September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« How Do You Make a Biblical Case for the Trinity? | Main | Strengthen the Basics in 2015 »

December 30, 2014

Comments

Hey Brad B, can you explain Alan Chambers' statement when Exodus closed down? Alan Shlemon used to hold Exodus in high esteem. I saw that on one of his YouTube videos, he even showed their website url at the bottom of the screen encouraging people to visit the site. Yet when Exodus closed and Chambers admitted that neither he nor anyone else he knew at Exodus had actually changed their sexual orientation, Alan Shlemon decides to completely ignore this and if you question him about it, he goes completely silent. Just curious about what spin you can put on Chambers' words.

Also, have you ever considered the FACT that every copy of the New Testament that we received through history from scribes differs from every other copy of the New Testament written by scribes. Makes you kind of wonder that if this is actually the word of "god", he didn't care if errors crept into his word, and he made no effort to give the illusion that a god was actually managing its transmission down through history. I'm starting to think that god is completely incompetent.

Hi Scott, you will have to stop ranting in order to have a fruitful dialogue.

First thing though...if you are going to lecture about what is and isn't a proper response you will have to demonstrate compentency at some elementary level. I doubt seriously that you will be able to reason well enough to actually have dialogue but we can give it a go.

You criticize Mo's logical summation and then move the goal posts as you dismiss his answer. And now on top of that you offer a non sequiter as icing on top that is laughable.

Here is how you do it in case it escapes your own notice.

The challenge is sexual orientation never changes. Mo offers that if there is one, the challenge fails.

The logic here is simple enough.

As I recall, [too short on time to scroll and quote] you ask for proof of such a one. Well and good...Mo does not as I recall give you a specific person but claims there are some but another poster did give numerous sources and I also know of persons whose testimony is enough to defeat the never element of the claim.

So instead of dealing with Mo's claim fairly, here lately you call it lame and then pollute the argument by moving the goal posts to say his answer didn't disprove "bilogical origins".

I know you probably think that the last bit of icing on top is a good comparison to make but Mo's original answer was purely a logical conclusion that followed...your's not so much.

I dont really have time to go on about others but would add that your treatment of Suzanne and her input is even worse and wider ranging un-reasoning than that here above re: Mo.

So you then analyze my input as "God's Rules dont argue", which is your dismissal to my observation that you want to change the rules of what is moral/ethical from earlier on in this thread. If we [you&I] are going to proceed, I will bypass all the nonsense you've offered since then and try to have a dialogue about what was first argued...but we can only do it if you will be rational.

You say, as I recall, that: Human experience is capable of working out what is moral and ethical...is this a fair paraphrase of what you're advocating? If not, please restate it.

Hi Monty, I dont know about the Chambers' statement...I'm also not at all familiar with how Alan has referenced Exodus Intl...

On the surface, it'd seem to be a serious challenge to maintain that Exodus' purpose was fulfilled or had any promise of successful fulfillment.

About your last paragraph...are you seriously going to challenge the reilablity of the NT texts' faithfulness to the earliest manuscripts?

The FACT is that it takes a radical skeptic to deny that the NT we have today is faithful to 1st century manuscripts and/or that the OT having been translated to Greek along with Dead Sea Scrolls has even more early manuscript evidence to prove faithful preservation of God's Word.

Can anyone actually say that its impossible for a person through sheer willpower to sprout wings and be able to fly? His question is similar to the celestial teapot analogy. It is a very stupid question. The true question, is it unlikely that a person's sexual orientation can be changed through therapy or throwing wishes in the air. Well, we do have an answer to this one from the APA. The answer is no. There is no scientifically credible research that shows that change is possible. My advice to Christians is to stop thinking about gays so much and try to figure out why the god of the Bible chose not to provide a plan for salvation for people who lived outside of Israel before the birth of Jesus. Greg Koukl even admits it doesn't look good for the gentiles.

My advice to Christians is to stop thinking about gays so much and try to figure out why the god of the Bible chose not to provide a plan for salvation for people who lived outside of Israel before the birth of Jesus.
Good advice in a thread dedicated to the discussion of homosexuality.

Oh...wait...No. That's really bad advice.

If you spend the time to look at STR's archives, you'll probably find plenty of discussion on the topic you have chosen to attempt to derail this discussion.

It may even surprise you to know that Christians smarter than anyone who has ever posted on STR and who lived long before any of them were born have actually thought about questions like the one you raise.

But that's not the discussion that is being had here.

What you are attempting is known as a Red Herring fallacy. You are dragging the smelliest fish you can find across our trail in hopes of distracting us.

Now, I'm a frequent commenter here, but this time, I've left most of the arguing in the very capable hands of others. Brad seems to be the anchorman this time and is doing quite well. I didn't fall for your ploy and I'm pretty certain he won't fall for it either.

It is worth noting that Monty made the same effort. But in his case, he tried to derail the conversation using the reliability of the NT manuscripts.

Seriously, the topic of this thread is about whether homosexuals can change to being non-homosexual. Your efforts to derail the topic only serve to show that even you recognize that you are doing a poor job of making your case.

@ Scott
As the fact that homosexuality must be biological seems to be so important to you that you cannot state your opinion or discuss as to whether you believe sexuality can change (in a child, an adult) and just to make you happy a little non-conjectural list of philosphical and scientific research on homosexuality and sexual orientation:

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1864) – homosexual man = a Urning (body of a man with a female soul)
Magnus Hirschfeld: supports Ulrich; inborn homosexuality
Sigmund Freud (1905): opposes Ulrichs & Hirschfeld; all people are bisexual; an absent father increases homosexual tendencies

endocrine studies (article - summary): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

Queer Theory (1990)(influenced by Foucault)/Annamarie Jagose (1997) Queer Theory(book):supports cultural & social causes
Dean Hamer (1993): claims discovery of ‘gay gene’ Xq28 (study with homosexual brothers)
Brian Mustanski (2005): there is matching genetic information, but not on gonosomes (study with homosexual brothers)
Swaab and Allen (separate studies) (1990): size of hypothalamus is larger (post-mortem examinations of homosexual men)
LeVay (1991): post-mortem examinations (hypothalamus) of male homosexual victims of AIDS
Rice, Friberg & Gavrilets (2012): Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development.
Alan Sanders (2013 & ongoing?) (http://www.lgbtscience.org/alan-sanders/): study on the influence of Xq28 on sexual orientation

Again, 3 options (nature, nurture or both) based on what you think is right or proven enough. And then the question: Can it change? How people approach a maybe (see question) possible change and how you feel about these methods are separate things.

@ Scott
As the fact that homosexuality must be biological seems to be so important to you that you cannot state your opinion or discuss as to whether you believe sexuality can change (in a child, an adult) and just to make you happy a little non-conjectural list of philosphical and scientific research on homosexuality and sexual orientation:

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1864) – homosexual man = an Urning (body of a man with a female soul)
Magnus Hirschfeld: supports Ulrich; inborn homosexuality
Sigmund Freud (1905): opposes Ulrichs & Hirschfeld; all people are bisexual; an absent father increases homosexual tendencies

endocrine studies (article - summary): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

Queer Theory (1990)(based on Foucault)/Annamarie Jagose (1997) Queer Theory(book):supports cultural & social causes

Dean Hamer (1993): claims discovery of ‘gay gene’ Xq28 (study with homosexual brothers)
Brian Mustanski (2005): there is matching genetic information, but not on gonosomes (study with homosexual brothers)
Swaab and Allen (separate studies) (1990): size of hypothalamus is larger (post-mortem examinations of homosexual men)
LeVay (1991): post-morten examinations (brain) of male homosexual victims of AIDS
Rice, Friberg & Gavrilets (2012): Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development.
Alan Sanders (2013 & ongoing?) (http://www.lgbtscience.org/alan-sanders/): study on the influence of Xq28 on sexual orientation

Again, 3 options (nature, nurture or both) based on what you think is right or proven enough. And then the question: Can it change? How people people approach a maybe(see question) possible change and how you feel about these methods are valid points yet don't tell us if you believe they work.

@ Scott,

"Alas, sorry again saying one person who converts, while fudging definitions of sexual orientation, homosexuality and even bisexuality, does NOT in anyway disprove anything about homosexuality have biological roots."

I didn't offer any definition of sexual orientation or anything else.

The claim of the homosexual side is homosexuality is inborn and therefore cannot be changed. It's up to them to prove it.

And it's easily disproved, because if there is even one person who is a former homosexual, that claim goes out the window. Ever see any former blue-eyed people or former Hispanic people or former Chinese people? Of course not.

And there are many more former homosexuals than just one!

Therefore, homosexuality is not inborn. Period.

There are plenty of gay people out there, the ones I know state that they always knew they were different and that they were attracted to their own gender. It's your assertion that being gay is something someone acquires like the ability to read, walk or twiddle one's thumbs. You've not offered a single reason as to why people are gay at all. So if your hypothesis is true, how do people become gay?

And again, you still haven't offered up any examples of people who HAVE ACTUALLY successfully converted from gay to straight. You just keep asserting that people change. So provide some evidence for your assertion that people change and what causes homosexuality in the first place.

- See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/12/challenge-sexual-orientation-never-changes/comments/page/1/#comments

Ugh, sorry, my comment got messed up. My New Year's Wish was for an "edit" button here!

I will repost:

@ Scott,

"Alas, sorry again saying one person who converts, while fudging definitions of sexual orientation, homosexuality and even bisexuality, does NOT in anyway disprove anything about homosexuality have biological roots."

I didn't offer any definition of sexual orientation or anything else.

The claim of the homosexual side is homosexuality is inborn and therefore cannot be changed. It's up to them to prove it.

And it's easily disproved, because if there is even one person who is a former homosexual, that claim goes out the window. Ever see any former blue-eyed people or former Hispanic people or former Chinese people? Of course not.

And there are many more former homosexuals than just one!

Therefore, homosexuality is not inborn. Period.

@ Scott

"With there being thousands of versions of Christianity in the world..."

What "thousand versions of Christianity" are those? Care to list some?

"none of which agree on the role of women in society, how to deal with gays and gay rights, abortion, science and whether or not shrimp are an abomination."

Oh, brother. Again, care to name those thousands? Or even a handful? Care to explain how none of them "agree on the role of women in society, how to deal with gays and gay rights, abortion, science and whether or not shrimp are an abomination."

What on earth do all these other issues have to do with the original point of homosexuality anyway? It's bizarre how you choose to dump all this stuff together.

***

"Mo's lame answer, how one convert disproves biological origins."

What lame answer was that?

"That's easy. One atheist disproves the existence of any god."

Nonsense. Atheism is the claim that god(s) do not exist. If someone makes that claim, it's up to THEM to defend it, not the other side to prove the opposite.

Just like the "homosexuality is inborn" side needs to prove their claim - which you consistently refuse to do. Instead, you bring in all sorts of other issues that have no relation to the topic, and you make all sort of other claims for which you will not provide any evidence.

Brad,
Thanks for the nice condescension, it's cute.

This is to both you and Mo, regarding his statement. It's a good sound bite, but not an argument. Even Alan agrees that there is change both directions, which does show a biological origin. How do we know the people going through the changes are not Kinsey 3's and are deciding to stick with there straight side. (You guys do know about the Kinsey scale, right?)

Oh and it's not up to the the atheist to disprove the existence of any God, that's for the proponents of those God's.

With sexuality there are ways of measuring if one is gay or straight. There is a device that goes around a certain part of the male anatomy, and there is one for females, to record responses to erotic stimuli. The autonomic response is noted related to the various images shown. Yes, we can use that to match with the persons own statements about their sexuality.

As for Suzanne. Two words: Leelah Alcorn. And read her suicide note. "Conversion Therapy" damages people by starting with the false assumption that gays are broken.

As for your answer: Which God, which rules? The last time I checked the document we use to govern this country, it starts "We the People. . ", not "God decrees".

And yes, the laws regarding gays need to be change. Right now people can be fired from jobs in 29 states for merely being gay. Not all of the states allow gay marriage.

What moral/ethical rules do you want to talk about? Do you follow the rules that says that women are unclean during their menstrual periods or after giving birth? Humanists consider both of those concepts stupid. The Bible is full of rules that make no sense in our modern society.

As Alan points out some people can change and some can't. The best way to understand that is that homosexuality has a major biological component.

Angel,
There are people in which their sexuality is fluid, bisexuals for one. However for most people are at either end of the Kinsey spectrum, 1's or 6's, it's not. The best answer is that it does depend on the person. It would be better for all in our society that it doesn't matter what one's sexual orientation is, as long as the person is practicing consensual, cooperative and understanding relationships. Why should it matter whether one marries a male or female. Sexual relations should be mutual and consensual and beyond outside of that, not other peoples business, well unless they want to share.

Of the 3 options you list, I go with both nature and nurture. There are basic things that are part of our biology and parts that are influenced by upbringing. Abuse in childhood has been shown to damage a persons approach to sexuality, which is why I go with that.

The ongoing studies of sexuality and genetics continue to show that it's not one gene or area of our genetics, but possibly interrelated to other parts of genetic structure. It will take more time to understand what parts of our genes influence our sexuality.

Mo,
Different versions of Christianity. Well, let's start with Amish, Catholic, Orthodox Catholic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Morman, Mennonite, Baptist. That's just a start. All of those listed have different belief statements, different salvation rules, different rules for women in the church, etc.

Catholics, Baptists and some versions of Lutheranism do not allow women to be clergy. There are some versions of Lutheranism where women are not allowed to vote for church matters. Some versions allow women to teach children church doctrine but not men. Religions are complicated things. Christianity has been splintering in different directions since whatever time you want to call it's founding.

I mention it because there are growing numbers of churches that accept gays as they are. And there is no way to know most people's religion by looking at them, just like being gay or straight.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s), and is NOT stating that Gods do not exist, merely that they do not have a god belief. So again, it is NOT the job of an atheist to disprove the existence of any God, but that of it's proponents. You're the one demanding the wrong side to prove it's case.

If homosexuality does NOT have a biological basis, why do people become homosexuals? We've known that there have been humans attracted sexually to there own gender for a long time. Most the reasons people have posted here, do not answer the question any better.

I have no idea which version of Christianity you subscribe to. Religious beliefs are far more changeable than one's sexuality. I've seen many people change their religious beliefs and no one change their sexual orientation. Religion is a bit like sexuality, you can't tell from the outside what someone is, we can only figure it out from behavior.

Sexuality is complex, just like religion. There is no one answer that fits for all of us.

Mo,
LOL on the mis-post. I lost one earlier today due to trying to write it at work during a busy day and the website telling me I took too long and reset the page as I tried to post it.

Try using the preview button to proofread, I found it easier to read the post than in the box you type it up in.

Hi Scott, I have a pair of Proverbs for you:

Pro 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.

You'll get a little of each so long as you choose to play along where you obviously have no game. If you think my post to you was condescending, but cant respond to the substance of the critical nature therein that points out your inability to reason well in debate/argumentation, then I think you are more blind than the average fool and even a young child would have to condescend to reach you.

Since you didn't let me know whether or not my paraphrase of your statement regarding how moral and ethical standards come about, I guess we have nothing to discuss...once again all you did was rant...and even that was just rehashed opinion from the world according to Scott. You said nothing to make me believe that you can distinguish an argument from assertion or that you even have the desire to communicate toward fruitful dialogue.

Mo was right early on to call it quits with you, now I wonder if he regrets it.


Brad B,
OH NO, I've been hit with Bible verses. Oh woe is me. It's almost as bad as being waved at with a stick with someone yelling "Expelliarmus".

I did express an interest in discussing the origins of morals and ethics, but you seem to have missed it and prefer character attacks instead.

My concerns is that gays are constantly under attack by religious conservatives who have trouble with the reality of there actually being happy, normal gay people in the world. Considering you never answered any of my real world comments about gays, I can see that you prefer the abstract from reality. As you conservatives say, "Ideas have consequences", Leelah Alcorn was a real life victim of "conversion therapy" which is advocated by a poster here. Try the real world, it's way more fascinating than the make believe world of the Bible.

I'm not impressed with the denizens of "Stand to Reason".

"I did express an interest in discussing the origins of morals and ethics, but you seem to have missed it and prefer character attacks instead."
Now we know you cant comprehend what you read or follow instructions/requests...much less take criticism meant to help you make a point.
"My concern is...."snip
Yea, we know what your concern is, we've seen it repeated in assertion/opinion over and over again with fallacious argumentation thrown about against all who participated. Mixed in with your opinion is disdain/contempt for anyone who uses a buzz word/phrase that sets you off.

Your rage has further blinded you such that you cant even see that you come off as a raging/ranting simpleton who can only string words together but cannot reason coherently beyond initial thought, [much of that thought just talking points spoon fed I'm sure.]

I"m not impressed with the denizens of "Stand to Reason"

I will take that as a compliment...seriously.

@ Scott,

"Different versions of Christianity. Well, let's start with Amish, Catholic, Orthodox Catholic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Morman, Mennonite, Baptist."

I don't know what "Morman" is as a religion. I know the LDS religion. If that's what you mean, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an entirely different and separate religion than Christianity.


The fact that you'd list it here (and along with the others) makes me wonder how much you know about what Christianity even is or teaches.

"That's just a start. All of those listed have different belief statements, different salvation rules, different rules for women in the church, etc."

Is that so? Care to name all of them?

"Catholics, Baptists and some versions of Lutheranism do not allow women to be clergy."

So? What does that have to do with the fundamentals of the Christian faith?

The rest is more of the same - the usual attempt to switch the focus from whether homosexuality is inborn, to some issues about a religion that you don't follow and clearly know very little about.

"I mention it because there are growing numbers of churches that accept gays as they are."

What does that mean, "accept them as they are"?

"And there is no way to know most people's religion by looking at them, just like being gay or straight."

What on earth does that even mean?

That's as far as I'll go. My experience has been that people love to throw out a pile of objections (usually having little to do with the original topic) and then others try to address each point - only to be ignored and then a whole new list of things is thrown out.

OH NO, I've been hit with Bible verses. Oh woe is me. It's almost as bad as being waved at with a stick with someone yelling "Expelliarmus".
Thus also you display your inability to understand the point of a remark.

Brad wasn't trying to convince you with the Bible verse, but to explain why, from the standpoint of his own world-view, he was beginning to lose patience with you.

Scott, you haven't shown the slightest indication of the ability to reason coherently. Your posts read like an examples section in a text on logical fallacies. And you seem to show no indication that you can receive criticism on that. As with many in your boat, you actually think you are more rational than those who far surpass you.

I suspect it's your atheism talking. Like many atheists, you tend to think that the mere fact that you are an atheist makes you more rational than theists.

I'm frankly impressed with Brad's patience with you.

Dittos for Mo.

Wisdomlover,

"Thus also you display your inability to understand the point of a remark."

Actually yes. A cheap insult. Par for the course with Brad.

And apparently that's your approach as well.

What does "atheism talking"? That's gibberish.

Have you guys anything to offer other than "Scott you don't argue the right"?

@ Scott

"Have you guys anything to offer other than "Scott you don't argue the right"?"

Several commenters here (including me) have posted thoughtful comments and have tried to engage you in productive dialogue. You've offered little in return besides changing the topic and childish insults.

Scott-

You say: "That's gibberish."

Do you honestly want me to believe that you don't know what these words mean:

Like many atheists, you tend to think that the mere fact that you are an atheist makes you more rational than theists.
If you don't know what these words mean, then you have serious difficulty understanding standard english. If you do know what they mean, then your 'gibberish' charge is a blind, and I have hit perilously close to the mark.

Either way, you need to brush up your thinking if you actually want to carry on a coherent debate. You might check some of the resources on this very web site.

Well Scott, I dont know where you honed your debate skills but even if you think that we here that participate in STR's blog posts are just being obtuse or nit picky about how one argues, I have a challenge for you...watch the video of Dave Wood in the post titled "If God Can Save Him, God Can Save Anybody". It's about 30 minutes and Wood says some interesting things regarding worldviews.

I have 2 more Proverbs for you,

Pro 27:6 "Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful"

And: Pro 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction."

So friend, your ability to reason well, carry on an argument rationally/coherently, and even reading comprehension to understand an objection to your statements prohibits you from making any headway in your effort to convince us of any legitimacy of your concerns.

You have no chance to establish a legitimate position with out logic being your bulldog. I assure you that we here at STR's blog will ultimatley succumb to good logical argumentation. We dont always argue logically, it isn't easy but we strive for a coherent worldview and good logical argumentation allows all who participate to have their worldview probed for foundational support. Again I urge you to watch Dave Wood's testimony.

Brad.
I watched the video. Do you consider that to be the type of logic, rationality and reason you're looking for on the forum here?

Just curious.

Hi Scott, I'm glad you took the time to watch. I was pretty specific about what I pointed out for you to look for, specifically what David said about his worldview prior to inspecting them and his living out the consequences of the propositions he considered foundational. Until he was confronted by an opposing worldview and in fact took the challenge to measure his against the Christian he shared a cell with, he didn't know the hollow/empty/unsupported view he embraced.

You may think just because his worldview as an atheist, having led him to the conclusion that nothing matters, is not typical of atheists in general but philosophically, his conclusion was rationally justified...starting from materialistic, atheism.

Any other atheist/materialist/naturalist who doesn't come to that conclusion has flawed logic...ususally at the foundational level where a leap is required and never revistied while a whole further worldview is constructed upon it. The more sophisticated atheists have genreally good logical systems of thought and appear to make sense...until inspected for foundational grounding.

This is why I suggest that you hang around this site and have your worldview probed...we do it all the time on various topics. I'm not going to try to convince you now that your atheism should cause you to:
Not care one bit about others,
Have no reason to consider that any thoughts you have can be trusted,
Morality is not binding...upon you or anyone else
That freedom of choice is an illusion since genes and electrical impulses determine actions
That ugly, beauty, love, hate, are meaningless terms

This list could go on and on but I have serious doubts that you live your life according to Atheism and its religious doctrines that have been constructed to allow civility and the appearance of living a life where good is valued...all with no foundational supports.

This is not the thread topic for this discussion but maybe in time you can probe the authentic Christian worldview on this site and allow yours to be probed also. I think at the least you will find that we who have faith in Jesus Christ are not at all blind in our beliefs and strive to have reasonable faith that best explains life as experienced by humanity.

Hope to see you around.

Brad,
Thanks for the response.

I'll certainly keep checking the site out.

The arguments for a sexual orientation being biological are spurious. Many people's "sexual orientation" is fluid at different ages, as their bodies and minds develop through puberty. The "I always knew I was different" argument is also a dead end. Every human grasps that they are different. It's why we form into cliques in school as we look for people who share our outlook on life. Identical twin studies show that biological factors play at most a minor role in "sexual orientation".

Then, Scott, you launch down the contradictory path of bringing in "transgenderism". Is sexuality biological or is sexuality cultural and psychological? Transgenders have the biology of one sex but identify (or wish to identify) psychologically with the opposite sex or someplace in between. The same psychologists who took homosexuality off the list of psychological disorders (for, what they admit were political and NOT scientific reasons) now are trying to foist of on humanity the notion that biology has nothing to do with sexual preferences at all, as least where "gender" is concerned. For gays, though, it's totally biological . . . (that way we can make accepting what most human civilizations, and basic biology itself recognize as aberrant behavior a matter of "civil rights".)

These twin, but contradictory arguments by the GLBT crowd amount to one basic line of reasoning that you can find in books like "The Origin of Heterosexuality": heterosexual monogamy is a perversion, and sexual "perversions" are normal. This is not a scientific claim, though those who cite it often try to bring in the largely discredited field of evolutionary psychology (bizarre sexual behavior in animals proves that it's also natural in humans, even though humans don't share a common ancestor with said animal more recent than 60 million years ago and in spite of the obvious fact that sex is primarily about reproduction). It's a cultural/ideological movement based more on the rejection of natural sexuality and morality (by branding it "repressed" or "religious" - by which they mean irrational) than on anything actually scientific. That's why, even though the origins of homosexual behavior are often traced to childhood abuse, it's labeled "discredited" by politically and religiously motivated people, so that it can be dismissed or ignored (like the good and discriminated against people at NARTH).

On a side note, Scott. Where in either of my responses have I appealed to God or Scripture? The Bible affirms natural sexuality (humans are biologically heterosexual monogamous creatures). Maybe the One who designed sexuality into humans understands that deviations from that are unhealthy, biologically, psychologically, and socially. The statistics (the SCIENCE) backing up this truth are voluminous. Promiscuity will make you sick, homosexuals have a much lower life expectancy than the general population, even though they have, on average, much higher income levels. Those who indulge in promiscuous and what used to be recognized as perverted sexual behavior (homosexual sex, group sex, casual sex, abusive sex, beastial sex) have a variety of psychological problems shown in higher rates of drug addiction, depression, and suicide. And the social cost of this behavior is also backed up by reams of studies that link crime rates, lower grades, and serious psychological problems in the children created by and raised amidst all this abnormal sexual activity. The dramatic rise in gender confused kids coincides with the increased levels of gender confusion in our culture intentionally created by these "experts" who are all over the map with their pseudoscience. But they all agree on one thing: "traditional morality is bad, and we want to sleep around with whoever we want to sleep with."

The comments to this entry are closed.