[adam_az]

The article predicates it's hypothesis on the existence of God.

That's why.

If the underlying argument is not provable, then everything based on it is also not provable.

My point earlier on was that there are good reasons not to to engage in particular practices, completely outside the theistic argument about what God "intended." You can't prove he exists, and you can't prove his intent. I think it's more productive to advance those other reasons than the theistic ones.

[r9etb]

The article predicates it's hypothesis on the existence of God.

No it doesn't. Your antipathy toward religion has obviously clouded your mind on this. While the author does approach it from a religious perspective, he goes out of the way to point out scientifically verifiable ideas that should warm the cockles of your heart.

And you misspelled "its".

[Dad was my hero]

Thanks for explaining.

I still disagree with your premise that the article is predicated on the existence of God but rather that he tries through his article to tackle both positions through his argument.

BTW, I've known plenty of adults with poor reading comprehension and was wondering only if you were one. Of course, the problem with them is that so many don't recognize it anyway. Maybe I have it because I don't see how God's existence is his underlying argument but rather the overall focus of one of his two prongs of discourse. As noted earlier, the first being if God created things, then why... OR the second being that if things evolved post big bang and following what we call Darwinian evolution, then why...

[xzins]

The article does not predicate it hypothesis on the existence of God.

It's argument is: 100% of homosexuals have heterosexual physiology. WHAT PART OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!

It even allows that some might want to draw conclusions medically rather than theologically.