Yesterday, President Barack Obama’s attempt to advocate for the legitimization of homosexual relationships on Kenyan soil came a cropper as his host President Uhuru Kenyatta diplomatically rebuffed him in the full glare of a watching world.
In his typical manner, Obama disingenuously framed the issue as one of human rights, comparing discrimination against homosexual practitioners with discrimination against black people in the United States, erroneously placing the two on the same level. As this blog has affirmed a number of times, nothing could be further from the truth.
Homosexual people identify themselves as gay because of their unnatural, perverted sexual behaviours that can be changed back to normalcy. And many have done so. Black people’s beautiful skin colour on the other hand is a genetic, immutable condition that has nothing to do with behaviour. My children were born black, not because of anything they did, but because their parents are both black.
For a comprehensive rebuttal of this homosexual disinformation strategy that insultingly places their perversion on the same level as racial identity, please check out an earlier post: Obama’s degradation of Black people: Comparing homosexuality with racial identity
Tags: homosexuality, Kenya, Obama, race, rejection, Uhuru Kenyatta
Kenyans Against Homosexuality 
July 26, 2015 at 2:31 pm |
As Kenyans,we know our rights and what is good for kenya, so Obama should do what he came to do and go back to where he belongs, we cannot allow him to destroy our relationship with God as he has done in america, God is our only hope in Kenya an we want to treasure that
July 28, 2015 at 9:18 am |
We know today that there is a certain percentage (2-4%) of homosexuals in all societies. God created all people, including homosexuals. Yes, homosexuals are created as such, it’s not a choice, as we know today through science (if you’re not aware of it, God also told us to learn what we can about the world). So if you harass these people, you’re mistreating this part of Gods own creation. Finally, even if homosexuality is unlawful (in the Biblical sense), let me quote John 8:7: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Therefore, what Obama said is in fact deeply Christian. It it the homophobic haters who sever their relationship with God.
July 29, 2015 at 8:24 am |
Paul go ahead and click this link might do you some good>>https://kombejustus.wordpress.com/culture-social/
August 2, 2015 at 10:11 pm |
That’s a big pile of hateful propaganda, religious nonsence, bogus arguments and false concepts. Nothing good can come out of promoting hate towards people whose identity (or behaviour, as you may call it) causes no harm to anyone, is almost as blamewothy as celibacy and has no secular reason for which the “invisible man” would condemn it.
How can somebody be so blind that he could ignore the racism in the form of homophobia? How can anyone be so evil that they would be indifferent or even in favor of gay people being killed or thrown in jail? How can people still believe in bible fairytales and pick creation over evolution?
HERE IS A LINK THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE FACE OF ANTI-GAY PEOPLE AND HOW THEY LOOK WHEN THEY TRY TO SOUND REASONABLE: http://womenspost.ca/this-idiot-thinks-being-gay-is-scientifically-wrong-because-of-magnets/
You think that Yahwe created Adam and Eve but you expect us to ignore His divine plan for their offsprings, which is to indulge in repeated incestual acts in order to populate the earth.
You suppose that even if we agree that with only 2 people on earth, Yahweh would need to “look the other way” when the sons & daughters of Adam & Eve were supposed to procreate with their siblings or parents to populate the world because there were so few humans and “extreme circumstances require extreme actions”, yet you have no problem to foolishly use the stupid story of the creation (or at least the part that you feel somehow validates your homophobia) no matter how extreme it is. No matter how insignificant it is whether sterile people should be allowed to get married regardless the fact that both Adam & Eve were fruitful.
Let me tell you something: with over 7.35 billion people on earth, it is beneficial that there is a minor percentage of people who are not likely to procreate. Marriage is not the property of any religion on earth, because marriage existed way long before christianity. People are allowed to get married even if they are sterile, too old to procreate or simply have no intention to create offsprings.
The bible is atrociously flawed, depraved, inaccurate, self-contradictory, immoral and stupid to be used in the defence of discrimination. There is no proof for the existence of god or gods, so spare all that religious crap you are throwing in. If you want to convince people of different faiths and religions for the “supposedly beneficial” aspect of being anti-gay, stick to the real world effects of homosexuality and homophobia, not to the proofless supernatural being that ignores the millions of innocent children that starve to death every year, allowed slavery to be condoned by its holy book and thousands of years ago He destroyed entire cities, with all of its men, women and children, with a fiery rain. And people assume foolishly that their fault was commited consensual same sex relationships and gay-mariages? Yeah, right! IDIOTS!
September 22, 2015 at 6:31 am |
everybody has the freedom of choice all i was trying to bring to the lime light is that its high time to reason soberly ..but In the end the righteous shall win…after all i don’t live anyones life so i didn’t force anyone Into The anti-gay stuff…. When i wrote this i knew i was into serious word lashing and criticism all in all it is easy to fool someone than convince them that they have been fooled..Sorry to say but This Generation is into Serious brainwashing by The social media Gay community
September 23, 2015 at 9:43 pm |
U SAY: “everybody has the freedom of choice all i was trying to bring to the lime light is that its high time to reason soberly”
– I mostly agree with you on freedom of choice. I say “mostly” because our freedoms and choises should be evaluated in regards with the impact they have on other people. (Your freedom should stop at the point you violate someone else’s freedom. And if there is conflict between the rights of 2 opposing parties, it should be resolved by applying the most fair possible solution, so that no-one will suffer any injustice).
To do so, you need good information, sufficient reasoning skills and probably empathy, which i believe is something all non-sociopathaths are gifted with. It should be noted that a new research concludes that people with homophobic attitudes are more likely to have psychological issues including anger, hostility and aggression toward others, .
A study published Sept. 8 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine assessed psychopathologic characteristics in the development of homophobia. Until now, many aspects of homophobic prejudice have been investigated, including religion, education and gender, but important psychological factors have still not been explained.
“The study is opening a new research avenue, where the real disease to study is homophobia,” lead researcher Emmanuele Jannin told Live Science.
The study evaluated 560 randomly selected Italian university students. About half were in a relationship and nearly all declared to be exclusively heterosexual. Researchers found the better the mental health of the person the less likely he or she was to be homophobic.
“We found that psychoticism represented an important risk factor for homophobia, demonstrating that pathologic personality traits are involved in homophobic attitudes,” the study’s authors wrote.
U SAY: “but In the end the righteous shall win”
– In the end, as in an afterlife? I wish such thing exists, otherwise don’t be fooled. I don’t mean to burst your bubble but we live in a world where you can see that there is a great deal of injustice that is never corrected in many aspects of life. At least in this life. Someone commits a hate crime with no remorse afterwards and never gets caught or punished. At what point you see or foresee with certainty that the righteous victim will win in that case???
If you believe beyond reasonable doubt that there is some cosmic justice that will be served after death in some spiritual world, then i think you live in a different realm of reality. In the world i live in there is lots of homophobia and there are many countries in which it is illegal and even punishable by death for 2 adults to commit consensual homosexual acts. Gay people are being marginalized, they suffer all kinds of discrimination and legal challenges across the globe.
The homophobes who perpetrate that kind of evil attitudes, consider themselves proper religious, moral persons. I’m optimistic that as time goes by, people will become more righteous and that will be a win. But i put my hopes on the living people because that’s what really matters. Because the way i see it, there is no cosmic justice that could fix the evil monstrosities Hitler and Nazi Germany commited against mankind. U can promise that Hitler will suffer eternally and that victims will enjoy heaven as if you really know but i’m not gonna buy it. The dead are still dead and what happened is utterly horrible. Evil keeps happening through our lifetime and no cosmic justice is gonna fix the world that we live in, neither it is gonna fix the amount of evil that good people didn’t choose to suffer or witness!
U SAY: “after all i don’t live anyones life so i didn’t force anyone Into The anti-gay stuff”
– U probably don’t force your prejudice on others but you do promote it. You are certainly not neutral on how gay people should be treated within society either. You think you are justified in condemning gay people for whatever bad reason or belief you may have. I only wish homophobes were being at least honest when they spit out anti-gay stuff.
If you think that “gay sex is icky”, that’s sad but i can’t argue on that. It’s your right to think whatever you want as long as you behave yourself, properly. All i can do about that is to point out that lesbian porn doesn’t seem so icky to straight guys generally and a lot of people think it is yucky when old people (over the age of being fertile) have sex but we are not gonna prosecute them, right?
That’s one think! BUT, when u spread lies like “homosexuals are sexually attracted to children” and “homosexuals should be stoned to death just like women who are not virgin on their wedding night, because that’s what the Bible says”, then i have every right in the world to tell you that those are bullshit and that you are liars and hypocrites. You, in particular may not say or believe such crap, (based solely on your last post, i can assume that u r pretty much a decent person with few biases and misconceptions) but unless you are a major homophobe, u must know how homophobic people tend to use all sorts of stupid, bad arguments to adorn their sick hate or fear of the LGBT people.
NOW, i wonder what type of “serious brainwashing” you believe is being imposed on western societies and lots of countries predominantly in Europe, America and Australia. What kind of “lies” you think that all these people are buying and they’ve become so accepting of gay people and as the time goes on they become more gay-friendly? Is it that you think that long term homosexual relationships is only a myth because gay people are supposedly so promiscuous that they are incapable of monogamy?
Is it that you think that the majority of people have been fooled into believing that people can fall in love whether they are straight, gay or bi? Is it that you think that gay people, unlike straight people, are only interested in sex? Is it that you think that gay people are an abomination and that’s how they should be viewed? Is it that gay couples are leading decent-common lives outside their bedroom, whereas you believe that they are not? Is it that you think that gay people are unaware of safe sex and they can’t have sex with one another without getting an STD, even if they are both healthy?
Seriously, WHAT KIND OF “LIES” U SUPPOSE PEOPLE ARE BEING FOOLED INTO BELIEVING AND YOU CLAIM TO KNOW BETTER? If we are going to argue your conspiracy theories, at least don’t be vague. Be more specific! If you say “gays want to destroy America” (an old argument), that’s vague because it doesn’t informs us of how they are gonna do it. But if u say that they will bring the Apocalypse or organise a terrorist hit themselves, that may be ridiculous but it is more specific.
Have you heard about the claim Pat Robertson and some pastor made that Starbucks flavors lattes with “gay semen”. That’s specific too. I hope you aren’t really wondering whether that last one is true and therefore this is why Starbucks are so gay friendly. I’m not trying to offend your inteligence and i’m sorry if that’s what my comment makes you think but u have to understand: homophobes unfortunately tend to indulge in major stupidity in this particular subject (of homosexuality) so often that it becomes pointless to even bother to debate them.
U say u are sorry to say what u said but i’m not sure whether slander based on ignorance or misinformation should be excused. I’m sorry if u think that my judgement is either dishonest or simply flawed but you assert that we are being fed some kind of gay propaganda and i’m wondering if such thing could exist.
Let’s assume that we have a Jew and a Nazi soldier. Which one is more likely to produce propaganda??? Unless u r antisemitic, that must be pretty obvious! Is it even possible for a Jew to propagandize in favor of being a Jew? We can expect propaganda from Nazis and homophobes, misogynists and racists because they are bad people by definition. The question is, can we possibly expect Jews, women and gay people to be blamed for propagandizing to promote their acceptance and equal treatment? I believe no, because by definition they are all good people.
U are being racist towards gay people for being what they are for whatever reason and you believe that homophobes are not the ones who propagandize because they are supposedly the good ones who try to prevent the acceptance of the gay minority. That’s what i feel sorry about. I rest my case.
August 30, 2015 at 4:02 am |
The comment above shows what pathological liars the LBGT community are. You cry discrimination but have no problems leeching off of people’s businesses, threatening people’s privacies and even promote harassment if there are people who don’t agree with your ways. Sorry, I don’t fall for your lies especially after learning about testimonies from ex-LBGT themselves like Joe Sciambra for example (he’s got his own channel and website).
These are the same liars who would also hate on Dolce and Gabbana, gay men themselves who did not agree on same-sex marriage, but the militant “loving” LBGT community had no time at all slamming vituperations on them for going against LBGT fundamentalism. These same people would have no problem hurling hateful slur/gaslighting/bullying their own kind when they have fallen out of their favour or have turned against the LBGT lifestyle.
To equate my skin colour to your sins is despicable to the core and absolutely non-scientific. There are only two kinds of chromosomes that make up our sex according to natural biology: male and female ones. There is no gay gene or some other chromosome other than that. Sorry that you fail to see through this. People like you would have no problem hurting others rather if it gets your way. You want special treatment – NOT equal rights as it’s shown how you made some businesses go bankrupt just because they had a view that so much differs to yours. @CommonSense no, rather, YOU are the intolerant sort of people with a level of militancy akin to the Nazis.
You wish to destroy civilisations with your lies and use children as your tools to propagate your despicable ideas. You call out on the Bible as if you know much on moral ascendancy (NOT). You preach hatred rather and the fact of the matter is is that in the long history of humanity, they wouldn’t still have considered LBGT normal like the way natural male and females relate with one another. Same sex parenting especially from gay men from the West would promote slavery of using women’s wombs as if they are in themselves tools for commodities. Despicable beastly ideas you have in you…you are nothing but extremely selfish people who really care not of others but themselves.
I write here to end your bull crap of preaching lies and actual bigotry here – not us sane people.
September 7, 2015 at 5:59 pm |
U SAY: “The comment above shows what pathological liars the LBGT community are.”
-Speak for yourself, ignorant racist.
U SAY: “You cry discrimination but have no problems leeching off of people’s businesses, threatening people’s privacies and even promote harassment if there are people who don’t agree with your ways.”
-We do “cry discrimination” when we hear that a 16 year old girl was murdered by an ultra-orthodox “christian”, just because she was supporting the right of her friends to be treated as equals under the law and within society. Or when gay teens commit suicide because of homophobic bullying, perpetrated by your vicious kind. Or when all those regressive & underdeveloped countries throw gay people in jail, torture them or even kill them. Or when religious extremists like ISIS victimize gay people. Or when people abuse their “religious rights” to marginalise and discriminate against gays, musllims, heathens, divorced people, adulterers, unamarried mothers, interracial couples, women, atheists, pro-abortion doctors etc, based on “biblical values”.
That’s why we don’t live under theocracy (thank god!): when people use as ultimate law their “holy book”, be that the quran or the bible, shit happens. Our secular laws, the law of the land establishes that your “religious rights” stop at the very point you violate someone else’s rights or freedom. That means, if u have a business or you are employed somewhere, you abide by the legislative rules. Therefore, you can’t deny civil marriage certificates to interacial couples or divorced people. You can’t deny to sell food or provide services (like haircuts) to muslims, gays, or atheists. A bank employee cannot deny to give a loan to an unmarried mother on religious grounds, regardless if she is perfectly capable to pay back. What if you are a muslim and part of your duties in the job you were hired to is to sell alcohol??? If you can’t reconcile with that, pick another job but don’t break the law, don’t dodge the responsibilities that follow when you live in a society that grants you your civil rights. It is as mandatory as paying taxes.
U SAY: “Sorry, I don’t fall for your lies especially after learning about testimonies from ex-LBGT themselves like Joe Sciambra for example”
-That’s interesting. From the very few known clowns that claim that they have changed their sexual orientation u were convinced by Joe Sciambra: a former BDSM gay porn star, a former masochist slut who thinks that he was a common gay person. A moron that became addicted to porn, supposedly more than str8 people do. An idiot who had gay sex in almost every public place one could think (bars, bathrooms, bar stools, dance floors, bath houses, parks), regardless the fact that they are not intended for sex in public. An idiot who thought that gay sex has to be strictly on the first date, who supposedly contacted, in his utter incompetence to practice safe sex, a long list of STDs, “gay bowel syndrome” being among them.
(For the record, we Googled this strange condition and learned that, once upon a time, “gay bowel syndrome” was a term used by some proctologists in the mid-’70s and early-’80s. It eventually went out of style a few years later after it was determined that the condition was neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. Evidently, Sciambra’s doctor didn’t get the memo.)
A clown who has never heard or even considered the option of gay monogamy, who thinks that his emotional problems are tied to the homosexuality and not to the fact that he was a total whore involved in porn industry. Yeah ,right! He also claims that there has to be an age difference between the gay partners. And that gay anal sex gives birth to Satan, for which he authored a 178-page e-book.
Now he is a catholic christian minister and he is celibate which is not at the slightest indicative that his orientation is “changed”. More likely he is an oppressed homophobic homosexual. A gay virgin is not required to have sex to identify himself as attracted to men, let alone the former shameless slut who thinks that chastity equals sexual orientation change. I do believe that when a heterosexual man embraces chastity, his orientation doesn’t change to something else. The same goes for the gay man!
Either way, the fact that you were convinced by such a pathetic case, indicates that you are either extremely gullible or extremely stupid or simply full of shit.
As for Dolce & Gabbana, they have an opinion on same sex marriage and everyone is entitled to their opinion. The fact that they are gay and they don’t like gay marriage, doesn’t make their opinion any more valid or right than the opinion of the majority of LGBT celebrities (and even straight ones). Dolce & Gabbana also believe that straight couples who practice IVF to get pregnant lead to “synthetic” children. It is that kind of thinking that makes me indifferent to their stupid opinions, based on which a straight couple who is mostly sterile is not supposed to seek medical assistance in order for the woman to get pregnant because their kids are “synthetic”.
This is also why i couldn’t care less when they apologised for their insulting comments and claimed to have changed their minds on “synthetic children” and “rented uteras”. Maybe their apology was a bussiness move, maybe they did considered that for example when a young woman gets raped and that leads her to a treatable std and an unwanted pregnancy which she is afraid to terminate regardless the fact that she is not fit to be a good mother to any kid (let alone the spawn of her rapist), then it is understandable that she chooses to give it for adoption after its birth to a specific loving, caring (possibly sterile) couple that is able to raise a child properly.
And yes, i do find it offensive that they label some kid as being “synthetic” and it is ridiculous that you call that “anti-LGBT fundamentalism”, like you have any single clue about what fundamentalism is. U argue that it is problematic that when gay people indulge in discrimination towards their own community, the community has a problem with that. That makes me wonder: HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE LGBT FRIENDLY CHURCHES, MINISTERS, PRIESTS AND PASTORS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND ACTIVELY ACCEPT GAY PEOPLE AS THEY ARE? ARE U HYPOCRITICAL ENOUGH TO MAKE THE ASSERTION THAT THOSE KINDS OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS WORLDWIDE, THAT DO NOT VIEW HOMOSEXUALITY AS IMMORAL OR SINFUL, DO NOT PISS U OFF??? I DOUBT THAT!
It’s so laughable that you use words “sin” and “scientific” in the same sentence and expect people to take you seriously. It’s so ridiculous that your brain cannot process that fact that gender and sexual orientation are 2 distinct different things. BTW, I’VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT SKIN COLOR IN MY COMMENT ABOVE THAT YOU CRITISIZED WITHOUT BOTHERING TO ACTUALLY READ IT!
Your understanding of biology and evolution is pathetic given that you believe that something as complex as the human sexuality could be controlled by a single gene.Any genetic trait that reduces the chances of producing the offspring usually gets eliminated very quickly in populations. That being said, it is completely unlikely that homosexuality could rely on a single gene. Genes are far from the whole story and the research shows that there is a strong genetic basis for homosexuality. Sex hormones in prenatal life play a role. For example, girls born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which results in naturally increased levels of male sex hormones, show relatively high rates of same-sex attractions as adults.
Further evidence comes from genetic males who, through accidents, or being born without penises, were subjected to sex change and raised as girls. As adults these men are typically attracted to women. The fact that you cannot make a genetic male sexually attracted to another male by raising him as a girl makes any social theory of sexuality very weak. Genes could themselves nudge one towards a particular sexual orientation or genes may simply interact with other environmental factors (such as sex hormones in the womb environment) to influence later sexual orientation.
The brains of gay and heterosexual people also appear to be organised differently. For example patterns of brain organisation appear similar between gay men and heterosexual women and between lesbian women and heterosexual men. Gay men appear, on average, more “female typical” in brain pattern responses and lesbian women are somewhat more “male typical”. Differences in brain organisation mean differences in psychology and study after study show differences in cognition between heterosexual and gay people. Thus gay differences are not just about who you fancy. They are reflected in our psychology and the ways we relate to others.
Scientists have identified several areas of the brain that they believe determine sexuality in an individual. These areas include the hypothalamus and the amygdala. Inter-hemispheric neural connectivity has also been found to contribute significantly to sexual orientation. Researchers naturally focus on an organ in the brain called the hypothalamus because it is known to be responsible for gender preference. It is also what is called dimorphic, meaning its structure is different in males and females. There’s also differences in the hypothalamus between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
All those bussinesses gone bankrupt or whatever, have brought it to themselves because they refused to treat gays equally. LGBTs don’t demand special rights, they demand equal rights. The right to walk in public with your partner holding hands without fearing that someone is gonna attack you verbally or physically. The right to legally prosecute your new boss for firing you simply because you are either a lesbian or a woman. The right to buy goods and servises regadless of the gender of your partner. The right to marry and so on. These are all rights that straight people enjoy and there is nothing special about enjoying the same rights. Your strong will to oppose and restrict the rights of the minorities, be them either gays or jews, that is very Nazi-like of you. And to make a “color skin” reference, your attitude is pretty much like restricting and opposing the rights of black people, calling them Nazis for wanting “special” rights and protection from the KKK.
What do we actually know about the practice of Convertion Therapy (CT) and its impact on often vulnerable patients? First, the therapy has been discredited across the board by all reputable practitioners, researchers, and professional organizations with any knowledge of the practice. The American Psychological Association’s 2009 opus on the topic concludes that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and warns against the harmful effects of trying. At least 10 major groups with knowledge of the issue, including the World Health Organization, echo this position.
Second, charges that the repudiation of Convertion Therapy is the product of political pressure instead of scientific knowledge ring hollow. One of the main reasons CT has been discredited is that its emergence dated from a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness, a designation the American Psychiatric Association eliminated in 1973. It’s difficult to justify treating people who aren’t sick. Some suggest that the 1973 decision was itself the product of political pressure. But it must be remembered that the original designation dates back only to 1952, the height of Cold War paranoia and persecution of gays, leftists—indeed anyone who failed to conform to a rigid set of social norms. This was an era that was virulently anti-gay—in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a sweeping order banning gays and lesbians from working in the federal government—and marked by a level of bias and ignorance that can be difficult to recall.
Indeed, it was the act of designating gay people as mentally ill that was plainly the product of politics and ideology. It was only after social awareness led the psychiatric profession to empirically examine its anti-gay assumptions that researchers came to see that gay people don’t, by virtue of their gayness, display symptoms of mental illness.
This history has a more recent chapter as well. Largely in reaction to the modernization of views on gender and sexuality, social and religious conservatives embarked on a concerted campaign to vilify gay and transgender people as morally and mentally troubled and a threat to the social order. The emergence of same-sex marriage as a realistic prospect in the 1990s intensified their efforts, which included a stealth strategy of building a religious infrastructure masquerading as science to give intellectual credibility to what truly amounts to faith-based bigotry.
A final reason we know that conversion therapy was not renounced due merely to political pressure is that there is actual evidence showing that it is ineffective and can be harmful. The What We Know Project, a research initiative I direct at Columbia Law School, collects peer-reviewed scholarship on public policy issues and makes links available online. My team identified 45 peer-reviewed studies that addressed CT over the last 30 years, of which 13 contained primary research. Of those, 12 concluded that CT is ineffective and/or harmful. Only one found that CT works. That study, written by Joseph Nicolosi, has been roundly condemned for its methodological weaknesses. It used a convenience sample of subjects drawn largely from the stridently anti-gay organization the author co-founded—a group that claims it can turn gay people straight. It relied entirely on self-reports, with no attempt to verify claims by patients that they were now heterosexual. It never defined sexual orientation and ultimately seemed to measure self-identification rather than documenting an actual change from gay to straight. It did not account for the obvious likelihood that many subjects who claimed they were no longer gay were actually bisexual to begin with. And its subjects consisted entirely of people who identified as religious or very religious. Even with all these limitations, only a minority of subjects claimed CT had converted them from gay to straight.
The dozen studies that found CT to be ineffective and/or harmful also relied on self-reports and had their share of methodological limitations. But researchers must control for the most likely biases their data are likely to betray. A sample of self-selected, highly religious, “dissatisfied homosexually oriented people” who were recruited through an anti-gay organization have an enormous incentive to tell their guru what he wants to hear—and what they are literally praying is true. For this reason, Robert Spitzer, a renowned psychiatrist and researcher who published a 2003 study also claiming CT worked has since repudiated his study (it did not go through regular peer review, so it does not appear on our list), acknowledging it was unreasonable of him to “assume that the subjects’ reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying.”
Despite the limitations of research on both sides of this debate, the studies discrediting CT are persuasive in a way Nicolosi’s is not. For starters, a dozen studies with different methodologies all reached the same result: that CT doesn’t work. Many used clinical case studies, an accepted method in the psychological and psychiatric professions. Others used structured interviews, drawing from a much broader segment of the population than Nicolosi did. Instead of sampling only ex-gay or gay-affirming groups, they assessed subjects from both groups. Some sought to measure sexual orientation by asking indirect questions rather than ones that could be colored by “social desirability” bias, in which subjects answer in ways they think a researcher wants to hear.
Other studies documented stinging harms wrought by CT, results that are more subject to empirical observation than sexual orientation. These included depression, hopelessness, suicidality, emotional distress, social isolation, and decreased capacity for intimacy. Unfortunately, such results are not surprising when using methods that include electric shock, snapping rubber bands to punish same-sex fantasies, humiliation while naked, and threats of damnation.
Your attidude towards the LGBT is despicable and you wild crazy accusations of civilization destruction are a big pile of hateful homophobic vicious lies. Also your frivolous, superficial and errant understanding of the Bible u claim to know better than me is evident due to your support in Scriptures, regardless its content which includes:
-Slavery, owning another human as property and even as sex slave. Very specific commands by which you can enslave someone forever and even pass them to your children as property. Instructions about how you are allowed to beat them and not get punished if they don’t die immediately but do die in a day or 2.
-(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT): “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
-(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB): “If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” It is clear that God doesn’t give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans “property”.
-Instructions of how a man can sell his daughter as sex slave.
-Many commands by God to kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests, Witches, Homosexuals, Fortunetellers, Unruly Children, Adulterers, Fornicators, Followers of Other Religions, Nonbelievers, False Prophets, the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God, Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night, Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle and People for Working on the Sabbath.
(Let alone, the multiple genocides god commanded along with instructions to his “divine” army soldiers to kill every man, woman, child and infant but to keep the virgins for themselves).
Now that’s pure evil and the list of atrocities and evil stuff in that “holy book” unimaginably LONG. As for slavery whether you approve it or not (being biblically approved), i’m against it. And when you imply that slavery is still legal in western societies, i can’t tell if you are a dishonest miscreant or just ignorant. Either way, the fact that you believe that surrogate mothers do what they do against their will, can’t be just pure ignorance. No, that certainly is intended propaganda. No person with an elementary sense of reality could actually believe that surrogacy is something other than an voluntary action. Then again, you may be living in a country in which child brides, arranged marriages, slavery, severe sexism and criminalization of homosexuality are quite common and therefore, your poor understanding of the laws of the western societies must be flawed or even distorted by the decadence of your own country. The point is that in the western world that we live in, slavery is illegal, women are not forced to surrogacy but willingfully volunteer to that and they can even keep their birth babies in case they change their minds and decide to keep them.
So, what’s next? Do you find blood transfusions to be somehow a form of slavery, a despicable beastly idea that makes people “tools for commodities” for other selfish people? U are full of shit and you are a vicious homophobic bigot. That’s what you are, Junias.Your abnormal ideas don’t convince me in the slightest.
April 16, 2016 at 4:23 pm |
YOU WROTE: “Homosexual people identify themselves as gay because of their unnatural, perverted sexual behaviours that can be changed back to normalcy.”
There are so many fallacious assertions here it is difficult to know where to begin.
1) Unnaturalness is utterly irrelevant to morality (your statement implies the opposite). Much of modern medical care is explicitly unnatural, for example. I can elaborate extensively if required.
2) Normality is irrelevant to morality. Abnormally kind or intelligent people are abnormal.
3) Homosexual people do NOT identify themselves as homosexual because of their behaviours. You likely and erroneously do because it enables you to prop up the nonsense about “ex-gays”, as if a heterosexual who doesn’t have sex is an “ex-heterosexual”. Patently nonsense.
Homosexuality refers to attractions to members of the same sex, irrespective of whether these are acted upon. This is why teenagers identify themselves as gay prior to any sexual contact and likewise for heteros.
4) The word “perverted”, like normality and “unnatural” is simply a term with unjustified negative connotations that serves no purpose except to reveal that you cannot discuss the issue impartially.
5) All reputable social science organisations recognise that there is no sound evidence supporting the notion that LGBT people can be made straight. Numerous ex-ex-gays have spoke about the delusional nature of the “ex-gay” period of their life and how the ex-gay movement revolves around the lie that behaviour = orientation. Similarly many founders and leaders of the ex-gay movement in the 1st world countries have now admitted the same and those few “ex-gays” who “have their own website” do so because they make their living by going around telling religious fanatics what they want to hear.
YOU WROTE: “My children were born black, not because of anything they did, but because their parents are both black.”
There is no evidence to support that LGBT people are LGBT because of anything “they did”. The genetic or agenetic aetiology of something is additionally just as irrelevant when it comes to anything else. You can’t publish blogg posts because you were born with the ability to do so and don’t speak with your regional accent because you were born speaking that way… is this relevant in any way to the ethics of those things? No.