Religion and LGBT people

[Esquilax]

It's from a peer-reviewed journal. Atheists tend to tout such as the gold standard of scholarship, until they don't like a particular result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_...al_Therapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/7502387

Plus there's the other longitudinal study I presented, which shows change, but doesn't give reasons for the change.

You're missing the crucial fact that peer review- which is an ongoing process of self correction, by the way- continued to dissect your study, and found it wanting. From top to bottom, that last link you cited has been found to be trash; that's how peer review works.

As for your other study, I've already gone into that in detail: it doesn't show what you think it shows, for one. Secondly, wonderfully, if you'd actually bothered to look at that link at all, you'd see that it deals in the discrimination that bisexuals suffer, and is actually quite sympathetic to our cause. It literally presents exactly the case that I have been, that there are other sociological factors like bigotry that have an effect on the data. And that's just by its tone.

You don't have a leg to stand on, dude. And I notice you've got nothing to say about the head of the ministry that funded your latest citation coming out and saying the whole set up is a crock of shit, too. I wonder why that could be?

---

He just pointed out that the book you cited had been discredited by other sources, and most significantly in my opinion, that the research was likely very biased because it was sponsored by an organisation that wishes to see intrinsic homosexuality proven false. You can't take something on face value when it obviously has an agenda.
If you could cite any book or any research, or anything else as evidence simply because it exists, then we'd believe the bible.

1. Are you claiming that peer review can't weed out biased studies?

2. The first study I gave hasn't been attacked.

1. It did. It weeded out yours. Though to the author's credit, they were upfront about who was providing their funding, so there was no need to be weeded out. Just bias. Oh, and check out that last link for all the methodological issues that were present in that thing too.

2. It also doesn't show what you claim it shows.