In recent days, this blog has been reflecting on seemingly unconnected themes: porn-driven benumbing of our consciences, the implications of the Bull Guest House and Johns Foster parenting homosexualisation cases in the UK, and the possibilities for moving our region to the productive side of ICTs.
But in fact, these issues all hinge on building strategic capacity for the church in the region, towards developing our ability to nurture effective disciples, promote God-blessed reformation, and engage the challenges posed by the signs and trends of our times. This demands that we build our strategic thinking capacity as men and women of God called to make a difference in challenging times.
So, we ask, how can we learn how to understand our times to know what we should do, even as the men of Issachar in David's day described in 1 Chron 12:32?
This scripture tells us:
1 Chronicles 12:32 (Amplified Bible)
32. . . of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do, 200 chiefs; and all their kinsmen were under their command
One of the secrets to mastering strategic thinking is to understand how to turn SWOT analysis -- assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats -- into a positive way forward.
Such an effective strategy:
1 --> Builds on identified strengths
2 --> Makes the most of recognised opportunities
3 --> Counters detected threats and overcomes their challenges
4 --> Compensates for (and, where possible, corrects) weaknesses
Of course, the digitalisation trend is a major economic and cultural opportunity, but we have to correct the weaknesses in our skills base if we are to exploit it. That points to the opportunity the same technologies pose that we can develop a regional cyber college and link it to the network of churches and other community based organisations across our region, transforming them into micro-campus centres.
At the same time, we have to face the sobering fact that the largest single use of the Internet seems to be porn, and that porn video downloading actually seems to have been driving the rollout of broadband Internet access; at least if the US case is at all relevant to our own. That sort of addictive entangling, habit-forming sin-drenched trend and attraction is bound to have a serious and damaging impact. In short, the Internet can easily become a major means to the spiritual enslavement of our region.
Paul warned us on just this, when he wrote:
Ephesians 4:17-24 (Amplified Bible)
17So this I say and solemnly testify in [the name of] the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the heathen (the Gentiles) do in their perverseness [in the folly, vanity, and emptiness of their souls and the futility] of their minds.
18Their [a]moral understanding is darkened and their reasoning is beclouded. [They are] alienated (estranged, self-banished) from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the ignorance (the want of knowledge and perception, the willful blindness) that is [b]deep-seated in them, due to their hardness of heart [to the insensitiveness of their moral nature].
19In their spiritual apathy they have become callous and past feeling and reckless and have abandoned themselves [a prey] to unbridled sensuality, eager and greedy to indulge in every form of impurity [that their depraved desires may suggest and demand].
20But you did not so learn Christ!
21Assuming that you have really heard Him and been taught by Him, as [all] Truth is in Jesus [embodied and personified in Him],
22Strip yourselves of your former nature [put off and discard your old unrenewed self] which characterized your previous manner of life and becomes corrupt through lusts and desires that spring from delusion;
23And be constantly renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh mental and spiritual attitude],
24And put on the new nature (the regenerate self) created in God's image, [Godlike] in true righteousness and holiness.
That means we have to focus on creating and promoting positive uses of this very powerful technology, in ways that are sufficiently attractive to counter the threat, while allowing us to build up capacity to make the most of our opportunities in the digital age.
Cyber college training is an obvious such opportunity.
However, there is a threat we still have to deal with, for I am convinced that the aggressive push to homosexualise marriage and the family is targetting a key make or break point for our civilisation.
The legal rulings in the UK where secularisation, the rise of linked amorality and radical relativism, the resulting rising notion that the creation order for family is mere religious claptrap that can be dismissed, and the obvious push to delegitimise, slander and suppress Christians all have serious implications.
In short, the march of folly is in full cry, and it is our duty to do something about it, for this is a matter of hardening hearts against and shutting ears to the gospel. For, if radical secularists can get up on a high horse of pretending to moral superiority over what they think are benighted, backward, bigoted Christians, they will not only refuse to listen to what we have to say, but will think they are in the right when they seek to suppress us from living by light of conscience guided by scripture.
Well did Isaiah warn us:
Is 5:20Woe to(AC) those who call evil good
and good evil,
(AD) who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are(AE) wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight! [ESV]
That starts with thinking through some very basic things, triggered by observing how some have tried to dismiss evidence on the damaging impact of homosexualisation of the family. So, time for a few more inconvenient facts that were true in the 1990's when the family homosexualisation agenda was first pushed, are true today, and will still be true 50 or 500 years from now:
1) It is a basic and self-evident fact that men and women are different and complementary, so they play different roles as parents.
2) It is a fact, backed up by over 10,000 studies, that children do best when they are born in and nurtured across the twenty or so years it takes, in a stable marriage, where they are supported by their mother and father.
(NB, 03:07: The remark on "10,000" studies has been made a focus for an attempt to discredit and dismiss the above, while refusing to address the issue of emerging persecution of people of principle and the evident implications of homosexualisation of marriage and family for our civilisation. But, (i) even if Dobson were two orders of magnitude off in his estimate, the underlying manifest facts would still be plain, and (ii) it is not hard to see that this is a reasonable round number for the many thousands of studies over the past 100 years that would reflect (in the main or en passant) on the significance -- evident to a common sense reflection on thousands of years of civilisations around the world -- of the stable, creation-order based family for the upbringing of children. Cf. the comment exchanges below, and this onward link, caution, explicit excerpts from homosexualist literature. The cautions on games being played with research studies, here (also cf here on the use of personal attacks etc in that context), is worth the read, and the research article here, by Dean Byrd, Ph.D. MBA, MPH -- "Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree" [S. J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW Journal Of Law & Family Studies University Of Utah VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2] -- is also significant. Money quote:3) It is a direct implication that anything that undermines this, will be damaging to the children, and so also to the community.
>> There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father. David Popenoe (1996) summarized the research nicely: "social science research is almost never conclusive, yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent and step-families" (p. 176). Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better; in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents. This conclusion, supported further by a plethora of research spanning decades, clearly demonstrates gender-linked differences in child-rearing that are protective for children. That is, men and women contribute differently to the healthy development of children. Children of parents who are sex-typed are more competent (Baumrind, 1982). Research has repeatedly supported the conclusion that most effective parenting is highly expressive and highly demanding (Baumrind, 1991). Highly expressive, instrumental parenting provides children with a kind of communion characterized by inclusiveness and connectedness, as well as the drive for independence and individuality. These essential contributions to the optimum development of children are virtually impossible for a man or woman alone to combine effectively (Greenberger, 1984). Children learn about male-female relationships through the modeling of their parents. Parental relationships provide children with a model of marriage--the most meaningful relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lifetimes. >>)
4) It is a fact that those who advocate homosexualising marriage and parenting, routinely ignore, distort, deny, dismiss, suppress or outright lie about the sort of problems (cf also the expert testimony here) such distortions of the creation order lead to. (For why people who rebel against God, the gospel and his Word often act like that, see Romans Chapter 1:18 - 32 & 1 Cor 6:9 - 11.)
5) For instance, they commonly ignore or dismiss the question -- warning, explicit -- of the harmful, immoral and medically dangerous nature of a lot of homosexual behaviour, and therefore of such counterfeits for marriage and family.
6) They -- and their fellow travellers in the media and the academy, etc. -- then suppress the evidence on the damaging impact of such a questionable moral environment on children, including increased risk of domestic violence, of sexual and other forms of abuse, and the inherently unstable nature of such arrangements; which leads to a rapid turnover of homosexual domestic partnerships.
7) It is also a fact that the politically correct homosexualisation of marriage and parenting is already being used to try to intimidate, silence, or even persecute those who have a principled objection to what is being pushed.
8) Indeed, that is what the Johns and Bull cases are about [as well as being examples of what happens when atheism and amorality are smuggled into law by the back door of declaring how the UK is now a "secular" society -- i.e. an a priori, question-begging, atheistical, evolutionary materialistic one with what that portends for morality and justice], and
9) in the case of the Bull Guest House in Cornwall, we are seeing Government-backed invasion of the home by homosexualist advocates, and a blatant attempt to rob people of their livelihood.
But, plainly, he who would rob me of my livelihood, would rob me of my daily bread, and of my life!
Have the UK authorities seriously thought about that?
Worse, much of this is a demand that people of moral principle surrender their consciences and convictions, approving evil. In the specific context of the corruption of children to believe that perversion of the longstanding, hitherto generally accepted creation order for the family is a good thing.
Have we not read?
Matt 18: 5(G) "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6but(H) whoever causes one of these(I) little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. [ESV]
Let us make no mistake: who would rob me of my conscience, would rob me of my soul!
That is why Mike Judge aptly warned: "Discrimination law is meant to act as a shield to protect people from unfair treatment, not to be used as a sword to attack those whose beliefs you disagree with."
And it is why we need to ask some very pointed questions about the motives and intentions of those who want to push the same questionable agendas down our throats here in our region.
And it is why we need to ask some very pointed questions about the motives and intentions of those who want to push the same questionable agendas down our throats here in our region.
But it gets worse, for we can think about what happens when Romans 1 style rejection of the evidence of God stamped in nature, in our hearts and minds, joined to rebellion, amorality and perversion spreads across a society, especially its leading elements:
Q: what happens in a society when people -- especially the educated, wealthy and powerful elites -- wake up and realise they can do whatever they please (sexually or otherwise) without consequences, and also that they cannot trust one another? Even, family members.
A: Let's start with your husband or wife, and work outwards from there:
a --> You don't know what disease they may be bringing to bed with them. And, condoms have a significant failure rate . . .
b --> You don't have any reason to trust your wife's son or daughter is your own, so why should you sacrifice to provide for them.
c --> You cannot trust your wife is not poisoning you, or that the doctor is not putting you to death with the prescription he just gave you . . .
d --> When you go out to business, a contract is not worth the paper it is written on, ande --> forget the judges and courts, it depends on who just paid the bigger bribe -- including the one who came in just after you thought you had out-bid everyone.
f --> Not even the bribed can be trusted to stay bribed.
g --> Now, try, New Sodom is now facing invasion, and you cannot trust the next man or the next unit to stand in line when the charge comes. (Indeed, you cannot count on anyone being willing to put his life on the line or sacrifice it in defense of the society. Such a society is not worth saving . . . )
h --> And the mercenaries you hired might just decide the pickings are better on the other side, too. (Or, did the agent you used to hire them, skim off the moneys and conspire with them to betray the city?)
i --> Forget about trusting the police.
j --> As to trusting men with the oath of office or the taxes they take from you to do good, forget it.
Can such a society survive as much as a generation, much less, make progress?
Self evident!
In short, if the men of a society cannot be trusted with their marital vows to their wives, and if they will not even recognise the obvious differences and complementarity between men and women and the requirements of stable child nurture, then the society is well on the road to ruin.
Do you think it was an accident that Abraham, with his 318 men and allied tribesmen, had to rescue Sodom's captives [including his nephew], when the men of that city could not stand on the field of battle?
Self evident!
In short, if the men of a society cannot be trusted with their marital vows to their wives, and if they will not even recognise the obvious differences and complementarity between men and women and the requirements of stable child nurture, then the society is well on the road to ruin.
Do you think it was an accident that Abraham, with his 318 men and allied tribesmen, had to rescue Sodom's captives [including his nephew], when the men of that city could not stand on the field of battle?
We have some serious thinking to do, then some serious decisions to make about our region's future. More is at stake than we may realise.
___________
1: Spitzer in Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2001, on two orthodoxies regarding homosexuality, in light of his study on possibilities for desired change in same sex attraction.
2: Harren's Homosexuality 101 "what we need to know" primer.
3: Satinover on the state of scientific evidence vs. official and clinical positions in mental health professions.
4: Austriaco on the status of "gay gene" research and the evidence.
5: Whitehead and Whitehead online book, My Genes Made Me do it. (The discussion on the Sambia of New Guinea is particularly significant. Cf also here.)
6: Gagnon on implications of and agendas behind gender identity hate crime laws.
7: Mohler on the attempted homosexualisation of Christian theology.
27 comments:
KF: "2) It is a fact, backed up by over 10,000 studies, that children do best when they are born in and nurtured across the twenty or so years it takes, in a stable marriage, where they are supported by their mother and father."
This is an astonishingly large number of studies. I tried to find out more on the Internet. The best I could find is that Dobson mentioned this in his book, "Marriage Under Fire" but failed to explicitly enumerate them (instead just provided a much shorter list of books). So calling this number a "fact" a bit of a stretch and I'm a bit surprised KF didn't check his sources more thoroughly. Others have also quoted this number (even a Senator) but also could not properly substantiate the claims.
But it isn't hard to find quite a good number of studies that show exactly the opposite, that there is no evidence that gay parenting is harmful. In fact one long-term study indicates that kids of lesbian in fact do better in some respects (see: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/07/Study_Children_of_Lesbian_Parents_Happy_and_Healthy/).
Onlookers:
The above is an example of the unfortunate homosexualist advocacy talking points the post discusses.
It ignored the weight of the basic facts in evidence (starting with basic creation order of maleness and femaleness), and tried to zero in on a point that it tried to make seem to be a mere matter of ignorance and biased, ill-founded citation. All the while, the profound moral, legal and policy issues at stake were ignored.
So, let us grant J his claim [after all I was simply noting on a consensus statement, now being disputed by those with an agenda], and say there are "only" 1,000 or even 100 studies that support the common-sense principle that "children do best when they are born in and nurtured across the twenty or so years it takes, in a stable marriage, where they are supported by their mother and father."
That difference in number -- and BTW, a fair summary of substantiating evidence is in articles linked above -- would have no material impact on the issue.
For, the summary point was true before Sociological studies were invented, and it is still true today; despite the sort of agenda-driven studies now being trotted out that purport to show otherwise.
In fact, here is Dr Dobson's wider observation:
>>Social scientists argue about everything . . . . This one they agree about, that children do best under those kind of stable circumstances. And when you change it, well, let's put it this way: The findings have revealed that a child who has those characteristics at home – mother, father, committed – are less likely to be on drugs later on, they're less likely to be held back in school, they're less likely to drop out, they're less likely to be in juvenile crime.
For the girls, they're less likely to get pregnant as teenagers and they're more likely to be healthy emotionally and physically. That's what the research shows. And yet we're going pell-mell into a social experiment with, at the very best, unpredictable results. But some of us think we know where that is going.>>
Sorry, I don't need any studies to see that that is plainly, almost self-evidently so.
I come from a community (Jamaica) where -- as a result of slavery, and more recent urbanisation and emigration -- we have had a very high illegitimacy rate. Though many people manage to overcome or compensate for the damaging consequences, the results are plain for all to see, and that is where this agenda is putting us.
[ . . . ]
This blog is not the place for a long comment debate, but this sort of comment should let us know just how much the significance of man and woman as complementary partners in a family, is under siege in our day. (Cf. this discussion here, which is also where I took the excerpt from.)
Worse, in a context where the issues at stake include actual cases of the abuse of human rights law to initiate persecution of those who have principled objections to homosexualisation of marriage and family, there is a telling side-tracking that uses a red herring led away to a strawman caricature. There is a name for that: enabling behaviour.
Even more importantly, the suggestion that raising of children in an unstable, abuse-prone and morally unhealthy, distorted and spiritually destructive atmosphere -- on the promotion of a lie [and lie it is] that a particular favoured sin is morally neutral or even beneficial -- is to be understood for what it is.
(And that comes before the specific issues in the linked on violence and lack of stability in such domestic arrangements, is addressed.)
So, let the unalterable bottomline be very plainly put, in the words of the Apostle Paul:
>> 1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [If you wish to question or dispute the scriptures and their message, kindly cf here for a start.]>>
yes, we are all sinners, and homosexual behaviour is simply one of a long, dreary list of the things we do in our rebellion against God that lead to personal harm and damage to the community. Yes, we all need to acknowledge and repent of our sins.
But, that is precisely the problem: we are now dealing with the refusal to acknowledge sinful perversion of creation order for what it is, sin. It is being demanded that we accept wrong as if it were right, and shut our eyes and hearts to the spiritual peril that stems from such sin.
Instead, we say with the apostle arrested in the course of making havoc of the church, and commissioned by the risen Lord in person: >>that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. >>
GEM of TKI
OOPS: I mis-posted a link. An introductory level discussion of the core warrant for the gospel and the scriptures that teach it is here.
KF: "So, let us grant J his claim [after all I was simply noting on a consensus statement, now being disputed by those with an agenda], and say there are "only" 1,000 or even 100 studies that support..."
So I guess the next time you say something is a "fact" I guess I should take it with a pinch of salt, since it's possible you are willing to accept "facts" just on hearsay without any proper vetting of your own? But then when you are in need of facts to support one's bigotry I suppose one doesn't have to be too choosey.
KF: "It gnored the weight of the basic facts in evidence (starting with basic creation order of maleness and femaleness), and tried to zero in on a point that it tried to make seem to be a mere matter of ignorance and biased, ill-founded citation. All the while, the profound moral, legal and policy issues at stake were ignored."
Well, you didn't provide any evidence. You merely pointed to "10,000 studies" (which you cannot back-up. Do you think a study published in Pediatrics, a well-respected mainstream publication, is "ill-founded citation?
Or do you prefer to get your "facts" from extreme conservation organizations that pre-disposed to hate anything to do with homosexuality in the first place? I strongly suspect you don't actually know any homosexuals. It's very easy to dehumanize a group or quote bible verses when you don't actually know a real person.
I appreciate you are a fundamentalist (what a waste of a good mind!), but I hope at least one day a gay person will come into your life so you have a more enlightened (and real) understanding of homosexuality, rather than the hate-inspired rhetoric of organizations such as the Family Research Council.
Onlookers:
The above would be the beginnings of the usual comments war in an unmoderated blog.
Let us observe what is going on:
1: in the teeth of a warning that this post is about an issue of persecution, enabling behaviour continues.
2: In the teeth of the issue that these advocates are promoting the institution of wrong as equivalent to right, with the implication of demonising and persecuting those principled enough to stand on conscience, they proceed full steam ahead.
3: In the teeth of the issue that this pivots on the foundations of morality in worldviews [evolutionary materialism being inherently amoral, prone to factions and oppressive], the evident creation order for man, woman and family, and onwards the grounding of the gospel, they brush this aside. And yet, unless morality has no objective foundation in the Creator-God of the cosmos placing us under moral government, and unless the resurrection- anchored gospel are false, then homosexual behaviour is simply not morally comparable to Creation-order marriage, and to raise children on such a lie is to harm their souls and fall under the special woe of those who lead the young astray.
4: They try to discredit the person by leading a red herring to a strawman caricature and then to the attack to the man.
[ . . . ]
5: In particular, observe that my point above was that even if Dobson -- a credible psychologist in his own right -- were wrong on numbers of studies, the substantial point he made is manifestly correct, and that point is backed up by more than adequate evidence in the world of studies and experience; indeed the number of studies of various types and levels over the past 100 years or so that touch on the various aspects of the functionality of the traditional, creation-order family must indeed be in the many, many thousands, so "10,000" is not an unreasonable round number. (In short, my point above, is that even if Dobson's summary point -- even if his numbers were off by two orders of magnitude -- is not mere dismissible hearsay. BTW, most of what we learn from and have good reason to trust would be classed as hearsay or the like in a court of law. In short, selective hyperskepticism, evidentialist form, again rears its head.)
6: As for studies in pediatrics journals etc, it is obvious that such studies are studiously ignoring the fundamental problem of the personal and community level impacts of an immoral and sinful domestic arrangement [notice that we are already seeing persecution or people of principle under false colour of law emerging], and . . .
7: last but not least, the mare's nest of problems documented here and here [as was linked in the main post, cf fact 4 in the list] are being passed over in studied, homosexualist agenda spin talking point driven silence.
___________
Isaiah put the real problem well:
>>Is 5:20 Woe to(AC) those who call evil good
and good evil,
(AD) who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are(AE) wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight! [ESV] >>
GEM of TKI
F/N: I must again point us to the pivotal issue for our civilisation that lurks under all of these debates on issues: the central warranting argument for the gospel as communicated in the scriptures, especially the official testimony of the mid-C1 church summarised in the AD 55 text of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, and in fulfillment of the 700 BC prophecy in Isa 53 [Who is it that can prophesy the future accurately . . . ], anchored on the resurrection of Christ with 500 witnesses and millions transformed by living encounter with God in the face of Jesus over 2,000 years.
Only if the gospel is false, and there is no God, can homosexual conduct have moral equivalency to creation-order based marriage.
And, that would be because morality would then only be a figment of our imaginations -- the implication of evolutionary materialism, to its utter discredit: this is reductio ad absurdum if ever there was one. (Cf, especially, Will Hawthorne's stinging expose here on that subject.)
F/N 2: As this blog is not one for long and pointless acrimonious comment wars [notice, already, the flinging of the anonymous accusation of "bigotry" as a Saul Alinsky-style turnabout tactic in the teeth of evidence of actual, current persecution of people of principle under false colours of law], I will entertain just one more round of comments, then round off and gavel the discussion.
F/N 2: I should also footnote that I have had -- suicide, hence the past tense -- homosexual colleagues sand friends, nor do I hate people, nor is it hate to point out that there is a serious issue at worldview foundation level on moral questions, nor is it hate to point out the implications of a march of folly in our civilisation. The slander that to object to homosexual behaviour as sin, and to homosexualist advocacy as suicidal folly, is hate, and to dismiss evidence without serious consideration on grounds that you don't listen to such sources [duly tagged with pejorative labels] are an atmosphere-poisoning tactic that will not be further entertained. (BTW, onlookers, here is another useful and more extensive summary of evidence and issues the homosexualists do not want you to pay attention to, though the materials involved are a bot raw and explicit, as the materials of the homosexual advocates are being cited therein.)
FN 3: I see I had a crippled link to an expert testimony in point 4, corrected. Cf. here.
F/N 4: An interesting critical assessment of a certain recently headlined lesbian parenting study in the journal Pediatrics.
KF: "Only if the gospel is false, and there is no God, can homosexual conduct have moral equivalency to creation-order based marriage. "
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. Many of us do feel the gospel is false, and there is no God (at least not the Christian variety). Therefore your beliefs are not law, but a religious perspective. You of course are fully entitled to belief these things, even voice them. The difficulty comes when you impose these beliefs on others to the point that it restricts their freedoms and their human rights, particularly when the law is changed to support a Christian viewpoint.
The "homosexualist" (did you make that up?) agenda if such a thing properly exists, is really to ensure some form of equality in the eyes of lives for law-abiding and peaceful gay people. That doesn't stop you living your lives, worshipping whatever gods you want, or even participating in free speech For the record I even support Chic-A-Fil's right to speak out against gays; I would not support them however in discriminating in hiring practices. And for the record too I support the decision in the UK B&B case; if people want to run a business to the public then they need to abide by the law. In this case if they wanted to restrict their clientele to Christians only, they could easily have done so. They weren't inviting this couple into their private home, but they were running a business aimed at the general public.
As to your "critical assessments", I think I would be more convinced if these studies weren't from ultra-conservative groups that obviously have a predisposed agenda against gays. And these kinds of strawman claims have been easily refuted (you can look them up youself - maybe you need to exercise your skills in looking for non-confirming information!). And your dismissal of studies from the medical profession (such as the Pediatrics) study is simply nothing but handwaving - yes, these studies may not take a "moral" perspective, but they do study well-being and so far the results contradict your own predispositions on homosexuality.
The other issue too is the church's judgmental attitude to gays. It's one thing to say we don't hate gays, but words and behaviors often indicate otherwise, and indeed the church does seem to treat homosexuality as worse than other sins. It would be one thing if the church has had a track record of reaching out (a few have), in a non-judgemental way and offering real help to those who want it. But they do not. In fact there is good evidence that so-called reparative theories are not only largely ineffective, but psychologically damaging.
As to the "10,000 studies", the real issue here for me, is that for somebody who seems to regard himself as an intellectual, that you can be so cavalier with data. Rather than honestly admit that you have a mistake, you've tracked to backpedal and squirm your way out of it by saying that it the scale doesn't matter. The point remains though is that you simply did not properly check your sources; now I have to wonder how often you do that for your other sources.
But you're right, pursuing this any further is pointless. I think I've seen enough of your posts to realize you're not actually interested in a discussion with anybody, but simply want a forum where you can pontificate your Grand Ideas and demonstrate to the world how smart you are. Maybe that impresses some people, I don't know. But I doubt if you will change minds.
One more thing...
KF: " should also footnote that I have had -- suicide, hence the past tense -- homosexual colleagues sand friends"
I don't have the data, nor 10,000 studies :-), but there is certainly anecdotal evidence that suicides with gays are related to the lack of acceptance (and condemnation) by their peers and/or societal groups. I certainly know of at least a couple of gay friends who were members of the church, and certainly had suicidal tendencies, not only because of the perceived severity of their "sin", but the complete lack of efficacy in treatment (one went regularly for "exorcism" which as you might imagine made no difference).
In both these cases the people eventually left their respective churches and are now in long-term relationships and are psychologically thriving and productive people.
Onlookers:
More talking points to be corrected.
In the OP, I started with a link to remarks on the pornography plague. In the next post on it, I put a link to a memorial on deaths in that industry. Deaths that largely come from a poisonous nexus of bizarre sexual behaviour, drugs, drink, violence, depression and suicide.
But,our age is so depraved that porn "stars" are not seen for the victims they are, and producers are not prosecuted as abusers and rapists for profit.
With that comparison point in hand, it is unsurprising to see that there is a parallel pattern to the homosexual sub culture, one that is actually seen -- ch here and here -- as independent of whether societies are strongly supportive of homosexuals or not.
What is driving the high suicide rate pattern? The first linked, remarks:
>>Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society.
Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994).
A good general rule of thumb is that suicide attempts are about three times higher for homosexuals. Could there be a connection between those two percentages?
Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975).>>
Surprise. Not.
(Indeed, the articles show that pattern holds as well in countries that are strongly supportive of homosexuals. In short, homosexuality is deeply intertwined with several destructive pathologies, and arguably is itself a pathology. if we really care we will try to rescue these people.)
GEM of TKI
F/N: Now, I will not try to take up the ever so many talking points in the last comment by J one by one.
Let us focus again on just one, the "10,000 studies" point, to see what is going on.
Let us put what I originally said under the microscope, taking out the double-comma parenthesis to see just what is the FACT in view:
>> 2) It is a fact . . . that children do best when they are born in and nurtured across the twenty or so years it takes, in a stable marriage, where they are supported by their mother and father. >>
As I showed earlier, this fact is indeed so, and is backed by a "plethora" of studies, as well as by common good sense based on 5,000+ years of history all over the world.
So, it would be reasonable that we should be very protective of marriage and family, as individuals and communities. For the survival of the community is at stake.
Was J able to dispute and overturn this fact?
Not at all. Indeed,the study cited above in an overthrow attempt turned out to be yet another flawed study used for ideological purposes.
What did he do instead?
He tried to discredit the support for the fact that was alluded to, namely the round number 10,000 studies.
The pretence was that if someone as suspect as -- horror of horrors, Dr James Dobson, Christian and psychologist -- says something and did not list all 10,000 studies in a short, non-academic book of 120 pages, that is proof that he has no substantial support and that he claim can be dismissed as though it were false, and those who cite from Dobson can be derided as careless of facts.
When I pointed out that even if Dr Dobson was two orders of magnitude high, it would make no material difference, that was pounced on for rhetorical points.
When I cited history, personal experience as a Jamaican, and other experts in the literature, that was brushed aside on one excuse or another.
And when I have gone back and pointed out the context of the past 100 years of studies in several related disciplines, that too was brushed aside.
So, the conclusion is plain: we are seeing a turnabout projective accusation here, to excuse and distract from homosexualist closed mindedness to massively evident facts and abuse of flawed studies by trying to make it seem that those who do have the facts right are in the wrong.
Sad. And sadly revealing.
G'day
GEM of TKI
KF: "(Indeed, the articles show that pattern holds as well in countries that are strongly supportive of homosexuals. In short, homosexuality is deeply intertwined with several destructive pathologies, and arguably is itself a pathology. if we really care we will try to rescue these people"
So you cherry pick biased studies from ultra-conservative organizations and ignore others that would disconfirm these, and then say you have "evidence" for your case? But you seem to prefer studies from the Family Research Council, rather than more neutral and objective sources.
Fortunately I live in a tolerant place (West Coast of America) where gays and straights live side-by-side in relative harmony.
Obviously you do not live in a place where you would encounter such people. But they exist and many are my friends - all of them leading good lives, several occupying executive positions managing hundreds of people, contributing to their communities and in some cases adopting families with great success (and no, their children do not turn out gay). But these are stories - about real people living real lives are not what you want to hear, because you would rather listen to "10,000 studies" that support your own dogmatic position that homosexuality (according to your holy book) MUST be wrong. Yet, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary (in the same way that rather large number of non-Christians live surprisingly rich, fulfilling lives all without the help of any supernatural deity).
But you are welcome to belief your dogma and even speak of it freely, just please stay in your neck of the woods and let the rest of us peacefully live our lives!!! G'day to you too
P.S. My gay friends do not need rescuing, but thanks for the offer. Perhaps you can find a kitten or a puppy to rescue instead, that might be more useful.
It's interesting that you grew up in Jamaica because by some accounts it is the most homophobic country in the world. Is it possible you have some cultural baggage there that is influencing your position?
F/N 2: A quiet note, as the descendant of slaves liberated in major part through the effort of Christian reformers such as Wilberforce: law can be perverted away from its true role to protect the civil peace of justice.
Doubt me on this?
I answer in one word: slavery.
For, that was the law for centuries, centuries of injustice propped up by power in the wrong.
In this context, I can best conclude on the Bull and Johns cases (and others) by citing Mike Judge's stinging rebuke to those who are abusing anti- discrimination law to persecute Christians:
>> "Discrimination law is meant to act as a shield to protect people from unfair treatment, not to be used as a sword to attack those whose beliefs you disagree with." >>
Same knife stick sheep, stick goat.
F/N 3: And of course, the warrant for the gospel is independent of the feelings and rhetoric of those inclined to reject it.
It's equally just as easy to find studies that refute KF's stance:
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html
(this includes links to a large number of studies from professional journals).
But I expect these are avoided because of the possible cognitive dissonance that might ensue! I mean, what? The BIble might be WRONG about something? Heaven forbid!
Onlookers,
I am about to gavel this thread of discussion, as it is evident that it is increasingly based on projective turnabout accusations on the part of homosexualist advocates.
If you look back above, you will see a rebuttal that artfully neglects to address the substantial issue and the parallel case of the pornstar lifestyle, to indulge in namecalling.
Before closing off, let me cite a little more from the other article already linked, in turn discussing a Health24 article:
>> While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and member of the Catholic Medical Association, says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including "major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships."
Fitzgibbons said the American Psychological Association, which is known for its support of homosexual "marriage," ignored the evidence he presented that homosexuality presents significant danger to psychological health. >>
In short, there is as usual more to the story than we will see from homosexualist talking points.
A "more" that sounds a lot like the sad picture of what happens when a culture turns its back on God that we can read in Rom 1:18 - 32. At least, 1 Cor 6:9 - 11 gives the good news, there is hope in the gospel, whether for pornographers, or homosexuals, or "upright decent sinners on their way to ruin."
So, now it is time: RAP, RAP. RAP.
GEM of TKI
KF: "(Indeed, the articles show that pattern holds as well in countries that are strongly supportive of homosexuals. In short, homosexuality is deeply intertwined with several destructive pathologies, and arguably is itself a pathology. if we really care we will try to rescue these people.")
Do you really care? Or do you simply want to tell the world how depraved they are? Do you think that will be a winsome approach? What do you suggest for a rescue plan? I'm not sure too many of the plans tried to date have worked all that well...
I found another comment form our good old Anonymous, and posted it. More dismissals and projections.
KF: "I am about to gavel this thread of discussion, as it is evident that it is increasingly based on projective turnabout accusations on the part of homosexualist advocates. If you look back above, you will see a rebuttal that artfully neglects to address the substantial issue and the parallel case of the pornstar lifestyle, to indulge in namecalling."
What? Being a pornstar is somehow parallel with being a gay person? Again it reveals a profound ignorance of the gay community that all of them are somehow incessantly having sex in depraved ways. Sure, there is a small subset that do (in the same way that a small subset does in the heterosexual community too). But to compare the average lifestyle of a gay person with a pornstar is patently unwarranted and absurd. Is it me but is KF kind of obsessed with sex :-)
The real issue is that KF refuses to acknowledge that there is compelling counter-evidence to his arguments and continues to cite biased and homophobic studies from ultra-conservative organizations. It is a prime example of the confirmation bias. Yes, it's quite easy to go out to the Internet and find all kinds of information that will support your case.
I noticed too that he refuses to also acknowledge the anecdotal evidence that gay people are in fact not pathological or pariahs. My wish for him again is that somehow along his path in life he will encounter some well-functioning gay people that will make him see a different perspective. I know that's what has ultimately changed my mind on the topic.
I have published three fresh comments by J, none of which actually show that he point he objected to, that children thrive in a creation order marriage, is overturned by actual facts.
He resorts to more projection of bias, and hostility. And, seems to be unknowing of basic facts.
Apparently, J is unaware of he extraordinarily high number of sex partners that "gay" men commonly have across a lifetime, or even a year. I recall that very well, as I was very much around for the initial spreading of AIDS, which was pushed by the high degree of promiscuity, indeed the ultra-promiscuity of up to several partners per DAY, that has been for so long a major feature of the "gay" subculture. He is also unaware of the strong overlap between the homosexual subculture and the porn industry.
He refuses to face the explicitly stated point of strong parallel on self-destructive behaviour and consequences: >> a poisonous nexus of bizarre sexual behaviour, drugs, drink, violence, depression and suicide . . . >>
And more.
An onward exchange following the above trends would be fruitless and so I now close off comments.
Good day.
I have made some onward remarks here.
Post a Comment