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

In article <O2aQj.15007$Zk5.13248@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, A Brown says...

>>>> 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?

>No.  This experience is something that has obviously affected you.  But
you 
>expect everyone to come to a similar conclusion...not knowing this 
>individual you mention.

>Also, why doesn't he share his story...to offer sup****t to others?

If you understood the value of privacy, you would know the answer to
this question. But you hail from a class of callous persons who
believes that 'outing' is so good for society, you trample on
individual rights to get it. So I am not surprised you express such
eagerness for trampling on his privacy.

>>>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'?

>Because they have no stake in claiming anything different.

But why should I believe even this? Of course they could have a stake
in claiming something different. Why would you even know or admit what
that stake is?

So no, your 'sublimation' examples are not convincing. Your examples
have all the same weaknesses as mine, yet you do not see them, you
only see them in mine, because of your own bias.

>>>> 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.

>Second, third hand unverified information?

>Plus those that claim "no change" are public.  Your "change is possible" 
>people are all second and third hand accounts...impossible to verify.

No, not _all_ "second and third hand accounts" not all "impossible to
verify". It is not my fault if you can't read the article I cited.

For that matter, are you really so audacious as to dismiss the words
of Paul in Romans as "second and third hand accounts"?

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

>> Again, you miss the point.

>No, that's indeed the point.

>Instead you cling to things that you *wish* to believe or *want* to
>believe and accept them as true...with no facts, no verification,
>impossoble to prove.

>>>> 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_.

>How long are you going to _make up the Truth_  from the things you _want_
to 
>believe.

How long are you going to turn to loaded questions rather than face
the truth of what Scripture says?

>> Those "dramatic" sources are not good enough.

>Of course not...why let facts get in the way?

They aren't 'facts'.

>> How could it be, when the no less scientific Catholic Medical
>> Association finds the very opposite?

>Would you expect anything else from the CATHOLIC Medical Association?

Wrong question: of course not, since I happen to believe they are
right;)

>The _Catholic_ Medical Association has a dog in the fight.

>They are bias...and carry very little authority on this subject.

You miss my point. You and your sources all "have a dog in the fight"
as well, you and your sources are no more scientific than they are.

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

>But Rome is *always* right....right?

Again, if only you had a clue what you were doing here! If you had a
clue, you would know that I am the last person in this NG to suggest
that Rome is always right.

[snip]


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