Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists

[Agent40]

Can you not accept the possibility that society's attitudes towards homosexuality have an impact on some gay people's mental health? Do you really think that rejection by one's family and friends, casual mockery, ridicule and hostility from a large part of the public, condemnation by religious groups which claim they are "intrinsically disordered" or hell-bound sinners, all have no impact on a person?

If a person treated a homosexual this way – I would certainly expect it to have an impact. Can you not accept the fact that the Church in no way endorses such behavior? Can you not accept the fact that neither I nor any of the Catholics I know mock or ridicule homosexuals? We also do not publicly condemn them. The Church offers love, compassion, and forgiveness. The “turn or burn” approach is based on your misconception regarding the Christian approach and is not endorsed by Christian therapy. Show me otherwise.

Put yourself in a gay person's place for a minute. (Not a person having gay sex, just a person with same-sex attraction, through no choice of your own.) Imagine that you grew up this way and kept it hidden, because you were confused and unsure and tortured by it. Maybe you thought you might "grow out of it." Now imagine telling this to your family, your friends, your co-workers...is this something you would want everyone who knows you to know? Some might be accepting and supportive, can't you imagine that others would not be? Imagine you meet judgmental people like yourself, who tell you that "natural law, logic, science, biology, facts, observation and right reason" all condemn what you are. Can you not see how this would be a painful experience? Can't you have an ounce of human empathy?

First, I’m not sure what you think I would say to a family member that told me they were having same-sex feelings. I can assure you it would not be one of judgment – as I have said countless times, there is no sin in same-sex attraction. It is not always thru the person’s own fault that they may be experiencing such feelings. I would offer the person nothing but love and support.


I find it interesting that you described the person as feeling confused, unsure, and (your words) even tortured by their feelings. You might want to explore why they would describe themselves as feeling tortured? Could there be any possibility that they feel tortured because they have feelings that they know to be not normal? Could it be that perhaps it is they who feel disordered? Can you not see that perhaps it is you who dismiss the person’s very real conscience regarding the matter and dismiss the suffering they are enduring by writing it off as based merely on societal pressures? Can you not see that perhaps it would be wrong to encourage them to act on their feelings that they personally feel strongly to be wrong? Who are you to tell them they are wrong for feeling to engage in homosexual acts would be wrong? Who are you to tell them they must have been meant to engage in a homosexual lifestyle? Especially whey they have described themselves as being tortured by such feelings? Have you not an ounce of human empathy?

So two people who love each other, who accept what they are because they haven't chosen it, who are simply seeking human companionship in a loving relationship, are to be denied that for life, and condemned by judgmental outsiders if they seek it. What a heartless and arrogant position. It's not moral, it's the antithesis of morality.

It’s also not my position. First, I don’t subscribe to the notion that a once a homosexual always a homosexual like you do. There are those who engaged in the homosexual lifestyle to only realize it left them empty who went on to have a beautiful, healthy heterosexual relationships. Second, I’m always amazed at how so many equate sex with human companionship and love. There are people who enjoy human companionship and love who live chaste lives. So typical to be only able to equate happiness in life with sex. It is you who think if a person couldn’t act on their sexual feelings their lives would be sad and depressing and lonely – not me. What about all the people in life for other physical or mental reasons are unable to have sex. Are their lives worthless? What a heartless and arrogant position!


You all rarely see your own limited ideology and how much it affects your entire worldview. Not only have you shown you are unable to recognize right from wrong – you also have now shown you are unable to recognize LOVE.

[jedweber]

Can you not accept the possibility that society's attitudes towards homosexuality have an impact on some gay people's mental health? Do you really think that rejection by one's family and friends, casual mockery, ridicule and hostility from a large part of the public, condemnation by religious groups which claim they are "intrinsically disordered" or hell-bound sinners, all have no impact on a person?

If a person treated a homosexual this way – I would certainly expect it to have an impact. Can you not accept the fact that the Church in no way endorses such behavior? Can you not accept the fact that neither I nor any of the Catholics I know mock or ridicule homosexuals? We also do not publicly condemn them. The Church offers love, compassion, and forgiveness. The “turn or burn” approach is based on your misconception regarding the Christian approach and is not endorsed by Christian therapy. Show me otherwise.

I think you've missed my entire point here. I'm not suggesting that YOU mistreat gay people, or that the Catholic Church endorses treating gay people uncharitably.  (Though it does tell gay people that they are "intrinsically disordered"). But surely you would admit that many fundamentalist churches are less nuanced in their condemnation of homosexuality. Surely you would admit that, individually, many Christians (and non-Christians) have negative attitudes towards gay people. Surely you would admit that, in our society in general, ridicule and denigration of gay people is fairly commonplace, even if its not considered PC is some circles.

This is my point: You alleged that gay people have higher rates of unhappiness, depression, suicide, etc. than the general population. You then appeared to conclude that this was an intrinsic result of their sexuality. And yet correlation does not equal causation. There is a very obvious potential cause which may contribute to these alleged conditions, which you appear not to acknowledge. It's like an elephant in the room which you are ignoring.

Imagine if I studied black people in the pre-Civil war or Jim Crow South (or in the US today, for that matter), and found that they suffered from higher rates of depression, substance abuse, suicide, etc. (As indeed, they appear to.) Should I conclude that this is an intrinsic result of their race? That is what you are doing with regard to gay people.

[Ashe]

Hm. Interesting thread.

Well, speaking strictly from my own personal experience (gay female), the only shame I ever felt never originated from myself and thinking that I was unnatural. I only ever worried about it once others tried to impress upon me that it was "unnatural" or "wrong." Then, and only then, did I ever have an issue with my own sexuality. I think I'm one of the lucky ones. It never was a huge problem for me.

I should also add that this issue isn't so black and white. I do not believe that people who engage in homosexual activity, have homosexual attraction, or identify as homosexual will always be that way. Sexuality, I believe, is on a spectrum and it can be quite fluid (generally moreso with females, though not exclusive; and the difference between male and female on that point may be a cultural one). Some people are more sexually fluid than others, and these are the people, I think, who have "successfully" gone through gay to straight therapy and tell whatever miracle stories they tell. I don't think it's that they're lying (though some of them may be, who knows), but that they truly did feel gay, truly do feel straight now, and are firm believers in the process. But just because it works for a small percentage of people - if it does work at all - does not mean it's a viable option for most people.

I think, honestly, sexuality just needs to be one of those things that people should STFU about in general and not make such a big deal about it. It's not important. It should be more like a left hand/right hand thing. You're born left handed and are forced to write right handed, and maybe you do now but that doesn't change the fact that you were predisposed toward writing with your left hand. That's not a perfect example, but it covers the general idea.

That said, I don't buy the argument along the lines of, "If it's something that can be changed and isn't a big deal, then it's worth a try to make them straight just because of the problems that go along with being gay (like a predisposition to depression)." Women are more likely than men to become depressed and we don't try to change them. Blacks are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, and we don't try to change them. Every group has its downside. That's just how the world works. I'm not one of those who buys into the "being gay is bad because it's associated with other bad things."

[Gnu Ordure]

Agent40:

Please show me any documentation of “Christian therapy” that advises a person struggling with same-sex attraction to marry a person of the opposite sex and their problem will go away

No-one says they do that. They advise achieving real manhood in stages:

From wiki (slightly edited for brevity):

Joseph Nicolosi in 1991 published Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. This book introduced reparative therapy as a term for psychotherapeutic attempts to convert gay people to heterosexuality.

Douglas C. Haldeman has identified Nicolosi as the leading representative of the theory that same-sex desires are a form of arrested psychosexual development, resulting from "an incomplete bond and resultant identification with the same-sex parent, which is then symbolically repaired in psychotherapy".

Nicolosi’s intervention plans involve conditioning a man to a traditional masculine gender role. He should "(1) participate in sports activities, (2) avoid activities considered of interest to homosexuals, such as art museums, opera, symphonies, (3) avoid women unless it is for romantic contact, (4) increase time spent with heterosexual men in order to learn to mimic heterosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting with other heterosexual men, (5) Attend church and join a men’s church group, (6) attend reparative therapy group to discuss progress, or slips back into homosexuality, (7) become more assertive with women through flirting and dating, (8-) begin heterosexual dating, (9) engage in heterosexual intercourse, (10) enter into heterosexual marriage, and (11) father children".

Most mental health professionals consider reparative therapy discredited, but it is still practiced by some professionals.

Love that "avoid museums and symphonies" bit.

That's really gonna work.

Gnu.

[Gnu Ordure]

On potential damage (wiki):

In 2007, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the main professional organization of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom, issued a report stating that:

Evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisations in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible.

[Tealeaf]

I love how people think that because religion exists, or that because they are religious, it/they deserves respect and an equal footing on such an issue.

What qualifications does religion have to speak on sexuality? Um....

So for you religious people who think you should be 'heard' on such a topic....you can see why we aren't buying. Or sure we'll listen to the BS, but then turn and rip it to shreads. It's called honesty/integrity.

[jedweber]

It’s also not my position. First, I don’t subscribe to the notion that a once a homosexual always a homosexual like you do.

That's a strawman, I didn't say that's always the case. You're deliberately avoiding the example I raised of people who DO sincerely believe they are innately homosexual, which appears to be the vast majority of gay people. Are you suggesting they all need to become heterosexual?

There are those who engaged in the homosexual lifestyle to only realize it left them empty who went on to have a beautiful, healthy heterosexual relationships.

If so, good for them! I don't deny that this can happen, though we might disagree on how prevalent the situation is. Again, you're dodging my example of gay people in a loving, comitted relationship.

Worse,you are implicitly denying that ANY homosexual people can EVER have a "beautiful, healthy relationship." You're the one who's being judgmental here, but trying to shift that judgment onto us. How hateful it is to imply that gay people are inherently incapable of having beautiful, healthy and loving relationships.

Second, I’m always amazed at how so many equate sex with human companionship and love. There are people who enjoy human companionship and love who live chaste lives. So typical to be only able to equate happiness in life with sex. It is you who think if a person couldn’t act on their sexual feelings their lives would be sad and depressing and lonely – not me. What about all the people in life for other physical or mental reasons are unable to have sex. Are their lives worthless? What a heartless and arrogant position!

Another straw man! I never said such a thing. I'm not saying that gay people MUST have gay sex. But you're saying they MUST NOT! Regardless of their situation. You've decided a priori that an entire class of people are simply not entitled to have love that includes any kind of physical expression.

I never judged people who have a chaste but fulfilling life. YOU'RE judging people who feel that physical expression is one part of a loving, committed relationship. Nope, not allowed if you're gay, sorry. That's not arrogant?

Imagine if some outsider, without knowing you personally, made such a decree regarding your relationship! What if I told you that you're allowed to love your husband, but you must remain chaste, for I have determined that a physical relationship for someone in your situation is morally disordered? You would not find that arrogant, and intrusive and judgmental?

You all rarely see your own limited ideology and how much it affects your entire worldview. Not only have you shown you are unable to recognize right from wrong – you also have now shown you are unable to recognize LOVE.

No, your attempt to establish some kind of moral equivalence between our positions fails. I'm not presuming to judge people who find happiness in heterosexuality rather than homosexuality, or people who find fulfillment in being chaste. On the contrary, it may well be praiseworthy for those individuals. Whereas you've presumed to judge all gay people and denigrate their ability to love. Your position is absolute and judmental and has no respect for persons.

[Hermes]

I love how people think that because religion exists, or that because they are religious, it/they deserves respect and an equal footing on such an issue.

What qualifications does religion have to speak on sexuality? Um....

Who better than old celibate men in dresses to give advice on sex?

On a serious note, religion is sterile as a source of knowledge beyond sectarian concerns.  [ details ]

So for you religious people who think you should be 'heard' on such a topic....you can see why we aren't buying. Or sure we'll listen to the BS, but then turn and rip it to shreads. It's called honesty/integrity.

It's just bigotry.  That's why I've advocated an informal alliance between secular minded people and homosexuals.  Divided, we are targets for the bigots to rotate to one after another.  Together, we're a substantial voice against such latent hate and ignorance.  This would work regardless of the religious beliefs of any one homosexual, or the beliefs on sex of any one secularly minded person -- and we do not need to speak in one voice or in one style to shout the bigots down.

[Agent40]

Imagine if I studied black people in the pre-Civil war or Jim Crow South (or in the US today, for that matter), and found that they suffered from higher rates of depression, substance abuse, suicide, etc. (As indeed, they appear to.) Should I conclude that this is an intrinsic result of their race? That is what you are doing with regard to gay people.

Actually, my point was countering someone else’s original point saying the only reason the rate of alcohol/substance abuse, depression, and suicide rates are higher among homosexuals then heterosexuals is because society does not accept homosexuals. My point was you may need to consider it could in fact be due to their own personal unhappiness and unfulfillment in living a homosexual lifestyle.

I would think both possibilities should be looked into. Don’t you? Especially in light of the fact that these statistics remain to be true and yet acceptance of homosexuality is increasing.

[Agent40]

should also add that this issue isn't so black and white. I do not believe that people who engage in homosexual activity, have homosexual attraction, or identify as homosexual will always be that way. Sexuality, I believe, is on a spectrum and it can be quite fluid (generally moreso with females, though not exclusive; and the difference between male and female on that point may be a cultural one). Some people are more sexually fluid than others

Thanks for your honesty and input, although I have to admit I have no idea what you mean by fluid?? It sounds like quite a vague way to describe people. Human beings and relationships can be anything we want them to be, huh? But they aren’t and they can’t. Whether you like it or not, they are limited in their very nature. 

I think, honestly, sexuality just needs to be one of those things that people should STFU about in general and not make such a big deal about it. It's not important.

I suppose this is a point we differ on. I guess I hold sex on a higher level than you. I do think it is important. I suppose it has to do with the fact that is has such life giving power. It’s meaning goes far beyond the pleasurable act itself. I believe it should be valued and cherished, as it is the creation of life, changes individual lives in indescribable ways, has major effects on society, and is our future.

Women are more likely than men to become depressed and we don't try to change them. Blacks are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, and we don't try to change them. Every group has its downside.

Again, I’m not really following you. Of course, we try to improve the health of women to help reduce female depression ???? And I’m sure there are scientists currently trying to reduce sickle cell anemia. Different groups are faced with different things and any normal, caring individual would try to help if any group in particular struggled with some problem.

[Agent40]

Most mental health professionals consider reparative therapy discredited, but it is still practiced by some professionals.

I already said I was unfamiliar with “reparative therapy”, but if it is what you posted, then I have a feeling that is not the only Christian approach out there. 

Although, you make fun of this “reparative therapy” because as it was listed the way you describe it certainly does sound silly. But obviously, if a person believed they may be having same-sex feelings now because they in fact (for whatever reason – perhaps childhood abuse/dysfunctional upbringing/absentee father, etc.) took on the sexual identity of the opposite sex, then in fact, perhaps they do need to learn how to be their proper gender. In which case, it would not be so absurd to attempt to retrain the individual in “being male” so to speak. I have a feeling there was more to it then the oversimplified description you posted. But again, I am not endorsing this approach – as I have no idea what it involves. I also want to bring it to your attention that it does not mean that there are not more successful “Christian therapy” approaches available.

Please check out the group Courage that I listed earlier. I hope you will read some of the testimonies and check out their site. And do let me know if you find such a support group harmful.
 

In 2007, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the main professional organization of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom, issued a report stating that:

Evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisations in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible.

You bolded the parts you wanted. Now I would like to draw emphasis to this part . . .

there is now a number of therapists and organisations in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual

I would also like to draw attention to this  . . .

Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation

Where is the evidence for this? They are “likely” to cause distress? 

And listen to the bias in the supposed neutral comments “will even go so far . . . “ Wow! Even go so far huh?

Yup, no agenda there!

Again, Gnu, you are always trying to point out the absurdity of the Christian position. You cherry pick comments or remarks when not taken in context as a whole. Trust me, I could play the same game, if I wanted to take the time, with certain views you may hold. Comedians make a living off of describing normal, sensible things/behaviors people do by simply isolating certain parts of a whole. Many ordinary things sound crazy when presented in this way. 

We could once again go on forever in this thread. My point, as always, is to show you that your so called more liberal and popular views are often more narrow and less open-minded then you all like to think.

I know you mean well. I always enjoy your insights. I just disagree with them – that’s all. 

Wish I could address everyone’s comments and continue the convo, but simply don’t have time. Have a good one.

[pianodwarf]

Actually, my point was countering someone else’s original point saying the only reason the rate of alcohol/substance abuse, depression, and suicide rates are higher among homosexuals then heterosexuals is because society does not accept homosexuals.

That was me, and I wasn't just speculating -- it's an established fact in psychology that being widely ostracized to that kind of degree causes pathological responses, chief among them clinical depression and Borderline Personality Disorder, both of which are known to increase an individual's risk of substance abuse and suicide.

My point was you may need to consider it could in fact be due to their own personal unhappiness and unfulfillment in living a homosexual lifestyle.

The only way we'll ever know that for sure is if society stops treating gays like dirt, then gays continue to have the same problems.  Unless and until that ever happens, it's little more than speculation.

[jedweber]

Please check out the group Courage that I listed earlier. I hope you will read some of the testimonies and check out their site. And do let me know if you find such a support group harmful.

Have you heard of Dignity? It's a true grassroots organization of Catholic gay people that will celebrate its 40th anniversary this year. It's much older and larger than Courage. It was once active in dozens (maybe hundreds?) of parishes around the country and was officially recognized by many bishops. Then orders came down from the Vatican to condemn them, and most chapters were expelled from church property, and have to meet outside. (A few still use church facilities.) Some US bishops criticized this treatment of the gay faithful, but as you know the church is not a democracy, and they were ordered to toe the line.

http://www.dignityusa.org/

Courage is a puppet organization first created by Cardinal Cooke to supplant Dignity (a task at which it has failed) and be more compliant with the demands of church conservatives. It rests on the assumption that all gay people are psychologically and emotionally disturbed. It's set up like a 12-step program, encouraging gay people to restrain and overcome their "sickness," essentially likening them to drunks or drug addicts. It rejects the mainstream of scientific and psychological opinion, in favor of promoting a narrow, conservative interpretation of church dogma. I'm sure there are sincere people in it who find it helpful, but forgive many Catholic gay people for not trusting that this organization truly has their emotional and psychological well-being uppermost in mind.
 

[PinkMilk]

Tell me Pinkmilk, what did you think of the personal testimonies of those homosexuals who sing the praises of getting out of their previous homosexual lifestyle? Are they not considered success stories? Tell me, how does psychology determine successful treatment?

To be honest with you, I take websites that feel the need to post testimonies with a grain of salt.  It means nothing for me to read something in writing that could be written by the creators of the site.  Psychologists determine success on different scales.  Some rely on tests that allow you to asses and rate a client's current condition, others determine success by the specific method they follow.  However success is determined when the desired result of the client is achieved.

Tell me Pinkmilk, do you believe pedophiles can be rehabilitated?

I do not believe that once a man has reached adulthood that the pedophilia urges will ever go away.  However, this is one of the areas that I am doing extensive research into for my own work.  I do believe that pedophiles can learn to understand their urges, learn that there are consequences that will be placed on them for acting on their urges, and teach them to understand the true emotions of the boy in those situations.  And please don't even start by saying that this is in any way similar to therapy for homosexuals. 

Do you think it should be further studied that childhood abuse might play a role in sexual orientation?

Personally no.  But if someone wanted to they could.  Although every reputable study I've ever seen has shown no connection between the two. 
You really are a fan of correlation aren't you? 

How could a psychologist possibly know that encouraging a homosexual lifestyle would be in a person’s best interest? What science/facts are they basing such a view on?

Homosexuality does not harm anyone involved.  Period.  If the client expresses that they are homosexual, or that they are inclined to homosexual desires, then there is nothing wrong with that. 
How is it that the church could possibly know that discouraging a homosexual lifestyle would be in the best interest of a person? 

Please show me any documentation of “Christian therapy” that advises a person struggling with same-sex attraction to marry a person of the opposite sex and their problem will go away.

I never claimed that there is any therapy out there that says just marry someone of the opposite sex and the problem will go away.  Although I have heard christians suggest things such as this, I am not aware of any therapy program that the church has formed that says this.

Please show me evidence that the Church tells those struggling with same-sex attraction to join the priesthood because it means God was calling them to become a priest.

I have heard christians say this before, but the catholic church in specific has passed a document that states that no one who is homosexual, have tendencies to be homosexual, or supports homosexual culture can be admitted to priest hood.   

And as for all your "pop psychology" stuff, you do notice that it stated it is used by the general public.   

[Ashe]

Thanks for your honesty and input, although I have to admit I have no idea what you mean by fluid?? It sounds like quite a vague way to describe people. Human beings and relationships can be anything we want them to be, huh? But they aren’t and they can’t. Whether you like it or not, they are limited in their very nature. 

Hm, I don't know a better term for it. Fluid as in...it doesn't necessarily stay static.
Some people are predominantly heterosexual to the point where they would have few, if any, homosexual tendencies. Some people are predominantly homosexual to the point where they would have few, if any, heterosexual tendencies. Some people fall more in the middle, where they are, say, predominantly heterosexual but more than incidentally homosexual.
What I mean is, for many people, sexuality is not a "gay or straight" 100% of the time. 

Again, I’m not really following you. Of course, we try to improve the health of women to help reduce female depression ???? And I’m sure there are scientists currently trying to reduce sickle cell anemia. Different groups are faced with different things and any normal, caring individual would try to help if any group in particular struggled with some problem.

Yes, I could have phrased that better.

What I mean is that we treat the problem, not the person. As you pointed out, we try to reduce female depression - we don't try to turn females male. We try to help cure sickle cell anemia, but we don't try to turn the black person white to do so. So what I mean is, there's no reason to try to make a gay person straight just because gays have, say, higher rates of depression or whatever than straights. We treat the problem, not the people.

[Onesimus]

There are those who engaged in the homosexual lifestyle to only realize it left them empty who went on to have a beautiful, healthy heterosexual relationships.

Like Ted Haggard?

[subtleinspiration]

Agent40, homosexuality exists in nature, therefore rendering any argument you might have about it being hurtful or sinful null and void.

Thanks for playing!

[Hermes]

There are those who engaged in the homosexual lifestyle to only realize it left them empty who went on to have a beautiful, healthy heterosexual relationships.

Like Ted Haggard?

Agent40, homosexuality exists in nature, therefore rendering any argument you might have about it being hurtful or sinful null and void.

Thanks for playing!

I already know the standard reply to this; it's *our* fault because this world is a fallen world.  Like everything.  Expand that out, and we're back to the Adam and Eve nonsense.  What a convenient dodge not based in logic or reality let alone both.

[subtleinspiration]

I already know the standard reply to this; it's *our* fault because this world is a fallen world.  Like everything.  Expand that out, and we're back to the Adam and Eve nonsense.  What a convenient dodge not based in logic or reality let alone both.

Even a theist's internal logic doesn't back that up. Sin and death entered the world, yes, but only humans are sinful because only humans partook of the forbidden fruit. How can an animal be sinful if it does not possess a soul? If homosexuality is simply an evil desire and not supposed to be a natural inclination, then how can animals experience "evil desires?"

I'm sure the Agent40 will try to argue down that route, but she'd have better success trying to prove the Earth is a flat disc because the bible tells her so!

[PinkMilk]

There is already a 31 page thread in which Agent40 has explained the immorality of many things, including homosexuality.  Her argument is that it goes against the way the body is intended to be used, and violates the natural moral order.  Homosexuality separates the unitive nature of the sex act, and is not for creation and pleasure.   

So there is the basics of what her arguments in regards to homosexuality. 

[subtleinspiration]

Talk about moronic.

So, Agent40, how is that "Earth as a flat disc" theory coming along?

[Zankuu]

There is already a 31 page thread in which Agent40 has explained the immorality of many things, including homosexuality.  Her argument is that it goes against the way the body is intended to be used, and violates the natural moral order. 

Really? I don't want to jump on the "Bash Agent40" bandwagon, but if that is her argument, it's worthless. Violates the natural moral order? What of elephants, lions, dolphins, sheep, lizards, penguins, etc.? Can you really say they're acting immoral? Or is it just humans because Agent40 believes we have a soul?

[jedweber]

Her views aren't based on what does or doesn't occur in nature, they're based on the Catholic "natural law" philosophy. It's basically a medieval construct developed by Thomas Aquinas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Contemporary_Catholic_understanding

[PinkMilk]

Jedweber has it correct.  When Agent40 references anything with the term natural in it she is not actually referencing nature. 

[Hermes]

Jedweber has it correct.  When Agent40 references anything with the term natural in it she is not actually referencing nature.

That's why I prefer using the word reality.  Nature may be synonymous with reality, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.  Additionally, if someone misuses nature or objects to it preferring natural + supernatural, using the word reality consumes both points -- if their claims are based on reality.  If they are not, then they aren't real and can be placed where they belong in the mythical and/or fictional bin.

The word reality moves the burden of proof back to where it should belong and out of the shell game that people like to play with the words natural and supernatural.

[Gnu Ordure]

Her views aren't based on what does or doesn't occur in nature, they're based on the Catholic "natural law" philosophy. It's basically a medieval construct developed by Thomas Aquinas.

Jedweber, you've (unintentionally, I assume) made it sound as if natural law was a Catholic invention.

The original classical secular version of natural law continued to develop in parallel with the religious version, and has been enormously influential. It was fundamental to the writing of the US Constitution, for example.

But when Agent40 uses the term, she is indeed referring to the religious version, in which teleology (Intelligent Design for a Purpose) is a key component which distinguishes it from the secular version.

Gnu.

[jedweber]

Jedweber, you've (unintentionally, I assume) made it sound as if natural law was a Catholic invention.

Well, I suppose it was actually a Greek invention. From what I remember, Aquinas and other medieval Catholic theologians liked to cite Aristotle.

The original classical secular version of natural law continued to develop in parallel with the religious version, and has been enormously influential. It was fundamental to the writing of the US Constitution, for example.

Yes, Hobbes and Locke and all that. But I think Catholics today are mostly looking back to Aquinas' version.

[Agent40]

So what I mean is, there's no reason to try to make a gay person straight just because gays have, say, higher rates of depression or whatever than straights. We treat the problem, not the people.

Unless living a homosexual lifestyle is in fact the cause of their depression. Also, you are ignoring that the person’s same-sex attraction could actually be the symptom of a bigger problem (perhaps a sexual identity problem due to childhood abuse or dysfunction). By isolating and defining a human being based on his/her sexual orientation, you are not looking at the whole person.

. We treat the problem, not the people.

I’m afraid you might have your advice a little backwards. Typically, a good physician in fact does not just treat the symptom (the problem). A good physician in fact treats the whole person. Your response, however is typical of a deeper problem that seems to be very prevalent these days – that is the idea that if a doctor has a way to “solve the problem” the patient is having, he will prescribe something that in fact will make that particular problem go away without looking at the person/patient as a whole. Only to find that the problem they were experiencing may disappear, but now a new side effect from that treatment simply causes a different problem. And what does the doctor do? Then he gives the patient something to get rid of that new problem, etc. And unfortunately the doctor by simply treating the symptom never gets to the root of the problem to see why it is the person might be suffering from this symptom in the first place.

We need to treat the whole person. It is not smart/wise to suggest to a person that if he/she is having same-sex feelings he/she should just act on them because it will solve their sexual frustration. Ok, perhaps, they now have a new sexual outlet, but it might not do anything for their overall personhood. And it might not do jack to reduce their feelings of depression. And it certainly may not be getting to the root of their problem which may be to investigate why in fact they have same-sex attraction in the first place or now that they do, what they should do about/or not do about it as the case may be to get the most out of life. Society is always interested in the quick fix. In instant gratification. In only looking at the short term and not holding on long enough to actually make certain immediate sacrifices necessary in order to achieve a better future outcome.

Once again, it is my position that is logical, and reasonable. Your position is “a person should be able to do whatever they think will make them happy.” This is silly and probably a position even you don’t agree with in other areas of your life. My kids think ice cream for dinner will make them happy. Ahhh, but for how long? And at what price?

[Agent40]

Gnu Ordure, hope all is well. Have any good rugby games lately? My 9 year old just won their soccer tournament last weekend – her first trophy! She was beside herself. I think she slept with it.

Anyway, I wanted to preface my next post with an apology that I am addressing a group as opposed to individuals. I know you hate that, but felt it the quickest way. I do realize that not all on this site think or believe the same thing. I also realize not all are atheists. I also realize not all atheists believe homosexual acts are ok, but again I am cutting to the chase and apologize in advance for addressing the collective group.