whywontgodhealamputees.com

Dead Zone => The Bottomless Pit => Topic started by: subtleinspiration on August 06, 2009, 02:13:16 PM

Title: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on August 06, 2009, 02:13:16 PM
From the The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/05/gaytostraight-therapy-rep_n_252447.html)

Quote
The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options – that could range from celibacy to switching churches – for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 06, 2009, 02:26:41 PM
Glad you posted this. I was going put it up myself, since somebody was here defending ex-gay therapy not long ago.

I think it's noteworthy that they examined 83 studies going all the way back to 1960 to reach this conclusion.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: velkyn on August 06, 2009, 02:49:18 PM
just wait, we'll have those "good Christians" attacking psychology like the Scientologists do. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 06, 2009, 03:18:52 PM
just wait, we'll have those "good Christians" attacking psychology like the Scientologists do. 

If not psychology, at least the evil APA. Here's what one Christian pundit wrote in 1997, when they first criticized ex-gay therapy.
 
Quote
What we’re seeing in the APA’s action is the politicizing of medicine. Beneficial practices are being condemned simply because they run counter to a politically correct agenda. The Family Research Council correctly says that this resolution "condemns many patients to a life of… needless suffering."

And make no mistake: This resolution is intended to drive Christians right out of the field of psychology. In essence, biblical counseling of homosexuals will be redefined as malpractice. As the Christian perspective becomes increasingly unpopular, Christians are simply being pushed out of various professions.

If any of this reminds you of the tactics of Nazi Germany, it ought to. ... [yeah, he went there]

I'm sure they could dust this off and use it today...
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Irish on August 06, 2009, 03:33:01 PM
Well look at that. Trying to "fix gays" does harm to the person... just like many of us have said.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 06, 2009, 03:57:46 PM
Are any of you familiar with the late Roman Catholic priest, Father John Hardon?

I assure you I have not invented that name.

He's the author of a seminal (ha-ha) work, the Modern Catholic Dictionary, which is the go-to dictionary for contemporary Catholics.

Here's the entry on Homosexuality (my bolding):

Quote
HOMOSEXUALITY
In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled.

Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.


All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

What a surprise.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 06, 2009, 05:28:40 PM
The Catholic church is just awful on the issue of homosexuality. As bad as the fundies.

There are some areas where the church can be fairly progressive (such as social justice, or accepting evolution) and but never in anything related to sexuality. It seems to freak them out, they're at war with it. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Nick on August 06, 2009, 05:30:22 PM
But what about Ted Haggard?  Does this mean he is not cured?  Damn, what will he do now? :'(
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: velkyn on August 07, 2009, 09:06:33 AM
Are any of you familiar with the late Roman Catholic priest, Father John Hardon?

I assure you I have not invented that name.

He's the author of a seminal (ha-ha) work, the Modern Catholic Dictionary, which is the go-to dictionary for contemporary Catholics.

Here's the entry on Homosexuality (my bolding):

Quote
HOMOSEXUALITY
In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled.

Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.


All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

What a surprise.

I love this.  The RCC wants to ignore their own "savior" by sayign that the thought isn't "quite" as bad as the action. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 07, 2009, 09:15:49 AM
I think they're so sensitive about it because so many priests are repressed (or not-so-repressed) gays themselves.
Quote
Fr. Donald Cozzens, psychologist and seminary professor in Cleveland, Ohio, estimates 50% of the priests and seminarians have homosexual inclination, and...100% of bishops come from the ranks of the priests.

Maybe it's sort of like the homophobic tough guy who always bashes gays, then gets caught blowing a guy in a toilet.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Tealeaf on August 09, 2009, 09:00:24 PM
How exactly is therapy for changing sexuality supposed to work? You watch straight porn long long enough? But pron is wrong.... So....they say you're going to hell long enough to....scare the gay out??

Ted Haggard is fine example of this insanity. How are you "cured" from being gay? How much longer do you think he would have kept getting blow jobs from that guy in motel rooms before he decided he needed 'curing' if not for the media exposure??

What the hell is going through his bonehead wife's head? I watched the documentary on him and she doesn't seem to be the least concerned he's gay or maybe bisexual at least. The level of delusion is just....astounding. And is gay cheating more permisable than straight cheating?? Well....I wouldn't mind if I have a wife and she wanted to....eat some fish on the side. But I'd want to watch. But these two are supposed to be shining examples of family values and morality and all that BS here....
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on August 12, 2009, 11:14:46 PM
Quote from: velkyn
Quote
Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit.

I love this.  The RCC wants to ignore their own "savior" by sayign that the thought isn't "quite" as bad as the action. 

Oh yeah, it's completely unscriptural and downright wacky.  It is, however, practical and expedient, and has been used for years to convince gay Catholic boys that their lack of interest in women is actually a sign from God to enter the priesthood. 

As far as therapy, I wasn't ever part of a specific therapy, because neither I nor anyone around me was aware that any was needed.  Gay thoughts?  Just say no, and forget it.  Date women.  Force yourself to date women even if you don't feel like doing it.  This is what God wants you to do, and eventually you'll get the hang of it, just like riding a bicycle, and end up a happy married straight guy who never looks back.  It sounds goofy, but I've met way too many older men who did this very thing and even managed to have kids before they realized that the Hetero Fairy wasn't ever going to whack them on the head with the magic wand.  Ted Haggard isn't even close to being an isolated example.   
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Nick on August 13, 2009, 08:12:13 AM
If there was a way for a guy guy to be made straight couldn't it also go the other way and make straight guys gay?  This could be very confusing or the makings for a new reality show on TV.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 13, 2009, 08:29:36 AM
If there was a way for a guy guy to be made straight couldn't it also go the other way and make straight guys gay? 

Yes, they often accuse gay people of "recruiting." It's one reason they don't want kids exposed to information about homosexuality, they might decide to take it up.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on August 13, 2009, 11:41:32 AM
Yes, they often accuse gay people of "recruiting." It's one reason they don't want kids exposed to information about homosexuality, they might decide to take it up.

Which is stupid. You can show me pictures of smiling and laughing gay couples all day long and it's not going to "convert" me to homosexuality.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on August 13, 2009, 12:30:12 PM
How exactly is therapy for changing sexuality supposed to work? You watch straight porn long long enough? But pron is wrong.... So....they say you're going to hell long enough to....scare the gay out??
That is exactly the core principle behind that type of "therapy".  I refuse to call it therapy as it in no way helps a person.
Quote
Ted Haggard is fine example of this insanity. How are you "cured" from being gay? How much longer do you think he would have kept getting blow jobs from that guy in motel rooms before he decided he needed 'curing' if not for the media exposure??
As long as his "dirty little secret" could be kept in the closet (pun intended), he would have continued on with his behavior.  The fact is that you can not "cure" homosexuality.  To suggest there is a cure suggests that homosexuality is a problem.  It is only a problem if you are religious or are homophobic.
Quote
What the hell is going through his bonehead wife's head? I watched the documentary on him and she doesn't seem to be the least concerned he's gay or maybe bisexual at least. The level of delusion is just....astounding. And is gay cheating more permisable than straight cheating?? Well....I wouldn't mind if I have a wife and she wanted to....eat some fish on the side. But I'd want to watch. But these two are supposed to be shining examples of family values and morality and all that BS here....
It just goes to show the hypocrisy of the religious. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, it's completely unscriptural and downright wacky.  It is, however, practical and expedient, and has been used for years to convince gay Catholic boys that their lack of interest in women is actually a sign from God to enter the priesthood. 
That would explain a lot.
Quote
As far as therapy, I wasn't ever part of a specific therapy, because neither I nor anyone around me was aware that any was needed.  Gay thoughts?  Just say no, and forget it.  Date women.  Force yourself to date women even if you don't feel like doing it.  This is what God wants you to do, and eventually you'll get the hang of it, just like riding a bicycle, and end up a happy married straight guy who never looks back.  It sounds goofy, but I've met way too many older men who did this very thing and even managed to have kids before they realized that the Hetero Fairy wasn't ever going to whack them on the head with the magic wand.  Ted Haggard isn't even close to being an isolated example.   
That's the problem.  They try to teach homosexuals to ignore this and continue lying to themselves and others.  It only creates further problems.  It is absolutely absurd. 

I'm really glad that the APA voted the way they did in this matter.  It would have first of all contradicted the code of ethics by which all psychologists are bound if they had voted for it.  It is very clearly outlined in the code of ethics that psychologists are not to force their own views and/or way of life onto their clients.  To suggest that a clients way of life is wrong and needs to change in order to save their immortal soul is a complete violation of this.  Not to mention that it is also against the ethical code to create or make a matter worse for a client.  If a client is in therapy to deal with their homosexuality, telling them it's wrong or suggesting that they need to "pray the gay away" is in no way helping the matter and will only make things worse. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Cynic on August 24, 2009, 07:55:38 AM

Quote
Fr. Donald Cozzens, psychologist and seminary professor in Cleveland, Ohio, estimates 50% of the priests and seminarians have homosexual inclination, and...100% of bishops come from the ranks of the priests.

How does one gather data for this? Is it not difficult to determine the sexuality of someone who is supposed to be celibate?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on August 25, 2009, 09:15:23 PM
Supposed to be the key word there  ;)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Asmoday on August 25, 2009, 09:35:24 PM
How does one gather data for this? Is it not difficult to determine the sexuality of someone who is supposed to be celibate?
Actually it´s quite simple.

The researchers just have to ask the altar boys and girls.  ;D
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 26, 2009, 07:33:14 AM
Is it not difficult to determine the sexuality of someone who is supposed to be celibate?

Well, not in theory. Someone who's not having sex could still tell you which gender they are attracted to. But I doubt that many gay priests are going to be up-front about their inclinations, especially if denial drove them into the priesthood in the first place.

I imagine these "estimates" are based on anecdotal evidence, or small samples, or wild guesses. Here's a list of other people who made estimates, or tried to do surveys:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on August 30, 2009, 01:59:44 PM
I just read this entire thread and I gotta say I feel like I should send in a donation to the whywontgodhealamputees website. It continually provides for me great comic relief.

This is what instantly came to mind while I was reading all these likeminded posts . . .


Imagine a bunch of high school kids having a debate on the legalization of marijuana.

Dude, there is nothing wrong with pot. It’s natural man. If God didn’t want us to get stoned, he wouldn’t have created marijuana.

Yeah man, I read somewhere that pot is actually good for you. It increases your creativity.

There are a bunch of people who smoke grass regularly and they seem to be doing fine, so obviously it’s fine – duhh!

Dude, I saw some report that 50% of priests smoke reefer in the rectory at night.

The only reason the “Christian Conservatives” don’t like it is because they don’t know how to have a good time like us. They hate anything to do with sex, drugs, and rock n’roll. They’re so lame.

Seriously dude, a little bit of weeds not gonna make society go down the tubes. It’s harmless. Wough, I never noticed my hand looked like this before.

Hey, there is this guy named Fr. John Harden who says it’s not in man’s best interest to smoke pot and that it is beneath man’s dignity to do so. He claims it won’t bring a person real peace.

Wait, did you just say hard on? Huhh, huhh, hard on, huhh, huuh

Yeah, I don’t know what the big deal is -- pot feels so gooood and it can really help us grow in self-control and over-all character.

Oh, man I can’t stop eating these Cheetos?

Those are Cheetos? I thought they were orange caterpillars.

Hey how do you know the orange color you see is the same orange color I see?

Is class over yet? I gotta pee . . .


Beavis and Butthead got noth’n on you all!

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on August 30, 2009, 02:09:38 PM
Quote
In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely



The APA is merely claiming that that there is no evidence that homosexuals have changed from some “reparative therapy.” Ok? I have no idea what “reparative therapy” is, but all that means is the method of “reparative therapy” hasn’t been shown effective. So, perhaps other therapy methods are effective. How can they possibly claim a person’s life cannot be improved by being counseled to not engage in homosexual acts?

Here are testimonies from many who have in fact done just that. I have no idea what kind of therapy they received, but whatever it was they all report to be psychologically healthier and happier once they made the conscious decision to not engage in a homosexual lifestyle.


www.couragerc.net  click on member testimonies in the sidebar.


I do hope you will take the time to read the personal testimonies. They are very interesting. I particularly found it interesting how one individual’s testimony mentioned he kept encountering therapists who encouraged him to pursue a gay lifestyle – to not fight it. If a therapist shouldn’t encourage one not to act on same-sex attraction, why should they be permitted to encourage patients to act on them? Especially since there is no evidence that homosexuals are happier living a homosexual lifestyle vs. not?



And in fact, isn’t one of their recommendations that a therapist could advise celibacy?


Quote
Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options – that could range from celibacy to switching churches – for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict


Huh? Sounds like what the Church advises?


 





Quote
Well look at that. Trying to "fix gays" does harm to the person... just like many of us have said.
   


Wow! You all really do just make up what you want to hear. Is that what the APA said? I believe the APA attempted to say there was no proof the therapy worked. They did not report any conclusive studies proving it was harmful. Please show me such evidence and when you do, I’ll show you the evidence that those who engage in homosexual acts fair worse than heterosexuals when it comes to AIDS, depression, alcohol/drug abuse, and suicide.



Quote
The Catholic church is just awful on the issue of homosexuality. As bad as the fundies.


Be more specific please. Just awful because???? And please, I don’t plan to accept your opinion on what it is you think the Church has to say regarding homosexuality. The Church teaches we are to treat homosexuals with love and compassion. What Church teachings would you like to cite as awful?

Please show me what the Church teaches that is so awful. The Church believes homosexual acts are wrong. The Church bases its decision on natural law, logic, science, biology, facts, observation and right reason. You believe homosexual acts are good. What do you base such a decision on? I could say atheists are just awful on the issue of homosexuality. Almost as bad as the APA.



Quote
There are some areas where the church can be fairly progressive (such as social justice, or accepting evolution) and but never in anything related to sexuality. It seems to freak them out, they're at war with it.



Hmmm? Could this be because truth exists and cannot change – don’t worry, I don’t expect you to understand. If the Church gets so many other things right (as you admitted) have you ever considered they may be right about this too?






Quote
think they're so sensitive about it because so many priests are repressed (or not-so-repressed) gays themselves.
Quote
Fr. Donald Cozzens, psychologist and seminary professor in Cleveland, Ohio, estimates 50% of the priests and seminarians have homosexual inclination, and...100% of bishops come from the ranks of the priests.

Maybe it's sort of like the homophobic tough guy who always bashes gays, then gets caught blowing a guy in a toilet

From www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm -:

The following diverse quotes were extracted from reviews of a book by Father Donald Cozzens, titled "The Changing Face of the Priesthood:"

"It would be highly unlikely that a homosexual man in direct contradiction with God's law and even that of other faiths such as Judaism...would go through the steps of becoming a priest."

 "The presence of large numbers of homosexuals in the clergy is probable, although the 50% that Cozzens suggests seems far too high."

It is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of priests, with a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation, do not molest or sexually abuse young people. In fact, the percentage of pedophiles -- adults who molest young children -- among the Catholic priesthood appears to be lower than the average for all males.

What percentage of priests have a homosexual orientation?

Nobody knows, with any degree of accuracy.

Some estimates of the percentage of current priests with a homosexual orientation:

Analysis of the estimates of others:     

According to Bill Blakemore of ABC News, "...nobody knows what percentage of the American priesthood is gay; estimates range from less than 10% to more than 30%." 4

    
Actual surveys:

In the Fall of 1999, the Kansas City Star sent a questionnaire to 3,000 priests in the U.S. 73% did not reply. The low response rate could be anticipated. One would expect homosexuals and bisexuals to be reluctant to respond to the questionnaire since it deals with such a sensitive issue, and originated from a newspaper. Homosexual and bisexual priests would probably be less likely to reply to the survey. Among the 801 priests who did reply:     75% said they had a heterosexual orientation

15% homosexual;
    5% bisexual


www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm -



New Oxford Review: Notes: It just so happens that surveys of the sort Buffer wants have been done, and with very little effect. The latest one was done by the Los Angeles Times, as reported in its October 20 and 21, 2002 issues. (The Times says it's the "most extensive" survey of priests done since its previous survey in 1994.) Of the 45,382 priests in the U.S., the Times sent surveys to 5,000, of whom 1,854 responded. The Times pronounces this "statistically representative." The results?
A combined 15 percent of priests say they are "gay" (9 percent) or "on the homosexual side" (6 percent).

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/homosexual-priests1.htm




.


Quote
Oh yeah, it's completely unscriptural and downright wacky.  It is, however, practical and expedient, and has been used for years to convince gay Catholic boys that their lack of interest in women is actually a sign from God to enter the priesthood


Uhh, well, since scripture is the one who tells us to listen to the Church you can’t really say what the Church says is unscriptural. LOL!

Also, Newsflash! The Church has no desire for those who think they have a same-sex attraction to enter the priesthood. You are so ignorant and I’d like to see evidence of such an anti-catholic statement. The Church continually tries to improve its screening of potential candidates. The Church tries to make sure a person is not simply becoming a priest to escape their unfulfilling lives they may currently be experiencing.



Quote
Force yourself to date women even if you don't feel like doing it.  This is what God wants you to do, and eventually you'll get the hang of it, just like riding a bicycle, and end up a happy married straight guy who never looks back

Not at all what the therapy does, but good job perpetuating a stereotype. One testimony from the group I cited earlier mentions there is a 12-step process he was advised to follow. Somehow, I doubt one of the steps was telling him to marry a girl, even if he wasn’t sexually attracted to her. You all are pathetic. Your spouting of lies and misinformation is disgusting. Simply because the Church is in disagreement with you regarding homosexual acts, you have to paint her as a monster yelling “turn or burn” at a patient struggling with a disorder. You have no evidence that any of your comments are even remotely based on facts.


Quote
How exactly is therapy for changing sexuality supposed to work? You watch straight porn long long enough? But pron is wrong.... So....they say you're going to hell long enough to....scare the gay out??
That is exactly the core principle behind that type of "therapy".  I refuse to call it therapy as it in no way helps a person.

This is absurd. Where are you getting your information, pinkmilk?

Quote
As long as his "dirty little secret" could be kept in the closet (pun intended), he would have continued on with his behavior.  The fact is that you can not "cure" homosexuality.  To suggest there is a cure suggests that homosexuality is a problem.  It is only a problem if you are religious or are homophobic.

This is completely unprofessional of you. If your client thinks it is a problem for him/her – then it is a problem. How dare you dismiss the client’s own feelings regarding the matter and be so biased and prejudiced to actually suggest it is only a problem if you are religious or homophobic. You, Pinkmilk, are religiousphobic and I seriously think it could cause problems for you in your career if you do not get it under control. I realize homosexuality may not be your realm of expertise, but if you honestly are so biased against religion, it is unfair of you to council others according to your personal agenda.


Quote
Oh yeah, it's completely unscriptural and downright wacky.  It is, however, practical and expedient, and has been used for years to convince gay Catholic boys that their lack of interest in women is actually a sign from God to enter the priesthood. 
That would explain a lot.

Yes it would, if it were based on an ounce of truth, but as usual you all simply eat up the lies you tell one another in an attempt to validate your own erroneous view regarding the issue.



Quote
I'm really glad that the APA voted the way they did in this matter.  It would have first of all contradicted the code of ethics by which all psychologists are bound if they had voted for it.  It is very clearly outlined in the code of ethics that psychologists are not to force their own views and/or way of life onto their clients.


You might want to look in the mirror and take your own advice here.



Quote
To suggest that a clients way of life is wrong and needs to change in order to save their immortal soul is a complete violation of this.  Not to mention that it is also against the ethical code to create or make a matter worse for a client.




What if the client believes it is wrong? What if the client personally sought out a Christian therapist because in fact they are a believer themself? What if a client insists to you that they accept the truth that homosexual acts are immoral, and would like help in dealing with their same-sex attraction?


Quote
If a client is in therapy to deal with their homosexuality, telling them it's wrong or suggesting that they need to "pray the gay away" is in no way helping the matter and will only make things worse.


How do you know it is not wrong? You still have not proven any such thing? And Pinkmilk, just because you do not believe in prayer, does not mean that one of your clients wouldn’t. How very wrong of you to discount their worldview and beliefs. It would be wrong for you to force your opinions and beliefs on someone else. Talk about really screwing up a client! Shame on you.



Quote
How does one gather data for this? Is it not difficult to determine the sexuality of someone who is supposed to be celibate?Actually it´s quite simple. The researchers just have to ask the altar boys and girls.   




Completely inappropriate anti-Catholic comment.  Is there a moderator in the house?







The following is some factors that really ought to be looked into further and not swept under the rug. If psychologist really wanted to help a person struggling with a same-sex attraction, they ought to give some credence to the following . . .

Study: Childhood Sexual Abuse Often a Factor in Sexual Disorientation
By Bob Ellis on July 7th, 2009
dakotavoice.com/2009/07/study-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-a-factor

And a final note, I suppose with your logic, it would be impossible to rehabilitate pedophiles? I mean if one can’t change who they are sexually attracted to, then I guess there is no hope for pedophiles – too bad.

Why do people sexually abuse children?
There are many different kinds of abusers, and it’s not clear why people molest children. What’s been found in recent research is an overwhelming majority of people guilty of child molesting, were molested themselves. We used to think this statistic was much smaller, but with more detailed research, we’ve discovered this statistic to be very high. Statistics involving men in New Jersey prisons convicted of sexual abuse, found that over 95% of the men, were in fact abused themselves. And we don’t know, but it could be that the 5% of non-abused men in that case don’t remember being abused as children; they may have amnesia or a traumatic dissociation.. Some abuse may be the attempt to relive one’s own abuse, with power roles reversed. Another reason may be these people have learned that abuse is a way of feeling in control. Fundamentally, in all cases of abuse, it certainly is about power and control.

www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm


Ahh, more wonderful benefits we owe to lovely pornography . . . .

Does pornography promote sexual abuse?

There are lots of studies about the effects of pornography. Does viewing child pornography create a greater desire in perpetrators to abuse children? Yes, it seems to. There have been studies that seem to demonstrate arousal of perpetrators from viewing child pornography, particularly pedophile. We can’t say absolutely if pornography makes them act on their arousal, but it seems to be part of the constellation about what causes them to abuse.

It’s also found that viewing violent or sexual materials can affect attitudes involving adult rape. There are studies demonstrating males who view continuous violent pornographic movies, will have much more tolerance for the rape of a women. Whether this means it makes a person rape (date rape or stranger rape), is not absolute. And there’s a correlation with viewing violent pornography and repeat rapists, but we don’t know there is a causation between the two.

www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm



Still waiting to hear from someone how exactly they can know homosexual acts to be right or good? Still waiting . . .
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Emily on August 30, 2009, 02:51:24 PM
I just read this entire thread and I gotta say I feel like I should send in a donation to the whywontgodhealamputees website. It continually provides for me great comic relief.

This is what instantly came to mind while I was reading all these likeminded posts . . .


Imagine a bunch of high school kids having a debate on the legalization of marijuana.

Dude, there is nothing wrong with pot. It’s natural man. If God didn’t want us to get stoned, he wouldn’t have created marijuana.

Yeah man, I read somewhere that pot is actually good for you. It increases your creativity.

There are a bunch of people who smoke grass regularly and they seem to be doing fine, so obviously it’s fine – duhh!

Dude, I saw some report that 50% of priests smoke reefer in the rectory at night.

The only reason the “Christian Conservatives” don’t like it is because they don’t know how to have a good time like us. They hate anything to do with sex, drugs, and rock n’roll. They’re so lame.

Seriously dude, a little bit of weeds not gonna make society go down the tubes. It’s harmless. Wough, I never noticed my hand looked like this before.

Hey, there is this guy named Fr. John Harden who says it’s not in man’s best interest to smoke pot and that it is beneath man’s dignity to do so. He claims it won’t bring a person real peace.

Wait, did you just say hard on? Huhh, huhh, hard on, huhh, huuh

Yeah, I don’t know what the big deal is -- pot feels so gooood and it can really help us grow in self-control and over-all character.

Oh, man I can’t stop eating these Cheetos?

Those are Cheetos? I thought they were orange caterpillars.

Hey how do you know the orange color you see is the same orange color I see?

Is class over yet? I gotta pee . . .


Beavis and Butthead got noth’n on you all!



Yeah, this was really lame.

EDIT:

Look at that, Velkyn is a prophet. She said this,

"just wait, we'll have those "good Christians" attacking psychology like the Scientologists do."

at the beginning, then Agent40 steps onto the scene.

All worship Velkyn.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on August 30, 2009, 07:59:42 PM
Agent40, your attempt to compare the legalization of pot to "get straight therapy" is absolutely ridiculous.  They are nothing alike.  There is no 12 program that can change someone's sexuality.  Not only is it impossible to change someone's sexuality, it is also causes further psychological damage to even attempt to do so.  I did not read all of your posts as they were extremely long, but I could tell that you were advocating that there are therapy systems out there that actually accomplish the task of turning homosexuals straight, let me guess this another of your Dr. Ray approved therapies that you endorse?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on August 30, 2009, 09:29:58 PM
Look at that, Velkyn is a prophet. She said this,

"just wait, we'll have those "good Christians" attacking psychology like the Scientologists do."

at the beginning, then Agent40 steps onto the scene.

All worship Velkyn.

A sacrifice will be offered ...

(http://twobites.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/ramen.jpg)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on August 31, 2009, 05:09:31 AM
Look at that, Velkyn is a prophet. She said this,

"just wait, we'll have those "good Christians" attacking psychology like the Scientologists do."

at the beginning, then Agent40 steps onto the scene.

All worship Velkyn.

A sacrifice will be offered ...

(http://twobites.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/ramen.jpg)

How could I miss a comment so blatantly in the face of science as this?  Agent40 does not completely oppose psychology as she has on other threads endorsed the "psychological commentary" of people such as "Dr." Ray.   It is clear that because the accepted ideals of psychology differ from that of her religion she takes issue with those who disagree with her own viewpoint.  On another thread agent40 has said that I prescribe to "pop psychology".  If anything the "pop psychologists" would include people like Dr. Phil, Dr. Ray and Dr. Nancy.  At this point I know she is completely going based on hear say.  While I have made other psychological arguments that she has attempted to refute, this one takes the cake.  This is personally my field of expertise and I refuse to allow some christian to make an agenda of the field of psychology.  Scientology has personally taken a vendetta against psychology as it exposes their techniques of exploit.  Am I to truly believe that a comment made by a "true catholic" is to be taken any differently? 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on August 31, 2009, 05:38:07 AM
I agree ... the comment was also an agreement and an homage to Velkyn.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 31, 2009, 12:30:54 PM
Wow! You all really do just make up what you want to hear. Is that what the APA said? I believe the APA attempted to say there was no proof the therapy worked. They did not report any conclusive studies proving it was harmful. Please show me such evidence and when you do, I’ll show you the evidence that those who engage in homosexual acts fair worse than heterosexuals when it comes to AIDS, depression, alcohol/drug abuse, and suicide.


How about homosexuals who DON'T engage in homosexual acts? Such as those who turn to ex-gay therapy? If they also suffer from higher rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide, wouldn't that suggest that it may not be homosexual acts per se that are the determining factor? Can you not accept the possibility that society's attitudes towards homosexuality have an impact on some gay people's mental health? Do you really think that rejection by one's family and friends, casual mockery, ridicule and hostility from a large part of the public, condemnation by religious groups which claim they are "intrinsically disordered" or hell-bound sinners, all have no impact on a person?

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

Quote
Please show me what the Church teaches that is so awful. The Church believes homosexual acts are wrong. The Church bases its decision on natural law, logic, science, biology, facts, observation and right reason. You believe homosexual acts are good. What do you base such a decision on? I could say atheists are just awful on the issue of homosexuality. Almost as bad as the APA.

You're upset that people are misrepresenting the church, then you make a ridiculous generalization like that? I don't think anyone here said that homosexual acts are intrinsically good. (I certainly didn't.) They aren't, not any more than a heterosexual sex act is automatically good. I can think of many possible scenarios in which a homosexual act may be wrong, or harmful. But you're insisting that they ALL are, always, for everyone. You deny that they can EVER be good for anyone! So two people who love each other, who accept what they are because they haven't chosen it, who are simply seeking human companionship in a loving relationship, are to be denied that for life, and condemned by judgmental outsiders if they seek it. What a heartless and arrogant position. It's not moral, it's the antithesis of morality.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on August 31, 2009, 01:47:30 PM
Nice attempt at dismissing my comments. Is that the best you can do? Attempt to say we really don’t need to take Agent40’s comments seriously because she is Catholic. This is precisely what I was getting at in the first place. Do any of you have any idea how anti-religious you are? I only pointed out to you that many have been helped by what you might refer to as “Christian therapy.” But as usual you are not interested in hearing the truth. You simply insist on telling yourselves that you know better with no acceptance of the facts.

I have nothing but respect for the field of psychology. What I do not have respect for is relying on the opinions of popular culture to determine proper treatment.

I am criticized for challenging science? What science? I would love it if you could show me the science. All I see is opinion based on latest trends.

Popular culture beliefs are not based on science or facts – they are merely reflections of the curtain fashion.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_psychology:

The term popular psychology (frequently called pop psychology or pop psych) refers to concepts and theories about human mental life and behaviour that are purportedly based on psychology and that attain popularity among the general population.

See also
·   New Age
·   Folk psychology
·   Psychobabble
·   Self-help


From www.wisegeek.com/what-is-pop-psychology.htm


Pop psychology (short for popular psychology) is a term used to describe various types of mental strategies that may or may not be scientifically proven, but are purportedly designed to improve one’s psychological well-being and promote a healthier life. Pop psychology includes a wide and ever-changing set of theoretical practices popularized by general public acceptance.



From www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/poppsych.html:


Pop Psychology Myths
Kerby Anderson

Here are a couple mentioned . . .

Myth 2: We need more self-esteem and self-worth.
Myth 4: You shouldn't judge anyone.
Myth 5: All guilt is bad.

Please see website for more myths and further explanation of why these predominant “psychological” opinions are just that – ideological opinions not based on facts.

www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/poppsych.html


.from  www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/psych.htm:

To move from description to prescription is to move from objectivity to opinion. And opinion about human behavior, when presented as truth or scientific fact, is mere pseudoscience. It rests upon false premises (opinions, guesses, subjective explanations) and leads to false conclusions.

The dictionary defines pseudoscience as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific." Pseudoscience, or pseudoscientism, includes the use of the scientific label to protect and promote opinions which are neither provable nor refutable.








Good job in avoiding the tough questions. I still have received no answer to these  . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

I assume you have evidence of these things. What? No evidence? Shocking!

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on August 31, 2009, 01:48:50 PM
Quote
Can you not accept the possibility that society's attitudes towards homosexuality have an impact on some gay people's mental health? Do you really think that rejection by one's family and friends, casual mockery, ridicule and hostility from a large part of the public, condemnation by religious groups which claim they are "intrinsically disordered" or hell-bound sinners, all have no impact on a person?


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 31, 2009, 02:30:00 PM
Quote
Can you not accept the possibility that society's attitudes towards homosexuality have an impact on some gay people's mental health? Do you really think that rejection by one's family and friends, casual mockery, ridicule and hostility from a large part of the public, condemnation by religious groups which claim they are "intrinsically disordered" or hell-bound sinners, all have no impact on a person?


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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ashe on August 31, 2009, 02:45:10 PM
Hm. Interesting thread.

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

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

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

That said, I don't buy the argument along the lines of, "If it's something that can be changed and isn't a big deal, then it's worth a try to make them straight just because of the problems that go along with being gay (like a predisposition to depression)." Women are more likely than men to become depressed and we don't try to change them. Blacks are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, and we don't try to change them. Every group has its downside. That's just how the world works. I'm not one of those who buys into the "being gay is bad because it's associated with other bad things."
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 31, 2009, 02:45:54 PM
Agent40:
Quote
Please show me any documentation of “Christian therapy” that advises a person struggling with same-sex attraction to marry a person of the opposite sex and their problem will go away

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

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

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

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

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


Love that "avoid museums and symphonies" bit.

That's really gonna work.

Gnu.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 31, 2009, 02:59:09 PM
On potential damage (wiki):
Quote
In 2007, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the main professional organization of psychiatrists in the United Kingdom, issued a report stating that:

Evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client's sexual orientation. This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organisations in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Tealeaf on August 31, 2009, 04:06:20 PM
I love how people think that because religion exists, or that because they are religious, it/they deserves respect and an equal footing on such an issue.

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

So for you religious people who think you should be 'heard' on such a topic....you can see why we aren't buying. Or sure we'll listen to the BS, but then turn and rip it to shreads. It's called honesty/integrity.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on August 31, 2009, 04:27:56 PM
It’s also not my position. First, I don’t subscribe to the notion that a once a homosexual always a homosexual like you do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on August 31, 2009, 07:10:55 PM
I love how people think that because religion exists, or that because they are religious, it/they deserves respect and an equal footing on such an issue.

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

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

On a serious note, religion is sterile as a source of knowledge beyond sectarian concerns.  [ details ] (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2750)

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

It's just bigotry.  That's why I've advocated an informal alliance between secular minded people and homosexuals.  Divided, we are targets for the bigots to rotate to one after another.  Together, we're a substantial voice against such latent hate and ignorance.  This would work regardless of the religious beliefs of any one homosexual, or the beliefs on sex of any one secularly minded person -- and we do not need to speak in one voice or in one style to shout the bigots down.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on August 31, 2009, 09:09:30 PM
Quote
Imagine if I studied black people in the pre-Civil war or Jim Crow South (or in the US today, for that matter), and found that they suffered from higher rates of depression, substance abuse, suicide, etc. (As indeed, they appear to.) Should I conclude that this is an intrinsic result of their race? That is what you are doing with regard to gay people.


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

I would think both possibilities should be looked into. Don’t you? Especially in light of the fact that these statistics remain to be true and yet acceptance of homosexuality is increasing.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on August 31, 2009, 09:10:58 PM
Quote
should also add that this issue isn't so black and white. I do not believe that people who engage in homosexual activity, have homosexual attraction, or identify as homosexual will always be that way. Sexuality, I believe, is on a spectrum and it can be quite fluid (generally moreso with females, though not exclusive; and the difference between male and female on that point may be a cultural one). Some people are more sexually fluid than others

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


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


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


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

Again, I’m not really following you. Of course, we try to improve the health of women to help reduce female depression ???? And I’m sure there are scientists currently trying to reduce sickle cell anemia. Different groups are faced with different things and any normal, caring individual would try to help if any group in particular struggled with some problem.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on August 31, 2009, 09:13:49 PM
Quote
Most mental health professionals consider reparative therapy discredited, but it is still practiced by some professionals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Yup, no agenda there!

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

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

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

Wish I could address everyone’s comments and continue the convo, but simply don’t have time. Have a good one.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 01, 2009, 08:03:09 AM
Actually, my point was countering someone else’s original point saying the only reason the rate of alcohol/substance abuse, depression, and suicide rates are higher among homosexuals then heterosexuals is because society does not accept homosexuals.

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

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

The only way we'll ever know that for sure is if society stops treating gays like dirt, then gays continue to have the same problems.  Unless and until that ever happens, it's little more than speculation.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 01, 2009, 08:06:49 AM
Please check out the group Courage that I listed earlier. I hope you will read some of the testimonies and check out their site. And do let me know if you find such a support group harmful.


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

http://www.dignityusa.org/

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

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 01, 2009, 11:00:15 AM
Tell me Pinkmilk, what did you think of the personal testimonies of those homosexuals who sing the praises of getting out of their previous homosexual lifestyle? Are they not considered success stories? Tell me, how does psychology determine successful treatment?
To be honest with you, I take websites that feel the need to post testimonies with a grain of salt.  It means nothing for me to read something in writing that could be written by the creators of the site.  Psychologists determine success on different scales.  Some rely on tests that allow you to asses and rate a client's current condition, others determine success by the specific method they follow.  However success is determined when the desired result of the client is achieved.
Quote

Tell me Pinkmilk, do you believe pedophiles can be rehabilitated?
I do not believe that once a man has reached adulthood that the pedophilia urges will ever go away.  However, this is one of the areas that I am doing extensive research into for my own work.  I do believe that pedophiles can learn to understand their urges, learn that there are consequences that will be placed on them for acting on their urges, and teach them to understand the true emotions of the boy in those situations.  And please don't even start by saying that this is in any way similar to therapy for homosexuals. 
Quote
Do you think it should be further studied that childhood abuse might play a role in sexual orientation?
Personally no.  But if someone wanted to they could.  Although every reputable study I've ever seen has shown no connection between the two. 
You really are a fan of correlation aren't you? 
Quote
How could a psychologist possibly know that encouraging a homosexual lifestyle would be in a person’s best interest? What science/facts are they basing such a view on?
Homosexuality does not harm anyone involved.  Period.  If the client expresses that they are homosexual, or that they are inclined to homosexual desires, then there is nothing wrong with that. 
How is it that the church could possibly know that discouraging a homosexual lifestyle would be in the best interest of a person? 
Quote
Please show me any documentation of “Christian therapy” that advises a person struggling with same-sex attraction to marry a person of the opposite sex and their problem will go away.
I never claimed that there is any therapy out there that says just marry someone of the opposite sex and the problem will go away.  Although I have heard christians suggest things such as this, I am not aware of any therapy program that the church has formed that says this.
Quote
Please show me evidence that the Church tells those struggling with same-sex attraction to join the priesthood because it means God was calling them to become a priest.
I have heard christians say this before, but the catholic church in specific has passed a document that states that no one who is homosexual, have tendencies to be homosexual, or supports homosexual culture can be admitted to priest hood.   

And as for all your "pop psychology" stuff, you do notice that it stated it is used by the general public.   ;)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ashe on September 01, 2009, 12:13:28 PM
Thanks for your honesty and input, although I have to admit I have no idea what you mean by fluid?? It sounds like quite a vague way to describe people. Human beings and relationships can be anything we want them to be, huh? But they aren’t and they can’t. Whether you like it or not, they are limited in their very nature. 

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


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

Yes, I could have phrased that better.

What I mean is that we treat the problem, not the person. As you pointed out, we try to reduce female depression - we don't try to turn females male. We try to help cure sickle cell anemia, but we don't try to turn the black person white to do so. So what I mean is, there's no reason to try to make a gay person straight just because gays have, say, higher rates of depression or whatever than straights. We treat the problem, not the people.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on September 02, 2009, 12:33:50 AM
There are those who engaged in the homosexual lifestyle to only realize it left them empty who went on to have a beautiful, healthy heterosexual relationships.

Like Ted Haggard?


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 02, 2009, 07:47:46 AM
Agent40, homosexuality exists in nature, therefore rendering any argument you might have about it being hurtful or sinful null and void.

Thanks for playing!
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 02, 2009, 08:25:01 AM
There are those who engaged in the homosexual lifestyle to only realize it left them empty who went on to have a beautiful, healthy heterosexual relationships.

Like Ted Haggard?

;D

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

Thanks for playing!

I already know the standard reply to this; it's *our* fault because this world is a fallen world.  Like everything.  Expand that out, and we're back to the Adam and Eve nonsense.  What a convenient dodge not based in logic or reality let alone both.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 02, 2009, 11:42:12 AM
I already know the standard reply to this; it's *our* fault because this world is a fallen world.  Like everything.  Expand that out, and we're back to the Adam and Eve nonsense.  What a convenient dodge not based in logic or reality let alone both.

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

I'm sure the Agent40 will try to argue down that route, but she'd have better success trying to prove the Earth is a flat disc because the bible tells her so!
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 02, 2009, 03:17:35 PM
There is already a 31 page thread in which Agent40 has explained the immorality of many things, including homosexuality.  Her argument is that it goes against the way the body is intended to be used, and violates the natural moral order.  Homosexuality separates the unitive nature of the sex act, and is not for creation and pleasure.   

So there is the basics of what her arguments in regards to homosexuality. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 02, 2009, 03:44:41 PM
Talk about moronic.

So, Agent40, how is that "Earth as a flat disc" theory coming along?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Zankuu on September 02, 2009, 04:26:18 PM
There is already a 31 page thread in which Agent40 has explained the immorality of many things, including homosexuality.  Her argument is that it goes against the way the body is intended to be used, and violates the natural moral order. 

Really? I don't want to jump on the "Bash Agent40" bandwagon, but if that is her argument, it's worthless. Violates the natural moral order? What of elephants, lions, dolphins, sheep, lizards, penguins, etc.? Can you really say they're acting immoral? Or is it just humans because Agent40 believes we have a soul?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 02, 2009, 06:11:10 PM
Her views aren't based on what does or doesn't occur in nature, they're based on the Catholic "natural law" philosophy. It's basically a medieval construct developed by Thomas Aquinas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Contemporary_Catholic_understanding
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 02, 2009, 07:34:10 PM
Jedweber has it correct.  When Agent40 references anything with the term natural in it she is not actually referencing nature. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 02, 2009, 08:31:39 PM
Jedweber has it correct.  When Agent40 references anything with the term natural in it she is not actually referencing nature.

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

The word reality moves the burden of proof back to where it should belong and out of the shell game that people like to play with the words natural and supernatural.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 02, 2009, 09:18:15 PM
Quote
Her views aren't based on what does or doesn't occur in nature, they're based on the Catholic "natural law" philosophy. It's basically a medieval construct developed by Thomas Aquinas.

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

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

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

Gnu.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 03, 2009, 04:43:46 AM
Jedweber, you've (unintentionally, I assume) made it sound as if natural law was a Catholic invention.


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


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

Yes, Hobbes and Locke and all that. But I think Catholics today are mostly looking back to Aquinas' version.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 09, 2009, 11:12:00 AM

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

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


Quote
. We treat the problem, not the people.

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

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

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


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 09, 2009, 11:12:31 AM
Gnu Ordure, hope all is well. Have any good rugby games lately? My 9 year old just won their soccer tournament last weekend – her first trophy! She was beside herself. I think she slept with it.

Anyway, I wanted to preface my next post with an apology that I am addressing a group as opposed to individuals. I know you hate that, but felt it the quickest way. I do realize that not all on this site think or believe the same thing. I also realize not all are atheists. I also realize not all atheists believe homosexual acts are ok, but again I am cutting to the chase and apologize in advance for addressing the collective group.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 09, 2009, 11:16:11 AM
Ok, here’s how I see it. I submit homosexual acts are immoral. Most of you believe they are not immoral.


Some of you have argued homosexuality is found in nature.

Counter: Irrelevant Guess what else is found in nature? Some animals eat their own young. Some animals kill their partner after mating.

Just because something is found in nature is not always an indication it’s good or bad/right or wrong.



Some of you argue homosexual acts do not hurt anyone and therefore are ok.

Counter: You are making the assumption no one gets hurt from homosexual acts. What are you basing such an assumption on?

Whether something causes harm or not is not based on whether the person intended to cause harm. Also, the person may actually be unaware of harm they are causing. Also, harm may be happening not only to others, but to themselves.

And don’t try to argue that lots of things cause harm and we don’t legislate it, because I would simply say -- I agree. And I am not advocating arresting those who engage in homosexual acts. I am simply arguing they are wrong (immoral). A person is always free to make whatever life choices they wish to make. I’ve never said other wise. My argument is right and wrong exist and my argument is it is always in man’s best interest to do that which is right vs. that which is wrong.



Some argue even if something is wrong – we have the right to do what we want.

Me: I agree. But whether a person has the right to do whatever he chooses has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.



Some argue, “you can’t tell a person who they can or cannot love”

Counter: Hogwash! We do it all the time. We tell pedophiles they cannot love children. We tell teachers they cannot love their students. We tell necrophilia’s they cannot love dead people. We tell people they cannot love a person who is already married.



Some argue the only arguments against homosexual acts are religious ones and therefore invalid.

Counter: Wrong. The only arguments against homosexual acts are not religious ones. Homosexual acts are immoral because they violate natural law. The body is being used in a way in which it was not intended. Design and purpose mean something. We all live by these natural laws. We all know necrophilia is wrong. It is disordered. The person is not hurting anyone as you cannot hurt a dead person. Yet we all know such behavior is not right. Some of you have arbitrarily decided to not accept natural law when it comes to homosexual acts. You recognize the disorder in things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality, yet you choose to not follow the natural order when it comes to homosexual acts. 

Unfortunately, there are often very natural consequences when we use something in a way other then which it was intended. These aren’t always immediate, but often they are. We are all affected by these natural laws whether we want to be or not. It isn’t up to us. I didn’t create them and religion didn’t create them. And nature isn’t making a judgment. It is wise and smart to abide by natural law and it is the only thing that will bring true peace and happiness in life. This isn’t a judgment – it just IS. 



Some argue in therapy, if the client expresses that they are homosexual, or that they are inclined to homosexual desires, then there is nothing wrong with that. 


Me: Well, you’re half right. It may not be something they can help and it may not be something that is their fault, and it may even be something that can never be changed. However, this realization does not mean therefore it is right (ok) to engage in homosexual acts. You are making a huge assumption here. I may have the desire to murder my husband. My desire and “feelings” do not determine morality. Right and wrong exists outside of our “feelings”. Feelings come and go. Feelings change. Truth is constant

It also does not mean anyone should judge or condemn a person who has same-sex feelings or make them feel ashamed to be struggling with this difficulty. You are assuming that telling a person homosexual acts are immoral is harmful and mean. I would say quite the opposite – it would be more harmful to not tell your patient the truth.


Some, continuing to bring religion back into the debate argue . . .  How is it that the church could possibly know that discouraging a homosexual lifestyle would be in the best interest of a person?

First of all it isn’t simply the Church which can know such. Anyone can know such -- through logic, observation, facts, science, and right reason. Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws. Design means something. Quite honestly, it is foolish to argue otherwise. You have every right to deny truth, but it is never in your best interest to do so.

To argue that it makes one happy and does no harm is an opinion that has no basis on facts. Science shows us that when you put a part of the body into another part of the body for which it was not intended – there are negative consequences It is a fact that AIDS is much higher in the homosexual community than heterosexual. If one actually accepted this observation, he or she might then want to look into why that might be? And if the person was smart, he or she would not choose to engage in behavior that has been shown to not be in their best interest.


The fact that the world works in a certain way and has an order is not an opinion, nor is it a judgment. The fact that promiscuous people (whether hetero or homo) are more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease is not punishment from some “god” nor is it a judgment of them as a person. The truth is the body doesn’t really care if you are the sweetest person in the world. Nor does the body care that you really really like having multiple sex partners and believe monogamy is a silly outdated concept. The body is simply reacting. Do people have the right to sleep around as much as they like? Yes. Is it a smart decision? No. One could certainly make the argument that it is up to the individual to make the choices he makes, but to ignore the facts that promiscuity has very real negative consequences means something. It’s ignorant and delusional to deny these most obvious observations.


One can also observe in life that sexual intercourse has a procreative function. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make such an astute observation. To deny the procreative purpose of sex again is to not be a very careful observer of life.



Always amazes me when people try to claim a Christian ignores the facts – that a Christian doesn’t listen to science – they simply believe the things they do because their god told them such. HA! I think you might have that a little backwards. Believing it is ok to engage in homosexual acts ignores the message from the world around us. A person who believes such wants to determine his own truth regardless of the facts. It’s irrational and delusional. Atheists are unaware of their own narrow mindedness. Their very worldview is more limiting not less because they are deluded enough to believe they can cheat nature. They are arrogant enough to think they know better and ignorant enough to believe that. 




There you have it folks. Your arguments are arbitrary and pretty much come down to “yeah, well you can’t tell a person what to do – it’s mean!”

But as I pointed out, one can determine things from observing natural cause and effect. I am using a scientific knowledge of action and reaction to discover this truth regarding homosexual acts.

Our love and sense of community leads us to value the life and the welfare of others. If we really valued these things, we would respect the natural moral order that exists. The ramifications of not doing so are not in our own or society’s best interest. 

In other words, religion is not a necessary condition for ethics or morality. Honesty and truth are. Observation is. Science is. Logic is. Reason is.  And even that innate common sense inherent in our very being is. One could argue (and I’m sure some of you atheists agree) morality is an inborn human attribute! This “goodness” is not necessarily a gift of a deity. The standards of conduct, which we accept as right and good, flows naturally from our very being. We innately know it is wrong to steal or take the life of another. In fact, we humans, as a defense mechanism, have to psychologically lie to ourselves about certain things to make it bearable were we to violate the natural moral order we all know to be true. (For example we have to tell ourselves the baby is just a blob of tissue. There is no other way to rationalize such cruelty).


Knowing what we know regarding how the world works and listening to our innate sense of right and wrong, one could only conclude that homosexual acts are immoral. As citizens in a free society we have the freedom and obligation to speak out about ideas and behaviors that are not in the best interest of the individual, or our society. I am exercising this right.

And if you wonder how I can argue our knowledge of right and wrong is innate and yet many of you do not reognize this truth regarding homosexual acts, I would simply say because one of the biggest tragedies of our times has been the erosion of our consciences and the loss of our sense of right and wrong. Although we can all recognize right from wrong/good from bad, it is also possible to decieve ourselves. To buy into the twisted truth that comes at us from the culture today. We can all know right from wrong, but suppress it and choose to ignore it because it may be easier or more comfortable to do so.
Much is justified under the “My body. My right” mantra, even though as I have stated earlier, just because we have a right to do something – doesn’t mean it’s right.


Now I realzie some of you will now try to argue that morality is not innate – it is culturally determined. To that I post from

From www.powertochange.ie/questions/qna6.html


“Surveys tell us that most people in Western society claim to be moral relativists; that is, they claim that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another. But it is very easy to say there are no objective or absolute moral principles. It is much more difficult, however, to live as if there are none.

The way we live, our behaviour and the way we respond when people treat us, the judgements we make when other people are mistreated-these things reveal what we really believe about right and wrong. For example, we believe it was morally wrong for the Nazis to torture and kill six million Jews during World War II. But we not only think it is wrong, we think everyone should agree that it is wrong. This is not to say that something is wrong just because everyone agrees it is wrong. There is a logical possibility that we are mistaken and it is just our cultural conditioning that tells us these things are wrong. This may be a logical possibility, but is it very likely that our deepest intuitions about this matter could be mistaken? That would mean torturing people is not really wrong; we just think it is. But if this basic intuition is wrong, that is, if it is merely the result of cultural conditioning, could it be possible that our other basic beliefs and intuitions, such as our belief in cultural conditioning, are also the result of this same conditioning process? If so, it seems this line of reasoning is self-refuting. It fails its own test.”

www.powertochange.ie/questions/qna6.html


www.newmediaministries.org/Morality/EthicsSection_S.html


Response to: "All morality is culturally determined
and is therefore relative, not absolute."
by Gary C. Burger, MDiv

Let's play a medley of criticisms we hear from the cultural relativists:

"Who are you to impose your moral values on someone else?"

"Who are you to say another's values are wrong?"

Let's put the cultural relativist on the spot. If the challenger is logically consistent he should agree with the following statements:
·   
Blacks should never have been given civil rights in America because that was imposing the ideals of moral reformers like Martin Luther King, Jr. on the culture.
·   

We should respect other cultures for oppressing women through female circumcision, widow-burning, or the burdensome dowry system.
·   

We should not condemn abortions and infanticide in India and China performed to discriminate against female babies.
·   

We should not have interfered with Hitler's plan to conqueror Europe and kill all the Jews.

I could go on ad nauseum, but hopefully this is all anyone needs to see the hypocrisy and double standard necessary to teach and practice cultural relativism.

Do you still believe that we don't have the right to impose good values on another culture?

www.newmediaministries.org/Morality/EthicsSection_S.html


.   - Johnson : Do Objective Moral Standards Exist in the World Today ...

   www.quodlibet.net/johnson-morality.shtml - Cached




Well, I’m sure I will now be scolded for “preaching” and I doubt there is much left to say anyway. I have a feeling the only think you can come back with is I have no proof that a natural moral order exists. This of course always makes me laugh. No. I have no proof – at least not proof that would suffice most of you. Nor could I prove to you the grass is green or the sky is blue . . .

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 09, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
(http://blog.pricelesswriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/walloftext.jpg)

Some of you have argued homosexuality is found in nature. Counter: Irrelevant Guess what else is found in nature? Some animals eat their own young. Some animals kill their partner after mating. Just because something is found in nature is not always an indication it’s good or bad/right or wrong.

The bible actually doesn't forbid eating your own young (just don't boil a kid in its own mother's milk) and obviously the who "don't kill" commandment is subjective, so the first is not a sin, and the second depends on the circumstances.

Quote
Some of you argue homosexual acts do not hurt anyone and therefore are ok. Counter: You are making the assumption no one gets hurt from homosexual acts. What are you basing such an assumption on? Whether something causes harm or not is not based on whether the person intended to cause harm. Also, the person may actually be unaware of harm they are causing. Also, harm may be happening not only to others, but to themselves.

With that logic, heterosexual sex of any kind should also be considered immoral, because its practice could hurt someone within the right circumstances, not even counting rape.

Quote
Some argue, “you can’t tell a person who they can or cannot love”. Counter: Hogwash! We do it all the time. We tell pedophiles they cannot love children. We tell teachers they cannot love their students. We tell necrophilia’s they cannot love dead people. We tell people they cannot love a person who is already married.

First, neither pedophilia or neophilia is actually a sin, strictly speaking. We also don't tell people they cannot love someone who is already married. There are barely any laws against adultery anymore, and even if there are, they are rarely enforced.

Quote
Some argue the only arguments against homosexual acts are religious ones and therefore invalid. Counter: Wrong. The only arguments against homosexual acts are not religious ones. Homosexual acts are immoral because they violate natural law. The body is being used in a way in which it was not intended.

And the reason you claim to know in what way the body was intended is strictly from a religious POV. FAIL.

Quote
Design and purpose mean something.

They mean nothing because you are using your own biases to see design and purpose. You have no biological education to make an informed decision on this topic, merely relying on the fact that you already have an established bias and that you find the idea of anal sex to be "icky".

Quote
We all live by these natural laws.

You invalidated natural law in your first point.

Quote
We all know necrophilia is wrong. It is disordered.

Necrophilia has nothing at all with natural law. We find it distasteful because of the whole "being dead" deal that we have a hard time with. I think we should be respectful of the dead, and that necrophilia speaks to emotional/mental issues (i.e. a desire to have sex with something that can never consent), but it's hardly against "natural law".

Quote
The person is not hurting anyone as you cannot hurt a dead person. Yet we all know such behavior is not right.

Again, it's not that it's not right, it's just highly distasteful and disrespectful as no consent can be given.

Quote
Some of you have arbitrarily decided to not accept natural law when it comes to homosexual acts.

HELLO? Hello? Is anyone home? Think, McFly, THINK! You just squashed the idea of natural law in your opening argument! Did you forget already?

Quote
You recognize the disorder in things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality, yet you choose to not follow the natural order when it comes to homosexual acts. 

There is no disorder there. And again, of the three, only bestiality is a sin. And if homosexual acts occur in animals, then how can you saw that we're not following the "natural order" when it comes to allowing homosexuality?

Quote
Unfortunately, there are often very natural consequences when we use something in a way other then which it was intended.

Like?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 09, 2009, 11:49:25 AM
...you are ignoring that the person’s same-sex attraction could actually be the symptom of a bigger problem (perhaps a sexual identity problem due to childhood abuse or dysfunction).

Fine. Let's concede that some individuals have larger issues involving problems with their sexual identity. Wouldn't you also agree that some homosexual people are happy, healthy, well-adjusted and simply living life in accordance with the way they were created? (Or at least the hand they were dealt, early in life, through no fault or choice of their own?)

What about all the gay people who weren't abused, aren't dysfunctional, don't have deep-rooted sexual identity problems? There would appear to be many of them. Are you denying the existence of such people, or wishing them away, because their existence doesn't jibe with the dogma you adhere to?

Quote
By isolating and defining a human being based on his/her sexual orientation, you are not looking at the whole person.


But you seem to be denying that ANY gay person can be a healthy, whole person, simply because they are gay. So YOU are defining these people based solely on their sexual orientation, and doing exactly what you condemn.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 09, 2009, 03:07:34 PM
Counter: Irrelevant Guess what else is found in nature? Some animals eat their own young. Some animals kill their partner after mating.

Just because something is found in nature is not always an indication it’s good or bad/right or wrong.
You're right.  There are also things we do that aren't found in nature though.  So nature in and of itself isn't the basis of morality.  However when you say things such as "it is unnatural" or "violates the natural moral order" many people take that to mean you are referencing nature.  This is not the first time you've made comments references nature or natural and not really meant nature or natural.  Perhaps you should change the way you word your viewpoints to prevent this confusion.
Quote
Counter: You are making the assumption no one gets hurt from homosexual acts. What are you basing such an assumption on?
I base this statement on the fact that it is two consenting adults who have chosen to participate in sexual activity.  It does not cause harm to any one involved, and it does not cause harm to their neighbors, their community, etc.  Sex is sex rather it is heterosexual or homosexual.  And when it is between two consenting adults it does not harm any one.  You do not hold heterosexual sex to this same standard.
Quote
Whether something causes harm or not is not based on whether the person intended to cause harm. Also, the person may actually be unaware of harm they are causing. Also, harm may be happening not only to others, but to themselves.
First, how does sex, rather heterosexual or homosexual, cause harm to others?  Second, the sex itself doesn't physically harm people.  Can sex lead to emotional damage? Of course, but this can happen to anyone.  The feelings can be dealt with and eventually people will be able to work past that. 
Quote
My argument is right and wrong exist and my argument is it is always in man’s best interest to do that which is right vs. that which is wrong.
You are also assuming that your version of right and wrong is correct and that it is the end all be all to right and wrong.
Quote
Counter: Hogwash! We do it all the time. We tell pedophiles they cannot love children. We tell teachers they cannot love their students. We tell necrophilia’s they cannot love dead people. We tell people they cannot love a person who is already married.
That is because there is a difference.  Homosexual sex is between two consenting partners, otherwise it is called rape.  Pedophiles are told they can't love children because children are not a consenting partner either.  Necrophiliacs are also in some ways having sex with an unwilling participant, not to mention that most people would consider it is disrespectful to the loved ones who are left behind grieving.   There are reasons why certain things are wrong and/or frowned upon.
Quote
Counter: Wrong. The only arguments against homosexual acts are not religious ones. Homosexual acts are immoral because they violate natural law.
While I know that there are those who are not religious who are against homosexuality, they tend to be homophobic.  How many people outside of the religious community have you ever heard argue for a natural law?
Quote
The body is being used in a way in which it was not intended. Design and purpose mean something.
First of all you are assuming that the body is designed for certain things and not for others. You are making several claims in your counter arguments that you are just assuming to be true.  The problem with your counter arguments is that they are based on false assertions, or at least assertions that you have not/can not prove.
Quote
We all live by these natural laws. We all know necrophilia is wrong. It is disordered. The person is not hurting anyone as you cannot hurt a dead person.
But you can harm the grieving family members.
Quote
Yet we all know such behavior is not right. Some of you have arbitrarily decided to not accept natural law when it comes to homosexual acts. You recognize the disorder in things like pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality, yet you choose to not follow the natural order when it comes to homosexual acts. 
I do not accept your natural law though at all.  While there may be certain aspects of it that I can agree with, it does not mean that I agree with the reasonings behind it or other aspects of what you claim to be natural law. 
Quote
Unfortunately, there are often very natural consequences when we use something in a way other then which it was intended. These aren’t always immediate, but often they are. We are all affected by these natural laws whether we want to be or not. It isn’t up to us. I didn’t create them and religion didn’t create them. And nature isn’t making a judgment. It is wise and smart to abide by natural law and it is the only thing that will bring true peace and happiness in life. This isn’t a judgment – it just IS. 
So what are the consequences of natural law in regards to homosexual acts? 
Quote
Me: Well, you’re half right. It may not be something they can help and it may not be something that is their fault, and it may even be something that can never be changed.
Wow.  The ignorance in this statement actually made my jaw drop. 
Quote
However, this realization does not mean therefore it is right (ok) to engage in homosexual acts. You are making a huge assumption here. I may have the desire to murder my husband. My desire and “feelings” do not determine morality. Right and wrong exists outside of our “feelings”. Feelings come and go. Feelings change. Truth is constant
Of course feelings don't determine if something is right or wrong.  The feelings that a homosexual has for their partner at one point in time may change, but the homosexuality still lies under it all.  You have to realize that there is a huge difference between wanting to murder someone and homosexuality.  Murder harms another person and robs them of their most prized possession, life.  You have yet to prove how homosexual acts harm anyone.
Quote
It also does not mean anyone should judge or condemn a person who has same-sex feelings or make them feel ashamed to be struggling with this difficulty. You are assuming that telling a person homosexual acts are immoral is harmful and mean. I would say quite the opposite – it would be more harmful to not tell your patient the truth.
It is mean and it can be harmful.  Many homosexuals have to struggle with familial pressure and already struggle with their homosexuality internally because of societal pressures.  The last thing that they need to hear from anyone, especially from the religious and homophobic communities that their sexual orientation is wrong. 
Quote
First of all it isn’t simply the Church which can know such. Anyone can know such -- through logic, observation, facts, science, and right reason. Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws. Design means something. Quite honestly, it is foolish to argue otherwise. You have every right to deny truth, but it is never in your best interest to do so.
You're right, the penis and vagina were designed to fit together, however it does not mean that they have only one purpose/function.  There are people who are heterosexual who do not use them for their "intended purpose".  So your argument falls apart.  What observation, facts, science, and reason would lead you to believe that your opinion is correct?
Quote
To argue that it makes one happy and does no harm is an opinion that has no basis on facts.
This is actually directly observable.   It has it's basis in reality. 
Quote
Science shows us that when you put a part of the body into another part of the body for which it was not intended – there are negative consequences It is a fact that AIDS is much higher in the homosexual community than heterosexual. If one actually accepted this observation, he or she might then want to look into why that might be? And if the person was smart, he or she would not choose to engage in behavior that has been shown to not be in their best interest.
Two things about this.  First an individual must first have HIV/AIDS in order to transmit it to another human being.  The reason it spread higher through the homosexual community was due to two things.  Drug use in the homosexual community, especially during the 80's was higher by population than in the heterosexual community.  Second it is more easily spread through anal sex because it can often lead to ruptured blood vessels that allow it to seep into the blood stream.  This is also the result of not using protection.  So the answer isn't that the homosexual act is bad, it's about taking precautions.  Using protection, knowing if your partner is infected, etc. 
Quote
The fact that the world works in a certain way and has an order is not an opinion, nor is it a judgment. The fact that promiscuous people (whether hetero or homo) are more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease is not punishment from some “god” nor is it a judgment of them as a person. The truth is the body doesn’t really care if you are the sweetest person in the world. Nor does the body care that you really really like having multiple sex partners and believe monogamy is a silly outdated concept. The body is simply reacting.
STD's just don't pop up because someone has sex with multiple partners. STD's are not the body's reaction to sex, they are diseases.  It is the result of carelessness on the participants.
Quote

 Do people have the right to sleep around as much as they like? Yes. Is it a smart decision? No. One could certainly make the argument that it is up to the individual to make the choices he makes, but to ignore the facts that promiscuity has very real negative consequences means something. It’s ignorant and delusional to deny these most obvious observations.
Promiscuity in and of itself doesn't have consequences.  Carelessness about taking precautions when participating in sexual acts does.
Quote
One can also observe in life that sexual intercourse has a procreative function. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make such an astute observation. To deny the procreative purpose of sex again is to not be a very careful observer of life.
Of course there is a procreation aspect to sex.  Sex is how we reproduce.  However it is not the sole purpose.  To not acknowledge this is not a careful observation of life.
Quote
There you have it folks. Your arguments are arbitrary and pretty much come down to “yeah, well you can’t tell a person what to do – it’s mean!”
Your arguments are all based on assumptions that you can not back up.  You continually reference things as if there is only one purpose for which anything is meant to be used.  Any variation is "wrong".  Your claims are based around things that are easily broken down and you haven't even proven the basis of your assertions to be true before using them.
Quote
But as I pointed out, one can determine things from observing natural cause and effect. I am using a scientific knowledge of action and reaction to discover this truth regarding homosexual acts.
You have only listed things that are possible effects.  They do not happen all the time, and are not solely the results of homosexual activities nor are they based on the fact that someone is homosexual and participates in homosexual acts.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 09, 2009, 03:49:58 PM
I think the root of Agent40s argument can be simplified to this:

"When I imagine two men having sex, I find it icky!"
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 09, 2009, 09:34:22 PM
Quote
I think the root of Agent40s argument can be simplified to this:

"When I imagine two men having sex, I find it icky!"

Gee, that’s so original. Yeah, all christians are prudes and sexually repressed. I’ve heard it all before – makes me laugh every time. I didn’t once mention that homosexual acts were disgusting or vulgar or gross. I merely stated they violate the natural moral order. Good job, however, in dismissing an argument with a prejudiced stereotype, based on nothing I said. I guess I’m not surprised – obviously, that’s all you got!
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 09, 2009, 09:39:16 PM
Quote
Tell me Pinkmilk, what did you think of the personal testimonies of those homosexuals who sing the praises of getting out of their previous homosexual lifestyle? Are they not considered success stories? Tell me, how does psychology determine successful treatment?

Quote
Pinkmilk: success is determined when the desired result of the client is achieved.

Thank you. Nothing further your honor.



Quote
There are reasons why certain things are wrong and/or frowned upon.

You’re right -- there are. Thank you.



Quote
There are people who are heterosexual who do not use them for their "intended purpose".  So your argument falls apart


Sorry, my argument is still intact, as I believe people who engage in heterosexual acts that do not follow intended purpose are wrong as well.



Quote
Promiscuity in and of itself doesn't have consequences.  Carelessness about taking precautions when participating in sexual acts does
.


Huh? This is an ignorant comment. Of course, promiscuity in and of itself has consequences and is always wrong, whether a person takes “precautions” or not. (Your comment is like trying to say . . .  the reason I got pregnant has nothing to do with the fact that I had sex – I got pregnant because I didn’t have a condom. LOL!)

Also, you must not be familiar with this information . . .

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavi

"The researchers concluded that among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection, but the probability of sexually active women contracting HPV, was not reduced to a safe level.[70] If a college woman has at least one different partner per year for four years, the probability that she will leave college with an HPV infection is greater than 85 percent.[70] Condoms do not protect from the virus because the areas around the genitals including the inner thigh area are not covered, thus exposing these areas to the infected person’s skin.[70]"

Huh? What kind of precautions you gonna take for that Pinkmilk?


From health.rutgers.edu/HPV/default.htm

·   HPV infection is extremely common.
- It is estimated that at any given time 20-40 million Americans are infected.
- Over a typical college career approximately 60% of sexually active women will become infected.  While it is assumed that a similar number of men are also infected, there are no good statistics as it is harder to test for HPV in men than women.
·   Cancer of the cervix is almost always caused by HPV infection (high risk strains).
·   Since HPV is transmitted by close genital contact, condoms provide some, but  imperfect, protection against infection.
·   There is no test that can guarantee that anyone (particularly men) are not infected with HPV.
·   HPV infection is particularly serious in those with an immune disorder (e.g. HIV/AIDS)
·   HPV can be contracted by one person, cause absolutely no symptoms, and, months or years later, be transmitted to a new partner.




Quote
Second it is more easily spread through anal sex because it can often lead to ruptured blood vessels that allow it to seep into the blood stream.

Exactly.



Oh, Pinkmilk, you believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong about homosexual acts, huh? Just like there is nothing intrinsically wrong about pornography, right? You are blind Pink. You fail to value the human person. You want to support/engage in behavior that is beneath a person’s dignity. And then you insist others (who know better) to call it dignified.

You attempt to argue that homosexual acts must be ok because it is between two consenting adults. This is the only argument your side has and yet it fails. Because whether two consenting adults agree to something or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

If two consenting adults were already married, but agreed to have an affair, this would still be immoral. It doesn’t matter if their spouses are jerks. It doesn’t matter if they really “love” each other, or whatever. It would always be wrong.

Also, two consenting adults could be brother and sister and yet no one has a problem telling them it is wrong for them to have sexual relations.

A teacher and a student could both be consenting adults and yet it is wrong (immoral) for them to have sex while they have a student/teacher relationship.


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

I realize we have different views, but you have reminded me once again how far away you are from truth. 

I will most likely have to leave it at that – as your side gets very upset when someone presents reasonable, logical arguments and they only have their “feelings” to insist upon.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 09, 2009, 10:04:51 PM
Good job, however, in dismissing an argument with a prejudiced stereotype, based on nothing I said. I guess I’m not surprised – obviously, that’s all you got!

The stereotype is based on your ridiculous "natural order" argument. Plus, it's not all I've got, you just haven't bothered to respond to me in my previous substantive post. Mock me all you want, but your personal bias against a particular sexual act is plain to all.

Sorry, my argument is still intact, as I believe people who engage in heterosexual acts that do not follow intended purpose are wrong as well.

That's not an argument. That's a personal issue. You can not prove that homosexual acts don't follow some intended purpose, and the very evidence that this is not the case is that animals engage in it as well. If it's not the intended purpose to have homosexual relations, why do animals engage in it? And what exactly is this intended purpose of which you speak? Procreation? I wouldn't travel down that route if I were you because we've already beaten that horse.

Quote
Of course, promiscuity in and of itself has consequences and is always wrong, whether a person takes “precautions” or not.

Wrong again. Promiscuity is not "wrong" outside of the bible, and that's all you have to say it is wrong. If you are promiscuous day in and day out, and never transmit an STD and never get anyone pregnant, then what exactly are your consequences? And please don't bring up "emotional harm" because, not only is that ridiculous, but I was causing that way before I ever had sex when I would break up with a girl who wanted to be with me.



Quote
Also, you must not be familiar with this information . . .

"The researchers concluded that among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection, but the probability of sexually active women contracting HPV, was not reduced to a safe level.[70] If a college woman has at least one different partner per year for four years, the probability that she will leave college with an HPV infection is greater than 85 percent.[70] Condoms do not protect from the virus because the areas around the genitals including the inner thigh area are not covered, thus exposing these areas to the infected person’s skin.[70]"

Huh? What kind of precautions you gonna take for that Pinkmilk?

Hey Miss Quoteminer, you should have researched a little further (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/25/2642).

Quote
If two consenting adults were already married, but agreed to have an affair, this would still be immoral. It doesn’t matter if their spouses are jerks. It doesn’t matter if they really “love” each other, or whatever. It would always be wrong.

How would this be immoral?

Quote
Also, two consenting adults could be brother and sister and yet no one has a problem telling them it is wrong for them to have sexual relations.

But not for Abraham and Sarah, huh?

Quote
A teacher and a student could both be consenting adults and yet it is wrong (immoral) for them to have sex while they have a student/teacher relationship.

That's a social more as opposed to being "immoral" in a naturalistic sense.

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

The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 09, 2009, 10:13:13 PM
You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

"Homosexual acts" are not "good" in and of themselves. They may be a good part of the lives of homosexual people. You are dehumanizing these people when you define them by a sexual act.

You didn't answer my question above. Do you deny that ANY gay person can be a happy, healthy, well-adjusted "whole person"?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: One Above All on September 10, 2009, 09:25:24 AM
Quote
I think the root of Agent40s argument can be simplified to this:

"When I imagine two men having sex, I find it icky!"

Gee, that’s so original. Yeah, all christians are prudes and sexually repressed. I’ve heard it all before – makes me laugh every time. I didn’t once mention that homosexual acts were disgusting or vulgar or gross. I merely stated they violate the natural moral order. Good job, however, in dismissing an argument with a prejudiced stereotype, based on nothing I said. I guess I’m not surprised – obviously, that’s all you got!


what about gay animals? god made them
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on September 10, 2009, 09:29:04 AM
I can't possibly begin to address every single one of Agent40's points; there are just too many and I literally don't have time.  Fortunately, it's not a big deal.  Despite the fact that you'll find nothing but criticism of homosexuality in Agent40's posts, my life isn't suffering from any of the various maladies listed in these impenetrably long posts.  My life isn't a bowl of cherries, and much remains to be done, but my issues are all career-related and have nothing to do with my sexuality.  

But I find this interesting enough to point out...

Quote from: Agent40
Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws.

I find this the most dangerous idea, because it would suggest that the best thing for a homosexual man to do is marry a woman.  From decades of observation, I have to say that this rarely works, and only then when the woman doesn't have a strong need for physical affection (and, to my surprise, there seem to be women who fit into this subset).  Otherwise it's a recipe for misery, and is patently unfair to the women involved.  

Marriage isn't a cure for homosexuality; it's more like a magnifying glass for it.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 10, 2009, 09:48:03 AM
Thank you. Nothing further your honor.
You say that as if what I said proves your point.  When in fact it actually does quite the opposite.
Quote
You’re right -- there are. Thank you.
And it's not the reasons that you state. 
Quote
Sorry, my argument is still intact, as I believe people who engage in heterosexual acts that do not follow intended purpose are wrong as well.
I bet you yelled at all the children in preschool who tried to put the circle peg through the square hole.  You have to prove an intended purpose first. 
Quote
Huh? This is an ignorant comment. Of course, promiscuity in and of itself has consequences and is always wrong, whether a person takes “precautions” or not. (Your comment is like trying to say . . .  the reason I got pregnant has nothing to do with the fact that I had sex – I got pregnant because I didn’t have a condom. LOL!)
Actually it's not.  Obviously it is the act of sex that allows the transmission of disease, but it is not promiscuity that directly leads to it.  It is carelessness while having sex. But I don't expect you to agree as you are against birth control in all it's forms (except NFP, which IS still birth control).  All you have managed to do is to twist my argument to make it say what you want.  If someone knows they have an STD then they have a certain responsibility to their partners.  It's called being mature.  As someone's partner, it is also the mature thing to inquire about such things first.  Naturally taking precautions follows.  Do some promiscuous people not follow safety guidelines, of course, but the majority do.
Quote
Also, you must not be familiar with this information . . .

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavi

"The researchers concluded that among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection, but the probability of sexually active women contracting HPV, was not reduced to a safe level.[70] If a college woman has at least one different partner per year for four years, the probability that she will leave college with an HPV infection is greater than 85 percent.[70] Condoms do not protect from the virus because the areas around the genitals including the inner thigh area are not covered, thus exposing these areas to the infected person’s skin.[70]"

Huh? What kind of precautions you gonna take for that Pinkmilk?
HPV can be spread through more than just sex.  It can be spread through sharing a toilet seat with someone who has HPV.  Not to mention that there are dozens of varieties of HPV.  So again, making yourself knowledgeable about those whom you live with, those you sleep with, etc. will help you to take precautions. Plus as a female you can actually vaccinate yourself against HPV.
Quote

From health.rutgers.edu/HPV/default.htm

·   HPV infection is extremely common.
- It is estimated that at any given time 20-40 million Americans are infected.
- Over a typical college career approximately 60% of sexually active women will become infected.  While it is assumed that a similar number of men are also infected, there are no good statistics as it is harder to test for HPV in men than women.
·   Cancer of the cervix is almost always caused by HPV infection (high risk strains).
·   Since HPV is transmitted by close genital contact, condoms provide some, but  imperfect, protection against infection.
·   There is no test that can guarantee that anyone (particularly men) are not infected with HPV.
·   HPV infection is particularly serious in those with an immune disorder (e.g. HIV/AIDS)
·   HPV can be contracted by one person, cause absolutely no symptoms, and, months or years later, be transmitted to a new partner.
This is all true, however it leaves out a great deal of the facts.  Also you should probably note that when women are tested for HPV, they are always asked if they are sexually active.  Most women in college are.  This does not mean that the sexual act transmitted the disease to them. 
Quote
Oh, Pinkmilk, you believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong about homosexual acts, huh? Just like there is nothing intrinsically wrong about pornography, right? You are blind Pink.
Because there isn't.  You have yet to prove that the basis for all of your arguments is true.  Without that your assertions are based on false principles. 
Quote
You fail to value the human person.
I value people a great deal.  I believe that human life is one's ultimate possession.  I also value a person's individual rights.  This is something that you see no problem stomping on in favor of your unproven basis.
Quote
You want to support/engage in behavior that is beneath a person’s dignity. And then you insist others (who know better) to call it dignified.
Prey tell, how is sex below a person's dignity?  Sex is part of living. 
Quote
You attempt to argue that homosexual acts must be ok because it is between two consenting adults. This is the only argument your side has and yet it fails. Because whether two consenting adults agree to something or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
That is not the only argument.  You have claimed that it hurts people.  You have not proven this.  The argument that it is between two consenting adults was a rebuttal to your comparison of homosexual activity with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. 
Quote
If two consenting adults were already married, but agreed to have an affair, this would still be immoral. It doesn’t matter if their spouses are jerks. It doesn’t matter if they really “love” each other, or whatever. It would always be wrong.
Now this situation depends on how you mean.  If there are two couples, A and B, and the man from marriage A agrees to have an affair with the woman from marriage B without the other spouses knowing, then I do think that is wrong.  It will be very hurtful to the spouses who believe they are in a monogamous relationship.  However if you mean that there is a married couple who decides that they want to swing, then there is nothing wrong with that. I personally would never participate in such a thing, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Quote
Also, two consenting adults could be brother and sister and yet no one has a problem telling them it is wrong for them to have sexual relations.
The biggest reasons against incest are medical.  When family have children together the medical complications that can occur any offspring produced through sexual activity is exponentially greater than two unrelated individuals.  The list increases greatly the more closely related the two are.  You really have no idea why society says that certain things are bad do you? 
Quote
A teacher and a student could both be consenting adults and yet it is wrong (immoral) for them to have sex while they have a student/teacher relationship.
It is not wrong/immoral, it is simply unethical. It is part of the teacher's ethical code that they are not to participate in sexual relations with their students.  It does not make it wrong. 
Quote
You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.
My reasons are more than valid.  You fail to see the validity in them because you are so attached to your unfounded belief in "natural moral order".
Quote
I realize we have different views, but you have reminded me once again how far away you are from truth. 
Agent40...truth...PinkMilk
Quote
I will most likely have to leave it at that – as your side gets very upset when someone presents reasonable, logical arguments and they only have their “feelings” to insist upon.
You will have to leave it at that because you have nothing further to offer, other than misrepresented quotemines, an unfounded basis, and a lack of understanding of how homosexuality is different than other behaviors that are frowned upon, not to mention that you don't even know why those things are frowned upon.  My arguments are not based on feelings at all.  And I personally will not get upset at your attempts to explain why you are right.  However you must first prove that the basis of your argument is true for anything you say to be remotely true.  You must prove that there is in fact a natural moral order, you must prove that things only have one intended purpose, etc. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: William on September 10, 2009, 10:24:46 AM
But I find this interesting enough to point out...

Quote from: Agent40
Male and female were designed to fit together. The body has a purpose/function. If man wants the best out of life – he remains true to these natural laws.

I find this the most dangerous idea, because it would suggest that the best thing for a homosexual man to do is marry a woman.  From decades of observation, I have to say that this rarely works, and only then when the woman doesn't have a strong need for physical affection (and, to my surprise, there seem to be women who fit into this subset). Otherwise it's a recipe for misery, and is patently unfair to the women involved.  

Marriage isn't a cure for homosexuality; it's more like a magnifying glass for it.

Exactly right Onesimus!!  Dear friends of mine ended their marriage when the husband eventually came to terms with his sexuality.  The husband, despite loving the wife as a companion of many years, has done the right thing and is now at last leading a life that includes sexual honesty and fulfillment.  The wife had her life shattered.  Such a marriage would never have occurred without social/religious pressures to conform.  

Sexual expression is a spectrum, it's complex and multi-factorial, influenced by both hereditary and environmental factors beyond the control of the individual.  There are no black and white answers - no plain vanilla solutions.  So forcing people into heterosexual conformity may work in a few instances but for many it will end in tears.   All people need is acceptance, not judgment.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Pastafarian on September 10, 2009, 11:15:46 AM
BM
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 10, 2009, 11:54:45 AM
Quote
Hey Miss Quoteminer, you should have researched a little further.

Perhaps you should have comprehended a little better. It is a fact that HPV’s can be transmitted via skin to skin contact. So unless, you plan to wrap your entire body in latex – your little condom is not full protection. Tell me, do you liberals inform the inquiring teens about that?






Quote
what about gay animals? god made them

What about them? We are different than the animals.

P.S. Not that this even matters but, the observation of homosexuality in nature is quite intereresting. Many have gone so far as to claim if same-sex animals pal around – they must be gay. Or they try to say since some male animals are the ones who care for their young – they must be gay. Or if two animals of the same sex rub their feathers against each other – they must be gay. Guess what else? The famous penguins that made all the headlines a few years ago as being “homosexual lovers” have split and are now with females. Go figure. So forgive me if I question the statistics on homosexuality found in the animal kingdom.



Quote
Marriage isn't a cure for homosexuality; it's more like a magnifying glass for it.


Couldn’t agree with you more. Not all are meant to marry. I’ve never said otherwise. Living a celibate lifestyle has its rewards.


Quote
So forcing people into heterosexual conformity may work in a few instances but for many it will end in tears
I’m sorry, did someone force your friend to marry a woman when he knew he had same-sex feelings?

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 10, 2009, 11:56:37 AM
Quote
I bet you yelled at all the children in preschool who tried to put the circle peg through the square hole.  You have to prove an intended purpose first.


Guess what Pinkmilk, any preschooler who doesn’t eventually learn that a round peg is made for a round hole, will probably have quite a few problems in life. And isn’t it interesting that naturally children would come to discover on their own that it is best to put a square peg in a square hole. So smart those innocent little tykes.


Quote
If someone knows they have an STD then they have a certain responsibility to their partners.  It's called being mature


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



Quote
Plus as a female you can actually vaccinate yourself against HPV.


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




Quote
I personally would never participate in such a thing, but that doesn't make it wrong.


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

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



Quote
The biggest reasons against incest are medical.  When family have children together the medical complications that can occur any offspring produced through sexual activity is exponentially greater than two unrelated individuals.  The list increases greatly the more closely related the two are.  You really have no idea why society says that certain things are bad do you? 



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

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



Quote
It is not wrong/immoral, it is simply unethical

It’s not wrong to be unethical?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 10, 2009, 11:57:18 AM



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


Quote
The burden of proof is on you

Why? It was believed far longer and by far more that homosexual acts are wrong. Why do I now have to accept your opinion that they are not? You are the one challenging the status quo. On what are you basing your position?


Most of you are simply repeating the same questions and I do not have time or feel like continuing to show the holes in your predictable, illogical arguments. Again, why don’t you really think about why it is homosexual acts are fine and get back to me. I’m still waiting on an argument not based on “feelings.” Thanks. Maybe I’ll check back in a couple of months and see what some of you have come up with. Think I’ll hear the same lame arguments that animals do it? Hmmm??? Survey says . . . .

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 10, 2009, 12:03:25 PM
Why? It was believed far longer and by far more that homosexual acts are wrong.

This is a combination of two logical fallacies: the Appeal to Tradition and the Democratic Fallacy.

Quote
Again, why don’t you really think about why it is homosexual acts are fine and get back to me.

Because they are acts performed between consenting adults in private.  Yes, it really is that simple.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: One Above All on September 10, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
Quote
What about them? We are different than the animals.

P.S. Not that this even matters but, the observation of homosexuality in nature is quite intereresting. Many have gone so far as to claim if same-sex animals pal around – they must be gay. Or they try to say since some male animals are the ones who care for their young – they must be gay. Or if two animals of the same sex rub their feathers against each other – they must be gay. Guess what else? The famous penguins that made all the headlines a few years ago as being “homosexual lovers” have split and are now with females. Go figure. So forgive me if I question the statistics on homosexuality found in the animal kingdom.

i actually mean two male animals having sex with each other. like in our species, it's not a choice
we are different but were made by the same "all loving god" so god made homosexuals
btw, where did you read that the penguins have split and are with females? source now
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Zankuu on September 10, 2009, 01:24:56 PM
What about them? We are different than the animals.

We are animals.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 10, 2009, 01:25:39 PM
Quote
Because they are acts performed between consenting adults in private.  Yes, it really is that simple.

   

Not really. As I have already posted, there are a great number of things we tell two consenting adults they are not allowed to engage in. I believe your fallacy is that just because two people choose to do something – it must be right. YAre you guilty here of the "democratic fallacy"? – whether something is right or not has nothing to do with if two people agree that it is.





Quote
i actually mean two male animals having sex with each other. like in our species, it's not a choice

Perhaps. Perhaps not, but the pedophile may argue his sexual attraction to children is not a choice. IOW, it’s irrelevant.


Quote
we are different but were made by the same "all loving god" so god made homosexuals

God made those who might suffer from same-sex attraction – yes. However, it has never been shown that those who have same-sex attraction were in fact born that way. This was not necessarily God's plan and may be a result of environment.


Quote
btw, where did you read that the penguins have split and are with females? source now

From www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2947

"Medved also points out that penguins are also being used in story books for public schools to promote the homosexual agenda to elementary school kids. The book, And Tango Makes Three tells the story of two alleged homosexual penguins in the New York Zoo, who raised a baby penguin as their own. The book, however, doesn’t tell the whole story. Penguins Silo and Roy have turned out not to be homosexuals at all. Silo has mated with a female from San Diego’s Sea World and Roy is currently single at the zoo."

The myth of homosexuality within the animal kingdom is detailed in “The Animal Homosexuality Myth.”


From americansfortruth.com/youth-and-schools/books

"International news stories reported, however, that their partnership proved short-lived: As soon as Scrappy, a sultry, seductive female from San Diego’s Sea World, arrived in their enclosure, Silo instantly took notice, straightened up and mated with the irresistible gal — leaving his guy pal behind (an outcome never described, of course, in the propagandistic story book for kids)."


Gads! Again, I really don’t have time for all this. I really must stop. You guys need to work on your position.  Like I said, I’ll check back in a few months – I think you need a little time.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 10, 2009, 01:27:13 PM
Pinkmilk, I wanted to be sure you understood my point regarding incest. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim society is opposed to incest for the good of society because genetic problems could arise if related people have a baby together. What if brother and sister wanted to get married and promised to use protection?

If risk to society is a factor, then I am allowed to argue homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex.

See? You really don’t even know what you believe or why you believe it. Again your position that homosexual acts are ok doesn’t hold up based on your own logic. Care to try again? Think about for a couple of months. Take all the time you need . . .


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: One Above All on September 10, 2009, 01:29:13 PM
it's not perhaps, perhaps not. its NOT a choice. it's like liking certain kinds of food, you cant CHOOSE to like them
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 10, 2009, 01:38:15 PM
What if brother and sister wanted to get married and promised to use protection?

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

Quote
If risk to society is a factor, then I am allowed to argue homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex.

Because of the lack of procreation? Please. That would require homosexual numbers far, far greater then we have ever seen.

However, it has never been shown that those who have same-sex attraction were in fact born that way.

It has never been disproven either. But does that even matter? Can't people be allowed to be sexually interested in whoever they will, granted that the object of attraction is able to give consent? Why don't you let people alone and leave them for judgment in your fantasy afterlife?

Quote
"Medved also points out that penguins are also being used in story books for public schools to promote the homosexual agenda to elementary school kids. The book, And Tango Makes Three tells the story of two alleged homosexual penguins in the New York Zoo, who raised a baby penguin as their own. The book, however, doesn’t tell the whole story. Penguins Silo and Roy have turned out not to be homosexuals at all. Silo has mated with a female from San Diego’s Sea World and Roy is currently single at the zoo."

Yeah, they were only together for six years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo).

Quote
"International news stories reported, however, that their partnership proved short-lived: As soon as Scrappy, a sultry, seductive female from San Diego’s Sea World, arrived in their enclosure, Silo instantly took notice, straightened up and mated with the irresistible gal — leaving his guy pal behind (an outcome never described, of course, in the propagandistic story book for kids)."

Again, after six years. and Silo left his female after one year.

Quote
Gads! Again, I really don’t have time for all this. I really must stop. You guys need to work on your position.

No reason to be smug. You're obviously not as smart as you think you are.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2009, 01:40:36 PM
Quote
Because of the lack of procreation? Please. That would require homosexual numbers far, far greater then we have ever seen.

The same reasoning would also argue against celibacy, an option to which Agent40 has given approval.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 10, 2009, 01:47:32 PM
Quote
Because they are acts performed between consenting adults in private.  Yes, it really is that simple.
   

Quote
Not really.

Yes, really.

Quote
As I have already posted, there are a great number of things we tell two consenting adults they are not allowed to engage in.

That does not mean that this should be one of them.  That's a non sequitur.  It also used to be illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in oral sex (for that matter, in some states, it still is).  It also used to be illegal for blacks to have sex with whites.  Those laws weren't justifiable by comparison to bans on incest or bestiality, either.  I might also point out, by the way, that homosexual acts are not illegal anymore.

Quote
I believe your fallacy is that just because two people choose to do something – it must be right.

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

Quote
YAre you guilty here of the "democratic fallacy"? –

Saying that two people have the right to decide for themselves what to do in their bedroom behind closed doors is not an example of the Democratic Fallacy.  If you believe that, then you might want to read up on what that particular fallacy is.

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

It does it what they're deciding on is nobody else's business and doesn't affect anyone else.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 10, 2009, 03:36:57 PM
You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.

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

You keep referring to "homosexual acts" as if they exist on their own, in a vacuum, devoid of any context or meaning. A prison rape is a "homosexual act", so is an act of love and affection between two men in Massachusetts who are married to each other. Are you suggesting these are somehow equivalent? Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Azdgari on September 10, 2009, 03:43:20 PM
...
Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?

I think that that's maybe the point, jedweber.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 10, 2009, 03:51:39 PM
Something's odd here, Agent 40. Supposedly you're here championing "Christian" values like morality and love. Yet your apparent willingness to demean and disparage gay people belies that.

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

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

Do you actually know any gay people personally? Did you find them to be disease-ridden, mentally-ill people who subjected you to depraved sexual acts? That's certainly how you seem to be characterizing them.

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

Can you not see why your attitude may appear to others to be hateful, even if you try to dress it up as loving?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jazzman on September 10, 2009, 04:01:23 PM
I merely stated they violate the natural moral order.
Agent40:

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

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

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

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

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

Jazzman


Edited to clarify an idea.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 10, 2009, 04:17:44 PM
...
Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?

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

She doesn't seem to be aware of it, though.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 10, 2009, 06:29:32 PM
You have yet again failed to provide evidence that the basis for your arguments are true.  You have not said how homosexual sex harms anyone, you have not stated how it is known that the penis is only meant for one purpose, etc.  Therefore your claims are based on foundless principles
Quote
You didn’t read my link regarding HPV’s very well, did you? Most people that have hpv don’t even know they have it. And even when they do condems cannot provide full protection. The disease can be spread via skin to skin contact in the surrounding area. Now what Pinkmilk? Will you concede that the responsible thing to do would be to not engage in sex?
Getting tested would be the responsible thing.  There are several STD's that don't show signs for a long time if ever.  To simply not engage in sex because you don't know if you have HPV is ridiculous. 
Quote
Yet another ignorant comment. HPV vaccines do NOT protect against all strains  -- in fact, not even close. Why not share that important information Pink? You guys never really read the fine print from all your coveted CDC, AMA, and WHO organizations, do you? 
Of course it doesn't but it does protect against the most harmful and common strains of HPV.
Quote
Ahh yes, the “I’m personally opposed to ………, but “

Huh? If it’s not wrong, why are you personally opposed to it?
I didn't say I was opposed to it at all.  I said I personally would never participate in the act.  Many people wouldn't participate in skydiving but it doesn't mean they are opposed to it. 
Quote
Tell me Pinkmilk, what is there a greater chance of?   . . .  that if a brother and sister had sex and their child would have some genetic mutation OR the chance that two homosexual men are more likely to contract AIDS? Can you provide me those statistics? Kinda interesting to argue society is concerned about harm from future genetic problems but not the harm from spread of AIDS.
The chances of mutations between related individuals is almost inevitable. As far as AIDS, it can only occur when one of the partners has AIDS, so I'm tempted to say that genetic mutations between relatives would be more likely.  Heterosexual sex can result in the transmission of AIDS as well, but you aren't railing against that because you can contract AIDS.
Quote
 
See Pink, I think it is you who really have no idea why society says what it says, do you?
To say homosexuality is wrong because they can get AIDS is absurd and you know it.
Quote
It’s not wrong to be unethical?
The particular ethical guideline about student teacher relationships is there to preserve the one relationship and to prevent conflict between two different relationships. 

Now then would you like to provide evidence to support the basis for all of your arguments are you going to carry on as if natural moral order, homosexuality causing harm, things meant for only one purpose, etc are just simply true because you say so?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Pastafarian on September 11, 2009, 01:01:23 AM
Something's odd here, Agent 40...
In your posts, you've likened homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest, among other things. You keep referring to gay people in terms of sexually-transmitted diseases and mental disorders. You define them by "homosexual acts," as if these fell into one category with no way to differentiate their worth.

Yes. I just finished reading this thread and while I was initially pleasantly surprised at Agent40's ability to communicate clearly (no sarcasm, first time I'm reading any of your posts and I'm struggling to wrap my head around the fact that someone so lucid can be so bigoted!) I also felt sickened by those types of statements. Bigotry stinks  :( uurrgghh
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 11, 2009, 06:44:17 AM
And she has the nerve to say that I don't value human life.  Yet she sees nothing wrong with identifying people by these types of things. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Pastafarian on September 11, 2009, 07:05:46 AM
For the record: "A homosexual or bisexual individual may experience conflict with a homophobic society; however, such conflict is not a symptom of dysfunction in the individual. The APA Board recognized that a significant portion of homosexual and bisexual people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology." Fact Sheet, Homosexual and Bisexual Issues, American Psychiatric Association. "
source: Lynn Schultz-Writsel, "'Reparative' Therapy: Does it work?", 2000-FEB, at: http://www.eurekalert.org/

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

The thing you may want to consider, Agent40, is that I am not offended by your not agreeing with me, it's more of a deep outrage inside of what is human in me, what is unique and precious on this planet; that which you are shitting all over, debasing... shaming. I am not homosexual, so I feel none of the shame for myself but I am human and have this instinct to love my fellow human beings. That may sound silly, but something in me is outraged when a fellow human being is dragged down by stupidity and simple, untenable bigotry. Shame on you madam. I need a long hot bath and a glass of wine.  >:(
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 11, 2009, 11:47:59 AM
I really wasn’t going to post any more, but as usual couldn’t resist. So many errors to correct and so little time . . .





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


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

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

If we allow this person to dine on gummy bears and jolly ranchers because that is the only thing he likes, he will never be fully nourished. And it would never be in his best interest to do so.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Omen on September 11, 2009, 11:49:09 AM
I really wasn’t going to post any more, but as usual couldn’t resist. So many errors to correct and so little time . . .

Making baseless unsupported assertions is not correcting anyone at anything.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 11, 2009, 11:49:26 AM
Really? This is all you came back to post? You didn't have the guts to tackle the myriad of different de-constructions of your overall position?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 11, 2009, 11:51:23 AM
Quote
No one is predisposed to being sexually attractive to their own sibling. That's like saying you're genetically predisposed to only want to have sex with lounge singers named Laura.

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

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

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



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


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

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


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


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


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

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



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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


You think the truth regarding something depends on our feelings?

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





Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 11, 2009, 11:54:20 AM



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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


Quote
Do you actually know any gay people personally?

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

I can see that if you do not understand my argument or my position you might think that. I can also understand that it is much easier to believe I must be a heartless, cold, uncaring person and dismiss my arguments on those grounds then to accept the difficult truth I am proclaiming.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: DI on September 11, 2009, 11:56:31 AM
Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral.


glad we could get that cleared up.  :?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 11, 2009, 11:57:13 AM
Quote
There is no such thing as a natural moral order.  That is strictly the artificial invention of religious nuts like you.  If there was a natural moral order, we would see it in action in every society, every culture, around the world.  We don't.


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

Morality is what individual humans make it.  


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


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

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


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



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


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

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


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

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

*** I did post some links regarding your cultural relativist arguemnt a few posts back -- check it out.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 11, 2009, 11:58:23 AM

Quote
The chances of mutations between related individuals is almost inevitable

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

www.plime.com/f/4742



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

wiki.answers.com/Q/You_wanted_to_know_whether_the_hereditary_disease_can_be_caused

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



www.planetpapers.com/Assets/2332.php

There is little doubt that incest has nothing to do with genetic considerations. In today's world incest does not need to result in pregnancy and the transmission of genetic material. Good contraceptives should, therefore, encourage bad, incestuous, couples.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 11, 2009, 11:59:42 AM
Quote
Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral.



glad we could get that cleared up.   
 


Perhaps you've come late in the game. I've already given the logical reasons based on science, observation, and the world around us.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 11, 2009, 12:00:47 PM
Quote
I was initially pleasantly surprised at Agent40's ability to communicate clearly

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


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


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

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




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






































Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 11, 2009, 12:01:06 PM
Agent40,

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

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

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

Is getting married to a nine-year-old girl immoral?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 11, 2009, 12:02:00 PM
Quote
Something's odd here, Agent 40. Supposedly you're here championing "Christian" values like morality and love. Yet your apparent willingness to demean and disparage gay people belies that.


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

How 1950s of you.  Do you also have some friends of different colors, or are you waiting for them to change shades first?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Pastafarian on September 11, 2009, 12:21:02 PM
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???!!!!   
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Pastafarian on September 11, 2009, 01:17:51 PM
You know, I was at the gynae today (my wife is 35 weeks pregnant-woot!) and we were discussing hermaphrodites (Caster Sumenya, I'm South African) and I have to wonder: where do these poor people fit in with this stupid "natural order" crap? I mean, is it genetics and evolution or is it the god of the universe?! She/he will almost definitely die of cancer due to her internal testes, she/he will be attracted to one or the other sex based on... Oh jeez, her "god given perfection"? The "natural order"?! It's so damn sad that people are so incredibly ignorant. Where does Caster fit in? Rhetorical, as I just know a Christin bigot will insult everyone with their bigoted hate speech. God, save us from your followers. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jazzman on September 11, 2009, 01:28:36 PM
Also, the sexual act has a unitive function. One of both pleasure and procreation. In fact, the only way to insure separation of this procreative function is to do so artificially – not a small point if one took the time to actually think about it.  
The sexual act has a procreative function, but that's not the only reason humans fuck.  I'd bet that most humans who engage in sexual intercourse do so for reasons of pleasure, not procreation.  It's very easy to separate the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse from the pleasure aspect.  We call it contraception, which is a morally correct act, given that this planet is overpopulated with humans. 

Uugh! Yet another ignorant comment regarding a lack of knowledge of what is meant by natural law. No wonder you don’t think it exists. You don’t even know what it means. It does not mean only that which is found in nature and so therefore marriage is a violation of natural law. LOL! I simply cannot explain all this again.
There's nothing you can explain.  Natural moral law doesn't exist.  There is no objective standard of morality to which all humans are obligated.  All morals are based on subjective valuation of right and wrong, good and bad.  What is morally wrong in your eyes may be morally right in someone else's.  It's that simple.

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

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

Wrong. I have posted numerous times about the errors in moral relativism and how moral absolutes exist.
You've never demonstrated this to be true.  You've only claimed it to be so.

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

You simply cannot dismiss my argument by claiming there is no such thing as morality. You would need to prove that first --  And I can prove otherwise.
I didn't say there's no such thing as morality.  I said there's no such thing as natural moral law.  We agree that morals exist.  We disagree on their origin.

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

Jazzman
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 11, 2009, 06:26:30 PM
...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.

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

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

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

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

Quote
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.

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

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

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

Quote
...“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?

Quote
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.

Quote
Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral.

Circular argument is circular.

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

No, I don't think you are a heartless person, not consciously. I don't doubt that you are trying to be compassionate and loving. But I've already pointed out the constant, unrelenting negativity and degrading references to gay people throughout your posts. Sometimes you add condescending pity to the mix. It seems that you've internalized some degree of animosity towards gay people, no doubt unconsciously.
Maybe your adherence to dogma blinds you to seeing full humanity in gay people, since you have a tendency to dehumanize them. (If so, it shows how dogma can have an evil effect on good people.)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: William on September 11, 2009, 06:44:07 PM
You know, I was at the gynae today (my wife is 35 weeks pregnant-woot!) and we were discussing hermaphrodites (Caster Sumenya, I'm South African) and I have to wonder: where do these poor people fit in with this stupid "natural order" crap? I mean, is it genetics and evolution or is it the god of the universe?! She/he will almost definitely die of cancer due to her internal testes, she/he will be attracted to one or the other sex based on... Oh jeez, her "god given perfection"? The "natural order"?! It's so damn sad that people are so incredibly ignorant. Where does Caster fit in? Rhetorical, as I just know a Christin bigot will insult everyone with their bigoted hate speech. God, save us from your followers.  

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

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

Quote
It's likely that she has some hermaphroditic or intersex condition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/8249948.stm
Quote
How and who should decide in these cases whether the person be considered a woman or a man?
Quote
This must be an awful time for Caster Semenya, brought up as a girl and a woman, but now facing the possibility of being told she may not be who she thinks she is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2009/08/this_must_be_an_awful.html
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 11, 2009, 07:20:27 PM
Pasta, you beat me to it.  Since the Caster Semenya test results story broke I've not been able to stop thinking about Agent40.  Would Agent40 be sprouting all this primitive-minded catholic bigotry if she had balls?

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

So, Agent40.  Are you sure you are not a hermaphrodite like Caster Semenya?  She didn't know, maybe you are also unaware?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: William on September 11, 2009, 07:23:41 PM
And here is some essential sex education for Agent40, about FOUR TYPES OF SEX in every individual:

Quote
How do you define sex?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A person's view of their gender may be different from the biological sex assigned to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8250609.stm

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

And then finally there is also CHOICE - something which large numbers of the Catholic Church clergy are very good at  &)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 11, 2009, 07:32:36 PM
Agent40:
Quote
Uugh! Yet another ignorant comment regarding a lack of knowledge of what is meant by natural law. No wonder you don’t think it exists. You don’t even know what it means. It does not mean only that which is found in nature and so therefore marriage is a violation of natural law. LOL! I simply cannot explain all this again.

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

Then explain it to them, Agent40.

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

Thus we learn from each other.

Jazzman, read my short post here,  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=6430.msg172494#msg172494) in whch I introduce and cite Hobbes' 16 Laws. If you don't know them already, then give them some consideration. They were Natural Laws, and they were crucial to the establishment of the US. Whether you agree with them or not, it's impossible to deny their historical significance.

Natural Law is a useful concept. It has a long and distinguished history, originating in Aristotle. It's still useful. And as Agent40 keeps saying, it's got nothing to do with what is 'natural' or what happens 'in nature'.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 11, 2009, 08:26:12 PM
Agent40,

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

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

I don't really expect that you will honestly answer this, but I am waiting for your explanation.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jazzman on September 11, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
Jazzman, read my short post here,  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=6430.msg172494#msg172494) in whch I introduce and cite Hobbes' 16 Laws. If you don't know them already, then give them some consideration. They were Natural Laws, and they were crucial to the establishment of the US. It's impossible to deny their historical significance.

Natural Law is a useful concept. It has a long and distinguished history, originating in Aristotle. It's still useful. And as Agent40 keeps saying, it's got nothing to do with what is 'natural'.
Hobbes' Laws are not natural laws, and they can’t help us here.  They're insightful observations of how humans act, to be sure, well worth considering, and hard to argue against.  But they're not laws that deal with Agent40’s specific claim that homosexual sex is immoral.  Hobbes' Laws are a collection of "shoulds" based on keen observation of how humans interact with each other.  They aren't natural laws by which we can settle the question of the morality of homosexual sex.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Jazzman
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 11, 2009, 11:07:49 PM
Jazzman,

I see I was preaching to the converted. Apologies.

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

Agreed.


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on September 12, 2009, 11:24:43 AM
Quote
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.



Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on September 12, 2009, 11:43:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ada-B on September 13, 2009, 01:57:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on September 13, 2009, 03:04:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ashe on September 13, 2009, 06:14:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:18:11 PM
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.”
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:19:08 PM
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






Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:20:19 PM
Quote
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.







Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:22:48 PM
Quote
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.



Quote
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?



Quote
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.



Quote
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?



Quote
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?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:25:35 PM
Quote
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.  


 
Quote
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.


Quote
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).


Quote
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.


Quote
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


Quote
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.





































Quote
...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.  


Quote
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!


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.



Quote
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!  . .



Quote
...“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.



Quote
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.





Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:27:18 PM
Quote
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.


Quote
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.



Quote
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.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 29, 2009, 01:28:00 PM
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. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2031:7-18&version=NIV)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 29, 2009, 01:28:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:28:29 PM
Quote
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?


Quote
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.



Quote
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.









Quote
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.



Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Zankuu on September 29, 2009, 01:30:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:31:14 PM
Quote
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?


Quote
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.  


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 29, 2009, 01:32:28 PM
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"?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 29, 2009, 01:33:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:35:40 PM
Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
 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.


Quote
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.”



Quote
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.


 
Quote
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.


 
Quote
Morals are man-made concepts.


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


 
Quote
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.



Quote
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?


Quote
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?


Quote
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?



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


Thank you.


Quote
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.



Quote
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?
















Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Zankuu on September 29, 2009, 01:36:49 PM
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.  :P

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:37:09 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:39:55 PM
Quote
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.


Quote
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?



 
Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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).


 
Quote
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
Quote
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.


 

Quote
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



Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 01:45:34 PM


Quote
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 29, 2009, 01:46:00 PM
Who is going to feel like reading this novel?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 29, 2009, 01:47:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Pastafarian on September 29, 2009, 02:03:58 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 29, 2009, 02:05:25 PM
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 29, 2009, 02:15:18 PM
Pianodwarf:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on September 29, 2009, 02:21:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Zankuu on September 29, 2009, 02:22:43 PM
Quote
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.

Thank you, Gnu.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 29, 2009, 02:23:58 PM
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.

Agreed.  Yet, morality is not simple.  It is difficult and a hard fought struggle.  The details and the context matter.  Clinging to a tribal bureaucratic checklist shows a stunning lack of morality, not an understanding of it.  The whole 'Lying is bad, but when asked by the SS about any Jews in the area, offering up the honest truth that Ann Frank and her family are hiding in the house is not good'.

Consider this detailed analysis of morality as one example of how to address it without being relativistic;

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=9045.msg205267#msg205267 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=9045.msg205267#msg205267)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 29, 2009, 02:24:21 PM
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?
I definitely deny design in the world. Order, is debatable. 
Quote
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
Says whom?
Quote
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.”
Cause that isn't coming from a biased source at all.  Definitely not coming from a source that is clearly against homosexuality.
Quote
Pinkmilk, do take a look at some of my following links. Your precious APA shows very little objectivity in dealing with this issue . . .
You act as if I totally agree with everything the APA does.  I've never once stated this at all.  There are many things released by the APA that I would disagree with.

As such these statements mean nothing to me.
Quote
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. 
Yay for yet another biased resource.

You fail to realize that statements from authoritative figures don't hold water.  You must prove the natural laws you say you base your claims on to be true.  Plain and simple. 

You did a wonderful job avoiding actually providing evidence for these things. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 03:21:46 PM
Quote
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?

Uhh, gee since everyone was originally related, how exactly would you suggest the planet be populated? You are creating a dilemma where none exists.


Quote
Quote from: Agent40 on Today at 02:22:48 PMNot 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.

God is not subject to moral law. God can only do good. He is all good. Therefore, God has never committed an immoral act. It is impossible. If you think He has engaged in some kind of immoral behavior you would be sadly mistaken. If everything He does is good and for good, he can do no wrong. Yet another example of a typical human only capable of applying his weakness and imperfections on God.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Quote
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.

Agree. And if right and wrong exist, then homosexual acts obviously fall into wrong – as they violate the natural moral order.




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

Actually, that would be according to you – not me. As I have continually stated a truth exists.




Quote
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.

I am not equating disorder with immorality. I have mentioned numerous times that homosexuality is a disorder. However, this disorder in and of itself is not immoral. It would only be immoral if one were to engage in homosexual acts.

Pedophilia is a disorder, but if the person cannot help being attracted to children, he has committed no sin. However, if he acts on his feelings that would be immoral.

Surely, a schizophrenia is not faulted for being a schizophrenic, but does the person's disorder give them a free pass to commit immoral acts?

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 03:25:18 PM
Quote
But you failed to answer the point: if a person has a fully functional vagina and penis, is she a he? He a she?


I don’t know. And neither might science, but God knows.

Quote
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?


Perhaps. Should a pedophile ignore his “cough” natural desire and not have sex?

Life can be tough, but there is more to life than sexual intercourse.


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


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

I’m not sure I know how to respond to that. If you asked me my favorite painting – I would not respond with RCC doctrine.

To the best of my ability, I try to answer with truth. Cool though how you’ve noticed that always seems to be equivalent to RCC doctrine.  :)

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 29, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
I don’t know. And neither might science, but God knows.

Nice dodge.

Quote
Perhaps. Should a pedophile ignore his “cough” natural desire and not have sex?

Why would you have a problem with that? The bible doesn't make it a sin to have sex with a child, so if a pedophile wants to get married to a nine year old girl, then it's not a sin.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 03:29:51 PM
Quote
Pianodwarf:
Quote
Schizophrenia is a disorder, too, but there is no ethical content in being a schizophren
ic.

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

Wrong, Gnu. I never said bulimics are immoral. I said the act of eating a lot of food and then purposely vomiting it up is a disordered act and therefore wrong (immoral). Were you trying to twist my words, or do you simply not understand?


Quote
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.

You should be surprised, because Gnu misrepresented my position. I’m actually surprised too. Gnu, is usually more honest than that. I’m going to assume he didn’t understand me.


Quote
Agreed.  Yet, morality is not simple.  It is difficult and a hard fought struggle.  The details and the context matter.  Clinging to a tribal bureaucratic checklist shows a stunning lack of morality, not an understanding of it.  The whole 'Lying is bad, but when asked by the SS about any Jews in the area, offering up the honest truth that Ann Frank and her family are hiding in the house is not good'
.

This is a common misunderstanding of moral truth. Of course what is right or wrong depends on the situation. As killing another person in self defense is not wrong. But this is not to mean that moral truth does not exist. There are actions/behavior we all know to be wrong and we can  and do insist that others abide by those truths. Feel free to play your little hypothetical moral dilemma scenario games, but those games wouldn't even be possible if there was not some absolute standard of truth in the first place.    


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 29, 2009, 03:35:02 PM
Wrong, Gnu. I never said bulimics are immoral. I said the act of eating a lot of food and then purposely vomiting it up is a disordered act and therefore wrong (immoral). Were you trying to twist my words, or do you simply not understand?

Agent40, don't be a bitch. If the act of bulimia is immoral, then why aren't bulimics immoral? That would be like you saying that the act of pedophilia is immoral, but that pedophiles aren't immoral. It makes no sense.

Quote
You should be surprised, because Gnu misrepresented my position.

No he didn't.

Quote
There are actions/behavior we all know to be wrong and we can  and do insist that others abide by those truths.

Until god tells you to do it (rape virgins, sacrifice your child, ect.)

Quote
Feel free to play your little hypothetical moral dilemma scenario games, but those games wouldn't even be possible if there was not some absolute standard of truth in the first place.    

There isn't. What out of the bible is absolute morality? Thou Shalt Not Kill? Tell that to the Midianites. Don't eat shellfish? I'd be surprised if you haven't done that yourself.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 29, 2009, 04:20:27 PM
if right and wrong exist, then homosexual acts obviously fall into wrong – as they violate the natural moral order.

(I'm having images of that episode of Classic Trek where the robot Nomad lazily drawls, "Non sequitur"...)

You're still conflating disorder and immorality, as subtleinspiration just pointed out.  It is not immoral -- or moral, for that matter -- to have a disorder.

Quote
Surely, a schizophrenia is not faulted for being a schizophrenic, but does the person's disorder give them a free pass to commit immoral acts?

No, but those with diminished mental capacity are not held to the same standards, legally, as those who are psychologically sound.  A schizophrenic who commits a murder is more likely to receive inpatient psychiatric treatment than good ol' prison.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on September 29, 2009, 04:28:07 PM
This is one of those "not having an unsubscribe button is torment" kinds of threads.  Fortunately, my scroll button gets a nice workout.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on September 29, 2009, 04:35:26 PM
This is one of those "not having an unsubscribe button is torment" kinds of threads.  Fortunately, my scroll button gets a nice workout.

I know what you mean.  There's one person on this site, in particular, that I really wish I could put on some kind of a gag list.  But oh well.  (No, I'm not going to say who it is.)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 29, 2009, 04:38:28 PM
Agent40,

It would be really, really helpful to everyone if you would identify in your posts who you are talking to.

If you just quote someone's words, that person will probably recognize them, but the rest of us probably won't, so we can't follow the discussion.

Please.

If your post is addressed to one person, start it with "Dear X".

If you quote someone else, identify them by typing "X said:" before the quote.

Please?

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 29, 2009, 05:06:11 PM
A40:
Quote
Wrong, Gnu. I never said bulimics are immoral.

My bad. Sloppy language. I fully understand that immorality applies to the act not the person. Let's go with what you say:

Quote
I said the act of eating a lot of food and then purposely vomiting it up is a disordered act and therefore wrong (immoral).

Fine.

That's my point anyway. You say the act of self-induced vomiting is immoral, whereas we say it's a symptom of mental illness.

OK?

Quote
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.  


Agent40, that is simply ridiculous. Clinical Psychology is a medical profession. It is governed across America by the APA, a democratically elected body.

So, the APA is not just "a group of psychologists".

And they don't "follow the principles of pop psychology", whatever they are.

Gnu.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jazzman on September 29, 2009, 05:39:20 PM
Tell me, Jazzman, how again have you come to derive that homosexual acts are ok? What are you basing this view on?
After everything I wrote -- and to which you responded -- you still need to ask this question?  The answer has already been before your eyes, but you weren't paying attention. 

Your cranial density is surpassed only by your indocibility.  You really are a piece o' work.  Sheesh!

I'll leave you with this: Homosexuality is a natural human sexual orientation.  Homosexual sex is, therefore, a natural form of sexual expression for people who are homosexual.  As a natural form of sexual expression, homosexual sex is neither moral nor immoral in and of itself.  Your view that homosexual sex violates the natural moral order is based on faulty logic and your lack of understanding of just how much we know about the formation of sexual orientation in humans and other animals.  I won't bother trying to educate you on that, because YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. 

If you ever do want to find out what we understand about the nature of sexual orientation in humans, there's much for you to learn, and more than one source from which to learn.  All you need to do is take the first step, which could easily start with "Google," or perhaps a visit to http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html, or maybe http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm.  After that, how far you go to increase your awareness and understanding of homosexuality is strictly up to you.  But until you've made yourself smart on the science of sexual orientation, a conversation between the two of us on this subject is a waste of my time.  You're too uninformed about human sexual orientation for me to take your views seriously enough to keep this conversation going.

Good-bye for now.

Jazzman
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Azdgari on September 29, 2009, 05:49:26 PM
Quote
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.

Agent40, do you consider it honest, or not honest, to assume that you know more about someone's life than they do?

It's an either-or question.  Take your time.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 29, 2009, 06:11:59 PM
God is not subject to moral law. God can only do good. He is all good. Therefore, God has never committed an immoral act. It is impossible. If you think He has engaged in some kind of immoral behavior you would be sadly mistaken. If everything He does is good and for good, he can do no wrong. Yet another example of a typical human only capable of applying his weakness and imperfections on God.

While there is much to comment on, I have one question;

* Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 29, 2009, 07:44:06 PM
Agent40,
Are you ever going to provide evidence for your natural moral order on which you base all of your claims or not?

I don’t know. And neither might science, but God knows.
So then if this person chose the wrong gender to follow, then by your standards they would be acting immorally.  That hardly seems fair.  And science is able to determine which gender hermaphrodites are by testing for which hormone is predominant in that person's system. 
So if your idea of morality is correct, then that means that there are people who are damned to take a gamble.  Hardly sounds like a good system. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: DI on September 29, 2009, 08:23:23 PM
Quote
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.

Agent40, do you consider it honest, or not honest, to assume that you know more about someone's life than they do?

It's an either-or question.  Take your time.

bump, and:



Your point was I’m a homosexual theist and I’m happy living a homosexual theist lifestyle and I did not have a dysfunctional upbringing. I responded that often a person who is involved in a homosexual theist 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.

[/quote]

i love doing that
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Azdgari on September 29, 2009, 08:52:52 PM
Indeed, DI.  Agent40 would no doubt see the bigotry inherent in your altered paragraph if it was actually put forth as a commentary on theism.  That she does not acknowledge the essentially identical bigotry in her own paragraph only shows her hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:04:20 PM

Subtleinspiration,

Quote
Agent40, don't be a bitch. If the act of bulimia is immoral, then why aren't bulimics immoral? That would be like you saying that the act of pedophilia is immoral, but that pedophiles aren't immoral. It makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. Schizophrenia is a disorder, so are schizophrenics immoral?



Quote
There are actions/behavior we all know to be wrong and we can  and do insist that others abide by those truths.
Quote
Until god tells you to do it (rape virgins, sacrifice your child, ect.)

This is an ignorant comment, because actually you do not realize the truth of what you are saying. God would not command a person to do something immoral. If God commands it – by definition it could not be immoral. You do not understand my religion or scripture. You twist and contort what you do not understand because you think you are smarter than God.


.
Quote
What out of the bible is absolute morality?

My original comments were absolute truth exists. Therefore your question is what out of the bible is truth?

Uum? Try everything.


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:05:53 PM
Pianodwarf,

Quote
You're still conflating disorder and immorality, as subtleinspiration just pointed out.  It is not immoral -- or moral, for that matter -- to have a disorder.
No, I’m not. It is not immoral to have a disorder. I never said otherwise.


Quote
Surely, a schizophrenia is not faulted for being a schizophrenic, but does the person's disorder give them a free pass to commit immoral acts?
Quote
No, but those with diminished mental capacity are not held to the same standards, legally, as those who are psychologically sound.  A schizophrenic who commits a murder is more likely to receive inpatient psychiatric treatment than good ol' prison.


Of course. And having a disorder can certainly explain a person’s behavior, but it doesn’t mean we should support immoral behavior from someone simply because they suffer a disorder. Wouldn’t you agree?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:06:45 PM
Gnu Ordure,

Quote
That's my point anyway. You say the act of self-induced vomiting is immoral, whereas we say it's a symptom of mental illness.

OK?


No, not ok. I believe you are not being intellectually dishonest with yourself. Why do we believe that a person who purposely eats food and them vomits it up has a mental disorder? What makes us all initially innately know that such behavior is wrong?

That is MY point, Gnu. We all instinctually can determine that such behavior is wrong because the person is using their body in a way in which it was not intended. We all know the person is not following the proper order of things. It is because of that that we then go on to assess that they must have some kind of mental illness that would cause them to engage in a behavior that we all know to be wrong.



******** I still haven’t even looked at your posts on our other thread. This one seems more lively now. I’ll get to it when I can.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:08:14 PM
Quote
Tell me, Jazzman, how again have you come to derive that homosexual acts are ok? What are you basing this view on?
After everything I wrote -- and to which you responded -- you still need to ask this question?  The answer has already been before your eyes, but you weren't paying attention.



Gee, I must have missed that Jazzman. Why don’t you just give me the quick version – a sentence or two. Surely, you can briefly explain why homosexual acts are ok.


Quote
I'll leave you with this: Homosexuality is a natural human sexual orientation.
 

Debunked – one could say the same about pedophilia and beastiality.


Quote
Your view that homosexual sex violates the natural moral order is based on faulty logic and your lack of understanding of just how much we know about the formation of sexual orientation in humans and other animals.


Really? You mean faulty logic like not accepting that order and design mean something. You mean faulty logic that denies the scientific evidence and facts regarding those who engage in a homosexual lifestyle are more likely to suffer depression, abusive relationships, substance abuse, and sexually transmitted diseases. You mean like that faulty logic?


Quote
Quote
If you ever do want to find out what we understand about the nature of sexual orientation in humans, there's much for you to learn



Right back at you Jazzman. I hope you will pursue it.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:08:48 PM
Azgardi,

Quote
Agent40, do you consider it honest, or not honest, to assume that you know more about someone's life than they do?

It's an either-or question.  Take your time.

If you had a friend who was struggling with a drug addiction, do you not think you could apply certain judgments or advice based on our knowledge in general regarding those who have struggled with drug addiction? We do things like this all the time in life. Because although every case is unique, there are also shared behaviors of those who struggle with certain things. To not acknowledge this is what would be dishonest.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:12:15 PM
Hermes,

Quote
Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?
   


Genesis 1

The Beginning

 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
 27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.
 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.



Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:13:21 PM
Quote
So then if this person chose the wrong gender to follow, then by your standards they would be acting immorally.  That hardly seems fair.  And science is able to determine which gender hermaphrodites are by testing for which hormone is predominant in that person's system. 
So if your idea of morality is correct, then that means that there are people who are damned to take a gamble.  Hardly sounds like a good system


No, Pinkmilk, that is not what it means. You all continue to look deeply for the flaws in my worldview. You continue to set forth extreme examples in the hope of tripping me up so to speak. It is silly to take am example of a hermaphrodite and want me to make some blanket statement. As you said yourself, it can be determined the sex that the person is suppose to be – so what exactly is the problem? Typically, in these cases if a person has extra genitalia it can be taken care of when they are young. The incorrect parts can be removed or whatever, in which case the person can go on to lead quite a normal life. Why must you all make something more there? If it is truly a case where even science is baffled – which I highly doubt is very common – then yes, I suppose in that rare instance it might be better were the person to sexually abstain. I’m sorry if you have a problem with that, but how can you be so sure the person would have a problem with that? Again, Pinkmilk, my views are not as extreme as you like to paint them and they are much more logical then your own.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 09:14:05 PM
Quote
Your point was I’m a  theist and I’m happy living a  theist lifestyle and I did not have a dysfunctional upbringing. I responded that often a person who is involved in a  theist 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.


Yes, Di, and if being a theist was often the result of childhood rape or an abusive parent, or if being a theist meant statistically one would be more likely to suffer from depression, suicide, substance abuse, abusive relationships, or sexually transmitted disease – you might have a point.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Zankuu on September 29, 2009, 09:33:53 PM
This is an ignorant comment, because actually you do not realize the truth of what you are saying. God would not command a person to do something immoral. If God commands it – by definition it could not be immoral. You do not understand my religion or scripture. You twist and contort what you do not understand because you think you are smarter than God.

Agent40, I'm not sure I agree. Here are a few things God commanded:

Genesis 22:2 God commands Abraham to kill his son and use him as a burnt offering.

Leviticus 26:7 God commands the Israelites to chase their enemies and make them fall by their sword.

Samuel 15:3 God commands Saul to smite Amalek and kill man, woman, infant, suckling, ox, sheep, camel and ass.

That last one is a doozy, slaughtering infants? I consider that immoral and I'm not sure how you can twist it to show otherwise. And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are verses far more grotesque. Don't forget all the animals God senselessly commanded to be sacrificed to himself.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 29, 2009, 09:35:25 PM
Hermes,

* Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?

[ Edited down to the emphasized parts ]

And God saw that it was good.
And God saw that it was good.
And God saw that it was good.
And God saw that it was good.
And God saw that it was good.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

My question remains;

* Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?

If you go to a movie, and the movie is about a bunch of hardened gangsters who kill people brutally, are you a hardened brutal killer?  What about a movie that features lovable kittens and puppies?  What if you make a painting of a big valentines heart -- does that make you in love let alone Cupid?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: William on September 29, 2009, 10:11:42 PM
Quote
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.


You have completely missed the point.  The genetic mechanisms, their demonstrated fragility, and their interaction with environment means that a person's sexuality vector can be in either direction or any degree of bisexuality inbetween, and it can vary in strength from zero libido to sexual overdrive.  AND that is before CHOICE.  

Agent40, stop and think about it for a minute - allow yourself to think for yourself.  Stop defending the indefensible.  If you're going to come back to me with a rebuttal then make sure it addresses the point - not a meaningless tangent.  Huffing and puffing about pregnancies in men or having sex with bears has fuckall to do with the point.  All it shows is that you hope I wont notice that you have no real answer.

Quote
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.  


The mere fact that you think this statement is a "joke" says a lot about you.  You have no satisfactory answer about the extent and nature of sexual abuse going on inside the catholic church.    &)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 11:05:08 PM

Zankuu,


Quote
Agent40, I'm not sure I agree. Here are a few things God commanded:

Genesis 22:2 God commands Abraham to kill his son and use him as a burnt offering.

Leviticus 26:7 God commands the Israelites to chase their enemies and make them fall by their sword.

Samuel 15:3 God commands Saul to smite Amalek and kill man, woman, infant, suckling, ox, sheep, camel and ass.

That last one is a doozy, slaughtering infants? I consider that immoral and I'm not sure how you can twist it to show otherwise. And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are verses far more grotesque. Don't forget all the animals God senselessly commanded to be sacrificed to himself.


Gosh, how you all simply don’t get it. Ok, what part of supernatural deity don’t you understand? Do you think a supreme being is subject to the same laws we are subject to? Do you think the creator of the universe might actually know and foresee something that we couldn’t possibly? Ya think?

Then it is only reasonable to understand that God can do no bad – again it is impossible. So what you are seeing as bad is not bad. If God commanded you to fight your enemies – then this would be for your good and believe it or not also the good of your enemies. This is something you simply don’t get. God loves everyone. If you are on the receiving end of something you think is cruel or unjust and coming from God – you are clueless. If God has allowed some harm to come to you – it is only to bring about a greater good. It could very well be His mercy that He allows the wicked to be killed. You might not understand this, but God is doing them a favor. Again, if you think of God as cruel and evil then you obviously wouldn’t understand such. But if you looked at Him as He is which is just, and merciful, and good, and love, then you would trust in His plan and actions – for clearly an omnipotent, all-wise being might know a little more than us.

I don’t know how else to explain it than you completely misunderstand God’s actions in the Old Testament. 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.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 11:06:10 PM


Hermes,

Quote
My question remains;
Quote from: Hermes on Today at 07:11:59 PM
* Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?

Quote
If you go to a movie, and the movie is about a bunch of hardened gangsters who kill people brutally, are you a hardened brutal killer?  What about a movie that features lovable kittens and puppies?  What if you make a painting of a big valentines heart -- does that make you in love let alone Cupid?


Once again, an atheist not understanding the Bible. Wow! Imagine that!

The Bible is the word of God. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. Does making a valentine heart make me Cupid? NO, but if I was one of the inspired authors of the Bible – then that makes the words I wrote God’s words. Get it?

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 29, 2009, 11:07:45 PM
william,


Quote
You have completely missed the point.  The genetic mechanisms, their demonstrated fragility, and their interaction with environment means that a person's sexuality vector can be in either direction or any degree of bisexuality inbetween, and it can vary in strength from zero libido to sexual overdrive.  AND that is before CHOICE. 


I’ve missed nothing. Two natures exist – male and female. We are all unique and have different personalities, likes and dislikes, but we have one nature. Please don’t pretend I am unaware of the complexity of human life. Such irony amuses me.


Quote
The mere fact that you think this statement is a "joke" says a lot about you.  You have no satisfactory answer about the extent and nature of sexual abuse going on inside the catholic church

I’m sorry I didn’t know I was being asked to explain the nature of the sexual abuse scandal. If you want to hear my thoughts on that – why don’t you start a new thread? But to divert the topic at hand by bringing up something that has nothing to do with what we were discussing only shows you had little else to say.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Kerlyssa on September 29, 2009, 11:26:07 PM
We're all unique, and we only come in two kinds. Got it. Cognitive dissonance is the new complexity.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: William on September 29, 2009, 11:31:23 PM
william,


Quote
You have completely missed the point.  The genetic mechanisms, their demonstrated fragility, and their interaction with environment means that a person's sexuality vector can be in either direction or any degree of bisexuality inbetween, and it can vary in strength from zero libido to sexual overdrive.  AND that is before CHOICE. 


I’ve missed nothing. Two natures exist – male and female. We are all unique and have different personalities, likes and dislikes, but we have one nature. Please don’t pretend I am unaware of the complexity of human life. Such irony amuses me.

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

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




Quote
The mere fact that you think this statement is a "joke" says a lot about you.  You have no satisfactory answer about the extent and nature of sexual abuse going on inside the catholic church

I’m sorry I didn’t know I was being asked to explain the nature of the sexual abuse scandal. If you want to hear my thoughts on that – why don’t you start a new thread? But to divert the topic at hand by bringing up something that has nothing to do with what we were discussing only shows you had little else to say.


No, no, no ... you cant wiggle off the hook like that.  You chose to call it a joke. 

Is it a joke? 

Or is it something relevant to both innate sexuality and "CHOICE" - both perfectly legitimate in the context of this thread topic.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 29, 2009, 11:43:23 PM
Quote
My question remains;
Quote from: Hermes on Today at 07:11:59 PM
* Where did your deity supposedly ever say it was good?

Quote
If you go to a movie, and the movie is about a bunch of hardened gangsters who kill people brutally, are you a hardened brutal killer?  What about a movie that features lovable kittens and puppies?  What if you make a painting of a big valentines heart -- does that make you in love let alone Cupid?

Once again, an atheist not understanding the Bible. Wow! Imagine that!

The Bible is the word of God. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. Does making a valentine heart make me Cupid? NO, but if I was one of the inspired authors of the Bible – then that makes the words I wrote God’s words. Get it?

So, you have a deity and you think that deity exists and that your religious book is the word of that deity.

OK.  Taking that as a given for a moment, but only for a moment, I have a slightly different question;

* Where did your deity ever say that it was good?

As I pointed out, the quotes you gave from your religious text, Genesis, do not say that your deity says it is good.  Instead, they say your deity was able to identify something that was good.

If you do not know the answer to this question, and you are only saying you believe your deity to be good, then state that.  It will be an acknowledgement of the validity of my question, but that new statement will be one that you can support for what it is without digging a hole for yourself.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Azdgari on September 30, 2009, 07:36:21 AM
Azgardi,

Quote
Agent40, do you consider it honest, or not honest, to assume that you know more about someone's life than they do?

It's an either-or question.  Take your time.

If you had a friend who was struggling with a drug addiction, do you not think you could apply certain judgments or advice based on our knowledge in general regarding those who have struggled with drug addiction? We do things like this all the time in life. Because although every case is unique, there are also shared behaviors of those who struggle with certain things. To not acknowledge this is what would be dishonest.

Do you have an honest and direct answer to the question I actually asked?  You know, while we're on the topic of honesty and all.

With regard to your flawed analogy, would you make the claim that you know the drug-addict to have had an abusive childhood?  That's more in-line with what we're talking about.  Let's say you meet a cocaine addict, who claims to have gotten hooked in high school and has been doing it ever since.  You go on to claim that they must have had an abusive childhood in order for that to happen.  The addict says "umm...no, I had a pretty good childhood, but my pot dealer kept lacing my joints with coke, so I got hooked".  You say "well, you just don't know that you had a rough childhood.  People don't always know that sort of thing."

The biggest problem here, Agent40, is that in such a situation, YOU ARE CLAIMING TO KNOW - yet you have no way of knowing it.  The details of that person's childhood are not in evidence.  All you have to say about them is your own dogma.  You have pre-judged the person to have had an abusive childhood before gathering any data about them at all.  Just like you did with Onesimus.

In his case, you refuse to accept his own account of his childhood.  What would convince you that your pre-judgment about him is incorrect?  I suspect, based on your posting history, that nothing would.  Facts cannot alter your pre-judgment.

That is the dictionary definition of prejudice and bigotry.  And you're proud of it.  Shame.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 30, 2009, 07:51:10 AM
No, Pinkmilk, that is not what it means. You all continue to look deeply for the flaws in my worldview.
No need to look deeply for them
Quote
You continue to set forth extreme examples in the hope of tripping me up so to speak.
I didn't set forth this example, nor have I most of the "extreme" examples. 
Quote
It is silly to take am example of a hermaphrodite and want me to make some blanket statement. As you said yourself, it can be determined the sex that the person is suppose to be – so what exactly is the problem?
The idea behind an extreme question like this, is that you claim that everything has an intended purpose.  But the problem is that not everything fits into the box so neatly.  Some women are born without ovaries.  That means that they can not reproduce.  Other women can not reproduce for other reasons.  But this in and of itself separates the unitive nature of sex that you're always on about.  They can not reproduce.  So should these people abstain?  That's the point Agent40. 
Quote
Typically, in these cases if a person has extra genitalia it can be taken care of when they are young. The incorrect parts can be removed or whatever, in which case the person can go on to lead quite a normal life. Why must you all make something more there? If it is truly a case where even science is baffled – which I highly doubt is very common – then yes, I suppose in that rare instance it might be better were the person to sexually abstain. I’m sorry if you have a problem with that, but how can you be so sure the person would have a problem with that?
How can you?  I'm not the one asking anything of such a person.
Quote
Again, Pinkmilk, my views are not as extreme as you like to paint them and they are much more logical then your own.
They are not though.  They are bigoted ideas that say that one way of living is correct and any other way is immoral.  You try to cover this up by saying, "Oh, I'm sure they're lovely people", but you are still calling them immoral.  So please, don't sit here and pretend that your brand of religious bigotry is more logical than my acceptance of people.

Now are you going to answer the question that I've been posing to you all along.

You have said that your arguments against homosexuality are not religious, but are based on the "natural moral order".  Here's the thing, you have yet to provide evidence to prove the "natural moral order" is indeed true.  Without doing so, all of your claims are baseless.  So will you please prove the foundation for all of your arguments?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 30, 2009, 08:21:46 AM
God would not command a person to do something immoral. If God commands it – by definition it could not be immoral. You do not understand my religion or scripture. You twist and contort what you do not understand because you think you are smarter than God.

Agent40, please do not play the idiot. You explicitly asked the question when could rape/tyranny be justified. My response was that it could be justified when God orders it, and by your response, it is clear that when God orders rape, it is justified because God is outside of moral law. But I thought sin were those actions that are against the very nature of god. Now you say that he orders rape, it is not a sin. So you have just made a mockery of sin, because it is nothing more than the whim of god, which doesn't equate to anything more than a deity's ever-changing mind.

Way to go.

Agent40, you have also neglected to answer my question: Is it wrong to have sex with a nine-year old girl within the context of marriage?
This is a common misunderstanding of moral truth. Of course what is right or wrong depends on the situation.

Congratulations on killing your own notion of there being any kind of "absolute" morality. You must not understand what that word means. You can't have "absolutely" morality that changes depending on the situation.

FAIL.

Agent40, you have also failed to answer another question of mine: Is it wrong to have sex with a nine-year old girl within in the context of marriage? If so, what is your biblical reference for this?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Zankuu on September 30, 2009, 09:18:37 AM
Gosh, how you all simply don’t get it. Ok, what part of supernatural deity don’t you understand? Do you think a supreme being is subject to the same laws we are subject to? Do you think the creator of the universe might actually know and foresee something that we couldn’t possibly? Ya think?

Then it is only reasonable to understand that God can do no bad – again it is impossible. So what you are seeing as bad is not bad. If God commanded you to fight your enemies – then this would be for your good and believe it or not also the good of your enemies. This is something you simply don’t get. God loves everyone. If you are on the receiving end of something you think is cruel or unjust and coming from God – you are clueless. If God has allowed some harm to come to you – it is only to bring about a greater good. It could very well be His mercy that He allows the wicked to be killed. You might not understand this, but God is doing them a favor. Again, if you think of God as cruel and evil then you obviously wouldn’t understand such. But if you looked at Him as He is which is just, and merciful, and good, and love, then you would trust in His plan and actions – for clearly an omnipotent, all-wise being might know a little more than us.


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.

If your god lined up 1000 infants, and commanded you to hack their bodies into lifeless pieces of flesh, would you be okay with that?

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

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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: velkyn on September 30, 2009, 09:34:29 AM
I couldn’t disagree more. To separate the procreative aspect from the sex act is immoral. It violates the moral order.

Hmmm, and we have yet to see just what this "moral order" is. Just like the "natural order", all concepts to claim "what I believe and want is what is "true" because I'm Agent40 and am the only one who knows God."

Nothing like repetition of stuff that has been long shown to be garbage as if repetitions makes it oh-so-twue!

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 30, 2009, 09:37:28 AM
I couldn’t disagree more. To separate the procreative aspect from the sex act is immoral. It violates the moral order.

Hmmm, and we have yet to see just what this "moral order" is. Just like the "natural order", all concepts to claim "what I believe and want is what is "true" because I'm Agent40 and am the only one who knows God."

Nothing like repetition of stuff that has been long shown to be garbage as if repetitions makes it oh-so-twue!

Not to mention, that even once we have a clear understanding of what these things are, it doesn't mean that they are true.  Her entire argument is based on these things, and yet she has not ever once provided a clear and full description of these things, or a single shred of evidence to show that these things are true. 

Balls in your court Agent40.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on September 30, 2009, 11:37:32 AM
The Bible is the word of God.

Uhhhh... no.  For reasons well-detailed elsewhere, no.  It doesn't matter how many times you insist upon it; it won't get "truthier" with repetition.

I thought that was pretty much common knowledge.

Like a flat earth used to be? 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 11:51:03 AM
Quote
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 . . .
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 11:51:42 AM
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 11:53:34 AM

Quote
So, you have a deity and you think that deity exists and that your religious book is the word of that deity.

OK.  Taking that as a given for a moment, but only for a moment, I have a slightly different question;

* Where did your deity ever say that it was good?

As I pointed out, the quotes you gave from your religious text, Genesis, do not say that your deity says it is good.  Instead, they say your deity was able to identify something that was good.

If you do not know the answer to this question, and you are only saying you believe your deity to be good, then state that.  It will be an acknowledgement of the validity of my question, but that new statement will be one that you can support for what it is without digging a hole for yourself.

Where did my God ever say it was good? What are you referring to by “it” in your sentence? Himself? So where did God ever say He, Himself is good?

If that is what you are referring to,  then I must respond that the entire Bible is full of passages declaring God is good. 

Again, God inspired the words that are written in the Bible to be exactly what He wanted them to be. This was His way of explaining and describing who He is. So the fact that quotes like this are found in the Bible clearly inform us God is good . . .


He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. – Deuteronomy 32:4


Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. –Matthew 5:48


for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." – 1 Peter 1:16


This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. –John 1:5


To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. –Psalm 92:15


Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. –James 1:17


But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. –James 3:17


For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." –Genesis 3:5




As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. –2 Samuel 22:31



"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. – Romans 12:2


Whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by the God of truth; he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth. For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes. – Isaiah 65:16


Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have ransomed me, O LORD, God of truth. – Psalm 31:5



All of these passages – (though certainly not all there ar) reveal that God was communicating with us that He is Good. This is clearly what He wants us to realize. And based on His actions, behavior, words, divine nature, supreme beingness, etc, it is most definitely something we can conclude to be true.


Scripture is what God thinks and what god says, therefore there is no other conclusion then to know God is good.

“Scripture is the word and mind of God, and just as it is a contradiction to say that we love a person and hate everything about him (since everything about him is him), our iove, faith and reverence toward God can never rise higher than our love, faith, and reverence toward the Bible.”

www.vincentcheung.com


14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [1] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work. -- 2 Timothy 3:14-17

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on September 30, 2009, 11:53:43 AM
Why don't you just answer William's question and stop avoiding it?

Quote
Agent40, what is an hermaphrodite? ... male or female
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 30, 2009, 11:54:25 AM
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?

What science are you using to show that hermaphrodites and intersexed people have different natures?

HINT: Pulling ideas out of your ass is not science.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 30, 2009, 11:55:49 AM
Again, God inspired the words that are written in the Bible to be exactly what He wanted them to be.

Speculation.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 11:56:27 AM

Azdgari,

Quote
With regard to your flawed analogy, would you make the claim that you know the drug-addict to have had an abusive childhood?  That's more in-line with what we're talking about.  Let's say you meet a cocaine addict, who claims to have gotten hooked in high school and has been doing it ever since.  You go on to claim that they must have had an abusive childhood in order for that to happen.  The addict says "umm...no, I had a pretty good childhood, but my pot dealer kept lacing my joints with coke, so I got hooked".  You say "well, you just don't know that you had a rough childhood.  People don't always know that sort of thing."

No, I wouldn’t make the claim that the cocaine addict must have had an abusive relationship. However, why did he even need to turn to pot in the first place? Were his parents not around to affirm his self worth? These are all valid inquiries that should be looked into. How or why he became an addict is only the beginning of being able to help him. Once he is an addict, now we can certainly make certain assumptions about the behaviors of addicts. Again, is everyone different? Of course, but there are common traits that addicts share – keeping their problem a secret, perhaps stealing, certain places causing them more temptation to use, etc. Can we not use some of this information describing drug addicts to help us help the person? Why so opposed to such? How is it judging? I am trying to help. What you propose is to put your head in the sand and say I couldn’t possibly begin to understand what might cause a person to start using or possibly understand what might help a person stop, so I will not even try. Kind of an extreme approach all because you fear coming across as judgmental.


Quote
The biggest problem here, Agent40, is that in such a situation, YOU ARE CLAIMING TO KNOW - yet you have no way of knowing it.  The details of that person's childhood are not in evidence.  All you have to say about them is your own dogma.  You have pre-judged the person to have had an abusive childhood before gathering any data about them at all.  Just like you did with Onesimus.

I am not claiming to know. What I am claiming is we need to investigate the situation further -- A perfectly reasonable and compassionate approach.

Quote
In his case, you refuse to accept his own account of his childhood.  What would convince you that your pre-judgment about him is incorrect?  I suspect, based on your posting history, that nothing would.  Facts cannot alter your pre-judgment.

Ooh, I think you have that a little backwards. I am all about facts in the situation of same-sex attraction. It is you and others on this thread who wish to throw facts out the window.

I have no idea of Onesimus’s childhood, as none of us have any idea about anyone’s childhood. And again I am not pre-judging him negatively. I want nothing but the best for Onesimus. How can you possibly know that supporting his homosexual lifestyle is what’s best? I’m sorry, but by doing so, you are claiming to know what is best. I have given the numerous reasons why I believe engaging in homosexual acts are wrong and never in a person’s best interest to do so. What were your reasons again for supporting such behavior?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 11:57:58 AM
Quote
The idea behind an extreme question like this, is that you claim that everything has an intended purpose.  But the problem is that not everything fits into the box so neatly.  Some women are born without ovaries.  That means that they can not reproduce.  Other women can not reproduce for other reasons.  But this in and of itself separates the unitive nature of sex that you're always on about.  They can not reproduce.  So should these people abstain?  That's the point Agent40.


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.

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.


Quote
They are bigoted ideas that say that one way of living is correct and any other way is immoral

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?


Quote
You have said that your arguments against homosexuality are not religious, but are based on the "natural moral order".  Here's the thing, you have yet to provide evidence to prove the "natural moral order" is indeed true.  Without doing so, all of your claims are baseless.  So will you please prove the foundation for all of your arguments?

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

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on September 30, 2009, 11:59:43 AM
Why don't you just answer William's question and stop avoiding it?

Quote
Agent40, what is an hermaphrodite? ... male or female
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 12:00:32 PM
Subtleinspiration,

Quote
Congratulations on killing your own notion of there being any kind of "absolute" morality. You must not understand what that word means. You can't have "absolutely" morality that changes depending on the situation.

FAIL.

Uugh!  You aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? Again, I have answered this very question from others numerous times. I simply don’t have time to go into another dissertation on absolute truth. Please educate yourself. It is precisely your boring and repeated questions that I have long ago addressed that will make it impossible for me to keep up with all the posts. It’s exhausting and I simply haven’t the time to take you by the hand today and walk you through it. I’m sorry to be so short and and rude, but I have a busy day . . .

I’ll have to leave it here for now. You all keep me too busy with your faulty logic and I have other things to tend to . . .
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on September 30, 2009, 12:02:17 PM
I’ll have to leave it here for now. You all keep me too busy with your faulty logic and I have other things to tend to . . .

Yup.  Projection of culpability onto others.  A typical RCC trait. :)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on September 30, 2009, 12:06:08 PM
I simply don’t have time to go into another dissertation on absolute truth. Please educate yourself.

You see nothing wrong with the statement: "I believe in absolute truth, however, there are exceptions in certain circumstances."?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 30, 2009, 12:34:54 PM
Quote
So, you have a deity and you think that deity exists and that your religious book is the word of that deity.

OK.  Taking that as a given for a moment, but only for a moment, I have a slightly different question;

* Where did your deity ever say that it was good?

As I pointed out, the quotes you gave from your religious text, Genesis, do not say that your deity says it is good.  Instead, they say your deity was able to identify something that was good.

If you do not know the answer to this question, and you are only saying you believe your deity to be good, then state that.  It will be an acknowledgement of the validity of my question, but that new statement will be one that you can support for what it is without digging a hole for yourself.

Where did my God ever say it was good?

Let's see ...

Quote
* Where did your deity ever say that it was good?

Yep, that's the question.

What are you referring to by “it” in your sentence? Himself? So where did God ever say He, Himself is good?

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?

If that is what you are referring to,  then I must respond that the entire Bible is full of passages declaring God is good.

But, none supposedly from your deity itself?

Again, God inspired the words that are written in the Bible to be exactly what He wanted them to be. This was His way of explaining and describing who He is. So the fact that quotes like this are found in the Bible clearly inform us God is good . . .


He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. – Deuteronomy 32:4


Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. –Matthew 5:48


for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." – 1 Peter 1:16


This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. –John 1:5


To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. –Psalm 92:15


Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. –James 1:17


But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. –James 3:17


For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." –Genesis 3:5




As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. –2 Samuel 22:31



"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. – Romans 12:2


Whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by the God of truth; he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth. For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes. – Isaiah 65:16


Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have ransomed me, O LORD, God of truth. – Psalm 31:5

All of these passages – (though certainly not all there ar) reveal that God was communicating with us that He is Good. This is clearly what He wants us to realize. And based on His actions, behavior, words, divine nature, supreme beingness, etc, it is most definitely something we can conclude to be true.

Scripture is what God thinks and what god says, therefore there is no other conclusion then to know God is good.

“Scripture is the word and mind of God, and just as it is a contradiction to say that we love a person and hate everything about him (since everything about him is him), our iove, faith and reverence toward God can never rise higher than our love, faith, and reverence toward the Bible.”

www.vincentcheung.com

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [1] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work. -- 2 Timothy 3:14-17

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.

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?

Again, God inspired the words that are written in the Bible to be exactly what He wanted them to be. This was His way of explaining and describing who He is. So the fact that quotes like this are found in the Bible clearly inform us God is good . . .

Well, maybe you would.  Do you want to retract or rephrase any of that before I make a few obvious comments?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 30, 2009, 06:35:45 PM
Agent40:
Quote
I said the act of eating a lot of food and then purposely vomiting it up is a disordered act and therefore wrong (immoral).
I said:
Quote
You say the act of self-induced vomiting is immoral, whereas we say it's a symptom of mental illness. OK?
Agent40 replied:
Quote
No, not ok

What do you mean, "not OK"?

What are you disagreeing with? You say bulimic acts are immoral, we say they're a symptom of mental illness. Correct? If not, why not?

(An aside. Agent40, you have a habit of making general statements of the form "We all think x...". This presumes that everyone thinks the way you do, and that you are in a position to speak for everyone. Not so. Your hardline Catholic position is a minority view. Very few people these days believe that masturbation is harmful and immoral. Only people like you. In the quotes below I've bolded this fallacy).

Back to your post:
Quote
Why do we believe that a person who purposely eats food and them vomits it up has a mental disorder?

Because it harms the person. It is detrimental to their health.

Quote
What makes us all initially innately know that such behavior is wrong?

It's not wrong. It's a matter of mental health, not morality.

But, bulimia has been around for centuries. The Romans built vomitoria [Edit: er.. I just found out that the Romans did indeed build vomitoria, but they weren't used for vomiting. They did however vomit at meal-times. Explanation here  (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2421/were-there-really-vomitoriums-in-ancient-rome), and wiki confirms it.], and the practice wasn't recognized (innately or otherwise) as wrong/harmful. But then the Romans didn't know about the vital function of bacteria in the stomach and other effects.

And the harmful effects of bulimia remained hidden until 1979, when the disorder was finally named and the harm spelled out.

So much for us knowing innately that bulimia is wrong.

Quote
We all instinctually can determine that such behavior is wrong because the person is using their body in a way in which it was not intended

And there's your Catholic teleological assumption that intention/purpose exists. Intended by whom?

If you say "By life/nature", we point out that life/nature has no intent. People have intent, it requires consciousness. Nature is blind.

If you say "Intended by God", then you need to say what God is.

Quote
We all know the person is not following the proper order of things

Translation: I believe the person is sinning.

Quote
It is because of that that we then go on to assess that they must have some kind of mental illness that would cause them to engage in a behavior that we all know to be wrong.

Read your words, Agent40. This is prejudice in action. First, you decide that a behaviour is wrong/immoral. You then say that people who exhibit this behaviour must have a mental illness.

Wrong.

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

Homosexuality is not an illness at all.

Gnu.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 30, 2009, 07:21:13 PM
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. 
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: William on September 30, 2009, 07:45:23 PM
Quote
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:

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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:13:20 PM


Zankuu,


Quote
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
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.


Quote
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.



Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:14:13 PM

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:16:09 PM



Quote
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.


Quote
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?



Quote
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.


Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:17:33 PM
Subtleinspiration,


Quote
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
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:18:53 PM


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.



Quote
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. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:19:54 PM

Quote
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.


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

Quote
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?
 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on September 30, 2009, 10:21:12 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:21:35 PM
William,

Quote
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.  



Quote
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.  
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on September 30, 2009, 10:23:49 PM
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
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on September 30, 2009, 10:30:59 PM
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.
Quote
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.  
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: William on September 30, 2009, 11:39:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: subtleinspiration on October 01, 2009, 01:54:59 AM
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
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ada-B on October 01, 2009, 02:40:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on October 01, 2009, 04:47:36 AM
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 :)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on October 01, 2009, 04:48:55 AM
nb.. how in Jesus' name have you managed to stay out of the ER?  You must have a guardian angel or something!
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Kerlyssa on October 01, 2009, 10:17:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Kerlyssa on October 01, 2009, 10:19:42 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 01, 2009, 11:02:33 AM
Quote
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.   (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2421/were-there-really-vomitoriums-in-ancient-rome)Apologies to all).

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

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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

Argument from design. Not accepted. Prove it first.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 02, 2009, 11:23:29 AM
Pinkmilk,


Quote
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.


Quote
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. 


Quote
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.



Quote
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.


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 02, 2009, 11:28:08 AM
Quote
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. 


Quote
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.

 

Quote
You and your Church are stupid on this issue

Uuh, ok.



Quote
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.



Quote
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.


Quote
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.



Quote
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.)


Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 02, 2009, 11:30:55 AM
Subtleinspiration,


Quote
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.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 02, 2009, 11:31:29 AM
Quote
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.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 02, 2009, 11:34:46 AM

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 02, 2009, 11:38:28 AM

Quote
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.



Quote
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.


Quote
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.




Quote
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.





Quote
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



Quote
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.


Quote
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?

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 02, 2009, 11:39:10 AM

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
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ada-B on October 02, 2009, 11:45:03 AM
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
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on October 02, 2009, 11:56:32 AM
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:  

Quote
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".


Quote
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.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Omen on October 02, 2009, 12:05:55 PM

Quote
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.

If you are going to engage in claiming that there is spin, you might actually take the effort in demonstrating how it is spin.

Quote
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

Obfuscating around determining factually if Terry was bulimic or not doesn't change the facts;

Fact 1 she was on a diet of heavy liquids.

Fact 2 she lacked or had an imbalance of electrolytes and potassium

Both give credence to the idea that she was either bulimic or approaching that stage.  Ignoring this doesn't help or support your case, it also doesn't allow you to make further conclusions about any kind of 'media' spin or the intentions of those talking about the case.  That said, Michael would go on to sue the Dr for malpractice for not diagnosing bulimia. ( successfully )

Quote
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

You should probably read the link your referencing and it also helps to at least be intellectually honest in admitting what else is stated.  Such as also having a urinary infection as well as pneumonia, not to mention the fact that her brain ad atrophied to less then half the size of the average human brain.

This is all irrelevant to terry being bulimic, it has no other implications to statements above.

Quote
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

Determining that bulimia had no effect on her death after she has already become vegetable and she died because life support was removed is irrelevant.



Quote
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

Specious conclusion, see above.

Quote
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.

All of this written before the actual autopsy and the criticism of the book seems to be widespread that it doesn't contain much at all except medical diagnosis as filler, just thrown out there while the Schiavo case was still in the minds eye of the public.. and he could make a quick buck.  All directed to an audience of people that want to believe a certain outcome or initial setting, rather then what was happening or did happen.

It reminds me of most of the books directed to christian audiences from popular christian apologetics.  They don't actually write the books with an eye towards objective criticism or an audience of skeptics, but to an audience that believes all the claims in the book in the first place.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jazzman on October 02, 2009, 12:09:16 PM
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
Agent40 is unable to understand the misguided nature of her belief about homosexuality.  She's truly talking bollocks, but her permanently fixed blinders prevent her processing the information we've presented her.  She prefers ignorance to knowledge.  Your short response is a good as anyone's, yet even such brevity will not sink in to Agent40's brain.  Religion for her appears to have been a lobotomy of reason.  There's an empty space where her thinking cap ought to be.

Jazzman
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on October 02, 2009, 12:44:56 PM
Quote
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.




Yeah I bet.  I don't know where parents find the energy to keep doing it!  My wife and I are thinking about adopting at some point in the future rather than having our own as we feel that there are plenty of kids without families who love them, so we'd like to give them one when we're able to.


Now that's the chit-chat over with, if you wouldn't mind answering the rest of my post instead of blatantly avoiding it, that'd be grand:


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?

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on October 02, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
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

Amen.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: snkiesch on October 02, 2009, 12:52:03 PM
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:  


My nephew is gay. He has two older brothers that are heterosexual. We knew he was gay by the time he was 4-5.  His brothers wanted to play ball, ride 4 wheelers, hunt, fish, go out for sports, etc. Tyler wanted to play dress-up with his mother's clothes, play with dolls and was most comfortable playing girls games with my daughters.

I do not know about every case but I do know my nephew never chose to be gay. He grew up in a small town less than 800 people. My brother, his step-dad told him he would not have any of that faggot shit going on in his house when Tyler came out. It has been about 5 years and from what I can tell my homo-hating brother has had a change of heart when it comes to homosexuality. he not only allows Tyler's boyfriend to visit, he encourages it.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 02, 2009, 01:10:38 PM
Jed:
Quote
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.

Agent40, how much clearer can it be put? Yes, you present evidence that gay people suffer more from depression. You immediately leap to the conclusion that homosexuality causes depression. That leap is not justified, given the obvious existence of other factors.

Quote
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.

Good example, Jed.

Slave to Doctor : I've been feeling a bit low recently.

Dr Agent40: Oh really, why is that?

Slave: Well, I live in constant fear, I'm exploited, I have no money, no fun, no...

Dr Agent40: Stop right there. No need to say more. It's nothing to do with any of that. I know what your problem is.

Slave: What is it?

Dr Agent40: Bad news, I'm afraid. You're black. We know from empirical research that black people get more depressed than whites; being black causes depression.

Slave: Oh no! I never knew that. Is it serious? Is there anything I can do?

Dr Agent40: Luckily, yes. There is a new kind of treatment, called Black-to-White Therapy. It may not stop you being black, but you may be able to give up doing black things, and you'll be so much happier. Learn to dance badly, for a start. That kind of thing. If it doesn't work, you could consider getting your cock shortened.

Slave: I'm feeling better already! Thanks, Doc.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ada-B on October 02, 2009, 01:16:07 PM
My nephew is gay. He has two older brothers that are heterosexual. We knew he was gay by the time he was 4-5.  His brothers wanted to play ball, ride 4 wheelers, hunt, fish, go out for sports, etc. Tyler wanted to play dress-up with his mother's clothes, play with dolls and was most comfortable playing girls games with my daughters.

I do not know about every case but I do know my nephew never chose to be gay. He grew up in a small town less than 800 people. My brother, his step-dad told him he would not have any of that faggot s**t going on in his house when Tyler came out. It has been about 5 years and from what I can tell my homo-hating brother has had a change of heart when it comes to homosexuality. he not only allows Tyler's boyfriend to visit, he encourages it.

Thank you for sharing.

When I came out, someone from my church came and told me I was living a sinful lifestyle and tried to persuade me against my "choice".

When I explained to her it wasn't my choice, she helpfully enquired as to whether I'd considered celibacy (I actually found that funny!).

Sometimes later, she ended up confiding in me about her husband's scumbag behaviour, because I was "the only person who'd understand".

After leaving my church, I attended another church for a while. This was fine until the minister, a woman, gave me a big lecture about how gays were "disease carriers" and that AIDS was a plague from God. Some months later I heard she ran away with another woman!

I find it is useful to have a very short memory when encountering religious homophobia - people can change.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Operator_A15 on October 02, 2009, 01:34:30 PM
I think it's high-time for this thread to take a trip to the Bottomless Pit.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: tperl on October 02, 2009, 02:02:53 PM
Agent40 is still going on about how homosexual acts are "wrong"?  I stand by my original assessment of this debate from over a month ago:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=8474.msg194354#msg194354 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=8474.msg194354#msg194354)

However, in skimming this thread, I have some additional observations:

1) To me, Agent40 is starting with the stance of "I don't approve of homosexual acts" and simply finding "facts" to try to support her stance.  However, I don't really think any of her replies reflect the true reason for her belief - I think she just simply dislikes gays, but wants it to come across as a logical conclusion to a sequence of critcal thinking rather than her starting point.

2) In addressing her analogies with pedophiles and rapists, has anyone brought up the notion of "victims"?  Two consenting homosexual adults engaging in gay acts in private has no victim that I can see.  However, there is a clear victim when a pedophile sexually assaults a minor.

3) I saw one post where she states something like "you cannot claim that sex is for pleasure only" (my emphasis).  I see a huge problem here in her thinking - she keeps linking the sexual acts (and the pleasure derived from them) to the act of reproduction.  Why do we have to link ANY pleasure with ANYTHING? (e.g., pleasure from: sex, delicious food, a sunshine-y day, etc.)  What about pleasure for pleasure's sake?   She keeps harping on the act when really she has a problem with the pleasure derived from it, but she can't find any "studies" that show that pleasure is against natural order, leads to depression, etc.  It's easier to attempt to fit an act into her whole "moral absolute truth" dichotomy, but much more difficult (if not impossible) to place "pleasure" on the "wrong" side of that dichotomy.

In any event, I still think the whole debate just amounted to apples and oranges - Why would any of us concede to Agent40 that homosexual acts are "wrong" when we don't even believe it makes sense to classify the act in the first place?
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: tperl on October 02, 2009, 02:07:09 PM
I think it's high-time for this thread to take a trip to the Bottomless Pit.

Wow!  I'm really on my game with this one - from that other thread (but similar debate) with Agent40:

This whole debate is simply devolving into the bottomless pit (which is actually the only thing agent40 said that I actually agree with).
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: jedweber on October 02, 2009, 02:29:07 PM
I think it's a mistake to suggest that Agent40 is motivated by any kind of personal animus towards gay people. Even if she had such an animus, it would be an end-result or by-product of her thinking, not the root cause of it. The problem is her interpretation of "natural law." (By "hers" I mean the concept created by Catholic theologians which she holds to be true.) She labors under the assumption that this mental construct is something which exists in objective reality.

So when she asks us to "prove" that homosexual acts are not inherently wrong, it probably cannot be done given the assumptions (delusions?) under which she is operating. It's circular reasoning leading to an inevitable conclusion.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: tperl on October 02, 2009, 02:36:00 PM
I think it's a mistake to suggest that Agent40 is motivated by any kind of personal animus towards gay people. Even if she had such an animus, it would be an end-result or by-product of her thinking, not the root cause of it. The problem is her interpretation of "natural law." (By "hers" I mean the concept created by Catholic theologians which she holds to be true.) She labors under the assumption that this mental construct is something which exists in objective reality.

So when she asks us to "prove" that homosexual acts are not inherently wrong, it probably cannot be done given the assumptions (delusions?) under which she is operating. It's circular reasoning leading to an inevitable conclusion.

You're probably right.  And she clearly doesn't fully realize that she is a victim of this path you've suggested - she really believes she was "free" to find this conclusion on her own.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: naemhni on October 02, 2009, 02:39:29 PM
In addressing her analogies with pedophiles and rapists, has anyone brought up the notion of "victims"?

Constantly, along with the notion of "consenting adults in private".  No dice.

Quote
What about pleasure for pleasure's sake?

I have a friend who's Catholic and who says that the pleasurable aspect is there merely to ensure that reproduction will be more likely to occur.  I don't agree with her, of course, but OTOH, I have to admit that if sex didn't feel good, people probably wouldn't do it nearly as much.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on October 02, 2009, 02:44:44 PM
So when she asks us to "prove" that homosexual acts are not inherently wrong, it probably cannot be done given the assumptions (delusions?) under which she is operating. It's circular reasoning leading to an inevitable conclusion.

Possibly, but the obvious problem is that it's flipping the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' idea on it's head.  It's her responsibility to show that they are wrong, and to do so unambiguously not abstractly.  This can't be done by assertion or by an undefined abstract idea.  Meanwhile, a concrete counter example is already provided in the message that started this thread almost 2 months ago.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on October 02, 2009, 03:22:56 PM
Of course you aren’t, because you know I could argue the same about yours.
Actually, not the reason I do not wish to get into this, is because it would allow to you to further ignore the major question that I have posed to you. 
Quote
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.
I have never once stated that your opinions are due to your indoctrination.  Never once.  I am also not prejudiced.  How does supporting someone's lifestyle mean that I am prejudice?
Quote
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. 
I don't dismiss what you have to say based on the fact that you are a believer, I dismiss what you say because you do not have the evidence to back it up. 
Quote
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.
You haven't.  You have provided biased sources that state it is wrong, but that do not ultimately stand up as evidence.  Homosexuality isn't wrong, because there is nothing wrong with it.  Plain and simple.  You don't have to agree, but if there is nothing wrong with it, then there isn't.  You are the one who is making a claim here and you can not back it up with real evidence.
Quote
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.”
Yeah, yeah, same old song and dance.  But you are ignoring why some things are wrong and why others aren't.  Some things effect other people, others don't.
Quote
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.
Heterosexual sex affects both parties involved and might affect those who witness their behaviour.  This argument doesn't hold up, because it doesn't differ from one relationship to the next.  The only way it would affect those around them negatively is if they are against the concept of homosexuality, which is those people's problem, not the couples.   
Quote
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.
My argument isn't based on emotions at all, but rather that I believe in the philosophy live and let live.  You clearly don't.  You have yet to prove that the basis for your arguments holds water, and have not made an attempt, other than to try to attack my position.  Why?  Perhaps you can't prove natural moral order. 
Quote
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. 
It doesn't at all.  None of the "research" you've provided is without bias. 
Quote
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?
Because you are deeming people's life styles  wrong.  I'm not.  Plain and simple.
Quote
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.”
And this has to do with what?
Quote
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.
Without showing what is wrong with it, than that means it is not wrong.  You can't show that there is anything wrong with it.


Now that you've avoided my question yet again, please provide evidence to show that natural moral order is true.  Ignore homosexuality, and all the other things you find wrong as a result of natural moral order, and just focus on proving that natural moral order is indeed true.  That's all I'm asking of you at this point.  It's not a difficult question.  At this point it seems you are intentionally ignoring my question to you and that is against forum rules.  So please answer me. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on October 02, 2009, 06:09:02 PM
It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: PinkMilk on October 02, 2009, 06:12:26 PM
It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   

For me it's about more than just homosexuality.  Agent40 has said that premarital sex is wrong, living together before marriage is wrong, among a myriad of other things.  It's the baseless claims of morality that get me worked up. 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on October 02, 2009, 06:13:56 PM
It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   

You terrify them, dude.  God forbid you don't conform to how they live, the world might implode!   &) 
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 02, 2009, 08:42:49 PM
Quote
I believe we have probably once again exhausted this topic

Running away again, Agent40? Come and finish your other thread then. It's still waiting.

But I won't bother to reply to your last response to me here in detail then.

Just this:
Quote
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 looked. It was rubbish. The usual confusion between correlation and cause.

This bit was particularly ridiculous:

Quote
National gay rights organizations have been making a major issue lately of the high level of crime perpetrated against gays.

This has been put forth as a justification for inclusion of homosexuality in civil rights laws. What is not mentioned is that much of this crime occurs when a lonely, desperate homosexual takes a young male prostitute or other stranger to his home or apartment for an evening of sex. Although most gays know they risk meeting up with psychopaths in this way, many are still driven to do it.


Brilliant. Gay people don't deserve to be protected by civil rights laws because they often voluntarily invite psychopaths into their homes for sex.

Pathetic.

The rest of the article is no better.


And you think this an excellent analysis, Agent40?

You mean it's a Catholic analysis.

Gnu.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Ashe on October 02, 2009, 08:51:19 PM
It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I'd rather live it than talk about it. 

::sigh::   

Amen to that.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Chronos on October 03, 2009, 07:52:08 PM
It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do. 

I don't think gay people get worked up about heterosexual sex. Do they?

Well, I guess that's because you don't have a book written for a martyr that implies that heterosexual sex is wrong.


Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Chronos on October 03, 2009, 07:57:56 PM
just wait, we'll have those "good Christians" attacking psychology like the Scientologists do. 

Isn't that part of the Republican Health Care PlanTM?  If you tell people that psychology and psychiatry are bunk, you can eliminate some health care costs.

But, of course, their version of health care for America will require payments to religious counselors who convert homosexuals to heterosexuals.




Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Hermes on October 03, 2009, 08:06:33 PM
It's really weird for me when straight people get more worked up about homosexuality than gay people do.

Well, to me it's like a proxy battle.  The religious bigots have a short list of people and ideas they can not abide.  On two levels, I think that's despicable;

1. I don't have a reason to curtail anyone else's rights; if what they do does not impact me personally, what business is it of mine?

2. I know that if the religious bigots were left without any cost for oppressing those other groups, they would do so and then switch to other people and ideas on their list.  As for ideas, the same thing is happening in the teaching of biology -- and has started to spread to other teaching fields.  Intentional promotion of overt ignorance makes me angry.

I'd rather live it than talk about it.

That you don't need anyone's permission is currently a good thing.  I'm no longer complacent.  Stopping them at the first step is what is most important...

(http://lighthousepatriotjournal.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/350px-martin-niemoeller.jpg)
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Onesimus on October 04, 2009, 09:56:27 AM
As for ideas, the same thing is happening in the teaching of biology -- and has started to spread to other teaching fields.  Intentional promotion of overt ignorance makes me angry.

I can totally see how someone would get worked up, for example, over the whole ID debacle, and why it's such a hot-button issue.  Maybe that's what I need to do to recharge my batteries - simply attend to some other issue for a while.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agent40 on October 04, 2009, 09:51:28 PM

Qoute from Gnu Ordure:
Quote
Running away again, Agent40?

This weekend we had 9 soccer games (two of my kids had a tournament). The U12 and U10 both made it to the championship game. The U10 won. It went into double overtime and down to PK’s. Very exciting!

We also had one Cross Country meet followed by an end of season Cross Country pizza party and one volleyball game. 

Also, tomorrow (Monday) is picture day at school. I had baths to give and clothes to iron.

Trust me when I say this website is not something I often choose to run away from, but rather run to.

I’ll catch you when I can . . .  Try not to have too much fun without me.

Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on October 05, 2009, 04:41:16 AM
Quote
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.




Yeah I bet.  I don't know where parents find the energy to keep doing it!  My wife and I are thinking about adopting at some point in the future rather than having our own as we feel that there are plenty of kids without families who love them, so we'd like to give them one when we're able to.


Now that's the chit-chat over with, if you wouldn't mind answering the rest of my post instead of blatantly avoiding it, that'd be grand:


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?





Agent40.  Please stop dodging the questions. ^^

Thanks.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Agga on October 05, 2009, 02:30:59 PM
^^ Still waiting for an answer, Agent40.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Astreja on October 11, 2009, 07:55:28 PM
Agent40, if you have time to come on here to tell us about your busy life, you have time to answer the questions.
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: radames on September 18, 2010, 09:01:47 PM
Are any of you familiar with the late Roman Catholic priest, Father John Hardon?

I assure you I have not invented that name.

He's the author of a seminal (ha-ha) work, the Modern Catholic Dictionary, which is the go-to dictionary for contemporary Catholics.



This definitely tickled my funnybone! lol  I hope that he didn't make the young boys say it over and over again while performing a suggestive act.   :-X :D
Title: Re: Gay-To-Straight Therapy Repudiated By Psychologists
Post by: Gnu Ordure on September 24, 2010, 07:04:14 PM
This is why I love this whole thing... I get a LOL for something I said over a year ago.




Still counts, though. That's 47.

Gnu.

PS Reported for necromancy.

(Harsh, but fair. My personal feelings of gratitude to Ramades must not stand in the way of the blond wheels of justice).