Homosexuality: ethical methods of outreach?

[BigBadWlf]

Except that there is no consensus of scientific proof for homosexual genetics.

There is not 100% consensus that disease and illness is caused by living creatures so small they cannot be seen with the human eye.


As has been said to others in this thread. If you want to claim that homosexuality has a specific origin then provide actual evidence in the form of published peer reviewed studies showing such

 

[BigBadWlf]

I could easily claim that. And then we're at war with nothing but claims in our arsenal. You really want to go there?

The point is you could not claim this honestly

I don't really care. You haven't provided any reason for me to buy what you've said about genetics, or why your studies are legit. Why should I?

So you don’t care what you are presenting as legitimately published scientific studies are in fact legitimately published scientific studies…

 

[BigBadWlf]

Your first and third 'facts' are irrelevant to homosexuality.

The first and third facts are there because they serve as context in my original post about genetics.

Your second 'fact' is backed once again by a list that has no verification. Provide verification, and debunk the criticism those studies have received. They're not exactly new.

A study published in 2008 isn’t new?


Again if you wish to claim that homosexuality is not inborn then it is on you to provide legitimately published scientific studies (I know you don’t care about such things but everyone else does) showing the origin of homosexuality to be something other than inborn.

 

[Zebra1552]

The first and third facts are there because they serve as context in my original post about genetics.



A study published in 2008 isn’t new?


Again if you wish to claim that homosexuality is not inborn then it is on you to provide legitimately published scientific studies (I know you don’t care about such things but everyone else does) showing the origin of homosexuality to be something other than inborn.

No, it's not on me. The original point of this thread is to determine how we can best reach homosexuals, and this has nothing to do with that. It's off topic. It's on you to show why any of your cited lists are relevant to that topic and why your cited lists accurately describe what you say they do.

The point is you could not claim this honestly



So you don’t care what you are presenting as legitimately published scientific studies are in fact legitimately published scientific studies…

No, because that's not the topic of this thread.

 

[BigBadWlf]

No, it's not on me. The original point of this thread is to determine how we can best reach homosexuals, and this has nothing to do with that. It's off topic. It's on you to show why any of your cited lists are relevant to that topic and why your cited lists accurately describe what you say they do.

I didn’t bring up the topic. It started in post # 10 to which I responded to false statements that were made.
You have happily participated in this side branch of the topic but now that you seemed ot have reached a point where you cannot respond you wish to stop talking about how sexual orientation is inborn and somehow push some onus of blame onto me for derailing a topic I did not.

It becomes relevant as the origin of sexual orientation is not a choice but something inborn. In which case one has to question the purpose and goals of “outreach”

No, because that's not the topic of this thread.

It is interesting that you demand verification for facts you don’t like but do not feel any responsibility for supporting your own claims with legitimately published scientific information

 

[Zebra1552]

I didn’t bring up the topic. It started in post # 10 to which I responded to false statements that were made.
You have happily participated in this side branch of the topic but now that you seemed ot have reached a point where you cannot respond you wish to stop talking about how sexual orientation is inborn and somehow push some onus of blame onto me for derailing a topic I did not.

It becomes relevant as the origin of sexual orientation is not a choice but something inborn. In which case one has to question the purpose and goals of “outreach”

This thread is about how to reach out to them, not whether or not we should. Either keep to that issue, or please go discuss it in another thread.

It is interesting that you demand verification for facts you don’t like but do not feel any responsibility for supporting your own claims with legitimately published scientific information

Why should I provide information when you have not?

 

[Ave Maria]

I think that prayer is very important in outreach towards homosexuals. I do not believe that groups like Exodus International are good. They are not only ineffective but they leave a bad taste in the mouths of most people. That said, we should love homosexuals as we love any other person. It is a sin for them to engage in homosexual sex but it is no worse a sin than some of the other sins that people commit.

 

[MajorMonogram]

This thread is about how to reach out to them, not whether or not we should. Either keep to that issue, or please go discuss it in another thread.

I think examining the motives and goals of “outreach” to be of great importance. Nothing exists in complete isolation.
I have to wonder why you don’t want such motivations discussed

Why should I provide information when you have not?

Sorry but documentation has been provided.
If you are unwilling to document your claims you should not demand that others document their claims

 

[MajorMonogram]

No, it's not on me. The original point of this thread is to determine how we can best reach homosexuals, and this has nothing to do with that. It's off topic. It's on you to show why any of your cited lists are relevant to that topic and why your cited lists accurately describe what you say they do.


No, because that's not the topic of this thread.

Sounds like you are saying you cannot support your assertions but you don’t want to admit that so you are trying to redirect and get out of supporting your claim.

 

[BigBadWlf]

This thread is about how to reach out to them, not whether or not we should. Either keep to that issue, or please go discuss it in another thread.

The question of should this be done should be examined. If you are so concerned about such an examination why don’t you start a new thread on just that subject?

Why should I provide information when you have not?

Your dislike of the information does not mean such information was not provided

 

[Zebra1552]

I think examining the motives and goals of “outreach” to be of great importance. Nothing exists in complete isolation.
I have to wonder why you don’t want such motivations discussed

Because it's not the topic of the thread.

Sorry but documentation has been provided.
If you are unwilling to document your claims you should not demand that others document their claims

I have documented my claims, and the only documentation they provided is a list.

Sounds like you are saying you cannot support your assertions but you don’t want to admit that so you are trying to redirect and get out of supporting your claim.

Walking in on a discussion and then pretending to know what's going on isn't usually smiled upon. Stick to the issue, please.

 

[Zebra1552]

The question of should this be done should be examined. If you are so concerned about such an examination why don’t you start a new thread on just that subject?

I'm saying it's not the topic of the thread. You realize I'm the OP, right?

Your dislike of the information does not mean such information was not provided

It has nothing to do with me disliking a big list, it has to do with you ignoring other data and simply dismissing it with said list, not to mention that the topic involving said lists are off topic.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To BigBadWlf,

So you don’t care what you are presenting as legitimately published scientific studies are in fact legitimately published scientific studies…

Who decides that? Who decides whether they are correct or legitimate. With studies by people of the same qualifications that are contrary to each other, who decides?

The point is there is no consensus of scientific agreement that there is any proof of homosexuality being inborn, so you have no more right to claim it and demand others prove it, than we have to ask the same question of you. As there have been many genes identified which cause disease, one might have expected a sexual attraction gene to have been discovered by now, that it hasnt isnt a good indication that its inborn.

But the thread is about how Christians outreach to homosexuals. The gospel changes hearts and minds so once someone has accpeted Jesus Christ as Lord they can have their hearts and minds renewed. My view is it is very difficult now to get the gospel across whilst the issue is so prominent. Love homosexuals and pray for them that their eyes will be opened to the truth.

 

[MajorMonogram]

Because it's not the topic of the thread.

After pages of going on about this topic why have you suddenly decided no one should be talking about this? You were invited to start this specific topic in a new thread. Did I not see this new thread?

I have documented my claims, and the only documentation they provided is a list.

If memory serves you claimed to be presenting a real scientific study that turned out to be a research paper topic proposal from an community college in Ohio.
And when confronted about it you announced that you didn’t care if what you present is actually what you represent it to be

“they” provided names of real studies and their authors and when they were published. More than enough information to look up any of the studies.


Walking in on a discussion and then pretending to know what's going on isn't usually smiled upon. Stick to the issue, please.[/quote]
I may be new here but I have to believe that the flaming you are engaging in is frowned upon

 

[MajorMonogram]

To BigBadWlf,
Who decides that? Who decides whether they are correct or legitimate. With studies by people of the same qualifications that are contrary to each other, who decides?

Well… if one comes from a known and respected scientific journal that is staffed and edited by experts in the field, and the other is a vanity press publication (for example) or put out on the web disguised as a factual paper by someone who has a long history of presenting false information (again for example) then I think it is obvious which should be considered legitimate.

The point is there is no consensus of scientific agreement that there is any proof of homosexuality being inborn

Didn’t someone point out that there is not complete consensus that illness are caused by bacteria and viruses?

so you have no more right to claim it and demand others prove it, than we have to ask the same question of you.

But it has been asked that evidence that homosexuality is from some other non-inborn reason be provided. So why hasn’t any been provided?

As there have been many genes identified which cause disease,

Being gay isn’t a disease

one might have expected a sexual attraction gene to have been discovered by now, that it hasnt isnt a good indication that its inborn.

Why would anyone expect such a thing.
I think you meant to say that lack of evidence of a specific “gay” gene isn’t a good indication that it does not exist

But the thread is about how Christians outreach to homosexuals. The gospel changes hearts and minds so once someone has accpeted Jesus Christ as Lord they can have their hearts and minds renewed.

I know many homosexuals and bisexuals who have been renewed and are still happy to be homosexuals and bisexuals

My view is it is very difficult now to get the gospel across whilst the issue is so prominent.

why?

Love homosexuals and pray for them that their eyes will be opened to the truth.

That God loves them just the way they are

 

[nhisname]

But this goes for any sin, no?

We all fall short.

 

[Zebra1552]

After pages of going on about this topic why have you suddenly decided no one should be talking about this? You were invited to start this specific topic in a new thread. Did I not see this new thread?

And I don't care to discuss it! It's that simple! Am I not allowed to change my mind on something?

If memory serves you claimed to be presenting a real scientific study that turned out to be a research paper topic proposal from an community college in Ohio.
And when confronted about it you announced that you didn’t care if what you present is actually what you represent it to be

Then you need to go back and read it again, because that was one of the sources I gave out of 3, and 'they' simply dismissed the rest.

“they” provided names of real studies and their authors and when they were published. More than enough information to look up any of the studies.

Why should I do homework to back their claims for them? For anyone?

I may be new here but I have to believe that the flaming you are engaging in is frowned upon

I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you that walking into a discussion between two people is just as rude as walking into one in real life. Take that information and do with it what you will.

 

[BigBadWlf]

And I don't care to discuss it! It's that simple! Am I not allowed to change my mind on something?

Then stop discussing it. But do not curtail the conversation of others just because the evidence and the discussion went places you did not want it to

Then you need to go back and read it again, because that was one of the sources I gave out of 3, and 'they' simply dismissed the rest.

You mean the one published by a right wing Christian publisher?

Why should I do homework to back their claims for them? For anyone?

That is called referencing. One is not expected to provide total copies of evidentiary studies, just sufficient information that those interested can find the study for themselves.

I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you that walking into a discussion between two people is just as rude as walking into one in real life. Take that information and do with it what you will.

You stated that the Major just “walked in on a discussion” and has no idea what is going on in the discussion and that he was dishonest enough to “pretend” to have information pertinent to a public conversation. If that isn’t a personal attack…what is?

 

[Zebra1552]

Then stop discussing it. But do not curtail the conversation of others just because the evidence and the discussion went places you did not want it to

I started this thread with a specific purpose in mind. Whether or not homosexuality is inborn has nothing to do with that purpose. Do not derail my thread.

You mean the one published by a right wing Christian publisher?

That is called referencing. One is not expected to provide total copies of evidentiary studies, just sufficient information that those interested can find the study for themselves.

I did not start this thread to debate the semantics of sources.

You stated that the Major just “walked in on a discussion” and has no idea what is going on in the discussion and that he was dishonest enough to “pretend” to have information pertinent to a public conversation. If that isn’t a personal attack…what is?

I didn't say he has no idea what's going on, and I didn't accuse him of being dishonest. Do not misrepresent what I post.

 

[BigBadWlf]

<Staff Edit>

The type of psudo-science &#8220;therapy&#8221; that groups like exodus has been long known to not only be ineffective but actively harmful to those participating in it.

Ex-gay groups claims to have treated hundreds of thousands of homosexuals and boasts a success rate of 71.6 per cent. (Ref Alan Chambers director of Exodus International interview with CNN Fed 26, 2007) But Exodus keeps no follow-up records or statistics to validate the claim. When Paul Spitzer could not find any individuals who were homosexual but thanks to reparative therapy were not heterosexuals he went to Exodus and despite the claim of &#8220;hundreds of thousands of ex-gays running around they were only able to provide him with 76 names of people who might be willing to say that they had changed sexual orientation. Spitzer&#8217;s study failed its peer review and a follow up study showed that of the 11 men who claimed to have changed sexual orientation all were employed by Exodus International at the time. In the follow up study all had left employment with Exodus, one individual could not be located and the other ten all admitted they had lied about changing their sexual orientation

Studies on those who entered reparative therapies have shown such individuals suffered form depression, suicidal ideation, loss of faith, estrangement form families and low self esteem&#8230;symptoms which were not prevalent prior to their entry into reparative therapy

Moore, P Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives.Journal of Gay & Lesbian PsychotherapyVolume 5, Numbers 3/4

Ford J. Healing Homosexuals: A Psychologist&#8217;s Journey Through the Ex-Gay Movement and the Pseudo-Science of Reparative Therapy J of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy

Haldeman, D. C. Therapeutic Antidotes: Helping Gay and Bisexual Men Recover from Conversion Therapies Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy

Schroeder M. And A. Shidlo. Ethical Issues in Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapies: An Empirical Study of Consumers pg 131

Forstein M. Overview of Ethical and Research Issues in Sexual Orientation Therapy J of therapeutic counsleing

Drescher, J. Ethical Concerns Raised When Patients Seek to Change Same-Sex Attractions Journal of Clinical and Research Perspectives