Carol Lynn Pearson And The New Church Pamphlet

[Zoidberg]

You have presented no such evidence. You have only shown that you disagree with the teachings when ripped from their proper context.

You have yet to show that the teachings themselves are nonsense.

Simply reiterating your position is not proof. A lie remains a lie no matter how many times it is repeated. Only the public perception changes.

Nonsense is defined as:

1) Foolish or absurd language or behavior.

2) Extravagant foolishness

3) Something of little or no importance or usefulness.

4) Pretentious or insolent behavior.

While your own arrogance in condemning priests and leaders calls of God certainly meets all four definitions, you have yet to demonstrate where any of the Church's teachings meet any of these definitions.

We understand that you don't agree with their position, and that you beleive that you are far more enlightened on the matter of sexual sin than the leaders of the Church.

Until, however, you are called/commissioned as God, the sin of not subscribing to the Gospel According to Zoidberg does not constitute foolishness, folly, or nonsense.

Are you for real? I see you have not read the article and STILL refuse to educate yourself on logical reasoning, yet you consider yourself qualified to enter debate and discussion with intelligent people. BTW, I think consensus has already been reached about Elder Faust employing a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are absurd. As in nonsense. And I consider it foolish and insolent to put oneself above a group of people and condemn them, but you don't have to take that part into account. As for the assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality (no matter how often or infrequent), it is an unnecessary assumption, according to Occam's razor (which you think you are familiar with, but are not). As in, an assumption of little or no importance or usefulness to explain phenomena observed, all things being equal. As in nonsense.

I suggest at this point that everybody ignores selek's calls for CFRs as he won't be satisfied with our labeling anything "nonsense" (or, I suspect, even "misguidedness") that came from a GA's mouth. If Spencer W. Kimball said that there are elves and hobbits currently living among us unbeknownst to us, selek wouldn't let us call it nonsense until we could PROVE to him that there aren't any elves or hobbits on this planet. Good luck trying to have a conversation with him.

I aspire, however, to be a patient person, selek, which is why I suggest once again that you familiarize yourself with logical reasoning. And no, that does not include calling me a liar. I cited all my sources and provided links. Everybody can verify my claims and dispute them if they so desire. But you are currently unable to do so because you do not reason logically. I am sure you are a great person and I want to engage in discussion with you as I believe you probably have many insightful ideas. However, until you learn to reason logically, it will not be possible.

[selek]

And I consider it foolish and insolent to put oneself above a group of people and condemn them, but you don't have to take that part into account.

And yet you are so willing to condescend from your throne and do it to our GA's. So very, very enlightened for a "faithful" member.

I suggest at this point that everybody ignores selek's calls for CFRs as he won't be satisfied with our labeling anything "nonsense"

You've done fairly well in ignoring them so far, so I really doubt continuing to ignore them will prove that much of a stretch for you.

If Spencer W. Kimball said that there are elves and hobbits currently living among us unbeknownst to us, selek wouldn't let us call it nonsense until we could PROVE to him that there aren't any elves or hobbits on this planet. Good luck trying to have a conversation with him.

Considering there's at least one talking *** and at least one troll involved in the thread right now, I'm not quite inclined to dismiss hobbits and elves out of hand.

If you check my posting history, you will find that I have frequently expressed embarrassment at some of the things that have escaped the lips of our GA's. Your attempt to demonize me and distract from your own ability to meet the CFR is amusing, but utterly pointless.

I cited all my sources and provided links. Everybody can verify my claims and dispute them if they so desire.

And they are equally welcome to check out both my rebuttal and the full context you so conveniently ignore.

But you are currently unable to do so because you do not reason logically.

Thank you for the ad hominem. Since you otherwise seem to reserve it for the leaders of the Church, I am sure I am in excellent company.

I am sure you are a great person and I want to engage in discussion with you as I believe you probably have many insightful ideas. However, until you learn to reason logically, it will not be possible.

Right back at ya, Zoid.

[captain-jack]

Are you for real? I see you have not read the article and STILL refuse to educate yourself on logical reasoning, yet you consider yourself qualified to enter debate and discussion with intelligent people. BTW, I think consensus has already been reached about Elder Faust employing a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are absurd. As in nonsense. And I consider it foolish and insolent to put oneself above a group of people and condemn them, but you don't have to take that part into account. As for the assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality (no matter how often or infrequent), it is an unnecessary assumption, according to Occam's razor (which you think you are familiar with, but are not). As in, an assumption of little or no importance or usefulness to explain phenomena observed, all things being equal. As in nonsense.

I suggest at this point that everybody ignores selek's calls for CFRs as he won't be satisfied with our labeling anything "nonsense" (or, I suspect, even "misguidedness") that came from a GA's mouth. If Spencer W. Kimball said that there are elves and hobbits currently living among us unbeknownst to us, selek wouldn't let us call it nonsense until we could PROVE to him that there aren't any elves or hobbits on this planet. Good luck trying to have a conversation with him.

I aspire, however, to be a patient person, selek, which is why I suggest once again that you familiarize yourself with logical reasoning. And no, that does not include calling me a liar. I cited all my sources and provided links. Everybody can verify my claims and dispute them if they so desire. But you are currently unable to do so because you do not reason logically. I am sure you are a great person and I want to engage in discussion with you as I believe you probably have many insightful ideas. However, until you learn to reason logically, it will not be possible.

While I think the personal attacks do nothing but defeat your own assertions, I can think that while you are trying to belittle selek's intelligence, you do more so for your own humility. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. I cannot say that Elder Faust's idea that excessive masturbation can lead to homosexual feelings/tendancies/experiences is true. Even if one, eve if undocumented, person can say this happened then Elder Faust's assertions could be true. Not to say they are, or aren't. I personally feel, Elder Faust aside, that excessive masturbation is wrong anyhow and will lead to problems, I've seen it happen to good friends. If you are calling in on Occam's Razor, then you must assume homosexuality is a phenomenon, and with homosexuality becoming more common, I'm not sure how Occam's Razor can apply. Yes I read it, and again, I don't see how homosexuality is a phenomenon so I don't see how you can say selek is in diminished capacity to debate when you, in my opinion, can't apply what you've been arguing. However, in my arrogent youth, I can succumb to mistakes. Please show how it is relevant.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And yet you are so willing to condescend from your throne and do it to our GA's. So very, very enlightened for a "faithful" member.

You've done fairly well in ignoring them so far, so I really doubt continuing to ignore them will prove that much of a stretch for you.

Considering there's at least one talking *** and at least one troll involved in the thread right now, I'm not quite inclined to dismiss hobbits and elves out of hand.

If you check my posting history, you will find that I have frequently expressed embarrassment at some of the things that have escaped the lips of our GA's. Your attempt to demonize me and distract from your own ability to meet the CFR is amusing, but utterly pointless.

And they are equally welcome to check out both my rebuttal and the full context you so conveniently ignore.

Thank you for the ad hominem. Since you otherwise seem to reserve it for the leaders of the Church, I am sure I am in excellent company.

Right back at ya, Zoid.

You guys are getting a little out of control here. Not that you need me to tell you this. Just thought I would mention it. Accourding to Zoid I should now provide a refrence for this.

[Lamanite]

I suggest at this point that everybody ignores selek's calls for CFRs as he won't be satisfied with our labeling anything "nonsense" (or, I suspect, even "misguidedness") that came from a GA's mouth. If Spencer W. Kimball said that there are elves and hobbits currently living among us unbeknownst to us, selek wouldn't let us call it nonsense until we could PROVE to him that there aren't any elves or hobbits on this planet. Good luck trying to have a conversation with him.

Ok, not to beat the simplicity argument to death but this takes the case. Aside from being laugh out loud funny, this statement is applicable, poignant, and right on the button. I don't know how it could be made simpler (no pun intended, but kinda)

[Zoidberg]

And yet you are so willing to condescend from your throne and do it to our GA's. So very, very enlightened for a "faithful" member.

You've done fairly well in ignoring them so far, so I really doubt continuing to ignore them will prove that much of a stretch for you.

Considering there's at least one talking *** and at least one troll involved in the thread right now, I'm not quite inclined to dismiss hobbits and elves out of hand.

If you check my posting history, you will find that I have frequently expressed embarrassment at some of the things that have escaped the lips of our GA's. Your attempt to demonize me and distract from your own ability to meet the CFR is amusing, but utterly pointless.

And they are equally welcome to check out both my rebuttal and the full context you so conveniently ignore.

Thank you for the ad hominem. Since you otherwise seem to reserve it for the leaders of the Church, I am sure I am in excellent company.

Right back at ya, Zoid.

I am not going to check your posting history as I believe what you have said in the past is irrelevant to this discussion. I'll take your word that you don't automatically agree with everything the Church leaders have said, though. I was using the hypothetical example of elves and hobbits to illustrate your misunderstanding of Occam's razor for the most part. If you thought I was misunderstanding a logical principle and wanted me to better understand it and even provided a link to an article that would help me accomplish that, I would definitely read it. Notice that right now I am talking about logical principles and not facts. I am still under the impression that you have not read the article on Occam's razor. "Prove that it's not true" is not a sufficient rebuttal, which you will understand once you grasp the razor. There might have been some substance to the other postulates you offered, but I would rather we continued this discussion after you understand the logical principle on which I based some of my examples.

I don't think I have been condescending to any of the GAs I quoted. I have said plenty of things that are nonsensical in my life, so who am I to judge? However, that does not preclude me from noticing when a statement that makes no sense comes out of the mouth of a religious leader. Or what impact it can have on people.

So: once you have demonstrated to me that you understand how Occam's Razor works, I will gladly return to discussing my references with you and perhaps offer some other ones, which you then will be able to dispute in a way that I would find satisfactory. I am not ignoring your call for references. You are ignoring my plea to understand what principle my references are based on. You say call for references. I say call for demonstration of your understanding of a logical principle. I believe I have already met your CFRs. You don't think I have met them because you are ignoring a good reference which would help you understand why they are met, or at least why your "rebuttal" is not valid.

[captain-jack]

I am not going to check your posting history as I believe what you have said in the past is irrelevant to this discussion. I'll take your word that you don't automatically agree with everything the Church leaders have said, though. I was using the hypothetical example of elves and hobbits to illustrate your misunderstanding of Occam's razor for the most part. If you thought I was misunderstanding a logical principle and wanted me to better understand it and even provided a link to an article that would help me accomplish that, I would definitely read it. Notice that right now I am talking about logical principles and not facts. I am still under the impression that you have not read the article on Occam's razor. "Prove that it's not true" is not a sufficient rebuttal, which you will understand once you grasp the razor. There might have been some substance to the other postulates you offered, but I would rather we continued this discussion after you understand the logical principle on which I based some of my examples.

I don't think I have been condescending to any of the GAs I quoted. I have said plenty of things that are nonsensical in my life, so who am I to judge? However, that does not preclude me from noticing when a statement that makes no sense comes out of the mouth of a religious leader. Or what impact it can have on people.

So: once you have demonstrated to me that you understand how Occam's Razor works, I will gladly return to discussing my references with you and perhaps offer some other ones, which you then will be able to dispute in a way that I would find satisfactory. I am not ignoring your call for references. You are ignoring my plea to understand what principle my references are based on. You say call for references. I say call for demonstration of your understanding of a logical principle. I believe I have already met your CFRs. You don't think I have met them because you are ignoring a good reference which would help you understand why they are met, or at least why your "rebuttal" is not valid.

As per my previous post, I'd like to know how Occam's Razor applies if homosexuality isn't a phenomenon, it's a minority but nothing rare.

[Zoidberg]

You guys are getting a little out of control here. Not that you need me to tell you this. Just thought I would mention it. Accourding to Zoid I should now provide a refrence for this.

No because you are simply describing the phenomenon you are observing, not explaining it. I am at a loss what the reason is myself. I propose a hypothesis that if selek reads the article on Occam's razor and understands it, he will stop accusing me of lying. We'll see.

[captain-jack]

No because you are simply describing the phenomenon you are observing, not explaining it. I am at a loss what the reason is myself. I propose a hypothesis that if selek reads the article on Occam's razor and understands it, he will stop accusing me of lying. We'll see.

I propose you explain how you assert homosexuality is a phenomenon. This is my 3rd request.

[BishopRic]

While I think the personal attacks do nothing but defeat your own assertions, I can think that while you are trying to belittle selek's intelligence, you do more so for your own humility. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. I cannot say that Elder Faust's idea that excessive masturbation can lead to homosexual feelings/tendancies/experiences is true. Even if one, eve if undocumented, person can say this happened then Elder Faust's assertions could be true. Not to say they are, or aren't. I personally feel, Elder Faust aside, that excessive masturbation is wrong anyhow and will lead to problems, I've seen it happen to good friends. If you are calling in on Occam's Razor, then you must assume homosexuality is a phenomenon, and with homosexuality becoming more common, I'm not sure how Occam's Razor can apply. Yes I read it, and again, I don't see how homosexuality is a phenomenon so I don't see how you can say selek is in diminished capacity to debate when you, in my opinion, can't apply what you've been arguing. However, in my arrogent youth, I can succumb to mistakes. Please show how it is relevant.

Let's think about this...how would anybody ever prove (or disprove) that masturbation "leads to homosexuality?" The act of masturbating is to "bring to climax." The thoughts associated with the act are thoughts of sexual attraction -- to another person. That other "person" will be one or more persons that is sexually appealing. For a heterosexual, that will be one of the opposite sex, and vice versa. So unless one can show that the "thoughts of one of the same sex" causes homosexuality (which I highly doubt), this will never be proven.

Reasonably good recent research is available to those really wanting to learn about the biological basis of homosexuality. To me, this makes all the difference in the world, if for no other reason, it begs for real compassion and empathy for our gay brothers and sisters living in a homophobic world.

[Pahoran]

I think had you been in the crowd when the Savior said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." You might have been the only one left thinking "ah what the heck, she is going to die of a self-inflicted wound- The law is clear and just" and then bash her on the face with a giant boulder.

And I think you are projecting.

Your opinion of me is ignorant, worthless, and an utter waste of bandwidth.

Thank you. You're admission that there were "misguided actions" by some "Mormons looking for quick fixes" is the crux of the problem and the need for the new pamphlet. Thank you for making my point.

And thank you in turn for conceding that the actions of any individuals were not brought about by anything the Church "taught and espoused back then." Perhaps there is more scope for agreement than there appears.

Typical Mormon response to look past the lesson of mercy and love and side with the pharisaical and say "well he didn't say what she was doing wasn't wrong..."

Two points here:

Perhaps you think you are an "atypical" (i.e. superior) Mormon. If so, your superiority has yet to be demonstrated. Howsoever that may be, to ascribe negative characteristics to an entire group of people is bigotry; nothing more, nothing less. If I were as bigoted as you are, I could hold that it is "typical" for Samoans to be fat, lazy, stupid, violent drunks.

But I don't hold that, because I'm not as bigoted as you are.

2) Your unjustified assumption of superiority appears to have led to an outbreak of hasty judgementalism, which in turn has led you into error. As usual. Nobody is looking past any "lesson of mercy."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zoidberg]

While I think the personal attacks do nothing but defeat your own assertions, I can think that while you are trying to belittle selek's intelligence, you do more so for your own humility. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. I cannot say that Elder Faust's idea that excessive masturbation can lead to homosexual feelings/tendancies/experiences is true. Even if one, eve if undocumented, person can say this happened then Elder Faust's assertions could be true. Not to say they are, or aren't. I personally feel, Elder Faust aside, that excessive masturbation is wrong anyhow and will lead to problems, I've seen it happen to good friends. If you are calling in on Occam's Razor, then you must assume homosexuality is a phenomenon, and with homosexuality becoming more common, I'm not sure how Occam's Razor can apply. Yes I read it, and again, I don't see how homosexuality is a phenomenon so I don't see how you can say selek is in diminished capacity to debate when you, in my opinion, can't apply what you've been arguing. However, in my arrogent youth, I can succumb to mistakes. Please show how it is relevant.

A phenomenon (Greek: φαινόμενoν, pl. phenomena φαινόμενα) is an observed event or, quite literally, something that is seen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon If you haven't seen any gay people, I would be surprised. I have seen some however, as have other people involved in this discussion.

Also, it was Pres. Kimball who expressed the masturbation idea, not Elder Faust (to my knowledge Elder Faust has not said anything that would support the notion that masturbation leads to homosexuality in any case).

I also try my best not to be condescending or cast stones at anyone. That's why I am trying to keep my personal opinions out of this, or, when I express them, I make sure to emphasize their irrelevance to the point I'm trying to make. I also try avoid discounting anyone's opinion based on their past mistakes or personal characteristics/histories. If I have made anyone feel like I was judging or condemning them, that was not my intention and for that I apologize.

[captain-jack]

A phenomenon (Greek: φαινόμενoν, pl. phenomena φαινόμενα) is an observed event or, quite literally, something that is seen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon If you haven't seen any gay people, I would be surprised. I have seen some however, as have other people involved in this discussion.

Also, it was Pres. Kimball who expressed the masturbation idea, not Elder Faust (to my knowledge Elder Faust has not said anything that would support the notion that masturbation leads to homosexuality in any case).

I also try my best not to be condescending or cast stones at anyone. That's why I am trying to keep my personal opinions out of this, or, when I express them, I make sure to emphasize their irrelevance to the point I'm trying to make. I also try avoid discounting anyone's opinion based on their past mistakes or personal characteristics/histories. If I have made anyone feel like I was judging or condemning them, that was not my intention and for that I apologize.

You are right and my apologies for not being more direct, from dictionary references, it also pertains to something rare. As I said in the first request, can homosexuality be considered rare?

[captain-jack]

Have to be going, until tomorrow.

[Lamanite]

And I think you are projecting.

Your opinion of me is ignorant, worthless, and an utter waste of bandwidth.

And thank you in turn for conceding that the actions of any individuals were not brought about by anything the Church "taught and espoused back then." Perhaps there is more scope for agreement than there appears.

Two points here:

Perhaps you think you are an "atypical" (i.e. superior) Mormon. If so, your superiority has yet to be demonstrated. Howsoever that may be, to ascribe negative characteristics to an entire group of people is bigotry; nothing more, nothing less. If I were as bigoted as you are, I could hold that it is "typical" for Samoans to be fat, lazy, stupid, violent drunks.

But I don't hold that, because I'm not as bigoted as you are.

2) Your unjustified assumption of superiority appears to have led to an outbreak of hasty judgementalism, which in turn has led you into error. As usual. Nobody is looking past any "lesson of mercy."

Regards,

Pahoran

Perhaps my only superiority lies in the fact that between the two of us I readily admit I don't know much else except that I should love, forgive, and try to do a little better each day. Those things to which Elder Maxwell calls mere 'fleeting factoids' are not a priority at this point in my life. What is and remains a priority is that I am more inclusive and less exclusive that I have been in times past.

As for Samoan's, I agree since I'm Tongan.

Anyway, sorry for the ad hom's. I really messed up on this thread. I can't remember what your point was but your probably right.

Big Up!

[Zoidberg]

You are right and my apologies for not being more direct, from dictionary references, it also pertains to something rare. As I said in the first request, can homosexuality be considered rare?

It can, but it exists nonetheless and is observed by us. And our curious minds are seeking for an explanation of why there is such a thing. But it is unreasonable to make an assumption without any evidence supporting it. Yes, it may so happen that one undocumented individual whose masturbation led to homosexuality (although SWK couldn't have been thinking of just one since he said masturbation leads to homosexuality "too often") has escaped our field of vision, or that in the future someone's masturbation will lead them to become gay. But we don't know that. Hence, it is unreasonable to make an assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality in the absence of any evidence that supports that assertion.

[captain-jack]

It can, but it exists nonetheless and is observed by us. And our curious minds are seeking for an explanation of why there is such a thing. But it is unreasonable to make an assumption without any evidence supporting it. Yes, it may so happen that one undocumented individual whose masturbation led to homosexuality (although SWK couldn't have been thinking of just one since he said masturbation leads to homosexuality "too often") has escaped our field of vision, or that in the future someone's masturbation will lead them to become gay. But we don't know that. Hence, it is unreasonable to make an assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality in the absence of any evidence that supports that assertion.

Sorry for the mislead of time restraint, had some extra time at work waiting for a co-worker that I carpool with.

I think that to Pres. Kimball, one soul in sin is too many. One person who is led into homosexuality by means of masturbation is too often. From that perspective, it can be asserted as opinion because there is no evidence to the contrary that it cannot happen. Granted, with the way it is said one can easily interpret that he meant it as fact. But the book is his opinion of things and some doctrine.

[Zoidberg]

Sorry for the mislead of time restraint, had some extra time at work waiting for a co-worker that I carpool with.

I think that to Pres. Kimball, one soul in sin is too many. One person who is led into homosexuality by means of masturbation is too often. From that perspective, it can be asserted as opinion because there is no evidence to the contrary that it cannot happen. Granted, with the way it is said one can easily interpret that he meant it as fact. But the book is his opinion of things and some doctrine.

He sure was saying it like it was a fact. He even went as far as describing the process by which masturbation supposedly leads to homosexuality. However, even if there is that one person, we have not seen him/her. So it is unreasonable to assume he/she COULD exist. So whether it is an opinion or not, it is nonsensical. The quote was given as an answer to the "demand for proof that the Church leadership taught "nonsense" on this topic in earlier times". So we have already established that SWK was a Church leader; that the assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality is nonsensical; the only question is whether or not he was teaching. To teach means to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction. Even if one tries to argue that SWK was not giving instructions in his book, I'm sure that to at least impart knowledge of his opinions (and some doctrine) to people was his intention. Hence, he was teaching in the book.

[BishopRic]

He sure was saying it like it was a fact. He even went as far as describing the process by which masturbation supposedly leads to homosexuality. However, even if there is that one person, we have not seen him/her. So it is unreasonable to assume he/she COULD exist. So whether it is an opinion or not, it is nonsensical. The quote was given as an answer to the "demand for proof that the Church leadership taught "nonsense" on this topic in earlier times". So we have already established that SWK was a Church leader; that the assumption that masturbation leads to homosexuality is nonsensical; the only question is whether or not he was teaching. To teach means to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction. Even if one tries to argue that SWK was not giving instructions in his book, I'm sure that to at least impart knowledge of his opinions (and some doctrine) to people was his intention. Hence, he was teaching in the book.

Yes, as I mentioned above, there will never be a way to show that masturbation causes homosexuality...and even suggesting such is laughable in the scientific world.

[LDSBruin]

The quote was given as an answer to the "demand for proof that the Church leadership taught "nonsense" on this topic in earlier times".

1. Your conclusion that SWK taught nonsense cannot be proven. While we have not come forth with evidence that it does happen beyond the common sense idea of starting with small things and going from there, you also have failed to show why it does not.

2. The demand was for proof that "The Church" both "taught and espoused" your claim of nonsense. I would like to point out that a book written by an apostle is not "the Church". If you hear it on Sunday via approved curriculum or find it in a manual, then it would be taught and espoused by the church.

Not that I feel this thread can in any way be salvaged, but I highly doubt Lamanite's reference to nonsense was originally meant to be the masturbation to homosexuality connection. Note that the pamphlet that started the whole discussion is about how experiencing feelings is not bad and that marriage is not necessary for those who continue to experience same-sex attraction. Can anyone show that the church had a different policy back then on these key issues that would have affected Mr. Pearson?

[Zoidberg]

Yes, as I mentioned above, there will never be a way to show that masturbation causes homosexuality...and even suggesting such is laughable in the scientific world.

Have you noticed how selek has disappeared from this thread? I miss him

[LDSBruin]

Yes, as I mentioned above, there will never be a way to show that masturbation causes homosexuality...and even suggesting such is laughable in the scientific world.

Why is it laughable? You think it is a stretch that addicting yourself to sexual pleasure via masturbation cannot lead to wanting different and more exotic forms of stimulation??? Come on.

If you want to say there is to date no study conclusively showing it, that's fine. But to say it is totally infeasible is absurd. The connection is an obvious one to at least consider.

[Zoidberg]

Why is it laughable? You think it is a stretch that addicting yourself to sexual pleasure via masturbation cannot lead to wanting different and more exotic forms of stimulation??? Come on.

If you want to say there is to date no study conclusively showing it, that's fine. But to say it is totally infeasible is absurd. The connection is an obvious one to at least consider.

The assumption is not necessary, however, to explain the phenomenon. It is nonsense in this sense (no pun intended).

[LDSBruin]

The assumption is not necessary, however, to explain the phenomenon. It is nonsense in this sense (no pun intended).

So once you've found a single reason for a certain behavior you should stop looking for others?

I am familiar with Occam's Razor. While good to keep in mind, it is not the holy grail of science. According to LDSBruin's Razor, any obvious connections should be looked in to.

[Zoidberg]

So once you've found a single reason for a certain behavior you should stop looking for others?

I am familiar with Occam's Razor. While good to keep in mind, it is not the holy grail of science. According to LDSBruin's Razor, any obvious connections should be looked in to.

As far as I know, no definite single reason for homosexuality has been found to date. The connection between masturbation and "becoming gay" (if it exists) is not obvious at all. If you think both are "sexual deviance", it might SEEM to you that there is a connection. However, there's no evidence that suggests that either masturbation or homosexuality is sexual deviance. Which is why homosexuality has been removed from the DSM (I'm not sure if masturbation has ever been there).