1 Chron 12:32 report, 69: Escape and recovery from life dominating sins in New Sodom

[HEADS UP UPDATE, Sept 30: I believe this and related posts are under hostile scrutiny, given posts I put up over the past few days here and here; in the contexts of:

(i) a recent outrageous attempt to threaten a Christian Coffee house in the UK for displaying on a TV a video deemed "offensive" to homosexuals under the Public Order Act, namely, a Bible reading video, 

(ii) the imposition of the Montserrat Constitution Order 2010 which unwisely enshrines "sexual orientation" -- dangerously vague -- as a protected right, 

(iii) the just announced recent publication of a peer reviewed study [more details here] on spiritually motivated changes in sexual orientation that underscores that moral-spiritual effort can and does in a significant proportion of cases, as a matter of credible fact, actually change sexual orientation and behaviour.  

I therefore draw attention to key resources here and here [Warning, not for the faint of heart or stomach], for those wanting a fresh and well informed view on the subject not controlled by the unfortunate ideologisation of psychological science that has been ongoing since the 1970's. KF 11:09:30]

 _______

In one of the adverse comments on a previous post in the capacity-building focus series for this blog, J observed (anecdotally) as follows on two homosexuals in churches:

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.

 Now, of course the immediate suggestion is that spiritual support is ineffective in changing homosexual habituation, and contributes to a tendency to suicidal depression. The proposed solution is to encourage the homosexuals in their behaviour; never mind that the evidence is that such behaviours are associated with a pattern of unstable relationships and the loss of 20+ years of life expectancy, and that there is a serious moral cloud hanging over the behaviour pattern.

In addition, as was pointed out in my response to this comment, the balance of evidence is that the dramatically higher suicide rate is directly connected to the instability of homosexual relationships -- indeed, those "long-term [homosexual] relationships" tend to be very open to third party involvements and short term flings and by that openness, will tend to be unstable -- and it therefore occurs in very supportive environments as well as "unsupportive" ones:

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 -- cf. 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.)

However, the issue is, how can we build capacity in the church to support people in turning away from destructive patterns of behaviour like homosexual involvement, pornography, promiscuity, drink and drugs? [All of which, by the way tend to be strongly associated and are mutually reinforcing.]

1 --> A key first step is to recall Jesus' remark on the limitations of exorcism, in the further context of a wicked, adulterous generation that demanded signs from God on their own terms:

 Matt 12:³⁸ . . .  some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”


 ³⁹ He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ⁴¹ The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one^[e] greater than Jonah is here. ⁴² The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

   ⁴³ “When an evil^[f] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. ⁴⁴ Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. ⁴⁵ Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.” [NIV]

2 --> Immediately, if we are to have resurrection, transforming power in our lives, ministries and service, we must first recognise the sign of Jonah, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, with 500+ witnesses. In the first aspect, this is because that is the only authorised offer of proof for the gospel; indeed, it is the key warranting argument for the truth and power of the Christian faith. Two  helpful (and eye-opening) audio/video sequences begin here:


 

and here:

 Also this Habermas-Flew debate on the resurrection:

 

3 --> It is also the pivot for confident faith in God's promises and power that opens us up to the transforming power of the gospel that fills and transforms our lives:

Eph 1: ¹⁵ . . .  ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, ¹⁶ I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. ¹⁷ I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit^[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. ¹⁸ I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, ¹⁹ and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, ²⁰ which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, ²¹ far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. ²² And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, ²³ which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.[NIV]

4 --> By contrast, Jesus tells us that if one simply stops at being set free for the moment from demonic bondage, when the binding spirit returns, if it finds its place unoccupied, it will return, with more force than ever. Exorcism -- as many thousands of successfully transformed lives confirm --  is not enough; we have to replace the former habits, occupations and patterns with new ones that fill our lives, minds and souls with a new Spirit.

5 --> And, we must fortify ourselves for the return visit of the former spiritual oppressors, so that they will find a house not only cleaned up and occupied, but strongly garrisoned and vigilant; with on-call "fireman" spiritual support.

6 --> Indeed, that is exactly what the much maligned (and now astonishingly hard to find) Robert Spitzer study presented to the APA in 2001, and published in 2003 confirms. In effect, through a process of some years of effort [note below, how Spitzer notes that the pivotal point with especially thought patterns takes about two years of diligent effort], significant change is possible, especially through spiritual transformation in a supportive environment. As Dr Spitzer said in a 2004 interview with Throckmorton:

it was a study of 200 people who had been homosexually oriented. In
order to get into the study, they had to have had at least five years of a change, where they had previously been predominately homosexual, now are predominately heterosexual. What we learned was that the changes that were recorded were not just in behavior, but were in their feelings, their fantasies, what attracted them, and how they performed sexually. So it was a very meaningful change for the great majority . . . . it was not a study of how often they can make that change, but it was a study of whether there are some people who can make a change in more than just how they view themselves, but also in their fantasies, in their arousal. I developed a very systematic structured interview which I think is much more methodologically sound tha[n] in previous studies . . . What we found was that there were some significant changes. We also sent questionnaires to many of the people who were married, and we also had questionnaires on marital adjustment to their spouses. And they, by and large, reported quite good functioning . . . .


Now the real issue, or one of the major issues is can you believe these people?


And the study has been criticized on the grounds of, well, these are people who had a particular viewpoint and what they're doing is justifying their claims that they have made, either lied or deceived themselves. So one of the major criticisms is that, well, ok, these have said something, but do we know it's actually true? And there's no easy answer to that. When I listened to them, I have a kind of clinical feeling that these people were telling me the truth. While there may be some who were exaggerating, but that's not true with all who reported change. And there were some who reported change, some not very much, many disappointed that they had not changed more.So why do I think that it's believable? One is that they didn't report absolutely total change, which I think if, you know, if you're going to exaggerate, you're going to exaggerate more. In addition, the marital adjustment that the spouses told, mainly women; what they said about their marriage, what the individuals said about their marriage is from a marital adjustment scale, where we had norms, what a community sample generally reports. Now you would think that if these were people who wanted to give a good story that they would report better than normal, or better that usual, better than average, sexual functioning. And they didn't, they reported just about the same.


And I think that, what, also makes me think, in addition is that when they talked about the therapy what went on in the therapy, for a small number, it was very religious, uh, dramatically religious experiences. I remember one woman said that, in the middle of having sex with her lesbian partner, and all of the sudden, she heard Jesus say, "What are you doing?!" but that was relatively rare. Most of the changes seemed to be associated with the usual things that one hears about in psychotherapy. People talking about their background, their family, how they saw masculinity, femininity, so it seemed believable to me . . . .


I've asked two of the more well known practitioners of this kind of therapy how often are they successful, and they say, well it depends on the way you define success, but if you define success in terms of a change in behavior, and in feelings, there's about 30 percent or something like that. Now I suspect it's much lower, but I could be wrong. So whether it's 2 %, 10%, or 15%, but what I am sure is that it's not 0%. And that's what this study was about, whether it's actually 0 percent.


. . . . many had been so depressed they were suicidal. And a few had made
actual attempts. So, I mean they reported a very unhappy state of mind before they changed. The other thing is that the change was not quick… another reason why I believe in credibility; you would think that, if you want to present the best way of presenting therapy, you would say that it started to work pretty soon. You wouldn't say that it was on average two years before there was really much change, which was the case. Many said it took several years before they actually noticed change, and on average it was two years. The people were in some kind of therapy for an average of 7 years. But, often that was still being in some group experience they would keep going to a support group for several years.

7 --> Sobering, but realistic: recovery is possible, but will take some time, will normally be at various points on a spectrum, and will not work to the desired "complete" degree in all cases. In short, about what one would expect on a common-sense basis for victims of a life-dominating destructive habit. Similarly, Waller and Nocolosi observe:

Is reorientation therapy harmful? For the participants in our study, Spitzer notes, there was no evidence of harm. "To the contrary," he says, "they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself." And because his study found considerable benefit and no harm, Spitzer said, the American Psychiatric Association should stop applying a double standard in its discouragement of reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy to confirm and solidify a gay identity.


Furthermore, Spitzer wrote in his conclusion, "the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."


Is reorientation therapy chosen only by clients who are driven by guilt--that is, what's popularly known as "homophobia"? To the contrary, Spitzer concludes. In fact, "the ability to make such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination."

8 --> In short, there is hope, but not without difficulties, and people should know that the road to recovery is not easy or simple. Such findings can be expressed in familiar terms through the well-known twelve step recovery programmes first pioneered for alcoholism (which, BTW, is strongly believed to have genetic influence-- as opposed to determining, irresistible "cause").

9 --> A useful summary is the inadvertent admission against interest in Wikipedia (which is predictably strongly secularist and evolutionary materialistic):

A twelve-step program is a set of guiding principles outlining a course of action for recovery from addiction, compulsion, or other behavioral problems . . . .


These are the original Twelve Steps as published by Alcoholics Anonymous:^[10]

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

12 --> In short, all along, there has been a well-known, established, proven effective process for addressing life-dominating compulsive, out-of control destructive -- I daresay, even "demonised" -- behaviours through moral-spiritual transformation. One that is known to work in a great many cases, but not in all, and this especially because of the challenge of learning how to walk with God in the fellowship of other recovering sinners.

13 --> Or, putting this another way, discipleship works, even though backsliding is always a possibility and challenge. (And it is worth noting that the actual image in view in this colourful OT term, is of a heifer that is foolishly resisting being led to a new pasture, and so stubbornly digs in her heels, fighting tooth and nail.)

14 --> It is also clear that it is a lot easier to avoid biting on a baited hook, than to get off the hook once one has bitten. So, prevention/purity training is a key component of effective discipleship in "a wicked and adulterous generation."

15 --> That training can be aptly summed up in the words of Paul to Titus:

Titus 2:¹ You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine . . . . ⁷ In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness ⁸ and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad [and by implication, truthful] to say about us . . . .


¹¹ For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. ¹² It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, ¹³ while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.


 ¹⁵ These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

16 --> More subtly, we also have to expose and resist deceptive re-labelling by promoters of evil ways, whereby harmful, destructive, perverse and perverted, sinful behaviours and habits are now promoted as though they were beneficial or genetically programmed and irresistible.

17 --> In particular, once we see that even if alcoholism has a genetic component, it is still both destructive and not irresistible, that has a transforming impact on our view.

18 --> Namely, genetic influences (real or imagined) do not remove moral responsibility, nor do they inevitably lock us into a destructive pattern, once we are determined to get out and are willing to pay the price to get out and keep out.

19 --> Similarly, sexuality in general does have an obvious in-built genetically based component, which drives maleness and femaleness, and which inclines us towards genital expression of our sexuality, especially once puberty hits. But that does not excuse us from being under moral government, nor does it justify wrongful or destructive behaviour and habits.

20 --> When it therefore comes to the question of claimed genetic influences inclining some to homosexual habituation, it is fair comment to say that the claimed and headlined proofs of gay genes have consistently not panned out.

21 --> And, the evidence of the possibility of prevention and recovery shows that a determined effort to walk in the right by the grace and power of God in the company of the similarly committed recovering sinners of all kinds, shows that -- regardless of how such a "gay gene" debate comes out -- genetic or nurturing influence is not genetic or nurturing determination that removes our responsibility for our behaviour.

_________________________ 

The issues here are sobering, and in some respects they give us a grim warning about just how destructively addictive sinful habits are.

So, our priority must be on prevention, and then we must be willing to engage the tough challenge of recovery with those who were on the hook, but by God's grace have got off it, even though they may well have been scarred and further hurt in so doing.

But, even at painful cost, it is better to be off the hook than to be headed to the frying pan.

Perhaps, that need for utter and unflinching determination to turn to the right and walk away from evil is the underlying reality behind one of Jesus' hardest teachings:

 Mark 9:⁴². . . whoever causes one of these little ones (these believers) who ^[r]acknowledge and cleave to Me to stumble and sin, it would be better (more profitable and wholesome) for him if a [huge] millstone were hung about his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
    ⁴³And if your hand puts a stumbling block before you and causes you to sin, cut it off! It is more profitable and wholesome for you to go into life [^[s]that is really worthwhile] maimed than with two hands to go to hell (Gehenna), into the fire that cannot be put out.^{[t]
    45}And if your foot is a cause of stumbling and sin to you, cut it off! It is more profitable and wholesome for you to enter into life [that is really worthwhile] crippled than, having two feet, to be cast into hell (Gehenna)^[u].
    ⁴⁷And if your eye causes you to stumble and sin, pluck it out! It is more profitable and wholesome for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell (Gehenna) [AMP]

In short, do what it takes, however painful and even potentially crippling (though there is doubtless a measure of hyperbole to make a point; Jesus, beyond reasonable doubt,  is not teaching literal self-mutilation as spiritual discipline). 

Gal 6 therefore has a sobering, balanced counsel that is an apt conclusion:

^{Gal 6:1}BRETHREN, IF any person is overtaken in misconduct or sin of any sort, you who are spiritual [who are responsive to and controlled by the Spirit] should set him right and restore and reinstate him, without any sense of superiority and with all gentleness, keeping an attentive eye on yourself, lest you should be tempted also.
    ²Bear (endure, carry) one another's burdens and ^[a]troublesome moral faults, and in this way fulfill and observe perfectly the law of Christ (the Messiah) and complete ^[b]what is lacking [in your obedience to it].
    ³For if any person thinks himself to be somebody [too important to condescend to shoulder another's load] when he is nobody [of superiority except in his own estimation], he deceives and deludes and cheats himself.
    ⁴But let every person carefully scrutinize and examine and test his own conduct and his own work. He can then have the personal satisfaction and joy of doing something commendable [^[c]in itself alone] without [resorting to] boastful comparison with his neighbor.
    ⁵For every person will have to bear (^[d]be equal to understanding and calmly receive) his own [^[e]little] load ^[f][of oppressive faults]. [AMP]

And so, let us return to the Mordecai challenge: Why not now, why not here, why not us? END

___________ 

ADDED, Mar 17: Some useful references that will give perspective and insight:

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. 

1 Chron 12:32 report, 68: Standing up for unwelcome "big truths" in New Sodom

A few days ago, I put up a post in this capacity-building focus series, on using the SWOT strategising technique, in the face of the trends of our C21 Romans 1 world, which I now call New Sodom.

Almost immediately, I was pounced on by a frequent adverse commenter at Cornelius Hunter's blog, Darwin's God; backed up by an anonymous commenter. It seems that by touching on unwelcome big truths about homosexualisation of marriage, family, public policy and the courts joined to increasing persecution of Christian people of principled conscience, I touched a raw nerve.

However, the rhetorical assault is a very useful case study on the techniques and tone Bible-believing Christians who speak up on controversial issues will increasingly encounter in a Saul Alinsky, trifecta fallacy, turnabout accusation world where the notion is that one real or perceived hole suffices to rhetorically sink a case or a side of an issue, and to discredit, demonise and dismiss the presenter. 

I think we should take it apart a bit, the better to understand how to respond. 

First, let us see how J and A opened their case:

J: 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/). [NB: Cf. the other side of this talking point, here.]


A: 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.

 This of course set out the key talking points that would be used over and over again, and is a classic illustration of the now tediously familiar Alinskyite Trifecta Combination Fallacy:  

distractive tangential red herrings led out to strawman caricatures, soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere.

In my summing up response, having already addressed the main attack, pointed to the worldview root in the inherent, inescapable and destructive amorality and radical relativism of evolutionary materialism that was already exposed by Plato in his The Laws, Bk X, in 360 BC, but nowadays likes to present itself in the holy lab coats of "science" -- falsely so called --  and rebutted several further tangents, I analysed the talking point tactics (with some links made in the thread and an explanatory parenthesis or two added):

. . . Let us focus again on just one [talking point], 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. [NB: Cf Ron Linden's painfully explicit -- not for children or the faint-hearted -- response to homosexualist talking points here, and the articles here, here and here. BTW, the "no harm" claim being made reflects as well the assumption that morality is relative, so being raised in a morally questionable environment and being deeply influenced or affected by it, is of no account. And of course the onward chaotic and destructive  implications of such Romans 1 world amorality and relativism for the society as it spreads ever more into it -- as I discussed in the post that provoked the hostile responses -- are ignored or dismissed. Cf. here for a grad student's report on the ideologisation of psychology.]

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 the claim can be dismissed as though it were false, and those who cite from Dobson [through the Alinskyite rhetorical magic of the trifecta fallacy and assorted associated turnabout false accusations] 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 [to the material fact at stake: 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 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 make 10,000 studies a reasonable round number estimate for the supportive social science and psychology/psychiatry literature], 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.

 What is going on here?

 a --> At personal level, since I am now a contributor at the leading Intelligent Design Blog, Uncommon Descent, evolutionary materialist advocates are trying to find any points they can to pounce and demonise or discredit. Thus, we routinely find smear words like "fundamentalist" -- after all we all "know" that design theory is nothing but theocratic, right-wing theocratic tyranny hiding in a cheap tuxedo [NOT] -- and false accusations like"when you are in need of facts to support one's bigotry I suppose one doesn't have to be too choosey."

b -->  Dean Byrd, in a key point in his peer-reviewed journal article, "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] -- which I added to the original post as an update once I saw that this was the line of false accusations being used (duly ignored of course) -- rebuts the attempt to dismiss the material fact; rather directly:

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.

c --> But the advocates' typical rebuttal to such a cite from the Vice President of NARTH, is predictable: the source is "bigoted" -- i.e. Byrd disagrees with the evolutionary materialistic, homosexualist position -- and so he and whatever he says can be strawmannised, soaked in ad hominems, set ablaze with incendiary rhetoric and dismissed.

d --> The first answer to that is of course to expose the attack to the man for what it is, dishonesty, and point to the balance of the case on the merits. Namely, Byrd -- as Dobson -- is summarising the overwhelming, evidence backed consensus that has made Creation order  marriage the backbone of society for 5,000 years of recorded history. 

e --> But if you are hostile to an unwelcome big truth, the easiest way to discredit it in your mind is to strawmannise it and those who present it, soak in ad hominems and set alight. 

f --> So -- in the teeth of the predictably onward hostile or even verbally violent, abusive response --  we need to consistently expose such incivility for what it is, and point out the first steps in critical thinking and drawing wise conclusions on issues. 

g --> Namely, that arguments draw persuasive force from one or more of three appeals: (i) to emotions [pathos], (ii) to the claimed credibility of an authority [ethos], (iii) to the merits on fact and logic [logos]. And, we can easily see:

I: PATHOS: While our emotions may sometimes rest on an accurate perception of the truth, the opposite can just as easily happen, and in any case the mere intensity of our feelings and perceptions has nothing to do with the substantial force of a case.


II: ETHOS: While we must rely on authorities starting with our parents and teachers and the friendly local dictionary for 99% of practical reasoning, no authority is better than his or her facts, assumptions and reasoning.


III: LOGOS: It is only when an argument is based on all the material facts -- those that make a difference to the conclusion or decision at stake -- and reasons correctly, that we should trust the conclusions.

h --> To this, we must add certain first principles of right reason, and steps to building a sound worldview, starting from the issue that every worldview must start from a set of first plausibles that defines its faith-point. For building our world and life view on "turtles all the way down" (or turtles in a circle . . . ) makes no sense:

i --> And, in fact the root issue at stake is that in our day evolutionary materialism presents itself as the only credible, "Scientific" worldview; but in fact this is a case of "turtles in a circle." This, we can see from Lewontin's well known 1997 NYRB review of Carl Sagan's last book, The Demon-haunted World:
 

To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . .  

 It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.  [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]

j --> The blatant question-begging and triumphalism are obvious. Philip Johnson, a leading design thinker, therefore aptly rebutted in November that year:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."  

. . . .   The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

k --> But the problem is deeper than that, it also goes to the inescapable amorality and irresponsibility of evolutionary materialism, as we may first see from historian of science (with a special focus on evolutionary biology and population genetics) Prof William Provine of Cornell University, in his 1998 Darwin Day keynote address at the University of Tennessee:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is  another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . . [Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract).]

l --> This is chillingly revealing, to the point of being a disguised reduction to absurdity. Will Hawthorne, of the blog Atheism is Dead, therefore tellingly rebuts:

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces].  (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)

Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.

. . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'.

For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.

Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions) . . . there must be a problem somewhere in the argument.

m --> There is. By trying to build a worldview on a foundation that not only begs the question but has in it no IS that can ground OUGHT, evolutionary materialism locks us up to the absurdity that our sense of moral obligation is an illusion. So, the real issue then becomes, who holds the guns and the mikes, to intimidate under false colour of law, or to manipulate through creating a new Plato's cave of deceitful shadow-shows in the name of the truth:

n --> Plato exposed the evolutionary materialist agenda long since, in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC. (I find it interesting how this little discussion is not a part and parcel of the intellectual furniture of every educated person.)  Let us excerpt:

Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors:  (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . .

[[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny. )] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here],  these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.

o --> In short, evolutionary materialism is usually presented in the name of progress and critique of "backward" thought. It boldly claims to be knowledge, and leads to the direct implication that morality has no objective foundation, inviting adherents to assume that "the highest right is might," so that they then form ruthless factions that vie for power and -- should they gain it -- will use it to oppress those that they oppose. Resemblance to the legal rulings in the  recent Bull and Johns cases is NOT coincidental.

p --> That is, we are seeing here that in our time, leading evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers, especially homosexualists, have hit on the idea that they can cynically exploit our notion of fairness and the concepts of rights and equality to impose homosexualisation of marriage, family, law, education and the state, silencing those who base their worldview on the Bible as a bastion of principled moral thought. Thus, through their abuse of the concept of rights to oppress people of principle, we see the force of Mike Judge's stinging retort:

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.

q --> But of course, that is exactly what we are facing, at the hands of those who believe that the highest might is right, and that they have the power to intimidate, silence and prosecute those who dare differ with them.

r --> Indeed, this saddening attitude uncomfortably echoes the recorded words of the men of Sodom when Lot made the mildest of remonstrances (and badly stumbled morally himself in so doing):

Gen 19:⁹ “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.”

s --> That might-makes-right amorality is plain. And, it brings to mind the grim warning in Romans 1:

^{Rom 1:20} For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 ²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 ²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 ²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
 ²⁸ Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 

t --> But, there is hope, a hope that will likely (cf also here, here and here) require much skilled counsel, a steadfast walk and ongoing support in many cases of life dominating sins such as pornography sexual addiction, drugs addiction and homosexual habituation, but it is hope, a hope that has been found by thousands across the centuries and in our own day:

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.

u --> Of course, many are inclined to simply dismiss the gospel out of hand. To such, we point here as a beginning point to thinking afresh, and we invite an open-minded viewing of this video:

______________ 

So, we have some food for thought, and some possible steps to take to deal with this challenge in our times. END

___________ 

ADDED, Mar 17: Some useful references that will give perspective and insight:

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. 

1 Chron 12:32 report, 67: SWOT-ting our way forward in the face of the rise of New Sodom

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

Time to plunder the Egyptians and learn from the Philistines . . .  

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:

>> 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. >>)

3) It is a direct implication that anything that undermines this, will be damaging to the children, and so also to the community.

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.

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, and 

e --> 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?

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.

And, it is later than we might think. END

___________ 

ADDED, Mar 17: Some useful references that will give perspective and insight:

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. 

Capacity Focus, 2: Alice 3, Java, computer programming for all and open source software as catalysts for regional economic productivity and development

 Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are a critical enabling piece in our productivity toolkit for our people, businesses, churches, and region. But, the key element on the software side, programming, has a stiff entry barrier: learning how to do it.

For decades, many approaches have been tried to lower this barrier, indeed, even BASIC and PASCAL were developed as instructional languages. JAVA was supposed to be a universal language, and perhaps comes closest to that ideal, as it uses a virtual machine that maps to the particular computing device, from a cell phone to a supercomputer. 

But, even if "Hello World" Java style can be dissected and used to teach basic ideas, it is still significantly hard to learn Java.

Alice has been in development since the 1990's at the University of Virginia then at Carnegie Mellon University since 1997, as an educational programming language or authoring environment. The emerging version 3 (in an unfortunately slow -- but usable -- in-house Beta development stage), which integrates with Java and Java Integrated Development Environments [IDE's], now seems to be the candidate to beat:

(This Google Tech Talk from Dec 2007 (58+ minutes) gives a more detailed explanation of the emerging Alice 3.)

The Alice concept is to put three-dimensional actors moving on a stage [that begs for a robotics/mechatronics package!], as objects that do things based on methods; using all the traditional structured constructs for programming. There is the capacity to do interactive games, and to export in effect a computer animation movie, now with Sims 2.0 characters, through collaboration with Computer Arts; a leading games manufacturer.

The required methods -- all of this is linked to object oriented programming (OOP) -- are implemented with drag-drop menus, and so we get out of the problems of code that is doing invisible things that cause puzzling failures, and the related problem of an exacting syntax. (There was once a NASA rocket that had to be destroyed on liftoff because it was veering mysteriously and dangerously off-course; due in the end to a misplaced comma or something like that.)

The Java bridge, however, then allows the introduction of more standard programming environments and languages, opening the gate to more traditional programming.

Alice therefore is a very useful "programming for all" language, and with anticipated packs for physics, engineering dynamics, robotics etc. and purpose-built textbooks, and with free tutor support materials accessible online [cf here, here (tutorials: a whole course) and here for three key resource sites], it increasingly looks like it will be a worthwhile language in its own right: programming for the rest of us. 

Since it is available for Windows, Mac and Linux, and is a Java-based platform, that already makes it  accessible to a wide variety of operating systems. I would love to see adaptations to the OLPC Sugar interface and to smart cell phones, including the Android operating system. (Imagine the youth of our region motivated to learn and carry out programming of applications on their cell phones . . . the single most widespread set of computing capable platforms in the region. A great many cell phones use Linux [or at least Linux derived technology] and/or Java.)

Moving up to strategy, I suggest that the region should come together through implementing a collaborative software technology centre, that focuses on open source technologies, and adapts them to regional needs. This could be based on a consortium of regional universities and should be affiliated with a Caricom technology and capacity building for development unit. The unit should do development and adaptation work, contributing to the open source movement, and hosting a resource base for software adapted to our region's needs.

I suggest, as a first list, we should look seriously at:

OpenOffice office productivity software (also cf. PDF-XChange Viewer for a free PDF reader with markup facility.)


The Linux operating system, especially the Ubuntu distributions [Distros, in Linux speak] and Jolicloud's "click and play" cloud based distribution

Alice and Java as educational and general purpose programming platforms

The OLPC XO-1 educational netbooks (this machine launched the netbook market) and upcoming XO-3 tablets, with their Sugar Linux-based operating system and user interface [low cost, completely open on hardware and software, like the Heathkits of old]

Android Operating System for Cell Phones and tablets

OpenProj Project Management software (works with MS Project Files)

Project in a Box Community Edition (and the PRINCE 2 and log frame project approaches (cf, this critical success factors-based adaptation for project managers (as opposed to AID agency monitoring)] in the context of programme based project cycle management)

GnuCash small business accounting system

Kompozer WYSIWYG and CSS web authoring software

Amaya Web editor

Blender multimedia and 3-d content production software (with video editing capacity; cf basic tutorial here)

GIMP photo/image editing suite, or the Photoshop-ised interface adaptation, GIMPhoto. (Also look at Irfanview image viewer, converter, slideshow and light duty image editor.)

Inkscape drawing package

Dassault Systemes' DraftSight 2-D CAD DWG standard software (including the educational packs)

Google Sketchup 3-D modeling software

The emerging VLC VideoLAN Movie Creator video editing suite, and in the meanwhile, ZS4 or Windows Movie Maker or the like

Audacity sound editing software

Businesses and individuals would then make money through applying the products to their own production of goods and services [e.g. education, entertainment, office productivity and multimedia software], or by providing value-added support services to businesses, individuals, government agencies and organisations, and through providing plug-in modules or extensions.

So, we here see a sketched outline strategy for cost-effectively moving the region from the consumption and entertainment side of ICTs to the production side, opening up an approach to identifying and exploiting profitable niches in the most dynamic sector of the global economy. END