The cure for homosexuality?

To infer that homosexuality requires a “cure” is of course is to suggest that there is something wrong with it. Stephen Bennett here explains what that is and how he managed to escape the ultimately unfulfilling ‘gay’ lifestyle thanks to forgiveness and has now found true happiness. He also notes how the push for ‘gay rights’ is a vain attempt at ‘self-acceptance': something which someone living a homosexual lifestyle can never achieve.

The cure for homosexuality

I remember my childhood days in the early ’70s when my friends and I would get together in their basement and play “house.” I would be the daddy and my friend Lynn would be the mommy. Her younger sister Claire would be our little girl. A 4 foot by 4 foot miniature vinyl Barbie playhouse was our “home sweet home.” It was a great time of make believe and pretend, fantasizing what the “real thing” would be like one day. Deep down, I really had a secret crush on Lynn and loved playing house with her, more than she ever knew. Besides, it took me away from the unstable family life I had at home of a real mommy and daddy who both drank and fought much of the time.

Many years later as an adult in the early ’90s, I remember lying in bed together with my partner on a Tuesday night. Tuesday night was TV night for us. We’d both come home from work and after dinner, clean up and put on a pot of coffee. Then we would get into some comfy T-shirts and cuddle up with each other as we watched “Roseanne” and our other favorite shows. After the 11 o’clock news, we’d do some sit-ups, turn off the lights and peacefully fall asleep in each other’s arms. I clearly remember listening to the sounds of the crickets with a cool breeze blowing through our slightly opened windows. Our bedroom was filled with the romantic pale light of the moon and the star-studded New England night sky.

As I look back at that time in my life, I remember exactly how I felt. We had it all. We were on top of the world. A beautiful home, a dog, two cats, great friends and a loving, long-term, committed “storybook” relationship. No doubt, we were going to be partners for life. OK, so it wasn’t exactly as I pictured it years earlier with Lynn and Claire, but hey, he was the man of my dreams.

As I sit here now typing, burning the midnight oil, I hear those crickets outside my window. I can see that same pale moon resting in that same star-filled New England sky. My two little children are both fast asleep after daddy prayed with them and read them “Goldilocks and the Three Bears.” My beautiful wife also is sleeping tranquilly after reading her Bible and saying her prayers. She prays on her knees every night for our family members, as well as countless other families and friends across the country whose loved ones are entrapped in the homosexual lifestyle.

As I look back on all those years of Tuesday TV nights with my boyfriend, I realize the homosexual lifestyle was a deceitful counterfeit of the “real” thing. My partner and I were like the children in my childhood of days gone by. We were two men who thought we had the world in the palm of our hands – when in fact, we had nothing at all. We were two lost souls, living in a world of make believe – two emotionally hurting boys playing house, desperately clinging onto each other night after night, week after week, year after year.

As homosexual men and women across the country strive for their “special rights,” civil unions and ultimately same-sex marriages, I can attest firsthand these individuals are making every attempt to resolve their inner homosexual conflict. These are feelings, thoughts and actions most have had ever since childhood. Many have hidden and suppressed their homosexual feelings for so long, until they finally gave in and “came out” to the world. Their inner struggle for self-acceptance has turned into a misguided outward struggle for civil rights. With each battle won on local, state and federal levels, their pillage is America’s acceptance and tolerance. While they fill their storehouses with their vain plunder, they tirelessly continue their unending life-long search for their “holy grail”: self-acceptance. No matter how hard they search or how long they try, I’m afraid it is something that will never be found.

Homosexuality is clearly an outward expression of things going on much deeper in a person – issues for many originating back to their childhood.

For homosexual men, in most all cases it has everything to do with a lack of relationship with the father. For women, the problem can rest with the mother and/or father or another male figure. For some, molestation or a premature sexual experience was the lead in to the homosexual lifestyle. Whatever the factors may have been to drive someone down that unwanted homosexual path, we must remember one thing: No one was born homosexual. To state such a fact is a tragedy, as well as cop out.

Just as no one is born an alcoholic or a drug addict, the same must be said of the homosexual. “Issues” are what bring a person down these lonely, painful paths – issues when finally dealt with will allow the person to come out of their destructive behavior. You don’t need to be a psychologist to figure this one out.

In 1992, I became a Christian, accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. When I fully understood the forgiveness God extended to me through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, I realized the life-changing power that lay within this efficacious act. I knew that the forgiveness that was so graciously given to me now needed to be extended by me to someone else who needed it just as much: my father.

After 28 painful years of a damaged relationship with the one man whose love I craved and desired the most, my many years of wandering and numerous homosexual encounters came abruptly to an end.

It happened one morning in my parents’ kitchen. My father and I did something we never really did before – we talked. We both dealt with the past, we vented, we questioned, we understood and we healed. And in an emotional embrace I’ll never forget, we both did something else: We forgave. I have never been the same man since.

In a single moment of time, the doors to my painful childhood were slammed shut once and for all, never to be opened again. My homosexual needs and desires were gone and I was changed. Completely. My heavenly Father showed me by example what I needed to give to my earthly father. I crossed that fearful heterosexual threshold that so many other brave men and women in my shoes have done before me. And in doing so, I found something I never could have imagined – the cure for homosexuality. Forgiveness.

Our acceptance and tolerance of the ever-growing homosexual deviancy in America today is really a paradox. You see, we are actually committing a grave injustice toward these misled men and women. We’re not helping these people by affirming them, but actually hurting them even further. By enabling them to remain emotionally stunted and trapped in their pasts, we as a society play a major part in keeping them from their potential futures. And according to the Bible, as a nation, our acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality will keep us from our potential future as well.

I’ve found the cure for homosexuality. Forgiveness. Share it with your “gay” and lesbian friends. Give them some food for thought.

No doubt I am on a mission today: to bring the truth about homosexuality to the world – that no one is born homosexual, it has everything to do with the childhood, and complete change is possible. Completely possible. From the calls that are coming in weekly around the country from homosexual men and women themselves, I can tell you, this message is making a major impact … one forgiving heart at a time.

This entry was posted in Homosexuality, Social Engineering and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to The cure for homosexuality?

  1. English Viking says:

    Truth. Every last jot of it.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    It is very simply, yet eloquently phrased, English. And true, yes indeed.

  3. Forgiveness is actually the cure for rather a lot of things….

    The world says that revenge is sweet. In fact, revenge is bitter; it’s forgiveness that is sweet.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    You’re right, YMB.

    I know a woman who never forgave her late husband for his affairs, even many years after his death. One day she did and felt an enormous burden lifted from her.

    I think that the power of forgiveness is something that takes time to discover, even for Christians, as this lady is.

    Praise the Almighty God for the teachings of his Son. If only the whole world would see that His words as well as His sacrifice were for our lasting benefit.

  5. Jared Gaites says:

    What has happened to Archbishop Cranmer is what I wanna know?

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    It’s a worry, isn’t it? I wish folk would have been more generous in donating to his cause.

  7. AdrianT says:

    Thankfully, Jefferson’s wonderful Virginia Statute stops fanatics like Bennett from imposing his superstitious, evil nonsense on anyone else, as the American Constitution gives freedome from, as well as freedom of, religion.

    Evidence yet again that self-described ‘ex-gays’ – cannot get on with their lives but obsess about plotting to destroy ther happiness of others. so-called ‘Ex-gay’ people are either indoctrinated with religious based self-hatred from the start, or drug-fuelled imbeciles who go off the rails and hate the fact that millions of other successful, happy gay people have not ruined their lives like they have. Bennett clearly falls into the former category.

    There is no evidence that people can change their sexuality, and there is overwhelming evidence it is genetic. Those fraudulent pick-pockets who prey on vulnerable people to offer such fraudulent ‘therapy’ are on the same level as homeopaths – and thousands of people, who have spend so much money on reparative therapy, have been left depressed, pstchologically damaged.

    Amusingly, Stephen Bennett ministries ran out of money about 2 years ago and he became an estate agent. The best news since Jerry Falwell’s fat, unraptured, chinless carcass was found on the floor of his office. What a joker.

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    That’s clearly upset you, Adrian. Perhaps you recognise, at least subconsciously, that there is more than a grain of truth in what he says.

    I can’t remember if you are a Tatchell lover or loather, but he says there is much more than genetics at work.

    And was it also Mr T who said that it’s a choice and thank goodness it is (I’m paraphrasing)?

  9. AdrianT says:

    Lunatics do not and cannot upset me Stewart, though they certainly earn my contempt. I’ve met and discussed with such people who believe ‘change is possible’ in America, England, Holland – I remind them that they can walk away from superstition any time they like and embrace Reason. You could, too, Stewart. I have pity for people who live with their small, petty god, a 6,000 year old earth, and a universe that revolves around human beings. But at the same time, I am appalled by the way young gay people get forced into such evil programs.

    Peter Tatchell is as entitled to his opinion as anyons else, but he is not an expert in genetics, so isn’t qualified to speak on the matter (mind you, you are a creationist, so by definition, you don’t believe in genetics anyway). The evidence is overwhelming I’m afraid. Essentially it doesn’t matter even if you could choose your sexuality, which you can’t. It’s no one else’s business. And the testimonies of survivors on exgaywatch.com tell you just how damaging this so-called therapy can be.

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Adrian,

    I’ve just noticed your reply.

    “Lunatics,” Adrian? People with different opinions and ideas are lunatics if they disapprove of a particular behaviour and want to see it changed in others? How does this make them lunatic; barking mad?

    I don’t believe in genetics? I think you better hit the Creationism category. I understand it better than evolutionists because they believe that dinosaurs have turned into birds. They have a problem with theories, reality and probability.

    I’m sure therapy is considered ‘damaging’ if the subject is not willing to go the full way with it.

  11. indigomyth says:

    Hmmmm, and yet nowhere in the article you cite does the word “choice” appear. It would seem Stephen Bennett did not choose to be homosexual. Rather puts a spanner in your whole “homosexuality is a choice” argument, eh Stewart?

  12. Stewart Cowan says:

    I didn’t choose to be an alcoholic. After detox, I could have returned to my previous dirty, selfish, unfulfilling state if I had chosen to.

    There’s more to it all than just saying, “I think I’ll start being an alcoholic today,” or “I now declare myself gay”.

  13. indigomyth says:

    Stewart Cowan,

    //There’s more to it all than just saying, “I think I’ll start being an alcoholic today,” or “I now declare myself gay”.//

    That is probably the single most intelligent thing you have ever said. Well done! Have a gold star.

    Would you agree, though, that a genetic propensity towards an addictive personality can increase the likelihood of developing an addiction (like alcoholism, gambling etc).

    In that sense then, would you be prepared to say that there may very well be a genetic element to homosexual attraction? This would not mean that anyone is “born gay”, but rather that certain genetic factors could make it more likely for an individual to develop same-sex attraction. Would that be an idea that you would agree with?

  14. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    This ‘genetic propensity’ of which you speak – got any pathology on that? I mean, if these things are genetic, there must a difference in the DNA, but sadly for your argument…

  15. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //This ‘genetic propensity’ of which you speak – got any pathology on that? I mean, if these things are genetic, there must a difference in the DNA, but sadly for your argument…//

    Start reading here (http://www.downstate.edu/hbnl/hbnl_articles.html), and when you have finished every article, get back to me.

  16. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    So there’s a blood-test for gayness then?

    Thought not.

    Trotting out gay propaganda won’t cut it.

  17. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    I already know that you are trying to dream up a reply, just answer me this, yes or no: Is there a discernable difference between the DNA of gays and the DNA of straights?

    I know you really, REALLY wish there was, but you there is not, and your sick fetish is left as just exactly that.

    Run along, like a good little gayboy.

  18. English Viking says:

    The word ‘know’ is missing from the above. You work out where to stick it.

  19. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    You asked for evidence of a genetic propensity to an addictive personality. I have done that, haven’t I? The sources I cite above are direct evidence of the genetic influences on personality.

    Now, go back and read what I actually wrote, rather than what you thought I wrote. What I actually wrote was; //there may very well be a genetic element to homosexual attraction?// – I did not declare that there was, did I? I merely expressed the possibility that there could be. Do you deny that there could be?

    //So there’s a blood-test for gayness then? //

    I never declared there was, did I? Are you imagining things again, EV?

    Again, what I said was:
    //that a genetic propensity towards an addictive personality can increase the likelihood of developing an addiction (like alcoholism, gambling etc).//

    Now, have I proved that to you, with my many, many scientific sources cited. Do you have the honesty to admit that I have provided what I declared in my comment?

    It does not take a gigantic leap to suggest that, if things such as having an addictive personality is influenced by genetics, that homosexuality would also have some role.

    Now, go back and read the articles I cite. If you need any help with the long words, I am willing to give you a hand. I know that people like you have trouble with science and logic. Take your time.

  20. indigomyth says:

    EV,
    //Is there a discernable difference between the DNA of gays and the DNA of straights?//

    I don’t know. I am not a geneticist. I don’t really care if there is or not. My arguments and ideology do not hinge on such trivial things. I just enjoy antagonising those that make such statements with no supporting evidence.

    //I know you really, REALLY wish there was, but you there is not, and your sick fetish is left as just exactly that.//

    I did not know that you had spent decades examining the genetic code of human beings. Have you declared your conclusive findings in a peer reviewed journal? This is astounding! Fancy being in communication with someone who has conducted first-hand research into the very workings of the human genome!

    (Now THAT’S F**KING sarcasm! Look and learn, look and learn)

  21. indigomyth says:

    EV,
    //So there’s a blood-test for gayness then? //

    //I already know that you are trying to dream up a reply//

    It is customary, and basic politeness, to answer a question when answered. You may be an uncivilised Viking, but some of us do have standards to maintain.

    Even if your question was rhetorical, its flippancy, and unjustified arrogant certainty, demanded a response.

  22. English Viking says:

    indigo,

    You must surely realise that I asked for a pathological difference between straights and gays, and you have signally failed to produce one, therefore I maintain that people are not ‘born gay’, neither are they born ‘alcoholics’ or ‘smack-heads’. Being mouthy (gays tend to be brave on the ‘net, and on the ‘phone, but I’ve yet to meet one with the same size strength as his mouth) and avoiding the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question doesn’t work.

    You know that genetics will not sanctify your perversion, and now you are annoyed that you have stumbled across one who is able to prove your stupidity.

    PS Swearing is a sign of either a limited temper, intelligence or vocabulary. In your case I’m willing to put it down to you just being thick.

  23. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //and avoiding the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question doesn’t work. //

    I cannot declare “yes” or “no”, because these are questions of science, and are not decided by whimsy. Unlike you, I need evidence to say “yes” or “no” to a scientific question.

    //You know that genetics will not sanctify your perversion, and now you are annoyed that you have stumbled across one who is able to prove your stupidity.//

    Where is your proof? What studies have you cited? Show me your proof.

    And, as I said above, I do not care about the issue of genetics. You clearly do, and have decided in advance that genetics must not play a role in homosexuality, because you feel it would undermine your position.

    //PS Swearing is a sign of either a limited temper, intelligence or vocabulary. In your case I’m willing to put it down to you just being thick.//

    How are you getting on with those scientific studies I cited? Having trouble with the long words, are you?

    //neither are they born ‘alcoholics’//

    The studies I cite beg to differ. You can “maintain” it all you want, your wrong, and I have provided the evidence that proves it.

  24. indigomyth says:

    Just wanted to say that I have been blocked from commenting. I am using a parallel account. So my silence is not indicative of defeat.

  25. English Viking says:

    indigo,

    I doubt that you have been blocked, unless your comment awaits editing (not banning) for foul language etc. Not saying that you have a foul mouth, just saying that Stewart is not a ‘blocker’.

  26. English Viking says:

    indigo,

    I concede that IF genetics could establish a pathological test for sexual behaviour, or drug addiction, or alcoholism, my argument would be dead in the water. That it is alive and quacking should ring an alarm bell or two for you, although I doubt that it will.

    PS You were the one who first appealed to genetics. Perhaps you should engage your brain before speaking through your fundament?

  27. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //I concede that IF genetics could establish a pathological test for sexual behaviour, or drug addiction, or alcoholism, my argument would be dead in the water. That it is alive and quacking should ring an alarm bell or two for you, although I doubt that it will.//

    No, it just shows that you are incapable of reading scientific papers. Have you bothered to look at any of the articles I cited? In what sense is it alive and quaking? It has no evidence (you have provided none), and I have provided evidence that contracts it. Your argument has failed.

    //PS You were the one who first appealed to genetics. Perhaps you should engage your brain before speaking through your fundament?//

    I was not appealing to genetics, was I? I was posing a question. Nothing I have said indicates that I believe that a genetic predisposition to act a particular way, or feel a particular thing, means that the act or feeling is, of itself, morally correct. Just because I believe (because there is evidence) that genetics is a factor in alcoholism, does not mean that I think alcoholism is correct.

    //Perhaps you should engage your brain before speaking through your fundament?//

    And perhaps you should read the scientific studies that people cite as evidence of their claims, before talking out of yours?

  28. Stewart Cowan says:

    indigomyth,

    “Would you agree, though, that a genetic propensity towards an addictive personality can increase the likelihood of developing an addiction (like alcoholism, gambling etc).”

    I have an addictive personality (glad I never tried heroin, coke, etc.). Don’t know if it’s genetic; it may be.

    “In that sense then, would you be prepared to say that there may very well be a genetic element to homosexual attraction?”

    There may be, but like I said before, whatever the cause doesn’t make it right or good.

  29. Stewart Cowan says:

    Sorted out your comments, indigo. They ended up in the spam folder for some reason. I’m saying nothing. :-)

  30. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    You can obfuscate all you like; Yes or No?

    You know the answer; so do I.

    Why call out genetics to prove your point, when you know that it doesn’t?

    As I said: Gayboys are all mouth and trousers.

  31. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    I have not conducted extensive genetic research. I know there is currently no blood test for alcoholism etc, however, that was not what we were initially discussing, was it? We were discussing the genetic influences on personality – which I have proved.

    //You can obfuscate all you like; Yes or No?//

    You can obfuscate all you like; Do the articles I cite demonstrate a link between genetics and alcoholism. Yes or No?

    //Why call out genetics to prove your point, when you know that it doesn’t? //

    I was not. The point arose as to whether people were “born gay”. My point was to ask whether there could be a genetic factor in causing homosexuality. As part of that issue, I addressed the factors of addictive personality and alcoholism, conclusively demonstrating that alcoholism and genetics is linked. Do you need me to draw you a diagram?

    //As I said: Gayboys are all mouth and trousers.//

    And as I said: Little vikings should go away and do their homework.

    (Don’t bother replying if you have not read the articles I cited)

  32. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    Alternatively, just provide your evidence, the one that you use to conclusively state that alcoholism is not linked to genetics, and that genetics is an influencing factor in alcoholism.

    Present your EVIDENCE. I have, now you

  33. English Viking says:

    indigo,

    Yet again, Yes or No.

    PS Your ‘evidence’ is nothing of the sort, else you would have answered yes by now. Your comments at 6:50, 6:51 and 6:54 appear to be an appeal to genetics as an excuse for your perversion, but when pressed you realise that your argument (and life) is built on sand. Repent.

    PPS … ‘Alternatively, just provide your evidence, the one that you use to conclusively state that alcoholism is not linked to genetics, and that genetics is an influencing factor in alcoholism.
    Present your EVIDENCE’… – Proving a negative? Well, it’s just not necessary, is it? Try proving that homosexual behaviour is not influenced by the moon – you can’t, therefore I can confidently state that gayboyism is a lunar phenomenon, after all, it is where we get the word ‘lunatic’ from.

    PPPS I admit a mistake. I thought you had some trousers, but it turns out you only have the mouth. Sorry:-)

  34. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //Your comments at 6:50, 6:51 and 6:54 appear to be an appeal to genetics as an excuse for your perversion, but when pressed you realise that your argument (and life) is built on sand.//

    No, they were citations of scientific studies to demonstrate my initial contention, and to address you point of //This ‘genetic propensity’ of which you speak – got any pathology on that? I mean, if these things are genetic, there must a difference in the DNA, but sadly for your argument…//. They were not an attempt to morally excuse the acts themselves. They appear to because you are deceiving yourself, and see what you wish to believe.

    You have repeatedly asserted that alcoholism is not influenced by genetics. I have cited evidence that proves you wrong. Now, admit you were wrong.

    //Is there a discernable difference between the DNA of gays and the DNA of straights?//

    And, as I have said I DON’T KNOW! Which element of that answer is difficult for you to understand? I cannot answer, because I do not know. I have not sufficient evidence to declare either way.

    I can say that yes, there are genetic tests that you can do to determine the likelihood that someone will be alcoholic. Yes.

    You have not answered my question;
    Do the articles I cite demonstrate a link between genetics and alcoholism? Yes or no.

    //PPPS I admit a mistake. I thought you had some trousers, but it turns out you only have the mouth. Sorry:-)//

    Well, I believed that you had some degree of intelligence and basic understanding of science. It appears I was wrong. However, that is reassuring; if your debating skills are the level at which the Christian political movement is operating, it is no wonder that the gay rights movement has had such success.

    //Repent//

    Never, not in all of eternity, if it means becoming like you. Indeed, even were I to suddenly realise the truth of Christianity, your attitude would prevent me from becoming a Christian.

    You really do not do a very good job of bringing people to Jesus, do you? Your combative, confrontational attitude is not really conducive to bringing people into the fold of the Lord, is it?

    You accuse me of being all mouth and no trouser. Tell me, how many times have you publicly witnessed in the way that you do on here? Why are you not in prison like Dale McAlpine? What have you actually sacrificed in order to share your ‘Truth’ with the world? It seems like you can talk mighty big on the internet, but in real life you are just a coward.

  35. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.//

    Colossians 4

    It does not seem like you are overly bothered to moderate your attitude in order to affect change in people? You must realise that people react in a hostile and defensive manner when you talk at them, as you do here? How can you possibly hope to save anyone from damnation, if you yourself actively repel the people you are trying to witness to?

  36. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    It is not my job to ‘bring people to Jesus’, it is my job to tell them the Gospel, which includes exhortations to repent from sin. I am not ‘witnessing’ to you, I am witnessing to the truth of Holy Scripture.

    If there is a genetic difference between alcoholics and non alcoholics, there would be a blood-test available. There isn’t (a blood-test), because there isn’t (any evidence)

    On Colossians 4, I’m afraid you got me on that one. I apologise for being ungracious.

  37. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //If there is a genetic difference between alcoholics and non alcoholics, there would be a blood-test available. There isn’t (a blood-test), because there isn’t (any evidence)//

    But, the scientific articles I cited do show that alcoholism and particular genetic patterns are linked. Therefore, there IS a blood test you can do to determine the likelihood of someone being alcoholic, such that, if you found a drop of blood, and tested it, you could determine, to a certain extent, the likelihood that the person is an alcoholic. Or, if you tested a foetus that had these particular genetic markers, it would be indicative of whether or not they would have an increased chance of being an alcoholic.

    May I ask you a question then: what is it that you think the articles I cite actually DO show, if not a link between genetic make-up, and the likelihood of becoming an alcoholic? What do you think their findings actually demonstrate, if anything?

    I do realise, having read previous posts of yours, particularly in arguments against Jim Baxter, that you do not really rate science. So, in that respect, even were science to conclusively show that homosexuality was a product (at least in part) of genetics, you would still deny it, because you have decided to trust ‘the immoral truths’ of Christianity, rather than the changing theories of science (as you do on matters such as the ancestor of mankind, as the age of universe and the earth etc). Am I very far off in my assessment?

    //On Colossians 4, I’m afraid you got me on that one. I apologise for being ungracious.//

    Accepted.

    //It is not my job to ‘bring people to Jesus’, it is my job to tell them the Gospel, which includes exhortations to repent from sin. I am not ‘witnessing’ to you, I am witnessing to the truth of Holy Scripture.//

    You accused me of being all mouth, and no trouser. In your real life, how do think you have acted with both ‘trouser and mouth’? Are you referring to physical aggressive violence? If so, then yes, I am happy to say that I am utterly all mouth and no trouser – I utterly abhor physical aggressive violence. Give me 10,000 yellow bellied cowards, over 1 violent man with a gun. No trouser have I, in such matters.

  38. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    Or a slightly different way of putting the same question:

    What evidence would you consider sufficient to demonstrate a link between genetics, and a predisposition to an addictive personality?

  39. English Viking says:

    Mouth and trousers is an expression my mother used. It means one who uses his mouth in order to prove his trousers, ie, he waffles incessantly in order to prove his authority, or correctness.
    I was not challenging you to a fight, merely remarking that of all the proselytising gays I have ever met, they are to a man fond of their own voice, wrapped snug in their victim-hood and assured of their moral superiority due to their ‘minority’ status, yet they are incapable of living a ‘normal’ life (you understand that I think that homosexuality is never normal in the strictest sense). What I mean is that I am heterosexual, yet I do not constantly bang-on about how straight I am, go on Straight – Pride marches, demand more straight representation in the media, demand unfair advantages at job interviews on the grounds of my straightness, set up straight bars (funded by the Council) etc, etc. I have also found that they are incapable of holding face to face discussions, only being able to attempt to defend their position from the distance that a keyboard or a telephone affords. I am not defined by my heterosexuality, whereas gays in general are defining by their homosexuality.

    With regard to Science, you are almost correct on my position. I do not value what today passes for Science in a lot of cases, based on the fact it is unscientific. The question you pose in the post above is linked to an example of the faultiness of science. You think that I prejudge all evidence in the same way, ie. through the prism of Biblical teaching. You do the same thing, in a different way, ie. you have dismissed Christianity as a myth, therefore anything that appears to contradict this view, ie unscientific science, must be correct.

    I will state definitively. There is absolutely NO pathology for alcoholism, addiction or a predisposition to it. There is no blood test and the idea that you propose of a ‘blind’ test on a drop of blood to find whether the person it came from is an alcoholic, or even has propensity towards addiction, is not true. There is no such test. Ask a Dr. Or watch the link.

  40. English Viking says:
  41. English Viking says:

    Tried to put up a link to You-tube. I think it got auto-modded.

    Youtube ‘Alcoholism is not a disease’. You will get Dr Stanton Peele’s scientific opinion.

  42. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //I am not defined by my heterosexuality, whereas gays in general are defining by their homosexuality.//

    I completely agree, and it is very tiring. However, it does seem that if people are prepared to call homosexuals “disgusting” purely on the basis of what they get up to in their bedrooms, then it is perfectly reasonable for homosexuals to start to define themselves by the attribute which is most scorned. Were you to called “disgusting” on the basis of your Christian convictions (something you may have experienced), would it not be understandable if you started to define yourself solely by that attribute.

    You yourself have said that homosexuals disgust you – hardly a statement of someone that does not define individuals by the single characteristic of engaging in homosexual activity. So, no matter how good, or charitable, or funny, or caring, any homosexual may be, apart from their homosexuality, you have universally said that they “disgust you”. I confess, I would not even say that about someone who engaged in bestiality – that their intercourse with animals disgusts me, certainly. But that they, when considered as entire individuals, disgust me? That is something that would involve considerations of other elements of their character. It seems a rather intemperate response; to so willingly dismiss someone as “disgusting” on the basis of their homosexual activity.

    But, the gay movement, as you describe it, is just the latest example of Identity politics. The fact that there is a Christian Institute and a Muslim Council of Britain, would seem to indicate that many other groups of people define themselves by a single characteristic. So, do I agree with you that identity politics is tiresome and annoying (indeed, amoral), yes, certainly. However, I find it so in every case, and would be happy to criticise it as such.

    //you have dismissed Christianity as a myth, therefore anything that appears to contradict this view, ie unscientific science, must be correct.//

    To be accurate, I do not think that Christianity is a myth; Christianity as a religion, as a culture, as a world movement, is very much real. I do not, however, believe that Christianity is an accurate description of either the moral or physical universe (excepting, of course, the historical content which can be verified by cross-reference to other sources). That Jesus existed, I do not deny; that he is god, I most certainly do.

    //I have also found that they are incapable of holding face to face discussions, only being able to attempt to defend their position from the distance that a keyboard or a telephone affords//

    I do not deny that this is true for you. But as someone who was a member (briefly) of the Debating Society at university, and who regularly engages in discussions at work, I can assure you that I have engaged people in many discussions on politics and ethics. Whether this means I have trousers, or not, is up to you.

    Thanks for the link. I watched it, and some of his other videos. They are interesting. In light of the testimony of Dr Stanton Peele, what do you believe that the studies I cite actually show? (You may be surprised (or not) to discover that I do not agree with him, as the studies I have cited do demonstrate a link between genetics and alcoholism – these are blood tests that show a difference between the DNA of addicts, and the DNA of non-addicts). Again, referencing your previous arguments with Jim, it would seem that an impasse is coming; for every study and expert I produce, you could produce another one who disagrees with the results of any particular study that I use.

    You accused the studies I cite of being “unscientific” – in what sense do you regard them as so? Do you object to their sampling methods, their findings, their methodology? In what way do you regard them as “unscientific”? For you, what constitutes “unscientific science” – is it scientific findings that contradict the Bible?

    And, since you demanded that I answer your question (which I did, to the best of my ability, and the fullest extent of my knowledge), I return this question to you for answering:

    What evidence would you consider sufficient to demonstrate a link between genetics, and a predisposition to an addictive personality?

  43. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    This a study, written by Dr Peele himself:

    http://www.peele.net/lib/genetics.html

    His conclusion is interesting. I reproduce part of it below:

    “Conclusion

    Those who investigate the genetic transmission of alcoholism offer a different cast to their models of the predisposition to become alcoholics than do the models quoted in the previous section. Schuckit (1984b), for example, announces “that it is unlikely that there is a single cause for alcoholism that is both necessary and sufficient to produce the disorder. At best, biologic factors explain only a part of the variance….” (p. 883). Vaillant, in an interview published in Time (“New insights into alcoholism,” 1983) following publication of his book, The Natural History of Alcoholism (1983), put the matter even more succinctly. He indicated that finding a biological marker for alcoholism “would be as unlikely as finding one for basketball playing” and likened the role of heredity in alcoholism to that in “coronary heart disease, which is not due to twisted genes or to a specific disease. There is a genetic contribution, and the rest of it is due to maladaptive life-style” (p. 64).

    Vaillant’s quote is entirely consistent with his and other data in the field, all of which support an incremental or complex, interactive view of the influence of inheritance on alcoholism. ”

    So, in that sense, even the Doctor whose expertise you rely on, does not deny that genetics plays, at least a part, in the development of alcoholism.

  44. indigomyth says:

    Another article by Peele
    http://www.peele.net/lib/genes.html

    A very fair and balanced assessment. However, he does not dismiss genetics as playing absolutely no role in addiction and alcoholism.

  45. English Viking says:

    You are correct that we could engage in a link-war, one which would be ultimately futile. I have to be quick, got to rescue a boat I abandoned yesterday. (Really). So apologies for the brevity.

    I do not think that Peele quoting others’ opinions of a more nuanced view is evidence of his wavering.

    If alcoholism/addictive predisposition is to be described as a disease, and accepted as a genetic defect, I would require a blood-test with a 99% accuracy, just like Hepatitis or Cholera.

    Incidentally, if you use the argument that Alcoholism is a genetically caused illness or something to which a genetic defect contributes, as evidence that homosexuality is genetically caused, you leave yourself open to the idea that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be treated by medical science. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

    You are correct that if Science contradicts the Bible, I go with the book. It is a matter of faith, for both of us. You choose what you believe to be Scientific, I choose what I believe to be Divine. I cannot prove this, neither can you, nor can either of us disprove the other. I do think you would agree that one day, one or both of us will be definitively proven wrong, but we cannot both possibly be right.

    The Devil knows that Jesus exists. That he is God IS Christianity.

    Finally (until I get back, if I don’t drown) I think that there is a propensity to do wrong, to behave badly, selfishly, drunkenly, lasciviously, whatever you wish to call it (I like the word ‘sin’, but I doubt you accept this idea) in EVERY human heart, including mine. Some are led about by their love of women, or men, or drink, or drugs, etc, etc. This leads to heartache in this life, evident for all to see. Others take a different path, no less corrosive to the soul, but not destructive to the body, IN THIS LIFE. They like to give to charity, and devote themselves to it. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, unless it is used as a way of saying ‘I’m better than others, I don’t drink too much, I’m not gay’… Others love the vanity of position and power (Blair, Bush, et al). Others like the ceremony of religion, without the power of the Holy Spirit. All these things tend to make people view the second group as good people, and the first as bad. This is wrong, they are both bad. Unless one is born again (receives a new nature, a spiritual nature) he/she will always be on the wrong side of God, no matter how ‘good’ he is here.

    PS Don’t know if you have trousers yet, maybe a Mankini? :-)

  46. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //you leave yourself open to the idea that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be treated by medical science. You wouldn’t want that, would you? //

    I have made my peace with people choosing to seek a medical solution to their homosexual orientation, as long as it is under no threat of violence. But then, I also believe people have the right to kill themselves (or to be killed) if they wish. Indeed, I see nothing wrong with people voluntarily undergoing sterilisation, provided that they are not coerced or forced. I am sure there are quite a few yobs on council estates that would be glad to sacrifice their procreative capacity in return for £10 million.

    //PS Don’t know if you have trousers yet, maybe a Mankini?//

    The Middle East thought up the burka, the West thought up the Mankini. I do not know which is the worst crime against humanity.

  47. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    Well, I got the boat back, and I didn’t drown. Praise God.

    Are you happy to be referred to by medical science as diseased?

    PS. If you are looking a real symbol of the evils of false religion, get your money on the burka, every time.

  48. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //Are you happy to be referred to by medical science as diseased?//

    Haemophiliacs, the autistic, the congenitally blind, deaf or mute, those with dyslexia or dyspraxia, and myriads of others are relatively contented to be called, variously, diseased, disabled, deformed, abnormal etc etc. In fact, there is a movement of deaf people who embrace their deafness as part of their identity. I wear glasses; that is due to a ‘dysfunction’ of my eyes, a genetic disorder. Why would being called ‘diseased’ in regard to my sexual orientation, bother me any more than being called ‘deformed’ or ‘dysfunctional’ because of my eyes? Do I consider my eyes ‘deformed’ – no. Yet they empirically and scientifically are deformed – as optical instruments they are fundamentally flawed. There is no way I can argue that my eyes are not deformed. If medical science were to label homosexuality as a disease, then I would consider it in the same way as I do my eyes currently.

    So, to answer your question honestly, I would be neither seriously happy or unhappy, because I do not view the labelling of something as being ‘deformed’ (my eyes), or something as being ‘diseased’ (my sexuality) as a moral or ethical statement on that condition. Would I agree, intellectually, with the assessment of homosexuality as being a disease? Absolutely not. I consider it to merely be an equal alternative to heterosexuality. However, were it to be considered a disease, I would be quite satisfied with my deformed eyes, and my diseased sexuality, and celebrate such things as aspects of my particular character. And, just as I would now choose not to have my eyes ‘corrected’ surgically, chemically or otherwise, so I would choose not to have my sexuality tinkered with. Yet I recognise that others wish to do so, based on their own particular world view, and it would be evil of me to try and stop them by force.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>