Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> Matthew Whiting wrote:

> > All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
> > biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
> > change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
> > out the window.
> > Matt

> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
> this just the perfect unions?

It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> Matthew Whiting wrote:

> > All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
> > biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
> > change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
> > out the window.
> > Matt

> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
> this just the perfect unions?

It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> > It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

> i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..

It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of severe
emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
movement?

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:

> > It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

> i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..

It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of severe
emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
movement?

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>
>
>>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..
>
>
> It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of severe
> emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
> movement?
>
yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a
14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite
right... does it?
I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am
smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a
conversation with a peanut, much less you..)


The American Psychological Association issued a warning on August 14,
1997, against the "psychological terrorism" of the Ex-Gay "reparative
therapy" movement, which the APA said reveals an "intense bias against
gay people."
The warning stated that "In the past 10 years, Christian fundamentalists
have enlisted a coalition of old-style psychologists, psychiatrists and
social workers who have become very visible in this country and
internationally, and who have as a mission to 'help' homosexuals get rid
of their sexual orientation. Our aim is not to try to stop them per se
or interfere with anyone's right to practice, but we want to expose the
social context that creates this market."


if you want to, and you don't have to, but in case you do, check out
this website i found: (you too, Matt)

http://www.truluck.com/html/the__ex-gay__fraud.html
Wayne Bresen wrote a book, called "anything but straight" Unlocking the
myths and scandals about the ex-gay myth.

even John Evans, who founded the ex-gay ministries, denounced the
program he co-founded after his best friend Jack McIntyre committed
suicide in despair over not being able to “change". The “ex-gay”
ministries are still growing today despite their history of scandals and
failures. The sad truth is, as long as people are made to hate
themselves for being gay, these groups will exist. The best way to
counter their negative influence is by highlighting the truth and
revealing the failed history that “ex-gay” groups represent. Showing an
honest portrayal of gay life also greatly diminishes the effectiveness
of these groups. When people learn that God loves them for who they are
and that they can be gay and happy, the appeal of these dangerous groups
invariably wanes.

In my opinion i would have preferred being raised by loving homosexuals
than the drunk ******* i was unfortunate enough to have been spawned from.

(put your mind at ease, Matt.. i am not coming on to Daniel... :-) )

sorry i am so long winded..

linda

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>
>
>>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..
>
>
> It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of severe
> emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
> movement?
>
yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a
14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite
right... does it?
I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am
smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a
conversation with a peanut, much less you..)


The American Psychological Association issued a warning on August 14,
1997, against the "psychological terrorism" of the Ex-Gay "reparative
therapy" movement, which the APA said reveals an "intense bias against
gay people."
The warning stated that "In the past 10 years, Christian fundamentalists
have enlisted a coalition of old-style psychologists, psychiatrists and
social workers who have become very visible in this country and
internationally, and who have as a mission to 'help' homosexuals get rid
of their sexual orientation. Our aim is not to try to stop them per se
or interfere with anyone's right to practice, but we want to expose the
social context that creates this market."


if you want to, and you don't have to, but in case you do, check out
this website i found: (you too, Matt)

http://www.truluck.com/html/the__ex-gay__fraud.html
Wayne Bresen wrote a book, called "anything but straight" Unlocking the
myths and scandals about the ex-gay myth.

even John Evans, who founded the ex-gay ministries, denounced the
program he co-founded after his best friend Jack McIntyre committed
suicide in despair over not being able to “change". The “ex-gay”
ministries are still growing today despite their history of scandals and
failures. The sad truth is, as long as people are made to hate
themselves for being gay, these groups will exist. The best way to
counter their negative influence is by highlighting the truth and
revealing the failed history that “ex-gay” groups represent. Showing an
honest portrayal of gay life also greatly diminishes the effectiveness
of these groups. When people learn that God loves them for who they are
and that they can be gay and happy, the appeal of these dangerous groups
invariably wanes.

In my opinion i would have preferred being raised by loving homosexuals
than the drunk ******* i was unfortunate enough to have been spawned from.

(put your mind at ease, Matt.. i am not coming on to Daniel... :-) )

sorry i am so long winded..

linda

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>out the window.
>>>Matt
>
>
>>Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
>>this just the perfect unions?
>
>
> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.

Matt

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>>All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>out the window.
>>>Matt
>
>
>>Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something? or is
>>this just the perfect unions?
>
>
> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works in
an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science rather
often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science. Got any
real science to support a genetic/biological basis for homosexuality?
I've asked for data about three times here and have yet to see anything.

Matt

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Yes, but here at home I'm not sure we have a right to expect better than
> sloppy thinking. We don't teach critical analysis and reasoning, we don't
> teach civics and government, and what we do teach is, by and large, taught
> sloppily.

Indeed. Just look at our President in one of the debates: the solution
to people being unable to survive on minimum wage is "no child left
behind", and the solution to the expiration of the assault weapons ban
is to prosecute crimes with guns. And he went to Yale. Hah hah. So the
children whose parents won't be able to feed them won't be able to think
in the classroom (unless the school has free breakfast/lunch programs,
that is), and let the murderers mow down 50 people with their AK-47s and
then prosecute them for it.

We don't pay teachers enough (at least here in NYC) to expect top-notch
teaching, we have classrooms filled beyond capacity (try teaching
anything when they're yelling and throwing things at each other), and we
have mothers who, when told that their 8-year-old has threatened a
teacher with a gun, ask, "What did you do to prompt him to do that?"
Extremely disconcerting.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Yes, but here at home I'm not sure we have a right to expect better than
> sloppy thinking. We don't teach critical analysis and reasoning, we don't
> teach civics and government, and what we do teach is, by and large, taught
> sloppily.

Indeed. Just look at our President in one of the debates: the solution
to people being unable to survive on minimum wage is "no child left
behind", and the solution to the expiration of the assault weapons ban
is to prosecute crimes with guns. And he went to Yale. Hah hah. So the
children whose parents won't be able to feed them won't be able to think
in the classroom (unless the school has free breakfast/lunch programs,
that is), and let the murderers mow down 50 people with their AK-47s and
then prosecute them for it.

We don't pay teachers enough (at least here in NYC) to expect top-notch
teaching, we have classrooms filled beyond capacity (try teaching
anything when they're yelling and throwing things at each other), and we
have mothers who, when told that their 8-year-old has threatened a
teacher with a gun, ask, "What did you do to prompt him to do that?"
Extremely disconcerting.