by Bill Muehlenberg 12/6/12 What incredibly bizarre times we live in, to even have to state such an overwhelmingly obvious truth. I might as well have penned an article with the title, “People Do Better Eating” or “Children Fare Best When They Breathe”. Of course children need a mother and father, and of course anything less than that will be less ideal.
And fifty years of social science research amply bears this out. Yet the homosexual militants want to convince us that family structure doesn’t mean beans, and any combination of adults will do just fine thanks. So to promote their destructive agenda, they have to ignore the research and attack anyone who points to these thousands of studies.
And these findings keep affirming the same thing: there is no better setting for children than to be raised by their own two biological parents, preferably cemented by marriage. Two brand new research studies have once again confirmed this.
And they demonstrate quite clearly that children raised by homosexuals do not fare as well as do children raised by their own parents. Common sense of course tells us this, but here is more research confirming what everyone except the radical ideologues already know. . .
By Bill Muehlenberg 29/3/12. It may seem like it is all bad news when it comes to the relentless homosexual juggernaut, with their never-ending list of demands to radically remake society into their own image. And the activists would like us to think that there is an inevitability about their destructive crusade.
But that is not the case, and often we see some terrific pro-family victories. Of course, given how the mainstream media is almost entirely in bed with the homosexual activists, it is very rare that you will find any of their defeats mentioned.
Instead one only hears about the seemingly unstoppable homosexual steamroller crushing everything in its path. Thus as usual, one has to look to the alternative media to learn about what is really happening in the world. And interestingly, the homosexual militants are not having everything go their own way.
While the MSM barely uttered a peep, there were in fact three recent wins which we can all take heart in. All occurred overseas, and all demonstrate that there are still plenty of folks around who have not been conned by the militants’ propaganda, and are willing to stand up and fight for what is right.
And these wins for common sense and decency occurred in rather unexpected places as well. The first case took place in Europe, and was some very good news indeed. The story goes this way: “The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the prohibition of adoption to non-married couples is not discriminatory, because it applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples equally.
“It has also ruled that homosexual ‘marriage’ is not a right under the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision effectively confirms the liceity under the same Convention of French law, which does not award the status of ‘marriage’ to homosexual couples, and does not permit non-married couples to adopt children.
“The ruling was announced yesterday in a suit by a French lesbian couple, Valérie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, who have been in a Pact of Civil Solidarity (PACS) since 2002. A PACS is a loose contractual arrangement made available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples in France, in contrast with stronger ‘civil union’ arrangements and homosexual ‘marriages’ available in some other countries.
“Dubois conceived a child by artificial insemination through an anonymous donor in 2000, and the couple have been raising the child together. Gas has sought to adopt the child by recourse to various courts, and was ultimately turned down by the country’s highest court of appeal, the Court of Cassation. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed the French court’s decisions.
“The Court also ruled that that there is no ‘indirect discrimination founded (…) on the impossibility of marriage,’ because article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights ‘does not impose on the governments of the state parties the obligation to open marriage to a homosexual couple,’ adding that governments ‘enjoy a certain leeway in determining the exact nature’ of legal recognitions of homosexual unions’.”
Finally, a bit of sense and sensibility from a European ruling body. It may be rare, coming from that crumbling continent, but when it does come, it sure is nice to see. Let us hope that more good news will be forthcoming from Europe.
The second win comes from Slovenia and also has to do with homosexual marriage. Consider this nifty headline: “Slovenia says no to same-sex marriage.” Here is how the story has been reported: “Yesterday, Slovenia held a post-legislative referendum on the new Family Code that was adopted in the Slovenian parliament in June 2011.
“In a popular vote, 55% of voters rejected the new Family Code and 45% supported the law. Turnout was 30% on a sunny Sunday. ‘The people of Slovenia expressed their belief that motherhood and fatherhood are both unique and represent a fundamental value; for the good of a child,’ said Aleš Primc, head of the Civil Initiative that proposed the referendum.”
Hey those Slovenians seem to have a lot more sense and morality than many other so-called civilised nations. Way to go Slovenia. The final case actually comes from Russia. It seems some mental and moral firmness has found its way there, resulting in a head-on collision with a sleazy, aging, US pop star.
The story goes this way: “Pop singer Madonna Ciccone’s recent promise to ‘speak up’ for the ‘gay community’ in St. Petersburg, Russia, at an upcoming performance there, has been met by a city representative who says she will be fined if she violates a city ordinance against homosexual propaganda aimed at minors.
“The singer, whose risqué, hypersexualized performances are supported by a large homosexual fan base, made the promise after being asked by a Russian-American lesbian activist to cancel her August concert in St. Petersburg in protest of the law, which was recently instituted by the city’s government.”
One American pro-family commentator said this about the victory. The Russians are “trying to learn from America’s out-of-control pro-homosexual activism and the fact that our family law structure, our legal structure is being changed to accommodate perversion, and Christian religious speech is now suffering at the hands of this ever-expanding homosexual activism. And who could blame the Russians for trying to learn from America?
“We have a gay rights monster in our midst that continues to make escalating demands, that has seemingly no concern for religious liberty, for traditional values. Who could blame these peoples not only in Russia but throughout the world for looking to America, looking to the West and saying ‘how can we prevent this?’ And my advice to them would be: don’t let the genie out of the bottle, because another lesson from the west is that once you grant so called ‘rights’ it’s almost impossible to take them away.”
Quite so. It certainly is reassuring to know that not everyone has lost their marbles and decided to roll over and play dead before the advancing homosexual blitzkrieg. Many individuals, many groups, and even many nations are holding their nerve and resisting the social revolutionaries.
More power to them.
by Bill Muehlenberg 19/2/12. The battle over same-sex marriage is perhaps the most momentous and far-reaching debate we face at the moment. There is very much at stake in this attempt to redefine marriage out of existence. It is a social shift which is of seismic proportions. Here I offer eight reasons why we must resist same sex marriage.
One. There is not a great demand for SSM
The truth is, there has been a huge debate amongst homosexuals over the question of homosexual marriage. Some are in favour, some are opposed, and there are many options in between.
Plenty of leading homosexuals have made clear their disdain of marriage. As one said: “When it comes to same-sex marriages, John Howard has got us pretty well summed up. We’re not cut out for it. . . . [Heterosexuals are] welcome to it.”
Or as another admitted: “[F]ull recognition for same-sex marriages will encourage all those shallow promiscuous gay men to settle down in Box hill with Mr Right and breed shitzus.
Speaking as a shallow promiscuous gay man, I remain sceptical about this. Straight men, it seems, are quite shameless in their perverted desires, and in their enthusiasm for illicit sex of all kinds. And this after 2,000 years of the civilising influence of Christian marriage! On the evidence so far, I think it will take more than the Ontario Supreme Court [and its support of same-sex marriage] to get the majority of gay men to get married and settle down.”
Perhaps the best way to see just how desirable same-sex marriage is, is to see how many homosexuals have actually availed themselves of it when it has been available. Consider the Netherlands where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2001. Studies have shown that only around four per cent of Dutch homosexuals have gotten married during the first five years of legalisation.
Two. This will not be marriage as we know it
The activists have made it perfectly clear that they intend to radically alter, and effectively destroy, the institution of marriage. The truth is, for all the talk about same-sex marriage, few homosexuals actually have in mind the same thing that heterosexuals have in mind. Most seek to radically expand and alter the common understanding of marriage. Long-term monogamous fidelity is seldom part of this new understanding.
One leading homosexual writes that if homosexual marriage contracts come into force, they would have to be “different”: that is, they would have to allow for “extra-marital outlets” and other major changes. Of course that undermines the very essence of marriage, which is the covenant of life-long sexual faithfulness.
Another says that he does not want to be like straights, nor embrace their marriage: “We get equality, but at a price. The cost to our community is the surrender of our unique, distinctive queer identity. The unwritten social contract at the heart of law reform is that lesbians and gays will behave respectably and comply with the heterosexual moral agenda. No more cruising, orgies or sadomasochism!”
And in countries where SSM has been legalised, a very discernable negative spill-on effect has been noticed. Marriage as an institution suffers when these counterfeits are allowed to come along and claim to be on a par with marriage. Many of the Scandinavian countries for example offer us a mountain of evidence in this regard.
Three. Monogamy is not part of the equation
Both the data on homosexual monogamy, as well as their own words, makes it clear that the idea of one partner for life is seldom desired. It is the exception to the rule. Consider just a tiny fraction of the data. One major Australian study found that 26 per cent of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41 per cent had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17 per cent had over 1000 partners.
Another major study reported similar findings. It found that 43 per cent of male homosexuals had engaged in sex with 2 to 10 partners in the previous six months; 21 per cent had engaged in sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months; and 5 per cent had engaged in sex with more than 50 partners in the past six months.
And the more honest homosexuals are quite happy to concede this point, and even affirm it. Two American homosexual activists proudly state that “the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%. Men are, after all, as said earlier, more easily aroused than women, who tend to act as a relatively stabilizing influence; a restless gay man is more apt to be led astray by a cute face in the subway or the supermarket. Two gay men are double trouble, arithmetically squaring the probability of the fatal affairette.”
One former homosexual explains why concepts such as “monogamy” must be redefined by homosexuals: “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.”
As one Australian homosexual admitted, “monogamy is not a realistic choice for many of us . . . we don’t find one partner sufficiently fulfilling. People who argue that there would be no problem if all gay men would just be monogamous are ignoring both medical and emotional realities; with an unknown number of people already exposed to ‘the virus’ and an unknown incubation period, such advice is just too restrictive.”
Four. High risk lifestyles should not be given official endorsement
Countless studies have documented the high-risk and unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle. So why should governments be endorsing and promoting such activity? Various studies show that homosexuals account for the majority of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
For example, a male homosexual is 14 times more likely to have syphilis than a male heterosexual, and eight times more likely to have hepatitis. And of course HIV/AIDS remains an overwhelmingly homosexual disease in Australia, with the overwhelming number of cases due to male homosexual activity, or intravenous drug use.
But don’t take my word for it. Consider what the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) have said about this. They have issued two publications warning of the health risks associated with both homosexual and lesbian lifestyles. Each one lists ten major areas of concern.
As to male homosexuals, the GLMA says that they have “an increased risk of HIV infection” and have “an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis”. Also, they “use substances at a higher rate than the general population” and “depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population”. It also says that “gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men” and that “gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men”.
Five. Everything will change
Legalising SSM is not a small, inconsequential move. It changes everything. If homosexual marriage were to be legalised here, it would be one of the final nails in the coffin of heterosexual marriage and family. We only have to go to those countries or states which have legalised SSM. The radical ramifications for everyone else are clear to see.
The American state of Massachusetts legalised SSM in 2004, and it has been all downhill there ever since. So much negative fallout from this has occurred that I cannot even begin to document it here. The best way to see what horrors have befallen the people of Massachusetts is to see this incredible document:
And all those who have objections to this lifestyle or this new version of marriage will be forced nonetheless to acquiesce and embrace these things, even if it means going against one’s conscience or one’s faith. Consider just a few recent headlines on this:
-“Canadian Court: Marriage officials must marry homosexuals”.
-“Army: court-martial Chaplains for ‘religious, conscience’ objection to homosexuality”
-“Tory MP calls for churches to be banned from holding marriages if they refuse gay couples”
-“MPs vote to stop civil servants refusing to carry out gay weddings”
-“Dutch MPs voted on Tuesday afternoon for a change in the law to prevent civil servants refusing to conduct gay marriages.”
-“Lesbian couple mulls action against Christian wedding cake baker”
-“Gay rights activist calls for boycott of Salvation Army Christmas fundraiser”
-“Attorney Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption”
-“Case of counseling student forced to undergo pro-homosexual ‘sensitivity training’ goes to court”
-“Macy’s fires woman for refusing ‘transgender’ man access to women’s fitting room”
-“All Ontario teachers will be forced to undergo ‘diversity’ training by 2013: minister”
There would be hundreds of such examples which have occurred in just the past few years. Legalising SSM is not a victimless crime. It will adversely impact every single one of us.
Six. It will unleash the slippery slope
Clearly, the very same arguments used for legalising SSM could be used to argue for legalising incest, polygamy, and any number of other sexual combinations. If a man wanted to have a long-term sexual relationship with his daughter, or if three women wanted to do the same, how could any society argue against it, if it has already overturned the traditional understanding of marriage?
Logically, one could argue for all sorts of combinations and permutations if we swallow the idea that same-sex couples have a right to marry. What about a bisexual who really does love both a man and a woman? Cannot this threesome qualify? The truth is, all boundaries are smashed when we redefine marriage.
One very obvious example of this is polyamory (group marriage). In fact, it has become a new cause, championed by both grassroots groups and academic supporters. A quick search of the Web will reveal just how popular the idea of polyamory is becoming. Family law reformers for example are increasingly promoting this new sexual cause.
And it is remarkable how the polyamory and polygamy advocates are simply latching on to and extending the very arguments made by advocates of same-sex marriage. They are rightly saying that if same-sex marriage is legalised, then certainly group marriage must be legalised as well.
Consider how one Australian university academic makes the case for polyamory in an article entitled, “Poly is the new gay”. She makes it clear that just as society has welcomed homosexuality and same-sex marriage, it is now time to welcome polyamory. This is how she puts it: “The more aware and accepting of diversity in relationships the more healthy our society is. . . . I look forward to a society where any loving family, irrespective of how many people it includes or what sex they are, feels safe to be open about who they are.”
Opening the door to SSM will of necessity lead to all these other radical sexual combinations as well.
Seven. Children will be put at risk
Fifty years of social science data have made it absolutely clear that children need a mother and a father. The evidence is simply overwhelming: by every indicator, children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father, preferably cemented by marriage.
Many thousands of studies from the world over have made this overwhelmingly clear. Any other household structure simply does not compare. Obviously with homosexual couples, any child brought into that arrangement will be disadvantaged from the very start.
And a number of studies have also shown that children raised in same-sex households do suffer on a number of levels. Children deserve better. But the interests of the child seem to be the last thing being considered in this debate. Indeed, today everyone is demanding rights to do this and that, but very few seem to realise that rights must be balanced by responsibilities.
Among other things, children need to see how men and women interact together. A homosexual or lesbian union cannot provide that role model. The right to have a child must be balanced by the rights of the child. Children should be given the first priority, and not be allowed to be used as a political football by the homosexual lobby in their efforts to seek legitimacy for their lifestyle. For the sake of our children, we should not be embracing homosexual adoption and SSM.
As one leading international authority has boldly asserted: “In three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single-parent families and step-families [and by logical implication, homosexual families as well]. If our prevailing views on family structure hinged solely on scholarly evidence, the current debate would never have arisen in the first place.”
Eight. This is just part of a bigger radical agenda
Why is homosexual marriage even wanted? Just why is it that some homosexuals are so insistent on marriage rights? As many homosexuals themselves admit, a major reason why they want marriage is not so much to be like heterosexuals, or because they want to abandon their more free and promiscuous lifestyle, but because of its symbolic value.
It will give them public recognition, approval and acceptance. This has long been the overriding goal of the homosexual lobby: complete social and public endorsement and approval. Thus by getting marriage rights, and, in turn, the last hurdle for homosexuals, full adoption rights, homosexuals will have achieved their longstanding goal: legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle.
As even Time magazine admitted, in an article on same-sex marriage, the real goal is complete social acceptance and validation: “Ultimately, of course, the battle for gay marriage has always been about more than winning the second-driver discount at the Avis counter. In fact, the individual who has done most to push same-sex marriage – a brilliant 43-year-old lawyer-activist named Evan Wolfson – doesn’t even have a boyfriend. He and the others who brought the marriage lawsuits of the past decade want nothing less than full social equality, total validation – not just the right to inherit a mother-in-law’s Cadillac.
As Andrew Sullivan, the (also persistently single) intellectual force behind gay marriage, has written, ‘Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable’.”
One leading Australian homosexual activist puts it this way: “The argument is quite simple: marriage is the ultimate legitimation of equality, according same-sex relationships the same status as heterosexual ones. Essentially this is a symbolic claim, for there is a whole raft of ways in which the state regulates relationships outside formal marriage.”
Indeed, the bottom line of all homosexual activism is ultimately just that: complete social acceptance and approval. As some American activists put it back in 1989, “to gain straight tolerance and acceptance is not just a legitimate goal of gay activism, it must be the principal goal.”
In sum, same-sex marriage is a bad idea. It is bad for society, bad for marriage, and bad for children. The concept is oxymoronic, and it confers no benefits to society. Indeed, as shown above, it will in fact be harmful to society. As David Coolidge summarises:
“If one believes that a good society requires a critical mass of healthy male-female marriages with children, then any policies that redefine, and thereby weaken, that basic unit are a bad idea. I believe that same-sex marriage is a bad idea, not because same-sex couples are bad people, but because same-sex marriage is not marriage. A genuinely pluralistic society must do justice to individuals. But it must also do justice to marriage.”
Note: As I said, all of the references and complete documentation for the above material can be found in my new book, Strained Relations. For those interested, here are three places where you can get the book:
By David Palmer
If a recent report in the Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, the intensive lobbying of coalition MPs over the Summer months by same-sex marriage advocates has failed to secure their support for a conscience vote on the issue.
According to this report,
...the gay marriage debate in Parliament will be pushed back to later in the year to give advocates for change more time to garner enough support to have legislation for same-sex marriage passed.
Instead of the debate being held immediately - which would have seen the bill defeated - the gay marriage campaign has changed focus to increase pressure on Tony Abbott to change his mind and allow opposition MPs a conscience vote.
There are several things worth saying about this matter.
The first is that August 24 last year Adam Bandt and the homosexual lobby scored a spectacular own goal over the issue of just how well supported same-sex marriage is in the Australian community last year.
At the end of 2010, Parliament approved a motion proposed by Bandt calling on all parliamentarians, "consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents' views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same-sex couples including marriage".
Well what happened on August 24, 2011?
When thirty members of Parliament stood to give an account of their constituents views on same-sex marriage, it was discovered opinion in Coalition and Labor seats was overwhelmingly against legalising same-sex marriage, with only 6 out of 30 MP's indicating their members were in favour of change. Most of the numbers being reported were very lopsidedly against same-sex marriage. Especially striking was the failure of the progressive left organisation, Get Up!, which likes to describe itself as a movement of almost 600,000 members, to get its members to sign their petition in favour of same-sex marriage. In fact on the morning that MPs were reporting their findings it was found that the Get Up! numbers had been trumped by the Australian Christian Lobby numbers – less than 10% of Get Up members had signed the petition. Next day, Matt Akersten on the gay and lesbian lifestyle website, samesame, wrote "We're not going to sugarcoat this – yesterday's MP feedback session in Parliament on the gay marriage issue was a tough setback for marriage equality".
Given the far reaching nature of a decision to extend in law marriage to same-sex couples, a reasonable question to ask is, "what principled reason has been advanced for such a change in the law of marriage?"
We get arguments like, "it's time" or "my homosexual daughter (or son) wants to marry her (or his) partner" or "they can do it in Massachusetts or Holland or Spain, why not here?".
But what's the principle? What is the rational, logical argument that carries sufficient weight for such a significant change in the law of marriage?
Last year former NSW premier Nick Greiner reportedly said, ''(s)elf-evidently (it is) a matter of natural justice".
It is no such thing.
It is simply wrong and misleading to depict the case for same-sex marriage as a case for ending discrimination or for equal legal recognition of relationships. The Federal Parliament amended 84 pieces of legislation after the 2010 election to place homosexual rights and entitlements on the same basis as others. The push for same-sex marriage is therefore largely ideological, because there is clearly no intention in any jurisdiction that they be subjected to any substantial discrimination on entitlement.
Peter van Onselen shortly before Adam Bandt's show and tell argument in Parliament, like Greiner, argued for same-sex marriage as a human right but as is always the case with this assertion never actually demonstrated why it was a human right, choosing instead, typically, to construct a series of pejorative straw men and 'stacking the deck' arguments to hopefully convince us that same-sex marriage was the natural consequence of a long evolutionary development in marriage. Of course, having gone down this path he might have considered a further evolutionary development - the Greens' bill for same-sex marriage still limits marriage to two persons, itself arguably discriminatory to those favouring polygamy or group marriage. How long would we have to wait for that example of discrimination to be addressed?
If a human rights basis is to be developed for same-sex marriage then it is first necessary to determine whether same-sex couples actually qualify for marriage. What is it about marriage that determines who may enter into marriage?
What we can say about marriage is that despite varying cultural expressions, it is seen as the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, of the type that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. This concept of marriage, allowing for variations in customs and ritual, is consistently found across cultures throughout history. Marriage involves a comprehensive union of spouses, with norms of permanence and exclusivity. These combine to create a special link to children, for their sake, that protects their identity and nurture by a mother and father.
It is the link to children that gives marriage its special character.
But why a man and a woman, and not two men or two women?
With one exception a person is complete within themselves as to bodily organs and their functions: heart, lungs, stomach and so on. In other words, to fulfil any of these functions a person does not require a contribution from anyone else. The one biological function for which individual adults are naturally incomplete is sexual reproduction. In sexual intercourse, and no other form of sexual contact, a man's and a woman's bodies are joined by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. Their bodies become one, thereby securing future generations at the same time as they are giving unique expression to their love for each other.
Marriage is deeply and uniquely orientated to bearing and nurturing children. Marriage ensures children access to both their mother and father and the security of the love between the parents. It provides for them a role model of human love of the parents relating as man and as woman, and its complementarity also ensures the unilateral love of each parent to the child and the necessary differences between motherly and fatherly love.
The fact that divorce happens, or one spouse dies early, or some couples are infertile and perhaps circumvent that lack to conceive through artificial reproductive technologies, including the use of donor gametes and surrogate mothers, or a couple beyond the years of child bearing marry, does nothing to change the reality of marriage. Same-sex couples simply do not qualify.
At its deepest level, marriage is the union of difference, the combining of a man and a woman to make one flesh, a union that is physical, emotional and as well, mystical.
To the contrary, same-sex marriage would be the union of sameness, with the distinctive and historical orientation towards the bearing and nurture of children dissolved. In its stead is to be offered a view of marriage which places sexual choice and emotional commitment at the centre.
So, let's be clear on this: extending marriage to same-sex couples would represent a radical revision of the public understanding of marriage as a social institution. To go down this path would be for the law to teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults' emotional unions, not complementary bodily union or children. Because there is no reason that primarily emotional unions (any more than ordinary friendships in general) should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two, these norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them, to their own detriment, and especially to the detriment of children.
According to the newspaper report I began with, the supporters of same-sex marriage claim through the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, Mr Greenwich, the existence of "an unstoppable momentum for a reform that continues to win hearts and minds in the wider community and the parliament". Well this remains to be seen. To be sure, their efforts will not go unchallenged. Same-sex marriage in law is by no means inevitable.
David Palmer is a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Australia.
"Don't tell them they can be 'straight'". APA
In August 2009 the American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution declaring that mental health professionals should not tell same-sex attracted clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments - even if they want to change.
A six person APA Committee apparently examined 83 studies on 'sexual orientation change' and concluded that "there is no solid evidence that change is likely".
Two questions must be asked about this statement - which may lead us to discover two major flaws with their conclusion.
Firstly, from what 'premise' did the APA committee start?
Secondly, what is their definition of the word 'change'?
Yes, this is a 'prestigious' organization and one from which we should expect the highest standard of accountability and scientific research, BUT, sadly, the APA is actually no better than those who purport to write theological studies approving of homosexuality - because the APA also starts from a false premise and builds the argument on that premise.