, it looks like this video is a segment from his show "The Line of Fire." The video was originally posted to YouTube on March 12. No information on when the show aired.

Right out the bat, he invokes the term "cancel culture" and says that the endgame is to silence people like him. So we should expect a lot of dishonesty up front. (Anyone who has looked into the recent hysterics over "cancel culture" lately will understand why I say this.)

He brings up the "controversial" concept of ex-gays. People who "used to be a practicing homosexual, but no longer is." For those not familiar with the ex-gay movement, one criticism of that movement is that it uses words in very slippery ways.

Originally, the ex-gay movement promised gay people that their ministries and/or therapy would change their sexual orientation. Some promoters of ex-gay ideology still promise that, even if only implicitly.

Problem is, many former ex-gays and even current ex-gays have admitted their attractions have never changed. Indeed, around the time that Exodus International closed its doors, their Alan Chambers admitted that he couldn't name a single person who didn't still experience SSA.

(For anyone unfamiliar with the lingo, 'SSA" is the abbreviation for "same-sex attraction.")

Eventually, some proponents of ex-gay ideology changed their tune and said that the goal was not to "turn straight" but merely choose to never "act on" on their SSA. For many, this meant a lifelong commitment to celibacy. The phrase "holiness, not heterosexuality" became common.

Anyway, now that I've laid what I suspect will be helpful background and context, back to the video.

"We've been told for years that such people do not exist?"

This is where Michael is being unclear. What does "such people" mean in this context. People who used to be attracted to members of the same sex and no longer are? Evidence suggests that if they exist, they're rare.

However, I will readily admit that people exist who experience SSA and choose never to actually engage in sex with someone of the same sex. I just think it's not a choice people should be coerced into making.

I also believe that for many people -- especially those who experience attraction toward members of the same sex exclusively -- it's a soul-crushing and unhealthy burden to lay on them.

Brown is now claiming that the reason that LGBTQIA people deny that ex-gays don't exist is because if ex-gays exist,t hen being gay is a choice and therefore undeserving of civil rights protections. There's a lot to unpack here.

First, I think it's safe to conclude from this argument that Brown is defining "ex-gay" as "no longer experiences SSA." So there's no further need to criticize the "it's okay to be gay, just don't have sex with members of the same sex" argument in this thread.

Next, Brown is admitting that many of us who have followed the ex-gay movement for years have known from the beginning: The ex-gay movement is used as a weapon to justify discriminating against LGBTQIA people.

"There's no reason for them to be protected. If they don't like the way they're treated, they can just pray away the gay!" It's a monstrous position and it's actually inherently flawed.