Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists

[jazzman]

I merely stated they violate the natural moral order.

Agent40:

There is no such thing as a natural moral order.  That is strictly the artificial invention of religious nuts like you.  If there was a natural moral order, we would see it in action in every society, every culture, around the world.  We don't.  Every culture and every society has its own sense of what is morally right and morally wrong.  Yours happens to be based on the teachings of the Catholic Church; at least that's how it appears to me.  A member of any non-Christian religion would have a different source of moral teachings, and people with no religious connections would base their morals on something other than religious teachings.  There is no natural moral order.

Morality is what individual humans make it.  On the other hand, nature makes some humans homosexual.  Humans don't choose their sexual orientation; therefore, sexual orientation can be neither moral nor immoral.  A person's natural sexual/romantic attraction to members of their own sex is also neither moral nor immoral.  It's simply a fact of nature.  Homosexual sex is, therefore, neither moral nor immoral.  It's the natural response for homosexuals, just as heterosexual sex is the natural response for heterosexuals.

As far as "intended use" goes, there is no intended use for male and female genital activities.  As far as we can tell, nature does nothing with purpose; therefore, we can't discern intention in the design of male/female anatomy.  We men can put our penises into any orifice into which our penises will fit, and gain whatever pleasure or pain we get from doing so.   Women can do with their genitalia whatever they want, including receive a man's penis or a vibrator or whatever.  Get the picture?  It just happens that certain physical acts between men and women can result in procreation.  Big whoop.  That's one thing the human species could cut back on by a large degree.  While procreation can be a result of sexual activity, nothing anywhere tells us that the only right sexual acts are those that result in offspring, those that occur only between men and women in the context of marriage.  Sex acts between consenting humans can also be just for physical pleasure.  After all, nature included pleasure as an effect of sexual acts.  Of course, if you've never had a real orgasm, you might not understand that.  And nature doesn't anywhere tell humans they need to be legally married before they have sex.  Nature says nothing about morality; that's strictly a human invention.  There is no natural moral order.

If you want to talk morality of sexual acts, put them in some kind of context first.  For example: A man who cheats on his wife with another man might be said to have committed an immoral act, not because it's a homosexual act, but because he violated his vow of fidelity to his wife.  Two men who engage in consentual sex with each other are morally correct to do so if they've committed themselves to each other, whether through marriage or civil partnership or simply a moral agreement between them.

Neither you nor anyone else has a legitimate right to claim that there is any kind of natural moral order.  Morality is what we humans make it, and we all think differently about it.   Get off your shaky religious high horse.  You're not exactly the brightest bulb in the box, and your utterances here illuminate that fact.  You might consider not being so obvious about it.

Jazzman


Edited to clarify an idea.

[jedweber]

...
Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?

I think that that's maybe the point, jedweber.

She doesn't seem to be aware of it, though.

[PinkMilk]

You have yet again failed to provide evidence that the basis for your arguments are true.  You have not said how homosexual sex harms anyone, you have not stated how it is known that the penis is only meant for one purpose, etc.  Therefore your claims are based on foundless principles

You didn’t read my link regarding HPV’s very well, did you? Most people that have hpv don’t even know they have it. And even when they do condems cannot provide full protection. The disease can be spread via skin to skin contact in the surrounding area. Now what Pinkmilk? Will you concede that the responsible thing to do would be to not engage in sex?

Getting tested would be the responsible thing.  There are several STD's that don't show signs for a long time if ever.  To simply not engage in sex because you don't know if you have HPV is ridiculous. 

Yet another ignorant comment. HPV vaccines do NOT protect against all strains  -- in fact, not even close. Why not share that important information Pink? You guys never really read the fine print from all your coveted CDC, AMA, and WHO organizations, do you? 

Of course it doesn't but it does protect against the most harmful and common strains of HPV.

Ahh yes, the “I’m personally opposed to ………, but “

Huh? If it’s not wrong, why are you personally opposed to it?

I didn't say I was opposed to it at all.  I said I personally would never participate in the act.  Many people wouldn't participate in skydiving but it doesn't mean they are opposed to it. 

Tell me Pinkmilk, what is there a greater chance of?   . . .  that if a brother and sister had sex and their child would have some genetic mutation OR the chance that two homosexual men are more likely to contract AIDS? Can you provide me those statistics? Kinda interesting to argue society is concerned about harm from future genetic problems but not the harm from spread of AIDS.

The chances of mutations between related individuals is almost inevitable. As far as AIDS, it can only occur when one of the partners has AIDS, so I'm tempted to say that genetic mutations between relatives would be more likely.  Heterosexual sex can result in the transmission of AIDS as well, but you aren't railing against that because you can contract AIDS.

 
See Pink, I think it is you who really have no idea why society says what it says, do you?

To say homosexuality is wrong because they can get AIDS is absurd and you know it.

It’s not wrong to be unethical?

The particular ethical guideline about student teacher relationships is there to preserve the one relationship and to prevent conflict between two different relationships. 

Now then would you like to provide evidence to support the basis for all of your arguments are you going to carry on as if natural moral order, homosexuality causing harm, things meant for only one purpose, etc are just simply true because you say so?

[Pastafarian]

Something's odd here, Agent 40...
In your posts, you've likened homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest, among other things. You keep referring to gay people in terms of sexually-transmitted diseases and mental disorders. You define them by "homosexual acts," as if these fell into one category with no way to differentiate their worth.

Yes. I just finished reading this thread and while I was initially pleasantly surprised at Agent40's ability to communicate clearly (no sarcasm, first time I'm reading any of your posts and I'm struggling to wrap my head around the fact that someone so lucid can be so bigoted!) I also felt sickened by those types of statements. Bigotry stinks  uurrgghh

[PinkMilk]

And she has the nerve to say that I don't value human life.  Yet she sees nothing wrong with identifying people by these types of things. 

[Pastafarian]

For the record: "A homosexual or bisexual individual may experience conflict with a homophobic society; however, such conflict is not a symptom of dysfunction in the individual. The APA Board recognized that a significant portion of homosexual and bisexual people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology." Fact Sheet, Homosexual and Bisexual Issues, American Psychiatric Association. "
source: Lynn Schultz-Writsel, "'Reparative' Therapy: Does it work?", 2000-FEB, at: http://www.eurekalert.org/

Though why someone as smart as this individual (I mean, you're not terribly retarded, I assume) should need to be convinced of such a thing, never mind that this particular individual surely will not, is fucking beyond me.

The thing you may want to consider, Agent40, is that I am not offended by your not agreeing with me, it's more of a deep outrage inside of what is human in me, what is unique and precious on this planet; that which you are shitting all over, debasing... shaming. I am not homosexual, so I feel none of the shame for myself but I am human and have this instinct to love my fellow human beings. That may sound silly, but something in me is outraged when a fellow human being is dragged down by stupidity and simple, untenable bigotry. Shame on you madam. I need a long hot bath and a glass of wine. 

[Agent40]

I really wasn’t going to post any more, but as usual couldn’t resist. So many errors to correct and so little time . . .

its NOT a choice. it's like liking certain kinds of food, you cant CHOOSE to like them

We don’t eat food solely for pleasure. We eat food to survive. We eat food to stay healthy. Everyone knows the only criteria in the food we eat is not simply those foods that we like. It’s necessary to choose certain foods because they are the right foods our bodies need for both our physical and mental well-being.

Also, the proper nurturing from the time we our born can affect our future food choices. If a person was not introduced to a healthy diet growing up, then he may find it more difficult to enjoy good foods. In fact, if something got really messed up in his past, he may find it almost impossible to choose proper foods. He may have developed an aversion to them. Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that the body still should be properly nourished.

If we allow this person to dine on gummy bears and jolly ranchers because that is the only thing he likes, he will never be fully nourished. And it would never be in his best interest to do so.

[Omen]

I really wasn’t going to post any more, but as usual couldn’t resist. So many errors to correct and so little time . . .

Making baseless unsupported assertions is not correcting anyone at anything.

[subtleinspiration]

Really? This is all you came back to post? You didn't have the guts to tackle the myriad of different de-constructions of your overall position?

[Agent40]

No one is predisposed to being sexually attractive to their own sibling. That's like saying you're genetically predisposed to only want to have sex with lounge singers named Laura.

This wasn’t the argument. The argument was homosexual acts should be considered ok because they are committed between two consenting adults.

To which I responded – so what? A sexual relationship between a brother and sister are two consenting adults. Clearly, just because two consenting adults agree to some behavior has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

Also, it is irrelevant if homosexuals are predisposed to being sexually attracted to their same sex. Again – this has no bearing on morality of behavior. It may explain it, but it doesn’t make it right.

Can't people be allowed to be sexually interested in whoever they will, granted that the object of attraction is able to give consent?

Ok, with that logic then most people would have to admit that there is nothing wrong with a brother and sister who want to engage in sexual relations as long as they both agree and are adults. Also, along that argument one would not be able to say that it is wrong for a person who is already married to have sex with another person who is also married as long as they both agree and are adults. Perhaps, you believe those things are ok – that’s fine. Unfortunately, most of society believes it wrong for those related to hook up and most society still believes adultery to be wrong.

Therefore, to answer your question, no, a person should not necessarily be allowed to have sex with whomever they want just because both are consenting. “Consenting adults” is not a valid argument and again has nothing to do with whether something is right or not.

I might also point out, by the way, that homosexual acts are not illegal anymore

I’m not discussing legality. I’m discussing right and wrong. Abortion is also legal and certainly not moral. As abortion proves, the legality of something is meaningless.  

No, I believe that if two people choose to do something, it's none of my business.  (Except under highly unusual circumstances that almost never apply.)

But that’s not what we’re discussing. We are discussing whether something is right or wrong. And, if one believes something to be wrong, there is an obligation to speak out.

whether something is right or not has nothing to do with if two people agree that it is.

It does it what they're deciding on is nobody else's business and doesn't affect anyone else.

Actually, it doesn’t. Right and wrong exist. And it doesn’t depend on the opinion of the person. The person can do whatever they like. For the umpteenth time – that is always their business. This however, has NOTHING to do with whether they are right or wrong. We don’t decide truth.

You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

How about as an expression of love between two people in a committed, loving relationship? How is that not ok?

Two people can make the same claim who are involved in an adulterous affair. Two related people could make the same claim. And yet, we as a society have no problem telling them their behavior is not ok, even if they “feel” like it is.  

Here, you are proving my point all along – that your side, your position, is based solely on emotions and feelings. It isn’t based on logic, or facts, or observation, or reason. You choose to ignore the valid reason that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered because the body is not being used in the way it was intended. Your entire position is wrapped up in the huge “free choice” argument. Unfortunately, being able to choose freely also means one can choose wrongly (as is the case with those  who engage in homosexual behavior).

And I could also comment here that simply because two people are in a “committed, loving relationship” if they are engaging in sex and not married then their behavior is immoral – heterosexual or homosexual.

So no, “expression of love” is meaningless. People are always trying to justify their “expressions of love” (“I know he’s married, but we love each other”, “I know we just met, but we couldn’t wait – we’re in love”, “I know she’s my best friends girl, but we love each other”). Feelings come and go. Feelings change. Morals are constant. If you want to do the right thing – you can’t always base it on your feelings.

A prison rape is a "homosexual act", so is an act of love and affection between two men in Massachusetts who are married to each other. Are you suggesting these are somehow equivalent? Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?

Do you hear yourself? You are a moral relativist. It is like listening to someone’s personal story about why they chose to have an abortion.  I’m really sorry that you only had one year of school to complete, and I’m really sorry that your boyfriend walked out on you, and I’m really sorry for a million other reasons why a baby would simply be inconvenient for you at this time, but you want me to tell you that these reasons, these excuses, change the fact that abortion is murder? No can do. I can help you, I can cry with you, I can love you, but I can’t tell you a lie and tell you having an abortion is not murder.


You think the truth regarding something depends on our feelings?

Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter how much the person wishes they weren’t.

[Agent40]

Something's odd here, Agent 40. Supposedly you're here championing "Christian" values like morality and love. Yet your apparent willingness to demean and disparage gay people belies that.

Demean? Disparage? I have nothing against those who struggle with same-sex attraction. I’m sure they are awesome, wonderful human beings. I have never said otherwise.

In your posts, you've likened homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest, among other things.

Wrong. I have shown where YOUR arguments do not hold up in favor of homosexual acts, because the same arguments you have used to support homosexual acts could be used to support pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest. Arguments like “one can’t help their feelings”, “one can’t tell another who to love”, “consenting adults”, “what a person does in the privacy of their own home is no one’s business”, etc. Sorry, but all of these arguments society does not accept when it comes to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, or incest.

I am not saying all of those things are the same as homosexual acts.  NEVER said that. I only use those examples to show you your line of reasoning is illogical and one cannot base morality on feelings.

You keep referring to gay people in terms of sexually-transmitted diseases and mental disorders. You define them by "homosexual acts," as if these fell into one category with no way to differentiate their worth.

Not at all. You don’t listen very well. I even pointed out at the beginning of this thread all the wonderful homosexuals in groups like Courage. I raved about how valuable all people are regardless of sexual orientation. 

The reason I keep saying “homosexual acts” is because there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. Same-sex attraction is not immoral, but engaging in homosexual behavior is. It’s important to distinguish between the two.
 

Every single attribute you associate with gay people is negative, you never allow for any positive.

Not at all. That is lying. In fact, I’ve never said one single negative comment regarding a person who has same-sex feelings. Show me when and where.

Do you actually know any gay people personally?

A few. Not many. Kind of interesting that you ask me that though, because if I’m being honest, I would have to tell you that the few I do know all had clearly dysfunctional upbringings (family alcoholism, drug use, absentee father, early death of mother, broken home).


 

Did you find them to be disease-ridden, mentally-ill people who subjected you to depraved sexual acts?

Not at all. Would you consider a person who suffers from bulimia a disgusting, mentally-ill person who is engaged in grotesque, vulgar behavior? No? And yet, we agree a person who has bulimia suffers from an eating disorder.

Acknowledging that a person struggles with a disorder does not equate them to a derelict or a criminal. Does it for you?

That's certainly how you seem to be characterizing them.

That’s your misinterpretation of my position. You are unable to see that compassion often involves telling a person what they don’t want to hear.

You cannot bring even yourself to acknowledge the possibility that any gay person can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted or "whole." (I've asked you that several times now.)

I can acknowledge that they probably think they are happy and whole. Of course, most people that are too close to a situation cannot see it for what it really is. Also, when a person is in the midst of something that has a hold on them they don’t actually realize they have a problem. It may be similar to a person in an abusive relationship. Even though the relationship is clearly unhealthy, the person often chooses to stay. The relationship has a hold on them that they aren’t easily able to get out of. They also come to equate the abuse with love, even though we all know it isn’t real love.

Can you not see why your attitude may appear to others to be hateful, even if you try to dress

I can see that if you do not understand my argument or my position you might think that. I can also understand that it is much easier to believe I must be a heartless, cold, uncaring person and dismiss my arguments on those grounds then to accept the difficult truth I am proclaiming.

[DI]

Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral.

glad we could get that cleared up. 

[Agent40]

There is no such thing as a natural moral order.  That is strictly the artificial invention of religious nuts like you.  If there was a natural moral order, we would see it in action in every society, every culture, around the world.  We don't.

Every culture and every society has its own sense of what is morally right and morally wrong.  

Morality is what individual humans make it.  

Oh, brother. You did not just try to argue this did you? You must have missed my posts on cultural relativists like yourself. You might want to go back and read them.

After all, nature included pleasure as an effect of sexual acts.  Of course, if you've never had a real orgasm, you might not understand that

Right on cue. Only a few posts have passed and I haven’t heard a comment about how sexually repressed Agent40 must be. Too predicatable. Also, too funny to imply I’ve never had a real orgasm. The word multiple comes to mind.


Also, the sexual act has a unitive function. One of both pleasure and procreation. In fact, the only way to insure separation of this procreative function is to do so artificially – not a small point if one took the time to actually think about it.  

And nature doesn't anywhere tell humans they need to be legally married before they have sex.  Nature says nothing about morality; that's strictly a human invention.

Uugh! Yet another ignorant comment regarding a lack of knowledge of what is meant by natural law. No wonder you don’t think it exists. You don’t even know what it means. It does not mean only that which is found in nature and so therefore marriage is a violation of natural law. LOL! I simply cannot explain all this again.

Gnu Ordure, do you see what I’m dealing with here? They can’t get it. They haven’t a clue.

Neither you nor anyone else has a legitimate right to claim that there is any kind of natural moral order.  Morality is what we humans make it, and we all think differently about it

Wrong. I have posted numerous times about the errors in moral relativism and how moral absolutes exist. I don’t remember if they have been in this thread or not – but suffice to say I haven’t the time to repeat myself once again. If you want to discuss whether moral absolutes exist or not – start a new thread. But right now we are discussing whether homosexual acts are immoral. I say they are. You simply cannot dismiss my argument by claiming there is no such thing as morality. You would need to prove that first --  And I can prove otherwise.

*** I did post some links regarding your cultural relativist arguemnt a few posts back -- check it out.

[Agent40]

The chances of mutations between related individuals is almost inevitable

The fact that there is a risk of genetic defects is only part of the argument when it comes to incest Pinkmilk.

www.plime.com/f/4742



Furthermore, the "increased" risk of genetic defects mentioned above seems to be significantly lower in reality than generally assumed - serious "inbreeding" of entire communities for several decades or centuries is an entirely different issue - the incest laws aren't even about reproduction, but about intercourse itself.

wiki.answers.com/Q/You_wanted_to_know_whether_the_hereditary_disease_can_be_caused

If you are planning on marrying one of your cousins, be sure your family has a clean bill of health first. Inbreeding in and of itself does not cause the problems; the problems, the harmful genetic mutations are already there, all inbreeding does, is increase the likelihood of those harmful mutations being passed down



www.planetpapers.com/Assets/2332.php

There is little doubt that incest has nothing to do with genetic considerations. In today's world incest does not need to result in pregnancy and the transmission of genetic material. Good contraceptives should, therefore, encourage bad, incestuous, couples.

[Agent40]

Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral.



glad we could get that cleared up.   
 

Perhaps you've come late in the game. I've already given the logical reasons based on science, observation, and the world around us.

[Agent40]

I was initially pleasantly surprised at Agent40's ability to communicate clearly

Thank you. But I can’t really take the credit for sounding so logical and reasonable – truth has a funny way of coming across that way.

The thing you may want to consider, Agent40, is that I am not offended by your not agreeing with me, it's more of a deep outrage inside of what is human in me, what is unique and precious on this planet; that which you are shitting all over, debasing... shaming. I am not homosexual, so I feel none of the shame for myself but I am human and have this instinct to love my fellow human beings. That may sound silly, but something in me is outraged when a fellow human being is dragged down by stupidity and simple, untenable bigotry. Shame on you madam. I need a long hot bath and a glass of wine.

Again, I find it fascinating that you equate my comments as bigotry. And it may interest you to know that in fact I too am usually outraged at all of you. I am outraged that so many in the world today have come to be unable to recognize beauty. The fact that most that hold the view that homosexual acts are ok, also hold the view that pre-marital sex is ok and pornography is ok as well. I find this amazing. It’s as if you all can no longer recognize what LOVE is. You are reducing man to an inability to control is passions and ignorant enough to engage in behavior that is not in his best interest.

That I am honestly talking to people who can’t see the ugliness of porn, baffles me. How can there be good in an industry that exploits women? The industry is known for preying on young, lost, confused girls and making them feel important. The industry is known for massive substance abuse.  I could go on about this issue forever, but haven’t the time. The point is, how selfish to support something that is so corrupt. Shame on you. I need a long hot bath and a glass of wine.




Ok, this time I really am going to try hard not to respond. I have 5 soccer games this weekend, one cross country meet, and a volleyball game to attend. I shall have to leave you all to continue to try to figure out what it is you believe and why.

[subtleinspiration]

Agent40,

Adam and Eve obviously had to commit incest. Was it immoral for them to do so?

Abraham had sex with his half-sister. Was that immoral for him to do so?

David had many concubines, thus had lots of extramarital sex. Was that immoral for him to do so? If so, why did god not bother to put a stop to it, only stepping in when David had someone killed in order to take his wife? Why did god only have an issue with Solomon when he started marrying women outside of his own people group?

Is getting married to a nine-year-old girl immoral?

[Hermes]

Something's odd here, Agent 40. Supposedly you're here championing "Christian" values like morality and love. Yet your apparent willingness to demean and disparage gay people belies that.

Demean? Disparage? I have nothing against those who struggle with same-sex attraction. I’m sure they are awesome, wonderful human beings. I have never said otherwise.

How 1950s of you.  Do you also have some friends of different colors, or are you waiting for them to change shades first?

[Pastafarian]

Jesus fucking Christ. Buddha too. Look, I read the thread and your bigotry shone through by your words. I don't know you from ANY OTHER THREAD/ life experience but I really did feel sick reading your spew. I don't think of porn like that, thanks for judging me you... I am absolutely speechless. Take your shame and shove it. You have no idea who I am. YOU however have been judged by your own words. Who the !€¥¥? do you think you are???!!!!   

[Pastafarian]

You know, I was at the gynae today (my wife is 35 weeks pregnant-woot!) and we were discussing hermaphrodites (Caster Sumenya, I'm South African) and I have to wonder: where do these poor people fit in with this stupid "natural order" crap? I mean, is it genetics and evolution or is it the god of the universe?! She/he will almost definitely die of cancer due to her internal testes, she/he will be attracted to one or the other sex based on... Oh jeez, her "god given perfection"? The "natural order"?! It's so damn sad that people are so incredibly ignorant. Where does Caster fit in? Rhetorical, as I just know a Christin bigot will insult everyone with their bigoted hate speech. God, save us from your followers. 

[jazzman]

Also, the sexual act has a unitive function. One of both pleasure and procreation. In fact, the only way to insure separation of this procreative function is to do so artificially – not a small point if one took the time to actually think about it.  

The sexual act has a procreative function, but that's not the only reason humans fuck.  I'd bet that most humans who engage in sexual intercourse do so for reasons of pleasure, not procreation.  It's very easy to separate the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse from the pleasure aspect.  We call it contraception, which is a morally correct act, given that this planet is overpopulated with humans. 

Uugh! Yet another ignorant comment regarding a lack of knowledge of what is meant by natural law. No wonder you don’t think it exists. You don’t even know what it means. It does not mean only that which is found in nature and so therefore marriage is a violation of natural law. LOL! I simply cannot explain all this again.

There's nothing you can explain.  Natural moral law doesn't exist.  There is no objective standard of morality to which all humans are obligated.  All morals are based on subjective valuation of right and wrong, good and bad.  What is morally wrong in your eyes may be morally right in someone else's.  It's that simple.

Your view of natural moral law stems from the Catholic Church's view that natural law is the rule of conduct that God prescribed to humans in the design of the nature into which he created and installed us.  That is a subjectively religious idea with no basis in reality or fact.  As the basis for your belief in the immorality of homosexual sex, it fails, utterly.  You can never demonstrate that a deity of any kind has prescribed any kind of morality for humans.  Your case for the immorality of homosexual sex is based on nothing more than religious opinion. 

You simply have no basis on which to claim that natural moral law exists.  Hence, you have no basis on which to claim that homosexual sex is immoral. 

Wrong. I have posted numerous times about the errors in moral relativism and how moral absolutes exist.

You've never demonstrated this to be true.  You've only claimed it to be so.

But right now we are discussing whether homosexual acts are immoral. I say they are.

You're free to express your opinion.  My opinion is that homosexual sex is not, by itself, moral or immoral.  It's a physical sexual act between two humans of the same gender; it's no more or less moral than a physical sexual act between heterosexuals.  It's a biological function, not a moral function.
If we're to describe a homosexual act as immoral, we need a context beyond the physical act itself in which to judge the morality of the act.  For me, this means that two homosexuals who are committed to each other by marriage or a legal partnership or simply mutual agreement are as morally correct in engaging sexually with each other as would be two heterosexuals in the same situation.
You believe sexual acts should only occur between two heterosexual people married to one another.  I believe your view is woefully impoverished and bigoted.  You can never demonstrate your view to be the correct view.  There we stand.

You simply cannot dismiss my argument by claiming there is no such thing as morality. You would need to prove that first --  And I can prove otherwise.

I didn't say there's no such thing as morality.  I said there's no such thing as natural moral law.  We agree that morals exist.  We disagree on their origin.

If you truly understood what morals are, you'd understand they're ideas unique to the human species, which is why there's no natural moral law.  Morals, as stated ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, are artificial human constructs.  All moral ideas are subjective because they're based on our individual and collective valuations of right and wrong, good and bad, influenced by a wide range of factors that include personal experience, religious upbringing, societal norms, cultural norms, and others. 
Morality is what we make it.  There is no natural moral law.   Open your eyes.

Jazzman

[jedweber]

...it is irrelevant if homosexuals are predisposed to being sexually attracted to their same sex.

How nice that you can decide that a basic part of other people's lives is "irrelevant." And then condemn these people to living a life without full love and true companionship because of it.

Right and wrong exist. ... We don’t decide truth.

Maybe not, but you apparently think YOU have special access to it. And yet the dogma of your church was conceived and written entirely by fallible men.

You cannot produce Jesus or God to tell us that homosexuality is objectively wrong. (In fact, Jesus had NOTHING to say on the subject, if we believe the gospels.) All we really have here are subjective assertions about the nature of objective truth.

Our knowledge and understanding of homosexuality has changed. Your church's attitudes have not caught up. Your church has acknowledged being wrong many times in the past. I think it is wrong now. So do some Catholics: http://www.dignityusa.org/

How about as an expression of love between two people in a committed, loving relationship? How is that not ok?

Two people can make the same claim who are involved in an adulterous affair.

There you go with the disparaging comparisons again. An adulterous affair involves dishonesty and betrayal. If you cannot acknowledge a moral difference between a committed, monogamous gay relationship and adultery, then your moral thinking seems to be confused.

You choose to ignore the valid reason that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered because the body is not being used in the way it was intended.

You slip a lot of implications in with that passive construction - that your version of God exists, that he had intentions for our bodies, and that you presume to know them so definitively.
 

...simply because two people are in a “committed, loving relationship” if they are engaging in sex and not married then their behavior is immoral – heterosexual or homosexual.

So you agree that gay people should be able to marry? Great!

Otherwise, what a convenient catch-22. You would deny marriage to gay people (and presumably oppose any recognition of their relationships, such as civil unions), while condemning them for remaining outside of a sanctioned relationship. It's like condemning someone for not being part of a club that you won't let them join.

...“expression of love” is meaningless. People are always trying to justify their “expressions of love”

When you make love to your husband, are you merely engaging in a mechanical process required for procreation? I would imagine that most married people consider it much more than that. Whatever that "more" is, can't you imagine that gay people might experience it, too? Can you just deny them out of hand that possibility of having something that many people find very important in their lives? 

Can you not accept that it's possible for two gay people to love each other as deeply as you love your husband?

It is like listening to someone’s personal story about why they chose to have an abortion...I can’t tell you a lie and tell you having an abortion is not murder.

These are totally different issues. If abortion is taking a human life, then the "feelings" of the mother are obviously subordinate. In the case I raised, of a committed gay couple, they are actually trying to LIVE their lives more fully. It bears no comparison to destroying life.

Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral.

Circular argument is circular.

...it is much easier to believe I must be a heartless, cold, uncaring person and dismiss my arguments on those grounds then to accept the difficult truth I am proclaiming.

No, I don't think you are a heartless person, not consciously. I don't doubt that you are trying to be compassionate and loving. But I've already pointed out the constant, unrelenting negativity and degrading references to gay people throughout your posts. Sometimes you add condescending pity to the mix. It seems that you've internalized some degree of animosity towards gay people, no doubt unconsciously.
Maybe your adherence to dogma blinds you to seeing full humanity in gay people, since you have a tendency to dehumanize them. (If so, it shows how dogma can have an evil effect on good people.)

[William]

You know, I was at the gynae today (my wife is 35 weeks pregnant-woot!) and we were discussing hermaphrodites (Caster Sumenya, I'm South African) and I have to wonder: where do these poor people fit in with this stupid "natural order" crap? I mean, is it genetics and evolution or is it the god of the universe?! She/he will almost definitely die of cancer due to her internal testes, she/he will be attracted to one or the other sex based on... Oh jeez, her "god given perfection"? The "natural order"?! It's so damn sad that people are so incredibly ignorant. Where does Caster fit in? Rhetorical, as I just know a Christin bigot will insult everyone with their bigoted hate speech. God, save us from your followers.  

Pasta, you beat me to it.  Since the Caster Semenya test results story broke I've not been able to stop thinking about Agent40.  Would Agent40 be sprouting all this primitive-minded catholic bigotry if she had balls?

EDIT: add these links in case Agent40 can't understand:

It's likely that she has some hermaphroditic or intersex condition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/8249948.stm

How and who should decide in these cases whether the person be considered a woman or a man?

This must be an awful time for Caster Semenya, brought up as a girl and a woman, but now facing the possibility of being told she may not be who she thinks she is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2009/08/this_must_be_an_awful.html

[Hermes]

Pasta, you beat me to it.  Since the Caster Semenya test results story broke I've not been able to stop thinking about Agent40.  Would Agent40 be sprouting all this primitive-minded catholic bigotry if she had balls?

Maybe Agent40 does?  Without a test or something obvious such as extra dangling bits, who could know for certain?

So, Agent40.  Are you sure you are not a hermaphrodite like Caster Semenya?  She didn't know, maybe you are also unaware?

[William]

And here is some essential sex education for Agent40, about FOUR TYPES OF SEX in every individual:

How do you define sex?

Peter Bowen-Simpkins, spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and an expert in these conditions, explains there are four types of sex.

There is your phenotype, which is what you look like, your psychological sex, which is what you feel like and which usually the same as your phenotype and related to how you have been brought up.

There is also your gonadal sex which is whether you have ovaries or testicles and your chromosomal sex which is what combination of x or y chromosomes you have.

It is the chromosomes that direct, through the production of hormones, the development of a baby in the womb down a male or female route.

A diagnosis of an intersex condition is not just based on anatomy but is dependent on genetic, hormonal and other factors.

The World Health Organisation points out that gender is a social construct.

When people refer to gender testing, what they are really talking about is biological sex.

A person's view of their gender may be different from the biological sex assigned to them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8250609.stm

And that's a SIMPLIFIED explanation.  It is before we get into variable expression at the molecular level of the myriad of genes involved in sexuality.  Even though the expression of most of the genes is modal or bi-modal (depending on Y-chromosome influence), there is a spread of variability in characteristics and strength of expression (including absence and multiple copies of genes) and that all adds up to ANYTHING is possible in sexuality - and the Catholic Church can do sweet fuckall about it.

And then finally there is also CHOICE - something which large numbers of the Catholic Church clergy are very good at  

[Gnu Ordure]

Agent40:

Uugh! Yet another ignorant comment regarding a lack of knowledge of what is meant by natural law. No wonder you don’t think it exists. You don’t even know what it means. It does not mean only that which is found in nature and so therefore marriage is a violation of natural law. LOL! I simply cannot explain all this again.

Gnu Ordure, do you see what I’m dealing with here? They can’t get it. They haven’t a clue.

Then explain it to them, Agent40.

I had never heard of Natural Law until you mentioned it. My investigation of it led me to Hobbes' secular Laws (which you had never heard of, but loved).

Thus we learn from each other.

Jazzman, read my short post here, in whch I introduce and cite Hobbes' 16 Laws. If you don't know them already, then give them some consideration. They were Natural Laws, and they were crucial to the establishment of the US. Whether you agree with them or not, it's impossible to deny their historical significance.

Natural Law is a useful concept. It has a long and distinguished history, originating in Aristotle. It's still useful. And as Agent40 keeps saying, it's got nothing to do with what is 'natural' or what happens 'in nature'.

[PinkMilk]

Agent40,

Are you planning on ever providing evidence for the foundation of all of your arguments or are you going to continue carrying on as if they are truths?  I think you have avoided this because you are unable to provide evidence for your claims.  To make things much easier for you, let's take it one at a time.

How does homosexuality and/or homosexual activities cause harm to any one?

I don't really expect that you will honestly answer this, but I am waiting for your explanation.

[jazzman]

Jazzman, read my short post here, in whch I introduce and cite Hobbes' 16 Laws. If you don't know them already, then give them some consideration. They were Natural Laws, and they were crucial to the establishment of the US. It's impossible to deny their historical significance.

Natural Law is a useful concept. It has a long and distinguished history, originating in Aristotle. It's still useful. And as Agent40 keeps saying, it's got nothing to do with what is 'natural'.

Hobbes' Laws are not natural laws, and they can’t help us here.  They're insightful observations of how humans act, to be sure, well worth considering, and hard to argue against.  But they're not laws that deal with Agent40’s specific claim that homosexual sex is immoral.  Hobbes' Laws are a collection of "shoulds" based on keen observation of how humans interact with each other.  They aren't natural laws by which we can settle the question of the morality of homosexual sex.

Agent40 specifically claims that homosexual sex is immoral because it goes against natural moral law.  The word "natural" means that nature sets the law, and the law is valid everywhere all the time for all living things.  There is no such law that tells us homosexual sex is immoral.  Agent40’s claim is nothing more than her opinion.

The claim “it's got nothing to do with what is 'natural'” makes no sense whatsoever in any conversation dealing with natural law.  We can’t redefine “nature” to say that natural laws have nothing to do with what is natural.  Indeed, natural law must proceed from what nature offers; otherwise, it’s not natural … it’s man-made.  Morals are man-made concepts.  The concept of morality is unique to the human species.  It's not governed by natural law but by subjective valuation of right and wrong, good and bad.  We can reference Hobbes' Laws as we debate various moral issues, but we can't use Hobbes' Laws as a way to settle the specific claim that homosexual sex is immoral.

In his “The Elements of Law Natural and Politic,” published in 1640, Hobbes wrote: “Man's nature is the sum of his natural faculties and powers, as the faculties of nutrition, motion, generation, sense, reason, etc. “
If we’re using Hobbes as a kind of arbitrator in this issue, we must consider his mention of natural faculties.   A homosexual’s natural faculties include romantic and sexual attraction to members of their gender.  We know through scientific investigation that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Therefore, it must be a natural condition.  If this is true – and I accept that it is – then we must recognize that part of the sum of a person’s natural faculties is their sexual orientation.   If sexual orientation is a natural condition, it CANNOT be immoral.   Sexual acts performed according to natural sexual orientation cannot, by extension, be immoral merely because they’re homosexual acts.

On Hobbes again: In his 1640 treatise on natural law, Hobbes wrote “For the law of nature, which is also the moral law, is the law of the author of nature, God Almighty; and the law of God, taught by our Saviour Christ, is the moral law.” This, essentially, is what Agent40 relies on in her argument against homosexual sex.  Yet it can never be shown to be a correct basis for deciding the morality or immorality of homosexual sex, or of any other moral issue, as no one has ever demonstrated conclusively that the Christian God exists.  Thus, there can be no declaration that this particular God wants humans to obey any particular moral order, including any prohibition on homosexual sex. 

Once again:  There is no natural moral law.  There is no natural moral law by which anyone can say that homosexual sex is immoral.  I recognize that you wish to show that Hobbes identified what we can call natural law, but what Hobbes identified are not natural laws.  They’re concepts of right behavior heavily influenced by a belief that God is the source of what is right and good.  I’m not saying that Hobbes’ Laws aren’t useful, because they are.  Except for his references to the Christian God, Hobbes identified some very important aspects of human behavior that are worth following.  But they aren’t natural laws; they don’t apply to all humans everywhere at all times, and they certainly don’t support the notion that homosexual sex is immoral.  In this discussion, they’re useless.

There is one thing, though, that Hobbes wrote that applies directly to Agent40: “There is a fault of the mind called by the Greeks Amathia, which is INDOCIBILITY, or difficulty of being taught; that which must needs arise from a false opinion that they know already the truth of that which is called in question.”


Jazzman

[Gnu Ordure]

Jazzman,

I see I was preaching to the converted. Apologies.

we can't use Hobbes' Laws as a way to settle the specific claim that homosexual sex is immoral

Agreed.