Left handed (fwd)

[B.G. Kent]

Brenda said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Sherif Fadel wrote:

...

Well, the Bible is pretty clear about this, I have no idea what type of
theology your "strain" of Christianity uses to justify Homosexuality, but I
would be interested if you can provide me with the reasoning behind it (I am
talking about church reasoning).

B - Gnostic Christian. You ask for "church" reasoning. Since I am trying
to follow Christ and not an organization....giving you "church reasoning"
(which I see as an oxymoron at times) just won't do.

genetically determined trait because if it were, natural selection would
have removed it from the human gene pool long ago.

trait and can be passed on to later generations. How did you get from that
that the two are alike? Please explain.

B - beg your pardon...I misread your words.

Being left handed is not a trait that is negatively selected

during evolution, unlike homosexuality which virtually ensures that it
will
not be transmitted to other generations. So what is normal about it?

B - the fact you see it as "transmitted" as if it were a disease kind of
says it all. Did you ever consider that maybe everyone does not fit into

...

Oh come on! I am using the word transmitted in the sense of genetically
transmitted traits. I have no idea how you got the idea that "transmitted"
is only associated with disease.

B - You're right..that was a red herring..my apologies.



In addition, evolution is a fact of modern

biology. I am not claiming that we all "fit into the Darwinian construct"
etc. I am simply saying that since homosexual sex does not result in
procreation, if there were genes responsible for homosexuality then they
would not pass on to future generations and, over a long period of time,
would vanish from the human gene pool. These are facts of biology, please
tell me why they are wrong.

B - Tell me why it is still with us...and has been for seemingly eons?
What about persons being carriers of said gene but not becoming homosexual
themselves? Sperm banks have gay men's sperm in them....some lesbian women
pick gay male friends to procreate with...it can go on and on. Many women
in the past have married and had children with gay men who were forced to
act straight...again..it can go on and on.

B - I'm sad that you can't see it.

I am sad that you are sad :)

Bren

B - Oh don't be sad Sherif... ;)

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent
...

Well, the Bible is pretty clear about this, I have no idea what type of
theology your "strain" of Christianity uses to justify Homosexuality, but I
would be interested if you can provide me with the reasoning behind it (I am
talking about church reasoning).

B - Gnostic Christian. You ask for "church" reasoning. Since I am trying
to follow Christ and not an organization....giving you "church reasoning"
(which I see as an oxymoron at times) just won't do.

Newsflash: most of the rest of us see your favored term "Gnostic Christian" as
the oxymoron.

But even more important, those of us who have actually studied the history of
Gnosticism and Christianity ALL see it as an oxymoron. For Gnosticism really is
antithetical to Christianity, despite its thin and deceptive pseudo-christian
veneer.

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by B.G. Kent
...

Well, the Bible is pretty clear about this, I have no idea what type of
theology your "strain" of Christianity uses to justify Homosexuality, but I
would be interested if you can provide me with the reasoning behind it (I am
talking about church reasoning).

B - Gnostic Christian. You ask for "church" reasoning. Since I am trying
to follow Christ and not an organization....giving you "church reasoning"
(which I see as an oxymoron at times) just won't do.

Gnostisim is not the same as Christainity. My understanding of Christianity
is any group that abides by the Nicene creed. A group that does not accept
the Nicene creed is not Christian, IMHO. You certainly have the right to
call yourself Christian, but don't expect any of us to acknowledge that. I
am not an expert in theology or history (my area of expertise is distributed
computing and bioinformatics), but I am a history buff. I read many books
about the Gnostic religion and the Nag Hammadi scrolls, and it is my
undertanding that the teachings of the Gnostic religion has nothing to do
with Christainity. The basic tenant of Gnosticism is that the world was
created by an evil deity and that perpetuating life is a sin (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism ). This type of teaching has nothing
to do with Christianity. If your version of Gnostisim teaches something
different please let me know. However, it is obvious to me why homosexuality
is not considered a sin in Gnostisim. After all, if you consider
perpetuating life to be a sin, then a condition that does not perpetuate
life (such as homosexuality) will be the best thing you can possibly hope
for. When I asked for "church reasoning" I ment it in two ways. First, since
you claim that your "strain" of Christianity does not consider homosexuality
a sin, I made the assumption that that "strain" was a particular Church and
that it had a specific set of theological reasons for this. Second, even if
you are not a member of a certain Church, given the clarity of the Bible
about homosexuality being a sin, please let me know how you reached the
conclusion that it is not a sin in a "strain" of Christianity.

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Tell me why it is still with us...and has been for seemingly eons?
What about persons being carriers of said gene but not becoming homosexual
themselves? Sperm banks have gay men's sperm in them....some lesbian women
pick gay male friends to procreate with...it can go on and on. Many women
in the past have married and had children with gay men who were forced to
act straight...again..it can go on and on.

Let me try to answer that argument one claim at a time. If a person can
carry a homosexuality gene and not become homosexual, then homosexuality is
a recessive trait. That in itself does not affect its heritability in any
way. However, when you add the fact that it is a negatively selected trait,
you get a recessive gene that is negatively selected during evolution. It is
an established biological fact that a recessive trait that is negatively
selected during evolution will eventually be removed from the human gene
pool if it does not have any positive evolutionary contribution. Don't take
my word for it, ask a biology professor in any college. For example, the
gene for sickle cell anemia is a recessive gene that is negatively selected
during evolution. The only reason that it still exists is that it has a
positive evolutionary contribution because it protects people from malaria
(which, historically, has been a major cause of death in certain areas).
Thus in places where malaria is endemic (manly sub-Saharan Africa) the gene
continues to exist. It is interesting to note that in other areas where
malaria is not endemic, the gene for sickle cell anemia **has vanished from
the human gene pool**. In order to make the same claim for the heritability
of homosexuality, you need to show that it has some positive evolutionary
value. At present no such value has been identified by scientists, so until
such a value is indentified, by Occasm's razor, we can claim that it does
not exist.

I have already addressed the issue of sperm banks and other similar
technology in my previous post. But I will restate them here for clarity. As
I mentioned before, assisted reproduction is a fairly recent development.
Therefore, unless you claim that homosexuality is a relatively recent
mutation in the human gene pool that occurred after the invention of these
technologies, you cannot argue that this technology is the reason that
homosexuality remains in the human gene pool. If homosexuality where a
genetic trait, it would long have become extinct before these technologies
where ever invented.

Finally, your last point has some merit. If forced marriage and such were
done *on a large scale* then that can be a valid reason for claiming that
homosexuality is a genetic trait that persists in the human gene pool.
However, it has to be practiced on a *large scale*, and by large scale I
mean by a significant majority, in order to have an effect on the
evolutionary scale. That been said, the very fact that homosexuals have to
act against their so-called nature (by having heterosexual intercourse in
order to perpetuate their genes in the human gene pool) is a clear
indication that nature did not mean it to be this way. That last claim means
that homosexuals have to go against their nature in order to ensure their
"genetic survival". This tells us that nature indented people to be
heterosexual.

This leads us to your main question, how come homosexuality still exists
today? Well, my opinion, backed up by many scientific studies, is that
homosexuality is largely caused by the environment i.e. in the nature vs.
nurture debate, nurture clearly wins in the case of homosexuality. This is
the position of almost all sociologists and anthropologists studying
homosexuality and the opinion of a plurality of biologist and geneticists.

Post by B.G. Kent
From this and from the teachings of my religion, I conclude that

homosexuality is wrong and is a perversion of nature. However, as I
mentioned before, this does not give me the right to impose my beliefs on
you in any way. If you think that homosexuality is correct and are not
convinced by my arguments, that is your prerogative. Likewise, it is my
prerogative to claim that homosexuality is wrong according to my
understanding of science and religion. Let us leave it at that. We agree to
disagree.

Post by B.G. Kent

I am sad that you are sad :)

Bren

B - Oh don't be sad Sherif... ;)

I will do my best not to be :)

[shegeek72]

Post by Sherif Fadel
This leads us to your main question, how come homosexuality still exists
today? Well, my opinion, backed up by many scientific studies, is that
homosexuality is largely caused by the environment i.e. in the nature vs.
nurture debate, nurture clearly wins in the case of homosexuality.

Can you provide sources of these scientific studies?

Post by Sherif Fadel
This is
the position of almost all sociologists and anthropologists studying
homosexuality and the opinion of a plurality of biologist and geneticists.

This is quite a generalization and there needs to be sources to back
them up.

When I look for studies I trust non-biased sources, such as the Am.
Psychological Assoc.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual
orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is
most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental,
cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation
is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence
to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,
play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is
important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a
person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for
different people.

s Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual
orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any
prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our
feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a
conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some
homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual
orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of
family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is
that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment
and is not changeable.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that
they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from
homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however
show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example,
many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological
perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims
are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed
and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of
any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such
therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the
Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution
reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and
spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-
determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues
of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would
take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any
social bias.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals
agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an
emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed
scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not
associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.
Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental
health professionals and society had biased information. In the past
the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in
therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers
examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea
that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be
untrue.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarafoundation.org

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Sherif Fadel
Gnostisim is not the same as Christainity. My understanding of Christianity
is any group that abides by the Nicene creed.

B - Well obviously that is your opinion and you are allowed it. Gnosticism
can be applied to many faiths...one of them being Christianity. My
understanding of Christianity is any group that abides by Christ.

Post by Sherif Fadel
with Christainity. The basic tenant of Gnosticism is that the world was
created by an evil deity and that perpetuating life is a sin (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism ). This type of teaching has nothing

B - Oh dear. The problem with wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Many
mistakes are found on wikipedia daily. If you take Gnosticism
literally...I can see how you would see it that way.

Post by Sherif Fadel
is not considered a sin in Gnostisim. After all, if you consider
perpetuating life to be a sin,

B - No...Gnostics don't consider perpetuating life a sin.

Post by Sherif Fadel
about homosexuality being a sin, please let me know how you reached the
conclusion that it is not a sin in a "strain" of Christianity.

B - there are many denominations out there and they all have their own
take on Christ. Sin means "missing the mark" ..it is an archery term and
means simple " a mistake". Now I would not call anyones love ....adult to
adult... a mistake...nor sex between both. Sure they can bring forth
children between them both...but neither can an infertile male or female.
A donkey and a horse can mate...their offspring is infertile but that does
not stop the mule from trying to mate...is that a mistake?

Post by Sherif Fadel

Post by B.G. Kent
From this and from the teachings of my religion, I conclude that

homosexuality is wrong and is a perversion of nature. However, as I
mentioned before, this does not give me the right to impose my beliefs on
you in any way. If you think that homosexuality is correct and are not
convinced by my arguments, that is your prerogative. Likewise, it is my
prerogative to claim that homosexuality is wrong according to my
understanding of science and religion. Let us leave it at that. We agree to
disagree.

B - Yes you can call it wrong for yourself...and I can call it fine for my
gay friends....that and a nickel gets us no where. I don't want to live in
a world that is totally based on the outer shell. I feel we are here to
learn...to learn tolerance. I see many homosexuals as amazing teachers...
I see calling others sinful and "wrong" or perverted as hurtful..not
helpful. I've never seen insult help anyway to change...nor the next rung
up the ladder...violence. Physical evolution is one thing....spiritual
evolution is a whole other matter.

God bless us all....loving and living in respectful kindnesses.

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <C6Rri.2103$***@trnddc01>, shegeek72 says...

[snip]

Post by shegeek72
When I look for studies I trust non-biased sources, such as the Am.
Psychological Assoc.

APA "non-biased"? Don't make me laugh.

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
When I look for studies I trust non-biased sources, such as the Am.
Psychological Assoc.

APA "non-biased"? Don't make me laugh.

And the US Catholic Conference is not?

[Sherif Fadel]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Well obviously that is your opinion and you are allowed it. Gnosticism
can be applied to many faiths...one of them being Christianity. My
understanding of Christianity is any group that abides by Christ.

That is certainly your right, but I still do not agree with you.

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Sherif Fadel
with Christainity. The basic tenant of Gnosticism is that the world was
created by an evil deity and that perpetuating life is a sin (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism ). This type of teaching has nothing

B - Oh dear. The problem with wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Many
mistakes are found on wikipedia daily. If you take Gnosticism
literally...I can see how you would see it that way.

:) As I mentioned in my post, I read many books on Gnosticism and the Nag
Hammadi library. I am not basing my understanding of Gnosticism on the
wikipedia article. I only provided that link since you and others can freely
access it over the net. I am certain that if I provided you with the titles
of the books I read you would not go out and purchase them. Gnosticism
clearly teaches that the world was created by an evil deity (or at best an
ignorant deity) and that this creation was a mistake. All the books I read
state that Gnosticism considers perpetuating life a sin, and that we should
free ourself from the material world created by this ignorant/evil deity in
order to reach true "gnosis". However, as I mentioned, I am not an expert so
please feel free to correct me.

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by Sherif Fadel
is not considered a sin in Gnostisim. After all, if you consider
perpetuating life to be a sin,

B - No...Gnostics don't consider perpetuating life a sin.

I am interested in learning new things so, if it is not too much trouble,
could you please provide me a link with the correct version of the teachings
of Gnostics since you tell me the wikipedia article is in error?

Post by B.G. Kent
. Now I would not call anyones love ....adult to
adult... a mistake...nor sex between both. Sure they can bring forth
children between them both...but neither can an infertile male or female.
A donkey and a horse can mate...their offspring is infertile but that does
not stop the mule from trying to mate...is that a mistake?

But, surely, your personal opinion is not more important than the words of
the Bible? The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms,
how then can your personal opinion overrule the teachings of the Bible? Of
course, if you are not Christian please ignore this question since it would
make no sense in that context. Homosexuality is not a sin because it does
not result in reproduction but because the Bible _says_ it is a sin, so the
rest of your argument is moot. BTW, you did not address any of the
biological arguments that I presented, does that mean you concede the point
that homosexuality is not as natural as "left-handedness" ? In addition, if
we take your argument to its logical limit, then consensual incest between
adults should also not be considered a sin. Do you think that a consensual
sexual relationship between an adult brother and sister is "natural" and
"not a sin" ? After all, it can be argued that it is love or sex between two
adults? If you can tell me that you do not consider such incest a sin, then
we should not be even having this discussion since our points of view would
be totally divergent. However, if you do consider such incest to be
unnatural and, in your words, a "mistake" then I would like to ask you why
you consider homosexuality any different?

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Yes you can call it wrong for yourself...and I can call it fine for my
gay friends....that and a nickel gets us no where. I don't want to live in
a world that is totally based on the outer shell. I feel we are here to
learn...to learn tolerance. I see many homosexuals as amazing teachers...
I see calling others sinful and "wrong" or perverted as hurtful..not
helpful. I've never seen insult help anyway to change...nor the next rung
up the ladder...violence. Physical evolution is one thing....spiritual
evolution is a whole other matter.
God bless us all....loving and living in respectful kindnesses.

Tolerance does not mean that we should all accept one view, it means that we
should be able to live together peacefully *in spite* of our different
beliefs. I do not see homosexuals as amazing teachers in any sense. They
have chosen a certain sexual orientation. They have no special property that
makes them "amazing teachers", you seem to be judging character based on
sexual orientation. Homosexuals differ from the rest of us only in sexual
orientation, other than that they have all the vices and merits that other
people have. Their sexual orientation does not make them "amazing teachers".
Denying them any rights by law would be intolerant. Saying that
homosexuality is wrong is not intolerant in any sense, saying so is the
equivalent of intellectual terrorism. I have ample experience in this point,
because, in my region of the world, I have seen many people imprisoned for
expressing their opinions and books that have been banned when the powers
that be thought their content was unacceptable. You do not insult a person
when you tell them they are engaging in sin. That is a very weird notion.
Your suggestion that physical violence is the "next rung up the ladder" is
also very strange. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is not the same as
saying that homosexuals should be lynched. "Let those without sin cast the
first stone" covers that issue. Anyway, it was nice having this discussion
with you.

Post by B.G. Kent
Bren

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Sherif Fadel
That is certainly your right, but I still do not agree with you.

B - and you don't have to Sherif.

Post by Sherif Fadel
access it over the net. I am certain that if I provided you with the titles
of the books I read you would not go out and purchase them. Gnosticism

B - There's a good chance I've already read them.

Post by Sherif Fadel
clearly teaches that the world was created by an evil deity (or at best an
ignorant deity) and that this creation was a mistake. All the books I read
state that Gnosticism considers perpetuating life a sin, and that we should
free ourself from the material world created by this ignorant/evil deity in
order to reach true "gnosis". However, as I mentioned, I am not an expert so
please feel free to correct me.

B - You can read the books literally in an outer way and then again in an
inner way...the same as many do with the Bible.

Post by Sherif Fadel
I am interested in learning new things so, if it is not too much trouble,
could you please provide me a link with the correct version of the teachings
of Gnostics since you tell me the wikipedia article is in error?

B - Gnosticism...is knowing...an inner knowing that comes from reading
between the lines of scripture...one cannot just pass it on to another
they have to come to it on their own otherwise it is not Gnostic...but
dogma. The learning...the process of coming to the answers is important. I
cannot provide you with a link however I would suggest that you keep
learning and questioning.

Post by Sherif Fadel
But, surely, your personal opinion is not more important than the words of
the Bible?

B - How everyone interprets the Bible is their own opinion. It is your own
opinion that it is to be taken literally...it is your own opinion that it
is not to be taken literally...it is your own opinion that it is even of
God.



The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms,

Post by Sherif Fadel
how then can your personal opinion overrule the teachings of the Bible? Of
course,

B - One would have to believe that Jesus and only Jesus had his had in the
Bible...not that it was written after he had died...had the foreign
ways anthema to many of those that wrote...ie: Romans..had many interps
made
of it..the Nicene council and all of that...deciding what should be of
Jesus and God and what should not...and then the Catholic Church of Rome
deciding what they felt was important...Constantine and such and then King
Jame's version etc. I believe that Jesus was never against Homosexuality
or Homosexuals but those that wrote many of the parts kept in the bible
were. It makes no sense considering Jesus's character. I have also asked
Jesus and have gotten the answer "no" he did not say that it was wrong".
HOwever I can't prove this to you...so what can I do?



if you are not Christian please ignore this question since it would

Post by Sherif Fadel
make no sense in that context. Homosexuality is not a sin because it does
not result in reproduction but because the Bible _says_ it is a sin, so the
rest of your argument is moot.

B - I am a Christian. I am not an idolator. I believe in Jesus and God
first...the book second. When God says it is wrong to me...I will believe
it.


BTW, you did not address any of the

Post by Sherif Fadel
biological arguments that I presented, does that mean you concede the point
that homosexuality is not as natural as "left-handedness"

B - sure...but what is your point? You never answered why the prostate in
men being stimulated feels good...that stimulating a bulls prostate is how
he ejaculates faster....that the clitoris has little do do with a woman
getting pregnant ...and is not in the best place for penile-vaginal
intercourse ...but we still have them and they are wonderful. Not all of
nature makes sense reproductively.


? In addition, if

Post by Sherif Fadel
we take your argument to its logical limit, then consensual incest between
adults should also not be considered a sin.

B - incest has been shown to cause genetic problems. I am against it for
that reason and also because I think we are to have a multitude of love
experiences ...a love for a brother or sister that has nothing to do with
sex....for instance.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Tolerance does not mean that we should all accept one view, it means that we
should be able to live together peacefully *in spite* of our different
beliefs.

B - exactly..I agree with you.

I do not see homosexuals as amazing teachers in any sense. They

Post by Sherif Fadel
have chosen a certain sexual orientation.

B - No one chooses to be Gay. People kill themselves because of the
world's intolerance to difference and diversity....no one wants to live a
life where they get treated like scum. They want to live their lives in
their own expression of their sexuality...like heteros do. I think they
are amazing teachers....I'm sorry that you are blind to this. They teach
us to question the need to have us all be the same...the need to have men
and women act a certain way...the fear that difference can cause in some
people. They teach us to go deep within and see that God's light shines
there...shines everywhere.

thanks be to God for his/her works being diverse and multiplied.

Bren

[DKleinecke]

Post by Sherif Fadel
:) As I mentioned in my post, I read many books on Gnosticism and the Nag
Hammadi library.

Can we be sure that you have read both Rudolph and Petrement? If you
have we can move this discussion up to their level.

Post by Sherif Fadel
Gnosticism
clearly teaches that the world was created by an evil deity (or at best an
ignorant deity) and that this creation was a mistake.

There was no single thing called Gnosticism. You have to explode it
into the different sects. The most famous person who advocated
creation by an imperfect Demiurge was Marcion and Marcion is not
generally considered to be a Gnostic.
It is quite possible that the idea that the Gnostics were Marcionites
is no more than the result of mainline Christian polemics. Most likely
some were and others weren't.

Post by Sherif Fadel
All the books I read state that Gnosticism considers perpetuating life a sin, and > that we should free ourself from the material world created by this ignorant/evil
deity in order to reach true "gnosis".

The encratics are another group who are not normally considered
Gnostics. The founder of the encratics is traditionally said to be
Tatian and in his surviving writings Tatian shows no sign of being a
Gnostic.

The encratics were much more successful than the Marcionites and, from
the Protestant point of view, they half-captured the Latin church
until it was freed in the Reformation. The situation with Gnostics
seems to have been the same with encrasis as with the demiurge - some
followed that teaching, some didn't.

The core concern of the Gnostics was with what you might call the
psychology of God. Where the mainline church limited itself to a
Trinity the Gnostics recognized hundreds, if not thousands, of
"persons" within the godhead and tried to understand their interplay.
Basically the whole movement disappeared into a morass of allegory and
then vanished in one final blaze of glory with the pseudo-Dionysius
the Aeropagite.

I going to stop here or I will go on forever.

[shegeek72]

On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
APA "non-biased"? Don't make me laugh.

Interesting that you brush off my source, yet don't post sources to
back up your claims. All you've made are sweeping generalizations
without proof.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[shegeek72]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - Oh dear. The problem with wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Many
mistakes are found on wikipedia daily.

In defense of wikipedia, all posts are rigorously monitored and
reviewed and if not backed up by reliable sources are either tagged or
removed.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
When I look for studies I trust non-biased sources, such as the Am.
Psychological Assoc.

APA "non-biased"? Don't make me laugh.

And the US Catholic Conference is not?

You miss the point. Nobody has offered the US Catholic Conference as an unbiased
source, not in this thread. But Brent did offer the APA as one.

Besides: the bias of the US Catholic Conference is a much _safer_ bias than that
of the APA.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - One would have to believe that Jesus and only Jesus had his had in the

B - the above line should've read "had his hand in the Bible"



oy.

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72
On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
APA "non-biased"? Don't make me laugh.

Interesting that you brush off my source, yet don't post sources to
back up your claims.

Actually, I do. And yet whenever I have done so with you in the past,
it was you who "brushed off the source". So I don't always do it. Or
are you just having trouble telling the difference between present
tense and the other tenses in English?

Besides: others in the newsgroup have also posted sources for this;
you brushed them off. So you are in no position to complain.

Post by shegeek72
All you've made are sweeping generalizations
without proof.

Not true. Besides: nothing I have done is so glaringly without proof
as your own support for the pseudo-science of astrology. So again, you
are in no position to complain. Not that I expect that will stop you.

Even if I do post a source, you will make excuses for ignoring it. As
I am sure you will do this time, when I use
http://www.voppsy.ru/issues/1988/884/884005.htm, which very clearly
describes the problem with the _entire_ psychological 'science', not
just with the APA, saying (among other things):

"It seems to me (this is E. V. Gilbo's contribution) that it is
necessary to start up a serious conversation about the sad position
which has formed as a result of a long and still ongoing force of
demagoguery in our science" and "With the help of this demagoguery it is
easy to justify the low quality of research"

You and the APA are still under the spell of that demagoguery;

[shegeek72]

On Aug 8, 7:08 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Even if I do post a source, you will make excuses for ignoring it. As
I am sure you will do this time, when I usehttp://www.voppsy.ru/issues/1988/884/884005.htm, which very clearly
describes the problem with the _entire_ psychological 'science', not

I don't read cryillic.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You and the APA are still under the spell of that demagoguery;

You've made this claim before ("the APA is wrong") and have not
provided one reputable source to back it up (just generalized
statements) and is the type of response when one is drawing at straws
to support their misguided religious beliefs. IOW, they would rather
trust_their_interpretation of biblical passages than modern science.

It's the same as when the Catholic church would rather believe that
the sun revolves around the earth rather than the scientific methods
of Galileo.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72
On Aug 8, 7:08 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Even if I do post a source, you will make excuses for ignoring it. As
I am sure you will do this time, when I
usehttp://www.voppsy.ru/issues/1988/884/884005.htm, which very clearly
describes the problem with the _entire_ psychological 'science', not

I don't read cryillic.

That is your problem, not mine. I have provided the source. I even
translated the most relevant portion. But you did not reply to
that. So just as I predicted, you made excuses for ignoring it.

Worse yet, you snipped the translation without even marking where you
snipped. What's wrong, 'Tara'? Are the words too embarassing for you?
Does the truth hurt too much? Well, here they are again:

"It seems to me (this is E. V. Gilbo's contribution) that it is
necessary to start up a serious conversation about the sad position
which has formed as a result of a long and still ongoing force of
demagoguery in our science" and "With the help of this demagoguery it is
easy to justify the low quality of research"

Read the truth and weep. No wonder you have to hide from these words.

Who do you think you can fool with this sort of misbehavior? Let me
dispel your illusion: you can fool no one.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
You and the APA are still under the spell of that demagoguery;

You've made this claim before ("the APA is wrong") and have not
provided one reputable source to back it up (just generalized
statements)

Not true. I just provided one, and even translated the key passage for
you. But you lie to the whole NG and claim that I "have not provided
one reputable source".

Newsflash: E. V. Gilbo was and still is far more reputable than you
are.

Why, you couldn't even get my claim right: I never simply said "the
APA is wrong". I have always been more specific about why they are
wrong.

Post by shegeek72
and is the type of response when one is drawing at straws
to support their misguided religious beliefs.

Ah, but your misquote of my claim is _much_ more that "type of
response" than my claim ever was. So it is you, not I, who is guilty
of "drawing at straws to support their misguided religious beliefs."

Post by shegeek72
IOW, they would rather trust_their_interpretation of biblical
passages than modern science.

You've made this claim before. And just as you falsely accuse me, so
you fail to "provide a reputable source" for your reckless and false
generalization.

Post by shegeek72
It's the same as when the Catholic church would rather believe that
the sun revolves around the earth rather than the scientific methods
of Galileo.

We have been over this one before, too. Not only is it not at all the
same, but you do not even represent the facts of the Galileo case
accurately. So not only is it a false analogy, but it is a false
analogy based on historical nonsense.

You may be too dense to recognize it, but your intended fraud victims
are not: you have lost when you are reduced to repeating the same
discredited fallacies over and over withotu rebuttal, without even
marking where you dishonestly snip.

[shegeek72]

Post by Matthew Johnson
That is your problem, not mine.

I'd reckon it's the 'problem' of the majority of the people in this
forum and the US.

Post by Matthew Johnson
I have provided the source. I even
translated the most relevant portion.

You translated one paragraph from the opinion of one writer. Big deal.

Post by Matthew Johnson
What's wrong, 'Tara'? Are the words too embarassing for you?
Does the truth hurt too much?

lol! Sorry, Doris, but_none_of your postings, nor references,
embarrass me. Actually, I debate with you more for entertainment than
anything - a good laugh with my morning coffee. Oh, and you misspelled
"embarrassing." :)

Post by Matthew Johnson
"It seems to me (this is E. V. Gilbo's contribution) that it is
necessary to start up a serious conversation about the sad position
which has formed as a result of a long and still ongoing force of
demagoguery in our science" and "With the help of this demagoguery it is
easy to justify the low quality of research"

As I said before: one paragraph from the opinion of one writer. I'll
need to see_much_more than that, from trusted sources, to discredit
the APA.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You've made this claim before. And just as you falsely accuse me, so
you fail to "provide a reputable source" for your reckless and false
generalization.

The 'reputable source' is logic, critical reading and context. All of
which point to the fact that when the Bible refers to homosexuality it
means homosexual rape or prostitution; or in Leviticus, where it was a
social custom to increase populations in nomadic tribes - not the
loving, monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

Post by Matthew Johnson
We have been over this one before, too. Not only is it not at all

the

Post by Matthew Johnson
same, but you do not even represent the facts of the Galileo case
accurately. So not only is it a false analogy, but it is a false
analogy based on historical nonsense.

Uh, sorry, no. The facts of the case are just as I presented them:
Galileo used the scientific method to prove the sun didn't revolve
about the earth, but the Catholic church stubbornly adhered to its
mythology and persecuted Galileo.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You may be too dense to recognize it, but your intended fraud victims
are not: you have lost when you are reduced to repeating the same
discredited fallacies over and over withotu rebuttal, without even
marking where you dishonestly snip.

I repeat? LOL! That's the pot calling the kettle black! :P
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
That is your problem, not mine.

I'd reckon it's the 'problem' of the majority of the people in this
forum and the US.

But unlike you, they do not all ignore sources outside the US,
pretending they do not exist. But you really do this.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
I have provided the source. I even translated the most relevant
portion.

You translated one paragraph from the opinion of one writer. Big deal.

It is a big deal. That is why you try to hide it from the discourse,
cutting it without marking where you cut, and omitting to comment on it
at all.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
What's wrong, 'Tara'? Are the words too embarassing for you?
Does the truth hurt too much?

lol! Sorry, Doris, but_none_of your postings, nor references,
embarrass me.

There is such a thing as a time to be embarrassed (Nic Ethics II vii),
but you, of course, consistently fail to recognize it. Instead, you
seem to think I should be embarrassed over a minor and irrelevant
mis-spelling. Talk about misplaced priorities!

But of course, such delusion is to be expected out of anyone willing
to carve such a lie into his own flesh.

Post by shegeek72
Actually, I debate with you more for entertainment than
anything - a good laugh with my morning coffee.

That would explain why your 'debate' is so singularly locking in both
honesty and logic.

Post by shegeek72
Oh, and you misspelled "embarrassing." :)

It would also explain why your 'debate' wastes the readers' time with
such trivialities.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
"It seems to me (this is E. V. Gilbo's contribution) that it is
necessary to start up a serious conversation about the sad position
which has formed as a result of a long and still ongoing force of
demagoguery in our science" and "With the help of this demagoguery
it is easy to justify the low quality of research"

As I said before: one paragraph from the opinion of one writer. I'll
need to see_much_more than that, from trusted sources, to discredit
the APA.

Ah, but you won't _trust_ the source as long as it disagrees with your
endorsement of depravity. You yourself typify one of the barriers to
that "serious conversation" Gilbo calls for. That is where you fallacy
lies.

Besides: you miss the point. The point was to show that you were wrong
when you claim that I don't give sources. I just did. You ignored it,
making excuses to do so, _just_ as I predicted, just as you have done
to so many others.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
You've made this claim before. And just as you falsely accuse me, so
you fail to "provide a reputable source" for your reckless and false
generalization.

The 'reputable source' is logic, critical reading and context.

All of which you have shown pure contempt for in your
posts. Repeatedly. So it is laughable and hypocritical for you to make
an appeal to them now.

But what more can we expect, when your idea of 'logic' allows you to
commend astrology as a 'science'? These foolish words of yours reveal
just how poorly you understand logic and science. Nor are they the
only example: msg-id wQwyh.37384$***@trnddc07 was a great
example of how you confuse logic with non-sequitur fallacies.

Post by shegeek72
All of which point to the fact that when the Bible refers to
homosexuality it means homosexual rape or prostitution;

No, NONE of them point to this 'fact'. Because it is not fact at
all. This has been explained to you many times, you had no rebuttal,
only a ridiculous parody of a rebuttal. Oh, and, of course, mindless
repetition of the same long ago discredited nonsense about 'rape'.

On the contrary: _real_ "logic, critical reading and context" show
that the Old Testament Law you mention condemns _all_ homosexuality,
NOT just 'rape', which was adequately condemned elsewhere.

Post by shegeek72
or in Leviticus,

Same here.

Post by shegeek72
where it was a social custom to increase populations in nomadic
tribes - not the loving, monogamous, longterm relationships of today.

This shows total ignorance of the context, and even of critical
reading.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
We have been over this one before, too. Not only is it not at all
the same, but you do not even represent the facts of the Galileo
case accurately. So not only is it a false analogy, but it is a
false analogy based on historical nonsense.

No, they are not. See below.

Post by shegeek72
Galileo used the scientific method to prove the sun didn't revolve
about the earth,

No, that was accomplished by Copernicus. Galileo simply made the proof
more accessible by using the telescope.

Post by shegeek72
but the Catholic church stubbornly adhered to its mythology and
persecuted Galileo.

This is a _perfect_ example of where you depart from fact, inflicting
your _own_ mythology on us while you falsely raise the accusation
against others.

The Catholic Church did NOT "stubbornly adhere to its mythology". It
did not forbid holding the _private opinion_ that Copernicus was
right; it only forbade the _teaching_ that it is so. And even this
happened only because Galileo insisted on the same brash obnoxious
behavior that Dawkins indulges in today. If he had shown proper
deference to the Roman Pope, the outcome could have been _very_
different. For that same Pope, while still Cardinal, had expressed
cautious willingless to entertain the heliocentric theory.

You really have departed from fact; and even where you stick to fact,
you misrepresent its significance completely.

Post by shegeek72

Post by Matthew Johnson
You may be too dense to recognize it, but your intended fraud victims
are not: you have lost when you are reduced to repeating the same
discredited fallacies over and over withotu rebuttal, without even
marking where you dishonestly snip.

I repeat?

Yes, you. You did it again with your nonsense about "logic, critical
reading and context", which was none of them.

Post by shegeek72
LOL! That's the pot calling the kettle black! :P

No, it is not. It is more like the whiteboard calling the kettle
black. For all of my accusations stick and none of yours do, except
for spelling mistakes.