Defending the Truth

So I suppose you think all the people in the links below are liars:

Focus on the Family

People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires

Catholic Culture : Missing Page Redirect

Welcome to Donnie McClurkin.com

Exodus International - Real Stories

LightHouse World Evangelism, Inc.

Homosexuality: Seeing Past the Propaganda (Is Homosexuality Harmful? Can it Be "Cured" or Treated?)

JOHN PAULK: former homosexual

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20041001.shtml

Politically Correct Psychiatry

Spitzer Forced to Cancel Appearance to Discuss His Ex-‘Gay’ Study [Free Republic]

Do All Gays Believe They Have to Stay That Way?

http://www.firststone.org/news&conf/..._interview.htm

My Path to Lesbianism | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

and yet miraculously you are right!

Do you know the APA does NOT regard bestiality as a mental illness either?

We can play semantical games about how you choose to describe homosexuality, but you will have a hard time persuading most people that it isn't abnormal/dysfunctional/weird.

And whilst we accept these people in society it doesnt mean we think their dysfunctionality is any less weird, nor that we should redefine marriage to accommodate them.

We can play semantical games about how you choose to describe yourself, but you will have a hard time persuading most people that you aren't a total and complete asshole.

And, yet, we've managed to allow an asshole like you to be accommodated with marriage.

garysher:

So I suppose you think all the people in the links below are liars:

Focus on the Family

People Can Change - An alternative, healing response to unwanted homosexual desires

Catholic Culture : Missing Page Redirect

Welcome to Donnie McClurkin.com

Exodus International - Real Stories

LightHouse World Evangelism, Inc.

Homosexuality: Seeing Past the Propaganda (Is Homosexuality Harmful? Can it Be "Cured" or Treated?)

JOHN PAULK: former homosexual

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20041001.shtml

Politically Correct Psychiatry

Spitzer Forced to Cancel Appearance to Discuss His Ex-‘Gay’ Study [Free Republic]

Do All Gays Believe They Have to Stay That Way?

http://www.firststone.org/news&conf/..._interview.htm

My Path to Lesbianism | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

every single one of these sources is driven by their religious belief. some of them are honest enough to state it outright, the others seem to be ashamed of the fact that their "therapy" is actually preaching and they do not say that they are religiously inspired.

not to say there is anything inherently wrong with religion. preachers have a lot of good things to say, but they have little to say about medical and scientific issues, this is best left to doctors and scientists. specifically, it is best left to doctors and scientists who do not let their religious beliefs guide their thinking.


and yet miraculously you are right!

you have not actually been able to comment on why i am wrong. you have just been able to say that there are some religious people who disagree.

Do you know the APA does NOT regard bestiality as a mental illness either?

yes they do. it is included under the broad term "paraphilia not otherwise specified". so is necrophilia, making obscene phone calls and other bizarre sexual fantasies. whether they should be considered a mental illness or just considered bad behaviour is still open to debate, but the classification system will not change until the debate is had.

medicine is a very conservative profession. diagnoses, management and treatment tend to change very slowly and only when there is sufficient evidence to inform the medical community and allow the right decision to be made. in the case of these paraphilias, there is little information available and it is very difficult to get reliable information. for this reason, the diagnoses and classification has not changed, but it may in the future when more is known.

homosexuality is comparatively easy to get information about (although still difficult). and the information is available and has been debated and argued for years in journals, conferences and other places by both sides. the argument is over. the only people who cannot see that, as i mentioned above, are those driven by their religious agenda or their own homophobia.

We can play semantical games about how you choose to describe homosexuality, but you will have a hard time persuading most people that it isn't abnormal/dysfunctional/weird.

only those blinded by bias (admittedly that is a large number of people). those that are able to look at the evidence have decided otherwise.

And whilst we accept these people in society it doesnt mean we think their dysfunctionality is any less weird, nor that we should redefine marriage to accommodate them.

you need to stop using the argument that homosexuals are dysfunctional and mentally ill. continuing to say this makes you look very narrow minded and more than a bit silly.

marriage has been redefined in the past and it has been defined differently in different places. it has been defined as a union between a man and as many women as he chooses. it has been defined as a permanent union until death.

you seem to think that the current definition of marriage in the western world in the 21st century is the only definition that is valid. society has changed and marriage has been redefined to allow divorce, this has fundamentally reshaped the meaning and significance of marriage. society has matured to require this change and the old traditions were updated to reflect this. society has been quite happy to redefine marriage in the past.

fxashun:

But in regards to homosexuality, that hasn't been done yet. The "why" is still a big question mark. It just remains another sexual abnormality that effects men more than women, seems to be innate, and has no real purpose. Which also describes pedo and zoo, other sexually deviant urges that we don't hear as much complaint about if I call them freaks. It just happens that homosexuals happen to have a malfunction that still points them to other humans that have the same malfunction. Instead of children and animals.

go back to my last post on the other thread. you have essentially repeated yourself here.

breifly, there is evidence for homosexuality being a healthy, normal variant of human sexuality, providing distinct survivial benefits and contributing to human evolution and society.

not that you will bother to read what i posted previously. and not that you will take it in if you do read it. obviously stanfords' professor of biology and the fellows of the royal society are less informed than you.

Perhaps because it is often religious belief, or belief in a "higher power" leads to a cure for homosexuals, and alcoholics.

I suppose you would be equally dismissive of all the success achieved by Alcoholics Anonymous and their 12 step program!!

AA has never claimed to cure alcoholism. they claim to be able to control the behaviour and reduce the subjective anxiety caused by the behaviour. and the behaviour is itself destructive and dangerous and unwanted by the participants. this is a very different issue to claims to cure homosexuality.

AA itself do not adhere to any religious doctrine. they refer to "a higher power, whatever you percieve it to be". their own information admits some people think this is God, some think it is something else, some think it is the AA meetings themselves. this is different to reparative therapy guided by the bible.

i said before, religion has a lot of good things to say, and it can be tremendously valuable and important in someones life. but the bible is not a medical textbook and should not be used as evidence for pathology.

treatment for alcoholism is offered by numerous different agencies and services of different kinds and all have evidence for their success. this again is very different to reparative therapy.

BTW many of those "religious people" are also psychologists and members of the APA.

the major group, NARTH has about 1000 members. the APA has 38 000. and many APA members who agree that homosexuality is healthy are religious too.

i have said before that the majority are not always right, nor the minority always wrong, but with figures like this, you need to wonder if it is the 98% that are wrong or the 2%

there are also psychologists who are specialised in recovering memories of alien abductions. just because you have the qualification does not mean everything you do is reasonable.





you seem to think that the current definition of marriage in the western world in the 21st century is the only definition that is valid.

yes, i do.

thank you for your tacit agreement that marriage can be and has been redefined.

The same could be said for pedo and zoofie. There are marriages in some cultures that attest to it. What a society can accept and can be rationalized to "work" doesn't make it something that humans are supposed to do. There is no evidence that specifically supports homosexuality from all aspects of human observation. Only if you concentrate on one aspect at a time can you cram it into some resemblance something a human might have evolved to. But you will always run into the problem with "why" a human would still have a sexual urge yet have no evolved systems to support it. And again, in that, it shares aspects of pedo and zoofie. Because just as humans were evolved to eat animals and veggies and not rocks, they were evolved to have sex heterosexually and not [insert optional crap here].

Obviously.

That is not true

it was one-man-one-woman-of-the-same-race-within-the-same-religion-and-exempting-those-
with-certain-physical-and-or-mental-problems-and-at-the-approval-of-the-parents

it was NOT simply one-man one-woman