There's a YouTube channel named "Potholer54." What that means, I can only speculate at this point. I've never ask. It belongs to Peter Hadfield. I've watched a number of his videos, certainly not all of them -- there's not enough time in the day, as the saying goes. I believe the original attraction was the topic of Global Warming. Regardless, I've had occasion to embed Peter Hadfield's videos on this blog and to refer to them a number of times on this blog and elsewhere and primarily on the subject of Global Warming and one, Lord Christopher Monckton, who has done a number of videos and interviews as a "global-warming denier."
Hadfield watched Monckton's videos and then commenced to take them apart for their clear errors citing various data and studies. Hadfield and Monckton entered into a debate, which Monckton unceremonially left for the apparent reason that he lost the debate in the first round. He had no way of refuting Hadfield's assertions. I also encouraged Peter Sinclair to look into Hadfield's videos on Monckton, as Peter Sinclair had also debunked Monckton. Sinclair arranged to interview Hadfield on the subject, and I posted that video interview on this blog.
Peter Hadfield has now done another video, this time on the subject of homosexuality. Hadfield is an atheist who has gone after various Christian Fundamentalists for their literalist interpretation of the Bible. From the outset here, I want to make clear that I'm not a Fundamentalist. I also want to be clear that my intention is not to defend such Fundamentalism.
What I want to do is critique Hadfield's video. First, you should watch the video. You will see a disclaimer at the beginning. I believe it's overstated, even a bit misleading. There is content that many will find objectionable, but in the interest of some semblance of intellectual honesty, I recommend watching and listening so you may join the general, wider debate.
I will be writing much of the following addressing Hadfield directly (first person).
You (Peter Hadfield) overlooked that people go from feeling exactly as you claim to feel (repulsed by the idea of engaging in sex with other males) to feeling the exact opposite. Peter, you've only assumed your current feelings are fixed, inherent, not a choice apparently at any level, etc.
In addition, you loaded your statement with an "if" that one need not accept. I know of no one who claims the choice (unassisted by the divine) is quick and easy. Most admit that overcoming can be very challenging and has not occurred for all who've made any attempt. The right question is, does overcoming ever occur. If it does, and I say it does and base that statement on decades of work, data, and research by NARTH and others, then "born that way" doesn't hold up. It only takes one exception to shoot down the idea that change is not possible and that genetics is the determinant.
You said you'd be addressing or using "science," but you said "it's probably because...." That's hardly a scientific argument. It's just you loosely speculating.
By the way, that book you showed at the beginning, those were drawings, not photos, right? Did you fact-check the basis for those drawings? Were they included as scientific?
Homosexual animals? Peter, you're claiming that there are male animals that have sex exclusively with other male animals in nature, in the wild, not artificially manipulated in any way? These animals engage in anal sex to the point of ejaculation and do so over and over with other males exclusively? That would be news to me. I've asked perhaps hundreds of homosexual activists out in the open on major-traffic sites on the Internet for any supporting documentation for that position. None has ever supplied a thing. You didn't either. You simply said there are hundreds, or was it thousands (I think you said thousands) of animal species with animal homosexuals. You meant species, right? You showed one photo (repeatedly) of some deers mounting each other and one of one male lion on another but cropped (so who can tell what was going on?).
My view is that sexual horniness can drive people and animals to do strange things to relieve the sexual tension. A male who has sex with a knothole could be said to be sexually attracted to wood, but that would be missing the point. That male could also be compulsive about it and form a habit that he might later find difficult to break. Why he initially resorted to the knothole is the question the answer to which would shed real light upon his hypothetical innate attraction to wood (which attraction I don't believe would prove to have been innate in many cases at all if any).
There are though humans who believe one of their hands is foreign to them and go so far as to remove the hand. It happens, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mentally diseased. In fact, they were not at ease about the presents of the hand, which is the root concept in the term "disease." They were diseased, and the absence of the hand likely did nothing to disabuse them of their incorrect view that the hand was not of their physical bodies. This subject raises semantic subtleties. Was the hand "theirs" in every sense of the term or concept of ownership and belonging? Obviously, not every connotation or sense of the term applies equally. It was foreign in a sense, but foreign that had the error in thinking been corrected, the person would have continued with the hand accepting it and being as comfortable with it as with the other or as with any other body part.
Homosexuality exists, but it needs to be viewed from a multitude of perspectives rather than pigeonholed into being accepted in every sense of that term "accepted," as if we should all accept that the unwanted hand should go and that we as humanity and individuals should do nothing to discover the method of correcting the error rather than just cutting off the hand.
Now, I don't use the absence of animal homosexuality as a justification for knowing and stating openly that male homosex, as in anal intercourse (the main act), is wrong. The anus/rectum was not designed for it but rather for feces elimination. The lining of the canal is not designed for the friction. Have you, Peter, studied the diseases that result? Did you check the medical science, since science is what you claim is your basis? I have.
For instance, homosexual anal intercourse results in a greater rate of cancer. I bring this up because your video is plainly a defense of homosexuality. The balance of your video more than suggests that you, Peter, believe that there's nothing wrong with homosex, per se. Perhaps Peter, you'd qualify your view given more opportunity to do so. Perhaps you'd point out that heterosexuality can be used to the point of abuse, which is true. However, let's compare apples and apples as much as that's possible when comparing hetero v. homo.
All other things being equal, heterosexuality is not nearly as fraught with the same or other problems.
Now, I know you approach the whole thing from a Darwinian trajectory, so you will not readily make "moral" judgments. I though don't divorce the moral from the issue of the bad symptoms of homosexuality. In addition, the arguments I've seen put forth by homosexualists (here: pro-homosexuality political activists) don't ever seem to withstand closer scrutiny. For instance, those activists have written widely that cultural exclusion has been the cause for greater rates of mental problems among homosexuals. However, those problems still statistically exist at significant rates where homosex has been mostly "accepted," such as Denmark for one.
Homosexual anal intercourse is mind altering, just as is knothole sex. It physically alters the brain matter. The more one engages, the greater and more "indelible" the changes. Hence, choice becomes more difficult. The more nicotine, the more difficult quitting. There are those who are homosexually abused who dissociate from their own bodies during the abuse though. The patterning of the brain matter reaches a plateau in that case.
Even if homosexual exclusivity amongst animals is what you are saying, are you able to also say that it is not confusion/disease on the part of those animals? Are they the weak ones or what? What's the impact upon the group, ultimately negative or positive? Where's the science? Can it even answer?
In addition, the term "normal" is not a term of one connotation but many. It can be a poor choice or substitute for "good" or "proper" or conducive to natural procreation, etc. To me, it's intellectually weak to use one connotation without giving the benefit of the doubt concerning the other connotation(s) intended by other users of the term. Clarifying is best. I would say "not naturally correct" as opposed to merely "not natural," as in not occurring in "nature."
Of course, what is homosexuality? Are animals who hump others (often air-humping: no anal insertion) of the same gender correctly categorized as being "homosexual," per human homosexuality? Can the two be correctly considered as the same thing what with all of the conscious choices going on in the human mind versus the instinctive (albeit often confused/diseased) behavior of many other species? How many such animals know they are humping the same sex and that doing so will not result in offspring? Humans know. There's a difference, and it's huge.
As for the peer-reviewed journal article you cited, it does not prove what you suggest. First of all, you should know that peer-reviewed in the social sciences and where the studies have not been replicated is not the same thing as in the hard sciences. There are similarities, but the differences are telling in terms of whether "peer-reviewed" carries the same weight in both areas. I maintain that it does not. The social sciences are a special case, and one could argue that psychology is more art and ideology at this point rather than test-tube like.
The study was based upon anecdotal self-reporting in large measure. You faulted the "Fundamentalist" in your video for appealing to anecdotal evidence. You assumed he hadn't read on the subject beyond a certain level. Don't make that mistake concerning me.
Even if the social-science study weren't anecdotal, did it go into the percentages who were abused (you'd still have to take people's word for it for the most part) or who were raised by distant fathers and mothers raising "Momma's boys"? These things matter. It is clear that if there is any genetic link (that's aside from environmental influences), it is weak at best and certainly need not necessarily be considered healthy. There are numerous genetic diseases after all. If the link were strong though, the percentages would be much greater.
It appears that you've simply accepted much of the homosexual false-propaganda/spin/interpretation rather than sticking to strong scientific evidence.
The main Scandinavian studies found that a homosexual's identical twin was only homosexual 10-11% of the time. The studies actually found that environment played a much larger role ("Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage: Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality: Research Provides Significant Evidence," by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.). Did the NARTH writer get that wrong? Note the footnoted references.
We're talking about identical twins. If the link we're standard for identical twins, they'd both be homosexual about at the same rate they'd both have the same approximate eye coloring, say brown or blue. For identical twins to share eye color only 11% of the time would suggest that the genetics for eye coloring is extremely weak, which it is not.
Now, you've said that "in most cases, homosexuality is something you're born with, not something you choose." You said that after citing studies that you said support the idea of born homosexual. What you completely failed to look into (or at least greatly minimized for effect) is the environmental, and you used the word "choose" as opposed to "abused" and/or "neglected" and/or "steered" into homosexuality (confusion).
Peter Hadfield, you then said other studies show it may be familial and moderately heritable. However, that's the point. Families raise children in environments. Even the term "moderately" gives away that homosexuality is not exclusively genetic in any case. Your point though is that wherever it is genetic, it's therefore to be accepted (regardless of many other very important societal issues).
Contrary to your assertion, you have not supplied scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is "innate." In fact, the main study you pointed to showed that, that cannot be concluded from that study's data.
You really sound like someone brainwashed on this by homosexual activists' false-propaganda. I suggest you dig further into it all and give as much time and consideration to the Ph.D.'s at NARTH as opposed to the straw-men Fundamentalists.
Look Peter, you went after Lord Monckton, and rightly so. Well, go read NARTH's materials and attempt to do the exact same process. Unlike Monckton, those at NARTH are fully trained and very well-versed in all of the studies to which you've alluded. Their credentials on the subject are greater than yours, not that a diploma or certificate makes one correct. The mistaken pro-homosexual APA members have credentials (incestuous) beyond yours on the subject too.
I believe that unlike your clear success in exposing Monckton for the fraud that he is, you would not have much success if any concerning NARTH. I'm speaking only about the various studies and the different written statements about them and what they mean. I'm not talking about whether or not you like the people at NARTH or could or couldn't hold any of them up for ridicule concerning something other than the exact studies upon which nearly all of this "debate" rides. I'm also not saying that no where on the NARTH site is there a typo or what have you or that in no case has anyone mis-cited a bit of data. I'm speaking though about the preponderance of evidence, which I believe is on the side of NARTH and not at all with the anti-NARTH political faction at the APA (American Psychological Association).
Watch Dr. Nicholas Cummings on the subject: ""Homosexual / Gay Rights" v. Science at the APA (American Psychological Association)"
I'm also having a difficult time understanding why you conclude that the animal world and mammals are replete with homosexuals based upon one photo. Perhaps you have tons of such photography. Maybe you have videos too. If you do, you should say so and not leave people to wonder the size of the population and the quantity and quality of "evidence." Evidence of what? Evidence against the Fundamentalists but not evidence that homosex is on par with heterosexuality from a health perspective (mental and/or physical -- even though all mental is physically manifested and is a matter of timing: chicken-egg versus simultaneousness; the point may escape you).
As for your answers to the anti-evolutionist Fundamentalist, none of it's directly relevant to my concerns. As said, I'm not a Fundamentalist.
However, homosexuality, genetic or otherwise, is not an argument against God as Creator or intelligent designer. You're not reading a Fundamentalist here, so don't assume that the usual straw-man arguments will work. There are "Old Earth" Christians and evolutionary Christians. Deism is also the "Clockwork" creation/God concept, in case you're unaware. We can enter into the "God of the gaps" debate if you want.
You've entered into theological territory, whether or not you think that a Christian can pick and choose whatever he wants to support his position, preconceived or not. The truth is that a Christian cannot rightly do that. A Christian must view things in the fullest context informed by the words of Jesus Christ first, foremost, and always. Jesus did not follow Mosaic law to stone the adulteress. That is just one example, and it is not an argument for dismissing Jesus's teachings. It is, or rather should be, a call for the closest examination to see whether there is any irreconcilable inconsistency or whether Jesus is perhaps the most consistent and sane person who's yet lived. We're looking for truth here, right?
You read the scientific studies. Have you read the Gospels and the rest with the same passion and dedication to truth seeking and applied the most rigorous logic? Are you aware of the difference between the logic of Jesus Christ on one hand and the Aristotelian on the other?
A man using another man's rectum as if it is a vagina is no more strange or abhorrent than freckles? That's your stated opinion/view. Why then do you have to/choose to look away when you see two male homosexuals kissing? Do you also have to look away when you see a freckle-faced kid? Come on. Peter, you're being ridiculously inconsistent with that, and you must recognize that now that I've pointed it out to you.
It's easy to stop the video play back and speak to the still image as if it's been listening to you. It's quite another to deal with someone who can see the numerous holes in your arguments, point those out, and publish them for you to read and to answer if you choose. Unlike Monckton, I'm not running away. I'm not a professional loafer and don't have endless time to engage in his sort of "back-and-forth" all over the world, but I've already cited NARTH and issued that clear challenge to you.
Perhaps you could even get Dr. Nicolosi for an interview where you could pose everything you've claimed in your video applicable to his position and afford him the opportunity to refute you with equal time.
He is awfully busy now though what with the draconian measures being pushed in California against NARTH in particular. He's far from the only intelligent speaker for NARTH though. Read their site! Contact them for an interview or interviews, and be fair, which I've seen you be before.
That bill (SB 1172) passed the California Senate. So, if signed into law, no parent may take his or her child to anyone "in the healing arts" in California for SOCE even if the child wants it, even if the child has been homosexually sexually abused and suffers same-sex attraction as a direct result and where no such attraction was there before the abuse!
Now, that law is down right fascistic and utterly insensitive. As a father, I would not abide by it. The State of California Senate has way overstepped, and the one-sided, straw-man bunkum in your video only helps such fascistic efforts, not that I believe you are for the legislation. I don't know whether you are. I hope you are not but rather against it.
California Senate Approves [SOCE] Counseling Ban. [SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts)]
The study cited in the bill was misinterpreted in that legislation and should not have been taken as the final word on the subject especially as couched. NARTH issued reports showing exactly how the study has been twisted for politically correct reasons and not scientifically based ones.
Research has been deliberately stopped in the area because the homosexuals don't want more evidence out there that shows that there is no "gay" gene. Don't take that wrong. I'm not saying that there is no genetic make-up that makes one person more susceptible than another. In fact, I'm sure there is.
My issue is not with the genetics of the thing or whether it's "easy." Clearly, it is not an easy choice for many. Many fail. Others overcome and succeed. I based that upon evidence that is as valid as any cited in the studies you've cited.
My issue is with the rightness or wrongness of buggery, and I don't take my cues from the lower species (meaning other creatures with significantly less cerebral matter). I take it that human beings are supposed to set higher standards rather than model themselves after animals with lesser brains, as good, better, more capable, as those brains maybe in many ways where such critical analysis is not central.
There are many behaviors in which other species engage that I will not and for reasons of my higher intelligence. If some male deers become so horny that they hump on other males and are caught on film by humans, I'm not going to conclude that homosex is a proper or acceptable thing for any human being just because of it.
So, tell me why people practice "safe sex." Do the deer wear condoms too? Oh, I should add that there are many, many homosexuals who deliberately infected others with HIV/AIDS. Now, was that a natural thing to do just because they did it? Definitions are tricky things when you're dancing all around the main sexual act of the homosexuals: sodomy. That's not to say that they don't engage in other sexual activity or that there aren't lesbians who never use dildos, etc., in their anuses. The fact remains though that if anal intercourse is wrong, male homosexuality is clearly wrong since only a liar would make the claim that very many practicing homosexuals have not and do not engage in anal sex with each other.
Also, why does homosexuality increase with those who were not attracted to males as adults but rather turned off, as you say you are? Why do people go from that to homosexuality? Is it a one-way street with you? People cannot go from hetero to homo and back again? Nonsense! It happens. The APA should be disbanded or do the proper research.
Black Widow spiders kill their mates and feed them to their offspring. Are you ready for humans to do that too? Snakes lay their eggs and slither away. There's no nurturing there. It's why, among other reasons, "serpents" as Jesus used it has so much meaning to those of us who've given it much thought.
You said that Fundamentalists stand on easy choice. It's not true. You clearly have little knowledge concerning Christianity. Show me one Fundamentalist who says it's easy, and I'll show you ten who say that it's difficult for many (not all) but doable for many too (but not all at this point).
Doubt leads to less healing. Doubt generalized in society leads to less individual and societal healing. The greater the belief generally, the greater the miracles individually and generally. Read Jesus on it. He's clear about it.
In Christianity, your doubt, Peter Hadfield, harms others because it helps the withholding spirit. Faith is also something that will not succumb to your type of science ("knowledge"). God is not that sort of testable. God is a free agent. God decides when, where, if, etc., not the human scientists. Yes, that's faith on my part. I don't have a peer-reviewed scientific study to show you "proving" my belief.
California Senate Approves Counseling Ban
...May 31, 2012 – 11:47 am
Sacramento, CA – In a tragic blow to parental rights the California Senate Wednesday voted 23-13 basically along party lines in favor of a groundbreaking bill designed to prohibit counselors and therapists from telling young people it is possible to change same-sex attractions.
The bill has sparked outrage from individuals who have overcome unwanted same-sex feelings sparked by childhood sexual abuse. NARTH has sent a delegation to the state capital to speak, offer testimony, and lobby against the legislation. It is also being opposed by Pacific Justice Institute; whose attorneys believe its blanket ban on certain types of counseling is unconstitutional. PJI has been working with ministries and professionals in the targeted fields to highlight the plethora of legal problems with the bill.
The hundreds of phone calls and emails to California senators by NARTH members and supporters seems to have brought about significant changes in the legislation. In a sign that the opposition to SB 1172 may be stronger than was anticipated by its sponsors, Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) and Equality California, the bill was amended for the fifth time late last week. The version of the bill passed by the Senate abandoned sweeping liability provisions for mental health professionals who do not affirm same-sex attraction and also deleted so-called informed consent provisions that would have applied to adult patients. The bill retains its most controversial provisions, however, banning mental health professionals from counseling minors in ways that would discourage same-sex or bisexual feelings. The new version of the bill also declares for the first time that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the "psychological well-being" of LGBT youth.
NARTH President Dr. Christopher Rosik had the following to say about the state senate vote, "The California senate vote to approve SB 1172 marks another triumph of political activism over objective science. The American Psychological Association has observed that there are no studies by which to accurately estimate the effectiveness of sexual orientation change intervention or the prevalence of harm. In NARTH's view, a truly scientific response would call for more and better research to answer these questions, not a legislative ban that runs roughshod over professional judgment and parental choice."
The bill now moves to the state Assembly for consideration. Individuals who care about what is happening with SB 1172 need to bombard their Assembly members with phone calls, faxes and in-person visits to urge no votes on SB 1172. Information concerning telephone numbers and office addresses of assembly members can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/asm-addresses.html
Update: June 11, 2012: Cross-reference: "Debunking: 'Why It's OK for Birds to Be Gay | LiveScience'"
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)