Bother! I had to wait 11 hours to correct a mistake in the quote in the last sentence of my previous post.

It should read: “Among those who DO NOT believe homosexuality is immoral, 56% are of the opinion that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children."

Oh my God! I know I said my last post was going to be my last on this matter, but I’ve changed my mind. Thanks for giving me the space to do this Ledingham, (nice post by the way!)

…but Philo, you are so nearly there. I just want to throw my arms around you and give you a great big hug. Focusing on “Love thine enemies” is just a couple of steps away. The way we experience the world is down to the language we choose to use – both to ourselves and to others. If in your quotation you had said “Love thy neighbours” consider the difference – how it sounds – why it is just as ‘true’. But why ultimately, it is a better use of God’s given language.

Celivia here is an intro
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html to the difference between Quranic and Biblical Revelation. The author is an excellent geo-political journalist. His articles are well worth reading http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

You can have a wander around this site too. This particular link is about source material used in determining what being a Muslim actually means.
http://prophetofdoom.net/chapter.aspx?g=401&i=41041

You won't see this reported in mainstream media, not PC. Massive damage will ensue if the gay lobby is allowed to tear down marriage.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0506/public.html

“Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change.” That’s the subhead of a Christianity Today interview with Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. It is no criticism of Christianity Today to note that his being an atheist is viewed as a plus. It is to say, “Hey, it’s not just we Christians who think this way.” The Spitzer story is indeed interesting. Back in 1973 he was instrumental in having the American Psychiatric Association declare that homosexuality is not a clinical disorder. Thirty years later, after extensive research with homosexuals who had undergone reparative therapy (the preferred term now is “reorientation therapy”), he concluded that it was about as effective as most therapies. A storm ensued when he published his findings in the October 2003 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior. Spitzer thinks his position is less controversial today. Asked if he is planning a follow-up study, he said, “No. I feel a little battle fatigue. But also I’m not sure what the study would be. Some people have said, ‘Follow these people, interview them five years later, see how many of them have switched back,’ since it’s well known that some ex-gays give it up. But suppose you found that 5 percent or 10 percent did switch back. I mean, so what? You’d find the same thing if you followed people who had treatment for drug addiction. Some are going to relapse.” That sounds about right.

I am currently mixing with a group of Christian stage actors. One a former gay converted to Christ a couple of years ago; who was just six months ago married to his bride and is just loving his married life. He was introduced to the gay life by the teenage college peers he mixed with. Today he attests to the liberation and fulfilment he has found in following a pure life as designed by God and is now anticipating children in his life.

Still no compassion from Philo for the violence to homosexuals by the church in Eastern Europe.

The highest incidence of HIV growth in Europe BTW, is in Russia and Poland. Countries that ban gay pride parades. It is not being spread by sex. These countries are addicted to what Marx called "the opiate of the masses": Church dominated regimes. People either flock to the church for this opiate, or they take real opium. With real opium, or heroin, there is such a problem with dirty needles, Poland and Russia have the most serious rise of HIV in Europe. Philo's arguement was another dud.

I see the next organised spin from the Christian lobby: they can cure homosexuals. The other hateful spins in their flow chart were all duds, so the list goes on.

The cases Philo present us are not quantitive data. They are case studies of individuals. They are their own subjective stories. There are many possibilities in the mix to be considered. For example, was the person legitimately gay in the first place? Was the person craving affection, or seeking other intimacy that was never really loving or sexual the fireplace? It gets complicated here.

What works for an anomaly will not work for an entire population. They tried that with 300 people in aversion therapy imported from Auwswitzch, and this was in the 1960s-70s to Dr Mc Connachy at UNSW School of Psychiatry to convert 300 homosexuals to heterosexuals, using this strange Nazi device. Most referrals were from the churches, of course.

The result was that the men ended up with major post traumatic stress syndrome, most were unable to use their genitals at all, and had horrible nightmares for years. This was one of the greatest tragedies in gay history. When it doesn't work, people get hurt.

If you think you can give false promises? The law will hold you responsible for abusing them with such experimental pychological games, and they can sue every penny you have for this illegal abuse.

saint, the bit that scared me with Philo's example is the possibility that his friend is living a lie to fit with peer pressure as part of his new faith.

There does not seem to be a way for any of us to tell from Philo's example but if that is the case then the consequences could be very harmful to all concerned. I hope that is not the case, too many inocents can get hurt to satisfy somebody elses view of how things should be.

R0bert