Re: How Should We Respond to Homo***uality?

In article <GvwPj.3844$wO1.1869@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, shegeek72 says...

>On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson
><matthew_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Three reasons:

>> 1) I have seen it change in persons I know

>So you claim, but how do we know this is true?

You don't. But you are missing the point. Have you forgotten what the
question was?

For that matter ,why did you snip w/o marking where you snipped?

>And if we are believe you, how do we know these persons have actually
>'changed'? In all the cases that I know of the homo***uality has not
>changed, but merely been sublimated.

And I could turn that around and ask you: how do -we- really know that
yours didn't change, that they only 'sublimated'?

We don't.

>> 2) I have heard others re****t it changed in persons _they_ know
>> (e.g.,http://wday.ru/love/twopeople/relation****p/_article/2496/)

>More questionable, second-hand re****ts?

No more questionable than all the cases you claim weren't really
changed.

>For someone who appears to value do***entation this fails.

Again, you miss the point.

>> 3) the Bible itself makes it clear that there exist cases where it
>> changed (see, g.e., Rom 1:18-32

>This section does not refer to the loving, longterm relation****ps of
>today.

How long do you think you can hide from the truth? This thread is not
_about_ such relation****ps, whether they exist or not; it is about the
_orientation_.

>It most likely refers to homo***ual rape and prostitution.

No, it does not. That is sheer speculation. Pretty obviously biased
speculation at that.

>But the most dramatic evidence that refutes your 'sources' are the Am.
>Psychological Assoc. and the Am. Psychiatry Assoc., which both state
>that homo***uality is not a choice and unchangeable.

Those "dramatic" sources are not good enough. How could they be, when
even the very meeting where that decision was taken was so heavily
politicized? How could it be, when the no less scientific Catholic
Medical Association finds the very opposite?

>Indeed, the vast majority of therapists and ***ologists agree.

Just like the majority of prostitutes agree that prostitution should
be legal?

Perhaps you missed the Yahoo! article about how the majority of
doctors were wrong about drinking 8 gl***** of water a day?

>But, of course, modern science is wrong and you're right.

Ah, but what you call "modern science" is not really scientific at
all. That is the dirty secret you try to suppress.


-- 
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)