Is Homosexuality Biologically Determined?/New Insight into Research

[essie7777]

Wait a minute now. Did I say or put myself out as qualified to define a diagnosis criteria? I expressed a layperson’s view, which is not to be judged as professional opinion, but not to be judged as stupid. In the public square, professionals and non-professionals have a say.

I am curious then; when someone who acknowledges and states that they have never used mental disease diagnosis for homosexuality as the basis for POV, but then continuously does this, how do you expect this contradiction to be taken and interpreted as?

As either a layperson or a professional, would it not be fair to suggest that anyone who expresses the opinion above and then in the next sentence tries to explain how homosexuality should still be in the DSM, is this not a commentary that is confused, ill educated, ill informed, circular, contradictory and a whole host of other words.

Please note I never used the word stupid, you did, although other readers may debate it would have been a more valid descriptor than any other.

Laypersons should always refrain from making comments on professional actions etc that would require years of education and experience and skill. Actions, for example. such as, such as coming up with a potential diagnosis for the DSM.

If a lay person does comment on this, it is so extremely rare that they actually have the knowledge to add anything other than unfounded rehetoric to the discussion. This will only open them to derision since as stated this layperson won’t have enough to make, as in this case, an empirical, evidence based criteria which is valid and useful. Your post proved this, as the condition you described is already in the DSM.

Did you really mean to indicate that I don’t or would not understand homosexuality is not a mental disease in isolation? Now that’s weird to come from you as if you are considering homosexuality as a mental disease as long as it presents with some other complaint.

You are showing your lack of understanding and knowledge again here. Your inexperience of mental health care is showing, as well as your bias.

You obviously don’t understand homosexuality is NOT a mental health disease, no matter how many times you say you do, since every POV you put forward tries to force homosexuality back into the disease model, part of the DSM distinctly.

Again, if you don’t understand something please don’t make a conclusion and put it forward as a question, as you do here! You simply have no concept of mental health care, i have made NO comment that suggests homosexuality is a mental health disease … stop making things up. It’s disrespectful.

What i said in post 381 which again you chop and misquote is:

Self diagnosis is generally thought to be problematic, by the same vein i would suggest with the utmost of respect that a “thoughtful layperson” is in turn unqualified to define a diagnosis criteria. Especially as what you suggest (ego-dystonic sexual identity) IS included in the DSM - but gender is not a factor of definition - heterosexuals suffer as much as homosexuals. This simply demonstrates you lack of understanding that homosexuality IS NOT a mental disease in isolation.

So anyone reading this will make the right observation that homosexuality IS NOT A MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE EVER. It is however a consideration in some treatments - such as for ego-dystonic sexual identity – but on its own (ie in isolation) its not a mental health disease at all, just as heterosexuality by itself or in isolation is NOT a mental health disease. They are both considerations and required observational commentaries for others disorders and diseases though…

The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder came in three stages snipped for space.

Actually your are muddling the removal here.
It was removed in 1973. Your interpretation of how this was then removed as being a a sexual identity disorder is actually incorrect. What happened next was it was amalgamated into the disorders that covered sexual identity disorders, because if it is not a mental helth disease by its self, then issues with self identity are not based on gender at all. So this which you claim is a “pressure of gay psychiatrists and activists” is fundamentally false. All that happened after 1974 was combining sexual identity issues into ONE diagnosis.

That this took a few years does not change that all it was was a efficient editing of the DSM why list two disorders when the symptoms, treatments etc were the same for heterosexuality and homosexuality … all they did was out it in one listing.
The removal of homosexuality was a decision made in 1973, you are arguing at ghosts with your comments about anything else in the following years. this actions all came as a consequence of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, you are arguing with a shadow of the real issue.

Its a distraction nothing more…

 

[essie7777]

…sexual disorder not otherwise specified, which,** as I understand is a largely unused category**, as patients who present with complaints of homosexual attraction are just assessed as having marked distress about one’s sexual orientation.

Unfortunately you are demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of the profession again. Your conclusion that sexual identity disorder is largely unused has no basis. You are making some huge assumptions here.

It is impossible to generalize why someone would go to therapy in reference to sexual identity issues, it is wrong to suggest that people who are homosexual will be attending to change their orientation. This is unrealistic and not based in fact.

Comments such as this do a disservice to those seeking help and those people working in the profession.

And then all the ethics guidelines were drawn up so that patients who seek treatment or management of unwanted homosexual attraction / behavior or re-orientation are not to be entertained for the specific complaint as they are not sick in that sense. They are being told they are normal, to have homosexual urges, and it would be normal to carry on, even encourage to conduct in homogenital activity. In fact, the opinion is that to suppress homosexuality is harmful, to seek re-orientation is harmful.

Thoughtful sincere people will read these posts, read all articles and then with genuineness consider what has been written and how it is relevant and representative beyond rhetoric. What is the authority of the authors, what exactly are they talking about. Nothing on this thread has suggested that the mental health profession ignores client’s aims for therapy at all.

No where here on this thread suggested that EVERY person who goes to therapy suffering from sexual identity disorder is forced to live an overt homosexual lifestyle.These statements are ridiculous and unfounded.

So in answer to your question, this isn’t what has been expressed on this thread, so i neither agree or disagree with you on that statement as it is built of a fantasy conversation not had…

Now Jones himself has indicated that re-orientation attempts do not appear to be harmful on average or prove inherently harmful, based on the research work he did with Yarhouse.

Again you have chosen to put your own spin on what Jones states and ignore the qualifying and clarifying statements he makes on his own research.
As he states at the start of his piece…

{a falsehood perpetuated by religious and social conservatives is}…:all homosexual persons could change their sexual orientation and embrace their intrinsic heterosexuality if they simply willed the choice, or were truly open to pursuing psychological maturity, or truly repented, or truly opened themselves to possibilities of spiritual healing,

He then follows this with discussion on conversion therapy and his own research…

We argue that our results** do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone,** but rather that for some, meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitutes real change appear possible. The results do not prove that no one is harmed by the attempt to change, but rather that the attempt to change does not appear to be harmful on average or inherently harmful. These findings challenge the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment that change of sexual orientation is impossible or very uncommon, and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an effort.

I conclude from these data and years of study that** homosexual orientation is sometimes mutable.** “Homosexuality” is a multifaceted phenomenon; there are likely many homosexualities, with some perhaps more malleable than others. Not all interventions are the same; not all practitioners are equally skilled. Perhaps most importantly, those seeking change vary considerably in their intensity of motivation, resourcefulness, and in the contextual factors that surround and support the effort to change.

 

[essie7777]

Do you see why there would be sincere, thoughtful and intelligent folks (not confused!) that would say the profession has done patients who wish to be treated and who have a right to self directed treatment a disservice with the development I outlined?

this thread hasn’t expressed these views, the thread has been a discussion on the basis of defining homosexuality … you are again making leaps and then potting it forward as fact. So your question is built on water - it has no grounding in FACT.

Even with the above statement though you are still making leaps in assumption again. You are assuming that therapy ignores a person’s wished, their wants and is done against their will. You clearly have zero concept of the totally full care given in mental health.

A few of the things taken into consideration before treatment interventions are even considered are for example:

• What are the client’s aims for therapy?
• Why do they want to achieve these aims?
• What is the role of spirituality in a therapy plan?
• What is the role of Church staff in the therapeutic plan?
• An examination of emotional well being?
• Full assesment of medical history to highlight previous issues etc?

Does this sound like professional trying to steam roll patients. Your bias is insulting and disrespectful. Your leaps of assumption are disgraceful judgments without a factual basis.

Again, as a layperson misreading, misquoting and misinterpreting very small sections of ethical code etc and extrapolating a far fetched view of mental health care and sexuality is irresponsible.

You are also under the impression that the APA is the only association that covers professionals in the mental health field and make sweeping judgments based on this association -this is again demonstrative of a lack of knowledge.

There is a reason why even to be just a licensed a counselor the post graduate training is 60 credit hours, an additional 2 years of full time supervised internship, and this isn’t even to become a Dr in any mental health field, that’s an additional 7 years (90 credit hours) depending on your research thesis. As a layperson you simply don’t have the knowledge or experience to make the judgments you do make about the actions of the mental health profession. its neither thoughtful nor sincere to make judgments without FACT!

The APA is not the monster you portray it as. Nor though does that mean that it is also without cause for issue over its actions, such as their advocacy role for homosexuality is constantly being debated internally for example.

The main reason i disagree with you is your posts are full of assumptions, presumption, rhetoric and some amazing leaps of logic that you then use to make judgments against mental health professionals as a whole:

• You don’t speak for the mental health industry, but you do make sweeping judgments about their behavior. This is simply wrong.
• As a layman your comments suggest you know more about therapeutic interventions than any practicing mental health professional, its disrespectful and insulting.
• You try to suggest you have extensive knowledge of the industry, which you have admitted you don’t.
• Sweeping statements about your opinion, put forward as based on knowledge and experience are both false and completely unhelpful in any discussion. You are simply perpetuating your opinion not FACT.

I have argued only one issue the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, however as above you have taken this and made statements about my beliefs, commented on what i must practice as a mental health care professional – this is a perfect example of how your posts go from being interesting discussion points to complete fantasy land, where your content is not based on anything but what you “make up” based on falsehoods and lies. When challenged when you make personal comments on other posters, you don’t even apologize.

 

[John21652]

I am more than comfortable to accept VALID criticism of anything i have written. Again though you are giving me credit for your own posts.

essie7777 you have feigned insult and hurt on many threads when someone either disagrees with you, or fails to answer a question to your satisfaction. There is now an obvious pattern to your posting.

You did not disagree with me at all – you went off on your personal crusade against "mainstream mental health professionals and then again with no basis went on to sate that these people fully supported all gay rights etc … i am paraphrasing here.

InSearchofGrace provides plenty of ‘evidence’ for her opinion of the APA. So have many others, including members of the APA. Jones, well quoted in this thread, has demonstrated this as well. It’s now what we call “common knowledge”. As for describing InSearchofGrace as being on a “personal crusade”, well, that’s an insult to someone who is probably one of the most faithfull Catholics and admired posters on all of CAF.

I pointed out you are confused and insulting in this presumption. That’s not you disagreeing with me, its you judging people based on fantasy without fact, your judging and commenting based on nothing that has been written.

Look at the adjectives you use; “confused”, “insulting”, “fantasy”, and all used to desribe InSearchofGrace’s opinions and beliefs. So, who is being insulting here? Please, run it all past me again…

And again you refer to that group onto which you are trying desperately to force the moniker “mainstream healthcare professionals”, as if this is a bad thing. You have no idea what those main stream professionals are like in their work, thoughts or anything.

And how do you know she has “no idea”? That’s a gross assumption if ever I saw one. Not to mention that telling someone they have “no idea” is very, very pejoritive.

You are making gigantic leaps in assuming that a layperson with no clinical experience at all can talk for the industry as a whole. That’s simply wrong. Your opinion is based on such a small concept of interpretation of one issue in mental health care … using this to judge a whole profession and its actions is unbelievably arrogant and unfounded.

Now you have labelled a poster who is very well known for her charity as “arrogant”. Enough man. Enough is enough with the belittling insults.

You also fail in logic, because this line of thinking, if followed, means no professional organisation can be criticised from outside its own ranks. That’s how the Nazi party flourished.

As has been pointed out to you licensure REQUIRES membership of accredited associations with ongoing certifiable training. The alternatives you list as a layperson assuming you know the industry better than those working in it --are not accredited for licensure requirements at all. People may be member of a blog based directory such as Catholic Therapists, but i would bet that they are also members of one of the larger accredited organisations such as the APA as well.

I once had a licensed mechanic work on my car and he forgot to put oil in the engine before he handed it back to me.

Actually what you clearly meant to say here was “i apologize for putting words in your mouth when you have never stated it.”

Sarcasm as well. Sad, really.

As polite as your response is you abstain yourself from all responsibility of making something up --a lie by any other definition. There has been no clarification, i responded to something you made up in fantasyland.

So now InSearchofGrace is a polite liar as well and one who obtains her information from fantasyland. You really are over the top. You are also posting post after post aginst InSearchofGrace and ignoring all other poster’s comments.That reeks of a bullying attitude. I think you need to apologise to InSearchofGrace asap. She is way out of your league sport.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Ok, but I think you need to rethink the way you view statistics.
Wrong Jason. The wrongness of behaviours is why they are ascribed moral wrongness. It’s a chicken and egg problem, but one that is easily solved. In simple terms, killing is wrong because we deduce that people wish to live and if killed they are denied their right to live. Then, only then, do we lay down that killing is a moral wrong. Not all killing is morally wrong, as evidenced by the rule regarding self defence and in times of a Just War. So, unjustified killing is described as being ‘morally wrong’.

Not all behaviours belong on the same Bell Curve. If you put all human behaviours onto the same Bell Curve, then the number of points which relate to behaviour would be so many it would be almost impossible to discern a norm. For instance, do you put prefences for certain types of football onto the one Bell Curve? Or preferences for certain types of food? What about movie genre preferences? Include them too?

No, you Bell Curve each behaviour to discern what the norm is. As for whether it is one, two or three ppints away from the normal range doesn’t really matter, because with the regard to the topic at hand, it isn’t really hard to tell.

What exactly do you mean by "all ‘straight’ behaviours? Movie going? Broccoli eating? Book reading? At this point you need to look up what is meant by normative behaviour.

You are speaking in very general terms. Diversity of what, for instance? We have indeed established what “normal” is and there are arguments aplenty about the harm it causes. Is the diversity you think God might like to include behaviours that result in harm?

OK, I’ll define it for you. It has been done before.

The topic is homosexuality.
Homosexuality has two aspects to it. The first is same sex attraction and the second is, well, same sex sex.

When most human beings experience sexual attraction, it is usually because they are in close proximity to a human being of the opposite sex. Sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is a rare event and is not the norm.

When a human being normally has sex, it is with a partner of the opposite sex. Penises go into vaginas and it is rather obvious that’s what penises and vaginas were designed for. Rumour has it that’s how babies are made and they eventually exit the female body via the vagina.

In homosexual sex, penises go into anuses. The penis so used is pointing in the wrong direction. The anus so used is recieving something into it, when it is actually designed to expel something out of it. That’s what anuses, properly functioning, do. Rumour has it that penises pushed into anuses will not result in babies being made and no babies have been observed coming out of anuses, so it’s probably true.

So we can deduce, using our God given logic, that penises being forced into anuses is not normal.

Staistically, the number of human beings that engage in the latter behavioural patterns are quite small. This, when Bell Graphed, or any other sort of graphed, sets alarm bells ringing in the minds of researchers, because it is indicative of behaviour that lies outside the boundaries of what is discerned as normal behaviour.

I hope this goes part way towards clarifying this issue for you.

It does not, (help). The topic is NOT “homosexuality”. It is “Is homosexuality biologically determined”. I was simply talking about observed human sexual behoviors, (of any kind), and was suggesting that perhaps your lumping them into (black and white) categories may not be either useful, or supported by the known observed evidence. Your sentence “The wrongness of behaviours is why they are ascribed moral wrongness”, … is tantamount to saying “things are wrong because they are wrong”, and is laughable, (to say nothing of THE most circular argument I have EVER heard). The reason "all killing is NOT wrong, is NOT there there is a rule saying that “Not all killing is morally wrong”, “as evidenced by the rule regarding self defence and in times of a Just War”. The question is WHY is there THAT rule. You have a VERY odd reasoning process

I never said ALL behaviors belong on the curve. We are talking about certain behaviors. You have NOT a.) established what “normal” is, b.) what range of behaviors along the curve are “normal” or "abnormal, c.) the criteria you used to determine that, d.) that the behaviors even LIE within a range, (and HOW you know that), and e.) stated the process you used to come to your conclusions.

Please cite the studies that prove the harm.

Have to get to Vespers. God bless.

 

[John21652]

The topic is NOT “homosexuality”. It is “Is homosexuality biologically determined”

I know what the topic is. I was not responding to the topic heading. I was responding to your post #95 which was addressing the validity of statistics to gather what is normative or not. You wrote about bell curves and behavioural deviations and I responded accordingly… Now, here, you are trying to make it look as though you were posting about the very origins of homosexuality. You need to try and remember what it is you post.

I was simply talking about observed human sexual behoviors, (of any kind), and was suggesting that perhaps your lumping them into (black and white) categories may not be either useful, or supported by the known observed evidence.

If you were “simply talking about observed human behaviours” then that is at odds with you assertion above that you were talking about the thread topic and implicitly accusing me of being off topic. Make up your mind about what you are “simply talking” about, please.

Your sentence “The wrongness of behaviours is why they are ascribed moral wrongness”, … is tantamount to saying “things are wrong because they are wrong”, and is laughable, (to say nothing of THE most circular argument I have EVER heard). The reason "all killing is NOT wrong, is NOT there there is a rule saying that “Not all killing is morally wrong”, “as evidenced by the rule regarding self defence and in times of a Just War”. The question is WHY is there THAT rule. You have a VERY odd reasoning process

No Jason, it is you who have things back to front. You wrote this -

ALL behaviors are “normal” because they are behaviors. Whether they are moral or not, is a completely different matter.

Your first sentence is ludicrous. It is circular. To illustrate your logic, if someone eats glass, it is a behaviour. Because it is a behaviour it is normal. Don’t you think that sounds rather rediculous?

By the same token, not all behaviours are moral or immoral. Is, for example, sticking a candle in your ear and lighting it moral or immoral? Or amoral?

In your rush to prove yourself right and me wrong, you forgot a few things.

I wrote that it is “The wrongness of behaviours is why they are ascribed moral wrongness”." You found great fault with that statement. Well, not all behaviours that can be described as ‘wrong’ are immoral. As asked, if someone puts a candle in their ear and lights it, we could describe the behaviour as ‘wrong’ for a variety of reasons, but is it of the type and kind of ‘wrongness’ that attracts a moral imperative? I think not. Perhaps I would have been more correct to have written that it is the type of wrongness that attracts the label of moral or immoral, but, honestly Jason, I thought you’d be able to figure it out for yourself. I did write “In simple terms” before I continued. The “wrongness of behaviours” refers to the type and degree of wrongness and that has to be discerned before we ascribe to it the labels of moral or immoral.

I never said ALL behaviors belong on the curve.

Yes you did Jason and I answered accordingly. You wrote this in post #95 -

Wrong. ALL behaviors exist on a continuum, (on a Bell curve), over a range of behaviors… You have NOT a.) established what “normal” is, b.) what range of behaviors along the curve are “normal” or "abnormal, c.) the criteria you used to determine that, d.) that the behaviors even LIE within a range, (and HOW you know that), and e.) stated the process you used to come to your conclusions.

What behaviours are you talking about? Not once in post #95 did you specify any particular behaviour. You were talking about all behaviours Jason.

However, I did manage to deduce that there was a strong probability that in the back of your mind you were thinking about homosexual behaviour. You know, because you were writing on a thread which has homosexuality in its title. So, having figured that out, I proceeded to give an account, allbeit a brief one, of what constitutes normal and abnormal sexual behaviour.

As for the process I used Jason, it is called by most people “common sense”, a much underated faculty. I should also point out, however, that it is given a fancy name in some circles and is called Reason. It is used to formulate Natural Law theories of what is right and what is wrong. It is of vital importance to Catholic moral reasoning. As you are a catholic, you should try it some time.

Please cite the studies that prove the harm.

Why? You never mentioned the concept of “harm” in post #95. As a matter of fact, it is an entirely different concept from discerning what is normal and not normal, which was the point of your argument in post#95.

 

[mpartyka]

You have not established what “normal” means, AND why deviation from (your) “normal” might not be a good thing. Maybe Almighty God thinks diversity is a good thing?

I have a hard time believing that we’re even talking about what “normal” means. How can we honestly say that’s not known? We would have no problem saying that if this were a perfect world, no one would be colorblind – everyone would be able to tell reds and greens apart. Similarly, if this were a perfect world, no one would be homosexual (or even bisexual). Is that so hard to accept? And if so, why? We know that only heterosexual acts can naturally make babies. Not coincidentally, 97% of the world is heterosexual. We would expect 100% of the world to be heterosexual, just as we would expect 100% of the world to be born with two arms, two legs, ten fingers, and ten toes – and when that doesn’t happen, something went wrong somewhere. If homosexuality were normal, then two men could make a baby, and two women could make a baby. It’s really that simple. How do you know a light switch is wired correctly? When you turn it on, and there’s light. How do you know a human being’s sexual orientation is wired correctly? When he/she chases after only those members of the human race he/she can make babies with.

As for God’s valuing “diversity,” what kind of sick, sadistic God would create a world in which some people by His intentional design would only fall in love with people they could not make babies with? It’s far more rational to say that God’s intended design was 100% heterosexual, and humanity through original sin screwed up that design and opened the door for bisexuality and homosexuality to exist, than it is to say that God intended people to be sexually misdirected.

 

[John21652]

I have a hard time believing that we’re even talking about what “normal” means. How can we honestly say that’s not known? We would have no problem saying that if this were a perfect world, no one would be colorblind – everyone would be able to tell reds and greens apart. Similarly, if this were a perfect world, no one would be homosexual (or even bisexual). Is that so hard to accept? And if so, why? We know that only heterosexual acts can naturally make babies. Not coincidentally, 97% of the world is heterosexual. We would expect 100% of the world to be heterosexual, just as we would expect 100% of the world to be born with two arms, two legs, ten fingers, and ten toes – and when that doesn’t happen, something went wrong somewhere. If homosexuality were normal, then two men could make a baby, and two women could make a baby. It’s really that simple. How do you know a light switch is wired correctly? When you turn it on, and there’s light. How do you know a human being’s sexual orientation is wired correctly? When he/she chases after only those members of the human race he/she can make babies with.

As for God’s valuing “diversity,” what kind of sick, sadistic God would create a world in which some people by His intentional design would only fall in love with people they could not make babies with? It’s far more rational to say that God’s intended design was 100% heterosexual, and humanity through original sin screwed up that design and opened the door for bisexuality and homosexuality to exist, than it is to say that God intended people to be sexually misdirected.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

All of the pro and con arguments lead me to believe that these arguments lead a homosexual to feel that his feelings and actions are ok and in keeping with late 20th century American societies feeling that “It’s not my (their) fault”!
The secularist mantra is that the individual is not to blame for anything…and my son/daughter didn’t do it.
Let us see how that goes down on Judgment Day.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Did you have barbed wire for breakfast and lunch, essie? What you spit out there in a string of five successive posts is highly offensive and misrepresents what I covered in my posts.

Contrary to what you said in effect, I do not put myself out as somebody who speaks for the mental health profession, lol. I also do not run a personal crusade against the whole mental health profession. If I did or do, my brother, who is a psychiatrist, and I, would be in serious trouble! And we love each other to death.

Let us just say instead of that unseemly word ‘personal crusade’ you used, this would be like part of an apostolate that I have taken up. I’m a big picture kind of person, you see. In my line of work before family obligation called, I did have a good flavor of dealing with physicians (including psychiatrists), lawyers, and judges as professional claims analyst of malpractice cases, many in my caseload with liability problems and high end damages well in excess of policy limits (read: >$2M for each case) requiring settlement or trial. As for you, I recall you saying you are a student in graduate studies in Psychology, if I am not mistaken.

I postured strong disapproval for the current APA stance which started from the declassification of homosexuality in the DSM, although I don’t see that it is productive to go to pre-1973 nomenclature. Mental illness or disease homosexuality is not. But disorder it remains according to society, literate and non-literate, and in language by the Church. But, hey, in your world, not being a psychologist precludes me from giving this sort of opinion, right? As if intelligence and wisdom is a given among mental health professionals. As if understanding and knowledge are possessed only by specialists. As if a student of graduate studies in psychology has necessary claim to authority.

Our discussion touched on a group of psychiatrists (like Satinover and Fitzgibbons) and psychologists while the minority now follows a different school of thought, one that fuses the practice of profession and faith. I happen to admire this group of professionals, which of course you make out to be outsiders, incompetent, only out to sell conversion therapies, words to that effect.

You bury any opponent with an avalanche of posts, a huge issue in effectiveness of your debating ability. This is a public forum, if you are forgetting, where one gets points for successful persuasion, not attempts at thought control. In fact, in the eyes of readers and moderators when alerted or on their own thread supervision, you get demerits or worse for condescension and bullying tactics. I meant to go toe to toe with you on several points, but you have shown your inability to maintain composure (it did not take much for you to lose it), I don’t think it’s worth time and effort.

Wipe the froth at the mouth.
,

 

[Jason_Firestone]

John21652,

You may ASK what I was talking about. You will not TELL me what I was talking about. The fact is you have assumed you know what I was talking about.

Just to clarify, I assumed in this context anyone would know I was talking about “sexual behavior(s)”. Apparently that was too much to assume.

YOU introduced the term “harm”. I simply followed up.

You have not answered ANY of the points a-e.

You have not addressed the issue of how it is you come to determine what is “normal”, except an appeal to “common sense”.
That ain’t gonna fly. There are as many notions of that as there are people on the planet.

“Don’t you think that sounds rather rediculous?”
("ridiculous?)
Not at all. All behaviors are behaviors, and until you define and explain how and why you created a subcategory of “abnormal”, they are all just behaviors. I tried to ask the question “how FAR in the RANGE” (ie …out on the edge, …part of the way down the range,… a little way down the range…, EXACTLY WHERE, do you decide the behavior is “abnormal”. You did not answer the question. Have you ever actually taken a class on Human Sexual Behavior ? Seems not.

“if someone eats glass, it is a behaviour. Because it is a behaviour it is normal” (BTW…"behavior has no “u” in it.)
Your analogy is false. I am attempting to get you to define “ABnormal”. You have not even tried.

“By the same token, not all behaviours are moral or immoral. Is, for example, sticking a candle in your ear and lighting it moral or immoral? Or amoral?”
Since you have not defined “moral”, “immoral” or “amoral” that is a very slippery slope you’re on there, with the candle analogy. And another false analogy…candles in ears are not in ANY way similar, AND until you demonstrate with objective evidence, that the behaviors being discussed on this thread are intrinsically “harmful”, and why, that gets us nowhere.

The “Natural Law” reasoning, underlying much of Aquinas, (AND for which he was initially condemned by the Archbishop of Paris), has more and more been proven to have serious flaws, as science increasingly destroys it’s assumptions. YOUR “common sense” is not the other guy’s “common sense”. Come on. You can do better than that. “Common Sense” led 99.999 % of the people on Earth to believe the world was flat, AND the advancements of Relativity, and Particle Physics, (Heisenburg), would never have happened unless humans were willing to suspend “Common Sense”. Do you have a GPS in you car ? If so, there goes “Common Sense”, (Relativity).

The “fancy circles” crack goes in the same category as the “pathological” word. I get it, everyone gets it. It’s VERY obvious.

 

[John21652]

**John21652,

You may ASK what I was talking about. You will not TELL me what I was talking about. The fact is you have assumed you know what I was talking about. **I’ll tell you what I think you need to know to further both your maturity and knowledge, both of which seem in need of help. First thing I’ll tell you is learn to use the quote button on the bottom of each post. It makes your responses untidy and difficult to follow. Fact is you can’t follow your own argument. It’s all over the shop. That’s sad from someone who, in post #95 wrote this -

I am NOT in any way taking a position on this issue. I just want the dialogue to be consistent.

Since you have not defined “moral”, “immoral” or “amoral” that is a very slippery slope you’re on there, with the candle analogy. And another false analogy…candles in ears are not in ANY way similar, AND until you demonstrate with objective evidence, that the behaviors being discussed on this thread are intrinsically “harmful”, and why, that gets us nowhere. I underlined what I wrote and to which you’ve responded. You said ‘all behaviours’ were normal because they are behaviours. Confronted with the silliness of your own logic, you attempt to alter the terms of the argument. That’s intellectaul dishonesty.

The “Natural Law” reasoning, underlying much of Aquinas, (AND for which he was initially condemned by the Archbishop of Paris), has more and more been proven to have serious flaws, as science increasingly destroys it’s assumptions.

Science can’t touch Natural Law. It hasn’t even come close. In fact, there is an adage which goes something along the lines of the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers. Natural Law built western society. It’s objective truths are enshrined in constitutional documents around the world. It tells you right from wrong and even normal from abnormal. It also underpins Catholicism and as a Catholic you should spend a goodly amount of time learning about it before you attempt to refute it. And don’t be a moral coward who jumps on the same bandwagon as the moral relativists who attempt to denigrate it. It’s mentioned a lot in the Catechism and, as a practicing Catholic, if you don’t know your Catechism, then you’re a hypocrite.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Notice to ALL posters:

This thread is now closed due to lack of charity. Please remember to keep to the topic under discussion and refrain from ad hominem attacks.

Thank you for your cooperation.