FSTDT

Ryan T. Anderson #fundie mercatornet.com

In Sunday’s New York Times, Andrea Long Chu writes a heartfelt and heartbreaking op-ed on life with gender dysphoria. Titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy,” the op-ed reveals painful truths about many transgender lives and inadvertently communicates almost the exact opposite of its intended argument.

Next week, Chu will undergo vaginoplasty surgery. Or, as Chu puts it: “Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months.”

Will this bring happiness? Probably not, but Chu wants it all the same: “This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.”

Chu argues that the simple desire for sex-reassignment surgery should be all that is required for a patient to receive it. No consideration for authentic health and wellbeing or concern about poor outcomes should prevent a doctor from performing the surgery if a patient wants it. Chu explains: “no amount of pain, anticipated or continuing, justifies its withholding.”

This is a rather extreme conclusion. Chu writes: “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want.” This is quite a claim. And we’ll come back to it. But as the op-ed builds to this stark conclusion, Chu reveals many frequently unacknowledged truths about transgender lives—truths that we should attend to.

Sex isn’t “assigned,” and surgery can’t change it

First, Chu acknowledges that the surgery won’t actually “reassign” sex: “my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain.”

Sex reassignment is quite literally impossible. Surgery can’t actually reassign sex, because sex isn’t “assigned” in the first place.

As I point out in When Harry Became Sally, sex is a bodily reality—the reality of how an organism is organized with respect to sexual reproduction. That reality isn’t “assigned” at birth or any time after.

Sex—maleness or femaleness—is established at a child’s conception, can be ascertained even at the earliest stages of human development by technological means, and can be observed visually well before birth with ultrasound imaging. Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones don’t change biological reality.

People who undergo sex-reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex—they merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.

Gender dysphoria Is deeply painful

Second, Chu acknowledges the deep pain of gender dysphoria, the sense of distress or alienation one feels at one’s bodily sex:

Dysphoria feels like being unable to get warm, no matter how many layers you put on. It feels like hunger without appetite. It feels like getting on an airplane to fly home, only to realize mid-flight that this is it: You’re going to spend the rest of your life on an airplane. It feels like grieving. It feels like having nothing to grieve.

“Transitioning” may not make things better and could make them worse

Third, Chu acknowledges that “transitioning” may not make things better and could even make things worse. Chu writes: “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones.” And continues: “Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began transition.”

Indeed, as I document in When Harry Became Sally, the medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.

Even the Obama administration admitted that the best studies do not report improvement after reassignment surgery.

In August 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid wrote: “the four best designed and conducted studies that assessed quality of life before and after surgery using validated (albeit non-specific) psychometric studies did not demonstrate clinically significant changes or differences in psychometric test results after GRS [gender reassignment surgery].”

What does that mean? A population of patients is suffering so much that they would submit to amputations and other radical surgeries, and the best research the Obama administration could find suggests that it brings them no meaningful improvements in their quality of life.

Suicide is a serious risk

Fourth, Chu acknowledges a struggle with suicide ideation: “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.”

In 2016, the Obama administration acknowledged a similar reality. In a discussion of the largest and most robust study on sex-reassignment, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pointed out “The study identified increased mortality and psychiatric hospitalization compared to the matched controls. The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes).”

These results are tragic. And they directly contradict the most popular media narratives, as well as many of the snapshot studies that do not track people over time.

Indeed, the Obama administration noted that “mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years.” So when the media tout studies that only track outcomes for a few years, and claim that reassignment is a stunning success, there are good grounds for skepticism.

The purpose of medicine is healing

This brings us back to Chu’s argument that “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want.” What should we make of it?

Why should a doctor perform surgery when it won’t make the patient happy, it won’t accomplish its intended goal, it won’t improve the underlying condition, it might make the underlying condition worse, and it might increase the likelihood of suicide?

Chu wants to turn the profession of medicine on its head, transforming a medical doctor into nothing more than “a highly competent hired syringe,” in the words of Leon Kass.

Unfortunately, Chu isn’t alone. Many professionals now view health care—including mental health care—primarily as a means of fulfilling patients’ desires, whatever those are. Kass explains:

The implicit (and sometimes explicit) model of the doctor-patient relationship is one of contract: the physician—a highly competent hired syringe, as it were—sells his services on demand, restrained only by the law (though he is free to refuse his services if the patient is unwilling or unable to meet his fee).

Here’s the deal: for the patient, autonomy and service; for the doctor, money, graced by the pleasure of giving the patient what he wants. If a patient wants to fix her nose or change his gender, determine the sex of unborn children, or take euphoriant drugs just for kicks, the physician can and will go to work—provided that the price is right and that the contract is explicit about what happens if the customer isn’t satisfied.

This vision of medicine and medical professionals gets it wrong. Professionals ought to profess their devotion to the purposes and ideals they serve. That’s what makes them professionals, and not just service providers.

Teachers should be devoted to learning, lawyers to justice under law, and physicians to “healing the sick, looking up to health and wholeness.” Healing is “the central core of medicine,” Kass writes—“to heal, to make whole, is the doctor’s primary business.”

But Chu’s vision of medicine turns the doctor into someone who merely satisfies desires, even if what is done isn’t good for a patient. Chu writes:

I still want this, all of it. I want the tears; I want the pain. Transition doesn’t have to make me happy for me to want it. Left to their own devices, people will rarely pursue what makes them feel good in the long term. Desire and happiness are independent agents.

Sound medicine isn’t about desire, it’s about healing. To provide the best possible care, serving the patient’s medical interests requires an understanding of human wholeness and well-being. Mental health care must be guided by a sound concept of human flourishing.

Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us with the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts and feelings that disguise or distort reality are misguided, and they can cause harm. In When Harry Became Sally, I argue that we need to do a better job of helping people who face these struggles.

Misrepresentations of my work

And Chu takes issue with me:

Many conservatives call this [gender dysphoria] crazy. A popular right-wing narrative holds that gender dysphoria is a clinical delusion; hence, feeding that delusion with hormones and surgeries constitutes a violation of medical ethics.

Just ask the Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan T. Anderson, whose book “When Harry Became Sally” draws heavily on the work of Dr. Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist who shut down the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979 on the grounds that trans-affirmative care meant “cooperating with a mental illness.”

Mr. Anderson writes, “We must avoid adding to the pain experienced by people with gender dysphoria, while we present them with alternatives to transitioning.”

Of course I never call people with gender dysphoria crazy. And I explicitly state in the book that I take no position on the technical question of whether someone’s thinking that he or she is the opposite sex is a clinical delusion. That’s why Chu couldn’t quote any portion of my book saying as much.

Throughout the book, I point out that the feelings that people who identify as transgender report are real—they really feel a disconnect with their bodily sex—but I also acknowledge the fact that those feelings don’t change bodily reality. I recognize the real distress that gender dysphoria can cause, but never do I call people experiencing it crazy.

I repeatedly acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a serious condition, that people who experience a gender identity conflict should be treated with respect and compassion, that we need to find better, more humane and effective, responses to people who experience dysphoria.

Nevertheless, Chu claims that I am engaged in “‘compassion-mongering,’ peddling bigotry in the guise of sympathetic concern.”

For the record, Chu never contacted me regarding my research or my book. Nor did the Times contact me to verify any of the claims made about me in the op-ed. Indeed, this is the second time the New York Times has published an op-ed with inaccurate criticisms of me and my book.

Americans disagree about gender identity and the best approaches to treating gender dysphoria. We need to respect the dignity of people who identify as transgender while also doing everything possible to help people find wholeness and happiness.

That will require a better conversation about these issues, which is why I wrote my book. And it’s presumably why Chu wrote this op-ed. Now is not the time for personal attacks and name-calling, but for sober and respectful truth-telling.

Chu may regard me as a “bigot,” but I regard Chu as a fellow human being made in the image and likeness of God who is struggling with a painful and dangerous condition. As such, Chu deserves care and support that will bring health and wholeness—not the on-demand delivery of “services” that even Chu acknowledges are unlikely to make life better and may make it very much worse.

Laura Lowder #homophobia mercatornet.com

I was deeply moved by Julie Hinds’ story, recently told on MercatorNet: “Alternative Truths: A wife’s view of a gay coming out”. I am another ex-wife of a homosexual. Our stories have been too slow to come to light.

In the 30 years since Bill left me and embarked on the gay lifestyle, I’ve struggled to recover from the deep wounds left in the wake of his deception.

...

A man concerned only with having a wife as a public face is not inclined to treat her as his spiritual and intellectual companion, any more than as a lover. This was my experience.

Billy and I grew up together, started dating after high school and married while still in our teens. We’d been married two years when, during an argument about his non-communication and lack of attention, he broke down and told me he’d been seduced, at age 14, by an older man. “I’ve always been afraid that, if you hadn’t fallen in love with me and married me, that’s where I would have ended up,” he told me. There was not a word about his loving me.

I was young and naïve, I wasn’t close to my parents, and in my community in the 1960s and 70s, nice people just didn’t talk about some things. I was afraid my pastor would contact Bill’s boss if I went to him, so I didn’t get any sort of counseling until Bill eventually left me. In fact, after being physically sick for several days after that revelation, because it was just too much to deal with, I tried, rather too successfully, to put it out of my mind. We had three children (because I refused to take No for an answer, if you want to know), and we were active in our church all that time.

When, after 11-and-a-half years of marriage, Bill announced his intention of leaving me, my immediate reaction was relief. I’d grown to hate him, over the years, for not taking me seriously as a woman, as a human being. Bill has never been able to see that I possessed any real value or interest in my own right. Most of our arguments were over that. I didn’t or couldn’t remember his earlier admission about the seduction, and he always tried to deflect the blame for his lack of attention back on me: I wasn’t a good housekeeper, so he was too uptight to be affectionate or companionable, or some such thing. But I couldn’t leave. Our religious beliefs, as I understood them, prohibited divorce. I was also afraid of being alone. But now he was leaving. I was going to be free, at last.

I didn’t realize until five months after he moved out, and I ran into him and his partner at the grocery store, what had been going on. The electricity between the two men was palpable. I realized, They’re in love with each other! and remembered the disclosure he’d made years before. Oh, thank God! I thought. If I’d been perfect it still wouldn’t have been enough!

But there was also shock and fear. The realization of just what it meant, that Bill was gay, was a terrible blow. I had been, in gay slang, a “beard,” a false front to give him an acceptable public identity. Everything I had thought was true about myself and my world was suddenly proven false. I didn’t know what was real in my world, any more, or who I was in it. I teetered on the brink of a nervous breakdown for several years after that night, and only slowly recovered some sense of normality.

My work during the first few years of being single had me connecting with a variety of mental health professionals in our city. I wanted to understand what had happened to me – and to Bill; I asked them, Is there any literature about the impact of a husband’s homosexuality on his straight wife? No, they said. Thirty years later there still isn’t. This is why our stories are so important – they comfort us in our basic shared experiences, they assure us we are normal.

Maybe, some day, the psychological community will decide we deserve attention, and studies and papers, too. I’m not holding my breath: an industry that has defined its terms based on politics (as happened following the 1973 American Psychological Association convention, which decided to remove homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders) is not likely to give credence to a point of view opposing that position.

Our struggle is made harder than it ought to be by several factors. The lack of available information about what has happened to us is one. Another is the current political climate that lionizes homosexuality and dismisses us. Our gay husbands are so courageous, so heroic for coming out and claiming their truth . . . They are the important ones, they deserve so much respect and esteem just for being gay.

“Don’t you want Bill to be happy? Doesn’t he have that right?” a gay co-worker asked me at one point. His own partner was formerly married with two children.

“What about my right to be happy?” I countered. “He made me promises. Don’t I have a right to see those promises honored?”

“I’ve never thought about that,” he admitted.

Additionally, when we do share our stories on public media, we get attacked. Comment boxes are full of contemptuous responses: “Sour grapes,” are blamed for our dissent from the celebration of gayness. Misogyny is rampant: we can’t be rational creatures with legitimate, carefully-considered opinions; we can only be harridans seeking revenge.

At the same time, and often by the same people, our tragedy is used to promote gay marriage: “This is why we need gay marriage. If these men could have married, then none of these sob stories would have happened.” This is a false conclusion and an obfuscation of the truth.

The desire for a traditional family is a natural one. Marriage is a uniting of complementary opposites, beginning with the fundamental opposites of male and female. Gay “marriage” does not resolve the deeper wounds of same-sex-attraction and its impact on wives and children, but it does insult our unique identity – our inherent value as woman and as wife. It is also an affront to Christian morals and to natural law. For these reasons I do not recommend some of the online resources like the Straight Spouse Network – their support of gay marriage is counterintuitive to self-respect and healing.

Even worse, for many of us, is that the churches where we ought to find refuge and help are places that foster confusion and a false sense of guilt. My own church and pastor at the time of my initial discovery would have been most supportive and helpful had I had the clarity of mind to seek help. I’ve since converted to Catholicism, which recognizes that homosexuality is a grave impediment to a sacramentally valid marriage. But many in the evangelical and fundamentalist communities encounter a legalism founded on poor theology that employs guilt and coercion to wrongly assign responsibility rather than to support hurting spouses.

Some women decide to stay with their gay husbands, and, in my opinion, there are some very good reasons to stay, if that is agreeable to the spouses. I’m not sure it’s healthy, but there are extenuating circumstances which deserve respect. One woman I know has a disabling condition; her husband has chosen to remain married to her so his insurance is still available to help her in her illness, and their relationship is such that she has found that agreeable.

...

But we can’t win for losing. Even staying in the marriage, women face criticism. An article in the Huffington Post expresses great empathy for the gay husband’s sufferings in coming to terms with his attractions. But not a word does the article offer regarding the sufferings and the deep loneliness experienced by the woman married to him; in fact, the article tacitly blames wives for adding to the difficulties their husbands face, or for choosing to remain married to them even knowing the truth.

....

First of all, it’s not inevitable that the marriage will fall apart. Men who are willing to brave the hard work of reparative therapy – not “praying the gay away,” but a wholistic combination of recognized and respected therapeutic techniques – can find wholeness and a deep happiness in marriage. Of course, men who want to call it “trying” when they merely show up to cohabit at the same address are only fooling themselves. From my experience, Mr. Rymel gives the gay husband far too much credit, and his premise is insulting to us wives.

Moreover, husbands can manipulate us, too. Lying about his homosexuality, or about the nature of his relationships is common. And even when a man is straightforward with his wife, promises to work a program, promises to “be good” can fall apart when a man decides there’s no point any more and vacates the marriage. In such a case, a woman might well be justified to “call foul and take the martyr’s role.”

....

Besides, whether she stays or goes, or is left, a wife suffers. When the most intimate of her relationships is warped, when she is found fundamentally undesirable – again, in every dimension of relationship – she is wounded, and those wounds go deep and are hard to recover from. The memory of Bill’s recoil from ordinary gestures of affection lingers with me to the point I have feared resting my hand on my friend’s shoulder or forearm. I’m still deeply humiliated by the memory of his telling someone what a let-down he found our wedding night and the consummation of our marriage: “. . . disappointed . . . don’t know what all the fuss is about.”

But there is healing, and there is peace. It’s not an easy path, and there are too few resources for us. I found Wives’ Healing Journey enormously beneficial, but this is the only program I know of. While our gay husbands have public support, networking, and other venues available to help them transition into the gay community, there is almost nothing for the wives they left in pursuit of self-fulfillment. That must change. And I expect it’s going to have to change with us.

Being the ex-wife of a homosexual does not have to dominate our lives. It does not define who we are. But we must support one another, and our voices deserve to be respected.

Laura Lowder is a freelance writer who lives in the US. Her website is www.survivingtherainbow.com. Presently she is working with another ex-wife to develop a network for the support of other women and families affected by a loved one's homosexuality, transgenderism, and other related issues.

Dale O'Leary #fundie mercatornet.com

The USA is in the midst of what has been called the “bathroom wars”; however, access to bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex for the so-called transgendered is only a means to an end. The real objective can be discerned from ACLU’s press release supporting U.S. Department of Education’s demand that the Palatine High School in Illinois (and by extension all schools receiving federal funds) allow a boy, who wants to be accepted as a girl, unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room.

The transgendered and their supporters claim that people are merely assigned a sex at birth, their gender identity (how they feel) may or may not match their assigned sex. The goal is to force everyone to accept that gender identity should take precedence over the biological reality of sexual identity and men who claim to be women should be treated as though they were women.

The ACLU complained that the school district challenged their “client’s identity as a girl,” which is true because their client is not a girl, but a boy. According to the ACLU, all “she wants to be accepted for who she is.” The problem is that he wants to be accepted for who he is not. Their client claims that not allowing him to change with the girls stigmatizes him, “making me feel like I was not a normal person.” The simple answer is that it is not normal for a male to want to be accepted as female.

The Bruce Jenner celebrity blitz and the battle over bathrooms, have brought the issue of gender to the fore and people are wondering how we got to the point where boys who think they are girls can use the girls’ locker room. What happened to common sense?

Unfortunately, many people thought that gender was just a synonym for sex, and could be substituted for it without causing any harm. However, for activists on the far left, sex and gender are not the same. Sex is biologically determined. Gender is socially constructed and does not have to correspond to sex. There are two sexes –male and female, but an unlimited number of genders. Once identity is divorced from reality, chaos ensues, fantasy rules.

The Obama administration is determined to force everyone to accept the demands of transgender activists. Girls would have to pretend that they are comfortable with a boy who wants to be a girl using the girls’ locker room, because if girls complain or show any sign of disapproval, they will be judged guilty of “transphobic discrimination”. Everyone would have to accept that wanting to be the other sex or believing that one can become the other sex is just normal diversity, when in fact it is a symptom of disordered thinking. Even if a person doesn’t believe that people can change their sex, he would have to pretend they do and call what is obviously a male a woman. The media has accepted this demand. using feminine pronouns for Bruce Jenner, who in spite of all the make-up, surgery, clothes and fancy photographers is still male.

Transgendered persons point to the psychological suffering they endure because people don’t accept them. Their suffering is real. They are engaged in a comprehensive denial of reality. Such a denial is hard to sustain as they must continually shut out the truth. The transgendered delight in “passing” – being accepted as the opposite sex in public. It hurts to be told that even if they can pass they are not and can never truly be the other sex.

The government does not have the right to force a citizen to say something he knows is a lie or to be silent in the face of evil. The people have a right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to speak the truth, even if the truth hurts another person’s feelings. So-called “hate speech” rules are unacceptable because they allow one group to veto the speech of another.

Some may argue that this is just about words, but as G. K. Chesterton said, words “are the only thing worth fighting about.” Careless use of language caused this mess and needs to be remedied, first by never saying gender when you mean sex.

The school under attack tried to accommodate the boy who wanted to be a girl. This was a mistake. They should have told the parents that their son is a boy and must use the boys’ facilities. If this is not possible, he needs counseling. Halfway accommodation won’t work; the Department of Education demands total capitulation. The defenders of the reality of sex difference should learn from this mistake. They cannot compromise the truth. They should not force the other students to accept the lie that gender trumps sex, just to avoid hurting a troubled boy’s feelings.

The LGBTQ activists and their ACLU lawyers are not tolerant liberals who respect other people’s rights. They are pushing a type of political correctness which is a manifestation of a totalitarian, Marxist-influenced ideology. Theodore Dalrymple, an expert on totalitarian societies explains how activists triumph:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed.

The girls forced to accept a boy in their private space are being targeted for just this kind of humiliation. This is about much more than bathrooms.

Dale O’Leary is a US writer with a special interest in psychosexual issues and is the author of two books: One Man, One Woman and The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. She blogs at What Does the Research Really Say?

Truth v Lies #homophobia mercatornet.com

Truth v Lies
5 years ago
I have yet to see where anyone who is only stating his opinion has said that homosexuals are not human. The only people as far as I can see who say they are not human is homosexuals themselves as they keep on bringing up the spurious argument that there 1,500 (note 1,500, not 1,501) species of animals that are homosexual so its OK for them to be homosexual as after all, we are only a higher evolved animal.

If I had the time and room, I would detail all sorts of ways they are hurting themselves as homosexuality is a self defeating way of life and fraught within all sorts of emotional dysfunction.

Promote family values ????

The last time I looked you needed a mum and dad to be a family.

The last time I looked you needed to be able to procreate to be a family.

The last time I looked, a family does not invite their boyfriends to have sex with them every week in addition to the one they are married to.

The last time I looked, a family does not sit down with their children and spend an evening viewing pornography.

The last time I looked a family does not tell its children that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.

The last time I looked, a family does not embarrass the children by having two dads and no mother.

The last time I looked, a family does not send death threats to other families children.

Promoting family values? You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel making spurious claims like that. Or is that another one of your lies?

Truth v Lies #fundie #homophobia mercatornet.com

Louis, you do not need rocket science to work out that the pink gaystapo have an investment in keeping the truth at bay as the whole homosexual way of life is based on the lie that you are born that way.
That is very hard to believe when one of your own kind stands up at a conference to discuss all things homosexual that they had to make it a civil rights issue. We had to dispel the idea that we are born gay because if we don't then we have to admit that we can stop being homosexual. That was a public statement made in a public meeting for all to hear. To paraphrase, "we have to hide the truth that we are not born gay so that we can sidetrack society into believing it is a civil rights issue. In other words, the truth must be corralled so that we can spread our lies to get what we want. And in other, other words, why should we believe anything you say?

....

Scientists can't prove what doesn't exist and an open minded homosexual is an oxymoron. In addition, the truth about homosexuality has been banned from the university campuses, the main steam media, the education system and governments. The end result is that society today is being re-engineered by a social reforming jackboot brigade who are offering us a house built on sand. If it keeps going at the rate it is, like the past, it will destroy society so in effect they are signing their own death warrant whilst we enjoy the prospect of the second coming of Christ, which I believe their sin and perversion will hasten Whatever happens, we win, they lose.

Truth v Lies #fundie #homophobia mercatornet.com

I have just read a review of a book written by a liberal atheist about the state of play on American Universities. He highlighted the fact that these bastions of free speech have become bastions of politically correct speech, meaning that free speech no longer exists. One thing that he discovered to his surprise was that Christians were the most persecuted group on campus. Your comment that we were not persecuted is not what I would call the facts as you so quaintly put it. As for your links and citations, all you are doing is garnering information that supports your cause, like my rabid homosexual friend on the other site. Most of it is rubbish and is coming from discredited organisations that have compromised themselves. By way of example the American APA which is constantly quoted by the homosexual cause, is totally compromised for the following reasons. One. A retired president of the APA has publicly said that scientific rigour has been jettisoned in favour of the politically correct agenda. Two. In a comment about abortion they said that there is no evidence that any women suffers as a result of abortion. A comment that says "don't bother me with the truth."Three. They say that reparative therapy for homosexuals is wrong because it causes suicide and depression and doesn't work. They forgot that in their charter it says that members must give help to anyone who requests therapy to overcome their homosexual attraction. In addition, their statement means that thousands of people who were homosexual and no longer are have to stop being heterosexual and become homosexual again. In 30 years of research, I yet to find one homosexual that can prove that once homosexual, always homosexual. The best they can offer is that I know I was born homosexual. Of course that begs the question "how do you know." As you can imagine, unless you have ideological blinkers on, that we don't place much faith in so called experts who tend to say what certain people want them to say and that we have a bit of a laugh when you talk about correcting misinformation on this site.

....

"There is nothing about homosexuality that causes HIV" - And here you fall flat on your face. The evidence suggests otherwise. You try so desperately to defend homosexuality with little to no evidence. NO evidence suggests homosexuality is natural or healthy. In my observations Shooter over a period of two years, I have noticed that the pink mafia are totally devoid of evidence for their claims. It seems that they come up with a statement (which is nothing more than spin) and present that to the media as the truth. It is usually backed with a lot of emotion and a pity party. As the media are supporters of their cause, they accept what they say without question so evidence is not demanded of them. I have read numerous articles in the media in support of the pink mafia that you can shoot holes in. Despite this, it is uncritically printed without question. Then along comes someone who knows what the truth is and they call their bluff and this brings out their aggression 101. "How dare you question what we say" is their response and this is followed by ad hominen attacks and pejorative language which shows how intolerant, bigoted and hateful they are.

Slavianophile #fundie mercatornet.com

It seems that the Western world has reached the stage of senile dementia. A pathological behaviour is not just declared normal and legalised, it is being glorified and celebrated, it is protected as something valuable. People who dare to say publicly that homosexuality is abnormal are insulted and sometimes even persecuted.

I wonder what is the next perversion to be legalised and officially glorified? Bestiality? Paedophilia? Necrophilia? Shall we see Necro Pride Parades? Or marriages between human beings and goats?

This infatuation with sexual perversions is a sure sign of a moral decline of society which will inevitably lead to an economic and political decline. Followed by total disintegration.