Jesus Christ Forums

[LindaBee2]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050713a.asp

I only really have one thing to say: How dare these protestors butt in on a private family matter? Whenever a Christian else tries to tell gay people that their lifestyle goes against God's will, the response is usually, "Butt out! It's none of your business." Yet when a concerned parent (Who, yes, is a Christian) longs to prevent something disastrous from happen to their child(ren) (both in this life and the next), suddenly gay extremists pop out of the woodwork and start telling the parents what they should do with their own children.

What are they so afraid of? I think the answer's obvious. They're terrified of the possibility that the program that Love in Action offers actually works and that people, including Zach Stark, will abandon their homosexuality and pursue godly relationships. If this program actually works, they'll be forced to admit that homosexuals are capable of changing. They don't want to admit that, and so they instead have chosen to take part in a witch hunt.

So in short, the protestors should butt out and mind their own business. They should leave this family alone. Haven't they gone through enough?

[Geshtinnanna]

Wow. I agree. This is no one's business but the family. More than likely the kid will either get straight or do what most gays do: Hide it until they are 18. Either way I really don't understand the protest. It's not like having these types of programs is gonna make gays who do not want this to be straight.

Witch hunts are bad on all sides of the fence.
_________________
I smell poop. Stop typing crap!

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

I suggest you reread out prior exchange since both APA's, the AMA, and other so called professional organizations refuse to engage in "objective and unbiased education on homosexuality". Also in our prior exchange you resorted to "unsupported assumptions about homosexuality and attempt to argue their viewpoint in highly intellectually dishonest manners."

If you really believe that education and using an intellectually honest approach is the best way to discuss this issue then why not push the APA's to revisit the issue they obscured in the early 70's by appealing to Kinsey (a study you agree is flawed) and a totally biased and unscientific study done by Evelyn Hooker.
_________________

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

When are you going to cease your sophomoric attempts to avoid issues you brought up and then cannot defend? The fact is your only defense that counseling for overcoming homosexuality is based on the American Psychiatric Associations removal of homosexuality as a pathological condition from the DSMIII, and when you could not rebutt what I posted on the bisexuality thread you abandoned the discussion.

How you choose to live your life is your right and I support your right to live your life as you choose. However, when a so called science changes based on outright lies, appeals to false studies, and is dictated to by activists then that science is no longer a science but a political action committee.

When are you going to accept that people can change their sexual orientation? We do exist and to use a phrase I have heard from gay activists "we do exist so get used to it".
_________________

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

Are you done with throwing tantrums? There is a plethora of evidence that people can and have changed their sexual orientation with and without professional help. You can find such evidence by simply checking the Internet. However, as you have shown on other threads all you want to do is ignore such proofs. Also I referred to Dr. Spitzer's latest study, which was not done decades ago but in the last 5 years so your insistence that I keep referring to old studies is simply an outright lie.

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

Thank you for proving my point. Dr. Spitzer is not associated with any ex-gay ministry or association. Also his initial studies were based on his private practice. As to Dr. Throckmorton all you have done is attempt to discredit a physchologist who disagrees with you.

What is telling about your posts is you ask for proof and then ignore available proof that demonstrates that people can change. As to posting my own thoughts I have, which you and other radicle gays simply discount as religious lies. Also you discount anecdotal studies and then appeal to your own anecdotal experiences in an attempt to discredit what other people share. In other words lemmein, you are a hypocritical bigot that refuses to tolerate those who disagree with you while at the same time demanding tolerance of your own views. This is typical of irrational radicles on both sides of this issue.

What else is telling about your posts is you deny appealing to the APA's and then link to articles that deal with APA decisions; decisions that were based on flawed and unscientific studies, which include Kinsey's 1948 debunked study and Hooker's less than scientific study. If you want to keep the APA's out of this discussion then don't link to your college's pyschology department that parrots what the APA preaches without appealing to sound peer-reviewed studies using a broad base of people that are not hand picked to come to an unscientific conclusion.

If you took the time to read what I posted about pathology and homosexuality I posted that for some homosexuality is pathological and your response is I am wrong. Now prove it. Lying is not pathological but mental health professionals treat pathological liars. Anxiety and depression are not always pathological but for some both are serious mental health conditions that are treatable (even curable) with proper counseling. So you whole thesis falls apart.

As to my referring you to articles that is what is known as self-education, something I encourage all people to do including those seeking help overcoming their gay orientation. I have never posted or claimed that changing ones sexual orientation is easy in fact, depending on the age of the individual it can take years.
_________________

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

Why should I continue to revisit a topic you abandoned? The fact is you can't seem to get away from UC Davis' psychology department, which bases its conclusions on the flawed studies used by the APA in 1973. When you address those studies instead of ignoring the very foundation for your thesis then I might address what you consider flawed studies based on your own bigotry and bias.

You are also harping on reparative therapy, which is only one technique out of many that are available to assist those seeking professional help (or do I need to remind you that many exgays changed their orientation without seeking professional help).

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

And you have a dirty mouth that needs to be cleaned up.

Spitzer was one of the supporters of the APA's 1973 decision and as I posted on the other thread was quoted as saying if other conditions such as fetishes were as organized as the gay lobby they might get thier psychological conditions normalized. So now that Spitzer has realized that the APA decision was not totally accurate he is targeted by other's in his profession for exposing the fraud perpetrated by the APA.

What you have failed to realize is your whole house of cards is based on a decision made in 1973 that appealed to Kinsey and other flawed (to use your terminology) studies and gay activists disrupting APA annual meetings. If that decision had never been made this whole discussion would not be taking place.

The fact of the matter is that some people can and have successfully changed their sexual orientation and to deny this is to deny reality. You can resort to your petty name calling, denigrating highly qualified and experienced psychologists and psychiatrists all you want but all you are doing is showing the depths of your bigotry and hatred for reality. You are also demonstrating that tolerance for opposing views based on sound scientific research is not part of your agenda.

As to making claims they cannot back up I again suggest your review your posts in the Bisexuality forum where that was your main method of attack. Your insistence that reparative therapy was developed by ex-gay ministries, that ex-gay ministries appealed to Kinsey's 1948 study and etc. are simply outright lies and claims you cannot prove.

Now if you cannot be civil your account will be terminated.
_________________

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

First of all I am not going to rehash this thread, http://www.freejesus.net/home/viewtopic.php?t=6628&start=0 where you made outrageous claims and refused to respond to the facts I posted regarding the APA's use of the faulty Kinsey report and Hooker's less than scientific study in its decision to remove homosexuality from the DSMIII.

It is on that thread where you will find the quote from Spitzer you deny is true. You will also find sources from members of the APA and gay sites that support my claim that gay activism was in part used by the APA in making its 1973 decision.

I wonder if you really read the site concerning Dr. Spitzer. From that article:

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

You are being obtuse. Let's look at what you quoted:

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

First of all there are many Internet sites where you can find ex-gays, which is why gay activists and you try to prove by the use of current mainline psychological precepts that gays cannot change and to try to change them is psychologically harmful. So you are asking for proof that gays can change from an ex-gay man. In other words the proof is staring you in the face but you refuse to accept the proof. Have your heard of Joe Dallas, Dennis Jernigan, Stephen Bennet, Bob Davies, Noe Gutierrez (his “defection” from gay to ex-gay caused quit a stir among gay activists) and etc.? I can list hundreds of out and proud ex-gays.

Second you took my post regarding homosexuality is pathological for some gays and changed it to straight when in fact their are many ex-straights who through counseling came to terms with their being gay and came out and divorced their wives. A major player for gay activism is Mel White co-founder of SoulForce who is an ex-straight. Therefore you have all the proof you need but refuse to accept it.

I think the person who needs a lesson in Logic 101 is you.

As to my ranting about the APA a group you appealed to in the Bisexuality thread and now have attempted to abandon; the only reason I am ranting about the APA is that group used the same tactics to normalize homosexuality that you find reprehensible about the political religious right. But then basing a decision on lies is okay if it supports your claims and is not okay when it does not?

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

You asked for proof that people can change their sexuality and there is a lot of proof that people can and have changed their sexuality. You denigrate Spitzer for using the same techniques as those who support your side of this debate, which is based on the APA. So if anyone is ignoring facts and what can and cannot be proven it is you. The fact is the only proof you or I can give to back up our side of the issue is anecdotal evidence that you refuse to accept and I will accept (with reservations based on techniques and how research universes are chosen). I have acknowledged that some who try to change their sexuality fail, but not simply because of reparative therapy, which has been used effectively for some. So I think the one demonstrating idiocy is you.

I see you ignored my question by playing the Sophist, which is about the only thing one who ignores plain evidence can do when they are cornered without a way of escape. If I did not accept and respect the U.S. Constitution your account would have been terminated. You have been allowed to post your lies and you have been given a lot of leeway in regards to our Forum Rules so why refuse to answer my question?

Homosexuality is neither innate, immutable, nor inborn and people can and have changed from gay to straight and from straight to gay. Why is it so difficult for you to accept this simple and demonstrated truth?
_________________

[Aineo]

lemmein, maybe you will respond to a question in regard to this part of your last post:

[lemmein]

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

I see you avoided my question as to what proof you would consider to be acceptable to any "same rational person". It that because all you have appealed to are anecdotal studies that cannot prove to "any sane rational person" that homosexuality cannot be "cured" by effective theraphy where the client wants to be cured of a condition that has been effectively treated by psychotheraphy and/or psychoanalysis?

You keep referring to Spitzer's flawed study that was based on anecdotal information and refuse to address the fact that all studies used by the APA were in fact flawed anecdotal studies that fly in the face of serious science. Lets look at Hooker's study that was used by the APA as a basis for their 1973 decision.

[Aineo]

lemmein, can you show me any unbiased studies that show reparative therapy is dangerous that did not use hand picked ex-ex-gays? Can you show me any truly scientific research done since 1976 by either APA? The answer is no since both so called professional scientific organizations adamately refuse to conduct or sanction such studies.

Your hypocrisy is getting tiresome.

How can I associate myself with organizations that disagree with my personal philosophy? I don't associate myself with Jerry Falwell, Concerned Women for America, or any other organization that publishes outright lies aimed at the gay community. So once again you are posting assumptions that verge on outright lies.
_________________

[lemmein]

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

[lemmein]

[Aineo]

My position is that reparative therapy is beneficial for some seeking freedom from homosexual desires. You are the one who has posted that reparative therapy is dangerous.

[Aineo]

[lemmein]

I see you are not serious about debating this topic. I ask you to make your case for reparative therapy since you brought it up in this thread and all you've done is appeal to authority by insisting Dr. Satinover supports this practice (which says nothing really) instead of making an actual argument yourself.

Then you make a strawman argument by implying that I had said that anyone who's part of this forum is support its ideologies, when it was blatantly clear that I had questioned your support for such homophobic people and never have I seen you actually counter homophobic statements made by them.

This whole thread has been a charade. I asked a simple request and that was for you to support your assertion that changing sexual orientation is feasible and possibly. You provided one flawed study, brought up Dr. Throckmorton whose conclusions are entirely suspicious and then characterized my rebuttal as 'attacks'. Then you wander off making useless, irrelevant and tiresome statements of the APA for four whole pages while you continue to preach your empty rhetoric over and over again.

And lastly, you attempted to claim that I made a assertion on reparative therapy in this thread by bringing it up from an old thread. My position was and is the same. Ex-gay groups use reparative therapy and it is unproven and thus, potentially dangerous. This can be seen through this thread and the Bisexuality thread.

Your posts are filled with red herrings and other fallacies. It's not often I see someone commit multiple red herrings, an appeal to authority, a strawman, a shift of the burden of proof and an ad hominem in a single post. Congratulations, Aineo; you've just proved quite to be incapable of making a single honest argument. Ban me if you wish. I don't care to continue this ridiculous thread anymore. My position stands and your intellectually dishonest posts have done far more damage to your argument and credibility than I could have.

[Aineo]

Drs. Satinover, Throckmorton, Yarnhouse, and a plethora of other psychologists and psychiatrists use reparative therapy, so your assertion that I posted that just because Sr. Staninover supports its use I agree with him is false. Just how idiotic are you going to get in your desperate attempt to deny truth? Also if you have really read my posts reparative therapy was first developed by Freud and has been used for over a century by most (if not all) psychologists. The fact Dr. Moberly was the first to use the specific term does not mean the method is dangerous or faulty.

Now, the only reason reparative therapy is being discussed on this message board is because you brought it up and claim it is dangerous and faulty, an assertion you have failed to prove. Now you want to claim I have the buden of proof to prove you wrong, which is a logical fallacy.

The APA's and other professional organizations that back gay activisms attempts to discredit the ex-gay movement have only one option and that is to obfuscate the truth and disseminate outright lies and since you cannot disprove the efficacy of reparative and other methods of counseling those seeking to be free of their gay orientation you have resorted to slander, lies, and infantile trantrums. So I agree it is time to close this thread and move on. And you need to take your hate someplace else.
_________________