Aineo wrote: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.
I am not going to dwelve into this idiocy any further. I asked you to produce conclusive evidence for your claims and all you've done is continue to repeat your assertions without any support and accuse me of 'ignoring the proof'. :roll: Any sane rational person can see your lack of evidence.
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.
You have failed to show how sexual orientation is in any way correlated with being pathological. Again, you simply refuse to understand that your assumptions of sexual orientation holds no water until you can adequately show how it is. Hey, why stop here? Let me say that Christianity is pathological and accuse you of refusing to see the obvious 'truth'. I know I have nothing to show for that assertion but according to you, that's all I need to validate my claims. :roll:
I think the person who needs a lesson in Logic 101 is you.
I'm sure any rational observer will be competent enough to find your statement laughably ridiculous.
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?
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with normalizing homosexuality as homosexuality is perfectly, medically normal.
Secondly, your ranting about the APA or its supposed 'tactics' has nothing to do with the fact that you can't defend your position. Your habit of making red herrings and inability to stay on topic is costing you your credibility.
With emotion? So pointing out flaws such as how telephone interviews with participants that were hand picked by ex-gay groups and taking their answers at face value can provide skewed and biased data is critiquing with emotion? So tell me, what is your definition of critiquing with facts then? Only when I agree with you?
Funny thing about your comments concerning Spitzer's study is Evelyn Hooker, Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder used basically the same procedure to publish studies that support your side of this issue. I will again ask you "Can you spell hypocrite"?
I've read that entire paragraph and have not found a single word relevant to my point.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with non-Christians living their lives as they see fit no matter what Christianity teaches. I have made it clear that I do not believe that gays should be treated with less respect and dignity than any other human being. I have made it clear that I have gay friends and relatives that I dearly love. You are the one making an issue of homosexuality on a fundamentalist Christian message board and have posted one lie after another concerning the ex-gay movement in a futile attempt to prove we don’t exist. I have not gone to a gay message board preaching hell fire and damnation.
Hence, your own hypocrisy and dishonesty is shown. You continue to claim that you believe that gays should be respected as any other human being and that you believe in their choice of embracing their sexual orientation rather than repressing YET you support a fundamentalist group, which clearly differ greatly from those mentioned ideals. Unless of course, you would prove me wrong by showing that the group you are associated with agree that homosexuality is normal and that gays are entitled to basic civil rights such as
civil marriage then?
Now I have a question for you. Do you support the U.S. Constitution? If you do then why are you on a Christian message board debating an issue that is covered by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all American's free speech and freedom of religion?
Now I have a question for you. Do you support the U.S. Constitution? If you do then why are you critizing my right to dissent your opinions, which is covered by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all American's free speech and freedom of thought?