Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Portrait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, if you “get” Abu’s opinion, why did you feel the need to respond in a derogitory manner? Why respond at all if you have nothing new to offer, which is exactly what you have criticised Abu for? You have done exactly what you condemn him for doing. Not real clever mate.
honestly i’m fairly upset with the way Abu and Charlemagne have handled themselves in this thread.

Abu stated that twin studies disprove a prenatal biological factor in homosexuality.
I proved that they did indeed show that a prenatal biological factor was more than highly likely quoting twin study sources. this got ignored

Charlemagne asked about incest and underage sexual activity to which i responded with a very well put (in my opinion) answer in the form of political philosophy. Which can be seen in the post above this one. This too got ignored. I dont believe i should have to repeat myself.

There are many times when my responses to their questions have been completely ignored, then they go and post the same info over and over again. You can see why i’m perturbed by the situation no?
I’m sure Einstein, whom you quote, was referring to the carrying out of physical science experiments. Let’s apply your Einsteinian quote to say, parenting. Would you give up telling a child how to behave simply because after each telling they don’t comply? Or would a persistent parent responding to a recidivist child be “insane” according to your Einsteinian quote? Or what about a Policeman who constantly strives to get better behaviour from motorists, but the results never change and driver behaviour remains problematic. Is the Policeman “insane” because he keps trying, regardless of the results? Acording to you, he should give up or be considered insane!
yes and yes. Though giving up is not the answer, approaching the situation from a new standpoint is.
Well, here’s the rub. By your own self admission you live outside and against the morality of the Natural Moral Law. Along comes Abu with an alternate message and all you can do is mock. He does not mock you. He repeats the central core of what Natural Law morality tells us. You mock it. In the process you mock much of human history. In the process you mock what is the norm in human behaviour and has been considered so since time immemorial. Why do you do this? To assuage your own lifestyle perhaps? Because, according to the Natural Law it is perverse. The proofs have been given often enough in this thread and yet you seem detemined to ignore them and instead attempt a mocking defense of what is, according to the Natural Law, the indefensible.
well no. The first thing i tried was intelligent discussion. This got ignored so i tried a new way of doing things. Pretty simple.

He does mock me! He mocks my intelligence by ignoring what i have to say. by repeating info over and over again like hes trying to drill it into my head because he thinks i dont get it or something.

Now i’ve met christians on here who i like and who i respect for their views on life and the steadfast faith that they have. Abu and Charlemagne unfortunately do not fall into this group of peers.

Now i have to deal with your negativity and judgments on my character (which i dont much appreciate) because you do not understand the situation or how i feel.
 
antroji

*What? And that makes him right? *

No, but it makes him an icon representative of the many non Christian civilizations that have held, by common sense, the view that that homosexual acts are disordered and unnatural.
This is the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority.
 
Yes, and Aristotle, respected as he is, operated in low order logics. And “natural ‘law’” is an extrapolation according to preconceptions you have already swallowed. Time to examine the contents of the container, and decide what the container really is. Your thinking in this matter is totally a third party acquisistion off the hook, and you just won’t, can’t, actually, see it for what it is: something you swallowed out of childhood necessity and grew up with its embelishments in order to not have to look at where it came from in order to maintain comfort and a sense of rightness.
 
honestly i’m fairly upset with the way Abu and Charlemagne have handled themselves in this thread.

Abu stated that twin studies disprove a prenatal biological factor in homosexuality.
I proved that they did indeed show that a prenatal biological factor was more than highly likely quoting twin study sources. this got ignored
Indeed it was ignored.
Charlemagne asked about incest and underage sexual activity to which i responded with a very well put (in my opinion) answer in the form of political philosophy. Which can be seen in the post above this one. This too got ignored. I dont believe i should have to repeat myself.
Indeed, not.

I go through the same things. Then I get accused of either speaking the Devil’s words purposely being obtuse. Very curious methods of rejoinder, no?

But, as you say, there are some other more intellectually honest posters here, and I–too–appreciate them very much.
 
Yes, and Aristotle, respected as he is, operated in low order logics. And “natural ‘law’” is an extrapolation according to preconceptions you have already swallowed. Time to examine the contents of the container, and decide what the container really is. Your thinking in this matter is totally a third party acquisistion off the hook, and you just won’t, can’t, actually, see it for what it is: something you swallowed out of childhood necessity and grew up with its embelishments in order to not have to look at where it came from in order to maintain comfort and a sense of rightness.
Agreed.

Argument by “Natural Law” boils down to nothing but a biased argument in favor of some natural generalities (while arguing against others) based upon the assumption that the Judeo-Christian rules are, in unassailable fact, eternal words of truth. In other words, argument from Natural Law is an argument that pre-supposes the conclusion of the matter in debate in the premise.
 
Soulewolf

*This is the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. *

This was not offered as an appeal to authority. It was offered only to show that the natural law argument is not limited to Judaeo-Christian civilizations. Plato did not sit at the feet of Moses or Jesus. So where did he get the notion that homosexual acts are unnatural?

The same is true for all civilizations throughout history. Many have tolerated homosexual acts, but none have enshrined them as normal or natural.

So it seems to me that you have to come up with a better argument than the argument that homosexual acts should be approved because they produce pleasure. That argument would be no more valid than if a sadist and a masochist agreed to engage in their favorite mutual sport because it gave them pleasure. There is still a sickness underneath the pleasure.
 
Soulewolf

*This is the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority. *

This was not offered as an appeal to authority. It was offered only to show that the natural law argument is not limited to Judaeo-Christian civilizations. Plato did not sit at the feet of Moses or Jesus. So where did he get the notion that homosexual acts are unnatural?

The same is true for all civilizations throughout history. Many have tolerated homosexual acts, but none have enshrined them as normal or natural.

So it seems to me that you have to come up with a better argument than the argument that homosexual acts should be approved because they produce pleasure. That argument would be no more valid than if a sadist and a masochist agreed to engage in their favorite mutual sport because it gave them pleasure. There is still a sickness underneath the pleasure.
ok do me a quick favor. Post what you think my argument was in your own words just so i know you that this time you actually read it.
Yes i did post it a second time, an you appear to have ignored it again. Is your brain wired in such a way as to not see my posts? Serriously dude…
 
Very well said, Larkin31. Thanks.

It is my contention that those of any religion or belief system almost invariably argue their position from a self referential canon, usually closed, primarily from either an exoteric or esoteric position. Strangely enough, I consider the Church to be primarily exoteric, though it claims to deal with esoteric ideas. I don’t want to use the “m” word here, as materialism is the least likely hypothesis, but in structure and expectations, the Church appears to be an imposition of beliefs, and therefore exoteric, and corporate hierarchical in its education and economic strategies at the more fundamental level, so therefore materialistic.

That is supported by the observation that while it does do material good in its charitable works, it has no better record in producing “good” than other religions or ethical systems. Indeed, that latest spate of child molestation horrors in Belgium which left no parish unaccused, once again raises the issue of whether good people are good by nature and others not, regardless of faith.

That seems to be to the point, as membership in our Church as such doesn’t seem by itself to be any guarantee that the alleged teachings of its Founder are being passed on with any efficacy beyond mere form. Once again Gandhi’s poignant statement about Christ and Christians comes to mind. That gives the Church about as good a score as any other institution going, but more responsibility due to its claim of being “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” Statistically, that claim seems not to have any real effect on the behavior, in general, of its members. In fact, one can google prison population by religion, and the portion of Catholics is about the same as proportional to our claimed numbers in world population, from 30>39% and Christians tend to lead the pack overall. Good advertisements all, for our Lord’s own Church and it’s affiliates. Something, somewhere is broken.

IMHO, having been there, it is in the exterior imposition of a dogma system on pupils whose legitimate questions about inconsistencies, which could be explained to some degree of satisfaction at least, are ignored, shunned, and discredited while sanctions of eternal punishment are invoked. What a setup for later behaviours.
 
ok do me a quick favor. Post what you think my argument was in your own words just so i know you that this time you actually read it.
Yes i did post it a second time, an you appear to have ignored it again. Is your brain wired in such a way as to not see my posts? Serriously dude…
I save my breath (and typing fingers) regarding the poster you are addressing here…
 
As real Catholics affirm with Jesus – “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn 8:32).
The natural moral law can never be breached without bad consequences.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091503.html
Wednesday September 15, 2010
Perkins: ‘We must Love People Enough’ to Combat Homosexuality
By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Conservatives’ principled opposition to same-sex “marriage” is based, not on “homophobia” or any animus against homosexual persons, but on a genuine love for homosexual individuals that propels leaders to teach the truth about homosexuality and the damage it causes, said Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins last week.

“Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, realize we must love people enough to be willing to speak the truth – and the truth is that we cannot redefine marriage without opening the door to all manner of moral and social evil,” Perkins said in an address to the Faith and Freedom Conference in the nation’s capital Friday.

Perkins continued: “I do not oppose homosexual marriage because I think it would threaten my marriage. I oppose it because it threatens the institution of marriage and, as a result, our nation itself.” While men and women are “biologically, psychologically, and emotionally” complementary, he said, statistics confirm that the homosexual relationship is far from the family-friendly model homosexual lobbyists often paint it to be.

“Data show that the great majority of married homosexuals have multiple sexual partners. One recent study of homosexual couples found that each member of such couples averages eight additional sexual partners per year. Do I really need to say that this is not a good environment for children?” Perkins asked.

The leader also noted other studies that suggest “children raised in homosexual homes are much more likely to be exposed to violence than those raised by a mom and a dad.”

For example, a 1994 study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examining conflict and violence in lesbian relationships found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to the study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. A 2001 survey in the Journal of the Family Research Institute found that gay men were 25 times more likely than married men to be domestically attacked.
 
Now i have to deal with your negativity and judgments on my character (which i dont much appreciate) because you do not understand the situation or how i feel.
Now you are resorting to the “poor man me” style of arguing. I oppose your arguments and so I am possessed of “negativity”. How quaint.
I made no judgements on your character, for I don’t know you. I commented on your ‘lifestyle’. Your response, however, is making you the subject of this thread. In actual fact, homosexuality according to Natural Law is the subject of this thread. If the opinions of those who espouse a Natural Law view on the subject are at odds with you and your feelings, that’s just plain tough and you have to deal with it. However, deal with it by arguing for or against how Natural Law addresses the issue and not by resorting to emotivism.
 
Agreed.

Argument by “Natural Law” boils down to nothing but a biased argument in favor of some natural generalities (while arguing against others) based upon the assumption that the Judeo-Christian rules are, in unassailable fact, eternal words of truth. In other words, argument from Natural Law is an argument that pre-supposes the conclusion of the matter in debate in the premise.
Wrong!

One of the basic tenets of the Natural Law is its Objectivity. Natural Law is based on the use of Reason, not tradition, to know and understand the universality of moral truths. Gee whiz, even the worst of the moral relativists recognise this. However, you are writing as if you are an extreme moral relativist when you state that ‘Natural law is nothing but a biased argument in favour of some natural generalities’. You firstly are arguing that there is no such thing as objectivity and secondly you are denigrating human reason by insisting that ‘bias’ is at work. Objectivity through the use of reason affords us the knowledge of what is normative and what is otherwise in the human condition.
 
Now you are resorting to the “poor man me” style of arguing. I oppose your arguments and so I am possessed of “negativity”. How quaint.
I made no judgements on your character, for I don’t know you. I commented on your ‘lifestyle’. Your response, however, is making you the subject of this thread. In actual fact, homosexuality according to Natural Law is the subject of this thread. If the opinions of those who espouse a Natural Law view on the subject are at odds with you and your feelings, that’s just plain tough and you have to deal with it. However, deal with it by arguing for or against how Natural Law addresses the issue and not by resorting to emotivism.
oh so now i’m not allowed to feel frustrated by the complete lack of intelligent discussion? Charlemagne an Abu STILL dont respond to my post. This isnt on me as much as you want to twist it around to be me. This is about a complete LACK of or complete REFUSAL to accept the real empirical data on the subject regardless of the amount of sources. Just let the thread die alreay.
 
Very well said, Larkin31. Thanks.

It is my contention that those of any religion or belief system almost invariably argue their position from a self referential canon, usually closed, primarily from either an exoteric or esoteric position. Strangely enough, I consider the Church to be primarily exoteric, though it claims to deal with esoteric ideas. I don’t want to use the “m” word here, as materialism is the least likely hypothesis, but in structure and expectations, the Church appears to be an imposition of beliefs, and therefore exoteric, and corporate hierarchical in its education and economic strategies at the more fundamental level, so therefore materialistic.

That is supported by the observation that while it does do material good in its charitable works, it has no better record in producing “good” than other religions or ethical systems. Indeed, that latest spate of child molestation horrors in Belgium which left no parish unaccused, once again raises the issue of whether good people are good by nature and others not, regardless of faith.

That seems to be to the point, as membership in our Church as such doesn’t seem by itself to be any guarantee that the alleged teachings of its Founder are being passed on with any efficacy beyond mere form. Once again Gandhi’s poignant statement about Christ and Christians comes to mind. That gives the Church about as good a score as any other institution going, but more responsibility due to its claim of being “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” Statistically, that claim seems not to have any real effect on the behavior, in general, of its members. In fact, one can google prison population by religion, and the portion of Catholics is about the same as proportional to our claimed numbers in world population, from 30>39% and Christians tend to lead the pack overall. Good advertisements all, for our Lord’s own Church and it’s affiliates. Something, somewhere is broken.

IMHO, having been there, it is in the exterior imposition of a dogma system on pupils whose legitimate questions about inconsistencies, which could be explained to some degree of satisfaction at least, are ignored, shunned, and discredited while sanctions of eternal punishment are invoked. What a setup for later behaviours.
You seem to be arguing from a pure skeptical perspective. The human use of reason requires the use of both esoteric reflection and contemplation and the use of exoteric observation of the physical reality of the world (environment) we inhabit. This is the basis for ariving at Natural Law morality. You seem to be suggesting that rationalising of personal beliefs is the fatal flaw in the use of reason. It surely can be. If this is what you are driving at, please say so. However, the striving for the use of reason and basing our reflections on an observable reality is what the human condition is stuck with, so unless you can come up with another paradigm, this is what we have. Natural Law is not set in stone. It has developed and altered because the human mind is exposed to new realities. Every adherent to Natural Law morality will grant you that. For the average religious beleiver, the adoption of the Church’s ‘dogma’ is an exercise in exoteric reasoning, because, after all, not everyone is a born philosopher. Acceptance of the Church’s dogma is not a set of immposed beleifs if readily and voluntarily accepted. I doubt that many go through life without at least some qustioning of their beleif system. Some walk away, so to suggest that the will of the Church is being imposed upon individuals is, to me, a wrong view. As for the Church’s materialistic appearance, well, it does have to operate in a ‘real world’.

Your use of prison population figures is meaningless. In a primarily Christian society, I would expect that the prison population would have quite a few Christians in the population. A more exact query would ask what proportion adhere to their faith. Similarly with regard to the so called “child molestation” horrors you write of. Read this article, written by a confirmed and self confessed athiest. He puts the claims aginst the Church on the molestation claims into perspective. Yes, the Catholic Church claims to be “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic”. Christians in prison, bad priests and bad eggs generally do not and can not detract from that claim. After all, we are in the world of men and so too is the Church.

Now, for the purposes of this thread topic. The important thing to remember is that the Catholic Church has adopted Natural Law morality. It did not invent it. Natural Law has a long and distinguished history of intellectual enquiry and that enquiry continues. The existence of this thread is, or should be, proof of that and a part of that. After all, the thread topic is framed as a question. If we are true to the historical development of Natural Law theory, then we must use the tools of Natural Law to arrive at a conclusion. The result should be a universally recognisable objective standard. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Soulewolf
you do not understand the situation or how i feel.
Yet again, this attempt to substitute feelings for reason. As logic is reasoned and reasonable judgment, it is totally removed from your concept of feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking.

Unsubstantiated Claims
narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html
2) *On Born Gay: The Psychobiology Of Sex Orientation *By G. Wilson and Q. Rahman, Peter Owen, London, 2005, 176pp. (Reviewed by Neil E.Whitehead, Ph.D)
“The authors argue that there is a 30% genetic contribution to SSA, (this includes any other pre-natal common factors) and then say the remaining amount (70%) is prenatal exposure to hormones. Their case collapses, as most do, on those same twin studies. Remember that the 30% includes all the prenatal common factors, so the only way for hormones to be responsible for an additional 70% would be to have hormones affecting one twin and not the other. This would be an individual factor, not a common factor. However, it is well known that even opposite-sex twins influence each other hormonally in the womb.

“One would expect in such a book that there be a reasoned derivation for this estimate of the supposed 70% contribution of hormonal activity, but there isn’t.”

Toronto, August 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Stanton Jones and his research partner, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, were given the opportunity, on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m., to present their findings on a study of sexual reorientation therapy, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto.

The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.
[usa-lifesitenews-com-monday-august-10-2009-new-study-measures-benefits-of-more-involved-fathers/]
 
Tuno
it has no better record in producing “good” than other religions or ethical systems…the Church appears to be an imposition of beliefs
How shallow. The recognition of the many saints, those who are martyrs and those who are canonised after rigorous examination, and acceptance, of medically attested miracles, declare the fact of holiness. It is those who follow Christ and His Church and assent to His truths who, despite their weaknesses, can lay claim to be His followers, not those who reject Her teaching and choose to live and act otherwise.

Christ’s teaching through His Church is offered to all who freely choose to listen, learn and love.
The fact that She built Western civilization, enabling the development of empirical science in the West and nowhere else through reason and Her theology is affirmed by even such as Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., a Platonist, who explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; in *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 15].
child molestation….raises the issue of whether good people are good by nature and others not
It is not those who freely choose the celibate life and live by Her truths who molest but those who don’t. Celibacy is not the problem, disbelief and deceit is. Further, the problem is one of homosexual activity.

In the general population, the majority of abusers are regressed heterosexual men who sexually abuse girls. Women are also found to be among those sexual abusers. While it’s difficult to obtain accurate statistics on childhood sexual abuse, the characteristic patterns of repeat child sex offenders have been well described. The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence (Fred Berlin, “Compulsive Sexual Behaviors” in Addiction and Compulsive Behaviors [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, “Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders” in Addiction and Compulsion; Dale O’Leary, “Homosexuality and Abuse”).
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2505620/posts

Her Founder created human nature in mankind. That nature is governed by the natural moral law which is why the pagans also attest to its normality as a guide for judging good from evil.
 
ok if you’re all for logic, that source you posted is absolutely wrong. I dont know where he’s getting his information but empirically it is very much incorrect.

“For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[5] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[6] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[7] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.”

Twin studdies are evidence TOWARDS a biological factor concerning homosexuality. These are the raw objective numbers. You CAN NOT argue against them. To do so is utter ignorance.

From my psychology textbook:

"New York City’s Central Park Zoo penguins Silo an Roly spent several years as devoted same sex partners. In Boston’s Public Gardens, caretakers recently solve the mystery of why a much-loved swan couple’s eggs never hatched. Both swans are female. At least occasional same-sex relations have been observed in several hundred species. Grizzlies, gorillas, monkeys, flamingos and owls are all on the long list. Among rams for example, some 6 to 10 percent display same sex attraction by shunning ewes and seeking to mount other males. Some degree of homosexuality seems to be a natural part of the animal world…

"When pregnant sheep are injected with testosterone during a critical period of fetal development, their female offspring later show homosexual behavior (Money 1987)…

"Twin studies support the iea that genes influence seual orientation. Identical twins are somewhat more likely than fraternal twins to share a homosexual orientation (this is shown in the statistics posted previously)…

“Men who have older brothers are somewhat more likely to be gay (blanchard, 1997, 2001; bogaert 2003). This is called the older brother, or fraternal birth order effect.”

Wiki:
“The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation.[2] According to several studies, each older brother increases a man’s odds of developing a homosexual sexual orientation by 28% – 48%.[3][4][5][6] The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.[7] There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.[8][9]”

“Anthony Bogaert’s work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother’s body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.[5][18][14][19] The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.”

“The fraternal birth order effect appears to interact with handedness, as the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males.[9][20][21][22]”

Theres A LOT more. but i doubt you will read any of this so i’ll stop here. The end all be all of it is that your source is very much WRONG and very much outdated. Trying to change a homosexuals orientation is TORTURE! Its like me trying to use electroshock to turn your penis into a vagina. Maybe if i shock you more your physiological factors will change. IT DOESN’T WORK!
 
Soulewolf
Trying to change a homosexuals orientation is TORTURE!
This is in keeping with an emphasis on feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking versus reason and the natural moral law, and is totally out of step with the facts of sound therapy, well established. We would all hope that those so orientated would seek help and advice from those professionals who are knowledgeable enough and willing to assist. Courage and Exodus are but two of the knowledgeable Groups that can inform and assist.

Psychiatrist Dr Jeffrey Satinover in his monumental Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, provides solid medical and scientific facts which place the “lifestyle” with behavioural problems like alcoholism and drug addiction. He explains that the activity is “rooted in choices the individual has made in the search for pleasure, and which become so powerfully addictive that they become habitual.” For 15 years Dr Satinover has helped over 50% to overcome their homosexual disorder. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr Jeffrey Satinover, 1996, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.]

**Little Recognition Given To Study of Sexual Reorientation Therapy at APA Convention
Findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski **

**TORONTO, August 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) **- Dr. Stanton Jones and his research partner, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, were given the opportunity, on Sunday morning at 8:00 a.m., to present their findings on a study of sexual reorientation therapy, at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Toronto.

The paper titled, “Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” was presented as a part of an APA symposium titled Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium.

The six year study concluded that there is evidence that homosexual tendencies can be controlled and redirected toward normal sexual attraction.

The research was based on a study of 98 men and women who sought help from Exodus International, a Florida-based evangelical ministry that provides sexual-orientation conversion therapy and counseling. The group seeks to help individuals troubled by their sexual orientation to achieve “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.”

Dr. Jones began his presentation by outlining the rejection of reorientation therapy for homosexuals by most professional mental health associations. Last week the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution urging mental health professionals to avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

“I had met people in the religious community who claimed to have changed,” said Dr. Jones, a professor of psychology at Wheaton College, a Christian college in Illinois. “And at the same time I saw a growing momentum behind the view that change is impossible. As a scientist it is an empirically interesting question when you see a growing momentum behind a view but you feel that you also see exceptions to that view. So I thought it would be an interesting thing to study.”

Jones then noted an important limit and hypotheses of the study: “Our study addresses the generic questions of whether sexual orientation is changeable, and whether the attempt is intrinsically harmful, by focusing only on the religiously mediated approaches to change; this is not a study of professional psychotherapy.”

In light of the newly accepted convention that homosexuality is not a mental illness, the researchers stated that, “We hypothesized that sexual orientation is not changeable, and the attempt to change is likely harmful.”

However, the study found two forms of successful reorientation away from homosexuality in the study group.

Thirty percent of the study group categorized themselves as successful in chastity: “Subjects who reported change to be successful and who reported homosexual attraction to be present only incidentally or in a way that does not seem to bring about distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.”

23% of the group reported a successful conversion to normal heterosexuality: “Subjects who reported change to be successful by experiencing substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning.”

Drs. Jones and Yarhouse conclude that their findings contradict the APA position that homosexuality is not changeable.

“In conclusion, the findings of this study would appear to contradict the commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt.”

The report also stressed the need to keep “a range of professional and ministry options open to clients who experience same sex attraction, are distressed by this because of their moral or religious beliefs, and who may benefit from hearing about a number of intervention modalities.”
 
This is the logical fallacy Appeal to Authority.
Dear Soulewolf,

Cordial greetings and please forgive this intrusion into your discussion.

The so called ‘logical fallacy’ and ‘appeal to authority’ arguments are being increasingly brought into service by those who are confronted with a cogent and unanswerable case. They are not infrequently employed simply to discredit or silence any opposition by supposedly exposing some alleged incorrect reasoning in the argumentation of one’s antagonist. That such unfair reasoning does genuinely occur in debates, I would not stop to deny, but its useage is surely grosssly exaggaerated and very much overplayed, especially in modern internet discussions.

In any event, everyone appeals to authority if that serves their purposes and there is nothing irregular in this provided of course that the authority is weighty, sound and rational.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Wrong!

One of the basic tenets of the Natural Law is its Objectivity. Natural Law is based on the use of Reason, not tradition, to know and understand the universality of moral truths.
Nope.
Gee whiz, even the worst of the moral relativists recognise this.
Nope. Some do this.
However, you are writing as if you are an extreme moral relativist when you state that ‘Natural law is nothing but a biased argument in favour of some natural generalities’.
Nope. This is not a “relative” statement.

But yes, I am a relativist concerning morals. And those who argue for Natural Law, are logically in error.
You firstly are arguing that there is no such thing as objectivity and secondly you are denigrating human reason by insisting that ‘bias’ is at work.
Why is telling the truth “denigrating”? Surely, traditional Catholics do not hold this position.
Objectivity through the use of reason affords us the knowledge of what is normative and what is otherwise in the human condition.
Sometimes, sure. But not around morality and “Natural Law.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top