Religion and LGBT people

[John V]

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.

If you're referring to the bi invisibility report, I responded by showing that the increase in self-identified gays of 1.5% was greater than the decrease of self-identifeid stragihts of .8%, refuting your position that the change was merely a matter of peer pressure on adolescents.

If you're referring to the longitudinal study of women, I don't recall any serious objections that needed to be refuted.

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.

I did not claim it's fact. I do claim that a peer-reviewed study should be given more weight than blogs and press releases.

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.

"Sole objection"? I don't object to them at all. I'm the one that brought them up. I noted myself that those studies indicate genetic predisposition. I don't "object" to the numbers not being enough. It's a clear observation which you refuse to concede due to your own bias.

I also noted that other cultures have had very different notions of sexuality. THis went unchallenged.

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.

Which question? If it's "When did I choose to be straight," I answered that twice IIRC. You guys just pretend I haven't answered it.

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.

Yes, the study is clear and open about this. What's the point? They had to work with what was available.

Yeah again, that was on me. I misread things and was going from memory at the point I wrote that.

Yes, that wsure as on you.

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.

I'm not forgetting it. The study is clear and open about the numbers and the bias. Guess what - there aren't any unbiased groups attempting this. Again, they can only do research on what's available to research.

Note I have not once said that this study is the last word on the subject. However, I likewise disagree that the blog posts and press releases you provided in opposition are the last word. And, you seem to dismiss the possibility of bias iin your sources.

Interestingly, your first link in opposition includes this quote:

"I don’t think we have anything really new here," said Coleman. "We have known for sometime that some people are able to shift their behavior and their perception of their sexual identity through these attempts at conversion."

Your second comes right out and admits its bias:

As an academic with a PhD in biological anthropology, and as someone who tried for over a decade to change my sexual orientation, I approached with interest and skepticism the new Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.

The fact that the APA commented on the methodology of the study proves that it is biased, as it does not review methodology of every published study as a matter of course.

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.

I'm arguing that the facts do not support the hypothesis that people are born with an immutable sexual identity.

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...

Oh please, you've had a problem for a long time now without my mentioning sin or morality in the slightest.