Religion and LGBT people

[Esquilax]

That's what we've been doing all along, as I present most of the evidence. You guys did present one piece that I quickly rebutted.

Well, let's look at that too: you present one study that doesn't show what you think it does. When this is pointed out to you, you ignore our objections and keep trundling on with your own point, without rebutting any of ours.

You present a second study that has a massive bias and plenty of methodological flaws that has been condemned by a major psychological association as unscientific, and instead of responding to any of those accusations you claim that it's fact because it's peer reviewed, demonstrating a clear ignorance of the fact that peer review is an ongoing process, and that being published does not confer some special credibility on its own.

You allude to a third study about twins, that shows that there's at least a little genetic predisposition involved in sexuality, with your sole objection being that the number isn't enough.

All the while, you ignore the simple logic that we've presented, bouncing from subject to subject instead of ever answering the singular question we've provided you. If you can't get past that one obvious logical issue, it doesn't matter how many (flawed or misrepresented) studies you cite.

Are you reading my link? The first line of the abstract notes that it spanned 6-7 years.

I was unclear in my language, I apologize: the participants had all already been with the Exodus program for one to three years before the study began, so there was quite a lot of variance in their experiences.

Can you quote the study on that? What I see is:
[quote]At T1, 11 participants reported attraction ratings of 0, 1 or 2 (variations on heterosexual response), but at T6, that number grew to 25. At T1, 43 participants reported attraction ratings of 4, 5, or 6; however, at T6, that number declined to 31. These together indicate some shift in the population away from homosexual experience and toward heterosexual experience. Similarly, at T1, 7 participants reported fantasy ratings of 0, 1 or 2; at T6, that number grew to 21; at T1, 46 participants reported fantasy ratings of 4, 5 or 6; at T6, that number declined to 35.

Yeah again, that was on me. I misread things and was going from memory at the point I wrote that. However, I also missed that the sample group slipped down to 72 people as participants dropped out; even if my other methodological concerns weren't valid- and they are- then the sample group is too small to make any real conclusions from. Not to mention the bias. You seem to keep forgetting the immense bias.

Also, you don't mention the longitudinal study of women which I posted, or twins studies, which I didn't actually post as I think the findings are well-known, but can if you like.

Because I already have mentioned the longitudinal study. If you don't like the answers, that's hardly my fault.

However, it's at this point that I need to ask: what's your endgame here? What's the position you're actually arguing for? Because at times it almost seems like you have a progressive stance. And we actually agree on a bunch of things too.

Now, if you're trying to intimate that certain sexual behaviors are at all sinful, that's where we'll have a problem. But if not...