Skip to content

3 things I hope critics don’t say about Matthew Vines’ new book

God and Gay Christian

Earlier this week, young author and Christian activist Matthew Vines released his first book, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same Sex Relationships, through evangelical publisher Convergent Books.

According to Vines, the book is the result of several years of intensive personal research on the intersection of Christianity and homosexuality.  The arguments Vines makes in his book for the full inclusion of Christ-centered same sex couples in the Church are the result of the scholarly works he’s studied over the past few years during an official leave of absence from Harvard University.  Vines compiles the results of this diverse biblical scholarship, and comfortably digests it with and for his readers, effectively synthesizing and elucidating the material for a popular audience.

This methodology makes the book readable (yet challenging) and commendable for anyone interested in learning more about this particularly relevant issue.  While I don’t intend this article to serve as a review of the book, I’d like to share some initial observations and a few predictions for some of the (irrational) things that those who disapprove of the message of the book might claim.

Here are three things I really hope critics of Matthew’s book don’t say or do:

1.  Make comparisons to Rob Bell and Love Wins

It’s striking how quickly the conservative evangelical machine has already mobilized itself against God and the Gay Christian.  Several popular bloggers, pastors, and radio show hosts have already thoroughly condemned the work, counting it as satanic lies and heresy.  Additionally, on the same day Vines’ book came out earlier this week, 5 Southern Baptist theologians announced their immediate release of a 95 page e-book “rebuttal” of Matthew’s work.  One can expect only more ire and condemnation of the book to come.  We are already seeing some blowback against the book’s publisher (à la World Vision), and I am particularly looking forward to the official disavowal of the book by John Piper and Tim Keller, once they realize they’ve been liberally (and approvingly!) quoted in several chapters.

The last time many of us in the (post)evangelical movement have seen the system come down as hard against a particular book was perhaps the release of Rob Bell’s Love Wins.

I expect this comparison will come up at some point by a clever Patheos blogger or two.  However, there are enough dissimilarities between these two book projects and their authors to make me sure of the fact that, no matter what further “farewelling” is yet to come, this comparison is questionable at best.  While Rob is a seminary-trained pastor writing for an already established audience, Matthew is a member of the laity speaking into a burgeoning new conversation.  While Rob’s book features a remarkable zero footnotes or references for his research and ideas, Vines’ book is replete with over 150 biblical, editorial, and scholastic references.

While both books were certainly written on contentious issues, with the release of Love Wins Rob in some ways deftly lobbed a powerful bomb into an already-charged conversation without any regards for the consequences.  But Vines is not ignorant of the consequences, impact, or responsibility of his work, and it shows in that he has taken great pains to construct his argument in a way that is plain, concise, and nothing if not concrete.  If Bell is a provocateur and a public controversialist, a creative artist painting ideas in broad, hinting strokes, Vines is an academic debater, dissecting and displaying the intricacies of his position and his opponents’ positions with remarkable clarity.  If Bell’s work is an open, nebulous exploration into the realm of the perhaps, Vines’ project is a self-aware, no-nonsense, research-backed argument considering the biblical support for Christian same sex relationships.

These two authors had completely different goals, and they are two completely different public figures.  I seriously hope no one tries to make the comparison.

2.  Claim that Matthew is either trying to “rewrite the Bible” or “place his personal experience over the ultimate authority of scripture

These two claims, which I admit I have already begun to hear, are particularly weak.  To address the first, please let me make a distinction here that, I hope, will save critics face down the road: Matthew is not trying to rewrite the Bible.  This point is quite easy to prove.  Unless you can actually show me the biblical passages that Matthew is suggesting we strip and remove from the scriptural Canon, it is unfactual to suggest that Matthew is re-writing the Bible to suit his personal purposes.

Now, the second part of this charge is at least partially plausible: this concern, one that many nonaffirming Christians have, is quite valid — that no matter how powerful the personal stories of queer believers may be, we simply cannot place their personal experiences over God’s clear teaching about homosexuality, as revealed in scripture.  This is an important contention, and it is admittedly something that many affirming people are guilty of.

But Matthew is not one of these people.

The core message of God and the Gay Christian is not to “challenge” or “dispute” the Bible itself, or to question whether the text is inspired and authoritative in our lives as followers of Christ.  Matthew Vines is not placing his own individual experience as a gay Christian over the truth of the bible, and he is not even challenging the words of scripture because of his personal experience.

Rather – and this is an important distinction – Matthew’s experience as a gay Christian has led him to challenge his own personal, limited, interpretation of scripture.

Again, Matthew isn’t placing his experience over the Bible.  He’s placing himself under the authority of the text.  At the same time, like the millions of responsible Christians before us who in light of new evidence have reexamined traditional Church teaching on issues like heliocentrism, evolution, and slavery, he is suggesting that new scientific evidence regarding our understanding of sexual orientation should at least bring us to a faithful reexamination of how we interpret what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

3. Insist on the possibility that gay people can really change!

In his critics’ defense, Matthew does not heavily focus on this aspect of the Christianity/homosexuality conversation in God and the Gay Christian.  Matthew spends very little time exploring the possibility that a gay Christian can, through simple prayer and force of sheer will, become a straight Christian.

I expect some folks will eagerly attack this perceived chink in the armor of his argument.  But what this criticism fails to understand is that this is because the idea that a gay sexual orientation is changeable through so called “reparative therapy” is no longer a viable part of this conversation.  As Vines mentions early in his book, the collapse of international ex-gay ministry Exodus International this past summer revealed the conversion therapy industry for what it really was: a harmful, life-stealing misconception that has negatively affected countless Christians.

Thankfully, increasing numbers of even the fiercest critics of same-sex relationships acknowledge that gay (or “same-sex attracted”) Christians can no more supernaturally become straight Christians than blue-eyed Christians can somehow wake up one day as brown-eyed Christians.

Let me be clear on this: for Christians of all stripes, change of a certain kind is not only possible, but is wholly desirable and necessary – the kind of change Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about, for instance, a spiritual rebirth without which none of us can see the kingdom of God.  However, if you personally spend any amount of time walking alongside the lives of actual “same-sex attracted” Christians, it will become clear to you that the kind of change ex-gay advocates used to talk about, a magical change in sexual orientation, is not even within the realm of possibility.

If you are interested in this subject, I can personally connect you with any number of gay Christians (both affirming and nonaffirming) who have spent countless years and thousands of dollars, experienced failed heterosexual marriages, and even gone so far as to nearly lose their lives in the course of pursuing removal of their same sex attractions in search of “heterosexual healing.”

In short, this is not a place to effectively critique Matthew.  This is a place to follow the lead of a plethora of medical and psychological associations, to heed the testimony of our fellow lesbian and gay believers, and to remain silent as straight folks until we really begin to understand the horror that was the ex-gay movement.

For this reason, I hope that critiques of Vines’ book do not focus on (or even consider) the lie and the false hope that once insisted that “change is possible.”

Now, I know I said 3 things, but here’s one more just for fun:

4.  Invoke the name of Robert Gagnon and claim his work refutes Vines’ position

There’s not a whole lot to say on this last point.  Having read a good bit of Gagnon’s work myself, I will say that, as a friend once observed, he has a certain brilliance about his biblical interpretation and application.  But in the area of his views on anatomical gender complementarity, he also happens to be in error.  Though Vines did not answer Gagnon in full, settling on calling his arguments “speculative,” I encourage critics looking for a response to Gagnon’s work to consider reading James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality, which Vines quotes profusely in God and the Gay Christian.  Brownson’s work destroys Gagnon’s aforementioned core argument against same sex relationships, and is uncontested by even Gagnon himself.  (Here is a link to my Amazon review on Bible, Gender, Sexuality)

These are my four predictions/thoughts.

What do you think?

What do you hope that folks who are critical of Vines’ book won’t resort to saying or doing in the coming months?  Like many of you, I appreciated the tone of Al Mohler and Matthew Vines’ Twitter conversation earlier this week, and I look forward to seeing the same sort of charity, authenticity, openness, and lack of misrepresentation shape this conversation as we go forward.

How about you?

41 Comments Post a comment
  1. Tim #

    Good points. Vines is writing from personal experience and describing his journey, not developing a theological treatise to instruct the church in doctrinal matters.

    April 25, 2014
  2. According to Mohler in GGC-Rebuttal on page 13,
    “The most radical proposal Vines actually makes is to sever each of these passages from the flow of the biblical narrative and the Bible’s most fundamental revelation about what it means to be human, both male and female.”

    This is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve read in a long time and shows particularly why I personally have no hope that a conversation with these guys will result in change. The only way conservatives will change is if they are forced to change because of generation churn and the government; which is what happened with slavery and segregation.

    April 25, 2014
    • jaredofmo #

      Considering the rebuttal was released the day of release, unless they got a review copy, there was no way they could have actually read the book, evaluated it, and made a counter argument. They likely decided that it would just reiterate the same points he made in his viral video.

      April 25, 2014
      • That is definitely a valid concern. However, I believe Vines sent them an advance copy.

        April 26, 2014
      • arealrattlesnake#

        The only advance copies of the book were free giveaways to some bloggers and Youtubers.

        July 31, 2016
  3. Todd #

    Make no mistake…Vines is indeed attempting to rewrite 2000 years of Church history. Sadly, many Christians are making it entirely too easy for him to do so.

    April 25, 2014
  4. Todd #

    Here’s a thought…let’s carelessly throw away 2000 years of Church history to accommodate those offended by scripture’s teaching on sexuality. That’s exactly what Mr. Vines is doing.

    April 25, 2014
    • aaroncrowley11 #

      There are a lot of people who have a fear of this – that there is a “rewriting” or a “throwing away” of church teaching and the Bible. This fear and argument was brought up when the pro-slavery churches were confronted about slavery. It’s not that anyone was trying to change what the Bible said on slavery, it’s that they were trying to advocate for a more in-depth, graceful and Christ-like approach to the subject. Same thing with women in the church and interracial marriage. It’s not that we are challenging 2,000 years of church teaching; it’s that we are showing a need to look at the Word we live by and access It within the world we live in compared to the world in which It was written.

      April 28, 2014
      • joshua #

        Has that really been done though. Matthew refuses any true debate with anyone who is non-affirming. Most of his interpretations of scripture have been proven to be blatantly wrong or just as reaching into speculation. He refuses a serious study of toevah and still has no understanding/or refuses to acknowledge that the banning of shrimp-sheqets is far different than male with male anal sex- toevah which defiles the very land and is a law above the law. Where is this conversation that Matthew said he wanted to bring to the church? I just hear speeches from him.

        October 26, 2015
  5. Bobby #

    Yes…the Southern Baptist Convention…the organization that actively promoted race-based slavery and proclaimed the virtue of Jim Crow laws… Oh wait, they apologized…in 1995…130 years after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and 30 years after the passage of major federal civil-rights legislation.

    I speed-read the 95-page e-book, and didn’t see much besides facile arguments that will do nothing more than demonstrate to the confirmed bigots that they’re standing for the “truth.” If this is the most cogent response they can proffer to Vines’s work, expect evangelical churches to become more comfortable with embracing same-sex relationships among gay Christians.

    I further question the SBC’s motives. A few weeks ago they included Mark Regnerus on a ERLC panel discussing homosexuality. In a recent trial in federal court in Detroit, a conservative federal judge destroyed Regnerus’s work and came within a millimeter of accusing him of perjury. If the ERLC folks are trying to persuade an undecided public, they could do a lot better than place their trust in a scholar who’s been so thoroughly discredited. As David Boies once said, “the witness stand is a lonely place to lie.” Of course, as Mohler knows well, you can say anything you want when you’re simply dancing for dollars. Honestly, these people are utterly despicable.

    May 17, 2014
  6. I guess the question of whether Vines attempts to rewrite the Bible, is not as black and white as it is for other revisionists, because Vines seems to be saying he respects the Bible in it’s original languages. It’s the English that he wants to rewrite. EG he rejects the translations that use the word ‘homosexual’ in 1 Corinthians 6:9 etc. But it seems to me that he disagrees with the majority of Bible translators in their interpretation of the original languages. But if Vines is wrong about the meaning of those original languages, then what he has advocated is effectively a rewrite of the Bible to make it say something other than what it does say. And how likely is it that someone who has never even graduated seminary, or done extensive training in those languages, is more correct about the meaning of the words than most trained and experienced translators?

    June 28, 2014
    • The majority of scholars outside of Evangelical schools don’t see a reading of “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians as they shouldn’t. And how is Vines re-writing the English Bible with going to the original languages? He’s flushing out what the English Bibles SHOULD have said from the beginning.
      Of course you discount those who believe as Vines does who; “… graduated seminary, or done extensive training in those languages… “

      July 13, 2016
      • The claim that “The majority of scholars outside of Evangelical schools don’t see a reading of “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians” sounds doubtful to me. Whats the substantiation for that claim?

        Yes Vines would claim that he’s flushing out what English Bibles should have said in the beginning. The problem though is that most translators disagree with his proposed translation.

        July 22, 2016
      • There’s a lengthy list on my blog, Yale, Duke. Barnard, Mercer, I can go down the alphabet of schools. Two stick out though. Daniel Kirk who was booted out of the Evangelical Moody for changing his view to an affirming one and Steven Tuell who teaches where Gagnon does. I believe Gagnon himself said he’s in the minority now.

        Translators are not inspired.

        July 22, 2016
      • I meant to give the names of the scholars of their respective schools, not the actual schools themselves. But I do believe the cafeteria building at Yale has no issue with homosexuality lol

        And I was right. Gagnon said his view of homosexuality and the Bible is a minority view with scholars and Theologians in academia in a debate with Jayne Ozanne.

        July 22, 2016
      • Good point from Gagnon. He wasnt referring specifically of 1 Corinthians though, so I think its a bit of a guess to conclude anything about 1 Corinthinans Gagnon’s statement.

        July 23, 2016
      • I think we aren’t on the same page here. Gagnon sees anti-gay prohibitions with even the glue that holds the Bible pages together. I’m saying most scholars/theologians find no prohibition of loving gay relationship with the Biblical Scriptures we have by Gagnon’s own admission and of course that will include 1 Corinthians.

        I think Gagnon has gone off the deep end in my personal opinion and this has become an irrational obsession with him. He still won’t reject the proven bad science in his book and that tells me how deep into denial he’s gone. If his arguments where so convincing, why did his own denomination, PC(USA), dismiss him with making the decision to accept homosexuals in all aspects of the church?

        July 23, 2016
      • Well there are liberal churches who reject Gagnons reasoning and there are conservative churches that reject modernist reasoning. This is not always an indicator of which reasoning is better. Sometimes people refuse to listen. Sometimes denominations have rules that result in people being able to fully communicate their case.

        Yes Gognon said he occupies a lonely position. But was he merely referring to those in academia? A 2014 poll found that evangelical support for same-sex marriage is increasing, but that Protestant pastors (IE those who know the Bible for better than their Protestant congregants) overwhelmingly say they do not affirm same-sex marriage
        http://lifewayresearch.com/2015/04/16/american-views-of-gay-marriage/

        July 30, 2016
      • The Presbyterian church body is a liberal church? Do you know any Presbyterians? lol

        You are right though, some people refuse to listen, but I kinda think we’re talking about different groups of people here, aren’t we ; )? When an Evangelical mega-church in Texas and the oldest Baptist church in the country come to understand homosexuality as not going against the Word of God, people need to listen as to why. This moving of God’s Holy Spirit can’t be stopped no matter how many anti-gay Christians wail and tare their garments. The fact is these old “anti-gay with the Bible” arguments aren’t working anymore because people are finally being the Bereans Paul called them out to be. And you’re probably right about those in the pew who have a different view of those in the pulpit (the gay marriage debate is a moot point now with the SCOTUS ruling isn’t it?), but why is one mans view above his congregants? How many, really, in a leadership position are willing to say; “We made a grave mistake with homosexuality and I repent of this error I have taught you?” Some have, but they paid a great price.

        July 30, 2016
      • Yes the few Presbyterians I know are conservative like Gagnon. But as you highlight by your reference to the oldest Baptist church in the country, most denominations have some liberal churches and some conservative churches. My guess is that most PCUSA churches are liberal. Is that not the case?

        I dont see reason to conclude that the trend away from Scriptural policy, is a move of the Holy Spirit? And I dont see how the SCOTUS ruling makes gay marriage a moot point for Christians?

        August 3, 2016
      • I believe it’s a mistake to see churches as either “liberal” or “conservative.” The suggestion is churches who are gay affirming are being ‘liberal’ with the Scriptures and those who reject the homosexual are somehow being true and ‘conservative’ with the Word. I have always said the real “revisionists” with the Scriptures are those who see an anti-gay reading in what we call the “Clobber Passages” when before there wasn’t. Paul’s “malakoi” in 1 Corinthians is a perfect, irrefutable, example of how each Bible translation started to steer the meaning of the word to “effeminate men” now. Like I said before, translators never claimed to be inspired and were mere men that sometimes let their biases bleed into how they translated. Calling out the etymology of a word isn’t questioning the inerrant Word of God.

        YOU see this affirming of God’s gay children as leading away from Scriptural policy, most Bible scholars would disagree as Gagnon even pointed out.

        Gay marriage is a moot point in that it’s the law of the land and no matter how much anti-gay Christians don’t like it, they can’t fight it anymore was my point. All I see now are pathetic attempts at not serving cakes to gays with claiming religious persecution and religious exemption laws in southern states that are roundly condemned even by most Christians.

        August 3, 2016
      • You and I continue to have such differing perspectives. Again, I dont see why it would be a mistake to see churches as either “liberal” or “conservative.” Such classification is popular and it is the case that church members turn more of a blind eye to gay sin in churches that are less Biblically focused.

        If youre claiming that the Bible has never opposed gay sex, and that only modern interpretations do so, then you are opposing not only the testimony of history, but you are apparently in disagreement with many theologians who say gay is okay! Details here: http://www.core-issues.org/blog/dermot-o-callaghan/scholars-on-both-sides-agree-bible-is-consistent-in-opposing-homosexual-practice-jayne-ozanne-disagrees?fb1

        The word ‘malakoi’ certainly has ambiguity. There is much less ambiguity in other relvant elemments of Scripture. But I do agree that calling out the etymology of a word isn’t questioning the inerrant Word of God. Im quite big on evaluating misleading words like ‘homophobic’ or ‘discrimination’, though neither words are found in Scripture. Use of those words, tends to feature far more strongly in liberal churches.

        I disagree that I see the “affirming of God’s gay children as leading away from Scriptural policy”. Its the affirming of gay sex thats the problem.

        I doubt that the gay wedding cake controversy is a political act, as you imply. Some of those cake makers just regard their following of God as requiring them to not contribute to gay weddings.

        God loves gay people. Faithful Christians should love gay people. But neither affirm gay sex.

        August 13, 2016
      • Boy, you’re like the Energizer Bunny, you just keep on going and going and going. Do you plan on posting me here a year from now? I need to know so I can mark it in my calendar with a big gold star.

        Everything you say comes from what you see as a given the Bible condemns homosexuality, I mean there is no question of it with you in digging your nails into the ground. I noticed your blog is all about knocking homosexuality in every conceivable way you can. That’s a lot of vested interest in how you believe. We’ve been to each others’ blog and I’m sure you’d say the same thing about me, but the difference is I have a lot of what the anti-gay religious have to say and it’s me refuting them, you just have issue with homosexuality for it’s own sake. You have absolutely no bases to say gay affirming churches are “less Biblically focused” or “turn more of a blind eye to gay sin.” You believe all churches should have a problem with homosexuality that you do and if they don’t? They are the ones with the problem and they are giving the finger to the Bible.

        I like to see myself as taking away the term “traditionalist” from the anti-gay crowd and putting it with the proper group.

        First, the link you give is to an organization that see’s all homosexuality as a “brokenness.” Second, they are associates of NARTH, a quake organization that toots discredited reparative therapy. Does the site even know the types of theologians they are going too? The first they name doesn’t even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, this is how desperate they are with finding the fringe with theologians? Loader is taken out of context when he’s said you can’t apply what Paul said to our understanding of homosexuality today and Booten was refuted by David Halperin. William Schoedel is a bestie of Gagnon. Want me to go into the others? I love when people like you go to a Gagnon for instance, when it’s glossed over he doesn’t believe all of the Bible is inspired and that goes big time with Paul’s epistles, but don’t let that stop you with trying to damn homosexuality with digging up these odd assortment of scholars.

        I do believe the first bakers were thinking they were doing the right thing in their warped kind of way (I can’t say the same for all the other bakers and florists who followed in their footsteps), but what they did was break the law, laws Paul said we are to follow because we are to obey Earthy institutions and to go against them is to go against God Himself (they weren’t ask to bow a knee to Baal and are they always aware of where all of their pastries are going to once they leave the shop?). They didn’t want to serve ONLY gays was the problem and had no problem with all kinds of wedding cakes for unbelievers or the divorced. Plus what did Jesus say? If you’re asked to walk a mile, walk two, and that can be translated to baking.

        August 13, 2016
      • Well you keep making comments that make me think “you gotta be kidding”, so I keep replying, to let you know.

        I was thinking of you earlier today actually (isnt that sweet) when I came across this article, which ties in to your earlier comment about whether marriage is a dead issue these days –
        http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/08/17597/

        Youre absolutely right about how my views arise from the Bible. If the Bible didnt oppose gay sex, my spare time would be entirely different. But it makes sense to me that Christianity is defined by the Bible. Its the most reliable guide we have on what God stands for.

        My site does contain refutations. From my side though, thats like herding cats, at least historically. Gay activists are just so diverse in their theologies. Spend a few months refuting one and there’s still 99 alternate views to go. Thankfully I think gay theologians are increasingly unifying these days, meaning we might reach a point where it can be said that there is a mainstream gay view on a given verse. That would be helpful.

        In terms of whether churches which affirm same-sex marriage are less biblically focused, consider https://stasisonline.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/unchristian-christians/

        August 16, 2016
      • I see the little grouch is starting to finally show his face. That’s fine. I guess if you have a site dedicated to anti-gay rhetoric, it doesn’t look good when you’re refuted elsewhere.

        And talk about; “Are you kidding me?” A link to the Witherspoon Institute? You should have stopped after your second post to me instead of continuing to digging yourself deeper into a hole with, I’m sorry, laughable links and looking like you have real personal issues with homosexuality.

        The Witherspoon help fund the the debunked Regnerus study (you know about about biased anti-gay studies, you have them on your blog I called you on), but not before it did the damage of helping the war on the LGBTQ in Russia. Robert George who’s behind the Institute is also behind NOM. Not exactly impartial is it?

        I’m hard to forget. Did you kick the cat and have a scowl on your face with the thought of me in a bubble over your head? I hope I wasn’t shirtless chopping wood.

        I never said your views come from the Bible friend, just the opposite. It comes from wanting to see what you see with putting gays in the worst light possible, a clear bigotry you think God is all for and whatever other issue or issues known only to you. And this is coming from a die-hard Pentecostal who probably believes the Bible is God-breathed more than you.

        Mainstream gay view on a given verse? You make it sound like all gay-affirming apologists have each other on speed dial. And you still don’t get it, a “gay view?” What about a correct view no matter whatever side it falls on? If that happens to undermine how anti-gay activists WANT to believe, let the fight go man. You will find peace in your soul, be at peace with your gay neighbor, and you will be pleasing to our Savior. I also don’t see this big diversity with theological views like you do with scholars and theologians and churches who read the Bible correctly. Romans? Yup, it’s still about idolatrous homosexuality to anyone who knows what context is (text without context is pretext). It’s your side that demands a prohibition of homosexuality behind every nook and cranny of the Bible because that’s the largest lens you see the Bible in.

        Sorry if I don’t have time to go to your blog link, I have to wash the doggy, my wavy hair, lawn gnomes… all this washing I need to do.

        October 9, 2016
      • The Regnerous study is probably only regarded as ‘debunked’ by those hold opinions that are challenged by its findings. Despite the (unsurprising) critics, apparently neither the University of Texas that employs Regnerus nor the journal that published his work have retracted his study.
        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/gay-marriage-one-study-falls-as-another-stands/
        If there are any other studies on my site that should be reviewed for validity, please let me know.

        October 9, 2016
      • oh Breitbart

        October 9, 2016
  7. Johnd165 #

    Really enjoyed reading ur blog.

    July 19, 2014
  8. The Regnerous study is probably only regarded as ‘debunked’ by those hold opinions that are challenged by its findings. Despite the (unsurprising) critics, apparently neither the University of Texas that employs Regnerus nor the journal that published his work have retracted his study.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/gay-marriage-one-study-falls-as-another-stands/

    If there are any other studies on my site that should be reviewed for validity, please let me know.

    October 9, 2016
    • Breitbart? Can’t you find one un-biased source with any link?
      Try this one:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/?utm_term=.d9ba44cdda47

      This is what the University of Texas had to say about it:

      “Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.”

      October 10, 2016
      • Did you notice that my link to Breitbart was basically a response to the study you just cited?

        Yes, I would love to use unbiased sources. Are you claiming they exist? I see that Wikipedia portrays your Washington Post as basically being biased towards the left.

        October 15, 2016
      • So was the Washington Post article. I don’t even have to say anything about Breitbart when it’s notorious for what it does with it’s far right, conspiracy, Trump-lovin’ self. But let Regnerus speak for himself about his study:

        “Let me be clear: I’m not claiming that sexual orientation is at fault here, or that I know about kids who are presently being raised by gay or lesbian parents.”

        Why are you continuing to go on? This isn’t working for you.

        October 16, 2016
      • Youre right that Im not committed to continuing this discussion. The reason being that it has diverged from the original topic.

        In regards to the above quote from Regnerus though, I would point out that it should be read in context, EG here: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.html
        because it’s easy to misunderstand what Regnerous was intending to say. I understand that he stands by his study, but that in the above quote, he’s saying that it’s not the sexual orientation per se that caused the problems he found, but rather the parenting that arose from from those with the sexual orientations. And he seems to be saying that his findings are not necessarily true for generations other than the one he studied. As far as I can see, he’s simply exercising appropriate scientific caution over how his findings are interpreted.

        October 16, 2016
      • It has gone south from it’s original topic because you have decided to make it that way with talking about same-sex marriage (something I know vexes you to no end) and linking to anti-gay sites that are far from impartial.

        The context doesn’t change, he will continue to say gays are bad parents even though he was scolded in court by a judge and his study has been criticized by legitimate researchers. The man has an anti-gay agenda, clear and simple, as those who sponsored the study (It’s very telling when it’s biggest proponent is the Family Research Counsel), but he knows he can take it only so far without making himself, or it, look completely biased.

        “… he’s saying that it’s not the sexual orientation per se that caused the problems he found, but rather the parenting that arose from from those with the sexual orientations.”

        Double-talk. It’s like saying being a heterosexuality isn’t the issue, parenting because you’re heterosexual is. Really? What? lol

        October 16, 2016
      • Accusations of bias can go both ways from here to China. Many of the studies that claim no problem with homosexuality clearly have a pro-gay bias behind them.

        October 22, 2016
      • “Accusations of bias can go both ways from here to China. Many of the studies that claim no problem with homosexuality clearly have a pro-gay bias behind them.”

        You complain we’ve left the original topic of this post, yet here you are talking about studies again.

        October 22, 2016
  9. Oh, remember when you posted some study that purportedly said gays were more promiscuous? I pointed out it was a study from the 70’s when everyone was promiscuous.

    October 10, 2016
    • That’s it! The Bell and Weinberg study. Funny, I don’t see the post on your blog anymore. Took it off because I refuted you in the comments? That doesn’t exactly make your blog “balanced,” does it?

      October 16, 2016

thoughts? leave a comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: