Last Saturday, Joe Dallas appeared as a guest on Talking it Over with Janet Parshall. One of the topics they discussed was the recent article over at Salon.com entitled Born that gay. It was a fascinating interview, and one I’d encourage you to listen to in its entirety. Click here to listen.

The reason I want you to see this research is because of the big time really huge unbelievable bias of the article. For example, did you know…

Jerome Goldstein, M.D. - the researcher cited as an expert in this study, is a homosexual activist? Does that matter? It sure does. It matters because the bias is already presupposed into the study. Take this paragraph as an example.

Not long after reading the study, I got a call from neurologist Jerome Goldstein, M.D., 67, once a fellow resident in the UCSF neurology training program. This fall, Goldstein, an internationally respected headache researcher and sometimes controversial gay activist, is giving a series of lectures on the innate biology of gayness. He was phoning to ask if I had seen the study and if I might write about the latest scientific evidence supporting the biology of gayness.

Wait just a second. Goldstein asked the writer of the Salon article to write about the latest scientific evidence “supporting” the biology of gayness? What evidence is that? If anyone has ever done any research, as I have many times, in the field of psychology, you would know that there is one very important word missing from the above paragraph. That word is “SUGGESTS” - because in research you do not know. The research may SUGGEST there is evidence, but it never PROVES there is evidence. And what makes research viable is when the experiment can be replicated, and as we all know, many of these studies to find a gay gene have not been successfully replicated.

Now let’s look at Goldstein’s answer to the reason why he is suddenly interested in the biology of sexual orientation.

I was aware that I was attracted to men by age 8, even though I did not have any gay sexual experiences until I was 19. Meanwhile, despite having no sex or even a clear understanding of what homosexuality meant, virtually everyone that I encountered, including my dear parents, made a point of telling me that homosexuality was dirty, sinful and a phase that would pass.

Beginning my sophomore year in college, and before my first gay experience, I began the endless rounds of psychiatrists and counselors. I even tried to modify my behavior to make it acceptable. Sadly, even though I now know better, and am fully aware of the overwhelming evidence as to the underlying neurobiologic predisposition to gayness, I have never been able to entirely shake this feeling of guilt and wrongdoing. Future generations should be spared. Right now, I’m interested in seeing that good science prevails over outdated, misguided psychology and false-headed thinking that homosexuality is a conscious choice.

Let’s take this apart and examine what he said. Note in the first line that Jerry says he did not have any GAY sexual experiences until he was 19. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have any other sexual experiences. And my question would be, what other sexual experiences did you have before you had your gay sexual experience at 19? How about pornography use? Or abuse? My point is that just because he says he didn’t have any gay sexual experiences before he was 19, doesn’t mean he didn’t have any sexual experiences that could have impacted him in some way. And the fact that he claims to have known he was attracted to men by age 8 raises a multitude of questions in my mind.

The remainder of his response is fascinating. Note that he says, “… overwhelming evidence as to the underlying neurobiologic predisposition to gayness, I have never been able to entirely shake this feeling of guilt and wrongdoing.” Isn’t that interesting? I sure think so. First of all, there is no “overwhelming evidence as to the underlying neurobiologic predisposition to gayness. But even if there was, why would this man still feel a sense of guilt and wrongdoing? Afterall, if it is indeed biological, then logic would say that there is no reason to feel guilty. The problem however, is that Goldstein does indeed feel guilty because he has a conscience, which God has given him, and he knows innately that his homosexual behavior is wrong and sinful. (And not because his parents said so too) He just doesn’t want to accept that as fact. He’d rather suppress his conscience and stand on a weak platform of junk science.

The next part of this article I’d like to highlight follows:

Only on the surface. Down deep, there’s a lingering suspicion that, even if the cause is biological, there is something intrinsically wrong with being gay. It has been 35 years since homosexuality was removed from a psychiatric diagnostic category and we [still] don’t see the changes in the way people think.

And what the author of this article doesn’t bother telling the reader is that the reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM (that’s the diagnostic manual) wasn’t because of actual research, no, it was because of the gay activists who pressured a vote. This is very well documented and yet they don’t want you to know. I’d refer you to David Kupelian’s great book The Marketing of Evil if you’d like the story behind the reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM.

Here’s also a little background from the book Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm, edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings. This is from chapter 4 of the book called Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional, and Value Issues.

In 1973, by a vote of 5854 to 3810, the diagnostic category of homosexuality was eliminated from the DSM of the American Psychiatric Association. In the first edition of the DSM, homosexuality was included as one of the sexual disorders classified among the Sociopathic Personality Disorders by the APA. Sociopathic disorders were characterized by a lack of distress or anxiety despite the presence of severe pathology. This allowed homosexuality to be classified as a mental disorder, despite the homosexual’s possible satisfaction with his or her sexual orientation.

In the second edition of the DSM (APA, 1968), homosexuality was reclassified as a sexual deviation among nonpsychotic disorders…

…In 1973, when homosexuality was eliminated from the DSM, the third edition of the manual contained the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality (APA, 1973), which described individuals with a sustained pattern of overt homosexual arousal that is unwanted or distressing, accompanied by a desire to acquire heterosexual arousal. …

…

Writing about the 1973 decision and the dispute surrounded it, Bayer (1981) contended that these changes were produced by political rather than scientific factors. Bayer argued that the revision represented the APA’s surrender to political and social pressures, not new data or scientific theories regarding human sexuality. (The chapter then goes on to explain specific examples.)

Another interesting part of this article concerns the blame Goldstein fires at conservatives.

Sadly, even our major neurological societies haven’t taken a serious look at the biology of sexual orientation. For example, when was the last time that you saw the American Academy of Neurology even address the subject? And the general public? Just listen to right-wing talk show hosts offering to pray for my sins. Or look at the damage caused by the religious right and its “conversion therapy,” which attempts to alter an inborn characteristic of human behavior. I don’t want pity and sympathy, I want scientific understanding based on logic and reason.

Wow…can you believe such vitriol? I find it amazing how Dr. Goldstein can make such blatant statements without any evidence to back it up. The “religious right” and it’s “conversion therapy”, which attempts to alter an inborn characteristic of human behavior. Wow…and I thought we just established there is absolutely no evidence of an inborn characteristic of human behavior. This is what we call the blame game.

And to attack right wing talk show hosts, what - because Goldstein has a differing opinion on reality. That’s poor deportment for a scientist, but then again, let me remind you, Goldstein isn’t just a scientist, he’s a controversial homosexual activist.

The rest of the article discusses the infamous fruit fly research, as well as other bits of research that don’t prove a gay gene exists.

When all is said and done, what Salon.com has done is promote another leftist piece of homosexual propaganda with no solid evidence that suggests gays are born that way. However, they also showed the reader their bias, and also that despite the desire to push away guilt and shame for homosexual behavior, the conscience God has given each person, still works and continues to reveal that homosexuality is not normal behavior.

A little over a week ago I shared with you that I had changed my Yes on 4 vote to a No on 4 vote, you can read that here. Since I posted about this on my blog, I have been given new information that I did not have at that time, so I am changing my vote back to Voting Yes on 4- Sarah’s Law.

I want you to look at all the discussion that has been going on and you decide how you should vote. I’ll be voting Yes. Below is the response from the Yes on 4 campaign, regarding Robyn Nordell’s commentary I posted recently.

PROPOSITION 4 RESPONDS TO ROBYN NORDELL AND ROY HANSON’S CALL TO INACTION

Proposition 4 is endorsed by the Family Research Council, Americans United for Life, Bioethics Defense Fund, Life Legal Defense Foundation, The Arlington Group, Pacific Justice Institute, pro-Family lawmakers, and many more with reputable standing. YES on 4 deserves the support of California voters who want to protect minors, enhance parental rights, and decrease teen pregnancies and abortions.

Last spring, Robyn Nordell, along with Roy Hanson, launched a campaign to persuade California conservatives that Proposition 4- Sarah’s Law, should not be supported. Neither Ms. Nordell nor Mr. Hanson is a lawyer, as their ill-founded criticisms of Prop 4 make amply clear. Although they claim to have consulted lawyers, they have never named one who is willing to endorse their analyses.

Mr. Hanson and Mrs. Nordell also make the absurd contention that we should not place Prop 4’s provisions in the constitution. At the same time, they warn us about the dangers of California’s “liberal activist” judges. It is precisely because of those liberal activist judges that Prop 4 must be in the state constitution, rather than simply being a statute that the courts can strike down.

These unfounded criticisms are an argument for doing nothing at all and Californians should instead look to the facts on this case.

Proposition 4-Sarah’s Law is a common sense measure that enables voters from both sides of the aisle to find common ground. In fact, one of our campaign chairs is pro-life and the other is pro-choice. They have come together in support of parental notification by a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor girl. This common sense initiative protects both parents’ rights and the health and safety of minor girls. Here’s how.

Current Law in California:

* CA law allows doctors to perform chemical and surgical abortions on girls of any age without a parent even being notified. Parents are required to be involved in all major decisions, including medical ones, of their minor child - except for abortion. In fact, children under 18 years can’t get an aspirin from the school nurse, can’t get a body piercing, can’t go to a tanning salon, without parental consent. Minor children cannot go on a school field trip without parental permission, yet a stranger can take a girl from school for an abortion without a parent knowing.

YES on Prop 4 will Protect the Health and Safety of Minor Girls:

· Studies prove notification laws result in reduced teen abortions, pregnancies, & STD’s. 34 other states with notification laws prove pregnant teens do not seek so-called “back-alley abortions” or head to Mexico. When given the opportunity in court, groups opposing YES on 4 could not identify a single case of danger or harm to minor girls.

· Involving families in this serious decision gives them an opportunity to help young girls understand their options. Parents can also provide the medical history of their daughter. Pregnant minors deserve to have the support of loved ones rather than strangers with a financially driven agenda at a facility that stands to profit from abortion. An informed parent can get prompt aftercare for hemorrhage, infection, and other possibly fatal complications that may result. Families are left to cope with the physical, emotional, and psychological aftermath - even if they didn’t know the abortion took place.

Who is Sarah?

· Sarah was a 15-year old Texas girl, when she had a secret abortion. Within days a high fever set in. No one knew why or how seriously ill she was. By the time she was hospitalized and doctors determined she had a deadly infection from a torn cervix, it was too late. Sarah died. Had someone in her family known about the abortion, Sarah’s life could have been saved. “Sarah” identified herself as a 15-year-old single girl when she scheduled her abortion. Texas has since implemented parental notification (Sarah’s real name was not used in order to protect her identity).

Sarah’s Law Protects Minors from Sexual Predators:

· Well over 50% of California teens are being impregnated by adult males. These men are sexual predators, who encourage or coerce young girls to have secret abortions, aided by abortion providers in their cover up of evidence of statutory rape and sexual predation.

· Proof of this collusion is evidenced by the fact that in the past 15 years, no abortion provider in California has reported suspected sexual abuse of a minor resulting in prosecution of the perpetrator.

· Because families don’t know, crimes go unreported, and sexual predators roam free.

The Bottom Line: Prop 4/Sarah’s Law is common sense, mainstream, and non-partisan.

For a copy of our complete response to Roy Hanson’s analyses of Prop 4, contact info@yeson4.net .

Visit www.YESon4.net for more information.

I saw the movie Fireproof this weekend with my husband and we both loved it. I think by far, this is the best movie I have personally ever seen when it comes to portraying how couples need to work in marriage.

Everyone needs to see this great movie, and considering it opened 4th this weekend, it did very very well.

Watch this interview with Kirk Cameron and learn more, I think if you’re like me, you’ll appreciate Kirk even more.

Anyone who lives in California knows exactly how out of control the illegal immigration is in our state. Well, today we have some good news. 1100 illegal aliens have been arrested - good. At least it’s a beginning… Here’s the story.

SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - Federal immigration authorities say more than 1,150 people have been arrested in a special three-week sweep in California.

The sweep targeted those who ignored deportation orders or returned to the U.S. illegally after being deported.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice said Monday that more than 400 of those arrested were from Los Angeles and several Southern California counties.

ICE teams from San Francisco and San Diego also participated in the sweep, which concluded Saturday.

Every week the ministry of Back to the Bible issues a bible challenge. This weeks challenge is “Old Testament Heroes” - Click here to take the challenge.

I got 90% out of 100%.

How did you do? Comment.