Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists

[PinkMilk]

Provide evidence for the basis of your claims, that is to provide evidence of natural moral order
You've continually ignored this request.  Without proving the basis for your claims to be true, your claims can not be true.

Pinkmilk, I do not wish to be rude here, but the questions you are proposing are so rudimentary, and I am so sure I have answered them on numerous other threads, but suffice to say a woman born without ovaries is still a woman and her improper development is actually the exception not the norm. If she remains true to performing the sexual act as it was intended and in the same way that every other woman is expected to do and does not get pregnant she is doing nothing wrong.

But she can not perform sex in the way you have described it to be intended.  So by your sense of absolute morality she must be doing something wrong.  She's just having sex to enjoy it. 

Aberations in nature do not do away with what is normal. And only a person being honest with himself would admit in general women are born with ovaries.

And only someone who wasn't being honest with themselves would claim absolute morality, and then turn around and admit exceptions.  You've done this numerous times.  If there is an exception, then it is not absolute.

Why are my ideas bigoted and not yours? It is you who is being hypocritical. You can’t have it both ways Pinkmilk. You can’t claim it is ok to have homosexual sex and my belief that homosexual sex is wrong is wrong. You can’t criticize me that I can’t claim there is a correct way to act and then go on to claim I am not acting correctly. How do you know it is not correct to say there is a correct way to act?

I believe you are entitled to your opinion and I believe you have the right to hold your own opinion.  You are claiming that things are wrong though which effect someone's life.  Me disagreeing with you is not an example of bigotry.

Certainly, Pinkmilk, as soon as you please prove the foundation for your claim that homosexual acts are ok.

So you're not going to do this?  After avoiding the question on several occasions, this is your response?

[William]

Now you are being dishonest because I know you cannot possibly be unaware of intersexuality.   This is 2009   for fucks sake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality

Agent40, what is an hermaphrodite? ... male or female  

What? are you coming late to the game here? We’ve already discussed situations like those. It certainly doesn’t mean hermaphrodites or intersexed people have different natures. Shall we invent a 3rd, 4th, and 5th nature? What science will you be using to prove such?

Not at all, not coming late - only trying to drag your brain into modernity.  Why are you talking about inventing 3rd etc natures    How will that resolve anything?

The basic modern sex education lesson from my reply #111 has obviously not sunk in with you yet.  So here it is again:

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

Now just to help with understanding this we'll look first only at sex phenotype, in isolation of psychological sex.

With phenotype we have male on one end of the spectrum and female on the other.  There are intersex people in a COMPLETE SPECTRUM inbetween.  That is the nature of human sex phenotype - a SPECTRUM.  The SPECTRUM is bi-modal but it is a SPECTRUM.  Get it  

People between the two modes on the SPECTRUM are called intersex.  (Remember this is phenotype only - we're not yet talking about bisexuality and homosexuality.)  The reason for the  phenotype SPECTRUM is the fragility of the genetic mechanisms through which sex phenotype is inherited.  But it is an established part of nature and not an aberration as you are thinking of it.  It exists in nature at a relatively constant frequency.  At least 1% of humans are phenotypically intersex.  1% of 6.7 billion people is equivalent to a very big nation of intersex people who do not fit into your thinking.  They are not going away and you must show respect for them and the "nature" (which you share) that produced them.

Statistics for human intersex frequency can be found here (Note this link contains a picture of intersex human genitalia)  :
http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/intersex.html


So Agent40, now that you are equipped with enough information on sex phenotype to understand that the ancient biggotted views of religion are scientifically incorrect, lets turn our attention to psychological sex, homosexuality in particular, and why it is immoral to even think you can and should tamper with it.

Remember the genetalia of intesex people are on a SPECTRUM that is genetically determined.  It's natural.

Psychological sex is also on a SPECTRUM that is also underpinned by genetics.  There are complex interactions with environmental factors that have not yet been fully unravelled and understood - but a persons SPECTRUM of potential psychologcal sex outcomes is genetically determined.  It's part of nature - the one nature - the same one nature that you share.  If you, like most women, are sexually attracted to the typical male form, please understand that a homosexual man NATURALLY has the same psychological sex as you.

A heterosexual person experiences heterosexual thoughts in response to opposite sex stimuli, and has difficulty comprehending homosexual thoughts.

So too it is difficult for homosexuals to comprehend heterosexual thoughts - they just don't get them.  And bisexuals get both types.  

It's hard enough for homosexuals to deal with their own sexuality when it emerges during their teens, because greater society dominated by heterosexuals expects something else of them, and hates them for something that they have no control over.  Genetics and environment delivered them a psychological sex response that is homosexual - it's automatic and natural for them.  They bear no blame for it, just as intersex people can't be blamed for their ambiguous genetalia.

What can you do to help homosexuals?  You can show them respect - they are part of your own nature, one and the same nature that delivers a SPECTRUM of phenotype sex and psychological sex.

Now once you understand that all sex is a SPECTRUM, that variation is natural, and that the human species is not under threat from non-breeders, then you are ready to accept that people can also exercise sexual CHOICE without harming anybody.

Leave the uneducated religious bigotry behind.  Bring yourself into the modern world.  Please.

[Agent40]

Zankuu,

Agent40, I must not be getting it, but let's continue and maybe I will.   

Can you please clear up 1 Samuel 15:3 for me. God commands Saul to smite Amalek and kill every man, woman, infant (innocent), suckling (innocent), ox (innocent), sheep (innocent), camel (innocent) and ass (innocent). If you can justify those deaths, maybe I could take a step closer to seeing where you are coming from. Omnipotence doesn't equate to good or love or just or merciful.

 This site may help explain some of the problems you may be having in understanding this . . .
 
. Old Testament Events and the Goodness of God
By WAYNE JACKSON
January 26, 2002
christiancourier.com/articles/467-old-testament-events-and-the-goodness-of-god


 
Here are some key points from the site . . .

“Moreover, remember this: God, because of Who He is, has the right to render judgment upon evil at any time.
First, in a world where there is to be freedom of choice, one must be allowed to suffer the consequences of wrong-choice making, even when he is not a party to such choices. Making bad decisions not only affects us, but affects those around us as well. We fall heir to the consequences of evil in others as a part of the price that we pay for our own freedom! So, children often are victims who suffer because of the evil in their parents.

Second, however, the question raised above represents a real problem only if it is viewed in terms of the present. If one sees the matter in terms of eternity, the situation becomes altogether different. Would it not have been infinitely worse, in view of eternity, had these children grown to maturity and adopted the same pagan practices as their parents? Even this consideration, though, must be seen in the light of the principles mentioned above, i.e., with respect to the coming of Christ and God’s temporal judgment upon sin.
We certainly do not know all of God’s mind on this important theme (cf. Romans 11:33), but if we study the Old Testament record of the Lord’s dealings with these nations, together with the archaeological findings that illustrate the corruption of these people, surely we ought to be able to see that Jehovah’s wisdom regarding those events should not be disputed.

Finally, it might be noted that no one has the right to criticize the moral activity of God unless he can establish and defend some genuine moral standard apart from God — and this no unbeliever can do!”

Quote from: Agent40 on Today at 12:05:08 AM
You see God only as you see yourself, and if that’s how you see Him, then it is no wonder you miss His divinity.

This is incorrect. If I thought that the god of the bible had a moral compass more strict that humans, I might have believed in him. But I see the god of the bible exactly how he is: A rollercoaster of human emotions. Biblegod's personality is a mix and match grabbag of the human condition. Why? Hint: Because the bible was written by man, inspired by man. Could it be you're just making excuses for your god, trying to make him appear more moral than he is? It is understandable, if I were to pick a god I would want the wisest, most personal, loving, and affectionate god. Unfortuantely, that is not the god from the Torah.

No, I pretty much nailed it head on the first time. You obviously lack faith. Do not pretend to tell me that if God were different you might have been able to climb on board with the idea. The truth is the Bible tells us God is perfect and holy and good. If you do not want to believe this – that is fine. You are entitled to believe whatever you like. But it is illogical to say you tried to believe the Bible, but then the Bible contradicted itself by showing God as something other than perfect, holy, and good. There is no contradiction in the Bible. You choose to ignore the truth that the Bible speaks – again your choice. But God’s behavior in the Bible is not immoral. It is impossible for God to do wrong. The problem then, is not in God’s actions, but in yours. You choose to define God as you want to define Him. You choose to label His actions as bad. You choose to believe you know more than God. You reduce God to your own inferior level.

But don’t worry, many make this mistake and once they realize they have been guilty of pride – trying to set their own terms and thinking themselves smarter than they actually are, they are able to eventually realize their skepticism really comes down to ignorance and a lack of faith. A lack of faith in believing there could exist something beyond our limited understanding. An arrogance in thinking we know it all, and I guess a lack of faith in actually believing something could exist that is perfect, holy, and good. So as I originally stated, you are only capable of seeing God as your equal – and because of that erroneous view you end up seeing Him as even less then your equal. Hmmm. Exactly what Satan loves us to think.

Humor me, out of the thousands of gods to choose from why did you pick the Christian god?

This is an excellent question, but one for another thread. I have actually answered this question in other threads already as well. There are a great many reasons why the Christian God is the one, true God. It is actually quite logical if one was on a sincere search for truth. Perhaps we can discuss it some time.

[Agent40]

Agent40, what is an hermaphrodite? ... male or female

Historically, the term hermaphrodite has been used to describe ambiguous genitalia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite



An intersexual is a person whose reproductive or sexual anatomy differs from the typical definitions of male or female

Read more: http://generalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/human_hermaphrodites#ixzz0SdpoWCZ9

Hermaphrodites, or intersexuals, do not have typical male or female anatomy. Often, intersexuals have strong gender identification and do not struggle internally over gender identity in the same way as transgenders or transsexuals.

Read more: http://generalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/human_hermaphrodites#ixzz0Sdpw5RVE


Agnastic, your question is unoriginal. The fact that some are born this way is supposed to mean what? The fact that a person can be born with ambiguous genitalia does not change the fact that sex is intended to be between two people of the opposite sex.

[Agent40]

That's a curious point to make a fuss over.  Well, since you brought it up, I have a question for you; what would a lone deity need with balls and a scrotum, let alone a penis?  Zeus, I can understand.  He isn't alone and also has quite a reputation for being a randy deity -- so Zeus makes sense.  But why yours?  Am I missing a book in your current ideological canon?  Is it for Asherah or Lilith perhaps?

I didn’t understand your original sentence, “where does your deity say it is good”  I was unclear on what the pronoun “it” was referring to in your sentence. I thought perhaps by “it” you meant -- morality or heterosexuality, or life, or quite honestly I had no idea. That is why I needed clarification if in fact you were using “it” to describe God. Typically one refers to God as He, not because He is male. God is a spirit – He has no gender, but I think you already knew that and just wanted to be facetious.

So, I read a few ambiguous analogies, some comments from authority and justice, some on perfection, some on truth (an assertion of dogma btw), but none on any inherent goodness.

Huh? Ambiguous? No wonder you have trouble understanding the Bible. I certainly wouldn’t call the passages I cited ambiguous. What do you think they could have possibly meant other than exactly what they said? Just curious?

And you don’t think these passages refer to inherent goodness? How exactly would you define goodness?

Did I miss something, or are you cherry picking the good parts and just asserting that your deity must be good based on that limited sample?  After all, you would not claim the whole Bible is his idea, would you?

Uhh, yeah you missed a lot.  Gee, maybe it’s just me, but I assume perfect, incapable of wrong, holy, good, righteous, just, blamelessness, truth, flawless, upright, etc. mean good. Guess I’m kinda obvious like that.

Well, maybe you would.  Do you want to retract or rephrase any of that before I make a few obvious comments?

Obvious comments? Are you sure you’re capable?

Uhh, let’s see God is creator of the universe – nope, no retraction there.

Scripture is the Word of God – nope, no retraction there.

Scripture tells us God is good – nope, nothing to retract.

[Agent40]

Subtleinspiration,

Quote
You see nothing wrong with the statement: "I believe in absolute truth, however, there are exceptions in certain circumstances."?

Please read these links that I posted a few posts back. They explain all of this, so I don’t have to keep repeating this.

www.scottmsullivan.com/courses/relativism.pdf

[Agent40]

But, bulimia has been around for centuries. The Romans built vomatoria, and the practice wasn't recognized (innately) as wrong/harmful. But then the Romans didn't know about the vital function of bacteria in the stomach.

Yeah, the Romans were also a completely self-indulgent pagan culture who had lost their sense of morality and lived life in excess.

If you say "By life/nature", we point out that life/nature has no intent

Of course it does. This is what I simply can’t believe you stand by. There is a way the world works. There exists an order to things. Nature doesn’t care if you violate this order – no kidding! But if you do, there are consequences. Nature isn’t judging you – it just IS.

Bulimia is an illness objectively defined by its harmful effects..

Uhh, what harmful effects? Tooth decay? Give me a break! You think people get all bent out of shape because a person who practices bulimia is harming themselves? Ha! Then why not call smoking a mental disorder? Gnu, you are not being honest about this. What tips us of in the first place that it is disordered to barf up your food? Uhh, maybe because it isn’t the proper design of our bodies! It seriously amazes me you can’t admit this. I find it very sad.

Homosexuality is not an illness at all.

Why not? Aren’t there those harmful effects you complain about that accompany bulimia? In fact, if one engages in a homosexual lifestyle, I could argue he is in much more danger than someone who practices bulimia. So why not label it an illness, Gnu?  -- if harm is what it comes down to? I think we both know it isn’t only about harmful effects – it is about order, use, purpose, and design.


I really can’t believe you can’t admit there is an order in how humans were meant to eat food. Are you serious? Your observation and reason cannot allow you to admit this?


I think this is why I find it very difficult to continue our conversations. To save face, you are unable to admit the obvious. It breaks my heart. 

[Agent40]

I believe you are entitled to your opinion and I believe you have the right to hold your own opinion.  You are claiming that things are wrong though which effect someone's life.  Me disagreeing with you is not an example of bigotry.
Quote

I too believe you are entitled to your opinion – I have never stated otherwise. How does my claiming something wrong effect someone’s life, but you claiming something is right would not effect someone’s life? See there Pinkmilk, you have no idea what you’re actually saying. Your statement, “Me disagreeing with you is not an example of bigotry.” makes me laugh. Why isn’t it an example of bigotry, Pink? Because you think it isn’t? Too funny!

I think you are assuming that because many of my beliefs come from my religion that they are wrong. This, my dear, is bigotry against religion.

Certainly, Pinkmilk, as soon as you please prove the foundation for your claim that homosexual acts are ok.

So you're not going to do this?  After avoiding the question on several occasions, this is your response?

Right back at you Pink. You really don’t see how you are just as guilty of what you accuse me of, do you? This is unreal. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. Gee, Pink, why are you exempt from providing proof for your claims, but not me? What’s up with that?
 

[Hermes]

So, I read a few ambiguous analogies, some comments from authority and justice, some on perfection, some on truth (an assertion of dogma btw), but none on any inherent goodness.

Huh? Ambiguous? No wonder you have trouble understanding the Bible. I certainly wouldn’t call the passages I cited ambiguous. What do you think they could have possibly meant other than exactly what they said? Just curious?

Yes.  The question I gave was simple.  Where did the Christian deity say that it was good?

And you don’t think these passages refer to inherent goodness? How exactly would you define goodness?

The passages don't say that the Christian deity claimed that itself was good.

Did I miss something, or are you cherry picking the good parts and just asserting that your deity must be good based on that limited sample?  After all, you would not claim the whole Bible is his idea, would you?

Uhh, yeah you missed a lot.  Gee, maybe it’s just me, but I assume perfect, incapable of wrong, holy, good, righteous, just, blamelessness, truth, flawless, upright, etc. mean good. Guess I’m kinda obvious like that.

Well, maybe you would.  Do you want to retract or rephrase any of that before I make a few obvious comments?

Obvious comments? Are you sure you’re capable?

Uhh, let’s see God is creator of the universe – nope, no retraction there.

Scripture is the Word of God – nope, no retraction there.

Scripture tells us God is good – nope, nothing to retract.

Interesting.

Then, by the same measure, your deity is also evil.  Correct?

[Agent40]

William,

So Agent40, now that you are equipped with enough information on sex phenotype to understand that the ancient biggotted views of religion are scientifically incorrect

What ancient, bigoted views would those be? Are they bigoted because they are ancient, or ancient because they are bigoted? LOL! Seriously, what ancient, bigoted religious views have I claimed? First, tell me what exactly they are, second prove to me why they are bigoted, and third prove to me how they are scientifically incorrect. And while your at it, prove to me why your views are scientifically correct. This ought to be good.  

Leave the uneducated religious bigotry behind.

If that’s not an uneducated, bigoted comment – I don’t know what is. Come on Wiliam, just because you don’t believe in God, you can’t pre-judge those of us who do. I posted links to pages of scientific facts that the APA chooses to ignore regarding homosexuality. Don’t tell me your worldview is all about science and facts. Your worldview is based on political agendas and a lot of psychobabble talk about spectrums and continuums.

Your psychological sex can be used to describe pedophiles and adulterers too – it may be fascinating study, but it has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong.  

[Agent40]

Well, perhaps it’s morning sickness, but it also could just be atheist sickness – I literally feel sick to my stomach that so many of you deny the order of the world around us.

It also continually frustrates me how much you get wrong regarding the Bible and what Christians actually believe. I can only take so much of this site at any given time – it simply makes me sad. As always, I shall pray for you all. Until my nausea leaves . . .

Your most annoying Christian,

Agent40

[PinkMilk]

I too believe you are entitled to your opinion – I have never stated otherwise. How does my claiming something wrong effect someone’s life, but you claiming something is right would not effect someone’s life? See there Pinkmilk, you have no idea what you’re actually saying. Your statement, “Me disagreeing with you is not an example of bigotry.” makes me laugh. Why isn’t it an example of bigotry, Pink? Because you think it isn’t? Too funny!

The idea of being against homosexuality is bigoted.  It prevents people from living their life.  It is thought processes like the one you present that lead to people trying to trample on the rights of others.  Supporting it does not trample on anybody's rights. But I'm really not concerned with arguing about why your viewpoint comes from one of bigotry.

I think you are assuming that because many of my beliefs come from my religion that they are wrong. This, my dear, is bigotry against religion.

Well you think wrong.  Regardless of where you are pulling your ideas from, I'd be against what you are trying to say.  You yourself have said that this is not a religious argument for you, but rather one about natural moral order.  

Right back at you Pink. You really don’t see how you are just as guilty of what you accuse me of, do you? This is unreal. I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. Gee, Pink, why are you exempt from providing proof for your claims, but not me? What’s up with that?

First off, I asked you first.  You are avoiding my question intentionally by posing the same question to me and then trying to act as if I'm the one whose being ridiculous?  Get real.  Answer the question.

Homosexuality isn't immoral because there is nothing wrong with it, it is natural, and it doesn't affect anyone.  

There is a difference between the question that I am asking you and the question you are posing to me.  You have stated that your claims are based on something, natural moral order, and that this natural moral order is truth.  So provide evidence to show that this basis is indeed true.  I have not made a claim to have based my thoughts on anything like this.  So now that I've answered your question, it's your turn.  Provide evidence that natural moral order is indeed true.

[William]

What ancient, bigoted views would those be? .... First, tell me what exactly they are, second prove to me why they are bigoted, and third prove to me how they are scientifically incorrect. And while your at it, prove to me why your views are scientifically correct. This ought to be good. 

To drag up your bigoted posts would be torture.  Dozens of times here (and on other threads) you have come at this issue from the angle that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral and harmful.  You see homosexuality itself as a cause of problems. 

In this thread I've shown you that mixed up weewees are a natural occurrence.  And psychological sex is also subject to the same type of genetic variation.  You and your Church are stupid on this issue.  And you take your shit from the ancient rubbish in the bible and dress it up as "natural law" - part fact but also part fiction. 

You IGNORE the fuller set of FACTS about human sexuality – painstakingly uncovered by modern science.  You INSULT the billions of people who exist naturally with sexuality that just does not fit neatly into your binary categories drawn from ancient ignorance and fear of the unknown or unexplained.  You cause ANGUISH and unnecessary GUILT by implying people are immoral if they do sex in a way that pleases them.  You have no right to be judgemental about what sexiness people have in their heads, and what consenting adults do in privacy.  Agent40, that is what your bigotry is.  You think you know better and are morally superior.

Your worldview is based on political agendas and a lot of psychobabble talk about spectrums and continuums.

For a while I thought you were intelligent but indoctrinated.  I was wrong - sorry about that

Your psychological sex can be used to describe pedophiles and adulterers too – it may be fascinating study, but it has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. 

You bring up sexual practices that many in the Catholic Clergy are expert at - so I bow to your authority on this.  Except to add that these practices clearly do cause harm to others.
Whereas homosexual acts between consenting adults is completely harmless, natural expression of sexuality they are born with, and none of your business unless you'd like to join in.

[subtleinspiration]

I wonder if Agent40 realizes that, statistically speaking, at least one of her eight[1] children is probably gay.

1.	I think it's eight, it might be six really

[Ada-B]

Well, perhaps it’s morning sickness, but it also could just be atheist sickness – I literally feel sick to my stomach that so many of you deny the order of the world around us.

It also continually frustrates me how much you get wrong regarding the Bible and what Christians actually believe. I can only take so much of this site at any given time – it simply makes me sad. As always, I shall pray for you all. Until my nausea leaves . . .

Your most annoying Christian,

Agent40

It is your own hatred that is making you sick.

[Agga]

Agnastic, your question is unoriginal. The fact that some are born this way is supposed to mean what? The fact that a person can be born with ambiguous genitalia does not change the fact that sex is intended to be between two people of the opposite sex.

Hello you little sex manianc you.  (Congratulations on your new pregnancy by the way, I'm genuinely pleased for you).


It wasn't my question actually, I just wanted to know your answer.

Which leads me to ask you one or two of my own;


If sex is only intended to be between a man and a woman are you claiming that sex between hermaphrodites is forbidden and they are not therefore allowed to have sexual relationships with anybody?

What do they do if they get married to a man, or a woman, are they not allowed to have sex with their own spouse and reproduce?

Are they even allowed to get married?

What happens if they have sex, are they committing a homosexual act?



I await your answers keenly.


Agga

[Agga]

nb.. how in Jesus' name have you managed to stay out of the ER?  You must have a guardian angel or something!

[Kerlyssa]

Terry Schiavo died of bulimia, and was brought back a vegetable. You are ignorant on this, as so many other subjects. Unsurprising, as you are basing your arguments on what you like(ordered) and what you dislike(disordered) rather than simply looking it up.

[Kerlyssa]

We're all unique, and we only come in two kinds. Got it. Cognitive dissonance is the new complexity.

How many different kinds of butterflies are there? And yet butterflies all share the same nature – that of a butterfly.

Cognitive abilities working fine . . .

That of a butterfly? So they all eat the same foods, and live in the same places? Mate in the same ways? Do answer.

[Gnu Ordure]

Yeah, the Romans were also a completely self-indulgent pagan culture who had lost their sense of morality and lived life in excess.

Way to miss the point. What happened to the instinctive innate appreciation of immorality? If mankind possessed such an instinct in regard to bulimia, why did it take another 2000 years to even name this disorder?

(By the way, I just discovered that the idea that the Romans built vomitoria to vomit in is incorrect. I've corrected my previous post (in red) and linked to an explanation.  Apologies to all).

If you say "By life/nature", we point out that life/nature has no intent

Of course it does. This is what I simply can’t believe you stand by. There is a way the world works. There exists an order to things.

Order is not the same as intent. Intent requires someone to to do the intending. Order isn't evidence of such a person. This is the argument from Intelligent Design, which you assert over and over again, as if it were a fact. It isn't. I asked you before to start a thread and defend the idea, but you prefer to simply assert it.

Uhh, what harmful effects? Tooth decay? Give me a break! You think people get all bent out of shape because a person who practices bulimia is harming themselves?

You're being ignorant.

How about death? Here's wiki's list of the possible effects of bulimia:

Chronic gastric reflux after eating
Dehydration and hypokalemia caused by frequent vomiting
Electrolyte imbalance, which can lead to cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, and even death
Esophagitis, or inflammation of the esophagus
Oral trauma, in which repetitive insertion of fingers or other objects causes lacerations to the lining of the mouth or throat
Gastroparesis or delayed emptying
Constipation
Enlarged glands in the neck, under the jaw line
Peptic ulcers
Calluses or scars on back of hands due to repeated trauma from incisors
 
The frequent contact between teeth and gastric acid, in particular, may cause:

Severe caries (bone destruction)
Perimolysis, or the erosion of tooth enamel
Swollen salivary glands

Add to those the fact that bulimia is often a factor in other life-threatening mental disorders such as anorexia and depression.

As I said, objective harmful effects. Where's a comparable list for the hamful effects of homosexuality?

Ha! Then why not call smoking a mental disorder?

You can. Look in DSM-IV (the official manual which provides diagnostic criteria for mental disorders),  and under "Substance Dependence", you'll find a section on Nicotine.

Gnu, you are not being honest about this.

Why do you keep calling me dishonest, Agent40? It's a serious allegation, and I don't see what I've done to deserve it.

What tips us of in the first place that it is disordered to barf up your food?

The harm that it does to our bodies. See above.

Uhh, maybe because it isn’t the proper design of our bodies

Argument from design. Not accepted. Prove it first.

It seriously amazes me you can’t admit this.

It's not just me, Agent40. The argument of Intelligent Design isn't accepted by any atheists.

Why not? Aren’t there those harmful effects you complain about that accompany bulimia?

No, there aren't. If there is a correlation between homosexuality and for example depression, that is explicable in terms of homosexuals being marginalized, oppressed, persecuted and often criminalized by mainstream society. That's what causes depression, not homosexuality itself.

I think we both know it isn’t only about harmful effects – it is about order, use, purpose, and design.

One more assertion of teleology and ID, unfounded and unproven.

I really can’t believe you can’t admit there is an order in how humans were meant to eat food. Are you serious?

Do you or your children ever chew gum, Agent40? Please stop. It's immoral and a sin, which you should confess to your priest. Your teeth were designed for the purpose of eating good nourishing food - not for chewing a non-nourishing substance just because you like the taste and feel of it, and then spitting it out. That's a sin.

I think this is why I find it very difficult to continue our conversations. To save face, you are unable to admit the obvious.

What do you want me to admit? That ID is a proven theory? You prove it, I'll admit it. OK?

Until then, your entire philosophy rests on that unproven assertion.

Gnu.

[Agent40]

Pinkmilk,

But I'm really not concerned with arguing about why your viewpoint comes from one of bigotry.

Of course you aren’t, because you know I could argue the same about yours.

Well you think wrong.  Regardless of where you are pulling your ideas from, I'd be against what you are trying to say

You, then, Pinkmilk are completely unaware of your own prejudice. If I had the time I would go through our correspondence and in fact show you all the times you have told me that the only reason I claim a certain thing is because as you like to say I have been indoctrinated. This Pinkmilk, is dismissing what I have to say because I am a believer. It is funny how you don’t even realize you too have been indoctrinated. You have been indoctrinated in secularism. 

Homosexuality isn't immoral because there is nothing wrong with it, it is natural, and it doesn't affect anyone. 

You have to prove there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. You have not done so, and in fact I have shown evidence showing otherwise.


I have already shown that often “natural” means bupkis. A pedophile is naturally attracted to children. I might have a natural predisposition to alcoholism. We can’t base what is right and wrong on what we think is “natural.”

Homosexualtiy doesn’t affect anyone? That doesn’t make sense? If a person engages in a homosexual act it affects themselves, and the person they are having sex with. It might even affect those close to them who witness their behavior. Sorry, but you simply can’t say homosexuality has no effect.

There is a difference between the question that I am asking you and the question you are posing to me.  You have stated that your claims are based on something, natural moral order, and that this natural moral order is truth.  So provide evidence to show that this basis is indeed true.  I have not made a claim to have based my thoughts on anything like this.  So now that I've answered your question, it's your turn.  Provide evidence that natural moral order is indeed true.

First, you can’t get out of having to prove your position by simply declaring that you have no origin to base your thoughts on. If anything, the fact that you admit you have nothing to base your thoughts on, shows the weakness in your argument all the more. But even so, you should still be required to show evidence for why you hold the position you do. But what’s that? Can’t do it? I know you can’t. Because your position is based on emotion and no facts. This is what I have been saying all along.

Second, I have already stated in a different thread that I would never be able to prove to you beyond a doubt that my views regarding homosexual acts are true. Therefore, it looks like neither of us can completely prove our position. I have certainly asserted more science, facts, observation, and logic then yours. Your position ignores the current research on homosexuality. 

Therefore, I suppose we both at this point should simply agree to disagree. The problem is you and many others on this site continue to accuse me of being an intolerant bigot. I find that completely unacceptable. What makes my views bigoted and not yours?

It reminds my of an Ally McBeal episode I saw years ago (I know I’m dating myself). Ally and some rival lawyer were going at it and the rival, commenting on the very short skirt Ally was wearing said, “How can you be so sure mini skirts are coming back in style”, and Ally replied, “Because I’m wearing one.”

Well, her comment was certainly clever, of course just because she wants it to be so, doesn’t make it so. Get it Pinkmilk? You can’t say your position that homosexual acts are ok is right because you’re proclaiming it. I’m gonna need a little more proof and logic than that.

[Agent40]

Dozens of times here (and on other threads) you have come at this issue from the angle that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral and harmful.

It (homosexual acts that is)  is unnatural – show me the scientific evidence that homosexuals are born that way.

It is immoral – I have logically presented natural law arguments and shown how homosexual acts violate the moral order.

It is harmful – unless you want to ignore the current research and scientific facts regarding homosexuality. 

You see homosexuality itself as a cause of problems.

No, I see homosexual acts as immoral and a violation of the natural order and when one violates the natural order very real consequences may occur. It is also beneath man’s dignity to engage in immoral behavior.

 

You and your Church are stupid on this issue

Uuh, ok.

You IGNORE the fuller set of FACTS about human sexuality – painstakingly uncovered by modern science.  You INSULT the billions of people who exist naturally with sexuality that just does not fit neatly into your binary categories drawn from ancient ignorance and fear of the unknown or unexplained.

I ignore the fuller set of facts? Oh, honey if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black. You ignore the facts, research, and science. You also ignore the very real psychological, physical, and emotional problems that affect those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

And if you want to talk about fear of the unknown? Perhaps it comes down to your fear that external truth exists. That there is something bigger than ourselves that we are accountable. I believe it is you who fear the unknown and unexplained.

You cause ANGUISH and unnecessary GUILT by implying people are immoral if they do sex in a way that pleases them

You cause anguish and harm to others by supporting them in an immoral lifestyle.

You have no right to be judgemental about what sexiness people have in their heads, and what consenting adults do in privacy

Refuted. A thousand times over – Refuted. We have no problem judging pedophiles or adulters, even if they are consenting adults. You judge what sexiness people have in their heads just like I do.

For a while I thought you were intelligent but indoctrinated

Thank you.

For awhile there, I just thought you were indoctrinated. Oh, wait, you are.

(That was a little joke btw, I’m sure intelligently speaking you are well above average.)

homosexual acts between consenting adults is completely harmless, natural expression of sexuality they are born with, and none of your business unless you'd like to join in.

<Sigh> you have no proof of such a statement, though you, and many others on this thread continue to spout it.

[Agent40]

Subtleinspiration,

I wonder if Agent40 realizes that, statistically speaking, at least one of her eight[1] children is probably gay.

I wonder if any of you realize that this would not change the love I have for my child one bit. I also wonder if you realize I would be equivalently disappointed if a child of mine engaged in homosexual behavior as I would if he/she engaged in premarital sex, or had an adulterous affair.

I believe many today no longer have a sense of right and wrong. There was some survey done recently that showed parents would be more upset if their child smoked cigarettes than if their child were having pre-marital sex. Such a warped sense of values. The unbelievable part too is if the parent only realized the extensive research on the negative effects of engaging in pre-marital sex, why they would not be more concerned about the emotional and physical well-being of their child. It is mind boggling. When one views human beings as uncontrollable animals who have no sexual control and incapable of self-discipline, is it really that surprising when they act that way? Love means wanting the very best for your children, not selling them short.
 


A side comment on Subtle's reply as well . . .  Since there is no proof that a person is born gay, the fact that both my husband and I have such an active role in all of their lives is already beating the odds on having a child who will be sexually confused. There is a great deal of research showing often those who struggle with same sex attraction had absentee parents (whether that means physically or emotionally). Of course, peer pressure and external factors later in life can also play a huge role. There are studies that even indicate exposure to porn at a young age can cause quite a lot of sexual confusion for a person.

[Agent40]

Hello you little sex manianc you.  (Congratulations on your new pregnancy by the way, I'm genuinely pleased for you).

Thanks Ag! I gotta say, I was thinking I was too old for this stuff. And even though I’m just pregnant and have quite a ways to go, it will be really nice to have a newborn in the house again. I’m excited.

[Agent40]

Terry Schiavo died of bulimia, and was brought back a vegetable.

Wow! Now that’s what I call spin, baby! Terry Schiavo did not die from bulimia. Terry Schiavo died from starvation when her feeding tube was forcibly removed. She died because she was deprived of food and water.

Your statement is also inaccurate because it has NEVER been determined that Terry even had bulimia in the first place.

You might want to try not to automatically believe everything you hear the media report dear . . .

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schiavo



The cause of her cardiac arrest has never been determined but her lack of balanced nourishment has always been suspected. The possibility of strangulation or domestic violence was investigated at the scene but no evidence was found. For a time, it was believed that her cardiac arrest had been caused by an imbalance of electrolytes in her blood. On admission to the hospital, her serum potassium level was noted to be very low, at 2.0 mEq/L; the normal range for adults is 3.5–5.0 mEq/L. Her sodium and calcium levels were normal.[7] Electrolyte imbalance can be caused by losing fluids. Her medical chart contained a note that "she apparently has been trying to keep her weight down with dieting by herself, drinking liquids most of the time during the day and drinking about 10–15 glasses of iced tea." The low potassium could have been a spurious result caused by the intravascular administration of fluids during the attempt to resuscitate her. It is unclear whether she was bulimic


From www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy/index.html

Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Florida's District Six, which includes Pasco and Pinellas counties, said the cause of death was "marked dehydration." Thogmartin said that the autopsy did not determine the cause of her collapse.
From www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23019


Unlike the information widely disseminated in media reports in the years before Terri’s death that said she had an eating disorder which contributed to her death, the medical examiner found no basis for a conclusion that Terri had bulimia -- the explanation used by Michael Schiavo’s attorneys to further their cause in a malpractice suit he won a few years after her collapse



From hebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6689&

From detective Mark Fuhrman: the true, tragic story of Terri Schiavo's untimely death
(It's proof that her cause is very much alive, even after her death)
Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death
by Mark Fuhrman


He reveals explosive facts about Terri's marriage, her condition when she collapsed (including the truth about her alleged "bulimia"), the bitter battles that went on for years between her parents and her husband Michael Schiavo, and the sparsely reported circumstances surrounding her death. He sifts through the evidence and frankly examines the oft-discussed possibility that Michael Schiavo strangled Terri, or that her condition was caused by his beating her.

[Agent40]

Why do you keep calling me dishonest, Agent40? It's a serious allegation, and I don't see what I've done to deserve it.

I am very sorry, Gnu. In hindsight I realized I was taking my frustration on being unable to better communicate my point out on you. I apologize.

I still think you are missing my point in the whole bulimia example and would like to try this one more time.

Way to miss the point. What happened to the instinctive innate appreciation of immorality? If mankind possessed such an instinct in regard to bulimia, why did it take another 2000 years to even name this disorder?

(By the way, I just discovered that the idea that the Romans built vomitoria to vomit in is incorrect. I've corrected my previous post (in red) and linked to an explanation.  Apologies to all).

I believe your link actually helps my point. Did you read the entire article? Bulimia wasn’t as rampant as you originally stated and I love how the author of the article went on to say  . . .

“I could only find one pre-Internet article in a medical journal ("Erotic Vomiting," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1982), which calls it "a previously unreported aberration." A quick on-line search suggests emetophilia has a long way to go before it catches up with Japanese tentacle porn.”

Apparently, atleast in 1982, the act of eating and purposely vomiting was considered an aberration. This was my point. The author in the article you linked was basically saying why vomiting for pleasure has not gained societal acceptance and doesn’t think it will catch on any time soon.  Her comments clearly indicate, she as others, see it as disordered. She is using humor in her article and I find that very telling. She is obviously pointing out the absurdity of the practice. Gee, as if we all innately know such behavior is backwards.

Order is not the same as intent. Intent requires someone to to do the intending. Order isn't evidence of such a person. This is the argument from Intelligent Design, which you assert over and over again, as if it were a fact. It isn't. I asked you before to start a thread and defend the idea, but you prefer to simply assert it.

We’ve discussed this at length, Gnu. You and I both know I could never prove with certainty my position regarding this matter, but that certainly does not mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, I’ve asked you before your opinion on whether you think design can exist without a designer. I was curious if you thought that were possible and something that could be argued. And if it is, then design does not necessarily imply a master designer.

Chronic gastric reflux after eating
Dehydration and hypokalemia caused by frequent vomiting
Electrolyte imbalance, which can lead to cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, and even death
Esophagitis, or inflammation of the esophagus
Oral trauma, in which repetitive insertion of fingers or other objects causes lacerations to the lining of the mouth or throat
Gastroparesis or delayed emptying
Constipation
Enlarged glands in the neck, under the jaw line
Peptic ulcers
Calluses or scars on back of hands due to repeated trauma from incisors
 
The frequent contact between teeth and gastric acid, in particular, may cause:

Severe caries (bone destruction)
Perimolysis, or the erosion of tooth enamel

Look, I don’t wish to diminish the condition of bulimia, but first of all, have you ever considered the fact that bulimia is accompanied with negative side effects means something? Is that not something that should cause us to say, huh? The body does not react kindly when a person uses it in an incorrect manner? Shouldn’t man do those things that are in his best interest to do? Wouldn’t it be wrong to engage in behavior that is not in our best interest and may cause us harm? You really don’t think that the obvious connection of harmful effects is directly a result of doing something the person shouldn’t be doing? Again, this was more the point I was attempting to make the first time.

As I said, objective harmful effects. Where's a comparable list for the hamful effects of homosexuality?

I can’t believe I didn’t find this excellent article earlier. I hope you will all take a look . . .

Homosexuality and the Truth: Is it Just Another Lifestyle?
by Alan P. Medinger

www.exodusglobalalliance.org/isitjustanotherlifestylep35.php


 I realize this is a personal testimony, but I ran across it and it moved me. Perhaps it will move you as well . . .

Cartoonist Knows Harmful Effects of ‘Gay Parenting’     

www.cwfa.org/articles/445/CFI/cfreport/index.htm

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR A NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE? www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive17.htm

If there is a correlation between homosexuality and for example depression, that is explicable in terms of homosexuals being marginalized, oppressed, persecuted and often criminalized by mainstream society. That's what causes depression, not homosexuality itself.

There is NO proof of such remarks and I have linked research indicating otherwise. Please prove such statements. Thank you.

Do you or your children ever chew gum, Agent40? Please stop. It's immoral and a sin, which you should confess to your priest. Your teeth were designed for the purpose of eating good nourishing food - not for chewing a non-nourishing substance just because you like the taste and feel of it, and then spitting it out. That's a sin.

I think this is a poor analogy. The mouth is being used as it was intended. Infact, I think there are even vitamins that come in the form of gum – so actually I am nourishing my body while gum chewing. The reason bulimia is wrong is the body was intended to receive food via the mouth and into the digestive system in order for it to nourish us. If a person needs help with that ordered process, he certainly may obtain so via feeding tubes, but this is only allowing for the proper use of the body to be completed – it doesn’t try to change the function of the body. Nor does gum chewing try to change any kind of bodily process. I still think you are missing the point here.

Bulimia attempts to alter/change the correct way the body was designed to work. You disagree that there is a correct function of the body? You don’t believe there is a proper order taking place within the body (the taking in of food, digestion, excretion)?


Now, a final question for you. If it were thought that there were no harmful effects from eating food and then vomiting it up, would you therefore think there would be nothing wrong with doing so? In other words, are you telling me that if there were not negative effects accompanied with bulimia you would consider it just another appropriate way to control one’s weight and gain greater pleasure out of life?

[Agent40]

Not to sound arrogant, but I have no doubt that if I had the time I could help clear up many of the misconceptions that it seems so many atheists have regarding religion. I can’t tell you how many times I just skim the message boards and gasp at how much so many simply blatantly get wrong. How easy it must be to bash something if you are bashing not what that thing actually does or believes, but what you think it does or believes. I find the myths and stereotypes about religion that are perpetuated on this site appalling.


Anyway, you don’t think I know how crazy it is that a perfect supernatural being exists? And you don’t think I realize what a nut job I must come across, as a person in the year 2009 who believes both contraception and masturbation are wrong? And yes, I actually believe in guardian angels, the Virgin birth, and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Crazy? Perhaps on the surface, but when I see the effects of such things in my life, when I see the very real effects of living these teachings in my life and the lives of those around me, all I can do is be reminded of my ingratitude in not acknowledging such truth and wisdom sooner. I find nothing more sane.

If it is crazy to believe in heaven and hell and that it is always best to wait until marriage to have sex, then it is much more crazy to believe in the teachings of man and some of the mainstream ideas floating around out there. I see nothing but contradiction in the secular world. And before anyone begins to reply back how many contradictions there are in my Christian religion, may I remind you that I have already debunked every “contradiction” that has been presented to me. No, it is clearly the secular world that is full of contradiction. How can enslavement in pornography be considered freedom? How can murdering one’s baby be phrased a choice?

I will take the truth in my worldview any day – that immorality is beneath man’s dignity and will never bring peace.

I think the thing I think is crazy is how many of you can refuse such an incredible offer. The proposal that a loving God exists and He is ready to grant us eternal salvation. All because you can’t get beyond the earthly notion that something could be too good to be true. You are going to let your jaded outlook of life effect your future. There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. But when one literally sees that if followed the teachings of Christ bring about the greatest peace, how can one reject them? And of course, I see as one of the biggest problems, most of you have been ill informed. You were never taught the truth, because if you were taught the truth, you would not be able to walk away from it.


I believe we have probably once again exhausted this topic. As I do not know, without all of us continually repeating ourselves, what there is left to say. That being said, I certainly hope I have been successful at least in showing you that the view that homosexual acts are disordered is not arbitrary. Not once, in our discussion have I ever said, “homosexual acts are immoral because my God says so.” I believe I have presented a great deal of research, science, facts, reasoning, and logic to show why homosexual acts are wrong. I realize you do not agree with my views, but it would be less than truthful if you said my arguments were not more than coherent and rational.

I respect all of you very much and hope that you have taken my often sarcastic humor and tongue and cheek criticisms in the friendly context they were intended.

As it is written, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined the things that God has prepared for those who love him." -- 1 Corinthians 2:9

[Ada-B]

Agent, re. homosexuality.

I was going to do a point-by-point discussion of the various points you made about homosexuality being "against natural law", caused by absent parents, being unhealthy etc. etc. But I got bored. So I'll just put it as simply as I can:

You are talking complete bollocks

[jedweber]

It (homosexual acts that is)  is unnatural – show me the scientific evidence that homosexuals are born that way.

There is considerable scientific evidence pointing to a biological component to homosexuality:  

Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

It's also possible that there are environmental factors, which are still out of the control of the individual as they are generally believed to occur in very early childhood.

What the evidence does NOT support is that sexual orientation is freely chosen, or that same-sex attraction is learned behavior that develops later in life. (At least not for any significant number of people.) It's dishonest to argue that research supports the claim that homosexuality is a choice, or that it's spread by "recruiting".

You also ignore the very real psychological, physical, and emotional problems that affect those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

And you ignore the very real psychological, physical and emotional problems inflicted on gay people by widespread homophobia in society. You make no effort to separate these problems, you simply attribute them all to homosexuality. Your claims are equivalent to those of a racist who finds "psychological, physical and emotional problems"  among black people in the 19th century American South and attributes them entirely to race.