Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists

[jedweber]

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 think I posted this link once for an introduction.

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

Agent40 is highly critical of many here for being uninformed or confused about her natural law philosophy. But how many CATHOLICS would even know what she's talking about? I doubt many are familiar with the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.

In fact, I once saw an article in a Catholic newspaper bemoaning a survey of rank-and-file Catholics which showed large percentages, even majorities, who were confused and in error about BASIC CHURCH TEACHINGS, let alone esoteric philosophies. For example, huge numbers thought that Eucharist was symbolic, or that other religions were valid paths to salvation. It's funny, millions of Catholics are sitting in the pews with opinions that are full-on heresies, which could have gotten them burned at the stake in the middle ages.

[Onesimus]

I really wasn’t going to post any more...

Of course not.  I showed up and put the lie to your "all homosexuals are from bad family environments" argument, so you ignored me.  It's your whole "I don't mean any of this personally when I tell you you're immoral" way of not wanting to take responsibility for your words.  So get out of here already if you can't deal with it.  Seriously.  Leave.

[Ada-B]

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 experienced years of homophobic abuse from so-called Christians. I even participated in it a little myself, having become involved in one of the tamer ex-gay organisations. True, its just just Christians, but as soon as I came out, I encountered very little love, compassion or forgiveness and a considerable amount of antagonism. I didn't get any bad reactions from my friends or neighbours, even though I live in a conservative area. All the nastiness came from the local churches.

So sorry if I mistakenly think Christians hate me for my sexual orientation, but the gleeful way they told me I was going to burn in hell kind of gave me that impression!

As for the rest of your post, you seem like a well meaning person. I probably would have said much the same sort of things just a couple of years ago, but the fact is, its ignorant nonsense;  and whilst it is true that many people are tortured by their same-sex attraction, those feelings are caused by the way society treats us. We are told from childhood that we are wrong and we believe that message, so when we fancy someone of the same sex, we do all sorts of unhealthy mental gymnastics to try to stop that feeling. In the end though, repressing sexual feelings effectively means you repress everything - love, affection, friendship... People's brains aren't made in little boxes like that, with sexuality in one box, friendship in another, love in another.

We end up hating ourselves because we are taught to hate part of ourselves - our sexuality, which is unchangeable and therefore not under our conscious control. And we can be celibate, but that doesn't stop us being gay, or stop the thoughts.

Since I came out, I am no longer tortured. I accept myself as I am. This is a very common experience. I have many friends from Christian backgrounds who have endured all kinds of religiously inspired abuse before coming out. After years in a miserable, pseudo heterosexual marriage, with a man who came out shortly before I did, I am now in a Civil Partnership and we are raising three wonderful children. My eldest, a teenager, has a large collection of friends at school including several gay and lesbian children who hang around with my daughter and her friends as protection from the bullies. Homophobic bullying in schools is horrendous - no wonder these kids grow up feeling bad about themselves.

I ask you, as a well intentioned person, to consider what you are saying, and really think deeply about what you are saying to gay and lesbian people. I hurt a lot of people when I was Christian - not meaning to, because I've never been deliberately homophobic, but as I have learned, gay people smell rejection from a mile away. It is a source of regret to me, and if anyone knows a Welsh guy called Alwyn who used to hang out on an autism newsgroup, tell him I'm sorry.

Not all Christians feel like this however. I knwo that because a few of my Christian friends have stuck by me, and there were several Christians (and a Moslem family) at our Civil Partnership celebration. But enough Christians are prejudiced to make me and many other gay people keep well away from anywhere Christians are likely to be.

[Onesimus]

We are told from childhood that we are wrong and we believe that message, so when we fancy someone of the same sex, we do all sorts of unhealthy mental gymnastics to try to stop that feeling. In the end though, repressing sexual feelings effectively means you repress everything - love, affection, friendship... People's brains aren't made in little boxes like that, with sexuality in one box, friendship in another, love in another.

You would so get a +1 if we had that in this forum.  I couldn't agree more.  Squash sexuality down, and everything else suffers as a result.  Give sexuality a healthy outlet, and everything else benefits.

[Ashe]

My response to nearly everything you brought up in this post can basically be extrapolated from my earlier posts, so I see no reason to go in circles here.

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?

Please point out where I ever said that this was my position.

[Agent40]

Hi all! I tried to respond to most of the posts. But first I thought it necessary to begin with a few words regarding Natural Law and moral truth -- as I see this as the crux of our debate. As far as I can tell so far, most of you simply do not accept my position that there exist in life natural law and objective truth that we are all subject to. I find the position you hold illogical and hypocritical and therefore an unreasonable one to hold.



Here are some excellent links addressing this issue. I hope you will take the time to read them, as they clearly show the illogic in your moral relativism.

www.scottmsullivan.com/courses/relativism.pdf

It’s worth repeating the concluding statements from the above link . . .

“Moral progress” can only be an incoherent phrase in the vocabulary of the relativist. If there is not real good, there is no really good goal and nothing towards which we can “progress.””

“Either there are objective moral standards binding on everyone or there is no morality at all. Traditional morality holds that morlals are prescriptive, that is, they are not simply describing what everyone is doing but authoritatively prescribing and governing what they should do.”

“. . . . It doesn’t take much to see that moral relativism is one of the weakest and most transparent philosophies ever proposed. Yet it is still very widespread in our culture”


From www.carm.org/relativism/whatisrelativism.htm:

"Refuting relativism."



From www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/apologetics/relativism.html


Many think because different cultures may have different laws regarding right and wrong it proves there is no absolute truth, but this is again a logical falacy . . .

“One point that the relativist assert is that relativism is most consistent in that they accept the full implications of the paradigm shift for the notions of truth and rationality (1). However, their reasoning is flawed. Paradigm shifts in notions of truth and rationality can either mean that the former notions are not true or that the new ones are not true or both are not true. Knowledge of different cultures with different morality standards can mean that either one's morality standards may be wrong or both are wrong. Thus, this does not show how historical developments are consistent with relativism.

Logical analysis can only tell us that there is an absolute truth and that relativism is wrong.”


I really hope you will read the above links, because I have a feeling if you just skim them, you are going to bring up objections that were already debunked and addressed within those links.



More on this topic . . .

As one of my above articles mentioned, it is easy to pretend relativism to be true, but as soon as these folks go out into the “real world” they act like everyone else.
This means whether you realize it or not most of you already live by moral absolutes. . .

from A Defense of Absolute Truth " Fundamentalist Christianity

“Unalienable rights. What do we mean? How can a quantity that is the product of random chance have moral rights? How can we talk about racism if we do not believe in essential dignity?”


To be a moral relativist is to doubt your own system. Your problem (as is evident in todays culture) is not that you believe homosexual acts are ok. It is that you believe anything is ok. 

from A Defense of Absolute Truth " Fundamentalist Christianity

“But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.” Orthodoxy – G. K. Chesterton

You all may insist that order and purpose do not exist, but the real humor is you rely on and in fact demand the very order you insist doesn’t exit.

from A Defense of Absolute Truth " Fundamentalist Christianity

“Whoever told you that life had to be coherent?” a woman shouted at Zacharias once. He asked her if she wanted his answer to be coherent or incoherent.”

And that is probably what I find the funniest about your entire position. In life, we all know it necessary to live by order, but your side attempts to argue adherence to order is unnecessary and overrated. Of course, this is only true when it suits you to be true. The only thing that is overrated is the belief that disorder can ever bring peace, or the notion that it is not in one’s best interest to be coherent in life.

This is really cool . . . « The Diabolists Among Us

 Gosh, this is good too . . .

Book Recommendation: A Refutation of Moral Relativism by Peter Kreeft


One can certainly deny the existence of God, but natural law can only be denied if one denies his own senses and experience.  Don’t care or not if yoyu believe in an ultimate creator, but how do you not believe in the world we live in?


From  en.wordpress.com/tag/moral-relativ

“The natural law theory says that there is also a natural law, as well as a divine law — a law that comes form the nature of the act itself, and the nature of man and that this natural law also makes an act good or evil. The natural law is the proximate cause; the divine law is the ultimate cause”

“Data comes first , the experience comes first, and it has to judge the theory, not vice versa…Real objective morality, absolute morality can be denied by your modern theory, but only after it is first affirmed by your natural moral experience, by everybody’s moral experience. You can deny moral absolutes only as a Buddhist denies matter…Conscience immediately detects real right and wrong, just as the senses immediately detect real colors and shapes…Moral relativism is to moral experience what Buddhism is to the experience of the senses or what Mary Baker Eddy’s “Christian Science” is the experience of sickness an death. These philosophies all tell us not to trust our experience, that our experience deceives us,  that the thing we experience isn’t really there! They say the experience is an illusion to be overcome by faith…Moral relativism is a faith , a dogma an ideology. Moral absolutism is empirical or experiential. It’s data based, data friendly.”

[Agent40]

A few thoughts on Natural Law . . .




From www.creationwiki.org/Anthropology



“In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis argues in favor of the concept of natural law, and against the concept of subjective morality. He identified his concept of objective natural law as the Tao. The Tao, or Way, encompasses the principles and codes of behavior by which humans were intended to operate.”


“Lewis argued that although the Tao is absolute and objective, it is not natural to most men. Most men will not follow the Tao unless they were taught to value what is right and hate what is wrong from a very young age. He argued that the purpose of schooling was to inculcate the values of natural law within students, and referenced several other thinkers who supported the idea:”



“In Plato's Republic, the well-nurtured youth is one 'who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill-grown works of nature, and with a just distate would blame and hate the ugly even from his earliest years and would give delighted praise to beauty, receiving it into his soul and being nourished by it, so that he becomes a man of gentle heart. All this before he is of the age of reason; that when Reason at length comes to him, then, bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her.' Republic 402a.”


“Lewis argues that the mainstream view of human morality will ultimately create "Men without chests"—that is, men who have no courage or moral virtue, because they will take no pleasure in the Objectively Good, nor hate the Objectively Bad. Having no fundamental values upon which to base their virtue, they will degenerate into animals capable only of following their instincts.”




I’m sorry to say, this is how I see most of you. Since you cannot recognize objective good and haven’t learned to hate objective bad you have lost your sense of right and wrong. I know many of you will backlash at this statement of mine and simply make some general statement that christians always think atheists are evil, moraless people who go around pillaging and plundering. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

 I do not believe that atheists are incapable of moral good – quite the contrary. But I find it fascinating that they cannot admit there are truths we all should abide by, as they have no problem believing in inalienable rights. So while you practice abosolute truth, you simultaneously deny such. Of course, while you are guilty of living moral truths yourself, you also have not been well formed in all matters and therefore have great difficulty in consistently recognizing good. 

There is a standard by which we must measure all behavior. It’s not cruel, or intolerant, or bigoted. We all live this way, but when those standards become too difficult to live, we simply claim there is no such thing as absolute truth. How convenient.
 


Here is a little history regarding natural law (even though according to jazzman it doesn’t exist)

From . plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality


“Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention. The development of natural law is a long and very complicated story, but a reasonable place to begin is with the dialogues of Plato, for this is where some of the central ideas are first articulated, and, significantly enough, are immediately applied to the sexual domain. For the Sophists, the human world is a realm of convention and change, rather than of unchanging moral truth. Plato, in contrast, argued that unchanging truths underpin the flux of the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of phusis. Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

Aquinas, in a significant move, adds a requirement that for any given sex act to be moral it must be of a generative kind. The only way that this can be achieved is via vaginal intercourse. That is, since only the emission of semen in a vagina can result in natural reproduction, only sex acts of that type are generative, even if a given sex act does not lead to reproduction, and even if it is impossible due to infertility.


Although the specifics of the second sort of argument offered by various contemporary natural law theorists vary, the common elements are strong (Finnis, 1994; George, 1999). As Thomists, their argument rests largely upon an account of human goods. The two most important for the argument against homosexual sex (though not against homosexuality as an orientation which is not acted upon, and hence in this they follow official Catholic doctrine; see George, 1999, ch.15) are personal integration and marriage. Personal integration, in this view, is the idea that humans, as agents, need to have integration between their intentions as agents and their embodied selves. Thus, to use one's or another's body as a mere means to one's own pleasure, as they argue happens with masturbation, causes ‘dis-integration’ of the self. That is, one's intention then is just to use a body (one's own or another's) as a mere means to the end of pleasure, and this detracts from personal integration.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality

[Agent40]

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???!!!!   

If you noticed in my post, I wasn’t simply referring to you. I was saying how most on this thread share similar views and some of those similar views are -- homosexuality is ok, pre-marital sex is ok, and pornography is ok.

I’m glad to hear you don’t think of porn like that. Does that mean you think it is wrong? Tell me, how is it you think of porn? Do you share my position that to view porn is immoral as you are contributing to an industry that exploits women and is full of corruption? For what reasons could a person rationalize supporting such an industry?

Fellow poster, Pinkmilk, once tried to argue that many women actually choose to go into the porn biz. Didn’t some during slavery make the same claim regarding slaves? – That they would rather remain a slave then have their freedom?


from A Defense of Absolute Truth " Fundamentalist Christianity

“We no longer know this difference, b/c we have no more points of reference. A woman being exploited for pornography, under secularism, will not know that she is being exploited.”

From www.gospelway.com/morality/sexual_morality.php


“Henry Boatwright, Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Board for Social Concerns, claims that 70% of the adult porn sold ends up in the hands of minors (Christian Inquirer, 11/84).”

 “One survey showed that 55% of the men in prison for rape and 35% of those imprisoned for other serious sex crimes, said that pornography led to their crimes (Truth Magazine, 5/1/80.)”

“Judith Reisman studied nearly 700 issues of Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler - so-called soft porn. She found 6000 depictions of children - an average of 8 or 9 per magazine. The majority of them showed children in sexual or violent situations (Gospel Anchor, 8/87).”

Many of You: “Uhh,well, uhh, well, I don’t support THAT kind of porn, uhh, I’m sure uhh, that’s an exaggeration – I’m for the good porn only! . ..” 

































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?


I guess I’ll never quite understand why many of you can’t look at something logically and use your reason. Natural Law means following the codes and behavior that humans were intended to operate. Adam and Eve’s offspring were following the codes and behavior that humans were intended to operate. The family was not yet established. It was necessary to establish the family unit first. Eventually, when the world was more populated the command against incest was issued. And there were several reasons to then realize for a brother to sleep with his sister would be a violation of the moral order. This is what we mean by moral truth. It’s not as complicated as you often pretend. Only a little logic and reason are required.






Regarding Caster Sumenya . . . .


If a situation like this happened to one of my children, it certainly would not change a whole lot. A person’s dignity is in their humanity. However, I would also like to say a truth does exist. Caster was meant to be one sex. Something for some reason got messed up. So even if the doctors and the scientists can’t figure it out – God knows who Caster Sumenya is and all Caster Sumenya needs to know is he/she is a child of God.

You think Caster’s life is over?

It isn’t as complicated as you want to make it. I could ask where does a parapalegic who is unable to ever have sex fit into God’s plan? That he has no choice in being able to have sex does not mean he is destined for a miserable existence.

I find it interesting that you find such news regarding Caster Sumenya so hopeless. Again, it’s so telling of your worldview and the very title of this website, whygodwonthealamputees, reveals your outlook of despair.

Who says amputees aren’t healed? You have very little understanding of what it means to be whole.

[Agent40]

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

I couldn’t disagree more. To separate the procreative aspect from the sex act is immoral. It violates the moral order. What if contraception didn’t exist, would it be immoral for people to have sex because they might get pregnant and the planet is already “overpopulated”? See how silly your comments are?  Sometimes I think you all have no idea what you’re saying. Only one that is honest with himself would have to admit that sex was intended for procreation. I never said it wasn’t also intended to be pleasurable. Quite true. But to honestly believe that the purpose of sex is for pleasure only is a little hard to argue.

Also, a few words here regarding “over population” -- I could argue that it really isn’t a matter that the world does not have adequate resources for its entire people. It is more of a matter of distribution of those resources. Over population is a wonderful rationalization for those who want to relieve their conscience of using contraception.


Are there not a finite number of resources on the planet? So, I suppose at some point the earth would no longer be able to sustain the human race. So tell me, why is it the moral obligation of those of us currently living on this planet to have fewer children? Who do we owe that to? The planet? I thought the planet didn’t have feelings? The planet doesn’t care how many children we have. How is it not always in man’s best interest to give the gift of life to siblings, to yourself, to your spouse, to your child’s future spouse, to the world? Are you seriously equating the value of a tree to the value of a human being? How is it not always in man’s best interest to use our bodies in the way they were designed?

Are we suppose to deprive the world of a beautiful human being so that the human race living a million years from now can survive .0001 seconds longer because we had fewer children in the year 2009? The idiocy of such a belief astounds me. If you would rather have more trees than people in even 100 years – that says more about you than it does about me. It proves you do not value our greatest resource – human life.

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.

Not really. Do you honestly believe moral truth does not exist? Can rape ever be justified? What about tyranny?
 
You: Absolute truth does not exist.
Me: Is that true?

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.

I have not been arguing that a deity has prescribed a morality for humans. I am arguing there is a design and order to nature. How could anyone deny such? It is foolish and ignorant. And when there is a design and order to something it is in one’s best interest to follow that design. Design and order mean something. You can wish they didn’t – but they do.

A man can have sex with a bee hive if he wants, but seeing how the male penus was not intended to enter a beehive and a beehive was not intended to accept a penus, it probably wouldn’t be too wise. There are several observable factors that acknowledge this. The structure and design of a bee hive, the structure and design of the penus, the shape of the penus and the behive, the matter that the penus and the beehive are made of, the order of bees, the order of men, the humans knowledge of what he was intended for, the bees knowledge of what he was intended for, the observation of what the nature of a beehive is, the observation of man’s nature, the fact that harmful and negative consequences may result, etc.

There is an order and design to beehives and there is an order and design to the male penus. Therefore, anything that is not in keeping with that order and design can be said to be disordered.

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.

Of course I do. The basis that design means something. I’m sure you operate under such assumptions every day of your life in other matters.

How can any sane person argue that just because a human being is created during heterosexual sex does not mean that it was designed/meant to happen that way? Is every sexual act that results in a new life – a fluke?

As humans, can we not reason that when a man and woman desire each other sexually, that intercourse they share functions as to bring about a new life. And can we not as humans further deduce that that might mean something. That there is a reason men have penuses and women have vaginas and children are created? You can honestly tell me the way things work don’t have something to say about the world around us. That is your position?

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.

Urinating is a biological function too, but if a husband urinated into his wife’s mouth, there is something that instinctually tells us all that is disordered/wrong (even if the husband and wife claim to enjoy it).

Yes, sex is a biological function. Why is it a biological function? What do you think might be the reason for such a function? Don’t biological functions mean something? There is a purpose to biological functions. You disagree?

[Agent40]

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.

Wrong. If truth exists and I believe it does. There are some things that are intrinsically disordered. What makes homosexual sex disordered is the very act itself goes against the natural order.  


 

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.

How can you possibly equate homosexual sex with heterosexual sex? The relationship is NOT the same. The union of two natures of the same sex can never be the same as the union of two natures of the opposite sex. It’s quite literally impossible.

 Homosexual sex says I’m going to deny the order/purpose of things. I’m going to change natural design. I realize there is this incredible design of our humanity, but I know better. As an intelligent person I know that the best way to use something is to use it in a manner for which it was designed, but I choose to go against intelligence and common sense and make my own rules. I insist on using something in any way I please and I insist others to tell me my way, that violates proper design/function, is equally wise/good.

You believe sexual acts should only occur between two heterosexual people married to one another.  I believe your view is woefully impoverished and bigoted.

 


If I am bigoted, then you would have to call yourself bigoted as well.

As the definition is  . . .


Bigoted:
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. --dictionary.reference.com

 
You are intolerant of my beliefs (which are actually based on facts – not opinion btw).

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 agree morals exist, you may want to ask yourself how they are discovered. If they are simply based on consensus, or the times we live in, or man-made laws, then they are arbitrary, not based on truth and therefore unnecessary to be followed. They are meaningless and what society chooses to call moral or immoral has no bind on me or anyone else for that matter. Now I know you don’t believe that because how could you argue that all human beings should have equal rights.

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

By george I thing he’s got it! Yes, morals are unique to the human species – thank you, which however, is precisely why there IS a natural moral order to which we are all bound. I think the word “natural” in natural law is messing you up. It simply means that which is in accordance with nature.

One of the definitions of natural is -- in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional. dictionary.reference.com

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.

You might want to ask yourself if you believe morals are only subjective how it is we all believe/know certain things to be wrong. Where do you think that comes from? Also, most of my links already addressed the illogic of your proposed cultural relativism.

...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.

You do it as well. How can you decide that a person’s feelings who is sexually attracted to children don’t matter? Who are you to decide it is irrelevant if a father wants to marry his daughter when she is an adult if they love each other? You too are guilty of believing sometimes a person’s feelings are irrelevant when it comes to protecting what is right.  

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

Maybe not, but you apparently think YOU have special access to it

We all have access to it. That’s my point!

You cannot produce Jesus or God to tell us that homosexuality is objectively wrong

I am not basing the knowledge that homosexual acts are wrong based on religion.

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/

The Church does not determine truth – the Church merely is responsible in upholding it. The Church could not change the truth regarding homosexual acts even if 99% of its members wanted to. The Church is not a democracy and with good reason because truth is not up for a vote. It is what it is, whether many or few realize it.

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

Again, the point is people can claim to be in a loving relationship – their “loving relationship” has nothing to do with the fact that homosexual acts are disordered.

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.

Not at all. I appeal to your reason that there is a design and order in the world around us and that that design means something. You want to deny the obvious. You want to deny what reason and logic show us to be true. You want me to believe that your version of the world (that things don’t work in a certain way) exists. But I choose not to live in such a fantasy land. I choose to accept what I see with my very eyes. Funny to accuse christians of believing in what they can’t see. You all don’t believe in what you do see. Strange!  . .

...“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?

I do not deny that two gay people can believe they have something real and special and think they are in love. However, do you deny that two people who are already married but having an affair could make the same claim? Do you deny that a brother and sister could make the same claim? Don’t you see? I am not denying anyone’s feelings anymore than you would be. I understand they honestly believe they are in love. But I do not believe they fully understand that their behavior is wrong and is therefore a false love. Even if they wish it were ok – it never can be, because their feelings and emotions can’t change what is.

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

I brought up abortion not to say abortion is the same as homosexual acts. I brought it up to demonstrate the truth of a situation (the facts) do not depend on the individual’s feelings or opinion.

[Agent40]

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.

No you didn’t – you just claimed them. Please, point out the constant, unrelenting and degrading references to gay people in my posts.

It seems that you've internalized some degree of animosity towards gay people, no doubt unconsciously.

Please show me a comment I have made that demonstrates animosity.

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.)

What dogma would that be? You do realize everyone has dogma.

The definition of dogma is a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle. dictionary.reference.com

Your belief that homosexual acts are ok is dogma .  And false dogma at that.

[subtleinspiration]

I guess I’ll never quite understand why many of you can’t look at something logically and use your reason. Natural Law means following the codes and behavior that humans were intended to operate. Adam and Eve’s offspring were following the codes and behavior that humans were intended to operate. The family was not yet established. It was necessary to establish the family unit first. Eventually, when the world was more populated the command against incest was issued. And there were several reasons to then realize for a brother to sleep with his sister would be a violation of the moral order. This is what we mean by moral truth. It’s not as complicated as you often pretend. Only a little logic and reason are required.

How was the family not yet established with Adam and Eve? There was a husband, there was a wife, and, early on, two children. Was the family not yet established even by the time of Abraham? Abraham is thought to have lived around 2000 B.C. That means two thousand years since Adam and Eve. Was the family still not established by that time? And where do you get this idea? Is there anywhere you have gotten it from besides just pulling it out of your ass?

Not really. Do you honestly believe moral truth does not exist? Can rape ever be justified? What about tyranny?

According to your bible, yes it can be. When God orders it.

[pianodwarf]

I do not believe that atheists are incapable of moral good – quite the contrary. But I find it fascinating that they cannot admit there are truths we all should abide by, as they have no problem believing in inalienable rights. So while you practice abosolute truth, you simultaneously deny such.

Don't lump us all in together.  I, for one, am an atheist, and I reject moral relativism -- rather strongly, in fact.  The only thing that all atheists have in common is that they lack belief in any deities.  You can't make any assumptions about anything else.

[Agent40]

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

I don’t think so, as I just found out I am expecting my 8th child, but thanks for the concern. But my husband did just have one of his testicles removed because of cancer. Does that now make me a lesbian?

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.

Actually, anything ISN’T possible in sexuality. Believe it or not – there are limits. There exist an order and design. No matter how much a man wants to carry a baby, unless he has a womb – he cannot. A person can have a strong sexual desire to have sex with a grizzly bear – good luck with that. A person may call herself a man, but unless she has a penus she cannot impregnate a woman. This isn’t the Church talking – It’s not me imposing such laws -- it’s life. And people have to deal with it.

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

Ahhh, I knew it had been a while since a clergy joke. Always a clear sign one has little to say.

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.

Agreed. And sorry I was so short with everyone. It is simply frustrating to hear the same misconceptions I feel I have corrected numerous times. And I hope by this point, I have explained more fully natural law.

[Zankuu]

Being the new kid on the block, I don't know anything about Agent40 aside from the last 3 posts and I'm way too lazy to read 40's 500+ posts. Anyone care to sum up 40's beliefs for me?

[Agent40]

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?

Pinkmilk, the foundation for all of my arguments are that there is an obvious and observable design and order in the world. Things are made in a certain way and have a purpose based on their design. This is a no-brainer. Do you deny the order and design in the world?

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

Is that the criteria Pink? Because if that’s the only criteria what would one argue why incest is wrong? You couldn’t say because two related people have a higher risk of one of their offspring developing a genetic disorder because why couldn’t they simply use contraception? And what about the higher risk and harm of contracting AIDS in the homosexual community?

 Are there other reasons society is opposed to incest? Yes, there are and some of those other reasons are similar to opposition to homosexual unions. (The family structure is based on mother, father, and children. To cross the boundaries of the mother/father, parent/child or the brother/sister relationship disrupts the family unit. Do you think perhaps people think there is something significant to such a family unit? Could it actually be MEANINGFUL?)
And Pinkmilk, Have you any idea how difficult it is to explain something like this to someone like you? How could you expect me to be able to explain this to you when you cannot even see the harm from abortion, pornography, or pre-marital sex? My dear, you have no sense of right and wrong. You no longer know what is in man’s best interest and what could bring him the greatest peace. You have refused to accept reality.

 I could argue many of the negative consequences from engaging in homosexual acts (and have done so). They can be both physical and psychological. But the bigger picture is doing something immoral can never be permitted even if no direct harm results. Engaging in immoral behavior is limiting. It is NEVER freeing. As long as a person continues to embrace immorality, he will never be free. This is the real harm.


From www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0686.asp
“Knowing and doing right is challenging, but it is also very freeing. Such freedom is never without cost. You might well experience loneliness, confusion and even discouragement. Yet to be seeking the good choice is in some sense to have already found it.”


Pinkmilk, do take a look at some of my following links. Your precious APA shows very little objectivity in dealing with this issue . . .
From Same-Sex "Marriage" and Mental Health
Interview With Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons of Catholic Medical Association

opusbonosacerdotii.org/resources/Celibacy-Sexuality

Q: Is the opinion of the APA on same-sex unions and adoption consistent with the research on the medical and psychiatric difficulties in those with same-sex attractions and on the developmental needs of children?

Fitzgibbons: No. The APA has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors. This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine. The peer-reviewed literature demonstrates that an inability to maintain committed relationships and rampant promiscuity are the norm in the homosexual lifestyle. To illustrate this, one recent study in Amsterdam, by Xiridou, demonstrated that 86% of the new cases of AIDS came from those in committed relationships, and that those in casual relationships averaged between 16-28 sexual partners per year.

Q: What else does the research show in regards to psychiatric and medical health risks for those living the homosexual lifestyle?

Fitzgibbons: Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teen-agers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships. It is important to note that "homophobia" is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted. Another recent study has shown that a high percentage, 32%, of males with SSA have been abused by other males with SSA. In addition, those with SSA have a shortened life expectancy. The sexual practices in the lifestyle, particularly sodomy, are associated with numerous serious medical illnesses. All this research was ignored by the APA.

Q: What advice would you give to other psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors, faced with this ideological trend in their fields?

 Fitzgibbons: A number of colleagues have told me that they plan to leave the APA because of its abandonment of medical science and its caving in to an ideological and political agenda.




I just found this as well. It addresses everything that we have been discussing and the very purpose of this original thread. How is it the truth continues to be suppressed by the erroneous views of a few? . . . . . .



This is a must read . . .


HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOPE:
Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association
November, 2000
www.narth.com/docs/hope.html



 Research proves that the APA’s discouragement of viewing homosexuality as a disorder is unfounded. Any psychologist today who supports the APA’s recommendations for treatment in those struggling with same sex attraction ought to be aware that in doing so he/she is ignoring the facts and current research and is putting their client at risk because of their own personal agenda. It’s amazing how convenient it is to ignore science when it runs counter to ones political views.  

[subtleinspiration]

A person may call herself a man, but unless she has a penus she cannot impregnate a woman. This isn’t the Church talking – It’s not me imposing such laws -- it’s life. And people have to deal with it.

What about male babies who lose their penis at birth. According to you, they cannot call themselves a "man"?

[subtleinspiration]

Anyone care to sum up 40's beliefs for me?

She is batshit insane and should be sterilized before she has any more kids to abuse with her ignorance and delusions.

[Agent40]

Hobbes' Laws are a collection of "shoulds" based on keen observation of how humans interact with each other.

Exactly. That is what natural law is.

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.

Not necessarily for all living things – natural law applies to humans.

 There is no such law that tells us homosexual sex is immoral.  Agent40’s claim is nothing more than her opinion.

Wrong. You just described it.

The claim “it's got nothing to do with what is 'natural'” makes no sense whatsoever in any conversation dealing with natural law.

I never said it has nothing to do with what is “natural.” I said it doesn’t only have to do with what is natural also what we humans often describe as “natural” may not be so “natural”. As in the case with same-sex attraction, the person may feel these same-sex feelings are “natural” for them, but they actually could be due to some unnatural external factors during their development process that they are unaware of. This is why it isn’t always good to simply base something on if we think it feels “natural.”

We can’t redefine “nature” to say that natural laws have nothing to do with what is natural.

I never said this. In fact, it’s typically the opposite. I still don’t think you are getting it.


 

Indeed, natural law must proceed from what nature offers; otherwise, it’s not natural … it’s man-made.

Yes, natural law proceeds from what is natural, but it is natural for man to want to fly like the birds and therefore use his intelligence to invent airplanes allowing man to fly. I am not arguing that traveling in airplanes would be a violation of natural law. Just because something is man-made does not necessarily mean it is a violation of the moral order. It would be a violation of natural law if a surgeon attempted to attach the wings of an Eagle onto a human being in hopes that the human being could fly. This would be not in keeping with how the human body was meant to function. I also have a feeling it would have dire consequences. I hope you can understand this difference.


 

Morals are man-made concepts.

They are human concepts – yes, but they are human concepts based on natural law.


 

The concept of morality is unique to the human species.

Yes, quite right, as other species cannot reason like us. They do not have consciences like us and are not able to know right from wrong.

It's not governed by natural law but by subjective valuation of right and wrong, good and bad.

How can you believe right and wrong are subjective? Do you not believe that one can know certain things to be true and should insist others to uphold these certain truths as well? Do you not believe all human beings have inalienable rights?

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.

By your reasoning then a pedophiles natural faculties cannot be immoral?

Plus, you failed to adhere to Hobbes’ full statement . .  “Man's nature is the sum of his natural faculties and powers, as the faculties of nutrition, motion, generation, sense, reason, etc. “


You seemed to have skipped these faculties . . .  generation (the act or process of generating; procreation.)
dictionary.reference.com), sense, and reason

Isn’t it interesting that Hobbe’s mentioned man’s nature includes generation? And sense and reason as well! Huh?

We know through scientific investigation that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Therefore, it must be a natural condition

We know no such thing. What scientific investigation would that be?

Hobbes identified some very important aspects of human behavior that are worth following.  

Thank you.

But they aren’t natural laws

You are free to give it whatever term or name you like, but it is foolish to not acknowledge it.

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.”

Right back at you, Jazzman.

Tell me, Jazzman, how again have you come to derive that homosexual acts are ok? What are you basing this view on?

[Zankuu]

Anyone care to sum up 40's beliefs for me?

She is batshit insane and should be sterilized before she has any more kids to abuse with her ignorance and delusions.

I wanted a sum of her belifs, not a sum of your view on her personal beliefs, silly. 

[Agent40]

Of course not.  I showed up and put the lie to your "all homosexuals are from bad family environments" argument, so you ignored me.

I wasn’t ignoring you. And I did respond to the point you were trying to make. Your point was I’m a homosexual and I’m happy living a homosexual lifestyle and I did not have a dysfunctional upbringing. I responded that often a person who is involved in a homosexual lifestyle is unable to see it for what it is. And as far as your point about growing up “normal”, sometimes people are unaware of something that might have happened to them when they were young or even simply unaware of how something might have affected them physically or psychologically.

Not only is it possible to repress something, it is also possible to believe we were unaffected by something only for the effects to be manifest in some way because we don’t want to admit the connection.

 I actually remember hearing once Melissa Etheridge in an interview commenting how she was raped by her sister when she was younger, but then going on to say, this experience had no bearing on the fact that she now identifies herself as gay. This is not something she could know with certainty. Also, how could one possibly argue that a profound childhood experience would not affect a developing human being? I found it fascinating. There is no way she could rule out that such an experience might not have impacted her sexuality.

[Agent40]

I experienced years of homophobic abuse from so-called Christians. I even participated in it a little myself, having become involved in one of the tamer ex-gay organisations. True, its just just Christians, but as soon as I came out, I encountered very little love, compassion or forgiveness and a considerable amount of antagonism. I didn't get any bad reactions from my friends or neighbours, even though I live in a conservative area. All the nastiness came from the local churches.

I am sorry to hear that, but again, I do not believe that would be my reaction. Also, is there a possibility you were misinterpreting another person’s love, compassion, and forgiveness because the person was unable to tell you what you wanted to hear which is that homosexual acts are ok? Did you really expect them, just because you are a friend of theirs and they consider you nice, intelligent, and an otherwise great guy to then overlook the truth regarding homosexual acts? If a person you cared about was involved in immoral behavior would you tell him, “That’s cool. Don’t worry about it. Keep at it?” Perhaps you misinterpreted their inability to deny truth with some kind of hate – not exactly a fair assessment.

As for the rest of your post, you seem like a well meaning person. I probably would have said much the same sort of things just a couple of years ago, but the fact is, its ignorant nonsense;

I get this all the time. The old, “I use to think that way too, until I wised up” comment. I find it interesting how many claim my comments regarding homosexual acts are disparaging and condescending, but you can make a comment like that about chrisitans. What is ignorant is to ignore the truth regarding homosexual acts. How is my position that homosexual acts violate natural law ignorant nonsense? It is based on logic, observation, fact, and right reason. What is your position based on again?

 The only thing missing from your post were a couple of pictures of babies and puppy dogs to complete your emotion-based argument. I am not trying to diminish your very real feelings here, but again, feelings can be deceptive. Truth is external. I’m sure all of us can understand why it is so important to not simply let our feelings be our guide in life. Please tell me you get this?



 

and whilst it is true that many people are tortured by their same-sex attraction, those feelings are caused by the way society treats us.

There is no definitive proof of such a statement. Many homosexuals may have supportive friends and family and yet continue to have internal feelings that homosexual acts are wrong.

We are told from childhood that we are wrong and we believe that message, so when we fancy someone of the same sex, we do all sorts of unhealthy mental gymnastics to try to stop that feeling. In the end though, repressing sexual feelings effectively means you repress everything - love, affection, friendship... People's brains aren't made in little boxes like that, with sexuality in one box, friendship in another, love in another.

I agree. And I feel for anyone who would have to go through such a struggle. But giving into same-sex feelings and living a homosexual lifestyle is not the way to acknowledge the whole person. One certainly should not separate love and friendship from sex, but one also need not equate wonderful feelings of love and friendship as something sexual.

We end up hating ourselves because we are taught to hate part of ourselves - our sexuality, which is unchangeable and therefore not under our conscious control. And we can be celibate, but that doesn't stop us being gay, or stop the thoughts.

I never said it would. And perhaps it didn’t for you, but that doesn’t mean your situation is the same for all those who struggle with same-sex attraction. There are people who have been able to overcome such thoughts and their testimony is they are now more at peace.

 That was the original topic of this thread if you recall. The APA was criticizing therapy to help a person struggling with same-sex attraction to not act on those feelings as ineffective or wrong. Of course, such a criticism is based merely on the opinion of a group of psychologists who choose to follow the principles of pop psychology and push their agenda or opinion that engaging in homosexual acts is ok.  

If a client came to a psychologist and said he is struggling or even ashamed, but he has a same-sex attraction, it would be completely inappropriate and unprofessional to tell that patient that there is nothing wrong with same-sex attraction and that perhaps they should simply accept such feelings and adopt a homosexual lifestyle. What facts and truth would such a psychologist be basing such an opinion on? And what a disregard for the future of the person struggling with same-sex attraction – as the evidence clearly shows harmful effects from living a homosexual lifestyle. (See my above links showing the scientific data of such).


 

Since I came out, I am no longer tortured. I accept myself as I am.

When a person surrounds himself with others who share similar views, he often feels comfort in consensus. Unfortunately, such feelings have nothing to do with whether something is actually right or good. We can often convince ourselves that something is ok simply because others share our vice or outlook.



I

ask you, as a well intentioned person, to consider what you are saying, and really think deeply about what you are saying to gay and lesbian people. I hurt a lot of people when I was Christian - not meaning to, because I've never been deliberately homophobic, but as I have learned, gay people smell rejection from a mile away.

Everyone smells rejection from a mile away, even believers in a non-believing world. But my position regarding same-sex attraction is not one of rejection. And again, my intent is not to hurt anyone. Quite the contrary, I hope people realize that we do hurt ourselves when we deny truth. Living a lie can never bring peace.


 

Squash sexuality down, and everything else suffers as a result.  Give sexuality a healthy outlet, and everything else benefits.

I agree with this statement. We humans are sexual beings. Our sexuality says something about us and if it is squashed down then yes everything else suffers. But how can you be so sure your sexuality at the onset of your sexual development was not squashed down? Perhaps, that’s what you’ve been dealing with. Perhaps that is the source of a person’s suffering. If a person’s sexual development was never given a healthy outlet, this most certainly would affect many other things in their life.

You said yourself, give sexuality a healthy outlet and everything benefits. This is true. But homosexual acts are not a healthy outlet. They are disordered.

I also am afraid you may be equating being sexually active with a person’s sexuality. “Being male” and “being female” are not necessarily based on sexual intercourse. Celibacy could be a very healthy expression of one’s sexuality, as could marriage, as could joining a religious vocation, as could being a nurse, as could being a football coach, as could being a teacher, as could being an awesome Uncle, or a great friend, etc. These are all roles we take on in life that could be healthy outlets of our sexual nature. And if you do not understand what I’m talking about, you simply don’t get it.

Perhaps therapy ought to include more of the following. How can the APA simply rule out such sound advice  . . .

“People with homosexual tendencies are ... to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.”

www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/homosexuality_sin.htm

If statistics continue to show us that homosexuals suffer greater substance abuse, abusive relationships, sexually transmitted disease, depression, and suicide, is it really adequate to write such off as a result of society’s treatment of homosexuals? (especially since more and more Americans now support homosexual unions.) Since there is no evidence indicating that in fact the reason homosexuals suffer more regarding these issues, shouldn’t we continue to discover the root of the problem? And in the meantime of studying this further, knowing what the statistics are how could any medical professional encourage a person to live a homosexual lifestyle? How contrary to a person’s long term happiness is that and how opinionated I might add (as clearly the psychologists are not acknowledging the very real facts).

You bash Christian therapy when in fact such therapy treats the whole person and not just the symptom . . .

“As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the natural law. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.”

www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m019.htm

[Agent40]

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?

Please point out where I ever said that this was my position.

Sorry. Lots of posts to respond to. I think your post implied a person should do what makes them happy, but maybe I was combining your view with the view of so many others on this thread. If that is the case, I apologize. You have to realize how much you all sound so very much alike to me. I often feel like I am responding to the same mindset. Anyway, I really am sorry. It’s very difficult for me to wrap my head around most of the views on this site. They seem so illogical and inconsistent.

I also just wanted to say that I do not believe we will come to an agreement regarding this matter. Could I ever prove to your liking that homosexual acts are wrong? Doubtful. Could you ever prove to me that they are ok? Of course not. Your position denies the obvious and is emotion-based only. You choose to believe in an imaginary reality – how ironic.


I’m still waiting for your side to present an argument of why homosexual acts are ok that is based on something other than emotions and feelings. I have already showed the illogic in previous posts of your “consenting adults”, “found in nature”, “what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me”, “how can one deny a loving, committed relationship?”, “It makes me happy”, “it’s none of your business”, etc. None of these so-called arguments are logical, as they cannot be used to excuse immoral behavior. So, does anyone care to try again?


You also might want to examine why, despite the facts, it is so important for you to claim homosexual acts are ok. I’m pretty sure I know why. It isn’t necessarily about homosexuals. It’s about if you actually admitted the science, logic, and general observation of life support the view that homosexual acts are wrong, then you would be admitting it is yet one more thing the Church gets right.

Even though I have shown you that it is unnecessary to believe in God to know homosexual acts are disordered, you all realize that admitting such simply shows the Church’s wisdom yet again, and oooh, how you hate that. So you would rather do countless homosexuals a disservice and advise them on a path that is not in their best interest and will cause them more harm, then admit the Church is right about this.


There you go. Consider yourselves psychoanalyzed – free of charge. Now as part of your therapy, again I must insist you figure out what it is you believe in and why. As long as you set out on that path, there is still hope you will eventually realize the illogic of your worldview.

[subtleinspiration]

Who is going to feel like reading this novel?

[pianodwarf]

Who is going to feel like reading this novel?

I'm certainly not.

I did go back thru the last several pages looking for something I wanted to address but couldn't find it again, so I'll have to put it in this separate post instead: Agent40, you appear to be equating disorder with immorality.  Don't.  They're not the same thing.  Schizophrenia is a disorder, too, but there is no ethical content in being a schizophrenic.

[Pastafarian]

Regarding Caster: because the South African athletics board withheld the results of a gender test done years ago, her divinely designed internal testes were not removed. As a result she is almost certain to die of cancer when her testes (yeah, HER testes) turn cancerous. That was the hopelessness you picked up on. But you failed to answer the point: if a person has a fully functional vagina and penis, is she a he? He a she?

Does such a person have to ignore the *cough* natural desires they feel for someone with a penis/vagina and not have any sex just incase they sin? 
But I actually do think you are batshit crazy, so who cares what you think. I don't know why I posted this. Unsubscribe.   

[Gnu Ordure]

I wanted a sum of her beliefs, not a sum of your view on her personal beliefs, silly.

Zankuu, she's orthodox Catholic. Everything she says is RCC doctrine.

Pianodwarf:

Schizophrenia is a disorder, too, but there is no ethical content in being a schizophrenic.

Likewise bulimia. Agent40 regularly asserts that people with bulimia are immoral for not using their digestive systems according to the intended design.

[pianodwarf]

Pianodwarf:

Schizophrenia is a disorder, too, but there is no ethical content in being a schizophrenic.

Likewise bulimia. Agent40 regularly asserts that people with bulimia are immoral for not using their digestive systems according to the intended design.

Haven't seen that before... must have been before I started reading here regularly.  That's pretty disappointing, and I'm actually rather surprised, too, even though I suppose I probably shouldn't be.

[Agga]

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.

As I was flicking through to catch up I couldn't help but notice this little gem of ignorance.


"...those who struggle with.."?

Are you seriously claiming that gay people struggle with being gay?

I think you'll find that the majority are perfectly comfortable with being gay and the remainder are usually suffering, as a direct result, from the sort of bigotry and discrimination promoted by your church! 

Are you going to ignore that the biggest struggle most gay people have is trying to live in peace while being surrounded by the sort of intolerance and bigotry that your church, and you, promote?



What am I saying?  Of course you'll ignore it.  Stupid Agga.  Stupid Agga.