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

In article <R2aQj.15017$Zk5.8410@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, RP says...

>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:KYSPj.6065$kt1.5405@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <GvwPj.3847$wO1.3002@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, RP says...

>>>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:QuaPj.605$Y81.79@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>What are your reasons in believing it's not?


>>>> That it is not "hard-wired before birth"?

>>>> Three reasons:

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

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

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

>>>> These three reasons are reason enough to disbelieve all the many
>>>> irresponsible
>>>> voices claiming to have evidence for the impossible.


>>>Like Einstein said, theory is theory until you have the data to make it
a
>>>fact.

>> And you do not have the data to make it a fact.

>> We know you do. We knew this several posts ago. You add nothing to the
>> discussion by repeating this unproven and unprovable assertion.

>Oh there have been studies...and there is data....

But not "data to make it a fact". In fact, all your incoherent
citations below are from an _extremely_ biased source, the source the
Moderator gave below.

Why, you didn't _even_ address my three points above. You are trying
to sidestep them completely. This proves that you don't really have
any sup****t.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Are 'ex-gay' ministries therapy or spiritual abuse?

Even this question presumes the fallacy called the "false dilemma".

>Task Force study fuels debate over success rates, personal toll
>The study, titled "Youth in the Crosshairs: The Third Wave of Ex-Gay 
>Activism," do***ents the high failure rate of conversion therapy.

Even the title already reveals how severely biased the 'study' is.

>The study 
>also contends that ex-gay ministries harm gay people by causing
depression 
>and damaging their relation****ps with family members and friends.

This claim is absurd on the face of it. No further study is even
needed to recognize its absurdity.

>Participants in ex-gay programs also re****ted loneliness and ***ual 
>dysfunction, the study says.

This is even more absurd. So don't be surprised at how much I snip below.

[snip]

>Dr. Douglas Haldeman, a clinical psychologist in Seattle, said he has
seen 
>firsthand "the wreckage of the ex-gay ministries." When he first started
his 
>clinical practice in 1983, Haldeman said he treated a gay Mormon who had 
>undergone electro-shock therapy to try to change his ***ual orientation. 
>Since then he said he has treated numerous patients who dropped out of 
>ex-gay programs.

Do you know what a "statistical outlier" is? Electroshock therapy for
such treatment is so inappropriate, it should surprise no one it
failed. But it is _not_ typical of such therapeutic programs.

Rather, your use of this example is a perfect example of a classic
fallacy: taking the worst evidence and pretending it is your
opponent's best. It isn't. Whoever this is who used electroshock for
this was simply a nut case.

You cannot use his example to prove we are all nutcases;)

>"All of organized mental health, which is based on science and research, 
>discredit these conversion therapy theories," Haldeman said.

Haldeman may very well say that, but neither you nor he have exhibited
any real evidence for this.

>Haldeman said the ex-gay ministries tend to attract vulnerable people who

>may already suffer from low self-esteem.

Believe it or not, some of us are so tired of all the incredible
nonsense introduced under claims that so-and-so is "suffering from low
self-esteem", we stop listening once you make this claim.

[snip]

>'I was born to be gay'

Look: we all _know_ you guys like to claim this. But I already gave
the reasons I do not find this claim convincing, simply repeating it,
and quoting others who repeat it, proves _nothing_.

Unless, of course, it proves that you _have_ no rational argument,
that you can _only_ make irrational appeals in sup****t of your
disastrous belief.

[snip]


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