That is because your particular approach to Christianity is distorting your ability to think clearly and is leading you into fallacious reasoning.
Yet most of my view has nothing to do with my faith nd a great deal to do with my reading of hundreds of pages of, predominantly, scientific material over the last 30+ years on the issue. Your constant harping on about my "particular approach to Christianity" seems to forget that my "particular approach to Christianity" believes that there are (to quote a particular book's title) No Perfect People Allowed in the church, that homosexuals ought not to be vilified and reviled on the basis of their orientation (in the same way that no other human being should be vilified and reviled on the basis of
their particular 'orientation', be that sexual or not). Perhaps most importantly, I believe that we should love everyone - and here I'm not talking about an eros-type love - and that this kind of love does include discipline and correction.
Since you have recently demonstrated on several occasions your utter ignorance of research methods I doubt that you can justify this comment - but have a go anyway.
OK, until the late 90s, most research into this particular aspect of sexuality was pretty negative towards homosexuality. Some of the more famous pieces of research that were favourable, such as Kinsey, have been shown to be seriously flawed. Over the next 8-10 years, research began to swing the other way, with people suggesting that it has a genetic issue - something that was used very heavily during the early noughties debates in Parliament on the topic. Towards the end of the noughties that was shown to be doubtful. As a result, the majority of 'positive' research into the matter is probably no more than 10 to 15 years old, with a lot of that no more than 6-8 years old. That isn't a corpus of long-term research. As for research into the associated aspects of homosexuality - such as the fostering or adoption of children, much of that is necessarily short-term since, even in the States, the practice hasn't been in existence for much more than 20 - 25 years. A full understanding of the impact of the way children are brought up can take that and more time.
This is just spurious tu quoque.
No, it isn't spurious, in any way. Bearing in mind that the discussion on this thread has always been about more than just the 'H' topic, and the passage I quoted was in general terms (as you point out at the top of your post), I was also making a more general point. You chose to take it as a specific to the 'H' topic, whilst I was making a point that went beyond it. I accept that I might have done better to have created a separate post for that particular point, but then my mind was on a number of things when I was posting (not least a day of 'death by powerpoint' in regard to the safe use, transport and disposal of pesticides and the equipment used to apply them - day 1 of a 4-day course in the Safe use of Pesticides which will hopefully result in my having 3 certificates in using pesticides - including herbicides - to permit me to wage war on the Japanese Knotweed that is rampant in a number of places in South Wales - not least the Garw Valley, where the heritage railway we are working to establish, is.)
Perhaps most important is the fact that it was one or more posters who don't like Stephen Crabb who initiated the inclusion of the 'H' topic into this thread.
