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

In article <P2aQj.15008$Zk5.7711@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, A Brown says...

>>>> 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.

>Sure we do.  Look at the track records of those who have attempted
change.

You miss the point -- predictably. Their poor track record does _not_
prove your claim. All it proves is their poor track record.

Have you forgotten what your claim was? It was not only that the
change programs must fail, it was that they must fail because
orientation is 'hard-wired'.

>As has been stated....a dismal record.  Fact.  The numbers don't lie.

Numbers don't lie, but people who trot out that saying often do. Such
seems to be the case here, since the numbers sup****t only a different
point, _not_ your point.

>>>I think the overall failure rates of such "change" ministries is
>>>enough evidence

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

>It's not unprovable.  The research has been done...and the facts are
there.

If "the research has been done", then why haven't you cited it? And
why is the only research that _was_ cited so obviously biased?

>>> and reason enough to disbelieve people who pur****t to "know
>>>someone" who changed.

>> No, it is not reason enough. But more im****tant, you miss the
>> point: it was _you_ who claimed it is "hard-wired", so all it takes
>> is ONE counter example to prove you wrong. And I gave such a
>> counter example.

>An unverified example.  Again, good enough for you to have your opinion. 
>But you expect others to come to the same conclsuion on second and thrid 
>hand unverifiable information?

This is no more "unverifiable" than your sup****t for your opinion. Its
not my fault you can't read the article.

>>>Anyone see Ted Haggard?

>> Irrelevant, for reasons already explained.

>Relevant...for reasons explained (Part of the failure of "change
>minstries".)

Newsflash: your "reasons explained" were not convincing.

>>>Anyone hear of the Catholic Church Crisis?

>> This is _also_ irrelevant, since it does not even concern whether
>> or not ***ual orientation is 'hard-wired'.

>Again, part of the failure of "change ministries".

No, it is not. You are _presuming_ that the failure is due to
this. But this is where your evidence can only fail you.

>> If you have to keep bringing up such inflammatory,

>Why are they inflammatory?  They're all true.  Or do you not read the 
>papers?

I remember the days when "he believes what he reads in the papers" was
a biting commentary on a person's foolishness. It appears you haven't
yet figured it out; only fools believe what they read in the papers.

>> yet totally irrelevant points,

>Very relevant....for reasons already explained.

>> then you can only succeed in one thing: persuading the rest of the NG
>> that you have not got a leg to stand on,

>I dont see the NG jumping to your defense....?

Look again.

>> so you have to keep on resorting to
>> "red herrings".

>And you keep resorting to this mysterious yet unverifiable "person you've

>known" as your source of what is possible...or Russian fairy tales on the

>internet (cuz if it's on the internet, we know it's true!). 

No, I don't _keep_ resorting to it. I do it quite rarely. That you
exaggerate its frequency with your "And you keep resorting to this
mysterious..." shows how irresponsible you are.

I don't trust 'research' or 'facts' cited by such irresponsible
persons. Nobody should.


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